Jump to content

Osborne Loudspeakers Owners & Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

Guest Eggcup the Dafter
4 hours ago, bonuss said:

 

My current setup is Audio by Van Alstine preamp and main (mosfet valve) 250 watts per channel , B+W 804 Nautilus series speakers, SVS 4000 sub, Dac Maverick Audio D2 upgraded with Sparkos opamps and tubes. Digital input is my laptop or the TV. I have a sacd player but not working and cant fix. Good cables everywhere wireworld and Eickman

What is it that you don't like about your current speakers? Or is this part of a larger change you are planning including the amps?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 345
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Aaaaaaand, we're there:     I'm already smitten tbh.

Here they are with the first layer of sealer applied:       To see them beside what I would consider 'normal' sized floor standers really shows the scale of them!

More progress pictures - the veneer looks like it should be a great visual match for my rack ?          

16 hours ago, Whites said:

@bonuss All the comments above are relevant. I had a pair of Epitome tower references that I loved but ended up selling as they were too large for my room. The bass became muddy and not focused at slightly higher volumes.

 

Regardless of speaker IMO room correction under about 300Hz is absolutely mandatory.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, frednork said:

Sounds like a good size for Monuments or Eclipses,

 You dont really need to worry about the amp being too powerful, usually the opposite. The more important issue is how it sounds/matches with the speakers. I dont think they are particularly difficult to run. I used mine with a valve hybrid. Enjoyed them for many years.

Sorry, meant to say epitomes not eclipses. Eclipses are probably a bit small for that size room

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bonuss said:

The PMC's are a strange looking animal for sure. I normally sit about 6 meters from the speakers or stand 7 meters on the other side of the kitchen bench or if I am on the dunny then I am 10 meters away with a wall in between lol

 

The Osborns image very well, almost independent of where you are in the room the sound stage is always there. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


5 hours ago, Eggcup the Dafter said:

What is it that you don't like about your current speakers? Or is this part of a larger change you are planning including the amps?

I think my current system is very good and I am going to keep it. The B+W's are a bit lacking in the lower frequencies (and maybe elsewhere) and hence the sub. I will most likely buy the 880i amp as well as it appears to match Greg's Speakers and maybe some of his silver cables which sound very nice. I really enjoy a special experience when listening to music or movies. The best digital source I have at the moment is my TV so I need a big improvement to source as well. I am finding it hard to find a source that competes with the TV

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Satanica said:

 

Regardless of speaker IMO room correction under about 300Hz is absolutely mandatory.

Thank you for your input and could you please explain what you mean by room correction. I am 62 years old and like a bit of rock but I dont want to blow my walls or windows out with volume. I just like a special experience and enjoy a magical reproduction. I like a bit of bass that sounds like it should. The SVS 4000 sub is very good for its price and complements the lacking B+W's.

Edited by bonuss
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bonuss said:

I think my current system is very good and I am going to keep it. The B+W's are a bit lacking in the lower frequencies (and maybe elsewhere) and hence the sub. I will most likely buy the 880i amp as well as it appears to match Greg's Speakers and maybe some of his silver cables which sound very nice. I really enjoy a special experience when listening to music or movies. The best digital source I have at the moment is my TV so I need a big improvement to source as well. I am finding it hard to find a source that competes with the TV

 

 

I am using a pair of Eclipse Reference (older version with Focal Beryllium tweeter) currently and I love them. I would also highly recommend having a listen to Osborn speakers, they are great value and have brilliant performance.

 

By the way, since you are considering the 880i amp, I would recommend to also have a listen to the 800 monoblocks if you can and if its suits you. I was also considering 880i not too long ago and almost bought it but then I thought of also trying the 800 monos before making a decision. The monos are altogether in different league. Far superior in every aspect to the 880i, not that the 880i is bad to begin with. I am not sure to be honest why Greg doesn't use the monos for his demos, they are just sublime.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, MrMojo said:

 

I am using a pair of Eclipse Reference (older version with Focal Beryllium tweeter) currently and I love them. I would also highly recommend having a listen to Osborn speakers, they are great value and have brilliant performance.

 

By the way, since you are considering the 880i amp, I would recommend to also have a listen to the 800 monoblocks if you can and if its suits you. I was also considering 880i not too long ago and almost bought it but then I thought of also trying the 800 monos before making a decision. The monos are altogether in different league. Far superior in every aspect to the 880i, not that the 880i is bad to begin with. I am not sure to be honest why Greg doesn't use the monos for his demos, they are just sublime.

 

Thanks Mojo, I will have a listen to the Monoblocks, I like sublime lol  Woops there goes another $10K for the preamp monoblocks  hahahaha

Edited by bonuss
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites


4 hours ago, bonuss said:

Thank you for your input and could you please explain what you mean by room correction. I am 62 years old and like a bit of rock but I dont want to blow my walls or windows out with volume. I just like a special experience and enjoy a magical reproduction. I like a bit of bass that sounds like it should. The SVS 4000 sub is very good for its price and complements the lacking B+W's.

 

Room correction has nothing to do with blowing anything out.

In fact in general the opposite and it is independent of volume.

Here's an article named Room Correction 101 from the brand\company miniDSP.

https://www.minidsp.com/applications/digital-room-correction/drc-basics

There are many technologies which are mainly digital and the link I provided is simply one of them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bonuss said:

 

Thanks Mojo, I will have a listen to the Monoblocks, I like sublime lol  Woops there goes another $10K for the preamp monoblocks  hahahaha


Yes the matching Consonance preamp is pretty expensive. I actually use the 800 monos with a Meridian 502 preamp and I don’t feel like it’s missing anything. I had a chance to try the Linear 1 preamp in my system and I didn’t find it better than the Meridian pre.
 

I personally think that 800 monos is excellent itself just as amplification and would still work well with any decent preamp.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrMojo said:


Yes the matching Consonance preamp is pretty expensive. I actually use the 800 monos with a Meridian 502 preamp and I don’t feel like it’s missing anything. I had a chance to try the Linear 1 preamp in my system and I didn’t find it better than the Meridian pre.
 

I personally think that 800 monos is excellent itself just as amplification and would still work well with any decent preamp.

Thanks Mojo, I could try my preamp with the monoblocks as it is pretty good and save $5k . Great info. Do you use any of gregs rca cables between your preamp and the Monoblocks? If not which brand or type do you use? I have eichman rca leads and speaker cables

Edited by bonuss
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bonuss said:

Thanks Mojo, I could try my preamp with the monoblocks as it is pretty good and save $5k . Great info. Do you use any of gregs rca cables between your preamp and the Monoblocks? If not which brand or type do you use? I have eichman rca leads and speaker cables

I do what Greg did at many shows and at demos at his home, run direcly from Audio Aero cd/dac/pre into Consonance 845's. Used to use all of his cables and interconnects.  but use plain power cords.

I have, what I believe are better interconnects - XLO. A person that knows the Osborn gear well has advised that at one stage he used Morrows, but in that case needs to go higher than level 3. I once tried the Morrows level 4 and  did not like it.

IMO the price of new interconnects and speaker cables of many brands are madness. If you want to play around with cables would suggest you see what you can get here for a good price. Just remember that his speakers is designed for biwiring. Having said all of that, I would suggest that your Eicmanns are OK.

Edited by Jventer
Typo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, Jventer said:

Just remember that his speakers is designed for biwiring.

 

I prefer them bi-amped.  Bi-wiring does little for me on it's own.  I really like the low 125Hz crossover (in the Eclipse anyway) and find it allows good control of the bass.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bonuss said:

Thanks Mojo, I could try my preamp with the monoblocks as it is pretty good and save $5k . Great info. Do you use any of gregs rca cables between your preamp and the Monoblocks? If not which brand or type do you use? I have eichman rca leads and speaker cables

 

I have a pair of Osborn rca cable that I use between my source (Linn Akurate) and the pre. I find its performance satisfactory, transparent and open sounding. I also use rca interconnects made with Canare GS-6 cable, which is again a great cable for very little money. Slightly warmer tone compared to Osborn. As you can probably guess, I am not really a cable person. I don't believe in expensive 'hifi' cables. But I would recommend using a well made decent quality/priced cable. You will need to try a few and find the one that gives you the best tonal balance. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


9 hours ago, MrMojo said:

 

I have a pair of Osborn rca cable that I use between my source (Linn Akurate) and the pre. I find its performance satisfactory, transparent and open sounding. I also use rca interconnects made with Canare GS-6 cable, which is again a great cable for very little money. Slightly warmer tone compared to Osborn. As you can probably guess, I am not really a cable person. I don't believe in expensive 'hifi' cables. But I would recommend using a well made decent quality/priced cable. You will need to try a few and find the one that gives you the best tonal balance. 

