|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.165.15.138
All my serious listening is classical.I love nothing more than the faithful reproduction of the tone colors of unamplified instruments (the wood body of the violin and cello, the felt pad excting the sinewy strings of a piano).
I hate nothing more than steely shrillness on violins or a glare on a soprano's voice.
YET, I hate bloated, indistinct, overly warm, billowy lower mids and upper bass (what I gather some think of as "musical").
For years, much of what I've read about Spendors have led me to believe they may be the speaker for me. But I have never even seen one (much less a pair!).
So do I sound like I might be a Spendor guy? And if so, should I consider just the Classic line or the newer Sxe line, too. Thanks so much for any comments.
-Bob
Follow Ups:
Great replies. I've been on the road, so haven't had a chance to read every post in detail, but these are just the kind of answers I was hoping for. As Joe said, opinions are just a starting point but are especially helpful as a guide if you haven't had a chance to hear the speakers in question. So many thanks. I may have some questions when I've had a chance to get deeper into the replies, but I am grateful for all the ideas and suggestions.
-Bob
nt
I'd also recommend listening to ATC speakers. They are more forward but also much more dynamic, both micro and macro which I have found to be a flaw in the performance of British BBC style speakers. They do however need a lot of power as they are very inefficient unless you buy the powered versions(recommended both from a performance and overall cost perspective).
Truth be told, I am still looking (for the perfect classical music speaker). I don't think most current speakers are voiced with classical music in mind.My favorite with classical music is a long-discontinued 30-year old JBL Studio Monitor (not sure of the model number) and a few other similar speakers from its generation (circa late 1970's).
The JBL monitor made classical music sound exceedingly realistic.
It had sparkling, extended highs, highs that were well damped with no tendency to ring or splash (this from a titanium dome tweeter), a very flat (not sucked out) presence band (~1 - 4 kHz) that gave music a very "live," "close-up," "in-the-hall" quality, a very neutral sounding upper mid-range (~300 Hz - 1 kHz), which would probably measure ruler flat in it's power response and a gently rising lower mid-range/upper bass response (~300 Hz - 100 Hz) that gave the lower registers of stringed instruments, voices and piano a rich, velvety, buttery texture that did not ever stray across the line into soft or overblown. The bass proper of the speaker (~100 Hz - 30 Hz) was somewhat dry, highly damped and very tuneful.
Overall, the speaker was a joy to listen to but 99.9999 % of today's models sound too dry (in every passband) and lack the power of the JBL's in the critical "power" band (~300 Hz to 100 Hz) that produces the sense of depth, heft, richness and power in classical music.
Most modern designs lack the necessary gently declining power response (from bass to treble) necessary for fidelity with classical music and as a result sound dry, bright, hard and unrealistic.
It sounds a lot like that JBL speaker, which I remember well. I have been in pursuit of the great classical speaker for 45 years, and for my tastes, the JBL certainly wasn't it, and neither is the Watt Puppy. I find them both colored the same way. HOWEVER, when it comes to quality speakers, as I've said many times, it's all a matter of taste in the end. What I like and what you like could be completely different, and it doen't make a damn bit of difference or mean anything other than we like different kinds of sound. Neither of us is right or wrong. My first speakers were AR3s, which many people hated; I thought they were very nice for classical music. I next got KEF 105.2s, another (for me) great speaker for classical music. I then got Spendor SP 100s, which continue in the same vein. None of these speakers are impressive, highly resolving (whatever that means), dramatic, and so on. They just remind me of what I hear in a concert hall. The sound in a concert hall is far from uncolored. Concert halls don't have flat responses. That doesn't mean I seek speakers with colored sound. You just can't reproduce the sound of a concert hall in your home, so my goal is to try to reproduce the emotional experience, the feelings and impactone gets listening to music in a great hall, and that takes a certain kind of speaker.Joe
Rarely do I read a thread expressing so many different views where I can agree with almost everyone's opinion and can understand what are the differences. I agree that all the speakers mentioned are quite distinct and different. But, what these speakers all have in common is an essentially musical, easy-to-get-lost-in-the-music quality. They do not emphasize any one quality-- hyper detail, wild imaging, deep bass, etc.I've only heard the Reynaud speakers on two separate occasions, but, one can almost instantaneously fall for their woody, musical sound. I particularly liked the Trentes. The Harbeths are on the opposite end of the spectrum that is being discussed here, but they too are in the same family of sound; similar to the Spendors, but a touch drier sounding (more accurate?). I like the Classic Spendor line as well, particularly the SP100, but I agree that the bass can sound a bit bloated if the room does not suit it (it needs a very big room). The new line of Spendors sound drier and go for punchier bass, but fortunately, they don't give up all of the woody Spendor quality (I particularly like the 8). The Vandersteen 3As mentioned are also quite natural and musical and they are quite a bargain to boot.
I read about your system and have a comment about something you are looking for. If interested, please send me an email.Joe
After to listening to about 75 different speakers it came down to Spendor SP 100s or Harbeth Monitor 40s for me. I had high hopes for Reynaud, but found them not to my liking at all. This was about four years ago, and I understand he has re-designed some of his line. I thought the 40s had a glorious midrange, but were a bit bright and analytical for me. I only heard them once, and the electronics were suspects. The Spendors absolutely needed the right amp to tame the lower midrange-upper bass, but with that I found them great and bought them. I use a Plinius 8200, now discontinued.My standard in all of this has been the great concert hall, with warm, rich, inviting sound. After I purchased the Spendors, I chanced on the Vandersteen 3A Signatures. If I had it to do it all over again, I would have bought them. I think they are a much better buy and very close to what you want. If you add two Vandersteen 2Wq subwoofers at some point, you will have a wonderfull system for the whole range of classical music, but you don't need the subs to really enjoy music. They add quite a bit to organ music.
But, you must listen for yourself. Everybody's opinion is nothing more than a guide to what to listen to. To thine own ears be true!
" I thought the [Harbeth Monitor] 40s had a glorious midrange, but were a bit bright and analytical for me."They are not a bright, analytical speaker, so as you suggest, the electronics may have been at fault. They are absolutely neutral through the entire midrange, honest to a fault, thanks to their very highly resolving midrange driver; and they have a gorgeous high end, thanks to one of the best tweeters in the world. They ARE monitors. They do tell us what's in the recording. But they haven't the cold, stern quality associated with truly analytical speakers. We may be arguing here over what "analytical" means in audio, but I think it is generally considered a pejorative term, referring to a recognizable coolness. Harbeths do tend to sound objective compared to Spendors and Harbeths, but at the risk of quibbling, I hate to see the word "analytical" applied to them.
Bob:I have never heard on any other speaker Ella Fitzgerald's voice sound so wonderful as it did on the Monitor 40s. It was absolutely entrancing. Simularly, on other music I thought the midrange certainly was a contender for the best I ever heard, But as I said, the highs seemed exaggerated. For example, I played one CD (he had an excellent CD player) derived from an analog tape that I had heard many times on many speakers. The tape hiss was always there, but with the 40s it was very prominent, obvious. But this could have been the electronics. In any event, I tend to associate exaggerated highs with what is often called an analytical sound. My attempt at a second hearing of the 40s to be arranged in London by the designer got frustrated by a schedule mixup, so I never had another chance to hear them. Mr. Shaw himself, in a note to me, stated that the 40s had almost an electrostatic quality. You can make of that what you will.
I did not mention that the 40's shared one fault with the Spendor SP100s: they do have a tendency to boom. This is something that can be mitigated/eliminated in the Spendors with careful placement and the right SS amp. I suspect the same must be true of the 40's, but I didn't have the opportunity to try. I am not a big fan of ported speakers, though both the SP 100s and the 40s have done a pretty good job with the ports. Ports are still to some extent a fake, and it is in the area of the port response that I could hear one of the biggest differences between the SP 100s and the Vandersteens.
Joe
Yes, but there are electrostatics and electostatics. One guy who heard the M40's in my house said they sounded like full range Quads. I took that as a compliment. They didn't sound that way to me, but maybe that's my aging ears.I never found Compact 7's tizzy but I did find them a little boxy sounding in a large (5,000 cubic feet) room. Actually, I believe they have a slight dip built into their upper midrange to compensate for a boost in that area produced by close room boundaries in the smaller rooms they're intended for. The M30's had none of that...they share the same tweeter with the M40's.
I have only heard the Harbeth Monitor 40s that one time with the suspect electronics, and the C7s once in London, when the srew-up happend. Shaw said I should never have listened to those, as, based on our correspondence, they weren't for me. He was right. The only way I was able to hear the 40s was through an appeal to the Harbeth discussion group, and an owner who lived about 40 miles away invited me to his home. I could hardly get into the electronics issue with him.Joe
Big big boxes, sort of resembling a wardrobe? RE Greene has published FR curves of his, and they always slope down, even before eq, and I've always heard they had a naturally decaying high end. Bob had a pair, though I doubt he measured them. I've never heard them, myself. The smaller Compact 7s, which I do have, have a little too much tweeter, and can be troublsome in a room with a low ceiling.
________
"Occasionally we list eccentrically, all sense of balance gone."
Gosh, I would never accuse the C7es2 of having too much tweeter....in fact they have a considerably softer balance than my previous Proac R2's. I suspect many listeners may find them too polite in the treble until their ears adjust to the smooth balance. Maybe in comparison to Spendor they are 'hotter' but they sound very natural to me.
Compared to the R2's the C7's are utterly unfatiguing, far less coloured, brilliant on vocals and have remarkable imaging for what is a fairly large conventional looking box.
System Details
Absolutely, 100% sure they were the 40s. I was getting near buying them, as I was down to two choices. As I said, the electronics were a bit suspect, though they were very high end. The room was heavily carpeted and draped, so it wasn't the room. As I said above, I could hear tape hiss very prominently on a recording where it was quite low on the vast majority of other speakers I had heard. However, I never make any major decisions based on one listening in one place. I would have not crossed them off my list based on this one hearing. I was also bothered by the bass boom in the 40s, reported by other respected listeners, and finally, all things considered, I felt the price was a bit steep. Still, I did go to some considerable effort to hear them one more time on a trip to London, but signals got crossed, and it didn't happen. Two days ago I moved on from my Spendor SP 100s to Vandersteen 5s, and I am happy to be done with ported speakers.
The 40's were not designed to be used in typical homes. I think the bass can't be managed without an equalizer.
________
"Occasionally we list eccentrically, all sense of balance gone."
When I said the 40s had a tendency to boom, it was no more than I had heard in the SP 100s in other set-ups, probably less. In my home, which has a large living room, I have completely eliminated the bass boom from my Spendors, and I believe I could do the same for the 40s. I recently met an owner of a high-end store who owns 40s. He said he has no problem at all with the bass using the right amplification and room placement, and he doesn't use an EQ. I have an EQ that is usually out of the circuit. I use it only to correct poorly balanced recordings, where it can do wonders.Joe
In my 5,000 cubic foot room, there was no boom, but the ceiling was 11 feet away, which no doubt helped.
Pablo, you have stated in several recent posts that the C7s have "too much tweeter." Have you seen any measurements supporting this? I sold my pair of C7s 3 years ago (now own Harbeth HL5s) abut did not hear too much tweeter. BTW, agree totally with you on the match between Quad 909/99 and Harbeth.
the way they measure in my room, and the way they were measured by someone else who has more sophisticated equipment and the way they sound to him too. Martin Colloms also mentioned some tizz from the tweeter. It was never noticeable in my family room, because there's no dropped ceiling and I sit far away. Now, it is possible that our first generation C7's are different from the later ES IIs, but Alastair, from whom I bought mine and who sold a lot of them around the world, told me that there were no changes to the crossover and no real diff in sound. I'd buy a new pair if I thought there was a difference. Robert says I should get an equalizer. I am also one of a handful of people (maybe fewer) who prefer the defunct K6, which sounds and measures a little warmer and smoother.How do the 5's compare?
I think I said too much about the Quads, but there is a sort of synergy with the C7.
________
"Occasionally we list eccentrically, all sense of balance gone."
> > How do the 5's compare?Its hard to compare because the room changed - I went from a Manhattan loft to a much smaller room with a fireplace in a CA ranch house, and from tube amplifiction to transistor. My hunch is The HL5s go lower in bass and somehow, are easier on the ears with poor recordings than the C7s.
I think you need to listen to them to really know (and even then, sometimes you don't really know).
The only Spendor speaker I am familiar with is the SP100, which I owned for awhile. Based on your listening preferences, you should probably consider some of the other Spendor models, since the SP100 has a mid-bass emphasis and can be difficult to place ideally in the room to achieve the smoothest bass response. The SP100 would meet all your other criteria so you might check out some of the more recent Spendor floor-standing models, such as the S5, S8 or S9. I also owned a Harbeth speaker (the model 7 that Sam Tellig and others have raved about), it was slightly drier and a tad less expressive than the Spendor, and seemed to do better with solid state than tubes (I'm a tube guy). However, it would still fall within your guidelines for providing correct tonal balance and tone colors.
Hi Bob,You might very well be a Spendor guy. You might also be a Harbeth guy. I used to have Spendor SP1/2s and they are a decent speaker. I did find that the Harbeth Monitor 30 bettered it considerably, and meets the criteria that you discussed above more closely than the Spendor does. I would try very hard to listen to the Harbeth and the Spendor before you make a decision, and see which one you prefer. The answer might surprise you.
Kind regards,
You will know pretty quickly which line is right for you, but anyone considering Spendors needs to hear Harbeths (at least) before making the plunge.
having owned both the SP1/2 and Harbeth Compact 7 find that their ultimate performance is also depends on what amps you are using. THe Harbeths can sure sound nice, but with the right amp, the Spendors can too. The Spendors prefer solid state where the Harbeth can do either. Try to audition before buying.
It would be nice to know what the rest of your system consists of but at first blush I'm inclined to think you sound more like a Harbeth guy. I think the Spendor SP 1/2 is the sweet spot in the "classic" line (haven't heard the "S" series). It is slightly on the warm and forgiving side which is a big plus if you have less than excellent equipment. The M30 Harbeth gives you warts and all. If the recording or your equipment has faults it will let you know. The bass extension of the SP 1/2 is greater than that of the M30 (neither plays really deep). I could easily live with the 1/2 without agumentaion but I'd be looking for a sub-woofer with the M30s.
You might also listen to some of the lines that have a similar sonic character to Spendor and Harbeth such as J M Reynaud and Green Mountain Audio.
In my experience the Harbeth M30 bass is far superior to Spendor SP 1/2 bass. I would say the weakness of the SP 1/2's bass is its least desirable characteristic. Its virtues, however, are hard to miss.
JM Reynaud sounds like Harbeth to you? Wow. To my ears, the difference is more like the difference between Baroque (Harbeth) and Romantic (JMR) music. The Harbeth's are almost colorless but intensly involving; the JMR's are full of french musical energy and intensly involving. Spendor's lie in between on the coloration scale.We all hear differently.
One thing i am sure our ears would agree on: ALL these speakers do NOT have is the BIG-FAST Dolby sound that so many think is Real (like in Temptation Island and Big Brother)!
Reynauds sound like Spendors to me, arguably "better Spendors". To my ears Harbeth and Spendor (and older Rogers) have more in common with each other than either does to something like the B&W N8xx series and others of that nature. As I noted in my post, Harbeths are decidedly less romantic than either Spendor or Reynaud but I still find some commonality in their collective approach relative to said "BIG-FAST Dolby sound..." or planars or something like Vandersteens or...
Well he said Reynauds were like Spendors and Harbeths, so he got it half right. I've said many times that I think Reynauds sound like where Spendor was originally going (BC1) before it took a different fork in the road. But yes, if you're leaning toward classic Spendors, listening to both Harbeths and Reynauds will show you where you belong. And I agree that Harbeths are at one end of this little continuum and Reynauds at the other with Spendors in the middle. How a speaker as big as the SP 1/2 can have such weak bass is a puzzlement.
To my ears the SP 1/2 sounds like it has about a half octave more extension than the M30. The bass of the M30 is certainly tauter but I'm hard pressed to believe it is more extended. I've never heard the two side by side so I could be mistaken. There might be some psychoacoustics at work here given the softer highend of the Spendors. On your end maybe you just weren't using the right amp with SP1/2s.
"There might be some psychoacoustics at work here..."Entirely possible. I've heard some speakers that go lower sound less firm and authoritative in the bass than others that don't measure as low. I've lost track of the actual numbers given for these two speakers. But the clear subjective impression I've gotten many times is that the Spendors are a lighter sounding speaker than the Harbeths: less firm (less taut, as you say), less weighty, thinner. I've heard the Spendors on 75 watt single-ended Class A Blue Circle BC 2.1 hybrids, 150 watt AG8000 hybrids, and assorted tube amps. They are lovely sounding speakers, no question about it but short us a bit below the belt, I think.
If you have never heard a UK monitor, then the first one you do hear will sound like a whole new world of sound, maybe good, maybe not.Setting aside Audio Note speakers from this entire discussion, Harbeth's tend to be more "analytical" and perhaps a bit more detailed than the Spendors (depending on the models of course)and the Spendors are more coloured ("musical"?) than the Harbeths. Both mfrs have vocal and loyal followers in the UK.
I can't remember which speakers you auditioned. My favourite Harbeth for the money is the Compact 7, but it's not their flagship or most favourite. It is the most muscal of all the Harbeths and actually the easiest to drive.
If you like the minis, there is a comparison by Bob Neill of the HLP3 and 3/5 somewhere on the Harbeth website. He liked the Spendor's minis the best.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: