Help - why does my system sound Loud and Agressive??

[admin_exported]

After a few upgrades to my system over the years I have arrived at something which I should be able to enjoy but for some reason I am still not satisfied with the sound.

I have a 1980's Audiolab 8000A, Arcam CD72 and Quad 12L speakers, connected using a Musical Fidelity X-link interconnect, QED Micro speaker cable (biwired), standing on an Atacama Equinox stand and Soundstyle Z1 speaker stands. During the upgrade process I have looked for clarity and detail and have generally felt each component was a worthwhile upgrade (particularly the amp which really improved vocals).

However, when listening to music for long periods I find the sound to be aggressive and harsh and seems to sound too "loud" and at any volume. There is plenty of detail present but perhaps too much information in coming through making it seem muddled. What has brought this home to me is just how "musical" my Yamaha/Monitor Audio Radius AV system sounds compared to my HiFi.

What can I do to remedy this? The speakers are the most recent addition so I'd rather not change those.

Thanks.

Richard, Essex.

 

[the record spot]

Low cost fix (relatively) - have a look at the cable; I use Audioquest Copperhead (circa £60) and that soothed some previously bright and unwanted harshness to my system (see my signature line) that the previous Nordost Blue Heaven was bringing to the fore.

After that, I don't know your speaker cable, but you might look to something else there.

Depends on the tonal characteristics they have already; I wouldn't go mad on cabling but it can make a difference. Wouldn't have thought an Arcam CD72 was a harsh listen and the Quad's are traditionally forward but good with it. Obviously you know what you hear though, so I'd look at the finer points before chucking the main components first. If that doesn't work, then maybe the amp.

 

[John Duncan]

Curious. The only thing in there that strikes me as slightly out of place is the QED Micro to be honest. Though I'm not generally an advocate of using cables to tune a mismatched system (not that yours is, by inspection), you might find that a better speaker cable would give you a less strangled treble and make it more listenable.

Other than that, you might consider swapping in your AV components (I like Yamaha amps with music very much) and see if any in turn gives the sound you're looking for. As source, you could also consider trying your PC with lossless files into the DAC on the Yamaha (I'm presuming it's an AV amp) to see if the Arcam is the culprit (though I'd doubt it).

 

[Anonymous]

I used to have Quad 11 L, and I found them harsh, bright and fatiguing - horrible things. Try to get a loan/home demo of some Dynaudio or Spendor speakers, they should be a lot calmer.

 

[Anonymous]

the record spot:Low cost fix (relatively) - have a look at the cable; I use Audioquest Copperhead (circa £60) and that soothed some previously bright and unwanted harshness to my system (see my signature line) that the previous Nordost Blue Heaven was bringing to the fore.

After that, I don't know your speaker cable, but you might look to something else there.

Depends on the tonal characteristics they have already; I wouldn't go mad on cabling but it can make a difference. Wouldn't have thought an Arcam CD72 was a harsh listen and the Quad's are traditionally forward but good with it. Obviously you know what you hear though, so I'd look at the finer points before chucking the main components first. If that doesn't work, then maybe the amp.

Thanks, I was really hoping I could make a change with the cables. I dont think the speaker cable is top notch as its QED's cheapest offering. I only use it as it fits under carpet well.

 

[Anonymous]

JohnDuncan:Curious. The only thing in there that strikes me as slightly out of place is the QED Micro to be honest. Though I'm not generally an advocate of using cables to tune a mismatched system (not that yours is, by inspection), you might find that a better speaker cable would give you a less strangled treble and make it more listenable.

Other than that, you might consider swapping in your AV components (I like Yamaha amps with music very much) and see if any in turn gives the sound you're looking for. As source, you could also consider trying your PC with lossless files into the DAC on the Yamaha (I'm presuming it's an AV amp) to see if the Arcam is the culprit (though I'd doubt it).

Thanks! That's really helpful advice, I like the idea of testing the AV amp out in that room. I also have a Nad 3020e, B&W DM600 S3 and Philips SACD player upstairs to swap in (must update my sig).

