I've heard Merlin VSMs do high-hats and brushes very, very well. All the qualities you seek, plus a delicious delicacy to the sound that is rare and unforgettable. Note that the Merlins I heard were upgraded to a more recent version, and the electronics were very high end. However, with my champagne taste and beer budget, my Ohm Walsh 2000s get me surprisingly close to the Merlins. |
As already mentioned, Fritz Carbon 7s definitely fit bill at your price range. Ditto the Selah Veritas monitor and the North Creek designs. All silk dome designs that are likely excellent choices for people bothered by edgy highs (as am I).
John |
IMO and in my system high-hats and brushes sound like they should with the Spendor speakers I've owned. In reality they will only sound as good as what your upstream components can deliver to your speakers, your amps in particular. The Spendor's are pretty neutral, so they're not going to get in the way as much as say some electronic components might. As for overly polite, I don't think so. These speakers can rock if they have too. I've played mine loud with rock and alternative music and they chugged along just fine.
The Fritz Carbon 7's are very nice speakers. I had a chance to listen to them for a few days. |
Unsound,
"Walsh" drivers are an operating principle, not a specific design.
The older OHMs as well as the newer "Walsh" line models all employ Walsh drivers of different designs. So do German Physiks and a few others these days as well.
Each has strengths and weaknesses and user preferences will vary accordingly as is always the case.
Of course I think you know all this already, so just a reminder....
If you can find a pair of original OHM Fs in assured good working order in the target price range, they would also likely fit the OPs bill. Hoever these tend to be delicate devices and service and support for these nowadays is sparse though available, for a price. |
Mapman, I disagree. Not all of OHM's speakers feature bending wave Walsh drivers, the DDD drivers that German Physiks uses doesn't have the mechanical cross-overs that the Walsh drivers do. |
What people's experience been with and without Merlin RCS, standard and master? Do they generally make a difference, and if so, how much? Are they more effective with tube or solid state amps? |
Unsound,
OK, you can disagree but the fact is they ARE Walsh drivers, and pretty good sounding ones at that.
How much one design bends waves versus the others is another question and subject to debate. Walsh drivers, even the original (and flawed from a reliability perspective) OHM Walsh models do not rely solely on wave bending. That is also a documented fact, although its true as best I know that wave bending is a function unique to a Walsh driver
Walsh drivers produce wave bending more at higher frequencies so Walsh drivers that are designed to cover higher frequencies, like the DDDs will most likely tend to do more of that than the OHM Walshes, where the Walsh driver covers only up to 7-8 Khz or so by design.
All OHM Walsh style speakers I have ever heard exhibit the sonic qualities that the OP seeks in the stated price range, though to different extents. That's what matters for this thread, not how many waves are bent or not. That's a topic for another discussion perhaps.
Granted, wave bending is a relatively poorly understood topic in home speaker design. If it's "magic" one seeks, perhaps wave bending Walsh drivers fit the bill best in that sense. Although some may argue that its magical how the newer OHMs sound as good as they do. I'd be willing to label John Strohbeen (the designer) as a "magician", in that sense. |
Unfortunately, I need to rule out Ohm Walsh out for size and WAP factor. Maybe someone needs to start a new Ohm Walsh thread. |
Wait, I take it back on the Ohms after looking at their website: the new model Walshes are reasonable scaled and cosmetically improved. Plus free in-home trial Hmmm. |
Mapman, just saying it's a fact doesn't make it so. |
Pmboyd, nothing beats a home audition. In the mean time, you might find this old thread interesting:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1015294796&openusid&zzSean&4&5#Sean |
I miss Sean. His posts were always worth reading. |
Anyone going to the big Axpona show in NYC
Friday/Saturday 6/24-5?
Affinia Hotel, 7th ave & 31st, sponsored by Stereophile. |
120-day in home trial. For that length of time, you could try out a couple of speakers alongside with little downside, if shopping carefully, finances permitting. |
I've narrowed my choices to Merlin MMI, Ohm Walsh 3000, and Fritz Carbon 7. Anyone done a heads-up with all of these or care to input on comparisons? |
The Fritz are monitors it appears. The Other two are more full range,if that matters.
The kind of amp used will make a difference between the two full range Merlin and OHMs.
I suspect the MErlins will shine with tube or lower power SS amps. The OHMs may do quite well with those, you'd have to try and see/hear, but require high current SS amps to achieve their potential.
Some report excellent results using a sub with smaller OHMs run off tube amplification.
Which will integrate into your room and listening location best is another consideration. The OHMs will provide a large sweet spot for listening. The others will likely have a smaller sweet spot.
From there, I think its mostly a matter of personal preferences that are harder to assess that will be the remaining determining factors. |
|
The Merlin TSM MMI and Fritz Carbon 7 are monitors, the Ohm floostanding. |
Are any of the various suggestions noted for their efficiency? |
Pmboyd,
What will you be driving said spealers with?
As noted above electronics on the front end do have an effect on the speaker end.
As with speakers, all amps and sources are not alike.
If I missed that info from a previous post, my apologies.
Chris |
My amps are ss monoblocks, 170 watts/8 ohms. Preamp and DAC are tubed. |
It's been suggested to me that, all other things being equal, more efficient speakers are better speakers -- more micro detail. I started a thread on efficiency... |
All that detail, isn't neccesarilly quality. Higher efficiency allows more grunge in too. There are so many variables in loudspeakers, never mind the loudspeaker to room interface, that the idea of "all other things being equal" is purely an academic argument with no grounds (at least for now and into the foreseeable future) in current reality. |
"It's been suggested to me that, all other things being equal, more efficient speakers are better speakers -- more micro detail..."
The problem with this is that all other things are not equal.
More efficient speakers may or may not be better and may or may not have more detail. It depends on many factors as I alluded to in the earlier post.
I'd start with assessing the amp and whether or not you are open to changing that also down the road if needed.
What 170w/ch into 8 ohm monoblocks, specifically? |
Mapman, proffers a notion worthy of consideration. It's better to get an amp for speakers, than speakers for an amp. |
Unsound and Mapman are spot on in their concerns regarding high eff speakers.
I went from a Lowther DX4 (103db) Medallion and all Audio Note Kits tube system (dac, pre,and amp) to a Class A SS integrated system.
The Shelby+Kroll monitors are 87db, but drop off at 100hz, the lower end is picked up by the Woffer monitor.
Due to the nonlinear nature of the Lowther drivers, severe peaks were to be had at the 1000hz - 1200hz range. Try as I did with room treatments, wires, etc... I couldn't tame them and became rather discontented with the whole high eff, single driver, SET approach.
Going from one camp (high eff) to the other has brought about a very rewarding change, and I'm very pleased with what I'm hearing.
I answered this in response to the high eff speakers being better statement. As noted I did recommend the Shelby + Kroll speakers, but I am in no way tying to push them on anyone. I just felt that my own recent experience in such a decision warranted this response.
Rodge |
Just to be clear, I have nothing against high efficiency speakers. I just would not go under the notion that this alone determines the results. That depends on a lot of things.
I have no qualms with the performance of less efficient speakers categorically either.
Both require properly matched amplification to shine.
Achieving desired volume levels along with all the rest is quite achievable these days with modern amplifier technologies. Not a problem at all in most peoples homes.
Granted, to fill very large public venues effectively, high efficiency speakers are where its at. But most of us do not live and listen in arenas or even large auditoriums, so it is not an issue.
Efficiency alone means more volume per watt. Nothing more. |
I purposely kept my question general in order to let let real world considerations bump up against the hypothetical. Of course "all other things being equal" doesn't exist -- except in any one particular system -- but interesting and useful information has resutled. Thanks for all your responses. Carry on. |
PS. I'm referring to the matter of efficiency in my other thread... |
"My amps are ss monoblocks, 170 watts/8 ohms"
What make/model specifically?
thanks. |
Tube Audio Design (Paul Grzybek): 170 watts/8 ohms, high current... |
I've heard the Merlin and the Fritz speakers. I think you'd be happy with either, but with your amp I would lean toward the Fritz Carbon 7. |
Clio09, Why do you say that? Are you familiar with my amp? |
I have a pair of the TADs also.
I bought them for my second system as more of a SS equivalent of a tube amp.
I like them a lot. I have never used these with the OHMs but have used similar power SS amps with the OHMs in the past and the results were very good.
I think those are viable amps for all three speakers you mentioned. I'm interested to hear about your findings.
OHM is running a good sale through July 1, so keep that in mind if you think you are serious about giving them a try. |
Thanks for the heads-up, Mapman. I noticed they were having a sale, I talked to John S. yesterday. At this point it boils down to making a choice and hoping for the best. Free home trials are great -- Fritz and Ohm offer them, Merlin doesn't
-- but there's always shipping costs and inconvenience for both the manufacturers and myself to consider. The Ohm sale applies only to the older style cabinets, not the new ones with the rounded edges, which I prefer. |
BTQ, Mapman, my preamp and dac are also TAD. 1950's pinched waist Philips tubes. CD transport is CEC, cabling is a combination of Synergistic R, A Zen, and Tube Research Labs. |
Fritz lists the Carbons at a 87db sensitivity, and I'm pretty sure he runs them at shows with the Modwright KWA 150, a fairly beefy solid state design, so I'm thinking they want some power. Seems like your amp should serve.
Looks like you've narrowed your choice to two pretty different animals, a conventional box design and omnis. If you've not listened to such speakers, I'd definitely try to hear the omnis before undertaking the hassle of a home audition to see if you like the distinctive presentation. I'd not have similar qualms about the Carbons; not many surprises here, since they are (very nice) versions of the kind of monitor you've heard before.
John |
I agree about undertaking an home audition of the omnis. I asked John S. at Ohm about hearing them in Seattle but he said he couldn't help me there. If there's anyone in Seattle with omnis following this thread, I'd be grateful for an audition! |
My current speakers, Silverline SR-17.5, are rated at 89db/8 ohms. My amp has plenty of power to drive them. |
Yes, omni's are different and often require some time for the ears to adjust if not used to it. That's one of the reasons OHM offers such an extended in-home trial period.
I've owned OHM Walsh speakers since 1981 and I found my ears did not fully "get" the newer models improved sound at first. It took some time to get fully tuned in. However, for many, once they do get "tuned in", there is no turning back to conventional designs for total satisfaction, for better or for worst.
I suspect the Merlins would be a very good and very safe match with the TAD gear. You would probably want the mods that make them more tube friendly, which I believe is an option.
I think audiogoner MartyKL owns MErlins, OHMs and the TAD amps, among others. It might be worth pinging him for his findings. |
I have never heard Silverlines but they have a good reputation. I wonder if the other monitors you are looking at are really any better? PRobably different sounding to some extent at a minimum. |
You have a nice system, including the speakers. I spent some time listening to Silverline speakers at THE SHOW in Newport. I liked them.
I am familiar with your amp and as Jdoris said Fritz runs these at shows with the Modwright amps. At THE SHOW in Las Vegas we had a room and Fritz lent us the Carbon 7's. We ran them with a 60 watt tube amp and they sounded very good. I suspect though they might like a bit more power and your amp can certainly provide it.
The Carbon 7's are underrated. They are worth a listen. |
Just ordered the Merlin TSM-MMI with Master RCs. Since the proof's in the pudding, I'll report back after they've had a chance to break in... |
Pm,
Let us know how the Merlins work out with the TAD Hibachi 125 monoblocks.
I suspect this should be a match made in heaven.
I know the TADs are working out extremely well with my little and fairly easy to drive (like the Merlin with RC I suspect) Triangle monitors, which is all I need out of them currently but I suspect they are capable of a lot more with bigger, more full range monitors or floor standers.
The TADs are also working out very well with my Stax sr80 electret headphones, which are pretty demanding in regards to amplification, much more so than my Triangles and I suspect perhaps more so even than the MErlins. |
I haven't ruled out the Ohm Walsh 2000s, but now I'll have to wait and see how the Merlins work out. |
Good luck, I hope you like them. |
I just responded to your other thread. Your comments there were enlightening. To paraphrase my response to them, I'm just about 100% confident that you will love the Merlin's strengths - they seem to be right up your alley. As to the tonal balance thru the presence region and top end (i.e. "glare"), it will be very interesting to see how these line up with your stated needs. It's really room and system dependent and, in the end, very much a matter of personal taste.
Either way, you have IMO ordered a wonderful speaker with some great, great capabilities.
Marty |
One thing I have observed with the TAD amps is that they seem to have a lot of zing and zest in the upper midrange and up into the higher frequencies, similar to what I have heard with what I would consider to be the better tube amps I have heard, like VAC for example, which are tube amps that I think more resemble good SS amps as well compared to some others.
The Triangle monitors tend to have these very revealing traits as well, but the TADs seem to bring it out more so than any prior amp I have used.
Many other more modestly priced tube amps I have heard are more "relaxed" or rounded and perhaps also less "detailed" in the upper frequencies.
LEt us know what you find once you get things set up. As I mentioned earlier, I suspect the results will be quite good indeed. It seems you have done a lot of good research into this so I suspect it should live up to expectations. |
Pmboyd,
I have the TSM-mmi's and they are marvelous; sweet and musical. And they are about as balanced and flat top to bottom as you could ask for. Bobby P has great ears and makes a wonderful product. Good luck! |
Just got my Merlin TSM-MMIs. Nicely balanced and highly highly resolving. They're not broken in yet but I can see why they would love the fat bottle. More later. |
