Peabody and New Speakers..

[frenchmon]

Harley I asked Peabody if the Dyns where better...this is what I asked.

Hey man...do you seriously think it was only a synergy problem with the Dyns and the CJ gear? You really think the Revel 52's are not a better speaker than your Dyns?

and he started of his email to me with these words.

No, the Revel are better than my t2.5's in every way I can think of....

Harley you may have miss understood him.

[Jack in Wilmington]

That makes them worse in my opinion.....they surely where not better...if so Peabody would not have changed. But whatever, I wont go down this road any more.

But remember Frenchie, we can take for example a pair of Canton Reference 3.2 speakers and plug them into 5 different guys systems and they're gonna sound different. It all depends on your associated equipment. That doesn't make them better or worse in my opinion, just not a good match.

[Ajani]

Harley I asked Peabody if the Dyns where better...this is what I asked.




and he started of his email to me with these words.



Harley you may have miss understood him.

That sounds more like what I'd expect...

I don't expect Mr Peabody to suddenly start bashing Dynaudio and Krell just because he prefers the sound of his new gear, as that would be out of character for him (and arguably hypocritical since he clearly enjoyed both brands for many years)...

However, persons like you and I, who were never Dyn fans, are free to express whatever views we want on Dynaudio...

[harley .guy07]

Like it is said it is in the mind of the listener. He likes what he has now so he is happy. Let it be and let him enjoy it. I am by no means going to say what is better to him and what is not that is totally up to him. But I will say that just because of this he does not dislike Dynaudio or anything like that. He just found something that matched better with his gear that he has sent a whole lot of money on and if I were where him would do the same thing.

[harley .guy07]

he said exactly that he thought that the Revel brought to the table what the Dynaudio could not with the equipment he is running. He by no means is not liking Dynaudio products he is just feeling the difference of a speaker that works better with his equipment. People should not be so quick to down other speakers or equipment just because someone finds synergy in their system. In my system and in jacks our Dynaudio's work well and give us what we want, that is because in our systems they have the synergy that they would not have with Mr. Peabody's. Like I said I thought my Dyn's sounded better in my setup than his because his setup was geared toward a different type of speaker. Not worse, Just different.

[frenchmon]

Ok...I have permission from Peabody to copy and paste what he wrote concerning the Revel/Dyns. I will leave out the parts that dont have to do with the speakers.

No, the Revel are better than my t2.5's in every way I can think of. The t2.5's had a bit more bass energy but at the cost of much low end detail. The Revel does have more drivers and a 3-way compared to a 2-way. ....... I'd have to hear side by side a comparable Dynaudio in price to the Revel but in a shoot out my bet would be on the Revel. I still like Dynaudio better than many brands but I have to admit in my opinion there are speakers that sound better. The F52's are amazing at how much they reveal while remaining nicely balanced doing it.

People comment about metal tweeters but the Revel's are nice, very good decay and not overly bright.

I share his opinion on everything he said about the Revels. I am a Canton speaker fan boy.....But those Revels are right up there on my list with the Cantons top line series of speakers....

When Peabody made the remark about the Revels remaining nicely balanced, seems he is now understanding my complaints to him about his t2.5's being much bigger in the lower ranges than the mids and upper ranges of the speakers....

[harley .guy07]

Well in my opinion speakers are like cars. Some people are corvette people and some are Porsche people and convincing them otherwise is just a waste of time about as much as this is since me and jack are sold on Dynaudio and you are on the Canton, Revel thing. I am not saying they are bad but I am not a fan of metal tweeters since I have very sensitive high frequency ears that get fatigued rather easily. Another point the Peabody made is that the price point of the two speakers were different with the Revels being way higher giving them an edge. I know he said even if he listened to $7000 Dynaudio's that match the price of the Revels that he would still bet of the Revels which is fine it is his opinion but it is not proven fact since it DID NOT happen that way. So it goes without saying until you get a $7000 dollar pair of Dyn's over there you won't know and that is not counting the fact that the Dyns would have to be powered by a front end with perfect synergy and so would the Revels. To many things to make a blanket statement that Revel is better than Dynaudio period when I have heard people compare the Dynaudio C1 to their big tower speakers and the C1 won the overall sound comparison and they are a standmount speaker. Anyway this argument will probably never end since everyone involved is sold on their opinion so I will leave it alone from this point since I have made my final statements about it.

[Hyfi]

Well in my opinion speakers are like cars. Some people are corvette people and some are Porsche people and convincing them otherwise is just a waste of time about as much as this is since me and jack are sold on Dynaudio and you are on the Canton, Revel thing. I am not saying they are bad but I am not a fan of metal tweeters since I have very sensitive high frequency ears that get fatigued rather easily. Another point the Peabody made is that the price point of the two speakers were different with the Revels being way higher giving them an edge. I know he said even if he listened to $7000 Dynaudio's that match the price of the Revels that he would still bet of the Revels which is fine it is his opinion but it is not proven fact since it DID NOT happen that way. So it goes without saying until you get a $7000 dollar pair of Dyn's over there you won't know and that is not counting the fact that the Dyns would have to be powered by a front end with perfect synergy and so would the Revels. To many things to make a blanket statement that Revel is better than Dynaudio period when I have heard people compare the Dynaudio C1 to their big tower speakers and the C1 won the overall sound comparison and they are a standmount speaker. Anyway this argument will probably never end since everyone involved is sold on their opinion so I will leave it alone from this point since I have made my final statements about it.

Almost every setup of Dynaudios I have heard they were driven with SS amps and not tubes. My SS amp drives my Danes better than my Hybrid amp.

[frenchmon]

Harley...I am not making remarks about all Dynaudio speakers...I am not generalizing here. I am speaking of the t2.5's Peabody has or I should say...had! Thats it. I did not mean to offend the Dynaudio owners

[Hyfi]

Harley...I am not making remarks about all Dynaudio speakers...I am not generalizing here. I am speaking of the t2.5's Peabody has or I should say...had! Thats it. I did not mean to offend the Dynaudio owners

So the bottom line is that Conrad Johnson just does not pair well with Dynaudio speakers. Lots of other gear pair up just fine with them or they would not be among some of the best speakers out there. Also you would be able to find them used all over the place, which is far from the truth. Most Dynaudio owners don't part with them once they are paired with gear that works well with them.

Maybe the focus should be that the CJ is the weak link here and not the Danes in Mr P's system. I'm sure with the wrong amp, he could get the new speakers to sound 'bad' just like the CJ-Dynaudio pairing was not up to snuff.

I also have issues with most metal tweeters. Even though I worked in machine shops for 25 years and have lost a little bit of high frequency hearing, 2 hours of metal tweeters at medium to high volume makes me want to turn it off.

Thats why there is chocolate and vanilla and strawberry and........

[Tarheel_]

sounds like a lot of crying around here....in his system and listening room Peabody says the Revels are better than the Dynaudio speakers. Period.

As a Revel owner and true fan of their speakers, i can admit there are other brands which sound better. Heck, i just heard a few in the last month or so.

Are you guys so tied to your speakers that you cannot image another speaker sounding superior? Geez...

[blackraven]

sounds like a lot of crying around here....in his system and listening room Peabody says the Revels are better than the Dynaudio speakers. Period.

As a Revel owner and true fan of their speakers, i can admit there are other brands which sound better. Heck, i just heard a few in the last month or so.

Are you guys so tied to your speakers that you cannot image another speaker sounding superior? Geez...

Well said TH. I think most people have a little bit of this problem-becoming jaded into thinking that your gear or a particular brand or type of speaker is the best. You want to believe that your gear is the best and why not? It is what sounded the best to you when you bought the gear. I think that the problem is that most of us don't have the ability to hear and see what is really out there.

[Hyfi]

Are you guys so tied to your speakers that you cannot image another speaker sounding superior? Geez...

I'm not. I chose my 82s over all other similar priced speakers I could audition at that time.

When I inherited my Clearfields (early Von Schwiekert), my views changed drastically as to what a good sounding speaker was, or should I say the compromise of lacking deep bass for awesome midrange.

If I had the money to burn, I would most likely get some pair of Von Schwiekerts.

Do I still like my Danes? Sure I do but most of the time the Clearfields are in my main system. Not much sense talking about them tho because nobody ever heard of them and they have not been in existence since the 90s.

Whenever people do get to hear them for the first time, they are amazed as I was. But when I'm in the mood for more bass, I roll the Danes back in for a while. When I want to change the sound completely, I switch my amp back and forth between the Stratos and the Counterpoint. Each amp makes each pair of speakers sound completely different.

