Speaker demos - summary

anthony · Post by **anthony** » 2012-02-09 12:13

Charlie1 wrote:
lejonklou wrote:I think he means dynamically compressed. Do you know how that sounds? Some old JJ Cale songs are very compressed, sounds like they're coming from an old analogue telephone. No variation in volume between the sounds, it's all squeezed flat.

I've used those songs in demonstrations, to point out that musical qualities in reproduction isn't all about dynamics (which is a rather common misconception). It's very easy to hear how a small change made to well tuned system can make those telephone-like recordings become less enjoyable. Or how an improvement can make them more enjoyable.
I get it now.

I'm also getting a pair today for our kitchen, so quite curious.

The grills make for a good sieve/colander.

anthony · Post by **anthony** » 2012-02-09 12:15

anthony wrote:
Charlie1 wrote:
lejonklou wrote:I think he means dynamically compressed. Do you know how that sounds? Some old JJ Cale songs are very compressed, sounds like they're coming from an old analogue telephone. No variation in volume between the sounds, it's all squeezed flat.

I've used those songs in demonstrations, to point out that musical qualities in reproduction isn't all about dynamics (which is a rather common misconception). It's very easy to hear how a small change made to well tuned system can make those telephone-like recordings become less enjoyable. Or how an improvement can make them more enjoyable.
I get it now.

I'm also getting a pair today for our kitchen, so quite curious.
The grills make for a good sieve/colander.

No good for scales though....several octaves missing from the compressed bass.

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2012-02-09 14:19

anthony wrote:The grills make for a good sieve/colander.

Thanks for the tip. I'll bake you a cake and you can tell if they were worth it.

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2012-02-24 13:43

CJ1045 wrote:I have a pair of 104s arriving today with a view to replacing my Uniks with them. The Uniks are on rear duties in the lounge surround system so bass is not a significant requirement so from the posts above they are promising. I also have a 106 center coming to replace my Ekwal. Will be interesting to see how they all compare. I am, initially, going to try both the Uniks and the 104s in our kitchen system where we are using a pair of MK1 Kans!! Quite a coinicidence given the above comments. Will report back later.

How are you getting on with these CJ1045?

I tried mine today and they are really good (sat on the floor). I didn't do a tune dem, but it did occur to me that might be slightly more musical than my 140s (with upgraded bass and 2db cut made). Certainly on the floor the 104s do have some bass and it's better quality than the 140s - faster, tighter and seems more tuneful.

If it turns out they are more musical, then I might give them a serious trial for a while - not what I expected. I will probably miss the 'quantity' of bass on rock music though.

marmite · Post by **marmite** » 2012-02-24 23:07

Hi Charlie

Just a thought, but wouldn't a pair of 109's give you the best of both worlds in your main system?

Paul

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2012-02-24 23:24

Good thinking marmite. However, I have already tried 109s at home, although not properly setup on stands, but sat on top of my then floorstanders (Ninkas). Once I became used to the initial benefits, I missed the bass too much (on some music), but they are very nice speakers and better than Ninkas in most other ways.

It would be nice to compare properly to 140s, but I've been satisfied with the 140s to date. I've read a few people prefer 109s to 140s, just like the old Katans over Ninkas.

I did compare some more tonight, although still not using Tune Method. I think the track I played earlier just suited the 104s and made the most of them. I was much less convinced this evening and I couldn't live with such as small speaker. They are amazing little speakers though and the bass on my 140s does seem a fraction behind the beat now! I should have left alone, happy in my ignorance.

marmite · Post by **marmite** » 2012-02-24 23:38

Charlie1 wrote: And the bass on my 140s seems a fraction behind the beat now! I should have left alone, happy in my ignorance.

How far are the 140's from the back wall? One of the disadvantages of modern speaker design is that they seem to suit being further away from the back wall (slim, ported boxes). You may be suffering 'time smear' in the bass region.

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2012-02-24 23:41

marmite wrote:How far are the 140's from the back wall? One of the disadvantages of modern speaker design is that they seem to suit being further away from the back wall (slim, ported boxes). You may be suffering 'time smear' in the bass region.

