I'd love to hear the impressions of people who've actually spent some time with these speakers to share their sense of their plusses and minuses. Mapman here on Audiogon is a big fan, and has shared lots on them, but I'm wondering who else might be familiar with them.
Juicy Music BLueberry: output impedance 3.5K ohms, not as low as the Manley perhaps but will cost less (Juicy may be in process of closing up shop however)
FWIW my ARC sp16 output impedance is ~20K ohm and the input impedance of my A3CR amp is just over 30K ohm.
Input impedance of new BElCanto Ref 1000m Class D amps is over 300K I read.
Wyred 4 Sound Class Ds are 60K ohm I read.
Also, stock IcePower Class Ds are only 5K or so I think I read, not a great match for just any tube pre-amp.
Juicy Music Blueberry Line Stage specs:
* Gain:16dB * Frequency Response:-3dB 2Hz - 40kHz * Hum and Noise:85dB * THD:0.2% 20Hz - 20kHz ref. 2V out * Max Output:40Vrms into 47k ohms * Input Impedance:100k ohms * Output impedance:3.5k ohms
Spoke to Matt at Bel Canto today. He says that what's called for is a preamp with an impedance output of between 50 and 100 ohms. At least I have a ballpark figure to look at, now. Question is, is there a tube preamp like that, or will I need to go with SS? Any ideas?
Last night I was playing along with my bass to a Black Sabbath re-master of N.I.B from the ‘Symptom of the Universe; compilation. Before the Ohm’s, I didn’t really pay much attention to re-masters. With my Deftechs, recording or mastering quality didn’t matter all that much: they made everything sound OK. The Ohm’s are a different matter entirely. If the recording is crap, they seem to faithfully reproduce the crap.
Anyway, I find my old release of the first Black Sabbath CD un-listenable. So, I gave this version a shot. All I can say is that it reminded me of my days as a kid listening to vinyl on dadÂ’s Sansui stereo through old Wharfdale speakers. The sound was so full and rich, from Bill WardÂ’s drums to Geezers bass that I stopped playing along and just listened. But it was when I turned my back to the speakers that I noticed that the whole room seemed to by charged with the sound with an in-tact soundstage to my rear. No other speakers IÂ’ve owned have come even close to that kind of presentation.
Another re-master I whole-heartedly recommend is the new King Crimson ‘Red’ DVD-A re-master by Steve Wilson and Fripp.
The Ohm Micro-Walsh Talls continue to impress, as long as I have a decent source.
Next up IÂ’m considering a tube pre-amp. Probably next year after we move to Virginia. As usual, the recent subject of this thread has my attentionÂ…
Somebody has a Blue Circle BC21 on 'gon right now at a good price. I called BC and got Gilbert, the designer! (Gotta love small audio companies!) He told me that the impedance matching thing was often "bullsh*t" and that the BC21, with an output impedance of 2.2K ohms, would drive the Bel Canto and anything else I could throw at it.
BTW, it occurred to me later that Blue Circle markets the Penny, an Ohm CLS-based speaker.... so maybe that's a good omen. ;-) So, there you go.
Yeah... I saw on Audio Asylum a thread on "good preamps for the Bel Canto S300," which seemed to include some tube preamp suggestions, so I'll try and calm down, now.
The Unico sold in just over a day, so that bridge is burned... but it will fund the preamp, so I'm okay with it! :-)
Don't sweat it. There are lots of tube pre-amps with lowish OI. If you're nervous, compile a list and shop from it. (You might want to start with Quicksilver, they will drive anything.) Tube pre-amps with buffered output stages are sometimes designed with just this issue in mind, you can always look there. Finally, even though tubes may well be appealling, they are hardly a requirement. Why dismiss a good ss preamp? The Bel Canto instantly comes to mind!
On paper, that is true, but specs are only guidelines I think in any particular case you have to try it and see (or actually hear) how it compares to what you had.
Once you have good stuff to start with, upgrading becomes more of an experiment almost at first, and your Unico was a pretty nice piece from what I have read (I've considered buying one myself for my second system on occasion, same true of teh Bel Canto gear).
Yikes, I'm thinking maybe I made a mistake getting the Bel Canto!
It hasn't arrived yet, and I'm still looking for a tube preamp. But here's the rub: now I see that the Bel Canto S300 has an input impedance of "only" 10K ohms, and everybody seems to say that you'd want the output impedance of the preamp to be "much smaller" (whatever that means) than the input impedance of the power amp. I don't really understand any of this, but can somebody help me, here? Did I blow this purchase? (The folks over in the Amp forum haven't been all that much help, so I turn to you, my Ohm buddies...)
Another high current/poweramp option I have considered for quite a while to open up dynamics further with my OHM 5s in particular is the Musical Fidelity 550K SuperCharger. The price of these has come down quite a bit over the last year or so, as expected, and these are now an option I could try.
I like what I have read about these, but have not heard many testimonials from owners that have used them as "superchargers".
I like that these have their own separate power supplies in addition to the source amp they supercharge that might result in being able to draw more current than any other option I have looked at, which is good. I might be able to place these on a separate circuit in my basement for use with the OHM 5s only, which are really the only speaks I have that I think worth beefing up with more power at this point. The flip side is that these apparently provide a lot of current (100+ amps) but do not double well into 4 ohms compared to most other amps I have looked at.
Problems, problems. I guess I'll just stand pat for now.
In terms of utility, I think the Wyred Class D and MF 550K supercharger options are the ones I am most comfortable with at this point. I really do not want to have to deal with any humongous 100 lb monster sized amplifiers, which is one of the reasons I still am hesitant to change in that the A3CR is not too big and does sound really good as is. I am craving to hear what the big boy amps might do for dynamics overall though!
BTW, there is a Musical Fidelity A308CR amp up for sale here currently from a local seller for $1500 that I am strongly considering as a step up from my current A3CR. Wyred 4 Sound has a B stock st--1000 demo unit available also for about $1800 ($2000 list).
I'm open for thoughts on that if anybody has an opinion?
I think it has a lot to offer for that price and fits your needs well.
I heard one at a local dealer a while back. Did not get to listen long, but it sounded very good. I almost bought one for my second system to replace my Yamaha receiver, but decided to just add a tube dac there instead.
THe only hit against it generally is the power amp is not very beefy, but that is a non -issue for you with separate power amp.
If it didn't work out, you could resell easily without much loss also.
Rebbe, another "pre-amp" that popped into my mind that might be worth considering is the PeachTree Decco. These can be had for under $500. It is a well reviewed (low power) hybrid integrated with tube DAC actually, but I'm thinking (not sure though) it might be used as a pre-amp only if desired. You would use digital out from your CD player (assuming that exists also) into the Decco. Phono would connect same as any other pre-amp. IF my assumptions are true, themn this would be the least expensive "high end" pre-amp solution I can think of.
Now HERE'S an interesting possibility. Peachtree is selling refurbished Deccos for $499. My Music Hall CD 25.2 has a digital (TOSLINK) output and the Decco has a digital input, plus 2 analog inputs... that would make one for my outboard phono stage and one for my tuner. And yes, the Decco has stereo preamp outputs... in fact, I believe the Decco is being used by lots of "audiophile" types as a preamp, ignoring the power amp section altogether.
While a good SS preamp will probably sound quite good with the Bel Canto, I agree that tubes in your line stage might lend some welcome "body" to the overall Ohm/Bel Canto picture. If you can find an old Dynaco preamp (try for a PAS-4) that's not too noisy, it could be a cost effective solution for you. They sound very good, trade at reasonable prices (I've seen them offered below $500), and the simple circuitry/construction bodes well for the long haul.
Rebbi - I also vote tube preamp. My C-J PV-11 mates well with my Odyssey Audio SS power amp. You might be able to find a nice C-J PV-5, 6, 11 or 12 within your budget. Look for one with a phono stage if you can find it. The MM phono stage in my PV-11 is very good. Other brands in your price range, used, are Rogue, ARC, and Audible Illusions.
IMHO, if you can't afford something decent right now, buy a cheep SS pre used (NAD, Rotel, etc.) as a place holder, and sell it when you have more cash for a better tube preamp.
Rebbe, another "pre-amp" that popped into my mind that might be worth considering is the PeachTree Decco. These can be had for under $500. It is a well reviewed (low power) hybrid integrated with tube DAC actually, but I'm thinking (not sure though) it might be used as a pre-amp only if desired. You would use digital out from your CD player (assuming that exists also) into the Decco. Phono would connect same as any other pre-amp. IF my assumptions are true, themn this would be the least expensive "high end" pre-amp solution I can think of.
Rebbi, I concur with Mapman that you would do well to consider a tube preamp. VTL is one to look at. If one becomes available, a VTL 2.5 will be under $1k. Tubes have added a naturalness and "realness" to instruments in the jazz I listen to.
Juicy should come in well under $1000 especially since you already have the phono pre-amp. Juicy is a stylistic challenge for some, but the best bargain in a tube pre-amp that I know of.
The others will likely come in on the flip side of $1000 somewhere I would guess.
In your price range, I'd be careful about SS pre-amps given that you are used to the Unico hybrid integrated. The Classe pre-amps or the Musical FIdelity A3CR pre-amp were my two leading contenders, but I decided to try the tube pre-amp plunge and have not regretted it.
Oh, and Rebbi, I vote tube pre for you for certain. VTL, DHavilland, ARC or Juicy would be the ones I would look for .
You might want to pay special attention to pre-amp output impedance specs relative to the Bel Cant input impedance as a potential indicator of general compatibility for best sound. You want the pre output impedance to be a good bit lower than the amp input impedance in general.
REbbi, Nice move! I am very confident you will hear a difference.
3X power increase to hear a real difference based on power alne sounds about right.
My old Carver m4.0t amp that preceeded the MF A3CR was over 300 watts, about 3X that of the A3CR I replaced it with, but nt high current. It could shake the rafters at higher volumes, but was thin sounding at lower volumes. The A3CR cannot shake rafters at any volume, but sounds very solid at all volumes.
If you report back on the Bel CAnto positively, I may finally no longer be able to resist the urge to move back up to not just a more powerful but also juicier amp, Bel Canto or Wyred Class Ds, or bigger MF perhaps. I really do like the sound of the A3CR in my current system...it is hard to fault. More of the same would be just fine with me. Bryston is another possibility. The McCormack that Foster is using now is very appealing also but would cost a nice premium over the Class Ds I think.
I took the plunge! I'll be selling the Unico integrated amp on Audiogon and I bought a new-in-box Bel Canto S300 power amp here at a great price. :-)
By the way, John Strohbeen (I called today) said that his rule is "the more power the better, which is not the same as 'the louder the better.'" :-) He also said that in order to hear a real difference, he recommended tripling the wattage into 6 ohms from where you are now. So, in my case, with an amp that puts out 80 watts into 8 ohms, I'd want an amp that does around 240 watts into 6 ohms. The S300, at around 225 watts/channel at 6 ohms should do it.
Now I'll need a pre-amp in the $500 to $700 (used) range. Any suggestions regarding what I should be on the lookout for will be welcome. Tubes? SS? What do you think?
Bondmanp,
Ditto what others have said about the Walsh treble. I'm not sure exactly how many hours my 100's have on them, but after 6-8 months of ownership, they're really starting to bloom beautifully, and the highs sound anything but recessed... "just right" would be more like it. I'm very pleased!
It's difficult to compare the Walsh 5000's and Blue Circle solid state integrated with the 5000's and the McCormack DNA-500/ VTL preamp. The tube VTL preamp makes a difference in the presentation of the 5000 speakers. There is a new depth to the sound now, especially horns, and I listen to mostly classic jazz of the hard bop variety. My new setup has also taken away any high end grain I heard ocassionally with the BC integrated. In fact, I would say that the sound I hear now from the 5000's is the smoothest ever. So I will say that compared to the solid state Blue Circle integrated, the DNA-500, VTL 2.5 is more smooth in the upper mid range and highs but still very extended. The low end and mid bass too has more presence at higher and lower volumes, but the current and wattage of the DNA-500 should and does account for that. The affect of the Avalon parametric eq has to be taken into account also. I would say the DNA-500/VTL/ 5000 combination is not as crisp sounding as with the Blue Circle integrated I previoiusly used. The DNA-500/VTL combination provides more sonic weight and impact to the music however. That's as much of a comparsion as I can make.
Mapman, Mamboni, Foster: Thanks for the info. Just to be clear, I don't find the treble above 8kHz recessed, but rather the octave below 8kHz. If anything, the treble above 8kHz has a bit too much zing, with occasionally over-emphasized sibilants, especially on vocals. These may be a source material issue, however. I have toed-in the speakers slightly.
Power-wise, as I've mentioned, I think I am covered with my Odyssey Audio HT-3. I will eventually get to IC, speaker cable and power cord upgrades, but I've blown my budget for now.
