Spendor and Series 5
Posted by: bec143 on 20 October 2002
OK, so here is another one of those hypotheticals driven by a good deal...
I have a cd5/flatcap/112/Hicap/150/Vienna Acoustic Bachs. I lke my speakers a lot, but have a chance to buy Spendor1/2E's or SP100's at a good price. I'm looking for bit more bass extension and bigger soundstage (my room is LARGE). I don't want to try and integrate a subwoofer, cause I think I'll go crazy with each CD trying to nail it perfectly. Besides the obvious mullet comments, which I reject for the time being because I think the CD5 and the elctronics are good, how do you think this may match.
Thanks,
Bruce
I have a cd5/flatcap/112/Hicap/150/Vienna Acoustic Bachs. I lke my speakers a lot, but have a chance to buy Spendor1/2E's or SP100's at a good price. I'm looking for bit more bass extension and bigger soundstage (my room is LARGE). I don't want to try and integrate a subwoofer, cause I think I'll go crazy with each CD trying to nail it perfectly. Besides the obvious mullet comments, which I reject for the time being because I think the CD5 and the elctronics are good, how do you think this may match.
Thanks,
Bruce
Posted on: 20 October 2002 by Bob Shedlock
My experience with the listed combination of electronics and SP 1/2E left something to be desired. (I had exactly the same gear as you)
The soundstage thing isn't important to me, but still, the Spendors are pretty wide boxes, difraction and radiation is affected and they don't really disappear.
My complaint is I felt the upper mid-range to be a bit laid back for my taste. As an example, when listening to Stevie Nicks on Fleetwood Mack on the Spendors, they did not convey that sense of urgency and gutteral tightness just as she threatens to go off key. Not very incisive. Subtle to be sure, but one of the cues that makes the song work.
Art Dudley reviewed the same stuff for Listener using the Spendors and absolutely loved the combination. How's that for two conflicting opinions?
I know the Spendors are highly regarded, so it is difficult to explain my experience. I've still got the stands just in case I ever get curious again, since I'm using an 82/hi/250 now
The soundstage thing isn't important to me, but still, the Spendors are pretty wide boxes, difraction and radiation is affected and they don't really disappear.
My complaint is I felt the upper mid-range to be a bit laid back for my taste. As an example, when listening to Stevie Nicks on Fleetwood Mack on the Spendors, they did not convey that sense of urgency and gutteral tightness just as she threatens to go off key. Not very incisive. Subtle to be sure, but one of the cues that makes the song work.
Art Dudley reviewed the same stuff for Listener using the Spendors and absolutely loved the combination. How's that for two conflicting opinions?
I know the Spendors are highly regarded, so it is difficult to explain my experience. I've still got the stands just in case I ever get curious again, since I'm using an 82/hi/250 now
Posted on: 21 October 2002 by bec143
Bob,
Thanks for the input. I'm going to try and have a listen at home. The low WAF may also be a problem.
Bruce
Thanks for the input. I'm going to try and have a listen at home. The low WAF may also be a problem.
Bruce
Posted on: 21 October 2002 by Arthur Bye
If you like your Vienna Acoustic Bach's you will probably like the Spendor sound. The SP100's have a similar "polite" side of neutral sound. The SP100's will go a good bit lower than the Bach's and the midrange is a bit more musical. They are pretty big though. Nothing "in yer face" about the sound like Naim speakers.
The SP1/2's are a better look as they are considerably smaller. The have a nicer midrange than the SP100's (which says a lot!)and the bass is probably no better than the Bach's.
The SP100's are a pretty good match for Naim kit as long as you like the sound. I would not describe them as having a lot of PRaT, but it's not bad. They're easy to drive and have decent bass. WAF is pretty low though as they are big buggers.
The reflex port for the woofer must be tuned pretty low as you don't hear it very much, which is nice.
Arthur Bye
The SP1/2's are a better look as they are considerably smaller. The have a nicer midrange than the SP100's (which says a lot!)and the bass is probably no better than the Bach's.
The SP100's are a pretty good match for Naim kit as long as you like the sound. I would not describe them as having a lot of PRaT, but it's not bad. They're easy to drive and have decent bass. WAF is pretty low though as they are big buggers.
The reflex port for the woofer must be tuned pretty low as you don't hear it very much, which is nice.
Arthur Bye
Posted on: 22 October 2002 by bec143
Bob/Art:
Thanks for your insights. Both of you seem to feel like my dealer, that the Spendors have a very tame and polite presentation. Now, you are right that I do like my Bachs, so maybe this isn't so bad for me. However, having just heard Allaes yesterday on the end of a 52/500/CDX at Hawthorne during a cd5 v cdx dem, I thought they sounded superb, and maybe I'll revaluate the type of speakers I'm looking for.
Stallion:
Sounds like you have got the SP100's right where you like them (I'm assuming that "vulgar" =good). With all the amazing press on these speakers, I'm sure they must sound great in some systems.
Bruce
Thanks for your insights. Both of you seem to feel like my dealer, that the Spendors have a very tame and polite presentation. Now, you are right that I do like my Bachs, so maybe this isn't so bad for me. However, having just heard Allaes yesterday on the end of a 52/500/CDX at Hawthorne during a cd5 v cdx dem, I thought they sounded superb, and maybe I'll revaluate the type of speakers I'm looking for.
Stallion:
Sounds like you have got the SP100's right where you like them (I'm assuming that "vulgar" =good). With all the amazing press on these speakers, I'm sure they must sound great in some systems.
Bruce
Posted on: 22 October 2002 by Eric Barry
I use Spendor S100s with 72/hi/250 and I find that the PRAT is very good, but not hyped, the low bass is extremely tight, the mid and upper bass are a bit fat (not due to the port I believe, but the cabinet and big woofer crossed over at 600hz, I'd guess), the upper mids are little harsh, and the treble is fairly smooth. They image a bit, but not a whole lot. I agree they are rather vulgar--not speed demons, but the bop along and fill the room with sound. Also very coherent in the blend of drivers. The detail is there, but not in your face. Timbres are great, but edge definition of instruments is not. That's why they have a rep as "music lover" rather than "audiophile" speakers. They don't appeal to trad audiophile values. I'd actually like a little more incisive, and a tighter upper bass.
Note, mine are on Sound Anchor stands.
--Eric
Note, mine are on Sound Anchor stands.
--Eric
Posted on: 22 October 2002 by Arthur Bye
Marco:
I have not heard the SP-100's on Mana so I can't specifcally compare, but I think I more agree with Eric's statement about them over yours.
To me PRaT= Kans, Brik's, SBL's, DBL's, Epos ES22's (or 14's). On carpet, on Mana, on suspended floors, on concrete or on plastic. It doesn't matter. They even have PRaT when you're listening from across the house.
The SP100's have plenty of PRaT but are not in the same league as the aforementioned. I have owned or do own most of the above speakers and have had time to compare.
Don't get me wrong, the SP-100's remain an excellent speaker, and value. Like any speaker though they have good points and bad points.
I have also noticed that they sound quite different on the old style Nap135's as opposed to the new style. They are a bit laid back on the old style, almost mellow.
Eric, I found your evaluation to be more similar to mine but I diverge from you about the woofer. Get a listen to a good unported woofer like that on an SBL or DBL. They are both considerably tighter than the SP-100's. Even a ported Epos or Neat has faster and tighter bass.
I think that I am hard pressed to describe these speakers as vulgar. They are quite neutral, about as neutral as any speaker I have heard save the LS3/5a's(yes, including their midbass hump). They fall ever so slightly to the polite side of neutral though. On an old style NAP135 the "polite" becomes "laid back".
Just my 2 cents
Arthur Bye
I have not heard the SP-100's on Mana so I can't specifcally compare, but I think I more agree with Eric's statement about them over yours.
To me PRaT= Kans, Brik's, SBL's, DBL's, Epos ES22's (or 14's). On carpet, on Mana, on suspended floors, on concrete or on plastic. It doesn't matter. They even have PRaT when you're listening from across the house.
The SP100's have plenty of PRaT but are not in the same league as the aforementioned. I have owned or do own most of the above speakers and have had time to compare.
Don't get me wrong, the SP-100's remain an excellent speaker, and value. Like any speaker though they have good points and bad points.
I have also noticed that they sound quite different on the old style Nap135's as opposed to the new style. They are a bit laid back on the old style, almost mellow.
Eric, I found your evaluation to be more similar to mine but I diverge from you about the woofer. Get a listen to a good unported woofer like that on an SBL or DBL. They are both considerably tighter than the SP-100's. Even a ported Epos or Neat has faster and tighter bass.
I think that I am hard pressed to describe these speakers as vulgar. They are quite neutral, about as neutral as any speaker I have heard save the LS3/5a's(yes, including their midbass hump). They fall ever so slightly to the polite side of neutral though. On an old style NAP135 the "polite" becomes "laid back".
Just my 2 cents
Arthur Bye