"Would we have come full circle, back to the days when music reproduction systems were self-contained?" he concluded.
As I read Paul's newsletter, I had just started to write this review of a wireless speaker from Danish manufacturer DALI (Danish Audiophile Loudspeaker Industries), the Callisto 6 C, a pair of which has been living in my listening room for the past two months. The Callisto 6 C costs $5750/pair including a DALI Sound Hub fitted with a BluOS NPM-1 module (see later) and is indeed a self-contained music reproduction system.
Going without wires
Stereophile has reviewed other wireless speakers in recent issues. Jim Austin reviewed Apple's HomePod in August and September 2018, and Herb Reichert and I reported on KEF's LSX in May and June 2019. What these loudspeakers have in common, other than an absence of connected cables—they do have wires for power—is that they use class-D amplifiers and powerful digital signal processing (DSP) to implement the crossover and optimize the loudspeaker's performance in the time and frequency domains.
Both the KEF and Apple also use DSP to adjust the speaker's behavior to allow for its position in the listener's room. The Callisto 6 C doesn't include the latter capability, but what it does have when used with DALI's Sound Hub is the ability to accept PCM audio data sampled up to 192kHz. (Internally, however, the Callisto system is limited to 96kHz.) The HomePod is restricted to sample rates up to 48kHz, and while the KEF can decode 176.4kHz and 192kHz PCM data, it can only do so with a wired Ethernet link.
The Sound Hub is a relatively small black box with a circular display centered within a front-panel volume-control ring, just below three control buttons. A second, square display on its top panel is active when a pair of Callisto speakers is connected (see later). According to DALI, the Hub connects to the speakers with either a 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz Wi-Fi link, whichever offers the best quality, using "a proprietary 30-bit protocol." This link transfers uncompressed, 24-bit I2S-formatted audio data sampled at 96kHz, "utilizing the remaining bits to control volume, speaker ID, and other control data." This link is bidirectional—swipe your finger left or right along the top panel behind the gently curved front baffle of one of the speakers and you can adjust the levels of both, with the volume indicated with white-LED bargraphs on their baffles beneath the woofers and in numbers on the Sound Hub's front-panel display. Each speaker also has an analog input on a back-panel RCA jack; when the speakers are hard-wired, the analog signal is converted to 24/96 digital and the volume control is disabled.
On its back panel, the Hub has analog inputs (one pair on RCA jacks, another on a 3.5mm stereo jack) and three S/PDIF digital inputs(one coaxial and two optical TosLink). Wirelessly, the hub accepts Bluetooth input, including aptX-HD. A Type A USB port provides 5V power for a Chromecast Audio dongle or to charge phones, and there is a service port. Also on the rear panel is a pair of preamplifier outputs and a mono subwoofer output, plus two ports for plug-in modules. One of those ports can be occupied by the BluOS NPM-1 module, which is included with Sound Hubs sold in North America; the module adds Ethernet and Wi-Fi network connections to allow control of the Callisto/Sound Hub system and the transmission of data from a NAS, with MQA decoding, using the Bluesound BluOS Controller or Roon apps. The Sound Hub is supplied with a remote control that connects via Bluetooth.
The Callisto 6 C
I am 600 words into this review, and I haven't yet discussed the loudspeakers. The Callisto 6 C is a tall, slim tower, just over 39" tall. An optional pair of spiked outrigger stands provides stability on carpeted floors.
The last DALI loudspeaker I reviewed was the Rubicon 8, in March 2015; the Callisto 6 C features a line-up of drive-units similar to the Rubicon's, but with two woofers rather than three, these operating below 2.6kHz. These woofers feature a unique cone material—paper pulp impregnated with a matrix of wood fibers, the combination said to give a better controlled transition from pistonic motion to break-up—and the cone is terminated in a soft, low-loss rubber surround.
Like the Rubicon, these woofers use what DALI calls their Soft Magnetic Compound (SMC) in the magnet pole pieces. Conventional magnetic materials suffer from hysteresis: It takes longer for them to be demagnetized than to be magnetized, which results in distortion, especially at high frequencies. If the pole pieces could be made from a material that is highly susceptible to magnetization but is also an electrical insulator, the hysteresis and the resultant distortion, especially third-order, would be very much reduced. SMC is formed from small particles of iron that are each coated with an insulating material to create a substance that is still highly ferromagnetic but has a very low electrical conductivity—about 1/10,000 that of iron. This dramatically reduces hysteresis. The Callisto woofer's SMC pole piece is surrounded with a copper ring to minimize the modulation of the magnetic field by the current fed to the voice-coil.
The woofers are loaded with two flared ports on the rear of the enclosure. DALI CEO Lars Worre holds strong opinions on the behavior of reflex systems, feeling that the ports should be used more to reduce distortion rather than to achieve the ultimate low-frequency extension. Worre told me that the textbook reflex tuning, where a Q of 0.7 gives maximally flat extension and a response that is 6dB down at the port tuning frequency, compromises the woofer's behavior in the time domain and results in too much bass in real rooms. ("Room gain," the reinforcement of a speaker's bass due to reflections from the boundaries, typically tilts up the low-frequency output by approximately 4dB/octave below a corner frequency that is inversely related to the size of the room.) DALI speakers use what Worre refers to as "Fast Tuning," where a lower-Q woofer alignment gives sufficient in-room bass extension coupled with much lower group delay at low frequencies and reduced ringing at the port tuning frequency.
Also like the Rubicon, high frequencies are handled by a pair of units: a conventional soft-dome tweeter, this a little larger than usual (1.15"), and a ribbon supertweeter 0.67" wide and 1.77" tall. There is no crossover between the two high-frequency drivers: The ribbon tweeter rolls in above 8kHz and widens the horizontal radiation pattern above 10kHz, where the dome tweeter is starting its mechanical rolloff. This is intended to give a greater range than usual of seating positions at which listeners can hear a full high-frequency balance.
 | |||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||
COMMENTS
Although the midrange balance is even, there is then a lack of energy between 1kHz and 3kHz, above which the region covered by the two tweeters is 3–5dB too high in level. This behavior is not dissimilar to that of DALI's Rubicon 8; as with that speaker, it is why DALI recommends firing the Callistos straight ahead rather than toeing them in to the listening position.
Again, one has to wonder why they do this. What is the upside?
… any speaker designer as to why they might choose to adopt less than the flattest possible/most neutral frequency response for their products?
A notable contrast is the passive speakers from KEF vs. B&W.
While the latest KEF products are typically quite uniform overall, contemporary B&W models generally exhibit significant deviations from flat frequency response. Yet, B&W seems to be a popular choice for monitor speakers among recording studios.
Has there been an explanation from any speaker designer as to why they might choose to adopt less than the flattest possible/most neutral frequency response for their products?
I/they could tell you, but then would have to kill you.
So best kept secret/proprietary.
AJ Soundfield Audio
Are you referring to B&W 805 D3? ........ 805 D3 frequency response somewhat looks like the Fletcher-Munson curve ....... B&W top of the line 802 D3 frequency response looks 'reasonably' flat ......... Most of the recording studios usually choose top of the line models of any loudspeakers from any manufacturer :-) ........
... here:
https://www.hifinews.com/content/bw-702-s2-loudspeakers-lab-report
https://www.hifinews.com/content/bw-603-loudspeaker-lab-report
https://www.hifinews.com/content/bw-805-d3-loudspeaker-lab-report
B&W 700 and 600 series are not their top 'reference quality' models. I don't think recording studios would use them for monitoring ......... B&W 805 D3 was also reviewed by Stereophile ........ I mentioned that ........ 805 D3 is a bookshelf model ........ Most of the recording studios use powered monitors for initial monitoring over the recording consoles ......... Most of the B&W speakers used by the recording studios for their final mixing and monitoring are B&W top models, 800 D3 or 802 D3 :-) .........
BTW .... The frequency response 'roller-coaster' ride of the B&W 603 looks worse than the Wilson Audio TuneTot, also reviewed by Hi-Fi News :-) .........
B&W 603 is EISA award winner ........ Were they drinking 'Kool-Aid'? :-) ...........
Even the B&W 702 S2 frequency response looks almost similar to the 'roller-coaster' ride of B&W 603 ...... May be that is the 'secret sauce'? :-) .........
Even the 'diamond tweeter' used in their top models 800 series, shows similar type of frequency response as 700 and 600 series ...... although, to a lesser extent :-) .........
Like JA1 said, 'idiosyncratic' indeed :-) .........
@Ortofan, having spoken with a few recording engineers, I think many (consciously or unconsciously) prefer an elevated treble response since it helps them hear unwanted noise, artifacts, mouth noise, and mechanical clicks etc that need to be edited out. Many are older males who have some degree of high frequency hearing loss as well.
While this should translate into dull-sounding mixes when played back on flat speakers, I think the engineer knows to compensate -- and otherwise the mastering engineer will restore the appropriate balance as a final step.
It should also be noted that most studios have 2 or more different sets of playback monitors. One might be more "analytical" (elevated highs) while another may be more flat for long-term listening without ear fatigue.
... most neutral monitoring speakers through which to hear the finished product.
If an elevated high frequency response is useful during the editing process, then that could be achieved with an equalizer. Likewise, if the recording engineer is afflicted with some degree of frequency-dependent hearing loss, then, with an audiogram from a hearing test in hand, the response of the monitors can be adjusted to compensate.
Per-person EQ makes sense, though I would think it is uncommon in a recording environment, partly because it adds a source for potential errors: applying the wrong person's EQ, applying the EQ to the wrong monitors, basing the EQ on an inaccurate audiogram, leaving the EQ active for the next engineer, etc.
The engineer is well aware of his/her own hearing limitations and is usually familiar with the "sound" of specific monitors from having heard many reference tracks over them. Therefore they are able to compensate by aiming for the same "sound" in a new recording.
I'm not a recording professional (though I've done a fair amount of amateur recording/engineering), just trying to suggest why studio monitors, even the classic BBC LS3/5a, sometimes have elevated on-axis treble.
Incidentally I once wrote a plugin for recording software which let you simulate the EQ of several common speaker types while listening over headphones. The purpose was to help assess how a mix might sound in common less-than-perfect environments. I'm not sure if it ever got any use, and it is unfortunately stuck in 32 bit Windows territory... https://sites.google.com/site/ralphgonz/music-vst
@ralphgonz ...... Why would not any recording engineer check for all the settings, before he/she starts recording/monitoring? ........ especially, if another different engineer used the equipment before? :-) ........
Also, as you may already know, most of the active monitors used by the recording studios these days come with built-in user adjustable EQ/tone controls ....... Some active monitors can even do advanced DSP and come with calibration microphones and software programs :-) .........
In addition to all of the above, lot of recording engineers use headphones for monitoring ........ JA1 was using headphones for monitoring for his recordings in the 90's :-) .........
Approximately: Because speakers aren't linear devices.
The biggest downfall of the amplitude response war - and there are many - is that it carried with it an assumption that speakers are linear, even nearly digital devices. Get the static response right on paper and it's perfected.
Speakers just don't work that way.
...that isn't rhetorical, bear in mind that gallons of ink have been spilled on the subject; it's not going to be re-litigated in the comments section of the online edition of a hifi publication, is it?
A question instead: How many characteristics does a loudspeaker have? Because somewhere in that mix lies the ironclad realization that speakers aren't lines on a chart of level versus frequency.
... lines on a chart of level versus frequency, then, supposing you are in charge of producing such speakers, how do you perform quality control on outgoing products?
"I take your question" :-) .........
..... Or, that is way, way beyond the 'purview' of those darn objectivists :-) .........
Just employ a few 'Golden Ears' in the quality control department, who are graduates of 'Golden Ear' university :-) ........
Does this non-linearity you are describing, applies to both passive and active speakers? ........ By active speakers meaning, self powered speakers with multiple amplifiers connected directly to the transducers and an active crossover placed before the amplifiers? ...... Also, does this non-linearity applies to all types of speakers including dynamic, planar magnetic and electrostatic speakers? ....... Not to mention, speakers like MBL? ........ Could you elaborate about this non-linearity? :-) .........
The biggest downfall of the amplitude response war - and there are many - is that it carried with it an assumption that speakers are linear, even nearly digital devices.
That is a projection, not an assumption.
33 yrs ago, with references dating back to the 1930s
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5251
AJ Soundfield Audio
To Kal Rubinson's post: I'm not sure what Dali's thinking is, but personally I prefer the aesthetics of speakers firing straight ahead.
Secondly, if the treble is optimized for off-axis listening then there is a bigger sweet spot so multiple people can hear the optimum treble balance. Likewise a single listener doesn't have to be anchored midway between the speakers as they would when the optimum balance requires toe-in.
Thirdly, this enables more high frequency energy in the room reverberant response, where there is normally a deficit due to narrowing directivity at high frequencies.
To Kal Rubinson's post: I'm not sure what Dali's thinking is, but personally I prefer the aesthetics of speakers firing straight ahead.
I agree with you about this.
Secondly, if the treble is optimized for off-axis listening then there is a bigger sweet spot so multiple people can hear the optimum treble balance. Likewise a single listener doesn't have to be anchored midway between the speakers as they would when the optimum balance requires toe-in.
Is it optimized for off-axis listening or is the toe-in necessary to avoid the glare of the bumpy on-axis response? I do not know of any evidence that the size of the optimum listening position is increased under such an approach.
Thirdly, this enables more high frequency energy in the room reverberant response, where there is normally a deficit due to narrowing directivity at high frequencies.
I am not a fan of splashing excess HF energy off the sidewalls. I'd rather the bass-mid-treble balance of the on-axis response was maintained in the reverberant field by narrowing the dispersion below the treble as one sees with the BeoLab90, Kii Three and D&D 8c speakers.
Secondly, if the treble is optimized for off-axis listening then there is a bigger sweet spot so multiple people can hear the optimum treble balance.
No. Elevating the on axis (straight ahead) treble so that the 30 degree off axis or so, becomes approximately "flat" as being questioned here, does no such thing.
The only way to tailor the polar pattern for a wide(r) *stereo sweet spot has been long known to (audio) science adherents:
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Links/Optimized-listening-area-Davies.pdf
It most certainly doesn't involve boosting the on axis treble.
cheers
AJ Soundfield Audio
The DALI Callisto 6-C frequency response may work well for older people with high frequency hearing loss ....... Not all 'old' people have high frequency hearing loss :-) ........
I think we're talking about different things @AJ. By "sweet spot" I meant in terms of frequency response, not in terms of stereo image localization (the link you gave refers to using multidriver arrays to improve stereo image stability when the listener is not on the center line between the two speakers. Though the technique also increases the frequency balance off-axis, it is an expensive approach and probably not commercially viable).
If we define the horizontal "sweet spot" as the range of listening positions where treble balance is within -- say -- plus or minus 2dB of flat response, then by designing the speaker to be flat at 10 or 15 degrees off axis you will have a much wider sweet spot than one which is flat at 0 degrees.
Moreover this gives the listener the flexibility to adjust the treble balance both up and down by adjusting toe-in, whereas you can only adjust the treble balance downward if the speaker is flat at 0 degrees.
I think we're talking about different things @AJ. By "sweet spot" I meant in terms of frequency response, not in terms of stereo image localization
Then you are making up definitions. "Sweet spot" is a commonly understood term of stereophony. Heck, it can be found on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_spot_(acoustics)
The sweet spot is a term used by audiophiles and recording engineers to describe the focal point between two speakers, where an individual is fully capable of hearing the stereo audio mix the way it was intended to be heard by the mixer. The sweet spot is the location which creates an equilateral triangle together with the stereo loudspeakers...listener can enjoy the sound experience as intended by the audio engineer, including the desired phantom source locations, spectral and spatial balance and degree of immersion.
Unless the speaker has a polar pattern similar to the linked Davis paper, the image simply collapses to the nearest speaker (precedence effect) when moving laterally off axis...regardless of FR smoothness.
If we define the horizontal "sweet spot" as the range of listening positions where treble balance is within -- say -- plus or minus 2dB of flat response, then by designing the speaker to be flat at 10 or 15 degrees off axis you will have a much wider sweet spot than one which is flat at 0 degrees.
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. If it is "flat" only at 10-15 off axis, but elevated (on) or depressed (off) elsewhere, that makes for a very narrow - by your definition "sweet spot", not "wider". How would forcing one to be within a very narrow angle (10-15) make a listening area "wider"?
the link you gave refers to using multidriver arrays to improve stereo image stability when the listener is not on the center line between the two speakers. Though the technique also increases the frequency balance off-axis, it is an expensive approach and probably not commercially viable
No, it requires neither arrays (to acheive the required polars) nor prohibitive expense (unless targeting only audiophiles).
cheers,
AJ Soundfield Audio
The discussion started by Kal Rubinson was about why speaker manufacturers sometimes design speakers to have an elevated on-axis treble region, sounding their best off axis (IE with little or no toe-in). Here is a more detailed example illustrating this.
Suppose your tweeter's response at 10kHz falls to -2dB at 10 degrees off axis relative to its on-axis response, and -4dB at 20 degrees off axis. If you set the tweeter level to be flat relative to the other driver(s) on axis, then the system's treble balance will be within 2dB of the bass and midrange from a lateral angle of -10 degrees to +10 degrees (up to 10kHz). At listening angles greater than 10 degrees the system treble balance will be excessively depressed.
Suppose instead the tweeter level is set to +2dB relative to the remaining driver(s) on axis. Now at 10 degrees off axis the system level at 10kHz is 0dB, and at 20 degrees off axis the system level at 10kHz is -2dB relative to the remaining driver(s). So within plus or minus 2dB tolerances this system will sound well balanced over the lateral range from -20 degrees to +20 degrees, twice as wide a listening angle as the system with flat on-axis response.
Well, I realize this is all your speculation rather than the manufacturers actual explanation, but I'll play along.
So, according to your theory, with these elevated (treble) on axis speakers pointed straight ahead, sitting in the midpoint seat/30 off speaker on axis or say slightly off middle/20 off speaker axis, the perceived/audible spectral balance remains relatively flat/balanced, thus "wider sweet spot"?
The two tweeters used for the high frequency are not similar, in the Callisto 6-C ....... The lower tweeter is a dome and the upper tweeter is a ribbon ........ The crossover frequency in the treble region was mentioned as 2.6 KHz in the manufacturer's specs, which is where presumably the midrange(s) are crossed over with the dome tweeter .......... We don't know where the dome and the ribbon are crossed over ....... This may have some thing to do with the perceived tonal balance, on-axis as well as off-axis ....... Also, JA1's in-room frequency response of the Callisto 6-C in the listening position is, very close to Joseph Audio Perspective2, which has only one dome tweeter :-) .........
It is also possible, both the dome and the ribbon tweeters are crossed over at 2.6 KHz ........ Both tweeters may be working simultaneously above 2.6 KHz :-) .........
We may need the help of Inspector Clouseau to solve this mysterious engineering of DALI Callisto 6-C :-) ........
Two of the Sony SS-NA2ES and SS-NA5ES speakers use 3 dome tweeters of different diameters, and were reviewed by Stereophile ........ NA5ES shows almost +5 db elevated frequency response above 6 KHz in the treble region ........ NA2ES shows a dip in the low treble and not any significant elevated frequency response in the high treble :-) ...........
May be you could send your Soundfield Audio CTA1 active speakers for a review by Stereophile? ....... They sound good in the video posted on-line :-) .........
The discussion ............... was about why speaker manufacturers sometimes design speakers to have an elevated on-axis treble region, sounding their best off axis (IE with little or no toe-in).
No, that is not what I was asking. I was responding to JA's comment that "Although the midrange balance is even, there is then a lack of energy between 1kHz and 3kHz, above which the region covered by the two tweeters is 3–5dB too high in level." In other words, why is the response so uneven with a notable cutout in the 1-3kHz range (relative both to the lower and higher ranges) as well as why the upper range is so elevated?
Suppose your tweeter's response at 10kHz falls to -2dB at 10 degrees off axis relative to its on-axis response, and -4dB at 20 degrees off axis. If you set the tweeter level to be flat relative to the other driver(s) on axis, then the system's treble balance will be within 2dB of the bass and midrange from a lateral angle of -10 degrees to +10 degrees (up to 10kHz).
Suppose instead the tweeter level is set to +2dB relative to the remaining driver(s) on axis. Now at 10 degrees off axis the system level at 10kHz is 0dB, and at 20 degrees off axis the system level at 10kHz is -2dB relative to the remaining driver(s). So within plus or minus 2dB tolerances this system will sound well balanced over the lateral range from -20 degrees to +20 degrees, twice as wide a listening angle as the system with flat on-axis response.
However, if you look at either the horizontal plane off-axis responses, there is no significant difference in the FR until almost 20kHz at up to 30deg off-axis. In other words, if this is range of reasonable toe-in adjustment it is not accomplishing either described outcome as those traces mimic the on-axis trace until well beyond 10kHz.
The frequency response dip which starts from approx. 800 Hz and extends to approx. 3 KHz looks like the famous 'BBC dip' ........ Dali could have included some kind of digital EQ to tame that 'hot' mid and upper treble ....... Recently reviewed D&D active DSP speakers includes digital EQ in their design :-) .........
If, they do Harman 'Spinorama' graphs, the frequency response of the DALI Callisto 6-C may almost look like the Fletcher-Munson curves :-) ........
DALI Rubicon 8, which was also reviewed by Stereophile, has a frequency response which looks much more like the Fletcher-Munson curve :-) .........
It would be interesting to see if JA1 could also review the JBL Stage A170 speakers ($500/pair) ........ Stage A170 looks almost similar to Dali Callisto 6-C and Joseph Audio Perspective2 ......... S&V magazine favorably reviewed those Stage A170, recently :-) .........
It would be interesting to see if JA1 could also review the JBL Stage A170 speakers ($500/pair)...
Herb Reichert is reviewing the Stage 170 in the November issue of Stereophile.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
Great ... Looking forward to that review ....... It would be interesting to see if you (JA1) could get in-room frequency response measurements in your (JA1's) listening room, and compare those with the in-room frequency response measurements of Joseph Perspective2 and Dali Callisto 6-C :-) .........
May be you (JA1) could also write another article, 'A tale of 3 speakers' ........ Of course, I'm referring to your (JA1's) previous article 'A tale of 2 speakers' :-) ..........
Since you (JA1) have already compared the Revel performa M106 with KEF LS-50, may be you (JA1) could also review the Revel Performa M126Be, with the Beryllium tweeters ($4,000/pair), and compare those with the KEF LS-50? :-) .........
Stereophile may be interested in reviewing the new Polk Audio Legend series, top model L-800 ($6,000/pair), with Stereo Dimensional Array (SDA-PRO) technology ........ See S&V website :-) ..........
Not having ever heard these speakers, I'm not going to comment on their sound.
From a value perspective, these don't seem to be very competitive.
Case in point:
• A pair of KEF LS50 wireless - $2,200 (factory refurbs are $1,900)
• Two Rythmik L12 servo subs - $1,100
• All of the associated peripherals (Pangea power cords, Mogami cables, ethernet for the speakers, Toslink for a video or pre-amp feed, Furman's best non-rack power center, SVS feet for the subs & stands and 24" stands for the LS50's)
• Grand total (worst case): $4,300
With a bit of comparative shopping, possibly, $3,800 or so.
(I installed a system similar to this in my bedroom with KEF LSX's and cheap [boy, are they!] Boston Acoustics 10" subs for $2,600.)
What you then get is fully active, DSP-corrected mains and two subs that can easily play a low B bass note (31Hz) and, given the set up done by the user, go down to 20Hz at sane volume levels with no distress. The total system power for the 6 amps used would exceed 1kW.
The two biggest downsides is that it will take a little bit more effort to install & dial in and that it will have a larger footprint, but not by much.
This system will outperform the Dali in just about every way for 3/4 the price.
You could save even more by using a nice set of passive tower speakers (Paradigm, maybe), omit the subs and get a good integrated amp that also has wireless (NAD?) and be close to on par with the Dali's. Is getting rid of two speaker cords worth the premium price for the Dali system?
I think they missed the mark with this one.
"This system will outperform the Dali in just about every way for 3/4 the price."
And a Corvette* will outperform X, Y, and Z for less money. Why, just look at it. How can it not?
*insert F150 as needed.
The new, first ever, mid-engine Corvette Stingray may indeed outperform many mega-buck sports-cars for lot less money :-) ........
I admired and even loved the Meridian Active Loudspeakers of the 1980s.
I stocked them in my Esoteric Audio Salon.
They didn't sell.
Duds...
Of course the Pros love Actives for dam good reasons but the Audiophile Class of buyer needs to explore an endless stream of Interconnects, Amplifiers, Speaker Cables, Tip-Toes, etc.
I am an Audiophile ( Stereophile to Canadians ) because I enjoy using my Neurosis / Psychosis as justifications and rationalizations for wanting to experience all those wonderful performances that Mr.HR shares with us. ( including a Sugden that our Brand New Editor revealed )
Being an Audiophile is kinda like building & flying Experimental Aircraft.
Active Loudspeakers are more like flying First Class in a 747 .
Tony in nearly Hurricaned Venice
ps. DALI Factory is gorgeous, they even answer the dam phone in less than 3 rings.
SPONSORED VIDEO
FEATURED VIDEO
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 Stereophile
