Hi,
Not on my watch-- the EP's I've heard are frankly poor at best.
DesW |
The comparison with the Quads is probably quite a stretch IMHO. Quads were known to do a few things sonically that no speaker at any price or technology could match, period. The Emeralds on the other hand don't have the "no speaker at any price or technology" qualifier comparatively.
In terms of audiophiles who have bought the Emeralds, I know of no one who had a bank roll of $20K or more to spend on speakers and then subsequently saved a bundle by just buying the Emerald Physics. I DO know quite a few audiophiles who WISHED they had $20K plus to spend on speakers, could afford the Emeralds, bought them and are very happy with them indeed. What does this say? IMHO it says the Emerald are in the league of a just a handful of speakers that has their owners really in love with their performance to the point many are saying that other more expensive speakers (from other speaker companies) seem like a rip-off. Is this enough to qualify the Emerald as a speaker like the Quad though? |
No. Even today Quads are matched or bettered by very few loudspeakers in the midrange. Not to downplay the Emerald products, but if they were as remarkable as the Quads you would see a lot more press coverage. If you really like them, and only an audition will help you determine that, then buy them and be happy, because in the end it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks as long as they provide the music listening pleasure you seek. |
Ehider, this is an interesting perspective. You're probably referring to the CS.1. From what I've read, a number of people seem to think the CS.2 can't be beat by anything below $40K. If that is true, and suppose most audiophiles cannot afford anything below $40K, then the CS.2 is effectively doing something that no other speakers (these people can afford) is able to do...in this sense, the comparison with the Quad might make sense. There is no other speaker like that for most people given their budget.
One way or another, what I find interesting in your answer is that you seem to suggest EP is some sort of revolution in performance/price ratio -- like, you can buy and enjoy the equivalent of a Porsche at the price of a Corolla -- and that is remarkable. |
You've never heard the product, yet you claim it's revolutionary and remarkable. Are you really to be taken seriously? |
I am honest a honest guy: I prefaced the thread by saying that I did not hear it. that is why I asked other folks opinions. Had you read carefully my answer, you would have realized that I was commenting on Ehider's answer: you seem to suggest some sort of revolution.
Onhwy61, are you really to be taken seriously if you haven't even read what I said carefully? |
I've heard them in two seperate systems. In fact beside Magnepan 3.6's. They couldn't even begin to stack up against the Maggies. Too many claims are made in reference that their superior products ( several out there ) can compete and beat others costing 2,3,4, ..... times as much. If your own ears believe it then that's ALL that matters! I'm not one of those. JMHO |
I owned and used the Emerald Physics C-2's...I just had to try them in my own system in my own room before forming an opinion. So, IMO they are a very good speaker and an excellent value. I have owned several more expensive speakers that I prefer overall ($10k-$20k).
I currently have a pair of the KCS SEAS exotics ($3800)...because I had to hear these as well. I prefer these to the EP's in many ways and when paired with the Audiokinesis Swarm sub system ($2k) prefer them to almost any speaker I have owned regardless of price.
So I guess I'm saying the EP are very good speakers...great value... but they did not constitute a revolution for me.
BTW...I own and always will own a pair of well kept and proper original Quad 57's |
very nice speakers, but we'll have to check back with you in 40 years to verify if they were revolutionary. |
I accept the fact that you're honest, but I honestly don't take your statements that seriously. Along with the original AR turntable, the Altec VOTT and one or two others, the Quad 57 is a true landmark product. I don't see anything remotely suggesting that the Emerald Physics is or will be a member of that group. Over time my opinion will be proven right or wrong. Two things I am right about, today, is that you called the EPs revolutionary and characterized their performance as remarkable.
BTw, I too have never heard the Emerald Physics, but they appear to be a very interesting design that offers high value. |
Klangfilm and other companies made similar designs in the 40s 50s. Nothing at all revolutionary about this design. The only thing is using DSP to get bass out of the loudspeaker. Takes modern tech to do that but I prefer generating bass without DSP EQ. To me that's like a band aid. A way of making loudspeaker smaller more affordable. I would listen before you make such bold and wrong claims about this loudspeaker. Sure they can sound good but a proper designed compression horn system with tweeter and proper bass will sound much better but also will cost more. Does seem doing things right from the start costs more. But for the price the EP is a good deal. Not ground breaking best in world or any such nonsense but a well designed affordable loudspeaker. Weather you would like a EP in your system is all up to you. Your post did make me laugh so thanks for that. |
Onhwy61, with all due respect, you're still misrepresenting my statements. I did not say EP are revolutionary. I commented on the answer of another audiogoner, and said that his answer seems to suggest EP are revolutionary. There is a big difference between your characterization and what I actually said and meant. Again, since I believe that products like EP are likely to get negative reviews when they come out (most dealers do not carry them, most speaker companies would be in trouble if they were truly revolutionary) I just wanted to hear the opinion of people who had tried them and experienced them. That's all. |
Do you think the analogy is appropriate? Only time will tell whether this is a flash in the pan. There are very few products that stand the test of time. Since you profess an interest in excellent speakers, I'd suggest you try to find a speaker that is largely unchanged in a long time (say 30 years) and is still manufactured and yet still continues to sell at over $10K. That speaker will not be perfect but it might do a lot more things right than it does wrong. |
Shadorne, I like your suggestion a lot. In fact, I own a pair of Piquet-restored ESL 57, which are "only" 35 years old.
The purpose of my thread was precisely to find out if by being conservative as you suggest, I would have missed a major breakthrough. The hope when you post a question on audiogon is that you get answers from true audiophiles who have tried the product you're interested in, and you did not have a chance to try. The risk is that some of these audiophiles might have businesses on their own, and interests that contrast with an unbiased answer. I am not sure I got this kind of unbiased answer, but the majority of the answers seem to agree that EP are quite good, and quite a deal in terms of performance/price ratio. Whether you can call that revolutionary or not is a different story, and perhaps you're right: only time will tell.
That said, and independent on this thread, it would be very nice if there were two classes of Audiogoners: those with a business, and those who don't have a business. That way, when you get an answer you know how to weigh it. |
Shadorne, I like your suggestion a lot. In fact, I own a pair of Piquet-restored ESL 57, which are "only" 35 years old. Exactly my point, if it were still manufactured today then it would be truly revolutionary, as it is i t had a good run! Time will tell. |
