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
Clarisys Audio Auditorium Loudspeaker
- Thread starter byrdparis
- Start date
I didnt, i never heard Westminster but the CH 10 and 1.5 in the same room.
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.
Last edited:
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
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?
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?
Last edited:
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.)
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
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
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
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
I thought you liked both Todd’s trios and Cyrus’ Clarisys when they were set up with digital and CH. That was 2/2
That is a fair question. Todd's CH was preamp only, not CH preamp + CH amplifier.
I prefer Todd's room and set-up (distance from the front wall) over Ali's room and set-up. But I definitely prefer the "breath of life" and the "liquidity" and the tonal balance of Ali's stunning Berning SET amplifiers (and his passive or tube line stage, I cannot remember which).
I definitely prefer Cyrus' all WestminsterLab over the all CH set-up.
And I prefer analog over digital.
Did you listen to Ali’s on digital?
I understand you prefer analog to digital and Westminster to CH. However my point was that you rated those two systems with digital and CH. The fact that something is better than what you have liked, does not change what you have liked. Unless of course that was just a polite visit report, then the point is moot
I would be very surprised if anybody found Todd's system not at least close to amazing. I am very confident I would prefer the system with tubes, as I have preferred every AG system I've ever heard on tubes.
Is Todd going Itron? After hearing that a couple of times now, I would never play AG speakers that way…only with tubes. I had the same reaction to the previous generations of AG when demoed with AG amps. Heard the Duo XD recently with a simple PP Class AB tube amp and that sounded really good. The new Mezzo G3 with Itron…well …
Yes, the notorious system no one liked. At least no one I have ever read about or heard from. My gut tells me that the AG does appear to respond well to higher power than one would need on paper...and thus the Dartzeels doing well with them...and given the very single-ended mentality Robert has in his designs, ie, dynamic simplicity is his whole design philosophy...i do think the AG Trios and Robert Kodas could pair extremely well.
One way to tell, but not for now.
Similar threads
