proac sound vs coincident sound

So do you like the Pro Resp. 2.5's? No fatigue there?
Smooth vocals? Would they work with high-quality solid state, if you have heard them with those amps?

Same question for the Studios.

Thanks a lot for any comments!

I have not heard the Response 2.5. The Studio 140's do sound great on vocals. Either would work with any solid state amp, though I have not heard them with one. I prefer tubes myself, and they are efficient enough to be paired with most tube amps. The Response series should be, too.

Hello,

I listened to the Proac Response 2.5 and Coincident Partial and Super Eclipse II.
Both hooked to Rogue Tube Mono-blocks. Pre-amps deferred (We tried Rogue, Canary, Joule-Electra, Shanling Solid State, etc).
These speakers represent two different house sounds:
Eril's description of Proac is bang on in my mind.
Very sweet and warm mid-range.
Slightly rolled off highs and not the tightest bass around (some tweaking can be done with the sponge that blocks the port and a powerful solid state will control it better but its basic character remains).
Probably typical British sound (easy on the ears, warm but slightly soft and not the fastest and most resolving).

The Coincident sounded much faster, more dynamic, extended on both ends, clearer, more resolving but more than anything: open and ambient (lots of air) at the expense of less mid range lushness/body and sweetness.
The Coincident is more tube friendly to say more efficient.

Which is better?
Personal preference and your room and gear of course.

Probably if both speakers' fortes could have been integrated in one set of speakers they would have been the cat's meow...

To my personal taste, I would want some happy medium and if forced to live with one or the other I would probably do the following:
Proac- I would try to match it with a 5751 tube based pre-amp which is sparkly, has a forward mid-range and very extended on both top and bottom, like a Joule-Electra LA-100 Mk III and a Bi-Polar based powerful Solid State amp (Bryston 4B, 7B Simaudio W5).
Coincident - I would go to tube only front end, preferably 300B (that is what they were designed to work with) to try to get more mid-range body while retaining the airiness and clarity.

To summarize:
They're both good speakers. Define your preferences and have a listen to both.

I've had the Proac D25 (similar to the 28, same drivers) with high quality SS amplification (Rowland concerto with PC-1) and the sound was definitely tilted up at the high end. I have had Harbeth here, and at least these D25's are NOT the 'english' sound, if Harbeth is what that sound is. That said, they do produce a nice soundstage and do very well for what they do. I put my Tyler's back in the system however, and breathed a sigh of relief. The Proac's were very 'hot' with my gear. Everyone seems to say tubes make the match. I would like to hope there was not that much difference between tubes and SS. I've heard McIntosh MA6900 and C22/MC240 combo, and the two sounded very similar with B&W speakers. Why a speaker (like Proac) would vary so much from one to another would be beyond my meager understanding of electronics. Lest anyone say that my amp is class 'D' and perhaps 'digital sounding', remember that the panel in the Absolute SOund that reviewed several Class 'D' amps found them lacking in output in the high treble range. Go figure...

Let's remember that we're talking about three different speakers here: the Response 2.5s, the D25s and the D28s. As an owner of the Responses, and in light of the posts above (I haven't heard the 25s or 28s), it's clear to me that the change of drivers has resulted--not surprisingly--in a change of acoustic character. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, that's up to your ears to say. But as an owner of older Celestions and older B&Ws, and perhaps a future owner of Harbeths or Spendors, I know where the Responses should be categorized.