I'm a serious musician and audio has been important to me since the 1960s. This system is my third major upgrade in the last 40 years.
You can see that it's important for me to integrate my system into our apartment living space, that I share with my wife of 39-years. It was important for the speakers to be physically attractive as furniture and, most importantly, be very musical.
The analog front end is incredibly revealing. When I'm seriously listening I pull the speakers out to the positions that you see, which was determined using Sumiko's Master Set technolog. Rod Thomson of Soundings set mine for me. Believe it or not, that table to the left is no problem for either imaging or frequency response. The narrow set is defined by that short wall and the opening into the hall and foyer. The image goes out past the speakers and centered vocalists are about 3/4 the way up the armoire in the center and depth goes back to the back wall. You'd be amazed at the bass from this system, particularly given the wonderfully open and textured midrange.
At other times the AKG headphones and incredible Woo Audio amplifier provide a great alternative for listening without moving the furniture around.
The Korg MR1000 is used for live recording and archiving vinyl using 1-bit DSD at 5.6 mHz.
What you describe sounds consistent with my belief supported by my server listening experience that most of the cost involved in getting good sound from a audio server has to do with the DAC and the same factors in an audio system that typically make for good sound otherwise.
I don't know if they will be at the show but I doubt it.
You could call Ohm (contact info at www.ohmspeakers.com) and inquire. Most likely, the phone will be answered by John Strohbeen who is both the business and engineering brain behind Ohm and the Walsh/CLS speakers. If not, you can surely leave a message and I am most certain he would get back to you.
One of these years, maybe when the kids are grown and I have more control over my vacations, I really want to attend the RMAF. Sounds like a blast. Plus I've been to Denver and surrounding area on several occasions in the past and loved it.
Well, you won't find a dealer for sure in that they are only sold direct these days.
Also not likely to be at the show. Too bad.
The only way short of a trip to the east coast or finding another Agoner with them in your area (quite possible) would likely be Ohms in-house demo plan.
They (series 3) sound much more refined, detailed and balanced than what you heard back in the 80s and what was reviewed by Stereophile back in about 1988. I can say that confidently because I've had newer Walsh 2's with 100 S3 drivers and similar older Walsh 2s from the 80's set up in adjacent rooms in my house on the same system for a/B tests before I took the plunge on the big Walsh 5 S3s, and there was no comparison.
However they do cost $27000. Ohm Walsh S3's cost $1000-$6000. That's a big difference that might be invested elsewhere in a system if desired.
Which Ohm you get will depend largely on room size. They can go from small rooms to the largest and hold their own with the best speakers out there according to some published reviews.
They are also less finicky about room placement than any other comparable speaker I've owned, including B&W, Dynaudio and Magnepan.
They do share with the mahlers the need for "A high current amp with hi damping factor that will drive them stoutly with mucho control". A Musical Fidelity A3CR 100/w ch into 8Ohm doubling into 4 Ohm works well for me, though I know the larger Ohms would love as much clean power as I could throw at it, like maybe a 500W/CH ICE amp like DCs lovely Rowland.
I'd also be interested in your findings regarding horns.
I doubt Ohm does these shows. They seem to keep a very low profile. They are very much a small mom and pop shop these days that operates largely on word of mouth and seem to like it that way.
You would need to do their in-home audition (recommended, its the best way to audition anything anyhow to see what it will really sound like in your room), which is no risk assuming you are comfortable with laying out the money up front and with shipping oriented tasks, or find someone local with a decent setup.
Also, as I think I stated, you're always welcome to come by my way for a listen if you get to the DC/Baltimore metro area.
Ohm ships the larger speaks like 300s and 5s in six separate solidly reinforced boxes (one grill, 1 CLS driver and 1 cabinet per speak), which helps make things safer and easier to handle. Assembly at your end is a piece of cake from there.
Sounds like you have some time before you move to bigger quarters and maybe upgrade speakers, you lucky guy!
If you have an opportunity, and are amenable to more of a single driver omni design that might even save you some $$$s perhaps, seek out and audition a pair of Ohm Walsh series 3 speaks. These might be anything from smaller 100 S3 drivers to larger 200, 300 or 5 S3, depending on room size. With your budget and the juicy Rowland amp, I'd go straight for the 300 series 3 or perhaps the slightly more expensive Walsh 5 series 3, but only if you like the idea of being able to adjust timbre and balance to the room at the speaker itself. I think you are a purist and would be better served by the slightly less expensive 300 series 3. I think, with nice finish, these would run <$6000.
Just a thought. I'd be interested in your observations if it happened, particularly with the big Rowland ICE gear.
Or with a more conventional box design, your certainly in good territory sticking with Vienna Acoustics.
Have you heard a similar Carver pre-amp a/b versus another better? I don't doubt that a newer pre-amp might sound better. And the Rowland gear is clearly in a different class.
But I make it a rule to not change equipment unless I can hear a clear problem, otherwise I will be continually second guessing myself instead of enjoying the time I have to listen to music.
I had heard that issue recently in comparison to a dealer system recently featuring a brand spanking new Audio Research preamp that was clearly set up correctly because it sounded fabulous. Based on that system as a reference, I was able to get my system tuned in similarly as well.
I know that the two sound different, but I honestly could not say at this point which one I think sounded "better" or which I would prefer without reservation.
I do listen to very good new equipment and attend live acoustic performances in various venue regularly as a way to obtain a reference, but you are right that it can be hard to hear the subtle differences you allude to without an in home a/b comparison. For the most part, I just have to "trust my ears".
Don't worry, I've got that nasty old Carver pre under very careful scrutiny. As soon as I hear a problem , that beast will surely be the prime suspect.
Also I was wondering if I really said somewhere that older gear is better? If I did, I would retract that statement in that such a generalized assertion can clearly not be supported.
My Carver pre-amp is "old' (very late 80's), but my Denon CD/recorder is only about 2 years old and is still sold new.
The Denon only cost $599 list, but that's another story. I am still hard pressed to find a clear issue with it's sound. When I detect issues, they are variable and unique to individual discs. This tells me they are a result of the process that goes into producing the disc, not the playback process.
I do agree that newer digital technology in general tends to still improve the most over time because the technology itself is relatively newer. I would most likely not replace my Denon with an older unit if I had to.
When it comes to analog components though, like my Carver pre-amp, I believe that many better older designs are still competitive with newer ones, assuming the equipment is still in good working order. Once broken in, electronics in general can usually only go downhill over time. If kept in good repair though, they can still sound great.
Also, just because something is newer does not guarantee that it is better...only different. The dollar was worth a lot more back in the day. A lot of things today that are not mass marketed cost a lot more to build to a certain level of quality than it did 20-30 years ago.
Yes, and I'm a convenience and reliability freak and would prefer to not have to go to real tubes at all in order to retain the big sound stage with easy on the ears yet detailed sound that I like.
I know from reading not all ICE implementations are created equal. The consensus seems to be that it has improved as a technology overall though considerably in the last year or so though.
RF/EMI was one of the concerns I had that helped me decide to hold for now. The Rowland gear seems designed to take that into account, which is a big plus.
I believe JS Audio in DC is a certified Rowland dealer. I'll have to check it out next time I'm over that way. My Carver pre can't last forever.....can it?
I went with the Musical Fidelity basically as a low cost and lower wattage test upgrade to drive my Ohm 5's better. It cost me about $600 used. It's worked far beyond my expectations, but I know the Ohms can benefit from even more wattage and current. That's where the more powerful ICE amps might still come in at some point since I have an aversion to large power hungry monster amps in general.
I'm thinking if I decide to upgrade further, that I would go for broke and strongly consider a 500w ICE unit. The Rowland integrated would fit nice for me for this and offer what would seem to be a no compromise pre-amp and phono stage upgrade as well.
Right now, I'm happy but definitely something I would very strongly consider at some point.
I figure the ICE technology will only get better and become even more cost effective over time.
The Roland integrateds sound (and look) very nice indeed!
Does the Continuum use ICE amplification like the other Rowland Integrated line?
When I upgraded amps to the Musical Fidelity A3CR to get a better grip on driving the Ohm 5's, the other option I strongly considered was ICE or Class D and researched several lines, but missed the Rowland line somehow.
The Rowland stuff seems to have the best build quality of any units using ICE or Class D that I've seen.
The more I research the technology that goes into the latest high end players, the more I suspect this is true in the large majority of cases where one unit is clearly different or superior to another.
I may well do some more heavy investigation of some of the latest pre-amp with built in phono stage technology, like Rowland, etc.
I've certainly gotten a lot of good use out of the Carver over the years. It has a lot of unique features, but since my latest round of system enhancements over the last two years or so, I don't really use these much anymore, so I suspect that will make it easier to consider something newer, "purer", or maybe even just different.
I use live performances and other good dealer systems that I can audition as references for comparison with my system. Based on this, I do not have any clear issues that I can detect at present.
However, I suspect the Carver pre-amp (which is almost 20 years old already) is the piece I that might make the biggest overall difference for me in an a/b test with a newer quality pre-amp (including phono stage)in that either vinyl or CD sound equally good to me with the Carver. Which exactly depends more on the source quality.
The question as you cite correctly would then be how much better and then does it matter to me.
I still tend to like a lot of vintage gear when I hear it though even when compared to the latest and greatest in many cases.
I think that audio components are like many things today. They cost a lot more to achieve a certain level of quality due to inflation, devalued dollar and other factors.
Older components I find often achieved very high levels of quality at a lower cost back in the day and the value still carries forward to today.
That is largely why I find it difficult to justify huge cash outlays for new products at todays prices when many products from years past still perform extremely well. I have to do a clear a/b test in order to objectively determine where the differences may lie.
Its a tough call when you're a perfectionist like many of us , and on a limiting budget, but I guess that's part of what makes the hobby interesting.
How much better are the various big league players to say the Cambridge 840c?
Upgradable or configurable firmware would be a distinct advantage in terms of tweaking the sound. Are there any less expensive players out there that provide this feature? This is a feature I would definitely be interested in, particularly if it can be done in a very user friendly manner that lends itself to experimentation.
With an upgradeable or configurable player, is it always about upgrading to make it "better" or can it be done sometimes just to make it different, say to better match a particular system or room used in?
Even with the modest recent model Denon in my system, I would be hard pressed to identify any major shortcomings compared to other more expensive players I've heard recently, like DCS Puccinni, without an apples and apples a/b test.
THough the Puccinni was very sweet indeed, the sound on my system is not all that different from what I heard there, and I am hard pressed to identify anything significant missing with good or even decent recordings, even compared to vinyl.
I don't doubt the top notch players are better, I have just yet to be able to hear it definitively with my own ears.
I probably need to take my player to a dealer or better yet take one of their good players home to my system for comparison.
