If ever in Dc/Baltimore area let me know would be glad to give an audition.
Contemplating DEVORE SPEAKERS (and others)....LONG audition report of many speakers
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.
fsconicsmith, That’s a great description of the Devore speakers, thanks! That’s pretty much what I heard. They pull off the tricky combo of being thick and rich, but not dark, but rather light, airy and fast in the upper mids. And boy I love synth stuff, so I’m sure the Devores would rock (and I did of course demo some synth stuff on them). I really like how the top end on the Devores can "pop" somewhat with excitement, yet without an ear-piercing quality. So as a synth for instance goes through an envelope and evolves from darker to having a brighter quality, the Devores really show that beautiful tonal brilliance and evolution of a synth line. The Joseph Perspective also have that same quality. The top end is so beautiful and sparkly. And they do synth really nice too, as they have a really juicy lower mid to bass region, and their crystal clear top end allows that sparkle. I put on one fun synth/dance track last time I heard the Perspectives - Korean Style from the Collateral soundtrack - and it completely blew me away. It sounded super rich and punchy, but the way the Perspectives combined an exquisite top end and midrange, the quality of the synths where like a churning rainbow of timbral colors. I played that track on the Thiels and while they are generally awesome for synth music (punch, focus, palpability, smoothness) they don’t have the timbral finesse of the Josephs. The Josephs in that respect sound more like a step forward, in terms of upgrading to a newer level of realism. But, yeah, I know what you mean about the Devores sometimes sounding like sound coming at you from speakers. Rush’s 2112 had that vibe - the layers of guitar were thick and satisfying, though somewhat stacked up much closer more coming-from-the-speakers, which gave me an old school listening to big honkin’ speakers in a dorm party vibe. 2112 on the Josephs showed more spatially layered separation of the guitar tracks. In the upper midrange the JA speakers sort of show more "new things" in the recording - I haven’t heard 2112 sound quite like that, and it would be in danger of being deconstructed into audiophile wispiness, if it weren’t for the generally very dynamic punchy quality the JA speakers also posses. Though if I had to choose which speaker ultimately nails the gestalt of that type of music, I’d hand it to the Devores. I’m being a bit thick at the moment and don’t catch your meaning about "audit" with the Perspectives. BTY, I’m certainly in to vinyl. In fact that’s mostly what I listen to, since I bought my Transrotor Fat Bob S w. Benz Micro Ebony cartridge. I’m bankrupting myself buying vinyl. As to the type of speakers I like; I like plenty of different speakers. But always with beautiful tone. Life sound sources have been my benchmark, because I can listen to someone sing, or play almost anything if it’s a live acoustic source - it’s just naturally beautiful and compelling. Both the JA and the Devores capture to my ears separate, very elusive qualities of real instruments; the purity and timbral spectrum of the JAs, the richness, body and upper frequency texture from the Devores. I figured by now I may have ordered my speakers (figuring the Josephs). But then then I just got a surprising immediate drain on my finances, AND I have to sell my Thiels. Selling can be such a bummer when buyers get flaky, express intent to buy, disappear etc. (I have numerous out of city offers, but I’m still trying to avoid shipping them if I can). Anyway, thanks again: your input is always welcome! |
mapman, Thanks for the Ohm Walsh comment, and audition offer. I know I've heard Ohm Walsh speakers once before, a looong time ago, so it's just a vague memory. My MBL 121 omnis do a similar kind of thing - the MBLs are spectacular within their frequency range! (They still have the best tweeter I think I've heard in terms of combining incredible resolution in a natural way). |
Apropos of my speaker blathering, Stereophile actually has binaural recordings for both the Devore and the Joseph speakers. I’ve always been intrigued at how even video camera microphones actually capture *some* sense of a speaker’s sound (especially the relative sense, if the same microphone is recording various speakers).I remember first noticing this when I made my own video with the first Sony digital mini-cam with a stereo mic, at a CES show many years ago.I wandered in and out of various rooms at the show. When I played that video back on my computer at home (with decent speakers) I was amazed at how the sound actually captured a sense of what I remember hearing. Especially when the camera wandered from a room with some standard box dynamic