Macca's Lash Up 2: Lash Harder

[Jimbo]

DPEQ is DSP.

Sorry I should have said do you fancy using something like Dirac vs PEQ?

Isn't PEQ more manual and time consuming?

[Macca]

Sorry I should have said do you fancy using something like Dirac vs PEQ?

Isn't PEQ more manual and time consuming?

Yes but it's better than letting the computer do it all. Although you can let it do it all then manually tweak it afterwards.

Anyway, since I'm CD only I don't have a computer hooked up to the system on a permanent basis. Don't really want that.

[Jimbo]

Yes but it's better than letting the computer do it all. Although you can let it do it all then manually tweak it afterwards.

Anyway, since I'm CD only I don't have a computer hooked up to the system on a permanent basis. Don't really want that.

Have you made some useful long term adjustments now?

[Macca]

Have you made some useful long term adjustments now?

No not been near it since the weekend. I'll muck about with it some more on Saturday.

[Jimbo]

No not been near it since the weekend. I'll muck about with it some more on Saturday.

I can imagine it takes a fair bit of mucking about to hear the differences made and work out what sounds best?

[Macca]

I'm torn between two stools at the moment

Topping/Phillips is well balanced and it has the groove factor but it's slightly dark while the Sony is more forensic, it really separates everything out, loads of space, singers and acoustic instruments all existing in their own acoustic.

The recording engineers art is laid bare. But does not have as much groove. Whereas with the T/P it's not so open and clear. Not much in it but its there.

I think the Philips is the issue. It is 45 years old and was never super-fancy, whereas the Sony is a decade younger and has top-dollar everything.

Both units let the music sound pretty and 'sweet' when its supposed to, never harsh or hard, so there's that. But I want to get everything in one package.

[Jimbo]

The Sony sounds the better option from your description. For me I like space and singers/instruments all in their own acoustic. That's how my vinyl set up sounds.

Problem to work out which is more correct but then I suppose it doesn't really matter. It should be the one you prefer. There is always a compromise. It is very difficult to have everything in a system and not least a system that plays everything very well? Usually it excels in one area better than another but the goal is to have your system treat everything even handed so you can enjoy any genre of music.


Unless you are a total head banger and then that makes the decision and what system you have a simpler task?

[Macca]

The Sony sounds the better option from your description. For me I like space and singers/instruments all in their own acoustic. That's how my vinyl set up sounds.

Problem to work out which is more correct but then I suppose it doesn't really matter. It should be the one you prefer. There is always a compromise. It is very difficult to have everything in a system and not least a system that plays everything very well? Usually it excels in one area better than another but the goal is to have your system treat everything even handed so you can enjoy any genre of music.


Unless you are a total head banger and then that makes the decision and what system you have a simpler task?

Good with rock is my number one priority but I listen to pretty much everything except classical.

I notice people who are into orchestral music often go for leftfield speakers - omni, horns, panels, electrostatics. So maybe that sort of music benefits from special treatment. But have usually found - good on rock = good on all types of popular music, and jazz too.

I think rock is hardest type of music to reproduce well, (maybe not as hard as orchestral?) so if it can make a good fist of that everything else is a given. At least that's been my experience.

[Jimbo]

Good with rock is my number one priority but I listen to pretty much everything except classical.

I notice people who are into orchestral music often go for leftfield speakers - omni, horns, panels, electrostatics. So maybe that sort of music benefits from special treatment. But have usually found - good on rock = good on all types of popular music, and jazz too.

I think rock is hardest type of music to reproduce well, (maybe not as hard as orchestral?) so if it can make a good fist of that everything else is a given. At least that's been my experience.

Yeah I tend to agree with you there that classical orientated folk tend to go for more etherial left field speakers where as Rock is really about trying to get a Marshall PA system to work in your room and control it? Loads of power, punchy bass and massive dynamic ability. Refinement would be lower down the list I feel?

[Barry]

Well I have been using electrostatics for near on the last 50 years. Clearly they are not the best speakers to use for rock: they are limited in both maximum SPL and with frequency response (in my case 97dB peak and 40Hz to 18kHz in response (-3dB points and asymptotic to -18dB/octave)); but what they do, they do with very good fidelity: very, very low THD; and with sufficient SPL to shake the floorboards.

I enjoy an absurd range of musical tastes, and whilst there maybe better speakers for certain genres of music, I'm so used to my speakers, and content with them, they will see me out.