Opinions on why this system is uninvolving

Many thanks for your responses. I realize that the problems I stated are somewhat vague and that solutions, can run the gamut. In any envet , I will try to repsond to some of your questions.

First, the room. It is a large room about 30' x 25', carpeted. I use two tube traps behind the speakers and between them with the reflective side out. (I've noticed that the placement of these really changes the sound -- particulalry with respect to vocals; current placement seems to tame some raggedness to vocal sound and adds clarity and more solid placement). The Revels are about 3' from the back wall and about the same from the side walls; they are about 9-10 feet apart. Unfortuntely the back wall is mostly window as are the side walls. The listening areea is about 10-15 feet from the speakers.

Other problems I've noticed that I forgot to mention earlier are as follwos: (1) image height at times seems low; (2) female vocals seem thin; (3) complex passages of more than one instrument (for ex. violin and accordion on the Tin Hat Trio) get tangled and are not easily distinguishable); (4) no holographic or 3-D effects, image-wise; (5) cettain frequencies at times seem overly emphasized, but the bass seems ok. I have experimented with the two tweeter controls but have come to no firm conclusions.

I still have all of the components of the old system. One of you asked about the Snells. I have had them in the system for more than 20 years and so I am quite used to thier sound, which is vey smooth. They are a forgiivng speaker, so most recordings are listenable. I did find the old system "involving", but lacking in bass, detail, depth, soudstaging, and imaging was not great.

I recently put the EAD front end back in and realized that I liked the sound better although I'm sure there is a loss of information. Its seems with the Metronome, I hear too much, including sound that seems to fill the silences, which the EAD doesn't have. Vocals are much fuller and clearer with the EAD as well. By the same token, much detail is lost, including many facets of the sound of woodwinds for example. So because of less information, I guess it is easier to focus on the sound; it seems better integrated, albeit perhaps less "real". This is probaly a function of spending years with a forgiving system and I haven't adjusted to more information.

I do have an analogue set-up, currently not in use but soon to be. It is an Oracle with an ET-2 arm, and probably a Benz Ace (at least that's what Brooks Berdan recommended).

The 30' foot interconnect run was used in the old system as was the power wedge. Indeed, when I first put in the power wedge about 12 years ago or so, it improved the sound of the system in every parameter (the amp at the time was a Counterpoint SA-20).

The MFAs are monoblocks with 6 KT90s a side and put out 200 w/ch into 8 ohms (they halve thier power in triode mode which I never use).They were designed by Bruce Moore and Scott Frankland (Wavestream Kinetics)(MFA=Moore, Frankland Associates).

I really appreciate your taking the time to read this thread and to provide your input.

Dear Audiokinesis: Thanks for the input and yeah I want to "play along". First, you pretty much nailed my listening biases. The only thing not mentioned in your analysis is what I would call differentiation of instrumental timbres, which perhaps you simply stated in another way. I listen to all kinds of music at genrally medium volume for serious listening. I do crank it up on rock now and then, when I'm doing something else, and this system does play loud. But, you wouldn't want to listen carefully for too long under such circumstances because I think it gets hard after awhile. I prefer wider dispersion and front of the hall presentation although this particular aspect is not that important. In other words, I could live with middle of the hall.

I have some flexibility in speaker placement, but doubt that I can move them more than a couple of more feet into the room. There is furniture in there.

In terms of rolling the front end tubes, I'm not sure what you mean. All of the KT90s are fairly new. The OA2s are not new, but the other two (whose umbers I can't remember are also not too old).

Dear Bbtuna: I have wanted to dampen the first reflections and a local dealer had promised to bring over some materials for this purpose but it hasn't happened yet.

I agree with your observations about the Revels but not about the Hovland. I did audition both, although at the time I auditoned the Revels, my amps weren't working, so a Bryston was used. I also auditioned Vandersteen 5s, which I liked a lot but which I felt had less heft and less detail, aspects that I now realize aren't that important to me. I bought the Revels despite some reservations.

The Revels were in the system before the Hovland and I was having the same problems only worse. When I auditoned the Hovaland, the sound got much better to my ears; it could breath whereas with the old Audible Illusions, the sound was constricted and harder. The Hovaland was a big improvement, so I don't think that is where the problem lies now. I didn't audition the Metronome equipment; I just figured the EAD was so old the state of the art must have changed.

Thanks.

Bbtuna. Thanks again for the info. The local dealer I bought the Revels from (they were his demo pair)is a small dealer in the sense that he doesn't carry many products. He doesn't carry the Vandersteens and the closest dealer for them is about 3 hours away. Not insurmountable but I doubt that I could hear them at home simply because the dealer won't sell the demos (which is probbly the only way I could hear them at home)because it takes about 16 weeks to get a new pair, according to him.

I doubt the dealer here would take back the Revels, but it doesn't hurt to ask; its just that he has nothing to replace them with and probably can't buy them back.

In any event I will certainly try your suggestions.

I appreacite all of your suggestions. Before doing anything rash, I am going to take Kana813's advice and check out the impedance interactions between these components and talk to Scott Frankland. I understand he is a dealer (or works at one) in San Jose. By the way, Kana813, you're right about the octal front end tubes on the MFAs, but they are not that old.

I will also switch the Shunyata to the digital front end and preamp and plug the amps right into the wall sockets which are dedicated. Oddly enough, yesterday just taking the Mamba off the DAC and replacing it with a Sidewinder seemed to result in some improvement.

BWhite, the EADs are the 7000 series; the first series they produced, I think. I have been thinking about trying the EAD transport with the Metronome DAC to see if it sounds better than the Metronome transport; the EAD transport is built like a tank.

Many of you have suggested getting rid of the 30' interconnect run, but to do that would require a 30' run from the preamp to the DAC (not to mention the tuner, SACD, and turntable). Would that be a better situation anyway? It would be inconvenient this way as the preamp would no longer be close to the listening position and would instead be close to the speakers. Are there any ICs of which any of you are aware that the Hovaland might have an easier time running at 30'?

Thanks again.

Bwhite: I tried everything you suggested and it made a significant difference. Its still not completely there,b ut much better. The EAD transport surprised me. What do you think, by the way, of the Audiomeca DAC?

I am the original poster and I'd like to update you all on how things worked out becasue I have made a lot of changes. I have finally gotten the Revels to sound great. I still have the Hovland and I took BWhite's advice and kept the EAD transport. I bought an Audiomeca Ekianthus (also BWhite's suggestion) and that helped a lot. Then added Cardas Golden Cross speaker cables and Neutral Reference interconnects, which got things smoother. Traded the MFA amps and the Proceed amp for Bruce Moore Custom 225 monoblocks and that made the greatest difference. Now I can finally play the Revels as loud as they should be without fatigue, but by the same token I can play them at lower levels and not feel deprived. Vocals are now fantastic although perhaps not as great as on the Quad ESL 63/Gradient subwoofer combo I also bought but am thinking about selling. The Quads on many recordings are more intitmate (e.g., real sounding; timbres, trasnperency, liquidity, etc.) than anything I have ever heard, but then on some recordings they simply can't match the dynamism of the Revels. I have also experimented with a REL sub with the Revels which seems to work well, but I haven't had one long-term enough yet to tell if I really want it, or whether what I'm hearing is simply novelty.

In any event, I really appreciate everyone's help.