TAS198 Recommended Systems by TAS
Sam -- Tue, 10/27/2009 - 21:04
In TAS 198 December 2009 Issue. 6 Recommended systems were presented. On the 15K+ and $30K+ systems, ARCsp17 pre-amp and ARC VS115 Power amp is recommended with “several” different types of systems in these categories. Given how critical a speaker/amp match is, my question is that this matching recommendation is based on what?
1.Have these 2 Audio Research components even been tested/reviewed by TAS? Or is this just a recommendation because it’s simply ARC gear?
2. In one of the posts on avguide.com JV states that Quad 2905 are low sensitivity speakers therefore 100W-200W is about right for them, even though they clip at very high levels. Yet here the 2905’s are matched with a 60W Conrad Johnson LP66s amplifier, almost ½ or less of what he states in the post. Has that Conrad Johnson amp been actually tested with a 2805 or a 2905? Or is this based on tests with older quads or other speaker models?
3. If none of these matched components in this issue have been reviewed by a TAS reviewer are they planning to do a review or what? If it has been reviewed then in what issue of TAS?
I am curious how these recommendations and system matching were made specifically with regard to the ARC and CJ gear driving the speakers listed for the system.
Sam,
All of our recommendations are reached via careful listening and consultation among the staff. Although TAS has not reviewed the ARC SP17 and VS115 (the c-j LP66S was reviewed in Issue 193 and recommended in our Recommended Products issue and in our Buyers' Guide) I have heard them both, and have heard the ARC combo and the c-j driving the Quad 2905s, with which they were excellent matches. (I have repeatedly heard the Vandersteen speakers and the Wilson Sophia IIs driven by ARC preamps and 110Wpc ARC amps at trade shows--ARC appear to be Vandersteen's and Wilson's electronics of choice. I also have a friend who uses this very combination in his home.) The Quad is, as you noted, an odd duck--very low in sensitivity but also easy to drive into clipping. When I reviewed the 2905 I found it was also a great match with the Air Tight ATM-3 monoblocks (110W in ultralinear, about 55W in triode, driven by an ARC preamp, BTW) and would've recommended the Air Tights in addition to the C-J and the ARC save for the fact that the ATM-3s cost almost $20k all by themselves, putting them out of reach given our system price point. Remember, as Robert said in his intro, our recommendations are also guidelines--they are good choices but they aren't the only choices. BTW, if I recommended an amp in the 100-200Wpc range to drive the Quads in another thread, I made a mistake. Depending on the amp, the room, the music, and the level you listen at, two-hundred watts could prove too much for the 2905s (at least it would be in my room with my music), while 55 watts (ie., the Air Tight ATM-3s in triode mode) was quite sufficient in my moderately sized room with the music I listen to at the levels I listen at.
JV
JV, Thanks for the detailed reply and the explaination of the matching process. If the components listed in this issue were mostly for examples, I do understand that you guys are just trying to express methadology of matching and RH did say its just a guide, and we are free to try other things. From some stuff that I have read, I was under the impression that tradeshows are not really ideal ways of evaluating equipment?
1. The Air Tight ATM3’s were tested in a controlled setting in detail with reference level equipment to compare. Significant amount of time was spent on them in their evaluation. They were also tested with “an” ARC preamplifier, not the SP17. So basically we know a lot about this amp and its sound character/features/matching etc.
2. I understood that the team of TAS came up with suggestions, but something that has not even been tested by anyone in TAS? How could it be recommended? $7000 is still no pocket change. And keeping in mind that in some areas of the world people cannot test several different components and therefore self experimentation becomes almost impossible at times.
3. Even though you didn’t really say it loud and clear, The Air Tight ATM3 from your review seemed like it was the (dare I say) Best match according to your tests for the Quads in your opinion, yet here you say it’s a “great” match, while the ARC and the CJ you state are “Excellent” matches……so how does one gauge the differences in them? Great Vs. Excellent? Especially without a proper review or more detail about the other products? It sounds like ARC, CJ, Air Tight ATM3 seem pretty close with the exception of price? And if the suggestions were only meant to suggest what can drive those speakers then a lot of things would do but they are not necessarily the best option. A “will do for now” component ($7K or more) while looking for the best match can be costly.
4. I think it would be nice if you could elaborate on the ARC SP17, VS115, CJ-LP66s gear that you recommended in relation to the ATM3, better yet it would be great if it’s reviewed by someone in TAS. You would be the best person for the task since you have a lot of experience with other ARC gear. If the VS115, or CJ-LP66s can capture most of what AirTight ATM3’s do then that’s a great accomplishment and in my view a MUCH BETTER match than ATM3’s in a system that was recommended in issue 198 at that price point. $20,000 alone on just amps for a $30,000 System does make a system like that go way off budget.
5. I believe the approach explained on the system matching is very nice but what’s there as examples might not be the best of options or they might be. I wouldn’t know because I haven’t tested them all nor is it possible for me to test them all. Neither has TAS tested some of them, so from the information that we have as far as the SOUND may go I feel like ATM3’s would be a better match for Quads. As far as setting up a music system I think it’s ridiculous to allot $20K for just the amp for a $30K music system. I believe Any $20K amp may be a better application in another higher priced system rather than the Quad system set up in issue 198. I guess you cant have evearything. lol Just my two cents.
Anyhow Thanks for your reply!
I agree with JV that the ATM3s are a match made in heaven with the new Quads. Too bad they don't "fit" into a $30K system.
Unfortunately, I was not able to test the PrimaLuna DiaLogue Sevens ($5.5K/pair) with the new Quads, but I plan to do that soon.
Jim in your View what would be the best match for the New Quads at a lower price point than the ATM3's? Of course based on what you have actually heard and not based on what might drive them. Lots of amps can drive these speakers. (on a side note I am also doubtful about the recommended match to the magico V2's in TAS 198. I think we will know more once the detailed review of that speaker is available).
Sam,
The best match for the New Quads is hard to say since I haven't had the pleasure of trying them with everything. I did use the PrimaLuna DiaLogue II integrated with them to great effect, but unfortunately, didn't have the Quad 2805s in-house when the PrimaLuna DiaLogue Seven monoblocks arrived. I defintely would try them with the Seven monos, if possible. Not to spill the beans, but I was amazed at how good the Sevens were on the original Quads. I ran them mostly in tridoe mode with the Quads and had plenty of power. These give you a lot of what the ATM3s do, but at a lot less money.
Here are a couple of other suggestions that won't break the bank: You'd be surprised at how musical the 2805s can sound with the Quad II-Classic monos (15 watt/channel) with some NOS tubes. I prefered them to the more powerful Quad II-forty amp. The detail and neutrality freaks won't be thrilled, but the small Quad monos just sounded gorgeous (I never heard them on the larger 2905s). Another fine choice is the Air Tight ATM1 stereo amp, which is the poor man's ATM3 (okay, not so poor). I could live happily with either of these choices, or with the PrimaLuna DiaLogues. Hopefully, your dealer will let you try them out with a couple of different amps so you can make your own choice.
Although I listen to all types of music, I do my critical listening mostly with classical music and jazz. I also shy away from electronics that sound threadbare, aggressive and/or bright. I admit that each of these amps provides a bit of mid-bass warmth, and the Quad II-Classics go even further, but man do all these amps reproduce lush string tones.
Arent ATM 1's rated too low at 36W to be used with the 2905's? Or were you talking about using the ATM1 with the older Quads? Doesn't make sense. I would guess the ATM 2 would be a better match with the new quads, though still very expensive.
Sam,
I've heard the new Quads (2805 and 2905) driven by the ATM 1's and they worked quite well (as did the similarly-conservatively-rated DiaLogue II). Would I prefer the added beef of the DiaLogue Seven or the ATM 2 or ATM3s? Yes, but you can get away with less power, particularly on the 2805.
Try them out.
Sam,
I'll answer your excellent post in detail when I get back from Switzerland. However, your main point is well made--I think we do need to review the ARC SP17 and VS115 (and I'm sure we will in time), to give folks a more detailed and critical picture of these less pricey ARC products (although, once again, they sounded truly swell in the systems I've heard). Also, well made is your point about the ATM-3s, which really are superb with the 2905s. They sound so much like Marantz 9s it's uncanny. But, as you clearly see for yourself, $20k amps just can't be recommended in a $30k system, especially when the speakers themselves cost $12k+, At a higher system price point...by all means.
Jon
Hi Johnathan,
I was just about to post some questions on your latest recommendations in TAS issue 198 when I saw this topic.
I was quite surprised at your recommendations of 'less than REF' products from ARC given most of the gear you have from them belong to the REF series. Since you have recommended them, I assumed you have heard how the SP17 & VS115 sound when driving the Magico V2s. Given Magico speakers are generally tough to drive (although the V2 is easier than the MINI II), is the VS115 up to task?
I understand the Mini IIs along with the ARC REF610Ts used to be your dynamic reference system and you have given quite a detailed comparison between the ARC REF610Ts and the ARC REF210s in one of the forums, how much am I giving up if I stepped down to the VS115 and Magico V2 combination?
I'm currently a LS26 & VS115 owner and choosing between
1) keeping my existing amp & getting a new V2 OR,
2) spend a bit more, trade-in the VS115 and go for a used REF210 & MINI II combo.
I'm quite a follower of your reviews and blogs, and greatly appreciate your views on this to help me in my decision.
Also, you have recommended 3 different brands for cables/ICs, may I ask which would you personally pick and why?
Many thanks,
Christian
Christian,
I'm not sure that the VS115 would have enough power for the Magico V2s or the Mini IIs. Four-ohm speakers in sealed boxes tend to want a good deal of oomph in the bass. A 120Wpc tube amp is borderline, although I have successfully driven the M5s with the 160Wpc (into 4 ohms) Odyssey Khartago and the 240Wpc (into four ohms) Soulution 710s . Of course, both of these amps are high-current, high-damping-factor solid state.
You should try the VS115 with the V2s or the Mini IIs before doing anything else. It may be enough, depending on the kind of music you listen to, the size of your room, and how loud you like to listen. If not, go with the REF210s or, ideally, the REF610Ts, assuming, of course, that you can afford these beasts and are willing to live with the tremendous amount of heat they put out.
Jon
Hi Jon
thank you for the prompt reply. (although you did miss out on my cable question)
I'm a bit confused here, because in the TAS issue 198, you did mention that VS115 is a good pairing with the Magico V2.
But now in your reply, you are not sure if there's enough power. Most importantly, it appears that you have not heard the pairing that you have recommended which is very unusual given you always emphasize on listening over paper specs.
Please clarify should I misunderstand you. thanks again.
Christian
I don't know about the V2, but I certainly wouldn't advise using the Mini 2s with less than 200W per channel. I am using them with 610Ts and they sing beautifully with all that power.
Christian,
You're not confused. I am. When I replied to your post ( was spaced out from jet lag, having literally just returned from Switzerland after a 36-hour "day" of travel. For some reason I thought you were asking whether the VS115 would be powerful enough for Magicos in a large room. I have NO idea where I got this idea, as you never said such a thing.
I HAVE heard the VS115 and the REF 110 with the Wilson Sophia IIs (many times) and with various Magicos (including the M5s). The combination is highly recommendable, but as I said in my previous post sealed box speakers need some whomp in the bass if you like your music loud (or want to fill a large space). Although I could happily live with the VS115 and the V2, my taste tends toward smaller-scale music and I do not play at ear-splitting levels. If your taste is like mine, the VS115 is an excellent pick (especially at the price) and you should try it out (as I said in my previous post). But if you're into heavy metal, synth, or any kind of really large-scale music played really loud (particularly in a larger space), then the small ARC may not be powerful enough for your music, your room, and your taste. In which case, consider a bigger ARC amp.
As for cable--another little thing I completely missed in my fugue state--I recommended three because, well, people have different tastes in wire. My personal favorite is Tara Labs.
Sorry again for sounding so confused and confusing.
Jon
Hi ,
I use Quad 2905 , and have progressing in electronics , from :
1.exposure 2010 , integrated
2.pass aleph 3 + ARC LS 17
3.pass aleph 3 + ARC REF 3 Limited Ed
4.ARC REF 110 + ARC REF 3 Lim Ed
pass aleph 3 ( which of course is underpowered ) , is chosen for natural sound repro and transparency
But the major improvements is when I upgrade to REF 3 , which reproduce realistic soundstage , layered ,
left to right placement , and most of all the air around the players , microdynamics..
Then another major improvement is when I buy the REF 110 , music repro becomes more effortless,
dynamic ups , air around players more clearly felt , all that adds up to a much more involving listening.
I can really really say that I am very satisfied to have this combination , and can recommend to others..
BTW , the source is Esoteric X-05 ( thanks to Neil Gader ) , which is also a major improvement ,
and Rega P3 ( which of course is going to be upgraded to a better one in the future )
You can see my system and description here :
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vevol&1236523003&read&keyw&zzelectrostatic=heaven
regards
antono
Hi Jon
thanks again for clarifying.
It's all clear to me now. If it's a system you can live with, I certainly can!
The irony for the music lover today is that the pursuit for audio heaven is made tougher with more choices in the audio market and often the best are beyond reach for the common man.
I mean who actually can afford electronics like Soulutions and try them out with the best cables from TaraLabs, just to see if they are a good match for the Magico M5s? It's not only a financial constraint, but also a logistical constraint (dealer & location dependent).
But thanks to reviewers like yourself, whom I believe share my objective in this pursuit, has helped to narrow the options and made it affordable for me to make the choices. It certainly helped me to discover, firstly, Audio Research and now the Magicos. For that, I can't thank you enough.
Christian
Thank you, Christian.
Post new comment