Charlie1's System

Share your journey!

Moderator: Staff

beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by beck »

Try and messure the distance from tweeter to tweeter to see if it is around 1.52 to 1.55 meters........
Playing cd’s…………
User avatar
springwood64
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 792
Joined: 2008-10-13 18:19
Location: UK

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by springwood64 »

beck wrote: 2021-04-29 11:23 Try and messure the distance from tweeter to tweeter to see if it is around 1.52 to 1.55 meters........
!!

You piqued my curiosity so I measured the gap between my Espek tweeters, and ...... they are about 154 cm apart (my tape measure is 152cm long so its approx)

Is this some sort of well-known heuristic?
Pete

Linn Axis, Kinki, Källa (GS308T+Amplifi HD x 2 + BJC), Boazu, Espeks
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by Charlie1 »

They are currently 150cm from centre of each tweeter.

The Kans are 145cm but that's a very small study.
beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by beck »

I think it is Lejonklou who working with and setting up systems discovered long ago that most speakers sound best with this kind of distance between them...............

I have 1.55 meter between the center of the tweeters on my Espeks at the moment.
Playing cd’s…………
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by Charlie1 »

Briks are 170 ish - might need a mate to help me move them in ;)

Quite pleased with this - it's a UK reissue that must have been pressed rather a lot as it's always been pretty lifeless, even on Kans back in the day. In fact, I compared it to Spotify the other night and preferred digital. Definitely better now though and conveying some of that sombre feeling...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/971xp2jmfaxct ... 7.mp4?dl=0
tokenbrit
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2039
Joined: 2012-03-22 19:47
Location: New England

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by tokenbrit »

Charlie1 wrote: 2021-04-29 10:51 I think it's pretty much there. The timing was fixed by bring them in 4cm in total but it was still a bit boring but pulling the speakers forward a bit seems to have fixed most of that. I think it's much closer now anyway.

...

It's still sounding a bit soft and less punchy but could be mains, volume setting, amps warmed up more, or I dunno what.
What did you* feel was wrong with the timing that needed to be fixed?

* personally I miss the punch, and preferred the blue skies of Before, but this is about you & what you want from your system - I continue to be amazed at how it's relatively simple & reliable to hear differences between clips.
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by Charlie1 »

I know what you mean. I suspect some of the punch is more to do with the phone recording though. I recall beck getting quite different results by moving the phone slightly. In the room, I'm not noticing less punch than 2 days ago but maybe I've just got used to a slow change.

The timing issue was how well the music gelled together and, as a result, how coherent I found it all. It sounded less jumbled both times I moved the speakers together another 2cm. I think the two clips are pretty close now, in this respect.

Yeah, I'm a bit surprised how much difference they've made. I'm sure I didn't get improvements like this with the M140s, which I played around with a lot.
tokenbrit
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2039
Joined: 2012-03-22 19:47
Location: New England

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by tokenbrit »

Charlie1 wrote: 2021-04-29 15:07 .. I suspect some of the punch is more to do with the phone recording though. I recall beck getting quite different results by moving the phone slightly. In the room, I'm not noticing less punch than 2 days ago but maybe I've just got used to a slow change.

The timing issue was how well the music gelled together and, as a result, how coherent I found it all. It sounded less jumbled both times I moved the speakers together another 2cm...
I would imagine that recording position could make quite a difference - for consistency within & between recording sessions, I'd expect it to be important to record from the same spot each time, including height (relative to the speakers?)

You mean ELO isn't meant to sound jumbled?!? ;)
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by Charlie1 »

tokenbrit wrote: 2021-04-29 16:43 I would imagine that recording position could make quite a difference - for consistency within & between recording sessions, I'd expect it to be important to record from the same spot each time, including height (relative to the speakers?)

You mean ELO isn't meant to sound jumbled?!? ;)
I tried to stay in the same position each time but maybe quite small differences can make a difference.

I'm gonna tell Jeff what you said!!
User avatar
Ron The Mon
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 301
Joined: 2014-07-17 17:17
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Isobarik Tweeters to Tweeters

Post by Ron The Mon »

Charlie1 wrote: 2021-04-29 11:57 Briks are 170cm-ish - might need a mate to help me move them in ;)
Charlie1,
Move them farther apart before trying closer together. I never measured mine until today; they are 199cm, center to center. This is where it sounds best in my room. I have heard four different pair of Isobariks of varying vintage in the big listening room at Overture Audio. The Isobariks were much farther apart in that room, and sounded fantastic.

If you insist on using mathematical equations, you should start with 308cm; remembering the Isobariks have four tweeters.

I have moved my Isobariks by myself using varying techniques on a hardwood floor. One way is to rock the entire speaker/stand onto boards on dowels. Use 4-6 dowels and you can roll them longer distances replacing them as they go under the stand. This allows you many days to compare. I bought several diameter dowels and use the ones that got the stands about 8mm higher; just enough so both speakers are almost the same height and the bottom spikes don't scratch the floor. Marbles work too and roll better but need Blu-tack when in position. Propping and rolling is more tedious but saves your back.

Ron The Mon
User avatar
springwood64
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 792
Joined: 2008-10-13 18:19
Location: UK

Re: Isobarik Tweeters to Tweeters

Post by springwood64 »

Ron The Mon wrote: 2021-04-29 17:25

One way is to rock the entire speaker/stand onto boards on dowels. Use 4-6 dowels and you can roll them longer distances replacing them as they go under the stand. This allows you many days to compare. I bought several diameter dowels and use the ones that got the stands about 8mm higher; just enough so both speakers are almost the same height and the bottom spikes don't scratch the floor. Marbles work too and roll better but need Blu-tack when in position. Propping and rolling is more tedious but saves your back.

Ron The Mon
I saw a TV program that shifted a megalith on fresh seaweed 😁
Pete

Linn Axis, Kinki, Källa (GS308T+Amplifi HD x 2 + BJC), Boazu, Espeks
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by Charlie1 »

Great stuff - thanks Ron.

As you know, their dimensions make them a real handful and I'd never thought of that idea (boards/dowels).

As for moving apart, I'm a bit stuffed cos they are in the pitched roof of a double garage - down one end. The angled ceiling must only be 1 foot away from the outer top edge of each speaker. Being upwards firing probably makes the situation worse. It was the thought of getting a better sound closer together that got me excited by beck's comments. They were never tune dem'd into position - just put where they looked ok. My wife and I had a nightmare just doing that and my back is not great.
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by Charlie1 »

Funny how every system I've ever owned can favour some artists more than others. Not sure I ever really liked the way U2 has sounded on any of my HiFis but the Saras seem to work well. I wonder if it's the midrange which has a lot going for it, although very coloured at the same time. I recall U2 sounding really good on an Epos speaker back in the 80s but don't recall if it was ES11 or ES14.

Anyway, decided to see if the 12/BD160 is a better match in terms of balance since the 32.5/CB160 will sound fine with Briks.
32.5/CB160: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wzjedz47kld05 ... 3.mp4?dl=0
12/BD160: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o4a53re50r9tf ... 0.mp4?dl=0

Same phono cards and both amps warmed up.
tokenbrit
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2039
Joined: 2012-03-22 19:47
Location: New England

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by tokenbrit »

Charlie1 wrote: 2021-04-30 20:06 .. decided to see if the 12/BD160 is a better match in terms of balance since the 32.5/CB160 will sound fine with Briks.
32.5/CB160: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wzjedz47kld05 ... 3.mp4?dl=0
12/BD160: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o4a53re50r9tf ... 0.mp4?dl=0

Same phono cards and both amps warmed up.
Haha: "Is it getting better?
Or do you feel the same?"

Feels much the same but a little better with the 12/BD
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by Charlie1 »

I'm still sat on the fence tbh. Agree, the 12/160 is more musical, less thick in the midrange too, but I also wonder if it's struggling to keep it all together at times, plus it sounds a bit ragged which kind of makes the polished sound of the Krystal a bit wasted.

I think I will have to try the 42.5/110 and Nait after all, otherwise I will always be wondering. I will spare you all from the clips though.
Spannko
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2292
Joined: 2008-01-24 21:46
Location: North East of The Black Country, UK

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by Spannko »

The 32/160 sounds a bit jumbled/confused/noisy compared to the 12/160, but interestingly, tune wise, there doesn’t seem to be much in it. So the 12/160 wins by a technical KO!

PS I agree that something still isn’t quite right. I think the Sara’s can sound ok on some tracks, but overall I’ve never been entirely convinced by them.
beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by beck »

Charlie1 wrote: 2021-04-30 22:12 I'm still sat on the fence tbh. Agree, the 12/160 is more musical, less thick in the midrange too, but I also wonder if it's struggling to keep it all together at times, plus it sounds a bit ragged which kind of makes the polished sound of the Krystal a bit wasted.

I think I will have to try the 42.5/110 and Nait after all, otherwise I will always be wondering.I will spare you all from the clips though.
Spare us! Never. We always crave new clips of new combinations of equipment playing music we did not know we liked!

Bring them on! :-)
Playing cd’s…………
anthony
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 786
Joined: 2007-02-04 22:39
Location: UK

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by anthony »

Charlie1 wrote: 2021-04-30 22:12 I'm still sat on the fence tbh. Agree, the 12/160 is more musical, less thick in the midrange too, but I also wonder if it's struggling to keep it all together at times, plus it sounds a bit ragged which kind of makes the polished sound of the Krystal a bit wasted.

I think I will have to try the 42.5/110 and Nait after all, otherwise I will always be wondering. I will spare you all from the clips though.
I found Sara the most power hungry of that era, I think you should try a 250 or mine were with 135s.
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by Charlie1 »

beck wrote: 2021-05-01 05:34 We always crave new clips of new combinations of equipment playing music we did not know we liked!
42.5/110/Krystal: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kwluks66yl3ig ... 2.mp4?dl=0
Nait/Adikt: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dz2k0v5ytlpcz ... 7.mp4?dl=0

I think the Saras are quite coloured so the amps sound even more similar than usual. Still, you can here the 42.5/110 is leaner and it's always had the tightest bass of the three pre/powers. Nait leaner again and the best balance so far but is it powerful enough?

anthony wrote: 2021-05-01 05:36I found Sara the most power hungry of that era, I think you should try a 250 or mine were with 135s.
I had a freshly serviced 250 but didn't really get on with it. Nothing major and I preferred the sound to 110/160 but the timing wasn't there for me, but then I never like the effect of adding a PSU to power the preamp.

I very much doubt it is the answer but I'm curious to hear how the Nait copes since I've heard Naim used Nait/Saras for testing back in the day. Plus a friend's friend has had Nait/Saras since the late 80s and seems in no hurry to change them.
beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by beck »

I like the 32.5/160 the best with this music because of the more full bodied sound.

12/160 and Nait in the middle.

I like the 42.5/110 the least.
Playing cd’s…………
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by Charlie1 »

beck wrote: 2021-05-01 14:11 I like the 32.5/160 the best with this music because of the more full bodied sound.

12/160 and Nait in the middle.

I like the 42.5/110 the least.
I'm quite taken with the Nait which continues to amaze with its tiny 13W...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/q1fzvkxy1im71 ... 6.mp4?dl=0

I find the Saras already too full bodied and overly warm myself but I do like the control and resolution of the 32.5/160. I can see why 52/135s would be a good match. What was it you didn't like so much about the 42.5/110?
tokenbrit
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2039
Joined: 2012-03-22 19:47
Location: New England

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by tokenbrit »

I know the question was for beck but, for me, the 42.5/110/Krystal combo was just too polite with too little boogie or booty/body. The Nait/Adikt showed some character & a hint of party, but was still a bit 'skinny' for me.
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by Charlie1 »

Thanks tokenbrit - more feedback the better!

Listening more, you're right about the lightweight sound - always a Nait issue unless using big high efficiency speakers.

Looks like back to 32.5/CB160 but was interesting.
beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by beck »

tokenbrit wrote: 2021-05-01 16:13 I know the question was for beck but, for me, the 42.5/110/Krystal combo was just too polite with too little boogie or booty/body. The Nait/Adikt showed some character & a hint of party, but was still a bit 'skinny' for me.
+1


......and yes, the Nait is still an amazing little amp! :-)
Playing cd’s…………
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: Charlie1's System

Post by Charlie1 »

OK, definitely the last one now (out of dropbox space anyway) - added to bottom :D

Oak plinth/Krystal/32.5/CB160: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wzjedz47kld05 ... 3.mp4?dl=0
Oak plinth/Krystal/12/BD160: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o4a53re50r9tf ... 0.mp4?dl=0
Oak plinth/Krystal/42.5/110/Krystal: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kwluks66yl3ig ... 2.mp4?dl=0
Ash plinth/Adikt/Nait: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dz2k0v5ytlpcz ... 7.mp4?dl=0
Ash plinth/Adikt/32.5/CB160: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nrhouh9v7jpw0 ... 9.mp4?dl=0

Both decks have black liner bearing, late Elos 2 and same Lingo 1
Post Reply