I don't know what the distance is - I am happy to rely on the Tune Method to determine that. They might need adjusting a fraction following my cartridge downgrade this week as the bass is not so tight, but I take your point. I will re-tune them soon.

marmite · Post by **marmite** » 2012-02-25 00:54

Charlie1 wrote:
marmite wrote:How far are the 140's from the back wall? One of the disadvantages of modern speaker design is that they seem to suit being further away from the back wall (slim, ported boxes). You may be suffering 'time smear' in the bass region.
I don't know what the distance is - I am happy to rely on the Tune Method to determine that. They might need adjusting a fraction following my cartridge downgrade this week as the bass is not so tight, but I take your point. I will re-tune them soon.

Oh yeah, forgot about the new needle. Ignore my ramblings until it's run in. Shrug/smiley/blushing icon required.

Paul

coquillat · Post by **coquillat** » 2014-06-21 12:58

rowlandhills wrote:I had a Komponent 106c at one point which I tried with Keilidhs as mains and Kans as rears. Sounded horrible! To be honest though, that was probably much more to do with the sound difference when anything panned across the front three speakers than any concerns about musicality!

next week I will get the same constellation: Keilidh and 106 c - see what will happenend!
Nikolaus ;-)

Macallan · Post by **Macallan** » 2014-07-04 16:10

Music Lover wrote:
monkeydevil wrote: do you mean that the 109's are best and the Miso's are worst among the three?
Yes, but the Miso's I heard may had the Xover config error that have been discussed in Linnforum.

Would anyone be able to provide more details about this error? I searched the Linn Forums but did not find any information (the search function is also not very flexible).

EDIT: Now found it here http://www.lejonklou.com/forum/viewtopi ... c&start=79
I assume that's the error that was meant, easily to be corrected :-)

Thanks!
M

Efraim roots · Post by **Efraim roots** » 2014-07-30 23:09

Music Lover quote from first post:

Summary, non Linn speakers:
Worst timing and worst sound; no contest - Ovator. What a disgrace.

I have been thinking to reply on this for some time now. I can understand your experiences like ovators not sounding very good and naim system killed by Meridian and so on, but I must say that your experiences is probably based on demos with a lot of circumstances affecting your judgment. If you spend a lot of time getting to know the setups and making the most of them and also in a more methodical way compare these products I really think you would have reached other conclusions.

Personally I rank the Ovator S-400 as one of the best speakers I've heard. I had them at home for a week recently and they are quite amazing with seamless sound and truly musical responsiveness. The thing is that the Ovators don't have much except musicality, if they are not really optimized they may be a disapointment, a lot of other speaker has much more hifi sound and will sound more interesting even if they are not really optimized. The S-400 is definitely worthy competition to Linn Akurate and Klångedang as one of the best IMO. The S-600 had a bit of trouble with bass integration but I only heard one of the first pair to leave the factory and never really optimized.

But now to the speaker bargain of the year; Amphion Helium 510! This medium sized bookshelf speaker has proven to be very, very good for the money! Around 700GBP (8000SEK). They have a great homogeneous musical flow to them. I don't know how they compare to Majik 109 but it's not impossible that the Amphions are better even if that's unlikely. I must try them at home soon, a pity they are deep boxes and also like to be quite some distance from back wall though. I also regard them as power hungry, something I usually don't think about but it became more obvious with the Amphions than other speakers.

Efraim roots · Post by **Efraim roots** » 2015-07-21 22:57

An update on the Amphion speakers mentioned in previous post. I've had them on home trial some time ago and I must say that they are still rather good but won't come near Majik 109, amphion helium 510 sound something like a mp3 version of a really good speaker. What I found tho was that the smaller and even cheaper helium 410 actually sound much better, and must be considered a true bargain at the price around 650euros! (Actually it's hard finding musical speakers at all) Highly recommended if you need a small bookshelf speaker. Other Amphions (Argon serie and Ion+) isn't good tho.

Speaker demos - summary

Re: Speaker demos - summary