MSRP: $ 1000.00 Description: frequency response is 47-20,000 Hz +/- 3.5 dB for towers; 80-20,000 Hz +/- 3.5 dB for center Recommended amplifier 20-150 watts per channel Subwoofer recommended in home theater systems, optional in music only systems. 14 Reviews 0 Quick Ratings 4.93 of 5 Rate it! 1 - worst 2 3 4 5 - best More Floorstanding Speakers from Ohm >> Search AudioReview forums for the Ohm MicroWalsh Talls >>

Reviewed by:SoundBoiler (Audio Enthusiast)
Review Date October 22, 2009
Overall Rating 5 of 5
Value Rating 5 of 5
Used product for More than 1 year

Nobody I know of who heard the original Ohm A speakers thirty five years ago ever forgets the experience.

They were tall, bulky and expensive. But when they were allowed to speak, they vanished—leaving behind a wide, deep sound field with an articulated and detailed midrange, highs without a hint of grit or sibilance, and lows with neither hollowness nor resonance at any level they were driven and in any octave anyone could hear.

And whether the music was played by a symphony orchestra, a jazz ensemble, or single human voice and whether you walked left or right or even through the middle of the pair of Ohms, the stereo image stayed solidly in place. It was as if in disappearing they took the room with them, leaving behind the concert hall or club or chamber that the music had been played in.

They sounded so well because of their remarkable down-firing single driver, invented by Lincoln Walsh and developed by Marty Gersten to produce the entire audible range seamlessly and without any crossover components. But the driver’s mass and orientation required both powerful magnetic assemblies and equally powerful amplifiers. Inevitably, the drivers had to fail.

I thought the company itself had failed; but when I learned that Ohm Acoustics had reinvented itself as an enterprise that dealt directly with consumers via the internet and after I read some very favorable reviews of the MicroWalshes, I talked with the Ohm folks and bought a pair of MicroWalsh Talls and their SB-5.2 subwoofer. That was six or seven years ago.

They arrived quickly and safely; but though they sounded good initially—smooth, clear, and spacious—they were a little thin. Maybe with good reason: because my listening room is large (24 by 24 feet), oddly shaped (5-foot knee walls supporting a gabled roof 15 feet high), and very live (the floors and ceiling of bare wood, the gable walls of bare plaster and glass with nary a rug or drape to cover them) because of my allergies,.
I called Ohm and talked with John Strohbeen, the engineer who heads the company. I asked whether I should consider trading up to a bigger model. John said wait a month or two for them to break in (the Ohms come with a 120-day money back guarantee).

He was right. Their range, clarity, and sound stage expanded significantly—much like the original Ohms I had heard decades ago, even though they and their subwoofer cost less than half that of the originals.

I drove them for years with an NAD 30-watt stereo receiver which played larger than its spec. Somewhere along the way I turned off the subwoofer. It just wasn’t needed for the music I liked—jazz ensembles and an occasional orchestral classic. The MicroWalshes have surprising bass extension all by themselves, essentially flat down to the 40-something Hertz range, when they are well broken in.

A month ago I replaced the NAD with a considerably more powerful and versatile pair of separates, a Sherwood Newcastle P-965 Preamp/Tuner and A-965 Amplifier—the latter capable of 200 watts per channel at 4 ohms with two channels driven; and then I fired up the Ohms with the Sherwoods set to a jazz channel on XM radio that happened to have a1950’s vintage Ella Fitzgerald number playing.

Before I replaced the NAD, I might have said that the MicroWalshes’ greatest virtue is that I never tired of them, as I had with a precession of good but conventional closed and vented box speakers. And I would have been wrong—because I was dazzled by what I heard.

The little Ohms had disappeared; and there was Ella in the room she sang from, solidly positioned in the center of the field no matter where I walked. There too was much of the wondrous Ohm A sound stage with just about the sort of the depth, clarity, and range I’d been impressed with decades before. I found myself being drawn into the cliché you hear from anyone who gets a good new audio component—the compulsion to play all one’s old favorites. Sure enough, I discovered not just nuances but whole new layers of musicality I had not heard before–like the three different halls and two different studio venues from a Willie Nelson CD that hadn’t shown them before.

The battle scene early in Master and Commander was a revelation. The thuds, thumps and horrific crack and crash of cannons coming from the Ohms shook my 24 by 24 foot plank floor so well that I had a hard time wiping the smile from my face.

And that was without the subwoofer. The Sherwoods’ power had given the MicroWalshes the “air” to drive my big, live room.

So I turned the volume up; and what happened is what’s supposed to happen when you have a good, tough set of speakers driven hard: the Ohms just got louder.

But I also met the dark side of the cliché: a good sound system inevitably reveals the deficiencies of the media you play. And some of my favorites—the voices of Tierney Sutton, Judy Wexler, and Norah Jones— consistently displayed a hollow, strident segment in the upper midrange that I had not heard much of before.
I remembered that John Atkinson (www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/687ohm/index.html) reviewed a pair of the larger Ohm Walsh 5’s some years ago and was puzzled by the same sort of coloration. He swept the Ohm tweeter range with a 1/3 octave band generator and found them essentially flat. Lacking the test instruments, I played a Blu-Ray setup disc that drives each speaker with a 20 to 20,000 Hertz sweep and heard no resonances in the upper register.Then I jacked a pair of decent headphones (Grado 125’s) into the front panel of the preamp and listened. I heard the identical coloration that I had from the speakers.

So I fed the Ohms a recording with neither electronic nor room acoustic enhancements, Madeleine Peyroux’s Half the Perfect World (Rounder 11661-3252-2). I heard no resonances, no hollowness, no coloration from the Ohms; but I did hear the trumpet breathe on the disc’s last track. I was satisfied that the Ohms weren’t adding coloration.

The opening of 2001, A Space Odyssey taxes the MicroWalshes’ bass range. But with the SB-5.2 sub turned on, the small Ohms played the 20 Hertz or so organ drone at high levels–as they did with other virtuoso organ pieces. In fact, the Ohms have such spaciousness and presence when driven by two-channel mix-down codecs like Dolby VS that I’m not sure I need to supplement them with a couple of extra pairs of channels for HD movie viewing.

Some reviewers of the MicroWalsh Talls recommend them only for rooms a good deal smaller than mine and with a lot more square feet of sound absorbent surfaces. I’m sure that’s good advice, but I found that the little Ohms absolutely glow in a big, live environment.

Verdict:

Impressively smooth, detailed, sound field with great width, depth, and stereo solidity. Surprising bass extension. A bargain entry to high end listening.

Minuses:

• You’re not going to find them at your local big-box store, or even your local high-end dealer.
• You’ll need the better part of a thousand dollars to try them out.
• If you really need the bottom of the lowest octave you’ll want to add a subwoofer.
• Your receiver or amp should be able to provide at least 30 clean watts at 4 ohms for modest-level listening; but 75 honest watts or so will let you hear much more of what the Ohms can say.

Pluses:

• They play what they are fed—no more, no less.
• Unlike the original Ohm A’s, they don’t break easily.
• They don’t mind big, live spaces to live in.
• They project a wide, deep sound field so stable that you can walk around or even between the speakers and the stereo effect stays put.
• Because they don’t sound like boxes, you probably won’t tire of them.
• They’re so small and nicely finished (especially in Rosewood) that they pass the “wife factor” test with flying colors.
• You might not need center or surround channels to enjoy movies.
• They’re made in the USA.
• You can talk to the president of the company, and he’ll give you good advice.

Featured Merchants

Ohm Acoustics

Popular Floorstanding Speakers 1. Bose 901 Series VI 2. Klipsch RF-7 3. Magnepan MMG 4. Vienna Acoustics Mozart 5. B&W DM603 S3 more…

Top Ranked Products from Ohm. SB-1A Rated: Subwoofer for Satellite speaker Rated: Walsh 100-S3 Rated:

MSRP: $ 2500.00 Description: Finishes: Black Ash, Rosewood Veneer Connectivity: Bi-wire recommended, jumpers provided Tweeter: 1″ Silk Dome (Folded Ribbon in Statement) Mid-bass: 6 1/4″ Treated Paper Frequency Response: 42 - 20kHz (42 - 40KHz in Statement) Crossover Point: 3KHz Impedance: 6O Efficiency: 88dB Dimensions (Imperial): 13 1/2″ (H) x 14 1/2″ (D) x 8 3/4″ (W) Dimensions (Metric) : 34.5 cm (H) x 37 (D) x 22 (W) Weight: 24lb / 10.88KG Warranty: 5 years 1 Reviews 0 Quick Ratings 2.00 of 5 More Bookshelf Speakers from unknown >> Search AudioReview forums for the unknown LSA1 Statement Monitor >>

Reviewed by:

peristalsis (AudioPhile)
Review Date October 17, 2009
Overall Rating 2 of 5
Value Rating 1 of 5
Used product for 1 to 3 months

I had the chance to audition this monitor for over a month while house-sitting for a friend. I haven’t seen any online reviews for the monitor in its “Statement” version with ribbon tweeter, but there have been some blurbs about this version being one of the best two monitors under $3000 (along with the widely reviewed and highly regarded Usher Tiny Dancer). Given that, my expectations were high and so was my disappointment.

I was able to listen to a lot of familiar material over the time I was house-sitting, and on the plus side the monitors did produce very good imaging and reasonable soundstage depth. Any monitor in this price range should do that: it’s one of the primary advantages to getting a small monitor. With that said, they did not provide the sense of hall space that I have heard from other speakers in this price range. For instance, on the Cowboy Junkies album The Trinity Session (which was recorded in a church with a great sense of space) the LSA1 Statements brought the singer’s voice forward and the instruments were clear and detailed but the sense of venue didn’t come through. I’ve heard much better from other speakers (for example from the Taylo Reference Monitors or B+W 805 monitors).

They also provided good low-level detail, but again nothing that seemed to lift them above other monitors in this price range. On Paul Simon’s song “Slip Slidin’ Away” there are some backing vocals that tend to blend with his singing on poorer monitors. The LSA1 Statements did start to separate out those vocals, but it was not fully accomplished. Again, they are par for the course and not up to the standards of the best in the price range (and the over achieving Ascend Acoustics Sierra-1s do a better job at half the price).

So far, the LSA1 Statements were quite listenable, but not distinguishing themselves especially. Where my real disappointment started to kick in, however, was in listening to female vocals. I first noticed the problem listening to the classic duets of Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald. When Ella would come in on certain songs (such as “Can’t We Be Friends”) I would hear a veneer of distortion over vocals that I am accustomed to hearing as clean and pure (for recordings of that era). I replayed the track, and with my hand on the top of the speaker I could feel cabinet resonance getting particularly strong during her singing. The cabinets are reasonably solid, and the speakers are about 24 lbs. each, so this is not a general issue but particular to certain frequency ranges as far as I could tell. On other female vocal recordings I would periodically hear the same issue–a muddiness or discoloration that increased with the singer’s own volume (e.g. exactly what happens when cabinet resonance or bad crossover design is distorting at a certain frequency). This was repeatable and persistent. A speaker that pretends to be best in its price class (and that retails for $2500) cannot do this. It’s a fatal flaw, on top of the middle-of-the-pack performance in other regards.

Although my opinion of the LSA1 Statement was essentially cemented when I discovered its design flaw in reproducing female vocals, the issue of bass response is something that always comes up in discussions of small monitors. There are basically two approaches here: let the bass roll off as physics dictates (doing the best possible with drivers and porting to extend it as well as can be done) or add in a bass bump that gives the impression of more bass than is there. The LSA1 Statements seem to err on the side of the latter. They do an excellent job of bass reproduction, as many modern drivers and cabinet designs are able to achieve, but they also seem to give a bump to bass at certain frequencies to augment this fundamentally competitive performance. On this point, however, the observation has to be taken with a grain of salt. My friend usually does a careful job of placing his speakers in his listening room, but room interactions with bass are as much a part of the story as the speaker design itself.

The final observation that I had regarding a single aspect of the sound was that the ribbon tweeter can provide a clean and not harsh treble that is nevertheless very detailed and extended flat beyond the realm of human hearing. The LSA1 Statements have turned me on to modern ribbon tweeters, even if the implementation is critically flawed by the vocal distortions noted.

Regarding overall sound, there are two additional things that I look for in a top quality speaker: 1) are they fatiguing (a combination of subtle factors affects this) and 2) do they choke at high volume (e.g. playing a full orchestral piece without getting congested)? I found the LSA1 Statements to be more fatiguing than I would have expected. I think this has to do with their propensity to move things forward, more in-your-face, on recordings where this is not meant to be the case. I often got the impression that these speakers were pushing the music at me in a way that was jarring. I am used to highly detailed speakers that do not hide flaws or harshness in the original recording, but the LSA1 Statements go beyond “revealing.” I guess I would say that they are “aggressive” for lack of a better word. Regarding their ability to play at concert volumes, I found that they didn’t respond as well as other monitors I’ve heard in this regard. The Taylo Reference Monitors that I mentioned earlier (and that I owned for a good while) behaved like a top-notch monitor should: as the volume went up the soundstage expanded and opened but the sound did not become strained. The LSA1 Statements don’t have anything near the aplomb to stay coherent at higher volumes. Again, they don’t do badly but just average for a small, relatively pricey monitor. As the volume goes up, congestion creeps in and their artificially forward presentation makes you want to turn the volume down again. It was sad to me.

I found myself turning the volume down a lot when auditioning the LSA1 Statements, and this is usually a sign to me that a number of things are wrong.

The final observation that I would make is that in looking for information about these online I found the same speaker being offered under another branding label. The speakers are completely made in China, and it seems that the same speaker is sold under a couple of brand names. The LSA Group website claims that they modify the crossover and add lambs wool as a dampening material to make this a “statement” loudspeaker. I didn’t open my buddy’s speakers up to look for the Auricaps in the crossover circuit, but I did look into the rear port and it does seem that the stuffing is wool (or at least not the poly-fiber that I’m used to seeing). So, LSA may be tweaking the generic Chinese product, but the overall fit and finish definitely has the feel of something coming out of China rather than many other speakers in this price range that are made to a higher degree of polish.

In conclusion, given all of the deficiencies and no aspects of superiority above the best in this price range, I would strongly recommend against buying these and give them two stars for sound quality (again, in the very competitive market segment that they are in).

AudioREVIEW works best with your help. Write a review for others.  It might be a highlight!

www.thelsagroup.com

MSRP: $ 529.00 Description: Wolfson WM8740 24-bit/192kHz DAC, 117dB S/N ratio -88dB THD, low jitter clock with data reclocking, separate power supply for DAC, custom Cambridge Audio servo solution, co-axial and optical digital outputs, proven Sony laser optics, custom Cambridge Audio transport, low-resonance and acoustically damped chassis, all-metal casework with a solid aluminum front panel, slim-line Azur remote control with aluminum top panel. 57 Reviews 0 Quick Ratings 4.07 of 5 More CD Players from Cambridge Audio >> Search AudioReview forums for the Cambridge Audio Azur 640C

Reviewed by:Erik1973 (Audio Enthusiast)
Review Date October 11, 2009
Overall Rating 5 of 5
Value Rating 5 of 5
Used product for 3 Months to 1 year

I got the Cambridge Audio 640 v2 range (Amplifier, CD player, DAB radio) together with the Bowers & Wilkins 684 speakers, cables, delivery, and Danish taxes (*sigh*) for almost 15000 DKK (ca. 2000 eur, 3000 usd).

It was the best system for that money that I could find, after having visited quite a few stores here in Copenhagen with CDs I know well (containing mostly classical music), and having spent quite a bit of time listening, also with friends. I did find better systems, but the cheapest of those was 6000 DKK (800 eur, 1200 usd) more expensive, which exceeded my budget.

What I can say is that I am exceedingly happy with this system. I’ve had no problems whatsoever, and with the music I tend to play on it, and in my room, the system simply sounds superb!

At the same time, I feel that there are such large differences between systems, and in particular, that there are such dependencies on the music one tends to listen to, that anyone who considers buying a system should forget all they’ve read, and go out and listen to many types of systems themselves, figure out what they get for what price, and figure out what kind of price and performance make sense for *them*.

However, that said, I have been a bit disappointed not with the sound, but the usability of the products. With 3 boxes (Amp, CD player, DAB radio), I got 3 remote controls, where I would have preferred one. For the CD player, seeking (continuous forward or backward), isn’t nearly as nice to use as on the el-cheapo Sony I bought over 10 years ago. The blue power leds are switched on both on standby and when they’re actually switched on (different intensities, though, but couldn’t they be SWITCHED OFF when I put the system on standby?). And then there are completely useless features such as *dimming* the lights from the remote control. Please take a few lessons from Apple regarding simplicity, and easy of use, would you?

But concerning the sound, I am totally totally totally satisfied. As I said, I selected this system on sound, and *cough* price. When it comes to that, it’s as simple as that: I got the very best system I could find for a price I could live with. And my music collection lives like it has never lived before. I love this system.

Popular CD Players 1. Cambridge Audio Azur 640C 2. NAD C542 3. Rega Apollo 4. Marantz CD-5001 5. NAD C521BEE more…

Top Ranked Products from Cambridge Audio. D100 Rated: Azur 340C Rated: - 640A v2 - Integrated Amplifier Rated:

AudioREVIEW works best with your help. Write a review for others.  It might be a highlight!

www.cambridgeaudio.com

MSRP: $ 2800.00 Description: A force to be reckoned with, the Reference Series RF-83 floorstander sets a new standard for the line in both sound and style. With its high-end materials and slender design, this flagship tower delivers unrivaled audio performance for those who demand the very best. Features Ultra-high-performance floorstanding speakers Professional-grade titanium dome compression driver for unmatched detail and dynamics Triple high-output Cerametallic™ woofers deliver intense bass response with astonishing speed and accuracy Furniture-grade wood veneer finish 7 Reviews 0 Quick Ratings 5.00 of 5 More Floorstanding Speakers from Klipsch >> Search AudioReview forums for the Klipsch RF-83 >>

Reviewed by: Erik Berthelot (AudioPhile)
Review Date October 8, 2009
Overall Rating 5 of 5
Value Rating 5 of 5

I had waited a long time before upgrading my RF-3II’s which I was really happy with since 2003. At the time the RF-83 were not available yet and the RF-7’s was really what I would have wanted, had I had the money to buy them. But side by side with a real-time switch, the RF-3II only sounded like a smaller version of the RF-7’s and I was ready to accept the small difference in sound as opposed to a huge difference in price.

Then one day I go to my favorite audio place and there they are, tall, deep, somewhat slimmer, but OOH so warm but SOOO powerful, the RF-83’s which instantaneously knocked my socks off. They were too expansive for me, I just said to myself “hey buddy, you need to make more money to afford these”.

For months I would go to that store, bring a CD, stay for an hour and just enjoy the ride. The amp driving was just a little theater receiver by Marantz of the 4000 series, and it was already so sweet to my ears.

I bought a pair 3 months ago and also upgraded my receiver to a Marantz SR7002 (from an old Denon 1802). The mix of the two is simply wonderful. These speakers literally disappear, making you forget on-the-spot that you are listening to horn-driven speakers. My dad owns a pair of RF-7’s and comparing the two, I have to say the RF-83 better suits my listening needs, with smoother and higher highs and more precise mids. The high-compression drivers on the RF-83 really makes for a punchier, drier bass and yet is able of lower hz than the RF-7. I do NOT need a SUB to enjoy anything stereo anymore. The bass from these speakers is simply “what it should be” and anything more would simply be decadent.

They need a big room to be at their best, however. I would simply go with the RF-63 with a smaller room.

I used to think nothing could get any better than the RF-7’s until I heard these, I tell you. Long periods of listening would actually tire my ears with the RF-7’s as opposed to the RF-83’s which you simply forget and just enjoy the music with only my own time being the limit. I took out old stuff I was tired of listening just to re-discover it on the RF-83’s and what a pleasure. Words don’t do justice.

They are the main speakers of my old theater setup which (still) consists of the RC-3II, RS-3II and RCW-5800 for the sides and two RW-12D for the subs. Having a dedicated KSW-10 sub for the center channel allows me to keep the actual setup for movies and BOY does it ever blow me away!!! I really enjoy this setup.

Klipsh must learn how to finish the job, though. The veneer on top of these speakers is at best flimsy (they say furniture-grade!!!) and for a speaker of that price, well… Every veneered corner has little chips that come off just by being there. My RF-3II (not even veneer!!!) did the same, so on that level, they have not improved.

However, the cabinets are really stirdy and feel strong. No boomyness whatsoever on the RF-83’s, they just tell what the music wants to say. Everyday I come home, I want to just sit down and enjoy them.

When you read that “they just take everything you throw at them”, well, IT’S TRUE. They do NOT show signs of harshness when played at loud volumes, and to be honest, when some stuff you know by heart so well, I actually got scared at times, thinking “should I bring the volume down for this part?” but NO, not at all. They are strong, heart-punching speakers with a pure and flat response that will rock your world as much as it is rocking mine right now.

I listen to SACD classical music (I’m a classical musician), Progressive rock, Blues, Jazz, well, it would be easier to simply say I listen to everything but country and folk… No offense, it just does not move me.

By the way, these babies are heavy…

Featured Merchants

	Get Free Shipping on orders $199 or more!	Crutchfield.com
		Acoustic Sound Design

AudioREVIEW works best with your help. Write a review for others.  It might be a highlight!

www.klipsch.com

MSRP: $69.99 Mix better with the Audio Technica Professional Monitor headphones. The extended response flat sound Mix better with the Audio Technica Professional Monitor headphones. The extended response flat sound and close headphone design faciliate monitoring and mixing. Description: Mix better with the Audio Technica Professional Monitor headphones. The extended response flat sound and close headphone design faciliate monitoring and mixing. 1 Reviews 0 Quick Ratings 5.00 of 5 More Headphones from Audio-Technica >> Search AudioReview forums for the Audio-Technica ATH-M40fs Professional Headphones >>

Reviewed by:arnout (Casual Listener)
Review Date September 24, 2009
Overall Rating 5 of 5
Value Rating 5 of 5

These headphones are spectacularly good.

Yes, I am exaggerating, but there isn’t much to complain and they are dead cheap.

Studio Headphone with a flat response?

No, I don’t record nor do I produce music.

I bought these as an extra pair for tv or as a spare pair for my main headphones the Audio Technica ATH-A500’s.

But I never use them for tv or movies, I mainly use them for listening to music, not critically nor to analyze the production values, just simply to enjoy music.

The tonal balance is near perfect in my opinion, similar to the AKG K271’s, with an emphasis to the mid tones and with slightly recessed highs.

In comparison with the ATH-A500’s they lack some air and spaciousness, but the overall balance is better.
The bass is less boomy with pop and rock, it therefore never sounds boxy and the vocals are really convincing; full bodied, with warmth and without the ‘grain’ many speakers and headphones inhabit in reproducing close-miked vocals.

With pop, rock and small scaled classical music - vocal ensembles for instance, I really prefer the ATH-M40’s over the ATH-A500’s.

The sound is so pleasant, easy on the ears, more direct and less bassy.
And this is true for poor recordings and MP3’s as well, even the crappiest recordings sound reasonable, never harsh or shrill.

With good recorded orchestral classical music however I really prefer the A500’s for their wide soundstage, the air/space between instruments and depth.

Anyone looking for cheap, good sounding closed headphones for home use should add these headphones on their shortlist.

Don’t avoid them because they are marked as studio headphones, a flat sound doesn’t mean they sound boring or without emotion, they just reproduce the source accurately and why would the source itself be without any emotion?

They also look good, are well made and are comfortable to wear.

Store Name	Store Rating	Price	Notes	Buy Now
		$51.99	New
		$69.99	Fantastic prices with ease & comfort of Amazon.com!
		$63.99	audio-technica ath-m40fs precision studiophone headphone - cable connectivity - over-the-head athm40
		$69.95	Get free shipping on orders over $25!
		$64.39
More Prices >>

Popular Headphones 1. Grado SR80 2. Bang & Olufsen A8 Earphones 3. Sony MDR 7506 4. Sennheiser HD650 5. Sennheiser MX 500 Earbud more…

Top Ranked Products from Audio-Technica. AT-PL50 Turntable Rated: ATH-M30 Rated: ATH-M50 Professional Headphones Rated:

AudioREVIEW works best with your help. Write a review for others.  It might be a highlight!

MSRP: $ 900.00 Description: 29 Reviews 0 Quick Ratings 4.79 of 5 More Preamplifiers from ROTEL >> Search AudioReview forums for the ROTEL RC-995 >>

Reviewed by: Joe (AudioPhile)
Review Date September 22, 2009
Overall Rating 5 of 5
Value Rating 5 of 5
Used product for More than 1 year

I purchased the Rotel RC-995 used just over a year ago ($350 from Audiogon), replacing a Crown Straight-Line Two preamp. During this past year, I have tried to upgrade the Rotel preamp with more updated preamps and pre-pros, but alas, it still occupies the main stereo only listening room shelf. Here is what I have found in my home preamp comparisons.

My other components include:
Anthem P2 amplifier,
Denon DVD-3910 (used as an analogue CD player),
Martin Logan Vantage ESL speakers,
Hsu Research VTF-3 MK 2 Subwoofer (Audioquest sub interconnects)
Audioquest CV-4 speaker cables, two pairs each channel in bi-wire configuration,
Room dimension 20×16x10, with wall treatments and bass traps installed CDs used in comparison include Vivaldi-Four Season, Pat Metheny-Secret Story, Chris Botti-A Thousand Kisses Deep, Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon, Nora Jones, and Steely Dan-Aja

1. Crown Straight Line Two:
Both preamps are based on their simplicity in circuitry with little frills, except the Rotel has a remote for the volume and component switching, which the Crown did not. Both preamps are very transparent with more pinpoint soundstage going to the Rotel. The Rotel consistently had tighter mid-range and undistorted highs, the lower bass got muddy when too there were multiple and simultaneous low bass signals/music. Although the Crown did well, the highs were a bit distorted, but at the upper most skewed high end, which would include only a few music passages). The Crown did very well in the mid-range area and was a bit flat below 200 Hz. Overall, the Rotel sounded a lot better, with a wider and deeper soundstage and a bit warmer than the Crown.

2. Anthem Pre 2L (hybrid tube/solid-state preamp):
Another no frills simple circuitry preamp. The Anthem (Sonic Frontiers built) remote has minimal functions, only a volume control. The soundstage is also very wide and deep, much warmer than the Rotel and I am not sure if I like it as much. Sometimes the vocalist appear to be sitting a couple of feet away, too close for my liking, but my wife preferred it to the Rotel which was just a little forward from neutral. The Anthem, once warmed up, showed off its main characteristic, a great punchy bass, and clear mid-range. However, it did not compare to the Rotel in the high range of music, sometimes missing the more subtle cymbals in jazz music (Chris Botti) and in classical pieces (Vivaldi). Overall: Although the Anthem was breathtaking with its mid-range and bass reproduction, it did not seem to transmit the full spectrum of music like the Rotel.

3. McIntosh C-45 (6-channel preamp, current 2009 model):
Once set properly the McIntosh was very impressive, transparent with a wide and deep soundstage, again a bit on the warm (forward) side, but similar to the Rotel. The vocals (mid-range) were crisper than the Rotel (Nora Jones’ vocals almost seemed “live”), and the bass a bit more defined and unmuddy during complex bass passages. The highs were also well defined and undistorted, better than the Rotel, but not by much. The benefits of the McIntosh are that you could have multiple channel output, more balance connections, updated codec, etc… Overall: the McIntosh C45 handled better in the bass and mid-range department without a doubt, and it had slightly more pinpoint sound staging than the Rotel. However, keep in mind that the McIntosh is a $3000+ unit, and the key differences were not ten times that great, not even doubled the difference. I was impressed that the Rotel compared well here.

4. Rotel 1098 Preamp HT Processor:
Again, after the proper stereo settings were selected through the 1098 many menu selection via its very nice visual active matrix screen, a great feature that every complicated prepro should have. As would be expected from the flagship Rotel preamp, the sound was very well defined and very similar to the 995. Except the 1098 had a slight harshness in the high range, it was not distorted, but after a while at high volume music listening, it was fatiguing. Something that I have not experienced with the Martin Logans before. Otherwise, the 1098 was so similar to the 995 that I put the 1098 back into my home theater for movies and not stereo music. Overall- I favored the RC-995 for its full spectrum of sound reproduction and non-fatiguing sonic transparency.

5. Outlaw 990 Preamp HT Processor:
The Outlaw replaced the Rotel 1098 late last year for my Home Theater room because I thought it did a much better job of convening large headroom and better highs that are more coherent. The problem with the Outlaw in stereo music was in the bass management especially below 40-50 Hz. It seemed to limit some of the lowest bass notes, with somewhat flat electric bass and drum notes. However, it did everything else very well, clear mid-range and high-range. Clear crisp vocals and accurate sound staging. The Rotel in comparison did just as well, but better in the lower bass (but not as good as the Anthem Pre 2L). Of course, you could select from many surround modes just like with the Rotel-1098, but I still prefer the stereo only or bypass mode. Overall: the Outlaw had slightly less low bass reproduction, but compared well to the Rotel.

Here is the order of my preamp listening comparison preferences:
1. McIntosh C45 (best overall, excellent)
2. Rotel RC-995
3. Anthem Pre 2L
4. Outlaw 990
5. Rotel 1098 (still a very good preamp)

AudioREVIEW works best with your help. Write a review for others.  It might be a highlight!

www.rotel.com

MSRP: $ 999.00 Description: Speakers Function: Main / Stereo Nominal Power: 200 Watt RMS Construction: 3-Way 1 Reviews 0 Quick Ratings 5.00 of 5 More Floorstanding Speakers from Jamo >> Search AudioReview forums for the Jamo C809 Floor Standing Speaker (Single, Black) Main / Stereo Speaker >> www.jamo.com

Reviewed by: NMyTree(Audio Enthusiast)
Review Date September 12, 2009
Overall Rating 5 of 5
Value Rating 5 of 5
Used product for 3 Months to 1 year

Summary:
The Jamo C809……If I could only say one thing about these speakers, it would have to be…..Exceptionally Musical Speakers!!!! Fortunately, I can say more than that.

The C809 is a Three Way design. These are Big…..I mean….BIG speakers. And I’m not talking just physical specifications and stature. They are BIG in physical size, but they absolutely have a very full, room engulfing sound. The C809 thrive on amps with high quality power. As do all of the Jamo speakers in the Jamo C80 and Jamo C60 Series.

The better quality power you feed them, the better they reward your ears. Don’t get me wrong, that doesn’t mean they need a Gazillion Watts to make them sing. They will perform best with at least 100 high quality watts per channel. But High Quality Power is the key, here.

The C809 are smooth, sweet, wonderfully detailed and wade casually into the slightly warm side of the pool. There’s a wonderful timbre and tone to instruments. The bass is strong and gets you in the mood to boogie.

These speakers really do great bass. At least 15 inches to 18 inches from the back wall will deliver tight, musical, palpable bass. Cellos are stunning! Well recorded piano makes you wonder who dragged the Steinway into the room.

No real wood venners, here. And I couldn’t care less. These speakers (as well as the C807 and C803 of this Series) far exceed the modest, well-done, black laminate finish confines of their cabinets. I’ve auditioned and lived with several much higher-priced….real wood veenered speakers; that the C809 put to shame. Embarrassed, really.

Dynamics are very, very nice. They can be punchy, but not in-your-face-……kick in the gut punchy. They do lean to a polite….I guess softer presentation. But they are in no way dull and uninvolved.

If you want the ultimate slam and liver-rattling punch; look elsewhere. These are not the speakers for you.

If you want the ultimate in so-called ” transparency” ………look elsewhere. These are not for you.

If you want a hyper-detailed presentation and sterile, analytical presentation. Move right along and go find yourself another speaker; after you dissect your frog.

You want wonderfully tuneful and sweet melodies?

Want to whistle and sing to the music, because you simply can’t help from being dragged into the meody of a song?

Want to get up off your booty and boogie around the room, because the music pushes and inspires you?

Want to lay back and enjoy the melody of a blues guitar, or the beautiful wave of cello washing over you?

Want to get chills and goosebumps from acoustic instruments and vocal harmonies?

Then audition the Jamo C809.

I matched them up with some McIntosh gear (C220, mc252 and mc352) and an Rega Saturn. Also tried them out with several other pieces/brands of gear.

The Mac and Jamo combo is musical heaven!!!!

Store Name	Store Rating	Price	Notes	Buy Now
Advanced Lamps		$625.00
		$999.00	Get free shipping on orders ov…
		$799.00	Fantastic prices with ease & c…
More Prices >>

Popular Floorstanding Speakers 1. Bose 901 Series VI 2. Klipsch RF-7 3. Magnepan MMG 4. Vienna Acoustics Mozart 5. B&W DM603 S3 more…

Top Ranked Products from Jamo. E 750 Rated: E 680 Rated: E 875 Rated: more…

AudioREVIEW works best with your help. Write a review for others.  It might be a highlight!

www.jamo.com

MSRP: $ 4000.00 Description: Gain: 30 db Frequency response: -0 dB at DC, -3 dB at 100 kHz Power Output: 150 W maximum @ 1% THD, 1kHz into 8 Ohms (300 W into 4 Ohms) Maximum Output Voltage: +_ 50V Maximum Output Current: +_ 20A Input impedance: 22 kohms balanced Slew Rate: +_ 50V/uS Output Noise: 300 uV unweighted 20-20 kHz Random Noise Floor: approx. 2uV Dynamic Range: 145 db (random noise floor to peak output) 16 Reviews 0 Quick Ratings 4.88 of 5 More Amplifiers from Pass Labs >> Search AudioReview forums for the Pass Labs X 150 >> www.passlabs.com

Reviewed by:Jbreezy5 (AudioPhile)
Review Date September 7, 2009
Overall Rating 5 of 5
Value Rating 5 of 5
Used product for 1 to 3 months

This is a consumer review of the Pass X150 stereo amplifier, compared and contrasted w/Parasound Halo A21 and Krell KAV-400xi (integrated).

Review System:

Preamp: Arcam A75+
Amp: Pass Labs X150
Universal Player: Denon DVD-2910
Cables/Interconnects: Blue Jeans Cable 10 ga. speaker cables w/locking bananas; Interconnects
Speakers: Dynaudio Audience 82’s (frequency response rated 25hz-25khz)

My ridiculously small room: 10′ x 10′ [I know I have broken all audiophile rules w/my choice of speaker]

I recently purchased the Pass X150 and had a 30-day, in-home trial. It is a 150 wpc amplifier that reportedly runs in pure class A up to 50 watts/channel. This is quite remarkable since most listeners never reach this level of power continuously. After the first 50 watts, it switches to class A/B operation. It runs pretty warm but I can touch the (large) heat sinks and not get burned. It seems even the fascia of the amp serves as a heat sink since it is sometimes warm as well. The front of the amp is very thick aluminum (?) on top of aluminum in a silver-gray finish. It is very utilitarian/masculine looking. Other amps may not want to pick a fight w/it based on appearance alone. The blue LED’s indicating power/standby are a little annoying, if watching a movie, but can easily be covered (this is the original version w/o current meter). It’s pretty hefty at about 60-70 lbs, for being the entry-level amp in the series. However, there is nothing entry-level about the sound.

THE BIG PICTURE

I tried to start this review discussing particular characteristics from bass to treble. But that just wouldn’t be right; it is contrary to the nature of the amp. This is the defining characteristic of the X150; it has an overall sound of organic delivery and focuses on the whole of music. It doesn’t favor any particular frequency range; in this way it doesn’t seem to highlight any particular hi-fi characteristic. The presentation is of the music and that is this amp’s concern. You may get better delineated bass from a Krell, which is brutal in the mids/highs (IMO). You may find more seductive midrange from tubed gear, which often rolls off the bass and highs. But consistency top-to-bottom, neutrality if-you-will, is this amps trademark. It will reveal the “character” of components upstream/downstream; this includes the recordings themselves.

Some may think this amp does hi-fi imaging/soundstaging. If by that they mean, it has a convincingly large soundstage and pinpoint imaging, they’re right. However, if the recording isn’t well sorted, that’s how it comes through the X150, while preserving the musical enjoyment. On good recordings all of the placement cues are there, w/solid life-sized images and a walk-in-and-around 3-dimensionality. The stage is not forward (in front of the plane of the speakers), nor recessed (behind the plane of the speakers). It seems, once again, neutral; starting at the plane of the speakers and extending to the sides and back. It’s stage is both wide and deep.

The X150 does have superior soundstage depth compared to other amps I’ve had in my system. More recently I reviewed the Parasound A21 in my system (all other components/accessories the same). I like the A21; it is an overall good performer, but I had reservations about transparency (compared to my 50 wpc Arcam integrated). Having installed the Pass amp my observations seem to be confirmed in this regard. Because of the Pass amps transparency there seems to be more of an invitation to walk through the soundstage and around the performers. I wouldn’t say its like holography, per se, since the images are focused; however, the images don’t seem “fat”, for lack of a better word, as they did w/the Parasound. This may be the result of perceived added warmth w/the Parasound. On the other hand, the Pass doesn’t give the impression of bleached/pale images as I feel Krell does.

Which brings us to tonality. If Krell is winter and Parasound Halo is summer, then Pass Labs is spring and fall. That’s my kind of weather! It neither jolts you to tears of pain when listening to violins, nor makes females sound somewhat “fat”. It is simply a refined and smooth sounding amp, that portrays tonal colors and shadings accurately w/o going to extremes. By smooth I mean, there’s not a gritty/grainy characteristic to the sound. That happened sometimes w/my Arcam on its own at louder levels, probably due to clipping. The Parasound also is smooth like the Pass Labs, but w/the added warmth.

It seems like I’ve been beating up on Krell. So I just want to say I haven’t heard better bass from another amp than the Krell. The detail and power in the bass from this thing was outright astonishing from the diminutive-sized amp. It does have the edge over the Pass in this regard. The Pass and the Parasound I thought were pretty comparable in the bass.

CONCLUSION

The Pass Labs X150 is a coherent, neutral, powerful, smooth, 3-dimensional, musically satisfying solid-state amp. This is the best I have heard in my system. I would specifically recommend it for those who want their systems to present music as a whole and be as neutral as possible (as opposed to those who like to dissect, or those who want an amp with added character). It does all of the hi-fi things one would expect from a dedicated amp, but in a civilized and even-handed way. I would recommend the Parasound A21 for someone who has a leaner sounding system. The Krell sound I think goes best w/a system that is a little warmer/juicier in nature.

These are all good amplifiers; but the Pass worked best in my system.

Also want to thank Mark at Reno Hifi, who sold me the amp; excellent customer service and included 3 free SACDs (to my surprise when I opened the package) w/the purchase and delivery was on-time; included 1 yr warranty.

I don’t know the exact product model year; I believe these began production around year 2000.

-JBreezy5-\

Popular Amplifiers 1. ROTEL RB 1070 2. Phase Linear 400 3. Audiolab 8000A 4. Hafler DH-200 5. ROTEL RB-985 THX more…

Top Ranked Products from Pass Labs. X 600 Rated: X 350 Rated: Aleph 4 Rated:

www.passlabs.com

AudioREVIEW works best with your help. Write a review for others.  It might be a highlight!

MSRP: $ 1500.00 Description: Engineering Principle 2-way Bass reflex system Nom. /Music power handling 60 / 100 watts SPL (1 watt/1m) 85 db (1 W, 1 m) Frequency response 33…40.000 Hz Crossover frequency 3.000 Hz Woofer 1 x 160 mm (6”), Aluminum (Wave surround) Tweeter 1 x 25 mm (1”), aluminum-manganese Nominal Impedance 4…8 ohms Gold plated bi-wiring/bi-amping screwclamp terminals 1 Reviews 0 Quick Ratings 5.00 of 5 More Bookshelf Speakers from Canton >> Search AudioReview forums for the Canton Karat 720 Speaker >>

Reviewed by:surxenberg (Audio Enthusiast)
Review Date August 28, 2009
Overall Rating 5 of 5
Value Rating 5 of 5
Used product for 3 Months to 1 year

I bought these speakers at a discount, about half a year ago. They cost me about 590 euros for the pair.

I use them with a Revox Evolution Stereo System that features a 2×150 Watts @ 4 Ohms amplifier. They are supported by a Canton AS 85 SC active subwoofer and are placed on Canton’s optional LS 600 stands.

Those speakers are rated at 60 watts max at an impedance of 4-8 ohms, feature a Bi-Wiring Terminal and there is a 25mm Aluminium-Mangan Tweeter featured by a 7″ Aluminum Bass-Midrange driver. Measuring only 30cm in height, these speakers are dwarves.

The speakers look gorgeous, very humble and serious looking design, sticking to the basics. On the front there is a black textile coverage that hides the drivers from your eyes. Everything is very nicely polished, the edges and surfaces prove that there is true German quality artisan work behind it. However, it seems to me that the enclosures are very susceptible to scratches.

The Sound quality is *very* good. Even without a subwoofer, the bass punches tight and also at higher levels no sign of distortion. Excellent Midrange and High Frequency, generally well suited for listening to music. However, if you look for deep and heavy bass performance you should really pair them with a decent active subwoofer. As long as you’re listening to something else than Drum’n'Bass or Heavy Metal there is no need for a sub though.

As far as Blues or Jazz goes, these speakers deliver an outstanding sound quality for the money. Clear, crisp sound and stunning dynamics. Close your eyes and you think that this blues singer is right next in front of you, singing and playing his guitar.

Rock, Pop and the likes are very decent to listen to as well on these speakers, however, I’d prefer Floorstanders for this sort of music. The sound of 3 distorted electric guitars playing different tones is displayed very clearly and you can easily hear what every musician is playing, but it does not have the pressure that a floorstander would deliver.

Classical Music is where these loudspeakers absolutely shine. Their super fast response and very linear frequency response really make you think you’re right in a concert hall.

I have listened to many loudspeakers so far, but these are the shiznit. I have always preferred a Booskhelf/sub combo over floorstands (this is certainly a matter of personal preference) and so far, the combination of the Karat 720 and the Canton AS 85 SC has shown me the best bang for my money.
There are loudspeakers from other competitors that sound just as good as they do in a similar price range, but the Cantons appealed to me the most.

I hardly noticed any difference between the Canton Karat 750 subwoofer and the Canton AS 85 SC. The latter costs about a third of the price and is actually part of the much cheaper GLE series. But since this sub is already good enough I didn’t really have much use for spending thrice the price on a sub.

Lastly, since these are top-of-the-line speakers there is no point in connecting them to a Sony Compact Stereo.

It is wise to use them with a solid amp that is capable of delivering at least 100 watts @ 4 Ohms. They really profit from powerful amplifiers.

Featured Merchants

Independent Audio Video

Store Name	Store Rating	Price	Notes	Buy Now
		$579.99	Ships 1-2 days
More Prices >>

Popular Bookshelf Speakers 1. B&W DM602 S3 2. B&W DM601 S3 3. Monitor Audio Bronze 2 4. Bose 301 5. Quad 11L more… Top Ranked Products from Canton. Digital 1.1 Rated:

AudioREVIEW works best with your help. Write a review for others.  It might be a highlight!

MSRP: $ 50.00 Description: * 12 volt DC operation; will work anywhere in the world * limited lifetime defective exchange warranty * RIAA freq response 20hz-20,000hz +/- 0.5dB, S/N ratio >85dB * THD <0.05%, input sensitivity 3.0mV * Nominal / max output 300mV / 1.8V * Output impedence 200 ohms, input 47kohm /220 pF * CE certified, nice packaging suitable for gifting * gold-plated jacks and black anodized metal casing * ground wire terminal; power indicator * includes RCA cable and miniplug adaptor * 142mm long / 73mm wide / 37mm high * includes AC adaptor to match destination (USA/Canada or overseas) 5 Reviews 0 Quick Ratings 3.20 of 5 More Phono Preamps from TCC >> Search AudioReview forums for the TCC TC-750 >>

Reviewed by:Kiwi (Audio Enthusiast)
Review Date August 30, 2009
Overall Rating 4 of 5
Value Rating 5 of 5
Used product for 3 Months to 1 year

When I looked at this MM Preamp, at this store which sells mostly parts for electronics, I said to myself, that I should try this, it should be fun! for $50.00 you can not go much wrong.

So I bought it and plug it in, Rega TT with SME III arm, and Ortofon cartridge, OM20,, SME’s own RCA cable from TT to TC750 and from TC750 to Elad was carried by VDH D102III cable.

It sounded really bad, sound had no weight, extremely poor focus and very fatigue, just two songs and I stop listening.

But left it plugged in.

Next night, 24hrs later, the sound came out of this little box was totally different from previous night, it had very good weight and sounded very well balanced across the entire frequency spectrum without any hum or any other strange nose added.

The fact is I had never herd analog so good before and I am not being sarcastic here, I am writing this with all the seriousness.

I had, in the past NAD PP1 and PP2, Creek OBH 8 MM stage, Project Phono Box.

Among all of the above, this little inexpensive box sounded the best.

If you are not happy with its sound, then this unit is not the problem, the problem is some where else in your system.

Start with a good preamp, then change your power amp, do not look for power house amp, 50 to 70WPC Continuous into 8 ohms is enough for most people, and if it doubles it power into 4ohms, the better.
Then get a good pair of speakers, stand mounter usually offer better sound, they disappear leaving the soundstage only, do not go after the speaker which creates “Tremendous Bass”, the Bass, specially poor quality bass, will muddy the overall sound, and you would hear highs and lows mostly and very little mid-range where most of the music is. If you find it hard to believe, just go to any audio retailer and listen to both the stand mounters and floor standers, in few minutes of music listening, it may appeal to you but once you bring them home, overtime, you will be tired of their sound and find them fatigue sounding, or you will start to think about other things and not pay attention to music cuz it is not involving.

Once you got that, then start with the source, cuz now you have a system which would tell you if the source is half-decent or not.

Now this TC 750 MM Pre, is certainly more then half decent sounding, I prefer it to NAD, Creek and Project, that’s how good it is.

Go buy one and try it, leave it plugged in for at least 24hrs, and give it a listen, in worst case you will be out of $50.00.

Top Ranked Products from TCC.

TC-754 Rated:

TC-750 Rated:

TC-753LC Amplifier Rated:

more…

AudioREVIEW works best with your help. Write a review for others.  It might be a highlight!