My original spikes are also steel and I was just going to give them to you but looks like Jim is taking care of you.
Happy listening!
Happy listening!
Review: Eggleston Works Andra mkII Speaker
Category: Speakers
The purpose of this review is to comment on EW's Andra II upgrade. There were several thorough reviews of the Andra in 1996 and 1997, and Paul Bolin just did a very thorough (and from what I've heard, completely accurate) review of the Andra II's in the November 2002 Stereophile. But while he reported that EW had a program to upgrade the Andra to Andra II for $2750 plus shipping, he didn't say anything about the differences between the two. And they are enormous.
The original Andras, which I lived with for more than two years after buying them used, were wonderful speakers, but not perfect. At roughly $15,000, they could compete with the Revel Salons and B & W Nautilus 801's (B & W's top speaker then) on some bases, but not others. Their strongest points were that, on the one hand, a stereo pair projected a simply enormous soundfront, had dead stable imaging, and the strongest center image I had heard--no wandering or split soloists with these babies--and, on the other, they had a small footprint, were attractive but not intrusive in an R2D2 way, and--critically for me in a New York apartment--were designed to be positioned back against the wall. The reviews in 1996 and 1997 suggested 10 inches. I found 20-24 better, but compare that to comparable speakers, which require 4-6 feet! The Andras' main flaw, as far as I was concerned, was that they were a bit thin in the lower midrange/upper midbass range (not the low bass--how much low bass do you want in a New York apartment?)--and a bit forward at the upper midrange/high frequency crossover. (Enter the Purist Dominus.) Also, the image height was a bit low, because the speaker was small, and the tweeter height around three feet from the floor. Still superb, still very transparent--but not perfect. (What is?)
A word about the upgrade. It took about 5-6 weeks from my initial call to EW to final delivery, but that also included shipping me empty cartons for the Andras. Of those 5-6 weeks, shipper delays probably took up half the time. Total shipping costs, three ways, were a little under $600, to New York, where the shipping companies make a delivery of heavy items a day at Jurassic Park. The people at EW were pleasant, efficient, and knew what they were doing. The speakers which came back were immaculate (all dings gone), beautifully finished, and as far as I'm concerned, beautiful. The extra 7 inch height makes them more graceful, and they fit in better with my Salamander cabinets, but they do demand more attention. No one walks into my living room (23 by 13.5 by 9, open to dining area on left) without noticing them any more.
If you want an Andra with more bass, forget it--this is a totally different speaker. Sure, it has more bass, a prodigious amount, in fact. And probably because the speaker is now 7 inches taller, the image height is no longer anything you even notice, any more than you notice it at Carnegie Hall. Which brings us to the real point--you really do not notice anything particular at all. The overall sense is simply of natural, accurate sound, the way it sounds from my 8th row center seat at Carnegie Hall--not, of course, in degree, but in kind. Low level detail is just there; loud passages simply happen. No strain. No distractions. To speak audiophile-ese--the speakers are far more transparent from top to bottom, image extraordinarily well, are as smooth up and down the spectrum as anything I have ever heard, and are absolutely eerie on low level detail. Turning the volume down further than I have ever comfortably done (and bearing in mind that they are far more efficient than the Andras were), the detail is still there in quiet passages, and loud ones lose no transparency, which they did on the Andras. Blast the system, and you are in hog heaven until the police come.
This brings up my last point. I have always used rear speakers, with a rebuilt 80's ambiance unit (but without the front channels going through it). This opens up the hall sound, creates a fuller and richer listening space, and compensates for the artificialities of stereo sound without subjecting me to gimmicky surround sound where some engineer wants to demonstrate how creative he can be. The Andras, like every other speaker I have owned, profitted from this. My point is, that when I settled down to listen to the Andra II's, I kept marvelling at the way they filled the room. After two hours, I realized that while my rear channel amp was on, the ambiance unit was not. The rear speakers were off, but I hadn't even noticed.
My last word on the speaker conversion itself: compared to what I have put into this system elsewhere, the Andra II conversion at $3300 (including shipping), is such an extraordinary value it makes virtually every other expenditure I have ever done seem ridiculously extravagant. If you have Andras, do it! If you don't, they're around used. If you are contemplating $20,000 (gag) for new speakers, you have to hear these. (From what I've heard at dealers, and other people's homes, these can stand up to the Revels and B & W's and just about anything else in that range.)
Final piece of information: my listening is almost exclusively classical, and is LP, CD and SACD. I have thrown everything from the Solti Ring to Moravec's Chopin at them, and am simply overwhelmed. If you need to know how they rock, you're on your own.
Associated gear
SME 20 turntable, SME 5 arm. Koetsu Rosewood Signature, Classe Omega SACD, dCS Purcell and Elgar, Rowland Synergy IIi preamp, Classe CAM-350's, Lamm LP2 phono amp,Burmester line conditioner, Purist Dominus cables, rear channels: Sony 505ES ambiance unit, NAD C370 amp, Egglestonworks Isabel speakers
Similar products
Andras, B & W Signature 800's, Revel Salons, Dynaudios, Wilson Watt/Puppy 6
The purpose of this review is to comment on EW's Andra II upgrade. There were several thorough reviews of the Andra in 1996 and 1997, and Paul Bolin just did a very thorough (and from what I've heard, completely accurate) review of the Andra II's in the November 2002 Stereophile. But while he reported that EW had a program to upgrade the Andra to Andra II for $2750 plus shipping, he didn't say anything about the differences between the two. And they are enormous.
The original Andras, which I lived with for more than two years after buying them used, were wonderful speakers, but not perfect. At roughly $15,000, they could compete with the Revel Salons and B & W Nautilus 801's (B & W's top speaker then) on some bases, but not others. Their strongest points were that, on the one hand, a stereo pair projected a simply enormous soundfront, had dead stable imaging, and the strongest center image I had heard--no wandering or split soloists with these babies--and, on the other, they had a small footprint, were attractive but not intrusive in an R2D2 way, and--critically for me in a New York apartment--were designed to be positioned back against the wall. The reviews in 1996 and 1997 suggested 10 inches. I found 20-24 better, but compare that to comparable speakers, which require 4-6 feet! The Andras' main flaw, as far as I was concerned, was that they were a bit thin in the lower midrange/upper midbass range (not the low bass--how much low bass do you want in a New York apartment?)--and a bit forward at the upper midrange/high frequency crossover. (Enter the Purist Dominus.) Also, the image height was a bit low, because the speaker was small, and the tweeter height around three feet from the floor. Still superb, still very transparent--but not perfect. (What is?)
A word about the upgrade. It took about 5-6 weeks from my initial call to EW to final delivery, but that also included shipping me empty cartons for the Andras. Of those 5-6 weeks, shipper delays probably took up half the time. Total shipping costs, three ways, were a little under $600, to New York, where the shipping companies make a delivery of heavy items a day at Jurassic Park. The people at EW were pleasant, efficient, and knew what they were doing. The speakers which came back were immaculate (all dings gone), beautifully finished, and as far as I'm concerned, beautiful. The extra 7 inch height makes them more graceful, and they fit in better with my Salamander cabinets, but they do demand more attention. No one walks into my living room (23 by 13.5 by 9, open to dining area on left) without noticing them any more.
If you want an Andra with more bass, forget it--this is a totally different speaker. Sure, it has more bass, a prodigious amount, in fact. And probably because the speaker is now 7 inches taller, the image height is no longer anything you even notice, any more than you notice it at Carnegie Hall. Which brings us to the real point--you really do not notice anything particular at all. The overall sense is simply of natural, accurate sound, the way it sounds from my 8th row center seat at Carnegie Hall--not, of course, in degree, but in kind. Low level detail is just there; loud passages simply happen. No strain. No distractions. To speak audiophile-ese--the speakers are far more transparent from top to bottom, image extraordinarily well, are as smooth up and down the spectrum as anything I have ever heard, and are absolutely eerie on low level detail. Turning the volume down further than I have ever comfortably done (and bearing in mind that they are far more efficient than the Andras were), the detail is still there in quiet passages, and loud ones lose no transparency, which they did on the Andras. Blast the system, and you are in hog heaven until the police come.
This brings up my last point. I have always used rear speakers, with a rebuilt 80's ambiance unit (but without the front channels going through it). This opens up the hall sound, creates a fuller and richer listening space, and compensates for the artificialities of stereo sound without subjecting me to gimmicky surround sound where some engineer wants to demonstrate how creative he can be. The Andras, like every other speaker I have owned, profitted from this. My point is, that when I settled down to listen to the Andra II's, I kept marvelling at the way they filled the room. After two hours, I realized that while my rear channel amp was on, the ambiance unit was not. The rear speakers were off, but I hadn't even noticed.
My last word on the speaker conversion itself: compared to what I have put into this system elsewhere, the Andra II conversion at $3300 (including shipping), is such an extraordinary value it makes virtually every other expenditure I have ever done seem ridiculously extravagant. If you have Andras, do it! If you don't, they're around used. If you are contemplating $20,000 (gag) for new speakers, you have to hear these. (From what I've heard at dealers, and other people's homes, these can stand up to the Revels and B & W's and just about anything else in that range.)
Final piece of information: my listening is almost exclusively classical, and is LP, CD and SACD. I have thrown everything from the Solti Ring to Moravec's Chopin at them, and am simply overwhelmed. If you need to know how they rock, you're on your own.
Associated gear
SME 20 turntable, SME 5 arm. Koetsu Rosewood Signature, Classe Omega SACD, dCS Purcell and Elgar, Rowland Synergy IIi preamp, Classe CAM-350's, Lamm LP2 phono amp,Burmester line conditioner, Purist Dominus cables, rear channels: Sony 505ES ambiance unit, NAD C370 amp, Egglestonworks Isabel speakers
Similar products
Andras, B & W Signature 800's, Revel Salons, Dynaudios, Wilson Watt/Puppy 6
22 responses Add your response