You don't need that much power. Look at the XA30.5 unless you like it always loud.
9 responses Add your response
I run the EPS2s with the INT-30A. The Montanas are 92/4, so not too greedy, and the Pass's 30 watts drives them pretty well. But: I don't go too loud (say, 80-85db peaks), and my system does not have as much grunt in the low end as when I used the 180 wpc Odyssey dual mono.
Note that the Montana's are pretty "laid back" speakers. They are extremely listenable, without a touch of edginess in the highs; perhaps relatedly, they are not detail/imaging monsters, though they fare prety well on this score. Nor are they massively deep in bass, especially for 150 lb. speakers. In short, if you want audiophile pyrotechnics, they might not be for you; if you want unobtrusive musicality, they might be. I think they are excellent speakers, and superior to numerous more expensive models that get a lot of love around here. They can be found at good prices; you might give Peter N, who is a helpful guy, a call.
With the 30 watt Pass, I believe my system is well tailored to "small" music (Girl with Guitar, small jazz combo), played at lower volumes. (The EPS2s sound very good played soft). If your musical tastes tend this way, you'd likely find the combo rewarding.
If you already own the 350.5, I'd expect that to work well too; the amps Peter N. builds for his speakers are big solid state beasts.
A final plus is that the EPS2s, while pretty large, play well close to boundaries; that and the nice box work make them decor friendly, despite their size.
I had a somewhat different experience than other posters when I owned these speakers. I liked them quite a bit and thought they did most things very well, but I also found them to need power in order to fill in the low frequencies. At first I used 200w pure of class A into 4 ohms (Reference Line Silver Sig), then went up to 500w (Mac MC501 monos). The bass improved but was still lacking for my large room.
I also found them to be a little hot in the upper frequencies. In part is was my room, which is bright as well as large, so I brought in 10 GIK panels, which helped somewhat. Then I switched to the Mac amps, which are very smooth on top. That helped more. Ultimately, though, I sold the Montanas and the Macs because I just couldn't get the frequency balance I wanted. YMMV, of course.
I have had several models of Montana speaker, culminating with the EPS2. I found them to sound better with tubes because they are not a demanding load, and also because - well I prefer tubes.
In the end I found these speakers to be dynamic and effortless, but somewhat boxy and closed in. I replaced them with a pair of GMA Callistos at less than 1/3 their price.
I don't think our experiences are completely different, Wrm. My sense is also that the Montana's like some power down low; if the OP already owns the 350.5s, he should be well fixed. OTOH, ember Robsker runs his with medium powered tube amplification, and likes the effect.
I am surprised about the hot highs; I'm extremely sensitive to this, and I find the Montana's very relaxed and non-fatiguing. I think I have a fairly "soft" room, which might make the difference; I've not heard them in another room. From what I've read, though, my experience may be more typical. As you say, YMMV!
Are you using them with the spikes? I found them to warm up considerably when placed flat on the floor (concrete slab, in my case, covered with linoleum) but the imaging suffered and the bass bloated a bit. I do like the big, screw-in spike system Peter uses, FWIW, but I thought it shifted the tonal balance upward in my system. I kept vacillating between with and without spikes and just could not get it right. To be more precise, my problems were with overall leanness and hardness in the high midrange frequencies, and lack of sufficient bass energy in my room (which admittedly eats bass waves). I found the tweeters to be excellent in the EPS2. Ultimately, it's all about synergy. In another room with another amp, they could be outstanding. With the Mac amps I found a pretty good synergy but they ended up being too compromised in low-level resolution for my taste. That smoothness comes with a price.
Hi Bill. I've got an old house with crazy warped floors, so the EPS2's spiking system is a must, or they'd be the leaning towers of speaker. I have Herbie's sliders under them, so tweaking placement is easy. That's all the tweaking I've tried. Bass fuller closer to boundaries, but I agree that the deeps are not their special strength.(Suspended floor may be costing me some lows?) I also agree that the smoothness makes a tradeoff; as I say, I don't find them to be detail monsters, though I hear a lot of detail. But I do find them incredibly listenable. Matters of taste here of course: I carefully auditioned the GMA Eos, relative to the speakers Shakey traded his EPS2s for, and found the highs fatiguing (dealer set up may have been an issue). In short I find the EPS2s design compromises tilted more to "Mmmmmm" than "wow," but if your ears run that way, they could really be the speaker for you.