primaluna gear, avalon eidolon speakers, cardas

Why don't you hook it up and tell us how it sounds?

Primaluna is great solidly built gear i liked the sound

I sold Avalon for over 6 years of time. Many people say that MIT is the best combination. This is the biggest bullshit ever. We did compare different MIT cables with Audioquest cables. These were superior. Audio needs to become more open and honnest to customers. Stop telling customers bullshit stories. In the last year I did a lot of comparing with Audioquest against MIT ( I sold it for over 6 years of time)'In every single part the Audioquest cables beats the MIT cables. MIT needs to improve there cables fast or they will be far behind.

Bo, before putting a product down get the story correct. If I'm not mistaken, Spectral suggests the use of MIT cabling with their electronics. Spectral electronics, MIT cabling and Avalon Acoustics speakers were used in conjunction and demonstrated at shows and dealers marketed as 2C3D (two channel three dimensional sound).

When set up properly this system could easily convey the effect of sound staging in higher end stereo audio. The upside of this demonstration, once heard, many hobbyist managed to gain a similar amount of staging from their own systems regardless of cable and speaker selection. It also showcased Avalons goals of time and phase accuracy and its affect on the overall coherence possible with their dynamic speaker systems.

As a multigenerational Avalon customer it's my experience that Cardas Cable is a far more popular cable choice among Avalon owners.

Once again what might seem superior to you Bo is simply subjectivity and may not be the goal of another user. It's most certainly not bullshit.

Chill the phuck out.

I rencently sold a Audioquest Redwood to a client with a Spectral poweramp? Who says; the MIT is a better match? You only will find out in a A-B battle. It is that simple, after comparing you know. You go for the best endresults. Why Is Audioquest better compared to MIT? Is it clear? Yesss it is. There is a lot more air around voices and instruments. Blacks are a lot better, so instruments and voices are better focussed. In the low freq. speed is better, and you hear more different layers. This has nothing to do with taste. THIS IS ALL ABOUT FACTS. What do we need; We need open and honnest tests in magazines between Audioquest and MIT in one test for example. People who work in audio should more focus on the beste quality. And not focus on what is told. At the end it is all about the results what it really does.

Keith Johnson and Richard Fryer have been in business for 38 years. Their list of amplification design innovations is legendary. They do not seek out product reviews or advertise full page and glossy back cover adds in the audio press. The fact is they have a monumental amount of audio experience respected by the audio and recording industries.

Spectral has a well know system approach to amplification and to what they consider neutrality is sound. Unlike your choice of generic cable theirs is a proprietary design in conjunction with a specific cable manufacture. In this case their results have been lauded by their piers, customers and even the audio press.

While I respect your conclusions they are still subjective and as such are only better to you and the customers your able to convince. I don't doubt that your hearing a difference in presentation using your choice of cabling but that difference is still subjective and a matter of your taste and has little to do with the accuracy of recording the live event which is what Spectral design is all about.

I'm a working musician. In my small in home studio I have a pair of Avalon Acoustics Monitors powered by Hypex nCore kit amplifiers. Like other recording (not post production) studios the presentation is ultra reveling and transparent. It's a playback system that I simply can't listen to for extended entertainment. Audio applications vary depending on their intended use. With that in mind the word best can take on many differences.

For those who may be interested I suggest reading the Spectral Bulletin 9501 regarding Spectral MI-500 interconnects and MH-750 Speaker Cable in detail.
at http://www.spectralaudio.com

And below.

"A System Approach
The most sacred principle of the Spectral design philosophy is our central concern with the integration of the music reproduction system. Each audio component, however exquisitely designed and crafted, is but one link in a chain. How each interacts with preceding and successive components in the chain is of the utmost significance for the final listening experience. Spectral was the first component manufacturer to collaborate with a High End cable company to achieve a totally optimized, integrated component system. Our path breaking work with MIT (Music Interface Technologies) in developing phase-compensated interconnects and speaker cables is a first in the audio field. The same overriding concern with fully integrated systems motivated Spectral to move quickly to the forefront of innovative, High End digital front-end design. And it is why our new preamplifier and amplifier designs like the DMC-30 and the DMA-150 are optimized to work together and to derive superior performance from the transducers our customers choose."

