|
Richard Pyle Unregistered guest | Come on folks, talk me OUT of a pair of these. Why wouldn't these be the speaker of choice for two channel listening in this price range? Even with the stands they appear to be more than a reasonable buy but has anyone heard them? What about the old model, will they be reduced in price for clearance? What is the main difference between the old and new version? HELP! (IwillnotspendmoremoneyonaudioIwillnotspendmoremoneyonaudioIwillnotspendmoremone yonaudioIwillnotspendmoremoneyonaudioIwillnotspendmoremoneyonaudio) |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7257 Registered: May-04 | Well, if it's a reason not to buy those speakers you want: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/products/reviews/186180.html |
|
Playing Along Unregistered guest | OK, how about they may not have the necessary bass response that some people require? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Raj_pEvanston, IL USA Post Number: 43 Registered: Oct-05 | Which is something the Emma's have in spades... |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3572 Registered: Mar-05 | Richard, you'll get more pertinent info on the old vs. new Ascends from the Ascend forum, esp. now that people have started to receive the SEs. |
|
Bronze Member Username: QuinnPost Number: 90 Registered: Aug-05 | I and another Ascend owner, besides Eddie, heard the Emmas at Eddie's this weekend. While, Eddie likes the Emmas neither of us liked the warmed up sound and muted details/edges of the Emma better than either the Ascend 170 or 340's accuracy, balance, and separation of details. Frequently the balance seemed off and that the tweeter was voiced foward of the driver. Occassionally, it was to the point of being bright. The Emma's sibilance was annoying too. The Ascends conveyed the percussive aspect a piano note being struck and overall attack and decay were better. I did like the Emmas a lot better than the Lings. The Ascends we were listening to were the classics not the new SEs with the new polygel driver and SEAS tweeter. |
|
Bronze Member Username: QuinnPost Number: 91 Registered: Aug-05 | As for the OP questions. The new drivers have less distortion, which reveals more details, play lower and have tight punchy bass. The new tweeter is a chambered SEAS tweeter. The Ascends are the only sub $1K speakers you will find anywhere with a SEAS tweeter. Use the 30 in home trial period and listen in your room with your equipment and decide if they are for you. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3573 Registered: Mar-05 | To add to Quinn's remarks: I personally found the Emmas' warmth, deeper/richer soundstage, and bass punch to be well worth the small trade-off in accuracy/detail. With a good subwoofer in play, the Ascends might have a slight edge; without a sub I would have to take the Emmas. Am curious to hear the SEs myself... |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3574 Registered: Mar-05 | PS. After the weekend session I did a little fiddling with speaker placement, put the subwoofer BETWEEN my 340s which meant having the 340s about 8 feet apart instead of 5 as previously...who-eeee, the sub integrated much better and the Ascends' soundstage opened up considerably and the treble also seemed quite a bit mellower. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7262 Registered: May-04 | Quinn - You sound like a political talking head. What you don't care for is fraught with dangerous problems and is obviously the choice only those wishing to see the destruction of the world as we know it would blithely make. On the other hand, what you have chosen and what you advocate for is supremely accurate, balanced and detailed. Your assessment of Emma vs. what you already own would seem a bit partisan to me. Bright? Emma? Hardly! Frequently she seemed voiced forward of the driver? I'm not certain what your meaning of that term is nor how you decide where voicing should place images since Emma was ultimately consistent in her behaviour while she was in my presence. This thread doesn't need to be hi jacked into a discussion of Emma but those comments should be put into a review thread of Tim's speaker. I would be interested to know how and on what material you found Emma's voicing to be frequently, but not always, incorrect. I have to totally disagree with your description of Emma. I've not heard the Ascends, so I can't comment on their quality. But, what you claim to have heard from Emma is not, for the most part, what I heard when I paired Emma with several different amplifiers in two separate rooms. Did Emma not do anything praise worthy in your estimation? Are the Ascends the perfect speaker as far as you're concerned? To my knowledge you can find a SEAS tweeter in several sub $1k speakers. Check out NSM. And, in your estimation, what magic does a SEAS tweeter do that makes it so special against the other choices? Once again you treat this as a true believer who swallows hard and realizes all those with other monograms are false choices that can only lead to calamity. I agree SEAS makes good drivers; I can't begin to agree they are the only path to sonic Nirvana. I haven't checked lately but, to my knowledge, SEAS doesn't manufacture a planar or ribbon tweeter. Therefore, a designer wishing the superior attributes of such a driver would have to look somewhere other than SEAS. So to suggest that a SEAS driver is the only reasonable choice beneath $1k would seem imprudent if not inpudent; wouldn't it? How about some balance in what you suggest? Richard - Is this helping you decide why not to buy the other speakers? |
|
Bronze Member Username: QuinnPost Number: 92 Registered: Aug-05 | You right I tried too hard to be nice and not decend this thread into fight with all the Tim lovers. The Emmas suck and the treble is foward of the bass due to poor balance. The mids are bit recessed. The Lings are even worse. You obviously love the way equipment makes things sound and not how close it comes to sounding accurate. I think your demo disc is biased toward the warmed up presentation you love. Many people are going to think the more accurate speakers sound harsh with that disc instead of realizing the accurate speakers are revealing how poor some of the recordings are. Is that better? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7265 Registered: May-04 | No. That just comes across as a snotty, bratty little pain in the @ss reacting poorly to someone who questions their behaviour. I would say it indicates you have no idea what "accurate" is and that you have poor taste in music to go along with your bad manners but that would be stating the obvious. If you wish to discuss Emma instead of just being a dick on this thread, head over to one of the Emma threads and post your objections. Oh, yeah, most speakers under $1k are balanced to be harsh and bright because that's what sells in a showroom. If you want to discuss that, go to another thread instead of turning this one into a food fight. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2658 Registered: Feb-05 | Quinn, I hope that you didn't listen to Emma on the Panny and then rush to judgement on them. It's just a question not an accusation. The better the electronics the better a good speaker will sound. Since Edster really doesn't have high end electronics I find it difficult to understand how you listened the Alegria's critically. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1068 Registered: Dec-04 | Quinn, you have not heard the Emma in a desireable environment.Nor have I. Your assessment of the Emma seems to be an anomily. Other than backing a forum member, which I would be happy to do, the Emma seems to be well received, if a little out of the norm(like me), I must believe that you heard the Emma's on inferior equipment,or in a less than equitable environment, or both. If the speaker were invited into a power supply like, say, my Rotel 985, I really think your review might be a bit different. I truly believe that your introduction leaves a lot to be desired with regards to the Emma. |
|
Bronze Member Username: QuinnPost Number: 93 Registered: Aug-05 | We heard them on both Eddie's NADs and Panny. The NADs didn't change my opinion. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1072 Registered: Dec-04 | Eddie's Nad pieces are older than dirt. Not even an input selection for cd(possibly). You really should move up a bit in quality/decade/usefulness. In all fairness, Ed's stuff is not exactly top drawer(sorry, Ed, it's a spade). You really gotta get out more, Quinn. Not meant to be rude, or intollerant, or anything close to it, I am not knowledgeable enough for that, but I know enough not to step in it if it looks like it and smells like it. I really have to recommend another listen in another venue, with better power. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 322 Registered: Jul-05 | To the OP- I rarely respond to unregistered guests but- I have enjoyed Eddies hospitality in allowing me to on more than one occasion listen to his Ascend 340s as well as many other speakers- and it was fun for me and Quinn and Eddie to get together last weekend for a few hours and listen to quite a range of material. For myself, I own and listen to Paradigm, PSB, Ascend, Soliloquy, Energy, Boston Acoustics and and some other no namers as well. I spent the past two January months enjoying Alexis Park in Vegas for days on end listening to speakers from all over the world, and reviewed in writing perhaps 20 brands of speakers in 2004 prior to selecting the Soliloquy 5.3i as a pleasant entry level hi fidelity speaker that was and is enjoyable for me.I have been a performing musician for 30 years and recording studios are friendly familiar places for me, as are production booths. Music is important to me--both live and recorded. That being said- there isn't any reason to not purchase the Ascend 340s. What I have found over the years, is that it is rare to find speakers that don't do anything wrong. I don't like equipment that changes the music and I dont want anything between me and the music--just to convey it in a way that puts me there with the musicians. The Ascend 340s really don't do much of anything wrong, regardless of the equipment ( within reason). I believe this is why Eddie can be so high on that Panny receiver for music. A good speaker can still sound good with perhaps not the best equipment. A bad speaker will sound bad no matter what you do to the room and no matter what equipment is driving it. A good speaker does well at low volumes. A good speaker isnt fatiguing to listen to; it doesnt take energy to stay in front of it. The Ascend 340s, and most likely the Ascend 340Es ( which I have NOT heard) are quite wonderful for music, particularly at their price point. They clearly fit the bill as far as what I value. There is no reason for you not to purchase the Ascend 340s. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3576 Registered: Mar-05 | LOL Nuck, you sure are on a roll today with making pompous presumptions in complete ignorance aren't you? 1. I don't mind that you dislike the Panny (if memory serves you did actually listen to it at least once though fleetingly) but YOU yourself have never listened to the Emmas, so why are you even involving yourself in this discussion? I understand that Jan is a well-respected member of this forum and has written a glowing review of the Emmas but the bottom line is that YOUR ears have never heard the Emmas so if you automatically take ANYONE'S personal testimonial on ANYTHING as gospel then sorry but you are a fool with a capital "F." 2. You are a complete dimwit if you honestly believe that a NAD stereo analog amp built 15 years ago really sounds much different from a NAD built today. (Mine does have a CD input by the way.) 3. You are a complete dimwit if you honestly believe that a quality solid-state amp that's been well taken care of is absolutely going to suffer major performance degradation over the span of 15 years. (The only moron I've ever heard make this asinine argument was "Darrylmeister" and "Vader" who might well be the same person.) I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are just being goofy rather than serious here. |
|
Bronze Member Username: EldPost Number: 11 Registered: Dec-05 | I haven't heard the Ascend or the Emmas, but have heard the B&W 602s3, Polk Audio LSi7 and Paradigm Studio 20v3. All of them all awesome for the value, have you looked into those, Richard? BTW, I inherited a Pioneer analog receiver from my older brother which he bought in the early 80's and it sound better than any of the newer digital Pioneer receiver. So, I think Edster NAD is just as good as the newer stuff, until I hear otherwise. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Post Number: 850 Registered: May-05 | I haven't heard the Ascends or the Emma's, so I can't comment either way on those. Both have their pro-ponnents and opponnents. Ed - I can't remember the NAD models you said you have. I think they're either the Monitor Series or the Power Envelope (PE) series. Am I correct? To my ears (and many others) these sound very different than most other NAD equipment, especially the current models. Relatively speaking, the Monitor and PE sound somewhat muddy and veiled compared to the current line. A lot of people who have a knowledge of NAD and have heard gear from a lot of different periods consider these two (the Monitor more so) a low point for NAD. Sound quality and build quality were considered by many to be at an all time low. Interestingly enough, the Monitor and PE stuff seems to be sold second hand more than every other series combined. My guess is that most people buy them, listen to them for a little while, upgrade to newer ones, and sell them. Maybe not. A lot of dealers dropped NAD during these times, and then picked them back up when they came out with the series that replaced those - all charecterised by 3 numbers ie - 304, 218, etc. The Classic series - ie C350 - followed those and was another improvement. Not a very drastic improvement, but improvement none the less. I think the PE replaced the Monitor Series. The PE was supposed to give NAD a face lift and resurrect them. It was somewhat better and a little more reliable than the Monitor Series, but it wasn't enough. NAD struggled until the Classic series came out. Now it is doing as good as it ever was. If you're idea of NAD is soley based on the Monitor Series or PE, you're most likely listening to the worst case scenario, so to speak. Have you heard the current line for more than a few minutes? They are a big improvement in every way. Their isn't a single thing that the Monitor Series or PE does that the current line doesn't do significantly better. NAD analog gear has come a long way in the last 15 years. While their may be a few die-hards who feel that their 15 year old Monitor Series integrated amp sounds better and more "musical" than the current line, they are few and far between. An extremely over-whelming majority number of people would disagree. Marc - Their are always reasons why not to buy something. Just because you may feel the Ascends are the perfect speaker at their price, not everyone else will. Everyone listens for different things. If the original poster doesn't listen for the things you do, their may be several reasons why not to buy them. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Raj_pEvanston, IL USA Post Number: 44 Registered: Oct-05 | This thread got really friendly really fast. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 323 Registered: Jul-05 | Stu- Sure thats true. But the poster posed a question and I am giving my answer. I've listened to a whole lot of different things on that particular speaker in more than one sitting, and have a pretty long knowledge base to compare with. Stu- what reasons would you give to not buy the Ascend 340s? The question is open to all it seems... |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Post Number: 851 Registered: May-05 | Marc - I haven't heard the Ascends or Emmas (I did mention this earlier). I'm sure both are very good speakers. I've also read a lot of your posts in the past and feel like you know what you're talking about. With the exception of Ascend and Soliloqy - only because I haven't heard them - and Boston Acoustics - I think they are over priced - I like the speakers you mentioned. I own PSB's and have heard the rest more times than I can count. If you like these speakers and the Ascends, I'm sure that I'd probably agree with you after listening to them. You stated "They clearly fit the bill as far as what I value. There is no reason for you not to purchase the Ascend 340s." What if the OP doesn't value what you value? I have no idea what he values, but I think it's safe to assume that you don't either. My point was that if you don't know what he values, you can't tell him he can't go wrong with them. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 324 Registered: Jul-05 | Alright alright. To OP- I personally dont know of any reason why you wouldnt want to audition the Ascend 340s. I don't know your values though. There we go-- all fixed up. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3581 Registered: Mar-05 | Stu, Interesting history; so were you into audio during the 80s and remember this firsthand, or is this something you've heard? Anyways, mine are the Power Envelope series; the seller claimed to be the original owner which I find fairly believable as the casings are in flawless cosmetic condition. Anyways, the following is from this link: http://www.nadelectronics.com/power/power_main.htm "POWERDRIVE To meet the diverse requirements of high current drive and high dynamic power, our patented PowerDrive amplifier circuit will build further on our reputation for amazingly effective power. By adding a second high-voltage rail to our well regulated high-current power supply, we get an "overdrive" that can nearly double the continuous power on a short term dynamic power basis. This is a further development and refinement of our renowned Power Envelope circuit, utilized by NAD in the 80's and 90's. PowerDrive differs from Power Envelope in that it offers greater amplifier stability and low impedance drive capability, resulting in less distortion when driving real speakers with real program material." That to me doesn't sound quite as hyped up and exaggerated as most manufacturer "latest and greatest" blurbs, surprisingly enough. The only current NAD I heard was the c372 on some Monitor Audio floorstanders when I was auditioning CD players, and this was over the span of about 2 hours. If you remember, I didn't hear nearly as dramatic a difference in the store between my Sony ES and the Marantz 4300 that I ended up buying later, as I did at home on the Ascends. I attributed that to the MAs being lousy speakers (which some people here agreed with, I think Tawaun and Frank) but now I don't know what to think... Another interesting thing is that I distinctly remember asking about this "Power Envelope" series on this and either AVS or hometheaterforum.com forums and being told by some people that these vintage models were actually better sounding (descriptions of the older models being "sweeter" and "more musical" if memory serves) than the current-day models. That was one of the things that helped me decide to go ahead and buy them in fact. Most certainly NOBODY warned me to stay away from these vintage models because the current ones are light years better...that I most definitely would've remembered because I probably would not have pulled the trigger. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3582 Registered: Mar-05 | > This thread got really friendly really fast. LOL! Such is the wacky world of Internet forums... I have nothing but respect for Tim, who's always been impeccably gracious and helpful around here, and whose speakers I am grateful for having the chance to hear. HOWEVER I can't help noticing that of all the people who have leapt up to defend his speakers from some (IMO) fairly mild criticism from Quinn, only Jan has actually heard them for himself. This to me suggests that camaderie has roundly trumped any semblance of objectivity or fairness. Regrettable. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2664 Registered: Feb-05 | Stu is right about the Power Envelope NAD's. I know at least 2 dealers that switched to Rotel at that time. Both have gone back to NAD with the Classic series. As far as defending Tim's speakers, I did not. I did however bring up the fact that if Quinn heard them with your electronics he certainly has not heard them at their best. That is fact. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 734 Registered: Dec-03 | I appreciate that Eddie. David F. and I have discussed the fact that each of us have fans and detracters. That's how it is and always will be. As for posters on this thread I feel obligated to point out that Raj was the first person to purchase a pair of Emma speakers from me. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7290 Registered: May-04 | But why criticize any speaker in this thread? The original post asked for a justification to purchase the speaker Quinn promoted. Why not simply advocate for the positive sides of his choice rather than tear down another product? There are two threads allocated to discussing Emma; why not place his objections there where they can be discussed without disrupting this thread? I suspect anyone interested in Emma would be looking at threads with "Emma" in the title; they would not be looking here. Wouldn't you agreee that is a fair assumption? If there are criticisms of Emma they would be of more value in a thread dedicated to the discussion of the value of Tim's design. Yes? No? Maybe Quinn doesn't prefer Emma or the Ling. That's certainly reasonable and I believe I've addressed why that might be a possibility during my discussions of Tim's speakers. But there seeems little point in slamming the design, Tim, "Tim lover's" and me in the fashion Quinn took on this thread. Mild or not, it came across as quite rude and immature. other people responded, I would guess, as much to Quinn's implied criticism of their taste as to his comments regarding Emma and the Ling. Which begs the question; why bring the Ling into this discussion if not to slam Tim's designs and anyone who perfers their sound? I think motive and premeditation are obvious in this case. It would seem as though Quinn just doesn't like anyone liking something other than his choice. Now that's bias! As to his conclusion of what and how I prefer my music and my system to sound, he came across exactly as I stated. A snotty little brat wanting to p!ss in someone Cheerio's. Quinn might not have the same preferences as I do; that's something I've conceded to many people, many times. I found that my tastes and preferences are not the same as many of my clients preferences about three decades ago. That doesn't make my choices wrong, evil or biased. The motto of the forum has lately been "listen and choose what you prefer". By assuming he has better ears, better taste in music and knows what is "accurate" better than someone else, Quinn has shown a more than "mild" reaction to criticism. Thankfully he is not designing speakers, just listening with his own prejudices firmly in place. Now that the subject has been broached, let me point out the music selections on the Emma demo CD have been posted on the original review thread linked above. Anyone looking at that list will probably notice the number of recordings from Telarc, Reference Recordings, Mercury Living Presence and some labels that have been audiophile standards for decades. Yes, they are "warm" in their characteristic sound just as various pieces of music are "warm" in real life. But, these are selections that people have been using over and over again to determine whether a speaker is "correct" and to their liking or "harsh" and to be avoided. To suggest that these selections constitute "poor recordings" is simply illustrating Quinn's lack of knowledge and his obvious preferences for what he considers "accurate". While Quinn is within his rights to say he doesn't listen or "cater" to what I listen to, he should grow up and realize we all have different qualites we listen for and appreciate. |
|
Richard Pyle Unregistered guest | Um, (gulp), thanks for all of your, um, help. A couple of more questions: 1. Where can I hear these Emmas? 2. Somewhere I read a post about some really inexpensive Infinity brand (Primus 140, 150, 160) speakers. Do they really provide good bang for the buck? 3. What about Aperion and Rocket Bookshelf speakers? Thanks (and put your weapons down) LOL! |
|
Bronze Member Username: Raj_pEvanston, IL USA Post Number: 45 Registered: Oct-05 | I've had both the Emmas and the Aperion 632 bookshelf speakers at the same time and I sent the Aperions back within 2 days of the comparison. The Aperions had a noticeable hump in the 50-ish range and the highs just didnt sound great. The highs just didnt have that sparkle. I however would definitely look into the Rocket Bookshelf speaks, they use a tweeter that I definitely enjoy (Vifa XT Ring Radiator). |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7297 Registered: May-04 | Geez, RP, ya gotta lead some people to water! http://www.us.alegriaaudio.com/Ordering.htm https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/190052.html Don't cast your net too widely. I understand everyone wants to make certain they have found the best deal out there; but we have seen several cases on this forum where the search became more important than having music. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3585 Registered: Mar-05 | > As far as defending Tim's speakers, I did not. I did however bring up the fact that if Quinn heard them with your electronics he certainly has not heard them at their best. That is fact. That's neither here nor there, even if it were "fact"---the cheapest 4-letter word on any Internet forum on any topic. LOL, I would never claim that my Panny nor NAD separates were "the best" (as if anyone really knows what "the best" even is!) but neither is it "the worst" and therefore to use your personal dislike of the Panny to dismiss Quinn's criticism of the Emmas is ludicrous. But as Marc put it very well, a good speaker sounds good even on "bad" electronics. I would add: especially when it is directly compared to another speaker being run off the same "bad" electronics. Your implication that it is not possible to critically evaluate the Emmas unless one hears them on some supposedly high-end receiver/amp is difficult to take seriously. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3586 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan, you have some valid points, esp. about sticking to the positives of each speaker. On the other hand, I did not find Quinn's original post to be malicious or mean-spirited..."blunt" would be how I'd describe what he wrote: "I and another Ascend owner, besides Eddie, heard the Emmas at Eddie's this weekend. While, Eddie likes the Emmas neither of us liked the warmed up sound and muted details/edges of the Emma better than either the Ascend 170 or 340's accuracy, balance, and separation of details. Frequently the balance seemed off and that the tweeter was voiced foward of the driver. Occassionally, it was to the point of being bright. The Emma's sibilance was annoying too. The Ascends conveyed the percussive aspect a piano note being struck and overall attack and decay were better." I also did not see where he slammed Tim in any personal way, though I agree that he does give the general impression of not being very fond of Tim's speaker designs. To be fair, his harsher comments towards you and "Tim lovers" seemed to be mainly a tit-for-tat response to your initial post comparing him to "a political talking head" which is also not terribly diplomatic either. (Not that this forum is a paragon of diplomacy in action, LOL...) > The motto of the forum has lately been "listen and choose what you prefer". By assuming he has better ears, better taste in music and knows what is "accurate" better than someone else, Quinn has shown a more than "mild" reaction to criticism. ahhhh Jan, may I please copy and paste the above and dedicate it to Art on the subject of the Panny? : ) > we all have different qualites we listen for and appreciate. Amen to that! |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2669 Registered: Feb-05 | "But as Marc put it very well, a good speaker sounds good even on "bad" electronics." Not hardly! Try Maggies with a cheap Sony receiver. He was obviously mistaken. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1083 Registered: Dec-04 | Eddie, the caps in you amp were bad when made, and have dried out even more over time. Thats whats bad. I am not sure on this one, but the output stage is before FET,s? Better is better. I never said that you kit is lacking(except the digital toy), however to expound the speakers virtues a more realistic power source might be useful. Unless you are demoing for someone with 1 17yr old system with , I feel, are suspect power control characteristics. As far as your hospitality is concerned, I would have been surprised otherwise. In keeping with the warm fuzzy mood. Insert Grumpy Smerf here. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7299 Registered: May-04 | Neither you nor I can truly speak to Quinn's motivations or intent; can we? All I can say is what I read into comments such as, "The Emmas suck and the treble is foward of the bass due to poor balance. The mids are bit recessed. The Lings are even worse." Ed, you have your interpretation of how that reads and a few of us have what would seem to be a different impression. Though with the treble ahead of the bass and the mids a bit recessed, I'm not sure I can interpret Quinn's intent to mean anything. It sounds more like a description of a whirling dervish than a speaker. From Quinn's post, "You obviously love the way equipment makes things sound and not how close it comes to sounding accurate." Really? He can determine that from hearing the same speakers I listened to in an entirely different situation and on different equipment? Or, was he taking into account the Emma demo music itself? As I said, the Emma demo has "warm" music on it. That has been acknowledged. And the selections have, in many cases, been considered excellent examples of what live music sounds like for years and by large numbers of listeners; audiophiles and music lovers alike. What does that mean? The selections are, in many cases, standard references that have been used for years to determine system quality. If a speaker is deemed bright or harsh with those selections, it would probably indicate that the speaker is bright and harsh. It would generally not suggest the recordings are at fault if the sound is poor through any one speaker system. That I included nothing overly "bright" means what? That I like the way equipment makes things sound? In one sense that's balderdash and in another isn't that exactly the point of buying equipment you like? Quinn's statement is full of twists and turns and flips and flops of logic that appear to sound "reviewer-like" and amount to nothing because his words have no meaning in the context of describing Emma or my taste. "A political talking head" is a metaphor followed by a clear explanation of its intent. Quinn is displaying a bias in his subjective slam of Emma. There is no substantiation involved in Quinn's remarks. Not even on an Emma thread has he posted anything to explain how he came to the conclusions he draws in this discussion. To present them here as fact is biased and has no place on this thread. Present the good side of the Ascend and leave it at that. That is what Richard asked for. I suspect he is rather bored with this continuing debate over the quality of your electronics and what Quinn meant by certain words. On the other hand, Quinn's "Tim lovers" remark is virulent, vitiolic and caustic just for the purpose of being so. The same with bringing the Lings into the discussion. This is like bringing up Clinton's indiscretions to justify NSA snooping. It has no place here and proves nothing other than Quinn's motivations. That makes Quinn's comment not tit for tat but just mean spirited and juvenile. Since no one has taken Marc's comments to task, let me be the first. Who could possibly think a "good" speaker should sound good on lousy electronics? That is highly unlikely and is what I would expect of Stereo Review, not this forum. If that were the case, why should anyone purchase anything beyond the $99 Isignia receiver at Best Buy? I would not expect my 15 Ohm LS3/5a's to sound good on the Insignia or the Panasonic you own, ed. "Put all your money in the speakers, nothing else is important." Good grief! Of course, the function of a "good" speaker is to show you exactly what is in front of it. And, if there are crappy electronics in front, then the speaker's task is to reveal a flaw in the system. That's if the speaker is meant to do its job as an "accurate" transducer of what it is fed. A good speaker being fed a lousy signal will sound like sh!t! You know, garbage in, garbage out. Now if you assume a speaker's job is to cover up what it is fed, then we have a different situation and a different forum. You can all go over to the Klipsch forum to say how much you like what you own. Go ahead, everyone. I'll wait here. Consider that even "good" electronics might not be a good combination with a particular "good" speaker due to electrical mismatches in the ability of the amplifier to drive the speaker or to respond to the speaker's demands and what does the idea of "good" mean? I suppose Marc was trying to calm some waters when he posted that bit of wisdom, but it is as preposterous as Emma frequently, but not always, being "bright" or the "the tweeter was voiced foward of the driver" (?) or even that Telarc produces poor recordings. Is this helping, Richard? |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1085 Registered: Dec-04 | Quinn, why wouldnt the Emma disc be leaning towards someones personal preference in music and presentation? Mine would be, so would yours. In fact, I dont believe that the recording persons choice of music was anybodys business but the recorder reviewer personally, and was passed along by request. Richard, my personal choice would be the 340s for an in-home trial, return is just a sawbuck away. From many reviews, looks like a good choice, if only for a trial, knowing th break-in period would mean a lot of listening. For me, the psb B25 would be a close comparo(no free tials), and the Emma, in a good environment. If the previous test was considered a good realistic environment, then discount them. Cheers |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3590 Registered: Mar-05 | Let's keep in mind that Quinn's remarks that you have quoted are all from his second post which I agree could be called vitriolic, however he obviously felt provoked by your first response---justly or not. > A good speaker being fed a lousy signal will sound like sh!t! You know, garbage in, garbage out. Of course...but in that case, wouldn't the Ascends also suffer from being fed an allegedly poor signal? That's like a baseball coach blaming his team's loss on the freak snowstorm in September, as if the other team was sitting comfortably in the dugout the whole game. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3591 Registered: Mar-05 | Art, > Try Maggies with a cheap Sony receiver. He was obviously mistaken. Heh, you yourself have on several occasions noted that the 4-ohm, planar Maggies are notoriously difficult to drive properly, so these are hardly "typical" speakers at all. In contrast, both the Ascends and Emmas are 8 ohm conventional speakers, and are of similar pricing and type (other than the former having the extra mid-woof). The Ascends do have an extra 6db of sensitivity but this is easily negated through the use of an SPL meter to volume match which we did. If you know of other examples of an 8 ohm bookshelf that really really really needs a top quality power source, list away. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3592 Registered: Mar-05 | > Eddie, the caps in you amp were bad when made, and have dried out even more over time. Thats whats bad. I am not sure on this one, but the output stage is before FET,s? Better is better. I never said that you kit is lacking(except the digital toy), however to expound the speakers virtues a more realistic power source might be useful. Unless you are demoing for someone with 1 17yr old system with , I feel, are suspect power control characteristics. Sorry Nuck, I find all this sudden harping on the alleged deficiencies of my NAD separates dubious at best...why is it coming out only *now* when all of you (Stu, Art, etc.) have known all along about their vintage? I've never concealed how old they are. Interesting that not a single one of you piped up when "Darrylmeister" and "Vader" were making this point on a number of Panny threads in the "Receivers" section, which all of you participated in. Why are you suddenly calling my attention to it only now, when Quinn posts some unflattering comments about the Emmas? In fact, why the sudden emphasis on "good electronics" as a pre-requisite for posting speaker commentary? And most damning of all, why has nobody bothered to ask what *Raj* is using to power his Emmas? Nuck I'll bet if Raj posted some unfavorable comments on the Emmas you'd be asking about his receiver too, wouldn't you? Objectivity and fairness...ah yes, the bread and butter of eCoustics! lol |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3594 Registered: Mar-05 | PS. From Tim's webpage on the Emma: "Impedance is 8 ohms nominal but the reality is the impedance never goes below 8 ohms and has no exaggerated peaks or dips across the frequency range making it an easy load for nearly ANY amplifier, tube or solid state." Oh, and do note that the all-caps is Tim's not mine. |
|
Anonymous | CHECKMATE! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3595 Registered: Mar-05 | why thank you, anon! others might possibly disagree of course. LOL |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7304 Registered: May-04 | Anon - I like to play a game of chess against you. I could move one pawn and scream "CHECKMATE!", and you'd go home. OK. First, the people who have protested Quinn's remarks with comments about ed's gear don't have to have heard Emma. They haven't made any comments relative to Emma's sound. They have only pointed out that what Quinn suggests he heard might have been influenced by the electronics involved in the demo. Anyone can make that assumption and not be off base. (Of course, no one has raised the subjest of that horrendously large, oddly shaped room you have, ed, and what effect it might have on sound quality. Yes, they both had the same room to work into; but that doesn't make the situation equal to both speakers.) Making a valid point concerning electronics and system compatibility is, I feel, a justified discussion. Particularly when the Panasonic is known to react with frequency aberrations according to the speaker's impedance load. Making comments about a speaker you have not heard, or heard under less than ideal conditions for that matter, is not productive to anyone and should be avoided I would think. However, since Quinn dragged (and stomped on) the Ling into the discussion, it would only seem fair for any "Tim lover" who has listened to the Ling to have the right to comment regarding Quinn's "review". If Quinn felt provoked by my comments, he should either take a pill or count to ten before hitting the "post" button. His comments were out of line. I would ask for an apology but I pretty much know what type of response I'll get from Quinn. As to "comradery", why is it you are sticking up for Quinn, eh, ed? Has he left the building? Phart and then leave? Yeah, I get it; you're friends. But, you shouldn't accuse us of anything else but that. You don't know what Quinn intended with his words. Like us, you are only interpreting what you read into them. Shouldn't the Ascend be subject to the same crappy signal as Emma? You must have missed the portion of my post that begins, "Now if you assume a speaker's job is to cover up what it is fed .. " Yep, they both get the same signal. How the amplifier responds to the speaker (especially one with a second woofer) is another matter. How the speaker compliments or reveals the flaws of a system are another matter. It is all about synergy. If two components don't have it, they will never work well together despite the quality of either piece. If one component doesn't have synergy with what a listener seeks, the same is true. Baseball has nothing to do with it until we begin describing "sliders" and "knucklers". I must have missed Art claiming the Magnepans were a "typical" speaker. As a matter of fact, I must have missed where a "typical" speaker got into the discussion. I thought the adjective we were working with was "good", not "typical". By most accounts, the Magnepans are "good" speakers. They don't like Sony receivers and vice versa. Actually, that's quite typical of many crappy amplifiers. 6dB is easily accounted for with a Radio Shack meter? Well, okey dokey then! That's too trivial and of no consequence to discuss here. "In fact, why the sudden emphasis on "good electronics" as a pre-requisite for posting speaker commentary?" Sudden? ed! "And most damning of all, why has nobody bothered to ask what *Raj* is using to power his Emmas?" Damning? ed! Judas was, by all accounts, damned. I think we're in another league here. As to "any" amplifier, maybe Tim didn't expect the Panasonic to still be playing. Tim's remarks mean nothing to this discussion, ed. The question being asked would seem to be; would Emma have sounded differently to Quinn with a different system in front of the speaker (and in a different room) or is Quinn just deciding that since it doesn't match his likes, which are obviously the very different Ascends (which he owns), Emma therefore "sucks". |
|
Bronze Member Username: Raj_pEvanston, IL USA Post Number: 46 Registered: Oct-05 | I just want to say that any comments I make are from a somewhat limited sphere of influence--in other words I havent heard really high end stuff. The speakers I have exposure to for the most part are the kinds available at best buy, cc, frys, and a couple high end boutiques that I havent spent too much time in. As far as electronics, in case anyone actually was curious, I run my emmas on an Audio Experience Symphonies preamp with EH tubes and my power comes from an Odyssey Stratos amplifier. So taking that into account, I havent really heard enough to point out any major weaknesses with Emma. I, personally, thoroughly enjoy them with the range of music that I listen to on a regular basis. Consequently, the Emmas worked out to be an excellent choice for my application. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1088 Registered: Dec-04 | Ed, your electronic selection has never been in need of question, as you have publicly professed your love of a whoore of a power supply, cheap, easy to come by and fun for a short time. Your recent support of the old standbys are an indication of a situation recently discovered, too bad you cant just buy a necklace to escape this one, and promise to be good. You have not spoken of, or professed for a long time, the virtues of your nad seperates, or I would have spoken up earlier, you never brought them up, so why would anyone else(of note)?(not me). Your caps are still bad, BTW. Was the demo for guests considering their old, dry power supplies as well, after all? |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 791 Registered: May-05 | All you guys, and your mothers, wear army boots. LOL Beyond that, I'm not saying anything until Tim's speakers show up at my place and I have heard them. Of course, then one or more of you will complain about my 4 year old Denon, my too new Adcom or my 40 year old Fisher so I can't win anyway, even if my Arcam DIVA CD-91 is pretty dang good, IMHO. Now, all of you play nice. LOL Dave |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7306 Registered: May-04 | " ... an Audio Experience Symphonies preamp with EH tubes and my power comes from an Odyssey Stratos amplifier" beats a Panasonic anything. Care to call, anyone? |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 328 Registered: Jul-05 | Art- there is an important correction to your quoting me above in your post; What I said was - " A good speaker CAN sound good with bad electronics." I meant it exactly as stated. I hope you would give me enough credit to know that a pair of Magnepan 3.6s cant be driven by a BOSE 3-2-1 system yet can still be good speakers. The principle is important. I don't think that that particular Panasonic XR55 would be my choice for a music system. I mean- it isn't. But Eddie's Ascend speakers sound very good with that receiver. I am purposefully making an oversimplification. But again- a good speaker CAn sound good even with bad or suboptimal electronics. My statement not only is factually correct but is an important audio equipment principle. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 329 Registered: Jul-05 | Jan- I read your little Marc soliloquy. A music system is meant to convey the music. Speakers are a part of it but not the most important to me; it is in fact the amplification for my purposes that is a centerpiece, that's why I use what I use for my music. But a good speaker CAN clearly sound good , with suboptimal, which I labeled "bad" for simplicities sake, electronics. It is a fundamental audio principle . So anyway, this forum is above the level of stereo review? Cool! Well at least my post is at the Stereo Review level. By the way, I am not sure whether you feel your contributions raise or lower the bar for this forum, given its lofty status! I feel its important if "we" are really better than Stereo review to provide folks with solid info without being too arrogant or condescending towards each other. It lessens what we say and the 'status' of us as people as well. What can I say, I am idealist. From a forum usefulness standpoint, I try to keep it simple and not overexplain-- however, that alone isnt the best way- just mine- the point being if I post something and someone disagrees, just ask me about it. I can go into much more depth than would appear from my posts, or if I can't , then I am all ears to learn more, and will without hesitation state as such. Once again-- " A good speaker CAN sound good even with bad electronics." A basic principle. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2673 Registered: Feb-05 | Marc, I didn't write it I copied and pasted it from Eddie's post. It shows how Eddie misquoted you not I. I simply copied his remarks. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 330 Registered: Jul-05 | And of course, Richard, there isn't any reason I can think of not to audition a pair of Ascend CBM 340s. Based on 'my values'it is my opinion that they are wonderful sounding speakers. I of course do not know your values at all. I do have a positive opinion of these speakers. This opinion does not mean that I have a negative opinion of any or all other speakers as well. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 331 Registered: Jul-05 | Fair enough Art- as long as you, or anyone, at least get what I am saying. The reason why I am spending one second on this is as follows-- I get to hear and read quite a lot on the necessity of room, treatments, cryo cabling, Krells, Mark Levinsons, bass traps and quite an array of this that and the other so much ( and so expensive) that sometimes people get the sense that these things are necessary for an excellent sonic result. Even if that were true, all those things will never make a bad speaker sound good, but on the flipside, a good speaker can sound excellent even in suboptimal circumstances. Thats were this comes from. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7307 Registered: May-04 | Sorry, no, a good speaker will show the flaws of a bad system in front of it. That has been a basic audio tenet for the last thirty five years ever since Mr. Triefenbrun hooked up a pair of $100 speakers to a $1,000 amplifier and his turntable. At least the concept is held as a truism in most of audio. It is the basis for how we choose audio equipment. "Which do you prefer?" "Uh ... I like the first one, it sounds better." There you go! An example. The if it measures the same, it sounds the same crowd might feel differently; but they are nothing more than a bunch of neo-Luddites. You will have to provide an example of such a combination of components that sounds "good" to make any more of an impression on me. For my part, I will stay with the proven idea of a good amplifier being required to provide good sound. And, certainly a bad amplifier will hardly sound "clearly" good. Your meaning may have been a "suboptimal" amplifier but your statement was a "bad" amplifier. In light of what you posted and not what you meant; what exactly was I supposed to ask? Is it that difficult for anyone on this forum to say, "Whoops! I screwed up"? I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you seem unwilling to accept even that. So here are the facts as known to modern mankind. A bad amplifier is going to show itself to most anyone. Even Julian Hirsch would have said so, if he had ever found an amplifier he didn't think was a good value for the money despite the inability to even work into a load resistor. Any audio shop that suggests a mediocre, let alone bad, amplifier will not be revealed through a decent speaker is a place you should avoid. Any given listener might not think what they are hearing is the sound of a bad amplifier since we all listen for different aspects of reproduction and have different references for our choices. If the listener hears nothing beyond the frequency response of an amplifier, they might not notice the horrendous things going on elsewhere. None the less, the amplifier will be producing crap; and it will be audible to anyone who cares to listen critically. Now, I'll grant you that it doesn't take a heavy weight amplifier to drive a speaker to "good" reproduction levels. Many "good" amplifiers have been paired with many "good" speakers to produce results better than much more expensive gear can manage. The 15 watt Advent receiver and a pair of Small Advents comes to mind. An excellent budget system that was composed of two excellent components. So, in this case the components are both excellent and neither would even remotely be considered "bad". I guess that example doesn't prove anything; does it? Do I feel I raise or lower the bar of the forum? What a question. I'm curious now to know why you even ask such a question. Should I assume you consider me condescending because I didn't ask you whether you meant "suboptimal" when you posted "bad"? Here's a bit of information I haven't posted on the forum as of yet. I've been told by people who know me well there are two things they find irritating about me. The first is that I'm arrogant. I agree; so what? The second and most irritating thing they know about me is I'm always right. Their words, sir, not mine. Please, feel free to get over any insult you taken. They were your words I was reading, not your intended synonyms. Finally, it was not a soliloquy. I was not speaking as if to myself. Or, at least that was not my intent. Consider it instead an Epic Poem. |
|
Anonymous | This is a pointless argument if there ever was one. There is a speaker that is vastly superior to either the (no name) Ascend or the (even bigger no name) "Emma" for less money. The speaker I refer to is the Bose 301, brought to you by the most respected name in sound. Checkmate, mates. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 332 Registered: Jul-05 | Wow Jan. Sorry to ruffle your feathers! Of course I know how you feel about your contributions to the forum and yourself. Thats part of why we love you here! Nobody is gonna change that. Some of the content of your posts simply left open an opportunity for a bit of a needed span-king, and, in good fun and as a reminder of my own thoughts about how arrogance detracts from quality, I gave you a little one. I am relieved you didn't enjoy it! In all seriousness though, your audio knowledge and compliments from others does not grant free license for the way in which you run ideas, people, and equipment into the ground. Is that what you want? I am far from insulted and actually think positively about you, your posts and your knowledge and what I am told by people is that if someone stands around me long enough they will see themselves. A mirror. Insecure people usually become uncomfortable. Ego hot dogs just laugh, and the introspective thinkabout themselves and their lives. Jan, nothing personal, but the Emperor in this case has no clothes! A good speaker CAN sound good on (what Jan would define) as bad equipment. The Ascends sound FANTASTIC on Eddies Panasonic XR55 ( which I am calling a bad receiver in this instance) Lighten up and 'lets be friends.' |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3596 Registered: Mar-05 | > As to "comradery", why is it you are sticking up for Quinn, eh, ed? Has he left the building? Phart and then leave? Yeah, I get it; you're friends. But, you shouldn't accuse us of anything else but that. You don't know what Quinn intended with his words. Like us, you are only interpreting what you read into them. Actually I'm NOT "sticking up" for Quinn so much as making a very simple observation: the two of you have just had a textbook case of escalating miscommunication. I will not go into further detail since to do so would indeed entail speculating on what was going on in Quinn's head. You are right in that there's a good chance he will not bother to re-engage you on this thread because unlike me, he does not relish drawn-out verbal jousting...just my unscientific impression from observing his behavior on other forums. > I must have missed Art claiming the Magnepans were a "typical" speaker. As a matter of fact, I must have missed where a "typical" speaker got into the discussion. I thought the adjective we were working with was "good", not "typical". By most accounts, the Magnepans are "good" speakers. They don't like Sony receivers and vice versa. Actually, that's quite typical of many crappy amplifiers. Then I'll revise my statement to this: Maggies are a pi$$-poor example because they are not at all typical of most speakers. It's like using a Ferrari Testarossa to argue that buying super unleaded gasoline will generally improve a car's performance when in fact it will do virtually nothing for the vast majority (a la "typical") cars. > Tim's remarks mean nothing to this discussion, ed. Of course they do---they utterly DEMOLISH any possibility that the Emmas are some sort of finicky, difficult-to-drive speaker (a la Maggies) which simply got severely mangled by Ed's Panasonic, a fate that the Ascends somehow managed to elude. > The question being asked would seem to be; would Emma have sounded differently to Quinn with a different system in front of the speaker (and in a different room) or is Quinn just deciding that since it doesn't match his likes, which are obviously the very different Ascends (which he owns), Emma therefore "sucks". 1. Personally I would say that the second possibility is more likely. 2. You continue to quote Quinn's second post with the "sucks" remark, but I am certain that you are intelligent enough to know very well that he was just egging you on deliberately since he prefaced it with this sarcastic comment: "Your right I tried too hard to be nice and not decend this thread into fight with all the Tim lovers." Had he said "The Emmas suck" out of the blue in his first post, I would agree with your comments about him but in this case it seems you are simply overreacting to a perceived overreaction. * * * * * * * * Now to hopefully steer away from this back-and-forth finger-pointing morass, let me say that I actually find your objection to Quinn's criteria regarding this whole concept of "accuracy" not only valid but having far wider implications. That weekend, long before this motley thread was started, I was already feeling very skeptical of that whole approach...an approach which you have actually flirted with yourself though in a different context---namely the humongous "live music as reference" thread (which I hereby confess to having read only about the first 50 posts of). The notion that there is such an objectively verifiable "accurate" sound and that this should be the supreme criteria for judging audio equipment has always been very problematic to me, as opposed to the more subjective and relativistic approach of "listen to a range of gear, and buy whatever pleases you most." In short, whether the Emmas are indeed "coloured" (as Quinn and Marc believe) IMO is totally irrelevant---the only worthwhile criteria is which speakers each listner's ears find more pleasing. Hell, if someone finds an Apple Ipod equally or more pleasing (or "emotionally involving" as you like to put it) than a $10,000 system I say more power to them...as long as they've actually listened to both before coming to that conclusion. Agree or disagree? |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3597 Registered: Mar-05 | Nuck > Your recent support of the old standbys are an indication of a situation recently discovered, LOL it's far less dramatic than that my friend: I've just been feeling lazy. > You have not spoken of, or professed for a long time, the virtues of your nad seperates, or I would have spoken up earlier, you never brought them up, so why would anyone else(of note)?(not me). Geez now that is a weak excuse. You had plenty of opportunity to "enlighten" me for quite a long time before I bought the Panny. > Your caps are still bad, BTW. Hee hee, in that case they must have been REALLY good caps to begin with since these 17 (?) year old NAD separates still sound better than my Marantz and most AVRs I've ever heard. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Raj_pEvanston, IL USA Post Number: 47 Registered: Oct-05 | All I can say is first chance I get I'm going to try out some Ascend speakers and see what this fuss is all about...due to financial limitations I'll likely be going for the 170SEs...it'll be interesting. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7309 Registered: May-04 | Anon - How foolish of you. We have had numerous occasions where the argument had decended much further into irrelevance. And, no, Checkmate does not manufacture the Bose 301. OK, Marc, sorry to hear about your apparel problems. We'll skip over the issue of intent vs. reality. My feeling is this is an audio forum and, as you stated, it should be good fun - not suboptimal fun. You can believe what you wish about how equipment works together and, as always, I'll stubbornly hold on to my opinions. Having not heard the Panasonic receiver I can't declare it good, bad or other. ed - Ah! More red herrings in the form of an Italian Supercar. And, here I had sardines for a snack. Whatever! I don't believe anyone suggested Emma is a finicky speaker. Merely that Emma might not have had the apparent synergy with the Panasonic which you feel exists between the receiver and the Ascends. It would seem the Panasonic is the more finicky item here. While mixing metaphors seems to be the theme of this thread, the idea of someone deciding between an Ipod and a $10k system seems just as mixed. They are different beasts and have no more in common to select between than a Ferrari and a washer/drier combination. Each is chosen for what it does well and the other doesn't share the same qualities. One is about emotion and the other about convenience. I therefore don't know how to respond to your question. How do I object to buying what pleases you the most? I don't believe I've ever attempted to do that. Whether I would own what you select and listen to is irrelevant to you for the most part, since I will not, unless you invite me over and ask my opinion, have anything to do with your system. It is your sense of "correctness" that must be met, not mine when you shop for your system. That is precisely the reason I seldom make product recommendations on this forum. But, choosing what is "correct" is not a random function. It is a difficult concept to grasp and that is why the "Do You listen" thread ran over 1,000 posts. Accuracy has much to do with familiarity of the subject. You can have a tomato sauce by opening a jar. You cannot make a marinara sauce without understanding