I've got a paid of the Celius. I would note that it and the others I've heard are quite revealing and balanced. Good recordings sound glorious and poor ones are often a lot less so. They also take a long time to break in. I would also suggest they might be aided by a tube somewhere along the way -- such as a hybrid int. amp.
To me, they share some attributes with Dali and Sonus-Faber perhaps.
I have to disagree with Sonus Faber comparison. I have not heard Sonus models in Amati range but everything made for home theater aplication is just below averag in sound quality.
As far as Focal is concerned ; I have heard 5 different models in under 5K price range and none of them had open, soaring treble or life like presentation. One Focal speaker had excellent driver integration and very nice sound but treble was so rolled off that I culd not consider buying it.
I will look for Dali.
DKzzzz, which Triangle speaker have you heard that you liked? Monitor or full range?
For the most part, I find that the French speaker manufacturers share certain sound qualities. The three best known in the U.S. are JM Labs/Focal, Triangle and JM Reynaud. I have owned models from all three manufacturers and enjoyed them all. Personally I think that there is something special about the Reynaud speakers, but that's just me.
I agree with Mst that the Dali and Sonus Faber speakers are also similar (yet different) sounding, and maybe you could extend that to the Totem line as well.
To my ears, the Totems sounded quite different. A bit more color and I think a bit less accurate. Not good or bad per se -- just more different than S-F or Focal.
I have heard Heliade and Altea.
I also heard Totem Forest at the NYC store(if I am not mistaken on the model name) and was very impressed with them.
As I mentioned before Focal and SF (to my ears)are both extremly differrent from the Triangle sound. I feel that both JM&SF are lacking treble and speed.
Nothing I have heard sound quite like the Triangle Titus 202s in my second system.
Focal Profile monitors are probably the closest.
I had a pair of Triangle Titus 202s (or XSs, don't remember, but they were the first version) back when they first came out and I really enjoyed them at the time. For some reason I got on the upgrade bandwagon and I've owned many different speakers since then. I haven't really been happy with my system since then. Makes me wonder if I just really liked the Triangle speakers or maybe I was less critical then (or just happier then).
To jog my memory, can you list the attributes you like about the Triangle Titus? Also, can you tell me if the newer versions are an improvement? Lastly, have you heard any of the larger Triangles that have a lower bass cutoff? Were they also still good across the board? I would like to not feel the need to connect my sub to my system. I don't need really deep bass, just a bit lower than the demunitive Titus can go.
I just picked up a new Musical Fidelity A1 integrated w/36 watts/ch. of class A power. I would think 36 good watts would make the Triangles sing.
The Triangles are balanced, easy to drive, very detailed and articulate, have very fast transient response and practically disappear in the room when set up properly.
They are among if not the best I have heard at low volumes as a result plus can go loud without breaking up quite well way beyond what their diminutive size would lead you to expect, with good amplification.
Plus they only cost $500 or so brand new when I bought them years ago yet can compete with the best out there I would say.
Their low end is not as extended as some other small monitors like my Dynaudios, but is very full and satisfying alone with proper amplification nonetheless. Add a sub and they leave little to want IMHO.
A small Martin Logan in the mid range, with a bit more top end (Triangle Celius-first year).
Used to own the Ventis XS and the Naia models - in my recent sojourn for new speakers I also auditioned the Quartet and Magellan (monitor)series, within the context of an all Audio Analogue system (a brand that Triangle often co-operates with). I thought that System Audio, Living Voice and Chario did (more or less) share some common traits and attributes with that of Triangle.
Agreed regarding a fair resemblance to ML and perhaps also Quad ES in terms of speed and airiness despite the conventional box design.
Here's a nice piece that does a good job of communicating what makes the Triangle Titus 202s so special:
While on the subject of the "Triangle sound," anybody hears the Altea? Upscale Audio is closing out a discontinued model.
I bought Heliade (3-driver) model from Upscale Audio. Good deal at $699.00. Clean fresh sound , incredible imaging .Tweeter might sound metallic sometimes on bad passages or bad recordings. Bass is dry and insufficient (I usually hate bass), but this bass is weak not in extension but in color, character of the bas. Micro dynamics and detail retrieval is great. Play really well at low volumes as oppose to my ATC 12s.
Overall Triangle provides very engaging sound for very little money.
Speakers are all man made materials , I have heard that they changed that and cover their basic speakers with wood veneer now.
Now that i owned them for a few weeks I can say (for those who might be curious) that upgrade from Triangle while staying in the same sound signature would be the De Vore speakers.
The things you describe are the reasons why I like my smaller Triangles so much.
I use a sub with them for very respectable full range sound, but they are pretty game alone as well delivering a nice clean bass down to about 60 hz or so, ad show no signs of stress or breakup at higher volumes even despite their small size (but only with sufficient amplification).
Just a note that from my experience (at least), they require lots and lots of break-in. My brand new Triangles sounded flat for the first 100 hrs or so and improved further for several months after that.