slowGEEZR
Well-known member
Don't forget the Vandersteen's, as they are extremely capable speakers. When I heard them at RMAF, they sounded so beautiful playing a lacquer. I've never heard violin reproduced as well.
OK! Esoteric K1 is the winner. ==• now we need to move to the speaker!!!!!}{[]>
- Thread starter Joey_V
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
Bernard
Well-known member
I would not buy the Diamonds based upon their looks; to me they are ugly. The Strads on the other hand......IMO speakers dominate the visual field so much that they have to be reasonably attractive.
Steve, you mentioned realistic violins on the Vandersteen. Do you have any Mercury Living Presence LPs? That's the best violin I've ever heard.
Steve, you mentioned realistic violins on the Vandersteen. Do you have any Mercury Living Presence LPs? That's the best violin I've ever heard.
The guy who used to sell Vandy's in UK is the same guy who is the Analysis Audio distributor. He has the best classical ear in the dealers I know in the UK, bases his systems on classical, so to Steve's point he must have noticed those violins as well
slowGEEZR
Well-known member
Bernard, no I don't believe I have any. Bonzo, Vandersteen was playing an acetate, which from my understanding is about as close as you can get to a master tape. It really was a special event, as they stated an acetate should not be played more than once a day.
Last edited:
Joey_V
Well-known member
Have heard 5 carbons but not the 7. Back to back against Wilson Sasha 2.
And what's the Verdict?
Joey_V
Well-known member
I like it better than Sasha 2. But the dealer was pushing the Sasha 2 down my throat or so it seemed.
By better I mean it sounds more natural. However I am not sure if I heard it in all it's glory since there are so many resistors? And things you can tweak in the rear.
I think the midrange is way superior and the bass can be tuned to your room. It also works well with valve amps if you so require. Do try the new Verity Audio series (not the Parsifal one, but the one with Leonore. Most will tell you they have the same house sound but they do not). My guess is the Leonore midrange will please all Logan Lovers the best in boxes . I don't know what the models are above the Leonore, the Sarastro II is very expensive, but you can listen both Leonore and Sarastro II to get a taste).
slowGEEZR
Well-known member
Joey, I'd like to say that I think it is very important to hear the speakers in a properly set up home environment. I have heard so many of what I know to be incredible sounding speakers sounding incredibly bad due to poor setup conditions. For instance, no one would say that the CLX sounds bad, as it has garnered praise from every review it has been in. Since we all know that ML's sound incredible, it would be silly to say the CLX sounds bad, but that is exactly my only experience with it. I heard the CLX in a showroom up in the Dallas area. It was driven with very inexpensive gear and was set up improperly and sounded like noise, one of the worst sounding systems I've ever heard. If I had no knowledge of what a properly setup ML system sounded like, I would have left wondering what all the hype was about. In my experience, really great speakers are more temperamental to proper setup than mediocre speakers. I believe this is due to their extreme accuracy. Many times people say a speaker is "musical" because it always sounds decent, but IMO, those speakers never achieve greatness, as they sound "musical" because of an added amount of warmth due to high bass emphasis and typically, a reduction in treble and a little masking of clarity. YG Acoustics, Magico, Wilson and MBL's, among other great speakers are extremely accurate and don't "prettify" the music. I have heard these brands in setups where they have driven me from the room, due to the poor sound. Yet, I have heard these sound incredible in the proper setup and no "musical" speaker can come close to the realism these "accurate" speakers can. Also, "accurate" speakers reveal every nuance of the electrical chain they are connected to. If you put on a typical rock album from the '70's, it is highly likely to not sound as good as it would on a "musical" speaker, as most '70's era rock was poorly recorded. However, put on music which was recorded with care and the realism coming from "accurate" speakers is beautiful and as realistic as can be. Source is more important to an "accurate" speaker. So, you then have to decide if you want speakers that sound good on everything or speakers that reveal every nuance in the system's chain.
Hi, I agree with the first part of set up, but disagree with the second part of musicality and accuracy. At these budgets I neither want a speaker that is called musical because it gives false warmth while hiding details, nor do I want an accurate speaker that sounds harsh and sacrifices soundstage etc. I get much more detail out of NAT amplification going into an Analysis Audio, then I get from a vivaldi stack into a dartzeel into a wilson alexia. To my ears the Analysis sounds more musical, to yours the Wilson might. But if we sat in the room and looked for the same detail, we would both hear the same thing, how much weight we give to that detail will be different. The Estelon is one speaker I have heard that does everything brilliantly, but falls short on one point - it is always a bit harsh. It is holographic, great accurate bass, looks great, but the ceramic drivers are fatiguing.
The source being good is true for all quality hifi speakers.
However, accuracy and musicality aside all designs have inherent flaws too. A speaker that sounds good on everything, like you said, still has to be made, IMO. A cone speaker will never match the speed of a 2w amp going into a high sensitivity horn, nor the speed of an electrostat or Ribbon tweeter. Also, putting a cabinet around a speaker hinders its piano reproducing capability significantly. Therefore for classical, I will never touch a box, accurate or not, due to its lack of speed and piano reproduction. Likewise, if I wanted to listen to rock I would never buy a planar or a horn. Some like Apogees or Logan hybrids will do some justice to rock but never that of a quality box. I prefer to have a system that reproduces classical better, because I believe there is enough HQ classical material around, and the differences as you improve a system is the most evident on classical. For rock, I will stick to a soundbar and headphones. I believe for rock music a system plateaus at 5k. I have heard rock on 2k B&Ws as well as the Magico Q5s and it sounded the same. That is also how the recording engineers wanted it. Dire Straits and Pink floyd aside, there is little attempt to master rock for an HQ system, and even those two groups are compressed compared to a good classical recording. So I am building a HQ system for classical and a soundbar for rock.
Only a Datasat Dirac Auro 3d system with box speakers can do both well, and the best I heard was with Joey's favorite 802Ds. So he should go for it and build a 13.4 Datasat Dirac around it. Because he can then use the concert hall ambience for church organs and full symphony orchestras, and turn to 2-channel in the same system for flat out rock.
The source being good is true for all quality hifi speakers.
However, accuracy and musicality aside all designs have inherent flaws too. A speaker that sounds good on everything, like you said, still has to be made, IMO. A cone speaker will never match the speed of a 2w amp going into a high sensitivity horn, nor the speed of an electrostat or Ribbon tweeter. Also, putting a cabinet around a speaker hinders its piano reproducing capability significantly. Therefore for classical, I will never touch a box, accurate or not, due to its lack of speed and piano reproduction. Likewise, if I wanted to listen to rock I would never buy a planar or a horn. Some like Apogees or Logan hybrids will do some justice to rock but never that of a quality box. I prefer to have a system that reproduces classical better, because I believe there is enough HQ classical material around, and the differences as you improve a system is the most evident on classical. For rock, I will stick to a soundbar and headphones. I believe for rock music a system plateaus at 5k. I have heard rock on 2k B&Ws as well as the Magico Q5s and it sounded the same. That is also how the recording engineers wanted it. Dire Straits and Pink floyd aside, there is little attempt to master rock for an HQ system, and even those two groups are compressed compared to a good classical recording. So I am building a HQ system for classical and a soundbar for rock.
Only a Datasat Dirac Auro 3d system with box speakers can do both well, and the best I heard was with Joey's favorite 802Ds. So he should go for it and build a 13.4 Datasat Dirac around it. Because he can then use the concert hall ambience for church organs and full symphony orchestras, and turn to 2-channel in the same system for flat out rock.
slowGEEZR
Well-known member
Bonzo, I really don't think we're disagreeing that much. I believe that if an "accurate" speaker sounds harsh, it is due to the source or setup. Artificial harshness is an inaccuracy and if it comes from the speaker and not the electrical path nor the setup, then that speaker is inaccurate. But, an accurate speaker will play harshness if that is the actual sound. In my mind, true "musicality" is what is achieved by accuracy. My point is that some so called "musical" speakers don't sound harsh even when that harsh sound is what was performed.
As far as speed of a type of speaker, I think we have long passed the point where the better cones cannot sound every bit as fast as electrostatics. In fact, if you want to exceed the speed of electrostatics or horn speakers, listen to a plasma driver. Talk about low mass!
As far as speed of a type of speaker, I think we have long passed the point where the better cones cannot sound every bit as fast as electrostatics. In fact, if you want to exceed the speed of electrostatics or horn speakers, listen to a plasma driver. Talk about low mass!
The acapella horns cost Neolithic amounts and gave a plasma tweeter. But it is set at 5db higher or so and while it had a good midrange has major integration problems. Also it starts making noises after a 1000 hours
slowGEEZR
Well-known member
Absolutely, plasma drivers have issues. The latest drivers can last about 10,000 hours, I believe. One designer I spoke to said his are user replaceable for a cost of about $200. Another designer of a plasma speaker said his are not user replaceable and have to be replaced at the factory for a cost of $2000! One would really have to like that speaker to accept that. Unfortunately, those speakers sounded incredible to me.
slowGEEZR
Well-known member
The Lansche No.5.1 speakers, $50K, were my choice for best sound at RMAF. The reproduction of the human voice was especially impressive. The corona plasma tweeter can only be replaced at the factory. The other plasma speaker that was exceptional was the top of the line Vaughn loudspeaker. It retails for $18k, but would be my choice as best sounding speaker near its price point and I would seriously consider it even if I budgeted much more. Sorry, but the speaker's model number escapes me.
User211
Well-known member
There are plenty of great rock recordings, Kedar. The road doesn't end with Led Zep you know! No way a £5K system can do them full justice. Check out Rated R by Queens of the Stone Age and tell me that isn't a great sounding album. There are many more.
I actually think hybrid Logans do rock well. You get that sort of wall of sound effect with biggish panels that you get with big speaker stacks at rock gigs - only on a smaller scale.
I also do not believe most "dynamic" speakers are any more dynamic than an Apogee full range ribbon speaker. For the most part, I think they are less dynamic. An Apogee can put out an incredibly powerful sound. As you remarked you wondered why they sounded so powerful when listening to some Black Uhuru.
The best rock you ever heard I'd wager was on the Silbatone horn system at Munich playing Whole Lotta Love. I haven't heard anything as good as that anywhere.
I personally think B&Ws sound soft and soggy. And I think that is down to the drive unit material. I really don't like them.
Steve's post number 30 - huge grain of truth in it I think
I actually think hybrid Logans do rock well. You get that sort of wall of sound effect with biggish panels that you get with big speaker stacks at rock gigs - only on a smaller scale.
I also do not believe most "dynamic" speakers are any more dynamic than an Apogee full range ribbon speaker. For the most part, I think they are less dynamic. An Apogee can put out an incredibly powerful sound. As you remarked you wondered why they sounded so powerful when listening to some Black Uhuru.
The best rock you ever heard I'd wager was on the Silbatone horn system at Munich playing Whole Lotta Love. I haven't heard anything as good as that anywhere.
I personally think B&Ws sound soft and soggy. And I think that is down to the drive unit material. I really don't like them.
Steve's post number 30 - huge grain of truth in it I think
Last edited:
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
One would hopefully decide on the later. But>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are plenty of great rock recordings, Kedar. The road doesn't end with Led Zep you know! No way a £5K system can do them full justice. Check out Rated R by Queens of the Stone Age and tell me that isn't a great sounding album. There are many more.
I actually think hybrid Logans do rock well. You get that sort of wall of sound effect with biggish panels that you get with big speaker stacks at rock gigs - only on a smaller scale.
I also do not believe most "dynamic" speakers are any more dynamic than an Apogee full range ribbon speaker. For the most part, I think they are less dynamic. An Apogee can put out an incredibly powerful sound. As you remarked you wondered why they sounded so powerful when listening to some Black Uhuru.
The best rock you ever heard I'd wager was on the Silbatone horn system at Munich playing Whole Lotta Love. I haven't heard anything as good as that anywhere.
I personally think B&Ws sound soft and soggy. And I think that is down to the drive unit material. I really don't like them.
Steve's post number 30 - huge grain of truth in it I think
It is not about the dynamism for me Justin, it is about the slam that comes from a box. It's different. I prefer it for rock. I agree Apogees are more dynamic, and I agree on the Silbatone as well.
User211
Well-known member
Yes it is different - it is low excursion high surface area versus (generally) high excursion low surface area, which "punches" the air more, and is usually higher distortion due to overshoot etc etc. I like the sheer balls and weight the Apogee panel manages on rock, but it is immediately evident when I plug my guitar into my Cornford Harlequin amp (10" Celestion papar cone driver, puny 6 Watt EL84 based amp designed to distort at relatively low volume for hone use) that you have entered a whole different ball park.
That has the apparent huge advantage of NOT suffering from using a recorded medium. Plug real music into it and it sounds terrible. It is purely optimised for guitar playback only.
Mind you for rock low distortion is NOT a priority. It is injected with it deliberately, particularly on lead and rhythm guitar.
I don't think many hi-fi speakers are really designed with rock playback as a priority. None seem to get anywhere near what a basic Peavey setup manages down my local pub with some real live instruments. None.
That has the apparent huge advantage of NOT suffering from using a recorded medium. Plug real music into it and it sounds terrible. It is purely optimised for guitar playback only.
Mind you for rock low distortion is NOT a priority. It is injected with it deliberately, particularly on lead and rhythm guitar.
I don't think many hi-fi speakers are really designed with rock playback as a priority. None seem to get anywhere near what a basic Peavey setup manages down my local pub with some real live instruments. None.
Last edited:
