Great report of listening impressions.
But... it you use the 3.7s as a benchmark/litmus test for all other auditions, the only speakers that will ultimately satisfy is another set of 3.7s.
Contemplating DEVORE SPEAKERS (and others)....LONG audition report of many speakers
I agree that the O/96's are the better looking speaker. My dealer, Don Better, told me that the O/96 outsells the O/93 by a large margin and yet he personally felt that the O/93 was the better speaker. Perhaps there was an element of salesmanship involved but I've been in this hobby a very long time and I detected little salesmanship from Don. I think a big reason for the O/96 outselling the O/93 is just that-the looks. We all buy with our eyes. How else can anyone explain why Audi and Range Rover and others are cropping their SUV's to make them look sexier when all they are really doing is decreasing interior cargo space and visibility? Or to stick with audio, how else can one explain the Galileo series of ARC amps in which the GS150 is functionally identical to the Ref 150SE but has sexy VU meters and a sexier chassis at $4,000 of price premium (though it is noted that this silliness backfired and the Galileo GS150 in no longer in production). This is an amusing hobby and we have to laugh at ourselves. I know of one knowledgeable, intelligent, audio enthusiast who has huge loudspeakers in a tiny California listening room so he listens to them nearfield, just four feet away from each speaker, and he shuts off the lights and listens only at night so that he does not need to look at his speakers as he listens. I also have no doubt that the looks of loudspeakers have a very large effect on certain listener's perceptions, i.e. if they love the appearance, they are more inclined to think that they sound great. Unlike any other component, many audio enthusiasts do stare at their speakers as they listen. This opinion is based on my own experience and observing others. |
fsonicsmith, I'm also going to check out the Devore 93s as a dealer just got those in. They would be more affordable, and take up even less space. Though I'm not as sold on the looks as I am on the 96s. Devore was indeed a recent discovery for me, as I hadn't heard them before (though was aware of the brand). I didn't pull the trigger on the Perspectives earlier because I had to save money for them. I'm certainly aware there is no perfect speaker (but I'll tell you, for my money the Thiel 3.7 was as close as it gets for anything I'd likely be able to afford). mtrot, Thanks. Yup, Tidal speakers definitely fit my ideal of "audio jewlery" in speakers. I've always admired their design and wood finishes and love the looks of that new model. It's waaaaay out of my price league. |
Well, since you say you "really like audio jewelry", they are expensive as all get out, but perhaps the most beautiful speakers I saw at AXPONA were the Tidal Piano G2. The wood grain finish is gorgeous, and the metal trim around the drivers is quite "jewel like". Not to mention, the sound was amazing. And, they are not too big. Here are some pics I took at AXPONA, and they in no way do justice to them: https://www.flickr.com/photos/67568395@N04/40593746455/in/album-72157665772652087/lightbox/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/67568395@N04/39678739900/in/album-72157665772652087/lightbox/ |
Prof, looking through your post history, it seems that you had zeroed in on the JA Perspectives almost a year ago. Why are you posting this now? Or put differently, why did you not pull the trigger on the Perspectives? Did you just discover DeVore recently? And shifting gears here, but I hope you agree that every loudspeaker ever put together represents a compromise. I own DeVore O/93's. I love them but I don't pretend that they are perfect. Forgetting low end pipe organ bass-something I don't care to have-there is a certain notch/suck-out in the upper midrange that is ever so slight, but there. I would expect the same from the O/96's due to the physics of mating a large woofer with a tweeter in a two-way. I don't know much about speaker design, but I suspect that the large front baffle and relatively resonant enclosure helps to mitigate this notch, but again, it is not a perfect band-aid. Again, a very slight compromise that is arguably a better compromise than utilizing a three-way design, but a compromise nonetheless. At the end of the day, you find a loudspeaker in which the compromises are not bothersome and then you exhale and learn to relax. It's like choosing a significant other. I am mindful that there are few issues in life in which an analogy to choosing a spouse is not possible. |
