ProAc Studio 150
Stuart Wood
I've been auditioning these ProAcs for about a week now and I am quite
impressed. My assessment:
Stuff I liked:
- Highly detailed
- great string sound and "wood" on acoustic bass
- realistic reed sound on saxophones
- Rhythmic pace
- I didn't know what this was until I got these!
- Awesome, quick, on top of the grooves.
- Left my NHT 2.5s sounding sluggish by comparison.
- Tight!
- Imaging
- Again, far superior to my NHTs.
- Tonal balance
- Smooth midrange.
- Tenor saxophone sounded like a tenor saxophone
(I play so I know!)
- Quality
- Beautiful, dead cabinets and 1st class hardware.
- Musicality
- All the detail makes them very involving!
Stuff I didn't like:
- Tonal balance
- They are fairly bright in the highs.
This would usually bother the hell out of me
but the overall package was so good that I
don't mind it. Not fatiguing!
- Can be polite
If I listened to Chili Peppers or Parliment
all the time, they probably wouldn't be my
first choice.
Other speaker I listened to:
NHT 2.5 (Mine) ($1200)
Warmer, not nearly as detailed, not as good at imaging.
Not as musical.
Martin-Logan Aerius i ($2000)
Pretty good but narrow image focus, just OK imaging.
Missing something in the low-mids (maybe the transition
area between the panel and the cone).
Snell Type D ($1700)
Nice bass extension but muddy sounding in comparison.
Not really a contender.
Snell type C/V ($2600)
Totally different. Much warmer. Kind of "tubby" on
tenor sax reproduction (a big strike for me). Perhaps
limited to Dexter Gordon but since he's my favorite...
Lacked the ultimate detail that the ProAcs had.
While not perfect, I have decided to buy the ProAcs. The Snell C/Vs
would be a close except I'm getting a pretty good price on the 150s. I
think they're great for someone who would prefer some Response 2.5s but
can't begin to afford them.
stuart wood
Julius Lekics
Thanks for this post-this is the kind of stuff I read this NG for. (I
guess it's pretty obvious I don't give a rat's ass about "Gene's stereo"
and the likes.
Regards,
Julius
Andrew Chasin
Stuart Wood wrote:
>
> Stuff I didn't like:
> - Tonal balance
> - They are fairly bright in the highs.
> This would usually bother the hell out of me
> but the overall package was so good that I
> don't mind it. Not fatiguing!
Could you please post the list of ancillary equipment you have been
using to evaluate the Studio 150s? I reviewed the Studio 150s in
the current issue of Audiophilia Online Magazine and I have to say that
I found their top end to be anything but bright. I'm curious if the
ProAcs are revealing a problem in an upstream component in your system.
Andrew Chasin
Editor, Audiophilia Online Magazine
Andrew Chasin
Julius Lekics wrote:
>
> Thanks for this post-this is the kind of stuff I read this NG for. (I
> guess it's pretty obvious I don't give a rat's ass about "Gene's stereo"
> and the likes.
> Regards,
> Julius
> Stuart Wood wrote:
Julius,
The current issue of Audiophilia Online Magazine contains a full review
of the Studio 150.
Felix M.C. Li
Stuart Wood wrote:
>
> I've been auditioning these ProAcs for about a week now and I am quite
> impressed. My assessment:
>
I just bought a pair of 150 for less than a week, too. And I mostly have
the same comment (Stuff you liked) as yours except tenor saxophone (I
never
listen to a real one) and NHT 2.5s (I never listen to one).
> Stuff I liked:
> - Highly detailed
> - great string sound and "wood" on acoustic bass
> - realistic reed sound on saxophones
> - Rhythmic pace
> - I didn't know what this was until I got these!
> - Awesome, quick, on top of the grooves.
> - Left my NHT 2.5s sounding sluggish by comparison.
> - Tight!
> - Imaging
> - Again, far superior to my NHTs.
> - Tonal balance
> - Smooth midrange.
> - Tenor saxophone sounded like a tenor saxophone
> (I play so I know!)
