maxg

Busy Sunday thread this one. Just had to respond to this one Erik - listen to a single violin and then listen to massed violins - there is almost nothing in common on the face of it (yet obviously enough for the ear to recognise many violins - one wonders how?). I think there is little doubt that air vibrations from many instruments affect the sound of the individual instrument. We could have a whole thread on the evolution of the orchestra as we know it today - the instruments that made it and those that didn't, possible as a dirct result of tonal imbalances caused by the position and impact on the orchestral whole. As for the - do 901's play classical or not? It is going to depend very much on what is being played - and the consistency of the sound source (in my opinion). To explain that - if you are listening to massed choir music - continuously - I would imagine the 901's would be fantastic. Opera, on the other hand - may have part massed choir in the background - but switches to foreground single voice both lone and overlaid, with an without orchestral accompaniment from bellow usually. I think it is these changes that affect the 9 driver dispersion of the 901 more than with other speakers (although let us not forget there are many speakers out there that fall over with any large scale classical or operatic work) and would lead to the odd sonic experience I refered to. It is also worth bearing in mind that there are many listeners out there that do not care one jot for soundstaging, imaging and the rest. For these people the 901 might also be excellent. Interesting to see what parts of my mini review people have picked up on. At the price and size of the 901 it has, IMHO, no right to do anything THAT well. That is does do some things better than ANYTHING else is incredible. Erik - if they are additional to what you have - go for it. I think you will have a blast with them - I know I would. Might be a good idea to go second hand - that way if you ever change your mind the financial hit would be minimal and you could sell them pretty much for what you bought them for.

Wow!! Amazing look - congrats.

Erik, Ask and ye shall receive. In the end we could not re-arrange the meeting so it went ahead on Friday as originally planned. Since then I needed some time to decide how to interpret what I heard and some time to listen to an audiophile system (based on Zingali's) that were the basis of last night's ACA meeting. Anyway - what to make of the 901? Damn hard question to answer really - too many really weird things that I would think do not apply to any other speaker. I guess I am almost relieved to report that it is not the speaker for me (how shallow is that? Happy I am not upsetting my fellow audiophile's sensitivity - pathetic really). It is, however, most definitely the speaker for Tony and I imagine he will be buying a pair very shortly. I too heard the series 6. We heard it with a tube amp and the 500 wpc yammy. The tube amp was quite high power too - 120 wpc I think. First shock - when you change the amp there is a short period of adjusting the sliders on the equalizer and then there is seemingly no difference soncially between amps. What I mean is - we listened with the tubes and we listened with the Yamaha - and there was no way to tell which was being used other than by looking. The equalizer seems to mask what amp you are using totally. I guess this means - go for the least expensive decent 200 wpc + unit you can find and never think about it again. (You can certainly get away with less - but 200 is just about enough to really rock out should you need to). Second shock - the sound: Certain things play better than on any other speaker in the world. Now if that doesnt bring the house down nothing will but there you have it - just IMHO (and Tony's of course). We listened to Wish You Were here from the album of the same name. The guitar was SO REAL it was scarey - just like it physically materialized in front of you. At the same time however - when the voice came in - it sucked - big time. We got it a bit better with the high level slider - but it was not as good as it is on my Promedia 2.0 speakers - not nearly as good. Jazz - as far as I can tell, and largely verified by Tony - was uniformly fabulous - and it did feel like it would be the basis of sonics on the Holo deck of the starship Enterprise. Really reall good. Classical - sadly - was not good. I had deliberately taken a Concerto with me (due the varying focus required of the system throughout the playback - from solo to full orchestra and most things in between). The one chosen was Brahms Violin Concerto number 1. Certain elements - at certain moments - were utterly fantastic - massed violins for example - came across as good as I have ever heard - but milliseconds later the soaring solo violin went off like a damp squib. Notable that sudden switches of string from the lead instrument caused quite dramatic movement in the sound stage - so that at times the fret on the violin appeared to have about 5 feet between neighbouring strings. The image height the system can generate is amazing - after a bit of playing with location we got a full wall of sound. The old speakers disappearing line applies more to 901's than anything else in my experience - but, this is entirely an artifact of the design. There are times when the overall soundstage appears to be much as you would expect it to be in reality - but then it will suddenly disappear in a cloud and you cannot tell quite where anything is only to reappear momentarily later - in a totally different arrangement - the 901 is the LSD of speakers. Well that's not fair but how to describe it is totally defeating me at the moment. I suppose I could liken the experience to being at a live Jazz club where you are not really that interested in the music- so you are eating a large meal, drinking wine and not concentrating - whilst a live performance is going on. Its quite live - but not focussed I guess. If I had 2 systems I would have this speaker in a shot - it is SO DIFFERENT from anything else it is worth it just for that. I would never have it as my only speaker - because of the music I listen to - but for Rock and Jazz I would seriously consider it - if I listened to them. I am very glad Anwar went and built this - it is more than merely an attempt to do something different - it is something that is different in a very worthwhile way that really has contributed to the overall sound choices one can make in this world. It does seem that this latest incarnation represents a huge leap forwards from some of the earlier models (although I have never heard any of them Tony owned version 1's or 2's for years in Canada). I should also point out on other thing that I think we overlook. Comparing this speaker to KHorn's is ridiculous. Cost wise, used and new, it appears similar to the Heresy 2 or 3. Size wise it is slightly smaller than the Heresy. That is does what is does from this tiny unit is remarkable. conclusions: 1. It is the most wonderfully flawed design I have ever come across. 2. It has both the best and just about the worst sound I have ever come across in the space of a 5 second gap - or less. 3. It is the smallest huge speaker available today. 4. It is bloody cheap for the sonic experience it provides and with careful selection of music can compete with anything. 5. You cannot be non-commital over this thing - you love it or you hate it, however, whilst I love it - I just dont want it (subject to second system). 6. Cheaper than hallinogenic drugs supply with similar effect on soundstage for complex passages. 7. Set up a group of 5 of these in a home theatre - playback music in Prologic 2 and charge for admission. Would have to be about the wildest experience on the planet. 8. Has more bass that reported - but it is a bit odd. Phasing issues abound I think - it would take a coven of physics professors to work out what is really going on in a typcial listening room. Probably best not to even ask. Summary, Erik - if this is for a 2nd or 3rd system and you have the funds then get them - dont even think twice. If it is for the main system to replace the KHorns then go back to listen to them with a large number of recordings you like - as varied as possible and take your time evaluating the performance. One piece is no guide to how the next will play. Also - playback in the shop is no guide to how they will play at your house. Of course the latter is true for any speaker - it is just more true for this one than any other (except possible the KHorn). I guess this was too confused a review to be helpful in any way - sorry about that - I cannot quite get my head around this speaker yet.

Erik, Just as a heads up if you do decide to go for a pair - used, I found this site with all the why's and wherefore's of buying the different versions of the 901 - and the potential pitfalls: http://www.epinions.com/content_4691894404 There appears to be more to buying this speaker than most - due to the equalizer - which changed with different versions of the speaker. Get a mismatched pair and the results are apparently disasterous. Who knew? Also interesting - the newer ones seem to have less of a power need than the older ones. For the 901 V6 Bose (helpfully - not) say an amp of between 10 and 450 wpc is required. I guess even you have a 10 wpc amp somewhere..... On the other hand - does this mean that 901's need less power than Heritage? If only the colourful feathered one was still posting here......[]

We have hopefully postphoned the visit till Sunday so I can get organised. I am planning to take 2 amp/pre-amp combos with me to play with. The first will be the Yamaha/Klimo mentioned earlier - the second the ZTPRE/Tsakiridis (150 wpc into 8 ohms). It will be interesting to compare - and I might well take a CD player with me as I know what that sounds like too. I am not altogether sure what I am expecting. I have this theory that the reflected sound might actually produce a very lifelike feel to the music (as in more like an auditorium). That means big and airy but without the highly defined imaging I am used to with Horns. Depth will be interesting too - could be like panels in that respect - or could be non-existant. Ultimately I am trying to control my expectations here as I want to go in with an open mind as possible - but the more I read and the more I look at the underlynig technology the more interesting it gets. On the foam surrounds - I am aware of this but there are repair kits available so whilst it might be a PITA it is not a deal breaker. Just hope all 9 drivers in each speaker dont go at the same time....

Well what the heck. Tomorrow evening I am going to listen to a pair of series 6's with the equalizer. I will take the 500 wpc yammy and the tube pre-amp with me. If it dont play with that it dont play!!! Should be interesting - the current owner is selling them for a song too..... Erik - what have you done to me?

On the one hand I can see why some think this would have been better handled in a pm or a mail to Craig. On the other hand by posting this on the forum it gives a chance for all those happy owners of Craig's VRDs to leap to his defence should they want to in that other forum. We now have the luxury of having 2 amp suppliers on the forum and I do not think anyone is seriously suggesting either of them is anything other than superb at doing the job they were designed to do. There are plenty of delighted VRD customers on this forum and a growing number of new pCat owners who seem equally pleased with their purhase. Whilst Craig and Robert do seem to have regular run-ins on this forum it is a big enough place for the 2 of them and both are valued members of our little community - IMHO. Craig, In summary - whatever motives you assign to Robert's post (and only Robert really knows) - I think it actually helps you rather than damages you in any way. Support is rallying apparently as I type. If I had ever even seen or heard the VRD's I too would doubtless be leaping to the battlements. Putting this another way - the VRD's and the pCats are probably the only 2 high value audio products I would consider buying without having heard them or testing them in any way - just on the basis of the reports I have read on here. Well maybe a blueberry extreme/creme whatever as well.....

Funny you should say that - neither have I. I have heard forte's in 3 systems and they all sounded great with quite different rooms and electronics to boot.

Def, Interesting input - couple of quick questions: Do you have the equalizer to go with the 901's - I have heard some people run them without but that there is no comparison between the 2. What amplification did you run with the 901's? Since Erik asked this question originally I have started to research the 901 a bit. It seems you can indeed pick them up for very little over here but some of the comments from previous owners have been quite funny. One owner commented - you can put unlimited amounts of power into these speakers - however big your amp is you want more - they can probably take 10,000 wpc and not blow. Thinking of Erik this made me laugh out loud.

Rumours of its death had been exaggerated seemingly....

That's what I like about Dean - he doesnt say much - but he says it loud. So - they're analogue after all then. Tee hee. Till the next post from Shawn that is....

I think it is more for the option of bi-amping than bi-wiring.

Bill - I was just thinking how similar these speakers look to my old Sansui 2500 speakers. I wonder where I put those now? I think they are in my wife's office - hope so - otherwise she has sneakily thrown them out!!

And the pendulum swings back - this one can run and run and these discussions are similar all over the net. Could we get any milage out of calling them hybrids - or would that just upset everyone?

" Maxg, Isn't an amphitheater, Greek or otherwise, a horn of sorts? If so, acoustical horns are ancient. " Yes - just not a folded one!!! If you ever do get to an ancient Greek threatre with your significant other it is quite fun for one of you to go down to the stage and the other to go to the highest row. When the one on the stage speaks - in a normal voice - the other hears it. Quite amazing it is too!

As a point and clicker I went digital and never looked back (in contrast to my audio habits). Just so much easier - instant results, instant deletes etc. I tend to act as photographer for ACA (how desperate are we?) quite a bit. My camera is TINY - similar in size to a credit card and about the thickness of 3. Holds about 500 5 Mpixel shots so I can click away and review either live or later as it suits. I couldn't do half the things I do with a non-automatic and the camera shoots repectable video (640 * 480 @ 30 fps) for about an hour on a 2 gig card. Sometimes I get quite good results which I dont think I could ever successfully achieve without being able to take repeated shots. Obviously - uploading to the net is a breeze with so many resizing options available to boot:

Close Erik but actually I think it was the all new Vesuvius Sub woofer that was designed to really shake the walls down - and it was in Herculaneum where they refused to play such old designs as horn loaded woofers and reflected sounds. Horn-loading was actually started by the Greeks some 500 years before in their theatres so you could hear a stage whisper in the back row. Which amps they were using is not recorded.

What is it in the construction or materials that add to or reduce the amount of time for an interconnect to break in? Seen many theories posted on cable manufacturers websites on this - none seemed very credible to me. Does playing at higher volume break in a interconnect faster? Apparently not - at least I have never seen a reference to it. What does the % broken in vs time curve look like in general. Never seen that graph anywhere - but it is an excellent question - can a cable be 50% broken in? Also begs the questions - is there a difference in mass between a broken in cable and a unused cable? Does break in occur faster between some components than others ie CD to Pre amp vs pre amp to power amp? Probably not. I think - if you are prepared to accept the idea that cables break in after the first few microseconds of play then the best idea would be to follow the instructions of the manufacturer. Some may even offer explanations along the lines you are looking for. This does not mean that what the manufacturers are telling you is true - but at least you can say you did all you could to get all you could out of their product.

I would probably use the analogy of a modern $300 computer versus a $10,000 computer in the 80's... Probably more like a $10,000,000 computer if we are talking about the 80's - but without the graphics and the sonic stuff.....

Very good post Erik, To paraphrase it a little - the 901's produce a different kind of sound from other speakers (including Heritage and single driver units). They also require different things of the room and the amplification. In an ideal world for those of us that like this audiophile stuff there would be room in our homes (and our budgets) for multiple systems. Obviously you are lucky enough to already have several systems to choose from and from what I understand from your posts each of these systems has that certain something over the others for different types or music or possibly even different types of listening. Were I in your position - with multiple systems to hand - I might well consider having one of those systems based upon the 901. As it is - with the limits I have - I can only really have one "good" system in the house. Accepting that I do not think I could go for a 901. My limited experience of it is that it does do some things extra-ordinarily well and some things not so brilliantly. True of all systems of course - so it is merely a matter of adding up the compromises you are prepared to live with and choosing on that basis. From what you have written you value the immersion in the sonic field (paraphrased) higher than the specificity of the image. That is probably the reverse of my own case - although I do not feel my soundstaging and imaging are weak points of my system. I guess all of this adds up to - this is why there are so many listening choices (both in terms of music and system) that people make. It also effectively buries the myth that we can get to "reality" - we can merely get to what appears to our ears and brain to be a semblence of reality - which is entirely subjective to the listener. Aside from that there would be something quite entertaining about the idea that you specifically (with all those low, low powered amps) could end up with a pair (or more) of 901's and a thousand watts to drive them. As someone else commented earlier in this thread - you are definitely THE most open minded individual on this forum when it comes to sound.

Mark, Haven't you just described FM? How does PWM differ from that. It seems apparent to me that there are 2 systems to choose from - DSD type digital ala SACD and FM analogue like radio. This discussion now boils down to which system the amps in question are using - unless there is a third one I dont know about (other than a variation on FM).

Integrals and functions?!!! I dont log in here to see stuff that reminds me of the latter years at school - I log in here to tell everyone vinyl is better than CD!! My god this discussion is soaring - and still no clear winner. Figures. DD, I have built a somewhat similar amp based on Hypex boards. It did not perform very well but that is probably more due to my lack of building skill than anything else. I think I could have a much better stab at it a second time. It did work though - which amazed me to begin with. Mine was a 30 wpc model. Didnt look massively digital I must say - nothing obviously CPU or RAM like about it - but I met 2 people on their discussion board having much the same argument as to whether PWM is, or is not, digital.

Thanks Guys - we now have 2 perfectly good explanations as to why they are, and are not digitial amps. Think I will tune back in when we have a winner.

Thanks Who, But there is still something not clear to me. I can see that the PWM amp is digitally controlled - but it is handling digital data? In other words imagine a microprocessor controlled faucet that varies the flow according to some kind of feedback mechanism. There are all sorts of digital things going on - but the flow of water is not, in and of itself, digital - merely the control is. Isnt this what is actually happening to the "music signal" here?

I have now heard this argument a dozen times on different forums - as to whether a PWM amp is, or is not, digital and am still none the wiser. I think it is about 6 each in wins - allocating this discussion to a yes PWM is digital. My question is this. If a PWM amp is digital why do they always only have analgoue inputs? It seems to me to be totally insane to have an audio chain (starting, for example, from a CD player) where we go from the digital (PCM) data from the CD player - out through its DAC into the analogue connection of a PWM amp to be converted into digital data, to be amplified, to be converted back into analogue data to go out to the speakers. Wouldnt it make a whole lot more sense to take a digital output from the CD player - straight convert that into PWM and then only convert into analogue at the final stage prior to heading out to the speaker? Am I missing something vital here?