WHY are high-efficiency speakers are better at conveying emotion of music vs. audiophile vocabulary?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Yep Ked, my aim in life is to make it personal. You so got me right. Maybe you really should reserve that criticism for the TotalDac crowd that tore a strip off you re Lampi. You do realise how lame you sound, yes?
I’ve already said I liked the Prodigies, but I guess that’s not good enough, Zus just cannot match up in any way. That’s v informative, I’ll try to remember that.
And I start a whole thread extolling U.K. Paul’s modded ML Spires as the top one or two demos I’ve been to. Yep, I’m taking a dig at you there as well. Or not? Oh, I can’t really keep up w your circular “logic”.
And interestingly even Paul feels the MLs come up a little short in one area, mids density and shove. Yes, the very area where Zus, and many high efficiency designs excel at.
So, for a reasonable chat on Zu and ML, I’ll keep my time w Paul, someone who’s actually sweated the small stuff on his MLs.
I’ve already said I liked the Prodigies, but I guess that’s not good enough, Zus just cannot match up in any way. That’s v informative, I’ll try to remember that.
And I start a whole thread extolling U.K. Paul’s modded ML Spires as the top one or two demos I’ve been to. Yep, I’m taking a dig at you there as well. Or not? Oh, I can’t really keep up w your circular “logic”.
And interestingly even Paul feels the MLs come up a little short in one area, mids density and shove. Yes, the very area where Zus, and many high efficiency designs excel at.
So, for a reasonable chat on Zu and ML, I’ll keep my time w Paul, someone who’s actually sweated the small stuff on his MLs.
Ribbons are not neutral in the sterile sense. They have the best mids among speakers. They do require an amp that drives them properly else the ribbons can sound wimpy or dry. Class A high current is best. But ideally you have to rotate amps to see what you like. Your symphonic line are firm favorites for an apogee. One guy runs them on scintilla. And they are fast, because ribbons, as well as stat panels, are really fast. They are more relevant today because we know better SS amps than existed in their heyday
Hey Ked, stop acting like the kid who provokes an argument and then sucks up to the teacher.
You’d have a little credit if you didn’t falsely accuse me of bringing ML in just to spite you.
When I reiterate that the demo happened, you have nothing to say, other than I’m taking it personally. Try looking in the mirror.
Re Zu, yes I love the brand, and am 100% emotional about my purchases w them. Guilty as charged. If you think most guys here don’t feel protective of their choices, maybe think again.
Over and out.
You’d have a little credit if you didn’t falsely accuse me of bringing ML in just to spite you.
When I reiterate that the demo happened, you have nothing to say, other than I’m taking it personally. Try looking in the mirror.
Re Zu, yes I love the brand, and am 100% emotional about my purchases w them. Guilty as charged. If you think most guys here don’t feel protective of their choices, maybe think again.
Over and out.
Paul, it’s a blessed relief ducks aren’t on social media. Can you imagine the disagreements that would be had re how to keep feathers maintained, choice of waterways, and methods to roughly take females from behind .
I sold everything else, bought a lot of stuff after that, sold that too . These two not going unless some one trades my Lampi for my choice of analog plus a record collection, in which case I will move to OPPO for digital.
I always admitted, I was late to analog, else wouldn't have spent so much on digital. I traded out other isolation for mooks. You hadn't heard apogee, audio machina, and some horns when you bought your Zus, else I would have accepted that was the informed choice. Likewise, if you say it is not worth the hassle of moving out to these speakers, I get that too. But to say Zus are better than these is like me saying Lampi is better than tape, which I have not done.
Keith,
I find your comment interesting regarding the Dyn's. I have often heard of this complaint about low efficiency speakers and wonder to what extent this need for high volume might relate to the "amp matching" addressed in my quote above. Specifically, the need to not just match an inefficient speaker with a "high power" amp but matching the speaker to an an amp with high current reserves at the frequencies where impedance drops and phase angel approaches 45 degrees. If this is done properly, in my experience, even an inefficient speaker should maintain its relative dynamics at a lower volume.
Ked, you really need to spend more time reading closely, and not comment on what you think you’re reading
I’ve NEVER said Zus are better than any other spkr across the board. Indeed in my own threads talking about my gear, I always shrug my shoulders and admit where they fail ie high end air, mids transparency, bass integration w room.
All I’ve ever said, is that what they excel at ie tone density (NOT tone alone) and shove, I hear in very few other loudspeakers.
And for me this is a compelling attribute that drew me in when I heard them for the first time in 2008, and still continues to enchant me. And in the world of high end audio, where so many ditch their gear like bad dates, that’s invaluable to me.
For me personally this means that so many lps and cds are compelling even at low volumes, the tone density of instruments communicating more to me than the kind of uber resolution or crisper treble/join the dots imaging type presentation I’d have got had I gone for the more conventional choices.
So, let’s get this straight, at the expense of killing this thread. I don’t say Zus are better than MLs, Apogees, Quads, Wilsons etc etc etc. What I do say is that the particular presentation of Zus, that Sean Casey goes for of a more old fashioned density of mids and shove factor, was more important to me/communicated music better TO ME PERSONALLY, than a more see thru/higher resolution/clearer treble type presentation that I heard w other speakers.
And the sheer joy of moving to SETs which Zu made so easy as a decision, is the icing on the cake.
Of course if you want to say Zus don’t even have remarkable tone density, feel free. I’m sure I won’t accuse you of deliberately taking a contrary position.
Just don’t accuse me of dissing ML to make a point. Because you really need to re read my thread on Paul’s system.
Which brings me neatly full circle to the sentiment at the start of this post.
I’ve NEVER said Zus are better than any other spkr across the board. Indeed in my own threads talking about my gear, I always shrug my shoulders and admit where they fail ie high end air, mids transparency, bass integration w room.
All I’ve ever said, is that what they excel at ie tone density (NOT tone alone) and shove, I hear in very few other loudspeakers.
And for me this is a compelling attribute that drew me in when I heard them for the first time in 2008, and still continues to enchant me. And in the world of high end audio, where so many ditch their gear like bad dates, that’s invaluable to me.
For me personally this means that so many lps and cds are compelling even at low volumes, the tone density of instruments communicating more to me than the kind of uber resolution or crisper treble/join the dots imaging type presentation I’d have got had I gone for the more conventional choices.
So, let’s get this straight, at the expense of killing this thread. I don’t say Zus are better than MLs, Apogees, Quads, Wilsons etc etc etc. What I do say is that the particular presentation of Zus, that Sean Casey goes for of a more old fashioned density of mids and shove factor, was more important to me/communicated music better TO ME PERSONALLY, than a more see thru/higher resolution/clearer treble type presentation that I heard w other speakers.
And the sheer joy of moving to SETs which Zu made so easy as a decision, is the icing on the cake.
Of course if you want to say Zus don’t even have remarkable tone density, feel free. I’m sure I won’t accuse you of deliberately taking a contrary position.
Just don’t accuse me of dissing ML to make a point. Because you really need to re read my thread on Paul’s system.
Which brings me neatly full circle to the sentiment at the start of this post.
People cannot appreciate Apogees because they are nowhere to be seen or heard easily. Since I have heard Apogees + KSA-100 fed by a phono direct, back in the 80s, I know exactly what you write. So much so that I was about to buy a refurbished pair about 10 years ago, but the price was prohibitive for me back then with the outboard Mundorf crossover I wanted. Moreover, others also equally cannot appreciate modified MLs, because they are scarce as well; I do, but we are in the tiniest of minorities. And as you write, driving them correctly is quite critical. I'd be curious to listen to Apogees with modern SS amps, though the KSA-100 raised goosebumps on them even 30 years ago... and that treble purity, oh gosh!
Yes, it is surprising that more people don't use Symphonic Line more, as it got power to drive virtually anything, finesse, and tonality. I think people get seduced by marketing and by looks. So they wind up with something that is marketed well, is expensive, and looks "slick". Yet those amps can execute the audiophile vocabulary well, but miss the musical whole
I'll just say that Keith is blaming the Dynaudio while the blame might lie elsewhere. I've heard Dynaudios (mid-tier lines, not Confidence) with little Naim amps, and it was gorgeous, very good sound. But then I bought a big Temptation (90dB) to use in a big room, with darTZeel 108, and it clearly didn't work as well as the Magico Q3s (also 90dB) that came right after them. Speaker + amp + room is what needs to be accounted for.
Choosing speakers on sensitivity alone is silly, IMHO. For some time in the store, I was able to go from a 89dB efficient speaker to a 93dB efficient one to a 107dB efficient one. But the overall result was far more than what each individual speaker could do. Partnering amp and sources matter, more than the nominal efficiency, and I could readily observe that by swapping pieces between the three systems.
Choosing speakers on sensitivity alone is silly, IMHO. For some time in the store, I was able to go from a 89dB efficient speaker to a 93dB efficient one to a 107dB efficient one. But the overall result was far more than what each individual speaker could do. Partnering amp and sources matter, more than the nominal efficiency, and I could readily observe that by swapping pieces between the three systems.
Yes, this comes down to an old forum argument - does a zillion watts on an inefficient speaker produce the same as 10 watts on a highly efficient one.
I don't personally believe that 1,000 watts on something like a Rockport will equivocate 10 watts on an Avantgarde. The dynamics will still be very different. The other thing is the quality of that 1,000 watts is likely to be very different for a good first one.
On the Dyn C1s I used a 250w amp that doubles down to 1ohm - I personally think the C1 loudspeaker was plenty powered, but didn't check bigger Pass amps on them.
Similar threads
Staff online
-
treitz3Super Moderator
Members online
- Marck1973
- bonzo75
- nkjtbushwood
- andromedaaudio
- Sharok
- Foxbat
- ADGold
- Anyoldears
- alexx
- dminches
- Carlos269
- oldmustang
- ecwl
- Argonaut
- Geoffkait
- dbeau
- John Wyant
- BigAlMc
- 2ndLiner
- miniguy
- orrman
- Xampai
- MarkusBarkus
- bally_le1
- Stevet
- Lee
- jaxdr
- shmendel
- Ron Resnick
- IlyaP
- treitz3
- agisthos
- Robert Young
- Ricco275
- simorag
- analyzer
- Gryffles
- SoupRKnowva
- QSA-LANEDRI
- luthcol
- 3rdRock
- LarryK
- jbrrp1
- magiccow
- JM1221
- Johan K
- MRJAZZ
- flowcharts
- The Prof
- FT251
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |