Egglestonworks Andra original versus Andra-II

I just recently purchased a pair of Andra-II's after having owned original Andra's for about 8 years and I was wondering what other owners of both versions opinion are in regards to the sound quality in between the speakers. I loved my original Andra's and got frustated at times due to the lack of mid-bass/bass response but loved the midrange and top end. I impressed with the improved bass performance of the Andra-II but feel that something of the magic in the midrange is lost. Any thoughts on this ?
Is everything else exactly the same, or did something(s) change? Aren't the II's a little bit taller? 3 or 4"?
No personal experience but a prior owner told me that the midrange on the original was direct connected, no crossover between you and the music. The company was subsequently sold and the new owners redesigned, and while achieving better bass response lost some of that mid-range magic. This mimics exactly what you hear, but as I say this was related to me by someone who owned and appreciated the design of the original. Can anyone chime in to set the record straight as this speaker line has interested me and it's always a question as to whether version II is an improvement or just different?
I am also interested, if only because I had the opportunity to listen to the original Andra many times. Its direct connected midrange had the most natural reproduction I had heard, and I have been in this audio business since the late 1960s. It ran rings around the then-famoust B&W 802, but its bass was really lacking. I haven't listened to the Andra II.
To answer Myraj. Yes, everything is the same even the height is the same since I used the matching Andra 7" inch stands with my original Andra's which made identical in height and almost identical in overall looks to the Andra-II's.
Jpp59 wrote: "I loved my original Andra's and got frustated at times due to the lack of mid-bass/bass response but loved the midrange and top end. I impressed with the improved bass performance of the Andra-II but feel that something of the magic in the midrange is lost."

And it's abosolutely right. A hint of the differences betweern original Andras and Andras II can be observed by watching at their frequency response curves as published by Stereophile magazine at both Andras' reviews.

The first Andras have a somewhat elevated treble response on axis that is missing in Andras II. Also Andras II go deeper and stronger at lower bass making up for a bass-tilted illusion balance.

Besides all this there's the fact of adding crossover components to mid range drivers which is usually related to a slightly decrease in volume output of the involved drivers.

Of course one can always try removing or bypassing mid-range crossover components and compare resulting speaker "voice" with the crossovered scenario.

Andras are the most "musicians-playing-in-front-of-you" experience producing speakers to my ears.

Happy listening.

I was in the mood for some new speakers and spoke with several very knowledgeable people about the andra I's and II's. I got differing opinions in regards to what was actually the better speaker. I did end up getting some II's and I must say am pretty impressed so far.

In the past I have had watt puppy 6's, 7's and Sophias as well as a host of others. I guess the vast majority of speakers out there in these price ranges are pretty good and there are plus's and minus's with all of them.
I have the Eggleston Rosa. I'm curious, how would you describe the differences between the Andra II and the WP7 and Sophia 1? Thanks you for any information you can share.
I do own the original Andra and I have listened to Andra II
many times,my two friends sold their Andra IIs and bought
the original.I like the original they are more quick,I like
their bass.the secret is use tube amps,tube cd player,right
now I hooked up the 550K MF supercharger with my tube amps with great result,bass is not lacking anymore.
Jpp59, Probably the answers you will get will depend on which version we own.

Actually, the JL Sub matches very well with the Andra 2 and with its high Gloss black looks like they came as a set.
Th JL would probably help the Andra 1.

Mpit, I listened to the Wilson 8, 7, 6.
They are all no where near the Andra's in midrange quality where most of the music is.
The Watt Puppys have a upper midrange lower treble that is offensive to my ears. That being said , I think the Andras could use a little high end sparkle. I will be demoing some super tweeters soon.
I have a had a good listen over the last 24 hours and am getting pretty impressed with the andras. I am not real good at describing differences but i will give it a try

The wattpuppy 7's very very hard to tame from time to time on certain recordings. They could get very bright and actualy hurt your ears at high volume. I did try several new balanced cables which did help a little bit.

The egglestons seem to have a better, rich sounding bass and also seem to have a wider soundstage presence. You kinda forget your listening to speakers and the sound is very realistic and you really don't even try to pinpoint where the sound is coming from, which is nice as you seem to just relax and listen to the music.

I did enjoy all of the Wilsons but if i had to choose right now id say the andras are the best ive had so far! But that may change over time.

When i first hooked up the andras I thought they sounced kinda flat in the high end but when i went into setup and changed it to full range rather than limited it brightened right up. I always thought when they were set at limited it jsut affeceted the bottom end but it surely made a big difference on the high end as well.

I jsut sold some Merlins and I think the highs are very similar to them. I also have a merlin center which seems to work well with the andras.

The reason i had the speaker setting on the Krell hts at limited is becaue in that mode with the sophias and the 2 jl audio 113 subs there was a night and day difference in the bass. In the full range setting it really had no special bass at all but in the limited setting it just seems to come alive, which is what my installer expected they would sound like.
Howdy folks. Just thought I would mention something that may be of interest. I own a pair of original Andra 1's (circa 2007). Just an FYI for some folks out there, a friend of mine who had borrowed my Andras for an extended period of time (secondary to my divorce and apartment move) owned and used a Cary tube amp with them and, using a spectral analyzer, discovered a suckout at around 40hz in his room. I brought my Spectral DMA90 over and, voila!, no more suckout and damn near flat frequency response in his room; presence in the very low 30's/high 20k (and the best his system had ever sounded, IMHO). Point: room and associated equipment are always going to be a factor. And, many times, I wonder if some have EVER heard real (ie; live) music. I used to practically live at Cincinnati Music Hall, and studied violin at CCM. I make no claim to *expert power* here, I simply point out the importance of one becoming personally acquainted with live music as a basis for comparison in the pursuit of the "hi-end". In short, I am not sure that some have much understanding about such elements as pitch coherence and associated transient speed, and the true "weight" (if you will) of the lower octaves, especially with acoustic instruments. An acoustic bass (or bass drum, for that matter), for example, is not like Hemmingway trying to knock you out....not like a shot in the gut. With my equipment and my room, the Andra 1's are not in any way lacking in the bass (two 12" Dynaudio's can, and should DO the trick. I can literally hear the skin of the bass drum "settle" after it is percussed in naturally rythmic waves on a good recording). I have suspicion that the controversy about the oft mentioned lack of bass response in the Andra 1's (w/no crossover in the mid-range, which I think was crucial for the Andra 1's rave when they were initially released and a design flaw in the 2's. Afterall, the music "lives" in the mid-band) is related to room and associated equipment. Just my two cents, for what it is worth. FYI: I am running a PS Audio PW Transport, matching PS audio PW DAC (via HDMI interface), Spectral DMA90, MIT MH 770's bi-wire twin CVT's, and MIT MI-350 reference interconnects, with Townshend Audio seismic sinks and Chang Lightspeed powerline filters. And, one last FYI, I do listen to other music that has electronic/amplfied bass, everything from well recorded rock, to the insanity of Massive attack, Radiohead, PJ Harvey, and Portishead, to name a few. Thanks for reading and happy listening.
the 2's were designed for more/better bass and to get the woofers off the floor.
a crossover was added to smooth the response in the bass to mid-bass transition. i owned both and most owners that did the upgrade are VERY happy they did. as for any perceived problems with the treble response, an overwhelming majority of people love the tweeters in the andras. they lack harshness, and sound unfailingly neutral, even at higher volumes.
no speaker is perfect however, and i haven't heard the andra 3's which now have faster midrange drivers composed of carbon fiber. why a pair of 2's can't be upgraded AGAIN to incorporated better midranges is the next question on the horizon. If enough people ask Egglestonworks to offer this path they would probably do it (as long as they make some money in the process of course).
Many years ago I upgraded from andra one to andra two. I found the two to have simply too much bass for my apartment to the point where they were not listenable one some albums. I sold them. I was an early purchaser of the one and had liked them. I believe they have done different porting on the three to address the too much bass issue.