2. speakers
  3. 1332824005

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.
dracule1

Showing 5 responses by kiwi_1282001

kiwi_1282001
312 posts
 
Happy weekend to you to Dracule.

I would like to think that one doesn’t have to be anal to understand that having multiple uncontrolled variables makes it impossible to draw any ‘valid’ cause/effect relationships and / or conclusions from the audition.

I am genuinely happy that you prefer your current system. The question of course remains very much open on whether you’d be even happier with your system if you replaced your Ridge Street Audio Design Sason Si’s with Raidho C-1.1’s?
kiwi_1282001
312 posts
 
>There is no advantage I hear from the C1.1 system compared to mine. Actually I prefer my system.<

Unless you heard the C1.1 with YOUR amp and in YOUR room, you can't unequivocally say that. It may be your system that makes your speakers sound so good, probably is. Therefore, wouldn't it also bring out the best in the Raidho speakers? They may surpass your current speakers if all things were equal.

Shakey

Hate to break this to you Dracule but Shakey is right.

You are in no position to compare one speaker to another when the speakers were heard in completely different systems.

Had you just left your commentary to what you heard of the C-1.1 at the dealers system that would have been fine and indeed in its own right quite a useful contribution.

But in taking the unfortunate step of comparing speakers in different systems and settings you lose all credibility.
kiwi_1282001
312 posts
 
Here is how i read it Dracule.

“I had the opportunity to audition this unique 2 way all by my lonesome…”

No.

You spent two and one half hours listening to a system which included C-1.1 speakers. You were unfamiliar with the system, you were unfamiliar with the room and unfamiliar with all the ‘solid state’ electronics. Furthermore the room (as observed) was constrained by minimal acoustic controls and the sonics were obstructed / retarded by the presence of a 'litter of speakers' between the C-1.1's.

You then initially conclude that the C-1.1 ‘speakers’ (not system) “… is one of the few speakers out there that I would think about plunking down over $15k” but “Despite its performance, I'm still having a difficult time justifying the price of the speakers”

How meaningful is it to arrive at any conclusions on the qualities or price justification of C-1.1 speaker or from ‘audio memory’ arrive at a comparison with your own system given the above context?
kiwi_1282001
312 posts
 
04-18-12: Vapor1
Yes the comparison isn't perfectly valid in every way. […]

:-)

04-18-12: Vapor1
I will say that I'd wager in a same room/same electronics comparision, that you'd likely prefer the Raidho's.

That's interesting Vapor1. Other than the C1's bass which does go quite deep (Martin Colloms measured down to 29Hz in his room), but obviously not with much energy, how would you compare the treble performance between the Raidho Ribbon to the Sason Si's dome?
kiwi_1282001
312 posts
 
Thanks for sharing your experience with us Vapor and congratulations on your Cirrus speaker which for many has pushed the boundary on price vs. performance.

You've observed that RAAL and Raidho tweeters made many of the top domes simply sound slow, lifeless and boring. To add to this I have observed that resolution tends to be superior with ribbons. Furthermore, when I was auditioning speakers prior to my purchase of the Raidho’s I did notice something else which differentiated the Raidho’s and that was their uncanny quietness. I perceived the speaker as providing a really black background against which to provide the music. Sometime after ownership that I stumbled across a lab report which showed very low distortion for the treble – typically 0.05% 2nd and 0.025% 3rd which is practically non-existent and at moderate listening levels close to electrostatic levels.

While I have found no sense of discontinuity through the cross over area Dracule does raise a fair point around the challenges of integrating a ribbon like tweeter with a cone woofer. The challenge as I understand it is not about “speed” but more pointedly about dispersion characteristics – though there is obvious linkage. In a discussion I had last week with Alon Wolf (founder of Magico); Alon was quick to point out the challenges of ribbon/cone integration as the reason for selecting dome tweeters for his latest Q series loudspeakers. I have auditioned the Q1, an obvious competitor to the Raidho C-1.1 though since the audition was not in my own system I will leave my observations to myself on this.

As a designer I wondered whether you might share your thoughts on the integration puzzle?
More to discover