@kdude66 Thanks for the input. The Gibbon X would be to large, and too expensive. @roberjerman, LOL. I'll definitely cop to bouts of A-neurosis! Though to be fair to myself, it tends to center around speakers only. Most of my gear is old (amps, cables etc I've had for 20 years) and I don't fuss with changing it. The last time I went on a round of auditioning like this to replace my speakers was over 20 years ago! But when I get the itch, I make sure to look at all options. And, ironically given your suggestion, it was a dissatisfaction with owning Quad ESL 63s that led to that round of speaker auditioning 20 years ago! (I don't find ESL's satisfying - I like the palpability of dynamic speakers). I bought the Thiel 3.7s three years ago with a scheme of making them mobile to bring in and out of my listening room. It didn't pan out. If their size hadn't become an issue I wouldn't have sought to replace them as they do pretty much everything I could ask for, for their price. |
After reading everything that you have wrote, I would highly recommend the 0/96 or the gibbon x,I owned the 0/96 for a few yrs and had them in my smaller system.I always found them to be highly musical and also forgiving of the occasional bad recording and very easy in placement.After a couple of yrs I moved them into my main system in a very large room but found them to be a little small in image size and scale so ultimately I moved on to something larger. I’ve never heard the Gibbon x but they certainly do look nice,and without question all his speakers have fabulous wood work. Good luck to you in your hunt, Kenny. |
mtrot, Thanks! Yes the Magico A3 is is the ONE other speaker still on my list, for obvious reasons. But I’m trying to resist. It’s a great price and in some ways a suitable size...but hard to hear (though I could drive across the border to hear them). Plus one big strike against them for me is: no nice wood grain finish available, so stuck with the black monolith look. And also no speaker grills. I’ve always preferred speaker grills on a speaker, rather than open drivers, as I can’t help but "see/hear" the sound as coming from the speaker drivers. Once they are covered up, speakers tend to disappear from the presentation much better. (Also, note I did audition the Focal Kanta 2). |
A shout out to you for the great write up! Having heard many of these speakers recently at AXPONA, I can largely concur with your impressions. And I appreciate your reports on those speakers that I'v not heard. One additional contender that was really hot at AXPONA is the new Magico A3, so you might look into them as well. The new Revel F228Be drew a lot of raves, as did the new Focal Kanta No. 2. |
Devore Fidelity O/96 Speakers I was able to listen to these twice over the past few weeks. I found them to be terrific in the ways most people think they are terrific. They definitely have an "it" factor to their sound, their own thing that, if it grabs you, it grabs you. First, I have always loved the looks from photos, and in person they are beautiful. And that’s HUGE for me as I really like audio jewelry. When I pay for high end gear, speakers in particular, it’s going to be essentially new furniture in my living/listening/AV room. I spent a lot renovating that room to look as nice as possible and I don’t care to throw ugly or plain boxes in there. The Joseph Audio Perspectives to me are lustworthy not only for their sound but for their great form and awesome cabinetry/wood grains. The Devore O/96s strike the same "speaker lust" in me. They are funky looking, charmingly retro yet contemporary, with a gratifyingly high end level of finish. My wife even thought so from photos (not a common occurrence for her). First impressions is that the 96s are significantly smaller in person than they looked to me in photos. That’s a good thing when I’m looking to downsize. Yet at the same time they sounded HUGE, more reminiscent of my big Thiel 3.7s. Everything took on an added sense of body and size, from massed strings, to horns, to acoustic guitars, to even wood blocks. And especially piano! I was especially struck by a kind of crappy recording I played of a Satie piece. The piano has always sounded thin and distant and dull. But on the 96s the piano came closer to me and actually sounded large! And it actually sounded like it had a body, a sounding board. It was tweaking the "that’s a piano in front of me" parts of my brain, that grew up playing piano. Fascinating. Timbre of instruments seem great: warm, and rich and organic. And they can do the "golden tone" that I love from a system. They also sound really alive, open and extended giving the "instrument right THERE playing" impression. But without the mild aggression I felt from some other speakers on my list. Two things that really stuck out are massed strings and drum cymbals. Massed strings sounded substantial, with a heft many speakers miss with their more wispy, thin presentation of massed strings. And massed strings came with bow-texture, yet silky,. That combination that gets closer to the real thing vs the "this could be a sampled string section" sound from so many systems. I’ve rarely heard massed strings sound that much like themselves on a speaker. (The Joseph speakers do very well here too, but without as much size and weight). Drum cymbals were amazingly realistic. I played a track with a drum solo I’m familiar with (if you want your system to absolutely bristle with the energy of a stand up bass played with frenetic energy, get bassist Koichi Osamu’s album The Chord. You’ll thank me later!). It felt like I was in the middle of the drum set and the cymbals had that BIG open splashing quality of the real thing. So rare to hear drum cymbals sound that real. Soundstaging/Imaging: They did a surprising soundstaging act for speakers that look so squat. Sometimes images happened well off to the side corners of the speaker, some well back in the center, and usually BIG images. Though it was hard to get an exact read on this aspect. Sometimes it seemed like the 96s bring instruments forward in the mix (worried me about not getting the soundstage depth I’m used to) but other times seem to spread out the images in a very convincing manner. When seated with head above the tweeter, they also sound taller than they are, which is a neat trick. Though still not as tall as the Thiel 2.7s which have a very realistic image height. So great warmth of tone, fullness, allied to alive, open and convincing yet unfatiguing high frequencies. That is quite a trick! The upper frequencies are definitely more directional than I’m used to at home. The Thiels (and in auditioning, the Josephs) sound much the same tonally almost no matter where I move. Whereas I found listener position more critical for the Devores to snap into focus, both tonally and in terms of imaging. Also, they seemed to snap into focus and bloom in imaging once I hit 8 feet from the speakers - as John Devore has suggested. On the other hand, some reviewers and others seem to use the 96s closer and seem happy. I tried around 7 feet off and on, which is about as far away from me as I’d be able to place them, and while they lost a teeny bit of coherence and snap, they did also become smooth and enveloping. Thing is I really should have toed them in a bit more when I moved a bit closer! Bass on the 96s, in a decent size room with high ceilings, was fascinating. It had a bigger, bloomier quality vs the Thiels which are laser focused and punchy for bass. Certainly there was some additional bloom - a more critical moment would call it "bloat" - on the stand up bass in Talk Talk’s Happiness Is Easy. And a couple other tracks. But aside from those, the bass came across as quite nimble and yet having a rich, lively reach-out-and-make-you-feel-it quality. The result of the bass character WITH the dynamic liveliness, clarity and snap in the upper frequencies meant drums were always fantastic. I was made aware by the 96s, more than any speaker I can remember, of how the drummer was playing, the ebb and flow, the differences in impact between each snare hit, each bass drum hit. It was impossible not to boogey to these speakers. Once at home playing the same tracks again on the Thiel 2.7, the Thiels impressed me with their massive soundstage, incredibly precise and dense imaging, punchy quality and great tone. If I missed anything sometimes it was the thickness and heft of instruments and voices on the Devores (though the Thiels are surprisingly good here), and especially the open, alive yet smooth quality of the Devore high frequencies. Acoustic guitars, drum cymbals etc don’t have quite the aliveness as on the Devores, and string tone has always been so-so on the Thiels (though helped by my getting into vinyl), but closer to exquisite on the Devores (and excellent, silky and clear on the Josephs). So over all, a very promising speaker that has thrown a kink into my plans on route to the Joseph Perspectives. They are two quite different sounding speakers that do their own thing almost peerlessly. Both would be around the same price. Drivin’ me a bit nuts. One thing is the Devore Dealer would give me a good trade in price on my Thiels toward a purchase of the 96s. That would be nice, not having to sell them myself. But I do have some major questions as to whether their size/shape will work in my room, as it’s also my home theater room, and speakers too wide may impede the screen image. Still lots to think about, but thought I"d share what I’ve heard so far. (And I pretty much consider myself done in speaker auditioning. Right now it’s the Josephs or the Devores...or just sticking with the Thiels). |