why not use biamped studio monitors?

My current 2-channel system is an EVS (Tweakaudio) Level-2 mod'd Oppo 970 universal player (CD, DVD, SACD, DVD-A, HDCD) using it's built-in volume contol and connected directly to a pair of Quad 12L Active speakers.

This is easily the best bang for the buck system I've ever owned. BTW, I do listen in a nearfield setup. I think the Quads may be more forgiving than a typical studio monitor. I don't get listener fatigue like I had with some previous speakers.

Enjoy,

TIC

There are those in the narrow dispersion camp, and those in the wide. Narrow certainly has the advantage of less room interaction. Either way, the off-axis response needs to be linear to preserve the balance of the reverberant field.

I listen about half to classical, from Renaissance to 21th century, chamber to full orchestra, and half to jazz, leaning more towards small group. As for near-field listening distance, about 6-7 feet, but I prefer more distance for orchestral works, about 9 feet.

Regarding bass, the best I've heard is dipole—it requires a lot of equalization to get flat. The next best is acoustic suspension. It often requires some EQ or a higher system Q, which I think is why most speakers rely on the internal resonance of the enclosure to extend and boost the bass (ported bass reflex), unfortunately at the expense of critical damping.

great question and great responses! i use tubes and transmission line ported meadowlark spks and hi quality cd's mainly, (xrcd etc.). to my ear the sound is more musically compelling than what i hear on studio type systems. all systems have strengths and weakness of course, but i like to recreate live performance 'feel' for my classical and jazz tastes. imo, the studio gear can be a little overly analytical. i do use a sub. i think for different genres tho and to certain listeners my set up would not be as crisp, eg. ac/dc sounds pretty bland and laid back...