|
Speaker Asylum General speaker questions for audio and home theater. |
|
|
|
Speaker Asylum General speaker questions for audio and home theater. |
|
In Reply to: Re: If you mean the original Ceramique 3... posted by Romy on July 25, 2002 at 14:52:27:
I haven't heard the Eidolon's and Ceramique 3's in the same system, although I have heard each extensively in my two separate systems. But with that caveat, generally speaking the Eidolon's are much more muscular and hefty on bottom, almost effortless on dynamic contrasts, as accomplished in the midband as the 3's, and as you noted do some spectacular soundstaging tricks. I would be hard pressed to say the 3's do anything better than the Eidolons, but as I said I haven't them both in the exact same system/room.I really like the Ceramique 3's, but ended up getting the Ceramique 1's over them because the 3's just didn't have enough weight on the bottom for me. I don't consider myself a bass freak by any stretch, but I would say the 3's start rolling off somewhere around 50Hz, and the bass was a just a tad whoolly compared to the 1's. You do lose a bit of the driver coherence going to the 3-way Ceramique 1's (and I would definitely take the 3's over the middle child Ceramique 2's, which are a three-way that isn't much more meaty down low than the 3's), but I listen mostly to orchestral music, and the loss of the bottom foundation of the orchestra was just too much for me to give up. If the 3.1 or 3.2 models improve on that aspect, I would suspect they would certainly be among the top speakers in their class.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: If you mean the original Ceramique 3... - applejack 10:51:02 07/26/02 (1)
- I do not which one the original. I mean the 2-ways Ceramique. - Romy 11:32:15 07/26/02 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
