- Finally ( O.K. a very , very, belated nodMan I wish JBL made something like that! That would be sweet. That would be an audiophile speaker, eh?
http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/...read.php?t=3272
__________________
I love the sound of Ti in the morning. It sounds like victory.), someone who makes me feel good about using Titanium thing-a-ma-jigs !
*
That was MY plan. I've got 4 200s and a single 160 to use as the center channel. But I haven't had the scratch to advance to 5.1 processing. I became disenchanted with HT after screwing around with Pro Logic systems. The sound effects always seem to come at the expense of intelligible dialogue.Originally Posted by jblnut
But back to the speakers.
In my opinion, a double pair of stacked (sacrilege. I know) XPL 200s rivals a pair of 4355s. Well....until the bass kicks in anyway. I think its got something to do with the large airy presentation delivered by a "tall" system. I'm fond of large Duntechs probably for the same reason.
Try it again.
Can you show us those babies?
We're a long way from ProLogic these days, so it's a good time to take the plunge, or at least get your toes wet. There are lots of used, low-priced DD, DTS, PLII receivers on eBay, often for under $300.
Out.
Prologic was a primitive analog hack - if you've got 5 XPL's just hanging around you *have* to get a decent, cheap digital receiver just to hear it ! Once you hear a good DTS movie or concert you'll look back and laugh saying "what the hell was I waiting for". I know I did....
You can find a nice Harmon/Kardon AVR300 for about $200 or less on ebay. I bought one about 3 years ago now and I still like it a lot. It's rated at only 50 wpc, but being a high-current HK it seems to deliver a lot more than that. It's got dolby digital as well as DTS decoding which is what you really want. It's not fancy - there's no crazy DSP sound modes or component video switching, but it's all you need to hear what good digital surround sound is about. After you're convinced (and you want to upgrade), just ebay it and get your $200 back.
In the $500 realm you can get a real monster - the HK AVR7000. It's got a lot more power and would really make those XPL's sing.
If you ever decide to "downsize" your XPL collection *please* let us know. They'll go to good homes, we promise.
jblnut
yes!!!!
If you ever decide to "downsize" your XPL collection *please* let us know. They'll go to good homes, we promise .
they would get very good homes
I've gone thru the surround sound phase and anymore I just listen to the movies and other stuff in stereo.
Really!?
I agree about music, I have yet to hear a surround mix that works for me, but for films... there is no comparison. With a properly set up 5.1 (I don't get the >5.1 schemes) system movies really come alive. It does work best with a projector and large screen, but even with our Sony Trinitron it adds a sense of dimension. It just takes more imagination.
Widget
Yes, and it's mostly because of my lack of room. Maybe I should make a trip to CA. and let you guys show me what a good system sounds like( seriously). I've got some good 5.1 stuff and possibly thinking of selling ( marantz AV9000 and ma700 mono blocks). Still debating in my mind if I will go 5.1. Of course what I use is different also. When I do stereo for movies, I use my dad's old C-35's ( with new E130's, 2425's 2402's - old stuff stored away) crossed over at 120 with 2235's for bass. If I do 5.1 then the C-35's take center ( split signal) and the 2235's are crossed ( 100)with the 4430's. Saw a thread somewhere where a guy was using C-33's ( I think for rears). I would like to build a pair with new stuff and use for rears. anyway here's a picture:
as you can see I'm very limited by size of the room ( it's all she'll give me) so I'm open minded on 5.1 I just haven't had a good room to do it in. So mostly I put my money into 2 channel. If I do get the performance series it'll be mostly for 2 channel and music listening. ( pictures over two years old, some things have changed)
I really agree 100% with what you said about music and surround sound. I didn't get the quad thing in the 70's and I don't get it now. I'm a firm believer that the more processing they do to a signal the more they "mess" it up. But that's me... I may be old fashioned in this.
"I agree about music, I have yet to hear a surround mix that works for me, but for films... there is no comparison. With a properly set up 5.1 (I don't get the >5.1 schemes) system movies really come alive. It does work best with a projector and large screen, but even with our Sony Trinitron it adds a sense of dimension. It just takes more imagination."
Hey Widget
Have you heard the Iso Mike demo ??? It's uses straight DSD and a simple but ingenious isolation method for the microphones. I got hear it at the Stereophille show. It seems it got mixed reviews that were polorized love/hate. They used 4 of the big Tads and huge Pass Monoblocks 2 per speaker. The demo was good in the hotel and gave you an idea. The way it was set up was the big TADs in the corners with chairs in the middle. The dynamics where there but it sounded a bit thin/bass shy and the balance was on the bright side. They also gave us a pair of SACD's recorded with the technique pure DSD 4 channel like the old Quad systems. When I played the disk at home I got to really hear what was there and it was amazing!!! Best surround I have ever heard the rear aplause which is really hard to get right was spot on. It really sounded like there was an audience behind me and the ambiance was great too. A very realistic sense of space. If you can try to get your hands on a demo disk to see what you think.
Rob
I heard the Iso Mike demo a couple of years ago.. they were using some custom speakers and I thought it was interesting, but not special... maybe they have gotten it wired over the last couple of years. (Or maybe they just changed their wires...sorry.
The TADs bass shy!!! I have heard their system as demo'd by TAD twice now. The first time they were using very large VTL amps and at this year's CES I heard them with the Pass Labs stuff. In both instances I thought the bass was a bit heavy. I guess it may be room dependent. Was this a TAD demo room too or did the Iso Mike folks set it up? It may be that Andrew Jones, the project leader at TAD prefers a heavier bass sound.
Widget
I love it when a man has a revelation.
Out.
I like TAD woofers, I have heard them, and own them. They arent bass shy! Depends what your doing with them. At a TAD demo room at the AES in manhattan some years back, they had their studio monitors with the TAD 1601A and the 4001/wooden horn setup, and they sounded a bit bright and thin, but I was told they were designed for accurate studio monitoring! Conversely, I have heard the 1601A in many other cabinets, and they were very full sounding! TAD also had their push/pull speaker system set up comprising of TAD 1603,s and the TAD 4002 compression driver with the AFAST horn! These were not thin, and quite punchy, and dynamic! I like both the 1601,s and the 1603,s! TAD said much of the reason one punched and the other didnt was in the crossover! One speaker system was inteneded for sound reinforcement, the other studio monitoring!
They are a bit different sounding than JBL, but they are clean, and give great definition!
scottyj
You mean...C-35's aren't the latest and greatest innovation???? Is there some newer?, something I've missed the last 50 years?
"The TADs bass shy!!! I have heard their system as demo'd by TAD twice now. The first time they were using very large VTL amps and at this year's CES I heard them with the Pass Labs stuff. In both instances I thought the bass was a bit heavy."
"They arent bass shy! Depends what your doing with them. At a TAD demo room at the AES in manhattan some years back, they had their studio monitors with the TAD 1601A and the 4001/wooden horn setup, and they sounded a bit bright and thin, but I was told they were designed for accurate studio monitoring!"
I didn't say it was the TADS. It was the set-up. I was dead center in the room where the nulls would be. Most of the material was not bass heavy to begin with. Piano sounded nice and solid but on the orchestral material it was missing the last octave. There was more lowend at home than in the demo.
http://www.audiofederation.com/hifii...ack9/index.htm
I think the attached review is a bit harsh it wasn't that bad.
Rob
"I think the attached review is a bit harsh it wasn't that bad."
they should have tried using C-35's instead...ah yes, nothing a 15" mid-range and exponential horn slapping you in face.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote