Having recently purchased the Studio 148, I find myself spending a lot less time reading forums online. Hoping to get a chance to hear them paired with Sugden and/or First Watt later this year.
ProAc comparison
What are your thoughts on comparing different ProAc models? I’m currently on my 3rd pair.
I started out with the Tablette 2000, which was a superb value for the money, and a wonderfully musical speaker with surprising bass for its size. I kind of regret selling them, because I think they’d be just about the perfect bedroom system speakers. However, I always had these on hardwood floors, so I suspect they could be a bit soft in carpeted rooms.
Then I got a good deal on a pair of Response 2S, which I had been coveting since 1998. The Response 2S had better extension in both directions than the Tablette 2000, and I found them to be considerably brighter, to the point where I actually had to lay down a carpet on top of the hardwood floor of their initial room. But they certainly had all of the musicality of the Tablettes, and seemed to have no sacrifices once the tweeter was tamed. Then I moved into a bigger space. My current living room is 17’ x 17’, and carpeted. The carpet here eats high frequencies for lunch, but the Response 2S proved to be absolutely phenomenal imagers in here. They were throwing images well beyond the walls.
After hearing the Proac Studio 140, and being completely blown-away by it, I found a good deal on the Studio 140 Mk. II, and jumped on it. What I found was a trade-off from the Response 2S. I got an extra 10 Hz of bass extension, which has proved to be deeper than expected. I got better high-frequency extension, as well. The Studio 140 Mk. II are also much more dynamic, and more efficient. I can really feel the music with these speakers in a way that I couldn’t with the Response 2S. But the Response 2S were much better at imaging. They were warmer, had better bass-mid integration, and were much better at presenting vocal textures. The Studio 140 Mk. II are much better with instrumental textures. There’s no clear winner here - it really seems to be a matter of taste. For my part, I’ve decided to stick with the Studio 140 Mk. II for now, as the dynamics, clarity, and rhythmic drive of them work really well for the music I listen to. But I can really see tube lovers going for the Response 2S.
My one mythical lust object in the ProAc lineup remains the Response 2.5. I heard them in the late-’90s, and I have never heard anything else that did such an amazing job with acoustic bass texture. I really wonder how they hold up in the context of a modern system, and how they compare to newer models. I listened to the Response D25 and was not impressed. They sounded sluggish and muddy in comparison, despite the dealer telling me they had been improved.
So what are your experiences comparing different ProAc models? Which ones have really stood out to you, and which do you covet as part of your dream system?
I started out with the Tablette 2000, which was a superb value for the money, and a wonderfully musical speaker with surprising bass for its size. I kind of regret selling them, because I think they’d be just about the perfect bedroom system speakers. However, I always had these on hardwood floors, so I suspect they could be a bit soft in carpeted rooms.
Then I got a good deal on a pair of Response 2S, which I had been coveting since 1998. The Response 2S had better extension in both directions than the Tablette 2000, and I found them to be considerably brighter, to the point where I actually had to lay down a carpet on top of the hardwood floor of their initial room. But they certainly had all of the musicality of the Tablettes, and seemed to have no sacrifices once the tweeter was tamed. Then I moved into a bigger space. My current living room is 17’ x 17’, and carpeted. The carpet here eats high frequencies for lunch, but the Response 2S proved to be absolutely phenomenal imagers in here. They were throwing images well beyond the walls.
After hearing the Proac Studio 140, and being completely blown-away by it, I found a good deal on the Studio 140 Mk. II, and jumped on it. What I found was a trade-off from the Response 2S. I got an extra 10 Hz of bass extension, which has proved to be deeper than expected. I got better high-frequency extension, as well. The Studio 140 Mk. II are also much more dynamic, and more efficient. I can really feel the music with these speakers in a way that I couldn’t with the Response 2S. But the Response 2S were much better at imaging. They were warmer, had better bass-mid integration, and were much better at presenting vocal textures. The Studio 140 Mk. II are much better with instrumental textures. There’s no clear winner here - it really seems to be a matter of taste. For my part, I’ve decided to stick with the Studio 140 Mk. II for now, as the dynamics, clarity, and rhythmic drive of them work really well for the music I listen to. But I can really see tube lovers going for the Response 2S.
My one mythical lust object in the ProAc lineup remains the Response 2.5. I heard them in the late-’90s, and I have never heard anything else that did such an amazing job with acoustic bass texture. I really wonder how they hold up in the context of a modern system, and how they compare to newer models. I listened to the Response D25 and was not impressed. They sounded sluggish and muddy in comparison, despite the dealer telling me they had been improved.
So what are your experiences comparing different ProAc models? Which ones have really stood out to you, and which do you covet as part of your dream system?
- ...
- 35 posts total
- 35 posts total