Woodworker, I'm driving my older Eidolons with a pair of Bob Carver VTA 180s.
Their actual output power is questionable but they do a very good job of driving the Eidolons. The Carvers have a 2 ohm tap (I use the 4 ohm) which is not common on tube amplifiers.

I did try driving them with a 70 watt Ultralinear MFA D70 Stereo amplifier. This combination worked well in a smaller room but seemed a bit strained in the larger room.

Refer to the Avalon speaker location instructions as a starting point. Take your time in finding the location that provides the best staging in your room. 1/4 inch movements can be dramatic so again, take your time and listen. My room is large, I don't toe them in at all.

Once you've found the best location it's important to get your Visions on the cones and off the floor. I used some double stick carpet tape cut to the size of a quarter to hold them in place. The bass definition will improve immediately once they're off the floor

I am also using a Cardas Golden Ref loom.

I was on the audio merry go round for years constantly listening to the system and not the music. Once I stepped up to the Eidolon / Cardas combination and back to tube amplification I haven't had the desire to change a thing. IMO your there, have fun.

Cardas has a totally different caractere in sound and also in image. Cardas has much more a sharp focus of instruments and voices compared to MIT. The sound is also much more involving. The question is what is the truth? I listend in 16 years of time many times to sets with Spectral and Avalon. For me this has nothing to do with the sound and image in real. A violin for example sounds so much more clinical on Spectral with Avalon than in real. A very good friend of mine had a small concert room with a Steinway wing for 65 people. Here I learned how small instruments and voices are in proportion. This is what I call; intimate sound. I was pulled into the music cause of the small intimate sound. MIT makes it bigger in proportion. And what it does is that the connection to the music is less involving and less intimate.
When instruments and voices become big it is one of the most stuppid and ittitating things at shows. These people should listen to music in real. Audioquest is also superior in timing and even in resolution compared to MIT. In one year of time I won all battles against MIT. You would be a fool to choose for less resolution, a less sharp individual focus, less air around voices and instruments, less layers in the low freq and less control. I invite all people with MIT cables for a A-B comparison against Audioquest.......

Bol, I find it odd that the original poster was questioning the use of a pair of tube mono blocks with his speakers and your first comment was to put down MIT cables. Why?

As I said, I respect your conclusions even though, as in the past, the bulk of your experiences with products you do not market seem to be very brief, anecdotal, and/or second hand in nature. Along with home entertainment and recording you're now including live sound reinforcement which is so far out of the context of two channel home audio I have to ask. Why?

In the specific context of Spectral connectivity between their components and transducers I would defer to the designers unquestionable experience and their sonic goal which includes custom design cabling. Since neither you nor I have any extensive experience with Spectral products and since the original poster has no interest in either, I'll defer and continue to respect your choice of colorfully jacketed cable to be as you have described.

The manufacture of my speaker system uses Cardas hook up wire throughout as well as Cardas termination which makes cable selection a no brainer and a brand the original poster is currently using.

My opinion is that Audioquest works very well with Avalon. Superior to MIT. I dislike the political stories told to customers that Avalon works the best with MIT. It had been told at many shows in the past. It is based on nothing. For me it is essential that audio needs to be more open and honnest. I want people to get the best quality for the money they spend. I have proven that MIT is by far not the best. Even with Avalon speakers ( I have sold them for over 6 years) Magazines need to stop political talks about audio. Customers deserve to get more quality for the money they have spend.

Bo1972, I love you man, You are a riot!, I may very well be the only member to undestand you, vicdamone has very legitimate points he is sharring with you, his original post to you is correct, mit cables were suppose to be used with spectral equipment!, the very same system all of you are talking about I have vast exsperience with, however, you are correct, mit cables and cardas cables is a mistake for such fine speakers as the Avalon Edilon speakers, I know what I would use on these speakers, I do not want to get into this crazy mess of whats best for the avalons.

I prefer Cardas over MIT. I did not say that Cardas would not work with Avalon. Audioquest is focussed on all the different parts were you Judge a cabel for more complete compared to Cardas.

Silver is in my opinion very important for the absolute sound. I do not say you should only need silver. Silver can give you more air around voices and instruments. This is an essential part of the 3D image were I often talk about. Same about the extra decay.

Avalon is a speaker what can give a deep and wide stage. But within the stage it is not a brand who can give a very sharp individual focus. So you need cables, sources and amps to solve this. When you use MIT, you use the same properties. So at the end you still have not a sharp individual focus of instruments and voices. It is that simple. It was very easy to get Avalon to a much higher level with Audioquest cables. For the owners it was clear why it is more complete.

The primaluna gear is outclassed by your speakers and cables.

Consider a preamp with some voltage regulation, and a power amp with some gain stage regulation. Regulation is conducive to warmth and sound stage stability.

The Chinese "classic" designs won't cut it with Avalon speakers due to the need for high current stability (they are not efficient)

-Avalon owner for the past 18 years

Avalon speakers are internally wired with cardas wire (at least the old models like ascent, radian), don't know if the still using it?

It is only copper. For example Monitor Audio Platinum is wired inside with pure silver. They use the best WBT connectors worth of 450 dollar.

It is not that special what they use.

Still using Cardas, per my Eidolon and Eidolon Diamond.
I don't believe in wires at all....well that's an overstatement, I play with wires in moderation.
Start with a baseline of Canare Starquad cheapies,
if the system doesn't sound good and you absolutely need esoteric wires with voodoo boxes of choke and caps or alien material to compensate, something's wrong.

In my experience Cardas works better with Avalon compared to MIT. Because they have those properties which an Avalon is not that good at. Avalon ( I sold it for over 6 years) has a wide an deep stage. But within this stage the individual focus of instruments and voices it not thar sharp. Cardas is very good at individual focus in instruments and voices. You get a better endresult.

Bo, I find your assessment of Eidolons unusual. Could you describe your rooms length and width, speaker distance from front wall (the wall behind the speakers), and the amount of toe in?

Your priority of wire material over actual cable design is, well…whatever, it's an interesting opinion.

Since I do Professional roomacoustic ajustments, the old rules are not there anymore. I can even get a stunning sound in the worst room in acoustics you can imagine.

In the time I sold Avalon. We mostly sold it with MIT. With the knowdledge today I have proven that it is the biggest bullshit on earth that it is the best match.

I have proven with new Audioquest cables that it outperforms MIT with ease!

Why? Becaue you need to understand the properties of Avalon and also from MIT. Then you understand why they are not the best match.

They both give a wide and deep stage. But they have the same weak point in sharpness and realistic proportion of instruments and voices. They both make the stage too big in proportion togheter.

What does Audioquest better with Avalon compared to MIT?

The dynamics in the low frew go deeper, better timing and you hear more layers of the lowest freq. The mid freq. are a lot more open. Voices and instruments get a far more realistic proportion. For the first time you get an intimate stage with the Avalon speakers. Instruments and voices are so much better touchable. There is more resolution in the high freq. as well and more decay ( also in the right and left corner behind the speakers). Even blacks are a lot better as well.

When people don't open there eyes or even better there ears. You still would think MIT is the best combi. It is based on f... nothing. How stuppid you can be to believe that words are the truth!

Hearing is believing, and that is why the best and most convincing sound Always will win. That is the thing I love most in audio. :)

Avalons need no or almost no toe in.

People have to open up there perspective. You Always need to get for the best sound possible. This is only possible when you try more different options.

In the past I never heard a set with Avalon and MIT what was realistic in my point of view. I have said many times to people that a violin sounds so much different in sound.

The most irritating thing is how it is projected. A voice and also instruments are so much smaller and more direct in real. I am often surprised that people don't hear the weak individual focus with Avalon and MIT. They should listen to a violin in real. Believe me it is much smaller.

When you change the MIT by Audioquest cables you enter a different world. But one which is so much more precise. Since I do the comparison between the cables I never heard a person who said the MIT is better. Or you must be f....deaf!

I don't see how the physics of a speakers signal arrive time at the listening position due to improper speaker placement and poorly timed room reflections (old stereo rules) can be overcome without using digital room correction.

I experimented with my Eidolons out of position and a technician using the professional version of Audyssey room correction. The room correction clearly improved the out of position performance. It was equally clear that proper speaker positioning out preformed room correction, at least in my room. Lucky me.

The Professional Audyssey calibration did have an advantage over the Pioneer Elite MCA room correction in my Home Theater room. Fortunately, a simple adjustment of the MCA calibration program brought my HT system indistinguishably close to the Audyssey calibration. This was well worth the cost of the Professional Audyssey technical assistance as was the experiment in the two channel room.

I apologize for the Eidolon toe in question. It was a childish attempt at questioning your knowledge of the basic Avalon design principle. I'm satisfied to agree to disagree with your use of room correction in the two channel application.

Other than a brief audition in an unfamiliar environment of the then impressive Spectral/MIT/Avalon 2C3D demonstration years ago I have no practical knowledge with the MIT/Avalon relationship. I'm not one to second guess Avalons use of Cardas internal wire not to use Cardas Golden Reference speaker cable and interconnect throughout my system.

I measure at different hights and places compared to Audyssey uses it. I also use Audyssey EQ and Volume my way. The endresult is superior to what you can achieve with the Aydyssey way. I also modyfied the tripod so you can use the microphone a lot more precise.

When you compare Pioneer with Onkyo there is a huge difference in stage wide and depth. Pioneer is fully useless because it is a 2 dimensional brand.

It is unusual and a big luck that Onkyo can give a deep and wide stage. I Always test every single brand in how deep and wide a stage is. I was very surprised that Onkyo could give a deep and wide stage. I was not expecting this to be honnest.

When a brand is not able to give a deep and wide stage it Always will be useless for highend.

I said it many many times; Roomcorrection is only 1/3 th of the whole Audyssey Pro package. Many highend people went nuts wenn I could let them hear many new things of there well know favorite music.

Audyssey EQ and volume give me the freedom to create a much better articulation of voices. Without it, I cannot achieve it. It is not possible with other even extreme highend pre amps. My old Pass XP-20 could not give me this level.

Most of my clients who bought Audyssey Pro only listen to stereo. I also listen for over 80% in stereo.

I have heard many MIT/Avalon/Spectral systems in 16 years of time. I didn'nt like any of them. Different collegues at the time had the same feeling I had.

You have to hear it to believe it. Hearing is believing. And that is the only thing that counts. And this makes it a lot more easy.

I create a lot more information on the other hand, but also a much more involving sound. Because emotion in sound is the key to listen for hours and hours.

This will Always be the main goal! That is why I say: I don't sell boxes. I sell emotion. My focus is Always on the endresult. This need to be perfect.

When a part of a system of a client is not able to get he full package of what I call Total sound. I breng in parts which make them complete. So they know what they need to get the full potential.

When exposed to audio opinion bullying from a psuedo technical gasbag like Bo, who bases his seemingly inexorable conclusions on "16 years of selling things," it's important to not lose sight of the actual realities of great hifi sound...i.e. well designed gear set up with care. Digital room correction works as advertised to alter (compress) room bass modes, and will apply the sonic opinions of the designers on you with aplomb. You may really like the sound of this stuff! However, as a professional musician, live sound engineer, and distractingly handsome classic motorcycle aficianado, I've been doing an informal survey of serious musicians and audio freaks I work with (who don't sell gear) regarding their opinions on Room Correction Gizmos...guess what? Among those who seem to care about home audio enough to have an opinion, there is near universal agreement that "less is more." I often get the "why stick another box of wires in the signal path if your rig already sounds great?" response from nearly all these guys. The answer from "too lazy to spellcheck anything" Bo and others of the "black background, driver speed, tempo pace...etc., etc." faux technical gibberish school is that, simply, your rig BLOWS CHUNKS and can't sound great unless you embrace a specific and absolute path of zero wiggle room silliness. I say you can "Go with Bo" or just set up the gear, sit back, and enjoy some music...oh, and see more live stuff as I need the money for my motorcycle problem.

