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.


prof

Sorry, that user report I'd posted yesterday was long. Short version: I like ’em! :)
What a great thread. Thanks for the ride. I am considering a speaker upgrade as well and have been drawn to the looks and organic sound of the Devores. Did you ever hear the Super 9’s? How are things going with the JA’s?
snatex


I'm glad you enjoyed the thread.


Still haven't heard the Devore Super Nines.  When/If I do, I'll report back in this thread.


I've been playing around with the JA's, tweaking speaker/listening positions and have them dialed in very nicely.


Of course I can pick nits with any speaker, but overall the Perspectives have been amazing.  Not much to add to my previous description, really.


The combination of clarity, smoothness and punchy quality are so compelling.   They can do spacious, they can do groove and drive.


I've been listening to a bunch of rock recently - LP reissues of Van Halen and Rush (R.I.P Neil !) and having a ball.  In fact I just came from listening to Rush's Hemispheres and some of Moving Pictures and it was just blowing my mind.  There is a peering-into-the-studio clarity to the sound, with big spacious soundstaging, amazing separation of instruments, and the rhythm section of Geddy Lee's bass and Peart's drum work is riveting - super clear, defined, but big, dense and punchy so the music just drives.

It's nice to have a speaker that does tonal qualities so well for all the acoustic stuff, but which can be so much fun for funk, rock, etc.

Lots of fun!
Hey prof, what would you purchase if your budget was 2-3x your Perspectives? 
keithr

Dunno.

I guess that's because my desires for a speaker tend to be limited to what I can afford.  And also I have limitations in terms of what will be acceptable in my room. 


Though mega-speakers are fun, I'm not chasing perfection so they don't appeal as real-world aspirations.

At one point though I did pine after the MBL 101E speakers.   Not so much these days.

The Kef Blades might be a contender for a more expensive speaker simply based on hearing them once at a show.  But they wouldn't work aesthetically in my room.

But you know how it is for many of us: we go to an audio show, hear crazy-priced gear, come home to our system which has been honed to our own desires and think "Actually, I like my system better than most of what I heard there."

If I had the room, the Joseph Audio Pearls would be intriguing.   And I still wonder about the Devore orangutan speakers.   If I had the room and more-money-than-I-know-what-to-do-with, the Devore O Reference system is very intriguing to me (would love to hear them).

I'm intrigued by various horn-based systems but haven't heard enough of them at length to know whether they are "for me."

I love listening to hi-fi systems, any system, and especially checking out various speaker designs.   And yet, sort of paradoxically, it is very, very rare for me to hear a speaker that makes me want to own it.  Few hi fi systems have the "it" factor that makes me want to just keep listening, that sound "right" (to my ears).   And that's one reason I tend to hang on to speakers that do have that "it" factor for me (hence I currently still have 5 different speaker systems, though I'm mostly listening to the Josephs currently).



(I posted this in the Joseph Graphene2 thread, but figured it made sense to add to this thread too).
Righto...

So today I dropped in to my JA dealer (who sold me my pair of original Perspectives a few months back), for a listen to the new Perspective2Graphene.

Before I get to that: taking user reports and show reports all together, the consensus seemed to be "stronger, tighter bass, more refined and resolved midrange and highs, though most of the changes noticeable in the bass.
I love my Perspectives, though of course no speaker is The Perfect Speaker for me. For instance, I know I’d also love the fuller, bigger, richer sound of the Devore O/96 speakers as well. And my Thiel 2.7s are also a bit richer/fuller sounding toward the top end as well.

Since I’d consider upgrading my Perspectives to the graphene version when I have the money, I had a couple of concerns: Did the bass change so much that it would now overwhelm my room? My current Perspectives are just on the edge of doing this sometimes, though most of the time they are well controlled and I love the bass quality.
Also, the new Perspectives measure flatter in the high end vs the uprising highs of the original. I wondered if possibly the descriptions of "smoother, more relaxed, easier on the ears" may have resulted in a darkening of the tone, less airy. And would they be a bit reticent dynamically in the upper mids/high frequencies?

Unfortunately one aspect I could not get a handle on was the bass performance. The speakers were hampered by being too close together and too close to the wall behind them, making the bass sound overwarm and exaggerated on tracks with deep bass. So that was a bummer to not get a good handle on that.

But aside from that, when the music wasn’t exciting the room bass nodes, the bass was nice.

What I heard generally speaking was, yes, what seemed to be a somewhat more refined, resolved, clearer sound. The clarity and cleanliness and that grain-free quality was remarkable. I heard bits and pieces, say an acoustic guitar part in a familiar mix etc, seem to be more vividly resolved and tonally separated in the mix. And the high end weren’t at all dark sounding - they kept essentially the same tonal signature of the original. But it just felt like the level of resolution and clarity had taken a step forward. This was especially evident in some tracks with layered electric and acoustic guitars where the highs were realistically extended, grain free and very present. The layers of shimmering harmonics heard between all the guitars and the guitar strings were the best I’ve heard. The sound had a sense of "luxuriousness" in it’s ease, clarity and gorgeous tone of each element in a mix.

To make sure they could rock I spun Rush’s 2112. The sound was rich, full and very punchy. All the track elements super clear and separated, and the tone of Geddy’s bass and especially Alex’s guitar, electric and acoustic, were rendered with a upper midrange/high frequency beauty...the guitar tone just shimmered with more complexity than on most speakers.

Also, the electric guitars did seem a bit thicker and more substantial than back home on my Perspectives (this is where my Thiels give a bolder presentation in the upper mids with electric guitar). Not sure if this was a trait of the new speakers, or the large Sim Audio amps driving them.

Back home, spinning several of the same tracks on my Thiels (currently in my system), the Thiels were as usual a somewhat richer, thicker sound, with very dense, round imaging, very organic and relaxing, but also dynamic. The main thing missing in the Thiels vs the Perspectives is the exquisite refinement of timbre up in to the higher frequencies. They miss that gorgeous sparkle and aliveness of the Perspectives. I love the Thiels’ bass which is both super in control, but dense and punchy. But the Perspectives (my Perspectives anyway) bass has even more roundness and punch/kick toward the listener, which makes bass guitar and drum kits (kick drum especially) feel more impactful and "in the room."

Anyway, my hour-long demo of the Perspective2s left me with the impression that they are a slightly more refined version, which seem to retain what I like in my Perspectives. I’m a bit haunted by some of the sound quality I heard today so I’ll certainly consider upgrading my Perspectives when I have the money. Though for me the jury is still out about the bass quality.






I really enjoy having more than one pair of speakers that turn my crank.

Months ago I put the Thiel 2.7s back in to the system - they did that dense, punchy, lush sound, more filled out from top to bottom. I enjoyed the sound so much the Thiels stayed in the system for many months. Long enough for me to re-acclimatize to the Thiel sound. Just switched back in the Josephs last night and again experienced being blown away. The level of clarity combined with smoothness in the mids and highs, and the juicy impact of the bass, along with the huge airy soundstaging and imaging, is just intoxicating. They are like emotion-machines, with their timbral beauty and the way they ebb and swell dynamically.


I’m in this quandary of weather to finally integrate subs in to my system that I own...literally had them for years and been too lazy!...or sell that stuff to afford an upgrade of my Perspectives to the graphene version.

The new Spendor D7.2's are up there on the same level as the Perspectives Graphene's and cost a lot less money! They sound Amazing with Simaudio Moon gear!   Perfect Match !!
 
I'm saving my pennies now for this end-game system !

In no way would I dissuade you from the Spendors.  (I have Spendor S3/5s and love them!)

But I did not find the Spendor D7 a suitable substitute for the Joseph speakers to my ear.  (And I heard them with Sim audio!).  Not at all on the same level.  But, that's a personal call.  The Spendors may push your buttons even if they didn't push mine.   (I haven't heard the 7.2s, but I doubt they are worlds different from the 7s).


The D line is a very different beast to the Classic line.  (BTW, the Classic line is excellent.)

Yeah, that's why I've wanted to hear the updated classic line.

I was super impressed upon hearing Spendor D9s at a show.  That was one reason why the 7's I auditioned on two occasions (and some A line speakers) were so disappointing.
The D7.2's are very well balanced from top to bottom..they just might be the best balanced and most musically engaging speakers on the planet . They sound great even with a entry level Simaudio Moon ACE Integrated amp and entry level Denon CD Player on.. You Tube . The new D9.2's are even better than the D7.2's if you have a BIG room .
 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_IdKz_EYpU  

 Feedback on the older D9's 
 
 https://www.lite-magazin.de/2019/01/spendor-d9-serien-flaggschiff-mit-zeug-zur-legende/
@highend666  I presume this claim is based on your personal auditioning of every speaker on the planet.
Someone else who thought Magico were the best until he listened to the Spendor D9's !  He has a pair of Spendor D9's at this home now with.. Simaudio gear . 
 
 They sell Magico speakers too.
 
 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-AIiZ_0ytk&t
Maybe the Audiogon servers kept crashing a few weeks ago because someone revived this thread! Thanks for this post Prof.  Please share with the group some of your favorite synth albums please.
@prof : Hello, sir! First of all, thank you for the precious information you are sharing with the rest of us here, I find it really helpful especially considering the fact that your priorities (tone and timbre) match mine very well.
I was wondering, do you have an explanation for your contradictory experiences with the Spendor D series? Judging by some reports I’ve read, the D7 and the D9 are cut from the same sonic cloth. A cloth I didn’t find particularly appealing on the only occasion I’ve heard the D7’s. Was it because of the partnering equipment? (if so, what exactly were the D9’s synergizing so well with?)

As for the current Classic line, I was very very curious as well. I’ve recently had the chance to listen to a pair of Classic 100 paired with some lower end Naim gear but also with my own Audio Analogue Maestro Anniversary integrated amplifier and my own source and cables. A bit underwhelming to be honest, at least compared to my very high expectations. The highs were OK, not as refined as those of my Harbeth M30.2 Anniversaries (I compared them directly) but nice and not "too polite" as I’ve fount the highs of the Classic 1/2 described on another forum. The bass was big (the whole sound had the scale I was expecting from such large standmounts) but, surprisingly, not deep enough for my taste - strong enough until, I don’t know, 40 Hz or so and then it plummets. My old Mackie HR824 monitors, which should be a joke compared to these in terms of size, price and reputation, go obviously deeper. Also, the bass was not very tight.
The mids were their strongest point, sweet and musical with a natural, inner warmth that is unfortunately missing in my Harbeths. Because of this, the midrange piano notes were more natural, more convincing on the Spendors - piano is my favourite instrument as well as my main audiophile benchmark and I know the timbre very well, I grew up with a piano in house. Also, my Harbeths have a mild but audible dip in the presence region (the BBC dip I guess) that I’m not particularly found of - the Spendors don’t have it or maybe they do a little bit, but to a much smaller degree.

Overall, the sound was a bit unexciting I guess, to be honest I have a suspicion they were not totally burned in. The resolution could have been better too - the Harbeths were a bit better and my Martin Logans at home are in another world from this point of view.

Some Spendor A7 I’ve heard in another system though were really promising:: beautiful mids without a trace of a BBC dip as far as I could tell, silky and lively highs albeit a bit too pronounced, very nice upper bass detail, good timbre reproduction, good scale and bass extension considering their dimensions but ultimately trying too hard to descend where that 7 inch driver shouldn’t. This or it was the amplifier - a rather cheap Atoll I’ve never heard before or after so an unknown factor for me. If I were to move on from my electrostats, which I might eventually, I could live with some hypothetical improved A7’s with better bass extension, a bit better scale and, of course, higher resolution overall. Hence my interest in the D9 (.2) in spite of my discouraging D7 experience.
@donquichotte

Sorry, missed your post from a while back.

I think I just didn’t get along with the Spendor D7 tweeter or something.Other people have had the same impressions I did when listening to that speaker. I would like very much to hear the D9.2, though.
Thanks for the description of the Spendor Classic 100. Very interesting and I could "hear" what you meant through your writing.

I continue to be bedeviled by my little Spendor S3/5s, which I hooked up again a couple days ago. They do voices like no other speaker I own, and have a balance that is incredibly satisfying and "right" sounding to my ear, despite the lack of deep bass. Having heard many Harbeth speakers and owned the Harbeth SuperHL5 plus, I can see why some people prefer Spendor, and others the Harbeth. The Spendors have their own magic in the mids that makes everything gorgeous. And to me it doesn’t sound merely like prettified gorgeous, but conjuring some of the organic ease and silky tone I hear from live voices and instruments in real life.


They are hooked up to my Eico HF81 amp. This is because one of my Conrad Johnson Premier 12 monoblocks had to go in for repair.



I'm now sitting at about 7 feet from the Perspectives, with the speakers almost 9 feet apart.   This gives a wide-screen level soundstage, where everything feels more life-sized, yet the Perspectives maintain great center fill, solidity and image specificity.   What an amazing design!


However, as I just mentioned above, one of my CJ premier 12 mono blocks had to go in for repair.   After 22 years of me turning on the power switches with my foot (easier than bending down) one of them stopped working.



I'm borrowing a Bryston 4B from my pal until my CJ gets back from the shop.    It's been a long time since I bothered testing a solid state amp in my system.   (And I used to own a Bryston 4BST for a while, many years ago).  Usually what happens once I switch to solid state from the CJ is "wow...the clarity and precision!  The grip on the bass!  This sounds more accurate, more hi-fidelity!"   And I listen amazed for a while.  And then slowly I feel less inclined to listen.  The CJs go back in and it's like "aahhh, this is why I've stuck with these amps."


My pal who is something of a tube guy moved from audio research to using this Bryston (he went through one of his "I'm sick of tube amp hassles" phases), and he finally felt satisfied with solid state. 



I've been very curious to hear the Joseph Perspectives on solid state in my home as they performed amazing with solid state (Sim Moon mostly) in the store auditions.   The Joseph speakers have buttery smooth highs, so it's like they got the most out of solid state amplification - smoothness in the top end, power everywhere else.   So I'll see how this goes....
Prof, I will be curious to hear your findings as well. You and I have similar tastes in speakers. I am a long time Thiel owner and still use 3.6 and CS6.

I also have a love affair with the Devore 0/96 and JA Perspectives 2. I heard the JA’s at the Capitol Audio Fest last year - they were among best in show IMO. I spent alot of time with the O/96 a few years ago as well. The were using low powered tubes and my amps are big beefy mono SS - that has been my pause so for.

My current speaker path that I will eventually take subject to change is the following.  Although not sure I can get Thiel out of my system!

Orangutan 0/96
Devore Gibbon X
Joseph Audio Perspectives 2

Anyone heard the Gibbons?

pops,

I couldn't get the Thiel  out of my system, which is why I will not sell my Thiels :-)

I can find speakers that do this or that thing that I like a bit better, but nothing is quite as even-handed as the Thiels.

I wrote my impression of my brief listen to the Gibbon X in this thread.In a nutshell:  big sound, similar organic/vivid "woody" midrange as the O speakers, but more "standard" without the extra body, size and lushness as the O speakers.  Very clear, great soundstaging.   But in the set up I heard the bass was overbearing and not well controlled.  And it was in a fairly wide open room.

I found them promising.   The speaker I really want to hear are the Devore Super 9s!   Very close to the same size as my Josephs.



Well I threw the Bryston amp in to the system and since I had the little Spendors already set up, listening to them last night using my Eico tube amp, I listened via the Spendors.

The upshot is that initial listening indicates that I’m experiencing the same thing I always have putting SS in to my system: It helps re-enforce and clarify why I love my tube amps so much :-)
@prof 

This thread has been a very interesting read - and the journey continues!

I hear what you are saying about SS versus Tubed amp.  We own several great SS amps - and they do some nice things - but we always experience the same feeling of "home-coming" - almost relief, to be frank - when we return to tubes.

I wanted to ask which EICO amp model you are using?  How much power does it output?  And importantly, has it been able to drive your many speakers to satisfying volumes?

My own agenda, is finding suitable new speaker options for our 15W LEBEN CS300F.  That is to say that our (budget) KLIPSCH RP-160M speakers sound really great on 15W, but I'm always curious how more expensive speakers might fare.

sondeknz


I have the famous Eico HF-81 integrated tube amp.  This review was part of what made the HF-81 so coveted (although it was already well regarded):


https://www.stereophile.com/integratedamps/606eico/index.html


I had an SS amp fail on me at one point about 10 years ago and when I asked my pal if he had a spare amp he said "take this one, got it from a garbage but it's supposed to be a classic."   It was the Eico.  When I put it in the system I was astounded.   I couldn't believe how gorgeous the system sounded - huge, rich, vivid, organic, punchy.   I had to have one, so I got a nicely refurbished unit that I've owned since then.


The Eico HF-81 is just 14W per side.  But it's driven every speaker I've put in front of it, including even the notoriously inefficient MBLs (121 model).    I wasn't playing at super loud levels though.   Also, the Eico doesn't quite have the bass control of a better modern amp, so there is a bit of overhang.  However, this actually serves  to make most speakers actually sound bigger and deeper in the bass.   My Eico makes small speakers sound like bigger speakers!


So it's the kind of thing where if you are smitten enough with the midrange and highs of the Eico, and don't mind that your speaker (if it's a bigger speaker) won't quite show it's full bass prowess, then...yeah...the little Eico can sound great on many speakers.


Ultimately I use it now and again, but go back to my CJ premier 12s, which do the tube richness thing but with excellent power and control over any speaker.


The Leben amp sounded excellent with the Devore O/96s last I heard them.  Not the last word in tight bass, but wonderful sound overall.


@prof 

Fascinating.  Your comments about your EICO HF-81 could almost be overlaid upon my own review thoughts of our LEBEN CS300F.  But I must add that with the right speakers - a very big disclaimer, admittedly - the LEBEN is fast and staunch in the bass.

[ Our CS300F uses JAN6197 tubes in the output role; not EL84 tubes... So, I make these observations purely and specifically based upon long-term ownership of the LEBEN CS300F.  Please note that this may not apply to other CS300 models, as I have not heard them.]

Many thanks for the link to this Stereophile review of the EICO HF-81.  A great read.  I particularly appreciated the following statement in the review:

We know that recordings from the 1950s and '60s can sound spectacular. If the electronics gear back then could get so much into the recording, it makes sense that it can get it out on playback just as well.
-Peter Breuninger | Jul 2, 2006 | First Published: Jun 2, 2006
EICO HF-81 integrated amplifier review
STEREOPHILE

In support of the above, we have many of the original first runs of late 1950s/early 1960s  LPs on the EMI "Nipper" [Shaded Dogs], COLUMBIA STEREOPHONIC and DECCA FFSS labels etc. and there is no denying that engineers and technology of the day managed to get some of the best sonics (ever) on to those records.

So this insight speaks volumes - particularly as it relates to your little EICO HF-81 and (a few of) its ilk.

I remain very grateful that you are prepared to share the results of your many speaker test-drives, as they relate to your current amp in service.  Appreciated.

Sorry to highjack your excellent speaker thread with this diversion.

So back to the speaker hunt...!
pops,I couldn't get the Thiel out of my system, which is why I will not sell my Thiels :-)

I can find speakers that do this or that thing that I like a bit better, but nothing is quite as even-handed as the Thiels.

I wrote my impression of my brief listen to the Gibbon X in this thread.In a nutshell: big sound, similar organic/vivid "woody" midrange as the O speakers, but more "standard" without the extra body, size and lushness as the O speakers. Very clear, great soundstaging.   But in the set up I heard the bass was overbearing and not well controlled. And it was in a fairly wide open room.

I found them promising.   The speaker I really want to hear are the Devore Super 9s!   Very close to the same size as my Josephs.

Thanks prof - reread your post.  I would love to hear the Gibbons but still leaning towards the O/96.  I have the room to experiment with placement and the price isn’t life changing.  


And I can always slip the Thiels back in because like you will never sell them.  Thanks for. a great thread.


@prof : I see what you mean regarding the D7 tweeter, I didn't like it very much either but it could very well have been the cables, the insufficient burn in etc. What surprised me was the fact that you did like the D9 - and they have the same tweeter. This is what I was inquiring about, why such opposite reactions to allegedly similar sounding speakers?

The D7s were burned in.    I heard the A7s and they had a similar off-putting top end.
I never auditioned the D9s, only heard them very briefly at a show.  They simply made a quick impression on me of a vivid, realistic sound playing some Jazz/R&B.   So I really wasn't in a position to take stock of how they sounded with familiar music.
prof
Nice job! on this thread. You hold an affinity for Loudspeakers as I do for Cabling.
Happy Listening!
A Tale Of Two Amps:

Well. That was quick.
As I mentioned I was lent a new Bryston 4B3 amp from a friend while one of my Conrad Johnson monoblocks was being fixed. First time in years that I put a SS amp back in to the main system. I used to own a Bryston 4BST for a while, many years ago, along with my CJ. But it was mostly to have a SS reference when I used to do some speaker reviews. I always preferred the CJs.

In went the Bryston and even on the little Spendors I immediately recognized "that sound." Solid state, especially the sound I used to hear from my Bryston amp.


"Tight" and "Taught" were the words that immediately came to mind."Squeezed" was another. Bass was firmly in grip, every instrument and voice had excellent solid presence in the soundfield. Buzzing with energy and snap. The scrappy surf guitar parts on B-52s (vinyl) were clean and snappy. Rhythm guitar parts had solidity and energy. This was somewhat promising because if there are any nits to pick with the Joseph Speakers in my system, it’s that from the upper mids upward they can be a bit polite, dynamically. Rock certainly rocks and they are dynamic, but my Thiels are more solid from top to bottom. So I was curious about a beefy SS amp on the Josephs.


But still sticking with the Spendors, things I noticed were: the speakers sounded smaller. As if all the energy I’m used to hearing in the bass was tightened and pulled upwards, like putting a girdle on. So it’s like I became acutely aware of a distinct cut off point for the bass frequencies, almost like I could see it as an invisible line appearing just beneath the speakers. "No bass below here."



Similarly, the highs were a bit darkened, losing that slight golden airy open glow from the CJs. So, on top, I felt another "line" appear "highs stop here!" Thus I felt like I was "viewing" the sound through a narrower band.

I can only surmise this was due to the Bryston putting on a show of control over the speakers. No letting their hair down when Capn’ Bryston is on deck.


So the result was a more taught, tight, bouncy, transient-oriented sound.Every instrument sqeezed by the grip of the Bryston in to a slightly smaller space in the soundstage. Though the speakers still disappeared and soundstaged with precision, it didn’t feel as relaxed and natural in doing so.

Voices, usually peerless on the Spendors, still sounded good, but to my surprise some of the magic "wow that’s a human being singing right there!" was missing. Voices sounded just harder and tighter, smaller, more obviously a recording.

And though I listened for a little while with fascination, it was harder for me to get in to the music. I recognized that sort of "tense" sound that I perceive in typical solid state driven systems vs what I’m used to at home. It was kind of freaking me out that I wasn’t enjoying the Spendors nearly as much as normal, so I switched the Bryston on to the Joseph Perspectives.


The Josephs are so suave, so grain free and relaxed, and they disappear so effortlessly, that they didn’t immediately shout "solid state!" with the Bryston. I did notice, again, a particularly solid, tight, punchy feel for the bass, very focused. And guitar parts did take on an added bit of solidity.But as I played more familiar tracks, the SS nature of the sound became more clear. One of my favorite all time albums, Everything But The Girl Amplified Heart, has tracks were distant string sections gently well up in to the song. Here they sounded less beautiful, more grey and steely.The vocals sounded harder, more processed, more electronic in the sibilance.


I put on an Italian movie soundtrack that I was listening to just before my CJ died - lots of jazzy funky drumming with surprising horns, vocals, piano, strings etc.


The drums were solid with nice kick, snare had pop but not as much as I was expecting..in fact the tonality seemed less "real" than I’m used to, a little too dark. The high hat work though was very vivid and metallic and convincing. The most realistic high hat I’d heard on the system.


Then came a part where some luscious strings, distant though very vividly textured, usually appear swelling in from the background, like appearing from behind a curtain. Usually this part just makes me melt it’s so beautiful. But...huh? The strings appeared but not in that uprising tonally gorgeous way. More gray, suppressed, sitting back.The "moment" didn’t happen. Yikes.


Then I threw on my new CD, a re-recording of the Conan The Barbarian soundtrack, which has a massive, roaring overture with tons of kettle drums rumbling under your feet. This blew me away when I got it a few weeks ago. Powered by the Bryston, on either the Spendors or the Josephs, the sound was...well...very good but "where is that awe?"What the Bryston did superbly in my system, when it’s precision and grip really paid dividends, was on separating all the instrumental parts especially in the lower mids/upper bass, the power region of the string and lower horn sections. The lines being played by the many different horn sections have never been so clearly rendered. That was really impressive!


But I found it just didn’t sound as beautiful and real and natural as I remembered.


Anyway, I was able to get my CJ back from repair today and fired them back up. Started with the Spendors. And....


Oh...my....goodness! There it was! I’m NOT crazy! I WAS missing this.


The sound was huge, rich, vivid yet relaxed, energetic but not pushy or tense in the least. The speakers just seemed to disappear more. The bass was richer and fuller, the top glowed a bit more. Now the "top" and "bottom" opened up so I was no longer aware of some hard stopping/starting points in the frequency range so the "small speaker" effect was much less pronounced.


And...voices! They were back! Now the Spendors were doing that magic - the softness, roundness and richness with voices that made them sound human. Acoustic guitars, drum cymbals, had a luxurious golden harmonic sparkle.


Keep in mind, I’m going all audiophile in these descriptions. To the average Joe this may seem like subtle stuff, but the way the sound seemed to expand to fill virtually all my "button pushing" criteria had a profound effect. I could slip in to the sensation of hearing the performer, rather than a recording, in a way that I just couldn’t with the Bryston.


I’ve done this comparison many times over the years and it’s always the same. Every time I own, or borrow, a solid state amp I have a hard time sitting in front of my system to listen for very long. It’s like "Yeah, that’s neat...but time to do something else and I’ll just crank it for background music." But with the CJs powering speakers, I’m entranced. It’s luxurious, it does just what I want a high end system to do to keep me in my seat.


So, yup, yet another confirmation I’m a tube amp guy and love those darned CJ Premier 12s!


(And in no way would I suggest the CJs are some "ultimate" amp. They are like a 25 year old design, maybe older. And no doubt all sorts of attributes can be surpassed by other amps. But they still hold up damned well and have a certain sound that I can’t seem to give up).


Cheerio!


Nice analysis Prof - isn’t it amazing how we make a change to our system knowing the outcome but still doing it for confirmation!

I’ve always had CJ preamps in my system but never amps due to Thiels needing juice although you and many others have had success with tube amps.

Have you heard any of the latest CJ tube amps, most notabley the 60 or 120? I’ve heard the ART series at shows with Kharma speakers but too rich for my blood.
This continues to be a great post Prof.  I moved from Thiel 2.4 to the Spendor D9 a little over a year ago.  Both the Thiels and the D9 are extended on top but capable of becoming bright...  My system addressed those propensities with a tube preamp (VAC) and an Ayre poweramp (VX5/20). This combination allows the Spendors to have a presentation that is relaxed and extended with beautiful treble extension.  I believe I will always have some tubes in the signal path.

Thanks for reading.   This thread is sort of like a "get it off my chest" for any thoughts or continued experiences I'm having.


Speaking of such things:   With the Joseph Perspectives powered up I was playing some loud, thrashing Duran Duran.   The sound was absolutely huge, giant life-sized kick drums and bass, massive spacious image.


But I did something I normally do with every speaker, even ones I audition, which is feel the cabinet when some meaty bass was being produced.  Just out of curiosity to see how much the cabinet is singing along with the music.  Even my Thiels, which have a well braced cabinet, can be easily felt to vibrate with bass frequencies.   I'd never felt the Josephs because, I think, their finish is so polished that they pick up fingerprints easily.  But putting my hand to feel for vibrations with Duran Duran chugging away and I felt...nothing.  Like, literally, no vibration! 
It was fairly shocking because I'm not sure I've felt such an inert cabinet before.   And I guess I didn't expect it because the Josephs are a small speaker putting out big bass.


And sure, the Joseph literature on the Perspectives claim: "The acoustic design of the cabinet is very complex and rigid, with multiple bracing to keep the box as silent as possible. This structural rigidity translates into clarity and focus of the highest order. "


But I took it with a grain of salt until I actually felt it.  Wow!  No wonder they are so clean sounding from top to bottom.
Hey @prof , I finally heard the Spendor D9.2 this weekend. I too, was bothered by the top end on strings in particular - it was just strident and wiry at times. The speakers had 100 hours of them, so could have needed more time...and were on Levinson integrated which probably isn't the best match.

i thought they were beautiful speakers - and on a lot of music with guitars, male vocals, etc. sounded spectacular. the 9s soundstage really well, were very coherent, and disappeared. I also found the bass exceptionally taut, defined, with no overhang. But at the same time, I believe I now know why they typically show with Jadis at shows. As far as comparison to Devore (which I've owned before), couldn't help to think that they weren't as refined. But again, that could be the amp not the speaker. 
Keithr
Thanks for letting me know.
"strident and wiry" is exactly what I heard from the D7, and another A model in the Spendor line.   I'm a bit dubious that the .2 versions would have totally fixed this since it seemed the more forward sound is a deliberate choice in that Spendor design.

Then again, the Joseph Perspectives I own can also a bit hot on the top, depending on positioning.  However, even when positioned for the "brightest" sound, the highs are still liquid and smooth, not the slightly wiry/strident sound I heard in the Spendors. 
Great posts on this thread!  I'm a Joseph Audio dealer (as well as DeVore)....the Perspectives are fantastic speakers for sure!

@goldprintaudio

Thanks!

Geeze, you get to regularly hear among my top 2 speaker brands. Lucky you!

I still haven’t let go of the idea of owning the Devore O/96s. One reason I didn’t get them was I feel they need at least an 8 foot listening distance to cohere, and that was tough in my room. However I recently figured out that I could in fact achieve that listening distance, so they are back in the running.

I realize I have a bunch of stuff I can sell (e.g. I don’t think I’ll ever get around to using my subwoofers and associated equipment).

I still feel like I need more than one speaker around - I like to switch to keep things fresh so I still have the Thiel 2.7s. I figured it was the Thiels that I’d keep permanently as my touchstone speaker. However, the Joseph speakers are starting to become my reference. If I could get an in-home trial of the Devores it could convince me to sell my Thiels as well to afford the Devores. Anyway, that’s just dreaming for now.




@prof 

It is extremely fun having both Joseph and DeVore as lines I'm able to sell.  I absolutely love both of them (and it helps that Jeff Joseph and John DeVore are all around great guys as well).

Funny enough, I was actually also a Thiel dealer up until their unfortunate ending.....so I'm fairly familiar with your 2.7s.

The 0/96s really are a nice speaker.  With a little playing around on the placement side, you can get them to sound quite good an distances less than 8ft, but that is a good general distance to start with (I run them right around 9' away in my demo area).

@goldprintaudio


Interesting about getting a closer listening distance out of the Devores.I really tried several times both with the 96 and 93s during auditions, altering listening position, changing position/toe in of speakers etc, and every time I got under 8 feet the sound would darken somewhat, lose some snap, image less well, etc.



Yet I note that one reviewer of the 93 said he ended up 5.5 feet from the 93s!


I think someone once mentioned that you can play with angling the O series speakers for closer placement (e.g. something under the front, to angle it a bit back?). Is there any particular solution you’ve found?


The O/96 seem to need a good size room/breathing space around them. My room is 15’ deep and 13’ wide, though with good acoustic treatment and a wide room opening to the side in to a hallway. My speakers are typically pulled around 4 feet out from the back wall. Thus far I haven’t had any bass problems with a floorstanding speaker in the room, so I’d hope the O/96 could work.

I’m loving the Joseph speakers for their combo of relaxed resolution and vividness.

But I also love the type of warmth, body and textural presence of the Devores. (I get a tiny version of that from my Spendor S3/5s)


BTW, what was your opinion of the Thiels?
4' out would be fine for the 96s.

Most of the folks running 93s and 96s at closer ranges do have them toed in a bit.
I do yoga in my room with the O/93's, and so I listen at all positions. I find them pretty engaging 3 feet into the room and 5-6 feet away.  This distance probably removes some of the room reflections from the equation.  They do like to be pulled from the corner- for my tastes anyway.  Outstanding speaker.

Thanks for the input bjesien!
Sounds promising.
Agree the O/93s are a wonderful speaker.   Unique sounding (except for the bigger version of course).

The Devore O/96 just got a rave review in the April issue of Hi-Fi News.  10 out of 10 (paired with Jadis amps).   It's funny how long it took for the english press to get hold of these speakers!

Also, in a brief bio/interview with John Devore it turns out he's working on an updated version of the O/96 using "trickle-down" technology from the O Reference speakers.  The working name of the new speaker is the O/Bronze.

Some of the O Reference components moving down in to the  O/Bronze will be the cast bronze woofer basket and horn for the tweeter and super tweeter, and some "new stuff going on inside the cabinet."

I find that very exciting, though l'm expecting it to be priced beyond my means. 


I still have a jones for the Devore O/96 and I'm selling off a bunch of hi-fi stuff I haven't been using.  If I accrue enough money to buy new O/96s I would do an in-home audition first.  


Though other areas I may put the money in to would be upgrading the Joseph Perspectives to the graphene version (unfortunately, now the upgrade is more expensive than it was when originally offered), and I've toyed with upgrading to a Conrad Johnson Art amps.

thanks - will have to check that one out. its been out for 7 years lol.

the Super O/96 was rumored to be $25k but no idea now with materials costs.

you might check out the Fyne 703 locally. seems up your alley.