Auditioning the MEG RL-901K

[Stereo Mic]

In comparison the IB2's and to a lesser degree the AML-1's just did not seem to "track" the music well, always being behind and somewhat disjointed, both also sounded very obviously "boxy" and "compressed", for want of a better word. There was a very obvious degree of artificiality to the reproduction from the IB2, a loss of small detail and atmosphere and realism.
T

Just to clarify, would you say that your findings with the PMC's really precluded their use in an optimised "illusion machine" or are you just being picky?

 

[The Devil]

...on one occasion in your house you got to hear what the artist intended, maybe...

[remainder of inarticulate & irrelevant rant deleted]

No "maybe" about it, old fruit. They were very pleased that it came over so clearly.

The aim of a hi-fi system is to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible. Is that so difficult to understand, or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

How Mr Whizz-Bang! Sonics here can ever enjoy music, whilst fiddling with his knobs at the same time, I don't know. How many plays of a piece are required before he's satisfied that the settings are "correct"? Change a record, and the process starts again.....

 

[pauldixonuk]

It does sound like a huge ordeal. I can just about manage to pick up another beer between discs. Ignorance is bliss, perhaps. :MILD:

 

[The Devil]

On a good hi-fi, you can "hear through" the recording, in any case. I think it's quite charming. I could do without hearing tape edits, etc., but missing those means missing a lot more, too.

 

[dominicT]

[/quote]
The aim of a hi-fi system is to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible. Is that so difficult to understand, or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

How Mr Whizz-Bang! Sonics here can ever enjoy music, whilst fiddling with his knobs at the same time, I don't know. How many plays of a piece are required before he's satisfied that the settings are "correct"? Change a record, and the process starts again.....[/QUOTE]

The aim of a hifi system is to enable you to hear the CD or record that you have purchased. If your meaning is that it is to reproduce as accurately as possible then I am happy that you have a meaning that means something to you. My meaning of hifi is that it is for me to enjoy my music.

As for satisfaction that the settings are correct...bub.....you are the most fanatical of people when it comes to getting the settings right - you even accuse JW at Mana that he does not know how to set up his own mana properly and that only you have the right method - yes I have read the thread!

Are you on holiday this week or am I paying my NI contribution for you to exert your rubbish on the internet?

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

Just to clarify, would you say that your findings with the PMC's really precluded their use in an optimised "illusion machine" or are you just being picky?

Nothing precludes anything from being used in an illusion engine. The issue is that with music the "illusion" is difficult to achieve. And on top of that our learned responses to recorded sound differ.

What to one person is an unsurmountable obstacle to enjoy listening to music (I seem very sensitive to "smeared impulses" and "brightness" or "whiteness" of tone) is barely noticable to another. What makes or breaks the illusion tends to be a specific type of imperfection and as nothing is perfect and as there are several imperfect items in the combination that reproduces music we must choose what suits us individually.

This is why I argued for a liberal libertine approach "anything goes as long as you enjoy it" at home.

So, if PMC's push your buttons, if ATC's on Mana push your bottons, be my guest. If it's Lowthers and Single Ended Triodes, great, if it's MEG's, splendid.

Ciao T

 

[bottleneck]

All names of ''smilies'' on the forum are very tongue in cheek, they are meant to be a little bit of fun, we don't mean to offend anybody.

If anyone objects to any name of any smilie, please inform the mods.

Thanks
Chris with mod hat on.

 

[Dev]

As promised, I've deleted some of the posts to tidy up the thread, more to follow.

Sorry Chris, I've deleted the post you were referring to.

 

[joel]

All names of ''smilies'' on the forum are very tongue in cheek, they are meant to be a little bit of fun, we don't mean to offend anybody.

I thought they were quite amusing when I made them, back in the day.
Does anyone remember Gary :gary: ...
I was a bit disappointed when my Teac icon got remade as as yikes, though.
Oh yes, heard some smallish MEGs the other week.

 

[Markus S]

Oh yes, heard some smallish MEGs the other week.

Tease! Tell us more ...

 

[joel]

Tease! Tell us more ...

Good, very good even. Unfortunately I didn't have anything at hand to make a direct comparison with, and I was there for one of these rather than the speakers. I imagine that at full size they would, as expected, be very ugly indeed. From what I heard, I wouldn't be ready to class the small ones in the revelation category, however I would like to hear their big brothers - and the Lipinskis while I'm at it.

 

[Tenson]

Wow, I didn't expect the thread to get this big! I just read it all in one go lol!

Okay the PMC IB2's were being powered from a Bryston 4B SST. The Desk was an SSL AWS 900 and the CD player, as said, was a Alesis thing which looked a lot like an ADAT!

There was a room resonance in the low mid range, I think around 200-350Hz. It made the sound pretty muddled around here but the same was evident in the IB2's as well so it was a fair demo.

In my opinion the MEG's were indeed a better monitor than the IB2's and Bryston combo. On switching from the MEG's to the IB2's and back it was quite evident that the MEG's had more detail in the midrange. Despite the IB2's being louder for the same level setting on the desk, they sounded more shut in.

It's surprising I say this really because I am a great fan of PMC and Bryston. I have heard a fair number of systems and until the MEG's, I had not ever thought of them as sounding 'compressed'ââ'¬Â¦ but in comparison, they do. I didn't really understand how Thorsten could say speakers sounded 'compressed' because I have not heard it before. It's not compression like an electronic compressor in a studio. Its like the MEG's had a bigger pair of lungs on them. They had more scale, consistency in tracking instruments and were simply more involving.

In the large room, the AML1's did sound quite smallââ'¬Â¦ and they are! But I do in fact rate them as sounding more accurate and more like the MEG's than the IB2's.

The accuracy of the MEG's really stood out when I played my own recording's / performance's that I mixed in my home studio on AML1's where I have extensive room treatment and some digital room correction as well.

Now you would think that as I made the music on a pair of PMC speakers that are closely related in design to the IB2's that the music would sound more as intended on the IB2's than on the MEG's, but it didn't. The recordings came across much closer to what I heard in my studio on the MEG's than on the IB2's!! The IB2's sounded like they had a more tizzy, thin trebley reproduction. They missed some of the guts of the MEG's. I think for one, this shows that my system is pretty damn accurate but also that the MEG's are able to be more accurate than the IB2's even in a non-treated room.

I came away from this demo very impressed with the MEG's ability to resolve detail and reproduce large dynamic range / scale. I also feel very happy with my own system. Although the AML1's sounded 'little' in the demo room, in a small room like mine, they actually sound very close to the MEG's. They have a good balance and only miss the very last word in detail and dynamics. I Think while the soundstage on the MEG's is large, the imaging on the PMC's is better.

Paul, I find it surprising you say speakers with a flat response sound dull too you. You own IB2's, which in comparison to many speakers, are flat, but also the MEG's which are flatter still, sounded far more involving and alive than the IB2. This is probably more due to dynamics than the response though.

The cardioid response of the MEG's was very impressive. If you walked behind the speakers the entire music got quieter, including the bass! It was like shutting a door between you and them. This would no doubt do wonders for room interaction from the rear wall and also stop your neighbours complaining as much!

On a final note, I liked the MEG's a lot. I think with a valve pre-amp they would sound perfect for both use in a home and studio. If my room were bigger I would be saving up for a pair, but as it is, my AML1's do the job nearly as well for my small space. The PMC IB2's are indeed great speakers but I find their response slightly off in the high frequency. No speaker I have heard has sounded as dynamic and resolving as the MEG's so its no insult to say they IB2's didn't do as well here.

P.S. Titian, I would be happy to demo the MEG's with you, I only hope KMR wont think its too cheeky to keep listening too them when I have no intention of buying them.

 

[Tenson]

Now.. Mr. Devil, Quite simply, if the measurements Hi-Fi News printed are true, then ATC speakers are NOT the most accurate speakers available. FUL STOP. Over 3% 2nd harmonic distortion is not very good.

What's more, it amazes me you think you are the only one to hear a live performance reproduced through your speakers. Myself, Thorsten and Dominic are all recording engineers and have probably heard more bands perform live and then reproduced through a multitude of speakers than you ever will in your entire life. Your ignorance of the pro-audio side of things is also quite evident so I wish you would just shut up about it.

Subjective listening of your loudspeakers says nothing much about their accuracy. Accuracy is about measured specifications, not listening to how they sound. You have been presented with evidence to show they are not as accurate, in any regard, as the MEG RL901K.

Please don't misunderstand me though, I have no problem with you liking your speakers, I just don't think you should say they are the most accurate available when they ARE NOT.

They are probably used in studios as a reference for how music will sound on a Hi-Fi system, rather than a monitor. In my opinion PMC are a good balance between monitor and Hi-Fi so I am happy to use them in my Hi-fi and studio.

A speaker with a flat response can make music sound bright because a lot of people have systems with a slightly recessed high response and then a boost of tizzy treble at the end. As a recording engineer and especially as mastering engineer you often have to adjust for this in the recordings by adding a bit of extra treble around this area to compensateââ'¬Â¦ so although it sounds harsh on a flat system, on 'Hi-Fi' it sounds about right. It's a chicken and egg thing. I'm sure if Hi-Fi speakers were made with a flat response, the recordings would be made to sound perfectly good on them, but until recordings are made like this, I don't expect the speakers will be made for it.

Whats wrong with Thorsten using EQ to adjust the sound to his liking when its only for his pleasure? It only takes 20 seconds to add a 1dB LF shelf at 100Hz and a -1dB bell at 8KHz or whatever.

Hi-Fi is not about accuracy, it's about making an enjoyable sound. However, if you really are after accuracy in your system (I am too, I think it sounds good) then why don't you have any form of room treatment or digital correction? Even with the most accurate speakers, your room will f**k up the sound.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

Wow, I didn't expect the thread to get this big! I just read it all in one go lol!

Shame you did not see it prior to a significant deletion round by the Moderators.... At some time I counted and Mr 666 averaged > 1/3rd of all posts in the thread.

Anyway, it was a pleasure meeting you and my wife says "Hi"....

Drop by again soon if you like.

Ciao T

 

[Tenson]

Thorsten's system was very interesting too! It has open baffle speakers made from Perspex with a full range (8ââ'¬Â was it?) driver and a super tweeter. It also had a sub.

I think it had a very open and fast sound, with a lot of the detail retrieval and dynamics of the MEG's, but a softer top end. For open baffle speakers, they had surprising kick and low end extension, even without the sub. Actually, IMO the sub added too much bass and I preferred it without but it did help to fill in the very low notes. There was also a room resonance around 150Hz I think. This was the only noticeable one though. Again, like the IB2's I think the system was a little thin sounding but Thorsten said this was largely down to the amps he was using, which I can believe.

I was also impressed with his DVD player ding CD duties. It was notably better than the DEQ2496 when playing from the media PC. I might have to do those mods (or get someone to do them) for my DEQ2496 to try and bring it up to scratch!

The soundstage was large, but I found it odd having the musicians appear in solid objects such as the TV because the speakers were back from other things!

I will also proudly say that none of the systems I heard at KMR or Thorsten's have as accurate imaging as mine

For classical or acoustic music I think I would love Thorstens system. But for more heavy guitar driven stuff, I'd find it a bit too thin.

The fieldcoil technology is very interesting as well! More speakers should have this IMO.

 

[Tenson]

Hi,



Shame you did not see it prior to a significant deletion round by the Moderators.... At some time I counted and Mr 666 averaged > 1/3rd of all posts in the thread.

Anyway, it was a pleasure meeting you and my wife says "Hi"....

Drop by again soon if you like.

Ciao T

I thought I was the only person who posted this late at night! My GF is out clubbing with her sister as her birthday present and apparently its a girls only night so I have to sit alone reading Hi-Fi forums hehe!

I really like the Arrested Development CD BTW, I listened to it last night. Any other stuff like that? I think its a lot more interesting than most Old Skool stuff I have heard at clubs and so on. The backings are great!

 

[The Devil]

I just don't think you should say they are the most accurate available when they ARE NOT.

I've never said that. Are you hard of reading as well as hard of thinking?

I do know that they are extremely accurate, on account of the recording session.

Herr Thorsten thinks he can get away with comparing one set of figures from one hi-fi magazine with other figures from a manufacturer. He can't. It's nonsense.

Myself, Thorsten and Dominic are all recording engineers and have probably heard more bands perform live and then reproduced through a multitude of speakers than you ever will in your entire life.

Run along, laddie-boy.

 

[The Devil]

I will also proudly say that none of the systems I heard at KMR or Thorsten's have as accurate imaging as mine

I would invite you to my place, but I won't because [fill in the missing words].

 

[joel]

Myself, Thorsten and Dominic are all recording engineers and have probably heard more bands perform live and then reproduced through a multitude of speakers than you ever will in your entire life.

Really? I thought 3D sonics worked in accounting software or something and that you were some kind of rich kid student-y type. Forum appearances can be so deceptive. There you go.
Obviously you being a pro and all gives you the kind of insight that poor sots like bub and me could never achieve. Why do we even bother buying records and going to gigs.

 

[Tenson]

I've never said that. Are you hard of reading as well as hard of thinking?

I do know that they are extremely accurate, on account of the recording session.

Herr Thorsten thinks he can get away with comparing one set of figures from one hi-fi magazine with other figures from a manufacturer. He can't. It's nonsense.



Run along, laddie-boy.

I'm not going to argue with you, I was pretty sure I read you say ATC's are the most accurate. You DEFFINATLY said they are 'extremely accurate' which again is not true when comparing them to speakers such as the MEG's.