Secondary system

Posted by: Mick P on 12 July 2001

Gentlemen

I feel it is about time I made some improvements to my secondary system and as such would welcome your advice.

The system is located in the dining room which measures 13 ft x 12 ft and is connected to the kitchen by a 6 ft wide archway. This system is normally played low to medium.

The system comprises of Nat03 / CD3.5 + Hicap / 32.5 + Hicap / 140 / Saras.

Reading recent threads from age old guru's such as Tony Lonorgan have made me wonder if I should adopt the following strategy.

1. Replace the 140 with a 250
2. Replace the Saras with Kans.

Do you think that doing the above will make much of a difference.

Regards

Mick

Posted on: 12 July 2001 by Mike Hanson

I recently did a demo of the following amplifier combos at Tuan's place:

92/Flat/110
32.5/Flat/110
32.5/Flat/250
92/Flat/250

All of these used Tuan's CD3.5 as a source, and B&W Matrix 805s for the speakers. I noticed the biggest difference between the 92 and 32.5. It was much smoother and more cohesive, and the music was more fluid.

When we changed from 32.5/Flat/140 to 32.5/Flat/250, the grip of the bass was the most obvious change, but I wasn't blown away by any stretch of the imagination. In comparison, 82/SNAPS2/110/RoydMerlins is far better.

Doesn't your main system have a CDX/XPS? Get the CDS2 head unit for that one, and move the CDX to your secondary system. That will free up your 3.5/Hi for sale. This will give you the most musical satisfaction by far (in both systems). I realize that it's more money than an old 250, but it makes much more sense.

BTW, I've somehow managed to resist the upgrade urge in my office system. I could have the CDX in there right now, but I decided that it's good enough with the Cambridge CD6/32.5/SNAPS2/110/Merlins (not too much different than yours, except for the source).

Also, I've recently installed a wireless network hub, so I'll be able to use my laptop around the house (including in my main listening room). Therefore, my office system is less important now. Finally, I'm usually "working" in my office, rather than doing critical listening.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

[This message was edited by Mike Hanson on THURSDAY 12 July 2001 at 20:41.]

Posted on: 12 July 2001 by John G.

Hi Mick,

Sell your Nat03 / CD3.5 + Hicap and link your main system to the secondary system via the tape output on your main system. Use the proceeds to get supports for your secondary system. Using the better sources and pre from the main system along with better supports will raise the performance of your second system significantly.

Posted on: 13 July 2001 by Ron The Mon

Mick,
I apologize for not searching your past writings as the "spur" threads were quite lengthy, but the most cost effective upgrades I've done to my second system were separate spur, separate antenna for the FM, and improved stands. If you listen to mostly radio as I do, a Magnum Dynalab ST-2 mounted outside the kitchen with a short antenna run will do the trick for the cost of about five CDs. And even though a separate spur for a secondary system seems extreme, it is cheaper to upgrade all three items I advise above than one "black box", with better results.

Ron The Mon

P.S.
Even though I'm a huge Kan-Fan, I think your Saras aren't anywhere near their potential.

Posted on: 13 July 2001 by Tony L

quote:
Reading recent threads from age old guru's such as Tony Lonorgan have made me wonder if I should adopt the following strategy.
1. Replace the 140 with a 250
2. Replace the Saras with Kans.

The problem is the fact that the Sara is so power hungry, the 140 is well up to driving Kans, I used one really happily for best part of ten years in that role. My recommendation would be to swap the Sara for Kans (just hear Kans first to ensure you are on their wavelength), keep the 140, and do what Mike recommended with the CDX. I will be honest, I just can't get on with the CD 3 / 3.5 / 3.5, Flatcap etc - in the many times I have heard any of these combos they have all just shouted "CD PLAYER" at me - Kans would really show this up. The CD2 / CDI / CDX are all IMHO in a completely different league.

Mike, which pre did you prefer? (for the record I reckon the 32.5 is definitely better than the 92).

Tony.

Posted on: 16 July 2001 by Mike Hanson

I think the 32.5 is definitely better than the 92. The 92 seems to highlight details in a harsh way, and screws with the flow. The 32.5 sounds much more natural and controlled. (BTW, the boards are pulled in my 32.5, but it doesn't have the 72 upgrade.) Listening to a CD3/92/Flat/110 was "uncomfortable" for me (especially the sibilance). The 32.5 makes it acceptable, with cymbals sounding much more liquid.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Posted on: 17 July 2001 by Mick P

Chaps

I take the point about replacing the CD3.5 for a CDX, thats easily sorted.

Do you think that there are speakers other than Saras or Kans that would suit the 140. They must be availabe in teak to keep the missus happy.

Regards

Mick

Posted on: 17 July 2001 by Andrew Randle

Mick,

The Royd Sintras or Sorcerers are worthy alternatives. For me, I prefer the Sintras to the Sorcerers.

Andrew

Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;

Posted on: 17 July 2001 by Mike Hanson

I've never heard the Sintras, but the Sorcerers are close to the fastest speakers that I've ever heard. There isn't much bass weight, but the musical flow is amazing.

Unfortunately, both of those models are discontinued, so you would have to find someone with them in-stock or a used pair.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-