Thanks for commenting about the Quads' limitations from an owners perspective. If you listen to chamber music and stay away from percussion, 20th century music, Mahler, Holtz, Stravinski, etc., then you'll be ok, and enthralled with the incredible midrange; however, just about anything by Mahler will crap them out, even with a sub, if you allow a realistic SPL, exceeding 100dB at the peaks.
I love them on certain things, but could never use them in my system with my listening preferences.
Dave |
Harbeths and Spendors would be my 1st choice for classical music, but then again, the Harbeths can go with all sort of music. |
DCstep, actually some people believe the right sub can solve the problem, but I never tried it (actually, I tried a Velodyne but had no luck). I've been recommended a couple of gradient subs, but my room is probably too small for that. If anyone was able to perfectly integrate a sub with the 57 we would probably have the best speaker ever... |
Integrating the subs is a big problem, IME; however, I concede that someone might be able to make it work.
Dave |
i can see the dipole route for chamber music but if you listen to a lot of large group or orchestra music, the "best" would be a truly full range speaker which is going to be large like an apogee full range. The big dunlavy's or duntech's get the detail in the mids better than anything i have heard. But, while some people find them stunning others find they are clinical. i like 'em all, from spendors to quads to dunlavy to apogee and maggies. I can only say that there is little way around a large speaker for symphonic music. |
I know lots of people like Sonus Faber for classical. A dealer near San Francisco compared Dynaudio Temptation with Sonus Faber Amati Homage driven by the same gears preferred Amati for classical while Temptation for rock and jazz. Overall, Amati (or most of the Sonus Faber) is exceptional with string music and if classical is all you listen you should consider Amati if budget allowed. Cremona & Guarneri are both very fine too.
However, I now like Usher BE-10/20 over Amati in string reproduction. This is high praise indeed since the Usher were driven by average electronics while Amati were driven by top end gears and Usher still came out more detail, lively, transparent, and engaging. |
Does anyone drive sonus or vienna speakers with mcintosh mc402 - how are the results? |
I think you should avoid metal tweeters like B&W style speakers use. |
MC402 appears to have a damping factor of 40. This may be too low for Vienna speakers. worth listening too. . . but I suspect result may be a little woolly. G. |
MC402 appears to have a damping factor of 40. This may be too low for Vienna speakers. worth listening too. . . but I suspect result may be a little woolly. G. ...but 40 is fairly high enough (I mean not a lot of difference between 40 and 400 damping factor, IMHO) - are the Vienna's generally an underdamped speaker design? |
Hi Musicnoise,
have you decided on a budget? I have read many of the opinions above and of course they swing many ways. From a Mackie PA to a quad electrostat...!
(by the way the mackie is very good as a PA. Their little studio active monitors are sweet too)
Box speakers are always going to give you problems though, and IMHO a bad place to start if listening to classical music only.
Many people have mentioned planars like Magnepan, Quad, Apogee etc including myself. All great, but Quads will give you problems with light bass and flat dynamics if listening to large scale works. Magnepan and Apogee will need a lot of power, but will give you beautiful bass, detail beyond your dreams and excellent soundstaging. In fact problably the closest to being in a concert hall experience for the money and maybe any money.
I also mentioned the Avantgarde Trio with bass horns. Very expensive but if you have the room and the cash, would probably end your search as they have an intimacy and dynamic contrast few can match and certainly would kill every speaker I know in palpability due to their high sensitivity. The cheaper models from Avantgarde are good too (Uno/Duo etc). Avantgarde are the kings of dynamics. They are utterly effortless and are almost as transparent as the planars mentioned above.
Many classical recordings are made using B&W 801d or 802d as monitors. A very good speaker but again needs lots of power to come to life and lots of money to buy. I have used them tri amped with 1,200watts/channel.
To help you we really need to know the size of room and your budget otherwise you will be getting all sorts of advice that is useless.
If you have very little budget buy an old Magnepan. They wont let you down (Not too old though!).
Good luck |
06-09-08: Chadeffect said:
"Box speakers are always going to give you problems though, and IMHO a bad place to start if listening to classical music only."
Lot's of us disagree with your opinion here.
Later you mention B&W 801 and 802s somewhat favorably. Is that not a "box speaker"? Anyway, many of us think that floor-standing, three-way speakers are the logical place to start for high quality, highly dynamic, full range sound for classical music reproduction.
People that can't afford the three-ways should consider two-way, stand-mounted mini-monitors, IMHO, and accept the compromise in low frequency response.
Dave |
I'm thinking one of the keys to a good speaker for classical is that they are "fast" and able to keep up with all the details inherent in large scale classical recordings, symphonic or orchestral recordings in particular. Rigidity is another factor.
Planars and electrostats probably have an inherent advantage in regards to speed and rigidity, but I have heard "box" speakers that are fast and detailed as well, though the fact is that many box designs are not, so you may have to be more careful.
The Triangle speakers I have heard come to mind as a good example of a fast box speaker design. The material used in the cone of the bass driver is a key factor as I understand it. Lighter materials are inherently faster and more re-active.
I think the polymer woofers used in many B&W bass drivers and the paper cones used in Triangles are representative of the two ends of the spectrum in regards to the physical properties inherent in bass driver cone materials. Paper drivers can be lightweight and fast, as in Triangles. Polymer is not perhaps as light weight but perhaps more rigid? |
Lighter materials are inherently faster and more re-active Inuitively it would seem that way. However materials need to be rigid as well. In order to make something light and rigid at the same time you end up with something that "rings like a bell" - i.e. your speakers make their own music which is applied over top of the signal that they are fed. Often a damped design such as a paper cone or fabric dome tweeter can provide just enough rigidity to be fast(especially when properly supported through appropriate voice coil sizing and cone shape). The advantage of pulp paper and doped fabrics is that they are internally damped and dissipate the "ringing" rapidly...this will make them sound even faster than rigid marterials as you get that sharp transient and nothing more. A less rigid damped paper woofer or woven fabric cone tends to require a larger diameter voice coil to give it better support. In the case of a fabric tweeter the 25 mm voice coil is sufficient as it couples to the edge of the dome but larger diameter voice coils get expensive in order to achieve a decent Xmax. Rigid lightweight drivers allow the use a small diameter voice coil on a large woofer with the principle advantage of lower cost, high efficiency, greater bandwidth but inevitably some ringing issues to contend with. |
Shadorne, your comments seem consistent with what I've observed with several different speaker makes and models over the years, I believe.
When I owned B&W P6s, with the B&W polymer (I believe) drivers, they struck me both physically and audibly as rigid but not fast. They sounded pretty good at higher SPLs, but not clear to the extent of the Maggies I also owned at low volumes. They never impressed me for classical or anything else at low volumes though they sounded pretty good in a larger room at higher SPL.
Of course the amp I was using at the time (Carver m4.0t) may not have had the current or damping factor needed to really handle the B&Ws optimally, so that may have been a factor as well.
On the other hand, my Triangle Titus's were as fast, clean and transparent as the Maggies at lower volumes and held up pretty well at higher SPL as well, but did not have the authority in the bass to match the B&Ws.
The maggies were fast, authoritative and transparent at all SPLs. They were not perhaps the ultimate though in dynamics and low end extension, though a different amp might have help here somewhat as well. Also, I was not able to position them correctly in my current quarters as I had been able in the past, so eventually I decided to change.
Bottom line is that doing classical well is hard. A good design can cut it, box or otherwise. A poor or inferior design will not. |
I've spent years playing bass in orchestras and also recording them. I've also spent years looking for the best classical recordings, like a lot of people on this list.
What I have found is if you really have a good recording, very few speakers will hold up to it, not because of bandwidth alone, or inner detail, but also due to dynamic range.
I like to play the system at the volumes that the recording was made at.
My room is about 21' by 17', with carpets, stuffed furniture and LPs lining the walls. Its reasonably dead. One of the best recordings I have run into is the Soria Series (RCA) recording of the Verdi Requiem (Dies Irae side one). The dynamic range, subtlety, detail, bass impact, natural presentation and the like are matched by few recordings, especially anything recent. In a nutshell, most systems simply cannot play this record- it is simply too demanding! It can literally go from a whisper to so loud that many will be diving for the volume control so as not to damage something.
I find that if you need a transistor amplifier to get the sufficient power to drive a speaker to lifelike levels, it will never sound like real music; at best only like a good stereo (Ho hum). So its tubes all the way for me.
That limits the speakers- tube power is expensive and tricky to get right!
The Classic Audio Reproductions T-1 or T-3 is the best I have seen. They are efficient- 97 db, easy to drive (16 ohms), full bandwidth (20Hz-45KHz), easy to set up (6" from the rear wall in my room), image easily, detailed enough to match the best of ESLs and cone systems, hard to fault really.
I can play them to any level I want and not strain the amps. Lots of local artists wind up bringing test recordings over to see if anything that they are working on needs tweaking. They are quite revealing.
This is the only speaker that so far has allowed me to play my most demanding LPs (CDs have never proven as demanding BTW- they just don't have the impact!). Verdi Requiem, not a problem. Black Sabbath 'Paranoid' (original German white label Vertigo pressing) no worries (most systems haven't a hope of playing *that one* at anything near a normal volume BTW). Wagner's 'Das Reingold' on Decca with Solti conducting- easy. 'The Wand of Youth' on EMI-piece of cake. Schwartzkopf singing the Four Last Songs of Strauss on EMI- fabulous! These are awesome recordings, the sort of thing that if they are done right make you shiver- or cry.
Most speakers that have the resolution and bandwidth to really do the job usually lack the ability to also be easy to drive. The CAR is the first (and after 10 year still the only) that I have seen that can do everything right in the same place at the same time.
BTW- they are great with rock, jazz and anything else you can dig up too. |
Atmasphere,
A valid point.
Most speakers that do all the other things well may well crumble when it comes time to reproduce lifelike orchestral dynamics.
This is a weak area for Maggies and electrostats that require significant power to drive yet still do not displace a lot of air.
Same true with certain large scale Jazz pieces, like Big Band. |
06-09-08: Atmasphere said:
"...I find that if you need a transistor amplifier to get the sufficient power to drive a speaker to lifelike levels, it will never sound like real music; at best only like a good stereo (Ho hum). So its tubes all the way for me..."
Well my friend, I enjoyed and agreed with most of your very thoughtful post, but I do take exception to your lack of success with SS. My experience is the opposite. As I think you know, I'm also an orchestral, big band and rock musician (trumpet).
Dave |
Atmasphere,
Had never heard of Classic Audio Reproductions and their horn designs.
Very interesting!
I've been drooling over the Jadis Eurythmies in one agoner's system here for quite a while mainly because they look gorgeous and I also have had an interest in Khorns for ages.
I no longer have issues with detail and dynamics with my current set-up, but high efficiency horns is an area where I've believed significant upside might still exist for my system somewhere down the road. |
I love my Tyler Acoustics Woodmere 2 floorstanders. They do everything right. Adding a subwoofer, limited from about 40 Hz down, makes the system truly splendid.
I also use Quad ESL63's in a different system. While they are nearly unbeatable in their realm of small ensembles, they simply cannot reproduce the dynamics of large, bombastic orchestral pieces. |
I second Atma-Sphere's endorsement of Classic Audio Reproductions speakers. Tonal balance is excellent, as is inner detail, and they seem to have no dynamic limitations. They convey the emotion of the music extremely well, presumably by preserving the dynamic contrast that the musicians use to convey that emotion.
At CES a few years ago my wife and I made the rounds along with my brother and his wife, and the only room where the two ladies just started dancing to the music was was the Classic Audio Reproductions room. Okay that's not exactly a precise measurement of loudspeaker quality, but it was an honest one. I've also observed my own butt spontaneously shaking when in the Classic Audio Reproductions room, and I've seen some serious air guitar playing in there as well. I have no doubt that with classical music they would be superb - probably inducing air bowing, or whatever classical listeners do when they think one is watching. They are speakers that you can totally get lost in the music with.
Classic Audio Reproductions changed my thinking about loudspeakers in two regards: Before hearing them for the first time, I thought that horns couldn't sound natural, and I thought that vented boxes couldn't do tight bass. Designer John Wolff really, really knows what he's doing.
Duke |
Hi Dave,
Sorry to hear many of you disagree. Of course opinions are like bottoms... everyone has one. I am just glad everyone doesnt disagree with me.
It is very hard to explain audiophile experiences in short sound bites.
Of course the B&W 801d and all B&W speakers (including Mackie) are box speakers. What I mean with boxes is the lengths speaker makers can go to to damp the box and make the box disappear sonically vs cost. Usually this attention seems to come (unfortunately) with more expensive speakers.
The B&W 801D is expensive but good if powered well. Box speakers of its quality and better get very very expensive (Wilson/Kharma/Acapella/Marten etc).
I mentioned that "boxes are a bad place to start" only because makers like Magnepan give you a full range package thats very hard to beat at the mid price level partly because they do away with the box and its complications. All the weight of the braced box has to be built and shipped around the world which all impacts on the cost and quality of the product you get. Never mind the drivers.
Magnepan (and planars) have their problems too (large dynamics at high volume being one) but when driven well and used for naturally recorded music at reasonable SPLs they are very hard to beat. I dont know of any box speaker around $1500 new that can get so much right like the Magnepan, let alone going up the range to MG3.6r and MG20.1. Although you start to get close to Avantgarde territory then.
The world is full of ok speakers, but to find a complete and natural sounding speaker at any price is difficult. If you like valve or transistor amps all has to come into the equation. But if you are looking for low coloration and speed with extension the field narrows very quickly.
You make the point that if you cant afford a full range speaker then make do with the compromise of a mini monitor. Well maybe, but come on, if you are an audiophile how can you compromise on extension? I dont think so. Also remember the question did ask for floor standers... Headphones anyone?
|
Chadeffect said:
"You make the point that if you cant afford a full range speaker then make do with the compromise of a mini monitor. Well maybe, but come on, if you are an audiophile how can you compromise on extension? I dont think so. Also remember the question did ask for floor standers... Headphones anyone?"
You just spent the whole post about the glories of the compromised Maggies. (In my view, compromised in both extension and dynamic potential). How can now say that such a compromise isn't an option for an audiophile???
Maggies a few things very, very well and I understand why many are attracted to them. I would just caution, if you're leaning toward Maggies make sure that you can do without bass extention and dynamic range.
With mini-monitors I would caution to make sure that you can do without extention. (Depending on the speaker you might not give up a lot of dynamic range, but that'll take power also).
Come to think of it, the OP never gave us a budget did he, other than to imply that 803s were in range.
Headphones indeed, an excellent option IMHO for anyone that wants "it all" on a budget. You actually can get everything but the flapping pants legs from headphones.
Dave |
Shadorne, from my minor experience. . . JRDG 7M delivering max 170A peak ad damping factor of 170 is borderline for controlling bass drivers of Vienna Mahlers. At 1000, JRDG 501s and 312 seem just about right. . . Nuforce at 4000 is perhaps overdampening them. JRDG further indicated that the 301 monos with damping factor of 60 may end up a little loose on Mahlers. . . hence my concerns about MC402. . . I'll be glad to be proven wrong if someone can test the configuration in question. |
Shadorne, from my minor experience. . . JRDG 7M delivering max 170A peak ad damping factor of 170 is borderline for controlling bass drivers of Vienna Mahlers. At 1000, JRDG 501s and 312 seem just about right. . . Nuforce at 4000 is perhaps overdampening them. My point is that you can't control them any further than having an amp with 0 output impedance (although you can go negative but that is another story). Damping of 4 is equivalent to output impedance of 2 Ohms whilst 40 is equivalent to 0.2 ohms whilst 400 is equivalent to 0.02 whilst 4000 damping is like 0.002....so the difference is very small as all the last three are basically pretty much all a short. So the natural mechanical/electrical damping of the voice coil and mechanical suspension + air suspension will really begin to dominate as you go above 40 damping from the amp. However, what you observed means it still has an audible effect which suggests the speaker design is probably underdamped. |
HI Dave,
there is an issue with volume in the bass with the smaller Maggies, but not to the point where they are that compromised. But the quality of the bass and the pluses like the open midrange, treble extension, inner detail and naturalness for classical music would be very tempting.
I do take your point about dynamic potential. A good amp can help that to a point, but for sure a frustration in their design along with size.
The problem of knowing a budget becomes so important. But I guess as the 803 is mentioned we are talking about $2500. You would get a hell of a pair of headphones for that!
|
Chadeffect said:
"...about $2500. You would get a hell of a pair of headphones for that!"
Absolutely, agreed.
Davd |
Shadorne is right about 'damping', and in fact its more profound then that- once damping factor exceeds about 20:1 or so, there is no improvement gained. 'Damping factor' is a bit of a misnomer, as it assumes more about the load being inductive than it being an electromechanical device which is powered by the amplifier to any excursion, complete with its own suspension. In the case mentioned, its likely that its not a damping factor issue at all, more likely that there is a problem with the floor, resonance in the front end or something like that. IOW, 'damping factor' is the complex explanation where there are also a number of simpler explanations. Dcstep, I appreciate that you have not found the right tube amp and so you have had to look at transistors. That does not say however that tubes cannot do the job- even for you- all it does say is that you've not seen that yet. What is important to get here is that the match between the amp and the speaker is critical. The idea that you go with a certain speaker and then find an amp for it is common, but weak. Here's why: http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/paradigm_paper2.htmlIf you use a tube amp with the wrong kind of speaker, you will never hear what that tube amp can do. In the case of the CARs, they are designed for tube amps and if you put a transistor amp on them you won't hear what the speaker will do. I had this pointed out to me in spades when a solid state competitor showed at T.H.E. Show 2 doors down from me with the exact same CARs in his room. Any time a Voltage paradigm device is used with a Power paradigm device, you will get a tonal anomaly. This is not a conversation about tubes vs transistors BTW. That's just the tip of the iceberg. |
Atmasphere said:
"Dcstep, I appreciate that you have not found the right tube amp and so you have had to look at transistors. That does not say however that tubes cannot do the job- even for you- all it does say is that you've not seen that yet."
Getting OT here but:
Why would I look for a tube amp, as you imply??? They have nothing to offer. I've never excluded them from my listening (in fact my first amp was tube and my current headphone amp is tube), but I've never heard anything superior that could be attributed to tubes. I simply listen and choose based on how the amp makes the speakers sound.
What's a CAR and why should I care?
Dave |
Not sure how we got from speakers for classical music to being bestowed with a lecture from upon high about the inherent superiority of tube electronics. G. |
I don't know if tube electronics are inherently superior or not, but from his description and some reviews I've read, I would very much like to hear Atmasphere's particular design and approach properly implemented in a matching system!
|
06-10-08: Mapman said:
"I don't know if tube electronics are inherently superior or not, but from his description and some reviews I've read, I would very much like to hear Atmasphere's particular design and approach properly implemented in a matching system!"
I think that's exactly his objective.
I wouldn't want to buy from a designer that didn't believe in his own stuff, so more power to him.
Dave |
DCstep,
No doubt.
But interesting, nonetheless. |
"I would very much like to hear Atmasphere's particular design and approach properly implemented in a matching system!"
Me too. . . already heard Atma's designs at RMAF twice. . . perhaps 3rd time lucky? G. |
I cant help myself so here I go...
This old argument about tubes or SS does drive me mad.
I have heard a few great sounding tube amps (ARC, Lamm, Audio note), but they always have sonic problems. Some almost worth putting up with, but still ultimately annoying. SS amps too. Then finding the right speakers to match etc.
I heard some Atmaspheres which sounded very good by the way.
Cant we have an amp technology that just works? Its like buying a car that goes great around corners, but just wont go in a straight line unless the road is made of a special concrete and not tar!
If you like a characteristic, say a type of tube, lets just put that software in. But the amp its self having no "sound" but will drive any type of speaker with no distortion or noise unless asked to. Oh small, cheap and efficient too!
Lets all start praying. |
Chadeffect asked:
"Cant we have an amp technology that just works? "
We can, that's why I bought Rowland, not because it's tube or SS, but because it works in my system.
Dave |
"Lets all start praying."
To say it with the inimitable Zork. . . "if you pray long enough, your prayer will be answered!" . . . unless you get smitten by the Troll first that is.
In the meantime, we know that there is no one solution, between system dependencies, and audiofool dependencies. . . 'tis a jungle out there. |
It would be pretty boring in this site if all high end stuff sounded the same. |
At the risk of redundancy, let me suggest taking a look at the paper Atma-Sphere linked to:
http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/paradigm_paper2.html
Briefly, different amplifier types behave differently when they see a non-resistive loudspeaker load. Most solid state amps approximate a constant-voltage source, and these are the ones who double their wattage output into 4 ohms and halve their output into 16 ohms. Many tube amps approximate a constant-power source, putting out roughly the same wattage into 4, 8 and 16 ohms.
So, let's assume our nominally 8-ohm speaker has a 32-ohm impedance peak in the crossover region. With a drive level that equals 1 watt output into 8 ohms, a solid state amp will put out 1/4 watt into that impedance peak, while a tube amp will put out four times as much power (1 watt) into that impedance peak. So the tonal balance will change significantly depending on amplifier type, and which type of amp works best depends on what the speaker designer had in mind.
Speakers whose impedance curves are very smooth (Maggies come to mind) work well with either type of amp, provided it is powerful enough.
The argument in favor of zero global feedback, soft-clipping, class A tube amps is a more complicated one, and probably doesn't belong in this thread.
Long story short: Amplifier to loudspeaker matching matters. If this is a subject that's important to you, check out that paper.
Duke |
Thanks Duke.
That was said early on and the OP got way more than he bargained for. Anyway, plenty of viable options were proposed. Hopefully he'll let us know what he decides.
Dave |
A few years ago I was looking into buying some Lamm amps. They had a paper like the Amasphere paper, describing the maths models they researched to get to their sound . At the time it was a wonderful sounding amp.
Many amplifiers and speakers later I am sure that if you have a good clean amp that can drive your speaker, you can EQ or alter the presentation to get most of the sound you want.
I have not noticed a decent amp completely change character due to a different speaker types (I dont mean flea power amps). There are many good around amps now.
The Halco DM series amps I had were a testament to what is possible from an amp. I had never heard anything like it up until then. An utter lack of noise or distortion made me realize the ills I had accepted from tubes. I have not had a tube amp since, much as I enjoyed the ones I have owned very much. |
Have any on the Mahler owners listened in their own room to a CAR or Avantgarde Trio speaker...with full orchestra of course?
Can we get a direct comparison from someone? |
hi,
Classical music has a large dynamic range ( 20 db or more) and the problem with some of the speakers listed is that they are inefficent and on the peaks of orchestral sound will send many amps into clipping. Tube amps have an advantage here with softer 2ed harmonic clipping characteriics
When listening at a average level of 85 db a 4 meteres with an inefficeint speaker, say 85 db/1watt/meter 8 watts is needed to reach 85 db at the listener psoition. To reach 105 db peaks will reaquir about 500 watts per channel. Now we are talking mega buck amps.
A simpler solution IMHO is to use more efficient speakers.
good listening
Larry |
Larry510 said:
"Tube amps have an advantage here with softer 2ed harmonic clipping characteriics..."
I think it's a mistake to plan on clipping, even if it's mostly 2d harmonic. An amp that's clipping a your listening levels likely has very high distortion, particularly in the bass and highs. This should be avoided if you want accurate musical presentation.
Dave |
I think it's a mistake to plan on clipping, even if it's mostly 2d harmonic. An amp that's clipping a your listening levels likely has very high distortion, particularly in the bass and highs. This should be avoided if you want accurate musical presentation. I agree with you Dave...but one has to respect that many people don't want an accurate presentation - they prefer even order harmonic distortion from soft clipping. I think of the excellent Sonic Frontiers manual about "A taste of Tubes"....that is what it is about....adding your own seasoning to your favorite tracks. Judicious use of the volume control allows a user to control the amount of soft clipping to achieve a desired effect....it is a form of audio compression similar to what is done in studios. |
Putting on my "green" hat:
Hey, we're starting to be forced to move away from gas guzzling cars, maybe we should be moving away from inefficient speakers and power guzzling amps as well?
I say this being a very proud and happy owner of some fairly inefficient yet great sounding speaks (the Ohm Walsh 5's) and an amp (MF A3CR) capable of driving them very nicely to reasonable SPLs in my listening room, yet I know that a bigger, beefier amp could up the SPL ante further if desired!
Class D amps seem to be a step in the "green" direction ie higher efficiency and lower power consumption to power our gas, I mean watt guzzling speaks, like my Hummer-like Ohms! |
Jsadurni, doing a valid a/b comparison of Avantgarde with Mahlers on the same system may be a little challanging. . . Vienna speakers like to be driven stoutly with high current / high power amps. Avantgarde need to be driven gently with nimble low power SS or tube push-pull or triod amps as they are highly sensitive. G. |
I guess there are two camps for audiophile reproduction, the SS camp with Lower efficiency speakers and the Tube camp with high efficiency speakers. To achieve a credible result for full symphonic orchestras in both camps top of the line equipment is needed. A mini monitor with cheap SS amps wont do it, and a single driver speaker with a single ended amp wont either.
The only SS-cone speaker system I have listened to that can do full orchestra was driven by Levinson monoblocks and had huge ADS speakers (with two 12 inch drivers per side etc. active subs, super tweeters) and top of the line electronics and turntable (Raul´s system if anybody knows him) Mainly all other cone speakers I have listened to, even with good setups sounded like a nice reproduction of an orchestra, everything is there but smallish, really when you get your ears adjusted to that, these systems can be pretty enjoyable.
I had been going back and forth to cone and horn speakers and finally settled for horns, triamplified 5 way system, Of course because of the size of both systems and different electronics needed a direct comparison is very difficult, but the sheer dynamics of horns really put a smile on my face!
I was curious about a direct comparison anyway.....
FWIW, The Mahlers were on my list for a long time but never got around to them. |
Not quite, High efficiency speakers may also be driven by low power SS amps to good advantage. Case in point, Avantgarde has designed and offers the Model 3 SS 30W class A/B push pull device with feedback loop, optimized for its speakers, even equipped with XLR connectors. My friend Frontier1 is currently using it and prefers it for Avantgarde Duos over every tube amp he has tried on Avantgarde Duos. I suspect that also some of the lower power SS Pass XA.5 amps may work well with the Avantgarde speakers. |
Also, the old saw that high powered SS amps don't have a good "first watt" is no longer true in all cases. Jeff Rowland contends that you could never ignore the first watt and that you always needed linearity in all operating conditions. Yes, there'd be tons of unused power if you hooked up a 500 watt Rowland Continuum to a speaker requiring flea-watts, but it'd sound good.
Dave |
