Hi! What is the main sound difference between Tannoy XT6F and MA Silver 8? I would like to find floor speakers for a NAD c356bee and I have not managed to hear some Tannoy. The MA (with Arcam) I found superb in the mid-range and treble but maybe they stand out too much over the rest of the frequencies.
-
When should you upgrade your hi-fi? How to control ‘upgradeitis’
Tannoy XT6f versus MA Silver 8
- Thread starter manufelices
- Start date
insider9
Well-known member
The main difference will be down to differences in design. Have a look at Tannoy coaxial approach. There's nothing fancy about MA Silver.
Bar that it's a preference. Tannoys paired incorrectly could sound a little more shrill in treble than Silvers. However NAD usually pairs well with them.
Bar that it's a preference. Tannoys paired incorrectly could sound a little more shrill in treble than Silvers. However NAD usually pairs well with them.
insider9
Well-known member
Hmmm I've owned both Tannoys and Monitor Audio Silver. Previous generations though. If I'm honest I much preferred the Tannoy sound. There's something special about dual concentric design. Sadly the Revolution range can like I said sound a tad much with a wrong amp in the treble.
Do listen to both it's very much a personal preference. And it at all possible in your listening room.
Do listen to both it's very much a personal preference. And it at all possible in your listening room.
I have preferred the Tannoy speakers that I've heard, over the MA. IMO. Both need to be carefully matched with a suitable amp. I believe that the Nad is warmer sounding, which should work fine with Tannoy (which, for my taste, can get a bit shouty in the Treble if matched with a forward sounding amp).
...try to listen for yourself, though.
...try to listen for yourself, though.
insider9
Well-known member
OP hope you don't mind if I ask Cno about something.
Cno, how would you compare your Kef to Tannoy? I've heard 201/2 over the weekend and was rather impressed. Are yours 203/2? How in your opinion does Kef implementation differ from that of Tannoy?
Cno, how would you compare your Kef to Tannoy? I've heard 201/2 over the weekend and was rather impressed. Are yours 203/2? How in your opinion does Kef implementation differ from that of Tannoy?
insider9
Well-known member
201/2 were driven with Denon PMA-2500NE with Sony DVP-S9000ES as a source.
Although there were many other design ideas in other rooms the single source point were working best if I'm honest. It's something I'd consider getting at some point with vintage Tannoy or something like Urei which were amazing.
Although there were many other design ideas in other rooms the single source point were working best if I'm honest. It's something I'd consider getting at some point with vintage Tannoy or something like Urei which were amazing.
rainsoothe
Well-known member
Check out Focal Chorus if they fall in your budget. Also Q Acoustics 3050 (not a big fan, because these can also sound too sharp, but might partner the Nad well).
insider9 said:
I'll do my best with this, so i hope it's OK with the OP - better to seek forgiveness than ask permission. *biggrin*
IMO. The older Reference is more similarly voiced to Tannoy, than the Newer Refs.
My speakers are 205/2s, which I chose over the 203/2s having compared them....when I was spending that much money, I felt the extra was worth it, for the improved scale and impact from the Bass.
The UniQ and Dual Concentric seem similar...but the different companies don't like people saying they are the same.
I have never compared them back to back, which makes things difficult....but think I prefer Kef (which may be influenced by the fact I prefer them).
The Older Refs have huge headroom....and they just get better and better, as the amps improve. I don't like them paired with forward, more analytical Amps (like Chord), but prefer Amps with a hint of warmth (like Electrocompaniet).
I'm heading out the door now, so will be back later.....check out the Manufacturers info on their different implementations (you are better placed, with your background, to understand it than me).
BTW. What system were the 201/2s connected to.
insider9 said:
In case its of interest:
http://www.allegrosound.com/Tannoy_Dual-Concentric.pdf
http://uk.kef.com/explore-kef/kef-innovation/uni-q
insider9
Well-known member
Excellent link, particularly to Tannoy. All in one place and worth a read. Having a quick browse it looks like I've been aware of most aspects but it's interesting and concise so worth a read.
One thing I will say is that 40 year old Tannoys I've listened to at Kegworth would compete against most speakers there. Extraordinary how little has changed. Materials and being able to model things on PCs but from pure sound quality point of view not that much to be fair.
One thing I will say is that 40 year old Tannoys I've listened to at Kegworth would compete against most speakers there. Extraordinary how little has changed. Materials and being able to model things on PCs but from pure sound quality point of view not that much to be fair.
insider9 said:
Tannoy have been doing this longer than Kef (who have been doing it a long time).
Here's another link: https://www.kefdirect.com/why-so-called-coaxial-speakers-aren-t-uni-q
insider9
Well-known member
Many thanks Cno. Particularly Tannoy link is champion! Looks like Kef are trying to basically say that it's a smaller version of Tannoy. Without giving away too much 
And more alligned in space thanks to the virtue of being smaller
I once had a pair of old Q series Kef but they were only ok. Tannoys Revolutions however were very enjoyable.
I reality good design principles are important but as always its the implementation that matters. I'm sure your 205/2 sound gorgeous.
And more alligned in space thanks to the virtue of being smaller I once had a pair of old Q series Kef but they were only ok. Tannoys Revolutions however were very enjoyable.
I reality good design principles are important but as always its the implementation that matters. I'm sure your 205/2 sound gorgeous.
insider9 said:
They sound very good...but the New Refs sound more refined, sweeter and yet more detailed....and match (tonally) with a wider range of amps.
insider9 said:Many thanks Cno. Particularly Tannoy link is champion! Looks like Kef are trying to basically say that it's a smaller version of Tannoy. Without giving away too much
I once had a pair of old Q series Kef but they were only ok. Tannoys Revolutions however were very enjoyable.
I reality good design principles are important but as always its the implementation that matters. I'm sure your 205/2 sound gorgeous.
You might find this interesting (it touches on all aspects of the design, including the Uni-Q):
http://www.kef.com/uploads/files/THE_REFERENCE/REF_White_Paper_preview_path_200514.pdf
Apologies to OP for the divergence.
jjbomber
Well-known member
Andrewjvt said:
https://www.audiovisualonline.co.uk/product/8540/mission-sx3-piano-rosewood-lacquer-floorstanding-speakers-pair/
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram