Evolution Acoustics MMMicroOne

Well Pilgrim, there was also that NVS TT ($45,000) along with a Durant tonearm...The new Telos ($14,500) plus the second tonearm. Maybe even some tasty ICs, SC, and PCs. Then there was the really beautiful and well thought-out Mike Spitz (cool, Mike!) creation, the ATR-102 Reproducer/Recorder ($8-14,000.) A cartridge maybe...Ortofon A90 ($4200.)

JTinn, these above-mentioned items, with the darTZeel CTH-8550 and the PD MPS-3, are a little north of $100,000 worth of kit at retail feeding these EA speakers. It does appear that Robsker's number was actually a little light with an estimate of $80,000.

Wow - some wild claims being made around here these days!

JTinn:

You ask about magico and do they need to have to have real world mating of equipment too... well, of course.

The Magicos cost 25K --- anyone purchasing such speakers, based on that price, will likely have 35K to maybe 45K in electronics for a 60-70K system. So... they should audition their systems in that manner.

A basic rule of thumb for most buyers is that their speakers constitute ca. 33 to 40% or so of the system price. Some may drop to 25% of system price --- so to audition a 25K speaker it would be reasonable to have, I suppose, as much as 75K in electronics feeding it. For a 2.5K speaker, then having say up to 7.5K in total electronics feeding it is reasonable. Now, in your case where you are making the case that your product performs well above its price (which may be the case) you might set up twice, two rooms or two systems in one room --- once w/7.5K (the realistic system) and do the other one with maybe 40K or so of electronics, representing the "radical" side of system whereby the system could be compared w/ca. 10K speakers (as most 10K speakers would have ca. 40K electronics associated with them (or less).

All I ask, as a consumer, is that auditions be set up in a realistic fashion that is useful for the consumer.

The facts, as seen by a reviewer (If you can't trust me, who can you trust?):

The MMMicros are exceptionally good; whether they are among the very best will be determined when Jonathan sends me some to review. ;)

Robsker has a legitimate point from some audiophiles' perspectives. He is right in asserting that the massively high end system ahead of the MMMicro One does radically influence the sound of the speaker. The community should know that this is universal, not particular to any given brand. You can take the Best Buy Insignia speaker and put $75K worth of gear on it; the speaker will sound far different than with $10K (this is a generalization, of course, as you all understand) worth of gear. I have done so myself. IOW, the quality of the gear ahead absolutely dictates the performance level reached by the speaker in the same fashion the quality of the rocket engine dictates how high the rocket gets.

When the Magnepan 1.7 was being used in review with $80K of gear ahead of it I pointed out to potential owners on the message boards that they should not expect that level of performance from the speaker; the performance experienced by the rank and file audiophile with $10-20K of gear would typically be quite different than in the review. The speaker was not a sea change but a freshening up. Time has borne out that some were disappointed that the speaker was not radically better. There is only so far any more economical speaker can take the music.

Now, to address Jonathan's valid point; Whether the speaker is worthy of the upstream gear is another question altogether. The Insignia poops out quite quickly with serious flaws showing themselves. The MMMicro has the guts to acquit itself well with better gear. It is a reference caliber, affordable, bottom-end limited speaker. Frankly, I don't know too many economical speakers of which that can be said. :)

The logic that the introductory model should be showcased more cheaply is interesting. If I were making speakers aiming for the top end of the market would I want to set up a low end rig to showcase them? I think not; it would likely be terribly confusing to customers. Why should someone who's making a statement product, regardless of price, treat it like a thoughtless comment? It seems obvious to me the statement of quality potential in terms of a system is in the system accompanying, while the statement of the speaker's sound quality itself is independent, yet subject to system variables. The statement of value is in the pricing.

I'll tell you what the discussion would be if Jonathan had put an econo-rig together for the MMMicroOnes:
A segment of audiophiles would surmise that Evolution Acoustics had compromised their quality standards, that the internals of the speaker were not up to snuff, and that's why the sound was not as primo as a fully pimped system. People would be saying, "Why didn't they show the speaker as well as it can sound?..." It would certainly cross my mind, and it would be my goal to find out if it was true or not.

It's a "no win" for Jonathan when he puts his absolute best foot forward in terms of demo, but is shot down that it was TOO good! ;) I'm not sure this point has been made; I skimmed the responses to the thread, but keeping the rig he same in terms of attending components allows people familiar with Evolution's sound to confirm that the house sound is intact. I believe that was happening at those demos. Robsker's core point of performance relative to systems is correct, but is not an obscure influence like a hidden subwoofer. You don't need to defend yourself, Jonathan, the MMMicros are superb as I have heard at shows.

For those with incessant skepticism regarding reviewers, I have spoken to Jonathan prior about reviewing the MMMicro One's but I have not to date reviewed any Evolution Acoustics products and am not currently, nor any associated gear shown in demos.

With all the talk abou them, I had to give them a listen at RMAF this year. It was obvious that the electronics were doing a nice job, the noise floor was very low ... one of the lowest at the show. The MMMicroOne's did sound nice, but in my opinion appropriate with the price point. There are plenty of speakers in the $2000 range that the small Evolutions outperform, but also some that are equal or better for around the same price. They're certainly not ground breaking.

It is quite clever to make them so similar in appearance to their much more expensive speakers. People assume they're using more expensive drivers than they really are. I doubt Jtinn would post pics of the backsides of those drivers, but talking with a speaker builder friend of mine at the show, he said it's just a $50 Air Motion Transformer tweeter and some approx $20 each anodized aluminum cone woofers.

My real problem is the liberties taken with published specs. They are NOT flat to 35hz as printed, sorry but not even close. I know what that sounds like, and I'd guess they're flat to maybe 55hz.