advertisement


Better than Tannoys...?

If anything I find I need a little HF lift with my Ardens (in my room and with my ears). HF response is beautifully smooth and grain free, but occasionally I like a soupçon of extra sparkle (which is probably a taste/room thing than anything that the system is or isn’t doing).
 
If anything I find I need a little HF lift with my Ardens (in my room and with my ears). HF response is beautifully smooth and grain free, but occasionally I like a soupçon of extra sparkle (which is probably a taste/room thing than anything that the system is or isn’t doing).
Yes the Tulip HF is a bit more refined to my ears and the adjustment range much easier to live with.
 
Yes the Tulip HF is a bit more refined to my ears and the adjustment range much easier to live with.
How similar/different is the TW in the Autograph Mini to the version used in the Legacies, aside from the obvious difference in size? The Autograph Mini has an exceptionally smooth response through the upper mids and treble but it definitely still slopes upward, so I'm somewhat puzzled by the comments about a lack of HF from the new Legacies.
 
How similar/different is the TW in the Autograph Mini to the version used in the Legacies, aside from the obvious difference in size? The Autograph Mini has an exceptionally smooth response through the upper mids and treble but it definitely still slopes upward, so I'm somewhat puzzled by the comments about a lack of HF from the new Legacies.
I often think that (with the new legacies) it’s just that the HF doesn’t draw attention to itself. It’s all there, but it certainly isn’t one of those ‘hissy’ or artificially ‘airy’ presentations that you get with some speakers. In some ways, they’re a bit like real life - you shouldn’t be aware of any particular frequencies over any others. That being said, with my ears and room, my preference would be for a touch more treble energy, hence dialling some in with the crossover (and amp set at direct, avoiding tone controls, though they are surprisingly transparent when engaged and flat).
 
How similar/different is the TW in the Autograph Mini to the version used in the Legacies, aside from the obvious difference in size? The Autograph Mini has an exceptionally smooth response through the upper mids and treble but it definitely still slopes upward, so I'm somewhat puzzled by the comments about a lack of HF from the new Legacies.
Isn't the Autograph a 1 inch Titanium diaphragm as used in the V/I series drivers? It's also on a much shorter waveguide than the Legacy drivers which no doubt has a effect in the mids vs hf..
I've never thought my 3836's were lacking in HF tbh.
 
Isn't the Autograph a 1 inch Titanium diaphragm as used in the V/I series drivers? It's also on a much shorter waveguide than the Legacy drivers which no doubt has a effect in the mids vs hf..
I've never thought my 3836's were lacking in HF tbh.
Yes, 19mm titanium dome in the Mini, apparently. I'd love to know what has more of an effect, the diameter/material of the diaphragm or the proportions of the waveguide, but I suspect that's impossible to answer since one is designed around the other.
 
Yes, 19mm titanium dome in the Mini, apparently. I'd love to know what has more of an effect, the diameter/material of the diaphragm or the proportions of the waveguide, but I suspect that's impossible to answer since one is designed around the other.
The smaller the HF diaphragm the more extended the hf response tends to be, the larger the waveguide/horn the deeper/lower the mid response..
 
Ha, not the ones I’ve heard!

For me pretty much any speaker in that price league from any of those companies and various others will thrash Tannoy. Low colouration and accuracy override all other considerations for me then I want excellent detail and fab imaging and soundstaging. Things like "sounding effortlessly huge" etc come WAY down the list!
 
Having owned Quads, active ATCs and Adams and a number of speakers of comparable reputation, the Tannoys hold their own in every regard, and better those other speakers in some. And - ironically - I don’t find my Tannoys sound ‘effortlessly huge’. They just scale without any strain, and present realistic dynamics and an even-handed sound at all volumes. They are fairly neutral too, though not perfectly so, but any room will mess with the perceived neutrality way more than the speakers’ presentation would.
 
I'm a terrible audiophile, in the sense that most things audiophiles care about don't bother me in the slightest. I've used a variety of big Tannoys as my main speakers for nearly 20 years now, having had extensive experience with many speaker brands (including Quad, Infinity, Spendor, KEF, B&W, and Harbeth). For me, nothing touches Tannoys as an all-round speaker for someone like me who listens to lots of different kinds of music and doesn't want their speakers to dictate what they choose to play. Which is not to say other speakers aren't really good, but the idea of anything "trashing" anything else is just forum strutting, not really serious as an opinion.
 
I also owned Spendors. They were a bit of a disappointment, miles behind the Ardens and most other speakers tbh. And Kef, screetchy nasty, never heard a pair I could live with. Quads are nice, Harbeth seem decent, ML okay, B&W not my thing (*very* hifi). Never heard Infinity nor Maggies so cannot comment.
 
It's a bit like the other thread where a member tried an active, direct radiating speaker after spending a long time with a passive omni.

Nothing will sound the same as a huge cone in a big box, for better or worse.
 
I do agree that there can be a somewhat grainy character to the treble on vintage Tannoy, but as already stated this can me ameliorated via the HF controls and a bit of thought over what might be a suitable amp to partner them with, plus the angle of the boxes and the room makes a big difference obvs. I definitely find -1 on the treble energy is required on my Golds otherwise it sounds a bit 'edgy' ;). The later big Tannoys I've had (DMT) have been better behaved and more refined in this area. Mind you perhaps the character of the treble is what makes electric guitars and cymbals especially sound so bloody brilliant on them.
 
I also owned Spendors. They were a bit of a disappointment, miles behind the Ardens and most other speakers tbh. And Kef, screetchy nasty, never heard a pair I could live with. Quads are nice, Harbeth seem decent, ML okay, B&W not my thing (*very* hifi). Never heard Infinity nor Maggies so cannot comment.

Exact opposite here! Have Spendors ATM... miles ahead of Tannoys and most other speakers! Best I've ever had were KEF Reference 105/3's. Small bass units made of bextrene or polypropylene rule!:)
 
Exact opposite here! Have Spendors ATM... miles ahead of Tannoys and most other speakers! Best I've ever had were KEF Reference 105/3's. Small bass units made of bextrene or polypropylene rule!:)
We must respectfully agree to disagree, then. The Spendors were dull, lifeless. I wanted to like them. I couldn’t. Every Kef I’ve ever heard (none for a few years kind you) sounded edgy and zingy...
 
We must respectfully agree to disagree, then. The Spendors were dull, lifeless. I wanted to like them. I couldn’t. Every Kef I’ve ever heard (none for a few years kind you) sounded edgy and zingy...

Hmm.. the treble is the bit I most dislike about Tannoy's! "brassy" sounding... if that makes any sense!
 
We must respectfully agree to disagree, then. The Spendors were dull, lifeless. I wanted to like them. I couldn’t. Every Kef I’ve ever heard (none for a few years kind you) sounded edgy and zingy...
I think we need to narrow the field down a bit here and state exactly which models are being referred to before tarring 'em all with the same brush! E.g. if I formed my opinion of KEF's house sound on my experience with the original Corelli and Concerto I'd be telling people that all KEFs sounded thick and veiled, which is of course preposterous.
 


advertisement


Back
Top