Spendor Classic 2/3 vs A7

[hiesteem]

Agreed, I previously ran them with the excellent Lyngdorf 1120 and whilst it sounded great it was just a touch too strident for me. I prefer them on the end of the Line Magnetic 518a.

Yes the line magnetic is popular. I Hear it mentioned favourably a lot.
I haven't got the courage for tubes, although I know people love them.
I always think it's a more specialist part of our hobby.
I have heard the Lyngdorf is a popular amplifier as well.
I am a bit old school myself. Everything I own is from the 90's. I probably come from the solid state power, blowing wind up the ass of a big pair of good old school speakers !
It was all about the mid range and powerful amplification in the 80 's, when I cut my teeth in audio.

 

[tuga]

That’s a different discussion and I didn’t want to open a recommend me list of speakers thread. This thread is about Spendor. Having heard the A7 briefly and because I wish to move on from my SHL5 Spendor could be a very obvious move.

Why is an obvious move? Spendor today is no longer a BBC heritage brand.

 

[CnoEvil]

Why is an obvious move? Spendor today is no longer a BBC heritage brand.

Probably because they use "BBC Inspired" lossy cabinet construction - so will have much more in common / share more of the sonic traits associated with BBC designs ie. Will have a richer, more relaxed, easy going nature than modern rigid designs.

 

[tuga]

Probably because they use "BBC Inspired" lossy cabinet construction - so will have much more in common / share more of the sonic traits associated with BBC designs ie. Will have a richer, more relaxed, easy going nature than modern rigid designs.

The frequency response describes the tonal balance of the speaker, and measurements of current models show a balance that is not 'neutral' like older Spendor or BBC models but one that has the treble somewhat elevated/ shelved-up.

The Classic models still use the BBC style cabinet but not the A and D series. Some of the Classic models have no relation with BBC models (e.g. the 1/2 is a very different design from the BC1 & LS3/6).

 

[DomT]

Why is an obvious move? Spendor today is no longer a BBC heritage brand.

Because it’s a speaker that I am interested in having briefly head them at a dealer after hearing Harbeth and ATC. If you know something about these speakers great but if you don’t we can chat about other speakers at another time.

 

[tuga]

Because it’s a speaker that I am interested in having briefly head them at a dealer after hearing Harbeth and ATC.

That's a different story.
Are you buying blind? If not, there's not substitute to a live demo.

 

[DomT]

That's a different story.
Are you buying blind? If not, there's not substitute to a live demo.

Shall we shut the forum if the answers to the question is always do a home demo? I don’t want endless speakers on demo. Am trying to narrow it down

 

[tuga]

Shall we shut the forum if the answers to the question is do a home demo?

It's not up to me or you to decided that.

 

[tuga]

Probably because they use "BBC Inspired" lossy cabinet construction - so will have much more in common / share more of the sonic traits associated with BBC designs ie. Will have a richer, more relaxed, easy going nature than modern rigid designs.

The goal of the lossy cabinet design was to reduce cabinet resonances, as documented in the Research Department document BBC RD 1977/3 "Factors in the Design of Loudspeaker Cabinets". This technology may have been effective at the time it was developped but many modern speaker cabinets are a lot less resonating than BBC-style cabinets. The larger the lossy cabinet, the more resonant it is (see Stereophile's measurements of SHL5+, SP100, M40.1).
These resonances are located in the upper-bass/ lower-midrange region and whilst that adds 'warmth' and 'richness' to the sound it also contributes to a loss of 'clarity' and 'sharpness' in that range.
The 'more relaxed, easy going nature' comes from flat on-axis response, off-axis BBC dip and good tweeters.

 

[CnoEvil]

The goal of the lossy cabinet design was to reduce cabinet resonances, as documented in the Research Department document BBC RD 1977/3 "Factors in the Design of Loudspeaker Cabinets". This technology may have been effective at the time it was developped but many modern speaker cabinets are a lot less resonating than BBC-style cabinets. The larger the lossy cabinet, the more resonant it is (see Stereophile's measurements of SHL5+, SP100, M40.1).
These resonances are located in the upper-bass/ lower-midrange region and whilst that adds 'warmth' and 'richness' to the sound it also contributes to a loss of 'clarity' and 'sharpness' in that range.
The 'more relaxed, easy going nature' comes from flat on-axis response, off-axis BBC dip and good tweeters.

In other words - the lossy cabinet has an identifiable characteristic - meaning the Spendor Classic range are much closer to BBC designs, than modern designs....which was my point.

 

[tuga]

In other words - the lossy cabinet has an identifiable characteristic - meaning the Spendor Classic range are much closer to BBC designs, than modern designs....which was my point.

I agree with that, but the more obvious tonal balance (which defines the sound of the speaker) will be different, more treble biased.

 

[DomT]

I had thought that we have some Spendor owners on here. Hope to hear from someone who has compared these speakers.

 

[karlsushi]

Hi Dom.

I had a pair of A7s until last year. I loved them for what they did, but I wouldn't describe them as a BBC style design. They're more of a party speaker if you ask me. They do big, loud and fun, but my instinct was that the tweeter was letting the side down a bit in terms of smoothness and transparency. This is where the D7.2s are a notable step up in my experience, as well as a bit more bass reach.

As you know, I have since moved into BBC territory as my preference is for something a bit more revealing and with more accurate staging and depth.

The A7s are still a reasonably detailed speaker, but their strengths are more bounce, rhythm and fun in my experience.

Not heard the 2/3 though, so no direct comparison there I'm afraid.

 

[dave6v]

Not listened to the A7 or 2/3, but had extensive experience with the A4 and 3/1.

Personally, I found the 3/1 better in every respect. Bass more nuanced, textured and mor integrated. Midrange tone superb, with a bit of warmth but extremely natural. Highs are silky and forgiving, but still open and detailed. It's a different presentation to Harbeth's metal dome tweeters.

The A4 by contrast are decent all rounders, which sound a bit more upfront and dynamic. But I found them surprisingly rough around the edges, with a less seamless and cohesive sound, edgier highs and more lumpy bass. Midrange is cooler and less natural too.

All personal though, YMMV.

 

[DomT]

Not listened to the A7 or 2/3, but had extensive experience with the A4 and 3/1.

Personally, I found the 3/1 better in every respect. Bass more nuanced, textured and mor integrated. Midrange tone superb, with a bit of warmth but extremely natural. Highs are silky and forgiving, but still open and detailed. It's a different presentation to Harbeth's metal dome tweeters.

The A4 by contrast are decent all rounders, which sound a bit more upfront and dynamic. But I found them surprisingly rough around the edges, with a less seamless and cohesive sound, edgier highs and more lumpy bass. Midrange is cooler and less natural too.

All personal though, YMMV.

Thank you thanks an extremely helpful comparison. One of the things that is important to me is fast rather than loose bass. Clearly it depends on the amp but can you remember which speaker had more controlled and faster bass?

 

[hiesteem]

I would suggest that A7 are best in free space. Placement is always the issue with bigger speakers and rear firing port.
When placed as such their quality will shine through and bass will be quick and tuneful.

 

[Brown Bottle]

I think I’ve posted before that I heard some A7s on the end of £200K worth of electronics, digital only, I thought they were superb. The dealer told me he used the 2/3 at home, in what he described as a medium size living room in a flat.

Cheers BB

 

[Headcoat]

Yes they do all carry the same sound signature in the A range.

Interesting. Somewhat goes against many of the reviews I've read which mostly describe the A2's, for instance, as being uncoloured and somewhat forgiving, detailed but not bright, neither dry or lean.

Goes to show how important a demo is, and how we all hear differently.

Perhaps compared to the more classic/BBC type Spendors the attributes you mention stand out?

 

[hiesteem]

Interesting. Somewhat goes against many of the reviews I've read which mostly describe the A2's, for instance, as being uncoloured and somewhat forgiving, detailed but not bright, neither dry or lean.

Goes to show how important a demo is, and how we all hear differently.

Perhaps compared to the more classic/BBC type Spendors the attributes you mention stand out?

I would describe them as uncoloured and neither dry or lean. It's very difficult to put into words a sound. I will say the strength of the A series is in the mid range. That's where the frequency range meets and integrates into a good speaker in my opinion. I like em!
It's my bag

 

[dave6v]

Thank you thanks an extremely helpful comparison. One of the things that is important to me is fast rather than loose bass. Clearly it depends on the amp but can you remember which speaker had more controlled and faster bass?

No problem Dom.

I felt the 3/1's bass was more controlled and faster than the A4; less 'one note' too, being more detailed and fluid. But that was in my room / ears etc.