Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Tweaker's Asylum

Re: Scan-Speak speaker break-in question.

165.247.149.87

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Tweaker's Asylum ] [ FAQ ]

In Reply to: Re: Scan-Speak speaker break-in question. posted by manx on May 15, 2000 at 09:26:51:

Thanks for the responses!
This is what I have:
--MTM system using 8545's and 9500 tweeter - North Creek's Rhythm unlimited system
--CAL Icon Mk. II CD Player
--Rotel RB980BX Amp
--Rotel Pre-amp
--Transparent Music Link interconnects and bi-wire speaker cables
Any suggestions for improvement?
You guys are definitely right when you say that these speakers let you hear all the diffrences between different components. Just out of curiosity, I plugged in my Panasonic portable into the system, and the sound was much different.
As a side note, I have a small pair of NHT Super Zeros which I have had in this system before, and the sound has always seemed rather forward sounding. Also, plugging my Grados (SR-60s) into the headphone jack of my Rotel pre-amp, the midrange is also forward sounding.
Maybe it is my components?? I'm just having a hard time understanding how the 8545's can sound this bad when speaker systems that use these drivers are constantly praised by the critics as being great sounding.

Follow Ups:

Re: Scan-Speak speaker break-in question. Thorsten 12:25:53 05/15/00 (1)
Hi there,
I will restrain myself to one answer to this question:
> I'm just having a hard time understanding how the 8545's can
> sound this bad when speaker systems that use these drivers
> are constantly praised by the critics as being great sounding.
I would like to note that many components that I would personally class as extremely bright and agressive sounding receive high praise from critics. Often they are called "ruthlessly revealing" which I nowadays have come to understand to mean "painfully agressive"....
In addition many of the established critics are at an age where I must question their HF hearing abilities, but adittionally, people "hear" very different. It might very well be that my own hearing is quite a bit off the general line.
From where I stand I have yet to hear a Speaker using the 8545 as Bass/Midrange that I would find listenable for any reasonable duration. Mike McCall from Shamrock Electronics has designed a Speaker with the 8545 (the Eire) that aparently does not suffer from this problem. From converstaions and discussions of the X-Over topology I know that part of the "secret" is a very low X-Over Frequency with VERY steep final slopes....
Perhaps you'd want to talk to him.
Ciao Thorsten
- Scan-Speak Riphagen 13:17:51 05/17/00 (0)
  Howdie TL,
  Speaking of scan speak, the Seas used in the older watt modules CA17RCY are now replaced by the 8545 I think (and it doesn't sound better i have come to understand). you suggested a CB17RCY as a driver in you David/Goliath but it seem SEAS has ditched most paper woofers. suggestions for yet another replacement ????.
Re: Scan-Speak speaker break-in question. Ears 11:48:04 05/15/00 (4)
Have you heard many MTM systems? More often than not, they sound too forward to suit me. Might also just be a room/positioning problem; I wouldn't write off the Rhythm until you've exhausted those possibilities. FWIW, I have the Speaker City Scanspeak 7(8545k & 9500 in a TM), and it doesn't sound aggressive to me at all.
- Re: Scan-Speak speaker break-in question. manx 22:49:04 05/15/00 (2)
  Hi Ears, Are you basically saying that you feel the TM sounds smoother (less aggresive) than an MTM? if thats true (in general), I was thinking about extending a transmission line out the back of my cabinet isolating my upper (or lower)woofer and using something like the 2.5 way series X-over design from LC Audio. This would leave the mid response to one of the woofers and still allow for the combined low-end response of both (plus the extended response of the TL). I'm thinking that the Proac 3.8 may be built in such a manner (the 3.8 boasts a response of 20-20K). Any thoughts?
  - Re: Scan-Speak speaker break-in question. Ears 00:40:47 05/16/00 (1)
    Like Thorsten said, people hear things differently, but in general MTM's do seem more forward to me. I don't know enough about speaker design to know why that would be the case though.
    I think I'd ask for advice over at the Madisound discussion board before making any drastic changes in your Rhythm. PEB(Phil Bamberg) does many MTM designs(including an 8545 & 9500 model if I remember correctly). There's also a guy named Johnny over at the Madisound board who seems pretty knowledgeable and is a TMM advocate. Pretty sure you're right about the Proac 3.8 being a ScanSpeak 2.5 way design.
    - Madisound Discussion Board
    - Thanks, I'll check it out (nt) manx 07:31:05 05/16/00 (0)
      >
- Second that one Edp 14:05:33 05/15/00 (0)
  It is not hard to make the 8545 or 8545K listenable. I do it for many hours. The driver is a very high performance unit that has some nasties. Once the nasties are dealt with, then one is left with either the source or room to look at.
  I have never heard a Northcreek Rhytum. I have heard many TM and MTM setups that have 8545 based units. Not all are great, most have very good capabilities, some are outstanding. If you really get stuck, go the Madisound discussion page and ask for PEB. He is a speaker manufacturer, who has been known to help people out of bad/inappropriate commercial xovers. He also sells a MTM 8545 setup.
  But I do like your (Ears) suggestion that the MTM may also be at fault.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Parts Connexion

You can not post to an archived thread.