Apogee Comparison

[User211]

More refined, maybe, but I am mot so sure it is as real or close to the sound of the actual instrument, if you like.

Divas are immense, though. But with immensity comes authority, so I am told by the refurbisher. I've never heard a pair - very rare over here.

 

[BrianBeck]

Burson opamps test poorly

While you're looking at new opamps, take a look at Burson opamps (sold by partsconnexion), which are built using discrete components. PC claims that it's a big upgrade.

PC claims a lot of things in their ads. This may be old news, but here are tests of many opamps. Unfortunately the Burson fares quite poorly in these tests. Yeah, yeah, I know, listening is what counts, but this data gives me little inducement to try Burson discrete opamps.

http://www.sg-acoustics.ch/analogue_audio/ic_opamps/pdf/opamp_distortion.pdf

 

[MrBT]

PC claims a lot of things in their ads. This may be old news, but here are tests of many opamps. Unfortunately the Burson fares quite poorly in these tests. Yeah, yeah, I know, listening is what counts, but this data gives me little inducement to try Burson discrete opamps.

http://www.sg-acoustics.ch/analogue_audio/ic_opamps/pdf/opamp_distortion.pdf

Burson just released new version of opamps. They are so new that nobody probably tested them yet.

As of older version, I use it in my highly modified Oppo-95 and also modified Musical Fidelity X-LPS V8. They sounded the most to my liking (great dynamics and analogue character without "digitisis") among quite a few IC opamps. However "generic" power supplies were compromising their performance and I had to build separate highly regulated PSUs.

Good thing about Burson opamps is that they have trimpot to zero DC offset.

P.S. There is a measurement and there also is a perception.

 

[Scottinwa]

Scinitillas never struck me as the holy grail of anything, even with a fire breathing amp that could handle 1 ohm.

 

[R.I.P]

REFERENCES:
The following information, except for conclusion, obtained, extracted and adapted from Stereophile magazine essay " The Flat Response ". This essay was authored by Martin Colloms. In this essay the author has compared and contrasted Apogee Duetta 2 with Martin Logan CLS 1 type 2 ( UK ).

INTRODUCTION:
Price quoted first issue, Apogee Duetta $2780 and Martin logan CLS $2490.

After testing Duetta 1 and CLS 1 type1 prototypes a need was felt for improvement in acoustics.
Lead to the commercial manufacture of Duetta 2 and CLS 1 type 2.

TRANSDUCER DESIGN:
The Duetta employs ribbon technology. High frequency driver consists of aluminum foil/Kapton ribbon placed between poles of a magnet. Low frequency driver consists of aluminum foil and Kapton plastic tape placed in one sided magnetic field. In comparison, CLS employs 0.004" thick Mylar diaphragm. Both sides of this diaphragm are placed inside fixed mesh electrodes.

Duetta, crossover at 500 Hz and therefore 2 way. CLS is full range and therefore has no crossover circuit.

Duetta, have very low sensitivity around 78dB/W. Therefore penalties to pay in terms of required amplifier power. In contrast, the CLS have below average sensitivity of 84dB/W.

Duetta, have high power handling and very high innate linearity allowing elimination of compression effects. In addition, they do not employ transformers because they are not powered by a.c mains. On the other hand, CLS have a power handling upward of 150 watts. Compression effect exist when peak handling limits are exceeded and saturation limit is reached in the core of the step up transformer.

Compared to CLS, Duetta acoustic window area of woofer is not very high.

The CLS have two physical weakness, namely, aging changes in the diaphragm tension and dust accumulation. Similarly, Apogee Duetta mk2 is physically vulnerable. Duetta unprotected diaphragms are susceptible to damage. Even a light finger touch will spoil the delicate diaphragm.

LISTENING OBSERVATIONS BY MARTIN COLLOMS:
The Duetta treble sounded filtered with less air or sparkle in the final audio octave. And needed heavy driving to increase the treble and mid range. By comparison, the CLS sounded tonally neutral and could play pretty loud with quite modest amplifiers.

Duetta acoustics produced over most of the freq. range were of high purity with excellent transparency.

Duetta low frequency appeared powerful, clean, articulate and extended to subwoofer level. In contrast, CLS bass less dynamic.

Duetta produced high resolution of inner detail.

Duetta mk2 and CLS 1 type 2 have exceptional and live respectively, midrange performance.

RAH CONCLUSION:
In the second decade of the third millennium, well designed, powerful and reasonably priced power amplifiers abound. So very low sensitivity does not appear to be a major disadvantage. Since the high frequency's are dull and do not sound open, my advice, may help to use additional high frequency electrostatic or ribbon driver.

Enjoy!

 

[edwinr]

Welcome to the forum, Brian.

There is no way you will get banished to ML hell for your comments; we are very open-minded here.

I say banish him...

 

[BrianBeck]

I say banish him...

Ouch! Banished by guys who listen to Saran Wrap instead of Reynolds Wrap... :ROFL:

 

[bonzo]

Hi guys,

How do the Audio Analysis speakers compare to the App's?

I've heard the former but not the latter.

GG

Oh this thread just resurfaced yesterday. The Analysis Audio are my favorite speakers (only the Cessaro Liszt at 100k might top it). I haven't heard a speaker that comes close on orchestral and piano. While they look like Apogees, the comparison ends there, you will find more on Audio Asylum or the Apogee forum in terms of the magnets they use.

They are easier to drive - while they need power, they have a straight 8ohm impedance, and if you mod the crossovers to active, they get even easier. Some people drive them with SETs of 50w.

If you listen to piano on this, you won't be able to listen to a piano on a box again (hybrid woofers included). It is no coincidence that the guy who distributes them in the UK, both him and his wife listen to classical all the time. You can do more research on Audio Asylum, just put in Analysis Audio Omega in their search. They are also the most dynamic I have heard for orchestral - you really feel music is decompressed and expanding

Their soundstage is bigger and more ambient - they fill the room side to side, top to bottom. It's crazy. And at the same time well-defined. And yes, I have heard them in my room too, in the same room and with the same gear as the Summits.

While Apogees also do a lot of good things on orchestral and piano, to my Logan ears, their midrange doesn't appeal (apogee fans obviously prefer the vocals on the apogees). However, with AA, I get the same vocal magic, in fact for male vocals it gets better, though I won't choose between a Logan or an AA on vocal performance. Logans do more transparent, AA more full bodied, thick.

Unlike stats, they are easier to set up. Just position them parallel to the wall, 3 feet or so out, and you should be fine. No need to endlessly tweak them IME.

But if you want to maximize your system for classical, do listen to these. The Omegas are a minimum, with the Amphitryons (which I haven't heard) being the biggest and going even lower and easier to drive. I think as of now these are my dream speakers I will end up with.

 

[User211]

I like the AA - it is what inspired the Apogee rebuild project. In fact I told bonzo to go listen to them.

It isn't as dynamic a speaker as the Duetta Sig is - not as suited to rock/reggae/electronica IMHO. It probably is better with classical - at least to my ears.

I don't find the Duetta any smaller in scale than the AA - in fact fed with a Lampizator level 7 the sound can get too huge with EML 45 output valves, for instance. Mid range would probably be more to bonzo's taste with the DAC driving the speaker.

If interested in planar magnetic speakers, try and hear both, preferably driven with powerful tube amps.

The Cessaro's are nice but you really can hear the difference in presentation between the horn and dynamic drivers. Ultimately for the price I couldn't live with that issue.

 

[bonzo]

I think that is a point of disagreement based on musical tastes.You will note on audio asylum some find it more dynamic and bassier than divas, while I am sure there are some the other way. I would prefer to hear metallica on your set up, but the dynamics of classical are different

That said, both are better than Logans on these. Of course, yours is much lower priced. I will be listening to more apogees to see if I can get the AA quality at a lower price

 

[bonzo]

Actually, someone was comparing them to the Dali megaline and Sweden's transmission audio planets, which I haven't heard (of course, not to the costliest TA speaker which is 2 million lol

 

[bonzo]

This is an interesting thread on the Apogee Acoustics forum from somebody who has both the Stages and the Epsilons (the smallest of the AA) in the same room.
http://www.apogeeacoustics.com/oldforum/006548.html

"Like the Analysis Omegas, the Epsilons are dynamically agile and very fast, and they present dynamic shading and nuance to a tee. Complex passages that my Stages would congeal or compress are broadly opened into another open doorway of sound.
So this dynamic agility seems to be the Analysis great strength.
In this respect, the Epsilons are like electrostats in speed, soundstaging and dynamic parsing, without the de-enervation of electrostats or the haze of maggies. I would say they are broadly faster sounding and more detailed than Apogees I have heard, including my own. Haunting music is more haunting on the Epsilons. I think the Analysis would be the speed champs, and the Aps would be the body, tone and slam champs. Strings can sound better on Analysis, but Miles Davis horn blasts are better on Aps. I can hear the reed of a saxaphone better on the Epsilon, but the tone color of the bell is more apparent on Aps."

 

[User211]

I think that is a point of disagreement based on musical tastes.You will note on audio asylum some find it more dynamic and bassier than divas, while I am sure there are some the other way. I would prefer to hear metallica on your set up, but the dynamics of classical are different

That said, both are better than Logans on these. Of course, yours is much lower priced. I will be listening to more apogees to see if I can get the AA quality at a lower price

Just come and hear my new ones with the Big 7 when they arrive.

TBH though for mainly classical tastes, I'd go with the AA.

I think the Mylar used in the AAs (and Maggies) versus Kapton used by Apogee is probably what makes them sound different more than any other factor. I'm guessing, though. Also, at least AAs use a decent amount of magnets whereas Maggie do not, IMHO.

 

[User211]

This is an interesting thread on the Apogee Acoustics forum from somebody who has both the Stages and the Epsilons (the smallest of the AA) in the same room.
http://www.apogeeacoustics.com/oldforum/006548.html

"Like the Analysis Omegas, the Epsilons are dynamically agile and very fast, and they present dynamic shading and nuance to a tee. Complex passages that my Stages would congeal or compress are broadly opened into another open doorway of sound.
So this dynamic agility seems to be the Analysis great strength.
In this respect, the Epsilons are like electrostats in speed, soundstaging and dynamic parsing, without the de-enervation of electrostats or the haze of maggies. I would say they are broadly faster sounding and more detailed than Apogees I have heard, including my own. Haunting music is more haunting on the Epsilons. I think the Analysis would be the speed champs, and the Aps would be the body, tone and slam champs. Strings can sound better on Analysis, but Miles Davis horn blasts are better on Aps. I can hear the reed of a saxaphone better on the Epsilon, but the tone color of the bell is more apparent on Aps."

I've never heard Stages but they use double sided ribbons, which are going to be heavier (and maybe slower because of it - but it does increase efficiency). There is a big difference between Calipers and Duetta Sigs however. So I'd imagine the difference between Stages and Duetta Sigs to be really quite substantial. Just trust what this guy thinks, though, with regards to these speaker models only.

 

[bonzo]

The model I heard in Nottingham, was that a Duetta Sig or Duetta?

 

[User211]

The model I heard in Nottingham, was that a Duetta Sig or Duetta?

Duetta Sig. The Duetta and Duetta II used in the CLS cross comparison were a bit naff. The Sigs resolved the issues apparent in the earlier Duetta models.

 

[BrianBeck]

I've never heard Stages but they use double sided ribbons, which are going to be heavier (and maybe slower because of it - but it does increase efficiency). There is a big difference between Calipers and Duetta Sigs however. So I'd imagine the difference between Stages and Duetta Sigs to be really quite substantial. Just trust what this guy thinks, though, with regards to these speaker models only.

Not to mention comparisons with the Diva, Scintilla or original Full Range, all of which are three-way designs with extended high frequencies ("speed").

 

[User211]

Not to mention comparisons with the Diva, Scintilla or original Full Range, all of which are three-way designs with extended high frequencies ("speed").

Or even Synergy and Definitive. Wasn't Scintilla 2 way?

The double sided "ribbon" in the Stage is part of the bass panel, which isn't technically a ribbon as it is clamped on all edges. Just thought I'd better correct myself

 

[BrianBeck]

Wasn't Scintilla 2 way?

The Scintilla LOOKED like a two-way with a single cavity holding the midrange ribbon flanked by four smaller tweeter ribbons in what they called a "coalescence" array. The tweeter ribbons were wired in anti-phase front-to-back so the tweeter pattern was cardioid. Very unusual, but I guess it worked! The Diva marked the return to a "normal" three-way with its tweeter ribbon covering above 12 KHz.