Interesting. Though I don't play in that snack bracket anymore. I've used up my audio fun money for the foreseeable future.
Contemplating DEVORE SPEAKERS (and others)....LONG audition report of many speakers
Told you it was long!
I figure what the heck, some people may find all of it interesting, maybe only some, maybe none. No one forced to read it. So onward....
Folks,
I've had Thiel 3.7s for several years and love them dearly. As I've mentioned in other threads, I have to downsize simply due to some ergonomic and aesthetic issues in my room - the speakers have to go partially by the entrance and so any big, deep speakers tend to get in the way.
Over the last two years or so I did a whole bunch of auditioning of many speakers over a year ago to find a replacement - Audio Note, Audio Physic, Focal, Raidho monitors, JM Reynaud, Paradigm Persona, various Revel models, Monitor Audio, Proac, Kudos, Harbeth, Joseph Audio...
I was going to give a report on all of them individually, at one point, but it's been a while so I'll just throw out some thumbnail impressions. They aren't meant to be particularly descriptive of the sound so much as brief reasons as to why I enjoyed or moved on from those speakers. I always sought the best set up achievable for an audition, but of course that's still not like being able to tune a speaker in one's own room. So caveats given, on with some brief impressions:
Audio Note:
(I forget which exact model but it was in the "quite expensive but not impossible" zone for me)
Excellent clarity. Good impact. Nice woody tonality (as in does wood instruments like cello, stand up bass etc with a convincing tone). My main issue is that I could really hear the corner loading aspect of the sound, especially in the lower mids down. Not that the bass was incontinent per se, more that I was just aware of the way the illusion of the bigger bass and sound was being created, in terms of using wall re-enforcement.
Also, I'm a real stickler about instrumental tone and timbre. I've always found that the more room you introduce into the sound, especially in the upper frequencies, the more it will tend to cast a scrim of room sound over the timbre of voices and instruments, homogenizing the most delicate aspects of the timbre. As the Audio Notes pretty much require or are meant to use the room, this was an aspect it would seem hard to get around. (That's one reason I tend to like speakers that will work closer to my listening position).
Audio Physic:
I'm very familiar with the AP sound - have had the Virgos, Scorpios and Libra in my home and heard much of the line through the years. The Avanti was terrific, tonally neutral sounding, clear lively treble without ear piercing. And of course their magical disappearing act, which I love. But didn't have enough of the richness I'd become used to with the bigger Thiels. I suspect the larger Codex woud be killer, but they get in to the too deep/large category.
Focal
I've always found Focal to have a "look at me" sound to their tweeter. Nonetheless I often admired the rich tonality of their large speakers at audio shows. Unfortunately I never found this to transfer to their smaller stand mounted speakers. They struck me as more clinical and left me cold. Recent Audition of the Kanta 2 still had the "check out our TWEETER!" Focal sound, but was smooth and vivid enough. Unfortunately to my ears sounded too "hi-fi" with disjointed bass. My Thiels at home sounded far more organic and believable.
Raidho
Listened to the tiny X1s which were remarkable performers for their size. Super clear, clean, open, killer soundstaging, good snap on drums - represented Joe Morello's solos on Brubeck at Carnegie Hall far more convincingly than any tiny speaker has a right to. Ultimately, too small.
Dealer had a killer deal on the larger C 1.2 stand mounted speakers and I had hope there. I have never, ever liked a ribbon tweeter with cones because every time I hear the discontinuity. I'd say the Raidhos are the first time I did not hear that discontinuity. So it was all that air and delicacy without the usual drawback. However, I'm thinking part of the magic for this has to do with their house curve, which isn't flat but has a "concert hall" dip in the upper mids (I think). Ultimately I tended to hear this as a coloration, a recessing of a portion of the sound. I'm used to the Thiels which at my place are phenomenally linear sounding top to bottom. So there would be percussion instruments, piano parts, and other instruments that would be more distant and subdued on the Raidhos, losing some of the realistic liveliness. I didn't really hear more detail than I was used to from my Thiels, found the sound a bit "grayed" tonally, though rich in the mids and upper bass. These things KICK in terms of upper bass presence and sound much bigger than they are. But I also found that a slightly over-bearing.
In fact, that's a problem I often have with monitor speakers. So many of them are engineered to sound bigger than they are so you don't feel like you are missing base, but the goosing of the bass to achieve this can be to my ears a bit obnoxious vs the more linear bass of a good floor standing speaker (though down lower, they can have their room problems...my Thiels do not).
JM Reynaud Offrande Supreme v2
I was very serious about these speakers. I'd been around for the initial JMR hype years ago, and heard most of their models at a local store. Always had nice tone, both incisive and warm, but a bit too far into the ever-present-coloration territory to my ears. Still, I believe the Supremes had been updated since then and I had two separate auditions at a Dealer when I was visiting Montreal.
They certainly had the JMR virtues. Super clear, almost hot high end, lively presence all around, yet somehow allied to a gorgeous warm tone. This brings in one of the things I like in a speaker - a warm tone not necessariily in the sense of a ripe lower midrange, but rather timbrally - warm in the sense that when an acoustic guitar track is played through the speaker, the signature is that of the warmth of wood, instead of the cold, electronic coloration of most systems. The JMR does this with acoustic instruments and voices. Everything with an amber or blond-wood "glow." And they definitley have a dynamic/transient/open sound that gives a feeling of musicians being right there, playing right now vibe.
Ultimately I found they were a bit biting to my ear in the upper frequencies. While the forwardness was a boon to putting musicians right in front of me, it also tended to fore-shorten depth. An always "they are here" vs "I'm transported to there" vibe. Also, the bass which was really big and deep - they are huge stand mount speakers! - was a bit on the pudgy side. But I get why people love them. If I had the opportunity I'd have liked to try them at home. (Though...maybe not. I actually don't like how they look, and REALLY don't like the JMR wood finishes).
Paradigm Persona
(I believe it was the 3F). Yup, these babies are clear, clear, clear and grain free. They are balanced top to bottom and were, like the Revel, the closest to my Thiel 3.7 speakers in terms of sounding balanced from top to bottom. Drum snares, cymbals, rim hits, percussion, guitar strings etc all had a fairly riveting precision. They had an open-window into the recording studio feel on almost every track. Plus, for their size they sounded BIG, including the image sizes, depth, width of the soundstage. A tremendous speaker for the money. Ultimately I couldn't get on with their looks, at least for my room. But most important, I did find them somewhat fatiguing to listen to after a while, and a bit less organic than my Thiels. (Though I'd bet that could change for the better if set up at my home on my gear).
Revel
I'd repeat most of what I just wrote about the Paradigms. They sounded similar, though the Paradigms seemed to have a next-level sense of purity and transparency vs the Revel. And the Revels tended to sound just a bit more linear and controlled top to bottom. The Revels just sounded like really competent speakers, but didn't grab me.
Again, something about the timbre/tone I get with the Thiels (and some other speakers) have an "it" factor I don't get with the Revels.
Monitor Audio (Gold, I believe - a smaller floor stander)
I've always liked the Monitor Audio sound. My father-in-law uses a HUGE pair of Monitor Audio monitors from the 80's that still strike me as one of the best marriages of believable tone with size and richness I've heard.
I own Monitor Audio bronze monitors for various uses, including home theater surrounds. Though I found once they moved to the Platinum line, with ribbons, the tone became a bit too bleached for my comfort.