I do have similar but not as severe complaints with that third system so I do suspect much of it is simply my listening tastes - or i've just listed to too many compressed music channels on my AV system in surround sound!

I think i'll have a day of messing around, though I dont look forward to unplugging and rewiring the Yamaha amp!

Rich.

 

[John Duncan]

Are the AV amp and stereo amp in the same room? You should be pre-outing to the stereo amp!

 

[the record spot]

ashworth_rich:
Thanks, I was really hoping I could make a change with the cables. I dont think the speaker cable is top notch as its QED's cheapest offering. I only use it as it fits under carpet well.

Pleasure! Like John said, it's not a suggestion to cure an underlying and deeper problem at the component level, for me I lost some harshness but the overall characteristics of my set-up remained intact which was the overall aim.

Have a word with your local dealer and see if you can loan out a few cables to see for yourself.

 

[Anonymous]

Bin Clankem:I used to have Quad 11 L, and I found them harsh, bright and fatiguing - horrible things. Try to get a loan/home demo of some Dynaudio or Spendor speakers, they should be a lot calmer.

Hmm, I take that onboard but this would be a last resort.

I did do extensive demoing before purchasing the Quads and was happy with the choice. The only difference was I was using an Arcam Amp in the shop (A65 or 75), oh and it was in the shop not my room of course I have heard that the Arcam amps can be warm sounding. This was my suspected path of upgrade...

Also, I had some Ruark Prologue floorstanders before the Quads and didn't notice the Quads to be brighter than the Ruarks (actually I still have these too so I can swap them back in for testing)

 

[Anonymous]

JohnDuncan:Are the AV amp and stereo amp in the same room? You should be pre-outing to the stereo amp!

I'm quite lucky in that respect as they are in separate rooms. When they were in the same room I was pre-outing, to a NAD C340.

 

[JoelSim]

What is your room like? Carpets or laminated floors? It may be as simple as getting some soft furnishings. Or a new amp.

 

[fatboyslimfast]

Very good point - by all measurements, my system should sound like a rattling bag of nails, but (I'm guessing) due to a lot of soft furnishings and deep-pile carpet, it sounds great...

 

[Anonymous]

JoelSim:What is your room like? Carpets or laminated floors? It may be as simple as getting some soft furnishings. Or a new amp.

This has crossed my mind too, but the room is carpetted and generally well furnished. It has curtains drawn at the windows this time of year and a leather sofa.

The room doesn't echo but it does feel somewhat sonically cold, though this could just be my perception - if that makes any sense! Its also fairly small at roughly 3mx3m

 

[Anonymous]

I know it's not the answer you want to hear, but my first thought was the speakers. To my ears they're a difficult listen, especially with a less than perfect production.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Of course, it could just be thaat your hi-fi system is more revealing of duff compressed 'made to sound good on the radio' recording/mastering than your surround set-up...

 

[Anonymous]

Could be that too, but i've tried all my music.
I will do some more "investigative" listening tonight and report back.

Thanks!

 

[Anonymous]

Tarquinh:I know it's not the answer you want to hear, but my first thought was the speakers. To my ears they're a difficult listen, especially with a less than perfect production.

Thanks for the input i'm going to swap them out for my B&W DM600 S3's and Ruark Prologues

 

[matengawhat]

i have the 12l2s which i know isn't the same speaker but i did find these very fussy about placement and it took a lot of messing about to get a sound that i liked from them - imagine the originals will be very similar.

i run these in my bedroom off arcam compnents - would never describe them as agressive - very detailed but def very unforgiving of bad recordings - i would swap out your speakers cables and also try moving the speakers positioning to see if that helps or although there is no easy solution to that its def trial and error.

 

[Anonymous]

matengawhat:i have the 12l2s which i know isn't the same speaker but i did find these very fussy about placement and it took a lot of messing about to get a sound that i liked from them - imagine the originals will be very similar.

i run these in my bedroom off arcam compnents - would never describe them as agressive - very detailed but def very unforgiving of bad recordings - i would swap out your speakers cables and also try moving the speakers positioning to see if that helps or although there is no easy solution to that its def trial and error.

