[Mad DOg]

I decided to start a new thread for each listening session to keep things clean...

those in attendance...

keithr (keith is the man! thx for bringing the Linn Unidisk and Sound App)
msteindler (GREAT guy with great ears...thanks for the veggie sticks, onion dip, sesame chips and salsa)
msteindler's friend (another guy with great ears and LOTS of experience)
john casler
pin (GREAT guy...thanks for dinner and great conversation, thanks for bringing the Monitor Bronze B2s)
niv (new guy who isn't on this forum, thanks for bringing the Linn Katans)

thanks for coming guys...i had a GREAT time and hope you all did as well!

as always, i need to thank my wonderful wife for allowing me to host these sessions...

Equipment present:
Sources: Audio Alchemy DDS-Pro transport (w/Onix Statement power cable + Perpetual Tech P-1/A + P-3/A DAC w/ Modwright Level II Mods; Linn Unidisk
Preamps: Aragon Aurum (w/ Onix Statement 1 power cable); Eastern Electric Minimax (w/ Onix Master power cable)
Amps: Aragon Palladium IIs
Speakers: ACI Sapphire; Onix Reference 1; Linn Katan; Monitor Audio Bronze B2
Power conditioner: Sound Application XE-12S & Quantum Symphony Pro
Speaker stands: Osiris 24.5" stands
Interconnects: Onix Grand Master RCA IC, Onix Blue RCA IC, 2 pair Ridge Street Audio Midnight Silver Edition RCA IC GenII
Digital Cable: Onix Grand Master; Ridge Street Audio Midnight Silver Edition RCA digital coax...
Speaker cables: Onix Statement
Music: Respighi, Alison Krauss, Santana, Josh Groban, Cowboy Junkies, Pink Floyd and more...
Also: Panda Thumbs sorbothane feet for the P-Tech P-3/A DAC

I will be posting my impressions in multiple parts so please be patient...

[Mad DOg]

PLEASE READ FIRST! My impressions were arrived at using the gear below in MY ROOM based on MY LISTENING preferences. These are just my opinions - nothing more, nothing less.

i've been spending the last few days familiarizing myself w/ the ACI Sapphires so these were the speakers singing on the stands when the folks started arriving for the session...

msteindler and his friend gary were the first to arrive...msteindler was kind enough to bring over some munchies to supplement some of the other goodies my wife and i had prepared for everyone...THANK YOU SO MUCH msteindler. next was KeithR followed by John Casler and then Niv...Pin arrived about an hour or so later...

once everyone except Pin had arrived and we tweaked the setup some, we proceeded to play the Respighi's Pines of Rome...the setup consisted of the following:

source: Audio Alchemy DDS-Pro w/ Onix Statement Power Cord+Perp Tech P-1/A+P/3A lev 2 DAC connected by the Onix Grand Master Digital RCA IC and Revelation Audio silver I2S cable
preamp: Aragon Aurum w/ Onix Statement 1 Power Cord
amps: Aragon Palladium II monoblocks w/ Absolute Power Cords
speakers: as mentioned above were ACI Sapphires
speaker cables: Onix Statement speaker cables
i was using the 2 pair of Ridge Street Audio RCA ICs to hook everything up...

this gave us all a baseline to start from. upon the conclusion of this track, i unplugged everything and plugged it into the Sound Application XE-12S. immediately, i noticed that the soundstage was deeper, blacker and quieter. bass was tighter and the focus snapped into place better. everything was clearer. i think we all agreed that the improvement the Sound App brought to this current setup was significant. i certainly did. based on the general consensus, we agreed to proceed with the session using the Sound App.

next up was the source comparison. i was definitely curious to hear how my Audio Alchemy DDS-Pro transport + PT setup would compare to the new Linn Unidisk universal player...my setup would retail for about $3.5K while the Linn Unidisk lists for about $11K. For this comparison, we again chose to use Respighi's piece...As good as my source setup is, the Linn is simply better-plain and simple. My setup is already as non digital sounding as it's ever been before but the Linn simply sounded more analog. More smooth, more organic, more lush, more involving, more emotional. again, we were all in agreement in the improvements the Linn made in the system so we chose to use the Linn for everything going forward...of course the Linn unidisk costs as much as a downpayment for a hizouse!!!  but boy does it sound GREAT!!!  