The smaller Gold line still was able to do the "golden, bronze" tones in the upper frequencies...just turning toward silver a bit. They were astonishingly clean and clear, with a rainbow of timbral colors coming through. My main gripe is that I realized nothing actually sounded "real" - in the sense of believably organic. Everything sounded a bit hard around the edge - sibilance in vocals for instance being laid bare as processed in a bit too ruthless manner.
Proac - D20R (I believe...)
Love the look of these especially the wood finish in ebony on the model I auditioned. Would really have been a perfect size replacement for the Thiels, and went down about as low. Unfortunately I couldn't get around the extremely obvious character of the ribbon tweeter vs the mids/bass. I was always aware of it, and generally found the sound too cool in the upper frequencies to really get into. Bass was also not particularly impressive in terms of tone and control. One of the more disappointing speaker auditions.
Kudos
You really don't hear much about Kudos around here. Lack of dealers and North American presence I guess (as it seems to me a majority of people posting here are from North America...if I am indeed right about that).
Anyway, at a TAVES shows a few years ago I was frankly astonished by the sound coming from a pair of Kudos Super 20 floor standing speakers. It had a brilliant, reach out and grab me "alive" tone that made my brain think "real performance" more than most of what I'd heard that day. A bit forward...but wow what an effect. So they went on to my radar.
Turns out a local dealer carried Kudos, and there I heard some very small floor standing Kudos X3 speakers.
Well, there it was! That tone! Like the bigger model I'd heard at the show, this one had a dialed up upper frequency range that gave liveliness and detail. But it was, somewhat like the JMR speakers, allied to a generally warm tone, with a spectrum of timbral color to trumpet, wood blocks, acoustic guitar etc. If found the sound quite compelling, and so wondered about Kudos higher end models. As it turned out, Kudos in the last year has come out with the Titan range, a trickle down from their flagship. I really liked the design of the Titan 606 speakers, they were a great replacement size for the Thiels from the specs. But...my local dealer didn't want to bring them in so I would never hear them (I certainly did not want him to order them just for my sake, given I couldn't know before hearing them if I'd want to buy them).
But then during a recent trip to Europe I ended up in London for a couple days, so I found a Kudos dealer there.
And not only did he have the 606s for me to hear, but also the literally just introduced stand mounted Titan 505 that had many people raving at a recent British audio show. Very cool. Both speakers, as with most Kudos speakers, employ isobaric loading for the bass.
Both the 505 and 606 displayed the Kudos house sound which was that lively top end. Great for adding bit to guitar picking, hearing the bow on strings, transient aliveness etc. Even if not strictly neutral, it's fun (so long as timbres to my ears are otherwise organic). I found the 505 to actually sound a bit less balanced than the floor standing speaker. I suppose this is my allergy to the "tiny speaker trying to sound like a big speaker" tuning, but the bass seemed somewhat over-warm, and the speakers themselves a tad clinical from the mids up. Still, they were spacious, enthusiastic sounding, with great separation of instruments and voices. And certain tracks like Lightfoot's If You Could Read My Mind were actually magical on the 505. A similar warm timbre to the JMR speakers, and the added top end sparkle livened up the guitars and strings which can sound a bit tepid on many other speakers.
The larger 606 speakers sounded more linear, richer, a bit darker, and produced a satisfyingly large sound for their size. Similar to the Revel or Paradigm speakers. The upper frequency balance was a double edged sword: it could make drum high hats, snares, cymbals, guitars stand out in particularly, and satisfyingly, vivid relief. But could also highlight the studio/microphone/effects on voices making vocals sound a bit more "hi-fi" than most. But naturally recorded vocals were by the same token vivid and clear. Bass had an interesting character, sort of tight, punchy and big...a sense of the bass "spreading" in the room. My impression veered between "impressive" on the bass and "hmm...not sure I'm sold on this isobaric bass." I'll say that Herbie Hancock's Chameleon, one of my test songs on most speakers, was produced in a particularly compelling, vivid manner. The drums were just crystal clear and had that "live drum playing" feeling. It was one of those "wow" moments that kind of haunt you when you hear a certain track sound different and more realistic than normal.
That said, some other tracks veered into the intolerable territory (e.g. horns too piercing on Earth Wind and F ire live). It's the kind of audition that was very promising in some areas, leaving me thinking "these COULD be awesome if I could tame the problems and keep the good parts." Maybe on tubes, and in my well damped room. But a one time, not terribly long audition didn't allow me to commit to such an expensive purchase, when I hear some things that leave me with misgivings.I wish these models landed locally because I could further warm up to them, but that was the only shot at them.
Harbeth:
I auditioned the various models - Monitor 30.1, C7ES-3, Super HL5 Plus. (Also listened to the 40s, since they had them set up).
I love the Harbeth sound and there's little need to describe it, since so many are familiar. But wow...their particular magic with voices is something. They somehow capture voices actually being produced by an organic person vs an electronic version of a person. No matter what type of material, jazz, processed pop, R&B, even electronica/dance, they always seem be be able to find the "person" singing in the mix. And of course they have such a smooth, full, rich sound with acoustic instruments sounding very much themselves.
The Monitor 30.1 had those qualities, but I was a bit too aware of their bass limitations (cut off at the knees), and was also aware of a bit of darkness, lack of "air." In the close my eyes "could I believe that guitar or person is really there" test, a darkening of tone, a shelving of the upper frequencies, are usually a dead giveaway to me of the artifice. But within it's range....gorgeous.
The C7ES-3 were wonderful. There was that bass extension! Displayed the Harbeth mids if not quite as refined. But over all I found the bass a little less controlled than I'd want.
Super HL5 Plus was the Goldilocks choice of the group. It had the added bass extension I heard from the C7ES, but with better integration and control. It had super refined, open, smooth, rich midrange, but with the added top end openness and extension (addition of the super tweeter?) that made the sound more realistic and believable to me. Though I was still hearing some things that I felt my Thiels did better so I wasn't quite sure yet.
Unfortunately, when I came back to this particular store to audition the HL5 Plus I didn't have a good audition experience. I've described the experience elsewhere here, so won't repeat it. But suffice it to say, it did not make me want to move forward with this particular store. (I have more recently had very good interactions with this store, so I would say my bad experience probably turned out to be an anomaly at that location).
Anyway, the Harbeths dropped off my radar for over a year until I heard the Super HL5 Plus sounding superb in the Montreal Audio show. Intriguing. Later on an audio mart I saw a pair in a gorgeous rosewood finish for, by far, the best price I've ever seen for a used Harbeth. I grabbed them, knowing I could definitely sell them without losing money, with this thought: They are not in the finish I want. So I'll use them as a "home audition" of the Harbeths and if I love them, I'll sell these ones and go to my local dealer to buy brand new ones in the finish I require.
It turned out I really really liked the Super HL5 Plus, but didn't love. They did all the wonderful Harbeth things, that big rich sound, in this model especially, also with a studio-monitor clarity, and generally organic sound.
However, I simply found my Thiels did essentially everything the Harbeths did, but better. I never could get a satisfying depth to the soundstage of the Harbeths (not usually a problem in my room), always sounding a bit fore-shortened. And it seemed a flip-side of the fullness/lively cabinet design was a certain "filling in the spaces with texture" quality. The Thiels, for instance, separated the Los Angelese Guitar Quartet's guitars more effortlessly, with more precision and realism and tonal density, but without sacrificing any image size or warmth of tone. Nothing quite sounds like the Harbeth on vocals. But ultimately they could not budge me from the Thiels and I sold them.
That said, I now have a store near me selling Harbeths and I'm in there buying vinyl a lot. Every time I hear the Harbeths playing I just want to sit down and listen, thinking "These are so beautiful. Why don't I own them?" But then I remember, I did...I did the comparisons. Would love them in a second system, though.
Joseph Audio - Pulsar and Perspectives.
As a long time high audio rag reader, I've long been familiar with the Joseph Audio name, but it wasn't until last year in Montreal that I actually heard a JA speaker: the Pearl 3. Jeff Joseph was playing an acapella group piece and I was just stopped in my tracks. It wasn't just the clarity - tons of high end speakers produce vivid vocals. It was the authenticity of the timbre of the voices! It just sounded bang on. Not cold, gray, steely, silvery, or darkened, or all the "off-timbre" electronic signatures that define for me hi-fi voices vs real. It was that human warmth timbre, that sounded just like the people talking in the room. This was so rare and magical it put the JA speakers immediately on my radar. Upon reading that the stand mounted Pulsars had a similar presentation I found a local dealer and auditioned them. Yup, they did! They were fairly mesmerizing. Even despite my misgivings about small speakers trying to sound big, the Pulsars did this better than almost any other stand mounted speaker I've heard - very rich and satisfying. Though I did note a bit of excess warmth here and there in the lower midrange, upper bass. And I still wondered if I could end up with a stand mounted speaker after living with big floor standers. At home, I listen not only in front of the speakers for "critical listening" but I'll also crank them to listen just down the hall, in my work office or through the house. And at these times I really start to hear the limitation on the small speaker. It can sound like it's going low, but it becomes sort of "fake bass" in a way, where it just doesn't have the solidity and impact of a big speaker.
So the dealer suggested I listen to the floor standing Joseph Audio Perspective model. I said I don't know, they cost more than I was thinking of spending. But, he persisted and...his up-sell worked ;-)
The Perspectives really grabbed me. They sounded more linear than the Pulsars to my ears through the mids down, had really thick, punchy bass that seemed to make every type of music fun, yet seemed controlled enough to make "audiophile" stuff very realistic. They really disappeared with a huge soundstage and great imaging. I'm a tone/timbre buy first, but I ultimately want speakers to disappear and soundstage well - it's part of the illusion, the magic show, that I appreciate and that makes me want to sit in front of a high end system in the first place.
But what really grabbed me was the overall tone/timbre of the presentation! I remember playing some Chet Baker and some Julie London mono recordings and being shocked at how clear the sound was - how the Perspectives took a central mono image of voice, guitar, bass, drums etc and seemed to effortlessly unravel the different timbres and individual players. And how realistic the voices were. Another moment I remember were some tracks from the Bullet soundtrack (I'm a soundtrack fiend). Every instrument that entered the mix - a single sax, a flute, an organ, a group of saxes, horns...sounded incredibly pure, distinct and accurate in timbre! That's one of the things I always loved about going to the symphony, and sitting close, closing my eyes: that rainbow of different acoustic sources, materials, shiny silvery bells, brassy cymbals, woody reeds, woody cellos, golden hued horns...
The Perspectives (and the Pulsars) were giving me more of this sensation, of "surprise" in how each new instrument sounded, than I typically get from most speakers. And they did it with a particular purity, and lack of hash in any part of the frequency spectrum, making for a less mechanical sound than usual (Fremer nailed this in his Pulsar review).
Plus there was a great sense of "flow" to the Perspectives, the way dynamically the sound would swell dramatically when called fo (again, soundtracks were great on the Perspectives). All these elements came together to produce a great emotional connection to music through the speakers.
So, they sounded special to me.
I got a home audition and they continued to sound beautiful in my home. But having both the big Thiels and the Josephs meant I could compare, which inevitably gave some ground to the Thiels - the bigger more realistic image size, the slightly better precision in imaging and tonal density, a more linear presentation from top to bottom from the Thiels, where the Perspectives could sound a bit "puffy" in the bass sometimes.
And yet, the Perspectives still had a magic the Thiels couldn't do with tone. I remember playing back Talk Talk's Happiness Is Easy and thinking "I literally don't think reproduced sound gets better than this."
So stuck between A and B I realized this: I couldn't give up the Thiels. After all my auditioning, nothing really did everything as well in the same package and the 3.7s had become very rare on the used market, no longer made, so it could be a big regret to let them go.
BUT...I was also bitten by the Perspectives. Once heard, they were hard to unhear.
So I decided, dammit, I'll have both! I tend to hoard speakers somewhat, so I'd keep the Thiels but buy the Perspectives, and I'd have the Thiels to throw in to the room whenever I wanted the Thiel sound.
But....this meant I'd no longer be selling my Thiels to pay for new speakers. So I'd have to save up for the Perspectives. And this I've been doing.
Then, aha! A pair of Thiel 2.7 speakers in the ebony finish I've always wanted showed up on Audiogon. I grabbed them for a killer price and they have been fantastic! Smaller than the 3.7s, better looking in the room, they have the Thiel attributes. Done...right? Naw...I haven't been a fervent audiophile for decades for nuthin'.
I've been on track toward the Perspectives for so long, it's hard to get off. So once I got the 2.7s my thinking changed to "Well..now I can sell the big Thiels and have that money to put toward the Perspectives!"
So as I've been readying to sell the big Thiels, and about to spend more than I ever have on a pair of speakers (Perspectives are expensive to us Canucks), I thought "If I'm about to spend this much, I better do some due diligence and make sure I didn't leave another option on the floor." So I recently checked out a speaker brand that I'd wondered about for a while now. Devore Fidelity.
And that will lead to my next post.
I figure what the heck, some people may find all of it interesting, maybe only some, maybe none. No one forced to read it. So onward....
Folks,
I've had Thiel 3.7s for several years and love them dearly. As I've mentioned in other threads, I have to downsize simply due to some ergonomic and aesthetic issues in my room - the speakers have to go partially by the entrance and so any big, deep speakers tend to get in the way.
Over the last two years or so I did a whole bunch of auditioning of many speakers over a year ago to find a replacement - Audio Note, Audio Physic, Focal, Raidho monitors, JM Reynaud, Paradigm Persona, various Revel models, Monitor Audio, Proac, Kudos, Harbeth, Joseph Audio...
I was going to give a report on all of them individually, at one point, but it's been a while so I'll just throw out some thumbnail impressions. They aren't meant to be particularly descriptive of the sound so much as brief reasons as to why I enjoyed or moved on from those speakers. I always sought the best set up achievable for an audition, but of course that's still not like being able to tune a speaker in one's own room. So caveats given, on with some brief impressions:
Audio Note:
(I forget which exact model but it was in the "quite expensive but not impossible" zone for me)
Excellent clarity. Good impact. Nice woody tonality (as in does wood instruments like cello, stand up bass etc with a convincing tone). My main issue is that I could really hear the corner loading aspect of the sound, especially in the lower mids down. Not that the bass was incontinent per se, more that I was just aware of the way the illusion of the bigger bass and sound was being created, in terms of using wall re-enforcement.
Also, I'm a real stickler about instrumental tone and timbre. I've always found that the more room you introduce into the sound, especially in the upper frequencies, the more it will tend to cast a scrim of room sound over the timbre of voices and instruments, homogenizing the most delicate aspects of the timbre. As the Audio Notes pretty much require or are meant to use the room, this was an aspect it would seem hard to get around. (That's one reason I tend to like speakers that will work closer to my listening position).
Audio Physic:
I'm very familiar with the AP sound - have had the Virgos, Scorpios and Libra in my home and heard much of the line through the years. The Avanti was terrific, tonally neutral sounding, clear lively treble without ear piercing. And of course their magical disappearing act, which I love. But didn't have enough of the richness I'd become used to with the bigger Thiels. I suspect the larger Codex woud be killer, but they get in to the too deep/large category.
Focal
I've always found Focal to have a "look at me" sound to their tweeter. Nonetheless I often admired the rich tonality of their large speakers at audio shows. Unfortunately I never found this to transfer to their smaller stand mounted speakers. They struck me as more clinical and left me cold. Recent Audition of the Kanta 2 still had the "check out our TWEETER!" Focal sound, but was smooth and vivid enough. Unfortunately to my ears sounded too "hi-fi" with disjointed bass. My Thiels at home sounded far more organic and believable.
Raidho
Listened to the tiny X1s which were remarkable performers for their size. Super clear, clean, open, killer soundstaging, good snap on drums - represented Joe Morello's solos on Brubeck at Carnegie Hall far more convincingly than any tiny speaker has a right to. Ultimately, too small.
Dealer had a killer deal on the larger C 1.2 stand mounted speakers and I had hope there. I have never, ever liked a ribbon tweeter with cones because every time I hear the discontinuity. I'd say the Raidhos are the first time I did not hear that discontinuity. So it was all that air and delicacy without the usual drawback. However, I'm thinking part of the magic for this has to do with their house curve, which isn't flat but has a "concert hall" dip in the upper mids (I think). Ultimately I tended to hear this as a coloration, a recessing of a portion of the sound. I'm used to the Thiels which at my place are phenomenally linear sounding top to bottom. So there would be percussion instruments, piano parts, and other instruments that would be more distant and subdued on the Raidhos, losing some of the realistic liveliness. I didn't really hear more detail than I was used to from my Thiels, found the sound a bit "grayed" tonally, though rich in the mids and upper bass. These things KICK in terms of upper bass presence and sound much bigger than they are. But I also found that a slightly over-bearing.
In fact, that's a problem I often have with monitor speakers. So many of them are engineered to sound bigger than they are so you don't feel like you are missing base, but the goosing of the bass to achieve this can be to my ears a bit obnoxious vs the more linear bass of a good floor standing speaker (though down lower, they can have their room problems...my Thiels do not).
JM Reynaud Offrande Supreme v2
I was very serious about these speakers. I'd been around for the initial JMR hype years ago, and heard most of their models at a local store. Always had nice tone, both incisive and warm, but a bit too far into the ever-present-coloration territory to my ears. Still, I believe the Supremes had been updated since then and I had two separate auditions at a Dealer when I was visiting Montreal.
They certainly had the JMR virtues. Super clear, almost hot high end, lively presence all around, yet somehow allied to a gorgeous warm tone. This brings in one of the things I like in a speaker - a warm tone not necessariily in the sense of a ripe lower midrange, but rather timbrally - warm in the sense that when an acoustic guitar track is played through the speaker, the signature is that of the warmth of wood, instead of the cold, electronic coloration of most systems. The JMR does this with acoustic instruments and voices. Everything with an amber or blond-wood "glow." And they definitley have a dynamic/transient/open sound that gives a feeling of musicians being right there, playing right now vibe.
Ultimately I found they were a bit biting to my ear in the upper frequencies. While the forwardness was a boon to putting musicians right in front of me, it also tended to fore-shorten depth. An always "they are here" vs "I'm transported to there" vibe. Also, the bass which was really big and deep - they are huge stand mount speakers! - was a bit on the pudgy side. But I get why people love them. If I had the opportunity I'd have liked to try them at home. (Though...maybe not. I actually don't like how they look, and REALLY don't like the JMR wood finishes).
Paradigm Persona
(I believe it was the 3F). Yup, these babies are clear, clear, clear and grain free. They are balanced top to bottom and were, like the Revel, the closest to my Thiel 3.7 speakers in terms of sounding balanced from top to bottom. Drum snares, cymbals, rim hits, percussion, guitar strings etc all had a fairly riveting precision. They had an open-window into the recording studio feel on almost every track. Plus, for their size they sounded BIG, including the image sizes, depth, width of the soundstage. A tremendous speaker for the money. Ultimately I couldn't get on with their looks, at least for my room. But most important, I did find them somewhat fatiguing to listen to after a while, and a bit less organic than my Thiels. (Though I'd bet that could change for the better if set up at my home on my gear).
Revel
I'd repeat most of what I just wrote about the Paradigms. They sounded similar, though the Paradigms seemed to have a next-level sense of purity and transparency vs the Revel. And the Revels tended to sound just a bit more linear and controlled top to bottom. The Revels just sounded like really competent speakers, but didn't grab me.
Again, something about the timbre/tone I get with the Thiels (and some other speakers) have an "it" factor I don't get with the Revels.
Monitor Audio (Gold, I believe - a smaller floor stander)
I've always liked the Monitor Audio sound. My father-in-law uses a HUGE pair of Monitor Audio monitors from the 80's that still strike me as one of the best marriages of believable tone with size and richness I've heard.
I own Monitor Audio bronze monitors for various uses, including home theater surrounds. Though I found once they moved to the Platinum line, with ribbons, the tone became a bit too bleached for my comfort.
The smaller Gold line still was able to do the "golden, bronze" tones in the upper frequencies...just turning toward silver a bit. They were astonishingly clean and clear, with a rainbow of timbral colors coming through. My main gripe is that I realized nothing actually sounded "real" - in the sense of believably organic. Everything sounded a bit hard around the edge - sibilance in vocals for instance being laid bare as processed in a bit too ruthless manner.
Proac - D20R (I believe...)
Love the look of these especially the wood finish in ebony on the model I auditioned. Would really have been a perfect size replacement for the Thiels, and went down about as low. Unfortunately I couldn't get around the extremely obvious character of the ribbon tweeter vs the mids/bass. I was always aware of it, and generally found the sound too cool in the upper frequencies to really get into. Bass was also not particularly impressive in terms of tone and control. One of the more disappointing speaker auditions.
Kudos
You really don't hear much about Kudos around here. Lack of dealers and North American presence I guess (as it seems to me a majority of people posting here are from North America...if I am indeed right about that).
Anyway, at a TAVES shows a few years ago I was frankly astonished by the sound coming from a pair of Kudos Super 20 floor standing speakers. It had a brilliant, reach out and grab me "alive" tone that made my brain think "real performance" more than most of what I'd heard that day. A bit forward...but wow what an effect. So they went on to my radar.
Turns out a local dealer carried Kudos, and there I heard some very small floor standing Kudos X3 speakers.
Well, there it was! That tone! Like the bigger model I'd heard at the show, this one had a dialed up upper frequency range that gave liveliness and detail. But it was, somewhat like the JMR speakers, allied to a generally warm tone, with a spectrum of timbral color to trumpet, wood blocks, acoustic guitar etc. If found the sound quite compelling, and so wondered about Kudos higher end models. As it turned out, Kudos in the last year has come out with the Titan range, a trickle down from their flagship. I really liked the design of the Titan 606 speakers, they were a great replacement size for the Thiels from the specs. But...my local dealer didn't want to bring them in so I would never hear them (I certainly did not want him to order them just for my sake, given I couldn't know before hearing them if I'd want to buy them).
But then during a recent trip to Europe I ended up in London for a couple days, so I found a Kudos dealer there.
And not only did he have the 606s for me to hear, but also the literally just introduced stand mounted Titan 505 that had many people raving at a recent British audio show. Very cool. Both speakers, as with most Kudos speakers, employ isobaric loading for the bass.
