Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Totem Dreamcatcher or Mite Vs. 170 or 340

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charter Oak, Iowa
    Posts
    579

    Default

    Welcome! Thanks for joining us for a chat! From the looks of your initial audition list you've been a busy boy!

    Randy

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Hello Capt. (welcome!),

    Did I understand you correctly, from the AVS Forum, that one of your criteria for speakers is how well they deal with less than ideal recordings? Or did I misunderstand?

    ps: Curtis, any special gifts for the existing member who brings in the noteworthy 250th new forum member??!! []




  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charter Oak, Iowa
    Posts
    579

    Default

    Awhile back I think I remember Curtis saying that he would personally extend a complete 6.1 Ascend system to the 250th forum member AND one to the current member that brought him in. Then again maybe he said 2500th member...I dunno...could be I was just imagining things too.

    Randy

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,032

    Default

    Yeah...I think you were imagining it. []

    -curtis

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    149

    Default

    No, Randy, I'm sure you remembered correctly.

    It's such a shame that Curtis isn't a man of his word.. another hero has fallen.

    [V]*deep sigh*


  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Gregisme - I wasn't the one looking for a speaker that handled poorly recorded material. I remember the thread you are mentioning though, it was someone who had auditioned almost double the speakers I've listened too (at double the budget) and still couldn't find one that made him happy. He was apparently very sensitive to high frequencies (as in they hurt his ears if they were remotely harsh), but didn't want a speaker that sacrificed clear highs as he found those too "muddy". As an example - so far the only pair he found that he thought he could live with were the Martin Logan Grotto's I believe.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    149

    Default

    ok Capt., so I was a little off. []

    I mistook your preference for speaker smoothness as a necessity for your poorly recorded music. In actuality, you suggested such a smooth speaker as it would also help with the thread starter's concern about poorly recorded music.

    your original post:

    For me, I'd say the most important thing is smoothness. I love smooth-sounding speakers (and they tend to help with lower quality recordings).
    I'd say my second most desired speaker attribute would be imaging - as stated above, it really is magical to hear things coming from places in the room that you KNOW should not be possible."


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •