Magnepan 3.7?

[tube fan]

Anyone heard these? They are getting rave reviews, and I admit to being interested.

[hifi-freak]

They seem interesting, i had the chance to demo a pair on a hifi store and i was impressed by the clarity, detail and punch. I wish i can buy a pair of them.

[RGA]

Well for what it's worth the 1.7 is better than any previous magnepan I have auditioned. With several notes - one it needs a competent tube amplifier. The Audio Note Soro with its 18 watts and matching single disc CD 2.1 sounded very good with it. Bryston sounded utterly dreadful. So that's actually a VERY GOOD thing because the speaker SHOULD tell us how truly pitiful SS amplifiers are. And the Maggie 1.7 bloody well does that in spades. Since the 3.7 is the .7 upgrade it should do the same thing but with more bass.

The 1.7 still struggles with amplified music and proper dynamic bass response. I don't buy it for a second on drums for example. But then for under $2k I don't buy most speakers (I can't think of any off hand). I liked it on Loreena McKennitt, Diana Krall, anything with strings. Presumably the 3.7 would raise the bar. I will try and audition it over the Easter break. If I can I will bring Guns and Roses, the Evil Nine, AC/DC and several harder hitting but excellent dance recording albums such as Madonna's Ray of Light. The problem is finding the quality amplifier that "also" has the power to play at levels that are acceptable for a $5000ish speaker and retain proper levels of decay and "weight" to the music being played.

And you know better than some not to put too much stock into reviews. Everything gets raves and not everyone will like it. If you liked the 1.6 and 3.6 then you will like the new ones. If you didn't care for the old Maggies or you don't love Quad - you won't like the new ones - they still have many of the same traits - just better refinement. To me it is the treble that is a LOT better in the 1.7 and that provided you use a very good tube amp like the Soro or Wyatech amps. If you've never heard them - then no talk will matter - it's something you need to experience first hand. The price of them are fairly reasonable.

[Feanor]

Anyone heard these? They are getting rave reviews, and I admit to being interested.
The MG 3.7's are what I aspire to, (though I'm unlikely to get them for financial reasons). I currently own MG 1.6QR's and love them; 1.7's might be nice but the upgrade might be more than I'm willing/able to pay.

RGA has recently come around to recommending the 1.7's in the <$2k category. More credit to him for that because he has long recommended Audio Note speakers -- a totally different sound born of totally different musical sensibility. He makes some good points about the Magneplanar's, principally that they aren't rockers.

However to suggest or imply that an 18 wpc amp is good with any Magneplanar is ridiculous, because they thrive on power. Personally I don't agree that one must drive them with tube amps, but Richard is likely right that you, Tube Fan, ought to do so. In that case I'd recommend 60+ wpc -- personally I'd welcome the opportunity to hear my 1.6's driven by a pair of AES Six Packs or updated Dynaco Mark III's.

Currently I drive my 1.6's with a Class-D-Audio SDS-258 (http://classdaudio.com/products/class-d-amplifiers/sds-258.html) and love it. But then I prefer maximum transparency and accuracy of timbre at the expense of occassional stridency, over the chocolatey-caramel sound of tubes.

[tube fan]

My AR D70 tube amps can drive my Fulton J speakers to 100+db levels. Believe it, we have NO Magnapan dealer in SF region!

[Feanor]

My AR D70 tube amps can drive my Fulton J speakers to 100+db levels. Believe it, we have NO Magnapan dealer in SF region!
From what I hear, a lot of people are very happy driving Magneplanars with 60 wpc tube amps like the ARC D-70. That is, assuming moderate volumes -- not 100 dB -- and depending on musical choice.

I'd certainly like to hear a D-70 driving my Magneplanars MG 1.6's.

I had to do 5 hour round trip to Toronto to pick up my 1.6's; I bought them unauditioned though I had owned MMG's.

[E-Stat]

Anyone heard these? They are getting rave reviews, and I admit to being interested.
Yes, under excellent circumstances. I responded to a request here. (http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/5/55529.html) Short answer is that they are among the best Magneplanars I've heard since I value coherency very highly.

rw

[tube fan]

I am going to make an effort to hear the 3.7s driven by tubes (I may have to supply the tubes!). RGA's contention about the low end (of the 1.7) is a major concern. What I am looking for is something that has the detail and clarity of a double set of KLH 9s, that can play down to 35 hz, and can play at realistic volumes (for me, this means a similar volume to the one you would hear live). I don't listen to club music, so I'm "only" looking at about 100 db. So far, I have not heard anything that significantly beats my pair of Fulton Js.

[E-Stat]

What I am looking for is something that has the detail and clarity of a double set of KLH 9s, that can play down to 35 hz, and can play at realistic volumes (for me, this means a similar volume to the one you would hear live).
They do very well with your criteria except for 35 hz response. More panel area is required as you would find with the 20.1. They're good to about 40 hz and you can always add subs. They are nearly as coherent as full range electrostats.

rw

[tube fan]

They do very well with your criteria except for 35 hz response. More panel area is required as you would find with the 20.1. They're good to about 40 hz and you can always add subs. They are nearly as coherent as full range electrostats.

rw

Good info! They are on my must-hear list.

[tube fan]

HP continues his review of the 3.7 in the new Absolute Sound (May/June). Among other praise, he contends that, at $5500, Magnepan is almost giving them away. JV also loves the 3.7, and compares them to the Magico Q5s.

[E-Stat]

HP continues his review of the 3.7 in the new Absolute Sound (May/June). Among other praise, he contends that, at $5500, Magnepan is almost giving them away.
He had finished all the copy by the time I heard them. He has since swapped out the interconnects - perhaps they contributed to why I found the system just a touch bright.

rw

[tube fan]

My previous criticism of earlier Magnepan's (except for the IV) was in the low end and in the grain (lack of liquidity). Plus, no salesman would play the speakers at realistic levels. We shall see.

[RGA]

"My previous criticism of earlier Magnepan's (except for the IV) was in the low end and in the grain (lack of liquidity). Plus, no salesman would play the speakers at realistic levels. We shall see."

That criticism will still be valid with the new ones. But I think you'll find they don't get shrill like the .6 models. Again though I was running a robust tube amplifier - or I should say the dealer was running a robust tube amplifier.

So long as you don't listen to amplified music and or loud levels and expect deepish bass they will be fine. The 20.1 doesn't have much bass IME - I actually prefer the sound of the 1.7 to the 20.1. You get more transient than decay and a somewhat washed out presentation that pervades every recording I play. A homogeneous sameness to a diverse recordings. But again at under $2k for the 1.7 that's hardly a problem as I get that from other speakers but not the 1.7's clarity and nimbleness of nuance in those transients and a more coherent presentation than typical boxed designs. But no they are not perfect as some seem to indicate - and relying on TAS would be a huge mistake on multiple levels especially the two critics you mention. I can't think of two audio critics I would trust less than those two.

[bobsticks]

- and relying on TAS would be a huge mistake on multiple levels especially the two critics you mention. I can't think of two audio critics I would trust less than those two.

LMAO, Richard, you are the Echo Boomers answer to the crusty, curmudgeony sound mavens of old...a new breed of audiophile...and, it's an honor and a privilege to give you the King Melvin Audiophilic L'enfant Terrible medallion in recognition of moving the conflict forward into future generations...

(...actually, I love reading your stuff, I just wish Flo could be here to read you extoll the virtue of a planar speaker in such a full-throated yet tepid way) :biggrin5:

[Feanor]

LMAO, Richard, you are the Echo Boomers answer to the crusty, curmudgeony sound mavens of old...a new breed of audiophile...and, it's an honor and a privilege to give you the King Melvin Audiophilic L'enfant Terrible medallion in recognition of moving the conflict forward into future generations...

(...actually, I love reading your stuff, I just wish Flo could be here to read you extoll the virue of a planar speaker in such a full-throated yet tepid way) :biggrin5:
Did you mean verbose equivocality? :confused5:

[Florian]

I do lurk around here sometimes :devil:

[bobsticks]

I do lurk around here sometimes :devil:

Aha! Good day to ya, sir...good to see the lurkers come out of hiding if only for a moment.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Bryston sounded utterly dreadful. So that's actually a VERY GOOD thing because the speaker SHOULD tell us how truly pitiful SS amplifiers are.

I don't know which Bryston amps you are talking about, but you should be more specific. To say that SS amps sound pitiful is ridiculous. That is like saying all people are stupid, without recognizing that their are smart and stupid people. There are good SS amps, and bad ones, There are good tube amps(love the VTL MB-450 series III amp), and there are really bad ones as well.

It is always entertaining to see a person paint a picture with a street sweeper....

[tube fan]

At the CAS I heard several ss amps that produced acceptable sound. Yes, they were horribly expensive. BTW, my two favorite rooms at the CAS were using SET amps (Audio Note's 20 watts and Teresonic's 2 1/2 watts). I doubt I could drive either my Fulton J or Dunlavy with 20 watts.

[E-Stat]

To say that SS amps sound pitiful is ridiculous.
Especially when you consider that many speakers don't tango well with tubes. Although I didn't get a chance to hear the 28B-SST amps a reviewer friend on hand, he says they are exceptional sounding amps. And he's a tube fan. It is fair, however, to say that some earlier models were not exactly in the same sonic class. :)

rw

[tube fan]

I admit that the best ss amp don't sound bright or hard. They have the tone correct, but the ones I have heard don't get the three dimension correct. The best do not bleach out sound as they used to. I still object to the bass of the ss amps I have heard (too much damping factor?).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Especially when you consider that many speakers don't tango well with tubes. Although I didn't get a chance to hear the 28B-SST amps a reviewer friend on hand, he says they are exceptional sounding amps. And he's a tube fan. It is fair, however, to say that some earlier models were not exactly in the same sonic class. :)

rw

I agree with you Ralph. Some of the earlier models sounded like cold steel.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I admit that the best ss amp don't sound bright or hard. They have the tone correct, but the ones I have heard don't get the three dimension correct. The best do not bleach out sound as they used to. I still object to the bass of the ss amps I have heard (too much damping factor?).

Go listen to the 28B-SST, it will change your mind on the three dimensionality aspect. This is one of its strong suits.

[RGA]

I don't know which Bryston amps you are talking about, but you should be more specific. To say that SS amps sound pitiful is ridiculous. That is like saying all people are stupid, without recognizing that their are smart and stupid people. There are good SS amps, and bad ones, There are good tube amps(love the VTL MB-450 series III amp), and there are really bad ones as well.

It is always entertaining to see a person paint a picture with a street sweeper....

The problem is that most people have a budget - you are quite wealthy and have stated several times that "budget" is not a consideration. For most people it is. The Audio Note Kit one is an "excellent" amplifier regardless of budget. You can argue that there are good high power solid state amps and there are - Technical Brain, top of the line Pass Labs but the costs are astronomical compared to a $2k amp.

Even if I were to say that the 28B is a good amp (and I've heard it a few times and was not the least bit impressed - the Maggie 1.7 sounded FAR better on a Soro at around $6k than the 28B which I am pretty sure is more than $6k and Bryston's flagship preamp.

SS at high power can be good but the cost is far too high for it versus even entry level and comparatively inexpensive tube amplifiers (for $1600 the Shengya PM 150 monoblocks (you get both for this price) are 150 watt tube hybrid power amps with plenty of power for most speakers. There isn''t a bryston that I have heard that sound better but ploenty of them cost a lot more - and the Shengya's even seem to me to be better built.

I do agree there are poor sounding tube amps but I have not experienced them nearly as often perhaps because I am in my 30s and wasn't around in the 50s, 60s and 70s and heard the truly abysmal that no doubt cluttered the department stores of the day. The tube makers that last today in a SS world generally all sound pretty good to very good. Even companies selling $1500 to $5000 amps like Rogue Audio and Mystere driving speakers like Wilson Sophia and Martin Logan Summits made those speakers sound better than I have ever heard them sound and made me partially rethink what I thought of those speaker makers. Martin Logan I usually always heard with Bryston - bad sound. Wilson Sophia I heard with top of the line Krell - OK sound but bad when money factored in. Even Magnepan has sounded "bad" almost every time I heard them. For years I have been extremely diplomatic on just how terrible sounding I felt Magnepan has been with the exception of the 1.6 and 12. Which sounded ok. Finally hearing them with a good tube amp and a great CD player does help me see more in them.

The dealer here carries Magnepan 1.7 and the 3.7. He carries and has carried Bryston for many years. They carry top of the line Bryston - they don't like the combination and neither do I. Some people do like the combination - that's fine.

What counts as good or bad will be somewhat subjective but my hearing of it is my hearing of it. And Bryston is generally tiring and grating. And if it takes one to spend $30,000 on amplifier so that it gets to a point where even the "fans" say that they don't sound metallic - that is hardly high praise for the competencies of their design team.

Even reading what you are saying here about bryston is that "All some or most of their previous amps suck and have always sucked but they finally got it right with their top of the line most expensive amps" Huh? while other companies got to that no metallic irritating mess with their entry level gear at 1/10 the price. I know which design team I'd rather support. Not the one building amps for 30 years and only now have got one amplifier line to sound anything remotely correct. Yikes.

I don't pretend to make new arguments - I clearly and do prefer speakers that can be run with relatively low powered amps - these kinds of speakers almost always sound better top to bottom, tonally and especially dynamically. I certainly understand the crowd that argues "you need more power" but that is usually because they need to turn the volume WAY the hell up to make things out clearly because the system lacks resolution. And that is why it confounds them when I say - "I like the 1.7 with a Soro at 18 watts" because they can't understand that this amp had very good bass - wonderful resolution and I never even need to get the volume dial past the 11 o'clock position and it played pretty loud. I was roundly impressed with the 1.7 so much so that it would be my number 1 choice under $2k. And I genuinely mean it. But ONLY if it is connected to this kind of amp. With bryston it's a complete pile of dog poo.

As an edit - this is not to say that Bryston is bad in itself either because I did enjoy it with PMC and even my own Wharfedales - in fact it was Bryston with my Wharfedales that started my entire interest in higher end audio because the Bryston kicked the snot out of my Pioneer Elite receiver way back in the day to the point where rather than selling the speakers I got rid of the amplifier. The Bryston was SO SO much better than the Pioneer Elite. But as eye opening as that experience was when I first heard a very good SET amp that amp sounded SO SO much better than amplifiers like Bryston.

The interesting thing is that Soundhounds is also selling the Cerwin Vega CLS 215 and I am betting that the Soro has more trouble with that speaker than it has with the Magnepan. At $1k they looked very nice in terms of value for the money. Next time I am there and if they have not sold out of them I will be very interested in comparing them with a MF, Ayre, Audio Note, McIntosh, Classe, Bryston, the new NAD series, and maybe even my Rotel pre/pro. People always laugh at Cerwin Vega - but for the music most people listen to - if they don't butcher classical and jazz too much they'll be excellent in this price range and with reasonably high efficiency and assuming the load is not stupid they may be a great deal.

[JoeE SP9]

Do you get a special price on gear from Grant Fidelity? Their web site says $2,000 in US dollars. $500 is not chicken feed for those of us who have to work within a budget.

[tube fan]

I don't understand the criticism of HP and JV. HP sounded the praise for tubes when almost everyone else (including JGH) was praising early ss (pure CRAP). JV continually supports both tubes and analogue, and I agree.

[E-Stat]

HP sounded the praise for tubes when almost everyone else (including JGH) was praising early ss (pure CRAP).
It is he to whom I referred as really liking the Bryston 28B. Read his review.


JV continually supports both tubes and analogue, and I agree.
Along with solid state designs from Soulution, BAlabo, and Technical Brain.

rw

[bobsticks]

Oh kids, let's stop this petty bickering...clearly the answer is just to buy the CTH-8550 and be done with it.


OTOH, has anyone tried the 3.7 with any of the Van Alstine hybrid gears? That would seem to be a reasonably priced option...

[blackraven]

OTOH, has anyone tried the 3.7 with any of the Van Alstine hybrid gears? That would seem to be a reasonably priced option...

I run the 1.6's with a Van Alstine hybrid preamp, hybrid DAC, and a SS amp. I really like the combo. My system has a very tube like sound but the punchy bass of SS.

I did get to do an in home audition with his hybrid 500wpc FET Valve amp and enjoyed the sound. I would have bought the amp but I got such a good deal the Parasound.

Check out the Van Alstine forum on audiocircles, there are plenty of Maggie owners using his hybrid and tube gear.

[tube fan]

It is he to whom I referred as really liking the Bryston 28B. Read his review.


Along with solid state designs from Soulution, BAlabo, and Technical Brain.

rw
Yes, JV ALSO likes some horribly expensive ss gear. JV vastly prefers analogue to digital, and I agree. HP was one of the few critics who defended tubes when 90% of other "critics" thought early ss was superior to tubes.

BTW, RGA, I think it would be more interesting if you mentioned several instances where HP or JV got it wrong in your opinion. No one is perfect, and HP and JV are two of the best IMO.

Also, Stereophile seems to be extremely tardy in reviewing some highly regarded gear, e.g., Magnepans and VPI Classic tt.

[Feanor]

Oh kids, let's stop this petty bickering...clearly the answer is just to buy the CTH-8550 and be done with it.

...
Yeah, right. But it's not tubes, 'Stick, so Tube Fan won't like regardless.

Or try a ClassDAudio SDS-258, ($600 completed). Same power as the DarTZeel; not tubes either but does sounds great with my tube preamp.

[RGA]

Yes, JV ALSO likes some horribly expensive ss gear. JV vastly prefers analogue to digital, and I agree. HP was one of the few critics who defended tubes when 90% of other "critics" thought early ss was superior to tubes.

BTW, RGA, I think it would be more interesting if you mentioned several instances where HP or JV got it wrong in your opinion. No one is perfect, and HP and JV are two of the best IMO.

Also, Stereophile seems to be extremely tardy in reviewing some highly regarded gear, e.g., Magnepans and VPI Classic tt.

Well John Valin has some issues for me with honesty and integrity and as such I don't trust what he has to say. The fact that he may like tubes over SS and that stance is agreeable doesn't mean much since most of the high end chooses tubes over SS including almost all of the high end speaker manufacturers that partner their speakers with tube gear. Wilson, Sonus Faber, all the panel makers except Magnepan, Dynaudio - in other words all of the best sounding rooms at CES all ran tube amps so it's hard not for anyone including Valin to get this right. And even then he still got it kind of wrong in that he went with Magico and Technical Brain as his best sound of show. I liked the room too but TB has horrendous failure rates and the Magico is grossly overpriced for the sound it puts out. And Soulution sounds really rather lousy and edgy and costs a bomb. Even the biggest SoundLab dealer in the U.S. doesn't like Soulution so I don't know what Valin is saying.

HP I mixed up with REG so sorry to HP.

PS - Ayre - which is pretty good SS and very good digital TAS doesn't like - finally there is some decent SS and TAS doesn't like it. They can't seem to get it right. There is a certain lack of professionalism at TAS that I don't want to get into on a public forum but the info I have - well Stereophile to me is about a million times the magazine that TAS is and I'll leave it at that.

[bobsticks]

Okay, okay...tubes then, how's about the Vincent TubeLine SV-236MK integrated amplifier...both TAS and Sterophile seem to approve (never heard it myself). Lota rave reviews for $2k.

[RGA]

Okay, okay...tubes then, how's about the Vincent TubeLine SV-236MK integrated amplifier...both TAS and Sterophile seem to approve (never heard it myself). Lota rave reviews for $2k.

Vincent amps are made by the same company that makes some of Grant Fidelity's amps - the difference is Grant Fidelity admits it while Vincent seems shy to. Not a big deal but the Vincent monoblocks are very likely made by Shengya which I reviewed. So if this is the case and I believe it is then Vincent will be very very good value. The PM 150 monoblocks sound a lot better than the GF Rita which is already one of the best deals out there for a very powerful tube integrated.

Tube Fan - I think my problem with Valin is kind of alluded to by audiofederation in that he doesn't seem to have a clear idea of what he likes and therefore likes too much stuff IMO. The problem with being a reviewer is that we usually have to choose stuff we like and the more we like the more we get to review and the more we review the more polific we are and the bigger name we get for ourselves. When you hate most stuff and like very little then you can't be prolific and therefore you don't get a "big name" or seen all over the web. And I'm sorry but there just isn't that much stuff that is very good that is out there.

Audiofederation kind of reviews John Valin here http://audiofederation.com/blog/archives/778 and like them I do agree with Valin some of the time but for me anyway on the really important sounding rooms IMO he's off base from my take on it.

PS Tube fan - they may have finally made a CD player that will trump "most" turntables - Mike has a good ear - I met him at CES and mostly we agreed across the board. AN digital was already the best out there IME by a significant margin and if this raises the bar exponentially over their other cd players then I hope to hear it once it is broken in and set-up properly - it wasn't at last CES but should be for next show - although a CD player for $185,000.00 is not exactly cheap. http://audiofederation.com/blog/categories/high-end-audio/audio-note/

[tube fan]

Vincent amps are made by the same company that makes some of Grant Fidelity's amps - the difference is Grant Fidelity admits it while Vincent seems shy to. Not a big deal but the Vincent monoblocks are very likely made by Shengya which I reviewed. So if this is the case and I believe it is then Vincent will be very very good value. The PM 150 monoblocks sound a lot better than the GF Rita which is already one of the best deals out there for a very powerful tube integrated.

Tube Fan - I think my problem with Valin is kind of alluded to by audiofederation in that he doesn't seem to have a clear idea of what he likes and therefore likes too much stuff IMO. The problem with being a reviewer is that we usually have to choose stuff we like and the more we like the more we get to review and the more we review the more polific we are and the bigger name we get for ourselves. When you hate most stuff and like very little then you can't be prolific and therefore you don't get a "big name" or seen all over the web. And I'm sorry but there just isn't that much stuff that is very good that is out there.

Audiofederation kind of reviews John Valin here http://audiofederation.com/blog/archives/778 and like them I do agree with Valin some of the time but for me anyway on the really important sounding rooms IMO he's off base from my take on it.

PS Tube fan - they may have finally made a CD player that will trump "most" turntables - Mike has a good ear - I met him at CES and mostly we agreed across the board. AN digital was already the best out there IME by a significant margin and if this raises the bar exponentially over their other cd players then I hope to hear it once it is broken in and set-up properly - it wasn't at last CES but should be for next show - although a CD player for $185,000.00 is not exactly cheap. http://audiofederation.com/blog/categories/high-end-audio/audio-note/

I agree that most of REG's reviews are questionable. He loves digital, ss, and even prefers mm to mc cartridges. HP is solid IMO, AND he takes a stand! I haven't heard much of the ss gear that JV likes, so I cannot comment on those opinions. I have heard the Magico V2 and V3, and would not trade my Fultons for either. The Q5s are a stretch for me as far as cost goes (have not heard them).

As far as digital goes, I loved the sound in the Audio Note room at the CAS. That was digital unlike any other I have heard: smooth, detailed, got timbre correct, and had great micro and macro dynamics. I may have even underrated the sound, as I have a strong preference for analogue (no blind listening here). They played a big band jazz cd at realistic volume, and the sound was very close to what I heard at Pearls jazz club on many Mon nites.

BTW I just played Miles' "Someday my prince will come" with John Coltrane on Sax over my Fulton Js at full realistic volume. Both Miles and Coltrane sounded like they were in my living/listening room!!!

[Poultrygeist]

My local HiFi store carries several models of the Magnapan line ( small panels to very large ) and I spent a couple of hours listening to all of them recently. As much as I tried to like them they just don't float my boat like the Zu's.

[RGA]

My local HiFi store carries several models of the Magnapan line ( small panels to very large ) and I spent a couple of hours listening to all of them recently. As much as I tried to like them they just don't float my boat like the Zu's.

Was your dealer running a tube amp? Just wondering because several people listening to the Magneapn Bryston set-up looked at each other and basically said it was "shi%" and sound thin brittle and bright and 2 dimensional. This happened to me way back with the 1.6 where even the dealer noted that with Magnepan he has to control both the kind of music and the volume. Needless to say none of the people selling them like them a whole lot.

With the 1.7 however and with a tube amp things changed - not bright or edgy and not the usual ribbon colouration with emphasis on the leading edge and zilch on the decay (SS amps are terrible at capturing the entire note) so it seems so fantastically clear but without decay you don't get the whole note. So you get a washed out hard presentation albeit with a low noise floor. Without bass and without decay - it seems fast and clean - but to me it throws out 1/2 or more of what is on the recording for a fake sense of clarity. My dealer at Soundhounds actually explained what it is about the combination that doesn't work better than I am explaining it.

[RGA]

I agree that most of REG's reviews are questionable. He loves digital, ss, and even prefers mm to mc cartridges. HP is solid IMO, AND he takes a stand! I haven't heard much of the ss gear that JV likes, so I cannot comment on those opinions. I have heard the Magico V2 and V3, and would not trade my Fultons for either. The Q5s are a stretch for me as far as cost goes (have not heard them).



The problem with all shows is that at any given point the sound may not be as good as it could be so sometimes it's not completely fair to judge. I auditioned a lot of rooms (in retrospect I covered too many). Still at some point money has to factor in. The Magico Technical Brain sounded good on Cello when I went in but here's the thing - it sounded no better than Audio Note's cheap room which still wasn't cheap but it comprised of Art Dudley's AN E/SPE HE speakers ($7600), the Jinro which Art Dudley just reviewed ($20,000+) integrated amp and a one box CD player 3.1 or 4.1 can't remember). So maybe ~$30k room. The Magico speakers were something like $60,000 and the TB gear over $70,000 and the source was a computer high digitial bit rate (top bit rate available if memory serves).

So many things are going on here - can you pare one room down and still retain most of the quality in sound. The Magico room didn't allow me to play my music. So was it playing only to its strengths. Lots of systems can be made to do "some" thing very well. Terry at Soundhounds says it all the time - this one is good for this music so they play a set of music on it and rotate but throw on something else and it sounds rather dreadful.

Some of the expensive SS amps make little sense to me - they still come across as brute force sound and not very subtle (the audiofederation did an interesting series comparing most of the top high power amplifiers). Oddly relatively low powered inexpensive ones seem to get the subtlety better - the Sugden A21a and even the Creek Audio integrateds and Heed amps all under $3,000 do some things better than big powerful and expensive amps. Less feedback maybe.

[Poultrygeist]

I listened to the big white Maggies driven by a SS and tube preamp ( Rogue? ) and they sounded like they were almost out of phase. But I checked and they weren't.

[tube fan]

The problem with all shows is that at any given point the sound may not be as good as it could be so sometimes it's not completely fair to judge. I auditioned a lot of rooms (in retrospect I covered too many). Still at some point money has to factor in. The Magico Technical Brain sounded good on Cello when I went in but here's the thing - it sounded no better than Audio Note's cheap room which still wasn't cheap but it comprised of Art Dudley's AN E/SPE HE speakers ($7600), the Jinro which Art Dudley just reviewed ($20,000+) integrated amp and a one box CD player 3.1 or 4.1 can't remember). So maybe ~$30k room. The Magico speakers were something like $60,000 and the TB gear over $70,000 and the source was a computer high digitial bit rate (top bit rate available if memory serves).

So many things are going on here - can you pare one room down and still retain most of the quality in sound. The Magico room didn't allow me to play my music. So was it playing only to its strengths. Lots of systems can be made to do "some" thing very well. Terry at Soundhounds says it all the time - this one is good for this music so they play a set of music on it and rotate but throw on something else and it sounds rather dreadful.

Some of the expensive SS amps make little sense to me - they still come across as brute force sound and not very subtle (the audiofederation did an interesting series comparing most of the top high power amplifiers). Oddly relatively low powered inexpensive ones seem to get the subtlety better - the Sugden A21a and even the Creek Audio integrateds and Heed amps all under $3,000 do some things better than big powerful and expensive amps. Less feedback maybe.
One of the salesmen in the Audio Note room claimed that the J would have sounded better in that small (under 300 square feet?) room than the E. My office is small at under 150 square feet, and the J looks promising.

[RGA]

One of the salesmen in the Audio Note room claimed that the J would have sounded better in that small (under 300 square feet?) room than the E. My office is small at under 150 square feet, and the J looks promising.

The J is basically the same speakers with less cabinet volume - exact same drivers and cabinet proportions albeit smaller) so there is less cabinet. To some the AN J is less coloured than the E. I don't actually agree with that - I think the E just has significant bass and bass is sometimes viewed as a colouration since people are so used to most speakers not having any!!!!!!

The cabinets were designed by Leo Beranek back in the 1940s and are viewed as the "perfect" box to simulate acoustic instruments. It's no small reason that Beranek is referenced in every book on speaker design and is arguably one of the world leaders on opera house design. If you want a home loudspeaker to sound like an actual instrument the AN E and J are a good start. Basically they go back 70 years. Snell came out with the wave launch and the pair matching which are both astounding. AN dumped the rear firing tweeters changed the ports use better cabinets and parts to corner load them.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/store.html?azid=0387955240&aznode=

Leo was also involved on the team that invented the internet so we can have this conversation. Pretty cool guy and is 93 years young. http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11418

[tube fan]

WOW! $185,000 for a CD player! I liked the the two CD players Audio note used at the CAS (one $5,500 and one $9,500). They were the ONLY CD players I have liked.

[RGA]

WOW! $185,000 for a CD player! I liked the the two CD players Audio note used at the CAS (one $5,500 and one $9,500). They were the ONLY CD players I have liked.

That's the problem when you only make one at a time - there is nothing to spread the R&D over many units. It is a three box player. Transport/DAC/Power Supply. So that makes it a mere $61,666.67 per unit. I know it doesn't really help :)

Still this factory tour done recently by Deco Audio - shows how the new CD player is designed - strikingly similar to their suspended turntables. http://www.decoaudio.com/deco_audio_audio_note_visit2010.html

You can also see part of Peter's LP collection which is clearly where his focus is.

[RGA]

Tube fan

To go along with issues I have with some review sites and magazines here is what an EX TAS reviewer - John Marks has to say about things going on at TAS.

"I am not making this up. A professional audio magazine I subscribe to had as a feature a "BEST OF AES SHOW" section, with little "award"-type logos near each product.

Problem is, one product they loved loved loved was a prototype, and the unit was not yet in production, and had had a few changes by the time it got into production.

I am still waiting for my review sample... .

Now, in fairness, they never said they spent any time listening to it, and they never actually said that you could order one today and get it tomorrow. But when you create an awards section of a magazine and base it on a walk-through and give awards to whatever catches your eye, it does tend to erode your credibility.

One of the reasons I voluntarily left TAS was that a loudspeaker manufacturer phoned me, both pleased and perplexed. The upcoming issue was to run a review by me, and it was also the Editor's Choice issue, and so I gave the loudspeaker an Editor's Choice Award. (Or Golden Ear, it was a long time ago.)

So the loudspeaker guy told me that he had gotten a phone call from "someone at TAS" who told him "Your loudspeaker is getting an award in the next issue--how large an ad do you want to buy?" (He was quite taken aback.)

Golly, is THAT why there are so many awards?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Were I to institute an award, it would be a combination of Stereophile's "$$$" and "star" RCL notations: Great affordable products that deliver long-term value for money that have been in production a long time.

Examples being Sugden's A21 Class A integrated amp and Grace's HPA/DAC.

Better yet, how about instituting an award that CANNOT BE GIVEN until three years after the review has run. That would be the award for "Products I Still Miss." Or, "The Big One That Got Away."

As I have said before, audio journalism is always at risk of domination by "The Tyranny of the New."

Let's hope that doesn't morph into "The Tyranny of the Not Yet Here."

JM http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/5/57022.html

I am fully in that camp. There is not a lot of new is better products out there unless you are in the more bitrate better sound camp of digital music - and for that more bits may make for better sound but for most loudspeakers and amplifiers it's not really the case. That is why with the Sugden A21a - John Marks makes a note there - that Stereophile was reviewing and recommending inferior amps for over a decade. When they finally got around to the A21a and JM noted to me that he felt it was the "best amp for the money" well it would have been nice for the magazine to audition it back in 1992 rather than in around 2004 - basically recommending amps that were worse for 12 years. Ok you can't review everything but the longest running SS integrated amp in history is an amp you can't really "miss" if you are going to have a recommended components listing of best amplifiers in a given price range or A,B,C range.

But John makes the point I always make - the best stuff doesn't need cyclic advertising like a Musical Fidelity or most speaker makers, that change models every 2-5 years like clockwork on the "it is new therefore it must be better" stance. No the A21a has been selling a topology since 1967 and improved a couple of things - heat handling ability mainly, and updated the style a bit - 1992 version of this amp in other words was still sounding better than most everything in its price class even into 2005 and some still argue that it sounds better than their new updated SE version. I can't make that case since I have not heard the new one.

Point is I agree with JM that if you really made a good product that it should hold up quite well 5, 10 and 20 years later. And the changes made will be subtle not completely different tweeters, woofers or cabinet shape in the case of speakers or amplfier design. Musical Fidelity changed so often that there are absolutely no products in their line-up that are viewed as anything special or are prized or remotely sought after. And customer loyalty should be zilch since whatever you bought they will tell you 2 years later is now junk compared to their new model. Thanks I'd rather not buy something that will be viewed as junk in 2 years or some new version of a speaker that fixes the obviously crummy treble of the old model that I bought. Wait so now my speaker is no good because they didn't get the treble right the first time around?

[Ajani]

But John makes the point I always make - the best stuff doesn't need cyclic advertising like a Musical Fidelity or most speaker makers, that change models every 2-5 years like clockwork on the "it is new therefore it must be better" stance. No the A21a has been selling a topology since 1967 and improved a couple of things - heat handling ability mainly, and updated the style a bit - 1992 version of this amp in other words was still sounding better than most everything in its price class even into 2005 and some still argue that it sounds better than their new updated SE version. I can't make that case since I have not heard the new one.

Point is I agree with JM that if you really made a good product that it should hold up quite well 5, 10 and 20 years later. And the changes made will be subtle not completely different tweeters, woofers or cabinet shape in the case of speakers or amplfier design. Musical Fidelity changed so often that there are absolutely no products in their line-up that are viewed as anything special or are prized or remotely sought after. And customer loyalty should be zilch since whatever you bought they will tell you 2 years later is now junk compared to their new model. Thanks I'd rather not buy something that will be viewed as junk in 2 years or some new version of a speaker that fixes the obviously crummy treble of the old model that I bought. Wait so now my speaker is no good because they didn't get the treble right the first time around?

Come on RGA, this is the real world we are talking about... Not every hifi manufacturer is independently wealthy like CC Poon of Monarchy Audio and so doesn't need to make any money from selling his own product... As passionate as many persons are about making HiFi, they also need to earn a living doing so...

While I agree that Musical Fidelity completely overdid the whole hyping up new products and replacing models in as little as 2 years, the fact is that the business world is filled with advertising and "new products" that are really just minor updates of a previous product...

Why does Honda introduce a new Accord every 5 years like clockwork? Some persons will swear by vintage cars, but most persons don't want a "classic" car, they want "new and improved"... Even if new and improved really just means cosmetic changes and a mild improvement in performance...

Consumers generally want "new and shiny" not "30 years and still going"... So HiFi manufacturers attempt to capitalize on that fact, the way just about any other business in any other industry does...

So it's not necessarily a case that they are fixing products that didn't perform well in the first place, as you seem to believe, but more that they throw a few tweaks and cosmetic changes on and old model and advertise the hell out of it as if it was a reinvention of the wheel... The products you like, prefer not to advertise those minor tweaks and don't change the cosmetics...

[tube fan]

Tube fan

To go along with issues I have with some review sites and magazines here is what an EX TAS reviewer - John Marks has to say about things going on at TAS.

"I am not making this up. A professional audio magazine I subscribe to had as a feature a "BEST OF AES SHOW" section, with little "award"-type logos near each product.

Problem is, one product they loved loved loved was a prototype, and the unit was not yet in production, and had had a few changes by the time it got into production.

I am still waiting for my review sample... .

Now, in fairness, they never said they spent any time listening to it, and they never actually said that you could order one today and get it tomorrow. But when you create an awards section of a magazine and base it on a walk-through and give awards to whatever catches your eye, it does tend to erode your credibility.

One of the reasons I voluntarily left TAS was that a loudspeaker manufacturer phoned me, both pleased and perplexed. The upcoming issue was to run a review by me, and it was also the Editor's Choice issue, and so I gave the loudspeaker an Editor's Choice Award. (Or Golden Ear, it was a long time ago.)

So the loudspeaker guy told me that he had gotten a phone call from "someone at TAS" who told him "Your loudspeaker is getting an award in the next issue--how large an ad do you want to buy?" (He was quite taken aback.)

Golly, is THAT why there are so many awards?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Were I to institute an award, it would be a combination of Stereophile's "$$$" and "star" RCL notations: Great affordable products that deliver long-term value for money that have been in production a long time.

Examples being Sugden's A21 Class A integrated amp and Grace's HPA/DAC.

Better yet, how about instituting an award that CANNOT BE GIVEN until three years after the review has run. That would be the award for "Products I Still Miss." Or, "The Big One That Got Away."

As I have said before, audio journalism is always at risk of domination by "The Tyranny of the New."

Let's hope that doesn't morph into "The Tyranny of the Not Yet Here."

JM http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/5/57022.html

I am fully in that camp. There is not a lot of new is better products out there unless you are in the more bitrate better sound camp of digital music - and for that more bits may make for better sound but for most loudspeakers and amplifiers it's not really the case. That is why with the Sugden A21a - John Marks makes a note there - that Stereophile was reviewing and recommending inferior amps for over a decade. When they finally got around to the A21a and JM noted to me that he felt it was the "best amp for the money" well it would have been nice for the magazine to audition it back in 1992 rather than in around 2004 - basically recommending amps that were worse for 12 years. Ok you can't review everything but the longest running SS integrated amp in history is an amp you can't really "miss" if you are going to have a recommended components listing of best amplifiers in a given price range or A,B,C range.

But John makes the point I always make - the best stuff doesn't need cyclic advertising like a Musical Fidelity or most speaker makers, that change models every 2-5 years like clockwork on the "it is new therefore it must be better" stance. No the A21a has been selling a topology since 1967 and improved a couple of things - heat handling ability mainly, and updated the style a bit - 1992 version of this amp in other words was still sounding better than most everything in its price class even into 2005 and some still argue that it sounds better than their new updated SE version. I can't make that case since I have not heard the new one.

Point is I agree with JM that if you really made a good product that it should hold up quite well 5, 10 and 20 years later. And the changes made will be subtle not completely different tweeters, woofers or cabinet shape in the case of speakers or amplfier design. Musical Fidelity changed so often that there are absolutely no products in their line-up that are viewed as anything special or are prized or remotely sought after. And customer loyalty should be zilch since whatever you bought they will tell you 2 years later is now junk compared to their new model. Thanks I'd rather not buy something that will be viewed as junk in 2 years or some new version of a speaker that fixes the obviously crummy treble of the old model that I bought. Wait so now my speaker is no good because they didn't get the treble right the first time around?

Is this the same John Marks who said George Bush was an underrated president!!!???

[Jack in Wilmington]

That sounds more like Karl Marx. Bush was so low there wasn't much under him.

[Feanor]

Is this the same John Marks who said George Bush was an underrated president!!!???
Unfortunately, if anything, George W. was overrated as a President -- not by me, though.

[RGA]

Come on RGA, this is the real world we are talking about... Not every hifi manufacturer is independently wealthy like CC Poon of Monarchy Audio and so doesn't need to make any money from selling his own product... As passionate as many persons are about making HiFi, they also need to earn a living doing so...

While I agree that Musical Fidelity completely overdid the whole hyping up new products and replacing models in as little as 2 years, the fact is that the business world is filled with advertising and "new products" that are really just minor updates of a previous product...

Why does Honda introduce a new Accord every 5 years like clockwork? Some persons will swear by vintage cars, but most persons don't want a "classic" car, they want "new and improved"... Even if new and improved really just means cosmetic changes and a mild improvement in performance...

Consumers generally want "new and shiny" not "30 years and still going"... So HiFi manufacturers attempt to capitalize on that fact, the way just about any other business in any other industry does...

So it's not necessarily a case that they are fixing products that didn't perform well in the first place, as you seem to believe, but more that they throw a few tweaks and cosmetic changes on and old model and advertise the hell out of it as if it was a reinvention of the wheel... The products you like, prefer not to advertise those minor tweaks and don't change the cosmetics...

Cars are a different animal. And even then not really different where it actually counts. The new modelusually adds things that are completely unrelated to the actual operation of a motor vehicle like putting in a GPS device heated seats, a device that will parallel park for you - for all the people who don't know how to drive. And sometimes there may be a legitimate new safety feature. But the engine and tranny often are slightly modified versions of what was being sold in their 1980s models..

And yes there are changes to loudspeakers when they discover something better - but sorry all of these things do not just suddenly occur like clockwork every set number of years conveniently timed when the product is in the "plateau" stage of the product life cycle. Even my Rotel Preamp - the new version came out in less than 4 years - it's the exact same preamp with a slightly different case work. But they then get to say it's new and send it out to reviewers as a new product - getting more reviews. Let's see how long this one lasts until another one comes out as a new design.

[RGA]

Is this the same John Marks who said George Bush was an underrated president!!!???

I don't know - but Curt Schilling is a major George Bush fan and I'd still like to have him on my pitching staff. I don't see what John Marks being correct on his point about TAS and him being incorrect on his stance about Bush. And then I would like to see the context of the statement and when the statement was made.

[Jack in Wilmington]

I don't know - but Curt Schilling is a major George Bush fan and I'd still like to have him on my pitching staff. I don't see what John Marks being correct on his point about TAS and him being incorrect on his stance about Bush. And then I would like to see the context of the statement and when the statement was made.

You're not a baseball fan are you? You're really a hockey fan. The Canucks need to end this series tonight. They let the Blackhawks off the hook. They were dead and buried and the Canucks gave them CPR.

[RGA]

You're not a baseball fan are you? You're really a hockey fan. The Canucks need to end this series tonight. They let the Blackhawks off the hook. They were dead and buried and the Canucks gave them CPR.

All the pressure is on the Canucks - if they lose it will be the biggest choke job in hockey. Theo Flury predicted the Canucks would be out in the first round and all the momentum is with Chicago. The Canucks have the talent to get it done but some of them are a little soft. We'll see.

I am a bigger Blue Jays fan though and baseball is my sport. I played at the top level in BC when I was young - played against Larry Walker's old team the Coquitlam Reds. Pitching arm gave out - too many curve balls at too young an age I guess.

My Leafs almost made the playoffs - played quite well the last 20 games - too little too late. The canucks are my second favorite team though since I live in B.C. now. Hopefully the extra couple days off will help them out.

[Jack in Wilmington]

I thought you were born and raised in BC, my mistake. Hence the Leaf fan. I've always been a Habs fan, even before we had hockey in my area.

I didn't take you for a baseball fan, because I thought that was an odd thing to say about Curt Schilling. I wouldn't actually want him on my team now. He's pushing 45 and he hasn't pitched since the 2007 season.

[RGA]

I guess I should have said - in his prime :) - he was the only player I could think of who wears his right wing political views on his sleeve.

And time will be the judge - I suspect Bush will be viewed as the worst president in U.S. history - but that was probably said about Richard Nixon at the time and he is viewed more favourably today - at least in regards to foreign policy.

John Marks however - I don't know the context of the discussion and so I don't know what he meant by it or if in fact he said anything of the sort or when he said it. Also, saying it in say 2000 might be different than saying it in 2007.

I just think TAS gets caught for being rather corrupt a little too much. Marks raises one point but Valin was caught doing pretty shady stuff in the past and by shady I mean stealing.

[tube fan]

Marks made the claim about Bush in the last two years. Bush is clearly the worst president at least back to Hoover, and perhaps the worst president ever. Yes, you might be a rightwing nut job AND hold other correct opinions, but in this case I am skeptical. Clearly Marks has a major emotional problem if you look at his posts in the Dunlavy tweeter thread. But then, the heroine of the right wing, Ayn Rand, found much to like in a horrible serial killer (google Ayn Rand and the serial killer). Yes, Ayn MIGHT be correct in her political/economic rants, despite her infatuation with a monster.

[Feanor]

Marks made the claim about Bush in the last two years. Bush is clearly the worst president at least back to Hoover, and perhaps the worst president ever. Yes, you might be a rightwing nut job AND hold other correct opinions, but in this case I am skeptical. Clearly Marks has a major emotional problem if you look at his posts in the Dunlavy tweeter thread. But then, the heroine of the right wing, Ayn Rand, found much to like in a horrible serial killer (google Ayn Rand and the serial killer). Yes, Ayn MIGHT be correct in her political/economic rants, despite her infatuation with a monster.
Since we're on the topic, and speaking as an "unbiased" outside observer, I'd say the George W. is categorically the worst president in the last 100 years. He has done harm to the American nation and, especially, harm the US's foreign reputation the may be irreparable in the medium term.

I've heard, (have yet to checked), that Alan Greenspan was an admirer of Ayn Rand and actually knew her in his younger days. Greenspan was the darling of the multiple administrations and, I'd say, the author of the extreme easy consumer credit that artificially sustained the US economy and masked its vulnerability for over a decade. Greenspan also endorsed the weakening of regulation of banks that lead directly to the 2007-8 "Great Recession". Greenspan, to his credit, frankly admitted that he had been wrong to believe in the inerrancy of competition and unregulated markets.

[tube fan]

Unfortunately, many of the newly elected Republicans are even more extreme admirers of unregulated markets and of Ayn Rand (Rand Paul is even named after the nutty Ayn). Ayn hated average people, especially average poor people. If you look at the Republican budget, it doubles down by giving another huge cut (from 35 to 25 %) in taxes for the rich and cutting parts of the budget that go to average or poor people. They want to end environmental controls, child labor laws, and labor unions. Back to the 19th or 18th century!

[Feanor]

Unfortunately, many of the newly elected Republicans are even more extreme admirers of unregulated markets and of Ayn Rand (Rand Paul is even named after the nutty Ayn). Ayn hated average people, especially average poor people. If you look at the Republican budget, it doubles down by giving another huge cut (from 35 to 25 %) in taxes for the rich and cutting parts of the budget that go to average or poor people. They want to end environmental controls, child labor laws, and labor unions. Back to the 19th or 18th century!
Teaparty followers are mostly ordinary people, not Randists. Understandably they are fearful for the end of the American Dream. At the same time they believe in the American myth of rugged individualism and limitless opportunity. Many are old enough to remember the 50s and 60s when everyone's standard of living was improving and we all felt our kids would be better off than we were.

In fact the 50s and 60s were an era of strong growth (but modest innovation). But also a time when larger corporations were constrained in they power by powerful labor unions, strong governmental and extra-governmental regulations, emerging public support programs like Medicare -- and very high marginal tax rates on the rich.

Teapartiy folks are mostly naive innocents who are being sold the cynical, right-wing, Randis doctrine that the best way to encourage investment and expand jobs is to "bribe the rich" (my term).

It isn't true. In the first place US corportion are currently sitting on as much as $4 trillion in cash that they aren't investing. Partly that's because they aren't confident that consumers will be able to buy the products of new investment -- but where are the middle class consumers, with no jobs or reduced pay, to get they money to spend? Secondly, the rich can do lots things with tax savings besides investing in the domestic ecomony, viz. saving, buying existing production facilites (thereby bloating market capitalizations), speculation (driving up prices and causing market bubbles), and of course, investing in foreign economies.

[RGA]

I don't see the problem with John Marks - he reviewed a Dunlavey he has a ton of experience. A lot of people certainly agree with Marks on his comparison of Dunlavey to Duntech so that is nothing really new.

Now I don't know if Dunlavey was charging the same as Duntech but it is clear that Dunlavey didn't view parts quality as important to sound reproduction - drivers, cables, and one can then assume caps, resisters etc. To me the parts matter - the design of the cabinet and quality of materials. Marks pointed out they were inferior to Duntech and people got on him. Even though Dunlavy made Duntech so he clearly has no axe to grind as he continues to regard Duntech highly. I know a dealer who carried Duntech, heard Dunlavy speakers and then dropped the line disappointed at how bad they sounded. I have only heard one Dunlavy speaker years back and I hated the artifical treble response. They went under which often happens when the maker doesn't believe that good quality parts are important.

I am not seeing anything nutty in any of these posts

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=speakers&n=304935&highlight=dunlavy+John+Marks&r=&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fforum%3Dwatercool er%26searchtext%3DCurious%2BSchiavo

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=speakers&n=304937&highlight=dunlavy+John+Marks&r=&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fforum%3Dwatercool er%26searchtext%3DCurious%2BSchiavo

"Audiophiles claim all day long and twice as much on the weekends that there aren't enough "negative" reviews, but when one is called to their attention and it hits a little too close to home, out come the insults and the cheap psychiatry.

So, if you want to respond (I don't mind if you don't) forget about me, and just explain why Mark Wilder and Scott Hull and Bob Ludwig and so many others declined to ditch Duntech for Dunlavy. Duntech was a better speaker, period."

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=speakers&n=304958&highlight=dunlavy+John+Marks&r=&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fforum%3Dwatercool er%26searchtext%3DCurious%2BSchiavo

This is not to say I agree with his perception on the sound - he has a "recording studio" sound preference and I find most of these kinds of speakers not to be something I can relax to on home listening - at least some of the time. Although i do like some of the speakers he likes like Usher and Harbeth and some of the Wilsons.

The Duntech speaker he likes had a $21,000 retail price back in the day so he perhaps is unfairly comparing a less expensive speaker.

I'm more of a fan of the High efficiency Set based systems and JM prefers the big harder to drive types. But this is audio opinion - really doesn't have anything to do with what was going on at TAS and the way they conduct business.

[tube fan]

Really RGA? Someone asks about replacing a tweeter on a Dunlavy SCIV speaker, and, out of the blue, Marks goes on a rant about the quality of the speakers.

BTW, the Dunlavy SCIV speaker was both Stereophile's speaker of the year and their overall product of the year for 1994. JA's measurements of the speaker beat all others he had measured except for the Quad 63, which the Dunlavy equalled. Both JA and Robert Deutsch loved the sound produced by the Dunlavy. Robert Deutsch bought the Dunlavy speakers (important to me, if not to anyone else). SS of TAS still owns the SC-IV, and TTT of this site still owns them. If you actually read Mark's posts on the Dunlavy speaker, you see a very unbalanced, overly emotional response to someone only asking about a replacement tweeter. Also, many people have made the exact same criticisms of the Audio Note speakers as Marks made to the Dunlavy: cheap parts relative to the cost. The Dunlavy, of course, measures much better than any of the Audio Note speakers. I don't put much faith in JA's measurements, but, I own a pair of Dunlavy SC-IVs, and they compare to anything I heard at the CAS. Yes, I loved the Audio Note E; yes, I loved the $15,000 Teresonic speaker. They might be better than the Dunlavy, but I would have to do a blind test to determine that.

[RGA]

Really RGA? Someone asks about replacing a tweeter on a Dunlavy SCIV speaker, and, out of the blue, Marks goes on a rant about the quality of the speakers.

BTW, the Dunlavy SCIV speaker was both Stereophile's speaker of the year and their overall product of the year for 1994. JA's measurements of the speaker beat all others he had measured except for the Quad 63, which the Dunlavy equalled. Both JA and Robert Deutsch loved the sound produced by the Dunlavy. Robert Deutsch bought the Dunlavy speakers (important to me, if not to anyone else). SS of TAS still owns the SC-IV, and TTT of this site still owns them. If you actually read Mark's posts on the Dunlavy speaker, you see a very unbalanced, overly emotional response to someone only asking about a replacement tweeter. Also, many people have made the exact same criticisms of the Audio Note speakers as Marks made to the Dunlavy: cheap parts relative to the cost. The Dunlavy, of course, measures much better than any of the Audio Note speakers. I don't put much faith in JA's measurements, but, I own a pair of Dunlavy SC-IVs, and they compare to anything I heard at the CAS. Yes, I loved the Audio Note E; yes, I loved the $15,000 Teresonic speaker. They might be better than the Dunlavy, but I would have to do a blind test to determine that.

Frankly I don't have a dog in this hunt. I have no idea whether Marks has an axe to grind but when I have read him he seems to be quite forthright in his opinions and at least he has some. Stereophile did hire him as well - the guy knows his stuff. And his opinions on Sugden are bang on IME.

It appears marks made one comment and then people were attacking him and he kept repying. That doesn't really mean he was going after them - he was asked to expand or defend and he did. i may not agree with the guy on Dunlavy - maybe I would, I don't think Bush is a good president (either Bush), but again that doesn't mean he is wrong about TAS. That magazine CLEARLY has ethical issues and some stuff they like and don't like that to me is completely wrong.

Rolex at $5000 tells worse time than a $50 Timex. Wilson gets ragged on for their cabinet quality. Audio Note - well it only uses two drivers. As if a speaker that has 6 drivers each costing $5 in much cheaper MDF cabinetry is somehow better value but many people shop with their eyes. it's bigger has bigger drivers therefore it's better. So I get what you're saying about the way people jusdge size shape and number of drivers.

[tube fan]

Well, the Dunlavys are quite large (my Fulton Js are much larger by volume as they are very wide). At the 2010 CAS I was shocked at the small speakers selling for a fortune. And, yes, I was NOT shocked at their lack of true bass. And, yes, the small Audio Note speaker produced great bass (and that via my usually hated digital). I am going to the 2111 CAS and hope Audio Note brings a turntable. BTW, I heard the Audio Note J driven by the original Audio Note Ongaku. Despite horrible measurements, the Japanese amp produced heavenly music. HEAVENLY! Not, unfortunately in my price range. The AN Jinro at a mere $27,000 is (barely) in my price range.

[RGA]

Well, the Dunlavys are quite large (my Fulton Js are much larger by volume as they are very wide). At the 2010 CAS I was shocked at the small speakers selling for a fortune. And, yes, I was NOT shocked at their lack of true bass. And, yes, the small Audio Note speaker produced great bass (and that via my usually hated digital). I am going to the 2111 CAS and hope Audio Note brings a turntable. BTW, I heard the Audio Note J driven by the original Audio Note Ongaku. Despite horrible measurements, the Japanese amp produced heavenly music. HEAVENLY! Not, unfortunately in my price range. The AN Jinro at a mere $27,000 is (barely) in my price range.

Well I want someone to convince Peter to make an Audio Note version of the original Snell Type A. The way AN took the Snells up a few leagues - I want to hear them do this with the A. That speaker was the "big bass" model of the originals. They have been working on a SET powered subwoofer. That was about 7 years ago but I would like to see what they can do with that. 845 tubes. Not that I could ever afford it but it is interesting.

As a turntable guy - I am interested in seeing the new turntables they've been working on. They have some middle ground table between my systemdeckII inspired TT2 and the Voyd Reference three motor. Hopefully something most average folks can afford.