|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.143.2.130
I've been buying a fair amount of gear in the past year or so. only to find out that everything i bought didn't sound as good as what i had in the first place!i still miss my Bozak 302A-Urbans, but just too big for our place. i replaced them with with KEF Calinda (think big LS3/5A with regards to sound). that was such a slam dunk sonically, that i started buying more stuff, trying to improve my system. BAD MOVE!
traded the bozaks for KEF 104/2. arguably Raymond Cooke's greatest achievement. blech! huge mids, boomy and rolled off bass (even with 240wpc thrown at them). just very colored. makes the bozaks sound like studio monitors ;-)
janszen Z-200. will keep them, but the power supplies sure are hokey. and you can't really kick the crap out of them to rock. they'll just arc. awesome for jazz though.
Thiel 03A - couldn't turn them down for $60. ratty cabinets annoyed me though. sold them to my friend who's a great woodworker.
Quad 405-2 amp/34 preamp. $250 for both in minty condition. had my friend go through them and mod them with burr-brown op amps. sound nice, but they ain't no macs!
while waiting for him to finish, i decided to buy an 8 month old mint Quad 909 for $700. everyone across the pond has such a hard on for this thing, i figured i had to try. beside KEF and Quad are matches made in heaven, right? eh, sounded decent, but never really pumped my nads, the 405-2 actually sounded much more musical.
so, back to my Calindas and McIntosh MC60's after a year of playing around...
still miss my bozaks too :-(
Follow Ups:
And have not changed or collected nearly as many different pieces of gear than many here. Not to suggest that I have limited my exposure to a wide range of components - just in the buying of them.For my primary music system, I've owned six speakers since 1972 (only two since 1982). Each one was most definitely an improvement over the previous model in one or more respects. Given my preferences, I cannot imagine improving my current ones.
1 reason not to sell anything. Then you can always go back.
ha ha! actually, i just sold my quad 405-2 amp and 34 preamp. it sounded very nice with my KEF Calindas, but not as nice as my macs and precision fidelity preamp. the guy was very excited to have the Quads (he uses mission 700).another reason, i know its lame, is that the quad is too small and cute looking. i'm a MAN i want BIG and CHROME!
LOL!
I have definately gone thru most phases that audiophiles go thru with regards to component swapping, tubes vs. SS, IC/speaker cable swapping and AC power conditioning but the most significant was my first pair of high end speakers and that was a pair of Acarian Systems Alon 1's.I had these for 4 years and was truly happy until the upgrade bug bit and I sold the Alon 1's to a friend and stepped up to the Acarian Systems Alon Lotus SE mk lll's.
I had a bear of a time getting them to gel in my system as the Alon 1's had and I never quite achieved the same cohesive/organic quality the Alon 1's portrayed
Suffice it to say that I have now purchased another set of Alon 1's which, with upgraded woofers, is one of THE best speakers for a medium sized room with the exception of Quads of course :-)
JMHO of course,
Cheers,
I still have my 1s, a very early pair, with the original lower power handling woofers. They're still great. I also have the Lotus Signature (alnico). They went back to the high compliance woofer as in the early version of the 1 for the sig. A real super speaker. Still, the 1s never fail to blow minds. Great fun.
I am actually using the 4 ohm Lotus woofers in my pair of Alon 1's with VERY good results.I bought the Lotus' with the 14 ohm woofers and decided to buy a pair of the 4 ohm woofers just in case I switched back to SS.....glad I did.
"I still have my 1s, a very early pair, with the original lower power handling woofers."
LOL...I blew one of those in the first year!! Still, I think they had a better sound quality than the higher compliance replacements.
"I also have the Lotus Signature (alnico)."
I wish I could afford to step up to the AlNiCo woofers and tweeters on my pair of Lotus' but when mated with a REL Stadium subbass system, I can survive :-)
Cheers,
Robby,Been there, done that, got the T shirt! So many of our moves turn out to be sideways or backwards.
One of the things I've observed is that "highly reviewed" is often the Kiss of Death. Not always, of course, but often enough that I just don't trust reviews. Hey, we could start a thread on that: How many highly reviewed, or popularly raved about products have you had that disappointed (or just plain sucked).
My short list:
Shure V15III
B&W 602.2
Dynaco ST120 and ST80
Kenwood KR-6050 receiver
Bozak B-401
Paradigm Studio 20 v1
Bose 301 series IV
Sony CDP-XA1ES
Carver Magnetic Power Amp (Cube, M200?)That's a good (bad?) start.
Didn't the KEF 104/2 have a matched EQ (CUBE) that was supposed to be used with it? Could the lack be part of your problem with those. I'll admit I wasn't blown away by them when I first heard them, even with the CUBE; but they weren't terrible. I just wasn't transported to a higher plane of existance. I thought the KEF 103.2 with Audio Pro B2-50 subs (2) sounded much better. That system did transport me (well, almost!).