speakers into the MBL room and on the video the sound changed in character much like I remembered when I filmed it: even on the video you could hear the sound go from a bit artificial, boxy and bulgy in one room, to sounding utterly open in the MBL room as if the camera had just wandered in to record a live performance. Anyway, along this line, Stereophile has been doing interesting stuff with their binaural recordings trying to "take us there" to hear what the reviewers are hearing. Here’s the links to the binaural videos of the Devore 0/93 speakers and the Joseph Audio Pulsars: https://www.stereophile.com/content/art-dudleys-new-listening-room-binaural-video https://www.stereophile.com/content/bed-stuy-ci%C2%B7n%C3%A9%C2%B7ma-v%C3%A9%C2%B7ri%C2%B7t%C3%A9 Although I’ve listened to them with headphones, even without headphones and just listening through the speakers of my iMac, I can perceive the character of each speaker is making some of it’s way in to the recording: from the Devore, that big, sparkly tone allied to warmth: guitars where you can sense the weight of someone actually picking and playing. From the Joseph speakers, that crystalline, smooth, purity and separation of instrumental and vocal tone. |
@prof "my Thiel 3.7s are up for sale." Congratulations and kudos on the path you've taken and shared here with us, Rich! Have you given any thought to delaying the sale of the Thiels? Most likely you already know this, but I can tell you firsthand probably no disappointment or regret in audio rivals missing a beloved component |
trelja, I already have delayed selling the thiels. I've had intentions to sell them for almost a year, and kept them this long....just in case. But as the 2.7s have done wonderfully over that time, I've weaned myself from the 3.7s and, really, they simply are too big. I only ever meant to keep them if I could come up with a way to wheel them in and out of my room, and that never worked out. And each time I have to deal with them - e.g. moving them around recently to take photos for my ad, I think "Ok, I'm done with speakers this large!" So although they are probably the best speakers I've had, I have no issue selling them at this point. |
I’m being a bit thick at the moment and don’t catch your meaning about "audit" with the Perspectives.When you audit a class in college, you take it for knowledge but not a grade. I was trying to be a wordsmith; I would love to learn how the JA Perspectives sound but I would not be in the market. Just so you know, the Devores are intended to work with smaller tube amps, often ones that don't use feedback. This places them in the Power Paradigm rather than the Voltage Paradigm- if you auditioned them with solid state, you may not be hearing everything they really do.Probably true as I have absolute respect in Ralph. I am an outlier. I am driving mine with the ~175 watt ARC Ref 150SE with and eight-pack of Tungsol KT150's. Negative feedback galore. "The water is warm, boys,,,"(O'Brother Where Art Thou) |
Prof, I have been following this thread with interest. I went though my own speaker journey a while back (I use tube amplification). The Devore O's were the speakers I lusted after, partly for the richness you mention. But to my surprise, I opted for the Devore X's which I found worked better in my room, being less demanding to position, and offering a more insightful, natural & dimensional midrange while still delivering oodles of power & weight when the music called for it. I'm biased, but I can't help thinking the Super 9 is a gap in your extensive search. Good luck! |
rothwea, You may well be right. Looking at the Super 9 specs, they are almost the same size exactly as the Joseph speakers, are spec'd a bit lower in the bass, and use bigger woofers. It's possible the Super 9's would strike just the right balance between what I like about the Joseph and Devore O speakers. Or...they could end up sounding like a neither here nor there compromise. I liked what I heard with the Gibbon X but found the bass overbearing. At this point I'd be frankly shy about asking to audition Super 9's given I feel I've taken enough of my dealer's time. |
No real update as an unexpected financial situation put a kink in my plans to purchase the new speakers immediately. Hopefully I can buy a pair within the next month or two. I’m still inclined toward the Joseph speakers, but I can drive myself crazy by making seemingly just as good a case in my mind for either the Josephs or Devores! Stupid brain! BTW, recently I heard some Mcintosh speakers. The dealer for one of the speakers I’ve been auditioning also sells Mcintosh and I immediately recognized them (in this case the XR100 speakers) from the array of tiny midrange drivers all around the tweeter (very Tekton-like design, before Tekton). I remember hearing a really big flagship pair of Mcintosh speakers at a high end emporium in the late 90’s or early 2000s. I was fascinated to hear a speaker taking such an odd many-little-drivers approach. I still vividly remember how they sounded: Awful. Just awful. Whitish, devoid of any tonal color, detailed but like viewing music through a grey metallic scrim. The epitome of "hi-fi" and uninvolving (for me). But this was a newer, smaller model. It was set up so I asked if they wouldn’t mind if I played a few songs on them. They happily obliged. Result: They sounded exactly like I remembered from the previous pair. Just awful. In the same way. I could barely wait to just get out of the listening chair and start doing something else interesting. Who buys those things? (And why do so many guys who buy Mcintosh seem obsessed with having to show the Mcintosh logo blaring in every possible way in their system - plaques, labels, even bloody screen-savers on their TV!) |
Post removed |
Wish I could update the thread with impressions of my new speaker. But still got nuthin'. As I indicated previous, I had finally decided after my last listening comparison that I'd go for the Joseph speakers. I had saved up partially for them over the last year, then just finished (arduously) selling and shipping my big Thiels. With money now in hand I was ready to pull the trigger on the Josephs and...bam!...had an issue come out of nowhere and took a huge unexpected hit to my finances. Put me back almost at square one, saving again. It's a cursed project. Meanwhile, the dealer for the Devore speakers is occasionally giving me updates, sweetening the pot with ever better prices on his demo model 0/93s for me. At this point I'd get the Devores for almost 1/2 of what I'd pay for the Joseph speakers! What an audiophile dilemma. Do you go for the speakers you finally figure you really wanted...though at more financial pain/longer wait? Or go for the better deal on the second place speakers that were also terrific? |
HEADS UP for Devore Fans: From the Devore Fidelity Facebook page, it looks like Devore will be showing the new "all out" upgrade of the 0/96 speakers at the upcoming Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. Looks like a new tweeter, as well as what looks like a super tweeter, have been added, and some other interesting stuff going on at the backside in terms of weird-looking exhaust-pipe style ports. I’d love to hear that speaker! |
I noticed a pair of JM Reynaud Offrande Supreme 2 speakers for sale on Audiogon. And at an excellent price. I have to admit that created a little tug of "should I?" That was one of the speakers that I still found intriguing after auditioning them and sometimes wondered how they would fair in my listening room. Also, I really don't like the normal light beachwood of the JM Reynaud Offrande speakers and those ones are stained darker, which I prefer. They are a promising combination of timbral warmth, clarity and liveliness. But...for various reasons...I must resist. Ultimately, they didn't leave as great an impression on me as the Devore and Joseph speakers. The Reynauds struck me as a bit bright and forward. Also, though the bass was very generous for a stand mounted speaker, I don't think it produced the quality of bass that I like. My Thiels 2.7s for instance, though larger and a three-way, have similar low frequency specs, but sound more authoritative, solid and controlled in the lower bass from what I heard during the Reynaud auditions. Still...if I had the time and money, it would be tempting to roll the dice on a good price for a second had pair like the ones on Audiogon. I do wonder about the re-sale issues. On one hand, a brand like JM Reynaud is fairly under the radar so doesn't have broad appeal for re-sale. On the other hand, those fans of that brand are very dedicated and enthusiastic, so perhaps they would sell reasonably quickly. It will be interesting to watch this sale and how it goes. |
A little more time with Reynaud's and you'll find they aren't bright at all. They are somewhat forward, but to me that's akin to the immediacy of live music. I've never heard another speaker do it better. Maybe you should go listen to the new Abscisse or Orefeo Jubilees? They'll both give you more bass than Offrande's. |
I'd guess the Reynauds can't be too bright, or owners may have complained (though I've heard another report or two from people who thought they were a bit too bright). I used to heard all the JM Reynaud speakers at a local store including the floor standers. Always liked, never loved. But that was quite a few years back now. I did spend quite a bit of time with the Offrande's, two separate auditions, going through all my music. I think they are going to be shown at the upcoming Toronto show so maybe I'll hear them again there. |
