0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 47878 times.
I could be wrong but my understanding is that the cabinet was redesigned to elevate the soundstage and allow easier shipping through Fedex/UPS etc... The cost savings were achieved through eliminating the 40% dealer markup, streamlining a process that allows volume building, and selling them directly rather than cutting corners in parts or build quality. Hopefully Clayton will weigh in on this. In my room the speakers sound remarkably refined and have excellent and natural detail retrieval (Not false detail like some drivers deliver). This scenario is what makes the hobby such a quagmire. I'm sure in your room with your setup and upstream components, your description matches your experience. My experience is quite different. The silver lining in the cloud is that if your curiosity is piqued you have a money back guarantee and you can decide for yourself whether your experience more closely mirrors Genjamon's or mine. David
David, I think you're reading too much into my comments. But I am also saying that there are other levels of refinement.
Genjamon, I definitely could be reading too much into your comments and I certainly meant no disrespect and apologize if it came off that way. I'm glad you found happiness with the Daedalus speakers. That being said, it's always important to understand the background of where someone is coming from with their comments so I will spill the beans about how I feel in general and then more specifically about the Spatials (in case anyone cares). Over the last decade I have gotten swept away in the hobby in search of the "best" audio system I could cobble together. I spent an outrageous number of hours reading product reviews as if they were gospel and wasted tens of thousands of dollars to get a "better" system. I often found the more money I spent, the more critical I became of my system and rather than being engaged in the musical experience and listening to the music I loved, I was hopelessly lost playing audiophile recordings as a way to test the fidelity of my playback system ( You know what I mean if you've ever said "have you ever heard a glockenspiel sound so real before?"). The truth, for me (don't flame me), is that the majority of this hobby is "The Emperor's New Clothes", particularly realized after attending Axpona and RMAF. The countless hours spent searching out "better" components is usually more brownian motion(I have to give credit to Andrew Gear for that reference) than real progress toward a satisfying listening experience. There are words bantered around like refined, transparent, detailed, state of the art etc... that objectively may be true when comparing 2 components side by side, but that may have absolutely no correlation with the enjoyment of the musical experience. So, I've continued to "cash out" of the hobby looking for well designed products that offer "IT". To me "IT" is an experience that connects me to the music/experience/meaning and helps turn off the analytical part of my brain and almost forces me to look for more music rather than more audio equipment. So what makes a component have "IT"?...I have no idea. I can clearly articulate all of the common audiophile terms that describe a component but "IT" seems to me to be ephemeral and indescribable yet some components seem to have it and others don't. Maybe my engineer friends (Jason and Tom) can quantify it but for me there isn't a term to describe it. To get to the point about the Spatials, they have scratched an itch for me I wasn't sure would ever be scratched and they do it at a price that is accessible to almost all in this hobby. I did give my impressions about all the audiophile terms in my original review and I'm certain you could bring speakers in next to them and objectively say speaker A is more transparent than B or speaker A is more detailed than speaker B. But if you strip away the adjectives, the point of the hobby is to serve the music in a fashion that helps connect with the experience. For me, I'm either switched in and lost in the experience, or I'm on the outside looking in wishing I could get lost in the experience and trying to figure out how to achieve that(Do I just need the new power cord, or Mk II version amp etc...). For me the Spatials have me switched in. It's a unique experience that escapes almost all speakers I've owned and heard irrespective of price. All I want to be is in the experience rather than outside looking in. I would rather do that for $2,700 than $27,000 and I will say that if I spent $27,000 instead, I highly doubt I would be more engaged in the experience. That is the reason for my review. Please remember these are just my proclivities and opinions. They aren't facts but hopefully give you context for my priorities and preferences. If yours differ, no need to consider the Spatials. Sorry for the verbal barrage. DavidDisclaimer- If you think you can just plop the Spatials down, hook up your receiver, and be blown away you are mistaken. They take the same amount of care with room setup as every other speaker I've owned. They definitely benefit if you have placement flexibility (like most speakers).
... So what makes a component have "IT"?...I have no idea. I can clearly articulate all of the common audiophile terms that describe a component but "IT" seems to me to be ephemeral and indescribable yet some components seem to have it and others don't. Maybe my engineer friends (Jason and Tom) can quantify it but for me there isn't a term to describe it.
First of all great series of posts and pleasantly civil.I totally get "IT" but sadly can't explain it either. What came to mind is how I could walk into Klaus's Odyssey room at any show and get "IT". I've owned pieces of his gear and while they don't measure the absolute best and they can side by side be bettered by numerous others, taken as a whole his systems are off the hook enjoyable. There is no urge to pick them apart in an audiophile sport sort of way, though you probably could. Anyone who has heard this knows of what I speak. Meticulous attention to setup and synergy yes, but there is some other mystery at play there.We both have Vinnie Rossie's LIO and the same can be said for its component parts. Side by side are there better DACs, preamps, power amps, etc? Absolutely yes, but taken as a whole it comes across as completely and thoroughly enjoyable. I don't find myself yearning for more.I owned some of Clayton's first EP CS2's. Out of the box they were simply fun. They were right next to a beautiful pair of beloved Merlins, all buttoned down, and ultra refined, but ultimately I listened to the CS2's more. It wasn't until I started tweaking them to the 9's that I went down that slippery slope of critical audiophiledom and the fun quickly vanished. I'm glad to hear the Spatials somehow get you there too and knowing Clayton's work as I do it's no surprise. All that said, I'm sorry I'm not of much help to 'splain it but I'm sort of in my happy place too
Tom, Thanks for weighing in. Your comments about the LIO are spot on and if I did an A/B comparison to other premps/dacs/phono preamps I might say that there are components that objectively do things "better" but what Vinnie Rossi gets out of that little black box has that "IT" that I'm looking for. I also agree about Odyssey and in fact run the LIO into a pair of Kismet monoblocks into the Spatials and they all play very well together. David
The LIO connection is interesting and relevant to my situation as well. I actually had a fully decked out LIO on order and being built when the Daedalus arrived. Because of that expense, something had to give, and I couldn't afford to keep the M1's around to listen with the LIO, though I really really wanted to. I ultimately significantly preferred my tube separates to the LIO package in terms of synergy with the Daedalus. However, for the itch I was trying to scratch with the M1's, having spent a month with the LIO and comparing side by side with all my tube gear that I had been using with the M1's, I can easily and intuitively understand that the LIO would have good synergy with the Spatials. At least with the M1's and M3's. My impressions of the LIO was that it was exceptionally clean, but emphasized leading edge and transients much more than my tube gear. And I would at times feel like the M1 was too thick of a sound, not hearing deep enough into the presentation. I think LIO would have woken those M1's up a bit, and maybe just enough for me to find "IT". Who knows, it was a fork in the road for me, and I chose the one path. These things happen. I'm happy where I've ended up, but it's possible I would have fallen in love with the LIO/Spatial combo as you guys have.
In fact this thread and my responses likely belong on that same junk heap. David
I'd also add that the "thickness" aspect is likely a product of the mid-bass in-room performance, which is highly dominated by room acoustics and speaker placement. It will be very different for different room sizes and arrangements. Even with open baffle.
I should have them Friday!
I'm excited to say that I got this picture from Spatial today saying that my M3 Turbo S are being played now and will go through QC tomorrow for Monday shipping.
Still have the Geddes set up ? charles
Page created in 0.056 seconds with 27 queries.