Why 16 watts? Why those two speakers? For a music lover, far more interesting and capable speakers/amp combo's can be had for probably less money. What's your budget and expectations for your system?
19 responses Add your response
If you can swing Silverlines (17.5 or Sonatinas used) I think you'd be better off.Zu Druids are sensitive though folks love 'em or hate no fence sitters.And I don't know if they need big power but the DEQX controlled Emerald 3's are smaller version of CS2's everybody who reviewed and your room is huge so they might work since they are rated at 100db plus.Think if you could swing them they have 30 day return but given your tubed might not want digital processing.I want to hear them though.I have Odeon Tosca's horns/8" Audax woofered (94db sens) and they work but I was thinking of Silverlines being more balanced speaker.My horns are great for my primary jazz but large orchestra or when I want to rock they hare limited.Do Google search for high sensitivity speakers.Now I am going to look up Coincident myself for 15-30 watt Pass or T amp power.Miht dump my Ear 40 watt EL34.Tired of tubes for now but think T power might have something from reviews.I'll put tube in line section but have interest in high efficiency's myself
My friend, Paul Folbrecht has used the Cyber 211 with Hyperions, and was most pleased with the match. And, Paul is definitely one of the more discerning audiophiles I know.
However, as the former importer of Consonance products in North America, I obviously have a lot of experience with the Cyber 211 monoblocks. I also own a pair of Coincidents, and have mated the two together at various times.
Personally, I believe the Cyber 211 do best with back loaded horns - from the likes of CarderSound, Horning, Lamhorn, Beauhorn, etc.
In contast, I feel the Cyber 211 do not compliment most dynamic loudspeakers so well. By that, I mean, the amps are fairly bass shy and on the engaging/forward side in the midrange (the opposite of their sibling, the Cyber 845), which seems to wind up producing sound with not much in the way of foundation and being a bit too forward and lean overall. The richness and resonance of the mid/upper bass of backloaded horn can be most satisfying with these amplifiers.
And, for what it's worth, I think the Silverlines would be the poorest match of what has thus far been suggested. Though they've been touted as a good speaker for lower power tubes, my personal experience is that Dynaudio drivers, including the Silverlines, just do not come alive with low - moderately powered tube amplification. In fact, I think the speakers are best served by solid state.
To give everyone a little more history, I had a pair of Coincident Super Eclipse series II and sold them in 2003 and purchased a pair of Cain Single Horn Ben's. I liked the SE but I wanted more low level detail for low volume listening, at that time I was living in an apartment and used a Wavelength 300b with the SE . For 5 years I enjoyed the Cain speakers for low level detail and imageing but I was never satisified with the base. Now that I am out of the apartment and have my own home I can play my music as load as I want. I listen to mostly classic rock but when I had my super Eclipse I would listen to a little classical and I really enjoyed some choir cd's that were recorded in a church but with the Cains, a single driver leaves a lot to be desired for more complex music. I don't know if it was only having 10 watts with the 300b's .
So I sold my Cain speakers and a few weeks ago I came accross a good deal of Cyber mono's with 150 hours that look brand new for less then half price.
I am currently using the 211 amp with a pair of Monitor Audio Studio 20 sec that I purchase new in 2002. I was trying to build up a home theatre system but that never happened. I will admit that the 211 amp's sound good with the Monitor audio's .
and I have to listen to something until I get some speakers. I listen to music most of the time. I watch very little tv.
So what I want from my next set of speakers is the low level detail of the Cain's with the imageing of the Super Eclipse and thats why I was thinking of getting the another set of coincident speakers but then I came accross some reviews on the Hyperion speakers and how good they sound with the 211's and they are a lot less money.
I appreciate any suggestions.
The Consonance 211 SET amps were an excellent match with Hyperion 938s. Tonally, they were perfectly balanced, and the bass and bass dynamics were better than with 200 watt solid-state monoblocks. Power was never lacking.
John Potis also raved about essentially the same combination (968s) as did Steve R. of Enjoy the Music, who bought both the 938s and the 211s after reviewing both.
Someone who refers to a 211 SET as 'flea-powered' must not have a lot of experience with SETs and/or be familiar with speakers that are truly a bear to drive (usually meaning poorly designed).
[However, choosing speakers first followed by amplifiers that mate with them is the most sensible path.]
16 watts is still 16 watts no matter what planet your from. The speaker dips to 3.8 ohms and requires a min of 50/ch per spec. Small room, chamber works and a tendency to play music softly will help of course. I recall visiting a residence with Avalons and a whole lot of expensive equipment where the owner played his system about as loud as my AM radio...plus, it had more hum than a million kilowatt sub station! It was an interesting glimpse into the mind of some audiophiles. No matter what, certain people are just determined to like less than ideally matched/applied gear:O ) Playing anything full scale at concert level requires balls, er.. I mean watts. If you 'aint got 'em then ya makes do with what ya got. If you have a choice however, choose more power...despite the SET myths and legends that have propagated about the high end community, you can find great sounding amplification without the limitations:O)
Again, Paul definitely knows what he's talking about here. In fact, I think in the myriad iterations of his system, he actually ended up with this permutation (though with the Cyber 845 the first go 'round) twice! And, I hold the opinion of my late dear friend, John Potis, in the highest regard, as we were more often than not on the same page when it comes to tastes and likes/dislikes.
As for me, I believe Coincidents, and most dynamic (please allow me clarify: of the non-single driver type) loudspeakers, sound best with moderately powered transformer coupled, push-pull tube amplification such as my Jadis DA30 and DA60, and the Consonance Cyber 800 6CA7, 15th Anniversary Cyber 100 Signature KT88, and Cyber 100 Signature EL34 models.
My rationale behind this is that a bit of power is needed to get a larger driver going, control it, and have it able to produce the amount of "pop" I consider necessary to do justice to the music. And, I believe a transformer lends a certain "beauty" to the sound that keeps the average dynamic speaker from becoming too forward or lightweight that not having one might.
I've also used the Consonance Cyber 10 Multifunction KT88, Cyber 10 Signature 2A3, Cyber 100 Signature 6550, Cyber 100S Signature 300B, Cyber 300B PSE, and Cyber 845 with the speakers, though I'm less sanguine about those combinations.
My loudspeakers are heavily modified Digital Master/Troubass subwoofers. I would say that in regards to your concern about low level detail, which I believe is a reflection not on the Coincidents per se, as they use drivers produced by the more well established companies out there, but dynamic loudspeakers in general, my way of addressing it was to have my friend Bill Legall of Millersound completely rebuild the cone drivers, making them much faster, much punchier, more detailed, and more efficient (I should capitalize the M in much/more because it was that noticeable). Or, I should say, that he came up with the solution after listening to them, as all of the credit should go to him as the man truly has magic flowing through him.
Regarding your own desires, Abill, I believe you've laid them out very well. Again, in my opinion, it's a very rare dynamic speaker that can match the speed and clarity of the Lowther/Fostex/etc. type of driver used in designs like the Cain and Cain. And, in fact, it may be unobtainable. At least, if I had to put my money on it, I would say it was.
That being the case, from where I'm sitting, knowing you are swinging for the fences, I'd investigate the Hornings which marry the Lowther driver to multiple woofers or look into the companies that offer single driver and subwoofer products designed to go together like CarderSound, Cain & Cain, etc. when it comes to loudspeakers that can satisfy you. I will say the CarderSound Madisons with their larger drivers can certainly produce more than surprising low end, though at the expense of the imaging and detail the smaller driver models excel at.
DISCLAIMER: Jeff Carder of CarderSound and Jeff Catalano of Highwater Sound (Horning importer) I are close personal friends.
Sorry, Dave, but oversimplification doesn't make one smarter.
Yes, we will agree that "16 watts is 16 watts" - only a moron could argue otherwise.
- The beefy class A power supply of a SET is able to supply 16W continuous with no problems.
- It is well-known that SET amps are able to swing more voltage than their max wattage rating would imply for brief periods
- When they do clip, it is entirely benign and recovery is very fast.
The end result is that in the real world, a 16W SET can power speakers that the average, or even very good, class AB solid-sate amp of a similar power rating could never hope to.
Chamber music only?? How can you possibly think you can draw conclusion like this when you have evidently NEVER HEARD THE COMBO but I have OWNED it? Not to mention the two different reviewers who said things very differently?
Here are some numbers for you that you should be able to understand:
A 90 dB/W speakers gives you 90 dB with one watt input at 1m.
Adding the second speaker gives you another 3 dB - 93 dB.
Moving back 2.5M drops you about 10 dB - so at a typical listening distance we now have 83 dB with 1W.
86 dB with 2@, 89 dB at 4, and 92 dB at 8W.
I don't know how you listen, but 92 dB average SPL is PLENTY loud for most people on most music.
But wait - these are anechoic figures! We have totally ignored room gain, which as anyone who knows anything about acoustics will tell you is VERY substantial in any typical room.
Sorry to be blunt, but for someone to use their theoretical musings to tell people with actual experience that they're wrong and don't know what they're are talking about is really amazing.
I'm going to offer a few more comments for the benefit of the OP.
I really dug that Hyperions/211 combo. With the exception of a bit of bass bloominess - that 95% of ported enclosures suffer from - it did everything right. Or so I thought. Anyway, the Hyperion drivers are very, very smooth in the mids and highs, and the speakers flattered all music.
However, coming off of Lamhorns, I felt that dynamics were stifled - and I shouldn't have been surprised by that, and wasn't.
That was why I procured the 200W monos - I wanted to find out if it was a lack of power. IT WASN'T. The speakers were unable to reproduce strong macrodynamics, like an efficient horn can, no matter how much power they were fed.
I then setup my AER Lamhorns with the 938s for some back to back. I recall playing one track in particular - Barber's Mourning Grace - and the difference in the percussion impact between the two speakers astounded me. I decided that no matter how *good* (pleasant) the Hyperions sounded, I couldn't live with a speaker that so stifled dynamics.
In my quest for speakers that preserved the proper macro dynamics of acoustic instruments but did not suffer from any of the weaknesses (which, frankly, can be very small) of SD horns, I came upon two setups that met the challenge: Audio Note AN/Es and Supravox field-coil drivers on OB.
I've never had the pleasure of serious time with the Hornings or any time with the Carder speakers.
As usual, I like what Paul has to say.
Along those lines, I'd like to offer some agreement to one particular point he makes, even if the way I will state it will come off as either unorthodox or just plain flaky...
One thing that we noticed in playing around with various combinations of amplifiers and loudspeakers is that while numbers surely can point towards some conclusion, you can sometimes get trapped into a certain line of thinking that does not mesh with the way things actually turn out.
To elaborate, we used to have sessions with the Lamhorns where we listened with three pairs of monoblock amplifiers - the 15 wpc Cyber 300B PSE (parallel single-ended), the 16 wpc Cyber 211 (SET), and the 78 wpc Cyber 800 6CA7 (push-pull), all amplifiers operate in pure Class A and were built by the same company (so a certain amount of family flavor is going to make it into the designs, even if it seems not to be the case in this instance - but, I think we'll allow that if one of the amps were made by Cary or Quicksilver, there would be some flow of their own designer's thinking into them and enhance the differences beyond the obvious differences in topology). Turning our expectations kind of on their ear, the most powerful amplifier simply was unable to form a synergistic match with the backloaded horn, and just seemed not to be able to put the same kind of power that the Cyber 211 could. Yes, in certain aspects, the push-pull amp could certainly play louder, but the overall power curve seemed to be strongly in the 211's favor. And, for what it's worth, the seat of the pants differences between the 300B PSE and 211 were significant, regardless of just one watt per channel separating them on paper. Still, the 300B PSE also easily bested the EL34 amp in being able to align its output with the backloaded horn design.
Of course, with the typical sealed or ported dynamic loudspeaker, the results were the opposite, and the push-pull amp would walk away from its two lower wattage siblings, which suits the conventional wisdom.
My overall point here is there are many things left to be learned, and no amount of is going to undo what we witnessed that day. In the end, I think the point Paul makes in comparing the Hyperions and Lamhorns is echoed by me. And, I circle back to my initial post that were I deciding on what speaker to pair with a pair of Cyber 211, it would be a backloaded horn. The question is, do their inherent flaws, which ALL loudspeakers possess, mesh with you well enough for you to be able to live with them?
Dave_b, thanks for being gracious. Nobody has to like SET amps. While this amp/speaker combo could play loud enough for me (and more importantly was MORE dynamic that solid state amps of more than 10x the rated max output power), if your idea of 'loud' was 115 dB it would NOT do it. Probably not close. (95 dB peaks is as loud as I ever listen and I know it could do that.)
Joe, your thoughts here are very intelligent. As for subjective power of dual 300Bs vs a 211, I believe those transmitter triodes can push current unlike any low-power tube. But the low power triodes probably sound better in any sane implementation. Not the 300B, of course; the 45/2A3 is where it's at. :)
Bill, I liked the Lamhorns best with no sub. They went strongly down to 40 Hz which meant for acoustic jazz they had it all. For rock, no. If I had them now I'd be using the TBI subs I now have which are quite amazing subwoofers indeed. And R. Lamarre reportedly likes the Lamhorn with them as well.
Lastly, Bill, if you bought the pair of 211s on agon recently you bought my amps. Please take good care of Tori & Amanda.
Come to think of it, I am currently running my Krell 400xi into my MG3.6R's and have never had such a dynamic, coherent, natural and dimensional sound. The little Krell loves the load and barely get's warm at full sustained concert level playback. The funny thing is that it sounds better and more "tube like" if you will (dead on accurate tone) than my previous high powered $15K plus monoblock amps from Krell, Macintosh, levinson etc... In my own way, maybe I'm experience a similiar effect to SET's vs Mega tube amps being my integrated sounds better than the larger amps. Over the years, the simpler systems seemed to always sound more natural and musical:O)