GedLee Abbey's Feedback Wanted!

cujobob · « **Reply #260 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 04:50 pm »

When I visited, he had my Abbeys set up in his system with a Summa as center channel (his other two summas were just outside of the room, I helped him move them back into place after the demo but did not listen), and some other brand for rears...didn't really look. His subs were not of his design either, at that time. From what I understand, he now has Harpers for rears and Abbeys up front. He's said that Nathans are generally overkill for rear speakers.

Comparing a multi-channel system to a 2-channel system makes little sense to me, but perhaps you have your own reasoning behind asking.

cloudbaseracer · « **Reply #261 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 04:56 pm »

I want 2 channel but thought all he had was an HT situation.

dwr · « **Reply #262 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 05:14 pm »

I use my Abbeys 90% of the time for 2 channel listening, the HT side of my system is secondary to me. When I auditioned the speakers at Earls I listened the best I could to his system in 2 channel. But this is where I feel the Pioneer AVR may well be fine for the multi channel, you can only put the AVR in the 2 channel bypass mode and it is less than optimal in my opinion for serious 2 channel performance. My 2 channel equipment (all tube) sounds noticeably improved over the Pioneer receiver for 2 channel music listening. So all I can really tell you is that my Abbey sound better by far than any other speakers I've owned by FAR. My last two pairs of speakers were Martin Logan Ascent i with 2 depth subs, and Linkwitz Orion ++ with the Thor subs.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #263 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 05:18 pm »

Quote from: dwr on 10 Oct 2010, 05:14 pm

So all I can really tell you is that my Abbey sound better by far than any other speakers I've owned by FAR. My last two pairs of speakers were Martin Logan Ascent i with 2 depth subs, and Linkwitz Orion ++ with the Thor subs.

In what respect do you find the Abbeys better than the Orions?

dwr · « **Reply #264 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 05:29 pm »

The Abbeys image every bit as well as the Orions and the dynamics are better in my opinion and they will play much louder with no detectible distortion. When I had the Orions the sound just fell apart once you got up over 92dB. I thought this may have been a problem with my pair of Orions but when I went back to the mans house that I auditioned the Orions at initially to see if his sounded better at higher volumes, we got them up to 90dB C weighted slow response on the dB meter and he refused to even try to go higher in volume stating that they were not designed to play at those levels. I myself like to turn the volume up on occasions to the 100dB level at the listening seat and the Orions just could not do it. If you listen to Jazz or Classical or prefer to listen at volumes 90dB and below the Orions are a damned good sounding speaker, They just won't do the high volume music.

dwr · « **Reply #265 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 05:31 pm »

And I am not talking about peaks above 90dB, I am talking about average at 100db with peaks at 108-115dB.

dwr · « **Reply #266 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 05:34 pm »

And JTW it probably goes without saying but after you audition the Abbeys, please post your thoughts, good, bad, or indifferent.

Dan

jtwrace · « **Reply #267 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 06:32 pm »

Quote from: dwr on 10 Oct 2010, 05:34 pm

And JTW it probably goes without saying but after you audition the Abbeys, please post your thoughts, good, bad, or indifferent.

Dan

Yes sir!

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #268 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 06:41 pm »

So apart from dynaimics and higher SPLs, there isn't much else to differentiate?

dwr · « **Reply #269 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 07:10 pm »

So yeah apart from those two MAJOR things. The difference is not small between the Abbeys and the Orions it is big, believe me. I am just saying IF you can listen to your music under 90dB and be happy then the Orions are good speakers for that. On the other hand for what I had into my Orions money wise, for them to not play at the levels I explained is inexcusable for me.

dwr · « **Reply #270 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 07:12 pm »

Here is what I am trying to say, the Abbeys are a much better bargain. I had almost 7k into my Orion ++ speakers. I have 5k into the Abbeys and they are a better sounding speaker, that makes them a serious bargain in my book.

dwr · « **Reply #271 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 07:14 pm »

The 5k number also includes 3 diy subs with the sub management DCX-2496 and 3 EP-4000 amps to power the subs.

jtwrace · « **Reply #272 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 07:29 pm »

What kind of binding posts are on the Abbeys from GedLee? Also, what is on the GedLee sub?

dwr · « **Reply #273 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 07:45 pm »

They are a high quality 5 way post that appears to be gold plated. I use banana connections on my speaker cables and they work just fine with the binding posts on the Abbeys. I can't speak for which posts are used on the subs.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #274 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 07:46 pm »

I'm not considering the Orions, but if I do go with something bigger than a mini monitor, it would most likely be the GR Research V2s, which have been likened to the Orions. My room is the main concern and limitation to what will and won't work. The smaller the better. Anything that can easily be moved in and out of position will work too.

I'm not too concerned about high SPLs, but dynamics are a very important characteristic of music. Also, the more sensitive the speaker, the less demand on the amplifier.

poseidonsvoice · « **Reply #275 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 07:48 pm »

Quote from: jtwrace on 10 Oct 2010, 07:29 pm

What kind of binding posts are on the Abbeys from GedLee? Also, what is on the GedLee sub?

The binding posts are some Chinese off brand you can get from Dayton Audio. They go for about $20/pair.

They are inexpensive, robust and very well built imho. I replaced them with Cardas Rhodium and they made no sonic difference whatsoever. The only difference was that the Cardas "looked" a lot better and beefier. BIG price difference of course. I stuck with the Cardas as I love their looks, I didn't buy them for sonics.

The other post I really like from a functional standpoint are the Cardas patented binding posts that have a single knob to tighten down on the posts. Many manufacturers dislike that three holes need to be drilled to fit these posts, with the center hole awfully close to the side holes. As a DIY'er I have no problems. Again, I use them, cause they look and feel cool.

Anand.

dwr · « **Reply #276 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 08:17 pm »

Hi Anand

The posts you pictured are not the posts that came on my Abbeys, they are very similar though. The reason I know this is that the posts in your picture are exactly what I used on the subs that I built I was just comparing the two sets of posts, and the ones on my Abbeys are actually a little smaller than the ones in the picture you posted. Also its nice to see somebody post an honest sentence like you did about not hearing any sonic difference in the posts, you did it more for the looks, thanks for the honesty Anand and happy listening!!!

Dan

dwr · « **Reply #277 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 08:20 pm »

Another question for you Abbey owners; have any of you replaced any of your crossover parts with upgraded parts like caps?? And if so can you post what differences you have achieved by doing so. Thanks.

Dan

jtwrace · « **Reply #278 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 08:27 pm »

Quote from: dwr on 10 Oct 2010, 08:20 pm

Another question for you Abbey owners; have any of you replaced any of your crossover parts with upgraded parts like caps?? And if so can you post what differences you have achieved by doing so. Thanks.

Dan

Two people have. Anand (of course) and MGalusha I'd love to see pics of the external boxes that Anand built.

dwr · « **Reply #279 on:** 10 Oct 2010, 08:30 pm »

Thats something you may want to consider too JTW if it makes a noticeable difference to the good, and you decide to go with Abbeys. You may want to consider it right from the start. Hopefully Mike and Anand will post their observations of the changes with upgraded parts.