Quad 12L - well rounded and smooth sound
Quad 11L - if you can't afford their big brother
Totem Rainmaker - imaging kings
B&W 685 - front firing and good value
B&W CM1 - little speakers, big sound, and sound good next to wall
Era Design 5 - not quite up there with the B&W CM1, but what a beautiful cabinet!
Dynaudio Audience 42 - well rounded but like a lot of current
Usher S-520 - if you like the way they sound and look, a great bargain
If you like how the Rega's sound, don't worry about what the cones are made of. Wilson Audio, high end Ushers and many other makes use paper cone driver to very good effect, and at many times the price of the Regas. |
Oh, you're in Austin. That's where I first heard PrimaLuna tube amps and Dynaudio speakers together. The same shop also carries Triangle and Rega. You should be able to compare all three speaker brands in one place with your amp.
Audio Systems
1102 W Koenig Ln
Austin, TX 78756
(512) 451-5736
audiosystems.com
I would also go give the Totem Rainmakers and Arros and the B&W CM1's a listen if you get a chance. |
Dyanaudio Audience are great with the proper amp and placement as Mapman suggests. If you want more bass, you could look at the Audience 52, maybe used if you can find them.
Question Rebbi: did you see the Dynaudios at Audio Systems? They used to carry Triangle speakers, not sure if they still do? |
I have heard Triangles and compared them carefully to the Dynaudio Audience line - I clearly preferred the Dynaudios. Maybe it was due to cheap electronics (NAD separates) or the Triangles not being broken in yet. Dunno.
I have listened to the Totems several times and compared them directly to Epos and Naim speakers with Rega, Naim and Musical Fidelity electronics. I generally prefer the Totems, but it was very close in this contest.
I have heard the Devores and compared them to the budget Quads and Regas listening through Naim and Rega electronics and preferred them in this order: Devore, Quad (close second) and Rega. The Devores were a lot more money than the Quads (2x), so they better sound better.
I have not heard the Kudos or AVIs.
For how you described your tastes and needs, and how you described your listening experience, I would think that you would be very happy with the Totem Rainmakers. Or you might consider a used pair of Totem Arros (ususally around $700 - $800). I think they image even better than the Rainmakers if you have any space on your floor for a very slender box (speaking of Dianna Krall - she supposedly owns/owned a pair of these).
One last note - does anybody carry the B&W CM1's in your area? I love these little speakers too - although they may require more grunt to really make them sing. |
Rebbi,
Thanks for the reference. The TAS article notes the CM1 has a sensitivity of 84db. I have listened to them powered by a 50W/ch NAD amp (fairly lifeless and dull combination) and a 500W/ch Rotel switching amp, and the latter really got them up on a plane. For that reason, these may not be the best choice for your application. I suggest auditioning the CM1's through something similar to your PS Audio amplifier in terms of power and current and comparing that to a much higher power unit to see whether you would be under powering them at 70W. I think the Totem Rainmaker (87.5db) or Dynaudio Audience 42 (86db) might be a better match, even running at 4 ohms. Curious to hear your perspective after listening. |
If you are going to consider a jump up to the Silverline Prelude, then I heartily recommend the Totem Arro as a alternate slender floorstander in the same price category. The Arro is one of Totem's best sounding speakers, period. And it comes with a beautiful real wood veneer cabinet... And you might be able to find a pair used... |
Quad 21L version 1 are wonderful speakers and great bargain for the money in terms of sound quality and construction details. I have not heard but have read that the version two is even better than the version one in terms of improved detail, neutrality and stereo imaging. I recommend these speakers without reservation, particularly if the price is below $1000 (better hurry).
One note: they are not that tall but are 8" wide by 10" deep floor standing speakers if that matters for your application. One reason I mentioned the Arros is that they are a narrower tower. Both speakers are really fantastic - can't go wrong... |
I have heard the Ohms and they sound very different to me than the Arros. The Arros throw a coherent (perhaps even etched) sound field across a broad area, but instrument and voice placement are fairly precise within the sound stage. The Ohms on the other hand throw a more "natural" sound field that relies a lot on reflection and so is less "coherent" than the Arros. In fact, critically listening to the Ohms, I had a hard time pinpointing instrument placement in their sound field compared with most any dynamic loudspeaker I can think of.
I prefer the Arros' presentation, but because of their relative precision, I think they are less forgiving of electronics upstream than the Ohms. Comes down to a matter of choice. I have a close friend who loves his Ohms and has two different pairs (including the talls) as a part of his home entertainment system.
I would listen before you buy. |
|
Mapman wrote:
"I was wondering if you know whether the Ohms you heard were original (series 1 which first arrived in the early 80's), series 2, which I think started in the early-mid 90's through ~ 2005 or 2006, or series 3, which have only been available for a couple of years?"
Best answer I can give:
His main speakers are the Walsh 4, I believe, the really big ones from the 1980s. But, a few years ago he removed the CLS drivers and returned them to the factory for a "complete rebuild and upgrade" - whatever that means. So I cannot vouch for the actual model or vintage of these speakers. While the speakers themselves go down to the low 30s, being a bass hog, he has a giant SVS sub hooked up in the system and the pairing is really impressive for those instances when the program material dips into the 20s or below. But I digress...
He also has about 5 year old Micro Walsh Talls set up as his rear speakers for HT and multichannel audio duty. Their characteristic sound is not unlike their older and bigger brothers, but with less authority. These are all driven by fairly powerful Hafler and Dynaco amps with a Yamaha receiver serving as the processor/pre.
To elaborate on why I think the Ohm speakers might be more forgiving of what comes up stream, my friend and I have a running argument going about the efficacy of premium wires and digital sources (I am for, he is against), and have played around with different combinations on his system. Turns out I find that it is much more difficult to identify sound signatures of different ICs and front ends in his system than in my system that has modest but decent electronics and custom speakers with quality dynamic drivers in a sealed cabinet - about as far as you can get from the Ohm's presentation. I also find it easier to tell these differences in other dynamic speaker based systems compared with the Ohms.
Don't get me wrong his system and the Ohm-Walsh speakers sound terrific. But the Ohms always bounce the sound off everything - sometimes giving me the feeling I am hearing the sound reflected off two back walls, the one in the studio or concert hall and the one in the listening space. I guess I prefer greater pinpointing of instruments and their reflections in the recording space during play back. But again, to each their own. |
Jpaik,
Thanks for the link. It looks like the Morrison speakers use more conventional drivers to achieve the same general effect as the Ohms. Interesting that he is rather fixated on the poor "quality" of most "stereo" recordings - have to wonder if this is an explanation for why some (most?) recordings might sound a bit "incoherent" when reproduced on omni-directional speakers? Perhaps we live in an age where most recordings are designed to be reproduced through what Morrison calls "PA speakers". I would have to agree that the number of true stereo two mic recordings is probably a minuscule fraction of the total recordings made.
In addition, Morrison seems to agree with my friend who owns the Walsh Ohms that fancy cables are just a bunch of Who-Ha. Very interesting. Morrison also suggests a valid approach for double blind testing.
http://www.morrisonaudio.com/morrison_donsview.htm
Will have to try this sometime. |
Folks,
I just got kicked out of my office for some unscheduled "repairs" (don't ask) and went to the "Tune" HiFi shop down First Avenue here in Seattle who just happens to carry Totems. I took the opportunity to audition the new Music Hall Trio all-in-one system through a pair of Totem One Signature speakers. Even driven by a budget system, I have to say that these speakers image really, really well on almost any recording from dead center to fairly far off access. The Canadians (like Morrison and Vince Bruzesse of Totem) must have a lot of time during that long winter to perfect their speaker systems' ability to image, either omni-directional or standard dynamic speaker formats.
PS - the Music Hall Trio sounds pretty great for $1000 all-in. |
Rebbi,
Have fun with your new speakers - hope you have "access" to listening to your new Totems off "axis" ;) |
Rebbi,
You are welcome - my hobby, not a problem.
If and when you consider another amp, I suggest you look at the units described in this link:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1211126685&openusid&zzKnownothing&4&5#Knownothing
After recent listening sessions, I would also recommend the match to the your new CDP, the Music Hall a25.2, as a viable and less expensive alternative to the others. This amp will not provide the magic I hear in the PrimaLuna products (sweetness combined with abundant drive and definition), or the overwhelming PRAT of the Nait integrated amps. But it will provide hours of sour-note-free listening and will mate well with your new CDP. And for what, like $600 bucks???
Anyway, enjoy your new CDP and speakers. The warmer sound of the Music Hall CDP should compliment the PS Audio amp. Once you have given everything a couple hundred hours to run in, I think you will be very happy. |
Rebbi,
Can't offer much here. I am not crazy about the phono stage in my integrated amp, and am looking for an outboard replacement myself. Mapman's suggestion of the Bellari VP129 is one I am considering.
Reviews can be found here:
http://www.lpgear.com/Bellari_VP129.pdf
http://www.lpgear.com/TASBellari.pdf
I am also looking at solid state models from Creek, Rega, Pro-Ject and Cambridge, but the Bellari looks like the best bet. |
Rebbi,
Good to hear back from you. What a great move on the amplifier - I am pretty sure the Unico will be a great match for the Arros.
Mapman and others are right on with their advice about placement - when I first heard the Arros disappear into the room, they were three to four feet from the front wall and toed in a bit if I recall. before sweating further over exact placement, I would let them run for the prescribed 150 hours to allow the drivers to loosed up and provide most of what you are going to be hearing for the life of the speakers. I think added hours will provide more air around the hi end and more authority to the low end. Once they are broken in, I would add the suggested steel shot or sand to the cabinet and then move them around to get the optimal placement for imaging, bass reinforcement and WAF (sounds backwards, but you want the ballast in before determining final resting place).
As for wires - the Arro system I heard that sounded just terrific had Musical Fidelity electronics, Audioquest Diamondback interconnects and mid grade Audioquest speaker wires. This is funny because while I own Diamondbacks I do not think of them as the soundstage champs - resolution, precise instrument placement, tone and "air" yes. Soundstage breadth and depth, not terrible but not the best I have ever heard on mere mortal speakers. I think the Arros disappear so well, this was really not a problem, and they benefited from the positive virtues of the Diamondbacks. Unfortunately, these cables are no longer the bargain they were and have basically doubled in price over the last year. You might be able to find some used for under $100. I also use Audioquest Type 4 bulk speaker cables which sound really nice for $4/ft. Their sins are mostly of omission rather than coloring the sound one way or the other.
For a screaming deal on discontinued Audioquest products that should perform similar to the Diamondback and better than the Type 4 speaker wire, I would check out HCM Audio http://hcmaudio.com/hcm.asp where you can get both decent 1m interconnects and an 8ft. pair of speaker cables for under $150 total! It took a long time for my Type 4 cables to break in, but then I am running 30 ft. to each speaker(!)
There are many other wires out there that don't cost as much as your amp or speakers but will preform better than the old Monster cables - these are just a couple of modest suggestions.
Good luck and happy listening! |
The so called GBC is I think the bulk version of Audioquest Type 6 cable. Look here for user reviews and product info for both:
http://www.audioreview.com/cat/cables/speaker-cables/audioquest/type-6/PRD_116385_1584crx.aspx
http://www.audioreview.com/cat/cables/speaker-cables/audioquest/glc/PRD_124891_1584crx.aspx
http://whathifi.com/forums/p/2194/11916.aspx
http://www.avland.co.uk/audioquest/type6/type6.htm
Kimber 4VS and 4TC speaker cables are another very good deal (under $100 USD for 8ft. pair).
http://www.audioadvisor.com/products.asp?dept=26
If you are looking for a really reasonable route to well built but no nonsense cables that will probably perform better than your >20 year old Monsters for less than $70 for both 1m interconnects and terminated 8ft. speaker cables before shipping, try this site:
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/
Finally, when you are ready to suspend reality and invest up the cable ladder, The Cable Company (http://www.thecableco.com/) is a terrific place to purchase higher end cables because they carry many brands and let you try them before you buy. |
My guess, the XLO will be fine and probably similar to the Audio Quest Coral.
JPS is a great company. I think the Ultraconductors will provide a more sophisticated and airier upper end but will sacrifice some of the bass response you would get with the Audioquest GBC.
Nice thing about The Cable Company is they will let you try them before you buy them. I would try try their suggestions and compare to what you currently have. |
Rebbi,
Will be curious to hear of your results. The cables will need some time to settle in as well, at least ~100 hours of continuous play or so. With that said, you should notice a difference right away with improved resolution. |
Rebbi,
Hey - I would run the new ICs and speaker cables for a LONG TIME and then compare them to the Monster cables. I have both AudioQuest Diamondback ICs and Type 4 cables and found the ICs sounded great right away - and got better over time - sounding smoother, more detailed and providing more air than the Monsters I had been using. The Type 4 speaker cable on the other hand sounded awful when first installed compared to generic 14 gauge bulk cable I had been using, just dead, dead, dead. What a disappointment! I left them in to see if they would open up, and after a bunch of hours (months really of off and on listening) they did open up and now sound much better than the old generic cables and some stranded AQ cable I have in my HT system. Very natural and coherent with no hash or smearing that I can notice. This is why I recommended a long break-in period in previous post.
Moral here is wait and the hash should go away - and I found it took longer to warm up the AQ speaker cables than it did their ICs.
As for Power conditioners, I would be very careful about that, with all due respect to Mapman. I used one in my home system for a while, but I have very clean power in my house, and ultimately found that the power conditioner didn't change the noise floor but was "smoothing" out the sound by clipping the transient peaks off the music (BAD!). On the other hand, I have a cheaper system at work in a commercial building with lots of computers, florescent lights and other electrical "stuff". The power there is not so clean and so a power conditioner helps remove nasty hash and noise, making the presentation noticeably more musical.
Try before you buy a power conditioner if possible. |
Rebbi, You have a really decent system stem to stern now, and it is still really "new" for the most part. If you like the way it sounds, just wait. You are going to be listening to it some time in the future when everything has fully loosened up and burned in and your speaker placements are optimal, and you are just going to say "WOW!!!", and big smile will go across your face and you will be happy. For a while. Until you get the bug to try to make it even better... :-)
Mapman, I have learned a lot in this exchange. THANKS! |
Rebbi,
Did you try filling the chamber in the back with sand or kitty litter yet? |
Rebbi,
It is cool that you got some extra kick from the Arros by moving them around a bit.
I was thinking that if you want to try loading the speakers, you might want to do it before you settle on final position because it will affect how they sound in your room and you will probably have to go through the positioning process again anyway. Maybe there is no need to load - see below.
from the website:
"Mass Loading: All Totem columns work very well without any type of mass loading. However if stability is an issue or if there is a particular over emphasis in the bass in the room they are used in, then mass loading can be experimented with. Variables such as electronics, wiring and room dynamics play a definite role and therefore the option is there for your experimentation. One may use: clean dry sand,silica sand, dry particulate matter or non-odor kitty litter." |
Rebbi,
Check these out:
http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2004/09/audio-test-cd
http://www.soundstage.com/audiohell/audiohell200111.htm
I tried to follow Arve Bersvendsen's placement ratio recommendations for my room (first link) as it seemed the less complicated and more versatile of the various placement methods described, and it really improved the sound of my system in my room. I did the best to adhere to one of the recommended placement ratios that worked with my room shape and furniture placement, and then moved the speakers slightly from there and played with toe in to fine tune. You will know when you get it right because you will have an immediate "Now That's What I'm Talkin' About" moment.
I also found his test CD with 63 different tones useful to see where frequencies were dropping out or being enhanced. I even bought an inexpensive digital sound meter from Radio Shack to assist my ears in this exercise. Aside: it is remarkable the difference between these measurements taken 1m directly in front of the speaker baffle versus from your listening position. Even when the speakers are well placed and sounding good, the frequency response at my listening position is far less flat compared to right in front of the speaker itself!
This an inexact science at best, but careful placement can make a huge difference in overall system performance, your happiness, and the resultant longevity of gear in your listening room. :-) |
|
