Speaker Asylum: REVIEW: Dali Dali Suite 2.8 Speakers by twest820

Model:	Dali Suite 2.8
Category:	Speakers
Suggested Retail Price:	$1250
Description:	2 1/2 way floorstanders
Manufacturer URL:	Dali
Manufacturer URL:	Dali

Review by twest820 ( A ) on March 04, 2006 at 12:49:41
IP Address: 71.112.23.130

Add Your Review
for the Dali Suite 2.8

This is a follow up to my previous review about a year ago. Over the past year I've upgraded everything in my system except the Suite 2.8s. I've no plans to upgrade the Suites because the other improvements in the system have revealed them as enormously capable speakers. I haven't taken them apart to look at the crossover networks but as mentioned in my previous review the Suites respond well to bi-wiring. Since this indicates the crossovers don't effectively isolate the tweeter from back EMF from the woofers bi-amping is a logical next step as it fully isolates the tweeter. The improvement in the Suites from bi-amping is dramatic---Dali's manual for the Suites is a masterpiece of understatement when it observes bi-wiring is recommended for greater openness and clarity and bi-amping further recommended. Combined with the short cable lengths of a well configured vertical bi-amp the result is impressively clear and precise sound. I find the amount of detail and clarity this configuration gets out of the Suites to be comparable with $20k reference systems using bi-wired monoblocks. Not too shabby considering I've less than US $3k invested in my system (though admittedly this reflects the old price for the Suites and a willingness to solder my own cables and buy used, demo, or refurb components).
Details on why switching to a vertical bi-wire and using well chosen speaker cables is able to reveal so much capability in the Suites are here . It's particularly interesting to compare bi-amped Suites to Helicons (a Parasound Halo A23, a pair of Parasound Halo JC-1s, a Sunfire Theater Grand IV preamp, and an Arcam CD73 were used for this comparison, some US $11.5k worth of electronics). Where the Suites improve significantly with bi-amping, bi-amping marks only a slight improvement on the Helicons. Since the Helicons use essentially the same enclosure, the same woofers, the same soft dome tweeter, and even the same binding posts and spikes as the Suites, this leads me to suspect most of the increased cost of the Helicons goes towards increased profit margins. Granted, the price includes a ribbon tweeter, a more capable crossover, and a nicer finish upon the cabinet. But the extra US $3k to 5k buys very little improvement in sound quality compared to what one can get out of the Suites by adding a second US $800 power amp and splitting up the speaker cables one already has.
I recently had the opportunity to do side by side comparison of the Dali Ikon 6, Ikon 7, Evidence 870, Helicon 400, and Helicon 800 using an Arcam FMJ CD36, FMJ C31, and FMJ P35 stack to drive the speakers via an 8 foot Kimber 8TC bi-wire (US $6.2k for the FMJ set plus the cost of the speakers). None of these speakers produced as much clarity and precision as my Suites do on their vertical bi-amp. This not to say the FMJ components are less capable than the Halo components my system or the Suites are better than the Helicons, just that throwing money at components doesn't necessarily lead to better performance than a lower cost system using a different wiring topology. At the same time, the experience did reaffirm my preference for curved enclosures. The Ikon 6 lists for the same price as the Suites while the Ikon 7 and Evidence 870s are US $400 and US $900 more, respectively, yet none of these speakers has the same clarity of articulation over the audible frequency range as the Suites and Helicons do---the 870s' trebel stage is comparable but their bass continues to sound boxy to me. The Ikons simply are not as precise even though the Ikon 6 uses a similarly sized cabinet and more or less the same drivers and porting as the Suite 2.8s. That having been said, the FMJ set used to audition the speakers is moderately high end and performs well enough the differences between speakers are minimized.
My conclusion from these experiences is pursuing structural improvements in how mid-fi components are used provides equivalent or better performance than hi-fi components while being significantly more cost effective than hi-fi. It's natural to look for the next extension beyond a vertical bi-amp. The simple upgrade path is to switch to tri-amping using speakers like Dali Euphonia MS5s and throw money at electronics by buying half a dozen monoblocks, a high end preamp, and so on. One could easily spend $40k assembling such a system but it would be an incremental improvement at best. I have yet to notice a difference between Parasound's US $800 Halo A23 and a US $6k pair of their JC-1 monoblocks (the JC-1s actually have higher THD than the A23; the only power amps I've found with lower THD than the A23 are US > $15k Krells). Some of the US $4k preamps I've listened to have less precise sound than the US $800 Parasound Halo P3. And a vertical tri-amp isn't fundamentally different from a vertical bi-amp. The two structural improvements I can see from my current system are to switch to an active vertical bi-amp ( i.e. using an electronic crossover) and to switch from point source speakers to line source speakers. However, the only speakers I know of where this is done are the US $40k Dail Megalines. Which, considering I'd have to spend US > $200k upgrading my house in order to have a place to put them, wouldn't be an option even I could afford the speakers in the first place (one might rather have a car and a (401)k plan, no?). This leaves building one's own speakers or removing the passive crossover from off the shelf speakers and either building an electronic crossover (or matching an off the shelf crossover to the speakers) as the only viable path for improvements, which is simply more complication than I'm currently willing to get into (I'm not suffering a lack of other projects).

Product Weakness: Bi-amp extremely well with sound precision primarily limited by electronics and speaker cables (also bi-wire well). Space filling sound, broad soundstage, clear placement of instruments and voices. Consistent performance across all listening levels and most listening positions. Front porting allows flexible room placement.
Product Strengths: Basically none. Some congestion at minimum impedance frequency of 217Hz during breakin. Best results require buying another US <$1k power amp and connecting a few more cables instead of spending an extra US $5k on higher end speakers.

Associated Equipment for this Review:
Amplifier:	Parasound Halo A23 passive vertical bi-amp
Preamplifier (or None if Integrated):	Parasound Halo P3
Sources (CDP/Turntable):	Cambridge Azur 640C v1
Speakers:	Dali Suite 2.8
Cables/Interconnects:	doubled Goertz MI2 (equivalent to Goertz MI3), Kimber 8VS XLR 2/2/4 bi-wired interconnects between P3 and A23s, Kimber 4VS RCA-XLR 2/2/4 bi-wire interconnect between 640C and P3
Music Used (Genre/Selections):	classical to metal
Room Size (LxWxH):	18 x 12 x 9
Room Comments/Treatments:	Semi-walled off living part of great room. Dimensions in feet.
Time Period/Length of Audition:	a bit over a year
Type of Audition/Review:	Product Owner

Product Weakness:	Bi-amp extremely well with sound precision primarily limited by electronics and speaker cables (also bi-wire well). Space filling sound, broad soundstage, clear placement of instruments and voices. Consistent performance across all listening levels and most listening positions. Front porting allows flexible room placement.
Product Strengths:	Basically none. Some congestion at minimum impedance frequency of 217Hz during breakin. Best results require buying another US <$1k power amp and connecting a few more cables instead of spending an extra US $5k on higher end speakers.