steelie

This i a great question. I'm in the process of doing a complete remodel in one of my rooms to accommodate a 2-channel rig. HT will be part of the deal but it's not my primary concern. Regardless, I've spoken with a few different acoustical consultants and all have suggested going with hard wood floors. I think the idea is that hard wood floors can be controlled with area rugs and that there are better ways to provide a room with acoustical treatments than simply laying down carpet.

Hi all, I'm trying to integrate a sub in my 2-channel bookshelf system and I want to avoid using the sub's speaker outputs but I don't have the option of using the RCA jack. Right now, I've got cables running from my amp to the sub's inputs. Then I'm running cables from the outputs to my bookshelves. This seems to deaden the high end a lot. I'd like to go directly from the amp to the bookshelves but still need to integrate the sub somehow. Any quick suggestions? Thanks

About 7 or 8 months ago I was having a hard time balancing the bookshelf speaker I use for my right rear surround. First off, the speaker just sounded totally different from the rest of my set up. Second, my SPL meter kept telling me the speaker was in balance with the rest of the system despite the fact that my ears kept telling me it wasn't. For about a week, I attributed the discrepancies to the acoustics of the room, faulty ears and maybe some bad measurements. So, I kept testing and testing. Finally, I started using both pink noise and white noise and found that while one test showed me the speaker was in balance, the other told me the speaker was about 4db lower than the rest of the speakers. (Can't remember which was which) I took the speaker down, checked my connections and discovered the plate that acts as a biwire jumper between the binding posts had come loose and was disconnected. I was missing a whole segment of sound. At the time, I found it strange that white noise and pink noise would produce such different measurements. After all, one was able to identify the fact that a whole segment of frequencies was missing while the other went on as if there were no problems. Curious.

---------------- On 5/21/2005 11:42:12 PM Audio Flynn wrote: Sounds like you guys just like to pound people for expressing their opinions. +++++++++++++++++++ No just make people accountable for their logic or abscence thereof. Why ask a question if your mind is made up? ---------------- hmmm ... got a kick out this rhetorical question. ha, you're mind's not made up yet?

Sounds like you went to visit the McIntosh dealer in Chandler, Ariz. Am I right? The guy' got some hot stuff in there. I try to avoid it when I can, unless I'm the mood to torture myself. Last time I was there he was still setting stuff up but it was clear the gear was great. At the time, I believe he had a pair of DALI Euphonia MS5s that I really enjoyed listening to.

I'm looking at a McIntosh C2200, which has an HT pass through for the front channels, and the McIntosh C46, which doesn't have the pass through. Both options have their good points. The C2200 is a tube pre that allows me to hook up my receiver for HT. The C46 is a solid state pre that may be a better fit for my system sometime down the road when I finally am able to get a second set of speakers and separate my stereo from my HT. It's all about managing the gear for the future. The HT pass through feature is great for right now. It's not something I hope I'll need in the future, though. Thanks for your input and suggestions. Any more information on where to look for an A/B switch?

I'm torn right now between going with a 2-channel pre-amp that has an HT pass-through and one that doesn't. I know that for now I'll need to use my same front speakers for HT and music so if I go with a stereo pre-amp that doesn't have a pass-through, what are my options for merging my systems without playing the cable game? I don't want to have to connect and disconnect everything each time I want to watch a movie or listen to music through the stereo pre. Any suggestions? Thanks for the input.

When I got my RF7s I also got a pair of RB35s for surround duty. My reasoning was that surround wasn't as important to me as getting the best 2-channel system I could afford at the time. After I finally found an appropriate place to put the RB35s, I was pleasently surprised to hear how well they performed with movies. I use set them up as small speakers and cut the low frequencies to the sub. I don't feel like I'm mising out on anything at all when I watch movies. Keep in mind that balancing the system will mean that you have to either bump up the RB35s or lower the RF7s, but once you do that - and find the right spot for the surrounds - you should be good to go. Again, though, surrounds weren't my priority and I figured the RB35s would do just fine for reproducing bullets or other effects. I was happy with the match, I saved a little money and I was thrilled with the RF7s.

