|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.62.159.160
In Reply to: What is so special about Esotars? posted by Frihed89 on April 27, 2007 at 15:16:22:
only tweeter that i've heard that's better is the ion tweeter in accapella speakers.esotar is musical, evenhanded, and sweet; digital rarely is, so it usually is a nice match to digital playback.
Follow Ups:
Scroll down about half way.....MERLIN VSM LOUDSPEAKERS-> > > I had the Merlin VSM (and the smaller TSM) in my (former Toronto) store for around a year, in 1998-1999. I auditioned them in different rooms and with different electronics, sources, cables etc. The results were all basically the same; I did NOT like them. They were noticeably cleaner and smoother than average, and also had excellent outer detail, but they were harmonically lean, dry and analytical, lacked both weight and impact in the bass and they were also compressed in dynamics. In other words, they sounded "dead" to me.
I have a working theory of the primary reason why they sound the way they do; They use a Dynaudio tweeter. To be blunt- Virtually every speaker I've ever heard that uses Dynaudio drivers has the same problems, more or less, as described above. This has been my experience no matter how the designer utilized them, and no matter how much the particular Dynaudio drivers cost, and the VSM (Esotar) tweeters are extremely expensive. < < <
No speaker is perfect (at least not that I've heard) and the Merlins are no exception. Having Merlin VSM-M w/ the upgraded Bam, I can stretch my imagination to understand how they may sound lean and dry to some depending on the components they are matched to. However, the viewer complains of a lack of dynamics and that they must be played loud to "come alive". This is contrary to my experience. I have never found the Merlins to be lacking in dynamics, but, more importantly, they sound more alive to me at moderate volumes than loud. In fact, I think they sound better when not played at ear splitting volumes. True, there could be an explanation that my modestly powered tube amp may be shifting to a class B operation when the decibels are pushed and could account for a less pleasant experience, but I had the same impression when I used a digital amp at 250 watts per channel with plenty of headroom. I'm not saying the reviewer didn't hear what they heard; I'm just perplexed at what they heard because that particular aspect is so inopposite to my own experience and impression.
let me address:lean? no
dry? no
analytical? no
lean & lacked weight in the bass? ABSOLUTELY! (but, its a TWEETER!!)
compressed in dynamics? nolisten to a merlin or a rockport and you'll find i'm correct.
joe,
gee thanks for bringing that up.
lol!
but lets be fair, the rooms this dealer had were caverns in an old building's basement with little damping and small area rugs, at least when it was there. and you and he are discussing 9 or 10 year old versions of both models, the se. the volume of the rooms suggested to me, he needed a totally different speaker and if you look at what he likes, you'll get the drift. the milleniums sounded much fuller and smoother again, the mms and mxs much smoother and fuller over the ms and the mme and mxe, much smoother and fuller again.
thanks for taking me down memory lane.
lol.
bobby
http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/704gershman/Gershman Acoustics claim they prefer the sound of the cheaper Esotec to the Esotar and use them in this speaker. So, it could be a matter of taste.
The reason both of these tweeters sound good on digital might be because they are rolled off on top rather than extended.
“The speaker's tweeter is Dynaudio's superb Esotar 2 1.1" soft-dome unit, also used in Dynaudio's Confidence C4 speaker…”
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/D25fig4.jpg
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: