Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Return to Critic's Corner


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Stereophiles review of Auditorium 23

99.111.118.190

Posted on October 20, 2016 at 07:10:11



Enjoyed the review. As a fan of horn loaded designs its nice to see a wee bit more in print about them. Still a 555 driver is best on a massive theater horn. But it was cool that Art dipped a toe in. Think if he has time to explore the FC supply he may come the the same conclusions as other WE users that they sound best on tungars. Plus a tungar FC is a great room light and you can charge your car battery with it.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Stereophiles review of Auditorium 23, posted on October 28, 2016 at 18:48:53
dbphd
Audiophile

Posts: 1674
Location: Montecito, CA
Joined: September 6, 2006
I don't usually read Dudely and have no interest in the Auditorium 23, but I found his article amusing. Fuckery? Perhaps I'll start reading Dudley.

db

 

Is Line Magnetic making repro tungars?..., posted on October 20, 2016 at 08:24:36
Steve O
Audiophile

Posts: 12364
Location: SE MI
Joined: September 6, 2001
...Cause there aren't many NOS units left.

I thought the review was an entertaining read but was left with the impression that the Hommage Cinema while unique and desirable in many respects, was not as perfect as hoped: he didn't purchase the review samples.

 

RE: Is Line Magnetic making repro tungars?..., posted on October 20, 2016 at 09:00:32
NOS tungars are cheap and easily available but yes LM is retailing LM tungars not sure who is manufacturing them if LM does or most likely has made for them. Pretty sure the 50k price might of been the reason Art didnt buy but also what reviewer could buy all they reviewed? So I dont hold much stock in its my new reference comments at end of reviews. I know enough to form my own opinion on what is best for me and my systems. And mostly rely on magazines for info on new products and entertainment. I didnt read in any disappointment. But since I have a slight grasp of whats possible with new horn design while I collect and restore the past sometimes combining both. I would say the A-23 would suffer from time alignment issues about 40 inch diff in mid and tweeter distance,bell blockage of treble if off axis and the compromise in its bass section. But all loudspeaker design is compromised and we work with such to get end result and over all I would say the design compromises are well chosen.

 

RE: Is Line Magnetic making repro tungars?..., posted on October 20, 2016 at 12:24:49
Steve O
Audiophile

Posts: 12364
Location: SE MI
Joined: September 6, 2001
My impression of AD's less than total enthusiasm comes from his paragraph describing "drawbacks" including the lack of treble extension, "rounded" and plummy bass and possible imaging issues (he more-or-less blows off). Curiously, AD describes the Homage as coherent at a number of points in the review, something I wouldn't expect from a design lacking any obvious form of physical or electrical time alignment.

Regarding purchase of review samples or not, I doubt AD or any reviewer pays list price for anything. Presumably he gets "industry accommodation" or used pricing at say 30% to +50% off ($25-35K not $50K+). Bottom line here is that if AD really wanted these speakers, he'd find a way to make them his. As of this review, he hasn't........but he does list them as part of his reference system.........hmmmmmm?

 

RE: Is Line Magnetic making repro tungars?..., posted on October 24, 2016 at 11:17:29
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
...yes reviewers get accommodation pricing like everyone else in the industry - which means he still has to pay at least 50% of the $50k price, the cost of a small car.

My impression is that the weaknesses he found are not very high on his priority list.

If he used the speakers to evaluate other equipment he will be reviewing, it is part of his reference system, even temporarily.

 

Page processed in 0.030 seconds.