Is it just me? .... (sound quality)

[Johnnydev]

Buy 2 phantoms and it is about 3 times better or more!

[JohnnySix]

A 300%-er eh? Anyone for 400... do I hear a 400 ?!?

[Johnnydev]

If you don't believe it, just try it.

[JohnnySix]

I DO have two! For me, two are less than twice as astonishing as one... it probably depends on where you is comin' from, innit.

[BowlOfPetunias]

One white Phantom here and I'm in the place where I'm thinking that one isn't enough, being able to pinpoint he sound from one bix just doesn't cut it compared to a stereo image. The problem is that I'm wrestling with upping the spend to £3,000 for a pair with a dialogue and whether I can justify it...

[yesgrey]

Sorry - just a rant!

No problem, is always good to hear different opinions. Like I said, I still have only one Phantom, so, I will only give it a critical listening when I have the two. I don't know which kind of processing are they doing when "adding" the left and right signals, so, it is very likely that voices don't sound as natural as they could...

Thanks for the suggestions! I will try listening to them and see (hear)...

[ChalleB]

Original post:

I love the sound of the phantom,
but only with the right kind of music,
mostly small bands with good separation of instruments,
or bass heavy dance music

but music without bass and drums,
such as large scale orchestral music
seems very flat and limited
and actually sounds like any old wireless speaker

could future software help?
or, is it the limitations of the mid and tweeter?

[michirishi]

It doubt that Phantom only shines with some music. This would mean that Phantom cannot reproduce some kinds music as good as other genres. In my opinion, Phantom is just doing what it should: reproduction of whatever music it is feed with.
I have listened to all sorts of music and to me there is only one thing clear: some recordings sound better than other.

There's stereo albums with a very detailed, wide and clear image. And there are recordings that sound dull, deformed or like they are behind some thick curtain.
There's even some very nice old recordings (even 78rpm or mono) that hiss and crack, but still give a nice atmosphere. But even some modern digital recordings sound awful. With pumped up bass or ever changing channel separation.
Some full orchestral music shines, while other just doesn't sound as good. Same accounts for vocal, rock, pop, electronic music.

It is more clear to me than ever before that the quality of the recording can be the weak bracelet in the chain. But it's definitely not Phantom.

[ChalleB]

Good points michirishi!
thanks

[f1eng]

It doubt that Phantom only shines with some music. This would mean that Phantom cannot reproduce some kinds music as good as other genres. In my opinion, Phantom is just doing what it should: reproduction of whatever music it is feed with.
I have listened to all sorts of music and to me there is only one thing clear: some recordings sound better than other.

There's stereo albums with a very detailed, wide and clear image. And there are recordings that sound dull, deformed or like they are behind some thick curtain.
There's even some very nice old recordings (even 78rpm or mono) that hiss and crack, but still give a nice atmosphere. But even some modern digital recordings sound awful. With pumped up bass or ever changing channel separation.
Some full orchestral music shines, while other just doesn't sound as good. Same accounts for vocal, rock, pop, electronic music.

It is more clear to me than ever before that the quality of the recording can be the weak bracelet in the chain. But it's definitely not Phantom.

I completely agree with all of this.

The difference in quality between different versions is often so much greater than between competant hifi systems it is not funny. Being obsessive about the SQ of the hifi is often a bit pointless for classical recordings!