Anyone have thoughts on the Peak Consult Zoltans?

Audiooracle,

I understand your difficulty and I'm sorry you get so upset. As I said, Usher makes very good budget speakers, many of them copies of past designs from other manufacturers, but still very good speakers for the money.

As for the Continuum: It defies explanation or comparison. If you ever have the privilege of hearing one installed in a truly world-class system, you will forever be unable to listen to other designs. The reason? Continuum changed the rulebook, changed the way in which things are designed, and developed something completely new. And this is indicative of an earlier point of mine: the companies I represent embody the values of originality, extremely high build quality, and unmatched technical achievement. The Caliburn is simply the most extraordinary machine ever made for playing records.

I have nothing bad to say about Lloyd Walker's Proscenium Gold turntable. I enjoyed my chance to hear it in a reference system and it was a very good performer. My team and I then disassembled it and boxed it up to send away, as our client was replacing it with a Caliburn system. I have gotten to hear reference rigs such as the Basis and the SME 30 for the same reasons: clients replacing their "reference" record players with the world's most magnificent record playing machine: The Continuum Audio Labs Caliburn.

It seems to me that you are succumbing to a prejudice that is fairly common but nonetheless distracting: You feel insulted that I would want to compare the InCognito-X to the Be 20 because the X is a 2 way and the 20 is a 4-way. This is not about the weight of materials (300lbs vs. 150 lbs), nor is it about the number of drivers (4 vs. 2). We must only compare quality. Quality of build, quality of sound reproduction, quality of technical achievement.

Fact is, 2-ways' only limitation historically has been LF. Peak has removed that limitation in the InCognito-X, so now the only comparison left to do is one of pure quality, and in that department I guarantee you the Be 20 would have an extremely, EXTREMELY difficult time vs. the InCognito-X. There is no reasonable reason to be upset by the comparison, as the InCognito-X is an extremely fine instrument, and original design, heir to a great Danish heritage of loudspeaker design, and an extraordinary technical achievement on its own.

I'm sorry, as well, if I erroneously labeled you an internet dealer. I assumed that you were simply because that seems to be the only way to survive in the fiercely competitive world of mid-priced hifi. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative, but rather an acknowledgement. Mea Culpa.

As for Usher building clones - that is precisely the reason that they have not yet "arrived" - they seem far too interested in imitating, externally, the successful designs of others (American and European designers), than with developing their own philosophy and presenting it to the world.

The appearance of quality is not necessarily indicative of the existence of quality, and when a company goes to great lengths to create a clone - at least in looks - it seems to tell me that they are more interested in creating a deception of equivalency than standing on their own originality, creativity, and technical achievement. Even their "Dancer" series borrows heavily from the multi-layered laminations of hardwoods in a "lute" extrusion profile that Franco Serblin developed for Sonus Faber. In fact, I would say that Usher seems rather obsessed with Sonus Faber and Franco Serblin's designs and achievements. But there can be no excusing copies and clones. When you say:

>"I will agree with you that Usher does build some clone or homage
>products, but that is an Asian company building a wide range of products
>for the Asian market. Imitation in the case of the Threshold clone shows a
>fondness for the original, which is no different than someone now coming
>up with a new version of the famous Dynaco Stereo 70."

That is truly sad. It allows, philosophically, for theft and excuses them simply because they are an Asian company building products for an Asian market. It is no different than someone putting a Ferrari kit on a Fiero - it may have a similar look on the outside, but it's still a Fiero.

Usher may have developed its own Berylliuim driver, but it was not before nor even contemporaneous with the JM Lab achievement. Instead, it was built after JM Lab put their money, their time, their talent, their originality and creativity on the line to develop the first one. It is extremely difficult to develop something new, and extremely simply to follow in the footsteps of achievement and lift technology. I'm sure they are now developing a diamond tweeter, since the Beryllium has gone somewhat out of style.

Usher seems to remain a very well-funded copycat company that builds extremely good speakers for the money but, so far, doesn't seem to have introduced anything original, nor do they seem to have made strides in technical achievement.

Your quip about Quad is unrelated: Although they are being built in China, they are being built under license from the original designer (Peter Walker, RIP) and the present owners of the original design. Peter Walker's technical achievement is being preserved and reproduced under license, not lifted unceremoniously and reproduced without permission. Shouldn't Usher be paying royalty or licensing to Sonus Faber?

By contrast, Peak uses Audiotechnology to build their custom-designed drivers because Audiotechnology has the heritage, provenance, creativity, originality, and technical achievements of Ejvind and Per Skaaning behind them. Ejvind founded Dynaudio, Scan Speak, and Audiotechnology. There is no better family to have make drivers in the world, which is why companies such as Sonus Faber, Verity, Rockport and Peak turn to them for their custom solutions. And while Peak is not a 30 year old company, they are a 10 year old company (the "X" in InCognito-X stands for 10 year anniversary) and there is no danger of them going anywhere but up.

Heritage, provenance, originality, creativity, and technical achievement. These are the ingredients of the kind of greatness that stands the test of time.

Peak has them.

Usher does not.

.

Audiooracle writes:

ALSO I will say it again, USHER MAKES THEIR OWN pure Beryllium Midrange Driver and are the only ones to do so!

That's untrue. Consider Technical Audio Devices, who first built a beryllium compression driver in 1975, and who continue to build beryllium tweeters and MIDRANGE units to this day. The TAD Coherent Source Transducer is a concentric midrange-tweeter unit.

