Posted by Rick Denney on April 16, 2001 at 10:16:00:
In Reply to: Re: Stereo equipment poll posted by Mark in Ohio on April 14, 2001 at 08:56:20:
Yes, Mark, you are absolutely correct. My good stereo uses small Linn Index loudspeakers, properly located and firmly placed (IMPORTANT!) on Chicago Acoustics stands, in a smallish room. The critical element is that the 10-band equalizer has been properly adjusted using a real-time analyzer. Had I been really picky, I'd have used a one-third-octave equalizer, or a parametric equalizer. But the systems I've set up (helping a friend who installs sound reinforcement systems) don't really sound much better than my system, at least to my ears.
The television system is less carefully done. The Advents are in cavities in the wall, though the speaker is non-ported and flush with the front edge, minimizing the error. The rear speakers are on small stands not nearly as good as the CA stands that support the Linns. The amplifier, as Brian states, contains more effects processing than any mortal can stand, though I use none of it (I did, however, want to be able to hear the discrete rear channels of my favorite guy movies, heh, heh). This system has no equalization at all. But for most sources, it sounds about as good as the "good" system.
I despise systems with boomy bass or brittle high frequencies. The ribbon or electrostatic drivers of many speakers sound crispy to me--not at all a realistic effect. The boomy bass is often the result of too large a bass driver in too small an enclosure (including the enclosing room). My Linns have 6-inch bass drivers, and Gene Pokorny sounds as real on that system as my ears and brain can stand without contemplating suicide. The Advents, for all their bulk, have only 8-inch bass drivers, and those are acoustically suspended (and therefore damped). Both have lovely soft-dome tweeters that seem to prevent crispy-fried high frequencies. Neither were terribly expensive, though I compared the Linns to speakers costing ten times as much when I bought them.
It's easy to get caught up in the specifications game with stereo equipment. The cure is to buy stereo equipment the same way you buy a tuba--by listening. Buy speakers from a store that has a listening room about the same size and shape as the target room, that has only the speakers being auditioned and no others. Most cities have one or two shops that provide that sort of listening opportunity, and most of those shops have equipment in all price ranges.
Speaking of cost and college students: I remember being blown away about a dozen years ago by a set of Goodmans speakers. They were tiny and inexpensive, but had a smoother, more realistic sound than any of the boomy monsters at Circuit City. They were being offered by the same store that outfitted $20,000-plus systems. I suspect they are no longer offered, because there weren't sexy enough to appeal to the budget-minded and they weren't expensive enough to appeal to the rich show-offs. But give me a Magnavox CDB-650 (one of the low-cost gems in the history of CD players), a good but small integrated amp, and a pair of Goodmans speakers properly placed and mounted, and few music students would not be able to hear what they need to hear in their listening assignments. Such a system was under $1000 about a dozen years ago, and was state-of-the-art in that price range. People spend more than that for speaker cables these days.
I also remember listening to some recorded music at my tuba teacher's house. I didn't think much of his stereo system--it sounded muddy and boomy. But if listening to that system is what gave him his incredible sound concept, then maybe I should want muddy and boomy. I suspect that he took what he heard and filled in the blanks with what he knows things should sound like, which is a common trait among musicians, and a reason why many musicians have surprisingly bad-sounding stereos.
Rick "whose tuba playing is muddy and boomy" Denney