MY REVIEWS Of Some Hi-End Speakers....
Eddie Hou
In article <336f42b3...@nntp.netcom.ca>, hark...@netcom.ca (Rich
Harkness) wrote:
>
> Mirage Speakers:
>
> Booorriiing.
>
>
Truly the low point of your review... :->
-Eddie
Rich Harkness
Fair enough. I tried to slip that one by. The Mirage speakers I
heard simply didn't interest me. My apologies to Mirage owners and to
those interested in buying Mirage for the flip review.
- Rich
Rich Harkness
Welcome to my reviews - let me correct that - my 'impressions' of
hi-end speakers. Sorry for the long download.
I am NOT an experienced audio reviewer. I'm just a guy
attempting to acquire my first hi-end system. In my quest I have
auditioned quite a lot of equipment within the last six months, so
many of my impressions are still pretty fresh. Even my audiophile
pals say I am on a crazed "mission." True. Like many of you,
whenever I buy equipment of any kind I scour the planet for the most
bang for my buck. Once I make my purchase I then relax totally and
enjoy it, forgetting about the 'what-ifs.' (Honestly, I can do this).
The opinions on this newsgroup have often been helpful in
directing me to audition certain gear. I hope to give a little back
by offering my impressions of what I have heard, in the hope it will
be useful to someone interested in these particular items. Keep in
mind, the majority of these are just impressions rendered by in-store
auditions - as such they obviously do not carry the weight of insight
an owner could offer. But what the Hell, this is rec.audio. opinion,
and these are just my opinions. This post covers some of the high-end
speakers I auditioned (including some of those crazy-expensive
speakers, just for kicks) . If this gets any positive response, I'll
be glad to write a similar post covering my auditions of amps and CD
players. It's up to you.
First, where I'm coming from: I Settled on used Quad ESL 63's and a
Conrad Johnson MV55 amp. That's it so far. Need a pre-amp, new CD
player (probably one-box), and eventually a turntable and phono stage.
A local store has used Gradient subs for the Quads - think I'll get
'em.
Caveat: I had my "ultra-critical" hat on while auditioning these
components. Once I have my system, I know I will be able to enjoy
many of these products without analyzing whether they exactly fit my
sonic list of requirements. Here we go...
SPEAKERS:
Von Schweikert VR-3's.
(w. solid state amp). Great! With all this talk about VR's bottom-
end I was expecting to hear the so-called 'American Sound' : heavy
bass and high-end sizzle. Not so. Beautifully smooth top to bottom.
Velvety on everything from strings to voices. Detail was there, but
not analytical. Good body to all instruments - even handled full
orchestras with thrilling dynamics. And, of course, incredible 3-D
soundstaging. I enjoyed just about every CD I played on them.
Admittedly, they do not excite in the same way some of their
competitors do in the department of detail and vividness. The VR-3's
also lacked some punch in the mid-bass. More worrying was a strange
"boxed" quality to all solo voices and some solo instruments. Very
strange, really, like the singer's head was in a cardboard box.
Would not buy them for that reason. Could it have been the listening
room's low ceiling?
Von Schweikert VR-4's.
Better! No singer-in-a-box sound to these. Sound is like VR-3's, but
larger and more refined. Instruments had wonderfully individual
timbres and body. Sound stage huge and holographic - definitely the
closest to what I have heard to live music (Classical and Jazz
anyway). Smooth sound - seemed very forgiving of CD's. The question
of "is this digital sounding or not" was rendered moot. Everything
sounded easy and natural. These speakers compete most with my
affections for my Quads because they manage to free the image of the
instruments from the box like no other box speaker I have heard. I
would love to hear the VR-4.5's...
Against: They're bloody monolithic. I don't know what kind of room
would accommodate them. And the BASS! When it kicks in it is
overwhelming - just a little too much for me, and the VR-4's were
playing in a very large room with high ceilings and a large floor
carpet! There was, as in the VR-3's, a lack of mid-bass punch, (for
those who like such things). They lacked a certain 'snap.' Transients
were not the VR-4's forte, as drum tracks that had real crackle on
other systems were softened on the VR-4's. One of the reasons all
electrostatic owners probably aren't trading their speakers for VR's
is that the VR's achieve their sense of reality more through imaging
than through vividness. You can definitely find greater immediacy in
electrostatics and other well-made box speakers. ( In other words,
although the VR-4's release the images of instruments from the speaker
cabinet into 3-D space, the instruments still sound like they are
produced by a "box" speaker. You can't have it all). All and all,
though, a major contender.
(Amp: Large VTL tube amp, if I remember correctly. Meridian 508 CD
Player)
Merlin VSM and TSM speakers.
VSM: One of the most refined speakers I have heard. Elegantly slim,
black floor- standing model. Pricey (over $6,000 Canadian), but
awesome sound in a speaker with a small footprint. Very present,
crisp performance. Tons o' detail. When a solo sax is playing he is
right there - no 'veils' here. Excellent , punchy, accurate bass.
Amazingly tight and descriptive reproduction of jazz bass drums. O.K.
imaging. Compared on the same day as the VR's, the Merlins were
leaner, instruments smaller, but still satisfying. Sounded like a
definite step up in accuracy and vividness from the VR's. Merlin
grabbed me with a very exciting sound.
TSM: These are the smaller floor-stand-mounted versions of the TSM's
at half the price. They sounded exactly like the TSM's without the
bottom octave or so. Wonderful.
Against: Um....um.....well....how about the price. Kinda pricey.
Although amazingly free of box coloration, the instruments often
seemed to sitting in the speakers, as compared to some other imaging
champs in the price range. Perhaps I would tire of the exciting high
end detail these speakers retrieved. A must audition for those in
this price range - especially if you are looking for great sound in an
smaller, elegant, package.
(Amps: VTL (60W?) tube amp. Meridian 506 CD player)
B+W
I have not heard any of this company's more serious gear. The highest
up in the quality chain I've listened to is the CDM-1 bookshelf
speakers. These are a suave-looking speakers (cherry wood, fine
finish, pleasing curves and rounded edges).
I auditioned them along with the comparably priced PSB speakers and to
the lower priced B+W 601, 602's. The PSB's and the 601,602's sounded
like boring old variations on, well, the mid/low-fi speakers I'd grown
up hearing. The CDM-1's were a great leap forward in clarity,
refinement, and reproduction of real instrument and vocal timbres.
Very lively, extended high end frequency retrieval and resolution, yet
not too fatiguing. Amazingly real reproduction of jazz ensembles.
They do not go low, cutting of at 46 Hz (actually they sound like they
cut off higher), but within this range they deliver most instruments
with full-bodied sound. All types of music were engaging on these
speakers. One of my first tastes of the high-end. Two of my pals
bought CDM-1's and are very happy
Against: Not a full range system. Probably outstanding with subs.
.(Approx. $1,400 Canadian)
(Amps: Arcam Alpha 9 amp, Rotel amp, Bryston BP 60 integrated. CD
players: Arcam Alpha 7,8, Rotel RCD 975).
Mirage Speakers:
Booorriiing.
Monitor Audio 14 Gold Mark II speakers.
Small, black floor-standing speakers. My God! I have never heard
such small, thin speakers produce such monstrous bass. The soundscape
was huge. Giant voices. My girlfriend's father owns some larger
Monitor Audio speakers, so I know they can be prodigious in the bass
department, but I have never suffered such a cannon-like assault of
mid-bass punch (though not ultra deep) as the Mark II speakers
delivered. It overwhelmed every element of the music. They were
powered by tubes and the CD player was described by the store owner as
"bass heavy," so who knows? The larger Monitor Audio speakers always
sounded smooth and a little too polite to me, but the smaller Mark
II's were more crass. The size of the sound was kinda cool, but the
bass began to make me physically ill - like being continually punched
in the stomach. Great for parties?!!
Martin Logan Arieus, SL 3, CL II's
+Quad ESL 63's
It was hearing a pair of SL3's playing in a classical music store that
awakened my awe for hi-end audio. I thought: "If musicians can be
reproduced so vividly in front of me I have to get in on this." And
when I was offered my friend's Quad ESL 63's for a good price I
compared them with Martin Logan's products; I was willing to pay more
if I liked ML better. I chose the Quads. As much as I admired the
unparalleled transparency and transient reproduction offered by all of
ML's speakers, I found a certain sameness to everything they played.
These are minor, personal quibbles, but the for me the ML's had a
harder, more etched and perhaps a more strident sound than what I
would be comfortable listening to for a long time. They excited my
ears, but also quickly tired them. As well, I found ML's to have a
leanness in their balance, and I often found myself turning them up to
try and find the satisfying bass I knew existed on some of my CD's.
Although the Quad's do not go as loud or produce ultra low bass, the
Quad's sound is fuller and more evenly balanced. Even at low levels
the Quads seem to have a satisfying balance of bass in relation to the
rest of the frequencies being played. Also, to me the Quads have a
smoother, more listenable, more laid back and pleasing sound, while
still retaining that magic electrostatic open window to the
performers. Nonetheless, whenever I hear any of the ML speakers I am
astounded at their exciting abilities to put performers live in front
of me.
(Amps (ML) : Yes, I am very aware how revealing electrostatics are of
an amplifier's characteristics, and that the qualities I have
complained of may have been those of the amplifier, cables etc.
However, I listened to all these speakers many times with a lot of
different amps, including Sonic Frontiers and Krell, Celeste, Jadis
etc. CD players: Meridian 508, Sonic Frontiers etc.)
Sound Lab Pristine Mark 3 and Dynastat Electrostatic Speakers:
First the Dynastat. It's a hybrid. Real tall. Wood enclosure, which
helps make up a little aesthetically for it's towering presence.
Sound: Very laid back sounding. Very, very laid back. If you want
easy listening in an electrostatic design, this may be your speaker.
Displays the electrostatic magic, but with far less excitement than
any other electrostatic I have heard. Capable of really big bass
output. Woofer mates moderately well sonically with the panels.
Definitely sounds a little veiled. It could have been the tube amp
they were running on though. Easy to relax to, easy to fall asleep
to. (Sorry, cannot remember which tube amp was used).
Pristine Mark 3’s :
These are, I believe, the next model down from the giant A3's. The
Pristine's are huge, full-range panels, probably a foot or two shy of
the A3's (or A1's?). I listened to them because they were there -
pure indulgence, and way out of my price range.
I was amazed, but not terribly moved. Fascinating to hear full-range
electrostatic bass. I played huge orchestral crescendos with
timpani, and even Funk tracks and the Pristine's created a low, punchy
bass that I could hear but not really feel. It was a surreal type of
bass, like an illusion. Incredibly vivid detail, amazing to listen to
classical orchestras. As far as transparency, detail, and imaging
these were the most amazing electrostatics I've heard (but not my
favorite) . You hear the money you spend. Every bow on every string
was there. Very finicky sweet spot. On the whole, a little lean
sounding too; when looking at speakers that size the mind expects a
commensurately large, full sound. I found that the VR-4's, while
obviously not as detailed, created the size and body of an orchestra
more convincingly.
Lots of fun, though.
(Approx. $13,000 Canadian)
(Amps: same as for VR-4's. Some kinda VTL tube amp, I believe).
Castle Howard + Harlech Speakers.
I discovered early in my search that I love Castle speakers. I heard
the Castle Howards first. They are fairly tall, narrow-but-deep floor
standers. The quality and finish of their wooden enclosures are, I
believe, among the classiest you can find. And they sound like they
look: "woody." I mean that in a very good way. Obviously all
speakers impart some amount of coloration to the sound, and I feel
that, sometimes, the coloration can be very pleasant. It's not that
the Howard sounded muddy - far from it: the music was wonderfully
clear and rich. The imaging was spacious and dimensional. But best
of all to me was the Howard's reproduction of "woody" instruments.
The sound of acoustic guitars was wonderfully warm, and their wood
bodies were in evidence. All reed instruments sounded, well, 'reedy.'
Although I was listening to CD's, the Howard presented instruments
with the pleasing organic timbres I associate with listening to vinyl.
Also, they could rock pretty well, being large enough to produce big,
but controlled bass for pop music. Vocals, although a little thinner
or smaller than through some other comparably sized speakers, were
warm and pleasing. These speakers are very high on my "some day"
list.
(Approx. $2,500 Canadian). (Amp: Brytson integrated, CD: Teac
VRDS-10(?))
Castle Harlech: Smaller cousin of the Howard, got rave review in
British Hi-Fi mag. Has most of Howard's pleasing qualities, only
smaller sounding (although the British reviewer felt he liked it even
better than the Howard). When I say smaller sounding, I mean in
comparison with the Howards. The Harlechs actually produce a large
spacious sound for their size - probably due to a vertically firing
driver (can't remember if it was a woofer or a tweeter). Very clean,
clear mids and highs - I think it uses different tweeter material than
the Howards. The bass doesn't reach that satisfying bottom that the
Howards do. Very nice, though.
(Sorry for the lack of concrete technical details on the Harlech
audition).
Ethera Vitae speakers
One of the best buys I've ever seen on rec.audio.marketplace was a
pair of Ethera's "Vitae" speakers for $950. These wedge-shaped
monitor sized speakers have a beautiful, almost iridescent glow to
their wood finish. They are Canadian-made, and normally sell here in
Canada for around $3,000. When I visited Ernie Fisher's house
(Editor-in-chief of Canada's "Inner Ear" audiophile magazine) he had
them set up in his basement. As he was loading a CD into a player
(hooked up to Celeste amps) he told me the Vitaes have been part of
his reference system for years. And could I ever hear why: out
poured an easy, clear, full-bodied and very lively presentation of a
big band, followed by solo vocals. After hearing a massive and
extremely expensive setup he was reviewing upstairs, which had left me
cold, the Ethera's warmed my heart. Even through solid state - :) -
the music sounded alive. Vocals were gorgeous. And, to my ears, I
have yet to hear a speaker recreate piano more pleasingly: not glassy
or metallic, but warm, round key-strokes, full-bodied - somehow
finding the weight of the piano's wooden body were so many speakers
give you a thin facsimile of the instrument. Maybe it's a coloration
particular to the Vitae - for whatever reason, piano recordings and
the Vitae seem a synergistic match. (My friend heard the Vitaes at a
store and said: "Boy pianos sound better on the Vitaes." Go figure.)
They are not full, full range, and they're a bit odd-looking, but if
their particular sound pleases you then you'll have an easier-to-place
speaker than some huge floor-stander. Another speaker that tugs at my
allegiance to Quads.
Gershman Acoustics Avant Garde RX-20 speakers
Amazing products from Canadian engineer, Eli Gershman. Unique-looking
speakers: pyramidal-shaped with tilted back tweeter section in a
luxurious black piano finish. Eli and his wife were incredibly kind
in giving me an audition of these loudspeakers at their facilities
(hooked up to Celeste amps). TAS gave the Avant Gardes a major rave,
as did Inner Ear magazine. These speakers really give a go at
recreating the full impact of a live event, even though they stand
only belly-high. The bass feels bottomless, the instruments and
vocals have weight, and box resonances seem almost gone. For the most
part these speakers really disappeared, leaving performers just
hanging in precise space. Loads of detail as well as a lot of guts.
Reproduced both acappella groups, Jazz, classical and pop with
astonishing vividness and power. My single problem with them is that,
to me, the sound was on the ultra-uncolored "cold" side (the Wilson
Watt/Puppys strike me the same way). I was more "amazed" than
involved musically. It was this personal reaction that kept me from
buying them. However, they are easily one of the top-performing
speakers I have heard. If any of you have a chance to hear them, do
it! If their sound pleases you, I'd bet you'd have one of the most
fully satisfying systems around. (Once again, you better like bass,
these babies constantly kick you in the stomach if you play pop on
them).
(Between $4,300-$5,000 Canadian, but don't quote me on that).
KEF Reference 1 Series speaker
I wanted to love the sound of these speakers so I could take them
home without my aesthetic tail between my legs. They are possibly the
most elegantly styled and finished speakers I have seen. Very high on
the FAF (Fiancee Acceptance Factor). They sounded pretty good. Not
really like a 'reference' speaker, though. There was a boominess to
the low and mid bass, and thus a coloration to most of what it played.
I was always aware of these speakers. I should point out that they
were hooked up to all Sonic Frontiers tube amps, and when the SF tube
pre-amp was switched for an Aragon solid state pre-amp much of the
boominess was ameliorated (but at the same time the music thinned out,
sounding more 'transistor' like - even less pleasing than the
boominess). It is sort of hard to describe the KEF sound - competent,
unassuming, boring perhaps? Although I found the sound quite
listenable, it did not stand out in any particular area, and they
never let me imagine there were no speakers there. Sorry KEF.
(CD players: Arcam Alpha 8, SFCD-1)
Newform Research Inc. Ribbon Speakers
Zany-looking Canadian ribbon speakers. Thin columns of ribbon drivers
rising from a standard wood cabinet enclosed woofer. Modular design
lets you stack these ribbons up to ridiculous heights - like the
loudspeaker version of a brachiosaurus. They sounded like they look:
tall. (That is my friend's most common comment when auditioning
speakers : "Sound like they look" i.e. tall, thin, wide, wooden,
light, dark, flat - whatever shape the speakers are seems to
influence the perceived sonic character). The Newforms sounded
extremely airy. If you were not in the sweet spot, the sound tended
to gather around the ribbons, which made the soundstage become
thinner. The highs were a little too high, or sizzly, for my ears. I
would be afraid to play a poorly mastered CD on these speakers.
However, they are an incredible sonic bargain. Newform speakers range
in price from $486 to $2550. The pair I auditioned cost $1,000
Canadian, and displayed an amazing amount of hi-end virtues for such a
low price. If you like the open sound of ribbons and are looking for
a bargain, audition Newform speakers.
(Cannot remember amps and CD)
Wilson WATT/Puppies, Wilson X-1 Grand Slamm, Genesis V's, Coincident
Visionary Reference Speakers.
Are these not the caliber of speakers that get audiophiles drooling
when they read raves about them in Stereophile et al. The envy just
churns some of us up inside - "If only I could just afford________ I'd
be in audio nirvana." Well, when I heard 'em I didn't like 'em.
Keep in mind, my impressions were formed in sessions that never lasted
more than an hour, and, hell, I'm just some newbie audiophile - what
the hell do I know. But, if I am not feeling comfortable with the
sound I am hearing within ten minutes, I pretty much know a certain
system is not for me, even if I won the lottery. Each of these
speakers offered me a culmination of almost all the audiophile-coveted
virtues without letting me enjoy the 'whole.' That is, they display
stunning resolution, retrieval of the last bits of detail, large
spacious soundstaging and imaging, and the ability to provide almost
full-frequency assaults (truly full in the Grand Slam). I just didn't
find them pleasing. I found their sound to be on the cold, sterile
side. They always excited me intellectually, but not emotionally, or
'musically.' That said, the Wilson X-1 Grand Slamm's were the least
cold, and the most amazing at delivering the correct size, timbre and
body of instruments and vocals than any speaker I have ever heard. It
truly did recreate most of the characteristics of large-as-life
instruments and human beings, without once adding more bass than was
called for. An amazing achievement from such a huge speaker.
Unfortunately, once speakers get this large I begin to feel
uncomfortable in their presence - it's impossible to remove their
formidable image in front of me from the experience of listening to
the music). Just my $.02.
Ariel Model 8 speakers
Very large, beautifully finished, wood floor-standing speaker. Narrow
face, but extend very deep towards the back, with a huge subwoofer
opening firing to the lower side of the speakers. Sounded like they
looked: huge and boomy. When I mentally blocked out the boominess,
the reproduction of the music was beautiful. Rich and full, kind of
'woody', which I enjoy. Instruments and synthesizers were pleasingly
thick. Clear highs, yet easy on the ear. I would have loved them if
it were not for the intrusive, monumental bass reproduction. If there
is a way to control these speakers through judicious use of the
correct amps, correct room and positioning, then I think they would be
awesome for all types of music. Unfortunately I do not have the
inclination to fiddle with such a troublesome speaker. It could have
just been the room, I suppose, so do not hesitate to audition them if
you have the cash.
($6,000 U.S.)
(I forget the exact amps, but they were tubes, so perhaps a solid
state amp would sound more controlled?)
Royd Albion speakers
I am not sure these speakers will be familiar to a lot of American
audiophiles. I believe Royd is a British speaker company as they are
often mentioned in the Brit-mags. Extremely attractive, mini
-monitors with a refined light wood cabinet, matched with elegant
speakers stands of the same light wood (sorry, I have a pitiful
knowledge of the varieties of wood, and can rarely be specific about
the exact type used in a speaker cabinet). These are perfect speakers
if you want great sound that will fit into high-class decor.
Apparently Royd's speaker designer is a big Quad fan, and has
attempted to deliver as many of the Quad qualities he can in a box
speaker. He has succeeded to a fairly large degree. They sound
coherent, like music. I did not find myself noting the treble, then
the bass, then the midrange. When a voice sang, or a trumpet played,
the sound was smooth, musical and refined. The speakers, when used
with the correct amp, disappeared quite well, although not as well as,
say, the Totem speakers. The Albion's bass extension was surprisingly
satisfying for their size. I guess what made me hesitate was the
price: around $4,500 Canadian. For that price the Royd Albions
compete with some awfully good, floor-standing speakers with wider
frequency response (not to mention some other killer mini-monitors).
Very good WAF factor.
Spendor BC-1
A pal of mine has a pair of these classic speakers. He also has Quad
ESL-63's. One day he took me into his listening room with my eyes
closed and asked me which speaker was playing: the BC-1 or the Quads.
That's an easy one, you would think, but I actually hesitated for a
moment. I found out that if you have not seen what the source of the
sound looks like, even a relatively small speaker like the BC-1 seems
to cast a large, Quad-sized soundstage. That's what gave me the
pause, as well as the BC-1's extremely neutral, balanced character.
What allowed me to finally say it was not the Quads playing was a
slightly boxy coloration that I had never heard through
electrostatics. Quite a feat for the Spendors, though.
I love the BC-1's. They are easily the smoothest, most listenable
speakers I've ever enjoyed. CD's, vinyl, whatever - the Spendor's
played everything with a velvety softness, and I found many previously
harsh recordings became much more agreeable with this treatment i.e.
many of those harsh string passages, saxes and vocals that were
hardened through other systems. Admittedly they did not quite
kick-ass in the frequency extremes, but that is probably the flip-side
of why they are so agreeable. I'm sure the highs are rolled off, but
I love 'em.
Well, that's it for now. It's a bit of an odd list, I know, and I am
sure many of you have heard most of these speakers. I just hope there
was some useful or entertaining info in there for someone. As I said,
If anyone cares to read about my auditions of amps and CD players I'll
be glad to post them.
I have a lot to learn, and will be asking you guys a lot of questions
as I progress. Thank You.
Rich Harkness
Jacko
Right on Rich! Great post. This newsgroup needs more posts like this
instead of flaming each other back and forth.
Arny Krüger
Jacko <Ja...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<01bc5a83$ee9837a0$586774cf@default>...
> Right on Rich! Great post. This newsgroup needs more posts like this
> instead of flaming each other back and forth.
But maybe not all 490+ lines twice including your full quote?
Ned Davies
In article <01bc5ae0$94fcc960$5372...@crc3.concentric.net>, "Arny KrŸger"
<ar...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote:
>
>
> Jacko <Ja...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <01bc5a83$ee9837a0$586774cf@default>...
> > Right on Rich! Great post. This newsgroup needs more posts like this
> > instead of flaming each other back and forth.
>
> But maybe not all 490+ lines twice including your full quote?
At least he said something of value.
Daniel J. Weiss
Yeah...490 lines twice is wrong...even if it is actually a really
intersting post (probably the most interesting I have seen in months).
But...we'd rather see short meaningless posts from Arny and Zip, right?
Or strings about ABX which become meaningless...Heaven forbid there should
be something of substance on this group...
On 7 May 1997, Arny Kr=FCger wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Jacko <Ja...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <01bc5a83$ee9837a0$586774cf@default>...
> > Right on Rich! Great post. This newsgroup needs more posts like this=20
> > instead of flaming each other back and forth.
>=20
> But maybe not all 490+ lines twice including your full quote?
>=20
>=20
Julius Lekics
((Applause))
Thanks, Rich.
One thing: Merlin VSM-"OK imaging". When I listened to these I was
floored by the pinpoint imaging and the huge, wide, tall soundstage they
threw. Could have been the room..(?)
Regards,
Julius
Donald C. Currie
You did a good job Rich... wish I had the time (not to mention the opportu-
nity) to audition a wide variety of fine equipment...
It's not often I come out of hiding to post an accolade, but this post deser-
ved it.
It was clear and informative!
Good Luck & Happy Listening!
- DeeCee
P.S. You're right about the Aerials as far as bass control is concerned... I
own the 7s (haven't heard the 8s) and they require tons of bass control which,
unforunately, a lot of tube amps can't supply (a notable exception is BAT).
--
Donald C. Currie -- Portland (OR) Public Schools -- Research & Evaluation Dept.
E-mail Address -- d...@redsun.pps.rain.com
tar...@michiana.org
Alright, that's what we need on this newsgroup!
Some actual insight on how certran products sounded (to you).
BTW It must be nice to live where a person could actually go hear a variety of
high end speakers. You're lucky.
Todd
Neil Koomen
Jacko wrote:
>
> Right on Rich! Great post. This newsgroup needs more posts like this
> instead of flaming each other back and forth.
Hi:
At the risk of being redundant, agreed!
It's especially impressive to me that you:
a) Explained what your qualifications are
b) Made it clear all your reviews were your personal impressions, not
just gossip or what you read in some magazine
c) Actually got hands-on (so to speak) experience with all the products
Again, thanks!
Neil
Jeff Adams
On Wed, 07 May 1997 08:16:30 +0000, "Ned Davies" <ned...@mc.net>
wrote:
>At least he said something of value.
You may have missed the point. We aren't complaining about the
original 490 line post. Hey, you're all right that said that was a
great post! 1000 lines would have been fine. That's NOT the point.
The POINT is that if you want to post to say you thought it was a good
post, go ahead and do that, but please DON'T include the original 490
line post with your one line agreement.
THAT'S the point.
======CORRECT EMAIL: remove the xyz======================================
| Jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com) | GTE Electronic Systems Division |
| 415-966-2122 | Mountain View, CA U.S.A. |
| All opinions are mine and not my employer or internet access provider. |
==========================================================================
Daniel J. Weiss
If only that were the worst problem this newsgroup had :P
Ken West
Agree- it was great to read something this well thought out and
substantial- a nice change from the ongoing variation of Monty
Pythons "Argument Clinic" sketch this NG usually consists of. (it is
occasionally entertaining, though!)
Ken
Johnny Y Boey
Jeff Adams wrote:
>
> On 8 May 1997 17:58:39 -0400, m...@crl.com (Mark Sironi) wrote:
>
> >[snip]
> >The VR-4's did a great job of pushing the sound outside the boundaries
> >of the room, and seemed very balanced, with the exception of low bass.
> >I've heard great things about this speaker's bass, but it seemed pretty
> >weak. (the room or associated gear, perhaps?)
> >[snip]
>
> Could you describe "weak" a little more? And what instruments do you
> consider low bass (i.e., I'm trying to determine what range of
> frequencies you heard as "weak").
>
> My VR-4s have about an 8 dB peak around 30 Hz, resulting in very
> powerful low bass. I listen mostly to smooth jazz, and I hear this low
> bass usually only on tracks with synth bass, not electric or acoustic
> bass. Or with classical music with the big bass drum.
>
> Where I have trouble is with bass "slam" or "punch" on standard
> electric bass guitar (in smooth jazz or "pop" rock, e.g., the Corrs
> happens to be a current favorite). In all my various testing, I have
> decided that the apparent frequency range in question is actually from
> somewhere just above 60 Hz to somewhere just below 200 Hz. I say this
> based on measurements using cheap equipment (Rat Shack SPL meter) and
> the Stereophile test disc using warble tones - I brought home some
> Snell C/V's, which I like a lot. They have a lot of bass "slam" or
> "punch". When I measured the two sets of speakers, the VR-4's were
> down around 5 dB between 100 and 160, where as the Snells were up
> about 7 dB at 63 to 80 (remember these are 1/3 octave warble tones,
> so, I don't know what's happening in between these numbers - also keep
> in mind that moving the meter around, me around, or furniture around
> changed readings; but these values I am relating are fairly
> representative of what I think I was hearing). Anyway, these numbers
> don't really prove anything except to reinforce what my ears are
> telling me - that the Snells sound punchy on bass guitar parts and the
> VR-4s don't (not as much anyway).
>
> I think that a lot of people associate deep bass with frequencies
> which are actually a lot higher (well, somewhere from 60 to 200 Hz
> anyway, based on my previous paragraph and numbers).
>
> Others (such as Dana) don't have this "problem" (the 100-200 Hz dip),
> so it appears to be a room problem (my room is too small at 14x18x8,
> but it has a large opening in the rear which sort of simulates a
> bigger room).
>
same problem here. Room is 12x16x8. To make it worse, I use it in a HT
setting with a big TV in between. Like you said, low bass can be
overwhelming (welcome in HT but not music). But I don't have your
midbass problem.
JB
Mark Sironi
>Welcome to my reviews - let me correct that - my 'impressions' of
>hi-end speakers. Sorry for the long download.
[speaker reviews snipped]
Those were some great reviews, err, impressions! Since I've started
looking for speakers and amplification myself, I thought I'd share
my experiences with 2 of the speakers you listened to. I'm fairly new
at this myself and don't have the most experienced ear either, but my
impressions were fairly close to yours.
The first speakers that I've listened to were the Von Schweikert VR-4's
and the Martin Logan SL3's. The same dealer had them, so I got to hear
them in the same room with the same gear. (Theta's new transport, Pearl,
a Theta DAC, Audio Research tube preamp and tube amp, and MIT cable)
The VR-4's did a great job of pushing the sound outside the boundaries
of the room, and seemed very balanced, with the exception of low bass.
I've heard great things about this speaker's bass, but it seemed pretty
weak. (the room or associated gear, perhaps?) The soundstage was also
pretty consistent no matter where I sat (within reason) in the room.
What you gave up was extreme detail and imaging.
The SL3's, on the other hand, had razor sharp imaging and fantastic
detail. The imaging of sounds between the speakers was uncanny. However,
they had a much harder time pushing sound outside the speakers, and
couldn't create a soundstage larger than the room. They also had a
very small sweet spot, all of that fantastic imaging disappeared if I
moved my head from side to side. They had more bass (at least in
quantity) than I expected, more than the VR-4's. But the bass wasn't
good bass at all, very muddy. They also had trouble with dense material,
they had trouble imaging traditional Irish Jigs, Reels, and dense guitar
rock. Also, I brought a Steeleye Span CD with me, and Maddy Prior's
voice seemed to break up a few times. And all that detail at the top
end was almost analytical, but perhaps I'm not used to it. :)
One thing I'm really perplexed by is why the bass on the VR-4's was
so flat? The room was almost square, perhaps 20x23, which is not the
best. The sides of the room had other speakers facing the walls, so
they would diffuse the sound. There were tube traps in the corners,
and diffusers along the back walls. The speakers were about 6 or
7 feet from the back wall, and 2-3 feet from the side walls. Anyone
have any ideas on this?
--
Mark Sironi email: m...@crl.com
www: http://www.crl.com/~mjs/
Agnostic, n: An atheist with an insurance policy.
Rich Harkness
On 8 May 1997 17:58:39 -0400, m...@crl.com (Mark Sironi) wrote:
>Those were some great reviews, err, impressions! Since I've started
>looking for speakers and amplification myself, I thought I'd share
>my experiences with 2 of the speakers you listened to. I'm fairly new
>at this myself and don't have the most experienced ear either, but my
>impressions were fairly close to yours.
-snipped reviews-
Mark, thank you for the comments and the informative post. It's
fascinating comparing impressions of components. You are puzzled by
the VR-4's anemic bottom end, and here I am complaining of TOO MUCH
bass. I have to agree about the SL3's bass. Even when turned up to
room-thumping volume the bass was characterless and uninvolving
(relatively). Razor-sharp is the word for the SL3's imaging!
Although, I just listened briefly today to the ML Arieus playing some
pipe organ and it was airy, delicate and beautiful.
Rich H.
Jeff Adams
On 8 May 1997 17:58:39 -0400, m...@crl.com (Mark Sironi) wrote:
>[snip]
>The VR-4's did a great job of pushing the sound outside the boundaries
>of the room, and seemed very balanced, with the exception of low bass.
>I've heard great things about this speaker's bass, but it seemed pretty
>weak. (the room or associated gear, perhaps?)
>[snip]
So..... having said all that - can you elaborate a little more about
the bass? I'm quite curious. I'm still working with mine (Mr Von S.
has a new detailed setup manual out, and I have yet to try everything
he recomends in it). I have no doubt that they are flat in an anochoic
chamber - they are somehow interacting with my room to produce this
perception. Of course, this brings up the point (again) that many
people are used to a speaker with a mid-bass hump, so something that
is flat in that region may sound lean.
Thanks,
Johnny Y Boey
Jeff Adams wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 May 1997 23:44:00 -0500, Johnny Y Boey
> <jb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >same problem here. Room is 12x16x8. To make it worse, I use it in a HT
> >setting with a big TV in between. Like you said, low bass can be
> >overwhelming (welcome in HT but not music). But I don't have your
> >midbass problem.
>
> few that have had this problem. I'll just keep working at it.
>
> Regarding the low bass, I use to have a 12 dB peak. I reduced it by
> extending the port length - have you tried this yet? Give it a shot
> and let us know what happens. I went to the local copy center and
> bought sheets of 8.5x11" 10 mil plastic, tape two together to make an
> 11" x 17" piece, then rolled it up to get an 11" long tube. I put the
> rolled up tube into the port and pushed it back so that it fit into
> place just behind the plastic inserts. I have since read in Mr. V.'s
> enhanced setup manual that he says let the material stick out the port
> (as opposed to sticking it in). I haven't tryed that to see if there
> is any difference. Bottom line was, I think, to lengthen the port by
> 4". I actually did this to all 4 ports (i.e., 2 on each speaker). Room
> positioning may have a bigger effect, but I was impressed by the
> change.
>
will try it.
JB
Jeff Adams
======CORRECT EMAIL: remove the xyz======================================
Matt Kennel (Remove 'nospam' to reply)
On 8 May 1997 17:58:39 -0400, Mark Sironi <m...@crl.com> wrote:
:
:The first speakers that I've listened to were the Von Schweikert VR-4's
:and the Martin Logan SL3's. The same dealer had them, so I got to hear
:them in the same room with the same gear. (Theta's new transport, Pearl,
:a Theta DAC, Audio Research tube preamp and tube amp, and MIT cable)
:of the room, and seemed very balanced, with the exception of low bass.
:I've heard great things about this speaker's bass, but it seemed pretty
:pretty consistent no matter where I sat (within reason) in the room.
:What you gave up was extreme detail and imaging.
:
:The SL3's, on the other hand, had razor sharp imaging and fantastic
:detail. The imaging of sounds between the speakers was uncanny. However,
:they had a much harder time pushing sound outside the speakers, and
:couldn't create a soundstage larger than the room.
It's been my experience with planar speakers that an optimal listening
position is closer to them than for electrodynamic box speakers, and
once you get yourself in such a position (say a completely equilateral
triangle with speakers and yourself) the presentation is very large and
good.
