If you had to choose a NON planar speaker, what would it be?

[Rich]

But maybe I should have done them in Jag Red!

You mean kind of like the Scaenas?

 

[User211]

Dammit red could have been the forum colour. You can't be a member lest your speakers are red. Now there's a (bad) idea

 

[bonzo]

Justin, just on my way back from Frank's. Heard the tune audio animas again and compared them to the goldmund epilogue which used to cost 130k. Preferred the animas on every song that I heard on both. He also has a goldmund TT, which probably costs around 50k, heard that too, but his opinion also was that don't bother with a tt. His record collection on classical and opera is amazing, so a great afternoon

 

[sb6]

Congrats Gordon on the YG Acoustics. I was with Steve at RMAF this past year and I agree - they were stellar. My abbreviated notes from RMAF said, "Fast, accurate, articulate - beautiful."

I would highly recommend those with disparaging comments toward cone speaker technology take a trip to RMAF, the NY Audio show, etc for a listen or three; you will likely change your philosophy. There are so many incredible cone speakers available (a few that come to mind - Magico, Evolution Acoustics, YG Acoustics, TAD) that to denigrate them borders on ignorance.

As for what speaker I would buy that's a non-planar: The Usher BE-20DMD which I very recently purchased. The Ushers are far from broken in, but already I am very satisfied.

I've had several planars including Carver AL IIIs (7/06’ – 5/10’), ML SL3s (5/10’ – 12/11’) and ML Summits (11/11’ – 1/14’) and have enjoyed them all. And while I will miss my Summits, they just don't compare to the BE-20DMDs. Of course, the Ushers are 2x the price....

 

[bonzo]

I didn't like the tad reference at all. To me they are typical cone speakers, huge, large sound with a fake bass. Don't like ushers either. Haven't heard the others

 

[sb6]

I didn't like the tad reference at all. To me they are typical cone speakers, huge, large sound with a fake bass. Don't like ushers either. Haven't heard the others

You are right, TAD's beryllium concentric midrange/tweeter and Usher's diamond tweeter + beryllium mid range, both highly regarded in many reviews including TAD are common place in all cones and boxes. I'm guessing you don't like Focal, Magico, Wilson and Rockport either because they are all mid-hi at best right?

You are welcome to stop by (while I still have the ML Summits) to see which speaker sounds better - in the same listening room with the same electronics. As I said, I loved my Summits but with highs, mids and especially bass, Ushers win hands down - no contest...

 

[User211]

Hi Kedar,

Yeah I think Frank is Jack's first Anima customer? He used to own Divas, then he got the Goldmunds, which I am surprised he still has.

The TADs are very expensive and whilst they're OK, they are nothing to write home about IMHO.

Looking like the Anima is your future

Justin

 

[bonzo]

Yes I don't like Wilsons and focals either. Worst of hifi. Though the focal standamiunts are somehow pretty good and what I will consider for a mch system.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Dammit red could have been the forum colour. You can't be a member lest your speakers are red. Now there's a (bad) idea

Hey, mine are Carmen Red, does that count?

 

[slowGEEZR]

Yes I don't like Wilsons and focals either. Worst of hifi. Though the focal standamiunts are somehow pretty good and what I will consider for a mch system.

To each his own. I love ML, Wilson and Focal, as well as mbl and many others. To dismiss a brand as "worst of hifi" seems a little silly to me. If you ever get to Austin, Texas, come on by and give my Wilsons a listen. I don't think you'd say they were the "worst of hifi".

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi all,

With all due respect, these kind of threads are, IMHO, a bit irrelevant in that many opinions, I suspect, are based on "show" conditions, which are hardly optimal for judging a speakers performance versus an audition occurring in an individual owner's room where, hopefully, all variables are optimized. This is the major disconnect regarding the relevance of those opinions.

It's also well documented that the musicality / system performance of any show room can vary substantially from Day One to Day Three. And the likely reason that owners of Brand X speakers react negatively when someone else claims their judgement is flawed is likely based on less than optimal listening (show) conditions.

As Rich commented earlier in this thread, Ive spent many hours optimizing my MBL's to have exemplary "off axis" listening performance. It is highly unlikely one will "hear" this under show conditions. I heard my 116's at RMAF several years ago. Their performance in all areas, including off axis listening, was extremely underwhelming.

GG

 

[Rehan Azim Hashmi]

Shahinian Acoustic loudspeakers are the most musical loudspeakers i have heard.
In all other respects they are very very good too.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Shahinian Acoustic loudspeakers are the most musical loudspeakers i have heard.
In all other respects they are very very good too.

I've never heard of those, but a quick tour of their website was informative. Some of them were nice looking, too.

 

[bonzo]

Shahinihans are good compared to some cones. They have a good price on the used market. But I wouldn't pay any crazy price for them. They got well into most rooms because of their shape, and their top makes them omni directional

 

[Bernard]

Hey, mine are Carmen Red, does that count?

So you're the guy who bought the Summits pictured here a while ago tarted out in red leather?

 

[User211]

Hey, mine are Carmen Red, does that count?

Not unless you post a pic, Steve

Wilson System 7 - most awesome high volume bass I have ever heard in a domestic situation (Jim's old speakers, Kedar). On the end of 600 Watts class D, the volume control set to absolutely massive, the speakers showed NO sign of giving up. None. Still more headroom left, I reckon, but our ears couldn't take anymore!

 

[amey01]

I'm surprised few (none?) have mentioned line-arrays, as one of the attributes of an ML ESL is that it does indeed project as a line-array.

Maybe because while MLs / 'stats may project as a line array, they don't necessary sound like commercial line array designs? The mode of sound radiation is not the only determining factor on sound quality.

Disclosure - I haven't heard the Scaena so I can't comment on that particular design.

While not a true line array, the Gryphon Poseidon is one speaker I really do love.

 

[Rich]

Maybe because while MLs / 'stats may project as a line array, they don't necessary sound like commercial line array designs? The mode of sound radiation is not the only determining factor on sound quality.

This is kind of an irrelevant point, Adam. ML's don't really sound like other electrostats either. I have listened to ELS designs from ML, Sanders, Quad, King's Audio and a few others, and all of them have unique sonic differences. The point Jon was making is that ELS speakers and line array speakers have certain sonic attributes in common because of the way the sound wave is dispersed, and those who enjoy ML's just might also enjoy the sound of a line array speaker. I tend to agree with him, having heard the Scaenas as well as the big Macintosh line arrays. Of course, Jon is biased. Just look at his center channel.

 

[slowGEEZR]

So you're the guy who bought the Summits pictured here a while ago tarted out in red leather?

Ha ha, now that's funny!

 

[bonzo]

W.r.t line arrays, the Wisdom Audio are pretty awesome