|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
If so, any insights are truly welcome. Thanks !
Follow Ups:
I can't remember which mag. And it WAS intended as a compliment.
The Studio 100, v. 2, is a very nice speaker with a smooth, flat frequency response and good dispersion. It does just about everything very well, in no sense a journeyman speaker. It is really a 4 ohm speaker, though otherwise not a particularly difficult load. If one has a subwoofe for the deepest bass, the Studio 40, v. 2 is also a good choice.I prefer this to the PSB Stratus Gold-i, but that is a fine speaker, too, also requiring some current.
If one can do without a lot of bass output and do without the really deep bass (most can), then a pair of used Quad ESL-63s would be--and was--my choice.
There are many fine speakers available, so I would advise listening to a number of them.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
To my ears the Monitor Audio Reference line fits the description pretty darn well. I find no glaring faults, but not one kind of music, type of electronics, etc. that it really stands out on.Abraham
The best compromise I have ever heard, and bought... beautiful, small, dynamic, extended frequency response, forgiving...
The Gold i's were described in the Sensible Sound as doing everything reasonably well and not doing anything egregiously wrong.
Ditto the Gold/i's but I find they do better with a rather high current amp.
Yes. An affordable compromise on the way to the pinnacle. Agree that they need power. I'd say 200 wpc or the equiv. if bi-amping. I've been using them since '98. Very nice midrange and soundstage if you can sit well away from them. Excellent bass--flat to 35 hz. The very top treble a "bit cold" as per SP.Really excellent for most people into Rock and Jazz. Somewhat lacking for classical, but not bad. Ultimate transparency ala Martin Logan or Quad, a bit lacking. I could understand most people owning this not wanting to spend more. You may spend a lot more to get significantly better performance in some areas and even then will face some compromises.
I agree with you both.I had/have Gold i's and just upgraded to Dunlavy SC-IV's.
They do like the power to create the bass foundation they're capable of.
A really good speaker in all respects until you compare it to units at 3x the price...
Clickit!
when I listened to the Revel M20 for the 3rd or 4th time, each with different electronics. I don't think they do anything great but they do everything well to me. It seems they didn't make one quality outstanding at the expense of another. I would add that I was a sceptic until I actually sat down and critically listened to them. I also do not own them...and I think they're ugly.
All speakers are a compromise.
To me, the perfect speaker would have the Midrange of the Quad ESL 57, the high end of the Plasmatronics Plasma tweeter, the mid bass pitch definition of the Old Tympany Magneplaners, the Bass of a 24" Hartley, and the slam of a K- Horn, etc.
No speaker does this all.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: