[Wind Chaser]

If I make my own cabinets they will cost me waay more than the $3800 for the Abbeys.

Why would they cost you more than the Abbeys if you DIY?  My understanding is the Super V's (V-1) is about 2K for the kit.

[cujobob]

Again, multiple subs are not necessary for the Abbeys...just recommended.  People add the price of three+ subs into any imaginary budget when they're just like any other speaker.  The designer recommends crossing them around 100 hz (well, any speaker for that matter IIRC) and his logic is sound.  OB subs are awesome..and likely one of the biggest reasons the Super V sounds so sweet.  Obviously, open baffle will sound different from a closed monopole design, but not necessarily better.  The Super V is likely a sweet sounding speaker...one I'd love to hear.  I think the Abbeys will work better in more rooms.  Very few placement restrictions.

FWIW, Earl was using some very inexpensive subs when I demoed his system last year...(before his designs were available).  It doesn't have to cost much to achieve his recommended sound.

[jtwrace]

Why would they cost you more than the Abbeys if you DIY?  My understanding is the Super V's (V-1) is about 2K for the kit.

I put a price on my time. 

[sts9fan]

If you are looking for new speakers and you have your search boiled down I am not sure how you can have the V and the Geddes both as the front runners.  Unless you are just listening to the AC hype.  They may both be awsome speakers but they are also very very different.  OB with subs locked in one (hopefully good place) or CD with separate subs needed.

[jtwrace]

Unless you are just listening to the AC hype. 

The GedLee is it for me. 

[Wind Chaser]

I put a price on my time.

You must be a lawyer. 

[TomS]

I was just putting the real costs in perspective.  Danny estimated it last year at RMAF for a very nice custom build, so $6-7k has always been what's in my head.  The driver/xo kit alone is $2495.

Enclosures fininshed out like these are $3,500. (from Denny). The Super V kit is $2,495. My assembly is $500. So you are looking at about $6,500. plus some shipping cost.

The Abbeys (fully assembled) paired with GR OB subs (DIY) worked out to well under $4.5k for me at the time and represent great value all around IMHO.  I could easily build the SuperV for the tops if I had a burning hankerin' to do so, but just don't right now because I like my Abbey/OB setup a ton.

I think Jason has the right approach.  Go listen to as many as you can, preferably set up decently somewhere, and make your choice based on what works for your ears and your budget.  It's all good 

[Wind Chaser]

There's really no way to know for sure which is the best one without hearing them both in the same room with the same gear.  Either way I'm sure they are both fantastic and you couldn't go wrong either way.

I do like OBs and OB bass though. 

[jtwrace]

You must be a lawyer.

 
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=79617.0

but a few in my family are.

[rajacat]

Tyson been turning back flips over his GR V2s which are only $1000-1200 which seems like a very good deal to me. I don't know how they would stack up to the Abbeys? Maybe the Nathans would be a better comparison. You don't hear much about the Nathans though. I'm curious how much better the Abbeys are when compared to the Nathans.

[poseidonsvoice]

Tyson been turning back flips over his GR V2s which are only $1000-1200 which seems like a very good deal to me. I don't know how they would stack up to the Abbeys? Maybe the Nathans would be a better comparison. You don't hear much about the Nathans though. I'm curious how much better the Abbeys are when compared to the Nathans.

I've heard both and the Abbeys are better which is why I own them! Besides the prices of the Nathan and Abbey are way too close to not consider the Abbey instead. Not unless you have size issues, etc...as the Abbey is a bigger speaker.

I asked Earl about the prices being so close and he said that his own cost to build the Nathan and Abbey are very much the same, the only difference is in the price of the woofers. So there you go. You hear about the Abbey more because it is his best selling speaker.

Best,
Anand.

[cujobob]

Are the Abbeys really that much better than the Nathans?  My understanding is that the difference is there, but not spectacular.

[Tyson]

I'd agree w/Anand, I think the Geddes are still the best speaker I've heard, but in a dedicated room with world class amps and source.  In a more difficult room like mine, the Geddes will still have the same issues with upper bass (up to 200hz), that any other box speaker would.  Open Baffle bass is a god send for these types of difficult rooms (like mine).  Multiple subs won't address the 100hz to 200hz range, for obvious reasons, and that's actually where I have my biggest bass issues.  Personally I was just happy to find and OB solution that was pretty compact, went very deep in the bass (ie, no subs needed), and were a true point source for mids/highs (something I seem to be uniquely sensitive to).  I was telling a friend of mine the other day - I don't really even think about "the system" anymore, mainly I just sit back and listen to the music nowadays.  Even my wife is telling me "turn it up" instead of "turn it down".  Maybe someday I'll drag my V2's over to Mike's place and see how they sound in a more acoustically perfect room.  But that's a ways off....

[sts9fan]

The abbys are CD lower then the Nathans and will work better in a bigger room. That said they both use the same brand of driver, wave guide technology and the crossover was deigned by the same person. I would doubt the difference would be night and day.
Do the new cabs have more right angles then the old MDF ones?

[rajacat]

The abbys are CD lower then the Nathans and will work better in a bigger room. That said they both use the same brand of driver, wave guide technology and the crossover was deigned by the same person. I would doubt the difference would be night and day.
Do the new cabs have more right angles then the old MDF ones?

When you say the Nathans are CD lower does that mean that the directionality is more tightly controlled or that they plumb lower frequencies? If the main difference is that they go lower it seems that the Nathans with some OB subs crossed over high would be a pleasing combination.

 I think I read somewhere that the Abbeys have a slight hole in what would be the normal sweet spot and they actually sound better slightly off to one side.

Thanks,


Roy

[brj]

Maybe someday I'll drag my V2's over to Mike's place and see how they sound in a more acoustically perfect room.  But that's a ways off....

If you're ever serious about that Tyson, I'd happily help you move the gear, because that would be a fun listening session!

[poseidonsvoice]

When you say the Nathans are CD lower does that mean that the directionality is more tightly controlled or that they plumb lower frequencies? If the main difference is that they go lower it seems that the Nathans with some OB subs crossed over high would be a pleasing combination.

 I think I read somewhere that the Abbeys have a slight hole in what would be the normal sweet spot and they actually sound better slightly off to one side.

Thanks,

Roy

Roy,

All the GedLee speakers have a dip when measured on axis (at 0 degrees) due to diffraction at the lip/mouth of the waveguide itself. This has been compensated electrically in the crossover.  But you don't ever listen to any GedLee speaker at 0 degrees (except center channels and he compensates for this as well in the crossover). But for 2 channel audio, his speakers are toed in HEAVILY to 45 degrees for precisely this reason. Earl explains it well earlier in this thread.The off axis response is linear as can be, and it's optimized that way. Directivity control *is* enhanced as you go up in his designs. Although the Abbeys will be able to play louder because of greater piston area, etc...that's not the point. The point is *directivity control*...which the Abbey has down to a lower frequency. If you look at the AES studies you will see that controlling directivity over a 30-40 degree arc from 500 Hz to 20khz is a very desirable characteristic in order to limit reflections, etc...it is what makes this speaker a soundstaging champion and tonality is the most neutral I have heard, on par with Quads in the midrange. Now the Abbey and Nathan do not control directivity all the way down to 500hz. That would take a massive waveguide larger than the 15 inch one on the Summa. But I will tell you that you can understand a lot about the *degree* of directivity control in each of these designs by looking at Earl's graphs on his website. The Summas are clearly the best, next Abbey, followed by Nathan. Again, I will say that the Abbey is better than the Nathan as I have heard both designs. The difference isn't night and day. But if it were my wallet, I would spend it on the Abbey only because the price difference between them to me is small. Just my opinion.

The Summas are just amazing.

The new cabinets are rounded over well - both around the waveguide itself and on the front baffle. You wouldn't expect anything less from Earl Geddes. Minimizing diffraction is paramount to his and any speaker design. Those who don't do so are ignoring that aspect of speaker design. The ear has a *non-linear* sensitivity when detecting diffraction levels at higher spl's - minimizing distortion caused by diffraction is key.

Reread his white papers fellas, it's all in there 

Anand.

[JohnR]

Reread his white papers fellas, it's all in there 

I don't think it is, a lot of what showed up in Google searches recently turned out to be non-existent. Specific links would help 

[rajacat]

Arnand,

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I'll wade through the white papers.

-Roy

[poseidonsvoice]

I don't think it is, a lot of what showed up in Google searches recently turned out to be non-existent. Specific links would help 

GedLee White Paper #1
GedLee White Paper #2

Anand.