|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: Bingo !!! nuf said...... posted by Sean on February 18, 2007 at 11:35:00:
Have you made the comparison?I think you're underestimating the extent of my experience with these speakers--either that or my abilities. I listened to them for hours a day, every day, for about 3 years. I spent hours adjusting toe-in, positioning, and so on, tried many different cables, sources, amplifiers--and achieved quite satisfactory results, otherwise I wouldn't have stayed with them for so long.
It's worth mentioning that my IIce Sigs were among the very first pairs made. Richard Vandersteen changes his speakers in small ways without making a big deal about it, so later 2ce Sigs are substantially different than earlier 2ce Sigs--and they probably sound better. And the Mark II that AD reviewed is significantly altered from the standard 2ce Sigs. I haven't heard 'em.
There's a price to be paid for time alignment. Though precisely on axis their frequency response is very flat, out in the reverberant field there is a strong mid-range suckout--probably an interference effect of the first-order crossovers (as you may know, you can only have true time alignment at a single frequency). And the high frequencies roll off more, in room, than other speakers I've used. And that's pretty much what I hear (with a trace of midrange fuzziness added to the mix).
I think the explanation for my preference for the Mackies is much simpler than the explanation you provide. Partly as a result of the precise matching of amplification to the drivers--but for several other reasons as well--they simply get more things right than the Vandersteens do. They make fewer mistakes. Frequency response is flatter and smoother (in-room). Dispersion is more uniform. Time-alignment (advantage Vandys) makes a lot of sense in principle; that's why I chose the Vandys in the first place. But 1. it's impossible to do time alignment without tradeoffs and 2. time-and-phase flaws come pretty far down on the list of audible mistakes a speaker can make. If you can get all that other stuff right, time alignment is a nice bonus. I guess I eventually realized that the tradeoffs weren't worth it, for this design at least.
I'm sure Geortz makes a fine cable and they may be impeccably matched to the Vandys. But that's not the right explanation for my preference for the Mackies. If you had said instead "the Vandersteens are a much more ambitious design and go deeper, and these things are a lot harder to get right" I would have agreed with you.
Best,
Jim
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Hmmm - Jim Austin 12:18:42 02/18/07 (1)
- I realized after writing this long... - Jim Austin 18:04:00 02/18/07 (1)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
