I don't see a reason to change the amps to anything else. If I did, it would be to get higher Watt amps. I don't feel I need higher watts though. My system peaks at 103 dB (maybe only 100 dB on the center channel because of the extra distance...). I don't listen to stuff at loud levels, so I don't think I need the extra headroom...

If I did upgrade it would probably be to the Bryston 28B SST on the front three channels. The rears and sides are (and will be) close enough to the listening position that I likely don't need more power there, but the front three are a bit further away in comparison. I wouldn't mind getting stable output up to 105 dB or more...

jkalman June 05, 2008 23:01

Do you see yourself keeping the Ayre Mono's?

For the time being yes.

jkalman June 05, 2008 22:49

That's great. Do you see yourself keeping the Ayre Mono's? I can't make the claim of being done. There are still things I have and want to do. Can't wait to hear about the the new Salon2's.

mikeduke June 05, 2008 22:03

Yep Mikeduke. I'm looking forward to it. I just put the order in for another pair of Salon2s and a set of Bryston PowerPac 300 SST amps to power the Salon2s.

I swear to God, I'm done after this!!! Until Lexicon releases a new reference and 4000x2000 projectors come out at least... :D

jkalman June 05, 2008 21:45

"You might be interested to know that I am going to pursue a full 7.2 surround system of Salon2s! I'll update when it is finished, stay posted!"
Double WOW. If you listem to MC music I can imagine that it will sound freakin fantastic. So does that mean the denon will be your "cd" player? My room is small and I have limitations but I am also on the move. I have a few upgrades myself in mind. It will take a while, but I hope to be able to do all of them. I will be checking this thread out to see what happens. I just noticed that you have the Salon's in the back as well. So all you need are the sides an you will be set. That is sweet.

mikeduke June 05, 2008 14:51

No Mike, I gave up on having separate sections for analog and digital. I just don't see the point any more, especially after listening tests between the two. Digitizing even the analog in order to process the sound just offers too many advantages over the pure analog in my setup. I sold the Ayre pieces and switched to a preprocessor with more aggressive EQ parameters available in the unit (Lexicon MC-12B HD). My system has never sounded better... I'm very happy, and besides adding additional channels/speakers to strengthen the surround, I'm not changing anything major for a long time (perhaps when the next Lexicon reference unit is released...).

You might be interested to know that I am going to pursue a full 7.2 surround system of Salon2s! I'll update when it is finished, stay posted!

:D

jkalman June 05, 2008 14:27

WOW, seeing those 3 revels up front is very cool. I am sure now that the front stage is completely seamless. So you took the Ayre preamp, and player out? Are you going to have a dedicated 2ch system just for them? Again, that looks really sweet.

mikeduke June 05, 2008 11:35

System edited: Took the Ayre K-1xe, C-5xe, and Meridian 861 out of my system. I got tired of juggling two separate sections, one analog and one digital. Now everything goes through a Lexicon MC-12B HD with EQ. I can use analog bypass for the vinyl and anything else I choose. This system is hassle free finally and with the EQ the frequency response is as close to perfect as I could get it while still maintaining a natural sound. I'm still playing with it, but I don't expect to get it too much flatter, except in one or two places... Everything sounds pristine, and I am extremely happy. I don't plan on any major upgrades for a long time to come now (except perhaps to upgrade to a newer Lexicon reference when it comes out, and to add amps with more juice if necessary).

jkalman June 03, 2008 19:15

System edited: Updated speakers in components section, but didn't add picture yet...

jkalman May 22, 2008 01:25

Shadorne,

Thanks! Music recommendations are always appreciated.

jkalman May 18, 2008 01:19

Good to see you still making progress. If you like percussion then a fun DVD is Black Eyed Peas "Live from Sydney to Vegas" - the Sydney concert is good sound quality - some seriously good drumming from Keith Harris and very little of the usual audio compression you normally get on music DVD's.

shadorne May 16, 2008 20:35

System edited: I switched from the different model Wilson speakers to the Revel Salon2s all around. This will improve my surround experience by an incredible amount. I so far feel I've lost some mid-range transparency, perhaps due to differences in the driver materials, but what I have gained in timbre matching and seamlessness in the surround field more than compensates for the losses elsewhere... With two channel, where I have lost some "lifelike" character in some places, it has been made up for in other places. Percussion is a little more "lifelike" sounding on the Salon2s for sure, while some vocals and some guitar passages were a little more "lifelike" on the Wilsons. I'm hoping to narrow the gap more with more precise room correction and spatial correction of my setup using something like the Trinnov Optimizer.

