Originally Posted by
Marco
Nice one - so how do they compare, musically, with the QAs?
Ok - I spent a few hours today doing some lengthy comparisons. I should add that I'm not into 'play one track/swap kit/play same track again' as it just shows up tonal differences which are mis-leading and just cloud the situation anyway. I always spend a good 20 mins listening to one, then swap over, having had a good 10 min break between each item.
The Royds do their usual thing - yes they're coloured tonally (but nowhere near as much as some) but musically they have so little inertia they have the habit of making other speakers sound as though they're wading through syrup. Inferior (musically speaking) speakers seem to be trying too hard - with the Royds nothing feels like it's an effort. On first listening, Royds can come across as a bit too much - most of them aren't for the faint-hearted, I'd never deny that - but on returning to a 'normal' speaker (once the ear has tuned-in to the Royds' presentation) there's always a feeling that something's missing. I've used the analogy before, but Royds play music with the brakes off, and it's addictive.
Compared to the QA's? This is where it's quite interesting. The 2010's cry out for plenty of amplifier - one which can drive them hard. I often get the feeling (although I'm probably wrong!) that during the design/listening trials these little speakers were 'voiced' loud. Reason being is that they come to life in a way which I've never known any other speaker to, once given plenty of volume. At low level, they sound slightly slow, shut-in and dynamically dim-witted. Crank things up and it's as though a switch has been thrown, and ye gods they can take some punishment and not saturate.
Vs the Royds? It's hard to say but the Sapphires I'm using at the moment have a clarity which the QA's miss out on, and they're a much faster, and more nimble speaker. Bass is prodigious on the Sapphire, and whilst Joe was very clever in his use of a port there's a slight smear in bass timing compared to the Eden which uses a much smaller port (and a heavily damped cabinet). The QA's bass is more evenly rendered, less powerful, but in transients it hits harder - although that's probably as a consenquence of me driving them a lot harder than the Royds which are way too precious to abuse.
The Royd trick though is setting up rhythmic patterns. Track 1 on Chick Corea's 'Akoustic Band' album can take a long while to settle into its groove because the first 16 is so abstract rhythmically. The QA's wander around in the dark somewhat here, but the Royds find the pattern from the outset, and the track snaps into focus immediately - as it should. They display this aspect of their performance over every genre of music. If there's a pattern to be found, they're right in there and music which previously came across as puzzling, will then draw a 'well that all makes sense now' reaction from the listener.
What continues to make me smile where the QA's are concerned is how they've managed to produce such a tiny loudspeaker which sounds so huge. For that, I love them - and once used in the right conditions, and set up very carefully in-room, they're a riot.
Richard.
Round & round bits: LP12/Cirkus/Kore/Herc II/Roksan Nima/Hana EL
Megabits: Bluesound Node 2i/TEAC UD-H01 dac
Making it louder bits: Phonostage: Dynavector P75 Amp: Cyrus 8vs/PSX-R Speakers: Royd Sintra II
Connecting it together bits i/c's: Flashback Premier. Speaker cables: Van Damme Hifi
Reply With Quote
