Rega Apollo vs Nad C542
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 846 Registered: Nov-05 | Wife and I visited a hifi shop over the weekend as I had hoped to hear the Apollo for myself after all the postive reviews. As luck would have it, one was playing a Linn Barb Jungr CD via a modded Sun tube amp and a pair of Rega speakers (the R5's I believe). The sound was exquisite and the quality of all components was instantly evident. An Al Somma cd was then played and after my comment that I'd like to switch the Apollo for the C542 Nad, the dealer quickly obliged (even though I had made it clear I wasn't buying) and low and behold - yes - the NAD cdp wasn't quite as good in the system. Although the dealer thought the Apollo gave a bit more bass I thought the C542 was actually a bit more out there in that area, but overall the Apollo had a sweeter mid range and even a brilliantly clean, crisp top end that I had thought would be hard to beat with my humble 542. I must say I was very impressed. The Apollo seemed to be everything everyone has been saying. The single ended 3.5wt tube amp was obviously complimenting the sound as were the Rega R5's. I would like to try the apollo in my home kit. But that's not to be in the near future. The winner - the C542 hands down. My choice - the Apollo as it was better. My reasoning - the C542 retails here for $699 and the Apollo for $1499. The difference is just not worth the extra money in relation to our savings account at present. Considering what I heard, I am certainly happy with our C542. But I'd like that Apollo :-) |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4174 Registered: Dec-04 | Rantz, your 'the winner, hands down' decision should read 'price dependant'. Quit drooling on the keyboard, Man, somebody else may need it. Thanks for the post. |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkHighlands Ranch, CO USA Post Number: 982 Registered: Dec-03 | Don't be so churlish Nuck  It is always price dependant. |
|
Silver Member Username: Uback007Post Number: 128 Registered: Mar-06 | I still think for the money you should do what they did in TAS and pit a CA 540D (yes dvd) player against the 542. For the money (about $260) its an awesome deal. Plus you get dvd-a as a bonus. Give it a listen against a 542 and see if you dont agree... |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 853 Registered: Nov-05 | That's nothing to do with this thread. You are really the man for CA aren't you Uback? |
|
Silver Member Username: Uback007Post Number: 129 Registered: Mar-06 | C'mon! If you read the latest issue of TAS (Oct.)the one that reviews the Apollo as well as the list of Editors picks for 2006 you would have refrained from writing what you wrote. I am simply stating what I read and also conducting my own experiment. Bang for the buck factor withstanding, I'm just sharing info Rantz. I am a proponent of gear that provides a lot of sound quality for the money. Simply sharing what I've learned - like we all do on Ecoustics.com Not trying to hijack the thread. Just sharing... Cambridge makes a dvd player that I find sounds pretty darn good compared to the 542..TAS actually says rivals the 542...this is a matter of opinion of course - again just sharing. Adding to the conversation. |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 854 Registered: Nov-05 | Uback - for one I don't need a DVD player - I have two universal players - making four cd players in total. You make your comment about this CA player in many threads. You think it is a great player and good value - okay, we got the message, thankyou. And yes, it is a matter of opinion and for an opinion on the CA player - there wasn't one asked for on this thread. There a many, many fine cdp's and DVDp's out there that may be better or worse than the subjects on this post - we never asked for them. My post was a comparison between the two I listed - now, is that too difficult for you to understand? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4526 Registered: Dec-03 | No, My Rantz is a good guy. He makes a good and useful point. Wherever we are in price of components, there will be more and less expensive models to compare. The question is whether it is worth paying more in this particular case. My Rantz has often pointed out the advantage of universal players. It is a different question. |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 856 Registered: Nov-05 | Thanks John, I'm glad Uback's last post was deleted. He adds nothing to this forum except going on about his CA player. He seems to have this "there's nothing better than what I've got" obsession. If he wasn't such a dim twit, one might think he owned the company. Anyway, I understand your enjoyment of the Apollo mate. It does fine things for the CD. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4527 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, My Rantz. It is good that Uback's offensive post was deleted. My last post was a response, and now makes no sense. It should probably should be deleted, too. There are new models of everything coming along all the time. I think you know your stuff about dedicated CD players versus universals. The Cambridge Audio Uback mentions does not do SACD, so is in the same boat as my NAD T533. The Apollo is distinctly better than the T533 for CD playback, on my system, but probably that is not saying much. I am still wondering how long the CD has left to live. I have tried burning discs recently. With the same recording, a 24/96 straight stereo PCM burned DVD disc gives slightly better sound on the T533 than a 16/44.1 CD on the Apollo, but the Apollo wins for the 16/44.1 CD. I wonder if and when Rega will finally move into Hi-Res. Then this whole ripping and downloading business looks like it is going to get serious. Now is probably a good time to wait and see what's around the corner. For all their faults and glitches, LP and FM radio are still reference-quality audio sources. Maybe CD will live for decades, but decline into a niche market, like turntables and LPs, which most people expected to die by about 1990. One good thing about CD is you can make your own. So, from whatever format, you can burn it to CD. That will make a long useful life for a good CD player, as long as computers can write the discs. I've made some CDs of live broadcasts and they sound much better on the Apollo than when played on the computer that made them. Whether the Apollo will be among the the last and best at its price point, like the Linn Sondek turntable, I really don't know. |
|
Silver Member Username: Uback007Post Number: 131 Registered: Mar-06 | Ok, i was out of line with my comment and I apologize for saying it. I dont feel like my contributions are obsessive about CA.. I just dont feel that you had a right to jump all over me for it either. I don't own the CA company.. Why dont you get upset and insult Nuck about his liking of Rotel or Hawk about his preference for NAD? I feel like you were a bit rude in your post when I mentioned CA in relation to the NAD... At this time in my life I cant afford to spend tons of money on gear, so like others, I like to find good sound to price paid. Yes I like the CA stuff. I am sharing what I have found in my experience of owning the unit. Is it the end all great sound. No. Does the Rega Apollo sound overall better. Yes. It also cost about 4 times as much. Rantz, I know you have 40 different players and dont care to have anymore and your post was about the Rega...so now you're angry. I don't get this attitude. We are all here to share and give our .02 This board is by no means the end all authority on hifi - far from it. Its a community where I thought we treated other with respect. I guess with some folks that is not the case. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Philipt95148Post Number: 34 Registered: Jun-06 | "I am still wondering how long the CD has left to live. I have tried burning discs recently. With the same recording, a 24/96 straight stereo PCM burned DVD disc gives slightly better sound on the T533 than a 16/44.1 CD on the Apollo, but the Apollo wins for the 16/44.1 CD. I wonder if and when Rega will finally move into Hi-Res." John, For the "uneducated" hifi enthusiast in me, can you explain more on this 24/96, 16/44 stuff? For a while, I also noticed that some burned music sounds better on my Apollo than original materials and I simply put it down to a poor quality original. or am I talking jibberish? and sorry if I appear to hi-jack the thread, not intended. |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 857 Registered: Nov-05 | Uback, apology accepted. Okay, I may have gone a little overboard, but only because you have added that same (try the CA player) post numerous times. I can't afford to spend tons of money on gear also (because I already have) and I appreciate the value of a good player that's not too expensive. The point really, this is a CD player thread and there is another for DVD players. My universal Denon 2900 is a good CDP also, but the 542 just does it better for the format. John, I read somewhere that CD sales had increased for the first half of this year rather than the prior declines. I really don't want the bother of having to rip music. I think in the end, people like to browse and have a tangible product when they hand over their money. Ihope so. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 1463 Registered: May-05 | John - You're always great for the format/media tyoe discussion. "One good thing about CD is you can make your own. So, from whatever format, you can burn it to CD. That will make a long useful life for a good CD player, as long as computers can write the discs." Wasn't that the arguement and point of cassette tape? John & Rantz - IMO, the main reasons why downloading music is so popular are 1) It is or was free through "sharing" and 2) instead of buying a whole album, people can just buy the tracks they want. I get a kick out of it when kids refer to an "album" (not physically an album, a group of songs) as an album, yet very few have actually seen or even heard one. Last week I saw a Rolling Stones "album" on a Memory Stick. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4197 Registered: Dec-04 | I for one have not heard the Apollo (or Saturn) played in a reasonable listening environment. I have however, listened to the 542 and the Rotel 1072 in a good solid A/B. If Rantz likes the Apollo(cept'n the price), it must be that good, because the 542 is as good as regular money gets. |
|
Silver Member Username: Uback007Post Number: 132 Registered: Mar-06 | I will tell you that I have thought about augmenting my CA gear with a simple NAD setup consisting of a 325bee amp and 542 cd. Heck, I may "eat crow" after implementing this set-up in bedroom. Who knows?! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4528 Registered: Dec-03 | I enjoyed the last posts. Thanks, everyone. Philip:- CD Audio format was fixed in an agreement between Sony and Philips, who introduced it, sometime around 1980. It is a way of encoding sound in a digital, binary format - a series of 1s and 0s. Each little "mirror", or pit, on the optical disc either reflects light (1) or it doesn't (0). The pits are arranged in a spiral on the rotating disc, and a photodiode detects the train of reflections, giving a train of 1s and 0s. The original sound wave was completely smooth - analogue - and so the digital conversion involves taking samples to make the 1s and 0s. For CD, the frequency of sampling is 44,100 samples per second - 44.1 kilo-samples, or kHz (kilo Hertz). The size of each sample is 16 bits. A bit is a unit of information, equal to knowing whether the value is 1 or 0. So 16 bits is something like 1010 0100 1101 1001. So 44,100 groups of 16 bits are read off every second to create a digital version of the original sound. You get the sound back again through a digital-to-analogue converter, which makes an electrical signal much like the one that was broken up into all those 1s and 0s when the original sound was digitized. Now the question was always whether that format is good enough to give you back a sound indistinguishable from the one that was originally digitized. Sony-Philips originally claimed it did. Now they claim they can do better, with SACD. This uses a slightly different system. The old CD format was "Pulse Code Modulation" (PCM). The sound was just coded in a series of pulses. SACD uses, instead, "Direct Stream Digital" (DSD) which effectively gives a more detailed - higher resolution - version of the original sound wave. Meanwhile, DVD-Audio is really just good ol' CD-PCM but at higher sampling frequencies (up to 192,000 samples per second in stereo, as against 44,100) and with larger samples - 24-bit instead of 16-bit. DVD-Audio may also have a sort of packing called MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) which decreases the size of the files without losing any of the digital information. So "16/44.1" means CD format. "24/96" is a higher-resolution DVD-A-type format, claimed to give better sound quality because it is capable of a more accurate reproduction of the original sound wave. The reason I get into all this is because I think modern CD players have pretty well come up against the limit of resolution inherent in the CD format. You can have more or less bass, treble, and all that, but if the information on the disc is not there in the first place, you can't get it back. And, with apologies for the slight diversion, what I am recommending to My Rantz is that a CD-only player may not be the way to go, these days - the high-resolution formats may give a whole lot better sound. And, having said all that, if you have 1,000 CDs, say, it may still be a good idea to get the best out of them, still go on buying CDs, and still be concerned about the quality of the player. Must go. All the best. |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 862 Registered: Nov-05 | John, I agree - the high res formats do give a better sound, which I have argued for some time now. Even HDCD is better (in most cases) than redbook. Mrs Rantz and I listened to some of our favourite cd's yesterdat afternoon, then we finished with a 5.1 DVD-A. It's really best to finish a listening sessiom with hi-res rather then the reverse - if one wants to enjoy one's redbook cd's imho. But we go back to the stand alone cdp being the better platform for redbook rather than a universal player (price related of course). I'll be interested in hearing the new NAD C585 when it arrives here. |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 863 Registered: Nov-05 | It's about 5 am here - the reason for the typos  |
|
Silver Member Username: Uback007Post Number: 133 Registered: Mar-06 | does anyone when the new NAD C585 will be available in the States? |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4238 Registered: Dec-04 | Uback,if you have a chance, listen to the 542 and the Rotel 1072 and maybe the Rega together. Night and day and afternoon. Perhaps 'Morning, noon and night in Vienna'. A Nice Verdi or OPeratic presentation from the LSO' Or SRV, 'Couldn't stand the weather'. A side by side will be enlightening, to say the least. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1682 Registered: Sep-04 | Frank walks on... Ahem DVD-A and SACD definitely have positive points and the most obvious of these is their undoubted improvement in resolution. On the downside, they just ... don't ... do ... music! Lots of beautifully formed sounds, just not particularly engaging, involving or thrilling. Watching paint dry is an absorbing pasttime by comparison. Frank walks off ... before being blasted off ... |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 873 Registered: Nov-05 | Darn it Frank, that means we could've spent our time painting the room and saved a heap of dough. Don't tell Mrs Rantz! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4529 Registered: Dec-03 | Frank, No blast from me. But.... "Improvement in resolution" means less music? There is something more musical about sound at lower resolution? A paradox. |
|
Silver Member Username: RavbainsMelbourneAustralia Post Number: 279 Registered: Mar-06 | Hi, Just read this thread ;-) Perhaps, SACD and DVD-A are yet to show their true potential since most universal players, come from the consumer giants like Sony, Denon etc etc. These hi-res formats have not really been fettled by small specialised companies like Rega, Naim etc etc. I have read plenty of customer testimony from folks who feel they have reached musical nirvana, by using highly modded universal players, the mods are done by places like Audiocom(UK), RAM and Modwright(USA). On Frank's comments, normally more resolution is a good thing, but I guess the trick is for components that retrieve a lot of detail, but those details are organically integrated into the whole musical picture, so that the overall presentation is natural. I have heard plenty of equipments, that dig up lots of details from the disc, but kind of fling the detail at the listener, in a very "hifi" type of presentation that does not seem natural to my ears at least. (My Sony XA-5ES was like this pre-mods, but post mods, it is an extremely natural and musical player, it is very very self-effacing. I cannot wait to get my machine back from the mod-shop, since it is in for some "Phase-2" mods.) cheers Rav |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4539 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Rav. I think I should have to hear an example in order to understand what you mean by detail that is, or is not, "organically integrated". I always try to imagine photographic analogies. More resolution in pictures is always better, everything else being equal. Where "better" means "more like the real thing". I can't think why sound should be different. All the best. |
|
Silver Member Username: RavbainsMelbourneAustralia Post Number: 281 Registered: Mar-06 | Hi John, Sorry I am not very good at explaining things, but I know this effect VERY well when I hear it. My Sony CDP, pre and post mods was a perfect example of this effect. -Rav |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4540 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Rav. I'll keep this all in mind. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4297 Registered: Dec-04 | Organically integrated. I suppose too much definition could come off as...'sterile' or 'clinical'. I have heard the Rotel 1072 described that way, although I wouldn't. The polar opposite is the Classe transdac, which is full and warm and not at all useful for Van Halen. However, the transport is wonderful for a round of orchestral or classical. These types of music also point out a horrid pair of speakers. |
|
Bronze Member Username: The13thgryphonSpokane, WA USA Post Number: 12 Registered: Jul-04 | Hi Tony, I would certainly suggest a side by side comparison of the two players. I very recently had that opportunity, and it was very enlightening. There is a small audio shop in Seattle, WA which sells only Brittish equipment: Cambridge Audio, Spendor, Quad, Rega, Naim, Tannoy, etc. I spent about four hours there one afternoon, and got to listen to a variety of combinations of equipment. I was actually there to listen to speakers for my smaller den system, but I also wanted to take a look at integrated amp/CD player combos that I could upgrade to in the near future. I listened primarily to the Rega Apollo with either the Mira 3 integrated or the Cursa 3 pre / Maia 3 amp, and also the Naim NAIT 5i / CD 5i combo. When taken together, the Apollo/Mira combination was very slightly bettered by the Naim 5i components in the areas of resolution of detail and dead quiet background. This was not something that jumped out at you, or was immediately obvious, it took careful listening... but when going back and forth between the two systems using the same tracks and speakers, it did become apparent. After mixing and matching the amps and front ends it became apparent that the Naim CD 5i simply has a slightly better ability to resolve the detail contained on those shiny silver disks. Again, this is not night and day, but it is there. One must take into account the $700 difference in list price of the two components however. It's very nearly as good for less than 60% of the cost. I would say that the Apollo would have to be given the award for "best value" between the two. What you need to decide is whether the subtle difference is worth the additional dollars... to you. That's my $0.02 anyway. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3659 Registered: Feb-05 | I know Hawthorne sells that gear, if it was them I hope they put better interconnects with the Mira/Apollo combo than they suggested to me. I find that the Rega likes the Chord sliver interconnects and speaker cables the best. The Chord Chrysalis works fine for the Naim but not so much for the Rega. Anyhow I enjoyed reading your post. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4599 Registered: Dec-04 | Hello, John. What speakers were you listening to for your demo? Your post is very good, an idea of your musical tastes would help me as well. Art, what would the stock Naim cables be lacking that the Chord could improve upon, please? And, again, you all seem to be rather blessed in your neck of the woods, so many shops. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3660 Registered: Feb-05 | The Chord Chrysalis is rolled off on both the highs and lows. Somehow that works for Naim but leaves the Rega wanting a bit more. I have 2 pairs of the Chrysalis and 1 pair of the Chorus and in my system the Chorus blows the Chrysalis away (as it should for 4x the dough). As a step up Naim suggests the Cobra 3 which is still just a budget cable with a bit more detail than the Chrysalis. My guess is that Naim speaker cable is copper with a similar geometry as the Chrysalis and Cobra 3 and they have a synergistic effect together. I have Chord Rumour 4 speaker cable (silver)and Chord recommmends at least their Silver Siren and at most the Chorus (both silver) interconnect to go with it and for the same reaons I suggest that Naim recommends Chrysalis and Cobra 3. BTW hers;s the website for Hawthorne...pretty cool eh! http://www.hawthornestereo.com/ |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3661 Registered: Feb-05 | I sure miss the edit function! |
|
Bronze Member Username: The13thgryphonSpokane, WA USA Post Number: 13 Registered: Jul-04 | Art: You're right on the money. It was indeed Hawthorne Stereo. To tell you the truth I didn't really look closely at the interconnects used. I guess I figured that they'd use something that would show each piece in the best light, and as I wasn't looking for wire I just didn't pay attention. Nuck: I listened to a variety of speakers... Quad 21L, Rega R-5 and Jura, Spendor S5e, and Naim Ariva (though the Ariva was more than I was willing to spend). I also listened to the Monitor Audio Silver RS-6 and Vienna Acoustics Bach Grand across the street at Magnolia Hi-Fi, and the PSB Image T55 and T65, Warfedale Diamond 9, and some Snell speakers (can't recall the number)next door at Speakerlab. I ended up purchasing a pair of Quad 21L's in Rosewood. I liked the Spendor S5e's also, but on balance did not find them to be