And to keep this in perspective, Yamaha made a beryllium midrange driver in the late 70s through to late '80s - as used in the NS1000 range.

Regards,

Hi Metralla - you know, I comletely forgot about TAD and their extraordinary technical achievements with Beryllium drivers! Bad on me ...

I also had no idea that Yamaha made a beryllium midrange at all, never mind 25 years ago! I recall using the old NS10 as nearfield monitors in the studio, but they had a nasty peak that was hard to get past.

Sirspeedy, it seems almost sacreligious to enter into the Stereovox/Audiooracle slugfest over Peak Consult vs Usher but as a prospective purchaser who is interested in both products and who has no biases against Asian, European, American, Russsian or other nationalities' products and as I have listened to the Be20 though not anything in the Peak Consult range I will put in my two cents worth. I suspect, however by now Sirspeedy you are regretting ever posing the question on the Zoltans. For the record I have Japanese amplification(Accuphase), a British subwoofer(REL), British Analogue front end(Wilson Benesch) American phono stage(Pass Labs) and Italian main speakers(Sonus Faber).

The Usher looks very well made and the design of the Dancer range is very reminiscent of Sonus Faber. As an owner of the Guarneri for over 8 years this is of no consequence to me, imitation being the most sincere form of flattery and all that. I am more interested in how they sound.

I was, therefore very happy to have been given the opportunity to test the Usher Be20 by the very knowledgable and helpful Austalian distributor for Usher in my home using my equipment.

I really wanted to be blown away because I really liked the way they looked and I appreciated the technology of the beryllium tweeter and mid(ex NS1000 owner by the way). Sorry Audiooracle but I was not.

To my ears they lacked the ability to faithfully re create complex harmonic structures. As an example, the decay on things like finger snaps on Cassandra Wilson's Glamoured LP was just not there. These sounds did not appear to emanate from a person. Instruments, using a number of different artists on material I know very well were not portrayed with the realism the Guarneris were able to manage and these are the original 1994 version. At no time did I feel like saying "wow, I've never heard that on that track". Now it may have been that my system was not a good match for the Be20's but there was just more musical information and soul from the Guarneris.

The new technology employed by Usher should not of itself be judged as a reason for the product to be considered spectacular unless the performance of the new technology takes us to a higher plane of musical reproduction. In my room with my equipment it did not and I was genuinely disappointed as it is a visually attractive speaker that appears to be very well made.

Now Audiooracle, just in case you think I am against all that you have said I am not. I am interested in listening to Peak Consult products - no dealer within 500 miles unfortunately but I believe that given the technology employed I agree with you that it appears at first glance that they are over priced as are many brands. One of the problems, however with pricing is this. You can't just bring it down to the sum of the parts. What about the intellectual property of the designer? How do you value that? In the end it comes down to what the product delivers within the confines of its competitive set. If it doesn't sound as good to enough people as an equivalently priced Wilson, Avalon or Sonus Faber then they won't sell very many no matter what the reviewers say. As much as some of us may resent it products of all sorts are pitched to perceived needs and high priced products generally are perceived as being of better quality than low priced products. Not always true but there you have the problem for Usher. They will have a difficult time convincing people their products are as good or better than higher priced products, especially those products from established makers. I agree here with Stereovox they appear to me to be very good value for money products but to my ears not competing with the best of the best for sound quality. It will take "miracle marketing 101" to convince this advertisers' world that you can pay less for more.

Also, check out one thing on Audiogon. What prices do various products command on the used market? Avalons, Wilsons and precious few others appear to hold up very well. Peak Consult - maybe not round long enough to have built up a reputation or maybe they are about double what they should be given their competition. Depreciation on Ushers, even at their low initial price is also very steep as is to be expected.

Usher written off? No, I will look again at a new Usher product as I have not rejected the brand just because the Be20 didn't do it for me. Usher seems intent on being a major world force and maybe their next product will be the one for me. Or maybe a Peak Consult - a heavily discounted one!!

I must admit,Phaser,you are right on the money about one thing......I'm sorry for initiating the post!!

I never meant for a "War Of The Worlds" atmosphere to come about,yet that is where these threads have "SHRUNK" to!!

I certainly hold no animosity for the "WARRING FACTIONS",and actually respect and sort of "like" both parties by now,but PLEEEASE!!I cannot see guys like Dan D'Agostino going at it with Jeff Rowland,or Dave Wilson going up against Franco Serblin!!It's just NOT going to happen.

George Gershwin stated it JUST RIGHT..."you say POTATO,and I say POTAATO.Now let's call the whole thing off"!.....TIME WILL TELL,HERE!!!!

BTW--as to you not being overjoyed with the Usher Be 20,it can very easily be system dependent!!My pal has the exact set-up as me,yet our Rowlands clearly get better timbral/harmonic accuracy on my Avalons than on his Kharmas!!It does not mean the Kharmas are not wonderful speakers.It means my pal bought without thinking through what was the best match in componentry.A good tube amp always sounds superior on Kharmas,based on my significant exposure to those wonderful,"PRICEY" speakers.He does this alot,as he buys on emotion,and product reviews.Fortunately he is quite well off financially,and can afford a mistake or ten!!

Can I PLEASE restate my original question,limiting it to hobbyists(for which it was intended)?ANYONE HAVE THOUGHTS ON THE PEAK CONSULT ZOLTANS?

Sorry EBM(love ya anyway)!!

Best!