Updates – Tubes, transistors and other things

•June 19, 2015 • Leave a Comment

I’m writing up a few longer posts right now but here’s a quick update of recent developments:

My Fisher 500C was resurrected and I’m playing with it now. More detailed write-up to follow.

Fisher 500C back from the dead and sounding great

Fisher 500C back from the dead and sounding great

I just picked up another Pioneer SA-6500ii that wasn’t working. After some TLC it seems to be doing fine. It needs a cleaning then I’ll play with it some more. it also came with a dirty TX-606 tuner, which looks cool.

Interior of Pioneer SA-6500ii integrated amplifier. Pretty simple and easy to work on.

Interior of Pioneer SA-6500ii integrated amplifier. Pretty simple and easy to work on.

 

 

I also just picked up some Electro-Voice LS-12 Wolverine 12″ full-range speakers in some original-equipment enclosures. they look neat. And when I opened them up the Wolverines are in time-warp condition. My initial testing found everything was OK but I’m not sold on the sound yet – in the enclosures there’s a lot less low end than I was expecting. Maybe this is a good time to experiment with open baffles.

Advertisement

Posted in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

Epic – Klipsch CF-4

•May 13, 2015 • 10 Comments
Klipsch CF-4s with the grilles off.

Klipsch CF-4s with the grilles off.

 

These came home with me shortly after the Klipschorns and my KG-4s left. The Klipschorns were bigger than life in everything – sound, presence, weight – and even though these are speakers of a lifetime for many, I couldn’t warm to them in the end. They were awesome but required a lot of compromises, at least for me in my space. The KG-4s were harder to part with and after I bid them goodbye I regretted it almost immediately. The KG-4s are really ideal for background listening – their lively horn dynamics and ability to hit hard and low compromise them as critical listening speakers at higher levels but do the opposite at low levels. I’ve replaced them with my restored Polk Monitor 7s which I love but don’t project as much bass.

CF-4. Courtesy of Klipsch

CF-4. Courtesy of Klipsch

 

But then I found the CF-4s. As I started with the Klipschorns I became a lurker on the Klipsch Community forum. Klipsch Community is great – nice folks full of great advice on Klipsch sound systems and many other things. It’s similar to the Polk Forum (which I’ve lauded before) in that aspect. But as much as the Polk folks love to mod their speakers, Klipsch people do too, and they take it even further – replacing components, remodeling horns and tweeter diaphragms, testing new cabinet and speaker reinforcement and damping techniques. Very impressive. But sometimes all of these mods introduce a bit of the ‘Grandpa’s Axe’ paradox – after 5 new handles and a couple new heads, is Grandpa’s axe still the same old tool he’s always had?

CF-4s have a legendary following among Klipsch aficionados. They were envisioned by the legendary Klipsch designer Roy Delgado, who reportedly considered these his favorite design of his career. The legend is that the CF-4, while amazing, strayed too far from the traditional Klipsch Heritage sound, and dealers wouldn’t or didn’t know how to sell them to their clientele. Eventual mods in subsequent model years added sizzle to the tone in a bid to get the dealers back on their side, but high cost (they were almost $4,000 new), expensive components, and low sales numbers led to new models replacing them in 1996, after only 3 model years. CF-4s were the flagship of the Epic line, which also included the CF-3 (dual 10″ two-way, same horn) the CF-2 (8″, different horn) and the CF-1 (6.5″ woofers, 1″ horn)

Closeup of Cherry veneer on my CF-4s. Very thick and nice. A little oil and they gleam

Closeup of Cherry veneer on my CF-4s. Very thick and nice. A little oil and they gleam

The CF-4s paired two 12″ neodynium graphite-cone woofers with a massive 2″ aluminum-domed compression driver in an equally-large tractix horn placed between the woofers. The woofers crossed over at 1500hz into the horn. Klipsch reported a Klipschorn-rivalling 102dB @ 1watt/1meter efficiency, which may not be accurate – these things bump on little watts, but not that little.

The three drivers are housed in stately 44″ x 17″ x 19″ cabinets, which are only dwarfed  by Klipschorns. They weigh about 60lb apiece, which is surprisingly light for their size. And they come with two port holes at the bottom that are big enough to stuff your fist into.

When I first brought these home they were going right into the spot that the Klipschorns had been. Any my first impression was how much smaller they were than the corner horns. When I plugged them in to my trusty Lepai 2020+ amp I was blown away – other than being smaller than the Klipschorns, these speakers gave up absolutely nothing – CF-4s hit harder and lower and provided a much more even tone across the spectrum – no cut outs in the upper bass area like the Klipschorns. Even with almost no experimentation with placement, imaging was uncanny. I was in love.

These are forever speakers for me. I’m not giving these up. They just do everything too well. Well, that’s not entirely the truth. The fact of the matter is, I picked up two pairs at the same time when I found these – both pairs were made at about the same time in the end of 1994, with both having sequential serial numbers for their pairs. I ended up keeping the pair with the earlier serial numbers and the slightly more-dinged cabinets and I traded the other pair for a Fisher 500C receiver. But that’s when the mysteries began.

Remember how I said that Klipsch changed the CF-4s along the way in their 3-year run? Klipsch devotees refer to these as Series 1, 2, and 3 speakers. Series 1 were made how God and Roy Delgado intended, with a balanced sound, 6″ bass tubes in the ports, and a crossover set up to match. They also had Monster wiring inside. Series 2 got shorter ports to raise the box tuning and efficiency to make them hotter. Series 3 got different woofers of lesser quality and standard small-gauge colored wiring inside the cabinet. This all according to legend. Series 1 speakers are revered, Series 2 less so, and Series 3 denigrated. At least on the forums.

The Monolith Beckons

The Monolith Beckons

I thought my speakers’ serial numbers placing them in 1994 automatically made them Series 1, Series 2 didn’t start until 1995. But here’s where things get weird. The pair I traded (with the later serial number) has the Monster wire of Series 1 but it has the shorter ports of Series 2. And it’s hard to tell but it may even have the lighter woofers of Series 3 – one of the woofers died and the new owner replaced it with an identical woofer reportedly taken out of a pair of CF-4 Series 3 speakers. My pair has the longer port tubes but has colored internal wiring. And the woofers look the same as in the other pair. Both sets of speakers also have horn material which is a dark color, as opposed to the grey reportedly used on the earliest CF-4s.

People who know CF-4s know all of these little details like it is gospel. Amazing, I know. But that doesn’t explain how my speakers became such a mismatch according to the lore.

So I really don’t have any idea what series speaker I have. And at this point I don’t care. I’ve stopped reading the forum posts which say one pair is better or worse than another. I know that these speakers are something very very special. And when I’m ready there are a host of very cool mods that I can employ to take these to the next level, including cabinet damping, dynamat on horns and baskets, crossovers, and even new (even more humongous) horns. I’ll be ready.

 

UPDATE: I looked inside the other speaker and it has the clear-coated wiring reportedly used in the Series 1 CF-4s. So now who knows what these are. they still sound great.

 

Posted in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

KLH 32 in and out

•May 11, 2015 • Leave a Comment

I picked up a derelict trio of KLH 32s about a year ago at Goodwill. They were largely intact with their tweed grilles and grown walnut veneers present, if a bit scratched and punctured. I took pity and adopted them, think that between the three of them there must be a pair of good speakers.

KLH 32s in more or less presentable shape. Dented but functional

KLH 32s in more or less presentable shape. Dented but functional

Then I looked up the model 32. It’s the runt of the classic KLH litter, with a smaller size and weight, making these ‘bookshelf’ speakers actually bookshelf-friendly. They are a two-way with an 8″ woofer and a smaller 1.75″ tweeter than the usual tweeters in the KLH 5, 6, 17, 20, and 23. It also employed an interesting sound management device – a layer of fiberglass insulation stapled over the tweeter to attenuate the higher frequencies. This I guess helped mitigate the simplicity of the crossover, which consists of a single 4uF capacitor and a coil. The 8″ woofer looks like its larger brethren.

 

KLH 32 under the grille. Note use of fiberglass for tweeter attenuation It's cheaper than crossover components

KLH 32 under the grille. Note use of fiberglass for tweeter attenuation It’s cheaper than crossover components

The cabinets also look similar to the bigger, more expensive members of the KLH family but are decidedly cheaper. The veneers are thinner and the cabinet overall feels a little lighter. The rear panel, instead of having a metal plate holding the screw-in wire plugs, is a sticker with two cheap nubs sticking through. there is no tweeter tone control as on the 6s and other full-sizers.

And when I plugged them in the first time I wasn’t too impressed – kind of dull really. But the more I played with them the more I liked them. I’ve learned that KLHs both benefit from new crossover capacitors to wake up the tweeters, and to extended listening – they seem rolled off on the extremes but what that takes away from audiophile-level tone examination it adds to general music enjoyment – these speakers are never going to annoy you with harsh top end of massive thumping. They’re going to blend in to the background and provide pleasant music at low levels. They actually fall apart a bit when you crank them up – the combination of a smallish cabinet, largish 8″ woofer and little damping conspire to add a lot of boxiness and coloration to the sound.

But after a recap they were definitely listenable. My wife really liked them, commenting on how pleasant vocals sound, and the surprising presence of bass given the small size. It helped that we had them elevated pretty high (on top of a pair of Klipsch Cornwalls – more on them another time).

KLH 32s after a polish, recap, and new grilles. Much nicer!

KLH 32s after a polish, recap, and new grilles. Much nicer!

The best application I found for these KLHs was for outdoor parties – out in nature their lack of extreme high and low-end was less of an issue and they faded into the background very well. But I was always nagged by the thought that this was not their best or fairest application – just because they were the most expendable speakers in my stable didn’t mean it was right to keep them outside. So they’re going to go into a neighbor’s basement for more use and enjoyment.

KLH 32 rear with new binding posts

KLH 32 rear with new binding posts and little hanging hooks

Posted in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

Just in – Polk Lsi7

•February 4, 2015 • Leave a Comment
Polk Lsi7

Polk Lsi7

These were too good of a deal to pass up, so home they came. The Polk Lsi7s are the smallest in the Lsi family, which debuted in the early 2000s as a return to Polk’s 2-channel audiophile roots. Using a 5.25″ midbass woofer and a 1″ ring radiator tweeter, the 7s have a very tigh, accurate sound. The ring radiator tweeter is very interesting – it’s suspended at the outside ring and in the inside, with the voice coil between. it sounds like a complicated and expensive design, and my research indicates it’s usually seen in higher-end brands.

Also interesting are the ports- there’s a 1″ port next to the offset tweeter on the front and another 2″ port on the back hidden behind a special diffuser, which allows you to hang the Polks or place them against the wall without losing the benefit of the rear port.

Polk Lsi7 Power Port diffuser

Polk Lsi7 Power Port diffuser

Polk Lsi7 rear panel

Polk Lsi7 rear panel

the Polks are also mirror matched for more precise imaging. each one says ‘left’ or ‘right’ on the back. Neat.

For small two-way monitors, they’re also pretty heavy – easily 20 lb apiece. This is likely due in part to the hefty drivers, but the cabinet is also very sturdy. It’s made of MDF with beautiful piano-black finish on the top and bottom, and two real wood veneer panels on the sides, ostensibly to damp the cabinet, and definitely to class it up. My pair is in the ebony finish – they also came in cherry.

Polk Lsi7 Speakers. Mirror-Imaged

Polk Lsi7 Speakers. Mirror-Imaged

When I picked my pair up, the wooden sides were scratched and dented but some Howard’s Restore a Finish cleaned up most of the abuse. Then they went on for a demonstration with my NAD 7100 Monitor receiver. I was seriously impressed.

I am always brought back to the original Polk Monitor 7 speakers because they do everything pretty well – great imaging, decent bass, good highs, at least with the Peerless tweeter. The Lsi7 is more of the same. The imaging and soundstage was cast very wide and these speakers disappeared much better in my small space than the Klipsch Epic Cf-4s behind. That’s the advantage of placement flexibility that a small speaker affords.

Bass was also surprisingly full – the dual ports and my placement far from the rear wall allowed for good resonance and extension. There may have been a upper bass bump fooling my ears into being more impressed than they should be but it was very nice all the same- controlled and hefty.

Detail of ring radiator tweeter and front panel

Detail of ring radiator tweeter and front panel

The tweeters did sound like ‘ring radiators’ – no harshness or metallic twinge, no softness or laid-back character that I sometimes found with my Peerless Monitor 7s. Just right.

I then tried them on my new Marantz Nr1403 receiver as a point-counterpoint to the Cf-4s I had hooked up there. Big mistake. The Polks sounded really lifeless and dull on the Marantz. So much so I was pretty down on the Marantz, which I had bought expecting sound quality to surpass my 20 year-old NAD. It was only later I looked on the back of the Polks and saw their strict 4-ohm rating – my Marantz is only rated at 50 watts per channel into 6 ohms. While it seems to do fine with the big and much more efficient Klipsches, I’m think it was likely the Marantz just couldn’t push the little Polks hard enough to open them up. I’ve since used the Marantz’ pre-outs for the front channels to hook up an Adcom GFA-535 which is stable down through 4ohms, which seems to open up the Klipsches and the Polks alike just fine.

Polk Lsi7. Hefty ebony side veneers. Top and bottom are piano-black

Polk Lsi7. Hefty ebony side veneers. Top and bottom are piano-black

Overall, these Polks are very impressive. I’m kind of in love with them. They’re actually just right for my living space and where I could place them. I’m not sure I’m ready to move the Klipsches, my ‘forever speakers’ (more on them later) but these Polks definitely deserve a rotation somewhere in the house. They also deserve more testing than I’ve given them. Hopefully soon when I have some more suitable stands I’ll give them that chance.

Posted in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

Klipscherific: Klipschorns

•November 19, 2014 • Leave a Comment
Klipschorn!

Klipschorn!

 

How many products introduced in 1940s are still in production today?

…

AK-47s?

Anything else?

Klipschorns!

Paul W. Klipsch introduced his revolutionary Klipschorn corner horns in 1947. His guiding vision for these speakers was to bring the sound and dynamics of live music performances to people’s homes for the first time. Keep in mind that back in 1946 most people were getting their music from tube AM radios with one small speaker in the middle. Not much fidelity.

The Klipschorns today stick to the same design principles of the original model: it’s a three-way design, with a large 15″ woofer in the bottom compartment, a 2″ midrange compression driver and horn (formerly known as the ‘squawker’), and a 1″ tweeter compression driver and horn. All three drivers were horn-loaded – that is, they use horns beyond the drivers to focus and amplify the sound. The 15″ woofer is entirely concealed in the bottom 2/3 of the speaker assembly, aimed back at the internal construction of the box and the external walls that the speaker was intended to be set in to – the speaker uses a room’s corner as an active part of the speaker assembly. This placement and the horns result in extremely high efficiency – 105db/watt at a meter. Paul Klipsch said that these speakers could be driven to concert levels by as little as one watt. To this day they’re favorites with users running low-wattage tube amps.

I can say that my initial demo was with my little Lepai amplifier and I was very impressed with the clean sound I could get out of that little amp while not even turning the knob past ‘2’.

So how do they sound?

Well, the first thing I can say is that due to their design they are very placement sensitive. To get the most out of them they both need to be in the corners of a room, mounted flush against the back walls to make a seal and ensure sufficient bass. My listening setup was far from ideal, with only one speaker enjoying a full corner, and both being about an inch from the walls with a large open space behind both. Despite this shortcoming I could get a full range of sound out of the Klipschorns, with sufficient low and immediate bass.

Klipschorn midrange horn

Klipschorn midrange horn

Immediate, by the way is the best word to describe the Klipschorns overall. Perhaps due to their extremely high sensitivity, these speakers feel alive like few others. The attack of notes and dynamic changes are half a step quicker with these other many other speakers I’ve tried. Music is more alive.

This is definitely a design characteristic of these speakers, but it can get addictive. In my configuration (and some may say by design) these Klipschorns were not imaging very much at all but I wasn’t bothered by it because the music all sounded different, with more feeling.

One shortcoming of the Klipschorns (and some say of many Klipsch designs) is a squawking or resonance in the mids and highs, caused by ringing in the horns. This can be a grating and unpleasant sound. I can say that with some amps and songs  the highs were too forward to me, but this can be mitigated by a different amplifier.

The Klipschorns are sensitive to inputs and amplification to a very high degree. I played 4 different amps through the Klipschorns: my little Lepai, my Pioneer SX-1250, the Kenwood KR4400, and a NAD 7240PE. Each had its own flavor with the Klipschorns. I think that the one I liked the best was the Lepai, to be honest…

The Klipschorns that I had were made in 1990, and came in the oiled oak finish, which was absolutely beautiful.  The crossovers were the AK-3 version.

Klipschorns, and other speakers in the Klipsch Heritage line (La Scala, Cornwall, Heresy) are made in the same way as the Klipschorn, according to the decades-old designs. They’re made in Hope AK to order, and still command a dedicated following.

And like many older made-in-America items (muscle cars come immediately to mind) there is a large aftermarket of designers and tinkerers ready to help you restore old components or modify new ones to reach a higher level of performance. The Klipsch Community website forum is a great resource in this regard.

I think the sound is utterly beguiling, and if you ever have the chance to try out a pair of Klipschorns (or bring one home), I definitely recommend you do so.

 

Posted in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

Update on life

•September 5, 2014 • Leave a Comment

I haven’t been writing regular updates for a while. Life has gotten in the way but now I’m back on the ball. Here’s what I’ve been doing stereo-wise this summer:

– The Klipschorns spent the summer in my living room. I listened to them almost every evening, just for fun. They’ve moved on now but I won’t forget them. And I promise to post a more in-depth review soon.

– My venerable Pioneer SX-1250 is also gone. I just wasn’t using it. It sounded warm with the Klipschorns but just wasn’t integrating into any of my speaker setups. It’s now with a new, very happy home.

– I found a pair of KLH Model 33s in very nice condition. I’ll write these up in a separate short post as well. Bottom line – impressive.

– Along with the KLHs came a Kenwood KR4400 receiver that I’m still playing with. I’ll post some pictures soon. This is a giant-killer in my opinion – great sound and good looks.

– I pulled apart my little Lepai 2020+ amp after being super-impressed with how it sounded with the Klipschorns. I have half a mind to make some mods to it and see what it can do. More to come here.

– I’ve been playing with a pair of Klipsch Epic CF-4s at home. Epic is the right word. A full accounting will definitely be in order.

Posted in Uncategorized

Holy Klipschorn!

•June 2, 2014 • Leave a Comment
Klipschorn!

Klipschorn!

Look what followed me home!

Klipschorns! These things are huge!

I’ll write a more in-depth post soon but had to share. I’m very excited!

Posted in Uncategorized

Bookshelf Shootout: Celestion SL 6si vs B&W DM601 vs Paradigm Atom v4

•April 29, 2014 • 4 Comments
All the bookshelf speakers together. Clockwise starting from the stand: Celestion SL6 si, B&W DM601, Polk Monitor 7, Paradigm Atom

All the bookshelf speakers together. Clockwise starting from the stand: Celestion SL6 si, B&W DM601, Polk Monitor 7, Paradigm Atom

 

I just picked up a pair of slightly-battered Celestion SL 6sis. My initial impressions were very positive – they have a detailed and pleasing sound, very accurate and with great separation. I’m currently using a pair of slightly-battered B&W DM601s in my bedroom and recently purchased a pair of Paradigm Atom v4s for installation as my rear surrounds in my basement HT system. It was high time for a shootout!

The conditions for the competition were as follows: my NAD Monitor 7100 receiver would be the power source, fed by my Apple iPod Classic 160GB and my Sony Blu-Ray player feeding into the NAD.

All three pairs of speakers would run without subwoofer and mounted on the Celestion 24″ stands I picked up with the SL6s.

First up were the Celestions. The SL 6si was a later incarnation of the original Celestion SL6, released in the early 1980s. The SL6 was lauded as the first metal-dome tweeter. The first tweeter was rendered in copper, and both the tweeter and bass unit were said to have been designed using laser-based vibration analysis to determine the real breakup frequencies of the driver. Celestion said that prior to that, most speaker tweeters were suffering from considerable (and unreported) breakup within the audible frequency range. The heavy copper tweeter was said to resist any breakup up into 20Khz.

Celestion SL6 si on the stand

Celestion SL6 si on the stand

The drawback to the revolutionary design was a very inefficient speaker, around 84 db/watt, which required serious current and watts to drive. While impressive in performance and sound, it was a qualified speaker.

Celestion modified the design with the later SL6 si, which replaced the copper-dome tweeter with an aluminum one, an improved crossover and woofer surrounds. This reportedly improved the efficiency and response of the speaker, without sacrificing its famous clarity and imaging.

Placed on its stands, the SL6 si is heavy for a small bookshelf speaker – I estimate about 15lb apiece. They easily dwarf the lighter B&W and Paradigm speakers onhand.

Once plugged in to the NAD, I try a few songs. First up for comparison with all three are the following, all on CD:

Stairway to Heaven (Led Zeppelin IV)
Magic Man (Heart Greatest Hits)
Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd, Wish You Were Here)

I like the treble and vocals on Magic Man, the imaging test that Stairway and Pink Floyd present, and I can easily spot what jumps out using all 3 recordings.

The Celestions were very impressive. The soundstage they cast was wide. On all songs they presented a pleasant and accurate sound, with nothing jumping out. On Stairway, Robert Plant’s voice sounded realistic and in the room – on some speakers the reverb gets too high and it sounds artificial. Imaging was excellent, and treble details popped out.

Detail of Celestion SL6 si front baffle. Note inverted woofer center cone- also laser designed!

Detail of Celestion SL6 si front baffle. Note inverted woofer center cone- also laser designed!

The most impressive characteristic of the speaker was the air and separation it gave to instruments. Everything was there but space between instruments and vocals was retained.

The B&W DM601s had a different flavor. The 601s I have are a little cosmetically beat up but functionally immaculate. These 601s are the Series 1 and the first iteration of the long-lasting line of this entry-level two-way from B&W. In the past I’ve been really impressed with their honesty and performance, in particular when I had them hooked up to a Denon 1907.

Hoisted up on to the Celestion stands after the SL6s, however I was shocked.

I started with ‘Wish You Were Here”. The midrange at first on the guitar intro sounded warmer, and the soundstage was elevated more vertically. But once the whole band kicked in I noticed right away that the tweeter didn’t kick as high with the same clarity of the Celestion. And then when the cymbals came on I started to wince – this was getting harsh! I actually turned the recording off halfway through the song because the tweeter was so harsh it was uncomfortable. Astonishingly, I’ve never encountered that in these B&Ws before, but I must admit they lead a very relaxed life as my bedroom TV speakers and never have to work too hard.

Overall the B&Ws had the bass and a warm midrange but shocked me with harshness in the tweeters and less range than the Celestions. Off the stands they went.

 

B&W DM601s. My pair is a little dented in the upper corner. But this has no influence on the sound, which in this test, was disappointing.

B&W DM601s. My pair is a little dented in the upper corner. But this has no influence on the sound, which in this test, was disappointing.

The Paradigms were last. They’re tiny and featherlight compared to the Celestions or even the B&Ws but I didn’t let that cloud my judgement.

When the songs started I was pleasantly surprised. These have a great soundstage, good bass (you need to turn it up a bit), and very nice highs. They are very very pleasant to listen to. Overall they feel noticeably ‘softer’ than the Celestions or the B&Ws but not in a bad way – they impart a different character to the music but it’s fine.

I was really impressed with the Paradigms and came away convinced that they are really nice. It’s almost a shame to put them on the walls in the back of my HT.

Paradigm Atom: Little. Black. Different (not really)

Paradigm Atom: Little. Black. Different (not really)

Last of all I put the Celestions back on the stands for a final listen. Once again they just sounded ‘right’ where the others fell short. I could listen to these for hours. And I’m looking forward to pairing them with my B&W sub to see how they sound with the low-end responsibility delegated somewhere else.

 

Celestion SL6 si front grille

Celestion SL6 si front grille

Posted in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

New Speaks: Paradigm Atom V4

•April 21, 2014 • Leave a Comment

 

Paradigm Atom V4. Not much to see, really

Paradigm Atom V4. Not much to see, really

I picked these up off of the local Craigslist at a very nice price. My intention is to hang them in my basement and use them as my rear surround speakers for the HT.

I don’t know much about Paradigm, other than that they make a long line of nice speakers that start at very reasonable prices and get quite expensive. There are lots of them on my local Craigslist and some are quite pricey.

The Atoms here are one of their smallest models. They are maybe 11″ tall and 7″ wide and weigh less than 5lb each. They have MDF enclosures with a black ash finish (vinyl or veneer, can’t tell) with a molded plastic back and non-removable cloth grilles on the front which hide a tweeter and 5.25″ woofer. I think new they cost about $200/pair retail. I also read that after the V4s the V5s became part of the ‘monitor’ series and were EQ’d differently, with a cutoff around 80hz with the expectation that they would be tied in to a subwoofer.

I guess that these go down to about 50hz, though while the enclosure is rear-ported the speaker’s small size means that there’s not likely much juice down that low. When I originally demo’d them through the Yamaha CA-1010 I’m playing with that assessment held – good sound but missing that lower octave. The bass that’s there, mid- and upper bass, is good and well-resolved. I really couldn’t tell that much in my short initial demo.

A couple days later I perched them on top of my modified Polk Monitor 7Bs and did some A/B tests through my Pioneer VSX-823K, along with my B&W ASW600 sub. Pairing the Paradigms with the sub, I thought, would allow them to focus on their strengths and me to determine how they performed in my typical 2.1 setup.

On top of the Polks and a few inches from the wall may not be the ideal placement for the Paradigms but they did a good job. Integrated with the sub, they provided a pretty seamless sound spectrum. There was however a strange resonance or honk in the midbass. I don’t know whether that was from the speakers themselves, the placement, or some resonance from sitting on the Polks. But it was noticeable.

Overall however I really liked them. The tweeters shine a little brighter than the Polks’ Peerless, which is not surprising given the Peerless’ laid-back character. Imaging was more precise than the Polks but the soundstage was very similar. I am also experimenting with speaker placement and toe-in which heavily influences these things so my impressions are not totally definitive, but I can say that the Paradigms, despite their small size, filled my room with very good sound and didn’t give up much to the Polks, which are much bigger and carry a lot more ammunition in the form of a massive 10″ passive radiator.

The Paradigms will serve excellently as my rear surrounds. I’m actually a tiny bit sad that I’m going to hang them back there and not really enjoy them to their full potential – they have a lot to give. They are also piquing my interest in trying more small-size monitors for my front surrounds and 2-channel music listening – I continue to be impressed with the accuracy and quality of modern smaller 2-way speakers, and I feel that a good and well-integrated sub negates the need for full-range speakers, at least for my purposes.

Posted in Uncategorized

Extended Comparo: Yamaha CA-1010 and NAD 3080

•April 21, 2014 • 1 Comment

 

Yamaha CA-1010 and NAD-3080

Yamaha CA-1010 and NAD-3080

I finally got around to some extended listening of the two new integrated amplifiers in my stable: the Yamaha CA-1010 and NAD-3080. It was quite interesting.

I lined them up and flipped them on to warm up. Both are beautiful units in their own way – the Yamaha is a silver beast, a modern take on the 1970s brushed-steel stereo aesthetic. The NAD on the other hand is almost a missing link – its metal face is painted a battleship grey with yellow lettering painted on. It’s almost halfway between the silver metal 1970s units and the black plastic stereos that would become prevalent in the 1980s. It’s also different from subsequent NAD units, which would come in a different grey color with white lettering of a different typeface. Very interesting.

NAD 3080 Integrated Amp

NAD 3080 Integrated Amp

NAD 3080 Detail. Typeface and color slightly different than in later models

NAD 3080 Detail. Typeface and color slightly different than in later models

The NAD is rated at 90 watts per channel at 8ohms at 0.03% distortion. The dynamic headroom at 8 ohms is high in typical NAD fashion, meaning that the amps dynamic power for peaks jumped to 160 watts for short periods, or 200 watts at 4 or 2 ohms. This thing has plenty of juice.

To keep the comparison simple, I used my iPod Classic and a 30 pin connector to RCA cord plugged in to the aux outlet on both amps.

NAD 3080 detail

NAD 3080 detail

The 3080 was first. the songs on comparo this time around were as follows:

Heart – Magic Man

Lorde – Royals

Radiohead – Paranoid Android

Pink Floyd – Breathe

Led Zeppelin – Stairway to Heaven

I thought these songs had ample opportunity to test vocals, imaging, bass, and treble. I was right.

The NAD emphasized some of the qualities that I’ve come to know in models later in the line that I have already demoed, in particular the 7240PE and the 7100 Monitor series. The NAD has a clean sound with a good bottom end. In my mind, either due to the amp’s age or late 1970s vintage status, I thought that it had a bit of that ‘vintage’ sound – there was a pronounced bass and low end (plenty of power there) and a tiny bit rolled off top end. The amp itself stayed cool while playing into my Polk Monitor 7Bs. On all songs, and with ‘Royals’ in particular, the NAD was fun to listen to – I didn’t analyze the songs as much as I sat back and enjoyed them.

Needles dancing on NAD 3080

Needles dancing on NAD 3080

I also kept the tone controls out of the signal path, but the NAD has bass and treble controls with separate crossover switches to allow you to dial in more or less bass and treble at four spots in the spectrum.

It was fun to watch the meters jump with the music. Since I sit pretty close to the Polks (about 7 feet away from each) and they are reasonably efficient, I had the NAD’s meters set to the lower position to see more activity. You can push a button that changes how the meters read the power current to make things look more interesting. Otherwise I wouldn’t have barely rated moving the dials on this powerful amp at my listening levels.

The Yamaha is a beautiful beast. It’s about the same size as the NAD, a bit taller and narrower. It’s equally heavy, ad 40+ pounds. The specs match up with the NAD, with the Yamaha running about 100w/channel at 8 ohms and 120 watts at 4 ohms. Most interestingly, the amp allows you the option of running at a more efficient class AB amp for full power, or a class A output at 20 watts per channel. Class A operation basically has the amp running full power at all  times, heating it up but creating a better sound. I kept it in the Class A mode since I never pushed the amp much further than 5 watts per channel.

Yamaha CA-1010

Yamaha CA-1010

Speaking of which, if you’re running relatively efficient speakers, wattage dials really help you understand how much power you’re using at any one time. Sitting 7 feet back from my speakers and with the volume turned up to quite loud for my tastes in my basement room, I never saw the needles jump any higher than maybe 5-10 watts per channel. I guess if maybe I had harder to drive speakers or more room to fill with sound I would need more juice. That said I know that watts aren’t everything in judging a power of an amp, and even at low volumes I have often observed that a powerful amp will show more control and cleanliness in sound going to speakers than a weaker amp.

Yamaha CA-1010 detail

Yamaha CA-1010 detail

In any case, the  Yamaha lived up to its ‘Natural Sound’ name. At least I guess it did. The sound was very clean, and immediately upon comparison with the NAD it sounded uncolored. There was much less bass than the NAD. The frequency reach was there but it didn’t feel as weighty as the NAD at all. And at least in Class A configuration the tone controls didn’t seem to make any change in the sound. I’ll have to try it again in Class AB and see how it changes.

The Yamaha’s precise playback meant it reached a little higher and sparkled a bit more in the top end.  The chimes in ‘Magic Man’ lingered a bit longer on the  Yamaha than on the NAD. And whereas I rocked more on the NAD listening to ‘Royals’  the Yamaha seemed to uncover rough spots in the recording, or at least in my MP3 version of it – the song sounded less like a fun thumpy pop song and more like a sparsely-mixed march, which was weird.

Yamaha CA-1010

Yamaha CA-1010

When comparing the two amps I kept wondering whether the perfect mix between the precise top end of the Yamaha and the controlled bass of the 3080 was right behind both of them in the NAD 7100 in my speaker rack. I didn’t get a chance to throw it into the mix. Right now the 7100 is my favorite music-only amp, and until recently was my sole playback source, even for film. Since I got a new Pioneer VSX-823K for my HT duties the NAD 7100 has not been seeing much action, as with the Pioneer’s nice internal DAC, multiple processing modes, and very good sound quality, it’s hard for me to discern any music quality difference that would necessitate me unplugging and re-plugging the speakers from the Pioneer to the NAD.

Bottom line is that with the 3080 I love its fun sound and terrific esthetic. To me it feels late 1970’s punk for some reason – when everyone mainstream was disco shiny, here was an upstart with a rough look blowing everyone away with some serious chops. I love that. And I love that it was the beginning of a terrific line of stereos I have all over my house. But right now I don’t have a special place or application that only the 3080 can fulfill.

The Yamaha however is still intriguing to me. I see a lot of potential there. I like that the philosophy for its sound diverges considerably from its Pioneer and Marantz contemporaries. I still haven’t gotten everything out of it yet, and so I have more exploring to do.

Yamah CA-1010 and NAD-3080

Yamah CA-1010 and NAD-3080

Posted in Uncategorized

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »