• 05-14-2005, 06:04 PM
    oddeoowphil38
    Dave which B&W's were you referring to? I love the DM602 s3 sounds. Oh man do I ever. They are so laid back and extremely articulate and precise. Different from the studio 20 yes but maybe a bit more detailed than the 20. I still say the studio 20 imaged better than the 602 s3 but not by much. keep in ming my preference is more on music but I would like my fronts to have a soundstage as big as the studio 20's do. And, I just want to get away from towers--they are out of the question as far as I am concerned. I thought the Monitor 3's sound stage was almost as wide as the studio 20's myself. Anyways get back to me as soon as you can. Oh, BTW I do not listen to dvd-a or sacd's just 2-channel stereo. Thanks again.
    Phil
  • 05-14-2005, 06:40 PM
    dave123456@mail.com
    The B&W's i heard were the Dm 303, 601 and i think the 602 ( it was about $550.00).

    The dm 303 to me sounded sort of recessed and shut in, it might of been the room though.The larger 602 sounded pretty good to me, nice and crunchy sort of dry. I listened to a few songs off of Metallicas Black Album on this speaker.

    If you are seriously considering the Studio 20's, then id definately listen to the Stratus Mini's as well, most people seem to prefer PSB to Paradigm.

    Just curious to why you dont want floorstanders? Are you planning on using a sub with the standmounts?
  • 05-15-2005, 08:11 AM
    oddeoowphil38
    Yes Dave I have a real nice Paradigm PS1000 v.4 10" powered sub. For some reason I am drawn to the bookshelf speakers. I like the way they look on a stand better than a tower. Bookshelfs in most cases image much much better. The Monitor 7, 9, or the 11 IMHO did not add much over the Monitor 3 other than BASS EXTENSION. Sure, the floor standers provide for a larger not necessarily better soundstage and can play at higher volume levels w/ less distortion. But to me these attributes are nill. There is nothing wrong for people to prefer floor standers but they are just not for me. I cant see myself spenging more money on something that may provide better bass extension but as a result gives up some imaging abilities as a result. To each his own. I have never heard the PSB products and really know very little about them. I would love to audition the stratus series but no dealers in my area. So, what I really need to know Dave is how the CBM-170's compared to the B&W 602's? Were they very close in performance? I love the sound of the B&w 602's very much but they are a lilttle out of my price range. A friend or former business associate is a dealer for them and he is willing to give me a small discount. However, once I bought a matching center and rear then I might as well go with the Paradigm studio series. The reason being, I get a bigger discount from a close friend who sells Paradigm products for a living. With that said, the discount is a lttle bit better than what a repeat customer would normally get. For example, I can get the monitor 3's v.4 for $315 a pair. Not bad in my book and much more affordable. He is looking into what he can sell me the studio 20's for and I will know more tomorrow. He had the weekend off for a change and I dont wanna bother him. So Dave please tell me how the 170's compared to the B&W 602's--be a specific as you can. That $328 a pair price sure is attractive providing it is on par at least somewhat to the performance of the studio 20's. Even if the 170's are very close to the B&W 602's then I may have to make some changes in my plans. Keep in mind, I am not concerned about the 170's ability to lots of low frequency extension but rather how it will sound cross overed between 80-90 Hz and up range. And, many have said the 170's tweeter is not a good as the studio 20's tweeter or even the B&W 602's tweeter but what I NEED to know is how much better are they??? Anyways, please get back to me as soon as you can. It is shower time for me. Have a great day.
    Phil
  • 05-15-2005, 09:15 AM
    RGA
    Kex

    There is a factor though that the DIY versions are not necessarily going to equal the manufacturer built versions -- I know with the E after hearing a reverse engineered built versin that the DIY version just isn;t an Audio Note. -- it has the same parts and has been copied over and built to the tee but something for whatever reason was heavily lost in the translation from the production version -- my conclusion is that that final stage of hand matching to the computer which no DIY can do considerably alters the end result.

    Now i can't say that is the case with Ascend because I know nothing about this company. As for alterations or customization it depends -- I think the manufacturer should try and say a little bit about what they've done -- with AN's turntables the Arm they tell you is from Rega which is rewired with AN silver...if you're not a wire supporter maybe you just buy the plain Rega arm for cheaper. Some makers have a tough time if they have chosen a less popular woofer...not as many paper 8 inch users with foam anymore I suspect so they may have to pay more to get them. Though at least you can ball-park the driver's cost. With B&W you don't know if the tweeter is $50 pounds or $0.25 each and there is no reference to it. On a Headphone forum someone ulled apart the Grado $400.00 head amp and it came to no more in parts than about $20.00 or something to this effect.
  • 05-15-2005, 10:04 AM
    kexodusc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Kex

    There is a factor though that the DIY versions are not necessarily going to equal the manufacturer built versions -- I know with the E after hearing a reverse engineered built versin that the DIY version just isn;t an Audio Note. -- it has the same parts and has been copied over and built to the tee but something for whatever reason was heavily lost in the translation from the production version -- my conclusion is that that final stage of hand matching to the computer which no DIY can do considerably alters the end result.

    RGA: I have never implied that you can 100% copy the exact performance of speaker without the exact same parts going into it...and of course if you were to measure two AN E's built by Peter Q himself, chances are there'd be even a slight variance between them.

    I think I've told you before, I have an uncle who's a huge AN fan in Atlanta. His AN E kits have turned out quite well according to him, very similar to the original E's and better than the J's according to him, but he's told me the kit's aren't offered with all the exact same components that are used in the real AN E. At least in his neck of the woods AN E fans are quite happy that they have that option to spend AN K prices to get a much better speaker with a bit of time and care invested. Of course there'd be some difference. I think a lot of companies are wise to protect their product by not allowing people to build the exact same thing. Your experience is a good example of this. You've heard 1 kit now that didn't sound good, and without dissecting this kit to see what the probelm was, you're assuming that no AN E kit ever could sound as good as the real thing. What if someone who didn't even know it was a kit to begin with heard the speaker you heard, and passed similar poor judgement on the AN E itself?
    Logically, I wouldn't expect someone who's built a few speakers to be able to deliver the same level of final product as someone who's been doing this for 30 years. If the directions were good and the kit was honestly a close approximation of the original design, the results should be close, and any variances explainable. IMO, a good kit worth buying should be dumbed down enough for beginners or explain what level of sophistication is required to acheive good results - or it's not a good kit worth buying.

    As for hand matching to the computer...you're just wrong about that. Reliable measurement equipment doesn't cost 1000's of dollars to obtain what you'd need for measuring speaker components within a higher degree of tolerance than what many commercial speaker offering that do batch testing offer. Spending more money allows you to do faster tests, easier tests, and can sure make the designing stage way easier, but just rebuilding an existing design and using it to measure/verify results isn't rocket science.

    In my case I live not too far from a University where the engineers have a speaker /pro-audio DIY club open to the public. It's nice to just be able to bring your creations to a group with multi-thousand dollar spectrum analysers at their disposal and get results. :D
    They've even got what they call a "quasi-anechoic" chamber.

    Much like anything else in life, you won't believe the results are true until you witness them for yourself.
  • 05-15-2005, 11:30 AM
    RGA
    I'm not saying the Kit E was bad -- but I would buy the K/Spe over it...wiithout hesitation.

    Whatever ferry dust Peter sprinkles in at the end to me makes a good competant speaker a giant killer...and to me that's worth paying for. Can a good DIY get real close maybe -- but from what I've been told the E Kit is close to the equivelant of the E/D a very good speaker but no longer made. It may also be like you say that this particular kit was not as well done -- but the bass was a bit lumpy heavy and coloured - the production E/L was open and integrated better. I suspect it is the matching time alignment process that is the bit that is being missed somehow.
  • 05-15-2005, 12:02 PM
    kexodusc
    Lumpy bass can come from a number of things...most common problems in DIY-ing are from are poor cabinet construction...butt joints are what most people do...not exactly ideal. I prefer mitre, rabbet, or mortis and tennon - 3 or 4 times stronger and air-tight. Leaks can act sort of like ports, changing the tuning frequency, creating port noise -especially noticeable in the bass realm, but the noise and tuning affect the midrange too. An aweful lot of minor nuances can make big differences.
    Midrange problems are usually crossover or damping related - since AN doesn't stuff the hell out of their cabinets (thank god) I doubt it's that.

    I wouldn't think the AN kit to be a good project for someone new to woodworking, electronics, or speakerbuilding in general. Better components tend to be more sensitive to flaws.
    Just curious, I thought about doing an AN E kit awhile back...birch ply is nice to work with. Are the drivers purchased matched pairs? What about the quality of crossover components - do you buy from AN or are you eft on your own for that?
    Does AN actually endorse these kits - I seem to recall my uncle telling me they are sold from a 3rd party or something?

    I think you nailed it...A lot of these DIY kits are designed as economical solutions to come close. For some it's an excellent economical alternative - for those without tools, time, or the inclination it's not worth considering. And a huge advantage of brand name speakers is the resale factor. DIY speakers sell too, but the market is much smaller and usually more knowledgeable about product quality and performance.

    Good for AN for offering their sound to DIY-ers. For me, a flag goes up when a company gets all top secret about it's design and components. They're not stopping competitors from discovering their secrets because all they have to do is buy the speaker and reverse engineer it. IMO they're usually just hiding something from consumers or taking their level of curiousity and understanding for granted.
  • 05-17-2005, 05:49 AM
    thepogue
    no harm...no foul...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bikeman
    I apologize for this. I've never made the premise. kexodusc has made so many misrepresntations that it's become difficult to answer all of them. I've asked that he address earlier misrepresentations and all he's done is add more. Again, I apologize.

    David

    I know things can get a lil crazy here at times...I guess thats part of the attraction. :)


    Peace, Pogue
  • 05-17-2005, 04:09 PM
    oddeoowphil38
    Dave, have not heard back from you. Care to give me an idea how the B&W 602 s3 sounded compared to the Ascend cbm-170? The way you have explained your expereinces with the 170 seems to be a lot like the way you described the B&W. So please explain how they compared.
    Phil
  • 05-17-2005, 08:00 PM
    dave123456@mail.com
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by oddeoowphil38
    Dave, have not heard back from you. Care to give me an idea how the B&W 602 s3 sounded compared to the Ascend cbm-170? The way you have explained your expereinces with the 170 seems to be a lot like the way you described the B&W. So please explain how they compared.
    Phil

    Hey oddeoophil38,

    Sorry for the the delay- ive been busy. To tell you the truth I have far more experiance with the Ascend than i do with the B&W- Ive only heard the B&W for a short period of time at Ken Cranes. I said they sound alike because they both give you a analytical presentation, rather than a musical one. Analytical speakers are something I do not care much about, and wouldnt want to own the Ascend or B&W to be honest. Maybe for Home Theatre, but definately not for music. The B&W's would give you more bass, which you dont care about, and they also have a metal tweeter which seems to be a problem in much lower priced designs but it didnt bother me when I heard them. But between the two, id probabaly choose the B&W 602 over the CBM-170. In the end though id want to try out other brands, preferebly speakers with soft dome tweeters, that have a fairly large cabinet space ( im starting to really, really dislike small speakers even in small rooms) and are designed for music rather than HT. Im sorry I cant give you a more detailed answer.