 

 

Thank you Mojo and others for all your help with this

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, aussievintage said:

 

I prefer them bi-amped.  Bi-wiring does little for me on it's own.  I really like the low 125Hz crossover (in the Eclipse anyway) and find it allows good control of the bass.

It looks as if I will buy the 2 monoblocks and my existing Eichmann speaker cable will allow the bi amping

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MrMojo said:

 

I have a pair of Osborn rca cable that I use between my source (Linn Akurate) and the pre. I find its performance satisfactory, transparent and open sounding. I also use rca interconnects made with Canare GS-6 cable, which is again a great cable for very little money. Slightly warmer tone compared to Osborn. As you can probably guess, I am not really a cable person. I don't believe in expensive 'hifi' cables. But I would recommend using a well made decent quality/priced cable. You will need to try a few and find the one that gives you the best tonal balance. 

 

 

I had a look at the Linn Akurate and at $14K it would want to be good and probably is . I dont have HDMI input on my dac and that is something that would improve things from my laptop to the dac. USB input is a bit lacking.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, aussievintage said:

 

I prefer them bi-amped.  Bi-wiring does little for me on it's own.

 

You bi-amp your Osborns using their passive XO, av???

 

12 hours ago, aussievintage said:

 

I really like the low 125Hz crossover (in the Eclipse anyway) and find it allows good control of the bass.

 

 

Sorry but I can't understand why the - presumably passive? - woofer/mid XO at 125Hz would give you better bass control than, say, an XO @ 200Hz ... or even 250Hz?

 

Andy

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andyr said:

You bi-amp your Osborns using their passive XO, av???

 

They are designed with  pairs of terminals and two jumpers between them.  Remove the jumpers and feed each pair of terminals from different amps.  I thought this was fairly normal - don't understand your confusion. 

 

No way I am going to futz around with active crossovers, let alone digital crossovers as I believe you do.  My main system is absolutely pure analogue valve from cartridge to speaker (except for the bass/sub) and staying that way

 

1 hour ago, andyr said:

Sorry but I can't understand why the - presumably passive? - woofer/mid XO at 125Hz would give you better bass control than, say, an XO @ 200Hz ... or even 250Hz?

 

 I just find in practice, the speakers behaving like a 2-way system on one amp, with the bass/sub driver providing the supplementary lower end, controllable by the second amp, to result in a very nice listening situation.   Sort of like a sub-woofer with a small 2-way bookshelf speaker system, but much better, and in stereo. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, aussievintage said:

 

I prefer them bi-amped.  Bi-wiring does little for me on it's own.  I really like the low 125Hz crossover (in the Eclipse anyway) and find it allows good control of the bass.

 

Passive bi amping is a waste of money.

 

Much better bang for buck just buying a better amp.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, JohnL said:

 

Passive bi amping is a waste of money.

 

Much better bang for buck just buying a better amp.

Excuse my lack of knowledge but could you explain passive bi amping?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JohnL said:

 

Passive bi amping is a waste of money.

 

Much better bang for buck just buying a better amp.

 

I guess we completely disagree then.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, aussievintage said:

 

They are designed with  pairs of terminals and two jumpers between them.  Remove the jumpers and feed each pair of terminals from different amps.  I thought this was fairly normal - don't understand your confusion. 

 

 

I suggest the reason some mfrs provide multiple pairs of terminals on their spkrs ... is to allow buyers to bi/tri wire - not bi/tri amp.

 

Andy

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, andyr said:

 

I suggest the reason some mfrs provide multiple pairs of terminals on their spkrs ... is to allow buyers to bi/tri wire - not bi/tri amp.

 

Andy

 

 

It's both

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eggcup the Dafter
On 18/03/2021 at 8:53 AM, aussievintage said:

 

I prefer them bi-amped.  Bi-wiring does little for me on it's own.  I really like the low 125Hz crossover (in the Eclipse anyway) and find it allows good control of the bass.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I understand that in the Eclipse the crossover that is bi-wirable is between speaker and midrange, the same as on the entire range including the two-ways.. The 125Hz crossover point is not relevant to biwiring or biamping .

 

If I were buying speakers with an intention to passive biamp, though, I'd ask if there was a reason not to before going ahead. I can't think of anything right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Eggcup the Dafter said:

orgive me if I'm wrong, but I understand that in the Eclipse the crossover that is bi-wirable is between speaker and midrange, the same as on the entire range including the two-ways.. The 125Hz crossover point is not relevant to biwiring or biamping

 

Did you mean to say "tweeter and mid-range"?  in which, no , it's the bass driver that is on the separate bottom terminals.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eggcup the Dafter
34 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

Did you mean to say "tweeter and mid-range"?  in which, no , it's the bass driver that is on the separate bottom terminals.

Yes I did... Is  your info from Greg directly? The manual that came with my pair was a bit out of date, as I recall, so I can't check that. If you spoke with him about doing that, I'd be interested in what he had to say on the matter (though I won't be biamping mine any time soon - I will be going down the biwiring route though)

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

if there are two sets of terminals, you can biwire or bi-amp.

There's nothing that restricts you from doing one but not the other

 

Naturellement, Trev!  :thumb:

 

The issue is ... whether it's worth doing either.  I can see a reason for bi-wiring, with a passive XO but (having done it) not, in general, for bi-amping.  One case when it is worth doing is when you are using the sub's (or subs') HP filter to roll-off the stand-mounts, to avoid overlap with the sub(s) ... and reduce distortion in the stand-mounts.  As the quality of the HP filter in a sub is generally questionable, feeding the tweeter (or mid & tweeter) directly from the preamp and only passing the woofer signal through the sub's HP filter ... will deliver a better result (than using the sub's HP filter to deliver the signal to the complete stand mount).

 

Andy

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

if there are two sets of terminals, you can biwire or bi-amp.

There's nothing that restricts you from doing one but not the other

 

Exactly

 

12 minutes ago, andyr said:

Naturellement, Trev!  :thumb:

 

makes me wonder what you were on about earlier then.

 

14 minutes ago, andyr said:

The issue is ... whether it's worth doing either. 

 

but you were talking about the mfr's intention - not whether it was worth doing or not

 

15 minutes ago, andyr said:

I can see a reason for bi-wiring,

 

I see very little reason, especially with efficient speakers like the Osborns and low power amps

 

16 minutes ago, andyr said:

As the quality of the HP filter in a sub is generally questionable, feeding the tweeter (or mid & tweeter) directly from the preamp and only passing the woofer signal through the sub's HP filter ... will deliver a better result (than using the sub's HP filter to deliver the signal to the complete stand mount).

 

The signal going to the mid&tweeter in my setup does not go through the "subs" filter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, andyr said:

 

Naturellement, Trev!  :thumb:

 

The issue is ... whether it's worth doing either.  I can see a reason for bi-wiring, with a passive XO but (having done it) not, in general, for bi-amping.  One case when it is worth doing is when you are using the sub's (or subs') HP filter to roll-off the stand-mounts, to avoid overlap with the sub(s) ... and reduce distortion in the stand-mounts.  As the quality of the HP filter in a sub is generally questionable, feeding the tweeter (or mid & tweeter) directly from the preamp and only passing the woofer signal through the sub's HP filter ... will deliver a better result (than using the sub's HP filter to deliver the signal to the complete stand mount).

 

Andy

 

 

Well I was restricting my answer to the specific question of whether one could be done and not the other.

The issue that you raise is a separate question altogether

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eggcup the Dafter said:

Yes I did... Is  your info from Greg directly? The manual that came with my pair was a bit out of date, as I recall, so I can't check that. If you spoke with him about doing that, I'd be interested in what he had to say on the matter (though I won't be biamping mine any time soon - I will be going down the biwiring route though)

 

 

Much simpler.  I just turn off the feed to the main amp on the upper terminals, and all sounds in the tweeter and mid cease.  The bass driver however continues to make sound.

1 minute ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

 

Well I was restricting my answer to the specific question of whether one could be done and not the other.

The issue that you raise is a separate question altogether

 

It's called presenting a moving target  :)  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

The signal going to the mid&tweeter in my setup does not go through the "subs" filter.

 

 

Then we are in complete agreement, av.  You are doing exactly what I suggested (if the signal to your woofer does go through the sub's HP filter).

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/03/2021 at 12:24 AM, bonuss said:

 

My room is 8 meters x 9 meters with 2.7m ceilings. The floor is carpeted and the walls have curtains so it is fairly sound absorbing. It is my lounge, dining and kitchen all open. I might have to buy a different valve amp as my "Audio by van alstine" pre and main amp (mosfet) may be a little too powerful for the Monuments. 

Your room will easily accommodate the Monuments -Unfortunately I have not heard a pair since the Focal drivers stopped being used. They sounded tremendous and were a huge step up from Epitome. The new drivers are well regarded -but do they have that sense of dynamic ease that the Focal drivers had ? To me that was one of the impressive points of those Monuments 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...