[ctsooner22]

That is simply not true. No iem can match a properly set up 2 channel system for imaging. Even a "cheap," properly set-up 2 channel system will easily out-image a pair of iems.

See my post above your's.... dead on!

 

[ncristia]

Proac Response D2. It's one of the top small monitors under 5k,but must be mounted on special stands to sound their best. They are and have been used in some of the best studios in the world since the 90's in one form or another. I have owned the originals for years and loved them.



Not true by any means. I get much better imaging from my Vandersteen Quatro's than I do my Phantom's which I dearly love. If you have the room set up properly and have the electronics, electrical isolated runs with the right outlets, power cords and power conditioners and then feed your speakers great source material, you will get much better sound than any IEM on the market today. My system isn't even close to what can be done today in high end audio. I'm about to have the best digital server made, but it's not finished yet. I just had to break down and sell my phono stage, turntable, arm, cartridge, ultrasonic cleaner, isolation platform etc, but when I had it, it was VERY special. I'm hoping my digital will soon get close to that. Think about what imaging really is. It's being able to locate the instrument or vocal and letting it play out in full bloom if you would.

There are many speakers that are so highly detailed that we call them 'etched'. Tonally they are putrid, but they can often image like heck. Folks always say 'what pin point imaging'.

Hope that shares why I feel a great 2 channel system can image better.

Sorry about your arm.

 

[ctsooner22]

Oh, my buddy has it and the ARM is still AWESOME, lol.

 

[NaiveSound]

I don't belive it layer and separation and sense of direction is what imaging means to me
Sorry but no no no.

 

[NaiveSound]

Till at Innerfidelity also said how headphones/iems are surpassing imaging over 2 channels

 

[San Man]

I don't belive it layer and separation and sense of direction is what imaging means to me
Sorry but no no no.

You honestly haven't heard a good 2 channel system then.

 

[singleended5863]

You honestly haven't heard a good 2 channel system then.

That is true. If you got a real good high end 2 channel tube system you can hear them.

 

[NaiveSound]

I was never wowed by any 2 channel even 80k system I found them no better than movie theater sound but not intimate not ultra clear and no true imaging like iems,

 

[ctsooner22]

It's not the cost, it's how good it is. Most systems are actually not set up well adn that includes most dealers. They move things around and have to keep other speakers in the room. It ruins the sound. Tyl listens to headphones and not 2 channel for the most part. He's selling headphones and hits on his site. Maybe he really does believe what he said, but that also doesn't mean that he's correct. If you think my system sounds like any movie theater sound, then you are listening to the wrong 2 channel system and ti's not even close. most movie theater's sound stinks for many many reasons.

'intimate' is an open ended word. Intimate in that the IEM"s are in your ears? yes, they beat 2 channel in that regard, but if you are talking about a recording sounding like you are in the venue with the performers, then sorry, it's not even a question. 2 channel lets the notes bloom better than IEM for many reasons. Bass alone is one of them. No IEM can physically do bass as good as a strong 2 channel system. They can't recreate such a large wave. Most rooms aren't set up to be able to do it either. This is where standing waves come into play. IEM's do some great things, but if you believe that they are better imagers than a good 2 channel system set up properly, in the right room with the right auxiliary stands, power, cords etc..., then you have no heard enough top systems.

I invite you at any time to come over and enjoy some great high Rez music and even 2X DSD native recordings. I think you'll be amazed at what you hear. I have never figured out how much my system would be if I had to purchase it new, but I guess it would be around 80k or more as my new server with installed DAC and headphone amp is over 50k and the speakers new go for 20k. Amp is 15k with the balanced interconnect going for 8k and then power conditioner and speakers cables and power set up and room acoustics treatments....

 

[deafdoorknob]

one is not named naivesound for nothing

 

[San Man]

one is not named naivesound for nothing

 

[singleended5863]

It's not the cost, it's how good it is. Most systems are actually not set up well adn that includes most dealers. They move things around and have to keep other speakers in the room. It ruins the sound. Tyl listens to headphones and not 2 channel for the most part. He's selling headphones and hits on his site. Maybe he really does believe what he said, but that also doesn't mean that he's correct. If you think my system sounds like any movie theater sound, then you are listening to the wrong 2 channel system and ti's not even close. most movie theater's sound stinks for many many reasons.

'intimate' is an open ended word. Intimate in that the IEM"s are in your ears? yes, they beat 2 channel in that regard, but if you are talking about a recording sounding like you are in the venue with the performers, then sorry, it's not even a question. 2 channel lets the notes bloom better than IEM for many reasons. Bass alone is one of them. No IEM can physically do bass as good as a strong 2 channel system. They can't recreate such a large wave. Most rooms aren't set up to be able to do it either. This is where standing waves come into play. IEM's do some great things, but if you believe that they are better imagers than a good 2 channel system set up properly, in the right room with the right auxiliary stands, power, cords etc..., then you have no heard enough top systems.

I invite you at any time to come over and enjoy some great high Rez music and even 2X DSD native recordings. I think you'll be amazed at what you hear. I have never figured out how much my system would be if I had to purchase it new, but I guess it would be around 80k or more as my new server with installed DAC and headphone amp is over 50k and the speakers new go for 20k. Amp is 15k with the balanced interconnect going for 8k and then power conditioner and speakers cables and power set up and room acoustics treatments....

Totally agreed.

 

[NaiveSound]

I just wasn't wowed, impressed or smiling as I am on headphones and iems. , I guess it's cause my username that explains it for the simpletons

 

[natemact]

Well this was silly as it was an apples to oranges comparison to begin with but even more so because the OP asked for a loudspeaker with a similar sound signature (read: frequency response) not a loudspeaker with similar psychoacoustic characteristics. Response D2's are a good choice. They are ever-so-slightly peaky in their treble but so is Zeus-R. They are fairly large at 17" high for desktop use and even though they're front ported they like a minimum of 1.5ft from front wall to keep their bass tight. @Old_Snake it's best to first consider your environment and where your loudspeakers will be in relation to it when starting your research. How "near" will your field be? If positioned only at arms length away you really should be sticking with purpose built nearfield monitors or maybe you can roll the dice on audiophile loudspeakers but an audition is a must due to the constraints of placement in typical nearfield setups.

Passive or active monitors? You'll find most nearfield monitors are active and for good reason. The idea is to design amplifiers perfectly matched to the drivers they will be asked to drive; typically with dual mono designs, biamped with dedicated amplifiers for each driver, amplifiers matched to impedance curve of monitor, ultra short signal-path, class-d has come a long way too! The latest crop of active monitors by audiophile manufacturers such as KEF, Elac, Dynaudio and old favs like ATC have proved this philosophy works quite well.

Don't know your budget but it will have to be healthy if you chasing Zeus-R. Pete's right to recommend a loudspeaker in the $5K range. Great as D2's are I'd look at something utilizing newer technology. Genelec's "The Ones" series - even just the 8331 - would be as close to Zeus-R that I know of. They won't pound out the bass but neither do Zeus-R's tbh. There are slightly more mid-centric sounding Genelecs, but if A/B'd against 8331 it would be hard to take them home instead.

Back to the loudspeaker/earphone pyschoacoustic characteristics comparison for just a sec. @Deezel177 can speak to this more if he so chooses but music is recorded to give the illusion of a soundstage (read: performers in front of you). When listening via earphones we encounter two issues when trying to replicate this. The soundstage now becomes a headstage (so right of the bat not as production team intended), but most importantly, an earphone only allows us to hear one stereo channel per ear where with a 2ch setup each ear is subject to a pair of stereo channels and it's this glaring difference that has the greatest negative affect on an earphones ability to properly image like 2ch can. But hey, maybe you listen exclusively to binaural recordings @NaiveSound?? : ))

 

[tjy00]

I second this, a 40000khz max may not mean good treble for example

Like w900? I wasn't thinking about quality though.. Just like to have the frequency range as a reference for comparison even though its not 100% accurate most of the time.