overall better than the Quads, and they were $350 more. I've listened to a lot of speakers in the past few years, and I don't believe I've heard a pair of speakers under $2,000 that I'd rather have then the Quads. (Well, maybe the Magnepan 1.6QR's I've got in my main rig... but that's a whole other story.) I like all kinds of music. My collection is quite eclectic. I listen to rock, pop, jazz, blues, folk/Americana, classical, modern country, etc. I took a handfull of albums with me for my evaluation: Eric Clapton, Unplugged; The Eagles, Hell Freezes Over; Grover Washington Jr., Anthology; Norah Jones, Come Away With Me; Cowboy Junkies, The Trinity Session; Stevie Ray Vaughn, Couldn't Stand the Weather, and Shirl Jae Atwell, Lucy - Movement Four South - Sting Orchestra Pieces. To see even more of what I like to listen to, visit the "Music 2 Die 4" section of my web site: www.clan-mannix.net/Music2die4.htm |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3665 Registered: Feb-05 | Cool link John.....can't say we have similar music tastes but that's why there is so much wonderful music out there. There is something for everyone. Congrats on your Quads, they are a fabulous speaker and an excellent value. I used to have Maggies but as you say, that's a whole other story. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4600 Registered: Dec-04 | Hey, John, thank you for that link! Nice selection with the Quads, John A. is a quad guy here, I hope he stops by. Quite a varied selection of music, as well. Toss in the Holly Cole Trio, maybe 10,ooo maniacs and it is looking familiar! |
|
Bronze Member Username: The13thgryphonSpokane, WA USA Post Number: 15 Registered: Jul-04 | Thanks Art... just something I do in my spare time... which seems to be shrinking for some strange reason these days. I need to find some time and get a few things updated. Nuck: I have "Blame it On My Youth" and "It Happened One Night" by the Holly Cole Trio, and "My Tribe" and "Our Time in Eden" by 10,000 Maniacs... as well as Natalie Merchant's "Ophelia". Sounds like our musical tastes may be quite similar. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4577 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Nuck. Hi, John and Art. I don't know the 21L but yes, Quad is good. |
|
Bronze Member Username: The13thgryphonSpokane, WA USA Post Number: 16 Registered: Jul-04 | Hi John A., Admittedly I am biased... I just purchased them... but I seriously have not heard any speaker under two grand that I would rather have. If I had found such a thing, I'd have them instead. To my ears the Quads are dynamic, musical, tonally accurate, and transparent without being hyped or accentuated. They have good, tight, tuneful bass extending down to about 35 Hz. And they project an almost holographic spacial image. It's downright spooky to hear sounds coming from way beyond the outside edge of the speakers. Personally, I don't care much for metal dome tweeters. My hearing is rather sensative in the upper octives, and metal domes just sound harsh and glaring to me. I can't listen to them for very long without wanting to turn down the volume. The fabric/textile dome in the Quads is literally music to my ears. Brass sounds brassy... woodwinds sound woody... symbols sound metalic... I can tell whether the artist is using steel or nylon guitar strings... and I can feel the ivory under my fingers when someone tickles the keys on a piano. All without cringing and wanting to hit the "stop" button. That ain't bad for $1,300 US! Sorry for taking this tread on a bird walk... but being a proud new "pappa" I hope everyone will forgive me. I can't wait to hear them with my Apollo CD player (somewhere down the road), as there's no doubt in my mind that it is significantly better than the Harman-Kardon unit I'm using currently. |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 932 Registered: Nov-05 | JM Congrats on the Quad speakers. I was tempted to buy (if passed audition) a pair of 22L's. For the raves and for what they represent as a small floorstander, they can be had for considerably little money here. I suppose that Quad is now a Chinese company, they can deliver the goods because of the small wage factor over there. Having just upgraded my universal player, new speakers are now out of the question and also, those cloth domes would not have blended well with those harsh, glaring metal domes in my rear and center 600 series B&W's. |
|
Bronze Member Username: The13thgryphonSpokane, WA USA Post Number: 17 Registered: Jul-04 | M.R., "Harsh and glaring" to one is presence, transparancy, or "bite" to another. No offense intended. Just not for me. On the other hand you might find my speakers to be dull and lifeless... who knows. For the record, the only speakers I've heard that I believe I could live with that had metal dome tweeters were the B&W 802D's. Now that's a wonderful speaker... but WAY out of my price range. Also, I actually liked the 21L model better than the 22L. Better integration between mids and bass. The bass on the 22L was fuller, and a bit more extended (as you'd expect with the second bass/mid-bass driver). However, it also seemed that it could become overpowering and loose focus. To my ears it was a touch slower and less distinct. Anyway, one man's junk is another man's treasure, yes? And there I go again, talking speakers in a thread comparing Redbook CD players. |
|
Silver Member Username: RavbainsMelbourneAustralia Post Number: 302 Registered: Mar-06 | Hi John, I generally agree with you on component/speaker choice, this is a very strange hobby, and it is quite subjective. BTW I think the 802D has a tweeter made of diamond. Its natural resonance is somewhere up around 70Khz, well out of harms way!!!! That is probably why you found the treble on the 802D so agreeable! cheers Rav |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4578 Registered: Dec-03 | John, About 18 months ago I summoned up all my courage and bought a pair of Quad-serviced, and one-year guaranteed, ESL 63 speakers. No way to ever afford the new models based on them. I paid about the price of new 21Ls, I think. It was the right thing. Exceptional. Friends here will remember me going on about them on other threads. I'm sure the L-series are outstanding, too. I've not heard them, but seen them, and the rosewood is gorgeous. The ESLs, in contrast, are big panels which visually take some getting used to, but they sound like heaven. |
|
Silver Member Username: My_rantzAustralia Post Number: 933 Registered: Nov-05 | JM - no offense was taken - just having a little friendly jab. And I agree with your summation: One man's junk etc. Yes, and 802D with the diamond tweeter, one can dream. I wonder if the 800D series might become new engagement gift? That way the girl gets the diamond, the guy get his speakers. But she can't wear it! John A, I saw a pair of your speakers on Ebay here for a starting price of $2900 - they were old originals I think. I'd like hear them, but they wouldn't be allowed in our living room. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4579 Registered: Dec-03 | M.R. Mrs A was opposed until she heard them. Now she thinks we should get another pair, just to avoid arguments over which gets the Quads, the audio or TV. But I digress.... |
|
Bronze Member Username: The13thgryphonSpokane, WA USA Post Number: 18 Registered: Jul-04 | John A., You've got an incredible pair of speakers there. I've only heard Quad electrostatic speakers a couple of times, but they were glorious. I truly love what electrostatic and planar magnetic speakers can do in recreating music. I actually had a similar situation with my wife and the speakers in my main rig. We looked, and we listened, and we looked some more, and nothing we saw turned her on... er, excuse me... that's a whole other discussion... let's get back to the search for our speakers. Anyway, she just didn't like anything we heard. So I told her about a pair of "2001 A Space Odyssey" type monoliths that were two feet wide, six feet tall, two inch deep black panels that had really blown me away. Since I'd told her how ugly they were repeatedly before she saw them -- and admittedly due to the fact that they would go in a dedicated theater/music room and not our living room -- she wasn't put off when she saw them. She sat down, put on three of "her" favorite tracks, and within seconds of starting the first track was smiling, tapping her toes, and nodding her head to the music. When the three cuts were finished she turned to me and said "if you even think about buying any speakers but those there will be a divorce in your future." I'm talking about the Magnepan 1.6QR's, and the two of us have lived with them "happily ever after." (Well, there is that one other issue I alluded to... but we're seeing a good intimacy therapist.) Chao |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4581 Registered: Dec-03 | That's really nice, John. Many thanks. I've followed Magnepan discussions, here, and they are great speakers, I know. Imposing-looking things, too. Panels have a capability for imaging. People often say "But what about the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor"?). I hope our stories bring hope and encouragement! (M.R. is jesting. Mrs M.R. is one of the best, too). |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics