How would some proac 2.5 clones sound ...

ALFIrE · 24th November 2003, 01:06 PM

... on a Marantz sr7300 receiver.

I know the 7300 is a very musical receiver, but I have read several times that the 2.5 "need" a tube amp...

I've been interested in building the 2.5 for some time now, but I'm getting a bit worried.

I do not intend on a super audiophile set-up, but I do like good quality music...

Any comments please?

Should I build something else rather than the 2.5 clones...?

Alain · 24th November 2003, 01:17 PM

I have built two pairs of 2.5: one with the original 8513 tweeter and one with the 95000 ScanSpeak. Both sounded very well on my NAD receivers and on my Classe amplifier.

The 8513 takes about before it sounds its best. At the beginning it sounds a bit metallic on sopranos voices until about 300 hours. Around 400hours it sounds much better. Now voices sound real nice.

ALFIrE · 24th November 2003, 01:28 PM

Thanks Alain!

So, if I understand you right, you prefer the cheaper 8513 tweet?

That was my next dilemma!

NAD is also known to have very musical receivers, maybe even better than the Marantz!?

Alain · 24th November 2003, 01:34 PM

No I prefer the 95000. It looses a bit of the magic of the 8513, but is more neutral and plays right right at the beginning. I almost exclusively classical music, and I am looking for neutrality. I enjoy the 8513 now, but a bit less than the 95000.

With the 9500, I used a little bit less damping material. Initially I had used 5 cm, but the sound was nice but a bit contrived. Bass was a bit lacking. 5cm of damping is a bit much and blocks the airflow around the port tube. I used a flared port sold by Madisound in USA ( I used a length of 180).

You need to put the front of these speakers at least 2.5 feet away from the rear wall.

ALFIrE · 25th November 2003, 01:15 PM

anyone else woth helpfull experience or opinions?

Flemming J P · 25th November 2003, 01:39 PM

I have a pair, but they have retired, because of the low efficiency and low max spl.

I liked the sound of them very much, however the bass was a bit boomy.

Now in using a boxed jbl2225 15” and a fostex fe206e open baffle using lm3886 gainclones and active XO.

My current setup has a bigger potential, but needs much more work and research than the proac 2.5 clone ever did.

I would say that if you want a speaker that you are sure will sound nice and is easy to build then go for it.

tiroth · 25th November 2003, 02:10 PM

I think what jumps out at most people is the raspiness or bite that the 2.5 tweeter seems to have. Various modifications have been done to "fix" this, but I think it is a matter of personal preference. For me, this quality is part of the magic of this loudspeaker.

Bass is very well controlled, but extends amazingly low considering the size of the woofer. This could result in trouble with room modes depending on the room and placement.

I heartily recommend this design to you. I do not agree that tubes are a must. The design is straightforward, well researched, and sounds great. While it may be bettered by more esoteric approaches, I think there are few comparable designs that are as much a sure thing.

tktran · 26th November 2003, 12:12 AM

I have heard one of the original clones (w/ original XO) with a couple of solid state amps- NAD C320, Rod Elliot P3A and variety of valve amps.

The sound may vary when doing A/B comparisons. Personal preferences will dictate your choice but you certainly don't "need" a tube amp to enjoy them.

The variation in internal components eg. wall lining and damping presents a greater concern, and you should ensure that you can obtain these correct materials before embarking on the project, otherwise you can expect to do a bit bit of fiddling...

ALFIrE · 28th November 2003, 07:41 AM

Most people seem to like the 9500 tweeter better than the 8513.

I guess I will end up with the 9500 ...

Thanks for the helpfull replies!

tech.knockout · 30th November 2003, 01:01 AM

can someone direct me to the plans for the Response 2.5 with the 9500 tweeter?

Most sites only have the plans for the original clone with the 8513.

24th November 2003, 01:06 PM	#1
ALFIrE diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: vlaanderen	How would some proac 2.5 clones sound ... ... on a Marantz sr7300 receiver. I know the 7300 is a very musical receiver, but I have read several times that the 2.5 "need" a tube amp... I've been interested in building the 2.5 for some time now, but I'm getting a bit worried. I do not intend on a super audiophile set-up, but I do like good quality music... Any comments please? Should I build something else rather than the 2.5 clones...?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Proac 1sc/Response One Clones	b_online	Multi-Way	28	30th January 2007 06:37 PM
Proac 2.5 clones in NZ	Munkey	Multi-Way	4	4th December 2005 08:24 AM
FS: Proac 2.5 Clones	UrSv	Swap Meet	0	30th August 2004 12:07 PM
FS: Proac 2.5 clones	MSeddon	Swap Meet	1	16th October 2003 10:28 PM
my proac clones...	Jadde	Multi-Way	8	10th February 2003 08:51 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

24th November 2003, 01:17 PM	#2
Alain diyAudio Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Ottawa	I have built two pairs of 2.5: one with the original 8513 tweeter and one with the 95000 ScanSpeak. Both sounded very well on my NAD receivers and on my Classe amplifier. The 8513 takes about before it sounds its best. At the beginning it sounds a bit metallic on sopranos voices until about 300 hours. Around 400hours it sounds much better. Now voices sound real nice.

24th November 2003, 01:28 PM	#3
ALFIrE diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: vlaanderen	Thanks Alain! So, if I understand you right, you prefer the cheaper 8513 tweet? That was my next dilemma! NAD is also known to have very musical receivers, maybe even better than the Marantz!?

24th November 2003, 01:34 PM	#4
Alain diyAudio Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Ottawa	No I prefer the 95000. It looses a bit of the magic of the 8513, but is more neutral and plays right right at the beginning. I almost exclusively classical music, and I am looking for neutrality. I enjoy the 8513 now, but a bit less than the 95000. With the 9500, I used a little bit less damping material. Initially I had used 5 cm, but the sound was nice but a bit contrived. Bass was a bit lacking. 5cm of damping is a bit much and blocks the airflow around the port tube. I used a flared port sold by Madisound in USA ( I used a length of 180). You need to put the front of these speakers at least 2.5 feet away from the rear wall.

25th November 2003, 01:15 PM	#5
ALFIrE diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: vlaanderen	anyone else woth helpfull experience or opinions?

25th November 2003, 01:39 PM	#6
Flemming J P diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Sweden	I have a pair, but they have retired, because of the low efficiency and low max spl. I liked the sound of them very much, however the bass was a bit boomy. Now in using a boxed jbl2225 15” and a fostex fe206e open baffle using lm3886 gainclones and active XO. My current setup has a bigger potential, but needs much more work and research than the proac 2.5 clone ever did. I would say that if you want a speaker that you are sure will sound nice and is easy to build then go for it.

25th November 2003, 02:10 PM	#7
tiroth diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA	I think what jumps out at most people is the raspiness or bite that the 2.5 tweeter seems to have. Various modifications have been done to "fix" this, but I think it is a matter of personal preference. For me, this quality is part of the magic of this loudspeaker. Bass is very well controlled, but extends amazingly low considering the size of the woofer. This could result in trouble with room modes depending on the room and placement. I heartily recommend this design to you. I do not agree that tubes are a must. The design is straightforward, well researched, and sounds great. While it may be bettered by more esoteric approaches, I think there are few comparable designs that are as much a sure thing.

26th November 2003, 12:12 AM	#8
tktran Account Disabled Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Perth	I have heard one of the original clones (w/ original XO) with a couple of solid state amps- NAD C320, Rod Elliot P3A and variety of valve amps. The sound may vary when doing A/B comparisons. Personal preferences will dictate your choice but you certainly don't "need" a tube amp to enjoy them. The variation in internal components eg. wall lining and damping presents a greater concern, and you should ensure that you can obtain these correct materials before embarking on the project, otherwise you can expect to do a bit bit of fiddling...

28th November 2003, 07:41 AM	#9
ALFIrE diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: vlaanderen	Most people seem to like the 9500 tweeter better than the 8513. I guess I will end up with the 9500 ... Thanks for the helpfull replies!

30th November 2003, 01:01 AM	#10
tech.knockout diyAudio Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Parra, Sydney	can someone direct me to the plans for the Response 2.5 with the 9500 tweeter? Most sites only have the plans for the original clone with the 8513.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)