RGA reviews <$1,000.00 Loudspeakers - Wharfedale, Athena Technologies etc., page 1.

[RGA]

Unfortunately my dealer only carries the Diamond line. Also, I won't be back out that way for quite a while to hear the Paradigms.

Your best bet is always your own ear. I just do this for some fun (Yes I need a life but it's cheaper than Scuba diving).

[Mark111867]

RGA-

Enjoyed the reviews.

Mark

[kexodusc]

Yes, RGA, your reviews were informative, and surprisingly consistent with alot of my impressions of the same models, especially most speakers below $1000. Although I must admit, I don't know you ever quantified values for "decay" and "resolution". To me it's either, "aaargghhh", "hey", or "wow".
I wonder what the difference between a 5.5 and a 6 in decay sounds like?
(just teasin' ya!!)

BTW: I'd love to see you try do this with subwoofers. I tried once, and just about everything similarly priced scored almost the same, with a few "not recommendeds".

[RGA]

LOL

Yeah any rating system gets dicey - Since I'm using more of a curve system - the more gear I hear the more some of my reviews I'd like to take back. But hey Stereohile had that problem they reviewed out of 10(10 being high end) and when Martin Colloms reviewed the Audio Note Dac 5(You know that insane $50,000.00DAC he awarded it a 55 or something. So the sliding scale kept on sliding apparently.

Resolution for me is the ability to bring out all of the content and to be able to differentiate it all in complex passages - which ties in with dynamics and decay as well of course. But it's nice to hear one instrument with subleties located in one place and another instrument in another doing the same etc. This will be called detail by some. I of course agree with Peter's definition of Resolution versus Detail stated here http://www.audionote.co.uk/anp1.htm - And as I tried to indicate on one of the pages ignore the AN reviews if you wish because I'm obviously biased or believe in the sound they produce so I am not hiding my bias or preference and to warn readers of them. Decay is does the sound the speaker poduces resmble an instrument - that full bodied tone of a paino or the guitar bozx resonance of a live acoustic guitar. Contrary to popular belief you do actually need resonances kept intact - good decay keeps them lesser decay does not. I think Decay is the first thing I liked about AN over the rest - it amazes me that some would call it colouration - they need to hear more live unamplified music if that's the case IMO of course

As I said of UHF - they are using a reference system to judge other componants - but if YOU and I don't agree with their reference componants then what they say takes a bit of hit. So treat my 5.5 versus 6 as virtually being identical. Like you a Speaker falls into similar reactions for me - WOW, High end but I want the WOW, Mid-fi, low-fi, and may as well listen to the telephone.

Again I lifted part of my stuff from enjoythemusic. Steven Rochlin needs to get his J's in a corner though because his mark for the sub-bass I would take issue with. They have different reviewers and they are obviously not on the same page because the other reviewers score into the high 80s other speakers I have heard that can't touch the bass of the J. Then again his J has been his reference for more than a decade and directly compared to the E is kinda unfair. http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...udspeakers.htm