Essrand,
Congratulations on your Coincident Dragon mono blocks! I believe that they'll keep you very happy and enhance your system for much long term enjoyment.
Charles, |
Thanks to everybody for your help and suggestions.
My latest update is that I bought a pair of Coincident Dragons (used) . Amazing is the word, my Vienna Acousitcs Haydns sound almost (85-90%) as good as the Devore Orangutans (O/93) driven by Nagra that I heard at the dealer.
While I am recovering from the financial damage, am going to the RMAF to hear all the possible speakers. |
Though the perception of a picture can be affected by interaction with ones room. |
I will add that the sensitivity of our ears and in particular the range of intensities that they are capable of detecting (i.e. their dynamic range) is much more impressive than their ability to detect 10 octaves. The dynamic range of the human ear is 130 - 140 dB. If we consider that one dollar represent the intensity of the softest sound that our ears can detect, that the very loud intensities that represent the threshold of pain for our ears are on the order of ten thousand BILLIONs dollars. I am not sure whether we (i.e. humans) are actually able to manufactures microphone with such a wide dynamic range.
With movies and pictures the situation is much simpler. We have cameras that are significantly better than our eyes, plus the quality of a picture is not affected by interaction with ones room. |
Hi,
Am octave is just a doubling of frequency. The ear can pick up a span of TEN of those doublings! The eye: only a bit less than one doubling. Color perception is a frequency based phenomenon, just as sound is frequency based. Eyes pick up an electromagnetic wave, ears pick up a mechanical wave. But look how much wider the range of our perception is with sound! |
Kidd,
Not aware of the concept of an octave being applied to light/eyes, so not sure how to digest the comparison to sound/ears, but I'll buy the timing considerations being more difficult part as mattering when it comes to playback of recorded music. |
Oh Mapman, you are goading me now with that type of crazy subject!
It really is harder to get good sound than good still images. The still images are static: no transients! Easy! And judging it is easy....it's static!
Movies are just series of stills....the static gets repeated every so often.
Not so simple with the ear, whose bandwidth is high, that is extremely time sensitive (so phase distortion shows greatly), and which no single transducer can effectively satisfy.
Consider this: the ear/brain system is 10 octaves wide!!!!
They eye is less than one octave wide in its frequency spectrum! Ouch, that ear is hard to satisfy.
As for "beef" in high end audio, there is little beef. Lots of guys saying they are from Bell Labs (tall tale from that guy), NASA (almost all of those but one that I know are false), NSA scientist (bogus).....so you are right, lots of experimenting, only a few that have real scientific / physics / engineering chops. The job is harder, the market smaller.
A lot of substance and good points from several folks in this thread, far more than in most.
|
"Mapman, photography with a current $500 camera is a LOT better than nearly all high end systems."
The fact that a relatively inexpensive camera these days can take such good pictures is just one reason why I often wonder how much beef there really is in high end audio.
And lets not even get started on the quality of HD TV.
IS it really so much harder and more expensive to reproduce sound well? Gotta wonder....
But there is a lot that goes into "good sound", that's for sure. Both objective and subjective. See the "$10000 power conditioner thread" for more fascinating banter on this topic. |
Mapman, photography with a current $500 camera is a LOT better than nearly all high end systems.
I think you are mixing metaphors....mixing apples and oranges....the performance and orginal compositions/scores/melodies is the art in audio. Do we really want to change and sully that art? I certainly don't. And I've never seen a colored up version strike the hearts of listeners than a very literal version. Consistently, I see listeners get far more pleasure from very literal recovery from the record, as opposed to colored up versions. |
"Anyone attending regular concerts and wanting a very true rendition of the instruments at home can find the sound getting old after a while."
That quote of mine refers to the sound coming from a coloured transducer, in this case, the pleasant but coloured Harbeth. |
Thank you for a considered, quality response, Tubegroover.
For me, the art was in the instrument design and evolution, the music writer, and the player. I want to feel and understand that combination of art and great human achievement as fully as possible....without distorting or changing it. I cannot, for instance, understand someone who would take a photograph of a Van Gogh and then photoshopping it, changing the texture, and darkening / lightening some sections of the work. Neither can I understand the same thing done to genius level performances of genius level music. I demand no less, and my customers deserve no less. Any change is distortion. |
Music is indeed art, but the reproduction of it is an entirely different issue, regardless of whether or not it is "perfectly" reproduced. The issue is what is the goal, to attempt to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible or to create a distorted view of reality based on personal taste without concern for the former. |
Music is art. All art is impressionistic. Even the highest quality, highest resolution photography is not perfect. There are many other perspectives of teh same thing possible that the photo does not show. |
"Anyone attending regular concerts and wanting a very true rendition of the instruments at home can find the sound getting old after a while."
I think this gets to the crux of the issue at hand. From my personal viewpoint there are two kinds of listeners', those that REALLY are searching for a presentation that mimics real music in the space it was played, in other words maximizing what is on the recording and then there are those that settle for a sound based on their musical tastes and preferences. If one has eclectic tastes and listens to ALL types of music including large scale, the upper frequency and bass range as well as the midrange MUST be reproduced accurately to convey the performance, any coloration in any of these areas will eventually be realized to the critical listener and ultimately lead to fatigue and diminished pleasure over time. Why do so many keep changing gear as frequently as they do I keep wondering?
Kidmann your point of listening to live music as a benchmark in what to listen for in an audio system can not be overemphasized. I am sometimes astounded by some of the systems I have listened to from VERY experienced, seasoned audiophiles and it has nothing to do with achieving the absolute sound, too each his own and I guess this is the bottom line. It is why it is SO difficult to recommend anything without having a real sense of what a particular listener wants to achieve.
Furthermore your point concerning "impressionistic" really drove home to me the difference between artistic representation of music versus realism, indeed it comes down to what do you prefer, art vs. reality? |
Nearfield is REALLY close, I would call 8 feet or further a relatively normal position. I can listen to my current system from 18 feet away to 4 feet away with pinpoint imaging at the 4 foot position, realism like you are up against the stage. The proper design speaker, with great coherency, can do this and I own several that will, including some pretty gigantic speakers that will play 125db. This 4 foot position is possible with the speakers 12 feet apart center to center. The key is a very coherent signal from upstream components, as well as really well designed speakers. Toe in will have to be adjusted for close distances.
As for Harbeths wearing off, I should qualify this statement: Anyone attending regular concerts and wanting a very true rendition of the instruments at home can find the sound getting old after a while. The true bite of a trumpet, the tougher complex harmonics of a muted trumpet, saxes from sop to baritone, the differentiation of different cymbals and high hat, sizzle of the high hat, these sounds are rounded by Harbeths and they are certainly not alone in that regard. It's a stylized sound. It can be very pleasant. It's what I call a little impressionistic. Nothing wrong with impressionism, but don't tell me a Money Water Lilly drawing is an exact reproduction of the look of water lillies....and the Harbeths are a bit impressionistic.
With many brands and models of associated equipment that are a bit harsh or rough, this "bridging over" of transients is a plus. Unfortunately, such band-aid mixing and matching true detail suffers at each piece of equipment in the chain. With the best, most neutral sources and equipment, it's not needed (the softness), and it will just cover over true musical detail. |
As someone who has owned both Harbeths and Coincident speakers, I think a potential buyer has to realize that a speaker designer ususally has absolutely no idea of the room the speaker will be placed in and therefore is faced with tough decisions. Because of the size of my room, I am forced to listen from about 8 feet away, which I really consider pretty nearfield. A speaker like Harbeth works wonderfully in such a situation, while a more "detailed" speaker might tear your head off. I disagree with Kiddman that the Harbeth sound can get old, but that's a matter of taste and use. My friends had the SHL5s in a large room and they didn't work at all. In a boomy room, a brighter speaker with tighter bass might work far better, while Harbeths could become too diffused and soft.
So the upshot is - all this information dispensed may be correct under certain circumstances, depending on the room or whatever. But ultimately, you have to become secure enough in your own taste to make an informed decision without regard for what others think.
IMO, you need to buy something very good and listen to it for a few years until you develop a point of reference. You've listened to every record you own ten times and you know what everything sounds like. Then, you can listen to other speakers and have a solid foundation upon which to determine whether you prefer them to what you have. But it takes time, experimentation and money. But I guarantee you that everyone here who has a system they really love has gone through this process. Good luck. |
ESSrand, I just wrote a long response that could seem, by its length, to be too hard on Harbeth. They are nice, just a bit forgiving is all, and that can get old....music is more stimulating than they portray. That's one of the better faults to have for sure, but the amount you are spending can get something pretty "easy" sounding yet more musically insightful.
Two important descriptors for me are "low distortion" (which precludes ringing tweeters, grainy midranges, 2 all too common faults of "hi-rez" speakers) and "musically insightful". The latter forgiving requires more information, more subtle detail, more instrumental (or vocal) detail than "glossed over" speakers deliver. |
Essrand,
The various higher efficiency speakers mentioned so far would all work very well with a SET amp. There may be no looking back. |
Kiddman, based on your post I am now looking for flight tickets to Denver for RMAF. Will update if I make it there.
I did listen to number of speakers at CAS 2013, but I think RMAF might be the way to go.
Am also intrigued about your comments on Harbeth. Can you elaborate ? I did not realize that Harbeth are known to be a bit colored and lacking in detail.
I have heard Tannoys, but only the 35K Royal Westminister SE, which I felt was not that impressive. It might have been the SS amps though. The dealer did not have any Tubes at that time.
Heard Tannoy DC10 at CAS 2013, it was extremely impressive.
My preference has been with Devore because when I heard it, I loved it. and it might go well with SET amps, which is something I want to explore.
My safe choice was Harbeth, cheaper but harder to drive, and I will have to upgrade my amps. |
Larger speakers might be overkill for smaller or more lively rooms. Definitely worth considering. |
And Kidmann, I feel your passion, you make some very excellent points. |
Agree with Arh, get the speakers you most prefer FIRST. On a further note it would be easier and quite likely less expensive to find a quality amp that would meld more ideally with a higher efficiency speaker than choosing a lower efficiency speaker that is going to be more limited in amplifier choices. Go with the speaker you REALLY like, which you indicated is the Orangutan, is this right? Your Pass is a really nice amp, maybe limited in the lower frequencies but I'd still bet it would sound great with those speakers, high efficiency and higher impedance. That speaker is going to love a lot of amplifiers if the Pass doesn't work out, even inexpensive SETs and of course OTLs, if either turns out to be your thing. |
How about the size of the room, as far as larger speakers go. |
I think Harbeth versus the Devores will lead down two significantly different paths to get best results. One is high efficiency, one is not. THat alone makes a huge difference regarding what might be needed for best results for a highly discerning listener.
Not all listeners are equally discerning. Those that are not have it easier and are not as hard to please.
If op has not heard many speakers/systems, I agree it would be desirable to get more mileage under his belt with various types and what to expect from each before deciding. Or, just pick one and focus on getting which ever choice it is set up and performing as best it can based on whats best for that kind of speaker. Its all good stuff, but apples and oranges from a pure technical perspective and what will go along with each in order to make shine. |
Sorry Charles, about the typo of lower case "C" on our name. |
Thanks Charles. We agree. Two to three hours a day I hear myself play, as well as record myself and play it through my system. You need to keep the ears/brain educated. One can improve pitch through practice. A player can improve musical phrase recognition through practice. Likewise, a listener can improve the skills of listening through practice, but not by listening to stereos, but rather real music.
And yes, we agree about Coincident. I don't know if he's brilliant, smart, average, if he has taken technical courses, but he just has to be a good listener. His exhibits sound much more like music than the vast majority. I know of two current HOT brands that could only dream about lower levels of distortion like Coincident achieves. |
Good and interesting impressions of various speakers. I'd suggest Coincident speakers as another easy to drive and very balanced and honest sounding speaker.Zu seems to be very polarizing brand, there doesn't appear to be a middle ground. There are people who's judgements I respect that say the new Druid V and the Definition IV models are excellent, I've heard neither.
Tonian Labs and Ocellia are two other considerations to mate with lower powered amplifiers. I agree wholeheartedly with Kiddman regarding listening to live acoustic instruments, there's no substitute for hearing the real thing. Live jazz (and also my own trumpet and our piano) are unbeatable templates. There's more full body and warmth of tone with live instruments that many speakers/components tend to thin out and sound artificially lean and colorless. Live is very vibrant with harmonics, tonal and timbral color
Good Luck,
Charles, |
OP says "Of all the speakers I have heard (which are not many)...."
For that much outlay, unless that is a small amount for you, is there any way you can go out to do more listening?
RMAF is coming up.....
Before you go, if you could find some unamplified concerts (orchestral, chamber, jazz with no PA, which can be found in small venues, friends who play instruments) so you can get a dose, a good dose, of the real thing sitting in your short term memory? |
Hi Larry,
Not surprised we agree....those traits are there, if folks want to ignore them, fine, but they ignore the reality.
Re: Kensigntons, they have a small degree of raspiness, but so much less than Zus....and so can the Orangutans. SETs help, but this is a coverup and like all coverups, not completely effective.
For no rasp Tannoy performance one must go to the pepperpot waveguide, which is on the Prestige series.
He seems to want DeVores, guessing he'll go there. That's not a mistake speaker, and they do not gloss so many things over like the Harbeths....which are pleasurable, but we have to be truthful and say that the honey is due to nice colorations and forgiving some of the real detail and bite of some instruments. To me, far better than harsh gritty speakers that over emphasize things yet seem so popular. |
Kiddman,
I agree with you about the Orangutans, Tannoys and Zus. I like the Tannoy Kensingtons I heard at a local dealer. It sounds reasonably lively while not being exremely colored like many lively, higher efficiency speakers can be. But, like all other speakers, it has its weaknesses and strengths and requirements for coupling with other components. To me, there is a slight raspiness in the midrange that needs to be tamed with the use of the right kind of amp and careful setting of the controls on the speaker. Still, I enjoyed it very much. |
Yes yes on the suggestion of Tannoys. Get the real deal, a speaker that will stay with you for decades and be supportable for decades. But, if you go with the Orangs, nice speaker.
Don't go for the Zu's....how can these guys stand the high distortion/harshness from these? I know of several people who had to get out of them after a few years due to fatigue, and I have direct experience. They get reeled in by dynamics and and driven away due to harshness. You never hear that about Orangs or Tannoys. |
10-02-13: Essrand
Dover, Do you really think an upgrade on TT will be better than an upgrade on the speakers (going from VA Haydn to Harbeth) or an upgrade in amplifier (Aleph 3 to Coincident Dragon). Also I am new to Vinyl and this is my first serious TT. Hi Essrand - you have some nice gear in your present system. If you spend $9-12k on speakers the potential of the speakers will outstrip that of your turntable. The question of where to spend your money depends on how much are you going to use the vinyl front end. If you are going to invest heavily in more vinyl records, then I would suggest you would be better off spending $5k on your TT, and the balance on some speakers that work with your existing gear. On the other hand, sometimes it is more economical to buy the best components you can each time that you buy to reduce the changeovers and the inherent cost of changing gear more often, so if you find some speakers that you really like go for it. Whichever way you go - good luck with your upgrade. My best advice would be to listen before buying whenever possible. |
Hi Essrand,
It was the Orangutans O/96 model. (I left our this detail because, for what ever reason, I was convinced this thread is about the O/96 model.)
Paul |
Hi Nvp,
Thanks for your response.
Do you know if these the Orangutans O/93 or the O/96 ?
(The O/96 have stands on them) |
I have recently heard these speakers at a show. They were driven by a Luxman class A integrated rated at 30 watts in 8 ohms (I believe it was the L-590AII integrated). The sound was very good and the speakers were able to fill very well a large room that had 15 - 20 people in it. I have actually looked for a short while at the power meters of the integrated, and to my surprise it still had 10-20 dBs of heard room even though the music was played quite loud (i.e. around 90 dBs).
|
Denon1, I think those speakers might need more power than my Aleph 3 30 watts. Also am looking for a change, I love my Haydn they are detailed, warm but I feel like I am looking for something more, like transparency. I am tempted to go up the VA line, its a safe bet for sure.
Dover, Do you really think an upgrade on TT will be better than an upgrade on the speakers (going from VA Haydn to Harbeth) or an upgrade in amplifier (Aleph 3 to Coincident Dragon). Also I am new to Vinyl and this is my first serious TT. |
Essrand, whay dont you go up within Vienna Acoucstic line and get something like Baby Grand SE or Imperial grand. |
I thought the Orangutans O/96 will go well with SET amps (8-10W), is that not the case ? That would be sad, if so I will not bother with the Devore. My prime interest in this speaker would be to get a chance to try out SET amps and see what the fuss is all about. Essrand, as you have seen from the responses an SET might be a very good idea to try out with this speaker. A lot is going to depend on your room- in a bigger room you are going to need more power and an SET may not work so well then. Generally to get the best out of an SET you want the speaker to be very efficient so that the amp does not make over about 20-25% of its full power. That way the low distortion/inner detail of the amp will be best shown off. We have customers running that speaker too, so from our point of view the speaker is very tube friendly, enough so that a small OTL works just fine on it. The speaker is pretty revealing, so whatever amp you get, you will want to give it your best shot. |
"The best amps I have heard on the Orangutan's were a small Shindo amp, by a long way. I suspect that if you buy the Orangutans you will need to try amplifiers before buying, otherwise you will be risking matching issues and may be extremely disappointed."
All the Shindo amps are small...? |
I have not heard the Orangutans but judging by Art Dudley's description in Stereophile and knowing what he likes a stereo system to sound like I would go with them. But I am not buying them. And judging by your description of the music you like I would go for the Harbeths....
|
Esstrand,
the Trenner-Friedl Pharaoh I believe is 12,500.00 currently. I heard the T.-Friedl RA Box driven by the Viva Verona at CES a few years ago and it totally outclassed the vast majority of the high power amps driving the typical moderate efficiency(85-88 db)/4 ohm types that were in abundance there.That combination was very impressively natural, involving emotionally, simply realistic.
All SET amps aren`t created equally, get one with excellent transformers and power supply and paired with an appropriate speaker and I think you`d be very happy. |
I have heard the Orangutans with a 211 SET amp and the combination sounded nice. If it is an easy load, and truly 96 db efficient, it should work reasonably well with even lower-powered amps. To me, the key is "easy" load more so than high efficiency. I have heard the notoriously inefficient Rogers 3/5A (15 ohm version) used with a 5 watt amp and the combination sounded very good, with no hint of clipping even at fairly high volume.
A lot depends on how loud you require the system to go. Most SET users actually appreciate the fact that their systems can sound very full, dynamic and exciting at surprisingly modest volume levels.
But, if you insist on playing SETs very loud, what you will first notice is that the music actually sounds dull (the dynamics will be compressed long before very obvious distortion from clipping is heard). I think that the kind of music where the limitations of SETs can be best heard is large choral works, particularly works without instruments (e.g., Rachmaninov's Vespers with a good Russian choir)--it is easy to hear the voices become muddled and inarticulate.
