Active Vs. Passive speakers.

[Mr Peabody]

K-High, have you heard the C1's? If not, you need to in order to see if that is what you are looking for. If you don't like that combo then you might want to look for different electronics. I've not heard Krell any better than with Dynaudio. The combo is even better than Krell's own speakers. It's like this combo is the epitomy of that fast dynamic sound with hard hitting bass.. If you aren't into what you are hearing from Krell/Dyn then it's time to think about a new direction.

I am a big Martin Logan fan and would probably like other electrostats if I heard any but I also like Krell, I don't like them together. Tubes with electrostats I have found to be a magical presentation. It's also a trade off as the sound is quite a bit different than a Krell/Dyn sound. Electrostats are also quite a bit different sounding than Maggies.

As far as Conrad Johnson that's where I ended up in my main system after Krell. The more expensive CJ is very good, not giving up much in the control and detail to similar priced solid state and bettering it in macro/micro dynamics. I find CJ very musical allowing the listener to have a sense of pace and rhythm to the music I haven't heard with anything else. Some of the older CJ gear sweetens things too much. An excellent place between tubes and solid state is Conrad Johnson's Composite Triode gear.
http://www.conradjohnson.com/It_just...-products.html

It does sound like if possible some listening sessions with other systems are in order.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It depends on the music you like and I am leary on recommending some speakers because I'm not a big fan of big powerful amps like the Krell either.

Richard, I am curious as to why you don't like powerful amps. I know it is a matter of choice, but is it a technical thing?

The only thing I can suggest is to try something completely different. A SET amplifier with Teresonic Single Driver Lowther speakers ($10k - $14k). Why? Because they have perfect coherence in the midrange and they have good bass - not rock bass but nice bass for stand up bass - probably around 30hz but not the higher impact of the Gallo - though the Teresonics sound nicer and smoother than the Gallo 3.5 (no doubt aided by a much better front end). I always recommend it but that's because it has few peers - the Audio Note J or E (your room size the E would be better - but you need corners) - they don't like Solid state amplifiers however so while they're only $7,600 for the E/Spe HE - you would have to sell the Krells and lose money. There are others like the Acoustic Zen but they're not quite as open as a good panel - but they have more macro abilities.

The thing to do is to wait and audition and don't judge it on looks or advertising or being "different."

You have mentioned the Gallo 3.5 several times, and the sound characteristic that you describe about them makes me so curious that I am looking for a dealer in my area(or areas) to give them a listen. I have never been a lover of two channel systems because that is all they can do is two channels, but it might no be a bad idea to put one together and see if I can live with it.

My analogy is this. Most poor boxed speakers are like looking through a muddy window over a picturesque landscape. You can tell you're looking through a window because you can see all the dirt. (hence some boxes sound muddy or overly resonant). An average panel has a nice clean window that you can see and none of the dirt but some of the glass is rippled and something is not quite right and it is annoying but not dirty. A great panel is a beautiful clean big astoundingly clear (as clear as it gets) window that lets you see the landscape in all its glory without a spec of dirt. Truly amazing window view.

What a perfect description of the two different technologies, and they agree with my own. I would also add that panels as clean and clear as they sound, also cannot reproduce a large orchestra with full dynamics without giving up the ghost, and that is why almost no studio in the world uses them as monitors. Panels are one show speakers IMO. If it is not classical or small scale, then a panel is out of the question.

The best boxes - puts you onto the balcony - forget the stupid window - you are there feeling the breeze, smelling the fir trees, feeling the hot sun on your face. The pressure of the instrument in space where you can practically feel the air pushing past you.

This is exactly what I get from my Dunlavy SCV system, my PMC system, and the speakers in my signature. They just move out of the way, and let the music or soundtrack shine.(or not shine!)

I highly recommend that you spend your money and go to the audio show in Colorado - RMAF Rocky Mountain Audio Show - or perhaps CES in Jan 2011. For the price of a flight, a 4 night stay in a hotel and choosing cheap hotels you can do this for less than $1,500. Yes you could buy a nice component for that but in reality that money will save you a bucket later on in upgrades.

I would also recommend attending a all acoustic concert or two as well. There is nothing like having a true reference point to strive for when picking your speakers.

I and others can throw out preferences but in the end nothing replaces your experiences. I post my favorites at given prices - I prefer speakers that are comfortable with rock as they are with classical. I think some of the issue is that bass depth and impact is mastingly interpreted as distortion.

I totally agree with your last sentence. However I think the lack of bass depth and impact is also a distortion if your speaker cannot do it when it is called for in the music or soundtrack.

I sure do like your perspective on speakers, I really do! It is like a breath of fresh air.

[RGA]

Sir T

The Gallo gear can be purchased in home theater or surround recording studio versions. Have not hear those so I can't really say.

As for preferring SET - well the SET makers will trot out a list of why they're better sounding in a technical sense but the arguments are challenged immediately. Peter Qvortrup of Audio Note one of if not the largest manufacturer of SET amplifiers points to negative feedback which to him is an issue over harmonic and non-harmonic distortion which leads to time base distortion. Feedback is an increase of time base distortion and the higher the damping factor which is usually larger in bigger power amps the more of it there is and the worse the timing of the system. It defeats the standard measurements and looks nice but not according to their measurements. http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/...feedback.shtml

Stereophile's measuring guru Martin Colloms wrote about this years ago and pointed out that even the TOP SS amp makers in the business in a blind listening session chose a no negative feedback tube amp for 1/10 the price of their stuff when listening http://stereophile.com/reference/70/

For me it comes down purely to the sound. SS amplifiers to me have the same effect as my panel argument - the best SS has a two dimensionality to it and the window is far clearer with a Krell or Bryston than Pioneer but the better SETS have the organic real world three dimensional you are there sensation of being on the balcony.

I think the issue with panels is that many makers acknowledged the failing by making hybrids. Sure a HUGE panel can have some bass but they are not domestically feasible for most people. I do not buy they are better in the midrange or treble either. Yes the diaphram is lighter and moves faster and has less resonance - but they also don't push air to create dynamic shadings or scale - so for me it sounds a little washed out. I do get their appeal - but they typically don't have enough grunt for me to take them seriously. King Sound at their prices are an exception because they do have respectable bass and drive and a very clean sound. $6,000 is for what you get terrific sound for the buck. But $10k- $20k - Many boxes offer everything the panels excel at and also big dynamics and quality bass in a smaller footprint.

The King Sound Prince II is the only panel that I have heard that I would buy. And as great as it is - I would not trade my $5k retail speakers straight up for them.

[K-High-Fi]

Thank you all for great comments. To my best knowledge: electronic crossover is much better than passive and probably one main feature in some active speaker, but some manufactures insist a speaker without crossover is better. Is it true? And is Teresonic Magus mini monitor have good bass and soundstage?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir T

The Gallo gear can be purchased in home theater or surround recording studio versions. Have not hear those so I can't really say.

As for preferring SET - well the SET makers will trot out a list of why they're better sounding in a technical sense but the arguments are challenged immediately. Peter Qvortrup of Audio Note one of if not the largest manufacturer of SET amplifiers points to negative feedback which to him is an issue over harmonic and non-harmonic distortion which leads to time base distortion. Feedback is an increase of time base distortion and the higher the damping factor which is usually larger in bigger power amps the more of it there is and the worse the timing of the system. It defeats the standard measurements and looks nice but not according to their measurements. http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/...feedback.shtml

Stereophile's measuring guru Martin Colloms wrote about this years ago and pointed out that even the TOP SS amp makers in the business in a blind listening session chose a no negative feedback tube amp for 1/10 the price of their stuff when listening http://stereophile.com/reference/70/

For me it comes down purely to the sound. SS amplifiers to me have the same effect as my panel argument - the best SS has a two dimensionality to it and the window is far clearer with a Krell or Bryston than Pioneer but the better SETS have the organic real world three dimensional you are there sensation of being on the balcony.

I think the issue with panels is that many makers acknowledged the failing by making hybrids. Sure a HUGE panel can have some bass but they are not domestically feasible for most people. I do not buy they are better in the midrange or treble either. Yes the diaphram is lighter and moves faster and has less resonance - but they also don't push air to create dynamic shadings or scale - so for me it sounds a little washed out. I do get their appeal - but they typically don't have enough grunt for me to take them seriously. King Sound at their prices are an exception because they do have respectable bass and drive and a very clean sound. $6,000 is for what you get terrific sound for the buck. But $10k- $20k - Many boxes offer everything the panels excel at and also big dynamics and quality bass in a smaller footprint.

The King Sound Prince II is the only panel that I have heard that I would buy. And as great as it is - I would not trade my $5k retail speakers straight up for them.

Richard,
Thank you for the very thorough and well thought out answer. It is refreshing to see a person come to a conclusion based on educating themselves, instead of the typical knee jerk, gut based, overly emotional responses I usually see around here. I actually learned something from it. Bryston amps are my choice of amps for all of my mixing and listening studios and several of my hometheaters as well. I love their neutrality, though I must admit I wouldn't have ever thought they were two deminsional in their presentation.

[klif570]

Richard,
Thank you for the very thorough and well thought out answer. It is refreshing to see a person come to a conclusion based on educating themselves, instead of the typical knee jerk, gut based, overly emotional responses I usually see around here.

Oh, more BS from you, right? After calling everyone uneducated and retarded in your Blu Ray thread you come here to cry how we are emotional?

Ok, how about I stir something for you.. right from your Blu Ray thread - Sir Terrence the Terrible: ''Any person who is still looking for a DVD, and dedicated CD player in a Blu ray world where all three can be played on the same machine is obviously so behind the curve they can easily be considered technologically retarded.''


And you call us retarded? Thanks, Terrence, you've made my day!

[Mr Peabody]

K-High, if one manufacturer had the "right" answer, or best way, to do something, they'd all do it that way. Manufacturer's don't agree on the best way, nor will we. It's good to get opinions on maybe getting a direction but at some point you'll have to do some listening and decide where you stand.

Those are some strong words there Sir T. Blu-ray machines may play all those formats but I don't agree one will do it to an audio disc's optimum performance. I will think about changing my mind when a BDP plays a CD that sounds better than my T+A. Or, when we see audio reviewers start using BDP's for their reference playback machine for audio.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Those are some strong words there Sir T. Blu-ray machines may play all those formats but I don't agree one will do it to an audio disc's optimum performance. I will think about changing my mind when a BDP plays a CD that sounds better than my T+A. Or, when we see audio reviewers start using BDP's for their reference playback machine for audio.

My P, check this out.

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PU...ayers/BDP-09FD

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PU....BDP-23FD.Kuro

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PU....BDP-05FD.Kuro

All of these players have received excellent reviews on their Blu ray, CD, and DVD playback, so my words are not all that strong, but do reflect that there are Blu ray players out there that do it all well.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Oh, more BS from you, right? After calling everyone uneducated and retarded in your Blu Ray thread you come here to cry how we are emotional?

Ok, how about I stir something for you.. right from your Blu Ray thread - Sir Terrence the Terrible: ''Any person who is still looking for a DVD, and dedicated CD player in a Blu ray world where all three can be played on the same machine is obviously so behind the curve they can easily be considered technologically retarded.''


And you call us retarded? Thanks, Terrence, you've made my day!

You got this all wrong ding bat, I didn't call anyone but you technologically retarded. I wasn't talking to everyone, I was talking to YOU!

And can you tell my how in the hell we got from complimenting somebody for actually doing research and then drawing conclusions to crying? Your departure from reality is universe wide...really.

I respect Richard opinion, I do not respect yours until you get quite a bit more educated in this hobby. Plain and simple.

[RGA]

Richard,
Thank you for the very thorough and well thought out answer. It is refreshing to see a person come to a conclusion based on educating themselves, instead of the typical knee jerk, gut based, overly emotional responses I usually see around here. I actually learned something from it. Bryston amps are my choice of amps for all of my mixing and listening studios and several of my hometheaters as well. I love their neutrality, though I must admit I wouldn't have ever thought they were two deminsional in their presentation.

Yes i get pounded for my views on bryston but bryston was the company that got me started in going down the audiophile road. I brought home a Bryston 3b for a long weekend and hooked it up to my Flagship Pioneer Elite receiver. I was running 95db sensitive Horn Wharfedale Vanguards (based on and an improved version of the now classic E-70) and these are dead easy to drive speakers. The Pioneer Elite had drop jaw terrific specs and at the time was said to be one of the better receivers around.

The Bryston dealer knew my speakers and at that time I was considering PMC loudspeakers because the Wharfedales sound wooly and bloated and slow. He said - don't trade the Wharfedale for the TB1s because I'd miss the full range sound. Take home the Bryston to try.

I brought it home and it destroyed the receiver. Despite the receiver's claimed 125 watts per channel RMS with .00025% THD and discrete amps etc - the 120 watt bryston had unbelievable grip and had air and all the other wonderful stuff. The speakers stayed the amp was sold off.

For a long time I had Bryston and PMC as a goal - and I still feel they're best suited together - they have a high impact sort of sound - a precise sound which is no doubt why they have great appeal in the studio. But home speakers are supposed to be more for relaxation and not analyzing all the time. And it's so hard to put that into words. On drums for instance the high impact thwack and cymbals a high impact system is nice - but when it comes to softer vocals Sarah McLachlan, Loreena McKennitt Jackson Browne and guitar strings it's where the Bryston/PMC falls down.

What was really surprising for me when i first heard a SET amp (The Audio Note Meishu) it was a big silver box and I was fortunate at that time not to know who Audio Note was, or that it was even a tube amp. It was in a cabinet on the bottom shelf and it just looks like a monster Krell or something. I was hearing acoustic instruments with by far the best transient and decay behaviour I had ever heard from an audio system over 20 years. A couple in the next section of the store who could hear it but not see it came in to hear the musician and was equally floored. The salespeople played some music of thunderous ability and I played a Beethoven piano Sonata and again piano was just so shockingly right. This is something I have heard from other brands SE amplifiers too so it's not brand specific necessarily either.

Big bass - powerful tight controlled etc. So then I asked about the watts given the Krell sized amp - answer - 8 watts. Where is the subwoofer that is providing the bass with those two standmounts with mediocre sized 8 inch woofers. Oh there is none. That changed my entire view of the audio industry, forum advice magazine advice and a whole lot of other things. And I am pleased that some recording studios have begun to use tubes and these kinds of speakers.

[astrallite]

Active speakers like studio monitors are almost exclusively soft-dome designs.

Also they are designed specifically for near-field listening; the high frequency response is intentionally and aggressively rolled off off-axis to avoid fatigue.

[K-High-Fi]

Thank you very much to all for wonderful opinion, little discussion help good enough learning systems and components match. From good comments here it appear using studio monitor in home not suitable! I also learned more from Harbeth web that studio monitoring has high output up to 130 db, which is very dangerous to our health. 85 db is low enough for home use in longer period without any hazard. I believe this is exactly what I want to learn and probably good for everyone know this. I use to see speaker in store, listen for a little time, then buying it! Without considering other important facts or details because we lack the knowledge and recourses! Hence most the time I end up with unhappy results: not the sound I want, and wasting time and money!

I had some bad experience with some systems before like B&O speakers, which cost high, later I learned most money I paid goes to decoration design and little for the sound performance. Bose 901 sounded phenomenal at store (great highs and lows and dynamic), but later I felt sounded less perfect because most frequencies are smeared from back reflection design also the woofers made from paper! Stereophile have great review for 901 but I wish I read it before purchasing. MG-20 is another example but least problem; need very big room, very strong/dynamic amp, and good wall reflection. But gives very refine sound from any source.

Again thank you very much to all.

Here are some helpful links I found:

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/s...BBC-connection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

[klif570]

You got this all wrong ding bat, I didn't call anyone but you technologically retarded. I wasn't talking to everyone, I was talking to YOU!

Tut tut.. your own words..

Sir Terrence the Terrible: ''Any person who is still looking for a DVD, and dedicated CD player in a Blu ray world where all three can be played on the same machine is obviously so behind the curve they can easily be considered technologically retarded.''

Haha.. I'll make sure my friends see this, we'll have a blast!

[E-Stat]

Haha.. I'll make sure my friends see this, we'll have a blast!'

Such makes sense when one is primarily a videophile using the unit as a transport only and is content with the quality of the processor's DAC for music output. Naturally, that excludes SACD which his Oppo is capable of delivering but only in the analog domain (which is the source of the improvements in the SE version). Obviously, Oppo realized their basic DAC remained in the budget camp sonically.

rw

[hifitommy]

audio engine makes some nice little affordable designs. perhaps better integrated in sound than the adam. the review in tas of the adam brings out their incoherencies. that is what was wrong with the ess amt1s of old.

air motion transformers can be made big enough for mids, why doesnt someone provide us with those?

[RGA]

Sir Terrance

To continue with the Feedback idea - Peter Qvortrup discusses it at about the 3:15 mark and continues on with the big problem of feedback http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEUW3Y7IZRA

[paulspencer]

Quite a few people on the StereoNet forum are getting Adam active speakers. I would say they are for some and not for others. Their build quality is exceptional. I'd say the sound is precise and perhaps a little brigher than some prefer. Given that they are active, I expect they could become more mellow by turning down the treble slightly. It can make a surprising difference. I know someone who went from Dynaudio Confidence to one of the Adam speakers. To my ears the Dynaudio speakers were "just right." Ultimately you have to hear them for yourself.

I'm a fan of active speakers. Active crossovers allow the full potential of a driver to be realised. You can do things that just aren't possible any other way. I had a demo of a digital active crossover system (DEQX) of some speakers using the Vifa Ring Radiator. Everyone agreed that it sounded best with a low 1.2k crossover point. With a passive crossover it's common to cross 3rd order @ 2.8k or this tweeter can sound harsh. But with the active crossover and very steep slopes, it was happy going low. Choices with active speakers are limited as the trend is for passive speakers.

One advantage not often realised is that if one prefers valve amps, active could well be the way to go. Active is much a more efficient way of using amplifier power. You can replace a 200w amp driving passive speakers with lower powered amps when running active. A 3 way active speaker may mean the tweeter amp needs 10% of the power, 40% for the mid and 50% for the woofer. You could probably replace that 200w amp with 100w for the bass, 50w for the mid and 15w for the mid.

[K-High-Fi]

Thank you Paulancer for your input. I toke RGA advice and lucky I found dealer have Cary tube integrated preamp/amp connected to Klipsch RF-83 speaker. This first time I heard tube, however still my MG-20 driven by Krell FPB or KAV-500 sounded better generally, especially high and laws are extended, but I have to admit: tube sound VERY special and clean, very musical too, I would assume MG-20 would sound a lot better with the tube than SS. however, one thing I noticed the Krell FPB have some chemistry of Tube, very musical and none fatiguing, but not the same as tube I think. Now I want to buy phono tube box for my Project 9.1 . I thought would be nice to share some experience here.

Thank you RGA very much and to all brining Tube idea.

[RGA]

Unfortunately I don't think Klipsch RF 83 is a very good loudspeaker - it's good for the price but it's got problems. Cary doesn't have much drive IMO. That was the problem at CES - They were driving Marten speakers but couldn't muster the low end grunt.

Active speakers in theory have the advantage of tighter control over drivers - but that doesn't make it musically satisfying. I have heard the big actives from PMC and ATC. I would stick to an 8 watt SE tube and efficient speakers. It will depend on taste - I would take the PMC and ATC set-ups for high impact home theater - not for music. But that is a preference I realize.

[K-High-Fi]

Yes I noticed the bass somehow missing when I played Sound Tracks for Erich Kunzel track Imperial march (empire strikes back), the dealer told me because from Klipsch not Cary! Hmm, I also noticed need certain spot to hear best bass from it.

Now im interested

I have limited source for tube brands, any suggesting good Tube amp brands and speakers match as well. Also, all my systems are SS, if I want to upgrade shall I go with tube amp and keep SS preamp or vice versa? My listening mostly Orchestra, soundtracks, pops, little rock.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yes i get pounded for my views on bryston but bryston was the company that got me started in going down the audiophile road. I brought home a Bryston 3b for a long weekend and hooked it up to my Flagship Pioneer Elite receiver. I was running 95db sensitive Horn Wharfedale Vanguards (based on and an improved version of the now classic E-70) and these are dead easy to drive speakers. The Pioneer Elite had drop jaw terrific specs and at the time was said to be one of the better receivers around.

The Bryston dealer knew my speakers and at that time I was considering PMC loudspeakers because the Wharfedales sound wooly and bloated and slow. He said - don't trade the Wharfedale for the TB1s because I'd miss the full range sound. Take home the Bryston to try.

Interesting that you brought up the PMC/Bryston combo. My listening/tracking room uses this combination, and it has excellent system synergy, as if they were meant to work together. I upgraded from the 7B-SST to the 28B-SST and the improvement was pretty dramatic. I also got my hands on a California Audio Labs custom CL-2500 which is a discrete mono amp based off of the CL-2500 MCA paired with the Dunlavy SCV's(7 of them). This amp sounded better to my ears than the CL-2500 MCA.

I brought it home and it destroyed the receiver. Despite the receiver's claimed 125 watts per channel RMS with .00025% THD and discrete amps etc - the 120 watt bryston had unbelievable grip and had air and all the other wonderful stuff. The speakers stayed the amp was sold off.

For a long time I had Bryston and PMC as a goal - and I still feel they're best suited together - they have a high impact sort of sound - a precise sound which is no doubt why they have great appeal in the studio. But home speakers are supposed to be more for relaxation and not analyzing all the time. And it's so hard to put that into words. On drums for instance the high impact thwack and cymbals a high impact system is nice - but when it comes to softer vocals Sarah McLachlan, Loreena McKennitt Jackson Browne and guitar strings it's where the Bryston/PMC falls down.

That particular amp does not sound that good at lower volume levels. The 28B-SST is much better with soft and delicate stuff than the 3B and 7B are. Subtle was not their strong suit.

What was really surprising for me when i first heard a SET amp (The Audio Note Meishu) it was a big silver box and I was fortunate at that time not to know who Audio Note was, or that it was even a tube amp. It was in a cabinet on the bottom shelf and it just looks like a monster Krell or something. I was hearing acoustic instruments with by far the best transient and decay behaviour I had ever heard from an audio system over 20 years. A couple in the next section of the store who could hear it but not see it came in to hear the musician and was equally floored. The salespeople played some music of thunderous ability and I played a Beethoven piano Sonata and again piano was just so shockingly right. This is something I have heard from other brands SE amplifiers too so it's not brand specific necessarily either.

Big bass - powerful tight controlled etc. So then I asked about the watts given the Krell sized amp - answer - 8 watts. Where is the subwoofer that is providing the bass with those two standmounts with mediocre sized 8 inch woofers. Oh there is none. That changed my entire view of the audio industry, forum advice magazine advice and a whole lot of other things. And I am pleased that some recording studios have begun to use tubes and these kinds of speakers.

I just love when I see things and have an expectation, and that expectation is blown out of the water in a positive way. That was my experience with the Cerwin Vega speakers. The sound was not high end, but it was natural, powerful, full, and satisfying on many levels.

Tube amps have never grown on me even though when combined with certain speakers they sound pretty darn good.

[Mr Peabody]

K-High, when beginning with tubes most add a tube preamp to get their character but stick with solid state power for the control and slam.

For me personally I wasn't satisfied with the sound until I had an entire tube chain. I now have a solid state CD player and believe that's the way to go in sources if running tubes in the amplification. But that could be due to personal preference or synergy.

Adding a tube DAC or CD Player may be a way to introduce the sound into your system as well.

[RGA]

Yes I noticed the bass somehow missing when I played Sound Tracks for Erich Kunzel track Imperial march (empire strikes back), the dealer told me because from Klipsch not Cary! Hmm, I also noticed need certain spot to hear best bass from it.

Now im interested

I have limited source for tube brands, any suggesting good Tube amp brands and speakers match as well. Also, all my systems are SS, if I want to upgrade shall I go with tube amp and keep SS preamp or vice versa? My listening mostly Orchestra, soundtracks, pops, little rock.

The thing with tube amps is they're not created equally and a lot of it comes down to the transformers. Audiofederation is one of the biggest high end dealers in the US and they carry Audio Note and marten loudspeakers and they dislike the Cary amps on the Marten's but Audio Note has little trouble driving them - it comes down to power supply and the bigger AN amps have the kind of power transformers that often drive speakers they shouldn't be able to drive. But they also cost a helluva lot more than Cary so they "ought to." Cary tends to sound more like stereotypical tube amps - softer mushier and a little veiled - they sound really sweet and nice and everything but they miss out on the grunt factor.

Interestingly I have listened to the Klipsch reference line and prefer the small floorstander - the 72 I believe - I often prefer the middle model of such speaker lines because the biggest has more bass but often more resonances - but I didn't hear them with the best gear. Still the 72 seemed to me to have less problems.

[RGA]

Sir Terrence the Terrible

There are always exceptions - and I think the toughest thing is to change track once you have your mind set on a given technology - and that includes me. CES 2010 was nice because I found numerous exceptions to my belief systems - enough to not get locked in on approaches. Though I still noted that the very best rooms used tube front ends and it says much when most of the rooms were using tube front ends - even rooms with speakers that you would be "surprised" would use a tube amp.

I don't love the stereotypes that tubes get - but must admit there are a LOT of tube amps that do sound mushy, veiled, dark, and lack openness and unfortunately those are the tube amps that seem to get more attention. I don't like the idea of trying to "fix" loudspeakers using amps as tone controls. And it's awfully hard to convince a PMC Bryston guy to go with tubes if they have heard mushy tubes like a Cary or Jolida which tend not to be able to generate the bottom end impact of the bigger SS amps.

I believe in the system approach - and with low powered tube designs you almost have to buy into the system synergy notion because SETS have such low power they simply can't drive every loudspeaker the way a massive Bryston can. So the only thing I can say is that it requires an audition.

This is a poster on AA who had top of the line Bryston/PMC $20k British pounds invested in it. And he brought home an entry level Audio Note system to try out. http://www.audioasylum.com/reviews/O...al/345133.html

I think it's critical that a tube design not sound thick or veiled - it needs to have the same treble openness and bass drive - and not very many tube systems muster it to a satisfactory level to convince SS guys to switch.

[Mr Peabody]

RGA, how does the Klipsch Reference line compare to the Heritage?