Eloise posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Based on my own listening, i feel that a far greater proportion of system budget needs to be spent on speakers to get something decent sounding than any other component - which brings me back to my expressed surprise at the preponderence of what to me appear to be quite restrictive speakers. It seems that on this forum a relatively small proportion feel (hear!) the same way as me - though there is certainly a sprinkling of speakers that i anticipate are likely to sound great, there is a much greater proportion that to me don't.

Think most people have to compromise because of domestic living arrangements too.  Whether that is sharing a room with others less enthusiastic over huge speakers, or simply not having a room large enough to accommodate them.

And therein lies the rub.......the world of compromise that most of us have to deal with and not just for hifi speakers.   

Innocent Bystander posted:

i feel that a far greater proportion of system budget needs to be spent on speakers to get something decent sounding than any other component 

Far different from my experience. My speakers are easily the cheapest component in my system. Based on retail values Sttafs are priced about the same as two Powerlines.

But as I said above, after four years I am getting a hankering to try some different speakers. Possibly a means to rationalize sticking with what I have.

It's amazing how much difference exchange rates make - you'd need between three and four Powerlines to buy some Sttafs in the UK. 

When it comes to speakers I'm on the 'source first' camp. Basically, if the source component isn't good, the SQ won't be good no matter what speakers you have - you can't put good SQ back in. It's like baking a cake - if you put in crappy ingredients, it'll be a crappy cake - an excellent oven isn't going to help. 

As for what that balance is, of course, that's a harder question. Back in the day I remember people recommending half the total budget should go on the needle! That seems a little extreme - but my speakers were a little less expensive than my other components. 

Neat Ultimatum MFS's for many years now. Still no urge to change. 

In the study we use a small Dutch speaker from MC Systems om the end of a Nait 2.

Solid Air posted:

When it comes to speakers I'm on the 'source first' camp. Basically, if the source component isn't good, the SQ won't be good no matter what speakers you have - you can't put good SQ back in. It's like baking a cake - if you put in crappy ingredients, it'll be a crappy cake - an excellent oven isn't going to help. 

As for what that balance is, of course, that's a harder question. Back in the day I remember people recommending half the total budget should go on the needle! That seems a little extreme - but my speakers were a little less expensive than my other components. 

I don't think the "source first" camp is necessarily incompatible with a statement that speakers tend to be the "most expensive" part of the system - but thats just my thinking.

By that I mean I feel that the source is the most important and that if the source isn't up to the sound quality of the rest of the system you are never going to get a good system; but I equally feel that with modern electronics a DAC and computer (even if your DAC and computer is a bespoke streamer) is never going to cost the same as the precision moving parts of a turntable, arm and cartridge or even the requirements of a spinning CD.

At the end of the day its about a balanced system ... a Naim NDS fed into a Nait 5si and a pair of Elac Debut B6 speakers is never going to sound as good as a more balanced £15k system - even slightly price biased towards the speakers of (say) a NAC-N272 + XPS + NAP250 and a pair of S-600 speakers.

To go for a little less extreme thoughts ... would you take a NAP250 + S-600 or NAP300 + S-400 (with the same source and pre-amp).  The answer is probably partly room dependant and dependant on future plans but interesting thought experiment and very few of us buy top end like this cold, more a progressive upgrade.

Camlan posted:

And I'm now the fifth on the NBL front. Clive, unless they are mile apart, they look overly toed in to me but I guess you will be the judge.

Indeed. 

DBLs :- 

robert- posted:

Dynaudio contour 1.3mkII

And again here, 14 years old and not going anywhere just yet.

Because the loudspeaker is at the end of the chain it does have total control over upstream components and will add it's own color to everything. That said, is it difficult to build a system around loudspeakers? IMO, YES and it's worth the trouble.

Allaes'

awn posted:

mpw posted:

Anto68 posted:

awn posted:

Just got some stands for my Elacs

 

My choice was for PMC 20 21 but after a thorough test with other bookshelf speakers like Sonus Faber 2.0 Harbeth P3ESR, Totem Rainmaker including the ELAC BS 403, I was particularly struck by the amazing quality of BS 263.

I had never heard ELAC, was an extraordinary surprise

awn

 

nice pic..

 

do you use the subwoofer ?

 

have you considered another place for it besides its present enclosed location ?

 

 

Thanks mpw. That sub is no longer in use. I had dual 8s running in those locations when I had my maggies and that one is now just taking up space. They worked well in those locations, surprisingly. But I no longer need them with the Elacs. 

did either of you guys get a chance to listen to the elac floorstanders, their range looks very good?

Solid Air posted:

When it comes to speakers I'm on the 'source first' camp. Basically, if the source component isn't good, the SQ won't be good no matter what speakers you have - you can't put good SQ back in. It's like baking a cake - if you put in crappy ingredients, it'll be a crappy cake - an excellent oven isn't going to help. 

As for what that balance is, of course, that's a harder question. Back in the day I remember people recommending half the total budget should go on the needle! That seems a little extreme - but my speakers were a little less expensive than my other components. 

The Source First question is always an interesting one, and there is certainly a logic to it ... up to a point.

