Coincident Technology Speakers

I'm part of an aoudiophile gang in Ottawa that are all Coincident fanatatics. The sperakers we run include a pair of Total Eclipses, two pairs of Super Eclipse III, a bastardized pair of Milleniums (an older two-box design with the Total Eclipse mid/tweeter and a separate woofer box), a pair of Israel's experimental speakers using Manger drivers, and my Total Victories (not the version II). All of them except one pair of SEIII are being driven by tubes of various sorts, with the heretic using a SimAudio I-5. They all sound excellent, with the final quality determined more by the room than the speaker itself.

The rooms vary - a standard living room, a big living room and four dedicated sound rooms of varying size and quality. Mine are in a dedicated 12x19 foot room, which isn't too small for them by any means, since it's well proportioned and well-treated. I'm driving mine with Canary CA-339 push-pull 300B monos, and I'm currently trying an Audio Note Silver Night PX25 with equally good results. I've run mine with a fairly wide variety of amps ranging from 6 to 100 watts. The speakers ran well on all of them except a pair of Wavelength 300Bs that didn't have the guts to push through the fairly complex crossover.

The sound from all of Israel's current speakers is great - very revealing and dynamic, but with a touch of warmth that preserves the musical intent. The music has a real sense of scale. IMO the sweet spot in the lineup in the SEIII. It's easier to integrate in most rooms, is trivial to drive, and sounds fantastic. The TV and TE are bigger sounding and give orchestras more weight, but there's no question they require more of a committment to own.

All that said, should you switch to them from Quads? You will definitely gain the dynamics and scale you're looking for, but you will lose a degree of resolution and nuance in the process. Good as they are, Coincidents aren't electrostatics. They don't have quite the speed, and they don't have that shimmering sense of air. However, in my opinion dynamics are more important than that last bit of air, which is why I bought Coincidents in the first place. If you've found yourself missing that, then either the SEIII or the TVII will definitely float your boat.

A correction and a couple of further comments related to what I said above:

The correction is that the PX25 amp I'm using at the moment is of course an Audion, not an Audio Note.

The sense of warmth that Harry Pearson found in the midbass of the TVs is detectable on my speakers as well, in comparison to some other speakers of similar quality. I think it slows them down just a bit. I understand that the changes to version II were intended to address this issue, among others. I haven't heard the II, though. I think this slight warmth adds to the musicality of my original version, though perhaps at the expense of their Abso!ute neutrality :-) I'll emphasize that this is only in comparison to a very few other speakers, all of which of course have colourations of their own to muck up the comparison in other ways.

I also think the SEIII has more explicit imaging than the TE or TV, probably because it uses fewer drivers. And on that issue, I'm amazed at how well the 9 drivers per side on the TV integrate. I listen within 8 feet of the speakers, and I never hear separate drivers. I have heard other speakers pull a better disappearing act, but usually at the expense of the authority and fullness the TVs being to the table.

I currently run Coincident Victories with Coincident mini subs. I suspect that the Quads and the Victories have similar extension into the lower octaves with the TV's extending a little further. My choice in going with the Victories was room size. The TV's would be a bit much in my 12 x 15 room. The mini subs when properly placed help fill out the low end without drawing attention to themselves. I'd recommend the Victory over the Eclipse line. The Victories closer to the electrostats in speed and more transparent.

kjl,

I am a long time owner of Quads that like you, find them a bit frustrating at times. Last year when I was particularily PO'ed at them, I bought a pair of Partial eclipses to see if I could live with them. The short answer was no. I wasn't willing to give up the nuance that the Quads provide. I did think the Partial's did provide a great bang for the buck and they were definitly more extended on the bottom and capable of being played at higher leavels without fear of damage. In the end, I Quads resolution and musically nature kept me. As for the Quads, I haven't heard a speaker better them in sound staging when properly set up. This means getting them off the floor and way off the back wall - 5' minimum. For the 63's which I use, the Arccii's are essential. I have heard them on the floor and they do sound much smaller that way. I don't know if there are stands available for the 988's but I would look into it before buying another speaker. As far as weight goes, the Quads are not amplifier friendly. I looked on the Thor web site and see that your amp only has 4 & 8 ohm taps. I think what your experiencing is an impedance mis-match. The Quads have a very steep impedence curve in the lower frequencies reaching 30 to 40 ohms at 40 Hz. I have tried the 8 ohm tap with my amp (an ARC D115) and experienced dreadfully thin sound. Through the 16 Ohm tap it is an entirely different matter. I have suprised more than a few people with the low end response of the 63's. I not saying that you'll get more extension - about 40 Hz in my room, just a lot more heft. I hope this helps.

Regards,

Scott