Mike C…..with your second response to my post it is clear you wish to engage me further so I guess some sort of a response on my part is obligatory. Frankly I find a bit of a competitive and argumentative edge to your latest post. It was this feeling that led me to start a new thread in response to your original “Beware” post because I thought that it was misleading to those not familiar with the 10T and that a different perspective might be of use to others interested in the 10T. However, I was careful not to be too specific or critical of your original post as it was not my interest to get into any unpleasantness, but simply to share my experience with my fellow Audiogon members, and offer a perhaps less biased opinion. After all, I’m not trying to sell anything here, except perhaps the idea that 10Ts are a great used bargain. I felt that your post denigrated the earlier versions of the 10T and it was that which inspired me to share with others what I believe is an exceptional product regardless of its particular vintage.
Obviously I’ve got your attention if you’ve gone to the trouble to read my old posts. But I’m sorry, I fail to see any relevance to comments I made about the Aerial 8B four years ago to our current discussion. As to the second sentence of mine you’ve quoted, if you will take a moment to re-read my “Beware” post above you will find that I clearly state exactly when I purchased my 10Ts, their serial numbers, and that they are the first of the MKII versions.
So you ask me what is my point? Once again I suggest you re-read my post above as I think I made myself perfectly clear and my point is pretty obvious: that all versions of the 10T represent a great loudspeaker design and are worthy of center stage in any well designed audio system. My particular pair, and how old they are, is really not particularly relevant other than in my description of the 10Ts evolution.
To be honest, I had to re-read your last post several times. I don’t know if your writing style of run-on sentences is something popular in chat room discussions or what, but it’s a bit hard to follow. Call me old fashioned, but a few more commas and periods would be helpful to your readers. As to your point, it is clear that it’s your opinion that the slightly newer look with “sleeker” stands and the “mirror matched RoseWalnut” finish is a worthwhile improvement. I’ll accept that, and as I already mentioned in my original post, I too find the new stands more visually appealing than the originals. But it is your comments about the sound and construction, both in these posts and personal emails, that I wish to address as I feel that would be of most interest to those reading this discussion.
By and large, Audiogon is a site that is of interest to those wishing to save money and at the same time build high quality sound systems of different levels. Certainly that is how it started out in the late 90’s. Of course with the expansion of the Internet it didn’t take long for the dealers of both new and used equipment to capitalize on a rather captive global audience. There will always be those with more resources who will pay top dollar to have the “latest and greatest” that the audio world has to offer. And they will always need an outlet to unload their “old” gear to those of us with more modest means, often at a significant loss. So a large part of being in this hobby, especially as a consumer of used gear, is to find the gems that are still great performers even if they are no longer in the news. I would qualify that statement by saying one should look for gear that was produced by companies that have proven themselves by the test of time and for which parts and reasonably priced service are still available. Any version of the 10T fits that criterion nicely.
One of the main functions of forums such as this is to educate and help other members in their pursuit of building satisfying audio systems within the context of several price points. There are a number of Audiogon members such as myself, who have been playing in this hobby since the 1960’s, or even earlier. I know that for myself I find the opinions of these “older” members of interest and value because we’ve built a lot of systems over the years and have seen much come and go in the world of audio. We also have many different tastes that will hopefully represent various options and perspectives on sound reproduction. For those willing to take to take the time to go back through the archives there is some really good information on this site. Unfortunately much commercialism has crept onto Audiogon, but that’s to be expected on any website as successful as the Gon. One has to be careful of what one reads here. There is a lot of sales hype and many do not hesitate to mislead a little (or a lot) if that’s what it takes to unload a piece of gear they no longer want or that they are afraid they are going to lose too much money on. Also, many here seem to need to justify the sometimes-exorbitant prices they’ve paid for their gear by putting down lesser-priced items. And of course the concept that newer is always better. It is this sort of posting that gets this author taking keyboard in hand and speaking out so that those with less experience are not taken advantage of.
In your first post here you make the statement that “the older version is a little too polite and unexciting sounding with less dynamics and what seemed to be a slower sound.” I will accept that there may be some subtle changes in the latest version of the 10T as I’ve not heard them (we can call them the MKIII version if you like, even though Michael Kelly did not see fit to differentiate them from earlier production….that makes me wonder a bit though). But, this statement is typical of the kind of misinformation I see frequently on Audiogon. Sellers who feel they need to justify their later versions by making what came before sound as if it was a poorly executed design that has only been made right by the latest updates. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I’ve lived with a pair of 10Ts for 10 years and contend your statement simply is not true. In fact, I’d say it couldn’t be further from the truth. But don’t just take my word for it, let’s see what the professional reviewers have to say about the MKII that you’ve found to be so unsatisfying:
In the first issue of Fi magazine (Jan/Feb 1996) Wayne Donnelly writes, “what’s so good about the Aerial 10Ts? To begin, the high standard of components and materials, the finish, even the packaging, all bespeak a strong commitment to quality and value for the buyer.” He then goes on to say, “the application of sound engineering principles—including superior resonance control and meticulous crossover design—and careful execution of details have produced in the 10Ts as boxless-sounding a box speaker as I’ve ever encountered. The 10Ts spatial reproduction is superb, rendering solid and stable images within a broad, deep, and tall soundstage” Finally he states “Perhaps the most outstanding characteristic of the 10Ts is their smoothness and octave-to-octave balance. From the prodigious low end up through the silky and non-fatiguing treble, there is no sense of any single driver’s intrusive presence, and in a good room no serious suckouts are heard. The 10T sings a beautiful song, and it sings with a single voice.”
The same year Wes Philips reviewed the 10Ts for Stereophile (April 1996). Even in an apartment listening room that is far too small for the 10Ts to perform their best Wes was extremely impressed. Some of his comments are “its transient speed, unbelievable power-handling ability, and total lack of cabinet colorations really brought out the kid in me….Get the impression that I found the 10Ts fast and uncolored? Did I ever!….In a nutshell, this demonstrated a long list of the Aerial’s strengths: it was uncolored; it was fast; it had exceptional low-level resolution; bass was well-articulated, specific, and deep…..Need I say that the Aerial 10Ts impressed the dickens out of me? They’re among a handful of speakers that seem to have no limit to their ability to kick the tar out of any dynamic challenge you throw at’em. They seem to have no overhang or blur caused by their cabinets, so they produce low level detail with exceptional clarity…in certain areas (particularly dynamic potential and uncolored immediacy), they are the equal of any speakers I’ve ever heard.” That same year Stereophile would award the Aerial 10T Joint Loudspeaker of the Year along with the $25,000 Dunlavy SC-VI.
In the January 1999 issue of Fi the Aerial 10Ts made their recommended components list with 3 out of 4 stars. Here they say, “beautifully built and easy to drive, this full-range floor-standing design was an instant success when it first appeared some seven years ago. Slightly upgraded since, the 10T, with its smooth octave-to-octave balance, prodigious bass output, and silky, non-fatiguing high frequencies, remains an excellent value.” Price listed is $6500 - $7500 depending on finish and $600 for stands. For comparison sake, some of the 4 star winners were Avalon Eidolons starting at $20,000; Avantgarde Trios at $40,000; and the Wilson Audio X-1 Grand Slamm at $75,000. The only four star speaker that came close in price was the Magnepan 20R at $10,000.
You also make the statement that “the wire harness was not such a subtle change. Completely different type of wire.” Perhaps you’d care to elaborate on that. In my experience all cable is copper, silver, or copper clad silver. As I stated in my original post the wiring harness used in the 10Ts is a special 99.997% pure copper. What is now completely different about it? Of course, as J.Gordon Holt pointed out years ago, cable is nothing more than a passive tone control. Whatever is used in the 10T, as long as it is of high quality (which of course it always has been), can be SUBTLY effected by the many different brands and models of speaker cables we audiophiles purchase. The subject of cable is very controversial on this site and in the audio press for a good reason. Lot of snake oil marketing and obscene pricing has seen to that. Be that as it may, when it comes to cable I’m sure you’ll find many debates on what improvement (or lack of) was realized with ANY change of wiring. The fact remains the Aerial 10T is still the Aerial 10T. While I have great respect for Michael Kelly and his design abilities, the fact of the matter is, marketing realities would dictate the need to make subtle changes in any design to keep making sales of any product that has been in production for over a decade. Cosmetic improvements and subtle tweaking not only refine a product, but also increase sales until a replacement is ready. In this case that would be the 20T, a speaker that took several years longer than originally planned by Aerial to be a worthy successor to the 10T.
In addition to the comments posted above by other members I have also received some personal email regarding my thread. One in particular was by a newer member who contacted you via email after reading your original “Beware” post this past August. At the time he was in the process of purchasing a used pair of MKII 10Ts from Gilbert, the owner of Blue Circle Audio. This was a local sale in Toronto that required no shipping or duty. He told me that when he read your post he got worried about what he was about to purchase. In his email he said “he told me all kinds of BS about huge cracks and that the Aerials are not for me and that they require huge monoblocks to be driven properly. Basically he made me feel bad about the purchase decision. He also made fun of my audio equipment saying it was mediocre.” He went on to say “the guy e-mailed me in one night at least 10 e-mails. He was using huge capital fonts to emphasize the importance of his "knowledge." He said the cracks are like volcanoes with deep cracks. I told him to taker a look at the advertised pics of my Aerials. He responded by saying "Oh yes they are indeed the old ones, overpriced, and not for you”. I have a pair of Rogue monoblocks M150 and also a CJ MV55 and ML 27.5. He didn't like any of my equipment. He said I needed Classe, the big monoblocks like 350W per side. He made fun of my speaker cables, Analysis Oval 9 and Monster Sigma, the older top of the lines. He called them mediocre .I had already paid half for the speakers and he told me to ask for my money back. I then called Gilbert and requested the serial numbers and then called Aerial Acoustics; they told me the speakers were made around 98-99. That places them in the new version category. For the cracks they told me "if you drop the heads they'll crack, otherwise no worries." I inspected the heads and found no cracks whatsoever.” He purchased the 10Ts for a really bargain price in my opinion and is very happy with them. The Rogue 150s will be used on top in a biamp configuration with a Rogue Zeus on the woofers.
