I would describe the Altair basically with exactly the same attributes as you describe it.
Alsyvox planars...prepare to sell your Magico's, YG's, Wilson's, Cessaro's. Maggie's, and all others!!
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
I would describe the Altair basically with exactly the same attributes as you describe it.
You are more than entitled to your opinion. That’s really not the point here. I am questioning whether or not you feel it possible that your opinion could be altered if you heard these cartridges in a different context, like the one that I have already presented ?
It is the point because I was responding to your claim that I was speaking on behalf of others.
Given that I heard what I do not like in the context of over 10 different systems I am confident that my opinion on the Lyra Atlas will not be altered. To which you responded that each of those over 10 different systems must have been set-up in a faulty way or that each one of those over 10 different systems had misaligned Lyra cartridges.
Given that I heard what I do not like in the context of over 10 different systems I am confident that my opinion on the Lyra Atlas will not be altered. To which you responded that each of those over 10 different systems must have been set-up in a faulty way or that each one of those over 10 different systems had misaligned Lyra cartridges.
No, you are misunderstanding me. What I am trying to point out to you is that your experience with the Lyra Atlas in the particular systems that you heard it, doesn’t automatically mean that you can ‘lump’ all of the Lyra cartridges into the same category. If you have not heard the Kleos, or the Delos,or the regular Etna, in a correctly set up fashion, then I believe you are faulty in your overall assumptions wherein you reference/assume the whole line exhibits the same Issues.
I would also state that the samplings you heard the Atlas in may not have been sufficient, thereby leading you to a conclusion about this cartridge that may not be accurate, if it was in a different context. Certainly, you may have heard this particular cartridge (the Atlas) in enough instances to come to an accurate conclusion....but my point is...are you open to the suggestion that this might not be case?
Too expensive for me or I would seriously consider it...right after I got a pair of Aries Cerat Symphonias !
Hopefully not without hearing them first. To round out the thread with (alternate) opinions from associates of mine who attended RMAF:
- Terribly off timbre; for example: stringed instruments sounded plasticky.
- Utterly lifeless.
- Tonally very dark.
- Non-existent bass impact. (Apparently the dealer was explaining "real bass" and then when the bass hit, the room chuckled. The descriptor "mouse fart" was used.)
PS - Context matters, and this was reported in the context of the RMAF system configuration.
Last edited:
What you stated is exactly why we have such diversity of opinions in this hobby. The a'phile who gave you these opinions ( and that's what they are, nothing more or less) believed all that he told you. The a'phile friend of mine, had the exact opposite opinion. Who's right and who's wrong? i suspect that they are both right...and both wrong!
As we all know, speakers can sound different based on ancillary gear, set up and a host of other variables, even on a day to day basis. Your friend probably heard them when they were perhaps newly set up and not totally dialed in...or perhaps not; my friend heard them when they were totally dialed in and at their best...or perhaps he just didn't hear what your friend heard...and vice versa!
ONLY way to know for sure, is to listen for oneself in one's own system. Like all gear under consideration, IME.
It's going to come down to a matter of preference, and I know these folks' preferences very well. We've heard a LOT of the same gear and discussed it many, many times. So now when they describe something in detail to me, I get a very good feel. In this case, there were 4 associates of mine in the same suite at the same time. The descriptions I've relayed were unanimous among them. My point really only being this (and mainly in response to PeterA): Don't sell your stuff for these planars without hearing them first! Because at least in the opinion of some, the Asylovox suite was not only unimpressive but it might have been among the worst at the show.
Neither impression can be made in show context. This is an amazing thread, about the "ears we trust who listen and and judge in a show context"
What's amazing is the thread subject advocates selling gear to buy planars based on a report under show conditions. To counter that, I've simply posted what was heard in the same suite, at the same show, with the same gear. Show conditions are what they are, and ultimately leave a lot to be desired. This is precisely why we should *not* be saying sell X and buy planars based on show hearsay. That's my point. What's yours?
The title was over blown. Already been said. We can't give negative reviews either based on show hearsay. Dr K is buying them? Let's wait to hear from him.
We can review show suites (or in this case relay reviews of them). But obviously, we might not reach the same conclusion under more favorable or controlled conditions. Been there, done that, etc. Still, I'm unlikely to believe that under different conditions these speakers will somehow turn for the better to the required degree. But that's just me.
Four people in the suite at the same time is just one data point. And IMHO four people complete unanimity in this hobby is too polarized to be taken without many grains of salt, unless we have more specific details about the performance, considering some other people report great performance.
Perhaps these are great speakers - who knows? - but for me they are being shown under the aura of being expensive and mysterious unobtainium ...
And yes, I am allergic to unobtainium high-end products ...
It's four data points. These folks have all sorts of different personal preferences among them, from vinyl only to digital only, tubes only, solid state only, and mixes thereof. The rarity of such consensus, yes, extreme. And telling.
Anyhow, 'nuff said.
Anyhow, 'nuff said.
Interesting...All my sources from RMAF were saying completely opposite of what your associates claimed. Several reviewers including Johnathen Valin of TAS and Peter Breuninger of AV Showrooms, Terry Eningi were stunned by the lifelike, extended, dynamic Botticelli sound. JV said the Botticelli was only speaker he wanted to review. Yes, context matters. The RMAF system was the same for your associates and my sources and reviewers alike. Just goes to show you how differently people hear and have different preferences.
Also, coming to conclusion based on how badly a speaker sounds at a show is a poor way of judging a speaker. I can name many great speakers that sounded bad at shows.
Last edited:
Don't underestimate just how abominably bad great gear can sound at shows. As I've said many times before:
- if something sounds great at a show, then great, an important data point
- if something sounds bad at a show, it can have many, many reasons *), and it's a meaningless data point
*) for example, how about different opinions being based on different power conditions in those lousy hotel rooms during different times of the day? -- not as improbable as some might think, and might help explain the vastly divergent opinions
In sound reproduction, the conditions you describe do not allow me (and many others) to consider them as independent data points. And theoretically, for me, in this case it is just one half data point - indirect testimony, as they say.