The cake analogy is not appropriate, as a speaker doesn't do the equivalent of cook the ingredients once they're in and mixed. In effect the music replay system is like a series of supposedly neutral filters, each one of which can jumble or distort the signal, whether by differentially curtailing or enhancing certain parts of the frequency spectrum, or adding additional things that weren't there such as noise or artefacts whether harmonic or not. Jitter, harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, frequency response, hum, noise floor are all words that we know used to describe different such deviations from trueness, and each component makes its own contribution.

In this context the word trueness means receiving at the listener's ears the same audio as represented by the undulating grooves imprinted on a record or the digits of a digital file. Yes, you cant get something out of the end of the chain if it the first link filters it out or damages it - but no matter how perfect each component is, if the last filters or distorts it, all the good before it can be undone. So source first is based on maximising what can get through, all other components allowing, but if any of them are limiting, thats what you'll hear - or in practice the combined effects of limitations of all, but the most limiting being the most significant.

Considering speakers, bass in particular is an area that is difficult to perfect, essentially because of the physics involved, and that is what makes speakers with good and uncurtailed bass expensive. Meanwhile the limitations and interactions involved with various aspects of speakers cause assorted colourations and distortions, including those associated with speed of response. Add this to the frequency range and inevitably each speaker has a 'character' of its own, such that, unlike any other single component, a group of speakers at any given price point are likely to sound completely different from one another.

Of course the important thing -and I am in the camp that says it is the most important thing - is that you must like the character of your speakers. The surprise I expressed relates to what the choices of speaker reveals about the sound other people like, wheras I had expected more to seek trueness, and across the full frequency range

Mind you, another surprise has been how many speakers some people have!

Totem arro's, lively but I'm finding a bit bright, less so with a pair of beaks mounted. Looking for alternatives...

Vienna Acoustics Mozart Grand for the last 6 years... really like them but still regularly regret not having spent some more money and gone for something better

Innocent Bystander posted:

One thing that amazes me in this thread is the number of people who seem to be content with curtailed bass, having speakers that roll off significantly well above the fundamentals of common instruments, let alone those at the very bottom. It seems to me that the quest for speed and rhythym has somehow seduced people away from realism, to the extent that I wonder how many listen to live music and seek to have something similar in their homes.

Also of interest is the number of people apparently wanting those bottom octaves but content to use a suvwoofer to achieve it, rather than full range speakers. My own impression is that subs tend to not have the speed and control most people desire frem bass, so it seems that some odd compromise is going on. 

Inevitably cost comes into it, as trulty fulll range speakers with. Well controlled bass tend to be expensive,  yet the tendency seems to be to focus the least proportion of system cost at the speakers. Clearly i have a different view of system balance to the majority...!

I can't speak for everyone here.

What I do know is, many who listen to this brand, listen for communication of the musical message over a broad cross section of recordings.

On this side of the listening spectrum, it is extremely tricky for music to be rendered with utmost intelligibility. Capturing outbursts of creative expression is tricky. This completely hinges on a system's ability to reflect time-based elements in music. Naturally, this must typically include a semblance of tonal purity, spatial purity, dynamics and scale. If not, a transistor radio would do just as well. I'm sure you and I can agree at least on that.

How else can I explain this... I have personally witnessed people who have themselves listened to full-frequency, full dynamic range reproduction and remarked at the complete lack of soul. This is result of not being able to keep precise time, rather than some tonal aspect found disagreeable. 

Once upon a time I liked to believe that, in the holy grail of audio reproduction, superlative timing is implicit.  Not so.

I have spent 20 years with many who purportedly listen to rhythm in music, demonstrating how the fabric of music implodes the moment something other a 4/4 pop song comes into play. Of course, such catchy time signatures are all that many people will ever need. My pitch has always been, therefore, the more precisely a system can play more complicated music, the more persuasive basic music will become. This comes down to the equipment, its setup, and listening perspectives.

What speakers do you have?

What are the best speakers? We all have our criteria for speakers. Sadly, this isn't enough. The best speakers are those that work best with our room layout, size and audio characteristics .

With speakers as conduit, everything else upstream in the system has to condition the overall balance of sound. 

My list is by no means exhaustive... In recent years the better passively driven speakers I've had the pleasure of auditioning are the Focal: Aria 936, Diablo Utopia, Scala V2 Utopia.. Dynaudio: Evidence Platinum, Excite X12.. KEF: Blade.. Harbeth: P3ESR Vivid: Giya G3 Naim S-400 My desert island speaker remains an actively driven Naim SBL-2 (again, this doesn't escape any of the setup caveats that face the others) And a currently produced passive speaker for a Naim centric sound: the Neat Motive SX series.

Since I've departed from my good old 200 and a have run in a 300, I feel that I am ready to depart from my beloved 804S as well.

I have a session booked with my dealer to listen to : 804D3, 803D3 (which I have heard in a 'new versus old' event before), Sopra 2, Fact 8 and 12 and the Ovator 600 to make it complete. 

I am looking forward to this session... Objective is to trim down the options a little.

Will keep you posted.