Tannoy Yorkminster vs Canterbury


Hello
I am looking for opinions comparing the Tannoy Yorkminster vs the Canterbury from those who have heard them. I had hoped to get some Westminster's but looks like my room is not going to be big enough for them, so I am specifically looking at these. Now, I know that the Yorkminster has a lower bass response, which I am interested in, however, I have read that the mid is not as sweet as the Canterbury... Is this actually so or possibly a "break in" issue? I listen to a wide range of music with classic jazz and classic rock being the major majority and classical being a significant minority. I currently have Quad ESL's (up for sale) so mid clarity and detail is very important to me, yet having said that, the lack of bass from the Quad's is exactly the reason for my speaker change. I have heard smaller Tannoys in the past (and LOVED the sound) but am unable to hear either of these before purchase unfortunately. I will be using them with Atma-Sphere MA-1 OTL amps and custom Audio Note DAC, along with phono frontend.
Thank you, in advance, for thoughtful response.
128x128grateful
Though at different times, I've have had the SE versions of both setup in my room, with the same gear behind them. Note that the Yorkminster SE doesn't have an equivalent in the new GR line, and thus may be considered discontinued.

In both cases, the speakers were basically new, with few hours. The Yorkminster SE was first, on audition/loan. I was looking to upgrade from the Kensington SE. The bass -- quality quantity, and extension -- were all significantly improved over the Kensington. This is NOT subtle. Treble quality was very similar between the two, as it should (same tweeter). In the midrange, clarity and detail were similar. However, the Yorkminster had what I'd consider a slight hardness (perhaps a mild boost somewhere in the upper kHz-4kHz region). The Kensington has a lovely sweetness in its mids that was absent in the dryer-sounding Yorkminster mids. That's not to say the Yorkie mids were bad -- it's just a matter of preference. My local Tannerd buddy absolutely loved the Yorkminster from top to bottom (at least sonically; neither of us love that Teak finish), and he's got better hearing than me.

Though I thought some of the midrange flavor might be attributed to lack of break-in, I decided it wasn't worth the risk to upgrade, and set sights on the Canterbury SE.

When I got the Caterbury SE (purchased outright), it was clear that this was a darker sounding speaker than both the Yorkminster and Kensington. It can even edge into "wooly" territory in the wrong setup. The midrange is far more akin to the Kensington (i.e. sweeter), which I was relieved about. However, I did find myself making tweaks/adjustments to bring out the presence and treble regions (e.g. +1.5dB treble shelving in the crossover panel, went from Mullard to Telefunken 12AX7 in amps, etc). The bass is more powerful and effortless compared to the Kensington, but it doesn't really delve much deeper like the Yorkminster does (the spec sheet is quite accurate here). The Canterbury excels in scale; images are bigger and more life-like than with the Yorkminster and (especially) Kensington -- this is displayed at it most spectacular with large orchestras. I noticed that break-in didn't change these characteristics; it only made the speakers more articulate over time. This leads me to believe I made the right choice over the Yorkminster. That said, the Yorkminster should be viewed more as an alternative than as a step-down to the Canterbury. If you don't need sweetness in your midrange, then the Yorkminster may be the right choice -- it certainly extends deeper in the bass, though make sure you have enough room to handle that. It can also prove to be troublesome to poorly isolated turntable, or a table with any amount of rumble!
Also, I should point out that the Canterbury is the only speaker of the 3 that has
a tweeter-height issue. You'll need either some really beefy pedestal stands
(about 8-10" tall) or something like hockey pucks up front to tilt the
tweeters up to ear level (I used 2 pucks per speaker). This is caused by the
slightly shorter cabinet coupled with the very large 15-inch driver pushing the
tweeter further down towards the floor.

Also, I listen to much more rock than classical, and there too I prefer the
Canterbury over what I heard with the Yorkminster.
I auditioned both and ended up buying the Canterbury GR's. They are sweeter sounding with no "honkiness". I found the Yorkministers GR's still had that last hair of honkiness. The Yorkministers also don't fill the room like the big Canterbury GR's.

Give the Canterbury's a 100+ hours to break in and I think you will be very happy.
if you go over to audio shark,there is a fairly extensive post about tannoy speakers-don't know if it will answer your questions ,but it might
Yeah, the Canterbury GR is probably going to be a better sounding option over
both SE's (Mbovaird -- there is no Yorkminster GR that I know if?). That said, the
new GR prices represent dramatic price increases (almost 40%), which may be a
factor. I'm still super-happy with my Canterbury SE (closing in on 2 years going),
and have finally reached a point where I'd rather spend that kind of cash on
things other than my 2ch system.