A really great speaker, one of my fav.

[Florian]

If a neighbour or some buddy of mine got himself an Ongaku I'd be impressed ... that he had 'way more money than brains.

No, I haven't heard the Ongaku: but nothing with that type of specs could sound so good as to justify the price.

Actually, i heard the Ongaku and i also heard my friends big Silvaweld and Allen Wreights Realtime Preamplifier and also this AudioNote Japan electronics are much more expensive it did sound very good indeed. But their speakers are a joke for the money, no matter how you cut it in my opinion.

-Flo

[RGA]

Kex - Weight is associated with more damping I suspect so the heavier you make it the more it probably seems like you're getting for your dollar - though I suspect that is true with generally BIG speakers. They are after all selling mainly to males.

I have found that a number of very heavey big speakers have a tendency to sound dead as though the enrgy is being stored rather than released (or kept in the box).

And yes Kex i may be on a one note but this is based off my experiences so far and until I hear better competition then this is the place I am in for the next while. And when you go up against the massive industry loved stuff you're going to take some heat from many quarters. But this fellow while I don;t agree with much of what he says seems to be an awful right in my view of a number of highly raved about designs that are shilled off in Stereophile and TAS -- namely setting his sights againsts Wilson - I stress I don't agree with all his points or even some of his comments on the sound of the speakers such as the Sophia
http://www.audioperfectionist.com/PD...J_WD_19_20.pdf
A Wilson Maxx review http://www.audioperfectionist.com/PD.../APJ_WD_21.pdf

[kexodusc]

Kex - Weight is associated with more damping I suspect so the heavier you make it the more it probably seems like you're getting for your dollar - though I suspect that is true with generally BIG speakers. They are after all selling mainly to males.

I have found that a number of very heavey big speakers have a tendency to sound dead as though the enrgy is being stored rather than released (or kept in the box).

I know many who say the big heavy thick speakers will choke the speaker out, I can't say I've heard it personally, but I'm at the point personally where I think there's breaking point for a given driver size where too much mass adds no benefit for the extra effort. I acknowledge I could be wrong and it's just bad for speakers to be thick and heavy, but I haven't seen any definitive evidence of such. I've got 8 speaker books beside me as I type this, all mention that for 10" woofers and smaller .75 is fine with 1" baffles. 1 mentiones that for larger subwoofers with super long excursions, you'll want to got 1.5" front baffles. Basically match panel thickness with the interior volume of the speaker...tall, fat or tall, deep speakers would need thicker material. I've used 1" MDF and 1.5" MDF walls for speakers now. Didn't sound dead to me at all. I guess I'd have to go back and use .5" and .75 and do a listening test. Somehow I don't think I'd be able to tell which cabinets were thicker by sound alone at the volumes I could tolerate music at.
I've heard crappy 3/8" particle board speakers. that's a whole different animal.

[Florian]

stress I don't agree with all his points or even some of his comments on the sound of the speakers such as the Sophia
http://www.audioperfectionist.com/PD...J_WD_19_20.pdf
A Wilson Maxx review http://www.audioperfectionist.com/PD.../APJ_WD_21.pdf

Do not post them as REVIEWS! They are NOT reviews but articles from the "watchdog" and are a general opinion of the speaker technology. This has been discussed at Audiogonquite intensively and they are NOT reviews!

[theaudiohobby]

But this fellow while I don;t agree with much of what he says seems to be an awful right in my view of a number of highly raved about designs that are shilled off in Stereophile and TAS -- namely setting his sights againsts Wilson - I stress I don't agree with all his points or even some of his comments on the sound of the speakers such as the Sophia
http://www.audioperfectionist.com/PD...J_WD_19_20.pdf
A Wilson Maxx review http://www.audioperfectionist.com/PD.../APJ_WD_21.pdf

As usual throwing out a scatter load, hoping that some of it will stick, if you take time to read the articles, you will notice that his comments are at odds with your own comments on this board about speaker performance, the Audio Notes actually follow the same path, it is the good ol' tussle between euphony and accuracy. In the second article , he criticizes the Wilson MAXX for not sounding accurate, note he did not criticize it for not sounding good. Try and recall the number of posts you have written here and elsewhere that take the opposite view to this position. And since he states that he is not a fan of expensive low-power amps, a good example being the Ongaku, should we take it that Hi-Fi Choice is a shill for Audio Note? They heartily recommended a low-power 29K amp with audible hum from the listening seat, wow!

I have decided to anchor this post with a quote from the article that highlight the points made previously in this post.

These measurements clearly show that this speaker system was designed to deliver a specific “sound” rather than accurately reproduce the recorded signal...

[RGA]

I knew full well TAH would say pretty much this exact same thing which is why I also made it clear that i don't agree with everything he states -- for instance he considers panels innacurate -- and he thinks Vandersteen is the epitomy of speaker design -- he also seems to believe that small woofers are better -- so i take exception to much of what he has to say -- but he's not alone in statements about Wilson -- and not different too much from what I have actually heard from Wilson - the articles were more of an attack on other magazines the way I read it than on the speaker - in that Stereophile dances around stating it like it is than making the reader guess if they liked it or not. Of course Dick isn;t really talking to me because I largely gave up reading Stereophile a few years ago when I realized that what i would buy from them largely would have me on an endless upgrade cycle.

there are two things seemingly at odds in discussions like these accuracy and musicality versus value for dollar. I could give a rats bottom what the Sophia is viewed as by people in terms of accuracy sionce that changes with whoever you talk to and how they interpret the measurements and since unless the speaker has perfect ploar response is dead flat and has dead flat power response in any seat at all listening levels with perfect dynamic range and zero distorition then it is not accurate -- unless you believe the guy on AA who says a 9db sloping drop in frequency is most accurate.

My problem with the Sophia is not the sound because I gave it a good review - my contention is that you can pretty much get the exact same speaker from Gershman for 1/3 the price and to my ear despite lesser equipment and being in a non professionally set-up room like the Wilsons the Gershmans managed to sound better to me. And thus supports the only real points I agree with Dick on and that is paying more does not = getting more and perhpas it really is prestige. It was also surprising to get home to my standmounts and get deeper more articulate bass from a set of standmounts whcih are considerably smaller and less expensive - though that does not surprise me anymore.

His arguments on accuracy versus what is liked better or euphony (which means pleasing and good) is a dopey point. Live music is pleasing and good and the stereo should recreate this -- if it is creating ear bleeding drive me from the room sound from every source disc going then it's not right - if that is what passes for accurate then others are welcom to it - I would rather listen to something that sounds as clear at my seat as the best headphones I have ever heard but also add back those things headphones cannot do - the first criteria is to be able to match and beat headphone rigs such as the Orpheus tubed headphone sytem, or the Stax 007 Omega II set-up at the listening position and then add those things speakers do inherently better. I'm still amazed the Commercial Electronics sold the Orpheus rig which I believe was in over $20k for a headphone system - very perty tube amp though. I must say it was very good -- so too was the Stax which at something like $9kCad was better value for the dollar http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/ces2...mage_014.shtml

[theaudiohobby]

And thus supports the only real points I agree with Dick on and that is paying more does not = getting more and perhpas it really is prestige.

The irony here is that his comments apply just a much to the Audio Note line, so maybe it is time to put PQ to task for not providing VFM, afterall the Ongaku at 78K was compared to the Reichbert at 5K and that amp has its measure at less than 1/10th its price, do we move on to the 18K DAC or the 85K speakers? And for all your criticism about Stereophile, your favoured magazines and reviewers fall at the same hurdles, some are even worse, but you quote them because they validate your choices.

As for getting speakers to match the sound of an Orpheus or a Stax Omega 007. , let's just say that is a discussion for another day , those headphones will beat most of the best loudspeakers in a couple of areas hands down, just the nature of the thing. Also an electrostatic headphone will not sound like a dynamic loudspeaker and vice versa.

[RGA]

The irony here is that his comments apply just a much to the Audio Note line, so maybe it is time to put PQ to task for not providing VFM, afterall the Ongaku at 78K was compared to the Reichbert at 5K and that amp has its measure at less than 1/10th its price, do we move on to the 18K DAC or the 85K speakers? And for all your criticism about Stereophile, your favoured magazines and reviewers fall at the same hurdles, some are even worse, but you quote them because they validate your choices.

As for getting speakers to match the sound of an Orpheus or a Stax Omega 007. , let's just say that is a discussion for another day , those headphones will beat most of the best loudspeakers in a couple of areas hands down, just the nature of the thing. Also an electrostatic headphone will not sound like a dynamic loudspeaker and vice versa.

I like how you worded that sentence "has it's measure" - but Lynn certainly didn;t imply equal. Bently has its measure with Mercedes S class -- Both are excellent top class no question marks would be levelled at either and their "in league" but Bently has nothing to worry about.

I have heard these headphones and systems - the great thing is they always sound the same in any room. So I can compare them to my headphone rig for an evalutaion but only my headphone rig in an A/B against my main system. It's quite easy to do a very quick switch A/B test with cans -- you simply run from the tape out of your amp to the headphone amp and you just have to switch the tape out selecter on or off. The same cd player in real time is played through one or the other with an instant switch (and as fast as you can get the headphones off your head.

Headphones advantage is clarity, microdynamics, low level resolution, transients and escaping room reflections. Headphones are an excellent way to get a great system for relatively low money compared to speakers at the same or in many cases many multiples of the price of headphones. Starting with entry level quality headphones such as the Senn HD 580, 600 or AKG 1000 it has for me been tough to find anything under 5kk that does these things approaching very closely or doing as well as any of these headphones when appropriately driven - some cd players I heard no difference from can be heard in blind listening level matched headphone auditions so I highly recommend people to conduct any CD player testsession with good headphones and if you can;t then detect them on your home speakers you need new speakers or room or both. These headphones listed should be good enough in practical terms though they are not the Omega or the Orpheus - the AKG is very interesting as it can be used with a subwoofer and runs off the mains of amplifiers. I am comfortable that my go to reference headphone experiences was what I wanted when shopping for speakers - the upgrade from Wharfedale needed to better than those elite headphone experiences or get as close as is possible with my funds. IME the choice easily surpasses my headphones in every conceivable way or the Stax Lambda pros and AKG 1000. For the Omega and Orpheus it takes IME the E/Spe or maybe the E/SE and they require a different front end which is more expensive. I'd love to go back in time and not make some of the purchases I did and use the money better.

[theaudiohobby]

RGA,

I currently own an AKG K1000, AKG 501 and Stax SR3 and previously owned Seinheiser HD595 (decided the sound was not for me). So I have my views on this topic, but they are for another day and another thread.