I have to agree with shakeydeal. If you haven't compared them in the same system and room it's not a fair comparison, IMHO
Two and a half hour audition of the Raidho C1.1
I had the opportunity to audition this unique 2 way all by my lonesome (except for the dealer who was kind enough to remain invisible most of the time) with my own music. The speakers were hooked up to all Rowland electronics (monoblock amps, Criterion preamp, and new DAC) via top of the line Nordost cables. The room was a large open room with minimal room treatment. Unfortunately, there was a litter of speakers in between the C1.1s, like in most dealer show rooms.
I compared this "system" to my home system that I have been tweeking for the past two years with extensive room treatment (GIK acoustics), different cabling (Ridge Street Audio), amps (Carver Cherry 180 and Atma-Sphere M60), DACs (DAD Tube 10 and Tranquility SE), and preamps (Bent Audio Tap X, Dodd Audio Battery Buffer).
The C1.1 system (from now on I'll just refer to it as C1.1), despite being in a dealer room setting, came pretty close to my home system, and in one regard surpassed my system. First, the C1.1 midrange is neutral without sounding thin or harmonically bleached. My system has just a little bit more bloom in the midrange due to the tube DAC and tube amps. Midrange clarity was pretty close, may be the slightest advantage to the C1.1s. Vocals were just captivating with the C1.1s. Classical guitar was the most neutral I've come across.
Bass is more extended in my system (subjectively down to mid 30s), but the C1.1s are bit more punchy and dynamic (may be the solid state electronics have something to do with this). The Sasons and C1.1s are remarkable in the mid and upper bass information, and as such both systems have excellent bass definition and harmonics. I didn't think the C1.1s required subwoofers, unless you want to play organ or classical music and rock music to near concert hall levels.
Where the C1.1s surpass my system with most recordings is in the high frequencies. That planar magnetic tweeter is a remarkable. It is smooth, extended, and detailed a the same time. I did not get fatigued at any point in the session, except when a cut from The Who was played, but not unexpected from a 70s rock recording. The silk dome tweeters in my Sasons were outclassed. As far as silk dome tweeters go, the Sason tweeters are some of the best of its breed and integrate seamlessly with the mid/woofer. However, the C1.1 tweeters integrates seamlessly with the ceramic sandwich mid/woofer just as well, but with more detail and extension without calling attention. The microdynamics and detail in the upper midrange and treble are some of the best I've heard, equaling some of the finest electrostats and ribbon speakers.
In terms of sound staging and imaging, the upper hand goes to my system. My room has been tweeked for two years to bring out the best I can attain from my system. The Sasons in my room throw a taller, deeper and more layered soundstage. The C1.1s seemed to throw a little wider sound stage in the dealer room. Imaging is natural in both systems. Not over blown or microscopically pin point. However, the comparison is not unfair because of the two very different rooms, and the C1.1s were hampered by all the other speakers that were place in between them.
My overall impression: The C1.1 speaker is one of the few speakers out there that I would think about plunking down over $15k. Another speaker I would consider would be the Maggie 20.7s, but these are altogether different speakers with different set of requirements. It's very expensive for a 2 way (but not ridiculous like the Magico Q1s). Despite its performance, I'm still having a difficult time justifying the price of the speakers. The C1.1 system did not clearly best my system except for the upper frequencies, but the comparison is not really valid given the large differences in electronics and room. I think the Sasons are intrinsically slightly warmer speakers, although only side by side comparisons with the same electronics will tell. But I have this nagging feeling, if I were to hook the C1.1s in my system, the overall advantage (at least in terms of what I consider important in music reproduction) will go to the C1.1s.
I compared this "system" to my home system that I have been tweeking for the past two years with extensive room treatment (GIK acoustics), different cabling (Ridge Street Audio), amps (Carver Cherry 180 and Atma-Sphere M60), DACs (DAD Tube 10 and Tranquility SE), and preamps (Bent Audio Tap X, Dodd Audio Battery Buffer).
The C1.1 system (from now on I'll just refer to it as C1.1), despite being in a dealer room setting, came pretty close to my home system, and in one regard surpassed my system. First, the C1.1 midrange is neutral without sounding thin or harmonically bleached. My system has just a little bit more bloom in the midrange due to the tube DAC and tube amps. Midrange clarity was pretty close, may be the slightest advantage to the C1.1s. Vocals were just captivating with the C1.1s. Classical guitar was the most neutral I've come across.
Bass is more extended in my system (subjectively down to mid 30s), but the C1.1s are bit more punchy and dynamic (may be the solid state electronics have something to do with this). The Sasons and C1.1s are remarkable in the mid and upper bass information, and as such both systems have excellent bass definition and harmonics. I didn't think the C1.1s required subwoofers, unless you want to play organ or classical music and rock music to near concert hall levels.
Where the C1.1s surpass my system with most recordings is in the high frequencies. That planar magnetic tweeter is a remarkable. It is smooth, extended, and detailed a the same time. I did not get fatigued at any point in the session, except when a cut from The Who was played, but not unexpected from a 70s rock recording. The silk dome tweeters in my Sasons were outclassed. As far as silk dome tweeters go, the Sason tweeters are some of the best of its breed and integrate seamlessly with the mid/woofer. However, the C1.1 tweeters integrates seamlessly with the ceramic sandwich mid/woofer just as well, but with more detail and extension without calling attention. The microdynamics and detail in the upper midrange and treble are some of the best I've heard, equaling some of the finest electrostats and ribbon speakers.
In terms of sound staging and imaging, the upper hand goes to my system. My room has been tweeked for two years to bring out the best I can attain from my system. The Sasons in my room throw a taller, deeper and more layered soundstage. The C1.1s seemed to throw a little wider sound stage in the dealer room. Imaging is natural in both systems. Not over blown or microscopically pin point. However, the comparison is not unfair because of the two very different rooms, and the C1.1s were hampered by all the other speakers that were place in between them.
My overall impression: The C1.1 speaker is one of the few speakers out there that I would think about plunking down over $15k. Another speaker I would consider would be the Maggie 20.7s, but these are altogether different speakers with different set of requirements. It's very expensive for a 2 way (but not ridiculous like the Magico Q1s). Despite its performance, I'm still having a difficult time justifying the price of the speakers. The C1.1 system did not clearly best my system except for the upper frequencies, but the comparison is not really valid given the large differences in electronics and room. I think the Sasons are intrinsically slightly warmer speakers, although only side by side comparisons with the same electronics will tell. But I have this nagging feeling, if I were to hook the C1.1s in my system, the overall advantage (at least in terms of what I consider important in music reproduction) will go to the C1.1s.