Thanks TBrennan. I don't have any listening experience with this sort of rig and I'm trying to understand the impact that the difference in output power will have. Is there any sort of balancing that you have to do or is that what you mean by compensating for the crossover that get removed?

Hi all. I'm currently driving my RF7s with a McIntosh MC202 and I'm pretty happy with the sound that I'm getting but I'd still like to try to round it out a little more on the top end. I've recently been thinking about biamping the 7s and powering the horns with an MC275, with its 75 watts of tube power. I'd still want the MC 202 and its 200 watts of SS power to drive the woofers to give me the kciking bass I love. Is anyone doing anything similar and if so, what kind of results are you getting? Also, will the disparity in wattage create any issues I need to be aware of and if so, how can I address them? Finally, would it be worth doing this if I only passively biamped the 7s or do I need to go full bore and get an external crossover to make this work? Thanks for all the help.

Wow! I don't know what to say, really. I'm amazed. That's pretty intricate considering the small detail you were working with. Thanks for working that out for me. One thing I've been wondering in terms of analyzing the room response. When I walk around the room with my SPL meter, I'm looking for hot spots on the walls, right? I can easily find variations in the open room but the purpose is to look for spots that can be treated, so really only the walls and ceiling, right? Also, the room is surrounded with wood paneling from the floor to a chair guard. The remainder of the wall is drywall, covered with art, etc. I get no rattling or any such issues from the paneling but how does it differ from just clean drywall. Does it create a harsher sound or does it tame the peaks? The paneling isn't something I can easily change so I have no frame of reference here. Thanks again for that great detail. It's much appreciated. Edit: The area centered directly behind the speakers is treated with a diffusor of sorts, right? We mentioned a bookshelf or masonite panels earlier in the post.

Thanks for the offer, I appreciate it. That's just what the Rives Audio CD allows me to do, along with a spreadsheet. Would creating my own test tones allow me to do something else? When my setup was on the long wall, the ceiling sloped down left to right and right to left, with the peak in the middle. Now, on the short wall, the ceiling slopes up from the speakers, reaches its peak, and slopes back down to 8 feet on the other end of the room. To me, this setup gave the sound more detail. It was real muddy the other way around. Thanks again. I really appreaciate the help.

At what frequencies are the mids dropping out? Also, how did you setup your test? Were you using test tones and radio shack meter, or pink noise with an RTA? There are correction values for the RS meter which is why I ask. Also, the use of test tones isn't the best approach to measuring system response...If that's how you measured, then I'll get back to you on the problems with it and some ways around it. The 10dB drops that you're recording are not flaws in the RF-7. -- My newest frequency chart shows the biggest drop occurring at 160 Hz. It's about -12 db compared to the rest and then immediately goes back to normal at 200 Hz. It drops to -5db at 250 Hz and then back up to 0 at 315 Hz. The other significant drop is -5 db at 800 Hz. The variance is minimal until I get to 2500 Hz, where it drops to -12 db. I tried unsuccesefully to download free test tones from the Internet so I ended up buying the Rives Audio CD, which includes test tones corrected for the RS meter. BTW, what is the basic layout of your room? is it a dedicated room? where is all the furniture and do you have your speakers on the long or short wall? How many "main listening" positions are there? ---------------- --The room is not dedicated to music/HT, although my SO might argue with me considering that it takes up a large part of the room. There are openings to other rooms that I've had to live with. I have the system set up on the short wall b/c the long wall provided horrible sound when I tried it. I think ... just a guess here ... that the way the ceiling slopes up affected the sound of the system when it was on the long wall. I'm not sure how to answer the main listenig position question. I always just considered the spot creating an equidistant triangle from the two front speakers as the main listening position and everything else is just to the left or right of that.I suppose there are three, although we have room behind us for a few more if we ever expanded. (Highly unlikely in this room)

Thanks to both for your help. Room treatment is just the next evolution in improving the sound in my room, which is large by my standards: 18 by 30 with a ceiling that slopes from 8 to 14 feet in the middle. I'm satisfied with the amount of deep low bass we get but I'm not happy with the mids. Running a frequency scan showed that with my sub, I'm at plus or minus 5 db from 20 to 200 hz. There is a gap in certain frequencies above 200 hz, though, which occasionally drops about 10 db - sometimes more although I'm not sure what this depends on. The highs are fine. I suppose this could just be the RF7s being RF7s or perhaps it's the source components, I really don't know. Mostly I'm happy with the setup. Imaging and soundstage is good. I'm just thinking about the next step to try to improve the system. Thanks again.

When people talk about treating the primary reflection points in their rooms are they referring to the spots directly behind the speakers or in front? Sorry if this is an obvious question. My RF-7s are three feet out from the rear wall and if I stand behind them and directly in the middle I hear an extroardinary amount of built up bass. Obviously, I don't typically stand behind my speakers to listen to them but should this be treated? Can I use a low-lying bookcase to break up the sound or do I need some sort of panels for this job? Also, the RF-7s are toed in to point toward the sweet spot and about two feet away from side walls. Since they have a 90 degree dispersion pattern out of the horn, should I use that angle to figure out where the reflections are off the adjacemt side wall? Do you have to treat the entire vertical length of the wall or is it enough to treat the area around the horn's height? Thanks for any help.

Granted, RF7s go down to 32 hz instead of 20 hz but with a McIntosh, those two 10-inch woofers will kick you in the chest. Low end bass is not one of the places I dock my RF7s on. Grills? Probably, but I've been fortunate that I haven't broken one yet. Cheap feet ... yeah, could be better.

I have no experience with LaScala speakers but just wanted to say you have some awesome gear that's making me druel. When I added and MC202 to my RF7 stystem, the sound seemed to become explosive - in a good way: Deep, hard bass and totally smooth and laid back, even at low volumes. I'm in love. Now, all I can think about is adding another Mac to my system. Hmmm, a C45 maybe next on my list for sometime in 2005, although a C42 is more likely. Then again, I'd love to try the C2200. I don't think adding tubes to the pre-amp stage would be a waste at all, even with an SS amp - although I still have to try this before I say it with any confidence. Anyway, sorry for the lack of help. Just wanted to compliment you on some great gear. When you get the MC252, let us know how you feel the MC206 fits in. I have heard the lack of autoformers on the MC206 makes a difference when matched with an autoformered amp.

In addition to the RCA hookups, I have my universal DVD player connected to my processor through an inexpensive fiber cable. I typically use that output only when I want the processor to decode DD/DTS signals instead of the player. For kicks, I switched it out with a similarly inexpensive coax and listened to some familiar music. I found that instruments sounded like they were in differenet locations around the soundstage and the center image sounded a little more dispersed as well. Specifically, I can only explain it by saying that everything sounded lower to the ground. It could be that the coax was bad for some reason - it's been laying around unused for quite a while - but I wonder if the low end fiber cables are just better than the low end coax.

I bought a pair of PS Audio's XStream RCAs when they went on sale a while back and more recently bought a pair of Heros. I haven't gotten those yet so I can't comment on how they sound but in my system, PS Audio's cables are definitely an improvement over my old Monster RCAs. It's the sort of difference that you hear when you A/B equipment and have the sounds fresh in your mind. If I hadn't bought new equipment and needed another pair of RCAs, I wouldn't have tried the PS Audios because I was happy with the sound. After getting them, though, I moved the cables around to different pieces of equipment just to compare their sound with something I was familiar with. When I connected the two PS Audios to the front outputs from my universal player to my processor, where my old Monsters were, I found I got noticeably more detail and fuller sound - although I didn't feel my sound was lacking before I tried the new cable. I ended up putting the PS Audios back to work connecting my processor to my amp but I liked the new cables so much I decided to try out some more RCAs. This time, I got the KimberKable Heros. When I receive them, they'll probably be used between my universal player and processor, unless I find something new. Anyway, the experience was good enough to make me want to spend more money to switch out the old Monsters. I'm going to end up with a few extra cables in the end. Any idea what I should do with all the extras?

"one more thing...look on the internet for GREAT prices on a TriVista. I am pretty sure I just saw a new unit at Upscale Audio for about 33% off. Units now appear to be widely available at about $1250 - $1300. Remember - that was a limited production run. I believe less than 2000 units were produced." That's what the sales guy told me today. Actually, he said they should be gone by December. But $1,250 to $1,300?That's MUCH more than 33 percent off, at least from the price I saw today. If that was the advertised price I think I would be enjoying it right now instead of writing about it on this board. I'll have to check out the Web a little more. Thanks for the tip. I'd forgotten you wrote about the Tri-Vista in your orginial reply when I saw the model today.

Not to throw a monkey wrench in all the good suggestions but I took the day to visit some high end audio stores today and ran into the Tri-Vista 21, from Musical Fidelity. It's a 96-192 kHz, 24 bit TUBED DAC. I was surprised because I haven't heard much talk about tubes in DACs before. The sales guy switched between the DAC and a high-end CD player to give me a chance to comapre the sound and while both sounded great, the DAC seemed more detailed and more accurate in terms of the imaging and how the music was spread around the soundstage. My ears probably aren't refined enough to describe all the differences and I was listening to the music through speakers that I wasn't accustomed to, but I enjoyed the experience. The Tri-Vista is a chunk of change, and it's certainly way to pricey to experiment with, but red book sounded as good as I've heard it. Any thoughts on tubed DACs? Thanks again.

Thanks for all the informative replies. All the information helps. Right now I have the Denon hooked up with RCA for SACD/DVD-A playback and with fiberoptics for DD/DTS, when I let the processor in the receiver do the decoding. The CD player is hooked up only with RCA, no optical inputs attached. The Denon doesn't ever skip. It just refuses to recognize some of my older Redbook CDs. Maybe they're just damaged in some way but the Sony reads them and plays them regardless. On the issue of heat, I just mentioned it in comparison with the Sony. The Denon warms up while the Sony stays as cool as can be, no matter how long it's been on. Tubes on the CD... that's an interesting issue that I'm just not up to speed on but I'd be willing to give them a listen. I'll have to do some reading up first though. Thanks again for the help.

I have a Denon 2200, a universal player that in my opinion does fine with movies and SACD/DVD-A but I just haven't gotten comfortable with CD playback. I still use an old Sony CD player for everyday redbook playing. One of the problems with the Denon is that it occasionally won't read CDs that my Sony plays just fine. It's never done this with DVDs or SACD, just some older CDs. It also gets awful hot - not to the point where I'm worried about it but the Sony, in comparison, is ALWAYS cool, no matter how long I leave it running. Finally, I should run a test CD to confirm this but I could swear the Denon's midrange is also shallower than the older CD player. Anyway, I'm looking to buy soon but I'm certainly in no rush so I've got plenty of time to look into all my options. Thanks again for all the help.

Thanks for the comments. one of my concerns has been the longevity of the technology. Mechanically, my 10(?) year old CD player runs just fine, but the sound seems skewed toward the highs. I'd like a more rounded better imaged sound and eventually, I know I'll want to upgrade whatever I buy next once again. That's why I'm looking for ways to cut the eventual upgrade path, maybe in half. Either route, the DAC + transport or the integrated CD player, won't be cheap and this won't be an easy decision. Specifically, I was considering something like Cambridge Audio's 640 and an outboard DAC versus something like McIntosh's new CD changer. The DAC option should cost about as much as a 2nd hand McIntosh. Thanks again.

I'm going to be in the market to upgrade my CD player soon and have been looking into different options. I was wondering whether folks around here thought I'd be better off getting the Benchmark DAC-1 and an inexpensive CD player as a transport or whether I can get better sound by going for an equally priced stand-alone CD player. I have some time to keep looking so I'm in no rush. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance