I recently had an opportunity to audition a pair of Bel Canto Ref600 monos for a week, followed by four days with a new Bryston 4b3 on my Thiel 2.4s. My preamp is an Aesthetix Janus. I also had the Red Dragon Audio Class D stuff, both a pair of the 500M monos based on an IcePower board and the 500S based on a Pascal board. I had to rule out the Red Dragon stuff because on my system they sounded for lack of a better word "digital." The decay on notes seemed unusually long and unnatural with both the Red Dragon options and the stereo amp based on the Pascal board which is supposed to have some special engineering in it unique to Pascal sounded considerably brighter than the Icepower based monos. The Red Dragon amps (both flavors) WERE very dynamic, a little threadbare in the midrange and while they weren't bad, especially for the money, I wouldn't be able to live with them so back they went. I wanted to try some Class D stuff because I actually had pretty good experience with some of the earlier Bel Canto Products, that is the 300M and the 300S amps. Those amplifiers did alot "right" at low and moderate volumes but at high volumes they seemed to struggle and compress a bit. Not a good permanent match. That's why I had HIGH hopes for the new Bel Canto Ref 600s. Those hopes were quickly dashed by my finding that in my system the Ref 600s, while having a unique immediacy to the sound and being very dynamic and having a very fleshed out nice midrange and lower midrange and bass, seemed to be fairly significantly recessed throughout the upper midrange and I blame that tonal anomaly for the lack of "air" in the presentation. Very dynamic, imaged exceedingly well but no cigar on the Ref600s. I couldn't live with them. Then the Bryston went in for four days and it was a breath of fresh air. Extremely neutral, beautiful delicate highs, very good (but not great) imaging, great bass both taut and tuneful, never ran out of gas even when driving the speakers louder than I'd normally. The only thing about the Bryston is that at high volumes I found listening to them a little fatiguing. They seem (to me) to be great studio or lab appliances and if you want total utter neutrality the Bryston may be your best bet. I will also say I heard the Bryston squared series many years ago and thought they were hard and brittle. With the new cubed series that problem is largely gone and the highs are beautifully rendered, cymbals shimmer and everything has the right timbre without being overly etched. But its definitely in no way a "romantic" view into the music. Listening to orchestral music the Bryston was mid to mid-rear in the hall, there was no forward midrange that in other amps something shifts the perspective a little closer to the stage. So The Bryston is still in the running, and I'm looking to try one of the XA series Pass products but I'm still deciding on which one(s) to go with for the trial. I'll report back on my findings. I hope this is at least somewhat helpful. Its difficult to adequately describe (for me anyway) in words the differences between the amplifiers but I'll continue to try.
Showing 36 responses by pwhinson
Well after reading everything I can lay my hands on relating to Pass I had pretty much decided on a pair of XA60.8’s. That is until I spoke again to Mark at Reno Hifi and Kent at Pass who BOTH steered me away from the XA series and toward an X150.8. This was not a "gentle" steering that was a rather opinionated steering toward the X series. I’ve never had a retailer before talk me out of spending $10K in favor spending $5K but that what Reno did and also what Kent at Pass did. NOW, I like the idea of a slightly softer, highly dimensional liquid tube like sound and that’s why I was considering the XA series. But both Kent and Mark seemed to think that the X series was the better match for Thiels. I’m a little stunned but I think I’m going to follow their advice and try an X150.8. Anyone else with opinions on the matter please chime in. They did clarify one thing: that if you DO go with the XA series they both though the 60.8 would be right amp in the series for Thiel 2.4s. In the X series, they favored the X150.8. I realize all this sounds quite odd because most of you are saying just LISTEN and see what you like best. Well there's no Pass dealer within even a reasonable driving distance of Atlanta so that's not possible. Yes I COULD order both an x150.8 and a pair of XA 60.8s and return the ones I don't like but we're talking $200 in shipping for each amp, each way so that ads up in a hurray. Still..... might actually do it. |
Dsper...what was your experience with Hegal amplification? To ameliorate your excess high energy at high volumes have you experimented with sitting a little bit farther out from your speakers? In doing so you may want to eliminate any toe in which should help some with the brightness at high volumes. I’ve been using an Aesthetix Atlas for the past six years on my 2.4’s -- the Atlas has a beautifully sweet top end. I also have tubes on the front end - an Aesthetix Janus preamp. Have you considered class D? The last generation Bel Cantos (the Ref500Ms and the Ref1000Ms) sound great on our speakers with absolutely no harsh top end at high volumes. I do NOT recommend the new Bel Canto Ref 600s which sounded very recessed in the upper midrange to me. I’ve heard the Bryston 4b3 which is good but also a bit harsh in the highs at high volumes. I’ll be trying (should receive it tomorrow...color me excited!) a Pass X150.8 and will report my results here. If its harsh at high volumes I may try tubes as well, more specifically ARC and VAC and may try Ayre as well. I’ll report all my findings. My room is pretty well damped so the room is NOT adding to the problem of too much high end energy and frankly I notice it only at high volumes (on the Bryston 4b3 for instance). Keep us all posted on what you try and find out. As far as cables go I’m using Synergistic Research Element Series Cooper and Tungsten throughout and find them a stunning match. |
For my Thiel 2.4s with an Aesthetix Janus front end: I received a Pass x150.8 yesterday and I have to say this amp and the Bryston 4B3 are entirely different sonically. The Pass is very liquid, three dimensional and palpable whereas the Bryston is very analytical and revealing. While the Pass also retrieves a HUGE amount of detail from recordings there are some that will find the Bryston preferable. Since I'm only one day into the audition of the Pass I haven't quite decided yet but for people who believe all SS amps sound the same as long as they are high current and have plenty of power reserves compare these two because there's a huge difference. I would say initially that I favor the Pass but the problem I'm having with the Pass is that on orchestral music and particularly loud orchestral swells the Bryston is simply more accurate and conveys more information...i.e. its more analytical whereas on the Pass I get a bit of a homogenized sounds on orchestral peaks. I DO find the Pass amp far less fatiguing when listening to loud orchestral music. One interesting tidbit of my experience is that the Pass idles at a far higher electrical draw than the Bryston even though they're both Class A up to 10 watts for the Bryston and 15 watts for the Pass. The Bryston hardly ever got really warm even when it was driven hard while the Pass does produce about the same amount of heat as four KT88 tubes I would say. The heat from the Pass is not bad but just be prepared to use your air conditioning more. |
Well after listening to the Pass 150.8 on my Thiel 2.4s all weekend it still seems true that the Pass is a little thick in the lower midband (kinda like me) during orchestral swells. There's that little bit of homogenization there but on everything else it seems to be a great combo. On vocals in particular its an amazing combo. So I'll probably still try an ARC amp this week but I'm less inclined to try the expensive Ayre monoblocks. I'll report more later...stay tuned. And yes I was tempted to try the new PS Audio amp but only the stereo amp is really within my budget and its a similar topology to the Aesthetix Atlas which I already have and like "okay" but that one is probably going to get sold. |
I've lived with the Pass Labs x150.8 on my Thiel 2.4s for a little over a week now and I am absolutely astonished at what a change this has wrought, both over the Bryston 4b3 which I had for a little over a week and my long term reference, the Aesthetix Atlas. At first I wondered if the Pass midrange wasn't a bit too ripe and the top was a bit soft but the Pass brings together a density of texture in orchestral swells that sound alot like real symphonic music to me (and I attend about 16 or so Atlanta Symphony concerts every season). The Bryston sounds thin in the lower midrange than the Pass, again it is a wholly different sound that anyone could recognize over the Bryston. Its an improvement to a lesser degree over the Aesthetix Atlas as well. The Pass renders music that is simply beautiful, liquid, incredibly detailed but also with a richness of tone that is hard to describe. You owe it to yourself to try the Pass on your Thiels. I am so convinced that I'm contemplating giving the Pass preamp maybe the x12 a try. Also as a reminder I was prepared to spend more on my amp than the Pass x150.8 buying instead into the XA series of monoblocks but Kent at Pass convinced me to spend alot LESS, convincing me to go with his recommendation. The x150.8 is plenty of power. Its not cheap but its just flat out amazing. You have to hear it. |
I have tried Nordost, Straight Wire, Kimber, Analysis Plus, Better Cables, JPS Labs and Synergistic Research. Although different cables seemed to be to do different things tonally occasionally, it wasn't until I arrived at Synergistic Research that I heard an appreciable difference in my system. This was when SR's element series cables came out. They simply blew me away. I had always been extremely reluctant to spend very much money on cables but the differences I was hearing were undeniable (for me, an undeniable improvement). I eventually went SR throughout the system at some considerable expense. |
@jafant I did try the Bryston cubed series with my 2.4's and wasn't pleased with how the played together. The build quality was superb on that amp...it really was like audio jewelry if you will. But in my room I needed to warm up the Thiels and fill out the midrange and lower midrange and the Pass Labs amp (X series, not the XA or XS series - I was specifically told by Pass that the X series would mate better with the Thiels than the XS). I had the 7bcubed in my house for about a week. Couldn't get it to work well with the 2.4's at all. |
At the risk of being led to the slaughter by the purists in the group I have to say I have been trying some digital EQ using REW to generate filters which optimize gains, q's and frequencies, using a calibrated microphone and a macbook pro. REW generates filters, which then get loaded into Roon's convolution engine. My room is a little problematic and without going into too much detail I'm limited as to seating positions. The speakers are about 12' apart with about 2.5' between them and the side walls; my seating position is about 11.5' away from each speaker. The speakers are about 5' from the rear wall. I've had a problem getting satisfying smooth bass in the room. The room is well-damped if not overdamped. I thought first you would be interested in seeing the how right and left speakers measure when fed pink noise. While the chart looks bad initially you'll notice that once you get up to about 800hz and above particularly, the response in room is actually fairly flat with a small suppressed area between 3200hz and 5000hz before a very gentle rolloff above 5000hz. The "somewhat" major issues are the bump between 80hz and 110 hz, and the fairly deep suckout between 50hz and 80hz. I'm certain this is partially the result of room modes and if I were able to move speakers and or seating position forward or back I could tame them quite a bit. Be advised I am NOT trying to create a perfectly flat response with EQ. Nonetheless with a fairly small selection of filters applied automatically using REW using parameters including a desired target of + or - 3b, I'm able to achieve the second image of the corrected response using the filters. Again most of the filters are acting on the response <200. Actually I have one whole set of filters that EQ ONLY frequencies below 200 but the results in the picture attached are the full range EQ filters. What I've found was when I let REW EQ the whole range the program only ends up with 3 or 4 filters above 200 eq, mostly in the middle high and high frequencies to shelve that down a little. I have a pretty sensitive ear having grown up around classical music and I have to say with the filters engaged I don't hear anything amiss with regard to timing, timbre or other things that are important to me which is pretty astounding to me since I have read and have always believed that while you can be a little heavy handed with everything below 200hz or so you should leave the rest alone. At any rate I am incredibly impressed at how REW can smooth out bass response in my problematic room. The filters don't seem to affect the very accurate and awesome natural timbre of Thiels which is their real strength. https://www.dropbox.com/s/lv976lgys4n3yrb/Measurements%20Feb%209.jpeg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/tyadw87synelk34/Feb%209%20w%3Aeq.jpeg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/k9rqhziwcu1k5o0/IMG_1801.JPG?dl=0 |
@gasman117 our hearing usually gets attenuated (reduced) as we age and its the high frequencies that go first so that's unlikely to be the problem. Still, we all recordings and music differently and have different preferences...one man's clear and incisive is another man's borderline "bright"/bridge too far. |
@jafant and @tomthiel: So this morning I went to home depot and bought a little lazer measuring device and realized I got the eyeballed measurements all wrong. The distance between the speakers is 8’11". The distance from each speaker to my seating position is 12’9". The speakers were previously -- when you heard them jafant -- about 7’ apart. The new speaker cables allow the approx 9’ distance. So the CORRECT MEASUREMENTS explain alot. The room is irregularly shaped (which may also explain alot): thus, the distance from the right speaker to the side wall is only 2’ and the distance of the left speaker to the side wall is 4’5". The distance to the rear wall in both cases is 4'10". Previously in the narrower spacing I had the speakers facing forward; in the current wider spacing I have them toed in. As I’ve said even toed in I don’t experience them as "bright" although I know some folks do and elect to eliminate toe-in. I’ve attached another photo which shows you a little more about the irregularly shaped room, the disparate distances between each speaker and the side walls. Note that farther into the room, the room narrows a bit to the area of the seating position. As I explained in my earlier post I’m somewhat stuck with seating position although I have a little window within which to adjust the speaker positions. The Powerpoints have been in use as the right and left channels of a video projection system with a screen that comes down from the ceiling (you’ll also if you look carefully see an SCS3 center channel there near the ground level ). Here’s the additional photo. https://www.dropbox.com/s/qm41tvx4on9amvr/IMG_7273.JPG?dl=0 |
For those who are interested, I’ve attached another couple of photos of the room trying to capture this strangely shaped space on the fourth floor of a 4100 sq ft townhome. ALSO, in addition to the Thiel 2.4’s which I utilize for more serious two channel listening, I also use the room for movies and the room incorporates a pair of powerpoints right and left front, an SCS3 center channel, two additional power points on the ceiling at the rear for rear surrounds, and a pair of powerplanes installed in wall as mid-surrounds. A JVC DILA RS520 is employed as the projector. The middle of the long gray sofa is the seating position for serious 2 channel music listening. https://www.dropbox.com/s/sbcc6jw6ljdsm5t/IMG_6143.JPG?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/1as5wudkvab3gkl/IMG_9854.JPG?dl=0 |
On integrating a subwoofer: my aesthetix preamp has two sets of main outs. Presently I have one set going to my Pass power amp and to my main speakers. Would it be possible to use the other set to feed a subwoofer that has an internal crossover filtering out everything over around 60hz? Then using REW to effect a DSP crossover with the same slope and point so that I integrate the two. OR do I really need an electronic crossover fed by the Aesthestix, then out from the crossover to the sub and to the mains? IF I need an electronic crossover, does anyone have any experience with this Bryston unit: http://www.bryston.com/products/other/10B-SUB.html |
@jafant: not sure I ever answered your question about changing the distance between the speakers...yes a huge difference, much better imaging, wider soundstage, more holographic, NO problem with centerfill at all, images come from mid-way between the speakers all the way to just outside the speakers. Imaging and fine detail including fine detail in quiet portions of the music increased dramatically when I changed over to pass amplification. Huge thumbs up on that for me. |
BTW this Thursday I’m getting an in-home audition of the Paradigm Persona 9H which another poster in this forum seemed to think gets closer to the "rightness" in terms of timbre and tone that my Thiels give me. Its my first venture outside the Thiel family to try to get to to that "final speaker" for this 61 year old. Of course another audiophile asked me if such a thing actually exists and I can tell you for certain that you WILL have a final speaker of some sort! I’m fortunate enough to be able to at least consider some of the best. I have a short list of other products to hear but I’m going to have to go out of town to hear them. Its sad that today’s high end can only be heard in all its diversity in only our 3 or 4 largest cities. There you can find anything. I’m in a city of 7 million (Atlanta) and the dealers we have are really good but there are only a handful of speaker designers represented. If you want either Vandersteen or Von Schweikert Atlanta has you covered. Others, not so much. While the 9H is expensive you have to remember that even the Vandersteen Quattros are now up to $15K pair. |
@bighempin: If you are ever in Atlanta you are more than welcome to listen to my 2.4's on my Pass Labs (power amp) / Aesthetix Calypso/Janus preamp system. Amplification is tremendously important especially with the Thiels which are a bit finicky. I also like the PS Audio gear (I have their Directstream as my dac). Let me know if you're in town and interested and we'll set it up. |
Continuing saga on whether to replace my aging but spectacular Thiel 2.4's with something else: Magicos? Vandersteen? Von Scweikert? I dunno, but this decision is going to be made very methodically and carefully. So one of the more serious audio salons in town received a pair of Magico A3’s last Friday and I went to hear them today. Unfortunately they were in a small crowded room, placed about one foot from the rear wall and directly beside them were a pair of Focals. Tiny room. No way to properly audition these speakers and certainly no way to get any idea of how they image. Driven with good amplification they sounded good but I’ll second one other poster that they sounded slightly dark and I felt there was a relative bit too much lower midrange/upper bass for my taste and in this little room they sounded boomy at times. When the guys learned that I was entertaining speakers that cost several times the price of the A3s they seemed to push the A3s aside. If what I heard was representative of what the A3s can do (I don’t think it is)...they are not the speakers for me. I did think the timbre of instruments was very true to the sound of the real thing. It did whet my appetite for the S3 and the S5, neither of which they had on hand for demo unfortunately. I DID hear a pair of Von Schweikert E5’s which were frankly fairly breathtaking with regard to some of the things those speakers did (driven by a Constellation integrated). I still think I "might" like the Magico’s better...I get the impression (I may be wrong) that some people might find the Magico’s a little clinical but I like that relative high level of detail and texture...its why I like the Thiels. At this point this is really just one old guy’s attempt to my "last speaker." The one thing the Thiel’s do wrong is I believe they compress and distort a tiny bit on full scale orchestral recordings at high volumes. I’m a little curious what the Paradigm Persona 9H’s will sound like on good amplification (I’ve heard them several times now but both times on McIntosh integrated amps...not exactly the kind of amplification you’re likely to use on speakers of that caliber, although I’m hoping they sound fantastic on my Pass/Aesthetix gear. I think I’m probably bound to start going to some of the shows before any final decisions are made. The shop I visited today does have a pair of S3’s on order but my guess is that the S5’s are more likely to be the speaker for me but the proof is in the pudding. No indication when (if ever) they’ll be getting another pair of S5’s in. They do seem think that Von Schweikert and VAC are the two product lines they seem to want to really sell the hell out of at the higher end of the market. |
@ronkent I’m less optimistic about properly and seamlessly integrated a couple of subs with the 2.4’s than you are but the proof is in the pudding and if you’re happy that’s all that matters for you obviously. I took delivery today on a pair of Paradigm Persona 9H’s today to fool around with for a week or two. So far we’ve dialed the in pretty good, and dsp’d the bottom end (powered subs built in). I’ll post my impressions shortly. Out of the gate they’re a little tilted up a bit on the top end as people generally rag on them about, but a little dsp up there with only a few filters does the trick to bring that down a bit. They do seem to be doing alot right. My room is pretty well damped though and I’m surprised they’re a bit bright on the top end. Of course there’s not a huge amount of music up there but this is some. Driving the top end with my Pass 150.8 which is hardly even knows they’re there since most of the heavy lifting is being done by the 1400 watts of digital power. https://www.dropbox.com/s/4t9h6pfk4mf7v8m/IMG_2593.JPG?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/d00i6maudbymwv8/IMG_1952.JPG?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/qed8aizmaynlz69/IMG_4006.JPG?dl=0 |
MAGICO A3. Just a quick note for those who have been following my speaker selection odyssey: I listened to the Magico A3 today and while its a fine speaker the overall tonal balance is decidely on the dark side of neutral. NO ONE is going to feel like this speaker is bright, trust me. Its good textured tuneful bass and the speaker goes REALLY surprising low too but on an absolute basis it is just too much bass and obscures things the speaker might be doing right farther up the frequency spectrum. The top end also sounds rolled off to me. This was driven by a Constellation integrated - a pretty refined piece of gear, and setup properly. As a matter of fact it sounded SO dark to me I began to wonder how it would measure in absolute terms which also makes me wonder why its not been subject to a review which might include measurements. While bass heads will probably love this speaker it was suggested that for the demographic the speaker is pitched to presumably younger obviously fairly well off urbanites I suppose, its been said that perhaps it was voiced this way for modern spaces that have a lot of hard surfaces and large expanses of glass. For me it is definitely off the menu. I was also told that the Mark II versions of the S3 and the S5 are "somewhat" similarly dark and that Magico dialed back the tweeter levels in the Mark II versions of those two speakers. Of course I haven't heard those...only the A3s. The A3 is definitely not a speaker for me. It feel good to be so certain of something! |
@andy2 and @tomthiel. Its good to hear that Vandersteens are now voiced more similarly to Thiels. People also used to say Vandersteens had a shelved midrange which helped simulate lots of "depth" and some folks believe that has NOT changed. What is still an issue for me is how the pricing of the product has really climbed to rather crazy levels, with the 5a at the time it was discontinued, at $30K....it sure didn't start out at $30K. And the Quattro is $15K. |
@jafant, I agree with your assessment regarding the Bryton cubed series, its definitely not as clinical as the last versions of the Bryston amps. Still I was disappointed that despite the absolutely bulletproof build quality, 20 year warranty and all the other things the Bryston has going for it, FOR ME it wasn't a good match for the 2.4's. I say FOR ME because these amps have been successfully matched with Thiels before ... as a matter of fact I think Jim Thiel showed his speakers with Bryston amplification at show (and that would have been one of the previous series that we judged more clinical). I think Jim was also fond of VAC on the tube side of things for Thiels. I continue to think that the Pass amps mate exceedingly well with the Thiel 2.4's and I would encourage anyone to try that combination. The Pass product is just astounding all the way around for me. |
@tomthiel loved the story about Nelson Pass. I googled it and came up with this post from the master himself on another board. I’ll highlight a snippet from his post here: "It was the perfect high end audio product: Exotic, inefficient, expensive, unavailable, and toxic." Here’s the full post from Nelson: The "ion cloud loudspeaker" used photocopy machine ionizing nichrome wire strung in a flat array a bit like a window screen, but with more space between the wires, and charged to a variable DC potential of about 10 KV. This screen developed a layer of ionized air, and was enclosed between two stators, much like an electrostatic speaker, except that instead of a charged plastic diaphragm, you had a charged semi-flat layer of gas, and you could push-pull it with high AC voltages on the stators. It worked fairly well, and gave new meaning to the word "transparency". It also had several flaws, one of which did result in a trip to the local emergency room with breathing problems similar to those sometimes experienced by arc welders and caused by extended exposure to ozone. The Wall Street Journal printed my comment: "It was the perfect high end audio product: Exotic, inefficient, expensive, unavailable, and toxic." |
In my continuing flirting with other speakers apart from my beloved 2.4s, I heard the Magnepan 20.7's yesterday run with Vandersteen crossovers (the ones that come with the 7s) and two Vandersteen subs. Impressive but on most music I preferred the sound of the Magnepans by themselves without the subs. Time and phase coherent first order crossovers all the way around. |
@unsound. Richard Vandersteen and Jim Thiel believed the ONLY thing that can make multi driver speakers time and phase coherent IS a first order crossover. Nothing more nothing less. That assumes the drivers are capable of taking advantage of the first order crossover and its more difficult slopes. (1) YES there are two drivers in ADDITION to the ribbon tweeter in a 20.7...so, NO there is NOT one "panel/driver" in a 20.7. Maybe the confusion arises because you have two drivers in a single panel in the 20.7 and just about all the Magnepans...and in the higher tiers they blend a long narrow ribbon tweeter into the panels. Its a three-way speaker inclusive of the ribbon tweeter. (2) YES these speakers do produce a perfect square wave because the crossover IN THE SPEAKER is first order and time and phase coherent. Unlike the earlier 3 series speakers there is no external crossover, rather its now built into the body of the .7 series speakers. (3) YES my reference to a "crossover" was to the EXTERNAL VANDERSTEEN crossover for the transition from the 20.7s to the Vandersteen subs. (3) YES the external Vandersteen crossover is ALSO first order. (4) YES I did prefer the sound of the 20.7’s by themselves to that of the sound produced by the 20.7s, the vandersteen crossover, and the vandersteen subs as I stated above. The Maggies were crossed over at 100 hz to the Vandy subs (pretty high if you ask me). Still, I expected more from the combination thinking that this would be a very clean way to integrate subs into the Maggies but what I found was that on the 20.7 (and I guess on the 30.7 with the extra bass panel per side), the bass is far superior than what Maggies used to be able to achieve in the past. It was clean and coherent and DEEP. The Vandy subs just smeared not only the deep bass but the upper bass as well. I really expected more. But the 20.7 is truly a great speaker I would say especially for classical music. Truly extraordinary I think. I also have since bought a pair of 20.7s (!). I liked em that much. |
Thanks! I am excited about the Magnepans. I'm not giving up my Thiels though! These are in a different league than the Magnepans of the past in terms of coherence and bass delivery. I heard deep real bass and an apparently seamless frequency range so they've improved that ribbon tweeter, or the crossover. Or both. I should have them in a few days and will report back. I had some small Magnepans about 30 years ago and outside of small ensemble / chamber music they weren't very worthwhile. These are in another class all together. |
@bighempin - was glad to see that you finally have your 3.7’s. As you may know I gave up on the pair of 3.7s that "might" come back to ATL and presently have Magnapan 20.7s that I’m extremely pleased with. I’m presently continuing to use the my 2.4’s, two pairs of power point 1.2’s and a pair of powerplanes in a video system with a 4K JVC projector. Enjoy your new speakers! |