Home speakers

I'm about to say something that might not sit well with some here:

 

Neither headphones nor earbuds are sonically correct as far as soundstage goes, i.e. width, depth & height of the music and, at times, the size of the musical instrument and/or the voice of the singer. The "image" takes place on top of the listener's head in a compressed/constricted way and that's just wrong. Some of the modern esoteric-grade headphones from Sennheiser, Ultrasone and AKG are starting to offer more correct soundstage due to advancement in materials and designs but compare to speakers, they are still a far cry. Earbuds are worse because they fit inside of the ear and they create a seal between itself and the listener. There just isn't room for alternative or better design. Unless they start playing with time-delay circuitry (which there won't be space for it unless one carries a outboard processor; and even at that, where does it get the power from?); there should not be much change in the foreseeable future. Earphones were invented for the purpose of sound isolation where the listening environment is challenged. They were never meant for anything else. The Sony Walkman took down that rule and started the "personal hi-fi" era which is still going strong today. Earbuds were an evolution and arose from technology and materials advancement. But neither are correct. Think about it, if headphones are correct, why do we need speakers? Why can't we just have a box that essentially houses 3 or 4 headphone amps and the listener(s) can just plug in the cans and enjoy the tunes. Heck, each may even choose their own brand of cans with its own tonal signature so you will have 4 people listening to the same tune simultaneously but with 4 different tones in a relatively small environment. So obvious, there is something that cans and buds simply cannot reproduce or replace.

 

Some prefer earbuds because the "seal" or isolation from ambient noise is better. Portability also plays a role. But in truth, earbuds are seldom tonally correct. Most are exaggerated and imbalance. Plenty put emphasis on the bass. And there is this huge misconception that heavy & strong bass is good. Sensation-wise, yes, it's simple psychology that we follow a pleasing rhythm. But that does not mean it is sonically balanced and correct. Go to a jazz club or something as simple as watching a school band perform and one would understand what live music is like and how different recorded music is. Even better and more obvious when one plays a musical instrument. Just because it has a better-defined bass or there is more "ummph" to it does not mean it is better.

 

I'm no audiophile but I have two headphones setup I use:

 

Setup 1) Sennheiser HDVD800 Amp + Sennheiser HD800 Heaphones

Setup 2) Cambridge Audio DAC Magic + Woo Audio WA6 + Sennheiser HD650 Headphones

 

For some reason I actually prefer the sound of setup #2 (sounds a lot warmer to me), I'm guessing setup #1 is more accurate? Is the difference in sound I'm hearing mostly from tube amp vs solid state? I've spent a lot more time listening with setup #2, so maybe I'm more conditioned to the sound of it and I will start liking setup #1 better if I use it more?

I use a full surround Polk setup in my theater, sonos bar/sub in most rooms and apple airpods for gym/travel.

not the best sound available but does the trick for me.

Yes Sonos suddenly was in every millenial-techy podcast as a sponsor, that should say something. As far as headphones,why are over the ears so much better than earbuds, or is it not by much? I've bought these last year, and they are incredible with the bass range. They blew 2 pairs of Senhs out of the water https://www.amazon.com/Sony-MDRXB50AP-Extra...t/dp/B00JRD13T8 I can't believe they cost this little actually. They are heavy in the ear though.

 

Yeah, concur with VCR here.

 

It's actually somewhat easier to get a driving midbass from good earbuds than headphones (not in all cases, esp. if you hook up headphones to an amp). My Shure SE115 has more midbass than any of the proper headphones I've owned, comparing them all unamplified. The efficiency is noticeably greater too with the earbuds, so that could be playing a role too.

 

But overall nor the bass nor midrange sound as full. The "stage", and sense of air while not great on standard headphones is way better than earbuds, simply due to the massive size difference.

 

Earbuds can sound good but never as good as good proper headphones, in the pure sound quality sense. I will take good earbuds over BEATS any day of the week.

 

If it's just EDM or other hard hitting music then maybe it can be considered better, unless you get headphones biased for deep bass.

I'm no audiophile but I have two headphones setup I use:

 

Setup 1) Sennheiser HDVD800 Amp + Sennheiser HD800 Heaphones

Setup 2) Cambridge Audio DAC Magic + Woo Audio WA6 + Sennheiser HD650 Headphones

 

For some reason I actually prefer the sound of setup #2 (sounds a lot warmer to me), I'm guessing setup #1 is more accurate? Is the difference in sound I'm hearing mostly from tube amp vs solid state? I've spent a lot more time listening with setup #2, so maybe I'm more conditioned to the sound of it and I will start liking setup #1 better if I use it more?

 

If you think #2 is a lot warmer than #1 then that is a good sign for you. Just based off the fact that you are running a decent dedicated DAC plus the 650s being warmer than the 800 (IMO), the Sennheiser amp will have its work cut out for it against the Woo.

 

"Warm" is usually defined as being more full in the midrange and rolled off somewhat at the top end. It feels like it has more "body", relaxed, less listening fatigue.

 

I never get caught up into accuracy or detail. Just figure it's an overrated characteristic to focus on (even more overrated than 0-60 or lap times), and I don't submit to the idea that just because something is warm or smooth that it is not accurate, or not as accurate as something else.

 

 

Was never and still am not much of a Sonos fan. Convenience, yes; good sounding, barely made the grade IMO. Good packaging & marketing though.

 

You talking the Sonos systems used as a package system, or Sonos as a digital input run through a high end DAC?

 

 

 

 

 

 

You talking the Sonos systems used as a package system, or Sonos as a digital input run through a high end DAC?

 

Frankly, I am inclined to say both. But I can see the rationale on Sonos being the "decipher/transport" feeding a good DAC to yield a marginal improvement. I tried that with a Chord Hugo DAC awhile back and while the improvement is noticeable, it really isn't night & day. I also highly doubt anyone who chooses Sonos would go through the trouble of adding a standalone hi-end DAC to the chain (you & I might be the only exception; that is if we ever go with Sonos. )

 

Agree with the cans & buds' purpose is to keep the tunes and party going. There are quality buds out there with decent sound quality and some are better than the average cans. But those, IMO, are getting ludicrously expensive and they are not exactly built to last either. I have the Shure SE535 that I use for short-haul flights.

I'm no audiophile but I have two headphones setup I use:

 

Setup 1) Sennheiser HDVD800 Amp + Sennheiser HD800 Heaphones

Setup 2) Cambridge Audio DAC Magic + Woo Audio WA6 + Sennheiser HD650 Headphones

 

For some reason I actually prefer the sound of setup #2 (sounds a lot warmer to me), I'm guessing setup #1 is more accurate? Is the difference in sound I'm hearing mostly from tube amp vs solid state? I've spent a lot more time listening with setup #2, so maybe I'm more conditioned to the sound of it and I will start liking setup #1 better if I use it more?

 

Yes, sprite, I recall you asked me on those.

As Fellippe said, the HD800 emphasizes on high definition. It is definitely more "hi-fi" but the HD650 is actually closer to what real music sounds like. In an A vs. B comparison using direct plug-in to say a CD player with headphone jack, the 800 will win over the 650 on just about every criteria: better dynamics & better definition etc... But, for the exact reasons, one will result in hearing fatique sooner from the 800. The same applies to the newer HD800S and the HDV820. It's almost "too hi-fi" and doesn't sound real! I do give it credit for having a more correct soundstage than most headphones though. The 650 is warmer sounding as you and Fellippe had said and thus is the better cans for extended use. The HDVD800 is no comparison to the Cambridge or should I say their criteria is different. Again, definition vs. real sounding. The Woo would likely add further warmth to the sound.

 

You have asked one of the greatest debate in the hi-fi world: tube vs. solid state. In a nutshell & very general terms, SS is "faster" sounding with better definition and dynamics. Tube has more realistic with more "meat" and better warmth to the sound. Yes, tube is more euphonic and some see it as more "coloured". But if it sounds more "right" to the actual thing, then I would consider that a better choice. Have you tried connecting the 800 to the Woo + Cambridge? Theoretically, that might be the ideal combo that has it all.

I use a full surround Polk setup in my theater, sonos bar/sub in most rooms and apple airpods for gym/travel.

not the best sound available but does the trick for me.

 

And that's what really counts. So long as you are satisfied with them; since they are your systems, all is well.

Probably not exactly what the OP is thinking but i built my AV room last winter using Klipsch Reference series in an 11 channel Dolby Atmos surround system. There are a pair of SVS SB2000 12" subs and a pair of SVS PC13 Ultra's. I'm using a Marantz SR-7010 receiver and 3 external amps. Sounds pretty good.

Can't upload a second pic to save my life. Weird.

Yes, sprite, I recall you asked me on those.

As Fellippe said, the HD800 emphasizes on high definition. It is definitely more "hi-fi" but the HD650 is actually closer to what real music sounds like. In an A vs. B comparison using direct plug-in to say a CD player with headphone jack, the 800 will win over the 650 on just about every criteria: better dynamics & better definition etc... But, for the exact reasons, one will result in hearing fatique sooner from the 800. The same applies to the newer HD800S and the HDV820. It's almost "too hi-fi" and doesn't sound real! I do give it credit for having a more correct soundstage than most headphones though. The 650 is warmer sounding as you and Fellippe had said and thus is the better cans for extended use. The HDVD800 is no comparison to the Cambridge or should I say their criteria is different. Again, definition vs. real sounding. The Woo would likely add further warmth to the sound.

 

You have asked one of the greatest debate in the hi-fi world: tube vs. solid state. In a nutshell & very general terms, SS is "faster" sounding with better definition and dynamics. Tube has more realistic with more "meat" and better warmth to the sound. Yes, tube is more euphonic and some see it as more "coloured". But if it sounds more "right" to the actual thing, then I would consider that a better choice. Have you tried connecting the 800 to the Woo + Cambridge? Theoretically, that might be the ideal combo that has it all.

 

I actually haven't tried yet but will connect the 800s to Woo when I get back stateside. (Europe for the winter months).

 

Any thoughts on the Technics SL-1200GR? I'm looking to switch out my Project Debut Carbon. Any other table you would recommend over it in the $1-2k range? This is for my Rotel + BW setup.

 

 

I actually haven't tried yet but will connect the 800s to Woo when I get back stateside. (Europe for the winter months).

 

Any thoughts on the Technics SL-1200GR? I'm looking to switch out my Project Debut Carbon. Any other table you would recommend over it in the $1-2k range? This is for my Rotel + BW setup.

 

You looking to scratch records?

 

If not, a Clear Audio Concept would be a better table:

 

http://clearaudio.de/en/products/turntables-concept.php

 

And that's what really counts. So long as you are satisfied with them; since they are your systems, all is well.

 

If he really had the bug he'd be down a car or two.

Any thoughts on the Technics SL-1200GR? I'm looking to switch out my Project Debut Carbon. Any other table you would recommend over it in the $1-2k range? This is for my Rotel + BW setup.

 

You looking to scratch records?

 

If not, a Clear Audio Concept would be a better table:

 

http://clearaudio.de/en/products/turntables-concept.php

 

Agree with Fellippe. The Technics is good for "plug & play" application with minimal setup. But it also limits the user's tinkering which could be a good and/or bad thing. Its reputation is like the slogan of a Timex watch: it takes a licking & keeps on ticking. It's built to last so you can almost abuse it and it would still work property. But is it a proper hi-fi turntable? Not really.

 

You might also wish to consider the VPI Prime Scout. Clearaudio is European (Germany) and VPI is American (New Jersey). Each has its own sound and it narrows down to your person preference.

Probably not exactly what the OP is thinking but i built my AV room last winter using Klipsch Reference series in an 11 channel Dolby Atmos surround system. There are a pair of SVS SB2000 12" subs and a pair of SVS PC13 Ultra's. I'm using a Marantz SR-7010 receiver and 3 external amps. Sounds pretty good.

 

 

Why TV instead of projector with that kind of sound setup? Why two subs? Are you covering over the lower components with mesh or grille for esthetics? Thanks for sharing.

Why TV instead of projector with that kind of sound setup? Why two subs? Are you covering over the lower components with mesh or grille for esthetics? Thanks for sharing.

 

The speakers on the stage are covered behind acoustically transparent cloth frames so you can't see them. The reason for four subs is really just my not really knowing what I was doing. For home theater you really want the boom of the bigger ported subs vs the sealed that you see in the first pic. I'm currently just running the PC 13 cylinders on their own. It's hard to bland ported and sealed subs.

Why TV instead of projector with that kind of sound setup?

 

Sorry, missed this.

 

The room is not real big and again I'm fairly new to all of this. I had never seen a nice projection system in the beginning but I knew I liked the vivid colors of" the big 4k TV's. 4K projectors were almost $10k when I bought the TV for $7k, an 85" Samsung. Now the TV is more like $5k. I've only got room for a maximum of 105" screen so I'm hoping that the 100" TV's become affordable in the future.

4K projectors were almost $10k when I bought the TV for $7k, an 85" Samsung. Now the TV is more like $5k. I've only got room for a maximum of 105" screen so I'm hoping that the 100" TV's become affordable in the future.

 

 

Regrettably, that likely will not happen anytime soon. Cost/affordability is actually relative. Supply is the issue. A 100” TV has a huge surface area. Weight and fragility will be the obvious issues. The cost of a box that’s sturdy and safe enough to ship a TV of that size will be plenty. Imagine the retooling required for making a 100” screen. Sure they already made 85’s, what’s another 15”? This isn’t like slicing paper or cutting fabric for garment manufacturing. It’s actually quite difficult. The biggest challenge is rejection rate, i.e. dead pixels. An active screen of that size will be severely prone to dead pixels, once it exceeds a certain count, the entire piece is scrapped and they have to factor in the costs and lost of revenue on that. Overall, it simply does not make economic sense; not to mention the added hazards involved. Once the screen size reaches triple digits, most would go projection.

 

You might be pleased to know that entry-level 4k projectors start at around $3000 now. Prosumer-grade ones are still at $15-20k. Pro/industrial-grade ones are at $80-100k and they are huge. The one big advancement is that similar to hi-end cars’ headlights, some hi-end projectors are now using laser as a light source. This greatly increases bulb life and luminosity consistency and diminishes cooling works which means much less cooling fan noises. For those that care, it should also be a lot more environmental friendly as well.

Regrettably, that likely will not happen anytime soon. Cost/affordability is actually relative. Supply is the issue. A 100” TV has a huge surface area. Weight and fragility will be the obvious issues. The cost of a box that’s sturdy and safe enough to ship a TV of that size will be plenty. Imagine the retooling required for making a 100” screen. Sure they already made 85’s, what’s another 15”? This isn’t like slicing paper or cutting fabric for garment manufacturing. It’s actually quite difficult. The biggest challenge is rejection rate, i.e. dead pixels. An active screen of that size will be severely prone to dead pixels, once it exceeds a certain count, the entire piece is scrapped and they have to factor in the costs and lost of revenue on that. Overall, it simply does not make economic sense; not to mention the added hazards involved. Once the screen size reaches triple digits, most would go projection.

 

You might be pleased to know that entry-level 4k projectors start at around $3000 now. Prosumer-grade ones are still at $15-20k. Pro/industrial-grade ones are at $80-100k and they are huge. The one big advancement is that similar to hi-end cars’ headlights, some hi-end projectors are now using laser as a light source. This greatly increases bulb life and luminosity consistency and diminishes cooling works which means much less cooling fan noises. For those that care, it should also be a lot more environmental friendly as well.

 

That does make sense in regards to manufacturing the large panels. I'll likely enjoy this one for a while and see where it all is in the future. I did prewire the room for a projector as well so that will be an option for me when the time comes to change it up. I'm still missing trimwork and such so I've got to get the room finished first. It's been a time consuming project that killed a year of weekends but now that it is near complete it seems all worth it.

 

VCR, any thoughts on the jvc sk-s44 speakers or Marantz SP1000? Going to look at a used pair of the jvc today, but at this point maybe I just need to go check these out and listen. I have a couple EPI M90 which actually sound better than my Infinity (even before the Infinity broke), so looking for something similar to the EPI. Looks like old school for me at least for the time being.

^Well, frankly, Japanese speakers of that era are not something to write home about. You get a lot of speaker for the money in terms of size (as in cabinet volume) but sound quality-wise, it's so so at best. Based on your preferences, I would suggest you try looking for some vintage Boston Acoustics A-series as in A-60, A100, A120, A150 etc... Those would probably be your cup of tea.

^Well, frankly, Japanese speakers of that era are not something to write home about. You get a lot of speaker for the money in terms of size (as in cabinet volume) but sound quality-wise, it's so so at best. Based on your preferences, I would suggest you try looking for some vintage Boston Acoustics A-series as in A-60, A100, A120, A150 etc... Those would probably be your cup of tea.

 

Thanks for the direction, those jvc sure were big but as you say low on the quality (lots on the high tones & minimal bass). The Marantz sold quickly so I didn't see those. Will focus on craiglist Boston Acoustics and see how those sound. MY EPI really rock the house with richness. Actually would like to find some of those locally...needle & a haystack. But for now, 2 are good and the wife hopes I don't find 2 more.

^No Problem.

Well, I did mention about the WAF on page 1, Post #16, didn't I?

Best of luck on your hunt.

^No Problem.

Well, I did mention about the WAF on page 1, Post #16, didn't I?

Best of luck on your hunt.

Yeah WAF is right because she sure prefers her expensive purses rather than speakers.

 

But one more thought, until the day I decide on some new or used speakers. I am looking to hear some vintage Boston Acoustics A-series, but none in my area that I can find yet. So on the cheaper side in the time being I was thinking of trying to repair those busted Infinity ES100 and see how that sounds. I did repair that lower portion on the Infinity a few years ago, as shown in the photo which was pretty easy, but this mid speaker is a "real speaker" and not sure if it is worth my inexperienced talents. But to the average Joe it just seems like foam "glue & play" to me. I would only be out $20, but would hate to cause more harm than good if I screwed it up to where a pro couldn't fix my mistake. Plus another issue, I see it says 4ohms on the Infinity speakers and my other two EPI that I run are 8ohms. Not sure if that makes any difference.

 

Here is a speaker repair kit I saw on ebay:

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/2-Infinity-8-ERS-8...hcAAOSwnGJWTNY-

 

My Infinity ES100:

 

IMG_1236 by JanDaMan, on Flickr

IMG_1237 by JanDaMan, on Flickr

^Well, you more or less summed it up yourself. Your previous repairs were on a passive radiator which is basically a piece of wafer, there are no electronics, coils and wires involved. So it's easy. This one is a little trickier as it has all those. That being said, it's not difficult. The trick is to ensure to use as little glue as possible (but enough to get the new foam to adhere properly to both the cone and the rim of course); and the glue should be spread evenly (no tear-drop and no lumping of any kind anywhere). A very steady pair of hands would help immensely and you might want to use a high-grade small paint brush which you can buy from an art supply store instead of the generic brush that came with the repair kit. Be careful not to break the wires that are connected to the cone as those are decades-old or you will need to re-solder them back on.

 

4ohms impedance vs. 8 ohms is not really a problem. Most amps would be able to handle either. Both are efficient speakers so the demand for power and current really aren't issues at all.

 

Best of luck on the repairs.