Clarisys Audio Auditorium Loudspeaker

[Florian]

I didn't suggest to go for M10 active. As I said I have problems with the approach which is against common audiophile wisdom. When Ron and Cyrus think that WestminsterLab is superior to CHP they should try it first passively to have a valid comparison.

Sure, but it's his system, his money and his hobby so the only thing that matters is his enjoyment. Maybe there were other things he didn't like about CH, I have no idea. In our testing, with all electronics being equal, the active is more enjoyable then the passive version and Cyrus is not the only Clarisys owner who made this switch. Cheers

 

[morricab]

Sure, but it's his system, his money and his hobby so the only thing that matters is his enjoyment. Maybe there were other things he didn't like about CH, I have no idea. In our testing, with all electronics being equal, the active is more enjoyable then the passive version and Cyrus is not the only Clarisys owner who made this switch. Cheers

WHat do you hear as the difference between CH and the Westminster amps?

 

[Florian]

WHat do you hear as the difference between CH and the Westminster amps?

I didnt, i never heard Westminster but the CH 10 and 1.5 in the same room.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

WHat do you hear as the difference between CH and the Westminster amps?

i agree that we don't know how a single set of Westminster's are preferred over the 3x active with crossover. in other words, is the main change the 3x w/crossover? or to the tonality of the Westminster? or maybe that was tried and i missed it?

my feedback about the Westminster is that it's got a bit of a more natural tonality (a type of class A being part of it) compared to how CH is perceived. not saying that the CH is not natural, just in direct compare. and my take on this is 2nd hand, not me listening.

turning the global feedback all the way down on the CH? was that tried? and?

but i think this issue is important to understand......what is really the main thing here? for buyers going forward. where is the big step up? tri-amping with the CS Port? or to Westminster over the CH? we are left to wonder at this point what is causing what. if someone wants the Clarisys, where do you start? with the crossover and amps you can afford? or one Westminster and add more later? that is the real world.

 

[Florian]

Just some inputs. Several clients upgraded their Auditorium setups from passive to active while keeping their amp family and the benefits are universally acclaimed and especially the possibility to adjust the driver levels to your taste and room. Cheers

 

[Ron Resnick]

I understand the skeptical questions of Matthias and others. Unfortunately, in this hobby because of expense and inconvenience and weight and practicality and desire it is difficult to proceed with scientific method logic and precision. This is a hobby, after all, and it is supposed to be fun, not a work chore and a burden.

I have a non-scientific guideline that you're not going to find satisfying. If I listen to a variety of systems and there is one particular brand in common in each of those otherwise varied systems, and I didn't care for the sound of any of those systems with this one common brand, I suspect that that particular brand is just not my cup of tea.

If I listen to a variety of systems and there is one particular brand in common in each of those otherwise varied systems, and I kind of like the sound of each of those systems with this one common brand, I suspect that that particular brand has a sound I cotton to.

I am not a solid-state person to begin with. But to my recollection -- with samples sets of at least 10 (if audio shows and dealer auditions are included) I have never cottoned to the sound of systems built around CH Precision.To my recollection I have never not cottoned to the sound of systems built around WestminsterLab.

Do I expect you to be convinced of the scientific precision and statistical legitimacy of my personal preference? No.

Am I comfortable that my experience accurately reflects and predicts my personal, subjective sonic preferences between these two solid-state brands? Yes.

*In my interview with Todd Binnix I asked him about his enjoyment of CH components. Todd said, in substance, that just like the brand name says he finds precision in the sound of CH components. In my personal subjective sonic preferences I do not seek a sound that sounds precise per se. When we think of Jadis (my current primary amplifiers) does the word "precision" come to mind?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Several clients upgraded their Auditorium setups from passive to active while keeping their amp family and the benefits are universally acclaimed and especially the possibility to adjust the driver levels to your taste and room.

I started this audio journey with the philosophical bias that I like the "purity" of passive cross-over components. Philosophy aside now I have heard the benefits of an active cross-over and the very desirable ability to adjust the driver levels to taste and room. (After my Schitt Loki Max experimentation I am also more amenable to plain old EQ.)

If I get Auditoriums I would not hesitate to get the active cross-over. (Even if it means I have more solid-state pieces in my tube salad.)

 

[Audiohertz2]

All of the above can and has been done with passive xovers , both offer advantages and disadvantages , there is no cure all.

No active setup matches the careful balance between mid> Tweeter as well as a passive And Without electronic smearing , but does wonders in the bass > mid area where this is hampered by lossy large inductors which can kill dynamics and add ridiculous complexity to The impedance curve ..


Regards

 

[Florian]

All of the above can and has been done with passive xovers , both offer advantages and disadvantages , there is no cure all.

No active setup matches the careful balance between mid> Tweeter as well as a passive And Without electronic smearing , but does wonders in the bass > mid area where this is hampered by lossy large inductors which can kill dynamics and add ridiculous complexity to The impedance curve ..


Regards

I would disagree with you here primarily because it is generalized and oversimplified.

There are a big amount of active crossovers. Analog power supplies, digital power supplies, operational amps, non operational amps, additive resistor crossovers, single gain control resistor design, analog active, digital active, dsp, phase rotation or not. The idea that one can generalize and active crossover or a passive one is not at all a good approach. We have chosen the ACN400 for very specific sonic and technical reasons, and it beats our passive crossovers in sonic performance, and mind you, our passive crossovers don't even use resistors or correction bandpass circuits commonly found. We pride ourself with impedance matched drivers, resistorless and simplicity.

Enjoy the hobby

 

[Big Dog RJ]

Great points of discussion, and very interesting to experience how performance can be improved by small margins or not, I guess that's solely justified by the user.

The best part of the above post was the very last word, "simplicity" that's my primary focus.

Like I've said before, go with whatever floats your boat, there's no ultimate way of listening to reproduced music. Especially at this level, it's limited by the recording and of course our precious hearing, and a few other factors... room, system set-up, doggies barking in the background and of course that lovely bottle of red! Generally it gets better after a 15min warm up and half a bottle gone.

So cheers to all, and most of all enjoy those fine tunes! It's all about the music, nothing really else to it.
Woof! RJ