After receiving this email I was certain that I was not the only one who interpreted your original post as negative with regard to earlier versions of the 10T. I’m glad I went to the trouble to write my history of the 10T for others who may have had a similar reaction. My question to you is to what purpose did you say all these things to this fellow? Why would you do such a thing? To me your excellent Audiogon feedback means nothing in view of this sort of behavior.
In another email I received a copy of your email where you tell the recipient “any version 10T is a very inefficiant speaker meaning its really a 4ohm speaker with a sens of only 85 (or 86) meaning it takes a REAL true high current capable amp that is fully able to completley double down and more into a min 3ohm load... It takes an expensive true high current amp with at least full current into a 3ohm load and even lower (the 10T can dip to under 3ohm)... Many second hand buyers buy the 10T cause it cost less money than a new pair when that owner needs to make sure he uses the proper amplifier which cost more than the speakers... Not many amps are capabile of properly driving a speaker like the 10T... You need an amp like the 250 Plinius or a pair of 250 Plinius in mono to get the 10t to play good...”
The spelling errors are yours, not mine. I fail to understand why more people don’t use the spell check feature on their emails. Anyway, your suggestion of the Plinius 250 is an excellent one and I’m sure a pair of these in mono would be outstanding. Pretty expensive though and probably overkill for most. Obviously you were satisfied with a Classe CA-300. While it is true that the 10T benefits from high-powered amps (they are 86dB/W/m), what you say is not really true. In Wayne Donnelly’s review he states “the 10Ts stable, non-exotic impedance and reasonable efficiency make them a good match with either solid-state or robust tube amps.” He used a Spectral DMA 180 and some big VTL tube amps for his review. According to John Atkinson the 10T “will play reasonably loud with an amplifier of around 100W….I wouldn’t recommend that this speaker be used with wimpy single-ended amplifiers, and tube amps should definitely be used from their 4-ohm transformer taps.” Fi magazine in their 1999 recommendation say “any fine tube or solid-state amp capable of producing 100 watts or more per channel into 4 ohms.” In my own system I’ve had excellent results with an older Classe DR-15 and an upgrade to the Classe CA-300 was even better and quite enough power. From there I purchased a single BEL 1001 MK3A after hearing a pair of BEL 1001 MK2 Final amps bridged into mono. These are 200 watts a side when bridged and bettered the CA-300 in my opinion even if not quite as powerful. I purchased a single BEL MK3A because I couldn't afford two at the time. This is rated at 50 watts/channel and I was quite satisfied with its performance for two years until I could afford to buy a second one. This pair was an excellent combination with the 10Ts. A couple of years ago I upgraded (downgraded in price for sure) to the new Bryston 4B-SST. I did not feel like I was giving up anything over the BELs and the bottom end of the Bryston is everything you’ve heard about it. To suggest that one has to spend huge bucks to effectively drive 10Ts is not true. One of the amps Michael Kelly used to recommend highly for use with the 10T was the Ayre V3 that is rated at 100 watts/channel. A couple of amps that would also work quite well and are priced used between $900 and $1200 is the older Classe Fifteen and Classe Twenty-five. Michael Kelly has also recommended the 4B- ST (around $1200) in the past although I’m of the opinion that the difference between the ST and SST is worth the extra money if you can swing it (around $2000 used). I also own a pair of Classe CA-100s that I use in my surround system to drive a pair of Aerial model 7s and a single model 5 for a center. The model 7s are a little more efficient than the 10Ts and I find one CA-100 to work fine even with DTS, but I also use as powered sub to help out. The model 5 is even more inefficient than the 10T and I use the other CA-100 on it using one channel for the woofer and the other for the tweeter. I have tried just one of these on my 10Ts and was surprised at how well they performed. That said, if you are going to use a smaller amp just don’t expect to play at really loud volumes. You would not want to damage a driver by constantly clipping a smaller amp. My whole point here is it is possible to effectively drive a pair of 10Ts with a modest investment. Amplifiers have not improved that much in the last decade and there are some great older ones going for pennies on the dollar.
Finally Mike, I am not suggesting that very late model 10Ts should not command a higher price or even that yours are unfairly priced. I expect you will find your buyer as there is always someone who is willing to pay more for something that is newer and has greater perceived value. Or in this case, believes what you say and goes no further in their research. But, and this is a huge but, if you can buy essentially the same speaker for $1000-$2000 less, I don’t believe you can argue which is the better value. A much more prudent use of that difference in money would be an investment in better source components, especially for someone on a tight budget.
There is more I could say on this subject, but I fear I’ve written another lengthy post. Thanks to all of you who’ve stuck with me. And thanks also for the nice comments above. Perhaps there will be more to say later…..Travis
