Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Upgrade path - any suggestions?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 4:09:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

[Second try at posting this...]

Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam 8/8P biamped to
Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects
are Cambridge Audio Studio Reference.

Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!. What next? My
thoughts are interconnects first. Chord Anthem has been suggested -
presumably this ought to be pretty upgrade-proof, but pricey. Probably
CD player second, then amplification. I am very tempted to try a Cyrus
system, eg Cyrus 8, CD 8 & SmartPower (Having 'gone bi-amp', I would
never go back!). Musical Fidelity has also been suggested, but I'm
totally open-minded. The GR20s don't seem to need all the warmth the
Arcam set-up provides, but I wouldn't want too dry a sound either.

A modest windfall and an understanding wife mean budget is circa
£3-4000.

Awaiting your suggestions...

(Please reply via newsgroup)
Anonymous
June 23, 2004 10:32:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"chunky_john" <chunky_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb97h801qjs@news4.newsguy.com...
> [Second try at posting this...]
>
> Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam 8/8P biamped to
> Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects
> are Cambridge Audio Studio Reference.
>
> Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!. What next? My
> thoughts are interconnects first. Chord Anthem has been suggested -
> presumably this ought to be pretty upgrade-proof, but pricey. Proba=
bly
> CD player second, then amplification. I am very tempted to try a Cy=
rus
> system, eg Cyrus 8, CD 8 & SmartPower (Having 'gone bi-amp', I woul=
d
> never go back!). Musical Fidelity has also been suggested, but I'm
> totally open-minded. The GR20s don't seem to need all the warmth th=
e
> Arcam set-up provides, but I wouldn't want too dry a sound either.
>
> A modest windfall and an understanding wife mean budget is circa
> =A33-4000.

I'd forget about the interconnects and focus on the components that a=
re most
likely to have an audible effect. Unless the Arcam is underpowered l=
eaving
you wanting more dynamic capabilities, your best bet is likely to be
upgrading the Marantz to a current CD player. A universal player (CD=
, SACD
and DVD-A) such as the Denon 2900 would seem to be good bet.

> Awaiting your suggestions...
>
> (Please reply via newsgroup)
Anonymous
June 24, 2004 8:22:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Tuning the acoustic environment often yields more improvement than any
equipment upgrade. As another here suggested, I have used book cases
to great effect. However, if your budget allows, I highly recommend a
combination of RPG Skylines for diffusion and Auralex Sunbursts for
broadband absorption. (Never bother with narrow band absorption
unless you want to alter frequency response.)

chunky_john@hotmail.com (chunky_john) wrote in message news:<cb97h801qjs@news4.newsguy.com>...
> [Second try at posting this...]
>
> Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam 8/8P biamped to
> Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects
> are Cambridge Audio Studio Reference.
>
> Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!. What next? My
> thoughts are interconnects first. Chord Anthem has been suggested -
> presumably this ought to be pretty upgrade-proof, but pricey. Probably
> CD player second, then amplification. I am very tempted to try a Cyrus
> system, eg Cyrus 8, CD 8 & SmartPower (Having 'gone bi-amp', I would
> never go back!). Musical Fidelity has also been suggested, but I'm
> totally open-minded. The GR20s don't seem to need all the warmth the
> Arcam set-up provides, but I wouldn't want too dry a sound either.
>
> A modest windfall and an understanding wife mean budget is circa
> £3-4000.
>
> Awaiting your suggestions...
>
> (Please reply via newsgroup)
Related resources
Anonymous
June 25, 2004 10:30:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I agree with the conventional wisdom that room treatment done right is a
major improvement but it has drawbacks. For one thing it gets very
expensive very fast. And in many rooms it becomes the main element of
decor, which can be a problem unless it is a dedicated listening room. Then
consider the problem of the endless tinkering before discovering what to use
and where to put it. The permutations, combinations and interactions can
make it a complex task, possibly an endless one for many people. And once
the project is "finished" will the difference be a true improvement or
merely a change that palls after a while, requiring starting over. And what
to do with the treatments that were not effective Return for refund? I doubt
it.

As an alternative could someone with experience with Behringer digital
equalizers step in here with some advice. The idea of using an eq with a
mike and a display which provide objective knowledge of what changes have
been made is appealing.

Wylie Williams
The Speaker and Stereo Store


"Steve P." <steve@podvoll.com> wrote in message
news:D dDCc.95661$HG.16483@attbi_s53...
> Tuning the acoustic environment often yields more improvement than any
> equipment upgrade. As another here suggested, I have used book cases
> to great effect. However, if your budget allows, I highly recommend a
> combination of RPG Skylines for diffusion and Auralex Sunbursts for
> broadband absorption. (Never bother with narrow band absorption
> unless you want to alter frequency response.)
>
> chunky_john@hotmail.com (chunky_john) wrote in message
news:<cb97h801qjs@news4.newsguy.com>...
> > [Second try at posting this...]
> >
> > Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam 8/8P biamped to
> > Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects
> > are Cambridge Audio Studio Reference.
> >
> > Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!. What next? My
> > thoughts are interconnects first. Chord Anthem has been suggested -
> > presumably this ought to be pretty upgrade-proof, but pricey. Probably
> > CD player second, then amplification. I am very tempted to try a Cyrus
> > system, eg Cyrus 8, CD 8 & SmartPower (Having 'gone bi-amp', I would
> > never go back!). Musical Fidelity has also been suggested, but I'm
> > totally open-minded. The GR20s don't seem to need all the warmth the
> > Arcam set-up provides, but I wouldn't want too dry a sound either.
> >
> > A modest windfall and an understanding wife mean budget is circa
> > £3-4000.
> >
> > Awaiting your suggestions...
> >
> > (Please reply via newsgroup)
>
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 8:45:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Equalization can be used successfully, but only to limited effect;
basically to address spectral balance. However, most home listening
rooms are so confined that early reflections severly distort imaging
and soundstage. Equalization does little to address these concerns.

I advise a significant departure from conventional wisdom; Many ignore
room treatment in their system budgets. I think room treatment should
be second only to the loudspeakers in priority. While there may be
sonic differences between a $300 and a $3000 CD player, those
differences are typically, relatively subtle. I can't overemphasize
the major improvements that can be realized by properly applied room
treatment. I consider room treatment and speakers to be a subsystem,
in and of itself. For that subsystem, I advise budgeting 75% for the
speakers and 25% for the treatment. However, I must reiterate the
importance of proper application. Improperly applied room treatment
can sound terrible. Come to think of it, improperly applied
equalization can sound terrible, as well.

"Wylie Williams" <wyberwil@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<cbhqvh0jt2@news2.newsguy.com>...
> I agree with the conventional wisdom that room treatment done right is a
> major improvement but it has drawbacks. For one thing it gets very
> expensive very fast. And in many rooms it becomes the main element of
> decor, which can be a problem unless it is a dedicated listening room. Then
> consider the problem of the endless tinkering before discovering what to use
> and where to put it. The permutations, combinations and interactions can
> make it a complex task, possibly an endless one for many people. And once
> the project is "finished" will the difference be a true improvement or
> merely a change that palls after a while, requiring starting over. And what
> to do with the treatments that were not effective Return for refund? I doubt
> it.
>
> As an alternative could someone with experience with Behringer digital
> equalizers step in here with some advice. The idea of using an eq with a
> mike and a display which provide objective knowledge of what changes have
> been made is appealing.
>
> Wylie Williams
> The Speaker and Stereo Store
>
>
> "Steve P." <steve@podvoll.com> wrote in message
> news:D dDCc.95661$HG.16483@attbi_s53...
> > Tuning the acoustic environment often yields more improvement than any
> > equipment upgrade. As another here suggested, I have used book cases
> > to great effect. However, if your budget allows, I highly recommend a
> > combination of RPG Skylines for diffusion and Auralex Sunbursts for
> > broadband absorption. (Never bother with narrow band absorption
> > unless you want to alter frequency response.)
> >
> > chunky_john@hotmail.com (chunky_john) wrote in message
> news:<cb97h801qjs@news4.newsguy.com>...
> > > [Second try at posting this...]
> > >
> > > Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam 8/8P biamped to
> > > Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects
> > > are Cambridge Audio Studio Reference.
> > >
> > > Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!. What next? My
> > > thoughts are interconnects first. Chord Anthem has been suggested -
> > > presumably this ought to be pretty upgrade-proof, but pricey. Probably
> > > CD player second, then amplification. I am very tempted to try a Cyrus
> > > system, eg Cyrus 8, CD 8 & SmartPower (Having 'gone bi-amp', I would
> > > never go back!). Musical Fidelity has also been suggested, but I'm
> > > totally open-minded. The GR20s don't seem to need all the warmth the
> > > Arcam set-up provides, but I wouldn't want too dry a sound either.
> > >
> > > A modest windfall and an understanding wife mean budget is circa
> > > £3-4000.
> > >
> > > Awaiting your suggestions...
> > >
> > > (Please reply via newsgroup)
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 9:16:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Steve P." <steve@podvoll.com> wrote
> I advise budgeting 75% for the
> speakers and 25% for the treatment. However, I must reiterate the
> importance of proper application. Improperly applied room treatment
> can sound terrible. Come to think of it, improperly applied
> equalization can sound terrible, as well.

I agree. That's why the Behringer automatic setting digital EQs look so
promising. But I have yet to hear any experiences from knowledgeable RAHE
members about their experiences with equalization.

I only persist in harping aon EQs because my listening room is my living
room, and it can't have significant treatment as a listening room without
ruining it for all other purposes, so I continue to ponder the EQ
alternative.

Wylie Williams
The Speaker and Stereo Store

>
> "Wylie Williams" <wyberwil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<cbhqvh0jt2@news2.newsguy.com>...
> > I agree with the conventional wisdom that room treatment done right is a
> > major improvement but it has drawbacks. For one thing it gets very
> > expensive very fast. And in many rooms it becomes the main element of
> > decor, which can be a problem unless it is a dedicated listening room.
Then
> > consider the problem of the endless tinkering before discovering what to
use
> > and where to put it. The permutations, combinations and interactions can
> > make it a complex task, possibly an endless one for many people. And
once
> > the project is "finished" will the difference be a true improvement or
> > merely a change that palls after a while, requiring starting over. And
what
> > to do with the treatments that were not effective Return for refund? I
doubt
> > it.
> >
> > As an alternative could someone with experience with Behringer digital
> > equalizers step in here with some advice. The idea of using an eq with a
> > mike and a display which provide objective knowledge of what changes
have
> > been made is appealing.
> >
> > Wylie Williams
> > The Speaker and Stereo Store
> >
> >
> > "Steve P." <steve@podvoll.com> wrote in message
> > news:D dDCc.95661$HG.16483@attbi_s53...
> > > Tuning the acoustic environment often yields more improvement than any
> > > equipment upgrade. As another here suggested, I have used book cases
> > > to great effect. However, if your budget allows, I highly recommend a
> > > combination of RPG Skylines for diffusion and Auralex Sunbursts for
> > > broadband absorption. (Never bother with narrow band absorption
> > > unless you want to alter frequency response.)
> > >
> > > chunky_john@hotmail.com (chunky_john) wrote in message
> > news:<cb97h801qjs@news4.newsguy.com>...
> > > > [Second try at posting this...]
> > > >
> > > > Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam 8/8P biamped to
> > > > Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects
> > > > are Cambridge Audio Studio Reference.
> > > >
> > > > Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!. What next? My
> > > > thoughts are interconnects first. Chord Anthem has been suggested -
> > > > presumably this ought to be pretty upgrade-proof, but pricey.
Probably
> > > > CD player second, then amplification. I am very tempted to try a
Cyrus
> > > > system, eg Cyrus 8, CD 8 & SmartPower (Having 'gone bi-amp', I would
> > > > never go back!). Musical Fidelity has also been suggested, but I'm
> > > > totally open-minded. The GR20s don't seem to need all the warmth the
> > > > Arcam set-up provides, but I wouldn't want too dry a sound either.
> > > >
> > > > A modest windfall and an understanding wife mean budget is circa
> > > > Ã,£3-4000.
> > > >
> > > > Awaiting your suggestions...
> > > >
> > > > (Please reply via newsgroup)
>
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 11:59:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Wylie Williams wrote:

>"Steve P." <steve@podvoll.com> wrote
>> I advise budgeting 75% for the
>> speakers and 25% for the treatment. However, I must reiterate the
>> importance of proper application. Improperly applied room treatment
>> can sound terrible. Come to think of it, improperly applied
>> equalization can sound terrible, as well.
>
>I agree. That's why the Behringer automatic setting digital EQs look so
>promising. But I have yet to hear any experiences from knowledgeable RAHE
>members about their experiences with equalization.
>
>I only persist in harping aon EQs because my listening room is my living
>room, and it can't have significant treatment as a listening room without
>ruining it for all other purposes, so I continue to ponder the EQ
>alternative.
>
>Wylie Williams
>The Speaker and Stereo Store
>

I strongly suspect that the situation you describe, i.e. having one's main
audio system in one's living room with limited room treatment/speaker placement
options, is true of many of us. I too would be interested in the extent to
which equalization can, in and of itself, improve various aspects of the music
presentation without introducing unwanted audible artifacts.

As regards various room treatments, the reviews of various room treatment
products that I've read, while generally positive, don't indicate just how an
individual would know, before spending a considerable amount of money, just
what type (e.g. diffraction or absorption) of room treatment products to buy,
the number of such devices, their placement, etc. Therefore, I'd be rather
reluctant to invest in such products without some type of return privilege.

>>
>> "Wylie Williams" <wyberwil@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:<cbhqvh0jt2@news2.newsguy.com>...
>> > I agree with the conventional wisdom that room treatment done right is a
>> > major improvement but it has drawbacks. For one thing it gets very
>> > expensive very fast. And in many rooms it becomes the main element of
>> > decor, which can be a problem unless it is a dedicated listening room.
>Then
>> > consider the problem of the endless tinkering before discovering what to
>use
>> > and where to put it. The permutations, combinations and interactions can
>> > make it a complex task, possibly an endless one for many people. And
>once
>> > the project is "finished" will the difference be a true improvement or
>> > merely a change that palls after a while, requiring starting over. And
>what
>> > to do with the treatments that were not effective Return for refund? I
>doubt
>> > it.
>> >
>> > As an alternative could someone with experience with Behringer digital
>> > equalizers step in here with some advice. The idea of using an eq with a
>> > mike and a display which provide objective knowledge of what changes
>have
>> > been made is appealing.
>> >
>> > Wylie Williams
>> > The Speaker and Stereo Store
>> >
>> >
>> > "Steve P." <steve@podvoll.com> wrote in message
>> > news:D dDCc.95661$HG.16483@attbi_s53...
>> > > Tuning the acoustic environment often yields more improvement than any
>> > > equipment upgrade. As another here suggested, I have used book cases
>> > > to great effect. However, if your budget allows, I highly

Bruce J. Richman
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 3:11:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I have experimented some with EQ, and find it very helpful.
What I have done was take 1/6th octave warble tone
measurements with a RS SLM. Then use CoolEdit 2000
to flatten the results at the listening seat. The speakers
in use were pretty darn flat above 400 hz, so I confined
my EQ to 500hz and below.

The resulting sound was quite an improvement. Subjectively
it simply sounded more direct and correct. I think equipment
to do something similar in a digital domain at affordable cost
would be the biggest improvement likely to happen in sound
reproduction for the home.

Now when doing this, you couldn't get a quite perfect result.
You couldn't boost deep dips enough to fully compensate.
You would be clipping the amp if you did. But you could fill
them some, bring up smaller dips, and flatten all peaks.

The other useful thing was slightly tilting the entire 20-20k hz
band for best subjective result. Fairly small amounts were
quite useful.

Dennis

"Wylie Williams" <wyberwil@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:
> I agree. That's why the Behringer automatic setting digital EQs look so
> promising. But I have yet to hear any experiences from knowledgeable RAHE
> members about their experiences with equalization.
>
> I only persist in harping on EQs because my listening room is my living
> room, and it can't have significant treatment as a listening room without
> ruining it for all other purposes, so I continue to ponder the EQ
> alternative.
>
> Wylie Williams
> The Speaker and Stereo Store
>
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 6:44:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Dennis Moore" dmoore@bham.rr.com wrote:

>I have experimented some with EQ, and find it very helpful.
>What I have done was take 1/6th octave warble tone
>measurements with a RS SLM. Then use CoolEdit 2000
>to flatten the results at the listening seat. The speakers
>in use were pretty darn flat above 400 hz, so I confined
>my EQ to 500hz and below.
>
>The resulting sound was quite an improvement. Subjectively
>it simply sounded more direct and correct. I think equipment
>to do something similar in a digital domain at affordable cost
>would be the biggest improvement likely to happen in sound
>reproduction for the home.
>
>Now when doing this, you couldn't get a quite perfect result.
>You couldn't boost deep dips enough to fully compensate.
>You would be clipping the amp if you did. But you could fill
>them some, bring up smaller dips, and flatten all peaks.
>
>The other useful thing was slightly tilting the entire 20-20k hz
>band for best subjective result. Fairly small amounts were
>quite useful.
>
>Dennis

Actually the latter phase is one that many people miss. If you take a speaker
that is perfectly flat when measured in an anechoic chamber it will have a
falling response in the far field in a room. This is roughly 1.5 dB per octave
as frequency falls in a nornally sized room.

In a smaller space such as a car you can double the tilt for your house curve.

Just remember when using EQ in a room your house curve should fall by
approximately 1.5 dB per octave as frequency rises. Otherwise it'll sound way
too bright.
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 8:46:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Working from suggestions years ago by Peter Walker,
I and my friend agreed, 3 dB per decade was subjectively
most agreeable. Which is a touch less than the 1.5 dB
per octave you speak of using. I seem to recall that it
worked out to 1.1 dB per octave.

Dennis

"Nousaine" <nousaine@aol.com> wrote in message news:cb
> Actually the latter phase is one that many people miss. If you take a
speaker
> that is perfectly flat when measured in an anechoic chamber it will have a
> falling response in the far field in a room. This is roughly 1.5 dB per
octave
> as frequency falls in a nornally sized room.
>
> In a smaller space such as a car you can double the tilt for your house
curve.
>
> Just remember when using EQ in a room your house curve should fall by
> approximately 1.5 dB per octave as frequency rises. Otherwise it'll sound
way
> too bright.
>
Anonymous
June 29, 2004 8:46:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Dennis Moore" dmoore@bham.rr.com wrote:

Working from suggestions years ago by Peter Walker,
>I and my friend agreed, 3 dB per decade was subjectively
>most agreeable. Which is a touch less than the 1.5 dB
>per octave you speak of using. I seem to recall that it
>worked out to 1.1 dB per octave.
>
>Dennis
>
>"Nousaine" <nousaine@aol.com> wrote in message news:cb
>> Actually the latter phase is one that many people miss. If you take a
>speaker
>> that is perfectly flat when measured in an anechoic chamber it will have a
>> falling response in the far field in a room. This is roughly 1.5 dB per
>octave
>> as frequency falls in a nornally sized room.
>>
>> In a smaller space such as a car you can double the tilt for your house
>curve.
>>
>> Just remember when using EQ in a room your house curve should fall by
>> approximately 1.5 dB per octave as frequency rises. Otherwise it'll sound
>way
>> too bright.

Just as long as the user doesn't try to make it "flat" in a frequency sense.
Octave to octave balance should be even but the overall shape must have the
'tilt'.
June 30, 2004 2:39:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Dennis Moore wrote:
> I have experimented some with EQ, and find it very helpful.
> What I have done was take 1/6th octave warble tone
> measurements with a RS SLM. Then use CoolEdit 2000
> to flatten the results at the listening seat. The speakers
> in use were pretty darn flat above 400 hz, so I confined
> my EQ to 500hz and below.
>

So that is where the room influence comes in.

>
> Now when doing this, you couldn't get a quite perfect result.
> You couldn't boost deep dips enough to fully compensate.
> You would be clipping the amp if you did. But you could fill
> them some, bring up smaller dips, and flatten all peaks.
>

You can take out the peaks, and they are the disturbing part, but it is not
wise to fill out dips. You already realized that without room treatment it
is impossible to get an even response. But your approach seems widely
popular. That is why people say: "Do not use EQs". In the hand of
experienced sound specialists an EQ can be very beneficial, but what you
describe usually worsens the sound.


> The other useful thing was slightly tilting the entire 20-20k hz
> band for best subjective result. Fairly small amounts were
> quite useful.
>
> Dennis
>

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 12:18:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Well, Sorry Ban, but you are off the mark.

It didn't worsen the sound. Improved it considerably.
And the result was pretty darn flat. Just not amplifier
response flat.

I simplified my description of the entire process. I
also measured near field before measuring in the room.
To figure out what was in the speaker, and correctable
versus what was in the room, and not correctable.
So some dips filled in pretty well. Two which fortunately
weren't real deep were left alone.

So flattening all peaks, filling in some speaker response
dips, how do you figure what I did would make the sound
worse? That is what I don't get in your response.

Dennis

"Ban" <bansuri@web.de> wrote in message news:cbsr380e6r@news4.newsguy.com...
> Dennis Moore wrote:
> > I have experimented some with EQ, and find it very helpful.
> > What I have done was take 1/6th octave warble tone
> > measurements with a RS SLM. Then use CoolEdit 2000
> > to flatten the results at the listening seat. The speakers
> > in use were pretty darn flat above 400 hz, so I confined
> > my EQ to 500hz and below.
> >
>
> So that is where the room influence comes in.
>
> >
> > Now when doing this, you couldn't get a quite perfect result.
> > You couldn't boost deep dips enough to fully compensate.
> > You would be clipping the amp if you did. But you could fill
> > them some, bring up smaller dips, and flatten all peaks.
> >
>
> You can take out the peaks, and they are the disturbing part, but it is
not
> wise to fill out dips. You already realized that without room treatment it
> is impossible to get an even response. But your approach seems widely
> popular. That is why people say: "Do not use EQs". In the hand of
> experienced sound specialists an EQ can be very beneficial, but what you
> describe usually worsens the sound.
>
>
> > The other useful thing was slightly tilting the entire 20-20k hz
> > band for best subjective result. Fairly small amounts were
> > quite useful.
> >
> > Dennis
> >
>
> --
> ciao Ban
> Bordighera, Italy
>
!