Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
151.16.18.252
In Reply to: RE: A non-owner perspective posted by M3 lover on September 14, 2014 at 09:11:14
How would you compare to
Your Janszens
3.6 or 3.7? I think you heard my 3.6 a couple of years ago.
Follow Ups:
I've not heard the 3.7 so no answer to that.
The simple answer for the 3.6 is that I favor the Janszens far more. I've heard a few pairs of 3.6 and I find the more solid upper bass/lower mids, the deeper and more impactful bass, the detail and tonal correctness of the mids, the dynamics and quickness of the electrostatics, and the extension (within my limited hearing) of the tweeter all result in a more satisfying musical presentation for my tastes. I also like the spaciousness attained without needing to bring the speakers so far forward into the room. Add to this a wider selection of amps (higher power ranges are not demanded), that bi-amping will never be a temptation, and for my needs a subwoofer is unnecessary, and that pretty much sealed the deal.
In case you, or anyone else reading this, missed my zA2.1 review I've attached the link.
Lastly, hope you can make one of the Panel Days that Green Lantern talks about.
"You can’t know what the “best” is unless you have heard everything, and keep in mind that given individual tastes, there really isn’t any such thing." HP
Sounds great. I would like to hear the Jansens someday.
I have not heard them in the same room or setup. There is probably a difference but for me the lower priced used 3.6 with the possiblity for biamping through a line level crossover was more attractive. 5000 Euros cheaper that way!
Edits: 09/16/14
After bi-amping I would never go back, that alone would point me to a 3.6 or 20.1.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: