Does size matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John

Yes Big ATC's require a lot of power to row them along, but other speakers have a lot more sensitivity and are lot more eaiser to drive

---

I quite agree, but I still think 30 Watts of ANY quality wouldn't be enough to get Spendor SP100's to very high levels. At low levels, definitely though..

Anyway, judging by current market conditions, AVI sell all their stuff online and ATC don't seem to promote their domestic market overmuch, although their new pre/power appears interesting for £2500 and sounds better than previous efforts too I'm informed.

I've just answered Marco's question too - If Croft amps look too "hair shirt" no matter how good they are (they are :)) and Naim bores you rigid before you see the prices they ask, then this new ATC pairing might just do the bizz. Servicing shouldn't be an issue either with a six year warranty..

Hi Dave,

I was going to answer your post elsewhere, but decided to go straight to this one instead:

Quote:

---

I quite agree, but I still think 30 Watts of ANY quality wouldn't be enough to get Spendor SP100's to very high levels. At low levels, definitely though..

---

LOL! If only you had been there during some of the sessions I've had in the past with the Spendors and the Copper amp, you'd not be saying that - I can assure you!! :lol:

Remember that it's 30W Pure Class A, which makes a significant difference.

Let me put it this way to you....................

The Copper amp drove the SP100s MUCH louder and with considerably more headroom than the 200W solid-state ECS monoblocks it replaced ever did, which pissed all over the Naim NAP135 monoblocks I had before the ECSs (as did the 30W lightly-modified Yaqin Chinese valve amp drive the SP100s harder and louder, which I had before the Copper amp) - remember that this experience is primarily what made me move from ss amps to valves in the first place, so bang goes your theory about power output! ;)

Quite simply, IME, valve watts are a very different thing from solid-state watts, subjectively, in real world applications in terms of how dynamic range in music is handled. Much of the effect of the higher power output of ss amps is diluted in overly complicated circuits to the detriment of the music signal, which often ends up sounding flat and 'sat-on' in comparison, so although on paper there is more power available, it often doesn't translate that way in terms of how the music signal is reproduced and heard by the human ear.

This is yet another example of measurements/specs only telling half of the story!

I'm sure that our resident SET fans like Ali would agree with me after experiencing on many occasions the deafening sound one can produce with 2 watts and quality high-efficiency (100db+) speakers - indeed I've heard it myself and the results are WAY louder (and superior sounding) to anything I've heard from any ss amp in conjunction with speakers of standard efficiency.

Yes, the Tannoys are more efficient than the SP100s (95db, as opposed to 90db) which is a huge difference, but that doesn't mean that the Copper amp didn't drive the SP100s to quite insane levels, and without any audible clipping. However, what I'm getting now from the Lockwoods is a massive league beyond that... The loudness level the system is capable of now in my relatively small room honestly has to be heard to be believed, and definitely isn't for the fainthearted.... :gig:

Let's hope that Barry (who's visiting me on Saturday, and which I'm very much looking forward to) can handle it and doesn't get the fright of his life!! I'll put some waterproof sheets on the sofa just in case :eyebrows:

Marco.

Marco, I've heard this myself, but volts is volts and amps is amps and there's NO MAGIC about it. It's just the clipping behaviour of good valve amps is so much better than than many SS amps, including the Naims, which had loads of odd order and crossover distortion long before clipping arose (they're better now though, but at a huge price premium).

I'm sure you can drive your copper amp flat out with no listening fatigue at all - I'm not attacking them for Chrissakes, just trying to point out that it's HOW an amp clips and behaves on transients that is so important. Anthony may be able to supply more meaningful specs, but a specified 30 watts is 30 watts, even if it is "Valve" Watts :D

I don't know, I find 350W per channel perfectly adequate :)

LOL, Martin! ;)

Dave, I know that you're not "attacking" the Copper amp, but whatever way you cut it the statement below of yours is WRONG with a capital 'W', (based on my extensive listening experience of the equipment in question):

Quote:

---

I still think 30 Watts of ANY quality wouldn't be enough to get Spendor SP100's to very high levels.

---

30 Class A valve watts are in my experience (subjectively) considerably louder than 200W of solid-state, through 90db Spendor SP100s, using either my Copper amp or ECS monos as partnering amplifiers. The Copper amp drove the SP100s to insanely loud levels, and without audible clipping, much louder than the ECS monos ever did.

That's the truth of the matter, muchacho! :)

It's not specs that count in the final analysis, but how equipment actually reproduces recorded music in 'real-world' applications.

Marco.

I really liked the AVI speakers we sold, Neutrons, Pro 9 etc, but we came into it late on and were selling what was left before the switch over. However Ashley did keep the Pro 9 and Neutron going for a bit longer but the larger speakers were discontinued. Crazy thing is after taking on AVI it took 9 months to sell any then it went daft and it became very hard to get anymore. I looked to AVI to replace Ruark when they dropped their Prologue range (stupid Ruark put all their eggs in the Sevenoaks basket and when they dumped Ruark in favour of Monitor Audio ERRRRRRRRRRRRR :doh::eek::(:steam: Ruark nearly went tits up after that...but survived thankfully and then discontinued some of my fave English speakers. All because of bloody What Hi-Fi).

Anyway I agree with Ashley if you see S/H Passive AVI speakers have a punt they are very good imho/e.


Regards D S D L

Agreed. Their 'legacy hi-fi' was always superb in my experience, and offered high SPPV, which is why it puzzles me slightly why they abandoned it completely when clearly there still exists a sizeable market for such equipment, as evidenced by the sales of 100s of other high-end manufacturers currently selling such equipment to enthusiasts all over the world...

I'm sure that their ADM9s are well-designed and do a particular job very well, but they are not the 'giant-killers' purported ad nauseam by Mr James on every Internet site that will host his blinkered agenda.

Marco.

Obviously there wasn't a market for A*I 'legacy' equipment or else they would still be making it. Also, the computer speakers must be very profitable.

Agree about the 'giant killing'. They are competent, nothing more.

Quote:

---

Obviously there wasn't a market for A*I 'legacy' equipment or else they would still be making it. Also, the computer speakers must be very profitable.

---

Dave, I think that your second sentence is nearer the truth than your first one, but only tells part of the story.

AVI as a company (or perhaps Ashley himself?) decided that traditional separates hi-fi had no future and so they were going to abandon their roots and wholeheartedly embrace computer audio to cash in on the general public's insatiable appetite for technology-led gadgetry, which is I guess fair enough.

However, I doubt Ashley would ever admit it, but I suspect that AVI haven't cashed in quite as spectacularly as they had originally envisaged (that's not to say they're not doing well enough though), and also to their chagrin, the traditional separates market has remained rather more buoyant too than probably they had first thought, stubbornly refusing to just lay down and die... ;)

Quite simply, there have never been a better selection of brand new turntables, cartridges and other analogue-related paraphernalia, not to mention valve amps on the market - ever, so I think that old Ashley may have misjudged things slightly. Bloody hell, even reel-to-reel tape decks are making a comeback and being featured at international h-fi shows!! And long may it continue...... :eyebrows:

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartinT

I don't know, I find 350W per channel perfectly adequate :)

---

I manage to soldier through on just 325.

Tim

I guess you've always been a martyr to the cause, eh Tim? ;)

Seriously though, I'm glad that the ADM9s are hitting the spot for you - it's a satisfying feeling when your head's in the right zone, where enjoying music features rather more heavily as an activity than fretting about hi-fi.

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hifi_dave

Obviously there wasn't a market for A*I 'legacy' equipment or else they would still be making it. Also, the computer speakers must be very profitable.

Agree about the 'giant killing'. They are competent, nothing more.

---

Actually, they are a good bit more than competent. Are they "giant killers?" That is completely dependent on what you think a giant sounds like. What the 9.1 system is, once you get past Ashley's zealous passion, fueled by his deep disappointment in the "high end" (a disappointment I share, personally), is an extremely clean, transparent DAC/pre combination not unlike the Benchmark, mated to a "good" active monitor/sub system designed to image as well in a room as in the near field.

What pushes them way above competent, in my view, beyond the very demonstrable advantages of active design, is how "good" they are, and they are very, very good. They got there the old fashioned way: Through uncompromising engineering and design. Martin Grinrod, AVi's designer, chose not to buy mass produced (typically class D at this price point) amps, as so many pro monitor manufacturers do. He chose not to purchase mass-produced drivers, even really good ones. Instead, he chose to design the amps and the drivers himself, as a system, and have them manufactured specifically for the 9.1s. Just as he did with the DAC and the preamp. The synergy that results is pretty stunning. Remarkable clarity. Completely unlikely spl levels. Seemingly endless headroom. And a precision of imaging that I haven't encountered in systems at many, many times the price (and in no passive systems, period).

