MaVo said:
I have the objective data and it agrees with the subjective reviews and hence is hardly irrelavent. Subjective data is only irrelavent when it is not supported by objective data. But when the two are in complete agreement then they validate and support each other making the combination more relavent than either one alone.
Magnetar:
One thing that some members fail to grasp sometimes is that other members don't HAVE to answer them. They then keep asking the same question over and over. By asking the question you have made your point, other members can infer what they wish from this, BUT eventually it is pointless and annoying to keep posting. Please move on and stop repeating yourself..
They look a lot better in person, but here's a pic from someone's blog
Because they have a mirror finish, they're very hard to photograph. And since there isn't a right angle anywhere to be found, that makes it that much harder. My pair don't have grilles, and I like the way they looks without them.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Because they have a mirror finish, they're very hard to photograph. And since there isn't a right angle anywhere to be found, that makes it that much harder. My pair don't have grilles, and I like the way they looks without them.
Summas are about five years old now. They were expensive, hand made and hard to sell because of the price and size. The designs were taken to Thailand and made there under the new name ESP15 - the Summa and the ESP 15 are identical (except for some small crossover updates).
The Thailand operation was not able to stay afloat (although it may yet) and so I looked at ways to make the speakers here, but smaller and cheaper. This has resulted in the Nathan 10, the Abbey 12 and the Abbey+. The Nathan 10 is virtually identical to the ESP10 and the Abbey12 the same as the ESP12. There are no plans to make a Summa sized kit. I can still make Summas to order as the molds still exist, but again, they are big and expensive. I could make Summa kits from the fiberglass enclosures, but these are very expensive and so the kits would be too - about $2000 each (all parts included). Thats a big jump from the Nathan at $600 or the Abbey at $1100.
That is an old picture of the Summa because they haven't had ports for years.
The Thailand operation was not able to stay afloat (although it may yet) and so I looked at ways to make the speakers here, but smaller and cheaper. This has resulted in the Nathan 10, the Abbey 12 and the Abbey+. The Nathan 10 is virtually identical to the ESP10 and the Abbey12 the same as the ESP12. There are no plans to make a Summa sized kit. I can still make Summas to order as the molds still exist, but again, they are big and expensive. I could make Summa kits from the fiberglass enclosures, but these are very expensive and so the kits would be too - about $2000 each (all parts included). Thats a big jump from the Nathan at $600 or the Abbey at $1100.
That is an old picture of the Summa because they haven't had ports for years.
Even though they are not expensive, they cost enough that I would prefer to audition before buying. As a matter of fact, I have never purchased any speaker at any price before buying. I have a habit of keeping most stuff I purchase for a very long time. Even an Apple II+ (not a clone either) with a 10MB hardrive and Chinese character capability. I have auditioned many speakers, and price/performance was the major reason why I started to get involved with the technology. This weekend I will be taking a small two way system (out of date prototype) to see how it compares against a Thiel CS5, and hopefully also get some measurements of the CS5.
The Summas look like pro equipment, I wonder whether they connect like pro equipment or not.
The Summas look like pro equipment, I wonder whether they connect like pro equipment or not.
soongsc said:
I wonder how many realize the cost of this preference. For me to set up dealers, etc. so that people can audition the speakers, I would have to at least double the price. Just think of how much money could be saved if we would just learn how to buy speakers based on objective data instead of not trusting it and only trusting our ears (which, believe me, is the least reliable of the two methods).
In 1964 I was moved to look for better sounding speakers because my dad the music nut just had to have them. To cut a long story short, after doing a lot reading in the Uni library and elsewhere, I decided Klipschorns were what he needed and we cloned them.
I always felt the mids needed padding down but the sound fitted Dad's hearing losses. I inherited them and improved them with a better crossover and the foam treatment and they sound better than most of today's large consumer speakers I hear.
They are far from perfect. Their sound reveals to my ears a number of faults that are due to basic design flaws which no one knew how to deal with years ago.
My point is this: having never heard an example, we stepped out on a very large project and serious expenditure (though considerably less than retail), totally on the basis of scientific theory and data, and got fabulous speakers for the 1960's.
From this experience, I'm sure Earl's speakers are among the best sounding of our time. I've similar thoughts about Tom Danley's speakers.
gedlee said:
Cal Weldon said:
Soongsc, you might want to correct that before others have a go. Let me know and I'll do it if you want.
Well, sometimes it's fun to see the typos when you look at it a few times. Yes the last word should be "auditioning". It's okay to leave it like that just for fun.I think there is a difference in way people do business. Here, I have contacted a few places that are willing to use their existing store to have more speakers to sell without charging anything in order to have the chance a obtaining a bit more sales. And I do business with people that show personal appreciation in the product rather than treat it just like another commodity. Somebody in the sales chain will assume more financial risk for more profit. The sad fact is that the industry had not established a well coorelation between objective data and subjective listening. Otherwise net sales of high quality speakers would be very easy once a person had listened to a set with complete set of data.gedlee said:
Actually, throughout various threads, I do look for listening comments and data that I can relate with, for example:
Objective data - frequency and phase response, impulse (with reference impulse), load impedance, CSD <0.4ms range and 4ms range.
Subjective reviews: Alway want to know when a person writes a review how detail the author can explain what is being heard, and what history of listening experience the author has had. I have purchase a 500USD set of cables purely base on review from Absolute Sound back in the 80's, and they still stand out very well when we do listening comparisons here. Absolute polarity comment is also what I look for.
Regarding foam retention
There was a question posed for how to keep the foam plug in the waveguide.
I propose that six to eight wire barbs be installed in the waveguide surface.
I speculate that uninsulated copper with 1/4 - 3/8" projection and something like 22 - 26 gauge should do the trick.
There was a question posed for how to keep the foam plug in the waveguide.
I propose that six to eight wire barbs be installed in the waveguide surface.
I speculate that uninsulated copper with 1/4 - 3/8" projection and something like 22 - 26 gauge should do the trick.