It is encouraging to hear that the brightness range will develope as the speakers break in, so I will refrain from further comments on this aspect of the 2000s until more time has passed.
BTW, for those of you with uneven floors, like me, I spoke to the Sound Anchors folks yestersday. For about $280, they will custom make a pair of their cradle bases for my 2000s. These will have a 3-point adjustable spike arrangement, allowing me to get them perfectly level and hieght-even with each another. They even will make the sides of the cradle base low enough not to block the vent above the plinth on the 2000s. I know Ohm feels this kind of setup is not required for Ohm Walsh designs, but it's the only way to keep my 2000s from wobbling and keep them straight. I can't imagine they will do any harm.
Mapman, the DNA-500 is finally working out well. It would appear on paper that the 500 paired with the Walsh 5000 speakers would be an easy slam dunk. But we know that what's on paper is meaningless. I have still had to do plenty of experimentation to get the system sounding special. It actually has taken a power cord shuffle on the amp, and the addition of a top flight parametric equalizer that I've reconfigured several times. Getting the 5000 speakers to sing with force and power has not been easy (partly its the room). Finally, last night I was listening to a Horace Silver disc I recently purchased, "Paris Blues," and the beauty and refinement of this live recording hit me hard on an emotional level, really sounding incredible! I never felt anything like this before listening to music on any earlier rigs. Other guys have mentioned experiences like this, but I never experienced it before. The funny thing is I had the World Series on my TV with the sound turned down, but the game was almost irrelevant since "Paris Blues" was tearing me apart.
I find the treble on my Walsh 5000's to be clean, resolved and extended. But it will all depend on what's going on upstream. My expereience with the Walsh drivers has been that the highs can sound recessed if gear upstream does not match well and if your amp is lacking in current. The 5000's require current, watts, the right cables, you name it. I have been going through trial and error to dial in the sound. Now that it appears to be dialed in the supertweeter up top is the cleanest and most grain free of all the speakers I've had. These are super smooth in the top end but you can sure here the blat of trumpet or the grit in the reed of sax.
The Walsh woofer is deficient at the extreme ends of it's bandwidth until it is fully broken in. So before breakin, you will not get the extreme bottom end thundering bass. And the upper treble range from 4-8 khz will sound recessed. Rest assured, this range will become quite vivid and nuanced when the driver is fully broken in. My suggestion is to play lots of piano music - let a CD repeat at moderate levels overnight. This will break that woofer in nicely at the top end. Better yet, get a CD of Bach music and run that for 24 hours at moderate loudness - you will hear a difference!
"Once fully broken in, were the vocals from your Walsh's still very laid back? "
They are very neutral, not inherently bright or forward I would say, but I think it will depend on room, setup, electronics and other factors, but no, not inherently.
Break in will make a lot of difference in this regard, whether its the speaker breaking in or your ears adjusting to the new sound or a combo of both (most likely the case).
The OHM Walshes are inherently more laid back than forward sounding in general, but the vocals themselves are not relative to the rest. They are generally very clear and right there where they should be on my system.
Now the Walsh 5s are highly adjustable at the speaker, including presence/midrange, but I do not find myself using these much to compensate for anything.
The toe-out trick, exposing the tweeters somewhat more directly in fron of you main listening position, can always be used to brighten things up a bit as well if needed.
IC tweaks can also have a good effect if needed.
Tizzy cymbals should not occur in any case.
At locations well off axis from the tweeters, the top end will drop off but everything else should remain clear and highly coherent.
Lesser recordings in general will sound more laid back than others, I would say.
My co-worker/budding audiophile stopped by Monday evening. Unfortunately, his burned CD-R of his favorites wouldn't play, so we will try it again some evening. But we listened for a while to both the Vandersteen 1Cs and the Ohm Walsh 2000s. No question the Ohms were easier to listen to, if a bit less dynamic (still not broken in). Before he left, I hooked up the Vandy subs again. Just needed to feel that bass again.
I have two question for Ohm Walsh owners:
Once fully broken in, were the vocals from your Walsh's still very laid back?
Also, and I'd never thought I'd say this, I am bothered by the feeling that the 2000s are a bit recessed in the brightness range, 4-8kHz. This lends cymbals, for example, a more tizzy feel, and a less metalic feel. It seems as thought the Walsh driver rolls off too soon before it hands off to the tweeter at ~8kHz. Is this another burn-in issue, or is that a characteristic of the later Ohm Walsh designs with added tweeters?
I was listening to some R.E.M. last night. The electric guitar, while clear & clean as a bell, overpowered everything, especially the vocals. I could barely hear the vocals. I am sure it's a lousy recording, but the sense of being laid back was extreme. Also listened to Ani DiFranco - "Evolve" - on CD. Here, the laid back quality of the 2000s combined with the CD's in-yer-face mix to balance out very nicely. The horns on several tracks, intentionally set low in the mix, were very sweet and real sounding.
Yes, Parasound, the Vandy 2Wq subs run parallel to the mains, in a setup similar to REL. However, unlike the RELs, the Vandy does provide hi-pass filtering for your mains via an in-line filter between preamp and amp, and a compensating curve in the subs' built-in amp. A truly seemless blend, at least in my experience.
Again, you have a good point, Mapman. I have a Parasound 2205A, running 220 watts @ 8 ohms w/60 amps of current available. Could have something to do with the presentation I'm getting...
Accuracy may be part of it, but I don't think it is the whole story.
When I saw PT live a year or so back in a moderately small club venue, the sound was very loud, very clean and very in your face, the loudest concert I've been to where my ears did not hurt after wards.
I think Bondman hit it well when he described the effect of adding the sub as supplementing the "feel-it-in-your-gut" sensation.
I also suspect that moving up to a really big, juicy monster amp (250w/ch or more, doubling into 4 and 2 ohm) with the OHMs alone would have similar effect based on some accounts I have read on the web.
Ah, got it, Mapman. I still think that by 'laid back', you're referring to accuracy. I could be mistaken :P
Bondman, I'm really interested with your take on PT with your 2000's. I'm also very interested in the Vandy subs you have- I believe they run parallel to the mains. Eventually I'll be investing in a quality sub, although no time soon.
Don't get me wrong, the OHM Walshes do very well with heavy rock music. I'm just saying they are inherently laid back. ALong with that, they do not induce fatigue while listening which makes for very good extended listening sessions.
I'm just saying that I have heard PT's FOABP in particular on my OHM Ls in the same room. Ls are forward firing 3-way bookshelf designs and way more forward sounding at most all frequencies than Walshs. They also are clearly inferior with most kinds of music. But for that album, there was something different and likable there. Not necessarily even better, just different and likable.
I guess I will have to revisit PT CDs when the 2000s are fully broken in.
I removed the Vandy subs from the signal path to run the 2000s full range for a while. A brief listen to the Stereophile Test CD #2 was revealing. I was surprised by the low and mid bass extension and definition, clearly strong output to well below 40Hz, as demonstrated with the bass solo track, the organ piece, and the Corey Greenberg composition.
The phase test was also interesting. When the out-of-phase voice and instrument were in the right channel (along which I have a straight wall), the sound clearly came from way behind me to my right, over my shoulder. In the left channel, however, where the room opens up before the listening position, it still sounded "phase-y", but did not come from behind me.
Although the 2000s seem to do bass very well, they actually affirmed my impression of the Vandy subwoofers. The sonic character of the bass did not seem any different, except for a little less feel-it-in-your-gut sensation. This speaks well of both the Ohm 2000s and the Vandy 2Wq.
A co-worker that I am converting to an audiophile is stopping by tonight with some of his favorite recordings for a little listening and comparison between the Vandersteen 1Cs and Ohm Walh 2000s. Should be fun!
Mapman, it is rare that I disagree with you, but on this I must. My MWT's are, by far, the best 'heavy music' speakers I've ever owned.
Specifically, Porcupine Tree's musit 'hits' me at an emotional level I hadn't experienced before. When my wife askes why I seem to always listen to PT, my answer is that the Ohm's seem to have been made for that music in paricular. Especially on the keyboard and guitar work, they plain kick-but.
One more thought on OHM Walshes and Porcupine Tree.
One thing the omni OHM Walshes do not do inherently is "kick you in the face" when playing harder forms of rock music, as many more directional designs will.
Sometimes with harder forms of rock specifically, you want to be kicked in the face with the power of the music. The OHMs are capable of delivering power behind most any kind of music with right amplification, but they will always tend to be more laid back in presentation.
The other end of the speaker design spectrum in this regard are probably high efficiency and traditional directional design horn loaded speakers, like Klipsch and their ilk.
I do think I will acquire a pair of high efficiency horns just to experience the difference someday when I figure out a good way to fit them into my system, maybe as an alternative to the Dynaudios I currently use, if I can bring myself to part with those as well. Also, the room I use the DYns in is only 12X12 and has high WAF requirements, so options are limited.
I can see a pair of horn loaded speakers supplementing my OHMs but not replacing either pair at present. We'll see....
Rebbi, never heard it but it has good reviews and seems a viable candidate to run the 100s. Spec, vintage and cost wise, it is in the same ballpark as the Musical Fidelity A3CR I use. I think you would have to try it and see. If you do not overpay, you can always resell.
BTW, when I acquired the A3CR, I had no idea how well it would work and was totally prepared to resell and move up to more juice right away, mainly for the Walsh 5s, but whenever I listen on either 100s or 5s I just have not felt compelled to change.
Somebody's currently got a Bel Canto Design EVo 200.2 power amp on sale here for $650 OBO. It's got fabulous reviews all over the 'Net. What do you guys think of that as a foundation for use with the Ohm's? Hurry!!!!!!
Three point is fine. YOu just want stability however you accomplish it.
Bondman,
I had similar experience with limited dynamics on Porcupine Tree albums mainly FOABP early on with my new F-5s even in comparison with my old OHM Ls. BReak in and better amp matching definitely helped.
The PT tree albums I have heard on my system (Deadwing and FOABP) are a good acid test. These albums only sound best LOUD, IMO!
Rebbi - that's why I avoid my system on weekday mornings! And I also enjoy Sade a lot. Last night I listened to the standard CD of Pink Floyd's "Wish You were Here." I chose this specifically because it was nearly unlistenable on the Vandersteens. While it is obviously a poorly mastered CD, I really enjoyed listening to it. I followed that with Porcupine Tree (Prog-Rock theme-night), "In Absentia." Got to say I wasn't feeling it, but I was very tired by this point. It sounded very good, but something wasn't clicking; I was missing the emotional involvement I have experienced a few times with other music on my Ohms. I think this is a well-produced CD, maybe my expectations were too high. Anyway, the 2000s are surely not broken in yet, so I am not rushing to judgement.
Mapman - I agree that I should at least try some kind of base with spikes, but why square? Wouldn't a three-point spiked base work as well? That's what the Vandersteens use. My floor is very uneven, so adjustable-height spikes would be helpful. But unless I can find something cheap, this will have to wait a while.
My left speaker rocks a little... I can't tell if it's an inconsistency in the hardwood floor, or if the bottom plinth of the speaker isn't quite flat. In any case, a couple of judiciously placed, folded pieces of paper seems to do the trick.'
Bondmanp, I got to listen to some Sade on vinyl this morning: "Is It A Crime" and "War Of The Hearts." I was enchanted, especially by the latter. Don't know if it's that the speakers are finally really broken in, or if I've really nailed the placement thing, but man! The room was totally energized in that distinctive "Ohm way," I was hearing all this detail and depth. Enchanting is the best word I can come up with. I listened so long I was late for work. Oops!
"I actually look forward to sitting down and listening"
That's the acid test for anybody's system IMHO.
Effects of stability may be different with the vertical firing OHMs, but a square and solid foundation is always desirable IMHO. IT might take some fidgeting but should not be too hard to accomplish from my experience.
OK, the pads and shims came the other day. Although using these has made the 2000s much more stable, they are not rock solid. Interestingly, John Strohbeen has let me know that Walsh speakers, because they fire downwards, are not as sensitive to cabinet movement as conventional dynamic speakers. It does make sense, I suppose. The pads and shims did seem to improve transient attack sounds slightly. If I end up keeping the 2000s, I may experiment with some carpet spikes anyway.
BTW, over last weekend, I heard a six-figure analog system with well-known speakers that sell for over $30K/pr. I can't say if it was the speakers, room or electronics, but I don't think my modest system gives up very much to this mega-buck rig. Quite a feeling (that I chose not to share with the system's owner).
Listened to Lisa Loeb "Tails" on CD. Really beautiful overall. Again, listened to the whole CD (something I rarely did with the Vandys). I actually look forward to sitting down and listening - another new thing for me!
Starting to think that my Vandy subs are fine set right where they are. They're up in level a bit versus the Vandersteen 1Cs, but still blend seemlessly, and I enjoy the extra bass output on most things I have played. Jury still out on this one. I hope to try running the 2000s full range over the weekend. Stay tuned!
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