Both the 505 and 606 displayed the Kudos house sound which was that lively top end. Great for adding bit to guitar picking, hearing the bow on strings, transient aliveness etc. Even if not strictly neutral, it's fun (so long as timbres to my ears are otherwise organic). I found the 505 to actually sound a bit less balanced than the floor standing speaker. I suppose this is my allergy to the "tiny speaker trying to sound like a big speaker" tuning, but the bass seemed somewhat over-warm, and the speakers themselves a tad clinical from the mids up. Still, they were spacious, enthusiastic sounding, with great separation of instruments and voices. And certain tracks like Lightfoot's If You Could Read My Mind were actually magical on the 505. A similar warm timbre to the JMR speakers, and the added top end sparkle livened up the guitars and strings which can sound a bit tepid on many other speakers.
The larger 606 speakers sounded more linear, richer, a bit darker, and produced a satisfyingly large sound for their size. Similar to the Revel or Paradigm speakers. The upper frequency balance was a double edged sword: it could make drum high hats, snares, cymbals, guitars stand out in particularly, and satisfyingly, vivid relief. But could also highlight the studio/microphone/effects on voices making vocals sound a bit more "hi-fi" than most. But naturally recorded vocals were by the same token vivid and clear. Bass had an interesting character, sort of tight, punchy and big...a sense of the bass "spreading" in the room. My impression veered between "impressive" on the bass and "hmm...not sure I'm sold on this isobaric bass." I'll say that Herbie Hancock's Chameleon, one of my test songs on most speakers, was produced in a particularly compelling, vivid manner. The drums were just crystal clear and had that "live drum playing" feeling. It was one of those "wow" moments that kind of haunt you when you hear a certain track sound different and more realistic than normal.
That said, some other tracks veered into the intolerable territory (e.g. horns too piercing on Earth Wind and F ire live). It's the kind of audition that was very promising in some areas, leaving me thinking "these COULD be awesome if I could tame the problems and keep the good parts." Maybe on tubes, and in my well damped room. But a one time, not terribly long audition didn't allow me to commit to such an expensive purchase, when I hear some things that leave me with misgivings.I wish these models landed locally because I could further warm up to them, but that was the only shot at them.
Harbeth:
I auditioned the various models - Monitor 30.1, C7ES-3, Super HL5 Plus. (Also listened to the 40s, since they had them set up).
I love the Harbeth sound and there's little need to describe it, since so many are familiar. But wow...their particular magic with voices is something. They somehow capture voices actually being produced by an organic person vs an electronic version of a person. No matter what type of material, jazz, processed pop, R&B, even electronica/dance, they always seem be be able to find the "person" singing in the mix. And of course they have such a smooth, full, rich sound with acoustic instruments sounding very much themselves.
The Monitor 30.1 had those qualities, but I was a bit too aware of their bass limitations (cut off at the knees), and was also aware of a bit of darkness, lack of "air." In the close my eyes "could I believe that guitar or person is really there" test, a darkening of tone, a shelving of the upper frequencies, are usually a dead giveaway to me of the artifice. But within it's range....gorgeous.
The C7ES-3 were wonderful. There was that bass extension! Displayed the Harbeth mids if not quite as refined. But over all I found the bass a little less controlled than I'd want.
Super HL5 Plus was the Goldilocks choice of the group. It had the added bass extension I heard from the C7ES, but with better integration and control. It had super refined, open, smooth, rich midrange, but with the added top end openness and extension (addition of the super tweeter?) that made the sound more realistic and believable to me. Though I was still hearing some things that I felt my Thiels did better so I wasn't quite sure yet.
Unfortunately, when I came back to this particular store to audition the HL5 Plus I didn't have a good audition experience. I've described the experience elsewhere here, so won't repeat it. But suffice it to say, it did not make me want to move forward with this particular store. (I have more recently had very good interactions with this store, so I would say my bad experience probably turned out to be an anomaly at that location).
Anyway, the Harbeths dropped off my radar for over a year until I heard the Super HL5 Plus sounding superb in the Montreal Audio show. Intriguing. Later on an audio mart I saw a pair in a gorgeous rosewood finish for, by far, the best price I've ever seen for a used Harbeth. I grabbed them, knowing I could definitely sell them without losing money, with this thought: They are not in the finish I want. So I'll use them as a "home audition" of the Harbeths and if I love them, I'll sell these ones and go to my local dealer to buy brand new ones in the finish I require.
It turned out I really really liked the Super HL5 Plus, but didn't love. They did all the wonderful Harbeth things, that big rich sound, in this model especially, also with a studio-monitor clarity, and generally organic sound.
However, I simply found my Thiels did essentially everything the Harbeths did, but better. I never could get a satisfying depth to the soundstage of the Harbeths (not usually a problem in my room), always sounding a bit fore-shortened. And it seemed a flip-side of the fullness/lively cabinet design was a certain "filling in the spaces with texture" quality. The Thiels, for instance, separated the Los Angelese Guitar Quartet's guitars more effortlessly, with more precision and realism and tonal density, but without sacrificing any image size or warmth of tone. Nothing quite sounds like the Harbeth on vocals. But ultimately they could not budge me from the Thiels and I sold them.
That said, I now have a store near me selling Harbeths and I'm in there buying vinyl a lot. Every time I hear the Harbeths playing I just want to sit down and listen, thinking "These are so beautiful. Why don't I own them?" But then I remember, I did...I did the comparisons. Would love them in a second system, though.
Joseph Audio - Pulsar and Perspectives.
As a long time high audio rag reader, I've long been familiar with the Joseph Audio name, but it wasn't until last year in Montreal that I actually heard a JA speaker: the Pearl 3. Jeff Joseph was playing an acapella group piece and I was just stopped in my tracks. It wasn't just the clarity - tons of high end speakers produce vivid vocals. It was the authenticity of the timbre of the voices! It just sounded bang on. Not cold, gray, steely, silvery, or darkened, or all the "off-timbre" electronic signatures that define for me hi-fi voices vs real. It was that human warmth timbre, that sounded just like the people talking in the room. This was so rare and magical it put the JA speakers immediately on my radar. Upon reading that the stand mounted Pulsars had a similar presentation I found a local dealer and auditioned them. Yup, they did! They were fairly mesmerizing. Even despite my misgivings about small speakers trying to sound big, the Pulsars did this better than almost any other stand mounted speaker I've heard - very rich and satisfying. Though I did note a bit of excess warmth here and there in the lower midrange, upper bass. And I still wondered if I could end up with a stand mounted speaker after living with big floor standers. At home, I listen not only in front of the speakers for "critical listening" but I'll also crank them to listen just down the hall, in my work office or through the house. And at these times I really start to hear the limitation on the small speaker. It can sound like it's going low, but it becomes sort of "fake bass" in a way, where it just doesn't have the solidity and impact of a big speaker.
So the dealer suggested I listen to the floor standing Joseph Audio Perspective model. I said I don't know, they cost more than I was thinking of spending. But, he persisted and...his up-sell worked ;-)
The Perspectives really grabbed me. They sounded more linear than the Pulsars to my ears through the mids down, had really thick, punchy bass that seemed to make every type of music fun, yet seemed controlled enough to make "audiophile" stuff very realistic. They really disappeared with a huge soundstage and great imaging. I'm a tone/timbre buy first, but I ultimately want speakers to disappear and soundstage well - it's part of the illusion, the magic show, that I appreciate and that makes me want to sit in front of a high end system in the first place.
But what really grabbed me was the overall tone/timbre of the presentation! I remember playing some Chet Baker and some Julie London mono recordings and being shocked at how clear the sound was - how the Perspectives took a central mono image of voice, guitar, bass, drums etc and seemed to effortlessly unravel the different timbres and individual players. And how realistic the voices were. Another moment I remember were some tracks from the Bullet soundtrack (I'm a soundtrack fiend). Every instrument that entered the mix - a single sax, a flute, an organ, a group of saxes, horns...sounded incredibly pure, distinct and accurate in timbre! That's one of the things I always loved about going to the symphony, and sitting close, closing my eyes: that rainbow of different acoustic sources, materials, shiny silvery bells, brassy cymbals, woody reeds, woody cellos, golden hued horns...
The Perspectives (and the Pulsars) were giving me more of this sensation, of "surprise" in how each new instrument sounded, than I typically get from most speakers. And they did it with a particular purity, and lack of hash in any part of the frequency spectrum, making for a less mechanical sound than usual (Fremer nailed this in his Pulsar review).
Plus there was a great sense of "flow" to the Perspectives, the way dynamically the sound would swell dramatically when called fo (again, soundtracks were great on the Perspectives). All these elements came together to produce a great emotional connection to music through the speakers.
So, they sounded special to me.
I got a home audition and they continued to sound beautiful in my home. But having both the big Thiels and the Josephs meant I could compare, which inevitably gave some ground to the Thiels - the bigger more realistic image size, the slightly better precision in imaging and tonal density, a more linear presentation from top to bottom from the Thiels, where the Perspectives could sound a bit "puffy" in the bass sometimes.
And yet, the Perspectives still had a magic the Thiels couldn't do with tone. I remember playing back Talk Talk's Happiness Is Easy and thinking "I literally don't think reproduced sound gets better than this."
So stuck between A and B I realized this: I couldn't give up the Thiels. After all my auditioning, nothing really did everything as well in the same package and the 3.7s had become very rare on the used market, no longer made, so it could be a big regret to let them go.
BUT...I was also bitten by the Perspectives. Once heard, they were hard to unhear.
So I decided, dammit, I'll have both! I tend to hoard speakers somewhat, so I'd keep the Thiels but buy the Perspectives, and I'd have the Thiels to throw in to the room whenever I wanted the Thiel sound.
But....this meant I'd no longer be selling my Thiels to pay for new speakers. So I'd have to save up for the Perspectives. And this I've been doing.
Then, aha! A pair of Thiel 2.7 speakers in the ebony finish I've always wanted showed up on Audiogon. I grabbed them for a killer price and they have been fantastic! Smaller than the 3.7s, better looking in the room, they have the Thiel attributes. Done...right? Naw...I haven't been a fervent audiophile for decades for nuthin'.
I've been on track toward the Perspectives for so long, it's hard to get off. So once I got the 2.7s my thinking changed to "Well..now I can sell the big Thiels and have that money to put toward the Perspectives!"
So as I've been readying to sell the big Thiels, and about to spend more than I ever have on a pair of speakers (Perspectives are expensive to us Canucks), I thought "If I'm about to spend this much, I better do some due diligence and make sure I didn't leave another option on the floor." So I recently checked out a speaker brand that I'd wondered about for a while now. Devore Fidelity.
And that will lead to my next post.
465 responses Add your response
Still tweaking my Perspectives in to place. Spread a bit wider apart and slightly angled out a bit more. As is usually the case with speakers in my room, this helps fatten out the sound somewhat, and also makes the speakers disappear a bit more and enlarge the soundstage, while not losing imaging. I'm just agog at what these Perspectives are doing in my room at this point. I'm very used to incredible imaging and soundstaging, but I didn't think I'd ever get more impressive than my previous Thiel 3.7s (or my current 2.7s). The soundstage for my Thiel 2.7s is huge and deep and wide, though a bit more curved. Images close to the L or R speaker still glom a little closer to those speakers. Whereas the Perspectives sound more invisible all around. At this point it's just wall-melting. It seems instruments can appear anywhere - up high, down lower, waaayy out to the sides past the speakers. So orchestral recordings especially have this massive see-way-back-to-the-corners spread. It really is magical disappearing/imaging act that reminds me of my previous MBL speakers. And holy cow the bass! I was playing the latest Polyphia album (progressive math-rock made sort of radio-friendly) and the depth and impact of the bass and drums was just nuts. As I mentioned earlier I'm still blown away by what can be achieved by playing around with one of these: https://acousticgeometry.com/products/small-curve-diffusor/ I place it behind and between my speakers, in my case that sits it upon the large center channel for my home theater, and by moving it even inches forward or back it produces such density and in-room presence to the sound. Makes everything sound more live. If I push it back a bit it increases the depth of the soundstage while making the images more palpable. If I pull it forward at bit, it tends to pull the images a little more forward (still with tons of depth) but add even more solidity to the sound. If you have the itch to see if your speakers...certainly the Perspectives!...can be taken to the next level and you have a place to put one between the speakers, I highly recommend it!
|
update: Spendor SP 1/2 speakers.
I finally got a little listening session in with some Classic Spendor SP 1/2 speakers! I’ve wanted to hear those for years, but finding them to audition is like hunting the Sasquatch. Turns out the local place where I bought my Joseph speakers sells the classic line, and got that model in the showroom. It was in a pretty small room, and definitely not an optimal set up, but I got a quick gist of the character of the Spendor s1/2s: They sounded very much like I figured they would: a lot like bigger versions of my little Spendor S3/5s. The 1/2s had that same lit up "blond wood" tonality, illuminated sparkly highs yet warm hued - wood sounded "woody" etc. It had that natural, super balanced rich sound of the classic BBC design speakers, so Steely Dan voices were dense, texturally present, yet had that BBC design sense of human softness and organic quality. If I closed my eyes and listened the combination of fullness and extended airy high end gave an open window in to the recording room sensation that was very engaging. Drums sounded timbrally very much like hearing through to real drums. Horns rich, etc. Quibbles? As excellent as the 1/2s sounded, I think the Joseph Perspectives have spoiled me in certain regards. First, the Spendors lacked that grain-free purity of the JA speakers, which allows some more refinement and sense of beauty of the real thing. The soundstaging of the Josephs is much bigger. And there is a sense of authority and punch to the midbass down on the Josephs I didn’t hear from the Spendor. In fact though the Spendors were more evenly rich from the midband up, there was overall a sort of "hollow box" quality to the sound - the sense that everything was coming from a hollow box cavity is the best way I can describe it. So a rich-but-soft sensation in terms of impact. I’m really glad I heard the 1/2s and I’d love to hear them again under better conditions. I have no doubt I’d think even more highly of them. But I think I heard enough to have scratched that itch, and remind myself why I went with the Joseph speakers after hearing so many contenders. I’ve got my Perspective 2s raised up on granite polished blocks and I’ve tried all sorts of material/footer combinations under them. Basically whatever couples them to the floor and places them lower tends to give a dark, rich sound, with really full punchy bass, which is really addictive. Anything that raises them higher and which decouples them to some degree (e.g. even placing hockey pucks under the spikes, rather than spikes directly in to the floor) tends to have somewhat more lean bass, but also makes the speakers disappear more and seems to expand the size of everything...which is glorious too. So I’ve been playing around looking for some combo where I have that raised, expansive sound and disappearing act, but still have some dark richness and punch. I’ve found variations of this - I’ve heard some pretty astounding sound in my room from these things. The Perspectives can continually surprise with their vividness and timbral complexity and realism.
|
@prof: Your last post made me re-read, admittedly skipping a bit of content every now and then, the whole thread again! I did and still do enjoy your posts a lot and I find them very informative not only because of the excellent insight they provide but also because you seem to be drawn to the same sonic qualities I'm looking for in an audio system. You keep talking about the tone and timbre and this is precisely the area of sound reproduction that I cannot live without. Detail, dynamics, frequency response and so on are all important, but if the wooden acoustic guitar sounds like it's made of carbon fiber then, Huston, we have a serious problem! Or I do, anyway.
But there's more. When reading your description of the little Spendor 3/5's I immediately recognized the voicing of my beloved Spendor 2/3 R2 and I have been a bit amazed to discover that you even used approximately the same words I would have used (if my command of English would be more in line with that of a native speaker). And now, your portrayal of the 1/2's! This is exactly how I would describe the 2/3 R2's, down to a T! Without trying to flatter you in any way, this gives me a lot of confidence in your assessments. There's a high chance that your opinions would "translate" very well to my case, so to speak.
Therefore what I'm about to ask is of course targeting anyone who can share an informed opinion but I'd be particularly interested in yours: 1. What speaker brand is closest in sound to Spendor Classic series, especially to that magical, colorful and acoustically convincing midrange? In other words, if you wanted to upgrade from Spendor Classic (for better detail, tighter bass and less of a "hollow box sound") without loosing much of it's qualities where would you go? Devore (deemed as "Spendor on steroids" somewhere in these pages)? Audio Note? Graham? Tannoy? I don't like Harbeth Mxx.2 as much as Spendor, it's more sober and less colorful IMO. Amp would be Accuphase E470. 2. Do all wide baffle, medium to big box speakers like Devore Orangutan or Audio Note have to a certain degree the aforementioned "hollow box" sound? Specifically, how would Devore O/96 compare to Spendor iin this regard? The Stereophile review seems to suggest some significant box coloration... |
On the classic Spendors, always wonderful to read a speaker description from prof!
@donquichotte - if you want an upgrade within the same family of sound, the obvious thing would be to stay within the same BBC heritage family. I personally think Graham / Rogers are currently doing the best work in the field, and would focus on Graham since they’re making the larger models whereas Rogers I think just has the 3/5 and 5/9. I have the Graham LS8/1 and hear it as a more transparent / dynamic alternative to the Spendors, while retaining that wonderful texture. I never owned the original Spendor BC1s, but folks who have tell me it’s got all the strengths w/o the weaknesses of the grand-daddy model. The typical BC1 criticism being bass - bass isn’t going to hit you in the chest, but the bass is well-balanced and satisfying w/o a sub (for me) -- but see note below on optimizing. Forgive me if this is obvious - before getting new speakers, consider optimizing your current speakers? I’m not sure for example if you’ve played around with footers. The right decoupling discs under the spikes can make a really nice improvement. Herbies gliders are cheap and easy to get, or look into Artesania for a more up-market solution. More expensive isn’t necessarily better, you just have to try stuff out. P.S. prof - I recently listed to the latest and greatest Verity models -- not trying to be negative, we all hear differently -- but I’ll just say I agree 100% with your description. Bit gray tonally, doesn’t do anything wrong but didn’t sound "right" to me.
|
Sorry for the delayed reply. To your questions: 1. Ultimately it depends on what you want out of your upgrade. What might you be missing that could be better? For me Harbeth are probably the most like the Spendor classic speakers, but feel like more of a sideways move because they are that similar. It's been too long since I heard Audio Note speakers in depth (with the exception I auditioned one of their "cheaper models" this year and it was horrid in the store set up! Bright, steely, sucked out, nothing like I remember the other ones I heard). I also haven't heard the Graham speakers though would like to. So from among the speakers I've heard that are akin to the Spendor classic sound, to me the Devore O/96 sounds most like an "upgraded" Spendor. Upgraded in the sense of bigger scale, more density to the sound, more impact. It has that "live" tonality like I describe in the Spendor, but where the Spendor is more subdued dynamically, the Devore is upgraded in it's sense of dynamic life-like sensation of musicians playing before you. It's that scale and drama and dynamic aliveness that is the upgrade most of all. They do seem to be fairly finicky speakers though, so I can see someone not hearing how good they are in a bad audition situation. 2. So far from what I've heard, yes every one of the old school wider baffle speakers, in particular the ones where the cabinet is allowed to "sing" do have the "hollow box" sound to one degree or another. Even the Devore O/93 and O/96 have it. Less than the Spendors/Harbeth though - the devores can sound more dense and rich and punchy which makes up for a lot of it. But as I've tried to describe before, the Devores sound alive in a slightly different way than, say, high end speakers known for slam and impact. For instance I was listening to some of my demo tracks at my friend's house, and he has some $65,000 Estelon speakers at the moment. For music with heavy kick drum/bass, the lower registers had this focus and solidity, like a sledghammer hitting the floor. Very authoritative. And, again, I'd emphasize the "solidity/punch" of the lower region. Whereas the Devore in playing the same type of music sounds more big, rich and bloomy, bass less focused but rolls out and envelopes. And in ways that can feel more real. Like the way kick drums on the Devores have that higher "bap" of the peddle hit combined with the billowy wider bass envelope that surrounds it and washes over you... Both a speaker like the Estelon (or maybe a Wilson) will do something particularly "right" in those frequencies - the Estelon will get that sense of a solid object being struck a bit better, but it will tend to be more controlled and "sit back" in the soundstage in a well-behaved audiophile manner, and in that sense a bit less like the real thing. Whereas the Devore is designed to engage the room more like a real instrument, and while the hit may not be as authoritive and solid, it has the overall character of engaging the room and making you feel it, like the real thing. So...depending on the listener, one may seem to "do drums right" more than the other. For me, I remember the Devores creating the most realistic impression of having drums played in front of me (eyes closed) than I've heard before. So i guess they better check the boxes that tells my brain "yes, that's how things sound in real life." But, yes, I've described the Devore sound as both dynamic and gentle, depending on what one keys in on. They are more dynamic than the typical speaker in that you hear and feel the effort of the musicians more. But compared to the laser focus of other high end speakers, in a sense the Devores can sound a bit "softer" overall, which is part of the 'hollow box' sound (which again, is less so than I heard with the Spendors). I hope that helps a bit. |
Thank you both, you're very helpful! @metaldetektor : Graham is interesting, I've seriously considered them for a while, but I'm wary about their use of mineral wool inside the speakers. I'm afraid it could pose a health hazard in the form of small particles released through the bass reflex ports, polluting the indoor air. I'd never consider acoustic panels made of mineral wool, for example. See https://www.ntstraining.co.uk/blog/asbestos-v-rockwool/, where mineral wool is compared to asbestos. As for optimizing the Spendors, this is one of the options I'm considering. From better stands to spikes, footers, decoupling discs, slightly better positioning in the room and so on, there's potential to be tried here. However, I don't expect all this tinkering to make the "hollow box" coloration to go away or to even half-close the bass punchiness and overall resolution / transparency gap between the Spendors and my other speakers (Martin Logan Impression 11A), hence my interest into other upgrade paths. I'm even thinking about buying a pair of subwoofers and high passing the speakers, maybe with a Marchand crossover as recommended in a recent thread. @prof : Sounds like Devore would be my best bet. I'll also try to do a side-by-side listening session with my Spendors and an acquaintance's Harbeth M40.2's that I really liked when I've heard them but somehow didn't stir my emotions the way the Spendors do. A use pair of Spendor SP-100R2 (or the current Classic 100 model) would be another option - but in this case wouldn't I sacrifice a bit of the wonderful 2 way speaker coherence throughout the mids?! You mentioned the sparkling highs of the Spendor Classic 1/2. In my system I'd like for the highs, smooth and beautiful as they are, to be a bit more extended. This might also have something to do with my Accuphase amp and with the warm copper based cables I'm using (I never liked anything with silver - or the rhodium plating, for that matter). Are the Devore O/96 more or less extended / sparkling up there compared to the Spendors? There's also some contradictory information out there regarding the O/96's proficiency with timbre. In the Stereophile review Atinkson is mentioning some coloration, some uneven midrange, noticeable with piano reproduction. Piano is very important to me, it must sound right. Yet, I've read plenty of other comments praising the Devores' ability to do timbre and tone right. How would you compare the O/96 and the Spendors in this regard?
|
@donquichotte prof knows the 96 better than I do, I would just encourage you (if you do buy one) to buy one used at a good price for later resale if necessary (which shouldn’t be difficult, the Devores have a healthy secondary market). Reports of finicky 96 placement / integration always scared me off of those. I used to have the Gibbon series, his more linear/neutral line. I liked the speakers but I found even his “neutral” speaker to have an overt personality that would interpose itself between me and the music. A slight mechanical quality. Even when the system sounded good, I’d think - the system is sounding good! Rather than focusing on the music. YMMV, I’m just making the obvious point that even a brand known for being “about the music” may not actually be so, to your ears. |
Right! Good point, thank you. Being based in Europe, the second hand market for Devore speakers is rather scarce (and prices for American gear are quite high), but yes, this would be the plan. I forgot to answer prof's question. What do I want from this upgrade? This is going to be a long and detailed answer, so apologies in advance. First and foremost, as I have already stated, I'd like not to lose (much, if any, of) the Spendor charm and proficiency with the acoustic instruments timbre. As for the real upgrade part, clearer and stronger bass with a bit extra treble extension and detail is the main thing. But if I had a very special relationship with Santa Clause, this is what I'd hope for: - less confusion in the bass (and perhaps in the lower mids). I feel that my Spendors have better resolution (both texture, color and contour) in the mids than in the bass. A bit more punch in the bass would definitely help too, but I'm not looking for the level of punch that my active driven dynamic drivers in my hybrid electrostats have. I understand the Spendors are not about that and I'm OK with that. Just more detail in the bass region, a bit more contoured and dynamic bass. My Harbeth M30.2, now sold, did have a superior texture in the upper bass, making the cello sound crisper than my Spendors; - less "hollow box" sound. Again, I understand that this comes with the territory, just, perhaps, it can be better mitigated - as I understand Devore O/96 do; - more bass and, of course, better extension (I'd be very happy if I could get away without having to buy and integrate subwoofers, but I'm not totally against it, so "better bass extension" is not a requirement, just a wish). My Spendors sound best far away from the walls; also, I'm using diy wooden open frame stands originally made for the Harbeths and since both me and my couch are quite tall the stands are also very tall (75 cm), keeping the midwoofer at ear level and away from the floor. Maybe it's also the room acoustic signature contributing, but the end result is that the sound is definitely too light so I'm using my Accuphase amp with the loudness circuitry engaged! (at 60-62 db peak, if my phone application is to be trusted) I know this is an audiophile sacrilege but the sound is better balanced this way, sometimes just a bit too thick but with much more convincing body not only in the bass but also in the midrange. Me loves body! I do lose a bit of transparency this way, however, so I'd be glad t get rid of the loudness button. - detail. Well, the Spendors are masters of tonal / timbral separation, but not exactly masters of overt detail (based on speed and the contour of the sounds). A faster, crisper, more extended and assertive tweeter would be welcome (but again, if possible without losing too much of the silkiness of the current tweeter). Perhaps I'll try another, metallic tweeter that is said to be a direct replacement: https://www.soundimports.eu/en/seas-22taf-g.html. A long shot, perhaps, but it's not a very expensive experiment so why not?! - "bigger" sound. Scale. I think this is quite simple, I'd like a bigger speaker. If I could only crossbreed my Spendors with my Martin Logans! |
@donquichotte based on what you’re saying above, I feel you should give Joseph Audio Perspective2 a try. |
I'm only reading good things about the Joseph Audio speakers. @prof loves them, you recommend them after reading about my tastes and expectations... I'm sure the Perspective 2's would be awesome. I'd be a bit wary of the reduction of body / density through the upper frequency, as I said I love the sound "with body", but I'd be more than willing to give them a try. On the other hand, I live in Europe and the used market for these is basically nonexistent around here. Not to mention the huge difficulties I'd be facing should the speakers ever need servicing. So yeah, they are tempting but sadly not a very realistic option for me. Thank you for your suggestion anyway! |
Amazing that it's been over 5 years since I started this thread pondering my decision. Funny enough I still have a HiFiShark alert set up for when the Devore O/96 come up for sale, which I really should turn off since that ship sailed quite a while ago. If I had a different room I more likely would have done a home trial of the Devores, but ultimately the Joseph speakers have been the right choice all things considered. It's nice to have upgraded them to the graphene version so that itch is scratched and, wow, priced for these things new...gone up like everything else in audio...are way beyond what I could afford these days. In visiting my local dealer I've listened to more speakers lately, such as the Kii Audio 3 active speakers (I've heard/demoed them a number of times). The Kii 3s always impress me as being very neutral, very evenly balanced, full, rich sound, with a particular ease to the high frequencies. No ear fatigue. But sort of to a fault - I find they miss a bit of life, and tonally I don't find anything to sound right or real on those speakers. But, fun to listen to. And finally...finally!...I got a chance to hear the Spendor Classic 1/2 speakers, which were on my list of "must hear" someday. I love the sound of my little Spendor S3/5s so I wanted to see what the newer version of their bigger classic speakers sounded like. I had just listened to the Kii 3 speakers in the same room and then got to hear the Spendors to compare. So an active vs passive shoot out. Well, it sounded like a much bigger, more refined version of the 3/5s. The same lit up "blonde tone" - more airy and alive vs the Kii speakers, while more warm-toned and organic. Brass (symphonic) on the Kii speakers sounded very smooth and metallic and blatty, but they sounded warmer hued and more golden "brassy" and vivid on the Spendors, which to my ears reminded me more of the real thing. Likewise drum snares, drum skins sounded more organic and "right" to my ears on the Spendors. Where the Kiis gave me the impression of hearing in to a very good recording of drum sets, the Spendors gave me more of a feeling of hearing right past the speakers to a live drum set. Bass on the Spendors was surprisingly deep and forceful and robust! Though a bit too much room lift so less tight than the Kii speakers. Of the two I'd take the Spendors because out of the gate they sounded more live and more right to my ears and of course I'd be able to ply the sound further to taste with tube amps. I'm too old school for active speakers I think. But really that's just hypothetical. I'm not actually in the market to buy new speakers (and my dealer knows that, he's just happy to show me stuff when I'm there). And at this point I feel somewhat spoiled by the Joseph Speakers. Spoiled by their level of performance and refinement. So I could absolutely enjoy many evenings with something like the Spendors playing in my room because they are excellent, comfy, organic. But they sound a bit opaque relative to the crystal clarity I'm used to from the Joseph speakers, and a bit more crude, vs the grainless purity of the Joseph speakers that allow such tonal color and refinement. I continually get a "sense of surprise" from the Joseph speakers, which I don't get from most other speakers. And man can these little speakers pack some punch! I'm very happy with my EDM, funk and fusion music with the Joseph speakers! BTW, I actually have tried driving my Joseph speakers with my Denon AV reciever a couple times. The Josephs are smooth with any amplification, and there is even more grip and solidity in the bass with solid state, and a super level of cleanliness and detail. But...every time I switch the CJ amps back in, I feel like I'm home. The speakers are still really punchy with the 140W of tube monoblock power, but the ease factor, timbral/textural presence and life-like quality for me goes notches higher.
|