I suspect your Calindas would benefit from a really good sub or two.
Haven't heard one. Only have heard the 97, but the V15 particularly the three is all the rave on most boards I read. Hmmm....maybe that's your point. I'm pretty happy that I went with a new AT440MLa rather than chasing after a used V15. Cost and the potential for problems with a used product convinced me.
That's exactly my point. Back when they were new, the V15III got all kinds of rave reviews. I just had to have one. Got it home and it was awful(At least in my system)and I promptly went back to the M91ED.I'm not anti-Shure, I loved the M95HE and had many other Shure's from the M90/M75 series. (M91ED, M93, M75ED, M75EJ II, M75B II, etc) My second choice was the AT13Ea.
Back in my vinyl days in the 70's and 80's, I used Shure V15III and IV cartridges in SME 3000 II arms on my Thorens 125 and 160 turntables. I preferred them because Shure provided all kinds of gear for accurately determining the lateral angle, offset angle, overhang, etc. The had protractors/templates, stylus gauges, levels and test records for insuring lack of tonearm/cartridge drift, transient response, channel separation and accurate bass and midrange.It was a painstaking process setting up the tonearm/cartridge for optimum performance, but well worth it with the great sound those Shure cartridges could deliver. I also used various AT cartridges in extra headshells with good results. However, I would imagine newer cartridges would outperform 30 year-old Shure cartridges deteriorating with age.
The 3009 Series II had a synergy with the V15. The Grace 707 also did. I am not not suprised that you liked the combination. The parts that deteriorate in a cartridge are replaced with a new needle. There are lots of inmates on the Vinyl Asylum praising the V15 Type II/III/IV with Jico stulus. I plan to try one on my Type IV.Best wishes,
Dave,Thanks for correcting my mistaken assumptions about the deterioration of the Shure cartridges, which for mamy years provided me with outstanding performance and listening pleasure.
I am envious of your commitment to vinyl. Unfortunately, I have too much invested in CDs to return to LPs. As I mentioned below, changing from analog to digital is one of the biggest regrets of my life.
Regards,
With top notch turntables available for a song at trift stores and records going for a $1 or less, now is the best time to get into vinyl. You have to like 80's and ealier recodings, which I do. If you like classical music, there are truckloads of great albums out there.
I've been that route with all the gauges, etc. It does make a difference, and so does the resistive and capacitive loading.As far as cartridges deteriorating, it would be mainly in the stylus suspension, if they used elastomers that aged. (most do)
I just fixed an ancient perpetuum-Ebner TT for a friend and used a 30 year old Shure M75 body with a new stylus. Works very well.
Back in the early 1970's, I picked up a mint condition McIntosh system (MC275, C22 and MR67) with a rack mounted Ampex 354, and, except for occasionally replacing tubes, used it with great satisfaction for another 17 years.Unfortunately, I decided to sell the system in 1988 to a Japanese gentleman who was exporting Mac components to Japan. I was moving to a smaller apartment at the time, and, with a bad back, did not want to carry the MC275 with me. It was a real "boat anchor", weighing over 70 pounds. I also sold the Ampex, my Thorens 125 & 160 turntables and LP collection and converted to CDs.
Even though I got a good price for my systen at the time, I have regretted that decision ever since. After many failed experiments with Adcoms and Carvers that were supposed to eliminate the CD midrange harshness and shrill highs, I finally found some vintage 1970's Marantz receivers that gave me some of the warm tube sound I remembered from my Mac system.
For the past five years, I've been using a Marantz 2265B with satisfying results. However I still reminisce nostalgically about the Mac system I once enjoyed.
Regards,
Barney
Awful? I might not go that far. I bought one to mate with my Ariston RD-11s / SME3009 II (Improved of course) in '74. While later Ortofons, Sonus(es) and Denons easily bettered it, the V-15 was pretty decent.Fast forward thirty plus years. I'm using a M97E in the same combo with my garage system. While it does not have the resolution of a Dynavector MC in the main system, it is quite listenable.
Like everything else, it's all about matching. In my case it was not a good match. Biggest thing for me was a lack of bass, even with Double Advents.
if I may ask? It needed a pretty low mass arm.
It was installed in a Dual. Probably a 1219 or 1229, but maybe a 1015, which did have a higher mass arm than later Duals. It was a long time ago, and I went through a number of models back then, including a much tweaked up Garrard Lab 80. Now that had a heavy arm!I took a lot of mass out of that lab 80 arm, but never got it low enough for the compliant Shure models.
The V15 III had very high compliance. I am not suprised that it did not sound right in those arms. Remember the Grace 707? That was the kind of arm the V15 III liked. It was common practice at the time, to put a high compliance cartrdge in a heavy arm, but it was not a good idea.I have an M97xe in a 707. I checked the resonance with a test record and it was as good as it gets! It sounds great too!
Lot of the comments over on AudioKarma, particularly from the Dual spinners, would make one think the V15 is manna from the gods for vinyl lovers. I almost went that route because I also have a Dual table. But on the Vinyl Asylum the 440MLa was the rave and it was new. On a whim and the thought that most of those dual spinners were 12xx series owners I thought my CS 5000 was a bit more modern and would benefit from the AT cart. No real sense to the decision, just a bit of luck and it worked out well.One of the things about not being able these days to walk into the local audio store and audition the newest gear is that purchases become a through of the dice so to speak. I think that contributes to those sideways moves and moves backwards.
A bought a Dual 601 a few years back to get the V15 III off it. It was a very "special" sounding cartridge for 2 days until the rear glue joint cracked and I lost 1 channel. Tried a Shure 94, 95, and 97xE but none had the magic. Best replacements turned out to be an AT110E and an AT440Mla. I agree, used cartridges are risky.
Larry.
I like the M97xe in a my Grace 707 arm. I have a V15 II and a V15 IV but I don't trust the needles. I will put a new needle in the IV when to M97xe starts to wear down. There are a lot of people on the Vinyl Asylum that like the 440 though.
yeah, i think the 104/2 just have too many damn drivers in there. i like the simplicity of the calindas and that lovely T27 tweeter! as far as a sub, I'm using a REL Q100. they sound great together!and i might be buying another pair of speakers due to curiosity again. a pair of Yamaha NS-1000M. I'm perfectly happy with the calindas but always wanted to try a pair of NS1000.
we'll see. the guy teeters on just wanting them to go to a good home (he's 86 years old - and knows what they are worth) and giving me a little discount over top eBay pricing.
they are worth at most, $500-$600/pair to me. yes, i know they are wonderful, but i ain't made of money ;-)
The NS-1000 and 1000M didn't quite make my list of disappointments, but it was close. I thought they were overly bright, although I have only heard them with Yamaha separates. Ithought the NS-690 was better sounding for general listening.REL makes good subs! A good choice I think.
I recently had a shootout(me, my neighbor, & another friend) between these three speakers. The Yammies and the KEF's tied for best overall, yammies better on rock, KEF better on vocals, the B&W's were good on classical but somewhat muddy. They were all being driven by SS > 100WPChannel. Very subtle changes on volume or tone easily shifted perception. The Yammies by-the-way had NS-690 tweeters instead of the original Berylliums(I ain't gonna pay $200 for no tweeter). The B&W's were frankly a dissapointment and I still love my KEF104aB's which are quite similar to the Calinda's. My son, a musician loves his NS690's!Jerry, I have a pair of Dahlquist M907's which still used the Dahlquist version of the masonite large Advent woofer in 1987. They have Vifa Mids and Tweeters and sound extremely open. I haven't done a side by side with the KEFs or NS1000's yet but I think they're gonna do pretty well. I've compared them against a pair of original Advents with new caps and like the M907's better.
Gary
Gary,I can well imagine that a softer sounding tweeter would be very nice in the NS-1000. Was that a drop in replacement?
A friend of mine has early 801's and while decent sounding, I was not that impressed, and particularly not for the $$$ he spent.
I've gone back and forth between the JBL L-110's I have (woofers replaced with Advent Legacy woofers and cabinets filled and sealed) and my modded Advents. I'd venture a guess that the Dahlquist 907 Vs Advents would be a similar situation. The L-110's have a rather sophisticated crossover with a 5" mid and 1" soft dome tweeter. The Advents are actually more accurate, the JBL's more engaging and lively.
at least from what i've been told. we'll see. my T27 tweeters are a bit spitty with solid state gear (Quad 909 and 405-2), smooth as heck with my mcintosh MC60s. so hopefully if i get them, the MC60s will sound nice with the yammies.
MC60 are nice, but won't but tickle the NS-1000[-]
But then, I like the various NS-1000 with big Yamaha separates.
the macs put out about 70wpc before clipping. should be more than adequate for the yammies.if not, then down the road the yammies go. i just screwed myself in the past year by buying a bunch of amps to power less efficient speakers. in the end, the MC60s are such superior amps IMHO to big SS power, that i will never make that mistake again.
if you think that big Yamaha separates have better sonics than McIntosh MC60s, then i guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I've never heard big Yamaha amps, but i do own a Quad 909 that puts out 240wpc and everyone in Britain has a huge hard on for. and i like my macs better by a WIDE margin.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: