Speakers do you have?

[CrawlingEye]

Originally posted by THESANTINI
I was curious what brands the majority of people had. Instead of Swan I should have had Audiophile: headphones and speakers.

lol.
You're misled by the term 'audiophile.'

[iron pecker]

i got z340 but planning to get z560

[Isezumi]

If I could vote I would say other...goin HT style.

[Isezumi]

Originally posted by CrawlingEye


lol.
You're misled by the term 'audiophile.'

Its too broad of a term...Lover of Sound? That could have many meanings.

[KommisMar]

B&W DM602s.

[CrawlingEye]

Originally posted by Isezumi

Its too broad of a term...Lover of Sound? That could have many meanings.

I completely agree. I doubt you'd find any audiophiles using PC speakers, let alone actual speakers.

The more likely configuration is two powered studio monitors, that have true flat sound with something like a Crest poweramp.

[k_hectic]

Originally posted by CrawlingEye


I completely agree. I doubt you'd find any audiophiles using PC speakers, let alone actual speakers.

The more likely configuration is two powered studio monitors, that have true flat sound with something like a Crest poweramp.

I thought active monitors don't need an amp!!!

Aren't most of those monitors bookshelves? I hate bookshelves. They don't image as well as towers. Their small size kills the feeling of a sound stage. With towers, when I listen to an accoustic guitar, I imagine it right in front of me (with the same size). With bookshelves, I imagine a tiny guitar playing the tune. (With Bose Acoutimass speakers, I imagine a cockroach playing a guitar tune with its legs couldn't resist saying that )

[tu2thepoo]

uh, two Boston Acoustic towers (forgot the model) under my desk, two Yamaha NSA770 bookshelves on top, a Gemini PVX20 preamp, an old Pioneer SX660 receiver powering the Yamahas, and a homebrew amp powering the Boston Acoustics. i only know the model no.'s because they're right in front of me.

in any case, it's not nearly studio-quality but better than most multimedia systems. it sounds good enough for me, in any case (although the Pioneer is damned noisy). if i can find another straight amp to hook up to the preamp i'll switch out the Pioneer.

i'm sure y'all care

[CrawlingEye]

Originally posted by k_hectic


I thought active monitors don't need an amp!!!

Aren't most of those monitors bookshelves? I hate bookshelves. They don't image as well as towers. Their small size kills the feeling of a sound stage. With towers, when I listen to an accoustic guitar, I imagine it right in front of me (with the same size). With bookshelves, I imagine a tiny guitar playing the tune. (With Bose Acoutimass speakers, I imagine a cockroach playing a guitar tune with its legs couldn't resist saying that )

lol, good point.

[pbirkett]

I have Wharfedale Diamond 8.2 speakers at the minute.



Soon hoping to acquire some Quad 11L.

[pbirkett]

Originally posted by k_hectic


I thought active monitors don't need an amp!!!

Aren't most of those monitors bookshelves? I hate bookshelves. They don't image as well as towers. Their small size kills the feeling of a sound stage. With towers, when I listen to an accoustic guitar, I imagine it right in front of me (with the same size). With bookshelves, I imagine a tiny guitar playing the tune. (With Bose Acoutimass speakers, I imagine a cockroach playing a guitar tune with its legs couldn't resist saying that )

I believe Active monitors use Active crossovers, not built in amps.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/Promitheus/...n_speakers.htm

BTW the rest of your comments about bookshelfs are bollocks. For example, many floorstanders use the exact same drivers as a "lower" bookshelf model they use in the range, the only difference usually being extra cabinet, and sometimes, slightly lower bass. So how you get this theory that you imagine the guitar to sound tiny because the speakers physical dimension is smaller is beyond me. I doubt you have really heard decent bookshelfs to be honest.

[THESANTINI]

I suppose I misled with audiophile, but what term should I use for that? I don't consider Klipsch or Logitech hi-fi, I'm thinking something along the lines of dedicated speakers for audio. Is that a good definition?

[Sprout]

Originally posted by THESANTINI
I suppose I misled with audiophile, but what term should I use for that? I don't consider Klipsch or Logitech hi-fi, I'm thinking something along the lines of dedicated speakers for audio. Is that a good definition?

As opposed to what...multi-function audio/aroma-emitting/blunt-self-defense-object speakers?

[pbirkett]

Anyway, how does one define an "audiophile". Speaking personally, I notice that it seems to be a tag that some label themselves with to make them sound like "experts" on the subject. I love audio gear, but I wouldnt call myself an audiophile. Most people who call themselves audiophiles arent to be trusted IMO.

Also, regarding the "hifi" argument, and what is and isnt. A general consensus of people I speak to on hifi forums, say that there is 2 main types of system out there. There are music systems, and hifi systems. Many people into music systems (like myself), think that "proper" hifi is somewhat dull and boring to listen to in many respects. Everything is wonderfully realistic, airy, and well seperated, but seems to lack music - more of a collection of sounds if you like. Music systems dont lose sight of the music itself, but usually at the expense of something a hifi does well, maybe realism, soundstage, imaging, whatever, but groove well. Most people into the "hifi" side claim that such systems are harsh and unrealistic. Its possible to do both, but that costs a HELL OF A LOT of cash. There are also systems that manage to f**k both of them up, and sound totally unmusical and unhifi. This also costs a HELL OF A LOT of cash, because that person will invariably replace the lot in time, like I did with my first proper system.

Just my 2 cents

[s1203372]

Logittech z-560's, some yamahas, and seinheiser HD-497's. I use the headphones most.