How is the Tablette 10 Signature holding up Novak? Do they sound something special and radically different from the P3ESR?
Proac Tablette 10 Signature Experiences
- Thread starter novak
- Start date
How is the Tablette 10 Signature holding up Novak? Do they sound something special and radically different from the P3ESR?
So I managed to have a good listen this week, the Proacs seem to have settled in, the sound was initially brighter and softened slightly as the drivers started to even things out.
They’re very nice speakers, but overall I prefer the P3ESR. The ProAc are more obviously detailed with their increased presence but ultimatey lack the natural warmth of the Harbeth. The Harbeth go deeper and also sound more realistic, but I did enjoy the ProAc in some areas. Still, highly recommended speakers.
They’re very nice speakers, but overall I prefer the P3ESR. The ProAc are more obviously detailed with their increased presence but ultimatey lack the natural warmth of the Harbeth. The Harbeth go deeper and also sound more realistic, but I did enjoy the ProAc in some areas. Still, highly recommended speakers.
DM-10
pfm Member
Esta tarde recibí los 10 tablettes de firma ...... Solo tengo unas horas con ellos y puedo afirmar sin temor a equivocarme que es uno de los mejores en términos absolutos que he escuchado. Soy un confeso amante de escuchar con mini monitores, especialmente británicos, y sin querer caer en la emoción inicial, puedo afirmar que son increíbles oradores.
Equilibrio tonal homogéneo, lleno de escala musical, con final mágico superior, final de graves sólido, ágil y la clave de la ausencia principal de esfuerzo en la reproducción. Sonido orgánico, detallado y fundamentalmente respetuoso con el tiempo y su capacidad para acentuar, auténticamente expresivo incluso a un nivel de escucha muy bajo en decibelios. Una auténtica obra de arte a un precio increíble destinado a oídos exigentes y con un alto nivel en cuanto a la colección de discos en su discoteca. Absolutamente todo terreno, lenguaje musical puro. Ritmo, melodía y armonía.
Aclamaciones
Equilibrio tonal homogéneo, lleno de escala musical, con final mágico superior, final de graves sólido, ágil y la clave de la ausencia principal de esfuerzo en la reproducción. Sonido orgánico, detallado y fundamentalmente respetuoso con el tiempo y su capacidad para acentuar, auténticamente expresivo incluso a un nivel de escucha muy bajo en decibelios. Una auténtica obra de arte a un precio increíble destinado a oídos exigentes y con un alto nivel en cuanto a la colección de discos en su discoteca. Absolutamente todo terreno, lenguaje musical puro. Ritmo, melodía y armonía.
Aclamaciones
DM-10
pfm Member
En el pasado yo era el dueño de Harbeth Monitor 20, ATC Scm7 Mk2, entre otros (Stirling ls35a V2, dynaudio contour 1.1, Russell k RED50 ... Insisto, muchos otros) y creo que los Ten Signature no son solo los mejores He escuchado en mini monitores junto con el contorno 1.1, pero en términos absolutos son los mejores en términos puros de reproducción junto con el contorno 1.1, Russell k network 100 y jbl 4425 Studio Monitor. Timbrically (pure pitch) son magistrales, como un elemento de reproducción musical pura, y con lo que eso implica en términos de fluidez y ausencia de factor mecánico en la reproducción, una auténtica obra de arte destinada a convertirse en un clásico. Esta comunidad, un núcleo duro de usuarios que aman Hifi flatearth, tiene una auténtica ganga en este proac, por precio y rendimiento en términos absolutos. A pesar de su baja sensibilidad, No recuerdo en este nivel de perfección un disfrute genuino en oyentes de bajo volumen. Existe el ideal que anuncia la puesta en escena de un enfoque en la música y no en el músico, sorprendente hoy en la industria actual de Hifi donde han olvidado los buenos hábitos de antaño.
DM-10
pfm Member
Ah, y amantes del legendario heybrook hb1 y su equilibrio tonal, encontrarán una razón extraordinaria para enamorarse de estos proac en un nivel de perfección, preservando la insolencia y la facilidad para una musicalidad auténtica, muy superior. Son tan audiofilas que terminan siendo amantes de la música, cualquier amante de la música, sin conocimiento en Hifi, caería exhausto ante esta maravilla.
I will intervene after a few weeks of use, but I have seldom had the sensation, nothing more from the packaging, to be facing something really special.
I will be happy to read comments from owners of this version while mine are acquiring hours of use.
Regards
DM10
I will intervene after a few weeks of use, but I have seldom had the sensation, nothing more from the packaging, to be facing something really special.
I will be happy to read comments from owners of this version while mine are acquiring hours of use.
Regards
DM10
tuga
Legal Alien
DM-10
pfm Member
The auditory fatigue is only related to how skillful you are to provide the best temporary response to your system. Immediately afterwards, any Harbeth is a joke about the capacity for the least mechanical factor in the reproduction of these proac in addition to a less flawed tonal balance, less ballast, and ultimately less complexed. Harbeth, of which you speak, I believe that without having listened to tablette 10, they are the eternal way of escape to make up defects in an essential way in the most important interface, the speaker / room interaction product of the modal calculation of the room. Everything else, like your diagram of pure theory, is an easily removable argument. It is true that it is easier to convince an untrained ear to buy a Harbeth than an old proac or dynaudio series contour ....... And that is the important thing is not the arrows, it is the Indian.
Cheers
tuga
Legal Alien
You are right that I didn't listen to the Tablette 10, I haven't listened to any Tablettes after the original model.
I'm not interested in these tiny toy-speakers, they have too many limitations for serious listening.
DM-10
pfm Member
You do not know what you're missing.
One tells the other:
"Do you know what is the difference between ignorance and indifference? I do not know, and I do not care."
That seems to be you .... You ignore that you ignore, it's worth the redundancy, and besides it is indifferent to you.
regards
One tells the other:
"Do you know what is the difference between ignorance and indifference? I do not know, and I do not care."
That seems to be you .... You ignore that you ignore, it's worth the redundancy, and besides it is indifferent to you.
regards
DM-10
pfm Member
It seems serious to you, however, to be an ill-mannered person, or to comment on something that you have not even tried on a show, let alone as an owner? Is that serious? Do not come to give lessons.
If you have something to add to the title of the thread you will be welcome, at least for me, otherwise you are only an obstacle for those of us interested.
tuga
Legal Alien
If you read my first post again you will note I was referring to perception in a way that was very much on topic.
My comments regarding "mini-monitors" come from my listening experience and from the unavoidable facts regarding the limitations of such topology.
Feel free to ignore me.
Some forums have fanboy-only boards but this one is open to anyone as far as I know. Besides, what's the point of discussing audio if you're not allowed to discuss shortcomings?
Tony L
Administrator
I love the wonderful transparency, openness and truly believable soundstage a good mini-monitor can create. They are one of my favourite speaker types. The others being large full-range panels and huge horns. I could very happily live with a pair of mini-monitors as my main system and to be honest have no preference between my JR149s and my huge Lockwood monitors. They are both superb and each has different strengths. For me the real compromise is all the stuff in the middle that tries to produce the intimacy, detail and space of a really good near-field monitor and the scale, heft and dynamic ease of a truly big speaker, yet fails entirely at both. I have no interest in this genre of speaker at all.
tuga
Legal Alien
There's no reason why a larger speaker wouldn't do "transparency, openness". "believable soundstage" is a bit more difficult to pin down because it's definition is somewhat personal; mini-monitors have very wide dispersion, this increases side-wall reflection and a lot of people perceive the resulting ghost-images as "increaded 3D-ness" or soundstage.
I've written more about this in a previous post:
The perception of "speed" and "tightness" is often associated with speakers exhibiting a pronounced absence of the upper-bass region. This means that you can either have that or a more natural tonal balance.
"Openness" results from an exaggeration of the presence region and the downside is listener fatigue. It also means that you can either have that or a more natural tonal balance.
Exggerated top octave makes for "airy" presentation.
The effects of midrange cone break-up resonances can be perceive as "detail" or "resolution". Eg.:
The cumulative spectral-decay plot on the tweeter axis (fig.8) shows an impressively clean decay in the tweeter's passband, but some residual energy at 3640Hz, the frequency of the on-axis peak. I note that KR found the 683 S2 to have a smooth balance of midrange and treble, so perhaps this behavior measures worse than it sounds, though it would add to the sense of detail conveyed by the speaker.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-683-s2-loudspeaker-measurements
Tony L
Administrator
There's no reason why a larger speaker wouldn't do "transparency, openness". "believable soundstage" is a bit more difficult to pin down because it's definition is somewhat personal; mini-monitors have very wide dispersion, this increases side-wall reflection and a lot of people perceive the resulting ghost-images as "increaded 3D-ness" or soundstage.
I've written more about this in a previous post:
The perception of "speed" and "tightness" is often associated with speakers exhibiting a pronounced absence of the upper-bass region. This means that you can either have that or a more natural tonal balance.
"Openness" results from an exaggeration of the presence region and the downside is listener fatigue. It also means that you can either have that or a more natural tonal balance.
Exggerated top octave makes for "airy" presentation.
The effects of midrange cone break-up resonances can be perceive as "detail" or "resolution". Eg.:
The cumulative spectral-decay plot on the tweeter axis (fig.8) shows an impressively clean decay in the tweeter's passband, but some residual energy at 3640Hz, the frequency of the on-axis peak. I note that KR found the 683 S2 to have a smooth balance of midrange and treble, so perhaps this behavior measures worse than it sounds, though it would add to the sense of detail conveyed by the speaker.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-683-s2-loudspeaker-measurements
I have a feeling you are looking at the wrong aspects unless you are trying to get silly ‘rock’ volume levels out of a tiny speaker. My theories as to why I very much like mini-monitors as a class are rather more simple, e.g. they tend to be two-ways with a small bass-mid, and many are sealed with wonderfully inert cabinets. The small size enables the drivers to be very close together thus missing/minimising much of the comb/phase/direction effects that so blur the sound of so many multi-driver floor-standers (many of my favourite speakers of all sizes are point-sources, this I suspect is no accident). Crossing a small bass-mid driver to a tweeter is obviously just a single crossover point, one that can be fairly high up with a good bass-mid, and when done well results in a seamless and highly coherent transition (I am very critical of crossovers and seem to hear issues others don’t). It seems far easier to design a very good two-way than a very good three-way, though examples of the latter obviously exist.
To my ears very few large or even mid-sized speakers are sufficiently integrated to use in the near-field. In fact the only ones that come to mind are Quad 63s, Tannoys, MEGs and other point-sources. As such your argument against mini-monitors is pretty an argument against what for me is one of audio’s great pleasures - I do very much like that almost headphone-like clarity and almost total lack of room influence that comes from being so far ahead of any reflections time-wise (highly directional horns can play a similar trick). I just enjoy near-field listening, and it is certainly the best option for many rooms and listening circumstances. It is also how a lot of music is created and mixed.
I find myself happiest with access to both a big full-range monitor rig and a very high-quality near-field system, as do many other audiophiles (this being a very popular approach in Japan, Hong Kong etc). I’d not want to be without either system, and I’d certainly not want to compromise somewhere in the middle!
Ayya Khema
pfm Member
i personallly dont care how well integrated a minimonitor sound or how coherent up close. they sound like toys, not like real musicians/instruments unles mated with a sub IMO. the impact is just too seriously lacking
they are fun though and i happily listen to my atc scm7 v3 in the piving room, but minimonitors are not something id want to use for mains ever again unless with big subs but i find them hard to integrate
many "things in the
middle" can easily be used in the midfield setting (between 5 to 8-9 feet)
personally, near field listening makes me stressed. near field is under 5 feet and to me too close.
near field listening do remove some of the room influence but not remotely
enough to say that it removes the room problems like real room treatment. not even close. best method is have proper speakers that can at least hit 40hz and add room treatment
they are fun though and i happily listen to my atc scm7 v3 in the piving room, but minimonitors are not something id want to use for mains ever again unless with big subs but i find them hard to integrate
many "things in the
middle" can easily be used in the midfield setting (between 5 to 8-9 feet)
personally, near field listening makes me stressed. near field is under 5 feet and to me too close.
near field listening do remove some of the room influence but not remotely
enough to say that it removes the room problems like real room treatment. not even close. best method is have proper speakers that can at least hit 40hz and add room treatment
Ayya Khema
pfm Member
yes subs are hard to integrate perfectly
never did acheive it
i listen to my speakers at about 80-85 db at the listening position. speakers are 6.5 feet away.
id prefer to use geithain rl901 over my shl5plus, but id never trade any minis for a bigger well executed 8 inch based speaker like graham ls5/9, devore 093, shl5plus, etc
Singslinger
pfm Member
Having played with and enjoyed many mini-monitors over the years, I agree with Tony that there is something special about well-designed small speakers in the right system and room.
Going back to the original post about the Tablette vs the P3ESR, my experience having owned the Tablette Sig version several years ago and the Harbeth is that a) both are excellent speakers; b) the ProAcs sound better on solid mass stands whilst the P3ESRs need open frame stands; c) the Sigs have better bounce and liveliness against the Harbeth's better midrange; and d) the ProAcs are a bit more amp-fussy than the Harbeths.
Going back to the original post about the Tablette vs the P3ESR, my experience having owned the Tablette Sig version several years ago and the Harbeth is that a) both are excellent speakers; b) the ProAcs sound better on solid mass stands whilst the P3ESRs need open frame stands; c) the Sigs have better bounce and liveliness against the Harbeth's better midrange; and d) the ProAcs are a bit more amp-fussy than the Harbeths.