Clear Thin Sound = Good or Bad?

[admin_exported]

I went to audition the Marantz 6003 combo as an upgrade from my Denon D37. The 6003 was better, but then so was the Onkyo 435 and there was no great difference between all three- I had to concentrate to notice. I resolved to not bother with an upgrade and deemed the whole "separates are so much better" thing as hyperbole. Then they pulled out the Arcam Solo. As a mini hi fi and way out of my budget I wasn't that interested. Until I stuck in a John Lenon CD and heard Imagine playing that it. Wow, a difference not so much of sound, but of feeling. Anyway I bought the Arcam without any more auditioning.

I've got the Arcam at home now and tbh it doesn't make me feel like it did in the demo. There's super separation compared to the Denon, e.g. voices are very very clear, but to the point where they dominate the music and are so demanding- you can't be in the same room without focusing on every single word. Voices are very prominent, clear and forward. Is this a good sign?

I don't particularly like this but I am wondering if;

a) I just need to get used to this sound (in the b w 685 manual it talks of a 'forward sound' that takes getting used to) and I will appreciate the extra clarity when my ears become accustomed to it.

b) The amp is just not powerful enough to drive the 685's with a full bodied sound with anything more than the piano and voice combo of imagine? I do remember the 6003 being full bodied, just utterly utterly dull in every other respect.

If you think b I may go and audition some more expensive amps (I didn't think much of the 6003 at all). Would paying a few hundred more get me a significantly better amp? I'd prob hook it up to an ipod on line out and hope this beats the arcam.

cheers

 

[plastic penguin]

I wouldn't class Arcam as having a thin sound, firstly. Did you buy brand new? if so, they'll need running in. The treble can very open, to the point of sounding maybe thin.....

I've had Arcam products for the best part of 13 years, and what you're describing doesn't sound familiar.

 

[matthewpiano]

I think you need to give it time. Like PP I find it hard to align your comments with what I know of Arcam, although I'm not totally convinced that your speakers are the ideal match for the Solo Mini. The 685s need a fairly meaty amplifier with plenty of current delivery to give their best. If you want to retain the Arcam I'd be inclined to investigate Monitor Audio and Dynaudio as good possible matches.

If you make any further changes you need to make sure you are totally convinced before parting with the money. I'm not sure your suggestion of a more expensive amp will bring you happiness, but I also think it is slightly unreasonable to expect the Solo Mini to be significantly better than the Marantz 6003 pairing.

If you want to retain the 685s the best recommendation I could make would be to go for the Onkyo digital dock for your iPod (about £150), paired with a NAD amp. This will get the best out of your source, and the amp would really give the 685s the current they deserve.

 

[Frank Harvey]

The Solo is a great little system, and as good as one box systems get this side of a Naim Uniti. As I've said before, the Solo can be partnered with speakers that you wouldn't really expect it it deal with, and can handle most speakers up to about £1,000.

Which speakers did you hear the Solo with?

I think what you're hearing from the Solo at the moment is a more accurate representation of your music. Although this is more accurate, some people don't like it. Many people don't like it when instruments can all be heard individually with plenty of space around them. They prefer a more closed in, 'mono' representation that is inoffensive. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong in preferring that, but anyone who has heard decently staged live music will know this is far from the truth. Think about it - you tend to hear more notes of disappointment on forums from people who've visited hi-fi shows and heard high end kit, rather than from those who've heard budget kit.

Of all the budget amplification, I tend to find the Rotel's drive and control are ideal for the bass that B&W's 600 series is capable of. If they're not driven properly they'll just sound soft and lacking punch.

 

[JoelSim]

You could also try moving the speakers a little closer to the walls, just generally playing with their positioning until you get a fuller sound. I also think the Solo Mini will be better when run in for a few hours.

 

[jaxwired]

FrankHarveyHiFi:I think what you're hearing from the Solo at the moment is a more accurate representation of your music. Although this is more accurate, some people don't like it. Many people don't like it when instruments can all be heard individually with plenty of space around them. They prefer a more closed in, 'mono' representation that is inoffensive. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong in preferring that, but anyone who has heard decently staged live music will know this is far from the truth.

Sorry to pick on you David, but this is a point of view that is often voiced and I think is generally B.S. I love how when someone complains that their quality gear is too bright, forward, and thin, it's frequently chalked up to the listener's borish unsophisticated ear for true high fidelity. People don't want to admit the truth that sometimes what passes for accuracy and neutrality is actually an overblown treble emphasis and a rolled off bass line. And this type of tilted presentation is not accurate at all, but will sound quite impressive with very carefully selected music. Unfortunately, few people will like it for more than a couple of songs and even fewer will be happy long term owners of such a system. "Amazing detail, breathtaking clarity, immaculate separation....are my ears suppose to bleed?"

I really don't think you need to acclimate yourself to more lifelike sound regardless of how unrefined your musical palette. Who doesn't know when music sounds more life like? We all have years of experiencing hearing real sounds with our ears. A live guitar, violin, singer, whatever will not make you wince with supersonic treble detail.

 

[SHAXOS]

I have to disagree with you Jaxwired. A lot of musical instruments in reality DO sound high pitched and piercing to my ears. If a hifi system were to accuratly represent such sounds they would also be high pitched. It is entirely up to the listener what he deems as "accurate" and what is "bright".

I must say though since i became a member of spotify i have been listening almost exclusivly through it. I recently started up itunes to compare and the first thing that hit me was that my music from i tunes was so much brighter (especially in lossless format). My music from itunes definatly had more detail compared to spotify and i never every found it too bright before. But as my ears got used to listening to relativly poorer bitrate less detailed sound of spotify all of a suddent the more "accurate" itunes music is too bright. Its just what your used too!

 

[idc]

Clear Thin Sound = Bad. That is if the listener does not like a clear, thin sound. Actually it is the thin bit that is bad. Clear is good as it is more lifelike and realistic. Thin is wrong, it is colouration, music should not be thin and it is certainly not hifi. As for hifi, neutrality is the most important part. To my mind it is the musician and producer who decide how a track should sound and the hifi should reproduce that. I disagree SHAXOS with your comment it is up to the listener to decide.

How much bass and treble there is is a sticking point. I say that bass and treble should be in the background and all the action should be with the midrange starting from upper bass through to lower treble. The extremes should not be emphasised, unless a particular track or part is emphasising the lower bass or top treble. But that is more up to the listener.

 

[Anonymous]

If all music sounds equally good, chances are your system alters the sound.

If some recordings sounds good, while others don't, chances are your system are better at reproducing what's put into it.

As what's added by 'hi-fi' systems is usually harmonic distortion, 'duplicating' each note (to over-simplify a little), chances are a system that's more faithful to the source will sound 'thinner'.

Many people, audiophiles among them, tend to like systems with lots of harmonic distortion (valve amps being the ultimate example). Many people also tend to like more bass than what's actually present in the recordings (or in live acoustic instruments). It's often referred to as 'warm', or even 'natural' or 'musical' sound. Lots of manufactorers makes hi-fi equipment gives those people what they want.

 

[Frank Harvey]

jaxwired: FrankHarveyHiFi:I think what you're hearing from the Solo at the moment is a more accurate representation of your music. Although this is more accurate, some people don't like it. Many people don't like it when instruments can all be heard individually with plenty of space around them. They prefer a more closed in, 'mono' representation that is inoffensive. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong in preferring that, but anyone who has heard decently staged live music will know this is far from the truth.

Sorry to pick on you David, but this is a point of view that is often voiced and I think is generally B.S. I love how when someone complains that their quality gear is too bright, forward, and thin, it's frequently chalked up to the listener's borish unsophisticated ear for true high fidelity. People don't want to admit the truth that sometimes what passes for accuracy and neutrality is actually an overblown treble emphasis and a rolled off bass line. And this type of tilted presentation is not accurate at all, but will sound quite impressive with very carefully selected music. Unfortunately, few people will like it for more than a couple of songs and even fewer will be happy long term owners of such a system. "Amazing detail, breathtaking clarity, immaculate separation....are my ears suppose to bleed?"

I really don't think you need to acclimate yourself to more lifelike sound regardless of how unrefined your musical palette. Who doesn't know when music sounds more life like? We all have years of experiencing hearing real sounds with our ears. A live guitar, violin, singer, whatever will not make you wince with supersonic treble detail.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Have you ever sat in front of someone playing drums? A crash cymbal isn't delicate, and it's certainly not smooth. Just ask the few on this website that play drums.....

I can't really think of anything to add to what I ahve said, which I stand by. A more accurate sound isn't necessarily what everyone is looking for, nor wants. If it was, all hi-fi would sound the same. There are also many other factors that affect the tonality of a system.

As far as I'm concerned, all these smooth, warm sounding albums are certainly nice to listen to, but they're the ones that aren't accurate (unless you're listening to music like soft jazz). I have a few albums I try out with systems that I feel are far more representative of 'real' instruments: try Rage Against The Machine's self titled album and Red Hot Chili Pepper's Blood Sugar Sex Magic. These albums have quite a raw sound to them, which to me is much more representative of real instruments when compared to albums to which you could quite easily fall asleep.

 

[idc]

Fahnsen:

As what's added by 'hi-fi' systems is usually harmonic distortion, 'duplicating' each note (to over-simplify a little), chances are a system that's more faithful to the source will sound 'thinner'.

I totally disagree with that. High fidelity is where reproduction of the sound is accurate to the original, so a hifi system that is faithful to the source will not sound thinner or add harmonic distortion. Unless, that is the recording was thin or distorted in the first place. I doubt that many musicians and producers go for a thin sound. They would want the music to be lively, realistic, have a good beat, so they could go for a kind of distorted sound with the likes of extra bass on dance music. On a high fidelity hifi that extra bass would be tolerable, as I doubt the original production intention would be to make it overpowering. But on a bass heavy system, the extra bass could well overwhelm the rest of the music.

 

[Anonymous]

Time will tell with regard to my ears getting used to the detail and the amp running in- it was new but I have played it for at least a few hours.It is odd that what I report doesn't accord with both your experiences of Arcam hi fi- it doesn't accord with my demo experience at all either!

Just to clarify; the dominance of the voice is the best way to describe my problem with what I hear but I could also say that the upper bass and midrange that idc says should be the most prominent are precisely the areas that are lacking with my system. Sounds in this range just sound a little weak, upper bass is not punchy at all. Guitars, for instance, do not stand out at all whereas I am used to such midrange sounds pulling me into the music.

Frank, I pair the Arcam with B&W 685's which in the demo sounded better than both Kef IQ50's and on a par with Monitor Audio RX6's (685's ob had less deep bass but the voices were smoother, more prominent-yes, I see the irony now- and nicer). So I'm not sure I could find speakers I like much more- maybe though. And they are already situated as far into the corners as possible but thanks for the advice.

I had previously ruled out the problem could be to do with the 685's needing running in as the Denon D37 didn't have the same problem, but then I spose that could just be the Denon's lack of separation and clarity muddying the waters.

So yes, I think I'll wait and see! No need to rush as I got a super deal on both the Arcam and the 685's so I won't lose much money if I have to sell them. Failing that I will try the Nad/ Rotel Amp path- But is it really necessary to spend much on the line out dock-would not a simple cable be just as good? You see, £650 - £150 for an Ipod leaves me with £500, most of which I'd like to spend on the amp.

Oh, and I didn't expect the Arcam to be significantly better than the Marantz, but from the Demo I think it is.

And thanks to all!

 

[idc]

A suggestion for connecting the ipod is the Russ Andrews GQ-24 cable. The only drawback is that the ipod does not get charged when in use. Its great sound is down to the cable by- passing the ipods own amp so the Arcam does all the work.

 

[Anonymous]

And one thing I forgot to ask; obviously the ipod dac won't be as good as the Arcam Dac, but from your suggestions I'm guessing it won't be much worse and the better amplification of a separate amp will make up for it and then some?

 

[idc]

For its price (£50 for the phono connection, cheaper for the headphone connection) the GQ-24 is hard to beat. If the Arcam has digital/optical in then you could look at the highly rated Onkyo ND S1 which can take a digital signal from the ipod. It is about £135.

 

[Frank Harvey]

sezchwarn:Just to clarify; the dominance of the voice is the best way to describe my problem with what I hear but I could also say that the upper bass and midrange that idc says should be the most prominent are precisely the areas that are lacking with my system. Sounds in this range just sound a little weak, upper bass is not punchy at all. Guitars, for instance, do not stand out at all whereas I am used to such midrange sounds pulling me into the music.

Frank, I pair the Arcam with B&W 685's which in the demo sounded better than both Kef IQ50's and on a par with Monitor Audio RX6's (685's ob had less deep bass but the voices were smoother, more prominent-yes, I see the irony now- and nicer). So I'm not sure I could find speakers I like much more- maybe though. And they are already situated as far into the corners as possible but thanks for the advice.

It's David

I'd say that the iQ30's may have been a better choice as a comparson to the 685's than the iQ50's - cabinet and driver size would be much more comparable. I think the difference you describe here describes the general difference between KEF and B&W for many people. Obviously there are far more variables to take into account for the above to be an exact statement.
Manufacturers will highlight frequency bands they want to be more prominent - this will either be to match their own electronics, match other people's electronics, or just purely to give a different presentation when compared to equivalents from competitors.

 

[Anonymous]

What deal did you get on the Arcam? Are you able to return it for a refund? To be honest, if you don't like it now, it's unlikely that you'll like it in the future. You will always feel you have compromised even if you get used to the sound. Getting used to the sound is not the same thing as enjoying it, and it's not as if the box is cheap. Product "burn-in" is often just a euphemism for giving your ears time to get used to a system - which they might never. Can you imagine if a brand new aircraft changed its flying characteristics as the cockpit electrics "burned in" or magically transformed?

If it were me, I'd be offloading it and looking for something that suited me better. If you prefer a warmer sound, NAD boxes are pretty good, but, as always, it's the speakers that make or break the system. Try and get a deal where you can have a home trial, so you can play the system with a wide variety of music. Ref speaker burn-in - you'll know if they are any good after a few hours - you don't need the full 200-300 as quoted by most manufacturers.

One last thing, and maybe the most important - is your listening room set up to produce a good sound? This is rarely mentioned, but getting this bit right is the cheapest and most cost-effective upgrade you can do.

 

[idc]

Cable Lover:

...... Getting used to the sound is not the same thing as enjoying it......

..... Product "burn-in" is often just a euphemism for giving your ears time to get used to a system - which they might never.....

......is your listening room set up to produce a good sound? This is rarely mentioned, but getting this bit right is the cheapest and most cost-effective upgrade you can do.......

Three cracking points there Cable Lover.

 

[Anonymous]

Kisses xxx

I'm not all bad.....

 

[Anonymous]

Have you wired your speakers out of phase accidentally - easily done!