Of course this depends on compliant furniture layouts.
:--
: Mark Sironi email: m...@crl.com
--
Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD/
Don't blame me, I voted for Emperor Mollari.
WENWD
Rich,
I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading your comments
on what you've auditioned recently. I, being detail-oriented, really
appreciated the time you had taken to describe what you've heard.
If you ever get a chance to audition the Cabasse Atlantis MC 001,
Digital Phase AP-4, EP-4, Linn Keltik, Legacy Whisper, Pro Ac Re-
sponse 3.5, Response 4, Von Schweikert VR-8, VR-10, or the West-
lake Audio Tower SM-1, I sure look forward to your comments.
Best Regards,
Donald J. Winslow, President/IP
W <|> Enterprises <|> Northwest
- Ind. Digital Phase Ldspkr. Distr.
3439 NE Sandy Blvd.
Suite 507
Portland, OR 97232-1959
we...@aol.com
1-503-282-4808
1-800-757-1846
Regular Business Hours: M-F 8am-5pm PDT
W Enterprises NW. Taking Pride in Customer Service.
SPEAKERS:
Von Schweikert VR-3's.
Von Schweikert VR-4's.
B+W
Mirage Speakers:
Booorriiing.
Ethera Vitae speakers
Ariel Model 8 speakers
Royd Albion speakers
Spendor BC-1
Rich Harkness >>
Best Regards,
Donald J. Winslow, President --<|>-- W Enterprises Northwest.
Taking Pride in Customer Service. <|> Independent Distributors
Air Purifiers, Amway Corporation, Digital Phase Loudspeakers,
FCI, Manufacturer's Direct, TCN & World Wide
Mark Sironi
> Could you describe "weak" a little more? And what instruments do you
> consider low bass (i.e., I'm trying to determine what range of
> frequencies you heard as "weak").
I didn't have any low bass music with me, so they gave me a CD with
a 20 Hz organ tone. (or so they claimed, but it sounded about right,
somewhere in the 20-30 range anyway) I could barely hear it on the
VR-4, but the Dunlavy SC-IV shook the room.
> Where I have trouble is with bass "slam" or "punch" on standard
> electric bass guitar (in smooth jazz or "pop" rock, e.g., the Corrs
> happens to be a current favorite). In all my various testing, I have
> decided that the apparent frequency range in question is actually from
> somewhere just above 60 Hz to somewhere just below 200 Hz. I say this
> based on measurements using cheap equipment (Rat Shack SPL meter) and
> the Stereophile test disc using warble tones - I brought home some
> Snell C/V's, which I like a lot. They have a lot of bass "slam" or
> "punch". When I measured the two sets of speakers, the VR-4's were
> down around 5 dB between 100 and 160, where as the Snells were up
This would explain what I heard in the mid and upper bass as well. All
in all I was expecting a lot more from the bottom end. Note that the
bass that was there was very smooth and tight, I just felt that there
should have been a little more of it. One person suggested to me
privately that perhaps the bass module was hooked up out of phase,
this is quite possible and I wish I had thought of it and checked
when I was there.
> about 7 dB at 63 to 80 (remember these are 1/3 octave warble tones,
> so, I don't know what's happening in between these numbers - also keep
I'd like to get at these with a sound meter and this test disc and
see just what is happening.
--
Mark Sironi email: m...@crl.com
www: http://www.crl.com/~mjs/
A LISP programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing.
Johnny Y Boey
Mark Sironi wrote:
>
> > Could you describe "weak" a little more? And what instruments do you
> > consider low bass (i.e., I'm trying to determine what range of
> > frequencies you heard as "weak").
>
> I didn't have any low bass music with me, so they gave me a CD with
> a 20 Hz organ tone. (or so they claimed, but it sounded about right,
> somewhere in the 20-30 range anyway) I could barely hear it on the
> VR-4, but the Dunlavy SC-IV shook the room.
>
The 20-30Hz bass from my VR4's is overloading my smallish room.
JB
Jeff Adams
On 12 May 1997 17:16:30 -0400, m...@crl.com (Mark Sironi) wrote:
>I didn't have any low bass music with me, so they gave me a CD with
>a 20 Hz organ tone. (or so they claimed, but it sounded about right,
>somewhere in the 20-30 range anyway) I could barely hear it on the
>VR-4, but the Dunlavy SC-IV shook the room.
Interesting. I don't have any good organ CDs to test with. The output
at 20 Hz is "flat", i.e., the same level as at 1000 Hz, but I could
only just hear it. The output at 32 Hz is up as I described, and it
is/can be overwhelming. I can guess that my room is too small for me
to hear the 20 Hz tone (plus I guess the ear gets less sensitive at
that point?).
But you are saying that (let me see if I understand this correctly)
the SC-IV's and the VR-4's are in the same room, using the same
equipment, in (roughly anyway) the same position? Or were the two
systems set up in different rooms with different equipment? I would be
very interested to hear more about how these two systems measured and
what is causing the ovbiously LARGE perceived differences in bass
response.
Regarding making measurements with a test disc using the Radio Shack
meter: I am told (and believe) that the measurements you (and I)
obtain can be pretty deceiving. In a previous thread with Dana Bunner
(we were measuring our VR-4s), Dana noted significant differences just
from moving furniture around. We both noticed how much difference
moving the meter (or our bodies) just a few inches made (I may have
the specifics wrong, but, don't miss the point). To do this well, one
would want more accurate equipment and to make measurements at
multiple locations and come up with some sort of average. No wonder
that moving speakers around just a little can have such a big effect.
I'm especially curious about the VR-4 vs. Dunlavy SC-IV because I have
yet to hear (but would like to hear) the SC-IV, and at one point was
sure that was what I wanted. I have heard the SC-3, and it seemed more
"punchy" (totally different system, room, etc.), so hearing the SC-IV
would be interesting. Where did you hear the equipment?
Thanks,
Dana
Johnny Y Boey wrote:
>
> Mark Sironi wrote:
> >
> > > Could you describe "weak" a little more? And what instruments do you
> > > consider low bass (i.e., I'm trying to determine what range of
> > > frequencies you heard as "weak").
> >
> > a 20 Hz organ tone. (or so they claimed, but it sounded about right,
> > somewhere in the 20-30 range anyway) I could barely hear it on the
> > VR-4, but the Dunlavy SC-IV shook the room.
> >
>
>
> JB
When using an audio generator as a source, the output from
my VR-4s did fall off below 25Hz, so I could understand
hearing a diminished output if a note is down in the
low 20's. However as I have very, very few CDs that
contain notes in the low 20's, I don't believe I am
missing much of anything.
As to output in the high 20's and low 30's, my VR-4s
produce as much as I want or need - and this is in a
room of over 500 square feet. I have measured a
dip right around 60-65Hz in my system, but other than
that it is a remarkably linear output from 30Hz
all the way up to 200Hz (and above as we climb out
of the "bass" region).
I do believe that small dip can be easily detected by
many listeners as most speakers tend to have a hump
in that region, so the output from the VR-4 can be
as much as 8 or 10dB below that of another speaker
right there in the mid-bass. I should stress that in
my listening room, the dip is over a very narrow
range, at both 55Hz and 70Hz the output is right back
to within +-1dB of linear as compared to the rest of
the bass output.
Dana
--
Please remove "*" in my address to reply via email
Joe Cheng
wait a minute... what's your point??
> You may have missed the point. We aren't complaining about the
> original 490 line post. Hey, you're all right that said that was a
> great post! 1000 lines would have been fine. That's NOT the point.
>
> The POINT is that if you want to post to say you thought it was a good
> post, go ahead and do that, but please DON'T include the original 490
> line post with your one line agreement.
>
> THAT'S the point.
.
Mark Sironi
In article <337ecaa7....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>,
jeff.adams.@gscxyz.gte.com (Jeff Adams) wrote:
>But you are saying that (let me see if I understand this correctly)
>the SC-IV's and the VR-4's are in the same room, using the same
>equipment, in (roughly anyway) the same position? Or were the two
>systems set up in different rooms with different equipment? I would be
>very interested to hear more about how these two systems measured and
>what is causing the ovbiously LARGE perceived differences in bass
>response.
The speakers were in the same room with the same gear. I listened
to the VR-4's, and the person after me listened to the 4.5's and
the SC-IV's. I wasn't at the sweet spot for the 4.5's and SC-IV's,
so I can't make any great comments on their sound quality, but the
SC-IV's had more bottom end than the VR-4's did on the track in
question. He didn't play it on the 4.5's (or I wasn't in the room
when he did) so I can't comment there.
Gear in question was Theta's new transport, AR tube amp and
tube preamp, and MIT cables. The speakers were set up roughly
in the same position in the room. The room had diffusers on the back
wall and tube traps in the corners. Other speakers were put against
the side walls (facing the walls), spaced about 8" to a foot apart, so
they should have helped diffuse side wall reflections. Floor was
carpeted.
>I'm especially curious about the VR-4 vs. Dunlavy SC-IV because I have
>yet to hear (but would like to hear) the SC-IV, and at one point was
As I said I didn't listen to them critically, but they sounded a little
more rolled off at the top than the VR-4. But w/o giving them a good
critical listen I wouldn't want to give an opinion of the speaker. At
6K, they're out of my price range anyway.
>would be interesting. Where did you hear the equipment?
Goodwin's High End, in Waltham, MA.
--
Mark Sironi email: m...@crl.com
www: http://www.crl.com/~mjs/
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
Mark Sironi
In article <3378fd99...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ae...@flight.els wrote:
>>I didn't have any low bass music with me, so they gave me a CD with
>>a 20 Hz organ tone. (or so they claimed, but it sounded about right,
>>somewhere in the 20-30 range anyway) I could barely hear it on the
>>VR-4, but the Dunlavy SC-IV shook the room.
>>
>I'm not doubting you, but find this hard to believe. While the SC-IV
>is a superb speaker, I'm quite surprised to hear that it outperformed
>the VR-4 in the low bass region. As far as I know, the VR-4 is much
>flatter to 20hz than the SC-IV, although this really means very
>little.
It certainly is on paper. I was quite suprised myself; the most
likely explanation that I've heard is that the bass section was wired
out of phase. I was really expecting them to blow me out of the room.
I'll be listening to them again as I A/B other speakers against
them (they're still my current fave's, although the razor sharp imaging
of the ML SL3's is tempting), so I'll make sure to pay attention to
how their wired next time. If I can get ahold of a test CD I'll play
that and bring my SPL meter and see what's going on.
>What puzzles me is that there is such a wide range of experiences with
>the VR-4's bass. Some say there's too much, others not enough. Some
>say there's no punch, others say there is. Because room placement is
>so critical, I can only assume that the room itself is causing the
>different variations of bass output we've been reading about.
This is also possible, the room was set up to calm bass problems, but
I wouldn't expect it to shave 6db or so off the bottom end of the VR-4.
But you can certainly make a pretty convincing argument that your
listening room (and what's in it) has the largest effect on sound
quality.
>This goes to show that an in-home audition is the ONLY way to ensure
>that a loudspeaker system will work for any given individual. It's
>impossible to say "this is better than that" because the room is
>usually the primary factor that determines how the speaker ultimately
>sounds.
I totally agree, but right now I'm trying to go from the long list of
12 or so speakers to the short list of 1 or 2. I'll bring whatever I
decide on into my home at that point. I'm sure that they would sound
totally different in my home, since I'd have a 55" TV between them and
they'd only be 2 feet from the back wall instead of 7-8 feet. But we'll
see when I get to that point...
I'd love to find a dealer that would let me take every pair of speakers
home for a weekend, but I don't think that is a realistic option. Besides,
since I'm pretty much building a new system from the ground up I'd need
a lot more than just speakers. :)
--
Mark Sironi email: m...@crl.com
www: http://www.crl.com/~mjs/
All things being equal, a fat person uses more soap than a thin person.