BTW, Really cool binaural video report of the new Devore flagship prototype "O" speakers - a double system, two speakers per side with one doing the lower bass (presumably). I found the sound through the binaural recording on my headphones sounded really fantastic (relative to plenty of other binaural speaker recordings I've heard). A bit of bass bloom, but aside from that amazing. Link here: https://darko.audio/2018/10/earspace-w-devore-orangutan-reference-four-piece-system/ |
Given there was a discussion earlier in this thread about one of my reference discs, Everything But The Girl’s Amplified Heart from ’94, I’m thrilled to find out, and report, that the album is FINALLY coming to vinyl! This album is such a timeless melding of acoustic instruments and folk sensibility tastefully melded with subtle electronica influences, that it’s probably been my number one "I Want This On Vinyl!" album. And even better, the new vinyl is an all out affair, 1/2 speed mastered at Abbey Road! https://unmaderoad.com/products/everything-but-the-girl-amplified-heart-vinyl-lp So for anyone who may have been turned on to this album in this thread, and who also spins vinyl, this may be of interest. I’ve pre-ordered! |
Coupla things.... As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I was about to buy the Joseph Audio Perspectives when some financial issues struck hard, sinking those plans. So...back to saving up money again...and the newly updated Perspective 2 Graphene versions look just the ticket (eventually). Meanwhile I've been cycling through some of the speakers I own. As I do occasionally I took my little Spendor S 3/5 monitors, which are usually doing duty for our family room TV, and hooked them up to my main two channel rig. Every time I do this, it's an occasion to shake my head in amazement. First, as I mentioned earlier I had the Harbeth SuperHL5Plus for a little while. Loved them, but like my Thiels better and sold the Harbeths. The main thing I occasionally miss about the Harbeths were their way with vocals - so rich, smooth, rounded and human-sounding. Well I'll be a catfish's uncle if these little Spendors don't do essentially the same thing for vocals. Just incredibly human, rich, smooth and natural, an uncanny sense of a person singing vs the sibilant-spitting electronic "voices" that come out of so many speakers. And what a crazy disappearing and soundstaging act. They can sound just huge. And the imaging is palpable, thick, air-moving, not "see-through" in the super-clinical way many other speakers produce detailed imaging. They are too small to kick ass dynamically, and though they have a surprisingly big sound, I do notice the bass limitations on some tracks. But...the TONE from these speakers! It is so gorgeous. Sax, drums, strings, you name it, all have a convincingly organic warm tone. Just a tad into the "smoother than life" but still good transient sparkle and life.There is something about the illuminated "amber tone" that seems to make all the notes in a guitar chord, or the various notes held by a string section, or vocal harmonies, come to the forefront so the harmony of the chord sounds particularly musical and melodic. It's hard to describe, but it's like I "get" the melody, the notes and chord changes that are being played on these speakers more effortlessly than through many other speakers. And I've been building a jones for speakers that manage to "hold it all together"musically. Lots of high end speakers can present a sort of ghostly see-through quality, and can separate instruments so much that it's like one is hyper-aware of the different things going on, and it "pulls apart" the music rather than melds the playing into the whole it's supposed to be. It can even happen with the way a drum set is presented. On some systems I can hear every bit of the drum kit separately and clearly. But it's pulled apart. But on others, somehow some speakers put me in tune with what the drummer is actually doing.I don't just hear separate pieces of a drum kit being hit, but rather " a drummer playing a set of drums, and the beats he is laying down." More performative, than sonically descriptive. (The Devore speakers were very good at this). The Spendors have this way of both sounding ridiculously spacious and doing the imaging stuff, yet somehow it's all tied together. When another instrument suddenly shows up by one speaker, it's musically informative, and makes sense, rather than merely a magician trick of imaging.In other words, they do audiophile-like stuff, while managing to constantly have the music making sense: they seem to be giving the musical message. Now, like any speaker when I listen long enough I'll pine for what other speakers can do. But, wow, am I ever enjoying these for now. They are, amazingly enough for their teeny size, fantastic with classical music. The gorgeous sheen of strings, the bronze glow of the horns, the shiny silvery triangles, the particular clarinetness of a clarinet...these things just love making classical music and soundtracks sound as gorgeous as possible. There's something to be said about how some old-school speakers really got some things right. Over 'n out for now... |
Keith, Yeah I'd have loved that remix to be included. Of course the ad spins it as "we've presented the album as it appeared authentically in the original CD." Which really means "we know people would have wanted us to include the famous remix, but fitting that on the same vinyl album would be a b*tch.* I've only heard the new Spendors briefly at an audio show and they really impressed me as sounding super clear, neutral, musical and dynamic. One of the best sounds I heard at that show. (I forget if it was TAVES or the Montreal show a couple years ago). |
Keithr, I presume you are talking about the vinyl of EBTG's Amplified Heart?You got your copy? Mine's been shipped and I can't wait. BTW, as per your previous question: I believe I'll be auditioning the Spendor A7 soon. As you can see I am smitten with the Spendor sound at the moment. I've actually been investigating where I could hear Spendor 1/2s, which sound like they'd preserve the classic sound I seem to like, but update it somewhat. Some say the floor standing "D" series speakers retain Spendor midrange magic, but I'll have to hear for myself if they end up departing too much from what I seem to like. |
UPDATE: Listened to the Devore O/93 and O/96 speakers again. I’m STILL saving up for a speaker purchase (as mentioned earlier in the thread I was ready to purchase the Joseph Perspectives when my finances took an unexpected hit, which I’m still digging out from). Not actively auditioning speakers but if the opportunity arises I will take it. To that end I’ve been loving my little Spendor S3/5s which has put the bigger classic Spendor models on my radar - especially the 1/2.Very hard to audition though. It turned out on a recent trip that a local dealer had the Spendor 1/2s for sale, second hand, so I wanted to check them out. As it happened, they also had the Devore speakers. I ended up listening to the Devores, not the Spendors, as they were essentially "set up ready to listen." It was a big listening space, well suited to the Devore speakers (which like space around them). First off I zipped through a bunch of stuff I know and love on Tidal, through the 0/93s (both speakers driven by a Leben tube amp). I’m not going to re-describe their sound as I have elsewhere, except to modify to this extent: They did all that great Devore stuff with fullness and rich bottom end, and nice clarity. Made tons of the zany old funky Library music tracks I like (e.g. stuff by Alan Hawkshaw, Brian Bennett) really groove! But after a while, to pick some nits, two things started to dawn on me: 1. The tone, while very, very nice and to my ears preferable to much of the competition, was a bit shelved off in terms of high frequency extension. They didn’t sound "dead" at all, actually quite open and often very clear! But things like drum cymbals, horn sections etc just seemed to lack that last bit of airy "shine," and I began to feel a bit of a limit in the tonal character of the speaker. Secondly, the imaging/soundstaging, while a really fun wall-of-sound, was a bit too obviously foreshortened. All my speakers at home have always imaged and soundstaged well, but I think I’m particularly smitten at the moment by the "disappearing" and soundstaging of the Spendors.They somehow do it in a way that feels musically meaningful, and I did think listening to the o/93s that I’d start to miss that aspect of the listening experience a bit too much. Then the 0/93s were replaced with the bigger O/96s, same amp, same space. Oh mamma! Ok, NOW we are talking! This is the first time I was able to compare them back to back in the same conditions and it was really telling. The O/96s just sounded to me like the better overall speaker. It sounded more neutral, more extended in the high end, even bigger, and interestingly it images/soundstaged significantly better than the O/93s. Suddenly the same tracks became richly 3-D, with more depth and space around the sonic images, and the speakers disappeared more. in the bass, I felt the O/96s were, on most tracks just as controlled or maybe better than the O/93s. But those occasionally moments of bass overload were MORE obvious on the O/96s because of their bass extension. Tonally, moving from the O/93s to O/96s was - using the images they conjured in my mind’s eye - moving from the 93’s slightly darker grayish/brownish tone, a bit more homogenized - to the 96’s more open, extended lighter "amber-wood" tone almost exactly like that of my little, magical Spendor speakers! Drum cymbals took on a brassier more open, sparkling tone, as did horn sections. Bongos, drums etc all sounded a bit more present, airy and real. And of course the sound was smooth and rich. Like the Spendors on steroids, and with greater resolution and impact. As usual, I was constantly aware of how a drummer was playing in each track. There were dynamic ebb-and-flows that often made tracks I knew sound fresh again. Also...a real surprise (as it was the first time I heard them) was the sense of fine resolution! There seems to be a division - some people hear the Devore O series as being somewhat smoothed over "not for you resolution freaks, more music lover speaker" as the cliche goes. Others find they hear new things on the Devores. Put me in the second camp!I’ve heard these tracks on everything from my own speakers, to the latest Magico, Focal, Raidho, Joseph Audio, Paradigm Persona...you name it. The Devores still blew me away with what I kept hearing - little things, bells or cymbal add-ins etc, I truly have never noticed over all these years. And even Herbie Hancock’s piano in "Lullaby" seemed to sound so substantial...it had a sounding board...yet the top end trail of the keys seemed to just float and go on and on, with such subtle resolution. Once I noted the issues with the O/93 and then heard the O/96, I finally removed the O/93s from my list. They remain among my very favourite speakers, but I think the Joseph Perspectives edge them out with a big punchy sound of their own, but with a finer sense of timbral beauty and variety, and state-of-the-art imagining/soundstaging. So are the Devore O/96s for me? Yes and no. Yes: They do almost everything I seem to enjoy: They give back the heft and richness in voices and instruments that go missing in most speakers. They give a life-sized sense of imaging. They "disappear" and image quite well. They have that magic "woody organic" tone that flatters so many acoustic instruments, and that upper "golden tone" and airiness that I love that makes bells, cymbal etc shimmer beautifully.They have a sense of palpable texture which allows bows on strings, hands on percussion, etc to cut through the air like the real thing rather than having that slightly glazed, canned quality of most sound reproduction. And they groove like heck in showing how musicians do their work. All this, and with an ear-friendly tone that doesn’t bite. No: Sonically, they are generally wonderful. But to pick nits, they certainly do have a specific bass quality engineered in to them - that big, round, warm bass (though still able to be rythmically quick). The O/96s did remind me more often than certain other speakers, and my home speakers, that I was "listening to a speaker." (Though held against this is their ability to sound more "live" and less speaker-like with lots of material). And I did feel that the rich foundation of the speaker may be a tad over-bearing over the long haul. I don’t really know - maybe I’d dial them in so it wasn’t the case. But they do seem to present a challenge to controlling the bottom end. The two most important things that make me have to put the O/96s "on the shelf" at this point is: The Devores REALLY DO need at least 8 feet listening distance in order to sound the way I’ve described them - the way I like them to sound. I once again measured with a tape measure my head distance from the speakers, testing between 8 1/2 feet down to about 7 feet, and as soon as my head got closer than 8 feet, the sound started to lose top end air, sparkle, snap, image focus etc, and become more rolled off and sonically "glazed over" sounding. Pull my head back and all the qualities I’ve described snapped back in to focus. This has been the same every single time I’ve done this experiment, in every Devore set up I heard. Problem for me is I’m limited by the ergonomics of my room at the moment. Speakers have to be able to be placed closer - 7 1/2 feet at the furthers, but more like 7 feet from my listening position. I can’t figure out how I’d get the Devores to work at this point. So...that keeps the Joseph Perspectives in first place. EXCEPT...the new update to the "Perspective 2 Graphene" version has raised the price in Canada to beyond my reach (now $20,000!). The horror! That means my only hope will be buying a used pair of the originals and at some point paying for the upgrade to the "2" version if I want (which I’m sure I do). It’s killing me because right now people are selling their Perspectives, including my own JA dealer selling his older floor models of the Perspectives, due to the newer models coming out.Normally I could just grab them but...don’t have the funds yet! Dang! So...that’s it for now. Still have my sights set on the JA Perspectives and if I can ever audition the Spendor 1/2s (or even 2/3s) I’ll be doing that along the way. Maybe I’ll even check out the Spendor D7/D9s. Oh, forgot to mention: The other speakers now on my radar are the Devore Super Nines! About the same size as the Josephs, similar frequency response, and I’m wondering if they maintain some of that Devore tone. No one has them to audition, though. |
Hi Prof, it’s been fun — if a little exhausting — to follow your journey. I find much to agree with in your accounts, so I think we hear the same way. I like the little Spendors, but I haven’t liked the larger BBC models so much, which to me are too pipe-n’-slippers. I agree with your characterization of the O93s and O96s, and prefer for those same reasons the _O93_. (I’m confident that you will not feel threatened by my point of view, unlike some sufferers of audiophilia nervosa.) Which brings me to my request: please do report back on your impressions of the Super Nines. I would seriously consider them if they are O93s with more imaging depth. |
The Gibbons sound different than the Os, but are of the same cloth. They don't give quite the big tone of the Os or Tannoys and the like - more of a neutral, modern sound that retains good tone. They have much better bass characteristics than the Os as I don't like that "fleshiness" of the 96s. They do the more audiophile things better, for better or worse. I think the Super Nines vs Spendor D9s would be a fantastic demo. The Spendor sounds a lot more modern than prior speakers. Count me in ;) |
I asked my local dealer about the Super Nines. He said he's sold a couple to customers who are very happy with them, but he doesn't have them for audition. That's been the same of other Devore dealers I've encountered. I think I have a gist of how the Nines would sound, having heard the big Gibbon X. Definitely more "modern/neutral" but with a nice Devore tone.Though I found them a bit uneven with different material. I was blasting music on my big Thiel 2.7s last night and boy those are a terrific speaker. Great tone, so even, controlled, yet lush (with my CJ amps). What I miss is a bit more nuance in the upper frequencies and some more "sparkle" to the sound. I listened to a new LP that combined synths and acoustic guitar, bells etc on both the Thiel and the Spendor S3/5s. It was terrific on the Thiels, but the Spendors were tonally a bit more seductive and beautiful in the upper frequencies, the way the air was "lit up" and the acoustic guitar, and high pitched twinkles from synths and bells seemed to pop out in a beautiful manner. The Joseph Speakers also have this quality in the high frequencies. Though they are not as explicitly "light toned" overall as the Spendors. Agreed about the paucity of dealers who can audition the Classic Spendor speakers. Unfortunately. I have a feeling I'd really like them.I still should be able to audition the D7s, if not the D9s, at some point. |
Last time I was at Command Performance (in Wash DC suburbs) they had both Super Nines and X's on the floor. Unfortunately I didn't audition either--heard the O93's, Contour 60 and Kanta 2 that day. The Super Nines were on display at the Capital Audio Fest and demo'd at an overbearingly loud volume, which put me completely off (perhaps unfortunately so). So I can't really comment on their timbral character. They certainly "do bass" for their modest size. I heard the Classic 100's at a dealership in England I thought they were superb. Personally, I preferred them by a significant margin over the D7's, also heard that day in same room and system. YMMV of course. |
Prof, fwiw, I never thought my O/93's lacked sparkle on top but as I wrote in the Misc section, removing an area rug in my listening room made the sound very saturated with a shelved up high end just bordering on excessive. The O/96's and O/93's to the best of my knowledge share the exact same tweeter. The O/96's have a more powerful magnet structure on the woofer and a different crossover that may account for the perceived difference in the high end. Your room may be too large for the O/93's but chances are good that toe-in, adjustment of room furniture/rugs/panels and adjustment of listening position would remedy the high end deficiency you heard. Don't get me wrong-the O/96 is the more powerful speaker for larger rooms and does-as you note-have a totally different sound with more powerful punch. |
fsonicsmith I may have left the wrong impression. I don’t find the 93’s "dark" per se. I don’t like speakers that sound too dark so I would have written them off early if they sounded that way. They could sound quite vivid, and sounded very clear, and vivid with impressive sparkle with some tracks. But they do have a different tone from what I heard on the 96s (both at this location, and at the other location I auditioned them numerous times). I do hear the lighter overall timbre with the 96s that appeals to me. I’ve just preferred the tone of the 96 each time I’ve heard it. My room is not very big so the 96s could be a challenge sonically. Except for the fact it’s well designed, well treated and has a large opening to a hallway, so I’ve yet to have bass problems with big speakers. But if ANY speaker is going to challenge the room, the particularly rich bass quality of the 96s would do it. I think there’s a fairly good chance I’d go for the 96s if my room were better suited, both in terms of allowing me the right listening distance and if it didn’t do double duty as a home theater. The 96s are wide and tall enough to start interfering with the view of the screen and possibly block the L/R theater speakers in my room. For size, shape, ergonomics the Joseph would be ideal. Both Joseph and Devore have an "it" factor for me - each one is hard to forget once I experienced them. BTW: How far do you sit from the 93s? As I've said, I find they need 8 feet at least to keep that aliveness and snap and coherency. I originally thought that maybe this was due to the way the wave-guide limited horizontal dispersion of the tweeter more than other designs (and as noted by Stereophile), hence moving closer to the speakers would be moving slightly less on-axis, which could be why they loose the high frequency texture. But I did remember one time to also aim the speakers more toward me to compensate as I moved closer during one audition, and the same "smoothing over" of the highs seemed to occur. Leading me to infer it's something to do with the crossover or general design the requires a bit of distance to come together. (But...wha-do-I-know?) |
Hi prof, I heard D9 in Montreal show in 2018. They worked with Chord electronic including Chord Dave DAC and Blu transport. People can’t sit in this room more than couple of minutes! The sound was simply horrible. In next room where Harbeth hl5 with Rega electronic and sound was good. Many visitors enjoyed to stay in Harbeth room. Many years ago I had Spendor 2/3 speakers and liked their sound. I also have Chord Qutest DAC. So my expectations from Spendor/Chord room where high and I was deeply disappointed from sound. As result my opinion is so harsh. The sound was opposit to typical Spendor Classic sound. It was more similar to Focal but even worth with more emphased and whistling tweeters sound. It looks like Spendor company moves to direction of modern audiophile sound like Focal and B&W. Regards, Alex |
Hi @prof , Now I remembered, it was in 2017 show not in 2018. Here is Harbeth - Rega room video from this show: https://youtu.be/5Ul6eDFhn3w I’m sorry I didn’t do record of D9 on my camera. I term of realism this speakers where my favorite on this show: https://youtu.be/UZLmNJe_w3M The speakers with such high frequency tuning like D9, can sound spectacular on one kind of records and horrible on other kind of records. They also can sound better with "warm" sounding amplifiers like Focal speakers do. In any case sound with emphasise and too detailed high frequencies irritates me. If you visit Montreal show every year, Devore 0/96 speakers where presented in 2019. https://youtu.be/p-MQLEk5FTA https://youtu.be/qlsZiYspFKM But I think something was wrong with electronic tuning in this room. Tune Audio speakers represented by the same diller sounded spectacular. https://youtu.be/JCLuH_NeVgI Regards, Alex. |
Hi Alex, I went to a couple of Montreal shows in a row (or maybe 3, though not this year). I'm pretty sure I was at the 2017 show and remember hearing those speakers you liked as well. I remember it was one of the Montreal shows where I first heard Joseph Pearl speakers playing some music, an aCapella group that blew my mind. Which led me to search out the Pulsars and then land on the Perspectives as perhaps my most wanted speaker at this point. |
Has anybody other than me actually ever heard the Spendor Classic 100? (Spendor’s name for what would otherwise be the SP100 Mk III). In the US I know David Lewis has them, but I don’t know who else. In a head-to-head audition against the D7, I preferred the Classic by a significant margin. My chief complaint against the D7 was the treble range/tweeter (see @alexberger), which sounded thin and a bit shrill. (BTW other threads have suggested it needs a very long break-in period--no idea how many hours on the one I heard.) Also the Classic presented a bigger, fuller, more believable overall sound, as if, yes, that wide baffle was launching more sound at you. On some selections from Holst’s Planets it was really impressive. It reminded me, not just because of the design, of the Harbeth 40.2; the Spendor may be just a little bit more exuberant/up-front, but the comparison is over very different rooms and systems. |
"
It is a shame for company like Spandor to design and sell stuff like this." As a D9 owner, I'm very glad Spendor make the D9 the way they do, as I very much like it the way it is :) I sold Magico S1s (e.g. Beryllium tweeter) to purchase the D9, so I think it's safe to say "thin/shrill" is a pretty relative term when talking about tweeters... Cheers |