> - Quality
> - Beautiful, dead cabinets and 1st class hardware.
> - Musicality
> - All the detail makes them very involving!
>
Different here (Stuff you didn't like), I do think the highs are not
very
bright in my case. Should be the result of our different setup.
My setup
CD player : Marantz CD-17
Dejitter : AA EDI V1.0 (Attached directly to the Digital out
of CD)
Digital cable : AA Stock I2S
D/A converter : AA DDE V3.0 (6db att. defeated)
Interconnect : Kimber KCAG
Integrated Amp: Musical Fidelity A1000 Pure class A
Speaker cable : MIT MH-750plus
Speaker : ProAc Studio 150 (MA)
The speakers still hasn't burn in, I expect much better result after
burning
in.
> Stuff I didn't like:
> - Tonal balance
> - They are fairly bright in the highs.
> This would usually bother the hell out of me
> but the overall package was so good that I
> don't mind it. Not fatiguing!
> - Can be polite
> If I listened to Chili Peppers or Parliment
> all the time, they probably wouldn't be my
> first choice.
>
Other speakers I listened to :
Cairn Selina, Average, no much depth and soundstage
B&W P6, Average, strong in bass, highs are not very natural
ProAc Response 2.5, Excellent, too expensive for me
Hales Concept 2, not in good match with Musical Fidelity amps.
I get a very good price on the 150s also. I heard some rumor concerning
the phasing out of the 150s.
Happy listening,
Felix M.C. Li / A Hong Kong Audiophile
Dave Salbego
I auditioned the Studio 150s for a while before I finally
settled on the Studio 250s. I'm building my music/home-theater system
around them and although they can't compare to some speakers in
pure dynamics (such as my previous speakers, Klipssh KG 5.5s) they
work in H-T quite well!
I plan on adding the ProAc CC center channel eventually, along
with a top-notch subwoofer.
Others I auditioned include:
Hales Concept Two,
PSB Stratus Silver and Stratus Gold,
ProAc Studio 150,
NHT 2.5i, NHT 3.3,
Paradigm Studio series (80, 100)
VMPS SuperTower SE (I believe)
And others which I can't recall at the moment.
I was pretty much set on the NHT 3.3s (demo pair for $3k) until
I heard the Studio 150s. I figured if the 250s were a 150
with more bass and extension, etc, they had to be good.
I haven't been disappointed with the purchase.
(I realize the Studio 250s, which list at around $3500/pair,
are more than most of the other speakers I auditioned, but
I really couldn't stop from going back to the ProAcs. Their
sound just kept pulling me in for more.)
--Dave
--
David Salbego (dsal...@anl.gov)
Distributed Computing Admin & Programming
Electronics and Computing Technologies Division
Argonne National Laboratory
Phone: +1 630-252-7837
B
Fax: +1 630-252-9689
Stuart Wood
By popular demand, here is MY equipment driving the ProAcs:
Marantz CD63-SE
Conrad-Johnson PV10AL
McCormack DNA 0.5 Deluxe Edition
AudioQuest Topaz interconnects
Tara Labs Prime 1000 speaker cable
Something I must admit:
"Bright" didn't become an adjective I would have used for the 150s until
I AB'ed them against a pair of Snell C/Vs. The Snells seem much, much
warmer. However, this comparison was done in a stereo store with
different equipment:
Conrad-Johnson CD transport
C-J D/A converter
C-J PF-R (solid-state) preamp
C-J solid-state amp (not sure which model)
I suspect that the all solid-state rig in the stereo store may have had
some influence on the ProAcs. I certainly do think that they sound
better on my gear (with the tubed preamp) than they did at the store
with the much more expensive, solid-state stuff.
Could the more bass-extended Snells give the impression of more warmth
in the mids and highs?
Although I'm now quite happy with my system, any suggestions for
improvement would be appreciated.
Kevin Tsang
I used to use a Marantz CD63 player and ARC electronics to mate my ProAc 50
Signature speaker. I found that the CD63 tends to slightly bright and
lean. Now I use Arcam cd player which is warmer and fuller body.
Kevin Tsang