filper
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
I am running 5 Totem Mites with consecutive manufacturing numbers handmade in Montreal.
A 10" Polk sub fills in the bottom details.
A 10" Polk sub fills in the bottom details.
List the speakers you have
- Thread starter hobie1dog
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Hope it’s an easy repair, but the one working sub might be enough if you’re running it through an amp with “bass management” so it will send all the low frequencies to the however-many subwoofers you use. If you set your settings to “small” and run the subwoofer out of the LFE jack. Which is how I have mine set up and I think it sounds best.
Since I play my surround music on the same system in the living room through which we watch movies, I’ve always had trouble getting a sound I like for music through speaker systems with a dedicated powered sub. These Def Techs have been the best system I’ve had yet for having the low end sound great with music.
It's good to have many tools accessible at all times.Lol.
What sort of room are you listening in? An auditorium?
That’s all pro-level live audio gear. And, to each his own, but running recorded music through processors like aural exciters and SPX 90s? I would never do so in a million years.
Sounds like you’re having fun though, and that’s all that matters!
You never know what little tweak will help make the music we create sound better.
You'd be surprised (maybe) to learn just how many of your favorite songs from the 70s & 80s were processed through aural exiters (when these machines could only be rented by the hour!)
I agree, most of these toys (tools) should obviously be avoided when the natural thing sounded best in its adulterated form, but making creating or manufacturing music in the studio is a different animal than just sitting home listening to music that has already been subjected to every manor of obsessive scrutiny, alteration and modification with ALL the best access to such technologies and in the hands of the most competent masters of music production.
I'm not afraid to expand my ability and skill sets.
Btw, I collect a lot of old antiquated open reels which have been encoded with obsolete technologies, and most of these devices decode as well as encode, so finding an old Dolby Spectral Recorded master tape, I can listen to it as it was intended with the 363 units loaded with four Cat. 300 modules.
You say you wouldn't use any of these processors in a million years, but remember that the current majority of audiophules still pontificate universally with their blanket condemnation of quad!
So finally, Yes!, I'm certainly having a 'ton-O-fun' learning how to create interesting new sounds and more importantly, --- to listen better.
As a musician who has played live and recorded since the 70s, I am quite familiar with aural exciters and how they are used. As well as all of the newer stuff that has replaced rather dated products like the Aphex and SPX-990s. But all that stuff was used to CREATE the recordings, not REPRODUCE them.
But like I said, to each his own. I don’t even like using things like the DSP settings found on my audio receiver because I think they futz with the original recorded sound too much. I can’t imagine adding delay or reverb or chorus settings or whatever it is you’re using that SPX for.
And honestly, you lost me with using pro audio gear made for filling very large rooms at rather high volume for a home audio setup. I like my pro gear for my live gigs. Although I prefer using the newer powered JBL speakers rather than using the heavy old stuff. Much more efficient with cleaner sounds. And no loud fans! 2000 watt Crown amps that weigh 80 pounds each? I sold off all that stuff years ago.
There’s a reason why Crown doesn’t make those pigs anymore. Technology has come a long ways with live audio gear over the last several years.
But like I said—glad you’re having fun with it! But my back is way too old to deal with that stuff anymore!
Last edited:
I have much the same speakers. Instead of the RS 1000s, I have the RS 850s. I would love to get the Rs 450s for my sides, but I'll have to make do with my RS 250s. I have two sealed subs with 15-inch drivers and finishes to match the Rocket speakers.
I've got several systems for varied purposes.
The thing is, I can hear good and decent home playback systems nearly everywhere.
I have in the past owned ESS AMT 1A rock monitors, but foolishly sold them, I presently own several models from KEF, nice vintage Allisons, home-type JBLs, a ton of home and pro Yamahas, & various others, they mostly sound relatively great in a home system, however,
You may or may not agree with me that live event performance sound levels, be they real or well recorded and properly played back, just feel different viscerally and I say sound better audibly as well.
I have not really loved any of the new lightweight switch-mode amps that have taken over the pro-audio and home markets. No, I have never been a tube (valve) guy. Yes I know class-D type amps generate far less heat, draw way less current, weigh a fraction of the old MA-VZs, but there is a sound quality from the old "pigs" that I really do like, that I don't hear in the new gear. The techs that work on my gear mostly agree that those old brutes deliver an honestly and discernibly rich sound that a lot of trained ears prefer.
This jam room has a 1922 baby grand Chickering piano, a full set of Pearl Reference drums, a pair of Ampex ATRs, amps, quad speakers, racks of toys, w/elbow room for a few guitar players to plug in, we play and record in here and I can't help the fact that to my ears, none of the other systems in my life sound better or as good, even just to pop in a CD, a cassette in the Nak-ZX-9, a 1/2" 4-trk-quad, fed direct to ATR mastering tape, raw unprocessed recording of a song, which, from any source including live, sounds pretty killer.
I guess after enjoying so much live music, I find home listening rooms, no matter how good, a little too tame. Even gentle, acoustic folk, and polite soft jazz sounds better listened to at live volumes.
This discussion is about speakers, and that's why I'm bringing up these Smith Pro-Audio SPA-1230s and JBL SR-4718X speakers. Of course these speakers don't exist in a vacuum, and I only describe the other parts of my system to put their suitability for reproducing music believably in the proper context of their intended use.
I've listened to modern $40k Meyers and the top shelf pro JBLs, and certainly these are all great speakers which personally, I could never afford.
Smith 12" 3-way tops coupled with these 18" subs sound essentially as or almost as good, and that's nothing short of a miracle at barely $2.5k each.
There has never been any speaker that could touch these that you'll find at the Guitar Center.
I attend often the super high end audio shows with my audiophile buddies, and occasionally I hear systems that are amazingly good sounding, even when played close to live SPLs, but then they tell us what these exotic rigs cost, they remind me of old Crazy Eddie,,, in-freak'n-sane,,, just a few of the parts in an incomplete HiFi system usually cost more than my house, and that's no exaggeration!
I'm not remotely rich or even well-to-do, I've been using my ears as judge for nearly sixty years to guide me through a process of gradually assembling a proper sound producing and re-produceing outfit that pleases my taste and does not blow my budget.
It's easy to assemble old obsolete gear and get it all wrong, but some pretty good ears have listened to and appreciated the quality of this outcome.
It's a damn good thing this setup stays setup, because I would hate to have to hump this stuff to and from gigs!
Speakers, amps 100lbs ea, and the Ampex consul decks are over 400lbs, even the 20-ply reference snare weigh some significant proportion of a ton!
So my long winded point is, I expect speakers to faithfully recreate the live event - not just deliver a useful representation with a host of generally acceptable compromises for one purpose or another.
Kef XQ 40 (fronts)
Kef XQ 30 (rears)
Kef XQ 50 (center)
EQ Max 10 Velodyne (Sub)
Love them.
But more essential to them is the acoustic treatment in my room.
The sound is very dry and the bass is well balanced.
Kef XQ 30 (rears)
Kef XQ 50 (center)
EQ Max 10 Velodyne (Sub)
Love them.
But more essential to them is the acoustic treatment in my room.
The sound is very dry and the bass is well balanced.
Last edited:
Ascend Acoustics RAAL towers (L/R), Sierra 2 center, CBM-170 rear.
Dual Rythmik F8 Subwoofers.
Several absorptive acoustic panels and bass trap strategically placed.
Dual Rythmik F8 Subwoofers.
Several absorptive acoustic panels and bass trap strategically placed.
Sub - 15" Rythmik (sealed)
Fronts - Klipsch RF82 II (Reference Series)
Center - Klipsch RC3 (Reference Series)
Rears - Klipsch RP3 (Reference Series) These used to be my fronts, they have built in subs....
Atmos - Klipsch RP140SA
Fronts - Klipsch RF82 II (Reference Series)
Center - Klipsch RC3 (Reference Series)
Rears - Klipsch RP3 (Reference Series) These used to be my fronts, they have built in subs....
Atmos - Klipsch RP140SA
“Faithfully recreate the live event”?
I’m not really understanding what that even means in the context of recorded music.
By adding all sorts of outboard effects processing to a finished recording you aren’t going to be able to “faithfully recreate” anything.
Is your goal to try and make studio recordings sound like live concerts? If so, then I guess maybe you might achieve some facsimile of that by using all that processing?
Rega's all around:
Fronts - Rega R9's
Center: RS-Vox
Rear: RS-1's
Sub - Some Energy subwoofer
Fronts - Rega R9's
Center: RS-Vox
Rear: RS-1's
Sub - Some Energy subwoofer
5 Paradigm Studio 60 v2's.
“Faithfully recreate the live event”?
I’m not really understanding what that even means in the context of recorded music.
By adding all sorts of outboard effects processing to a finished recording you aren’t going to be able to “faithfully recreate” anything.
Is your goal to try and make studio recordings sound like live concerts? If so, then I guess maybe you might achieve some facsimile of that by using all that processing?
I wish there were some ludicrously simple way to capture the unfathomably complex symphony of sound pouring out from a talented group of musicians being released into the room during a performance, then somehow hold it indefinitely with zero loss or degradation, and then at any time deliver it all back to a stage in any room at the exact same loudness and with the identical dispersion characteristics, without any musicians present.
A pipe dream you might say, impossible in fact, and today, as well as for the forseable future, you would be 100% correct!
If we examine the history of mans' attempts to accomplish just that, from T. Edison and E. Berliner with their shellac cylinders and discs turning 78.26RPMs without the benefit of any electronic intervention, and compare that to the best stereo reproducers we have ever heard, you must admit we live in extraordinary times for the personal enjoyment of music at home.
With each new development along the way, the first lucky listeners simply had to be impressed that they finally had achieved the impossible, but then better devices soon enough came along and eclipsed those efforts, and so it continues.
I don't see much difference between using or not using outboard devices like electronic processors, - and examining whatever the engineers' rationale was for selecting an optimized microscopic air gap inside the voice coil of a speaker, their choice of copper content, wire gage and the specific number of winds, or the durometer, compliance and resonant frequency of the cone surround foam.
Every design or engineering choice made, either improves, does nothing or degrades the results in pursuit of the most accurate sound control.
Then this all begs the question, how do we define what constitutes or delineates the conceptual dividing line between what devices are considered inboard or outboard processing solutions.
In the manufacture of all sound recording and reproducing equipment, sound, hardware, and electronics engineers, machinists, cabinet makers, artists and theoretical designers combine talents to build a better mouse trap, speaker developments are always (hopefully) moving ever closer to sonic perfection, but admittedly they still have a ways to go.
We've all heard the glowing phrase "a wire with gain" applied to some example of what is currently the most highly regarded and commercially successful power amplifiers, but when one opens that mysterious case, what is found inside is still some concoction of transformers and capacitors, not an empty box with a pristine straight length of plain white wire passing through with tiny black letters printed on it proclaiming ...
" > in - (gain stage) - out >"
... and back out to an XLR socket.
It's ALL engineered equipment to solve the problems of converting real sound (complex energetic pulses of pressure in air) through microphones (transducers) into electric current, then capturing those complex fluctuating current patterns (accurately referenced to a time clock) and to be held for future deployments back out to yet more electronic devices that culminate finally at transducers that re-deliver that original soundscape to a listener as if it had never been converted into electricity and held in suspension over time.
Maybe this picture can't get any better, but I think we can make improvements so we should continue to press on.
It's a romantic theme to imagine that sound can be guided, captured, bottled, transported and released unscathed at our whim, and for this to be done elegantly, with pure and simple little boxes, but clearly we are not there yet.
If the most purely simple and elegantly executed version of the state of the art in sound capture and playback had to be explained to a team of history's most genius inventors and scientists magically transported to us from the past, what do you think Leonardo Da'Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Archimedes, and Newton would make of our attempts to explain and build from scratch a complete modern HiRes digital recording and playback apparatus?
I wonder where they would draw the line between amplifier, DAC, software update and outboard processor.
Speakers selected for a listener at the finishing end of the sound chain are the inverse of let's say the magnetic tape-head, or stylus/cartridge choice, and this discussion about what speakers people choose to use and enjoy is every bit as important as the transducer choice at the beginning of the chain, and ALL of the 'stuff' linked between these ends are in relative terms much less critical.
The difference is how they are used. The engineers' rationale in using such electronic processors is to enhance, effect, or otherwise alter an individual element of a recording or live performance. They may want to add a reverb to a vocal. Or a slap-delay to a guitar-track. Maybe they want to add a bit of chorus to a keyboard part to make it sound a bit 'fatter'.
What they NEVER do (well, I won't say 'never'. there have been instances where it's been done to create some gimmicky effect like say, the bridge on the Doobies' "Listen to the Music") is add it to an entire recorded or live mix. So that's why I asked what sort of effect you are trying to achieve by doing this. Not saying it's wrong or that you don't like it (even if I personally wouldn't). Just curious. What are you using an SPX-990 for on a finished recorded piece of music?
uhhh….where they are physically located? Yamaha makes 'outboard' processing gear like the SPX-990 you own that sits in it's own metal box and you have to plug it into the appropriate jacks on a mixer. They also make mixers with the same processing included in the mixer itself. That's the difference between "inboard" and "outboard" processing solutions.
Agreed, but that has nothing to do with why someone would use a processing device on a finished recording.
I think they would draw the line at the intent of the use of the device and the end result. All such things have been invented to achieve certain results.
I couldn't disagree more. All of the "stuff' can be JUST as critical. Especially if not used properly.
Last edited:
I see any chain (regardless of it's intended application) only as good or strong as its weakest link.
Speakers (including placement and room treatment) are often disproportionately easy to get very wrong when it's time to design, build, or implement smartly for a sonically successful result.
Perhaps you are picturing me sitting in a studio filled with tools and recklessly mutilating perfectly well engineered music tracks done by the masters.
Not the case (I hope). I leave virtually all professionally produced music untouched as I play it back, just the source feeding 2 or 4 quality channels in the preamps, amps and speakers, played straight through clean and flat.
Recording live in this room, well yes, I use carefully these tools as required artistically - I'm sure you know how a judicious application of tastefully selected reverb can enhance a recorded voice or drum track, and the Yammie SPX990 I can afford, not so the monster AKG installations found at the best top-tear pro studios.
I do the best I can playing and recording within sane budget and space constraints.
I'm sure you have listened on your system to many recordings that suffer from some form of sonic deficiency. Early recordings with horribly wrong RIAA curves, old master tapes with unfortunate NR encoding, whatever. It's nice to have immediate recourse to loop in some remedy.
I don't expect to re-invent the wheel, I just like having fun listening to a wide gamut of available media. I often disapprove of some of the unfortunate choices made that are forever locked into the garbled translation of what might have been otherwise excellent performances.
I do my level best to maintain the Ampex ATR, Otari M5050 BQII, Technics 1520 & TEAC A-3440 in top nick, accurately calibrated to fresh new ATR mastering tape, which also works fine with NOS 3M 996 stock. I record stereo or 4 channels pure, usually no compression, Aphex, Dolby NR, or SR, no anything, and it usually plays back like gangbusters! It's nice to have the ability to hit +9 with no distortion artifacts. Keeps a great amount of dynamic range far off the noise floor!
You make me rather regret going on here publicly about all this separate outboard studio stuff.
But just to let you know, I have always adhered to the KISS approach, which is why I like these devices separate, it's so much easier for me to keep potentially weak links out of my chain.
I found what works best for me is all components as separate as possible, an 18" sub that handles 25-90 Hz has its own line level ch source, the preamps do just the one job, simple, clean, and if there's a problem, that one unit can be replaced with another equal or better. I never preferred "all-in-one" anything.
Such devices live much shorter lives, deliver too many footholds for failure, and are usually not worth repairing so become landfill fodder.
Not to drop names, but these speakers (remembering what this thread is about) are in Kasseem Dean's (Swizz Beats) recording studio in Manhatten, auditioned and installed same day to replace speakers costing several tens of thousands more.
The speaker designer builder John Smith said the audition session in that studio room that day was so successful (and loud) that a few floors away in the same building, Beyoncé had to suspend her recording session come up and see and hear what was going on until Swizz Beats was done!
We also heard that this room remains booked solid being rented out for listening sessions to other top pros in the industry. John said Swizz claimed they were the best speakers he ever heard in that room, and proof of that were the stacks of countless rejected speakers piled up all along the hallway outside, most having been blown up from earlier attempts to get them to deliver what the Smith SPA-1230s could do so clearly. I believe 12k Powersoft amps were used, which were also purchased on the spot.
Speakers (including placement and room treatment) are often disproportionately easy to get very wrong when it's time to design, build, or implement smartly for a sonically successful result.
Perhaps you are picturing me sitting in a studio filled with tools and recklessly mutilating perfectly well engineered music tracks done by the masters.
Not the case (I hope). I leave virtually all professionally produced music untouched as I play it back, just the source feeding 2 or 4 quality channels in the preamps, amps and speakers, played straight through clean and flat.
Recording live in this room, well yes, I use carefully these tools as required artistically - I'm sure you know how a judicious application of tastefully selected reverb can enhance a recorded voice or drum track, and the Yammie SPX990 I can afford, not so the monster AKG installations found at the best top-tear pro studios.
I do the best I can playing and recording within sane budget and space constraints.
I'm sure you have listened on your system to many recordings that suffer from some form of sonic deficiency. Early recordings with horribly wrong RIAA curves, old master tapes with unfortunate NR encoding, whatever. It's nice to have immediate recourse to loop in some remedy.
I don't expect to re-invent the wheel, I just like having fun listening to a wide gamut of available media. I often disapprove of some of the unfortunate choices made that are forever locked into the garbled translation of what might have been otherwise excellent performances.
I do my level best to maintain the Ampex ATR, Otari M5050 BQII, Technics 1520 & TEAC A-3440 in top nick, accurately calibrated to fresh new ATR mastering tape, which also works fine with NOS 3M 996 stock. I record stereo or 4 channels pure, usually no compression, Aphex, Dolby NR, or SR, no anything, and it usually plays back like gangbusters! It's nice to have the ability to hit +9 with no distortion artifacts. Keeps a great amount of dynamic range far off the noise floor!
You make me rather regret going on here publicly about all this separate outboard studio stuff.
But just to let you know, I have always adhered to the KISS approach, which is why I like these devices separate, it's so much easier for me to keep potentially weak links out of my chain.
I found what works best for me is all components as separate as possible, an 18" sub that handles 25-90 Hz has its own line level ch source, the preamps do just the one job, simple, clean, and if there's a problem, that one unit can be replaced with another equal or better. I never preferred "all-in-one" anything.
Such devices live much shorter lives, deliver too many footholds for failure, and are usually not worth repairing so become landfill fodder.
Not to drop names, but these speakers (remembering what this thread is about) are in Kasseem Dean's (Swizz Beats) recording studio in Manhatten, auditioned and installed same day to replace speakers costing several tens of thousands more.
The speaker designer builder John Smith said the audition session in that studio room that day was so successful (and loud) that a few floors away in the same building, Beyoncé had to suspend her recording session come up and see and hear what was going on until Swizz Beats was done!
We also heard that this room remains booked solid being rented out for listening sessions to other top pros in the industry. John said Swizz claimed they were the best speakers he ever heard in that room, and proof of that were the stacks of countless rejected speakers piled up all along the hallway outside, most having been blown up from earlier attempts to get them to deliver what the Smith SPA-1230s could do so clearly. I believe 12k Powersoft amps were used, which were also purchased on the spot.
Ummmm. Ok. What you said at first was you played back through four speakers wirh subs, some big Crown amps, and processors generally used for live performance or recording and playing it all at ridiculously high SPL.
Now you’ve explained it and you generally only use the effects gear for recording. Makes more sense. At least that part.
That you prefer using tape rather than recording digitally or having every component separate is a personal preference. Not an objective truth.
Have no regrets about going public about anything. “Inboard” vs “outboard” is no matter. I was simply referring to “outboard” gear to describe those components as that is the nomenclature used in the industry. Even often to describe such components that are technically “inboard”. It’s simply a term of reference for effects units, crossovers and other components that exist between the mixer and the amplifiers.
Last edited:
For my new stereo/surround mixing station I'm going with 5 Presonus E5s plus the Tremblor subwoofer.
I almost feel self conscious about them, cuz it seems like so many here have way nicer gear, but I run 5 Boston Acoustics speakers. I bought them gently used from my best friend 8 years ago and I love them!
Main L/R: Boston VR 2 (bi-amped to Yamaha RX-V 1700)
Center: Boston CRC Center Channel
Surrounds: Boston CR6 Bookshelf
Eventually when I have the money, I would love to upgrade to Paradigm Reference speakers. Will save that for when I have a dedicated music/home theater room.
Main L/R: Boston VR 2 (bi-amped to Yamaha RX-V 1700)
Center: Boston CRC Center Channel
Surrounds: Boston CR6 Bookshelf
Eventually when I have the money, I would love to upgrade to Paradigm Reference speakers. Will save that for when I have a dedicated music/home theater room.
Ah geez man...never feel that way...especially on this forum. No one is judging anyone......it's all good and I'm sure your system sounds great.
I truly cannot believe the difference it made when I finally bi-amped the speakers. Insane!
Similar threads
