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.
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.