Well, I had a real ear-opener a little while ago, when working in a hi-fi shop (a chain, so not dealing in 'hi-end'). A Yamaha or Sony thing, sort sort of basic AV unit, was powering the new B&W 703s, which are the most impressive sounding speakers I've heard. It sounded very, very good. The cheap amp didn't remove the speakers' qualities, and I was still blown away by the speakers' dynamics and punchiness. True, after a little more listening I yearned for more detail, and for the spitty treble and overall mushiness to go away. But I was taught a lesson, after thinking amps and source were pretty dam important - the speakers make by far the biggest change to sound.Jim85IROC said:
However, I've not ever heard anything like what I hear every day at home in some respects... and it's no coincedance that I've heard no other system that uses mains conditioning, sensible equipment supports, good cabling, and a really tweaked cd player... Your speakers can't make up for what's missing before them.
great thread.
im surprised no one mentioned bose yet! it fits with the title of the thread
but seriously, B&W has always sounded over-priced to me. however, i was demo'ing them for a customer one day (actually, the gear, not the speakers) and they surprised me. it was the 803's hooked up to the musical fidelity tri-vista integrated with the esoteric dv-50 as a source. those speakers sounded WONDERFUL! i was amazed. maybe its just a good combo for them, but i could actually see why so many people like B&W now.
regarding the sonus fabres, im a dealer for those too, and i have to admit, several months ago, i had the same opinion as many of you, lifeless, dull and plain. however, the more i listened to them, they sounded more critical and had a much more realistic tone to them. and put on better front end, they can sound truly great. i dont like the conciertinos at all, but the conciertos, grand pianos, and the auditors (the baby cremonas), are good. well, the auditors are fantastic (only speaker i would ever consider trading the maggies in for).
and in an opposite response to the topic, meridian. they have always blown me away.
im surprised no one mentioned bose yet! it fits with the title of the thread
but seriously, B&W has always sounded over-priced to me. however, i was demo'ing them for a customer one day (actually, the gear, not the speakers) and they surprised me. it was the 803's hooked up to the musical fidelity tri-vista integrated with the esoteric dv-50 as a source. those speakers sounded WONDERFUL! i was amazed. maybe its just a good combo for them, but i could actually see why so many people like B&W now.
regarding the sonus fabres, im a dealer for those too, and i have to admit, several months ago, i had the same opinion as many of you, lifeless, dull and plain. however, the more i listened to them, they sounded more critical and had a much more realistic tone to them. and put on better front end, they can sound truly great. i dont like the conciertinos at all, but the conciertos, grand pianos, and the auditors (the baby cremonas), are good. well, the auditors are fantastic (only speaker i would ever consider trading the maggies in for).
and in an opposite response to the topic, meridian. they have always blown me away.
Bose, haha! I heard some Bose speakers once, in a hi-fi shop, and the sound was rather weird, coloured enough to be called lo-fi, so perhaps that's why they've not featured here yet... and they have a great repution in who's eyes??? lol (in their defence, they weren't harsh, like so much kit is)cowanrg said:great thread.
im surprised no one mentioned bose yet! it fits with the title of the thread
...it was the 803's hooked up to the musical fidelity tri-vista integrated with the esoteric dv-50 as a source. those speakers sounded WONDERFUL! i was amazed. maybe its just a good combo for them, but i could actually see why so many people like B&W now. ...
B&Ws are notorious for sounding their best with hi-power amplification. I wish I could go somewhere local to listen to the 800 series! 703 are stunning in some ways, not incredibly musical tho...
About the Sonus Fabers - why don't you pop em open and but in a better treble cap, or smaller value resistor?
A friendly hi-fi shop guy once told me he tried several quite mediocre budget speakers with different tweeter caps, and it turned them into stunners, leagues ahead. I reckon with many so-so speakers it may just be a matter of improving the x-over parts
yeah, i would imagine so...
the sumiko rep was in the other day (the distributors of sonus and a few other brands), and they were blabbing about the x-over for the speakers... we asked why all their speakers only had a single set of posts (cant bi-wire or bi-amp), they said something to the effect: "most people like to use high-order crossovers that benefit from bi-amping, we dont choose to go that route. we use low-order crossovers that use revolutionary star ground topology". um, yeah, how is that good again?
translated: "we use cheap crossovers".
the sumiko rep was in the other day (the distributors of sonus and a few other brands), and they were blabbing about the x-over for the speakers... we asked why all their speakers only had a single set of posts (cant bi-wire or bi-amp), they said something to the effect: "most people like to use high-order crossovers that benefit from bi-amping, we dont choose to go that route. we use low-order crossovers that use revolutionary star ground topology". um, yeah, how is that good again?
translated: "we use cheap crossovers".
SimontY said:Originally posted by Nielsio
Interesting then that so many people appreciate ATC speakers as some of the very best money can buy, and they are typically very inefficient, and usually 3-way. You can only generalise so much
'so many people'...
O, come on, what kind of nonsense hear-say argumenting is that?
gary f said:
You and all the others naysaying my comment have taken it outside of the carefully stated context provided before the statement.
This is not something i say off the cuff , but at the end of a 35 yr journey that started out believing the speaker was most important.
Do not under estimate the importance of the speaker... over 90% of them are c$%&. But you can live with one of those good speakers -- even if it cost <$100 to make, as long as you have a good front end...
ron clarke said:
Thanx for restating that Ron... it is very important.
dave
SimontY said:
About the Sonus Fabers - why don't you pop em open and but in a better treble cap, or smaller value resistor?
MIght be hard to jsut pop this open.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Cross-over sealing with six kilos of resin
Personally i would go the High efficiency route,and no i dont mean 93db/1watt i mean 103db/1watt
I would also like to compare- complex xovers vs simplistic low order
and I really understand why so many talk of how high eff horns simply cause the sound to be so effortless-although like anything the wrong compromises can be made and the sound coloured...
But because thers a lack of hifi here il have to built it all myself-which would cost alot
-so im going to simply go for a 3way horn system...DIY 300hz-2khz midrange tractix Eminence psd2002 HF and 12" Pro unit for 60-300hz..(p audio) this ofcourse will cost ~1800$ NZ) for all the nice parts.
See the audio asylum,altho low in quality nowadays there are some good still there,and i think u must really compare things properly before concluding what they are.
I would also like to compare- complex xovers vs simplistic low order
and I really understand why so many talk of how high eff horns simply cause the sound to be so effortless-although like anything the wrong compromises can be made and the sound coloured...
But because thers a lack of hifi here il have to built it all myself-which would cost alot
-so im going to simply go for a 3way horn system...DIY 300hz-2khz midrange tractix Eminence psd2002 HF and 12" Pro unit for 60-300hz..(p audio) this ofcourse will cost ~1800$ NZ) for all the nice parts.
See the audio asylum,altho low in quality nowadays there are some good still there,and i think u must really compare things properly before concluding what they are.
if you look really close you can see the star ground!
hehe, jk.
yeah, those are just for the amati's i belive. their lower speakers get much worse crossovers.
hehe, jk.
yeah, those are just for the amati's i belive. their lower speakers get much worse crossovers.
officeboy said:
MIght be hard to jsut pop this open.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Cross-over sealing with six kilos of resin
Despite the fact that some people go bonkers over them, I've never liked the B&W house sound. The upper mids glare, which is something I don't tolerate. I suppose they appeal to the same crowd who call thin, harsh solid state sound "accurate." Ugh.
The original Martin Logan CLS is another example of a speaker that I would have had a hard time living with. They sold a zillion pairs of them, but I'd have to be consigned to a desert island to put up with them.
I'd be curious to hear some of the larger Wilson speakers. People seem to either love them or hate them. Unless and until I hear them, I won't know which category I might be in.
Large, complex crossovers aren't necessarily bad, although poorly executed examples are common. They do, however, tend to work against efficiency.
Grey
The original Martin Logan CLS is another example of a speaker that I would have had a hard time living with. They sold a zillion pairs of them, but I'd have to be consigned to a desert island to put up with them.
I'd be curious to hear some of the larger Wilson speakers. People seem to either love them or hate them. Unless and until I hear them, I won't know which category I might be in.
Large, complex crossovers aren't necessarily bad, although poorly executed examples are common. They do, however, tend to work against efficiency.
Grey
You ought to reference a particular range, as the cheaper B&Ws do not have that character, to me.GRollins said:
The 600 series is sort of a 'boom and tizz' affair, which doesn't emphasise upper mids in the slightest, rather the opposite, which is great for rough-sounding dance music, for example.
The CM series sound a bit more lively, with more apparent detail.
The 703 just sounds 'accurate', and amazingly so. The 704 (if thats the correct number) is perhaps warmer and more confused.
The predecessors e.g. CDM-1NTs have a warm, lush sound, and a beatiful, open mid-range to my ears.
Do you refer to the more upmarket B&Ws when you say 'mids glare'?
Thanks
Your opinions are based on your own preferences and experiences, but when an owner of a high-end hi-fi shop says to me, "ATCs driven by big solid state amps are the only thing that sound like real music" it becomes "nonsense hear-say argumenting?" It's actually just another opinion, and one from someone who has heard much of the best equipment money can buy... btw his shop doesn't sell valve amps.Nielsio said:
It's a funny old thing, this audio stuff.
I used to own Sonus Faber Concertos.
And I have owned Martin Logans.
And also Wilson Watts.
All of the above have been used as examples of over-priced/crappy/not-very-good.
Whilst I do think the initial post was an ad for the speakers recommended, none of the above are bad speakers IMHO. There may be those who think they are poster children for bad value.
However, until I built my dipoles, I though the WATTs were great value (used).
I still can't think of a better store speaker than the Concertos for the price (and I am amazed at the description of them as 'dry' cos they are the wettest, mushiest good speaker I've hear).
M-Ls are not as good as they used to be but still not really a speaker you can compare to others.
But, as I said, each to their own. And more precisely, EQ 'em.
Steve
I used to own Sonus Faber Concertos.
And I have owned Martin Logans.
And also Wilson Watts.
All of the above have been used as examples of over-priced/crappy/not-very-good.
Whilst I do think the initial post was an ad for the speakers recommended, none of the above are bad speakers IMHO. There may be those who think they are poster children for bad value.
However, until I built my dipoles, I though the WATTs were great value (used).
I still can't think of a better store speaker than the Concertos for the price (and I am amazed at the description of them as 'dry' cos they are the wettest, mushiest good speaker I've hear).
M-Ls are not as good as they used to be but still not really a speaker you can compare to others.
But, as I said, each to their own. And more precisely, EQ 'em.
Steve
I would have to say that Thiel was by far the most dissapointing speaker I've ever heard. After they get built up so much by magazine reviewers and their loyal fan base, I was very shocked at just how poorly they performed with the entire musical range. I could not find a single piece of music that sounded natural through those speakers. The cabinetry was very nice though...
Second would have to be the B&W 80x series. Great bass control but other that that, lifeless mids that sounded like feather pillows and very room dependant highs. I would not pay list price for those speakers.
Countless other just fall into the "ehhh" range, not great, not terrible, just good.
I do have to say though that the front end is very critical in the overall character the speaker projects. The Sonus Concerto sounded phenominal on a wall with premium Adcom pre and power sections fed by a Primare CD, wire was transparent. In that particular rig, in that particular room, they were by far the best sounding speaker I have ever heard at any price point all things considered. For grins, we set the system up in the same room but switched to T+A on the front end, talk about a drastic turn for the worst. The soundfield immediately collapsed and the speakers lost the sweetness they had with the Adcom/Primare front. Then, the speakers were tried in a different room hitched to a Sony 50es acting as a pre/DAC and a massive Rotel as a power all fed by an ES CD player acting as a transport. Now the system sounded different once again. Granted the room changes, but that doesn't explain everything we heard. Front ends are extremely important in my opinion, but finding the right combination of components is very much like the needle in the haystack.
Second would have to be the B&W 80x series. Great bass control but other that that, lifeless mids that sounded like feather pillows and very room dependant highs. I would not pay list price for those speakers.
Countless other just fall into the "ehhh" range, not great, not terrible, just good.
I do have to say though that the front end is very critical in the overall character the speaker projects. The Sonus Concerto sounded phenominal on a wall with premium Adcom pre and power sections fed by a Primare CD, wire was transparent. In that particular rig, in that particular room, they were by far the best sounding speaker I have ever heard at any price point all things considered. For grins, we set the system up in the same room but switched to T+A on the front end, talk about a drastic turn for the worst. The soundfield immediately collapsed and the speakers lost the sweetness they had with the Adcom/Primare front. Then, the speakers were tried in a different room hitched to a Sony 50es acting as a pre/DAC and a massive Rotel as a power all fed by an ES CD player acting as a transport. Now the system sounded different once again. Granted the room changes, but that doesn't explain everything we heard. Front ends are extremely important in my opinion, but finding the right combination of components is very much like the needle in the haystack.
SimontY said:
So 'so many people' becomes just one person..
Furthermore: on "stating someone elses opinion as being a 'truth'", please read: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26230
And finally: hi-fi shops are there to make money. They don't really care to get the best-for-money to their customers, and bind themselves (/are bound) to the usual off-the-shelf 'hi-fi' equipment. Not very interesting places/people, if you'd ask me.
Many people it still is, I just gave the closest thing to first hand I couldNielsio said:
I've never heard a bad word about ATC, and was (as you well know) giving you a case to consider, which shows there is more than one available approach to great sound.Why do you say they are not very interesting people? That's another generalisation from you! Some of these guys are lovely, interesting, and enthusiastic people... some are just 'don't give a toss about good sound' salesmen too, it is their job.
Now, to get back to the thread topic - has anyone heard ATC and disliked?
my biggest dissapointment from hearing a loudspeaker was back when Polk changed (early 90's I think) from using multiple drivers and passive radiators to the dead sounding things they offer now.
Second place was "Carver's Amazing loudspeaker".....needless to say, I was not amazed, tho I thought they looked amazing.
Martin Logan's were a dissapointment to me also, after all of the rave reviews I read I was expecting so much more.
My biggest pleasant suprise was NHT's Super Zero....these were the first speakers I heard of a small size that I thought sounded "big". Compared to the prices of "high end" stuff, they were giving these away.
Second place was "Carver's Amazing loudspeaker".....needless to say, I was not amazed, tho I thought they looked amazing.
Martin Logan's were a dissapointment to me also, after all of the rave reviews I read I was expecting so much more.
My biggest pleasant suprise was NHT's Super Zero....these were the first speakers I heard of a small size that I thought sounded "big". Compared to the prices of "high end" stuff, they were giving these away.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.