I have heard Trenner and Friedl speakers (can't remember the models) and they sound very good to me--they have the great dynamics that one finds mostly with high efficiency speakers.
I personally find that there are very few commercial speakers that I like that are SET friendly, particularly if one is insisting on high volume level and a commensurate efficiency pushing at 100 db/w or more. That usually means horns, and most horn systems have a lot of midrange coloration that one has to either learn to love or ignore. The systems I have heard that minimize horn colorations are custom built, use very hard to find old drivers or use some very expensive new drivers. On the other hand, if one is willing to live with restrictions on use at extreme volume level, quite a number of good speakers can be used, such as Audionote, Spendors, even ProAc. |
I've heard 97 db zu essence off 6 watt set amp. It worked pretty well with much of the music demoed but Zu guy admitted when I queried that the amp was under powered for certain kinds of music like the Rush lp I asked to hear. Bass was noticeably thin and missing dynamics. Also heard large hi eff classic audio speakers of off beefier atmasphere amp. That combo seemed to deliver the music with ease. |
Chayro, No dealer near me (within 400 miles) deals with Orangutan 0/96. There is one dealer who has a O/93 that they are testing out. So I might be able to audition that with a SET. Its a good idea.
I do like the SHL5, have heard them multiple times, so its a safe choice for sure.
Charles1dad, I cannot find any pricing information for the Pharaoh, do you know how much it retails for ? Would be great to get more suggestions on SET friendly speakers. I know Coincident, Devore. And thats it. |
Esstrand,
Food for thought, the Trenner-Friedl Pharaoh compares favorably to the Orangutan in both price and design objectives. |
Essrand,
I wouldn`t give up the idea of using a SET so quickly. If the Devore is truly 96 db sensitive and has an easy load(said to be 8- 10 ohms) a good 300b or 845 SET amp would be quite a fine match. Just go to the dealer and ask to hear it with an SET amp as Chayro wisely suggested. It seems to me the chances are very good for a successful pairing. Just go and listen.Essrand for an example, my speaker is 94db -14 ohm load(Coincident) and Chayro`s speaker is 92 db -8 ohm load(Trenner-Friedl). Both of these speakers are driven effortlessly and beautifully with our respective SET amps.These are speakers meant to be very easy loads and mate well with SET amps. Give it a try first before you reach any conclusions.
Good Luck,
Charles, |
talk to the several guys in this forum who own 93s and 96s. |
I have heard both the O/93 and 0/96. THe 96's with Shindo gear in a large 14X20 room and they make large and involving music that is rich and fills the room. I have also heard them in a small room and I didn't like them as much. They are a no compromise speaker that with the right gear and right room might make one feel they have at arrived at a place where upgrades are no loner needed.
I have also heard the 93's in a smaller room with Line Magnetic gear and also thought they very engaging. My time with the 93s was limited so I have a less solidified impression, but the music sounded right.
Hearing all your speaker choices and find the one you like the best. Talk to John Devore. Talk to your dealer. |
Room size and acoustics.....always a determining factor for what will work best. |
As a reality check, given your current system, have you considered upgrading your turntable first. My view would be that you would get a more fundamental improvement by upgrading your front end rather than your speakers.
Having said that, I have heard the Orangutans on quite a few amps. They are very enigmatic. They definitely open up with tube amps, but I have noticed that even with tube amps they can go from closed in, compressed and unimpressive to open, fast and fluid. The best amps I have heard on the Orangutan's were a small Shindo amp, by a long way. I suspect that if you buy the Orangutans you will need to try amplifiers before buying, otherwise you will be risking matching issues and may be extremely disappointed.
Having heard the Tannoy Kensingtons in the same system as the Orangutans for similar money I would look to the Tannoy Kensingtons. |