Actually, they are the same! I've just checked an mine are the L2's (very small superscript 2 after the 12L written on the back). I forgot about that part!

I have noticed they are fussy about positioning but i'm limited in placement due to room size and a door in the way. Plus I cant bring them into the room too much as the wife objects

Thanks though - I will experiment right now!

Rich

 

[Anonymous]

OK, so I've just swapped out my speakers to see if they were the problem.
Using Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms (20th Anniversary Edition), which I'm sure you'll agree is a good recording, I changed the speakers to my B&W 600 S3's first.

In short the difference was not immense, there was a distinct lack of bass weight to the bass drums on Money for Nothing and perhaps more at the very top end of the treble and possibly clearer stereo imaging but the sound was still quite attacking.

Then I tried my very old Ruark Prologue Ones (look them up if you aren't familiar, they were circa £900 in the 90s). I can say that the sound had all the same constituent elements - possibly in less detail or less clarity - but they seemed to gel better. The sound was somehow richer, more full bodied and had a real warmth. In short It sounded more real, more like music rather than an exercise in pure accuracy. I guess this is ultimately what I am looking for. Maybe I should get a valve amp and vinyl? No joke

However, the bad news.

I cant use the Ruarks since that was why I got the green light to buy the Quads. They are just too big and not very pretty in "80's black" veneer. So back to the drawing board.

After going back to the Quads, I do still like the sound. They've got a real open airy quality to the top end and at low volumes sound good. The detail and attack is also a joy for simple acoustic & vocal tracks (say Prefab Sprout's Steve McQueen).
On the weekend I will stick with the Quads and try the Yammy and Nad amps and let you know how I get on. Failing that its cables.

Failing that - I give up. Maybe I'm getting old? Or worse, too used to compressed music

 

[Anonymous]

A couple of people have mentioned placement. I am thinking that may well be a part of the problem. The other thing I would have a serious look at is the source files you are using. Lower resolution mp3's just simply don't cut it.

 

[mattc76]

I found that reducing the toe in of my speakers so that the tweeters weren't looking as much towards me calmed my system enormously as well as focusing things better in the soundstage!?

 

[Anonymous]

FOr those still following this saga (which may not be many now the posts are slipping into pages 2/3) I changed over my amp this morning. I swapped the Audiolab for my old 3020e.

Well, the difference was not enourmous, which is saying something given the NADs budget roots. I did notice however that the NAD sounded fuller and more musical. Going back to the Audiolab I notice the upper-mid/trebble to be a little brittle/coarse. The nad filled that range with more "music" if that makes sense? David Grey's voice sounds very dry, and echoey, almost "nasal" compared to the fullness of the NAD.

Maybe the Audiolab would benefit from a service, or some new caps, I dont know. Or maybe i've placed too much hope in a 25 year old "classic"?

Just as an FYI, I also changed my Musical Fidelity cable for a silver plated one and that didn't help and I also reset the toe on my speakers as per the last post (which seemed to help a small amount).

So new amp for me, i'll start a new post for that one

 

[Anonymous]

Have been following your posts and got to wonder before you go out and buy a new Amp why not spend £25 and buy a Tacima CS929.

Here is this mags review on it. I use one and totally agree with them.

"We've said it before, and by heaven we're going to say it again. Don't expect to get the very best out of the lovely, expensive hi-fi equipment you've bought if you don't pay equal attention to the quality of the mains supply it has to work with. And this product, Tacima's fine-value CS929, perfectly illustrates the benefits even a modest outlay can achieve.

This six-way mains conditioner delivers truly dramatic audio gains. Comparing its performance to the 'unconditioned' sound, our reference CD/amp system enjoys greater separation and focus of sound, and greater clarity and confidence in the midrange. Bass is burlier and better integrated, too.

In a nutshell? It really does work, and is well worth the week's beer money it costs. This product really is a no-brainer."

 

[Anonymous]

oops, my sig needs to grow

If its the black 5star WHF 6-way then I already have one and some nice power cables....