NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/audio/19185

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-23 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!vnet.ibm.com
From: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 17:36:03 EST
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: re: Audio Concepts Sapphire IIti and Sub-1 Speaker Kits.
Lines: 67

OPTIONS: NOACK    LOG    SHORT    NOTEBOOK BOBG@SUN




Date: 22 January 1993, 17:07:41 EST
From: [e-mail]
To:     BOBG at SUNBELT.NAWCAD.NAVY.MIL
Subject: Re: Audio Concepts
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Advantis
News-Software: UReply 3.1
X-X-From: [e-mail]

In a previous message, you wrote:
>Bill,
>    I read your comments on the high-end bulletin board, and I agree with you
>100%. It's actually my friend who has the speakers, but I helped him put them
>together and listen to them often. It was amazing, though, how much they
>improved in the break-in period. I had heard of break-in requirements
>before, but thought them delusions of fanatics. No more. They image very well
>and are quite natural sounding. So how come they aren't reviewed or mentioned
>in passing more? We don't know either. He bought them on impulse after reading
>the ad in Audio Critic (the only audio magazine I trust, by the way) and was as
>pleased as you. Is is another instance of audio snobbery? That is, it's ignored
>because Dzurko started out with little background, hasn't done finite
>element analysis, etc? I'm curious too. I've heard lots of big name, big
>dollar speakers, and I'd take these over about all of them. I do like my
>speakers better -VMPS Super Tower IIIs - but they're also a lot more expensive.

Thanks for your reply Bob.  I would like to add more qualifier statements
to my rave review of the Sapphire IIti and Sub-1's speaker system.  They
are one of the best sounding speakers but of course within limits.  And that
one limit I want to mention here is Very LOUD levels.  All my rave remarks
apply when they are played at normal to loud listening levels.  I think
if you pushed them to ear splitting levels, they'll get harsh.  But don't
get me wrong, these babys do play loud and clean.  They just won't be able
to match "rock speaker", "kick-your-ass", "make-your-ears-ring", loudness
levels that some larger, humungous speaker systems can.  But then, I think
those looking for that kind of sound experience are not really into high-end
sound. They are most likely into "jump-out-and-grab-you", mid-fi sound.

>
>A question my friend has (he's not on a network): How can you biamplify with
>just the one amp? By coincidence, he has the same Adcom 585. There's only
>one pair of output terminals, so how do you do it? Do you just split the amp
>output? Does that make sense?
>
I think you mis-read my post.  I said as long as they were "bi-wired", not
"bi-amped".  Although they can be bi-amped too for even more improved
sound; again according to another follow-up article by Gary Galo in
some 1992 year issue of Speaker Builder magazine.  To bi-amp you will need
two stereo amps.  In your friends case or mine, we would then need two
Adcom 585 power amps.  One amp would have to be modified by adding a .002ufd
MIT or Wondercap in series with each line input.  That amp would be used to
feed the midrange and highs to the Sapphire II's.  The other amp is hooked up
unmodified to feed the bass to the Sub-1's.  That's it.  Check with Speaker
Builder Magazine for more details of that article.  And good luck!
These speakers can be compared with the best of them! Regardless of price.
>

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Advantis
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: Usenet 3.1
X-X-From: [e-mail]