jkalman May 16, 2008 17:44

It is a good piece of equipment that sounds excellent also. I chose it for a few reasons. I wanted balanced outputs, I wanted a device that could do everything with two channel output (DVD-A, SACD, DVD-V, CD, MP3), and I wanted it to match up with other equipment I was planning on buying for my two channel setup (pretty much all Ayre). I didn't test it against other equipment of its type, because there were none of its type at the time that had all those features.

It is especially nice that the signal goes from the C-5xe all the way to the amps in balanced mode. This ensures that I don't have to worry about EMI inside or outside of the equipment until the signal hits the speaker wire.

jkalman March 06, 2008 22:54

Hi Jkalman
Awesome set up, and very nice room. Our systems are somewhat similar, this why I need your advice/opinion.
The question is on the Ayre C5xe. I am looking to change my Sony scd-1 and have my eye on the Ayre C5xe. I see that you have lots of Ayre gear you must be happy with it. Did you A/B any other Redbook-SACD players?
I will be using it only for my two channel music setup.

Thanks for your time,

rugyboogie March 03, 2008 14:43

Holy cow! That system edit didn't post well. Here is a version with paragraphs...

I now have a pair of Salon2s to compare to my W/P8s in my listening room. We just put them in the room today. I'm giving them two weeks to break-in.

I already did in-room measurements. They aren't that different from each other in terms of in-room response. In terms of listening to the mid-range, the W/P8s image more precisely and cleanly, with more space between instruments and with the instruments better defined in space. I need to do more listening to the bass and treble between the two before I compare those, as they will require more thoughtfulness in my listening than the critical mid-range requires. This is without the Salon2s being broken in, so a lot might change in the next two weeks. This is also without the speakers in the same position the W/P8s were in. I'll have time to play around with these things as the Salon2s break in.

The two measure so much alike it is creepy. The Salons2s don't roll off as much in the high frequencies, but from the Stereophile measurements I have seen of the Studio2, it is likely because it is shelved up +2dB for a good portion of the high frequencies. That shelving in unison with natural room roll off makes their in-room high frequency response not rolled off enough IMO. As I mentioned previously, the W/P8s do have slight roll off anyway and Soundstage's NRC W/P8 measurements reveal it as well. OTOH the Salon2s are rolled up, but I do have a treble control on the Salon2s that I will play with at some point as well to lower it to a flatter anechoic response for the sake of another group of ETF5 measurements.

If anyone wants to see the preliminary measurement overlays of the two speakers I have made three overlays in ETF5. The first is of both speakers at 70dB (1/6th octave), the second of both at 80dB (1/6th octave) and the third at 80dB (1/12th) octave. I have posted them in the equipment list. The 70dB (1/6th octave) doesn't differ from the 80dB (1/6th octave) measurement so I won't bother posting it. I've also posted a pic of the Salon2s in my room in the equipment list as well.

I have to say, I am a little upset. For all the griping I have heard on fora everywhere concerning the importance of minute differences in frequency response measurements (which I bought into as a reason for making this comparison; in hopes of improving my sound quality), I am a little unenthusiastic when considering the similarities between how they both measure in my room in the critical frequencies... I expected some bass issues in my room to be resolved, but instead the speakers have revealed that those bass humps are room issues, not speaker related issues (yay... and boo...), because we know the Revels are not going to be wildly off a flat frequency response in those areas.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "best speaker," only a "best speaker for me." So any decisions I make are ultimately made on the basis of what I enjoy. The sad thing is, what seems to be the "best for me" one day can change depending on the listening material and recording quality... So I will try to assess which will meet my overall needs best, in a 2-channel and HT sense.

jkalman February 29, 2008 22:32

System edited: I now have a pair of Salon2s to compare to my W/P8s in my listening room. We just put them in the room today. I'm giving them two weeks to break-in. I already did in-room measurements. They aren't that different from each other in terms of in-room response. In terms of listening to the mid-range, the W/P8s image more precisely and cleanly, with more space between instruments and with the instruments better defined in space. I need to do more listening to the bass and treble between the two before I compare those, as they will require more thoughtfulness in my listening than the critical mid-range requires. This is without the Salon2s being broken in, so a lot might change in the next two weeks. This is also without the speakers in the same position the W/P8s were in. I'll have time to play around with these things as the Salon2s break in. The two measure so much alike it is creepy. The Salons2s don't roll off as much in the high frequencies, but from the Stereophile measurements I have seen of the Studio2, it is likely because it is shelved up +2dB for a good portion of the high frequencies. That shelving in unison with natural room roll off makes their in-room high frequency response not rolled off enough IMO. As I mentioned previously, the W/P8s do have slight roll off anyway and Soundstage's NRC W/P8 measurements reveal it as well. OTOH the Salon2s are rolled up, but I do have a treble contro on the Salon2sl I will play with at some point as well to lower it to a flatter anechoic response for the sake of another group of ETF5 measurements. If anyone wants to see the preliminary measurement overlays of the two speakers I have made three overlays in ETF5. The first is of both speakers at 70dB (1/6th octave), the second of both at 80dB (1/6th octave) and the third at 80dB (1/12th) octave. I have posted them in the equipment list. The 70dB (1/6th octave) doesn't differ from the 80dB (1/6th octave) measurement so I won't bother posting it. I've also posted a pic of the Salon2s in my room in the equipment list as well. I have to say, I am a little upset. For all the griping I have heard on fora everywhere concerning the importance of minute differences in frequency response measurements (which I bought into as a reason for making this comparison; in hopes of improving my sound quality), I am a little unenthusiastic when considering the similarities between how they both measure in my room in the critical frequencies... I expected some bass issues in my room to be resolved, but instead the speakers have revealed that those bass humps are room issues, not speaker related issues (yay... and boo...), because we know the Revels are not going to be wildly off a flat frequency response in those areas. I don't think there is such a thing as a "best speaker," only a "best speaker for me." So any decisions I make are ultimately made on the basis of what I enjoy. The sad thing is, what seems to be the "best for me" one day can change depending on the listening material and recording quality... So I will try to assess which will meet my overall needs best, in a 2-channel and HT sense.

jkalman February 29, 2008 22:29

New plan... Instead of a suspended fixed screen, I'm likely going to do a suspended electriscreen with masking built in.

It will likely be 143" width and 61" height 2.35:1 with vertical masking for the 1.78:1 (16:9) portion of the screen.

I'm also considering using acoustically transparent material so that I can add a third Watt Puppy 8 at some point for the center speaker.

jkalman February 14, 2008 03:38

Onto the next plan... A suspended microperf fixed frame screen.

Here is the outline:

Original width = 112"
Original height = 62.9"
Starting throw = 234"

New Anamorphic Screen Width = 143"
New Anamorphic Screen Height = 60.85"
New implicit 16:9 width = 108.31"

New 2.35:1 Viewing Distance Ratio = 2.89
New 16:9 View Distance = 1.63

Current 2.35:1 View Distance Ratio = 3.65
Current 16:9 View Distance Ratio = 1.58

There would be quite an improvement to the 2.35:1 viewing distance ratio and a little loss to the 16:9 (1.78:1) viewing distance ratio. If I move my seating position forward 6 inches, the 16:9 viewing distance would be exactly the same as it is now and the 2.35:1 would change from ~2.9 to ~2.8. The Wilson dealer left me that 6" window as an option depending on if I liked a more immersive sound vs. a more laid back sound, so it wouldn't hurt my speaker set up and I enjoy both listening positions.

jkalman February 12, 2008 21:44

Man, I'm bummed. I just realized my current 112" projection screen is flush to the right wall soffit and the new screen size I had been planning out is 116". That means the new case would be ~4" longer. I would need to go into the soffit (where the steal beam is located) ~2.5" in order to get the better aspect ratio and utilize the projector completely. I might have 2.5", but that would probably look really odd, and because of smaller side soffits, it wouldn't be flush with the ceiling, but rather suspended off of it.

This is looking worse and worse as a possibility (if not completely eliminated as a possibility)...

I could still just hang a fixed screen of some sort with the correct ratios I suppose.

I really don't like that most of the material I watch isn't utilizing the projector completely. Given, it still looks amazing even with the black bars...

jkalman February 12, 2008 19:04

My list of possible next steps:

1) Extra screen for 2.35:1 at a better viewing ratio (2.5) than my 16:9 with letterboxed 2.35:1 (viewing ratio of 3.6).

2) An ISCO III anamorphic lens, or other comparable anamorphic lens, with a Cineslide. This will be used with the new 2.35:1 ratio screen.

3) I'm looking into a Trinnov Optimizer unit to compensate for slightly irregular surround speaker positionings; a compromise that was initially made to optimize the two channel sound of the setup. The Trinnov optimizer corrects for speaker positioning in 3D by remapping the radiation matrix. The unit also does other room corrections, such as cancellations of first reflections (Direct Field), and Correction of the Room Energy.

4) I'm still considering an analog PEQ such as the GML 8200 for the analog portion of my system, since all my other room correction equipment requires the signal to be digitized. For this reason, I have no room correction on the two channel portion of my setup. Why? Beyond all reason, I want to be a purist with my analog section...

jkalman February 11, 2008 18:21

My next plan is to add a second screen for dedicated 2.35:1 viewing. Here is the informal plan:

2nd Projection screen size workup:
Starting width = 112"
Starting height = 62.9"
Starting throw = 234"
Right corner angle at screen = TAN^-1 ( 234 / (112 / 2) ) = 76.5 degrees
q = inches moved straight off screen towards seating position

PLACEMENT - 50" STRAIGHT OFF SCREEN:
q = 50"
50 / tan (76.5) = 12"
new 16: 9 width = 112 - 2 ( 12" ) = 88"
new 16:9 height = 88 / 1.78 = 49.4"
2.35:1 width = 2.35 * 49.4 = 116.1" (9.67')
VIEWING DISTANCE: (2 * height)
Distance from 2.35:1 @ 50" closer = 124" (10.33')
Recommended Distance (2 * height) = 2 * 49.4 = 98.8" (8.23')
Recommended Distance (3 * height) = 3 * 49.4 = 148.2" (12.35')
Actual Viewing Distance Ratio = 
(viewing distance) / (screen height) = 124 / 49.4 = 2.5

PLACEMENT - CURRENT 16:9 SETUP W/ LETTERBOXED 2.35:1:
2.35:1 width = 112" (9.33')
2.35:1 height = 112 / 2.35 = 47.66" (3.97')
VIEWING DISTANCE: (2 * height)
Distance from screen currently = 174" (14.5')
Recommended Distance (2 * height) = 2 * 47.66 = 95.32" (7.94')
Recommended Distance (3 * height) = 2 * 47.66 = 95.32" (7.94')
Actual Viewing Distance Ratio = 
(viewing distance) / (screen height) = 174 / 47.66 = 3.65

jkalman February 07, 2008 20:01

System edited: I removed the Sony VPL-VW50 projector and replaced it with a Sim2 C3X 1080.

jkalman February 07, 2008 20:00

Thanks Pkbinda,

Rives designed the setup for the subs to be in the front with the possibility of adding two more in the back if necessary. I just bought a new projector, the C3X 1080, so I don't have any plans for extra subs yet, but there is potential later on down the road. I don't necessarily think I need more.

Unfortunately, any subs added in the back would have to be smaller than the ones in the front because I just don't have the room in the back for larger subs.

jkalman January 31, 2008 20:54

Great system! Beautifully set up!

I am currently setting up my system. I have 2 SUB30's, but don't know yet what set-up I will choose. What made you decide to go with a stereo set-up on the SUB30's, rather then having a front and back set-up?

Thanks,
Pravind

pkbinda January 19, 2008 22:18

Thanks!

If you want to do something similar for your listening space you should get a Rives Audio consultation. Considering the very nice equipment you have in your setup, it would not be a lot in comparison to get a level 1 consultation in order to take the acoustical treatment of the room as far as it can go for the room shape as it is right now. Of course, after my experience with the level 2, I would recommend the level 3. If I knew then what I know now, I would have spent the extra money to go the extra mile. I always end up paying more for compromises at some point down the road than if I just did it right the first time it seems IME...

jkalman January 03, 2008 03:40