2. speakers
  3. 1147808168

Ref. 3a , GMA & Tyler compare ?

Based on my last thread , I am taking your advise and looking for a monitor speaker for my small (10 X 11 ft.) room . The Ref 3a De Capo i, GMA Calisto and Tyler Linbrook Signature monitors have come up in my searches the most . I would like to know their different characteristics .
I will be using them in the nearfield , sometimes at low listening levels , sometimes at high levels and for long periods of time with various types of music . I would like the versatility of being able to use tubes or SS amps. It would be great if these could grow with my system as it matures and evolves .
All of you have been very helpful in the past and I am quite thankful .

Thank you .
saki70

Showing 2 responses by newbee

newbee
4,815 posts
 
Saki, I'm posting only because of a couple of comments above might mislead you. FWIW as I have no experience with either the DeCapos or the Calisto's and my experience with the Tylers is the Linbrook Signature 1 piece floor stander's - My point of comparison is the Quad 63's and Paragon Jubilee/Jem, both of which are very neutral and revealing systems.

The Tylers are a tad warmer thru the lower mid-range BUT the bass is tight and the mid-range/highs are very detailed/transparent without being bright.

Contrary to what Bombaywalla sez (and I don't note that he sez he has actually listened to Linbrooks) these speakers are NOT reminiscent of soft/mushy tube stuff from the 70's and 80's NOR are they made artificially bright to give a false impression of detail and transparency.

Note that Rubent is talking about totally different speakers. Different box and drivers. The Linbrooks are a meaningful upgrade from the Reference monitors. The Seas millenium tweeter makes a hugh difference, as does the MTM set up and increased mid-range bass response from having two drivers to cover.

As I said, FWIW.
newbee
4,815 posts
 
Bombaywalla,

Sorry I caused you offense, however I thought your statement about the Linbrooks implied that you had heard them and that you found them soft and warm - then tried to create an anology to tube amps from the 70's and 80's. I find it easy to avoid such ambiguity by simply saying right up front, as I did in this post, that I have or haven't listened to a speaker. There are too many folks commenting on stuff they have never heard, let alone hearing it under controlled circumstances where in reasonable conclusions could be drawn.

That you find the Calisto's not to be bright as described by Drsaid could be 1) that they are not bright, 2) that you have heard them with amplification which was carefully chosen to reveal them at their best, or that you heard them in a room for which they were carefully chosen, or far more likely you just like their sound and find that sound to be ideal.

Recommending them based on you personal opinion is fine as well, but IMHO drawing conclusions, whether or not you put a ? mark at the end of your sentence, about what the sound of another speaker may be, is not. It can easily lead folks astray.
More to discover