[Zerogravity]

Hello I see this area is for Planar, so I think the Neo3 might fit in somewhere.
Has anyone listened to the Z7 or Z62?. The reason I ask is due to what seems like half off from retail price on these  brands. I prefer the sound of planars and like the small details they exhibit such as symbols and can tell the difference between Sabian and Paste! I also like the voices and higher range percussion instruments and the fact that it all sounds smooth is a plus. I currently have a pair of SLS HT6.5s bookshelfs with a neo3 tweeter and I am currently in the process of building a pair of GR-Research N3 Transmission Line Towers. I was just curious and would appreciate anyones opinion of the sound quality of these. Thanks

[bushbison]

Even though I have a set of z-92's and a 62 for sale here, I can be a BIT objective on the sound, having owned Strata Mini's, Gallo ref. 3.1's, Aurum Cantus products, maggies, Other Bg Products (the wall mounted "r" series), VMPS rm30's, etc.
So some specific q's would be helpful.

[Zerogravity]

No "Q"s known! Just looking for opinions on the sound quality of the B&G Z7, 62 and 92 or either of them compared to similar designs or even conventional domes with similiar stats. After I build the N3s, I an looking into a decent yet affordable speaker for the spare room. Thanks

[jonbee]

Can you contrast them to the RM30s?

[JohnR]

Hi - I use the Neo3 tweeter but I never considered that it *alone* would qualify a speaker for the Planar Circle.

[Zerogravity]

It's a Planar speaker, so why wouldn't it? Granted it doesn't have the ribbon or foil surface area of traditional electrostats, it is still a planar equiped speaker. If you don't want to include it in this group, that's fine. Obviously it will not get much discussion and it's and old design. Just a simple question I thought someone could help me with and that perhaps this was the best place to ask about this particular speaker?

[JohnR]

I'm just saying. I dunno, I mean, I have electrostats too. Completely different thing.

[SteveFord]

Hopefully, you can get your question answered here but if not, try another circle. 
I don't have any experience with these so can't offer any input.

[bushbison]

Hey Zero et al
I'm a big fan of the BG drivers; both Martin Logan and GR Research (among others I'm sure) have used them extensively. 

I DO enjoy the way BG Corp implement them into thier designs more than M.L.   Of COURSE all of this is personal preference  ; I tend toward more of a transparent, detailed sound, rather than one that is "softer" and more forgiving; I find the BG drivers to be a great balance when used well.  The M.L. products (though I am a fan of their stuff in general), tend to sound softer and more forgiving than the BG's.  My Z-92/62's have a GREAT combo of detail and transparency WITHOUT a fatiguing sound. My only "criticism" of the 92's might be a very slight softness/less detail in the bass frequencies, but this may just be due to the rear porting. 

However the ribbon drivers transition VERY well from the bass drivers; this may be due to the VERY unique tweet-mid driver set-up/combo that the BG's use.  I find this gives them an excellent large sweet spot and the tweet-mid transition is seamless.  The BG's also have GREAT dynamics through out the listening volume range.

Of course compared to domes I find them MUCH more detailed and "breathy" without harshness.  I am certainly biased here.  Because of this, I doubt I will ever go back to non-planar/ribbon stats.

Hard to contrast them to the RM30's as i didn't do a side-by-side and I had them in different rooms.  The VMPS's use a version of the Aurum Tweeter, which if implemented poorly I find can be fatiguing.  I found the RM-30's to be a BIT more "detailed" (too extended??  Poor designers..are people like me EVER happy? ) than the BG's and thus fatiguing.  They also had a bit more slam, but SHOULD with the amount of drivers!  However, I never found I could get the RM's to sound consistent and DID find a bit of gaps between the drivers, meaning I THOUGHT I could hear the transitions at times b/t the drivers, and thus less seamless than on the BG's.

As for cost, I have to get rid of mine, thus the VERY reasonable price.  They are also not made anymore (I'm assuming BG is focusing more on R&D and in/on wall models), which makes them a bit more of a find.  If I didn't need to sell them, I wouldn't.

Hope that helps?     

[Zerogravity]

 Bushbison, thank you for your input! I was only curious and didn't mean to hit a nerve asking about this speakers as some so not consider it belonging in this section although it is titled Planar and Electrostat! I'm sure the GR Research design is better, but I was thinking of adding these in the spare bedroom. Either the Z7 or Z62 which were priced more then fair for the Z7 pair at $390 and the Z62 at $460 each! I have read a few professional reviews, you know how that goes, so I value your and others opinion.

[JohnR]

didn't mean to hit a nerve asking about this speakers as some so not consider it belonging in this section although it is titled Planar and Electrostat!

Heh Well.... actually, what the tagline says is "A circle for planar and electrostatic speaker lovers." Something with a "planar" tweeter alone is not a planar speaker. Assuming you would care to ask me of course... I think it's a bit like claiming that you're a vegetarian because you ate broccoli for dinner yesterday.