Hi, having spent app. 6 months evaluating speakers (Linn dealers, my living room, other Linn owners rooms, non Linn dealers) I think it's time for a summary with my thoughts.
As usual musical performance if nothing else specified
Majik; 109 > 140 > Isobarik
Akurate a big step above Majik regardless of age or speaker model.
mkII is better than mkI. The new 242 base is great.
Klimax; still haven't heard them sounding fantastic. 320 is to my ears better than 350.
The better non Linn speakers are roughly on Majik level. = quite good.
Some of the better presented below;
- B&W; 802D very nice, also the sound. 805D quite ok (804D and PM1 not so good)
- Dynaudio Confidence C1 Signature. (7k€ standmount) Ok in mid/treble but the bass was undefined and not as musical as mid/treble. Overall better than the Audiovector described below. Too small to be interesting for me.
- ATC; NIIICE sound but not as musical as Linn better offerings. Not as detailed either. ATC has the old Linn sound so Isobarik lovers going to LOVE the sound. Not difficult to understand that they are popular!
Did I mention the BASS performance? WOW Spot on!
Love the look.
- Atohm GT 3.0. (8k€) Cleraly better than Sonus F, Klipsch and Audio physics Avantera, around same price interval.
- Tannoy. Sweet mid, nice sound. Bass lacked some timing. Need to compare more models.
Tannoy has a direct character in the sound that I like. I also like the approach with few elements and simple Xover. Simplicity rules!
Some of the not so good below:
- Ovator 600 (400 better but Audiovector Avantarde Arante Si3 was clearly a LOT better, also soundwise) A HUUUGE disappointment. Heard Ovators in two different shops and same result.
With a 20k€ Naim setup (their best streamer) and 400's, the Naim system was KILLED by a Meridian setup (Meridan HDD, their small active speakers and 2k€ pre) for less than half the price.
With the Audiovectors instead of S400, the Naim setup was better but still not as musical as the Meridian setup.
- Sonus Fabers; Heard many different models and all have the same house sound. Nice sound but too laid back. No slam and restricted dynamics. Best of SF models were Cremona Elipsa (25k€?)
- Canton (a big 4-way around 25k€) Liked the sound though... Neutral with good bass and slam.
- MBL. (30k€) New technology that spread the sound in all directions. Spread the sound in the room as the old Bricks, GREAT!
Ugly.
Summary, non Linn speakers:
Worst timing and worst sound; no contest - Ovator. What a disgrace.
Best sound and best timing; 802D. A serious alternative to full range Linn speakers if you can trade some musicality for sound?
Need to hear more of; Tannoy!
So folks, what's your experience?
Speaker demos - summary
Moderator: Staff
-
Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
Speaker demos - summary
It's all about musical understanding!
-
monkeydevil
- Active Member
- Posts: 77
- Joined: 2007-01-31 18:25
- Location: Stockholm
Yes, very interesting ML. It is rare to find someone do so much listening of non-Linn speakers, at least someone who's opinion I trust.
I don't want to misdirect your central question, but just briefly, would you prefer to live with Klimax electronics and Akurate speakers than Klimax speakers? I am guessing from your wording that you would rather 242s than 350s, but it is just a presumption.
I don't want to misdirect your central question, but just briefly, would you prefer to live with Klimax electronics and Akurate speakers than Klimax speakers? I am guessing from your wording that you would rather 242s than 350s, but it is just a presumption.
-
Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
-
monkeydevil
- Active Member
- Posts: 77
- Joined: 2007-01-31 18:25
- Location: Stockholm
So the in this case, the bigger the speaker is, the worse the sound gets. As in other cases (Katan-Ninka, 212-242, 320-350). It is almost as if it was a general rule, the smaller the better... "More simple" design maybe?
And the miso's cost many times the price of the 109's. Although they may have other qualities, in the bass department.
And the miso's cost many times the price of the 109's. Although they may have other qualities, in the bass department.
-
Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
I just LOVE having a pair of 350P, just for the fun of tweaking them (internal cable direction etc) as I think (hope) they can be great with Solo's.Charlie1 wrote:would you prefer to live with Klimax electronics and Akurate speakers than Klimax speakers? I am guessing from your wording that you would rather 242s than 350s, but it is just a presumption.
After that, next step would be to compare them with 242s.
350A is too complex to be an interesting project. Both owning and tweaking/testing.
Generally, I think the performance potential is very high in Klimax speakers.
It's all about musical understanding!
What an impressive test list Music Lover! It is hard work apart from being fun.
As an ATC-user however I have to say I don't lack anything in detail or musicality in any of the ATC models I have heard. I have owned active 10-2 and now have passive SCM20SL and both models are way superior to the active Katans they replaced and the Kabers that went before them.
I have auditioned passive 11s and active SCM50 as demoed by ATC reps. One thing I have noted with ATC dealers is their complete uninterest in sources.
When I upgraded from the Sneaky DS to the Akurate tons of detail were released by my speakers which goes to show source first works.
I have often heard large Tannoys at my friends house but I suspect they go better with tube amps since they are very efficient approaching 100 dB I believe.
As an ATC-user however I have to say I don't lack anything in detail or musicality in any of the ATC models I have heard. I have owned active 10-2 and now have passive SCM20SL and both models are way superior to the active Katans they replaced and the Kabers that went before them.
I have auditioned passive 11s and active SCM50 as demoed by ATC reps. One thing I have noted with ATC dealers is their complete uninterest in sources.
When I upgraded from the Sneaky DS to the Akurate tons of detail were released by my speakers which goes to show source first works.
I have often heard large Tannoys at my friends house but I suspect they go better with tube amps since they are very efficient approaching 100 dB I believe.
I'm replying very late, but I just wanted to thank Music Lover for his impressively thorough report. Great job and very interesting!
I heard my first pair of ATC's recently, they were quite nice. I agree they have something in common with old Linn speakers. A dry, flat and musical sound. The midrange qualities impressed me. Compared to modern Linn speakers with 2K or 3K arrays, however, they were not very detailed or refined in the top.
I heard my first pair of ATC's recently, they were quite nice. I agree they have something in common with old Linn speakers. A dry, flat and musical sound. The midrange qualities impressed me. Compared to modern Linn speakers with 2K or 3K arrays, however, they were not very detailed or refined in the top.
With ATCs the top end is the first thing to go when out of position even a little. It is the only negative I've heard about them. Did you do any positioning yourself?
I have only heard 242s with the 3k array. The demo was the pits. Two weeks ahead I asked for a demo. The dealer threw them in the room after I arrived. I know this did not tell me much about the speakers - but was loud and clear about the dealer. Clear and lifeless. Both the speakers and dealer.
I have only heard 242s with the 3k array. The demo was the pits. Two weeks ahead I asked for a demo. The dealer threw them in the room after I arrived. I know this did not tell me much about the speakers - but was loud and clear about the dealer. Clear and lifeless. Both the speakers and dealer.
I've taken a long time replying as well hoping I would have time (HA!) to do a more serious comparison before posting. It is very interesting to read about the various speakers Music Lover listened to and especially to read about the Naim Ovators. Somehow I'm not surprised about that as I've thought some of the Naim speaker design ideas questionable for some time. But it is great to get impressions of a number of different expensive speakers from a person who puts music first (as do most on this forum).
I do find the comment about the ATCs surprising in some ways. Yes they are reminiscent of Isobariks and indeed I replaced Aktiv Isobariks with them after hearing how thoroughly the Isos were clobbered by the 100s - even in the bass. But I find the description of the ATCs as less detailed than the newer models surprising and at odds with my own experience. My ATC 100s retrieve more musical detail and information in the midrange than any speaker I have heard including my previous references the Quad ESL57 and the Isobarik! (Here is time for the admission that I have never heard a properly setup pair of Komri or Klimax 350s.) Indeed, my decision to purchase the ATC 100s was based on a direct comparison of them compared to the original 242s, which they put to shame top to bottom.
Anyway, I find the midrange on them just glorious and to me the highs seem to just be there - a seamless extension of the midrange that is balanced, extended and open. I note that others have also commented on the midrange quality so it seems I am not the only one who finds it quite good. The treble question is more interesting in many ways as there seem to be a number of different opinions about the highs both on and outside the forum. I will not say categorically that the highs on MY ATC 100s are better or worse than the highs of the latest 3K Array. (I have not had the chance to compare them to the latest 242, which I agree is a much better speaker than the first or second versions, but I hope to be able to do so sometime early next year.) However, I have also never had a problem with or found anything lacking in the highs.
I have a couple of theories about these differing experiences (notice I say experiences, not opinions, as I believe the speaker is capable of these different sounds). First off on the highs the ATCs have been made for quite some time and they have not always used the same tweeter. The earlier tweeter (I believe a Vifa unit, used until sometime around 2000) had a reputation as being a bit dark and closed in. It was known as musical but not very extended or detailed. I have had experience of this tweeter on a friend's ATC 20s, which I briefly borrowed, and it was indeed a bit closed in although not unacceptably so - just not as open and informative as you might wish. Still the 20s did some things my Isobariks did not and this encounter actually started my journey to further investigate the ATCs. In the early 2000s ATC changed to a new tweeter that was considered by many to be one of the best made (I'm pretty sure it is a SEAS Excel). This tweeter has a response to past 25kHz and, as mentioned, it seems to me to do the job just fine (and apparently to Salty Dog as well). Unfortunately, ATC doesn't put out a lot of information about these changes so many have no idea they have ever been done much less that you can usually upgrade older models to new specs. An interesting addendum to this is that ATC have been working on their own tweeter design for a fair number of years believing that they could improve on existing designs (as they have in midrange and bass drivers). It took them a long time to be able to achieve the results they were looking for consistently but I have heard that the tweeter in being manufactured and is currently going into the bigger models like the 300. My understanding is that it will make its way down through the standard lines and will be retrofittable to older speakers.
It is interesting that some reviews report the ATCs to be mercilessly revealing while others are saying the highs are not very detailed. Some of this comes from the fact that the ATCs do "get out of the way" better than most speakers (again, better than any I have heard) so of course they are unforgiving of bad sources - something which ATC does not stress which probably doesn't help things. But I think there are other things that could also account for some of these different experiences. As Salty Dog mentions ATCs are quite sensitive to position, like really all very good speakers, and getting this wrong can certainly alter perceptions. But there is also another fundamental thing that has to be looked after if you want to really hear what an ATC can do and that is the torques on the drivers. As Fredrik, Paoli and I have found (among others) a speaker system's performance can be greatly enhanced by the use of proper torques on the drivers. The ATCs are at least as sensitive to this as any other speaker I have heard. Yet they come from the factory with the bolts anywhere between reasonably tight and loose enough to allow you to get two full turns before the bolt is snug! When you consider that there are 32 screws on the front of an ATC 100 that need addressing (16 just to hold the front baffle to the cabinet) you see there is plenty of room for problems. This obviously does not help performance. Getting all these torqued up really makes a big improvement and might also help explain some of the differences in what people have heard. Since there are the cabinet screws, 8 on the woofer, 4 that hold in the midrange, 4 that hold in the tweeter and 4 that hold the tweeter magnet to its faceplate, not having them right can obviously effect any or all of the range covered by the speaker. Get them all snug and the speaker will sound much better, get them right and it makes another musical leap.
I have to wonder if some of these concerns may be at least part of the reason for the different experiences. It certainly seems like an area for further investigation. I haven’t yet heard anything that would even make consider a different speaker. I have heard some models of Sonus faber sound good but am not happy with their new direction and I did prefer 242s to Cremona Ms (actually I also preferred the Isobaiks to them). In the end the coarseness when driven hard, a quality common to most passive speakers, made the Sf speakers I wouldn’t want to live with. Various other speakers have come and gone through the store, including a couple of pair of Artikulat 350s, but none have caught my attention enough to make me look at them seriously for my own system. I do need to give another listen to the new 242s at home if possible but I’m in no rush. I am honestly supremely happy with the way my ATCs fill the room with music regardless of the source - although that Majik DS will have to get an upgrade before too long. ;-)
I do find the comment about the ATCs surprising in some ways. Yes they are reminiscent of Isobariks and indeed I replaced Aktiv Isobariks with them after hearing how thoroughly the Isos were clobbered by the 100s - even in the bass. But I find the description of the ATCs as less detailed than the newer models surprising and at odds with my own experience. My ATC 100s retrieve more musical detail and information in the midrange than any speaker I have heard including my previous references the Quad ESL57 and the Isobarik! (Here is time for the admission that I have never heard a properly setup pair of Komri or Klimax 350s.) Indeed, my decision to purchase the ATC 100s was based on a direct comparison of them compared to the original 242s, which they put to shame top to bottom.
Anyway, I find the midrange on them just glorious and to me the highs seem to just be there - a seamless extension of the midrange that is balanced, extended and open. I note that others have also commented on the midrange quality so it seems I am not the only one who finds it quite good. The treble question is more interesting in many ways as there seem to be a number of different opinions about the highs both on and outside the forum. I will not say categorically that the highs on MY ATC 100s are better or worse than the highs of the latest 3K Array. (I have not had the chance to compare them to the latest 242, which I agree is a much better speaker than the first or second versions, but I hope to be able to do so sometime early next year.) However, I have also never had a problem with or found anything lacking in the highs.
I have a couple of theories about these differing experiences (notice I say experiences, not opinions, as I believe the speaker is capable of these different sounds). First off on the highs the ATCs have been made for quite some time and they have not always used the same tweeter. The earlier tweeter (I believe a Vifa unit, used until sometime around 2000) had a reputation as being a bit dark and closed in. It was known as musical but not very extended or detailed. I have had experience of this tweeter on a friend's ATC 20s, which I briefly borrowed, and it was indeed a bit closed in although not unacceptably so - just not as open and informative as you might wish. Still the 20s did some things my Isobariks did not and this encounter actually started my journey to further investigate the ATCs. In the early 2000s ATC changed to a new tweeter that was considered by many to be one of the best made (I'm pretty sure it is a SEAS Excel). This tweeter has a response to past 25kHz and, as mentioned, it seems to me to do the job just fine (and apparently to Salty Dog as well). Unfortunately, ATC doesn't put out a lot of information about these changes so many have no idea they have ever been done much less that you can usually upgrade older models to new specs. An interesting addendum to this is that ATC have been working on their own tweeter design for a fair number of years believing that they could improve on existing designs (as they have in midrange and bass drivers). It took them a long time to be able to achieve the results they were looking for consistently but I have heard that the tweeter in being manufactured and is currently going into the bigger models like the 300. My understanding is that it will make its way down through the standard lines and will be retrofittable to older speakers.
It is interesting that some reviews report the ATCs to be mercilessly revealing while others are saying the highs are not very detailed. Some of this comes from the fact that the ATCs do "get out of the way" better than most speakers (again, better than any I have heard) so of course they are unforgiving of bad sources - something which ATC does not stress which probably doesn't help things. But I think there are other things that could also account for some of these different experiences. As Salty Dog mentions ATCs are quite sensitive to position, like really all very good speakers, and getting this wrong can certainly alter perceptions. But there is also another fundamental thing that has to be looked after if you want to really hear what an ATC can do and that is the torques on the drivers. As Fredrik, Paoli and I have found (among others) a speaker system's performance can be greatly enhanced by the use of proper torques on the drivers. The ATCs are at least as sensitive to this as any other speaker I have heard. Yet they come from the factory with the bolts anywhere between reasonably tight and loose enough to allow you to get two full turns before the bolt is snug! When you consider that there are 32 screws on the front of an ATC 100 that need addressing (16 just to hold the front baffle to the cabinet) you see there is plenty of room for problems. This obviously does not help performance. Getting all these torqued up really makes a big improvement and might also help explain some of the differences in what people have heard. Since there are the cabinet screws, 8 on the woofer, 4 that hold in the midrange, 4 that hold in the tweeter and 4 that hold the tweeter magnet to its faceplate, not having them right can obviously effect any or all of the range covered by the speaker. Get them all snug and the speaker will sound much better, get them right and it makes another musical leap.
I have to wonder if some of these concerns may be at least part of the reason for the different experiences. It certainly seems like an area for further investigation. I haven’t yet heard anything that would even make consider a different speaker. I have heard some models of Sonus faber sound good but am not happy with their new direction and I did prefer 242s to Cremona Ms (actually I also preferred the Isobaiks to them). In the end the coarseness when driven hard, a quality common to most passive speakers, made the Sf speakers I wouldn’t want to live with. Various other speakers have come and gone through the store, including a couple of pair of Artikulat 350s, but none have caught my attention enough to make me look at them seriously for my own system. I do need to give another listen to the new 242s at home if possible but I’m in no rush. I am honestly supremely happy with the way my ATCs fill the room with music regardless of the source - although that Majik DS will have to get an upgrade before too long. ;-)
-
Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
Season's Greetings, all Music Lovers!
I'm happy you enjoying the thread.
As I wrote in the OP, I just wrote about the good speakers. There are a lot of lousy speakers out there trust me on that...
Some comments below
Regarding ATC's, the active 50's were just a year old and installed down to the very mm by one of the few dealers left that actually BOTH understand and practice Tune Dem. Driven by KDSmkII/KK on a Harmoni-rack.
The result is a very nice sound, very "live".
You get the impression of them being VERY transparent and real, but Akurate speakers reveal quite a bit more details and insight. (only talking about the sound now)
Playing a track on the ATC's you just LOVE them from the first second due to how they sound but you soon start thinking of something else...
Using one of the better Linn speakers (compared them with 212 mkIII) you forget the sound and only think of the musical performance of the artist on the record. What a GREAT speaker the small Akurare is!
Even 242 mkI is better (more musical and more detailed) than the ATC 50s.
I can fully understand why many of you like ATC as they really can seduce the listener, but it's IMHO an added "sound nice distortion" that simply hide some details in the music.
Many speakers does this, example Artikulat/Klimax.
The true GREAT speakers doesn't sound transparent and detailed, they are not "impressive sounding". Instead they only present the music.
Komponent is such a speaker (NO bass and absolutely NO dynamics unfortunately) , QUAD ESL is another with same characteristics as Komponent but with a performance on a level below. The performance of ESL can also vary a LOT. Not sure why but some pairs have been great and some others very bad.
But none have been as musical as Komponent...
Did I mention how good Komponent is? Did I also mention the TOTAL absence of dynamics and bass?
The only speaker that have some of the Komri brilliance!
All in all the most frustrating speaker I ever heard, due to the fantastic musical performance together with the total lack of SLAM.
Komri on the other hand doesn't sound impressive, doesn't sound real and detailed but is easily the most transparent speaker I ever heard.
And it's the only Linn speaker that can portray a 3D presentation! Wide, deep, and the sound is even coming from behind you.
Komponent have some of this as well but did I mention the lack of bass? and the lack of... well... ;-)
You BET I played with the idea testing Komponent together with 2, 3 or 4 Klimax subs. Sure it going to be just fantastic!
Happy Holidays!
(and sorry for all grammar errors, haven't time to review the text)
And NOW back to the candy pot, yes we eat huge piles of chocolate and other sweets on Christmas, sorry Kristmas)
Rock On!
I'm happy you enjoying the thread.
As I wrote in the OP, I just wrote about the good speakers. There are a lot of lousy speakers out there trust me on that...
Some comments below
Yes, I think it's easier to design a musical small speaker due to the less complex architecture, BUT among Kan/Sara/Isobarik it's the Bicks that is best, same goes with next generation (Keltik) and still I haven't heard a better speaker than Komri.So the in this case, the bigger the speaker is, the worse the sound gets. As in other cases (Katan-Ninka, 212-242, 320-350). It is almost as if it was a general rule, the smaller the better... "More simple" design maybe?
Regarding ATC's, the active 50's were just a year old and installed down to the very mm by one of the few dealers left that actually BOTH understand and practice Tune Dem. Driven by KDSmkII/KK on a Harmoni-rack.
The result is a very nice sound, very "live".
You get the impression of them being VERY transparent and real, but Akurate speakers reveal quite a bit more details and insight. (only talking about the sound now)
Playing a track on the ATC's you just LOVE them from the first second due to how they sound but you soon start thinking of something else...
Using one of the better Linn speakers (compared them with 212 mkIII) you forget the sound and only think of the musical performance of the artist on the record. What a GREAT speaker the small Akurare is!
Even 242 mkI is better (more musical and more detailed) than the ATC 50s.
I can fully understand why many of you like ATC as they really can seduce the listener, but it's IMHO an added "sound nice distortion" that simply hide some details in the music.
Many speakers does this, example Artikulat/Klimax.
The true GREAT speakers doesn't sound transparent and detailed, they are not "impressive sounding". Instead they only present the music.
Komponent is such a speaker (NO bass and absolutely NO dynamics unfortunately) , QUAD ESL is another with same characteristics as Komponent but with a performance on a level below. The performance of ESL can also vary a LOT. Not sure why but some pairs have been great and some others very bad.
But none have been as musical as Komponent...
Did I mention how good Komponent is? Did I also mention the TOTAL absence of dynamics and bass?
The only speaker that have some of the Komri brilliance!
All in all the most frustrating speaker I ever heard, due to the fantastic musical performance together with the total lack of SLAM.
Komri on the other hand doesn't sound impressive, doesn't sound real and detailed but is easily the most transparent speaker I ever heard.
And it's the only Linn speaker that can portray a 3D presentation! Wide, deep, and the sound is even coming from behind you.
Komponent have some of this as well but did I mention the lack of bass? and the lack of... well... ;-)
You BET I played with the idea testing Komponent together with 2, 3 or 4 Klimax subs. Sure it going to be just fantastic!
Happy Holidays!
(and sorry for all grammar errors, haven't time to review the text)
And NOW back to the candy pot, yes we eat huge piles of chocolate and other sweets on Christmas, sorry Kristmas)
Rock On!
It's all about musical understanding!
Great thread Music Lover.
From my own experience, I prefer the 242 over the 350A. I always thought it was down to room size at my dealers, but having listened to both in a bigger dem room and at various linn users houses, the 350A's and I have never got on well.
I did some serious 242 demos a couple of years ago (3 different locations, one of them at my dealers and all with KDS KK front ends) and on every occasion I was initially impressed but then started drifting off in a daydream. I just wasn't being held by the music.
During an event evening at the dealers there was a rep from Linn HQ showing the group how to Tune Dem for speaker positioning. It was so obvious when the speaker was in the correct position, it really was a great example of how to do it properly, but 10 minutes later I left the room, bored.
I spent the rest of the evening chatting to friends and being distracted (in a good way) by the music coming from a pair of 109's. Great little speakers.
It just goes to show how different we can be, but I find myself nodding in agreement with Thomas as I read his post, but then I would, as I have a pair of ATC scm 100ASL in front of me. I haven't (yet) heard a speaker I'd rather live with (well apart from Aktiv Komri/Solos which I could only dream of financially), but maybe some time in the future there will be a Lejonklou active speaker driven by 3 Tundras.
From my own experience, I prefer the 242 over the 350A. I always thought it was down to room size at my dealers, but having listened to both in a bigger dem room and at various linn users houses, the 350A's and I have never got on well.
I did some serious 242 demos a couple of years ago (3 different locations, one of them at my dealers and all with KDS KK front ends) and on every occasion I was initially impressed but then started drifting off in a daydream. I just wasn't being held by the music.
During an event evening at the dealers there was a rep from Linn HQ showing the group how to Tune Dem for speaker positioning. It was so obvious when the speaker was in the correct position, it really was a great example of how to do it properly, but 10 minutes later I left the room, bored.
I spent the rest of the evening chatting to friends and being distracted (in a good way) by the music coming from a pair of 109's. Great little speakers.
It just goes to show how different we can be, but I find myself nodding in agreement with Thomas as I read his post, but then I would, as I have a pair of ATC scm 100ASL in front of me. I haven't (yet) heard a speaker I'd rather live with (well apart from Aktiv Komri/Solos which I could only dream of financially), but maybe some time in the future there will be a Lejonklou active speaker driven by 3 Tundras.
I completely agree with ML:s thoughts on ATC v.s. Linn:s Akurate speakers. I, however, can not stand the total lack of dynamics in the Komponent series, allthough it is a very good speaker musically. The main issue with the Akurate is probably their revealing qualities. Poor sources or a poor set-up tend to sound just boring as the speaker does not add very much on its own. Even a KDS setup can not to afford to be very sloppy done to really satisfy, in all aspects, with the Akurate.
Last edited by hcl on 2012-02-08 22:29, edited 2 times in total.
The Komponent sounds compressed in the lower registers right from rather low levels.Charlie1 wrote:What do you mean by dynamics? Is it the difference in volume between quiet and loud passages? Sorry, I know it is a common term, but just wanted to check.hcl wrote:I, however, can not stand the total lack of dynamics in the Komponent series, allthough it is a very good speaker musically .
Do you mean compressed in that they are missing much of the low frequency range, so some sort of effect on the sound. Maybe it is a sound effect hard to convey in words.lejonklou wrote:That's a good description. The entire Komponent range is very musical, but I can't help becoming a bit annoyed with how they sound in the bass.hcl wrote:The Komponent sounds compressed in the lower registers right from rather low levels.
-
Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
I think he means dynamically compressed. Do you know how that sounds? Some old JJ Cale songs are very compressed, sounds like they're coming from an old analogue telephone. No variation in volume between the sounds, it's all squeezed flat.Charlie1 wrote:Do you mean compressed in that they are missing much of the low frequency range, so some sort of effect on the sound. Maybe it is a sound effect hard to convey in words.
I've used those songs in demonstrations, to point out that musical qualities in reproduction isn't all about dynamics (which is a rather common misconception). It's very easy to hear how a small change made to well tuned system can make those telephone-like recordings become less enjoyable. Or how an improvement can make them more enjoyable.
I agree. But I still don't have any. I guess that's an example of how the choice of loudspeakers can be very personal. If one wants a particular sound, surely that's where compromises should be made.Music Lover wrote:Komponent reminds me of Kan mkI. Musical, very fast and lively.
But Komponent is more musical.
It's a great speaker!
Interesting on the Komponents. I have a pair of 104s arriving today with a view to replacing my Uniks with them. The Uniks are on rear duties in the lounge surround system so bass is not a significant requirement so from the posts above they are promising. I also have a 106 center coming to replace my Ekwal. Will be interesting to see how they all compare. I am, initially, going to try both the Uniks and the 104s in our kitchen system where we are using a pair of MK1 Kans!! Quite a coinicidence given the above comments. Will report back later.
CJ
CJ
-
rowlandhills
- Very active member
- Posts: 582
- Joined: 2008-01-27 19:25
- Location: York, UK
I had a Komponent 106c at one point which I tried with Keilidhs as mains and Kans as rears. Sounded horrible! To be honest though, that was probably much more to do with the sound difference when anything panned across the front three speakers than any concerns about musicality!
KRDSM, Tundra to 242s
Silvers, K400, Hutter rack
Silvers, K400, Hutter rack
I get it now.lejonklou wrote:I think he means dynamically compressed. Do you know how that sounds? Some old JJ Cale songs are very compressed, sounds like they're coming from an old analogue telephone. No variation in volume between the sounds, it's all squeezed flat.
I've used those songs in demonstrations, to point out that musical qualities in reproduction isn't all about dynamics (which is a rather common misconception). It's very easy to hear how a small change made to well tuned system can make those telephone-like recordings become less enjoyable. Or how an improvement can make them more enjoyable.
I'm also getting a pair today for our kitchen, so quite curious.