[Mad DOg]

at this point in time, i'd like to break away from the listening session write up and share some background info and some impressions based on my own isolated listening as this will help you understand what happened next at the session...

the pair of demo Sapphires from ACI came into my possession courtesy of Curtis who had contacted Mike Dzurko of ACI about auditioning his speakers...

in chatting w/ Mike D. who happens to be a very fine gentleman, i found out the pair that was sent out was constructed using B-stock mahogeny wood panels and does not represent ACI's best work by any stretch of the imagination. after retrieving them from Curtis' place, i'd have to agree as the aesthetics of this pair didn't excite me.

in my own comparisions between my Onix Reference 1 speakers and the ACI Sappires, I found that the ACI did not have the same level of detail, transparency and air. but that was not all. there was one other thing that was different. the leading edge transients was not as dynamic. the Sapphires had a rounder, less dynamic impact on all music ranging from Josh Groban to Dave Matthews. I discussed this with Mike and what he told me made perfect sense. The logic behind this goes like this...The Sapphires are $1.4K/pr. Most folks spending this little for speakers are not looking to sink megabucks into a clean, pristine sounding front end but are most likely going to drive them w/ a mid fi receiver and feed the receiver w/ a mid fi CDP or DVDP and may not be using the best recorded source material...an extremely revealing speaker would convey all the weaknesses in the recording and system and as such, these speakers were designed to be more forgiving...in my own listening experience, i did indeed find this to be true. i used a poor quality CD one time and it sounded awful thru my Ref 1s - screechy and harsh. the same CD played through the Sapphires sounded very listenable.

so based on my own experience as well as the feedback from Mike D, i would say the Sapphire is an extremely forgiving speaker that works very well in non-ideal situations. they work well with lesser quality gear and less than pristine recordings. i can also see them working well in brighter, more reflective rooms. let's face it, not many of our spouses would appreciate or even allow foam treatments all over the listening room!  

i personally like more detail, transparency and air in my 2 ch system, but i have also invested a good amount of money in cleaning up my source...

in closing, i want to thank Mike Dzurko of ACI for making the Sapphires availabe for audition and demo purposes.

back to the regularly scheduled program shortly...

[Mad DOg]

now we decided to start comparing speakers...the spotlight was still on the Sapphires...

gary, msteindler and KeithR decided to throw on some Santana as they were all very familiar with this material...

after 2 tracks, the comments from msteindler and gary were that the presentation was not convincing and engaging...while the music sounded VERY good, i agree that the Sapphires just didn't draw me into the musical experience. they are very smooth and don't do anything offensive but they didn't grab my attention either. msteindler specificall commented that the Sapphires imaged and soundstaged well but did not disappear always making him aware that the sound was coming from 2 sources. hopefully msteindler will jump in to provide more specifics regarding what he was hearing.

at this point we switched out the Sapphires for the Onix Ref 1s and replayed the same Santana track again. More detail, resolution, air, transparency, impact and dynamics. these in my room threw up a wide and deep soundstage, that allowed the speaker to just disappear...imaging was very good. i felt the Ref1s were more engaging and emotionally involving due to the additional detail in the mids and highs.

msteindler and gary still felt that the sound was lacking warmth. good detail in the highs and bass but the warmth and fullness in the mids to fully draw you in was missing...i knew EXACTLY what they were talking about!

