Soliloquy 6.5 vs. Coincident Super Eclipse same $


I need some help. Soliloquy 6.5 vs. Coincident Super Eclipse at basically the same cost. I don't have either dealer close by for comparisons. My systems consists of the following. CJ PV-11, Musical Design D-150 amp, Denon DP-60L turntable with Denon Cartridge, Musical Design CD player with Nordost Red Dawn interconnects and Kimber 8TC or Wireworld Atlantis speaker cables. I need to make a decision soon.
Thanks, Jim
jimd
Kalan, The Supers have the latest tweeter upgrade and the associated crossover, but that is all I know about the vintage. I am going to run whichever speaker with an 150 watt SS Musical Design amp. The pre-amp will be a tubed CJ PV-11.

I have a question. Do the woofers on the Supers have to be facing each other? The Soliloqys have rear firing bass ports which creates its own unique positioning problems. Thanks for the information. Jim
Jimd,

From your comments referring only to the tweeter and crossover I'm guessing these would be the Series II. The Series III released this year have carbon-fibre midrange units, as opposed to the magnesium ones in Series III. The latest one also has a port on the front, according to the Coincident web site. Also, the midrange units are mounted in cutouts so the frame is flush with the front baffle, whereas the Series I and Series II had these drivers standing proud.

The woofer arrangement gives flexibility. I have my Eclipses on the long wall with plenty of side clearance, so I have the woofers facing out.

I have not done a comparison either. I must say that the Supers sound, well, "super", in my system. They don't come up that often on the second-hand market, which is a guide to the level at which they are appreciated (I think so).

Regards,
Israel has also re-tuned the bass with the newest Supers to be a bit tighter...
Tetralla's speculation that the version of Super E's you have a line on is probably correct: version II or something close to that.

A user and Israel Blume have told me that the III really does improve upon the strengths of both the I and II versions (assume that means it also mitigates the "needs-improvement" areas). I get the impression that the III really amounts to significant re-think.

You may want to hold out for a III.