Whats my weak link?

Gotta ask, but what about the Vandys didn't float your boat? Saw you'd picked them up, and was looking forward to hear what you thought. Seemed, in the abstract and not having any personal exposure, like a great idea. Between the KEF and the Vandys, do you have a preference? I know that conventional wisdom (stuff I've myself parroted) can be that surround-sound processors pulling double-duty as two-channel preamps can be less than super -- thus look to thy Classe SSP. Honestly, that might be a great place to start, but what do I know. You're running very nice and well thought out gear either way, so it's really down to personal preference at this level, a far as I'm concerned. Put differently, if you were to estimate that you were looking for more "X" in your sound, what would X be? For whatever value of X you value, I suspect there's lots of ways to get from here to there. Maybe a little focus on that would help? I just hesitate to put too much faith in purportedly objective suggestions without unpacking motives -- especially when your motive is the only one that's worth a damn under the circumstances.... Not to say that I think any of the suggestions are not great suggestions, all make perfect sense to me in the abstract, just posing the question of weather it'd be beneficial to get less abstract...?

First off, scratch that decco idea; not what I'm looking for.

Hey Mezmo! Thanks for the reply. It's hard to explain what it is that I'm looking for in terms of sound because I'm relatively new to all this audio stuff. Basically, sometimes my set-up just has what I would describe as a pronounced midrange; it seems like I lose bass response and the extension, air and detail in the highs. My buddies system, who I mention above, just sounded so clean(?) and airy(?). The music seemed to flow so effortlessly.

I think I'm going to grab 4 gik 244 panels and experiment with those set up behind my speakers and at side first reflection points. I'll see if I can get some sort of decent pre amp on loan from somewhere and I'm thinking about grabing four pangea power cords (3 ac14se, 1 ac9). The reason why I'd go with pangea is because I can grab all four for like $340 from audioadvisor and I guess if I don't like them, I can return them; I dunno.

One thing that I should add though is that my stereo has always sounded quite a bit better to me late at night. The house I live in was probably built in the early 90's so it's not like it's super old. I don't know if it really is sounding alot better, or if its my mind set and lower ambient noise or if it's actually because I'm getting cleaner power, or a combination of all three of those things.

My room is only 12x13 and there isn't much in here so I had terrible slap echo so I grabbed a thick queensize mattress out of the guest bedroom, propped it against my back wall and threw a thick blanket on it. I've also got four sliding closet doors that I know have to hurt bass response at high volumes.

As for the vandersteens, they just weren'f for me. Compared to my paradigms and these kef's, they sounded slow (to me) and not nearly as detailed. I listen to all kinds of music and especially like percussive sounds; the vandies didn't cut it for me for drums. The vandies did sound crazy good for listening to house / electronic music though (so much so that it is going to be hard to part with them just for that reason). I like more of a pin point image also, and the vandies seemed a little diffused. They're a little on the big and ugly (to some) side, and I know it would only be a matter of time before my cat or girlfriends cat started using them as scratching posts.

With disrespect, I think your weak link is the fact that you don't have a plan. Take some time to define the characteristics of your ideal music machine, then investigate components within your budget that have a high probability, working together, of getting you there.

A great dealer would be ideal, but it doesn't sound like you have access to someone who is willing to help you define what you want and then suggest options to get you there.

Jim Smith's book is a great beginning.

Good luck.

With disrespect, I think your weak link is the fact that you don't have a plan. Take some time to define the characteristics of your ideal music machine, then investigate components within your budget that have a high probability, working together, of getting you there.

A great dealer would be ideal, but it doesn't sound like you have access to someone who is willing to help you define what you want and then suggest options to get you there.

Jim Smith's book is a great beginning.

Good luck.

Will, play nice. Sounds like a fine plan to me. And besides, we've got time and music to fill it with, who says we need a stinkin' "plan," anyway;)

Personally, think it’s the journey, the experiments, the learning and the mistakes (oh, dear lord, the mistakes...) that are half the fun. We're talking about tearing up a bed and throwing a queen sized mattress against the back wall because we can, just to see what kind of difference it makes. That's some serious, get shit done, can do attitude. Respect. And, really, the only way to figure out what kind of sound makes you go all smiley in the first place is trial and error -- which then metastasizes into a futile and evolving effort to describe it in words in order to communicate it to jackasses like me. You know, fun.

So, to the task at hand: pretending to be able to prescribe a fix for an imagined ailment over the Internet. (Yes, to any haters, something no half-competent professional would ever dream of doing, but lighten up, we're here to have fun and trade ideas, not cure cancer). Let’s pretend that the old detail/resolving power v. warmth/musicality distinction is a spectrum. (I might argue it is not, but anyway.) Reserving your right to change your mind at any moment, sounds like you're coming down more on the detail end of things. Think the Vandies are a fine indicator of this. They're meant to have it in them to be warm, musical, high-energy and wonderful, but arguably a little sloppy when it comes to detail. You've become acclimated to something that's likely a lot more clinical and detailed. And thus, we’ve uncovered a valuable preference. Ideally, of course, the idea is to minimize the compromise of one side of the “spectrum” that needs to be made in order to advance the other. What we all (well, me, at any rate) want is lush, warm musicality at the same time as fantastic detail and holographic imaging. But in the real world, a world made of compromises, it can often be a trade-off to advance the ball in one direction at the expense of the other (Exhibit 1: the Vandersteens).

For many a year, I was running Thiel 2.3s (to overgeneralize, falling more on the detail/clinical side of the spectrum) while chasing through all manner of tubes (several preamps, a CDP, a DAC, etc…) all in the interest of trying to go both directions at once. I wanted lush and warm and tone, and kept throwing things at the Thiels to pull them in that direction—all the time relishing the anchor the Thiels provided on the detail end of the spectrum. Then, I decided that wasn’t what I wanted after all. I wanted more detail. So all the tubes went, and the Thiels were switched to a diet of escalating solid state to feed off of. Wires were built, and then changed, and then changed some more; speakers were moved; rooms were swapped; isolation was tweaked; and this went on for about a decade (sigh). Then came the Parsifals. Sounded wonderful, immediately, major improvements in both detail and musicality, and imaging to die for (and for the price, damn well better be…). After about a year with the Parsifals, I put the Thiels back in to see what I thought. Now, I’d listened to the Thiels pretty much every day for over ten years. I loved them. But after a year with the Parsifals the Thiels didn’t last two minutes. I’d become acclimated to something different, and I didn’t have the slightest idea how different until I tried to go back. By comparison, the Thiels were so etched and clinical I didn’t get through even one track. Couldn’t do it. Unplugged them and schlepped them back into the other room, never to try that experiment again. (At the risk of cross-referencing, I’ve always considered this drift to the detail/etched end of the spectrum to be the most easily identifiable culprit in producing listener fatigue.) Personal mythology aside, really drove home for me the power of acclimatizing to a particular sound. It takes time to relax into a sound and understand it, to make a home with it. And then you come to like what you’re used to. My take away was that you really have to give changes time to sink in to fully appreciate and understand them. At least I do (years for me, but then I’m slow). When folks caution to “slow down,” think that’s what they’re getting at. Now, if that don’t work for you, it don’t work for you – no reason it should if it don’t – but there it is. (Yes, I realize I just contradicted my whole point about getting used to stuff by only giving the Thiels two minutes. Solid argument. Perfect example. I rule. Check, check and check.)

As for points to consider, it seems by general acclimation we’re talking about four things: positioning, room treatment, power, and possibly preamp. (Almost all p’s). All seem like worth exploring, and I’d take’em in just that order because I suspect that’ll provide the most bang for your buck (one might even argue that the order is most important/least expensive to least important/most expensive…but that’s an argument I’ll hope to skip). And go easy on the bedding.