No crying here or any ties to any one MFG. I like yourself pointed out the same thing, maybe CJ just doesn't pair well with the Danes in Mr Ps room.

[harley .guy07]

That was the whole point I was trying to make in the first place. CJ does not go well with DYNAUDIO period. That was it. The rest of the conversation was basically opinion through either research or experience or both. I was not offended at all I was just trying to point out that the combination of the components was the problem and not the components themselves in their own right. I really never thought that tubes should be paired with heavily crossed over dynamic driver speakers like the Dynaudio anyway for the most part do to their sensitivity and need for solid dynamic power to really make them do what they were built to do.

[frenchmon]

I dont want to get into another argument about Dyns versus Revels. And it is not my intention to offend any body... But I do know that Peabody loves his Dyns...he loves that bass to hit him in the chest. But he happened to hear what other speakers can do with the top end. While not falling out of love for his Dyns, thought that he would like to the bass and the good mids as well as more air up top....the thing he discovered his dyns did not offer. He wrestled with this thing for a long time. He went through a few brands of speakers to find what he wanted and I even told him he would have to spend very good coin to get a more balanced speaker with the thump in the bottom to satisfy him in the mids and upper ranges...which was a more balanced sound.

I've heard every speaker he listened to in his hunt. And the Revel was a clear winner. Though Peabody said he would have loved to hear the Canton Reference 3.2 , but why bother after we saw what the Revel can do. And besides the Canton Reference are more money...and being a huge fan of Canton speakers, I completely agree with Peabody....What the Revel do better than the t2.5 is give a more refind bottom end that's just as pronounced as the Dyns, deliever a more musical mid section that really boogies with more detail and pop... and a tweeter that has much more air and sparkle...the system is not to lively but its far from boring...every faze of the sound is equal and balanced. Great space between each instrument.

These are things I did not hear in the Dyns, or simply the Revel just did them much better. And the most obvious thing that the Revel did that I did not hear the Dyns do was not only did the Revel present a 3 denominational presentation, but they had a very dark and black back ground...the darkest back ground I have ever heard in any speaker. The dark back ground gave the effect of the speaker having great depth. It was like you could hear layers back in the speaker.

Am I saying that all Revels are better than all Dyns? I dont think so. But the bigger question I would like to have answered...is that the normal characteristics of the Dyn speaker? I don't know, but Hyfi has said he switches his speaker in and out when he wants deeper bass. This is what he has written...", or should I say the compromise of lacking deep bass for awesome midrange." and these "But when I'm in the mood for more bass, I roll the Danes back in for a while" What am I to make of such switching back and forth? I am led to believe that both pair of speakers only do either the bass great or the mid and upper ranges great and are not 3 D speakers at all.

I sure hope I don't get in trouble here, and I am not trying to start trouble or an argument. And if it turns into that I will not respond again. But I think that is the reason why Peabody decided to get new speakers...a good speaker that is balanced with 3D imaging.... the depth was a bonus...

...I have said it once, and will say it again....this is a fun hobby.

[Hyfi]

But I do know that Peabody loves his Dyns...he loves that bass to hit him in the chest. But he happened to hear what other speakers can do with the top end.

That is exactly how I feel about the Clearfields.

Am I saying that all Revels are better than all Dyns? I dont think so. But the bigger question I would like to have answered...is that the normal characteristics of the Dyn speaker? I don't know, but Hyfi has said he switches his speaker in and out when he wants deeper bass. This is what he has written...", or should I say the compromise of lacking deep bass for awesome midrange." and these "But when I'm in the mood for more bass, I roll the Danes back in for a while" What am I to make of such switching back and forth? I am led to believe that both pair of speakers only do either the bass great or the mid and upper ranges great and are not 3 D speakers at all.

.

The Clearfields have clear well defined, accurate bass...just not Dynaudio deep.

My Dynaudios just don't have the wide open midrange that the Clearfields have and I have been able to ignore the lack of deep bass, or I flip the sub on with the CFs and off with the Danes.

[Jack in Wilmington]

I dont want to get into another argument about Dyns versus Revels. And it is not my intention to offend any body... But I do know that Peabody loves his Dyns...he loves that bass to hit him in the chest. But he happened to hear what other speakers can do with the top end. While not falling out of love for his Dyns, thought that he would like to the bass and the good mids as well as more air up top....the thing he discovered his dyns did not offer. He wrestled with this thing for a long time. He went through a few brands of speakers to find what he wanted and I even told him he would have to spend very good coin to get a more balanced speaker with the thump in the bottom to satisfy him in the mids and upper ranges...which was a more balanced sound.

I've heard every speaker he listened to in his hunt. And the Revel was a clear winner. Though Peabody said he would have loved to hear the Canton Reference 3.2 , but why bother after we saw what the Revel can do. And besides the Canton Reference are more money...and being a huge fan of Canton speakers, I completely agree with Peabody....What the Revel do better than the t2.5 is give a more refind bottom end that's just as pronounced as the Dyns, deliever a more musical mid section that really boogies with more detail and pop... and a tweeter that has much more air and sparkle...the system is not to lively but its far from boring...every faze of the sound is equal and balanced. Great space between each instrument.

These are things I did not hear in the Dyns, or simply the Revel just did them much better. And the most obvious thing that the Revel did that I did not hear the Dyns do was not only did the Revel present a 3 denominational presentation, but they had a very dark and black back ground...the darkest back ground I have ever heard in any speaker. The dark back ground gave the effect of the speaker having great depth. It was like you could hear layers back in the speaker.

Am I saying that all Revels are better than all Dyns? I dont think so. But the bigger question I would like to have answered...is that the normal characteristics of the Dyn speaker? I don't know, but Hyfi has said he switches his speaker in and out when he wants deeper bass. This is what he has written...", or should I say the compromise of lacking deep bass for awesome midrange." and these "But when I'm in the mood for more bass, I roll the Danes back in for a while" What am I to make of such switching back and forth? I am led to believe that both pair of speakers only do either the bass great or the mid and upper ranges great and are not 3 D speakers at all.

I sure hope I don't get in trouble here, and I am not trying to start trouble or an argument. And if it turns into that I will not respond again. But I think that is the reason why Peabody decided to get new speakers...a good speaker that is balanced with 3D imaging.... the depth was a bonus...

...I have said it once, and will say it again....this is a fun hobby.

All right Frenchie. You asked "is that the normal characteristics of the Dyn speaker?" When you hooked them up to your Vincent they came alive, right. So the answer is no. When they are hooked up to Peabody's CJ gear, then the answer is yes. That's the only thing that Hyfi, Harley and I are saying. You're only guilty of generalizing too much. All's cool.

[frenchmon]

All right Frenchie. You asked "is that the normal characteristics of the Dyn speaker?" When you hooked them up to your Vincent they came alive, right. So the answer is no. When they are hooked up to Peabody's CJ gear, then the answer is yes. That's the only thing that Hyfi, Harley and I are saying. You're only guilty of generalizing too much. All's cool.

Hi Jack...Yes they came alive...the tweeter had a little more sparkle and the mids where more pronounced and the bass hit even harder. But because the bass hit even harder, more so than the other portions of the sound and they where not as warm...the speaker was still more bass oriented . While the speakers did show more promise in the tweeter and mids...that could have very well been the difference in the CJ and Vincent preamps characters...but still one characteristic of the Dyns seems to be a more pronounced bottom end over the mids and the tweeters.

No I was not generalizing about all speakers but from what Hyfi said it leads me to think so. I have heard other Dyns at the audio shop and they too seem to be more pronounced in the bottom end. May I ask you Jack? Is your Dyns more pronounced in the bottom end...or are they more equally dispersed in the sound...more evenly a 3 D sound?

[frenchmon]

That is exactly how I feel about the Clearfields.



The Clearfields have clear well defined, accurate bass...just not Dynaudio deep.

My Dynaudios just don't have the wide open midrange that the Clearfields have and I have been able to ignore the lack of deep bass, or I flip the sub on with the CFs and off with the Danes.

Thanks for being honest with your answer Hyfi.

[Jack in Wilmington]

Hi Jack...Yes they came alive...the tweeter had a little more sparkle and the mids where more pronounced and the bass hit even harder. But because the bass hit even harder, more so than the other portions of the sound and they where not as warm...the speaker was still more bass oriented . While the speakers did show more promise in the tweeter and mids...that could have very well been the difference in the CJ and Vincent preamps characters...but still one characteristic of the Dyns seems to be a more pronounced bottom end over the mids and the tweeters.

No I was not generalizing about all speakers but from what Hyfi said it leads me to think so. I have heard other Dyns at the audio shop and they too seem to be more pronounced in the bottom end. May I ask you Jack? Is your Dyns more pronounced in the bottom end...or are they more equally dispersed in the sound...more evenly a 3 D sound?

I wouldn't say there is a pronounced bottom end. They do go lower than my Ushers (28 hz vs 40 ) so I'm getting what I felt I was missing. Now yesterday I put on my DVD-A recording of Yes's "Fragile" and there the Ushers have the REL sub to take care of the lower registers. Some of Wakeman's notes shake the floor and that to me is pronounced bottom end. Chris Squire's bass work will hit you in the chest.

I may have a different answer for you when I get some SS amplification. I just have no other frame of reference at this point. Like Peabody was happy with the CJ/Dyn combo until he heard what he was missing. He should count himself among the lucky. Some people never get it right.

[frenchmon]

Thanks...at the end of the day...the only thing that matters is if one is happy with what he is hearing.

[harley .guy07]

For the most part the systems I have heard with the higher end Dynaudio speakers were driven with mono block SS amps with a lot of power and if they happen to be driven with tube amps it is usually exotic high powered tube amps that cost more than some houses. Dynaudio's higher end lines are for one thing very cool to look at but to me they are out of my budget at least for now but I think as you go up the line they just require more power to make them come Alive as Frenchmon mentioned. I was not trying to start an argument either I was just stating just cause on why I feel the way I do. I see it as more of a friendly argument like talking about who your favorite quarterback is or something like that. Everyone here has their opinion and what holds true in football hold true with high end audio as well. The friendly arguments over which is better or what has synergy with what is part of what keeps this hobby alive and also part of why people are constantly looking for the next big leap in the sound of their own systems. There is really no right or wrong here there is opinion and opinions are what the engineers of this stuff thrive on when they are designing their equipment plus tests and measurements but their opinion of what is the best for their product line is what usually makes a lot of decisions to what is built and that is something that is not like other products. Most electronics companies are bottom line driven only while the high end companies are driven by that for sure as well but they also have a sense of thought to what there product will do and how it compares to like priced stuff. The owners of these companies get together and have friendly arguments just like we are having which to me is a good thing in a way, it keeps the art and soul of this hobby alive and without it it would be as dull as buying appliances or any other electrical device.

[frenchmon]

For the most part the systems I have heard with the higher end Dynaudio speakers were driven with mono block SS amps with a lot of power and if they happen to be driven with tube amps it is usually exotic high powered tube amps that cost more than some houses. Dynaudio's higher end lines are for one thing very cool to look at but to me they are out of my budget at least for now but I think as you go up the line they just require more power to make them come Alive as Frenchmon mentioned. I was not trying to start an argument either I was just stating just cause on why I feel the way I do. I see it as more of a friendly argument like talking about who your favorite quarterback is or something like that. Everyone here has their opinion and what holds true in football hold true with high end audio as well. The friendly arguments over which is better or what has synergy with what is part of what keeps this hobby alive and also part of why people are constantly looking for the next big leap in the sound of their own systems. There is really no right or wrong here there is opinion and opinions are what the engineers of this stuff thrive on when they are designing their equipment plus tests and measurements but their opinion of what is the best for their product line is what usually makes a lot of decisions to what is built and that is something that is not like other products. Most electronics companies are bottom line driven only while the high end companies are driven by that for sure as well but they also have a sense of thought to what there product will do and how it compares to like priced stuff. The owners of these companies get together and have friendly arguments just like we are having which to me is a good thing in a way, it keeps the art and soul of this hobby alive and without it it would be as dull as buying appliances or any other electrical device.

I agree.

[Ajani]

I hope Mr Peabody shares his thoughts on the Revels in this thread...

[frenchmon]

I hope Mr Peabody shares his thoughts on the Revels in this thread...

Ajani...its a very strange thing why Peabody cant connect with his personal computer. I've ask him to checked every thing that I could possibly think of that would possibly block him from AR. My last suggestion to him was to upgrade to w7 from XP. Its almost seems like an IP or physical address conflict. But Peabody has reached out to the admins at AR and they see no filtering. Its just strange that any computer he logs on with other than his own will let him post....Its not a ISP issue either unless they have some sort of filtering which they deny. Every other computers in his home can reach AR.... mystery.