I keep hearing these mentioned, I am due to be moving out to pastures new soon, and my Dynaudio Audience 40's although excellent are likely to be lost, I am not planning on buying anyhting until I try them in their new surroundings, but am drawing up a list of possible replacements....I bought my Dyn's 2nd hand for a very good price and will consequently not lose money when selling them, and may even keep them for possible Home Cinema usage in case I were to buy Dyns again - very possible!
Basically, to get back to the point, I have heard the Royds mentioned very favourably but can find nothing more about them, such as specs, pics etc...my girlfriend is very fussy as to what will be allowed into the house so they have to look ok!!
Any other suggestions which people would recommend, and please no SBL's, they were ruled out immediately!
I like a wide variety of music, normally liking a bit of bass, meaning that Intro 2's sounded great and I could live with them quite happily, but would appreciate a bit more oomph (technical term!) in the bass...
Budget will probably be upto a maximum of about £2k, however if money could be better spent elsewhere then I am open to that idea too...
Current system:
Nait 3R
CD3.5 (Currently haggling from Loot!)
Dynaudio Audience 40
Nordost Pulsar Points
NACA5
The alternative options I have considered are:
1) buying a HI/Flat to power the CD and new speakers.
2) buying 2 HI/Flat to power CD and convert Nait to NAC and add either NAP 90/3 or 140. Obvioulsy this would leave a limited budget for new speakers...
3) keep Dyn's, buy 102/82 and Hi for pre and CD add 140/180/250.....
I don't wish to buy an older pre-amp, I am fussy as to looks and don't like them, plus I enjoy the luxury of a remote...
I am at a crossroads and lost...please help guys!!
Thanks
Scott
Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Mike Hanson
I don't think the Nait has enough power to drive the RR2s satisfactorily. Royd suggests a minimum of the new NAP150. I've heard them myself many times, and I can confirm that even a 102/Hi/250 can almost struggle to get lots of volume out of these.
However, they do sound fantastic. If you've got the power to drive them, they're a very nice speaker.
You might want to consider Neat Mystiques, as they're cheaper and easier to drive. If you're willing to spend a little more (about the same price as the RR2), then the Neat Elite is a better speaker. However, you might be running into problems with power again.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Scott Mckenzie
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Hanson:
I don't think the Nait has enough power to drive the RR2s satisfactorily. Royd suggests a minimum of the new NAP150. I've heard them myself many times, and I can confirm that even a 102/Hi/250 can almost struggle to get lots of volume out of these.However, they do sound fantastic. If you've got the power to drive them, they're a very nice speaker.
You might want to consider Neat Mystiques, as they're cheaper and easier to drive. If you're willing to spend a little more (about the same price as the RR2), then the Neat Elite is a better speaker. However, you might be running into problems with power again.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Cheers Mike,
This is sort of what I had expected, I need more power to run decent speakers, but can only afford certain upgrades...I am stuck as to what to do really, I know my Audience 40's are capable, but the place I am looking at buying has a room bigger than ones I have managed to lose my Dyn's in before, so i fear the same may happen again...
The other half quite likes the look of Proac, but as I understand they are quite tricky to drive aswell....the Neats - I looked at them after Tony's findings, they look alright - pass the first test, but finding a local dealer could be the problem....
Thanks for the advice, i guess the amp upgrades may have to come first and settle for a major upgrade later on...
Scott
Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Mike Hanson
quote:
Thanks for the advice, i guess the amp upgrades may have to come first and settle for a major upgrade later on...
I tend to improve the upstream first. If the rest of the system is good, the speakers don't matter nearly as much.
However, I first ran my Albions with 3.5/Flat/102/140. Today I would consider it to be a mullet system, but I was pretty happy with it at the time. Now that I'm at CDS2/52/2*135, the Albions have finally become the weakest link. If I were to replace anything now, it would definitely be the speakers. However, the whole system sounds so good, that I don't really feel inclined to change anything. It might be nice to get it a little cleaner when I'm really pumping out the SPLs, but I shouldn't be listening at those volumes anyway. 
Just for fun, I once stuck an old pair of Polk Audio RM5s (approx. $300US) on the end of my CDX/82/Super/250. I was surprised how good they could sound. I did a similar test at the local Naim shop, using some Wharfedale Diamonds (also around $300-400US), driven by CDX/82/Hi/250. Again, we were quite blown away by how the little speakers could play music. In both these cases, the speakers obviously had faults and shortcomings (from a sonic perspective), but most of the music still managed to get through.
Of course, these cheap speakers can sound quite poor with lesser CD players and amplifiers, as well as with poor recordings. I find there's a certain minimum quality that a speaker must be, for it to sound good with "most" gear. Below this level, you need great electronics to make them sing. Above it, you're building a mullet system.
I suggest that you get your speakers to an "acceptable" level. Once you've got them, they'll last you through years of upgrades in the rest of your gear. That's basically what I did with the Albions, and I don't regret it.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
P.S.: I'm not saying that the Albions represent the minimum "acceptable" level, but that they managed to keep me happy throughout my upgrade journey. I could probably have been happy with the Neat Mystiques, along with a bunch of the older Royd speakers (especially the Minstrel SE, which happens to sound great being driven by my mother's Sony system 
).
Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Frank Abela
Dynaudio 42s are a lot faster and easier to drive than 40s. If you were seriously considering surround sound, they or 52s would be one way to go. 52s are a lot bigger scale and arguably better than the 62 floorstander. After that, all you'd need is one of the Centre speakers (and a surround sound processor of course).
Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.
Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Mike Sae
If you've got RR2 money kicking around, wouldn't it make more sense to aim higher on the CDP, or at least get a hi-cap on the 3.5?
Mike H is right, RR2 really need at least a CDX/150 to do anything, plus you need to be able to space them out far, far apart to get your money's worth. I dicked around with the smaller RR1 for a month and couldn't get them singing with my 140 nor get them far enough apart. Those were sad times.
If you're interested, I can get pics of the RR2 to you this weekend (barring another snowstorm).
Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Scott Mckenzie
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Sae:
If you've got RR2 money kicking around, wouldn't it make more sense to aim higher on the CDP, or at least get a hi-cap on the 3.5? Mike H is right, RR2 really need at least a CDX/150 to do anything, plus you need to be able to space them out far, far apart to get your money's worth. I dicked around with the smaller RR1 for a month and couldn't get them singing with my 140 nor get them far enough apart. Those were sad times.
If you're interested, I can get pics of the RR2 to you this weekend (barring another snowstorm).
Its not that i've got it lying around...the RR2 was merely suggested cos I was intrigued by it, price and pictures etc... I would like to know the best way of advancing from where I am, if upgrading other components first/aswell as the speakers then I would do that...I kind of guessed that RR2's wouldn't be an easy load for my amp...
If you could get some pictures that would be great! Cheers
Frank - As for the Audience 42s, I didn't find them an easier load to drive, and although the sound was slightly improved it wasn't worth spending the extra over the stupid deal I got on my 40's. I bought them 2nd hand, 6 months old, not used for 3 months..for less than half price - a bargain in my eyes!
As for the 52, I much preferred the scale offered by the 62's, admittedly they were ugly, but they did have a noticable improvement over the 52's. I was most surprised by the Contour 1.1's, they seemed to be even better than the 62's!!
I had considered Contour 1.3's as an upgrade, along with some others as I do like the Dyn sound.
Within my possible budget would be:
1) Contour 1.3, 2*Hi and 140.
2) 2*Hi, 102, 180.
3) Hi, 82, 180...
Lots of options, don't know if my little Aud 40's are upto the latter though, and would depriving my CD3.5 of a Hi ruin more things....If I thought my 40's were upto the task I would go for option 2, or wait a while and get an 82 aswell.....I could then save up for my Fave speakers at the moment Proac Response 3.8's.....
Its all such a problem being at this end of the ladder.....
Scott
Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Steve Toy
Get a Hi-cap for your CD3.5, and try Rega ELA 2000s at £750.
This combo will work because the Nait 3R can drive those speakers, and the Hi-cap will improve the source component significantly in areas such as dynamics, authority, detail, and soundstage depth/width.
The QS Ref. that you are also considering will deliver all of the above, as well as giving you more neutrality, timing, flow, tune, and bass control.
Cheers,
Steve.
Posted on: 31 January 2002 by Scott Mckenzie
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Toy:
Get a Hi-cap for your CD3.5, and try Rega ELA 2000s at £750.This combo will work because the Nait 3R can drive those speakers, and the Hi-cap will improve the source component significantly in areas such as dynamics, authority, detail, and soundstage depth/width.
The QS Ref. that you are also considering will deliver all of the above, as well as giving you more neutrality, timing, flow, tune, and bass control.
Cheers,
Steve.
Cheers Steve,
I looked at buying Ela's before getting my Dyn's but the Dyn's were so much better suited to my current situation, plus the deal really was too good to miss....
I shall check on the house move and report back with some findings.
Having now found that my local Neat dealer is actually very close, I may try out the Mystiques as approved by Tony Lonorgan...I shall have to compare the two.
Scott
Posted on: 03 February 2002 by Mike Hanson
Actually, I like the looks of the Allae and RR2 about the same.
I hated the Credo (bloody boring box), but the curve of the top enclosure as saved the Allaes.
In comparison, the RR2 is a bit of a monolith, but it's broken up by the stand and the two ports on the side.
Neither would ever be a beauty pageant winner. Personally, I think Naim's best looking speaker is the NBL. Very sexy!!!
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 03 February 2002 by Scott Mckenzie
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Sae:
No snowstorm, so I was able to get some pics of the RR2, along with some other stuff. http://members.shaw.ca/mikesae/moremisc.htm
Enjoy,
Mike
Thanks for the pics Mike, they certainly look quite tasty...I can see why they have a bit more "oomph" than Naim speakers too....
The drivers look very similar to those used in the Proac Tablette series....
Unfortunately I have just driven a car I have always wanted, and its now for sale, so what may have been hi-fi upgrades could well now be a new car....
Scott
Posted on: 05 February 2002 by Scott Mckenzie
quote:
Originally posted by Neville:
Scott,Don't keep us in suspense, what is this car you've always wanted?
As said above, if I tell you what car, you will all think I am a bit sad....
I already have a nice toy, a Lotus Elan +2 (1968) and have wanted a sensible(ish) car for day to day use, ever since the Ford Racing Puma came out, I have wanted one. They are one of the best handling Front Wheel Drive cars ever, loads of grip, yet one of the best Q cars ever, they will run rings round just about any other car on the planet when it comes to B roads, yet they are sensible enough and also practical so can be used in all weather (bit dodgy in the wet mind...)
It is not my all time, must have car, but one came along at the right price and I am very tempted....
As far as the all time great, that must go to the Ferrari 355....I love the looks and its a Ferrari!
Scott
Posted on: 05 February 2002 by Neville
For all the reasons you state I also rate the Puma. One of my favourite Top Gear moments was Tiff sliding a Puma around a wet circuit with Clarkson and Wilson looking like they were about to lose their lunch! Also dead jealous about the +2. My best mate had an Elan Sprint in the early 80's, which was a fantastic car. I wanted one, but couldn't afford that and my Ducati, so ended up with a Ginetta G15, which was also a lot of fun. These days however I'm reduced to driving a Galaxy, now that is sad. My first lottery winnings purchase would be an early Elise, and if I get all six numbers maybe an Aston Vanquish as well.
Posted on: 05 February 2002 by Scott Mckenzie
quote:
Originally posted by Neville:
For all the reasons you state I also rate the Puma. One of my favourite Top Gear moments was Tiff sliding a Puma around a wet circuit with Clarkson and Wilson looking like they were about to lose their lunch! Also dead jealous about the +2. My best mate had an Elan Sprint in the early 80's, which was a fantastic car. I wanted one, but couldn't afford that and my Ducati, so ended up with a Ginetta G15, which was also a lot of fun. These days however I'm reduced to driving a Galaxy, now that is sad. My first lottery winnings purchase would be an early Elise, and if I get all six numbers maybe an Aston Vanquish as well.
...you owe it yourself to try out the Racing version, on paper there doesn't look to be much difference, but on the road, WOW!
I had an Elise struggling to keep up with me at one stage on a twisty road, something the normal Puma would never do!
I wish in a way the car was a Sprint/S3 not +2 as the rear seats are more or less useless, and I do like a nice soft top! PLus the power differences are minimal, but the non-+2 models weigh sooo much less...
Scott