Reading about the design approach is what attracted me to them. What keeps me with them is the sound. With that said, I don't imagine they're for everybody. They have a lean, undramatic presentation that many would call clinical or dry. In a well-treated room, it's like taking the sound of reference headphones and hanging it in the air in front of you, with a remarkably firm, precise instrument placement. If that's not your preference, find something else, and enjoy. But if it is, well, a pair of Adam A7s and a Benchmark Dac1/Pre are not as competent at twice the price. Valves and passive speakers with big drivers? There's no point in trying to compare them. Apples and oranges. I like apples. And as an apple guy, if I had the room for BIG speakers, I'd pass on the vintage horns and modern towers and put a pair of these in my listening room:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/i...345/612196.jpg

Very low on the wife approval factor, but to my ears, at least, they embarrass the biggest Wilsons and Sonus Fabers. YMMV, of course.

Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tfarney

I manage to soldier through on just 325

---

:) what you got then?

Oh - reading further - do you mean the AVIs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartinT

:) what you got then?

Oh - reading further - do you mean the AVIs?

---

Yes. AVi ADM 9.1s. 250 watts for each midbass driver, 75 for each tweeter. I don't have the subs. That adds another 200 watts.

Tim

Hi Tim,

What speakers are those you've posted above? I don't recognise them.

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Hi Tim,

What speakers are those you've posted above? I don't recognise them.

Marco.

---

Adam S6A MkII or III

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Agreed. Their 'legacy hi-fi' was always superb in my experience, and offered high SPPV, which is why it puzzles me slightly why they abandoned it completely when clearly there still exists a sizeable market for such equipment, as evidenced by the sales of 100s of other high-end manufacturers currently selling such equipment to enthusiasts all over the world...

I'm sure that their ADM9s are well-designed and do a particular job very well, but they are not the 'giant-killers' purported ad nauseam by Mr James on every Internet site that will host his blinkered agenda.

Marco.

---

I genuinely believe that Ash feels that the ADM9.1's are better than ANYTHING they did before. I've still not yet heard them, so I must reserve judgement. I do have some N5's though and they're VERY good, continuing the lovely Neutron vibe and p**ing over kans and LS3/5A's for example, if not the Harbeth P3ESR, which is a different kettle of delightful fish altogether :)

Marco, there may be some wonderful valve amps, turntables and vintage large speakers out there, but they don't count in the real world, as it's only Aspergics like me and like minded vintage audio hobbyists who are going to take any interest in them - and we as a group are still ageing a year every year with a very few climbing on at the bottom of the age range.

LP's will continue as the vintage source of choice, but I daresay that CD will all but die as people either download their digital music or transfer their CD's to a server somewhere in the house and stream from it. NOS valves are becoming very rare indeed now and it's still claimed that modern equivalents aren't as well made. It looks as if techTube have gone as I can't find their website - a real shame IMO..

ADM9.1's would find favour here in, say, Marco's studio (Tannoy Devons were coloured then and certainly now, if huge fun) or in a reasonable sized kitchen/conservatory. They have a clean bass with no boom apparently (yes, even Hamish would adore them, but I suspect he'll never have the pleasure) and I'm sure Neil and I would find that they continue and build upon the legacy left from their previous ranges.

P.S. Marco, I think the 200W mono amp packs are still available at a reasonable price.. Just a thought...........

Andre, I presume that they're pro-monitors of some description?

Dave,

Quote:

---

I genuinely believe that Ash feels that the ADM9.1's are better than ANYTHING they did before.

---

Well if he does, he's kidding himself on and in denial!! :lol:

You're probably right about vintage gear, but (new) traditional separates hi-fi Ashy-baby brands as "legacy hi-fi" will outlive him and well beyond, that's for sure! ;)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Andre, I presume that they're pro-monitors of some description?

---

I know what they are :lolsign:

Aye PA Speakers

For some dad-dancing at discos? :lol:

http://www.smileys4me.com/getsmiley.php?show=2809 http://www.smileys4me.com/getsmiley.php?show=2809 http://www.smileys4me.com/getsmiley.php?show=2809

Marco.

At a tad under £25,000 per pair, you'd need to be a rich dad.

I wouldnt give those a second look for 20 quid Joe

I was thinking maybe £50 tops myself till I checked the price.

I'm not being funny but they look like a Sonic disaster to me.

Quote:

---

I wouldnt give those a second look for 20 quid Joe

---

Well that's 19 quid more than I'd give for them! ;)

Marco.

The speakers pictured above are active midfield monitors from Adam.

Objectively, Ash is absolutely correct that the 9.1s are "better" than all previous AVi products. They are, as I've said, very well-designed and well-implemented active systems, and offer clear gains in speed, dynamic range, distortion, noise floor, channel separation, etc. over not only previous AVi kit, but any system that is attempting to push amplification through the unknown load of any given speaker systems' passive crossovers and any given set of drivers' impedance and efficiency characteristics. The science is not hard to find and I'm sure AVi found it for themselves, through measuring and testing, and benchmarking against other products, including their own legacy speakers, as they developed the 9s and 9.1s.

Subjectively? Well, that's subjective, isn't it? As I've said, they may not be your cup of tea.

Tim

PS - Yes, you can make active systems from existing components, with the amps outside of the speaker enclosures. Doing so misses a couple of advantages - reduction of cabling, engineered matching of individual amps to individual drivers - but we are picking nits at that point, many of the very best studio monitoring systems are custom designed and installed, and use outboard power and crossovers and, all told, can cost nearly half as much as a pair of Wilsons :). TF

Hi Tim,

Those are all good points. You know how my mind works by now, so objective observations mean bugger all when it comes to a highly subjective experience like listening to and enjoying recorded music in the home. It's only how a system sounds in the final analysis, to my ears, that matters to me - anything else can get filed in the bin.

It would be interesting to set-up two AVI systems at a show: a computer-based one using ADM9s, and a 'legacy' one consisting of their top 'Laboratory Series' gear (CDP and amps), with the big 3-way floorstanders they made (sorry, the model number escapes me), all set-up on proper equipment supports, etc, using the same music to demonstrate, and let the people attending decide which system they preferred, judging purely on the sound quality/musical presentation of both systems only.

Hey, you could even do it blind, with both systems covered up or behind something to prevent any bias! ;)

I suspect that the results would be fascinating (people could vote on a piece of paper which system they preferred, 'A' or 'B' and the votes then counted up at the end of the day). This would give a good indication of how far AVI gear has genuinely progressed (or not) in terms of subjective audio performance.......

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Hi Tim,

Those are all good points. You know how my mind works by now, so objective observations mean bugger all when it comes to a highly subjective experience like listening to and enjoying recorded music in the home. It's only how a system sounds in the final analysis, to my ears, that matters to me - anything else can get filed in the bin.

It would be interesting to set-up two AVI systems at a show: a computer-based one using ADM9s, and a 'legacy' one consisting of their top 'Laboratory Series' gear (CDP and amps), with the big 3-way floorstanders they made (sorry, the model number escapes me), all set-up on proper equipment supports, etc, using the same music to demonstrate, and let the people attending decide which system they preferred, judging purely on the sound quality/musical presentation of both systems only.

Hey, you could even do it blind, with both systems covered up or behind something to prevent any bias! ;)

I suspect that the results would be fascinating (people could vote on a piece of paper which system they preferred, 'A' or 'B' and the votes then counted up at the end of the day). This would give a good indication of how far AVI gear has genuinely progressed (or not) in terms of subjective audio performance.......

Marco.

---

That would be interesting, but you, understanding how my mind works, know I would only find it interesting if it were blind :)! Actually, I'd love to see two sets of tests - sighted and blind, and compare the results. Now that would be interesting!

But as interesting as we might find it, I know AVi did extensive testing during development, including listening tests, and I doubt they would care to invest valuable trade show space on further testing of a product they no longer sell.

I've never heard any of the big AVis, though I'm sure they were good. Even better, I suspect, matched with AVi components. But consider the source -- I'm convinced that the best synergy, by far, is engineered synergy, as long as you have a good engineer, of course. While others are seeking balance and searching for the proper matches, I'll be listening to music, through components balanced and matched by design. :)

Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tfarney

can cost nearly half as much as a pair of Wilsons :)

---

Ah, but have you heard what Wilsons can do? Their new Sophia 2 are extraordinary. Mind you, so is the price and when I think that my Ushers were considerably cheaper then I got an awful lot of speaker for the money.

You'd need the active sub though, to make it fair..

Please remember Marco, the amps in the ADM9.1's wouldn't work properly driving any other speakers via a length of speaker cable and to get the 6.5" driver to work "full range" probably means high-pass filtering below 40hz or so for all I know (my ATC100A's were bandwidth limited below 20Hz as it was with a 12" driver).

Also, DAC's don't need to cost the earth, as Ash has stated and Stan (amongst others) has proved.

Three way speakers can have problems, the art is in the tuning of a properly sorted design. As I said before, the lower crossover point is fraught with phasing and distortion problems as there is usually a wide overlap between the drivers. Tannoys had problems with the mid to treble transition and iffy switches which got in the way which Marco's revamped crossovers (and Tannoy's own from mid eighties onwards) would have sorted.

This is where a visit to AVI would be useful, as Martin could show the copious notes he's made during the design of all their products.


Tim, why is it that I becaome devil's advocate on here and the HDD forum? I'm slated for being a vintage zealot on one, yet am taken to task for not fully "understanding" valvey/vinyly thinking on here :scratch: I try to understand both ways of thinking and tailoring my little stereo to get the best from both...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartinT

Ah, but have you heard what Wilsons can do? Their new Sophia 2 are extraordinary. Mind you, so is the price and when I think that my Ushers were considerably cheaper then I got an awful lot of speaker for the money.

---

I have heard several Wilsons, though last year's models, and Sonus Fabers and the big, high-end Vienna Acoustics...all the way up to The Music.

The Music is, IMO, the best of the breed, probably because this...

http://www.viennaacoustics.at/produc...e-Musik_56.jpg

...is essentially a single full-range driver sitting on a huge passive sub, augmented by a super tweeter. It gives me what I'm accustomed to from reference headphones -- a critical midrange uninterrupted by the distortions of a passive crossover.

YMMV, of course, and there are things that the Wilsons and speakers like them do very well. But to my ear, purity in the mids, where most of the music lies, is not on the list.

Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tfarney

But to my ear, purity in the mids, where most of the music lies, is not on the list.

---

You really need to hear my speakers. Purity of midrange is high on my list, too :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSJR

Tim, why is it that I becaome devil's advocate on here and the HDD forum? I'm slated for being a vintage zealot on one, yet am taken to task for not fully "understanding" valvey/vinyly thinking on here :scratch: I try to understand both ways of thinking and tailoring my little stereo to get the best from both...

---

You're more like the little boy pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. The truth can hurt:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartinT

You really need to hear my speakers. Purity of midrange is high on my list, too :)

---

What speakers are they?

Tim

Less of the "little" please :eyebrows: :ner:

Quote:

---

Tim, why is it that I becaome devil's advocate on here and the HDD forum? I'm slated for being a vintage zealot on one, yet am taken to task for not fully "understanding" valvey/vinyly thinking on here I try to understand both ways of thinking and tailoring my little stereo to get the best from both...

---

Dave, perhaps you're an undiscovered Buddhist? The watercourse way flows naturally. It finds the most efficient path. That path winds, never reaching for the extremes on either side, always finding balance without effort.

Or maybe not...
;)
Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tfarney

What speakers are they?

---

As in my footer - Usher Dancer Be-20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartinT

As in my footer - Usher Dancer Be-20.

---

I haven't heard those, but I just surfed over to have a look at them. Gorgeous. I have heard some of the small Ushers, I don't recall the model, that I would put up there with the best of the passive monitor-type speakers I've heard. Very nice.

Don't get me wrong; what I (don't) hear in active designs is not a night and day thing; it's pretty subtle, a matter of degrees. And there are plenty of passive speakers out there that do midrange well, given properly-designed crossovers and generous headroom. So often, though, they're not, and then the differences get much more dramatic. There is no doubt that you can drive a small monitor, even a lot of big floor-standers in the mid-80s db range, with 50 watts, to great spl levels. I just don't care for the sound of them when you do.

Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tfarney

Dave, perhaps you're an undiscovered Buddhist? The watercourse way flows naturally. It finds the most efficient path. That path winds, never reaching for the extremes on either side, always finding balance without effort.

Or maybe not...
;)
Tim

---

I try to be..

".... I carry life with me, wherever I go, and there's no end or beginning, though I am not a circle......." Tama Starr, early seventies

Hi Tim,

Quote:

---

The Music is, IMO, the best of the breed, probably because this...

http://www.viennaacoustics.at/produc...e-Musik_56.jpg

...is essentially a single full-range driver sitting on a huge passive sub, augmented by a super tweeter. It gives me what I'm accustomed to from reference headphones -- a critical midrange uninterrupted by the distortions of a passive crossover.

---

...and passive crossover aside, the design above has distinct elements of a classic Tannoy dual-concentric drive unit, with of course 15" ones having no need for a subwoofer ;)

Honestly, I've heard plenty of open-baffle designs and speakers using full range drivers with super-tweeters, and can confidently say that Tannoy Monitor Golds (and other similarly capable Tannoy DCs) give 95% of the midrange clarity of OBs and full-rangers, but with massively more (controlled) weight and scale with which to underpin music and allow it to be reproduced convincingly and realistically, instead of as an anaemic sounding poor relation.

Quote:

---

YMMV, of course, and there are things that the Wilsons and speakers like them do very well. But to my ear, purity in the mids, where most of the music lies, is not on the list.

---

I completely agree with the bit in bold, but in my opinion "purity in the mids" is simply not enough if the sound of a loudspeaker (and partnering system) overall isn't properly balanced, otherwise all you're doing is putting your eggs into the one basket to prioritise accuracy at certain frequencies - and that isn't how real music sounds....

For me, "purity in the mids" is very important, but not at the expense of other important elements of music reproduction. It must also be accompanied by realistic weight and scale (not forgetting detailed high frequency extension), in order that instruments which require convincing authority in the lower registers to be heard properly, are reproduced believably and accurately. Otherwise, all you end up with is a thin, mid-forward sound, lacking in the natural richness and tone real musical instruments (and voices) possess.

This is why I could never live with small loudspeakers, as they're simply too much of compromise - and shoving a subwoofer into the equation isn't the answer either; certainly not in terms of how I consider music as being believably and accurately reproduced.

It goes back to the "no free lunch" thing again, of course, but in my experience so far, the best overall balance of compromises is achieved with large high quality dual-concentrics, fitted with the best quality modern crossovers, inside huge inert cabinets, and driven by high quality valve amplification (which measures superbly as well as sounds fantastic). Others and I here own such designs. If I should hear anything better then I'll honestly only too gladly hold my hands up and acknowledge it! :)

Quote:

---

I've never heard any of the big AVis, though I'm sure they were good. Even better, I suspect, matched with AVi components.

---

Well I've heard some AVI CDPs, amps and standmount speakers (although admittedly not their large floorstanders) and would feel very confident that putting a system together using those components would outperform their ADM9s, sonically, in most areas - note that I say 'most' and not 'every' area, which takes us back again to the 'balanced' sound thing again I referred to earlier. In effect, I'd be very confident that the bigger system would be less of a compromise and have a better balance of sonic virtues, overall, for most people.

Quote:

---

But consider the source -- I'm convinced that the best synergy, by far, is engineered synergy, as long as you have a good engineer, of course. While others are seeking balance and searching for the proper matches, I'll be listening to music, through components balanced and matched by design.

---

I agree with that in principle, and I've heard many examples of both approaches, good and bad, but I guess it ultimately boils down to what you're satisfied with. The limiting factor with your approach is intrinsically how good the designer/engineer is at their job and how many genuinely top-quality components have been used in the design due to budget constraints. You also automatically inherit the chosen compromises of the designer/engineer whether you want them or not, and I personally hate other people (effectively) voicing the system I use.

When you move outside of that rather restrictive 'safety net', as it were, of having a system designed by one manufacturer, and spread your wings a little, using your ears and (considerable) experience to build a system that's free from such budget constraints, like I have, then the potential sonic rewards are far greater should you pull it off successfully. I believe that I've managed to do precisely that, as I'm sure others here like Martin have with their systems.

It's about going the extra mile, striving for excellence, speculating to accumulate in the process, leaving comfort zones and having the confidence to trust your ears and instinct implicitly when building a system, and not allowing others to dictate the terms on which your chosen system is built - *that* for me is what it's all about, and what usually separates a merely good/competent system from a truly great one.....

Marco.

The trouble with big Tannoys to my ears is that 'cupped hands' thing, if you know what I mean? OK, the cupped hands are massive, like it's coming from one of those cone megaphone things, but I can still hear it. :confused:

However, some of the things they do is mightily impressive!... Percussion for instance, never heard any other loudspeakers do it better! :fingers:

Have a listen for youself when you come to Scalford, Mikey, (as I'm unaware of the effect you're referring to) or pop down again for a visit to North Wales before then - you're always very welcome here! :cool:

Marco.

Will do! :)

Nice one - just bell me when you fancy it! It'll give me a chance to share some serioz cheeeli-infused munchies again with another like-minded daftee... :lol:

Marco.