how tomatoes, basil, onions and garlic compliment or overpower one another. You can make slop. You cannot make marinara. There is right and there is wrong. And, there are variations galore between those two points. The example of using Elvis' voice to judge a speaker's quality is at the heart of this idea. The quality of his voice is iconic. Yet, very few people could tell you how Elvis actually sounded. That is not the point. You've heard Elvis over and over. In your mind you "know" what his voice should sound like. That is what you are trying to find with "accuracy" in a system. You are trying to match up the sound in your head to the sound of the system. If they don't match, the system is not accurate to your ears. It might be to someone else however. But, should we be able to play an Elvis recording for someone in 1865, what response would we get? They would have no reference for what Elvis should sound like. In that case, their choice of what is "accurate" would be dependent only upon what they "like". A bit of the innate experience of the human voice would be considered; but that would only be of importance should our recording of Elvis sound more like a chimpanzee than a human. So it is with systems. We all "know" what a piano sounds like. But, unless you've heard a contemporary piano and not a piano from 100 years ago, you cannot begin to make an accurate selection with any given recording. The familiarity with the particular item under inspection is ultimately the arbitter of our selection process. I advocate for everyone to attend as many concerts as possible and familiarize themself with the sound of instruments. If you are around music, you will come to know music more intimately. At that point your experience cannot help but come into play when you sit before an array of choices in an audio shop. Keep in mind that what you hear is not what another person hears. The person who performs hears something very different than the person in the audience. The professional music critic hears something different than a casual listener. The opera lover hears something different than the Deadhead. If you sit in the eighth row, the sound is not the same as in the second balcony. Those are the experiences which shape your concept of accuracy. Some listeners prefer a sound that suggests they are on stage with the performers. Others think that mid hall is correct since that is where they always sit. They do not want to hear the details that are available on stage but not from 75 feet away. Since everything we put through our systems has passed through electronics, how do we judge what the effect of this additonal step will be? If a performer is closely mic'd, what will the sound be vs. a distant mic position? Will one bring the voicing forward of the speaker? Where should the performers exist in space when played through an accurate system? How widely would the performers in a jazz quartet be spaced from one another? Is it accurate of the performers sound as if they are two feet tall with no legs touching the floor? What is the sound of a jazz space vs. a recording studio? Those are the questions I think you should begin to ask yourself when judging equipment and systems. While the final choice is what you feel best fits your concept of accuracy, there is no room in those answers for merely picking what sounds the most like the system in your truck. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 333 Registered: Jul-05 | Jan- Do you really write all of this stuff, or do you get help? I have just finished a two hour movie in my suboptimally equipped Home Theater only to come back for a second and see your epic poem or Soliloquy--again. I am amazed. Sometimes though, lengthy posts are simply a tool to distract folks from going back and reading some real content. As such, I'll keep my post short and on topic. The Ascend 340s are wonderful speakers and I throughly recommend them for an audition based on their sonic merits as well as the fact that they don't do anything obviously wrong. They sound good with an entry level Panasonic digital receiver with controversial power supply characteristics, and would likely sound fantastic with a rotel or arcam or equivalent amplifier section. These recommendations are based on my values but my not apply to those of other listeners. And remember, Good Speakers CAN sound good even with bad receivers, or even suboptimal ones! The Ascend 340s in my opnion, fit that bill. - remember the mirror--it will shine your reflection again...when needed |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 334 Registered: Jul-05 | Raj- let us know what you think! |
|
Bronze Member Username: Raj_pEvanston, IL USA Post Number: 48 Registered: Oct-05 | I think that good speakers show the weakness in your system. If you have something poor driving them you'll know right away. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7311 Registered: May-04 | Me and my shadow .... |
|
Bronze Member Username: Raj_pEvanston, IL USA Post Number: 50 Registered: Oct-05 | My opinion on this matter comes from my experience with the Polk LSi bookshelf speakers, the LSi9 moreso than the 7 (i've owned both for a long amount of time). I remember when I first had the LSi9 I tried to run them on my friend's extra Onkyo receiver (SR602 I believe it was)...the poor speakers weaked in such a poor poor performance I almost turned around and sold them right then. I, however, stuck with them until I bought an audire amp (which I sold when I got the odyssey) and my current AE pre. WOW is all I could say at that point, the 9s were so much more than the Onkyo had let on. As it stands the 9s are probably one of my favorite mid-fi speakers and I'm glad I waited to hear them perform closer to their true potential. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 335 Registered: Jul-05 | Raj- about the Ascends!!!! hehe. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNew York City, New York Post Number: 856 Registered: May-05 | Ed - My post about your NAD gear was intended to be civil, and I believe your response was equally civil. I've seen others hint around at it in other threads before, but by the time I caught up they were turned into what we've got here, so I stayed away. I pieced that brief history of NAD gear from personal experience (hearing the gear), and through conversations with a lot of dealers. In the Albany, NY area, their has been about 20 or so hi-fi shops that have come and gone over the past 20 years. A few have been around the whole time. Every one of them at one point or another carried NAD. All except for one (Hippo's) dropped NAD during either the Monitor Series or PE series. Most of them picked up either Rotel or Adcom (Hippo's picked up Adcom and kept NAD). I went to college in western MA, same story from the 5 or 6 dealers there; Niagara Falls for grad school, same story; now I live outside of NYC, and surprisingly - same story. I also never meant to imply that your NAD gear is bad. IMO, relative to the rest of NAD it's certainly not their best effort. It is better than the Monitor Series. As you posted and NAD states - "... resulting in less distortion when driving real speakers with real program material." To me this means cleaner power. Cleaner power usually translates in better transparency, hence my assessment of the older models sounding somewhat veiled and muddy next to the new ones. I owned a NAD 2400 (Monitor Series) amp for about a week a couple years ago. I was going to use my 304 as a pre-amp, and the 2400 as a power amp. A local store had it from a trade in (in mint condition), and the salesman said I could bring it back for a full refund within a week if I didn't want to keep it. It had a lot more power than my 304 (which is a generation or two newer), it didn't have the sound quality my 304 had. With the exception of power, everything the 2400 did, my 304 did better. It wasn't a huge in your face better, but it was all around better. I returned the 2400 after about a week and never looked back. My 320BEE is an improvement on my 304. Again, not an in your face improvement, but all around better. More transparent, cleaner, and faster. I think the vintage NAD stuff is decent gear. I think it's a big step up from the Sonys, Kenwoods and JVCs. I think it's a good start in gear that breaks away from the big box stores, but it's not gear you can grow old with (not that the current NAD is, but it's closer). The current NAD gear isn't "Light years" ahead of the vintage gear; NAD didn't become McIntosh. But it is significantly better than the vintage gear. Just as my cousin says his 25th anniversary Corvette is better than the 2006, some still prefer the old NAD to the new. I'd be willing to bet if both the old NAD and current NAD were brand new on the shelf together today, virtually no one would prefer the old gear to the new gear. Just my opinions though... |
|
Bronze Member Username: Raj_pEvanston, IL USA Post Number: 51 Registered: Oct-05 | My move on the 170s wont happen for a while, but I definitely will do so when I have the time. Right now I'm a little bogged down with work to mess around with new speakers/toys ;)... |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2674 Registered: Feb-05 | Well said Stu. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1093 Registered: Dec-04 | Oh course we are in the 'if it sounds good to you' mode, so if it sounds good to you, so be it, Eddie. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 793 Registered: May-05 | I see that the testerone level has decreased some. Raj, I look forward to your review of the 170SEs and any comparison to the Emmas or other speakers you've heard. As for Ed's equipment, I suspect his NAD gear trumps my Denon 3803, and yet, as I've reported a few hundred times, at least, the 170s I bought improved the sound of my 12-15 year old stuff considerably. Still, not audio nirvana for 2 channel listening but spectacularly better in HT. Even with the addition of much cleaner power from the Adcom, I didn't get audio nirvana but I did get a much better sound of the 170s, I think I described it as a veil being lifted in listening to music. Still, not quite "real" as Jan might describe it and the soundstage isn't what it should be, given in large part to the 170s placement and location, limited by the WAF. I've yet to hook a pair of the Ascends up to the Fisher tube amp but I think I'll do that this weekend and report further, especially since I've got the Heritages on stands that are probably taller than they would prefer to sound their best but are about the right height for the 170s. My guess is that on jazz, blues and some rock, they will be better than the Klipsch Heritages that I'm listening to now. (NO POT SHOTS HERE MR. VIGNE) Also, I suspect that the lack of a subwoofer will make the 170s a little lacking on heavier rock, classical and anything my kids would listen to that's got heavy bass. But, I'll listen first and report later. Richard, having said all of the above, I think that Ed's suggestion of getting the EMMAs and the 340SEs and deciding for yourself is a good one. Ultimately, it comes down to what sounds best to you. A couple of factors to consider when you do the comparison, get a sound meter to match the SPL output from both speakers. Spend some time putting the speakers in different locations until you optimize the location for each speaker and recognize that both speakers may not sound their best in the exact same location or with the exact same height stands or set-up. (Jan and Tim can address this on the Emmas and the Ascend website can help you on the 340SEs. Good luck, Dave |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3601 Registered: Mar-05 | Raj, > My opinion on this matter comes from my experience with the Polk LSi bookshelf speakers, the LSi9 moreso than the 7 (i've owned both for a long amount of time). I remember when I first had the LSi9 I tried to run them on my friend's extra Onkyo receiver (SR602 I believe it was)...the poor speakers weaked in such a poor poor performance I almost turned around and sold them right then. I, however, stuck with them until I bought an audire amp (which I sold when I got the odyssey) and my current AE pre. WOW is all I could say at that point, the 9s were so much more than the Onkyo had let on. Your experience is very believable, but IMO is similar to Art using Magnepans to disagree with Marc's assertion that "A good speaker CAN sound good even with bad electronics." No doubt both the LSi's and Magnepans easily qualify as "good" speakers but both are *FOUR* ohm speakers, which: 1. By definition require a receiver/amp that can do 4 ohms adequately, i.e. a more powerful and expensive receiver/amp. 2. If I'm not mistaken, 4-ohm speakers comprise a very small percentage of speakers sold today (aside from the high end of the market), due to #1. and also, 3. From both online research and my own experience as an Onkyo 601 owner, I believe that Onkyo AVRs are one of the most notorious for having inflated RMS numbers. (I have heard that the newer models have improved power supplies though.) I would bet money that you would not have heard nearly as dramatic a difference had you gone from 8-ohm Polk RTi6s on say, a Harman Kardon 435, to your current amp. Within the context of this thread, both the Ascends and the Emmas are relatively easy to drive 8 ohm speakers, so I feel confident in saying that even a receiver comparable to the Onkyo 601/602 would be sufficient to allow a critical evaluation of both speakers especially as an A/B comparison. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3602 Registered: Mar-05 | Stu, > With the exception of power, everything the 2400 did, my 304 did better. It wasn't a huge in your face better, but it was all around better. I returned the 2400 after about a week and never looked back. My 320BEE is an improvement on my 304. Again, not an in your face improvement, but all around better. More transparent, cleaner, and faster. Well we might just have a difference in our notions of proportion...the more I listen to different gear at varying pricepoints, the more I am coming to the realization that in many ways I am far pickier about beer than I am about audio. For example Art (and others) have claimed that the NAD c542 is a vastly superior CDP to the Marantz 4300 but when I compared them in a store (running off a NAD c372, incidentally) I found the differences to be subtle at best and certainly not worth the $350 price difference. The only times that I would say my NAD separates are putting out "clean" power is when they are pushed above 95db ... however since I usually listen to music at around 75-85db, this is something I noticed only when I was testing it against the Panny. I do know that these NAD separates easily put out more and cleaner power than my Marantz 5400, which is usually considered to be a very decent entry level AVR probably about the same league as an HK 335 or a Denon 2805. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2676 Registered: Feb-05 | "Your experience is very believable, but IMO is similar to Art using Magnepans to disagree with Marc's assertion that "A good speaker CAN sound good even with bad electronics." I didn't disagree with Marc I disagreed with your misquote of Marc. Here it is copied and pasted again since you can't seem to remember your own words. "But as Marc put it very well, a good speaker sounds good even on "bad" electronics." Only an idiot would agree with that statement as it is. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7324 Registered: May-04 | First, you are finding the point of diminishing returns for your ears. Everybody has one and it is all relative to what you listen for and how you listen to a system and music. Refer to my post above for more on that issue. What I described above are just the broadest terms of comparing a system's sound against live music. Also, anyone's personal point of diminishing returns is relative to what you have accustomed yourself to hear. If you have been listening to mid fi products, nothing better and no live music, or in your case, ed, in a room that fights great sound, you haven't heard what a truly excellent system can do. You may have "auditioned" a top notch system in a shop but that is not the same as living with a system day in and day out. Pretty simple concept that. If you drive a Mustang GT back and forth to work, you'll think it's an OK car with some decent power. Get into a more sophisticated vehicle for a month and then try to go back to the Mustang. You might still appreciate what the Mustang does at its price level; but you will realize why it costs far less than the more sophisticated car. Drink $20 a bottle whiskey all the time and you'll never know why someone would pay $100, or more, for a bottle of single malt Scotch. In general, the "finer things in life" are called that for a reason. When auditioning new gear the best test is often to replace the new with the old after about two weeks. If you've chosen at all well and have established a good set of tests and measures to use as a yardstick, it is seldom that you will go back to the old stuff. Then once you hear what is being accomplished by the new gear, you will begin to listen for those qualities whenever you judge equipment. That will become your new point of diminishing return. You don't seem to have established those priorities so far. By your own estimation you choose whatever you like at the time. Thus when you go from the Onkyo to the Marantz, that's OK. When you move from the Marantz to the NAD, that's OK. To the Panasonic and you're like a kid in a candy store. Not to be taken as a comment on the Panasonic or anything else you've owned, but you are really just casting a wide net to see what it drags in. Even at that, some people are happy with a certain level of performance and feel no need to find that last tiny detail or the slightly wider soundstage. I think I know fairly well what my system does well and what it gives away. I drive a Honda and a Toyota. One of my best friends drives an Infinity. He thinks it's difficult to find a good car for less that $55k. I sold Acuras at one point, so I know what I don't have. I also sold $10,000 speakers and amplifiers. It's like anything else in the world; diversity is what makes things tick. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3603 Registered: Mar-05 | LOL, yes I did misquote Marc. Marc's original statement: "A good speaker CAN sound good even with bad electronics." = the word "can" acts as a qualifier and allows for the possibility of exceptions. My misquote: "A good speaker sounds good even on "bad" electronics." = lack of qualifiers makes it possible to read this as an absolute claim with no exceptions, rather than as the GENERALIZATION it simply is. This is the difference between saying "Men are stronger than women" and "Men are usually stronger than women." = While the first statement is GENERALLY true, the second one is more PRECISE since the word "usually" allows for anomalous exceptions/extremes...such as female bodybuilders and endurance athletes who are often indeed stronger than most men. In the speaker statement context, the anomalous exception would clearly be 4-ohm speakers, which neither the Emmas nor the Ascends are. I won't comment on whether it requires an idiot or an a nal-retentive moron to NOT see that these two statements are actually not all that far apart aside from the matter of precision vs. generality. : ) Human language by nature is based on generalized statements. For example if I say "It's nice to sit under a tree on a hot sunny day" it is pretty obvious that I am not talking about a BONSAI TREE. I should not have to say, "It CAN be nice to sit under a tree on a hot sunny day" in order to avoid misunderstanding. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2678 Registered: Feb-05 | "I won't comment on whether it requires an idiot, moron or retard to NOT see that these two statements are actually not all that far apart aside from the matter of precision and generality." I don't blame you for taking the 5th. If you don't see that there is enough difference between the two statements to merit a different response then I think you are due for some ESL classes. Since it's been a difficult week and I haven't slept much I will simply give in and say that on all things audio Edster is right. How's that? Feel better now. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3604 Registered: Mar-05 | LOL, *this* is the Fifth: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/ ...and I have not taken it. Guess I'm not the only person on this thread who's guilty of some IMPRECISION. > Since it's been a difficult week and I haven't slept much I will simply give in and say that on all things audio Edster is right. How's that? Feel better now. Get some sleep, Art and you'll feel better period. Unlike some people, I have never pretended to be all-knowing in "all things audio"---so really, it's not necessary to get upset just because I continue to disagree with you on a number of things, even when you like to present your "years of audio experience" CV as some divine proof (LOL) of infallibility. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3605 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan, All good points. Let me add that on several occasions I *have* gone back and listened to the NAD and Marantz since getting the Panny, and my admiration for the Panny has never wavered. However I'm aware that this may be more of a credit to the Ascend speakers (I have to admit my friend's Wharfedale 8.2s did sound much warmer on the NAD). I am due to go over and listen to Marc's five systems at some point, and will try to bring along the Panny if it's OK with him. Onto the mixed metaphors: There is a lot of truth in the "if you're used to eating hamburgers you'll never miss steak" line of thought. But I would think that a person who's used to eating hamburgers would be immediately and intensely dumbstruck after the first few bites of steak. Surely that hamburger eater wouldn't have to eat steak continuously for a few days/weeks/months and then go back to the hamburger, in order to see how much better the steak is? well, Tweeter does have a 30 day return policy but I wouldn't have the heart to buy those $4K Focal floorstanders or ML electrostats and return them in 29 days... |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2679 Registered: Feb-05 | "years of audio experience" CV as some divine proof (LOL) of infallibility." Years of experience are simply that. I never presented it as proof of "divine infallibility". Those are your words. You are very good at putting your word in someone elses mouth. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1109 Registered: Dec-04 | Then I'll revise my statement to this: Maggies are a pi$$-poor example because they are not at all typical of most speakers. It's like using a Ferrari Testarossa to argue that buying super unleaded gasoline will generally improve a car's performance when in fact it will do virtually nothing for the vast majority (a la "typical") cars. Almost all new cars have knock sensors which will advance timing to the point of detonation, then back off the advance to an acceptable level. Therefore, most new cars benefir from higher octane levels. Whether or not you load or rev the engine to these levels is up to you. Well we might just have a difference in our notions of proportion...the more I listen to different gear at varying pricepoints, the more I am coming to the realization that in many ways I am far pickier about beer than I am about audio. And, for once, we agree Ed. Years of experience are simply that. I never presented it as proof of "divine infallibility". Those are your words. You are very good at putting your word in someone elses mouth.(Art). Ed, you cannot put words in your own mouth, because it is full of feet. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3606 Registered: Mar-05 | > Years of experience are simply that. I never presented it as proof of "divine infallibility". LOL, look who's misquoting who---my original sentence was, "...you like to present your 'years of audio experience' CV as some divine proof (LOL) of infallibility." I could get really a nal about your misquoting as you have about mine, but that would be too easy especially since it's obvious to me that you are in dire need of sleep. Bottom line is that it continues to annoy you that I continue to disagree with you on the Panny as well as on the NAD c542, on the importance of matching surrounds, etc. no matter how better-qualified you imagine yourself to be on these matters due to your longer years of audio experience which you imagine has earned you the right to pronounce certain things as "facts" and be the final authority on how things "ought" to sound. Or to put it bluntly, you have developed a bloated ego that cannot brook disagreement or accept a diversity of views. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Raj_pEvanston, IL USA Post Number: 52 Registered: Oct-05 | As far as the switch from receiver to amp, I saw a gigantic different with the 7s as well which have tested to be 6 ohm. This Stratos amp really gives them and the Emmas some slam that otherwise they wouldn't have had. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3607 Registered: Mar-05 | Nuck, I see you are hitting the booze very early in the day... > Almost all new cars have knock sensors which will advance timing to the point of detonation, then back off the advance to an acceptable level. Therefore, most new cars benefir from higher octane levels. Whether or not you load or rev the engine to these levels is up to you. Revving a car's engine up to the point where super-unleaded gas will make a difference is an anomalous scenario...I shouldn't have to tell you this but since these early morning MD 20 shots you've been guzzling have got you playing dumb with amazing persistence, here it goes: The vast majority of drivers are not street racers but Camry, Accord, and Civic drivers (the topselling 3 cars) who rarely go more than 10-15 mph above the speed limit. Doh! |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2681 Registered: Feb-05 | Edster, I never write my quotes I copy and paste. What if anything does that mean to you? It means your words are always your words not my words put in your mouth. The rest of your post sounds like your usual paranoid ramblings. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNew York City, New York Post Number: 871 Registered: May-05 | Ed - Everyone's preception of a 'noticible imrovement' is different. One person's subtlties are another's fatal flaws. To me, if my car is .5 seconds slower in a quarter mile, I don't care. To a sports car enthusiast, it makes all the difference in the world. (I've been told 1 sec in the quarter mile is equal is equal to a full car length. Not very good to someone's pride who is serious about that.) |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7329 Registered: May-04 | Maybe. But while living in Texas it's the F-150's (the top selling vehicle) you better watch. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3608 Registered: Mar-05 | Raj, Who did you see claim the LSi7s to be 6 ohms? From crutchfield's blurb: "4-ohm impedance; these speakers must be powered using high-current amplification" http://www.crutchfield.com/S-GN7FJMOaeQE/cgi-bin/prodview.asp?i=107LSI7C Polk's website also lists them as 4 ohm speakers. http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/specs/lsi/lsi7/ also, from a review quoted on the Polk website: "Polk says the -3dB point of the LSi7 is 53Hz, the sensitivity is 88dB, and the nominal impedance is 4 ohms. While the sensitivity is average, the impedance is a little bit lower than the norm and it may give some amplifiers some grief. The LSi7s need some current to make them really sing. I drove them with both Nakamichi's AV-10 surround-sound receiver and Arcam's FMJ A32 integrated amplifier. Both of these put out 100Wpc into 8 ohms and, while not necessarily powerhouses into low-impedance loads, they are capable of driving 4-ohm loads quite easily. I also tried these speakers with one amplifier that doesn't like low-impedance loads. Sure enough, it struggled with them, particularly in the bass. Correct amplifier matching is critical." http://www.goodsound.com/equipment/polk_lsi7.htm I don't doubt that the Emmas sound better on your Stratos amp than they would on a $500 AVR though. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3609 Registered: Mar-05 | > Maybe. But while living in Texas it's the F-150's (the top selling vehicle) you better watch. True. Then again I've not seen too many F-150s being driven like street racers...is it just my neighborhood? |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3610 Registered: Mar-05 | Stu, > Everyone's preception of a 'noticible imrovement' is different. One person's subtlties are another's fatal flaws. Amen! Or, to put it another way: The only absolute truth is that everything is relative. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3611 Registered: Mar-05 | > Edster, I never write my quotes I copy and paste. LOL, the funny thing is that you misquoted me right AFTER you copied and pasted. I never called your imagined infallibility "divine." I really think you need to catch up on your Z's... |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7335 Registered: May-04 | I've been in Houston (an eternity was once spent there on the main highway through town). There isn't a street in Houston where "racing" can be done at more than 15 m.p.h. Come to Dallas and the North Texas Tollway to see "Richard Petty" drive an F-150 like a sports car. Is any of this helping, Richard? |
|
Silver Member Username: ZiggyzoggyoioiOutside Philadelphia, PA Post Number: 232 Registered: Jun-05 | Stu... Not to pick nits with your comment about 1/4-miles above, but it's actually .1 sec that equates to about a car-length. A typical 1/4-mile trap speed for a reasonably quick car is around 100 mph, which equates to 146.7 ft/sec. |
|
Silver Member Username: LovegasolineNYC Post Number: 116 Registered: Jul-05 | Raj wrote; "As far as electronics, in case anyone actually was curious, I run my emmas on an Audio Experience Symphonies preamp with EH tubes and my power comes from an Odyssey Stratos amplifier." ... and ... "My opinion on this matter comes from my experience with the Polk LSi bookshelf speakers, the LSi9 moreso than the 7 (i've owned both for a long amount of time). I remember when I first had the LSi9 I tried to run them on my friend's extra Onkyo receiver (SR602 I believe it was)...the poor speakers weaked in such a poor poor performance I almost turned around and sold them right then. I, however, stuck with them until I bought an audire amp (which I sold when I got the odyssey) and my current AE pre. WOW is all I could say at that point, the 9s were so much more than the Onkyo had let on. As it stands the 9s are probably one of my favorite mid-fi speakers and I'm glad I waited to hear them perform closer to their true potential." RAJ, I'm curious to hear your impression of how the Polk LSi9 compare with the Emma, would you mind sharing your impressions? Thread drift (but minor in comparison to the thousands of words already fired in wild directions and 1/4 mile stats) and maybe Richard can grab something from this as well ... ex., I got a great deal on a pair of LSi9's, barely used, for $370. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Raj_pEvanston, IL USA Post Number: 53 Registered: Oct-05 | Edster, Check the club polk forums, its been talked about many times there and I think they linked some reviews where they actually tested the speaker to be a 6ohmer. The offical specs are off. Raj |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1113 Registered: Dec-04 | Ed, you are a little prik, with about as many smarts as all the other little prik's with 7"exhausts on little honda's/ Go and hide in the kiddie car audio forums, you cannot compete with 20 yrs exterience here...warning)that you will not heed, against best intentions.) I have 20 yrs auto aftermarket. Speed, not sound. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1114 Registered: Dec-04 | best sent to another thread. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3612 Registered: Mar-05 | ooh baby Nuck, I see you're having a Midol moment again... Be careful, as of this writing the medical establishment has not yet ascertained the drug interactions between MD 20/20 and Midol yet! LOL!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 338 Registered: Jul-05 | Wow. I missed some action. Oh well. Eddie- your welcome to come on by so I can rturn the invite and Quinn is welcome as well. I am not sure how the Panny can be easily hooked into stuff the way I have things set up, if I need to get some extra speaker wire let me know. I cant pull my Jolida CD player out of its hook up very easily, so it would be a tough apples to aplles comparison in one of my systems anyway. I only have four systems up and running--but a bunch of audio equiment stuff lying around unconnected . What happened to the original poster? Maybe he is auditioning some Ascend 340s instead of following this stuff. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1124 Registered: Dec-04 | Well we might just have a difference in our notions of proportion...the more I listen to different gear at varying pricepoints, the more I am coming to the realization that in many ways I am far pickier about beer than I am about audio. And, for once, we agree Ed. If that read wrong, it was meant to include you AND I Ed. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7350 Registered: May-04 | To each his own. (What a dumb idea that is, that's how we got George and this economy!) I'll stay with Budwieser and save my money for single malt and McIntosh. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2686 Registered: Feb-05 | Single malt and Mac, I'm not sure it gets any better than that. Salud! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7352 Registered: May-04 | Since they synonomous to me, I forgot to mention; single malt, McIntosh and tubes. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 1127 Registered: Dec-04 | Skol! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7355 Registered: May-04 | RedMan! |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNew York City, New York Post Number: 878 Registered: May-05 | I'd go with a Beamish Irish Stout and a Cuban Upmann Maduro. If no Cubans or Beamish are available, Guinness and an Avo Maduro. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNew York City, New York Post Number: 879 Registered: May-05 | ...Accompanied of course by beautiful massaging women, VPI TT, McIntosh tubes and Sonus Fabers. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 7364 Registered: May-04 | Did any of that help, Richard? |
|
Anonymous | try klipsch reference speakers on a cheap sony reciever, and switch it to a rotel, and tell me which will sound better. The sony will drill your ears out. |
|
Richard Pyle Unregistered guest | Wow guys, thanks! |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 796 Registered: May-05 | Richard, In an effort to save this thread and your sanity or insanity. I did hook my Ascend 170s up to the vintage Fisher tube amp and I learned a few things. The 170s could easily work in a 2 channel system without a sub, if you're not a big fan of heavy metal, rap or the like. The mids and highs are silky smooth, neutral, clear and realistic. Maybe a little bit forward on the highs but nothing that would be brash or classified as causing listening fatigue. The bass was acceptable until I tried to increase it by pushing up the bass on the Fisher and then it got a little boomy and muddy. So, I suspect the new 340SEs would solve that bass problem and make you pretty happy. Now, that said, I cannot imagine why you wouldn't want to spend the $20-$25 in shipping it might cost to A/B the 340SEs against Tim's Emmas and take the pair that work best for you. That's a small price to pay to hear two great speakers and come away with the one that will sound best to you. Are there a couple of 1000 other options out there in this price range, "yes." Are they better options? If so, you'll have to hear it from someone else because I haven't heard them, yet. BUT AGAIN, I live the "audio desert" of Spokane, WA so what do I know? LOL and good luck, Dave. |