Markpao, it is my thread afterall :)
Two and a half hour audition of the Raidho C1.1
I had the opportunity to audition this unique 2 way all by my lonesome (except for the dealer who was kind enough to remain invisible most of the time) with my own music. The speakers were hooked up to all Rowland electronics (monoblock amps, Criterion preamp, and new DAC) via top of the line Nordost cables. The room was a large open room with minimal room treatment. Unfortunately, there was a litter of speakers in between the C1.1s, like in most dealer show rooms.
I compared this "system" to my home system that I have been tweeking for the past two years with extensive room treatment (GIK acoustics), different cabling (Ridge Street Audio), amps (Carver Cherry 180 and Atma-Sphere M60), DACs (DAD Tube 10 and Tranquility SE), and preamps (Bent Audio Tap X, Dodd Audio Battery Buffer).
The C1.1 system (from now on I'll just refer to it as C1.1), despite being in a dealer room setting, came pretty close to my home system, and in one regard surpassed my system. First, the C1.1 midrange is neutral without sounding thin or harmonically bleached. My system has just a little bit more bloom in the midrange due to the tube DAC and tube amps. Midrange clarity was pretty close, may be the slightest advantage to the C1.1s. Vocals were just captivating with the C1.1s. Classical guitar was the most neutral I've come across.
Bass is more extended in my system (subjectively down to mid 30s), but the C1.1s are bit more punchy and dynamic (may be the solid state electronics have something to do with this). The Sasons and C1.1s are remarkable in the mid and upper bass information, and as such both systems have excellent bass definition and harmonics. I didn't think the C1.1s required subwoofers, unless you want to play organ or classical music and rock music to near concert hall levels.
Where the C1.1s surpass my system with most recordings is in the high frequencies. That planar magnetic tweeter is a remarkable. It is smooth, extended, and detailed a the same time. I did not get fatigued at any point in the session, except when a cut from The Who was played, but not unexpected from a 70s rock recording. The silk dome tweeters in my Sasons were outclassed. As far as silk dome tweeters go, the Sason tweeters are some of the best of its breed and integrate seamlessly with the mid/woofer. However, the C1.1 tweeters integrates seamlessly with the ceramic sandwich mid/woofer just as well, but with more detail and extension without calling attention. The microdynamics and detail in the upper midrange and treble are some of the best I've heard, equaling some of the finest electrostats and ribbon speakers.
In terms of sound staging and imaging, the upper hand goes to my system. My room has been tweeked for two years to bring out the best I can attain from my system. The Sasons in my room throw a taller, deeper and more layered soundstage. The C1.1s seemed to throw a little wider sound stage in the dealer room. Imaging is natural in both systems. Not over blown or microscopically pin point. However, the comparison is not unfair because of the two very different rooms, and the C1.1s were hampered by all the other speakers that were place in between them.
My overall impression: The C1.1 speaker is one of the few speakers out there that I would think about plunking down over $15k. Another speaker I would consider would be the Maggie 20.7s, but these are altogether different speakers with different set of requirements. It's very expensive for a 2 way (but not ridiculous like the Magico Q1s). Despite its performance, I'm still having a difficult time justifying the price of the speakers. The C1.1 system did not clearly best my system except for the upper frequencies, but the comparison is not really valid given the large differences in electronics and room. I think the Sasons are intrinsically slightly warmer speakers, although only side by side comparisons with the same electronics will tell. But I have this nagging feeling, if I were to hook the C1.1s in my system, the overall advantage (at least in terms of what I consider important in music reproduction) will go to the C1.1s.
I compared this "system" to my home system that I have been tweeking for the past two years with extensive room treatment (GIK acoustics), different cabling (Ridge Street Audio), amps (Carver Cherry 180 and Atma-Sphere M60), DACs (DAD Tube 10 and Tranquility SE), and preamps (Bent Audio Tap X, Dodd Audio Battery Buffer).
The C1.1 system (from now on I'll just refer to it as C1.1), despite being in a dealer room setting, came pretty close to my home system, and in one regard surpassed my system. First, the C1.1 midrange is neutral without sounding thin or harmonically bleached. My system has just a little bit more bloom in the midrange due to the tube DAC and tube amps. Midrange clarity was pretty close, may be the slightest advantage to the C1.1s. Vocals were just captivating with the C1.1s. Classical guitar was the most neutral I've come across.
Bass is more extended in my system (subjectively down to mid 30s), but the C1.1s are bit more punchy and dynamic (may be the solid state electronics have something to do with this). The Sasons and C1.1s are remarkable in the mid and upper bass information, and as such both systems have excellent bass definition and harmonics. I didn't think the C1.1s required subwoofers, unless you want to play organ or classical music and rock music to near concert hall levels.
Where the C1.1s surpass my system with most recordings is in the high frequencies. That planar magnetic tweeter is a remarkable. It is smooth, extended, and detailed a the same time. I did not get fatigued at any point in the session, except when a cut from The Who was played, but not unexpected from a 70s rock recording. The silk dome tweeters in my Sasons were outclassed. As far as silk dome tweeters go, the Sason tweeters are some of the best of its breed and integrate seamlessly with the mid/woofer. However, the C1.1 tweeters integrates seamlessly with the ceramic sandwich mid/woofer just as well, but with more detail and extension without calling attention. The microdynamics and detail in the upper midrange and treble are some of the best I've heard, equaling some of the finest electrostats and ribbon speakers.
In terms of sound staging and imaging, the upper hand goes to my system. My room has been tweeked for two years to bring out the best I can attain from my system. The Sasons in my room throw a taller, deeper and more layered soundstage. The C1.1s seemed to throw a little wider sound stage in the dealer room. Imaging is natural in both systems. Not over blown or microscopically pin point. However, the comparison is not unfair because of the two very different rooms, and the C1.1s were hampered by all the other speakers that were place in between them.
My overall impression: The C1.1 speaker is one of the few speakers out there that I would think about plunking down over $15k. Another speaker I would consider would be the Maggie 20.7s, but these are altogether different speakers with different set of requirements. It's very expensive for a 2 way (but not ridiculous like the Magico Q1s). Despite its performance, I'm still having a difficult time justifying the price of the speakers. The C1.1 system did not clearly best my system except for the upper frequencies, but the comparison is not really valid given the large differences in electronics and room. I think the Sasons are intrinsically slightly warmer speakers, although only side by side comparisons with the same electronics will tell. But I have this nagging feeling, if I were to hook the C1.1s in my system, the overall advantage (at least in terms of what I consider important in music reproduction) will go to the C1.1s.
Showing 21 responses by dracule1
Here's a reviewer who is enamored by the C1.1. Alot more so than I am. http://www.avguide.com/blog/first-listen-raidho-acoustics-c11-mini-monitor |
Samac, the speaker set up was not ideal with several pairs of floor standing speakers in between the C1.1s. I suspected the extra speakers would affect the imaging. In a couple of recordings, I found the bass (ie, stand up bass and kick drums) to project in front of the singer. This was strange...in my system the bass is clearly behind the singer. However, those extra drivers act also like sound absorption devices and, like you experienced, could affect the tonal balance. However, I did not hear any gross tonal imbalance. |
My system has undergone an update. Very simple but very revealing. My amplifier, Carver Cherry 180 tube monoblocks, comes with not so special stock volume pots at the input. I had them replaced with Gold Point stepped attenuators. I'm going direct from my DAC to amp now. The treble advantage that I thought the C1.1 system had over my speaker is no longer there. My system is as clean and detailed as the C1.1 system I heard in the audition. The bass response is also has improved along with dynamics and is better than what I heard in the audition. There is no advantage I hear from the C1.1 system compared to mine. Actually I prefer my system. |
Actually I said upfront on my original post, I'm comparing systems, not the speaker itself. You don't need to point that it wasn't with MY amp and MY room. I know the limitations. But I'm see no need to audition a $17K speakers in my own setup, if it does not show significant promise at the dealer. Afterall, the associated electronics with the C1.1s were far more expensive (many times more expensive) and arguably better than my own. |
I guess I should elaborate on Shakey's comments. "Unless you heard the C1.1 with YOUR amp and in YOUR room, you can't unequivocally say that." Shakeydeal, I appreciate your comments but this is not a scientific journal article. It wasn't my intent to prove or disprove anything unequivocally. I do enough of that in my professional life. They're just my impressions, and what I decide to do with my impressions is up to me. "It may be your system that makes your speakers sound so good, probably is." Or it may be my speakers that makes the rest of my system sound so good. This is a circular argument with no end. I like to think it's my system as a whole (room, electronics, cables, root treatments, speakers, dedicated circuits, etc). "Therefore, wouldn't it also bring out the best in the Raidho speakers? They may surpass your current speakers if all things were equal." It may or may not, but based on what I heard at the dealer and what I'm hearing in my system, I see no need to go through the trouble of auditioning the speaker in my own system. Regards. |
Some of you are mistaking my post for a formal review between two speakers, where comparing two speakers in the same system is an absolute requirement. My post is not a review of the two speakers, just my experience with two different SYSTEMS. Why some of you keep thinking I am reviewing two speakers is puzzling when I make it point that I am comparing C1.1 system and my system? I have clearly stated that in my OP and my subsequent posts. Based on my experience especially given the recent upgrade in my amp, I have no desire to upgrade my speakers for the C1.1. If the C1.1 system was clearly better, I would audition the speakers in my own system. If you find my opinion faulty, that's fine. But don't mistake my post for a formal review between two speakers. |
Perhaps some of you may better understand my intent if I explain it this way. My going to the dealer to hear audio equipment is no different than someone going to an audio show. You enter a room and find very pleasing sound from a system. Some may attribute the sound to speakers if that room represents a particular speaker manufacturer, although you are actually listening to a system. You may go home and decide to audition those speakers in your own home to compare to your speakers, if possible before buying. If you didn't feel the sound was better than your system, you probaly wouldn't bother going through the hassle of auditioning the speakers in your system. I'm in the latter situation. I apologize to some of you for sounding a little ticked by some of the comments which in retrospect are valid criticisms if one were to assume I was comparing two speakers in two different systems. Please understand that was not what I was doing. I was comparing two systems. |
Thanks Vapor1 for your input. It may be true the C1.1 may sound better in my system, but I am happy with my system. The minor flaws I heard in my system have been pretty much solved by addition of a good stepped attenuator and going direct into the amp from my DAC. I do agree with you on the slightly lean sound of the C1.1s, which are excellent speakers by all accounts. But I do prefer the "heavier" and probably warmer presentation of the Sasons. I'm not sure if you heard my version of the Sasons which have the Dueland CAST capacitors and CAST resistors. I think mine are better than Robert's own pair which have the VSF caps and nonCAST resistors. If I didn't have the Sasons, the C1.1s would be my first choice. |
I agree Vapor. A properly implemented planar magnetic or ribbon tweeter has less distortion and are faster than silk dome tweeter. Problem is integrating a fast tweeter to the midrange/woofer. Many have failed at this (may be I'm just more sensitive to tweeter/midrange integration than most), but I think Raidho has pulled it off. However, some will argue that silk dome tweeters sound more natural and integrate better. As long as you use top quality crossover components to for the tweeter (eg, Duelands), the silk dome tweeter can come pretty close IMHO. The best stand alone tweeter I have ever heard is probably the Maggie true ribbon tweeter, but it doesn't integrate well with their planar magnetic midrange (the 3.7s are the best integration to date, but still I can hear the ribbons over the midrange). I have heard most of the "top" tweeeters, ribbons from RAAL and Raven, diamond from B&W and Thiel, and Beryllium from TAD and Scanspeak, and planar magnetic from BG and Raidho. With my current system as it stands, I have no wish to upgrade to speakers with these tweeters. If I wanted to go balls out on the best tweeter for my taste, I would get a 5 to 6 foot ribbon line source. Of course this means getting a full range ribbon line source speaker, but who truly makes a full range true ribbon speaker? I only know of one and they're in Sweden. Apogees had planar magnetic bass panel, despite claims otherwise. |
The RAAL 140-15D has deflector pads that forces the dispersion of the ribbon to behave as a spherical point source rather than a line source. So this may help with integration with cone drivers, if your claim about dispersion characteristic is true. Anyway, differences in dispersion characteristics can't be the only reason why I hear discontinuity. The Maggie ribbon tweeter and older planar magnetic midrange/bass are both line sources with similar dispersion pattern, but there is an obvious discontinuity between them. The planar magnetic doesn't have the low level resolution and speed of the ribbon and you can hear it. Yet, the lower end Maggies without the true ribbon tweeter doesn't suffer from integration issues. You can try to mate a long ribbon tweeter with multiple cone drivers in a line array so dispersion is similar, but IME this approach really doesn't solve problem either. A ribbon tweeter or electrostat can reproduce a square wave pretty accurately, but try doing that with a midrange cone driver, which is usually plagued by slow rise and settling time and ringing. I'm no speaker designer so some of my observation and knowledge may be wrong, so please correct me if I'm speaking out of my arse. One of the virtues of the Sasons is their seamless integration, similar to coherence of "full range" single driver speaker without the high freq irregularity and low end roll off of single driver speakers. |
Yes, I forgot to mention ion tweeters from Acapella and Lansch on multiple occasions. While nice to look at, I think they are overpriced for what they do. Last time I checked couple of years ago, a pair of the Acapella ion tweeters went for $8K. I am told they can "burn out" over time. I think their performance can be matched by other technologies for lesser cost. The only tweeters I haven't had significant time to evaluate are Air Motion Tweeters. |
There are many excellent tweeters out there. However, if the designer can't properly integrate the tweeter with the midrange/bass drivers, it's not worth the effort IMO. I would prefer a less detailed/extended tweeter that seamlessly integrates with the rest of the range, over any tweeter that calls attention to itself like a flash light. |