[Mad DOg]

time to throw in the MiniMax tube preamp then? no, not exactly...why not, you ask? well...

i had the opportunity to hear the MiniMax in John Casler's system on Friday evening and i now know why folks have been wondering where the magic of toobs is w/ this...in John's system, the MiniMax is more solid state sounding than even his solid state Bryston!   IMHO toob rolling is a requisite w/ the MiniMax IF you're searching for some toob warmth

so what would bring more warmth to the system? we now swapped out the EXCELLENT Ridge Street Audio Midnight Silver Edition GenII RCA IC connecting the Linn Unidisk to the Aurum preamp and replaced it with the Onix Grand Master RCA IC...the general consensus was that the sound was warmer...mids were fuller and more fleshed out with this change. gary was still looking for more warmth so we swapped out the other RSA MSE connecting the amp and preamp with the Onix Blue RCA IC since I didn't have another Onix GM IC...once again, the general consensus was that warmth was futher increased with this change...at this point i'd like to break away once again w/ my isolated experience w/ the RSA cables to explain what was going on here....

[Mad DOg]

First of all I want to thank Robert Schult of Ridge Street Audio for allowing me to audition his most excellent cables!

I'm sure many of you remember how excited I was about the RSA cables when I received the audition pack right before taking off for CES...I was VERY impressed with their detail, transparency and most importantly their musicality! These are outstanding cables and I still stand by this opinion, however sadly, I will not be replacing the Onix cables in my system with these.

Why not? I got rid of my Rogue Magnum 99 toob pre a month ago becuz I simply got annoyed with the amount of hiss that it produced thru my speakers at idle and replaced it with the Aragon Aurum solid state preamp. The Aurum in my system stomped all over the Magnum 99 in dynamics, impact, bass, transparency, detail, airiness and the annoying hiss was now next to gone! Unfortunately, while the Aurum has a fairly warm midrange compared to other solid state preamps i've tried, it gave up quite a bit in midrange bloom, warmth and lushness compared to the Rogue...a small price to pay considering all the improvements it brought to my system.

With no toob warmth in my system, the warmer Onix cables just sound so "right" in my system. not that the RSA cables sound "wrong" becuz I think they sound great, but with them in my full solid state setup, the sound is just too cool. i completely understand why Lak, Audiojerry, Tsunami and the others who have written rave reviews about the RSA cables love these cables becuz they are really great cables. IIRC, each of these reviewers have toobs somewhere in their system if not in multiple components. the warmth is already there...my system doesn't have the warmth from the components already so as a result, i need help from warmer cables. My choice is strictly based on system synergy as I could definitely see myself adding RSA cables to my system if I were ever to move back to some toobs.

again, back to the normally scheduled program in a bit...

[John Casler]

time to throw in the MiniMax tube preamp then? no, not exactly...why not, you ask? well...

i had the opportunity to hear the MiniMax in John Casler's system on Friday evening and i now know why folks have been wondering where the magic of toobs is w/ this...in John's system, the MiniMax is more solid state sounding than even his solid state Bryston!   IMHO toob rolling is a requisite w/ the MiniMax

so what would bring more warmth to the system? we now swapped out the EXCELLENT Ridge Street Audio Mid ...

Another great session over at Mad Dog's.  As MD states a few new faces and opinions and good times.

The MiniMax has now been passed to MD for his analysis.

I'm a strong beleiver that most any component may need a little time to show it's stuff.  Not nessessaruly because of the "break in", but because we need to spend time comparing it with our reference.

That is what I did with the MiniMax.  Did I like it?  Yes, I did.  Did it do what I wanted?  To a "small" degree.

Currently in my system, I have a bit of an aggressive edge at higher SPL's that I felt tubes might ameliorate.

The Mini with it's current tube array did not have much affect in the end analysis.

What the Mini did do it did well.  It had good tight bass.  It had good detail in the highs, the soundstage was solidly set and if I had to pick the Mini's greatest attribute it would be the "depth" of the soundstage.

My Bryston has always been great at a solid 3-D presentation and the Mini might have even been "ever so slightly" better.

At MD's I found all these traits to carry over.

MD's Aragon SS Preamp is really similar to my Bryston in that it has great bass, great detail and highs and throws a good sonic image.

His system has been refined to the point of not having the "slight agressiveness" I have and to me the differences were more subtle.

The Aragon did seem to have a touch deeper bass, but this was with rather limited listening experience.  It was a little quieter noise wise, and didn't have the slight midrange grain in Josh Groban's voice at higher volumes.  This grain was much less evident on MD's system than mine (I have my neopanels and tweeter running a little hot)

On Friday night when MD came by to hear the Mini against the Bryston, I set it up for for a "blind" listening.  First heard the Mini (unbeknownst to him) and then the Bryston.

He thought the "Mini was the Bryston" and vice versa.  This is how close they were in "sonic charachter".  Neither sounded like they would have been expected to.  The Bryston sounded smooth and refined considering that many times you see Bryston described as "analytical".  

The Mini on the other hand, sounded SS agressive.

While MD felt the Mini didn't do the highs quite as well, I didn't notice this. (he probably has 2-3000 cycles higher hearing than I do)

I think with some different tubes we might hear different results.

On a whole I was pleased with the MiniMax and would consider putting one in my system, if I could "widen the gap" between it and my current reference.

Maybe at some point I'll get to hear it with some different tubes.

And again while my comments may seem "less" than positive, this is one sweet machine.  It is very close to my reference and I won't blame all of the agressiveness I heard on it (or my Bryston).  Some is probably due to the "tilted up" tuning of my 626Rs.

I am retuning them later today to see if it reduces some of that quality (haven't tuned them much since selling the RM40s a few weeks ago)

If someone has "rolled" a few tubes in the Mini and found it beneficial, I'd like to hear about the result.

I can say that this is a special little preamp and should be considered, especially if you have a slightly "soft" system.  It is polite in its appearnce.  It "feels" like quality in the volume pot and the selector knob, and it looks very clean.  The RCA jacks are of a high qulaity and connections seem solid and secure.

And aside from a "very bright" LED, it could be a good preamp for my system if tube rolling didn't reduce the depth but did improve that slight edge, I was/am getting.

ACI review is coming next

[nature boy]

Wow, nothing like a equipment marathon review guys.  I hope you had a lot of Tylenol on hand!

FYI, I have found the MiniMax to be a pretty neutral tube preamp in my system.  The cool thing about this pre is that with a little NOS tube rolling you can give it that "warm tubey" sound that some prefer or a "solid state" sound that others prefer.  It is a highly adaptive little preamp to say the least, which is another reason I like it so much.

My experience with the MiniMax are more similiar to John's than Mad Dog's, but hey to each his/her own.  Here is a description from an AudioGon posting that I think is spot on. Yust my opinion and observations, your mileage may vary.

"Within seconds it was obvious that the MiniMax was painting a big, very full and rich sonic picture. Just as apparent was the sense of great clarity. Whether the clarity was due to the point-to-point wiring and direct coupling of the stages or excellent signal to noise ratio was not clear to me - ha! There was a sense of warmth and size that was suggestive of an excellent seat in a relatively small concert hall (for classical music recordings) with fine acoustics. In the higher frequency range the usual little annoyances of a bit of harshness or edgy distortions were somehow smoothed over to a certain extent. Further meditation led me to believe that the MiniMax was simply not adding to or exaggerating these higher frequencies. Tonal balance could then be described as full with a richness that made listening a relaxing and enjoyable experience."

Thanks again for the delightful reviews.


NB

[Mad DOg]

...My experience with the MiniMax are more similiar to John's than Mad Dog's, but hey to each his/her own...

i never said the MiniMax wasn't neutral...in fact, i haven't really gotten to the MiniMax impression yet...i simply said i knew based on what john and i heard in his system, the MiniMax was not going to add much warmth if any with the stock toobs...

[Mad DOg]

forgot to include the room dimensions/details...

~13'W x ~16'D

listening position is approx 4' off the back wall. right speaker is about 2' from the side wall which has a sliding glass door covered by curtains. left speaker is about 3' from the wall. the left side opens up into the stairwell and dining room area so there really isn't much of a left wall. sweet spot is about 7'-8' from the speakers which are spaced approx 8' apart with slight toe in...in testing the Sapphires benefitted from more toe in (on axis w/ tweeter at the listening position). speakers were pulled out about 3' from the front wall. there is a 32" TV screen between the 2 speakers that was covered up with a large towel.

[Mad DOg]

at this point KeithR wanted to try something...we threw in an Alison Krauss + Union Station CD...he first played a track and asked to borrow someone's ears...not knowing what i was supposed to be listening for or what the purpose of the "test" was, i volunteered! about half way thru the track i relinquished the sweet seat to john casler...after the track ended, KeithR made a few changes and replayed the same track over again...i sat in the sweet seat for the first half and john sat in the sweet seat for the second half...at the conclusion of the track, KeithR asked us if there was any difference between A and B....i said a sounded more dynamic. the plucking of the strings had more energy as if they were vibrating right in the living room in A....alison's voice was more palpable and real. the presentation was definitely more forward...in B, alison seemed to take 2 steps back on the stage. everyone (except KeithR who was conducting the test) in the room pretty much agreed on this...and we all (except KeithR) preferred sample track A over sample track B.

turns out sample track A was the redbook layer of Alison Krauss+Union Station New Favorite disc and sample track B was the SACD layer...

we all unknowingly preferred the redbook layer...  

knowing what we did now, we replayed the SACD layer once again and then followed it by replaying the redbook layer. this time SACD was A and redbook was B...so would knowing which was the SACD track now influence our preference???

NO! we still preferred the redbook track!   strange... the difference in Alison's voice between track A and track B was still there...redbook was definitely more forward sounding...in fact we thought maybe the output levels were off, but no, they measured the same...

Keith did point out that the plucking of the strings sounded less digital on the SACD layer and i believe we all agreed that this organic nature was more pleasing but other than this bit, everyone else still preferred the redbook layer.      

a real eye opener...

we still had the Linn Katan and MiniMax to audition yet...since we'd been listening to the Ref 1s for awhile, we decided to switch out the speakers and give the Katans a try...i stepped out of the room for a sec to take care of some stuff and by the time i returned, the music selection was coming to an end. the general consensus was that the room was too big for the Linns...even from upstairs, i thought they sounded heavy. apparently the Linns are designed for use close to the walls in smaller rooms so we swapped back to the Ref 1s for the final MiniMax and Aurum somparison...

[John Casler]

KeithR asked us if there was any difference between A and B....i said a sounded more dynamic. the plucking of the strings had more energy as if they were vibrating right in the living room in A....alison's voice was more palpable and real. the presentation was definitely more forward...in B, alison seemed to take 2 steps back on the stage. everyone (except KeithR who was conducting the test) in the room pretty much agreed on this...and we all (except KeithR) preferred sample track A over sample track B.

turns out sample track A was the redbook layer of Alison Krauss+Union Station New Favorite disc and sample track B was the SACD layer...  

we all unknowingly preferred the redbook layer...  

Hand up waving!!!   you forgot me prefering the SACD version.  Being the imaging depth freak that I am, I prefered the deeper soundstage to the flatter more forward one.

I think a total of 4-5 (not including Keith who was conducting the test) listened to the A/B of Redbook to SACD and only Keith and I liked the SACD better.  Now I assume only I did so from a "blind" attitude since Keith had already listened on his system.

I like 3-D

[Mad DOg]

To wind down a long day that included not only chips, salsa, veggie sticks, onion dip, seafood spread, crackers, jalapeno hummus, turkey&cheese wraps, and drinks, but also alot of fine audio gear, we decided to conduct the preamp comparison between my Aragon Aurum and the Eastern Electric MiniMax...

Bill O'Connell was kind and generous enough to send over the Eastern Electric MiniMax tube preamp for John and me demo and audition. This preamp is a visual jewel! It is well crafted and well constructed. A very dainty and quite attractive piece... Certainly a contrast from the Aragon Aurum which my wife felt was very masculine looking due to the sharp angles in the faceplate and the MASSIVE black volume knob. In fact when I first received the Aurum, my wife said there was no way she would allow this monstrosity to replace the handsome faceplate of the Rogue Audio Magnum 99 in the 2 channel system! Her hard stance was shattered immediately after I powered up the Aurum and she heard the sound...and what she heard was out of phase since the Rogue inverts phase and I forgot to swap the speaker leads... i knew the Aurum was something special when my wife willing gave me permission strictly based on the sonic improvements she heard to keep something she considered unattractive in the house. After I corrected the phase, I knew the Aurum was DEFINITELY something special for the reasons I mentioned in one of my posts above...

so how would the MiniMax synergize in my system? since the Aragon was still hooked up, we decided to play track 5 from Josh Groban's title album...this CD is great for gauging midrange warmth, lushness, and bloom...the Aurum is the best solid state preamps i've had in my system for soundstage depth, dynamics, slam, detail, air, transparency, bass response, and low noise floor while still being able to competently deliver musicality in the mids...on Josh's voice, there's a slight bit of solid state grain that i am looking ot eliminate and that's why i'm still looking at and demo'ing various preamps.

when we switched the ICs over to the MiniMax, Josh's voice was ever so slightly fuller and ever so slightly warmer than the Aurum which I liked. but in exchange for the slight midrange warmth was the trade off in bass slam, tightness, articulation and extension. Not big, but certainly noticeable. The focus was also hazier. the high end detail was not as clean and crisp resulting in less transparency. others present also agreed on these observations...whether they liked it

does this mean that i didn't like the MiniMax? no! it is a fine little jewel of a preamp. VERY neutral in stock form for a tube offering. my Wright Sound WLA12A was far warmer and much more rolled off in the highs. please keep in mind that the asking price of the Aragon was about 2X's that of the MiniMax and even my $2.5K Rogue Magnum 99 gave up the same amount of ground in all of the same areas as the MiniMax.

for the $$$, the MiniMax is a great deal; it's capable of competing w/ other preamps costing much more money...sonically, it is quite good. visually, this cutie pie is a quite a darlin'... i'd love to hear what the MiniMax is capable of w/ some NOS toobs...

if you're still with me by now, i want to thank you for reading each installment...until next weekend...happy listening!  

[Mad DOg]

Hand up waving!!!   you forgot me prefering the SACD version.  Being the imaging depth freak that I am, I prefered the deeper soundstage to the flatter more forward one.

I think a total of 4-5 (not including Keith who was conducting the test) listened to the A/B of Redbook to SACD and only Keith and I liked the SACD better.  Now I assume only I did so from a "blind" attitude since Keith had already listened on his system.

I like 3-D

oops...i thought you liked redbook better...

Gary, msteindler, you and i were definitely the most vocal of the bunch during the SACD comparison...During dinner, Pin told me he preferred the one w/ the fuller voice (which was redbook). i assumed Niv preferred redbook as he nodded his head in agreement as we all shared our thoughts...

[Mad DOg]

One last thing i almost forgot...

i did perform a comparison between the RidgeStreetAudio MSEGenII digital coax cable and the Onix Grand Master digital cable for the remaining folks after KeithR had to take off with his Unidisk...

again, msteindler and gary were most vocal...clearly preferring the Onix cable due to the fullness and warmth in the mids at the expense of some high end detail. in my system the way it is now, i agree. i do believe Pin also had the same preference.

i don't believe John was listening closely enough to make a determination.

[John Casler]

i don't believe John was listening closely enough to make a determination.

Yeah my ears were tired from all that listening

Plus I had to sample some of the chips and salsa and the "chip crunchies" muted my hearing acuity so I turned off my aural recorder

But I did have a few thoughts and comments on the ACI Saphire speakers.

In general I found the ACI's very pleasant speakers.  I understand they're in a rather crowded price point of $1500 + or -.

This includes speakers like the Biros from Van Alstine, the Ref ONEs from Onix, the 626Rs from VMPS, and several other very good systems.

While others found the cabinetry not exceptional, I thought it was very acceptable and sturdy.  I felt the cabinet during several passages and they seemed rather solid and inert with little vibration.  The top of the cabinet has grooves running front to back.  When standing behind the cabinet the center groove was like a rifle sight and made it very easy to adjust toe in.

In listening to the ACI's I found them to be open sounding with nice solid bass and a warm and wholesome midrange.  It had a nice full and homogenized sound where nothing in the frequency spectrum stood out.

If I had to offer a slight criticism (based on "my" listening tastes) it would be that the highs above say 10-12Khz were recessed and rolled off.  It is easy to perform a test to see/hear this roll off.  Just sit in the sweet spot and cup you hands behind your ears.  With speakers that have "extended" high end response you will immediatly get a "rush" of "sparklies and tinklies".  That is you will hear an amplified high end.

With the Ref ONES there was a nice "jump" in the highs when cupping.  With the ACI there was not much at all.  This is sometimes designed into a speaker if it is anticipated that it will be used with rather bright sounding electronics like HT receiver and such.

But on a whole I liked the general presentation and balance (except for the slight HF reticence) of this speaker.

[sssand2]

Mad Dog and John,
I realize that the Monitors were at the low end of the equipment you reviewed, but did you get a chance to listen to them? What were your impressions?

[John Casler]

Mad Dog and John,
I realize that the Monitors were at the low end of the equipment you reviewed, but did you get a chance to listen to them? What were your impressions?

I regret that I ran out of time and had to leave before the Monitors were unpacked.

[Mad DOg]

Mad Dog and John,
I realize that the Monitors were at the low end of the equipment you reviewed, but did you get a chance to listen to them? What were your impressions?

ssand2,

i had a chance to hear the Monitors w/ Pin after everyone else had left...

for the money they are great little speakers...in fact, in the under $500 category, these would definitely be on my list of speakers to audition

nice vinyl finish. attractive looks. and great sound to boot...we drove them pretty hard and they did get a shouty above 90dBs at the listening position, but then again, there aren't many sub $500 speakers that can play cleanly over 90dBs that i've encountered...most all start straining and begin to exhibit harshness.

highs were nice, clear and smooth. mids were good and fairly grain free.  bass is where these speakers showed their true colors. according to Pin, they are spec'd to extend to 42Hz. my guess based on what i was hearing was 50Hz at -3dBs...to confirm this, i ran some mid and bass test tones using the Stereophile Test CD 3...indeed the Monitor Bronze B2s, were down 3dBs in my room at 50Hz. At 40Hz, they were down 13dBs...not bad for a $399 pair of speakers...i had heard that the Monitors had a hole in the mids so the purpose of also running the midrange test tones was to confirm this. in my room, the Monitors measured pretty flat across the mids and bass...slight bumps and dips but nothing serious.

i know you'd like to know how i think they compare to the Ascend 170s as i've also had the 170s in my room driven by my gear before and you're currently auditioning the 170s...

appearance: no contest; Monitors win out here.
highs: tough to say since the 170s fed by a level 1 modded P-Tech P-3/A DAC which has now been modded to level 2. i say this becuz i recall the sibilance of the highs from the 170s really stood out when i heard the ascends. the same level of sibilance was not present w/ the Monitors.
mids: both speakers exhibit some grain in this region when pushed hard.
bass: no contest; Monitors have quite satisfying bass while the Ascends were bass shy...

soundstage, imaging and other aspects would be tougher to compare since i didn't have both speakers present simultaneously to a/b...

both speakers are great bang/buck...u'd have to listen to them both to decide which one works better for you...

[sssand2]

Mad DOg,
Thanks very much for adding this. I have had the B2 or perhaps the B1 on my list to audition. Thank you also for considering that I am auditioning the 170s. I apreciate your taking the time for this consideration.