ANY EXPERIANCE WITH PASS LABS AND MONTANA EPS2?

I had a somewhat different experience than other posters when I owned these speakers. I liked them quite a bit and thought they did most things very well, but I also found them to need power in order to fill in the low frequencies. At first I used 200w pure of class A into 4 ohms (Reference Line Silver Sig), then went up to 500w (Mac MC501 monos). The bass improved but was still lacking for my large room.

I also found them to be a little hot in the upper frequencies. In part is was my room, which is bright as well as large, so I brought in 10 GIK panels, which helped somewhat. Then I switched to the Mac amps, which are very smooth on top. That helped more. Ultimately, though, I sold the Montanas and the Macs because I just couldn't get the frequency balance I wanted. YMMV, of course.

I have had several models of Montana speaker, culminating with the EPS2. I found them to sound better with tubes because they are not a demanding load, and also because - well I prefer tubes.

In the end I found these speakers to be dynamic and effortless, but somewhat boxy and closed in. I replaced them with a pair of GMA Callistos at less than 1/3 their price.

Shakey

I don't think our experiences are completely different, Wrm. My sense is also that the Montana's like some power down low; if the OP already owns the 350.5s, he should be well fixed. OTOH, ember Robsker runs his with medium powered tube amplification, and likes the effect.

I am surprised about the hot highs; I'm extremely sensitive to this, and I find the Montana's very relaxed and non-fatiguing. I think I have a fairly "soft" room, which might make the difference; I've not heard them in another room. From what I've read, though, my experience may be more typical. As you say, YMMV!

John

Hi John,

Are you using them with the spikes? I found them to warm up considerably when placed flat on the floor (concrete slab, in my case, covered with linoleum) but the imaging suffered and the bass bloated a bit. I do like the big, screw-in spike system Peter uses, FWIW, but I thought it shifted the tonal balance upward in my system. I kept vacillating between with and without spikes and just could not get it right. To be more precise, my problems were with overall leanness and hardness in the high midrange frequencies, and lack of sufficient bass energy in my room (which admittedly eats bass waves). I found the tweeters to be excellent in the EPS2. Ultimately, it's all about synergy. In another room with another amp, they could be outstanding. With the Mac amps I found a pretty good synergy but they ended up being too compromised in low-level resolution for my taste. That smoothness comes with a price.

Bill

Hi Bill. I've got an old house with crazy warped floors, so the EPS2's spiking system is a must, or they'd be the leaning towers of speaker. I have Herbie's sliders under them, so tweaking placement is easy. That's all the tweaking I've tried. Bass fuller closer to boundaries, but I agree that the deeps are not their special strength.(Suspended floor may be costing me some lows?) I also agree that the smoothness makes a tradeoff; as I say, I don't find them to be detail monsters, though I hear a lot of detail. But I do find them incredibly listenable. Matters of taste here of course: I carefully auditioned the GMA Eos, relative to the speakers Shakey traded his EPS2s for, and found the highs fatiguing (dealer set up may have been an issue). In short I find the EPS2s design compromises tilted more to "Mmmmmm" than "wow," but if your ears run that way, they could really be the speaker for you.

John