A peril of actual "Hifi"...

You would definitely need a home demo of Russell K speakers, I  find that I like them because they grab your attention. For me they eventually become too tiring to listen for long spells.

Mike1951 posted:

So it's re-siting and recabling.  I'll update as and when.

In the meantime,  thanks for all the advice, mi amigos. 

I think thats the way to start. Also if you have a tiled floor think about a decent rug. I have a NAC-N172/NAP200/S400 system in a reasonable sounding room however the floor is laminate flooring on concrete. A huge, 100% wool thick pile rug made a world of difference. And at $500 was actually quite economical. My experince has been that wool or silk rugs are better than synthetics but I accept that this is probably confirmational bias on my part.

Another advantage of longer cables is the electronics dont sit between the speakers, which I think helps.

Very intrigued by your blanket test

The blanket test is rather more complex than it appears on first inspection.

The blanket isn't removing much in the way of airborne influence (it only significantly attenuates airborne energy above about 1kHz and only makes a big difference above about 5kHz); rather it's a damped mass acting directly on the rack itself (and on the topmost component if this is on the top self of the rack).

btw: Steve you're sort of right:
The materials used for most synthetic fibres have lower lower mechanical loss modulus than do fibres naturally formed from keratin (wool and other hair) or cellulose (most plant fibres), hence the natural fibres are more 'acoustically damped'.  This is only significant when the pile is raised and the individual fibres can move; but when the the fibres are held in place by the weave, there's much less difference as the damping is then reliant on air viscosity.

So am i Short of a meter with my SL cables to my 300dr!! İf you need 3,7 why sell them in 3? 

1  We don't know the inductance of the SL cables (could be ~1.17μH / m).

2  We don't know if the statement power amp only requires 3μH for unconditional stability.

I've got another base shelf on order (so that the two stacks are equal in height) but I've just had a go at re-stacking with the existing racking.

It certainly looks more aesthetic - a long low spread instead of a high central column.

As someone mentioned earlier, cabling at the back is less than ideal especially now that the available height is compressed.

I've managed to keep the power cabling away from the "information" cabling and each away from everything else, by wrapping both collected  strands each in a roll of bubble-wrap.

Not ideal I know, but it's where I've had to draw my compromise.

Given that all the power cabling for the WiFi and  TV plus WiFi connecting leads are bundled along the back wall together with the hydra, and the all the stack connectors on top of that with the speaker leads also running out underneath everything, there's a photo opportunity there for giving the loomists on here a heart attack!

Only question is, dare I?   

Huge posted:

The blanket test is rather more complex than it appears on first inspection.

The blanket isn't removing much in the way of airborne influence (it only significantly attenuates airborne energy above about 1kHz and only makes a big difference above about 5kHz); rather it's a damped mass acting directly on the rack itself (and on the topmost component if this is on the top self of the rack).

Hmm, mass damping. I was thinking attenuation of mid to high frequency acoustic energy impacting on the connection cables, (which are at the rear),  and therefore possibly less microphony.

The rug thing is a whole new can of worms. I have tried to make use of soft furnishing to dampen the room. Decent curtains, rugs etc.

Years ago I mucked around with fairly expensive bass traps. They were basically tuned cardboard tubes filled with wool. And expensive. Had a spl meter/frequency spectrum analyser and would try and match measurements of standing waves to "golden ear" placement of the traps.  Not much correlation but boy the bass traps really worked.

So the take away message is that acoustic energy in the room has huge effects on your listening. Sure we all know this in regard to cable dressing, rack choice/set up, how components are designed, (Naim pay a lot of attention to this as we know), and speaker placement amongst a whole lot of other factors.

I am contemplating using perforated ceiling board in my listening room. Here in Australia we have a specific gyprock sheet for this. I have used it in home theatre setups and like most treatments that reduce boundary reflections its pretty cool. Back when I was young we glued egg cartons to our walls and ceilings.  

Everything old is new again...

Also I say "death to loomists". And don't get me started on spiral wrapping all your cables together. Although I have used spiral wrap to get individual cables to "hang" correctly.

steve95775 posted:

Also I say "death to loomists". And don't get me started on spiral wrapping all your cables together. Although I have used spiral wrap to get individual cables to "hang" correctly.

But saying that have you looked inside a Naim product? Fanatical looming going on there. ... but mainly of the power side of things.

And looming is terrible at impeding crosstalk and RFI issues... I know Naim very much use looming, but perhaps explains some of the crosstalk sensitivities we hear with some Naim products.

in other industries, looming is found to be so bad at causing cross talk issues that new technology has been developed to impede, called vectoring, where complex DSP predicts the crosstalk from neighbours in the loom and allows the signal to be compensated.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

oh noooo, the Russell Ks are fantastic speakers, really like them,  but I found them definitely more analytical and ruthless in the upper mids than the latest ATCs.... The Russel Ks remind more of the earlier ATCs which were more ruthlessly revealing..  I suggest if you want a sweeter speaker that can subtly gloss over shortcomings you might want to try something from the Harbeth stable - again great speakers - but not opinionsquite analytically revealing enough for me 

That is an interesting take on the Russell K's, I have not auditioned them but your impressions took me by surprise.  I have been interested in the ATC SCM19 and Russell K speakers so I made specific enquiries to Dominic Marsh of HiFi Pig (who reviewed them both) for his impressions as to the differences between the speakers and he replied and I qoute  'They are more forgiving sonically than the ATC speakers and are less fussy about partnering components, plus they have a modicum of warmth in the lower midrange which adds some silkiness and helps to avoid fatigue during long listening sessions, more so with less than ideal recordings where the ATCs delivers it all, no matter how good or bad the recordings are.'  Its just goes to show how subjective one's opinions can be over the same equipment.  Of course someone else may add, also take into account the associated components used in all the reviews?

Mike1951 posted:

I've got another base shelf on order (so that the two stacks are equal in height) but I've just had a go at re-stacking with the existing racking.

It certainly looks more aesthetic - a long low spread instead of a high central column.

As someone mentioned earlier, cabling at the back is less than ideal especially now that the available height is compressed.

I've managed to keep the power cabling away from the "information" cabling and each away from everything else, by wrapping both collected  strands each in a roll of bubble-wrap.

Not ideal I know, but it's where I've had to draw my compromise.

Given that all the power cabling for the WiFi and  TV plus WiFi connecting leads are bundled along the back wall together with the hydra, and the all the stack connectors on top of that with the speaker leads also running out underneath everything, there's a photo opportunity there for giving the loomists on here a heart attack!

Only question is, dare I?   

I'll show you mine, if you show me yours! 

In my relatively modest system, I found careful cable dressing to be very worthwhile. When I first set it up, it looked a complete mess, as I just made sure I had made the right connections to get me up and running: I was convinced that proper cable dressing would be impossible. Then, one cable at a time, I slowly figured out how I could improve things. In the end, I managed to get to the stage where no two cables touched each other at all, and none of them touched the rack. It looked slightly neater than what I started out with, but not much....but it sure sounded better.

Romi, indeed, however my comments seemed to be shared by a few here who have also tried the speakers... certainly the new ATCs are more forgiving and musical in my experience... and I do find the Russel Ks a little tiring after a while, certainly in my room and my equipment ... they appear to have an upper mid peak. The smallest Russel K do indeed have some warmth boosted into the performance to compensate for the small size, but the traits still stand. The area where the Russel Ks excel at is upper mid timing and lack of smearing... but the downside is quite a forward presentation. I think you’ll find the new ATCs more relaxed and musically insightful... but perhaps not quite as analytical in the upper mids.... but please do try on an extended home audition like I did... best not to take anyone’s word for it... and in your room/system the Russell Ks might be the perfect match.

Mike1951 posted:

Couldn't "find the page"? Copy and paste it here, Max?

Mike, it was too long and probably too personal to repeat it... But I'll summarize it for you: after years of struggling to match musical taste, mood, source, amp, cables, speakers and room in a single working event (which I believe is the daily activity of a typical audiophile), I once discovered that listening to MP3s in the excellent, cheap earplugs of my Asus cellphone, filled with music, on the train or the Underground, gave me a more involving, immediate, musically joyous experience than the War Between Man And Gear I was fighting at home.

My home system is very good (half new, half used but it'd be something in the €20,000 Italian retail – I specify Italian because we have the highest Naim prices in Europa), but if I want simpler, easier pleasure and that perfect amount and coherence of details that to me sum up to enjoying music, I wear earplugs and browse in the Zenfone's app (Double Twist, highly recommended to the probably thin group of Android users here).

Just that. Nothing can compare, though, to playing music on The System whenever I also want a technically gratifying element included in the experience.

Best

Max

The typical ATC sound I have listened to (both 19 and 40) is accurate yet musical and a joy to listen to. I compared the 19 to 40 side by side in my room. I decided on the 40 as I preferred it in all regards even though bass is a little too much for my modest room. The 40 is more forgiving than the 19.

The only time I listened to ATCs where I thought it was unforgiving was the 19 actives with with a Hugo 2 and Chord Shawline cables. I was ruthless and very fast. I couldn't live with it.

I think with transparent gear offering a flat and accurate response, such as ATC and Hugo 2, room and system synergy counts for a lot.

My current setup of 40 actives with Hugo TT using Mogami cables sounds sublime and is very forgiving.

I have very recently auditioned both the Russell K red 50 and ATC SCM11. As a result I purchased the SCM11 which to my ears were much better than the Red 50. I created a forum post with my findings quite recently in December.

In brief, the Red 50 were very good indeed and I never experienced any harshness in the upper registers. The bass compared to the ATC was much fuller and more extended. However I found the Red 50 a little shut in compared to the ATC.

The ATC SCM11 really excelled in clarity, fine detail and control. Their ability to extract every ounce of detail from the music is so satisfying to the listener. And happily for me they sound so much better in my living room than they ever did during my initial audition.

As with all speakers the room environment plays a significant part. My SCM11 are placed on 24 inch FS104 Signature stands in a fully carpeted room with a solid concrete floor and walls. The bass is substantial enough but really fast and tight with no overhang. The midrange is phenomenal and upper registers are wonderfully textured and clear with no signs of brightness whatsoever. 

Ian.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Romi, indeed, however my comments seemed to be shared by a few here who have also tried the speakers... certainly the new ATCs are more forgiving and musical in my experience... and I do find the Russel Ks a little tiring after a while, certainly in my room and my equipment ... they appear to have an upper mid peak. The smallest Russel K do indeed have some warmth boosted into the performance to compensate for the small size, but the traits still stand. The area where the Russel Ks excel at is upper mid timing and lack of smearing... but the downside is quite a forward presentation. I think you’ll find the new ATCs more relaxed and musically insightful... but perhaps not quite as analytical in the upper mids.... but please do try on an extended home audition like I did... best not to take anyone’s word for it... and in your room/system the Russell Ks might be the perfect match.

I auditioned the Russell Ks before buying the SCM 11s. The RKs treble was a little 'spitty' compared to the SCM which was cleaner and more pleasant. The RKs also had a mid bass hump that presented the impression of more/warmer bass, but I found the SCMs bass definition easier to follow.

They were both good speakers that I could happily live with. One thing to mention on the ATCs is the two sets of speaker terminals. The way these are connected is a let down for an otherwise well engineered product at this price point. At the very least I would avoid the supplied metal connectors and use jumper leads (just try connecting the speaker leads to the top terminal posts to see if that improves the presentation of the treble).

I went two steps further. First I opened up the back and removed the various push on connectors and soldered the wires from the crossover directly to one pair of speaker terminals removing the need for jumper cables and removing 3 unnecessary connections in the process. This improved the sound significantly for little more than an hours work with some decent solder. The second step was to replace the stock binding posts with some WBT signature ones at the cost of £160. This made another significant improvement well above the cost.

However, before you do any of this (except the jumper lead suggestion) make sure that you have run in your speakers (took about 300 hours of play time for mine to fully come on song) and make sure that they are keepers.

Absolutely not!

I've jut spent upward of €2500 on a pair of speakers from one of the foremost UK speaker companies, acknowledged amongst the global leaders in the field, and you want me to go screwing about in the internals with a soldering iron?

Fughedaboudit.

Mike1951 posted:

Absolutely not!

I've jut spent upward of €2500 on a pair of speakers from one of the foremost UK speaker companies, acknowledged amongst the global leaders in the field, and you want me to go screwing about in the internals with a soldering iron?

Fughedaboudit.

 

 

The advice to use jumper cables made from proper speaker cable (or better still use an 'F' connection to the speakers), is, however, a good one (and requires no intrusion into the speakers themselves).