Re: Reference 3A Grand Veena versus Sonus Faber Stradivarius
nkumar -- Sat, 06/14/2008 - 17:45
Dear Robert,
I have written to you on previous occasions and obtained very helpful advice.
I am at present contemplating the purchase of a pair of good loudspeakers and my choice is between the Sonus Faber Stradivarius and the Ref. 3A Grand Veena. I know that there is a big price difference between these speakers but in the UK no dealer carries both these speakers. You obviously think highly of both these designs and I’d be very grateful if you would enlighten me on the difference between these speakers and your preference. I know from reading TAS that harry Pearson appears to favour the Ref 3A Grand Veena. Any comments you make will be very helpful.
I look forward to your reply,
Kind Regards,
Dr.Naresh Kumar
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
I've only heard these two speakers at shows, but from what I've heard, the two speakers are in completely different leagues. The Sonus faber has sounded significantly better in every respect.
I agree with Robert.
have had a grand veena for a few months powered by a music reference rm9 amp which has the unusual feature of three different negative feedback settings. in my system the only setting that does not sound constricted is the lowest feedback option. refence 3a told me the speaker likes no/low feedback.
robert_harley6 wrote:I've only heard these two speakers at shows, but from what I've heard, the two speakers are in completely different leagues. The Sonus faber has sounded significantly better in every respect.I agree with Robert and Jonathan. the Ref 3A have some interesting attributes including wonderful transparency and inner detail but on a total basis that includes dynamics and extension and energy into the room the SF is easily the stronger performer
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
changed from a music reference 200 mk 2 to a higher powered simaudio w7 and the defeciencies you noted were greatly reduced.
since you mentioned the sound projecting into the room, it seems that the Grand Veenas might not 'cut loose' on jammin' jazz, for example.
The Sonus Fabers? Are these the ones in the 40k price range?
Yes, the Stradivarius is $40k, which puts it in a completely different league than the Grand Veena. It's not really fair to compare the two, but the reader asked about the relative merits of each.
Two speakers that fall between those in price that are exceptional are the Revel Salon2 ($21,995) and the Magico V3 ($25k). Also consider the Wilson Sophia 2 and the Vandersteen Model 5A, both of which are under $20k.
Quote:Two speakers that fall between those in price that are exceptional
Not to mention the Magico Mini II, which remains the best cone speaker I've ever heard, the Magneplanar 20.1, the Sound Lab M1a-1, the Quad 2905, the new CLX, the Kharma CRM3.2.2, etc.
The Quad 2905 is shaping up to be the speaker to beat. Watch for Jonathan Valin's review in the October issue of TAS.
This special speaker issue includes reviews of the new ProAc D Two, Thiel CS3.7, Wilson Alexandria X-2, Venture Excellence, Sonics Alegria, Emerald Physic CS2, the $650 electrostaic X-Static MS-450, the $995 Triangle Titus EX, and others.
brion wrote:since you mentioned the sound projecting into the room, it seems that the Grand Veenas might not 'cut loose' on jammin' jazz, for example.
The Sonus Fabers? Are these the ones in the 40k price range?
At this moment I have the new Sonus Faber Cremona M in my listening room. I've spent considerable time with the SF Strad and I have to say that in smaller environs the new Cremona ($12,800) projects much of the Strad experience for a fraction of the Strad's cost. Their characters are remarkably similar although the Strad certainly trumps the Cremona in ultmate output and LF extension.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
....it seems that speakers cost more, but, apart from something like Magico, it's a refinement technique for tens of thousands more than 10 years ago.
Speakers did wonderful things for 6k and above that, readers and reviewers alike were shocked, SHOCKED, that a speaker was more than that and did not "do" the bottom octave. Now, it seems that for 12K, one cannot even expect the bottom octave.
Isn't there a manufacturer out there who can do say, 27 Hz (yes, the piano) without killing the customer's pocketbook? It's unnerving to see the race to see whom can have the most elite pricing, and I say this as someone who HAD a Versa, WATT/Puppies, Goldmunds and most of the expensive stuff. (I skipped the IRSes: if they were too big to carry out of the house in a fire, I wasn't buyin' em!)
I'd love to see a manufacturer make a speaker whose grain structure is lower than that of a pair of Sound Dynamics RTS 3s, or Avalon Eclipses or Ascents and believe me, that's harder to find than most people (who never HEARD a Sound Dynamics) could even imagine. And they were only $280!!! Plenty of speakers now are both transparent and yet still unable to create a web of continuousness (as did the Avalons and the Jadis of the early 1990s). The soundstage is still fragmented into layers with many high-priced speakers, although that's easier to hear if the electronics are also continuous. What causes the prices to head towards Valhalla (not the speaker cable, the realm)?
brion wrote:...
Speakers did wonderful things for 6k and above that, readers and reviewers alike were shocked, SHOCKED, that a speaker was more than that and did not "do" the bottom octave. Now, it seems that for 12K, one cannot even expect the bottom octave.
that's not the impression I meant to give. The Cremona's have a great deal of bottom octave response, easily into the mid-20s with usable response even lower. I play piano (somewhat) and the SFs do a marvelous job reproducing that instrument. I agree with your larger point; just because a speaker costs a lot of money doesn't mean it's especially good. In fact I'd argue that the lower priced segments have been rapidly closing the gap in the last few years, so much so that you'd be doing yourself a disservice in failing to audition some of these relative bargains.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
brion wrote:....it seems that speakers cost more, but, apart from something like Magico, it's a refinement technique for tens of thousands more than 10 years ago.
What causes the prices to head towards Valhalla (not the speaker cable, the realm)?
brion wrote:....it seems that speakers cost more, but, apart from something like Magico, it's a refinement technique for tens of thousands more than 10 years ago.
What causes the prices to head towards Valhalla (not the speaker cable, the realm)?
There is drivers of the day the ceramic/diamond brigade, saying those are expensive drivers we should pay for them more, then there is weak dollar, european made speakers are more expensive everyday and good ol' american manufacturers are just following the suit.
You can see it on Thiel 3.7, after 9,9k$ introductory price comes 13k$.
Need I say any more?
to robert harley 6, you recommend the sophia 2, how does the watt puppy 8 stack up against the magico v3 and the revel salon 2?
RH's comment about the Sonus Faber Strad vs. the Reference 3a Grand Veena was a sobering, cold slap in the face. I own practically every issue of TAS since Issue 32 and should probably know better. Nevertheless, I'm used to HP reviewing only "Top Guns" and have apparently slipped into complacency regarding the hierarchy of where one item ranks against another. I assumed, after such a glowing review, that the Grand Veena was a super bargain that could complete against the very best out there - sans perhaps throwing a life-size soundstage. But outside of this one parameter, certainly the equal of anything within financial reason - meaning, in my obviously confused state, anything under 80 grand. Indeed, I remember a comment HP made about the GV in which he said you'd have to spend 10 times it's price to equal it's quality.
One of the reasons I started reading TAS occurred early on when TAS published a letter from an advertiser who said they would stop advertising with TAS unless they got better reviews. Exposing this type of "bribery" showed me the integrity of the staff at TAS. Certainly nothing in that area has changed to this very day. However, I have noticed a reluctance to "rank" or "rate" certain equipment against each other - as was more common in the earlier issues.
I'm sure you would hate, with a passion, ranking equipment in some sort of relative order but, grouping equipment in, perhaps, "quality levels" would provide a realistic frame of reference for those of us who so enjoy and rely upon your opinions - not having easy access to those all those stores that carry all that you review.
To pacify manufacturers, who might not feel so good about such rankings, you could infer that all the items listed in the levels are exemplary representations of each level. I'm sure that Reference 3a would not feel bad about being in Level D along with, say, the Wilson Sophia, whereas the Wilson Alexandria 2 and the Marten Coltrane Supreme might be in Level A, or however it would all play out.
Lest you think I have a front row seat on the "stupid" express, allow me to point out that I'm not alone here in first class. There are many like me. And we care.
By the way, I love these forums. What an eye-opener on my first "look see."
Thank you for your integrity, and as I said in my one letter that I wrote to TAS some 24 years ago, "I appreciate your existence and wish you continued success!"
To take the question from "dafos" first, I haven't heard the WP8, although I'm familiar with the WP7.
You can get an idea of what I think of the Magico V3 from my Golden Ear Award text on page 40 of Issue 182. It doesn't get any more unequivocal than that.
As for T-Bop's comment about ranking equipment, I think we do that to some degree, particularly in our feature The TAS Short List. We've run this a number of times, and we try to publish it in at least eight issues per year. This is our "creme de la creme" of everything we recommend, as is limited to three, four, or five products per cateogory.
You can also get an idea of those components we rate most highly by the repeated mentions, extended use as a reference, the Golden Ear Awards, and the Product of the Year Awards.
It would be misleading to publish an ordered ranking of products; different components have different strengths and shortcomings, and those strengths and shortcomings might or might not fit your hierarchy what's most important sonically.
Okay folks, how does this sound...
Take an Atma-Sphere MP-1 Mark III preamp (which has no coupling capacitors) and run that into an Atma-Sphere MA-1 Mark III amplifier (which has no output transformer) and then hook that up to the Reference 3a Grand Veena (which has no crossover).
Too much of a good thing? Or Nirvana...?
Inquiring minds want to know...
quite the contrary: I admire exactly how clearly you delineate exactly where a speaker deviates, as in your review of the smaller MBL speakers.
I was speaking with the perspective of time. At one time, if a speaker cost upward of $6k, it was expected that it had BETTER reach into the bottom octave -- at least a little. I'm exaggerating a bit: lets raise the price to $10-12K to be more literal.Think of HP's review of the Avalon Ascents and Duntechs in issue 68. His point was that, for THAT price (the Duntechs were actually $15.5k [I just pulled out the issue and looked], it was expected that the speaker would plumb the depths. This was, however, back in 1990.
THESE DAYS, however, one buy Kharmas, Verity, and quite a few other speakers in the $8-12K and they still don't go into the low bass range. THAT was my point. I find your reviews a model of articulate visual acuity: one can actually see what you've heard, which is a change from how TAS is these days, I'm sad to say. If one read one of JWC's reviews, one knew what a speaker would sound like (using compatible, very high resolution equipment: sometimes, audiophile's expectation of sonics is based on what they have) . HP's reviews are more reviews of the possibilites, or should I say, the capabilities of a component, but ONLY when using the very best equipment around. Oherwise, one can expect to her less of the total capability of the component, something most people seem to forget. (I once had a reader write me after I wrote a review of the Hurricane amps for Ultra Audio, and actually ask me if I didn't find them "smeared." I was aghast. Smeared!?!? [b]Hurricanes [/b]!?!?!?! Not in his wildest dreams. I expect it was his room, or speaker placement.
Be that as it may, the point is that High End pricing these days is obscene, truly obscene. It is based on a lets-get-as-much-from-the-rich-customers-and-everyone-else-will-have-to-make-do attitude. I mean, if Infinity IRS speakers were still 20k, how embarrassed would they be by today's speakers? Does anyone even know the answer to that? Do they even care to know the answer to that? Inflation has, according to an inflation website 85% Here's the link: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Articles/CalculateInflation...
Given that, The IRS would cost around $40K, give or take a few thousand.
So, why do some classic speakers now cost 300% more than they did in 1987?? Okay, "advances," I hear. Fine. 300%, though?????? It's gross. No wonder we're in such a frightening economic state: we've gotten so greedy the cost of everything is akin to Atlas holding up the world.
Well, back to the speakers. I agree with the other poster who said he thought one would avhe to spend 10x the price of the Grand Veenas to get that performance, but clearly, that would only be in certain paramters that this holds true. However, readers can no longer hear the equipement you guys review, and you need to recognize this. Retailers are stingy about what they carry, and who can blame them? They have to fight to survive. Therefore, if reviews are going to be guides, it would be helpful for someone to have heard the Grand Veenas besides HP. This is EXACTLY why the intercommentary system worked so well. You, for example, could have written about the Sonus Fabers and pointed out that the GVs were fabulous, but perhaps not for rock or jazz. The fragmentation of TAS due to dropping the intercommentary system works against the magazine: no one can afford to believe a review, because it is a case of the three blind men feeling different parts of the elephant. Nobody has touched two or even all three parts, so each person's view is just that: an opinion. Opinions are undependable, and without another view, everything is ruderless, steering everywhere, going nowhere. And none of us readers has even a clue as to what you value in listening, subjectively, so we don't even that THAT to help us ignore your reviews (in the sense of someone thinking: oh, he doesn't care about dynamics, so I'm not going to give mych creedence to his reviews. I want someone who cares about the timing, like, say, Fred Kapan did because he was into jazz).
There needs to be a bit more glue to the magazine, or the (subjective) pronouncements will come to mean nothing. At that point the magazine's readership will drop, and there'll be hell to pay.
brion wrote:The fragmentation of TAS due to dropping the intercommentary system works against the magazine: no one can afford to believe a review, because it is a case of the three blind men feeling different parts of the elephant.. ...
There needs to be a bit more glue to the magazine, or the (subjective) pronouncements will come to mean nothing. At that point the magazine's readership will drop, and there'll be hell to pay.
I agree with you that the commentary system is a terrific way to come to certain conclusions about a product. The Digital amp survey which used this procedure was all the more balanced,conclusive and I think authoritative. It was also very well received by readers for many of the reasons you posted. Still I think single author reviews can be just as authoritative when the reader has become familiar with the writer over time, his or her bias' and system and room (elements that we publish from time to time, although perhaps not frequently enough).
As for pricing-I too am sometimes aghast at the upwards trend. Still I see it in all sectors of the market, from cars to milk, soup to nuts. Every segment that appeals to wealthier individuals is guilty of this. Hopefully TAS can continue to bring some much needed perspective.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
I also had the feeling from the GV review that in most areas it would compete with anything near $ 40K. Guess not. Darn. Thinking it would be the next Sound Dynamic for me.
thanks
especially the RTS3s, which, with no grain whatsoever, create a continuousness to the sound that, in the speakes I've owned, only the Avalons resembled. No fractured, vacuum-in-space effect in the soundfield. Too bad Sound Dynamics didn't apply this to a larger, more state-of-the-art speaker. That line certainly has the dynamics, both contrast and range, and tonal qualities, along with fantastic depth layering, staging in general and musical involvement that I haven't experienced on a consistent basis with even some of my more expensive speakers years ago, even the WATT/Puppies of the 90s, and Goldmunds didn't have that no-pain and no-grain web of sound. (sigh!) Makes one yearn for the good ol' (and sensibly-priced) days...
Brion, now that API (Sound Dynamics, Energy, Athena and Mirage parent) is owned by Klipsch, maybe they will return. Klipsch has no trouble making the K horns and other older classics. People need to request this from Klipsch. HP could put some pressure on (sure he wouldn't mind). Klipsch isn't stupid, they like to make money.
Never got the RTS3. Have the bigger 300Ti. Still love them. Have two friends with RTS3. Maybe 1 or both will sell theirs! :o
Have heard many more expensive speakers. Just didn't get my attention. Would love to hear Avalons.
thanks
barondla
I rea
...a case of a bad setup. The idea that HP would hear something that sounds bad, especially when he says it sounds more of a piece than the Scaenas should be a clue that the dealer did not have an optimal setup. I've seen this much too often, and, in fact, I heard a bad setup myself. I went to Lyric to hear the Antique Sound Lab Hurricanes back in 2003 after seeing HP's review. I was, to say the least, annoyed at how bad they sounded. I couldn't believe that the setup could be so amateurish. I remember the equipment and it was Dynaudio speakers, Nordost and that Italian CD player that HP was so high on (hard to believe I can't remember it's name) that cost $3000. ZERO dynamics, hard (constipated is a better word), and just plain bad.
I bought a pair from a dealer across the country on faith, turned the amps on (one failed 3 times, but fortunately Tosh Goka, the importer, paid for a local technician to repair it) after the third resistor was replaced and it was MAGIC. I mean, I IMMEDIATELY forgot about my Goldmund Mimesis, my Jadis Defy 5, my VTLs --- ALL of them. I was dazzled -- and I'd owned a lot of the REALLY good stuff. So, it was all setup. Don't go by the dealer. Go somewhere else and REALIZE that if it doesn't sound good, and HP loved it, at the very least, even if you don't agree with the parameters he loves, it should still sound fantastic. Even when I saw what he saw and thought the sound was too thin (or "transparent," as some would have it), I could see what made it fantastic.
The Grand Veena 3A "pushes against the limit of conventional speaker thinking" and "is now and will be in the future considered a classic of its kind. It is, purely and simply, a great loudspeaker". "(.....opened up the soundstage in what I call, without exaggeration, breathtaking fashion)". HP conceded that the speaker did not have the concert hall effect of a large (that means BIG) system. Now what am I to think? It doesn't even make it into best of class. And I thought his review was straightforward and unequivocal.
BTW, Chris, Thanks for the Nottingham 294 review (spot on!) and the Phenomenova review (again, great!) and to Seydor for recommending the Dynavector 17D3. I guess the only reviewer I have to be careful with is HP!!!!
Jack D II
Hi everyone.
I read through all the treads and sound like no one actually listening to the Grand Veena before. I am currently using GV for more than 6 months now. I think I am in a better postion to make few comments. First, this is not a fair comparsion between GV and Stradivarius which is costing more than my whole system and it is not sounding 5x better than the GV.
Second, I checked out this speaker after reading HP positive review, because it is within my budget and the right size for my listening area. We auditioned the GV 5 times before we decided to take this baby home. We compared the GV with Thiel 3.7 and 2.4, I was using 2.4 for 3 years, Verity Audio, Wisdom and Martin Logan, all within the price range. The more we listened to the GV, we fell in love with the GV even more. It is extremely musical, but like HP said, don't expect it can provide the concert hall alike sound effect or heavy bass. But my ear are definitly enjoying the music coming out from the GV.
Reviewer just a good source for us to find the rigth products but we still need to go out and have a good listening ourselves until we are convince or prove the reviewers are full of gas. Go out and have a good listen the Grand Veena, you won't be disappointed. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.
I own and like the Grand Veenas very much. I am using ARC throughout, REF 3, REF 110, CD 7, REF Phono. NBS Omega cables. VPI Super Scoutmaster. While I like the sound, I am a bit frustrated at it's lack of warmth. Still, it is a huge step up from my previous speakers (Virgo IIIs). My system is super transparent and ultra sensitive to speaker placement. But I may switch to or at least try SET tubes-perhaps the Cadenzas- and/or go to a warmer speaker (albeit at a much higher price point). Still, as I listen for hours each day the system doesn't give me ear fatigue. That's extremely important. And my listening room is far from ideal as it is long and somewhat narrow.
Steve,
Are you still using the ARC equipment? If not, what did you change to and what were the results?
I am late to reply,but I too own Grand Veenas.
I listened to the ML CLX and the Vandie 5a and then the GV at a dealers.
At one half the cost of the Vandies, and at about a third the cost of the CLX, the GV weren't too shabby.
I wouldn't say they were as good, they weren't, but they were close enough for me to buy them and feel I got a bargain.
What I have driven them with-1961 Bell 15 watt tube integrated,Mac 275 V, Audio Art Carissa(set)and my own Red Draggon Leviathan sig amps(ice powered).The pre amp is the tubed Audio Valve Eclipse.
All amps made music with the GV,even the 15 watt old Bell was quite enjoyable,but in the end the hogh powered Leviathans, kept things in control and were just as smooth as any of the tube amps.
I would love to try a high power tube amp or a nice class A solid state amp to find out what is the ultimate amp for these speakers.
But I have to admit that all of the above amps worked well with the speakers.
In the past I've owned and enjoyed stacked Quad 57's, single pair of Quad 63, Acoustat3,Martin Logan Sequel, and Martin Logan CLS 11z, and Tannoy Ardens, Merlin TSmmx, Meadowlark Heron i,Mirage M3si,Rogers LS3/5a, Mission 770, and I am sure some others.
Compared to these other speakers, I would have to say that the GV share most of the best characteristics of the above list while revealing very few of their flaws.
The GV speakers in my estimation,give you a taste of what a lot more money will give you.
The GV are average at best. The asking price is too much given what it delivers. Have heard it at different places and shows. Its loud but thats about it. Far better alternatives are available for the same or even far less price. It could be a taste thing. May be with specific associated equipment and room you could squeeze out the best from it but thats a lot of work. Im too old to mess around for a year with 10 different things to get great sound. A speaker should get u to 60 to 70 percent of its potential with decent equipment and room. With excellent equipment and room should deliver 100% of the sound within months not years of set up trials. Although some find that fun to set up a system that way.
Sam, I've heard amps, preamps, speakers, nearly everything that didn't sounds good at shows. Shows and "different places" are hardly the same as a controlled environment. Me, I'll repeat that I find it unlikely that HP would laud something that sounds "average at best." Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you don't appreciate what they DO do.
ANY speaker in existence depends on "messing around" to get the best out of them. And "excellent room" is far more likely to kill the quality of a speaker than any equipment, given how few places bother to HAVE a good room. Most of the places I've been to, I could improve the sonics, I'm sure, if left alone. So, it's hard to dismiss Roy Gregory and HP in favor of an assessment formed in settings not of one's own design. IN fact, the Versa Dynamics 2.3 turntable sounded ordinary in my own room without very careful setup. While I appreciated my setup guy's efforts, he never touched what it really sounded like after messing around with it.
I get that you want to plop it down and it should sound good, but that's just unlikely to happen with any component except perhaps a preamp or the interconnects or speaker cable.
Brion, your point is valid too. But how else do you judge equipment other than auditioning at dealers and shows? Its hard to convince lots of dealerships to let you test these things at your home. HP and Roy Gregory test things with equipment that is out of this world. And I am sure what they heard in their rooms was accurate but who plays these speakers with Burmester type equipment for example? Anyhow if you are able to get most of what HP describes out of them then that's great. I have been listening to high end audio for 20+ years and didn't find these speakers up to par (just my opinion). I come no where near what HP and Roy Gregory do or the knowledge they have. But as a regular audiophile GV's didn't impress much. Those interested in them should definitely audition carefully before purchase.
Sam,I stated that I directly compared the GV to Vandersteen 5a, and Martin Logan CLX speakers at a dealers shop.Less than ideal conditions, so all of the speakers were compromised.
The CLX set up used all Ayre MX amps and gear, the Vandies system was less complex and the GV perhaps the most compromised or less costly of the three.
So they had more than just the vagaries of the room to contend with,they weren't given the same level of ancilliaries that the other two speakers were allowed.
And yet, using the same cd of Edgar Meyer,the sonics between all three speakers weren't night and day differences.More of the nit pick type.
So for a lot more money, I didn't feel the sonic differences warranted the extra dollars spent.
I've owned enough gear to know that nothing is perfect, but the imperfections of the GV at their cost were just easier to accept.
If money were not the determining factor I would have chosen the Vandie 5a as the all round winner.It did more of the things that I like a speaker to do.
But at half the cost, the GV was more than half as good as the Vandie, so I settled for it.
If there are other speakers(please educate us)for less that do more than the GV, then those speakers deserve some recognition.
I would , however, expect them to be directly compared to the GV, and based on more than memory or speculation.
P.S.. I meant to say, in my last post, that an excellent room is ..."LESS LIKELY to kill the quality..."
I too bought based on the review and find that the GV is very particular as to placement, room dimensions, equipment changes etc. i wish it was warmer but then it would be slower i guess. It has too much excellence in the treble which outshines an already weak bass. anyone know how to warm this bad girl up??
I just heard the GV's a week ago at Front Row Theater in Pompano Beach, driven by Mac 2300/2301 monos , with PS Transport/DAC in between and cables from MIT and they sounded mighty fine to me.
im looking for my next set of speakers. i have a psb sync one. anyone here who has compared a better set of speakers than the gv at a price limit of 8 thou? my fore front choices are dynaudio c1 and the ref 3a gv. i am leaning towards more the gv. i appreciate any help. ty.
THanks Niagara! I have made further improvements and they sound really amazing. I have had so many positive responses on this system and the speakers. I think the GV is a super bargain and will give all of those 20k products a serious run for the money. In my room I really believe that they beat out all of my previous speaker systems in their ability to bring you into the music. The system has a sense of purity that is just startling. It is hard to believe they are 8k a pair. Its competion is all over 20k.
Are you coming to the show in Novemeber?
I'll see!
Elliot:
How do you find the speakers on jazz music, such as Count Basie? I'm wondering if they have a sense of swing (pace, rhythm or whatever you want to call it) that would tie in with transient response and inter-transient silences, which help define "swing." I haven't seen anyone address that in this thread, if at all. The closest I've seen it addressed is Roy Gregory's review in HiFi Plus, wherein he noted a "subtle lack of texture" to instruments, which could, I suppose, mean very low-level detail or the "action" of how the sound itself is made (plucked, struck, strummed, hit, etc.).
And just out of curiosity, have you heard the Magnepan 1.7s, which would seem to be superb speakers as well?
Hi Brion,
I am not a Magnepan dealer and really have not spent any time listening to the new speaker. They are a very good compnay and make excellent products.
I became a 3A dealer a couple of months ago on the reccomendation of a friend and HP. I was totally amazed by the souind quality of the MM de Capo and then the Grand Veena. I think the GV is a great value. It purity and ability to let you intot the music is really addicting. I have had many more expensive speakers in my room , some highly reviewed here, that were not nearly as satisfing to me. I think that there are speakers that do things better than the GV. There are some that may be more dynamic, some that might be faster in spots, and certainly those that have deeper bass and more low frequency impact but none anywhere near the price range.I am a believer in systems not products and the GV allows someone the ability to buy really good pieces around it becasue it is not 22k, or 25k.
I am using the McIntosh tube pre and power amps, MIT cables and a PS Audio Perfect Wav DAC and Transport with the I2S silver interface cable. The system rocks. I have had over the last two weeks many Industry people here and many of my best clients and they all had glowing comments and were surprised at the low cost of the speakers vs. what they heard.
I listen to a lot of Jazz. I don't have any Count Basie but I do listen to Avishai Cohen, Branford Marsailles, Ricky Lee, and rock and classical and they do everything well. I said they are not perfect, what is, but it is a really good product that you can build a terrific system around if done correctly,
Good Luck