Glad you got to check it out. It seems it's very different from your current tastes, it requires am entirely different type of amplification, you pay a lot of attention to the bass as per your current set up while what I react to with the Liszt is the the midrange, the way it projects out in to the room unlike anything I have heard including panels, and the fact they come from up. I also find horns faster and more flowing. I heard the bass at munich as well and there it was sounding smoother unlike in keith's room
Interesting...
as with electronics (SS v Tubes) as I have heard better and better speakers that aim to 'do it all'...I have found sound that is more similar than different. This includes the four 'tweaks' I have made to my speakers to reduce vibration as well as the newer Focal tweeter which went in to replace the original one after it gave out after nearly 20 years. They have brought my speakers closer to the new references I have heard in the last year.
In general, Arrakis, Genesis had more similarities in presentation than differences (even though there sure were differences). Once scale, power, detail, midrange magic are all there for me...I suppose I find myself listening to music more than the system. And both speakers allow me to do that, in which I become less focused on differences in the system...and more interested in the differences between two artists playing the same composition.
Maybe that makes me less critical an audiophile (actually, by definition, I suppose it does)...but this for me is where I draw the line...once the speaker gets me to that point, I stop listening to the system and it is wonderful.
In any event, here are some
observations about how each audition differed.
Normal caveats apply...particularly different rooms/systems!! These cannot be direct comparisons because I did not compare them directly...so just observations about what I heard.
Cessaro v my X1
My trusted old X1s show their age when it comes to coherence and the sound feeling a bit mechanical. I have worked this old warhorse again and again...and my changes have really pushed this speaker much further forward imho, and I am really enjoying them. But place next to any of the speakers on this post (as well as the XLFs), and I suspect it takes but a few seconds to distinguish how old my speakers really are. I hear it more on complex orchestral than Norah Jones...but its there.
In terms of scale and power and coherence, I felt very confident the X1s in Keith's room would be perfectly fine. They are smaller, extremely adjustable in many ways. That is an important thing when one is considering how big your listening room is. I admire David Wilson for having gotten a 'super big' speaker that is just about as big a footprint as a 'regular floorstander' and high enough to give power/height/room for lots of cones...and yet short enough to fit under any ceiling...and give you the 'super reference' experience in a relatively small room. That is quite an accomplishment...8 foot listening distance to get what you can get with a big Wilson is really great.
The Liszts look well over a foot taller, a good bit deeper and a bit wider...and it really feels it when you stand next to it. And in the room, it quickly overtakes the room and (I suppose) it can cause challenges in setup. and that I definitely could feel in Keith's beautiful room. It was pretty big...but not big enough for these speakers.
The treble/mids were smoother in the Cessaros...bass was too difficult to figure out from the audition. The alacrity and speed of treble were superior to what I have at home, but not so that X1s bothered me, because the presentation of the X1 overall felt more even. The midrange of the Cessaro is beautiful but having come from SF Strads many years ago, I found the X1s when setup right were a match for the SF beauty and thus I found the midrange from both to be equally beautiful and more similar than different, just the Cessaro to be clearer, a bit more forward (and again less mechanics getting in the way).
Cessaro v Arrakis
The Arrakis setup was sublime. Snap your finger and no echo, but neither does the echo get 'sucked' into a blackhole. you just hear a 'snap'. Take that into account pls...
The Arrakis is unshakeable, unmoveable, effortless, coherent coherent coherent. We played the same Daft Punk album in both systems...and placing my fingers on the cabinet of both speakers...and if I could not hear the noise, I could tell the Cessaro was busy booming away. The Arrakis literally had my pants flapping (which I have never experienced except with subs)...and touching the side of the cabinet, I was astonished I could not feel anything...astonished.
The rest of the presentation from the Arrakis has that same effortless, unmoveable coherent quality.
In the upper ranges, the coherence of the Arrakis means that the treble and mid are equally unshakeable...and it was the first time it made me realize that (within its presentation) having a totally coherent speaker is perhaps more important than having the faster tweeter or the tightest bass...because if that fastest tweeter is matched with even a hair slower mid cone...it destroys the illusion in the room. Whereas a hare slower tweeter and mid in the same room without the benefit of hearing any other speaker...if done really well, at least for me, I just stop caring because the presentation is seamless.
And let me say, the Arrakis is super fast, and quick and, and and...but its seamlessness and unshakeability create a soundstage that is breathtaking beyond all that have come before it for me.
OK, so my preference if I had to pick blind is clear. But the Arrakis is 2x or more the price of the Cessaro, so I need to be fair and state this.
Cessaro v Genesis 1.1s (custom modd'd)
Scale of the Genesis seems greater to me...room sizes matter immensely so this is not scientific but purely guestimate. Both obviously need big rooms, and Genesis even more so. The room I heard Genesis in was big and supremely well setup again. Effortless hardly makes the grade as a description. Sublime comes to mind even in comparison with the Arrakis (which probably in an ideal world would fit me better).
There is something about panels that add 'fire' in the spark of a violin 'zing' and do so in a way that the 'zing' is actually rounded and pure...it is kinda crazy. I really dig that.
The Cessaro had the fire/spark but perhaps not quite the pure rounded element of it. The Arrakis had the rounded and pure part but my recollection is not quite that fire/spark.
Picking a personal ranking of that one element: Genesis, Arrakis, Cessaro. Purely personal.
On bass, I have heard people speak about the Genesis bass and the setup difficulties people have there....I cannot say. Being a deep house person as well as quartets, jazz, etc...I do like my bass thunderous and also super tight. The Cessaro was unable to do that in the room with the rooms limitations. The Arrakis was pitch perfect to my ear. The Genesis closer to Arrakis by far than Cessaro (in that room).