Hey Wolfy,

you forget that I do audio for many different clients. I have clients with sets of less than 2000 dollar till 100.000 dollar.

It is Always about creating the best sound possible for every single person.

I work with the same passion for all. There is no difference in what a person pays.

I try to create the best sound possible. And what I said many times; I send my clients to other shops all the time. I do it this way for over 7 years of time now. Because I love competition.

When another shop can create a higher endresult they should go for it. I want audio as honest and open as possible.

Audio Shows need to be more open and honest for people. Distributers should work togheter instead of only using stuff which is based on political choices.

English is maybe not my first language. But people understand what I try to explain. You don't have to agree. It is just a personal opinion.

The focus is on getting a better sound for all people. This should be the focus of every single person in this business. Instead of only focusing on making as much money as possible.

If Audyssey pro would compress the sound, I would never be interested in it. If you had read more precise you would have read that I create more information with it.

It is 'new'information what is with most other pre amps not there. I have many highend people visiting me all the time. Because it is a lot of fun to share information about music and audio with other people in this business.

In the last 3 weeks I sold 3 sytems which were sold by hearing other sets of clients from me. People love the 3 dimensional sound were instruments and voices are playing fully loose and stand touchable in front of them. You understand very quick why it is convincing and good.

This sound is what music makes addictive. Because you want to hear it for hours a day. And that is primarily based on emotion.

This is based on all parts of a realistic sound and realistic proportion of instruments and voices.

Spoken with the zest of the classically insecure. "The best sound possible" is not an absolute, it is simply an opinion. Subs driven to upper mids and squashed by digital EQ is rarely optimal, realistic, or recommended, and since this is the approach you've described as producing "realistic" results, I can only assume you need to get out more. Open up that closed little brain...feel the warm breeze of real music...there ya go...all better...

I understand your point of view. Because I was very sceptical about roomcorrection and subwoofer use for stereo as well.

Giving demos is the key for hearing is believing. The endresults speak for them selves. That is what people make change there way of thinking.

Because when instruments and voices become extreme touchable and in full 3D and the sound is very involving you see it on the reactions of people.

My favorite hobby is music. I love live music as I love music played in full 3D at home. I buy a lot of music every week. This is the essentail part for audio.

In MY experience, cables sound different attached to different components. MIT just might be better with a certain amp, and maybe not...the only way to tell is to try it in the system and listen. I have an all Ayre system and bought Ayre cables. After a bit less than a year after a friend came over with Purist did I realize that Ayre is NOT the best...at least in MY system. After auditioning 20 or so cables I came away with Audioquest Sky/Everest, and Anti-Cables (top of the line silvers) sounding the best. No one I had listen could tell the difference. I also tried Audioquest super top of the line signature cables....they were awful...almost as bad a the worst sounding cables...Cardas.

That is why you need to understand which kind of properties each brand of cable owns.

With your amp, source, conditioner and speakers the same story.

In the past different brands in amps and sources came with spakercables. It is better for them to stick were they are good at.

Hey what do you guys think of adding a REL 528 to a pair of Avalon Ascendents driven by all Esoteric gear ( amp Esoteric A-03 50 watts class A power ) with all top or near top of the line Purist Audio Cables ....no sub and go to all Cardas ???? Just asking ....

Ahhhhh....I see where there wasn't enough ego in my question to prompt a response from the usuals ......

Before making a cable vs sub decision be certain that your Ascendents are well out in the room, in proper reflective placement, and spiked. At this point I'd suggest auditioning a more powerful amplifier.

If your looking for low frequency there is no substitute for a well integrated subwoofer/s especially if you like what your current amplifier is offering you in the mids and highs.

I would preface that every room has different reactions to extra low frequency an individuals goals and taste are very subjective.

That said, I auditioned a Studio III and found it to be very limited by its preferred high level (speaker} connectivity. The supplied cable is so short it limits room placement which is usually critical with a sub without onboard EQ. Compared to Velodyne DD+ system integration was marginal at best.

I'd suggest partnering the 528 with DSpeaker EQ or similar.

Woodworker,

Have you had an opportunity to listen to your system yet and if so perhaps share your thoughts?

Integration has to do with the response of the low freq. unit of a subwoofer. Material needs to be very light and stiff. Velodyne weakest point is there speed in response. For surround it is good, for stereo it is too slow for me. I have proven this in a few tests.

I could not achieve the stealth integration I want and did achieve with the PLW-15 from Monitor Audio. There response and timing is better cause of the combination of carbon and alluminium. This is something I can easily demonstrate to many highend people as I did.

With Audyssey Pro I could achieve also the dynamics and energy coming from the place were the low freq. are on the recording. With Velodyne it is more coming from the sub it self instead of the location were it needs to be.

Tried many speaker cables with Avalons: MIT varies levels, transparent, nordost, acoustic zen, stealth dream, ridge street audio, purist audio, cardas clear. best fit for me was tara lab 0.8. That is with both SS amp and tube amp.

Tara Labs has also a sharp individual focus of instruments and voices. This means you get a more realistic proportion of instruments and voices.

I sold Avalon for over 6 years of time. I never understood why people buy it with MIT. Because the individual focus within the wide and deep stage never will give an intimate image. I also sold MIT for over 6 years of time.

People should listen to acoustic instruments in real. After this listen to Avalon and MIT and you will understand what is missing.

GLai there is indeed something special about the 0.8.
Tried them when I had my old pair of Eidolons.
Too bad I cant afford it, improvement doesnt justify the cost.
Rather spend time tweaking the operating points of my electronics.
Finally tamed my Avalon diamonds after a whole year.
Extremely sensitive to the slightest hint of odd order harmonics of upstream gear, that's all I can say.

Short cable issues, woofer "speed" myths, bizarre testing claims, and yet another suggestion of what people "should" listen to based on unsubstantiated nonesense. It just doesn't get any better around here.

I'm using Audyssey Pro to pick the Kentucky Derby. It likes California Chrome!

Hearing is believing, that is why the most convincing sound Always will win.

You need to keep it simple and clear!

Bo1972 - While it is quite possible that you are more convincing in your native tongue, I have to say that you seem like an empty and redundant blowhard in English. I'm quite accustomed to conversing with the actual equipment designers and their executive personnel, and none of them come off with boastful proclamations the way you do.

You would be well advised to humbly sit back and learn from those of us who can make a point without boasting. Whether you realize it or not, you are talking down to people who have far more experience and knowledge than yourself and you are looking very silly (pathetic?) in the process. Give it a rest.

The reason why I use the words in a sarcasm way is because in 16 years of time I have seen to often how poor people are advised in audio. When I can let other people hear a more convincing and higher quality in sound it is up to them who also work in this profession to show they can do a better job.

It is pathetic how many people don't get the quality they could have gotten. Only if they would have been better advised. If 'those' with 'more'experience and knowledge can give people a higher level in audio......just show it.

I like a fair game in audio. All people who do it as a profession can show there clienst what they can give to them.

One last thing I can tell you; I am taking audio very serious, and no I never will give up. I love competing and creating the best sound. All other people have the same chances that I have. So use them!

What I say in words I can do exactly the same in sound. Then people know that it is the truth. And this is how I work. Hearing is believing, and that it the truth!

When I would not be 100% sure about my words I would never written them. Because then it would be pathetic, and I would be just as stuppid as those who work in audio and sell average or even poor quality.

This is certainly an amusing thread.

Reynolds,

Are you a cyclist?

Glai,

Yep, Reynolds 853 is the tubing used for my Waterford road bike. You must be a cyclist too to have caught that?

To expand on what Macrojack says, and because I enjoy addressing this dude: Bo1972 is apparently unable to comprehend the message from others that his absolutist stance on exactly what comprises good sound is annoying and makes him seem like a fool, regardless of his extreme sincerity. If you look at how he claims to create this fabulous sound...based around powered woofers allowed up into lower midrange territory only to be electronically tamed by an Audyssey Pro system, you would note that this is not only unconventional, but considered by many with far more experience as musicians and hifi freaks to be an arguably ass backwards method for obtaining optimal tonal purity. It still might sound great to somebody and that fact nobody contests, but this hobby isn't a contest, it's just supposed to be fun, and establishing dialog with other tone freaks should include some give and take regarding the opinions around here (unless one disagrees with ME, in which case you're a DICK). Some respect is due for the amazing knowledge base available from those with a reasoned approach and both technical knowledge and listening skills gained from a vast amount of experience, and that respect is utterly lacking from Bo1972's rants about anything, thus denying him any modicum of credibility. I hope that his persona is a parody created by a comedic writer who sticks this stuff in here just to mess with us...now THAT would be great...

It never will be about me, that is only what others make from it. I want music as intimate and pure as possible.

What I do is creating a 3 dimensional sound and that all parts of a recoding become loose from eachother. This connects people closer to the music they love.

Audio should be more focused on music and emotion. That makes audio more desirable.

The way I sell audio make people want to listen for hours a day. Many systems are not concincing enough to be liked for a long period. There is a reason why people don't like it enough after some time?

When an audio system plays in full 3D you see a much bigger smile on the faces of people. To create a higher level of blacks makes instruments and voices come alive. Creating a better articulation of voices let people hear new information of the music they thought they knew well. Creating more flavors in the overwhole sound give instruments the sound they own in real.

I am happy for Woolfy that he loves his 'fast' Rel subwoofer. He has his own opinion about audio, I think differently. We life in a free world.

Sorry Bo, but I have to agree with Macrojack and Wolf. Regardless of the OP question, your comments always digress into the same rant of your own agenda. I do believe you have knowledge of audio, and could possibly be helpful, however you seem to have lost so much credibility on this forum due to your persona. Have you ever thought about just answering the specific question of a post, then stop, stay off the soapbox, and not repeat the same comments you make in every post? Maybe it's just me, and again, sorry, but those repeated comments give me the impression of a typical Snake Oil Salesman from many years ago.

Sold my 1972 Reynolds 853 Raleigh Professional cream puff last year. I do miss the ride but now I'm down to two bikes, a Santa Cruz Heckler with XTR rapid rise shifting and my trusty Calfee (Record) Tetra. Both manufactured just minutes from home.

I hope Bo1972 never stops...seriously, it's like some demented poetry...ahem: "When an audio system plays in full 3D you see a much bigger smile on the faces of people. To create a higher level of blacks makes instruments and voices come alive. Creating a better articulation of voices let people hear new information of the music they thought they knew well. Creating more flavors in the overwhole sound give instruments the sound they own in real." It just doesn't get any better than that.

This is the 37th time he's picked on my REL sub...my poor little REL...it just sits there trying to do its thing...trying SO hard...*sniff*...as a treat for it tonight I'm going to tighten its nuts.

Bo might be the Andy Kaufman of Audiogon.

Wolf -
We should deal with Bo 1972 somewhat compassionately. He appears to be performing his shtick mechanically and sincerely. Kinda brings to mind Jethro Bodine reciting his gazintas.
There he is,tall and proud, just beaming ear to ear as he reels em off:

Two gazinta four two times
Four gazinta eight two times,
Etc. Etc. Etc.

Who are we to rain on his performance? May as we'll let him radiate. After all, I am decidedly less noble. Some time ago it came to me while listening to Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue that it is not my job to prevent people from wasting their money or making bad choices and, hell, it serves no one for me to regret someone else's decisions. If they want to buy Bose or Red Rose or some bucket of snake oil like Mechanica Dynamical, that is not my problem and most certainly none of my biz. I've got a few of my own issues that deserve, but don't get, my unrelenting attention.

Partly because of you, I have developed an appreciation for the value and superiority that can be found in pro gear. Implementing the stuff can be daunting, however. Have you had any experience with Yorkville Sound in Toronto? Danley? B&C, or RCF? Acoustic Horn Co.?