Big, big room -- which 10-20k speakers?


I just moved into a house in which my listening room will be about 35 x 35 with 17-foot ceilings, with double-story double-pane glass windows on two sides. I will be running a Luxman 509u intergrated amp, a Sony XA777ES, and a Luxman PD371 with a Miyajima Shilabe. Cables are a mix of old Nordost Valhala and newer Kubala-Sosna Emotion. I know it all seems fragmented but I just moved back to the US after a decade living in Tokyo so these are bits and pieces assembled over there.

I am considering a variety of used speakers that can be purchased for 10-20k, namely the Revel Ultima Salons 2s, Rockport Mira Grand II, Aerial Accoustics 20T (I should mention I had 10Ts in the 90s and loved them) and YG Anat Studio II.

I'd love any thoughts on which speakers would perform best in the room given it's size and reflectivity, and given my rather odd electronics. Thanks very much for your advice!
rr999
I'd say pick up a pair of old OHM Walsh 5s somewhere for <$1000 and give those a shot first before spending big bucks. You'd have little to loose and much to save/gain even if they do not cut it. They can be resold easily with little or no loss,or traded in to OHM for up to 40% discount on a newer pair if desired.

I would love to have a room that size for any OHMs and would never trade it if I did for anything in the smaller rooms most of us are limited to in our homes. I've found the OHm Walsh CLS speakers are NEVER the bottleneck. In your case, the amp would be, but it may still be good enough that it not matter. MAxing out the amp with the OHMs in a room that size should be an incredible experience that I would love to hear! That or the option of adding a good powered sub.

[url=http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/687ohm/]1987 Stereophile Review of the OHM Walsh 5[/url]
Another good candidate to look at would be Tannoy larger Prestige line. Probably Westminster or better still the Westminster Royal SE. Had them for years in a room almost as large, driven by Cary 300SE (15w), then later Cary CAD805 (50w), filled the room sweetly without a sweat. Your Luxman will be more than up to task, I'm sure.

At one point, a friend looking to buy these speakers demoed them at my home and brought his Accuphase (less than) 100w integrated+Sony 555ES cdp if I recalled correctly, it sounded great too that he ended up with the Canterbury (one model down). Definitely worth to check out ie.if you don't mind/love their classic look.
All this talk about what speaker will fill what room, with not much mention about how it's going to sound in the end. You should allot 1/3 of your speaker budget towards room treatment. You are going to need a lot of it.

Shakey
And oh.. Btw I'm quite familiar with the Wilson Sasha, my brother owns and currently use them in an all ARC system. I don't think they would cut it in a room that size. Possibly if your ceiling is the norm 9-11', otherwise, as others here have suggested, you might need at least the Maxx2/3s to do the job right. Then, there'll be amp question.. While I'm sure your Luxman have the 'watts' for sPLs (Maxxes are quite efficient), I doubt they'll have the requisite 'currents' to properly control them woofers.

So, I'd too say yes, explore bigger more efficient speakers if you are not looking to major overhaul your entire system.

Good luck!
Rr999, I'd just like to suggest that you indicate to the assembled multitude what kinds of music you listen to. The need for high speaker efficiency, given the moderate power rating of your amplifier, will be especially important if your listening includes music having wide dynamic range, meaning a wide DIFFERENCE in volume between the loudest notes and the softest notes.

It is not uncommon, for example, for well engineered classical symphonic recordings to reach brief volume peaks that are 30 db or more greater than their average volume, and 40 to 50 db or more greater than the volume of their softest notes. A 30 db ratio of peak to average volume levels means that you will need 1,000 times as much power for volume peaks compared to the average levels of those recordings. And a 50 db difference between the loudest and softest notes requires 100,000 times as much power for the loudest notes as compared to the softest notes.

Many and probably most rock recordings, on the other hand, are compressed to a dynamic range that is in single digits as expressed in db, meaning less than 10 times as much power is required for volume peaks as compared to the softest notes.

Perhaps differences in the kinds of music that are listened to by those who have posted contribute to the divergence of opinion.

Good luck in your search.

Regards,
-- Al