Rega's and such
Posted by: Justin on 12 April 2003
I've read often on this forum certain negative comments reharding the new Rega Ela loudspeakers, ussually in comparison to the MKI and MkII iterations.
I'm interested in knowing specifically what wasn't liked about the new Elas in these circumstances.
I've been swinging a pair of Alyas off the end of my Naim gear for about 6 months now, and am pretty happy with them, all things considered. But, I'd like more bass and a bit more "air" from the tweeter. As it happens, a friend has loaned me a pair of Ela MkI's for the next several weeks, and the comparisons have been istructive, to say the least. But before I get into it, I'd like to hear more about the 2000 version, because as a matter of aesthetics, I may go that way.
Judd
I'm interested in knowing specifically what wasn't liked about the new Elas in these circumstances.
I've been swinging a pair of Alyas off the end of my Naim gear for about 6 months now, and am pretty happy with them, all things considered. But, I'd like more bass and a bit more "air" from the tweeter. As it happens, a friend has loaned me a pair of Ela MkI's for the next several weeks, and the comparisons have been istructive, to say the least. But before I get into it, I'd like to hear more about the 2000 version, because as a matter of aesthetics, I may go that way.
Judd
Posted on: 13 April 2003 by Folkman
Judd,
How about you telling us what you thought of the early Ela's first, so i can get some indication of your reaction to them--some people do not like Ela's of any variety.
Ross -- have you heard early Ela's and what did you think of them.
Michael.
How about you telling us what you thought of the early Ela's first, so i can get some indication of your reaction to them--some people do not like Ela's of any variety.
Ross -- have you heard early Ela's and what did you think of them.
Michael.
Posted on: 13 April 2003 by Folkman
Judd,
If you like the looks of the 2000 then i would ignore whatever anyone else says about them and have a listen . As you say you are pretty happy with the Alyas then i would think you will be even happier with any Ela's.
When i heard them , it was under less than ideal conditions and i believe that they have been altered since then.
I have previously heard of people refering to a boxy, woody colouration of Rega speakers , but that may be equipment or room related problems.
I have used Rega speakers for 8 years and never had this reaction to them.
Rega state that they are insensitive to room positioning and generally i would agree with this. But it is still possible to improve the results by optimising their position.
Even though i currently prefer my Ela's to the 2000, in the future i would like to get a pair of 2000 for a home dem , because like i said , if they have been improved then they may be even better than mine.
It would be nice to hear from anyone who has done a comparison of old Ela's to 2000 Ela's.
Anyone?
Michael.
If you like the looks of the 2000 then i would ignore whatever anyone else says about them and have a listen . As you say you are pretty happy with the Alyas then i would think you will be even happier with any Ela's.
When i heard them , it was under less than ideal conditions and i believe that they have been altered since then.
I have previously heard of people refering to a boxy, woody colouration of Rega speakers , but that may be equipment or room related problems.
I have used Rega speakers for 8 years and never had this reaction to them.
Rega state that they are insensitive to room positioning and generally i would agree with this. But it is still possible to improve the results by optimising their position.
Even though i currently prefer my Ela's to the 2000, in the future i would like to get a pair of 2000 for a home dem , because like i said , if they have been improved then they may be even better than mine.
It would be nice to hear from anyone who has done a comparison of old Ela's to 2000 Ela's.
Anyone?
Michael.
Posted on: 14 April 2003 by Justin
Well,
In some ways the Ela MK I has been the most satisfying speaker I have had in my listening room in a long time. With my hand on my heart, I find the bass every bit as impressive as that on the SBL's. And those who have seen my posts on the subject know that I consider SBL's to have the best bass in the business (despite that I cannot live with them otherwise).
Until having the MK I's in my room, I could not put my finger on why it should be so that the SBL's are my favorate speaker for bass. I'll be forgiven for assuming it was thier unique back loading arrangement. But, I'm of another opinion now, which is that the reason the SBL bass is so good is because the cabinet is so supremely non-resonant.
It all makes sense to me now. A friend of mine summed of the superiority of the SBL bass by observing that it just sort of "occured", and then was gone. A greater compliment, i could not bestow. But, I think it is essentially right. The SBL bass lacks "penumbra" precisely because the cabinet is not permitted to make any. This also explains, in my view, why many people judge the SBL's to be bass shy. IN fact, they are not. What you don't hear is the resonance of the cabinet inflating (even if ever so slightly) what the bass driver is trying to do.
That said, the Ela I's have been the first speaker I have had in my room (believe me, there have been many) that are able to do bass the way the SBL does it--and I attribute the trick to the construction of the cabinet (the transmission line device, judged in my opinion, as no more capable than any other system when judged in isolation). The Mk I cabinet is only about 25% larger than the Alya, but seems to weigh about 3 times as much. It's supremely non-resonant, no doubt do to internal bracing and the full cabinet divide for the line. It also has asymetrical fluting down the front panel, which was clearly designed to break up resonancc.
Despite having only a 5 inch mid/bass driver, the MK I makes bass the way the SBL does, which is to say it is supremely clean, tight and powerful (when properly driven). It suffers from ZERO overhang (when correctly placed from the wall) and has that kind of "snarl" which says "this is serious bass".
But, like the SBL's, in my room the MK I bass sort of "occurs", which is to say that it sounds bass light until an actual bass note comes along, and then it hits you with the sort of power and articulation that I simply have not heard from speakers other than the SBL's. I am impressed.
The MK I is also more neutral throughout the midrange. I also attribute this to the construction of the cabinet, which seems to clean up the midrange. I'm also impressed by this. (a failure to get the midrange "right" in my opinion was the reason I had to let the SBL's go).
Like SBL's, though, I think the MK I is best driven by the 250.
Aside from that, the MK I's have a more extended tweeter than the one used in the Alya (I think it is the same scanspeak used in the SBL, actually). In the Mk I, I find it a little hot. No doubt, it is more extended than the one in the Alya, but it puts too much of a "sheen" on female vocals, and in the context of my system can spit a bit.
The tweeter in the Alya, on the other hand, which is not as "extended" also sounds more natural to my ears. It doesn't spit, and is never offensive. Still, I'm not prepared to say I like the cheaper tweeter better. I think I need to just re-acclimate myself to more high frequency information.
That said, the MK I does not improve upon the Alya in terms of getting a sense of "air" from the tweeter. Both tweeters are just kinda "there", if you know what I mean. Transparency is not Rega's strong suit.
Ok, my concerns: As I have said, I attribute the bass response and the neutrality of the mk I's to the construction of the cabinet. I'm interested in purchasing a new pair of MK III's (the 2000's) mostly because I want something that looks a little nicer than the MK I's. But, I am concerned that if the Ela 2000 is built in the same way as the Alya (which it appears to), and does not show that same level of attention designed to reduce cabinet resonance, I will not be able to get the benefits out of it that I feel the Mk I's provide. In fact, if the Ela 2000 is merely an Alya in a bogger box (which the pictures kinda make it look like), I'm SURE the Alya will sound better (less cabinet to resonate--probably will be faster, etc.
So, I'm very interested in hearing specifically how the Ela 2000 compares to the MK I or even the MK II version. How do they differ.
Judd
ps. A dem is not possible for me. No rega dealers around.
In some ways the Ela MK I has been the most satisfying speaker I have had in my listening room in a long time. With my hand on my heart, I find the bass every bit as impressive as that on the SBL's. And those who have seen my posts on the subject know that I consider SBL's to have the best bass in the business (despite that I cannot live with them otherwise).
Until having the MK I's in my room, I could not put my finger on why it should be so that the SBL's are my favorate speaker for bass. I'll be forgiven for assuming it was thier unique back loading arrangement. But, I'm of another opinion now, which is that the reason the SBL bass is so good is because the cabinet is so supremely non-resonant.
It all makes sense to me now. A friend of mine summed of the superiority of the SBL bass by observing that it just sort of "occured", and then was gone. A greater compliment, i could not bestow. But, I think it is essentially right. The SBL bass lacks "penumbra" precisely because the cabinet is not permitted to make any. This also explains, in my view, why many people judge the SBL's to be bass shy. IN fact, they are not. What you don't hear is the resonance of the cabinet inflating (even if ever so slightly) what the bass driver is trying to do.
That said, the Ela I's have been the first speaker I have had in my room (believe me, there have been many) that are able to do bass the way the SBL does it--and I attribute the trick to the construction of the cabinet (the transmission line device, judged in my opinion, as no more capable than any other system when judged in isolation). The Mk I cabinet is only about 25% larger than the Alya, but seems to weigh about 3 times as much. It's supremely non-resonant, no doubt do to internal bracing and the full cabinet divide for the line. It also has asymetrical fluting down the front panel, which was clearly designed to break up resonancc.
Despite having only a 5 inch mid/bass driver, the MK I makes bass the way the SBL does, which is to say it is supremely clean, tight and powerful (when properly driven). It suffers from ZERO overhang (when correctly placed from the wall) and has that kind of "snarl" which says "this is serious bass".
But, like the SBL's, in my room the MK I bass sort of "occurs", which is to say that it sounds bass light until an actual bass note comes along, and then it hits you with the sort of power and articulation that I simply have not heard from speakers other than the SBL's. I am impressed.
The MK I is also more neutral throughout the midrange. I also attribute this to the construction of the cabinet, which seems to clean up the midrange. I'm also impressed by this. (a failure to get the midrange "right" in my opinion was the reason I had to let the SBL's go).
Like SBL's, though, I think the MK I is best driven by the 250.
Aside from that, the MK I's have a more extended tweeter than the one used in the Alya (I think it is the same scanspeak used in the SBL, actually). In the Mk I, I find it a little hot. No doubt, it is more extended than the one in the Alya, but it puts too much of a "sheen" on female vocals, and in the context of my system can spit a bit.
The tweeter in the Alya, on the other hand, which is not as "extended" also sounds more natural to my ears. It doesn't spit, and is never offensive. Still, I'm not prepared to say I like the cheaper tweeter better. I think I need to just re-acclimate myself to more high frequency information.
That said, the MK I does not improve upon the Alya in terms of getting a sense of "air" from the tweeter. Both tweeters are just kinda "there", if you know what I mean. Transparency is not Rega's strong suit.
Ok, my concerns: As I have said, I attribute the bass response and the neutrality of the mk I's to the construction of the cabinet. I'm interested in purchasing a new pair of MK III's (the 2000's) mostly because I want something that looks a little nicer than the MK I's. But, I am concerned that if the Ela 2000 is built in the same way as the Alya (which it appears to), and does not show that same level of attention designed to reduce cabinet resonance, I will not be able to get the benefits out of it that I feel the Mk I's provide. In fact, if the Ela 2000 is merely an Alya in a bogger box (which the pictures kinda make it look like), I'm SURE the Alya will sound better (less cabinet to resonate--probably will be faster, etc.
So, I'm very interested in hearing specifically how the Ela 2000 compares to the MK I or even the MK II version. How do they differ.
Judd
ps. A dem is not possible for me. No rega dealers around.