advertisement


Falcon LS35a to Tannoy Eaton

Naim Atom which does a great job with both speakers. I took it with me to listen to the Cheviots, and both the seller and I concurred that it was more than capable of the job...

Wow that’s interesting. I’ve owned the Atom and it is very capable but I wouldn’t have thought with the Cheviot, is that original Cheviot or legacy?
 
Wow that’s interesting. I’ve owned the Atom and it is very capable but I wouldn’t have thought with the Cheviot, is that original Cheviot or legacy?

Original restored by RFC in Stroud. That was my thought hence taking it with me to demo. I don't drive them very loud as I have a smallish room but they are very enjoyable speakers, like a small car with a big engine...
 
Two very different speakers but both of interest to me.

LS35a’s for: heritage, small size, midrange, look lovey, build, overall sound quality, already have suitable stands, easier to place in a room, imaging.

Against: would I find them dynamic exciting enough, small scale sound, lack of real bass, power handling.

Tannoys for: dynamic, bass depth/quality, imaging, point source, easy to drive.

against: size not so easy to position, may not suit smaller rooms, would need to get suitable stands, wife acceptance factor, price.

A few years ago, I ran two systems for a while - I had LS3/5as in one, and Tannoy Devons in the other. Both were very enjoyable, but in different ways, of course. It was fascinating. I enjoyed the bigger, friendlier sound of the Tannoys, and also the precision/insight of the LS3/5as. But it wasn't a very sustainable way of doing things, because whichever one you were listening to, you were often aware that something was missing - something the other set of speakers could give you.
 
A few years ago, I ran two systems for a while - I had LS3/5as in one, and Tannoy Devons in the other. Both were very enjoyable, but in different ways, of course. It was fascinating. I enjoyed the bigger, friendlier sound of the Tannoys, and also the precision/insight of the LS3/5as. But it wasn't a very sustainable way of doing things, because whichever one you were listening to, you were often aware that something was missing - something the other set of speakers could give you.
and the solution was ..?
 
FWIW I’ve found Naim to sound sub-optimal with every high-efficiency speaker I’ve ever heard them drive. They seem to prefer to work a bit, push heavier drivers etc. I guess the crossover region down in the low mV range (which is what you are listening to much of the time with Tannoys etc) is not their strongest suit. What I hear has been consistent between several high efficiency speakers, e.g. a dry, lean, small and flat/2d sound compared to using the same speakers with valves or a very good class A solid state amp. Don’t get me wrong, I really like Naim with the speakers they are more typically partnered with. 40+ years of playing around has left me a very firm believer in system synergy! Some stuff works stunningly well, other stuff just doesn’t. I’d not drive a pair of Saras with a SET!

Tony, I'd agree with you, except have you ever heard Naim Olive with Klipsch? Really weird things happen, It sounds smoother, rounded, and more easy to listen to than almost anything else. IT's a weird thing.

My point isn't that your assessment is 'wrong', just that sometimes there are some oddities. I think the new Legacy Tannoys would be good with classic Naims. But I haven't tried it.
 
Tony, I'd agree with you, except have you ever heard Naim Olive with Klipsch? Really weird things happen, It sounds smoother, rounded, and more easy to listen to than almost anything else. IT's a weird thing.

Ages and ages ago I took my Prima Luna Prologue Two around to someone who had a three-box shoebox Naim rig and Heresys. To my ears that system sounded horrific. Had that been my only Klipsch experience I’d have concluded they were truly dreadful speakers; harsh, piercing, thin, edgy. I really did not like what I heard at all. Pop the Prima Luna in and the system was transformed beyond recognition. A big, warm dynamic and punchy sound without any of the edge or glare and way, way more scale and an actual soundstage! The thing I can’t remember is whether it was chrome bumper or olive, I think olive (i.e. 72/Hi/140), but it may have been the same with a 32.5. Again, I’m not having a dig at that amp, I very happily used a 62/Hi/140 for a decade or so through the mid-80s to mid-90s. A great amp.

The Naim I tried with my Tannoys was a 42.5/110, and to be fair I’ve never rated two-box Naim amps, you need the HiCap IMO. Small, thin, two-dimensional and gutless into the Tannoy. I still had the Prima Luna at that time and again it just killed the Naim in that specific context. I’m not exaggerating either, if you heard it blind you’d think I’d changed speakers or swapped a NAD3020 for a Krell! Some things work together, some things just don’t. That doesn’t suggest they are good or bad, just that synergy matters.
 
Sorry I should have been specific; not the older or classic klipsch's. The newer ones (i.e. KG 3's, 4's, 3.5's, 4.5's, forte's, cornwalls, newer versions). The original Heresy's were awful with naim as well, much agreed.
 
True, but I'd be totally hijacking the thread if I went through all the speakers I've owned since then - it was 15 years ago.

I'd be interesting in your thoughts on the successes and failures. It's an interesting crossroads you arrived at 15 years ago, and it focuses some of the different strategies some of us have taken on the forum. Tony L frequently advocates for the double act you had, and I quite understand the argument that nothing can quite replace the relaxed weight and scale of the larger Tannoys. Personally I've ended up with the compromise of medium sized speakers, but I think it's very tricky to find the right one. So I'm interested to know where you stand on the Big/Small vs Medium decision.
 
Well, OK. I'll keep it fairly brief. I'm not really satisfied by speakers unless they can do a decent amount of the 'weight and scale' thing and do clarity in the midrange. I can live with a bit of softness/looseness if I get some scale, a sense of space, and mid clarity. I've been drawn towards electrostatics/ribbons for their clarity at times, and towards open baffle speakers at other times - partly for they way they can sound in the low end. The best commercial speakers I've owned were probably the Dali Skyline 2000. The 15" OB woofer gives them real scale, while the 1 meter long ribbon tweeter is wonderful. Can be a tricky match with the room, though.

I've gone in a more DIY direction recently. The speakers I'm using at the moment combine a 10" Scanspeak woofer in a biggish sealed box, with a Bandor 2" miniature in a small sealed enclosure, crossed actively at 600 Hz. They've been in very basic test enclosures for months, but I'm so happy with the sound that I've not got round to finishing them properly. They suit me better than any commercial designs I've owned. To my ears a big sealed woofer is a great way to get scale, while the Bandor 2" gives astonishing clarity, without brightness. Best of both worlds. I apologise that this isn't very useful advice for the OP or anyone else, since Bandor (and Jordan) 2" miniatures are no longer available.

I'm also planning some bigger dipole speakers, combining Apogee ribbons for the mid/treble, and open baffle woofers in a line. Initial experiment was very promising.
 


advertisement


Back
Top