+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52

Thread: Speakers, speakers ,speakers.

  1. #11
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Timely thread for me as I just spent the afternoon at Paul's (Reference Fidelity Components) place listening to his Tannoys and talking speaker design. I think we both agreed that the perfect speaker has yet to be made but there is no substitute for cubic inches i.e the bigger the better. Not sure we broke any new ground there But highly enjoyable all the same.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  2. #12
    Join Date: Mar 2012

    Location: Gloucestershire

    Posts: 3,377
    I'm Paul.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    Timely thread for me as I just spent the afternoon at Paul's (Reference Fidelity Components) place listening to his Tannoys and talking speaker design. I think we both agreed that the perfect speaker has yet to be made but there is no substitute for cubic inches i.e the bigger the better. Not sure we broke any new ground there But highly enjoyable all the same.
    ..err...they're not Tannoys...they're RFC Canterburys using RFC crossovers, RFC designed cabinets but do use Tannoy drive units Good to meet up Martin, and I enjoyed the day and the chat and the music.

    I agree. No substitute for cubes. I haven't yet heard a small speaker that can truly convince in the same way that a good big 'un can, and prefer the attributes of sensitive designs over more inefficient designs.

  3. #13
    Join Date: Apr 2012

    Location: N E Kent

    Posts: 51,624
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reffc View Post
    I haven't yet heard a small speaker that can truly convince in the same way that a good big 'un can, and prefer the attributes of sensitive designs over more inefficient designs.
    The original Bose 901 wasn't very big, but did some pretty monstrous scale and power even in big rooms.

    (no it wasn't sensitive)
    It is impossible for anything digital to sound analogue, because it isn't analogue!

  4. #14
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    But diid they do it effortlessly? The speaker has to sound like it is just ticking over even at maximum dynamics. The effortlessness is very important.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  5. #15
    Join Date: Apr 2012

    Location: N E Kent

    Posts: 51,624
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    But diid they do it effortlessly? The speaker has to sound like it is just ticking over even at maximum dynamics. The effortlessness is very important.
    Certainly. The 901 sounds as if it is just cruising even when approaching its quite substantial limit. It's an incredibly spacious sound too. They sound like no other speaker. Not necessarily that accurate, but very enjoyable. The tightness at the bottom end is astonishing and the top end has much of what good panel speakers offer. Looking at them, you think it shouldn't work, but it does.

    It's quite some time since I heard them, but I have, on many occasions.
    It is impossible for anything digital to sound analogue, because it isn't analogue!

  6. #16
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    don't they use some sort of primitive equalisation? or am I getting mixed up?
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  7. #17
    danilo Guest

    Default

    Geeeez! Bought 901's in early 70's. Mine proved completely inadequate to purpose within hours of use!
    Absolutely worthless for the prices demanded.
    No other descriptor is adequate. But Hey! the complete proof is in hearing the things
    Their 'equaliser' was intrinsic/included and It and the multi Cones Sucked up watts like a Hoover.. a problem in itself.
    IF one had a Massive concrete wall as essential Backdrop to the 'waves' generated by their low quality 2 (3?) " drivers (IIRC 9 of the things per enclosure)...they elevated to Mid Fi SQ.
    Their 'performance qualities' quickly became common knowledge amongst audio weenie wannabees.
    As result they were erm damned difficult to resell (a month on) for even a fraction of their cost.
    The well laid Cornerstone of the Bose reputation :-)

  8. #18
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Reading between the lies here but my guess is you didn't like them?
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  9. #19
    Join Date: Jul 2009

    Location: Hampshire, UK

    Posts: 3,662
    I'm Adam.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 57charles View Post
    For example, I remember listening to RAM STL4's - not boasting but I bet I'm one of the very few - I'd like to talk about speakers that really stuck in my mind eg Yamaha NS1000's and Celestion SL700SE's etc etc.
    If anyone is interested, please let me know.
    In any case, thanks for a wonderful forum.
    I would love to hear your thoughts on the RAM STL4s. They are one of those loudspeakers with almost mythical status and the wonder whether RAM did actually make any production models - it's good to hear they did!
    Engineers: fixing problems you didn't know you had in ways you don't understand.

  10. #20
    Audio Al is offline Pishanto Specialist & Super-Daftee
    Join Date: May 2012

    Location: Dagenham Essex

    Posts: 11,215
    I'm Allen.

    Default

    I'm keeping quiet on this thread
    [

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •