opinions on Coincident vs. HT Pro9

oh, a description? oh yeah, sorry. They sound great! :-) But seriously, I'd have to say neutral, clear, open, dynamic. I get much better imaging too, my speakers have finally completely disappeared. Maybe nobody has bothered to describe them with the usual 'tinted' words because they really don't color things to either side of the usual polarized parameters we all talk about. They will be in my system longer than anything, I know, maybe forever,- which in the audiophile dictionary means at least a few years.

The TRS speaker cable can be offered biwired.The cable will then be internally configured so that half will be separated for highs /mids and the other half for bass.

With Coincident speakers( where all the crossover sections-high pass ,low pass etc.are completely separated and isolated from one another and are all individually run to the binding posts as opposed to being interconnected between sections and wiring all the hots and grounds and then connecting them to the binding post)biwiring offers no sonic benefit and may actually involve a sonic degradation due to the speaker cable used.Coincident only recommends biwiring when a customer has the intention of biamping his speakers.

We therefore ,recommend using our TRS jumper cables and using the TRS in a non biwire set up for better results.

Thanks Iblume! The bi-/tri-wiring I have done in the past was: 1) I used two sets of speaker cables. 2) My previous speakers were Linn AV-5140, designed with a tri-wire setup. I first used Linn's K-400 wire which has two separate runs within each wire for bi-wiring, and used their jumper plate for the third post. I later went to their K-600 which has three separate runs within each cable for tri-wiring.

I still have this old Linn wire but I can't really "play/compare" with it on my new amp as it doesn't accept bananna plugs.

I just replaced my HT Pro Silways MKII's with Coincident IC's and the difference is huge. I hate to knock another cable because I know it is so system dependent. My current system is all Electrocompaniet (EMC1, 4.6 Pre-amp, AW120 Amp). I have Purist audio maximus between my amp and pre and HT Pro 9's for my speakers.
The Coincident sounded better out of the box than the existing HT Pro Silways in my system. The bass became tighter, vocals fleshed out...blah blah blah. Bottom line is it sounds alot better and makes listening to my system alot more enjoyable.
Thanks to Mr. Blume for producing a well voiced product with tangible improvements at a competative price point. I would very much like to hear your speakers as well. If they are anything like your cables they must be outstanding.

My comments relate to the Coincident interconnects.

I use both HT, Truth Link (their copper interconnect which tends to get overlooked) and Coincident CST I interconnects. Overall, I prefer the Coincident CST. The HT still does better in its front-to-back layering and has a kind of see-around-the-musician quality that the CST can't quite seem to match.

BUT, as so many people have discussed here, the CST IC's present the music with a sense of rightness as if the music is coming from a coherent whole, same cut of cloth, etc. This is so true in my experience. The HT Truth Link--I much prefer it to HT's silver/copper combo, ProSilway--is perhaps a little more detailed and perhaps fleshes out the back of the sound stage, rear and side hall wall reflections, etc. But who cares? The CST does something that makes music a joy to listen to. It just sounds right.

Curiously, some have found the Coincident CST to be brutally honest--as in not rich and romantic or softening out the rough edges in bad recording, etc. I find them to be plenty rich and full sounding. And I don't intend that "rich and full" in the pejorative "colored" sense by any means.

My CST interconnects took 600 hours to sound like they were out-performing the HT. And out perform the HT they do. Based on this experience, I may look into replacing my HT Pro9 Plus speaker cables with Coincident speaker cable, too.