 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
167.102.133.216
Focal won, as you might expect, but not by much. It was the Polk LSI 15 vs the Focal 918, a $1500 speaker (Polk) matched against the $4000 Focal. The 918 was airier, more open, the Polk less so and more directional. During musical peaks (ex: Pavoratti's cresendos in Rodolpho's aria in the first act of La Boheme, London cd) both sounded strained at times, the result, perhaps, of the sales guy cranking up the volume of a 100/ch "mid-fi" amp. The speakers seemed evenly matched in bass extention and high end. Overall, though, the Focal was smoother, sweeter, warmer. Cost no object, I'd go with the Focal. Still, even though both fit my budget, I'd save the $2500 between the two and take home the Polk (more bang for the buck by far). (Too bad Tweeter didn't have the Focal 1027 bee in stock for a shoot-out between it and the 918, but that's for another store on another day).
I invite comments by those with a similar experience.
Follow Ups:
If possible please compare the Polk with GMA Europa, DCM 200 and an Audio Note.It would be a very exciting exercise.
Regards
I did the same thing a few weeks ago... compared focal agaisnt polk towers and Martin Logan. After this, I do not get all the good reviews about the POLK. To me they sound boxy and the bottom does not blend with the top/midrange. I have not found any clarity/definition; I found them rather congested and muddy. But that's just me. I have lived with Martin Logans, dynaudio studio active monitors and Magnepan over the last 4-5 years. I don't think polk is such a good deal, unless you want to go with their satellite/bass modules packages.
It wasn't clear from your post what the point was of comparing two speakers so far apart in price. You'd think a $4,000 speaker should win against a $1,500 one. If it doesn't then the more expensive speaker has some 'splainin' to do.
I guess such a comparison could be to make one's self feel better about a lower cost purchase. Or to see if the more expensive one was worth the extra money (though you'd think there'd be something in the middle). In any event, some context as to "why" would have been helpful.
If I do decide to get new speakers I'd want to know what I'd gain by throwing in an extra $2500. Now I know I could most likely live with the Polks and not lament not spending more for the Focals. At least that's where I stand today.
I think that would be a hard compairison to make. Every time I've been in a Tweeter, well, lets just say it's a crappy place to listen to any type of equipment. I know both Focal and Polk pretty well. [I also respect both] I would have to imagine that with a bit bettter electronics than what your likly to find in a Tweeter, the things that make the Focal a better speaker might be easier to hear. Two speakers lined up against a wall being played through a home theater receiver isn't really a good way to judge gear. My guess is the Polk would probably sound better through a much wider range of gear while the Focal would shine once properly set up and fed. Still, I'd be happy to have either in my listening room.
Good post. I've never been able to really get a meaningful audition of anything at Tweeter or a similar type store that has some high end stuff but is really not geared for audio. I remember going about 4 yrs. back with a couple of friends to audition stuff and the sales person thought the Denon 2900 as a source was the last word in CD and SACD playback. Between what they used as a source and amplfication, I could only ger very ltd. useful information. I don't think Polk's are bad speakers at all. They're probably fairly easy to drive vs. many things out there. When I walk into a store I'm more than happy to bring stuff in to make sure I'm hearing something I'm familiar really familiar with electronics and speakers wise or approximates what I have at home. When I bought a CD player a couple of mos. back I even brought in my own home made cables so that two playing could be hooked up to the preamp using the same stuff. I bought my Sony 2000ES CD/SACD changer at Tweeter when it first came out as they were the only local dealer carrying it and it was for a secondary system (I 1st put it in my basement system which does not see much use and then moved it to the bedroom system which feeds multiple other places via a speaker switcher) and I didn't need to audition it.
The sales guy admitted that Tweeter is far from the high-end, lunatic fringe establishment that some on this site frequent. On the other hand, I heard the speakers with everything else being equal (amp, cables, cd player, etc). So the shootout was a fair one, though both speakers might have performed better with Krell, Carey, Levinson, et al.
The comment about the "strain", attributed to the electronics, gives me pause.
Do you think that the comparison might've been different if the "mid-fi" amp hadn't been in the chain?
all the best,
mrh
everything else being equal. Higher, "cleaner" watts would have most likely done both those transducers better justice.
Polk speakers are generally a good value.
Sounds like a good example of diminishing returns, but makes me wonder if the Focal could better reproduce the qualities of upscale upstream components, or would the two widely differed priced speakers maintain their respective sound qualities regardless of amplification?
Cheers
that's my feeling.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
