hi guys, i am at work now so this must be quick. the next time i'm in paris (i've never even been to europe) i'll check out the goldman. it must be great if you guys like it so much! |
wslam.
goldmund will make new 29.4 and 22 with millenium technologie job3.Not just goldmund ,they are too many company who never listen their products(like dunlavy).
they listen or not.but when you listen if you like it,its important.
i looked at the guy with 2 millenium i would love to listen all his system.
mike,i know just one shop where you can listen all kind goldmund,its in paris.i can give you there phone if you wish
www.station2001.com |
29.4 are good. I listen to them 'all the time' (a few shops have them here). They are fine speakers. But my understanding is the Mill are 'way' better then the 29.4, they use a new JOB circuit which has even higher bandwidth. I am not the best person to talk to Goldmund. I never bought any Goldmund because it 'bugs' me to learn that they do NOT listen to their equip during their designing process. They based everything on 'numbers' and measurements... yet, you can't deny, they are some of the best solid state equip around. |
Mike,
I have not found any review on the Goldmund Millenium. They are extremely limited production. You can find out about them at
http://www.goldmund.com/old/Millennium/intro.html
Only 50 pairs (100 mono units) will be made. Each mono channel costs USD35k.
Surprised adsal didn't get them yet! The link I put above.. the guy has TWO pairs... |
adsal and wslam, i have only heard goldman once, for a short time. it was a couple of years ago and i don't remember which amps were used. in my local area there is no goldman dealer at this time. can you recommend any reviews of the amps you are referring to? if i get a chance to listen i will check it out, thanks. |
i m talking about 29.4+22 combination.i listened watt puppy6 with these ones(but they will be upgrade to 29.4M AND 22M , M. means millenium).millenium amps are soo expensive.hi-fi station 2001 (biggest dealer of goldmund) in paris told me that specially the mid range of new millenium amps are much better than the old serie.but goldmund amps are best when they are with goldmud pre-amps. again for my taste with watt puppy best amps was goldmund also people saying very good match for spectral+watt puppy+mit combination. |
Goldmund Millenium I assume.
yeah, check out http://www.yohifi.com/yohifi/siteTemplate/audio_homes_n_people_l_en/?lifestyle-1 |
if you have achance to try ,think also about goldmunds new big amps with preamps.(burn-in time is very long) |
wslam, the halcros weigh 150 pounds apiece, the 33s weigh 365 pounds apeice. it takes 4 big people to move the 33s. i can pick up the halcro and carry it; and i'm a wimp.
i have heard they are good......... |
The Halcro are NOT that much smaller!
Keep me posted. From what I heard, they were very very good indeed. |
wslam, i have a friend that is planning on bringing the halcros over for a comparison in my room as my 33s are a little too big to bring anywhere. if it happens i will let you know how the amps compare. |
Adsal,
I have the Golden Ridge. Still breaking htem in, no comment yet.
Mike, since we are on the topic of these 'ref' amps, you ought to check out www.halcro.com |
adsal,
i see in 2 different threads that the #33/#33h are not your favorite amplifiers:^) also, that since reviewers (or expierienced audiophiles?) don't have them (except john atkinson) they must be substandard. i respect that that is your opinion.
the point of my post above was not that the #33 was better than any other particular amp but the the watt/puppy 6s work dramaticly better with more horsepower.
i think that the #33s of 1994 are somewhat a somewhat different animal than the #33s that are currently being built(my set was new last year and no, i have no particular evidence to support this claim). but in any case after living with them for a year and compareing them to other amps on watt/puppy 6s (but not in my room) i am very happy with them.
particularly if you prefer the krell fbp600 or the arc600 to the #33 then our listening tastes and priorities are quite different. of course, context is all important so who knows.
enjoy |
|
adsal,
i do have a few siltech g5.
anyway... |
dear mikelavigne,
wilson with 33 or 33h never gives you best performence.i had a chance to compare them white goldmund 29.4,arc ref 600,krell 600,ml 33 (also another friend has 33h+watt puppy6 with mit shotgun evo).best sound was goldmund and arc 600 than krell.for my taste even new generation m.levinson amps are better than 33 and 33h.did you ever see any reviewer or very experienced audiophile using 33 or 33h? (but ml amps has a wonderfull match with revel speakers) |
adsal, respectfully disagree about wilsons. to get all the performance they are capable of you need high current and speed. when i went from levinson #33h to #33 there was a dramatic improvement in all areas. problems i had previously assigned to the speakers or even sources/software were revealed to be amplifier related on the wilson watt/puppy 6s. don't know if the same holds true for andras and amatis. |
to wslam;did you ever listened your amatis with some powerfull triode amps?try siltech g5 cables or valhalla
back to question.
1-andra needs too much power tube amps
2-wilson doesnt need too much watts as andra but if you want to hear what wilson can do you need fast and powerfull amps and very good match with mit cable
3-amati for me its the most difficult one but its the best one.and i m using this one.
whats your amps? |
I have heard all 3 speakers, and I now have the Amati.
Andra are very difficult to 'drive'. Unless you have the best amps available, the Andra might sound thin and weak. With proper amplification though, they sound quiet good, but there seems to be a lack of energy in the 'presence' spectrum.
Watt Puppy 6. Heard with all top of the line Spectral. Fast sounding. Quite good overall, but a bit boring (not much character)...
Amati. very fast and dynamic. A bit on the lean side. lack of energy in the 100 to 500 Hz region which could result in a harsher sound then one might expect. I know the faults of these speakers the most since I have been living with them for some time. |
I choose the Wilsons 6es, best sound I have heard, I have not heard the Kharma Ceramique 1.0 ...would of loved to...but they were not available. I big decision must be made based on the connected hardware and type of music. My XRCD Jazz CDs played on a system based on Mark Levinson/Wilson/Transparent totally hits the mark (for me) |
Believe it, Ericbee, since this chap A/B the Amati against WATT/PUPPY and Thiel 7.2 and decided on the Amati. WATT/PUPPY obviously have more slam but when it comes to musicality, nothing comes close. Driven by high quality tube amps, the Amati can melt you if you like string instrument. |
maybe I can help. I live in NYC and went to a local dealer to "BUY" the Amati's. When I saw them in person I was overwhelmed, but when they were powered up, I was so dissappointed I almost cried. No amount of craftsmanship made them sound good, they were just awful. No bass, no midrange, shrill highs and very unnatural sounding. The dealer brought me into room 2 with the watt puppies and they were the ugliest things I have ever seen, especially after seeing the Amatis. He put on the same CD with the same equipment, all levinson and cabling were identical in both rooms, just the room itself was different, and WHAM, I knew that this was the shit. These speakers are the best sounding that I have ever heard at any price. I didn't like the watt 5's so much but, the 6's were a different animal. I find it impossible to believe that anyone doing an A/B test between the amati and the 6 would pick the amati's, it was that dramatic. Take it for what it's worth. |
I totally agree with Onhwy61. Think of not having a local dealer for two of these products as an inconvenience and just a problem to solve. Step back for a moment and just figure out what it's going to take to make an in home demo happen for you. You control how you spend the important variables here, "your time and your money". Those are only luxury items can truly produce results. There are dealers you can work with on this if they know you are serious. Other people speaker audition opinions are worse than worthless. E-mail correspondence with actual owners might be worth something, not much, but not anything as compared to real in your home demo with your own music sources. |
Anybody else's opinion about the sound of these speakers is completely and absolutely worthless. Only you can tell what can work for you. My suggestion is that you contact each manufacturer and find single city where they all have dealers and physically travel there. At the price level you're considering the added cost of 2-3 day trip is not significant. Contact the dealers ahead of your visit and explain your situation. Good dealers love customers like yourself and will go out of their way to meet your needs. Audiogon is an excellent forum for obtaining certain types of information, but judging the sonic differences between high resolution equipment is best done by listening with your own ears. BTW, I'm not in the market for speaker and haven't heard any of your choices, however, I have seen the Amati in the flesh and it was the most gorgeous looking speaker I have ever seen. Good luck! |
I guess I'll weigh in, since I auditioned two of the three while looking for new speakers about a year ago. The Watt/Puppy 6.0, while a huge improvement over the 5.1's, have a long way to go before they belong in that price range. Speakers like the Avalon Eidolon, the Kharma Ceramique 1.0 and the Andra completely outclass the Wilsons in terms of purity and transparency in the midrange and the high end. In terms of bass dynamics, the Wilsons are a contender in this price range, but even there you're talking about a compromised sound, kick drums that are noticably recorded, not live sounding, that sort of thing. Better dynamics than the Eidolon, harder to compare directly to the Ceramique or the Andra, although I do prefer the bass reproduction from both of those over the Wilsons. As far as the Andra goes, this is a very nice sounding speaker and a bargain at the price. In terms of midrange and high end clarity, I would place it slighty above the Eidolon. It's also a more involving sound. The Kharma Ceramique 1.0 would have to go at the top though. The one thing to watch out for with the Andra is the bottom end. The bass driver is mounted near the floor, and can get sloppy and bloated if you are not careful. In general, this can be dealt with through careful room placement/treatment, but it is definetly an issue. If bass performance is not a huge issue for you, consider the Eggleston Rosa. Midrange and treble performance nearly identical to the Andra, but better controlled (although thinner) bass. For what it's worth, I wasn't completely satisfied with any of the speakers available in this price range. Finally found myself choosing between Avante Garde, JM Labs Utopia and Kharma Exquisite (in that order). Have Fun. |
