2. speakers
  3. 128684-84248

ProAc comparison

What are your thoughts on comparing different ProAc models? I’m currently on my 3rd pair.

I started out with the Tablette 2000, which was a superb value for the money, and a wonderfully musical speaker with surprising bass for its size. I kind of regret selling them, because I think they’d be just about the perfect bedroom system speakers. However, I always had these on hardwood floors, so I suspect they could be a bit soft in carpeted rooms.

Then I got a good deal on a pair of Response 2S, which I had been coveting since 1998. The Response 2S had better extension in both directions than the Tablette 2000, and I found them to be considerably brighter, to the point where I actually had to lay down a carpet on top of the hardwood floor of their initial room. But they certainly had all of the musicality of the Tablettes, and seemed to have no sacrifices once the tweeter was tamed. Then I moved into a bigger space. My current living room is 17’ x 17’, and carpeted. The carpet here eats high frequencies for lunch, but the Response 2S proved to be absolutely phenomenal imagers in here. They were throwing images well beyond the walls.

After hearing the Proac Studio 140, and being completely blown-away by it, I found a good deal on the Studio 140 Mk. II, and jumped on it. What I found was a trade-off from the Response 2S. I got an extra 10 Hz of bass extension, which has proved to be deeper than expected. I got better high-frequency extension, as well. The Studio 140 Mk. II are also much more dynamic, and more efficient. I can really feel the music with these speakers in a way that I couldn’t with the Response 2S. But the Response 2S were much better at imaging. They were warmer, had better bass-mid integration, and were much better at presenting vocal textures. The Studio 140 Mk. II are much better with instrumental textures. There’s no clear winner here - it really seems to be a matter of taste. For my part, I’ve decided to stick with the Studio 140 Mk. II for now, as the dynamics, clarity, and rhythmic drive of them work really well for the music I listen to. But I can really see tube lovers going for the Response 2S.

My one mythical lust object in the ProAc lineup remains the Response 2.5. I heard them in the late-’90s, and I have never heard anything else that did such an amazing job with acoustic bass texture. I really wonder how they hold up in the context of a modern system, and how they compare to newer models. I listened to the Response D25 and was not impressed. They sounded sluggish and muddy in comparison, despite the dealer telling me they had been improved.

So what are your experiences comparing different ProAc models? Which ones have really stood out to you, and which do you covet as part of your dream system?
128x128bainbmil
gary_c
13 posts
 

I’ve owned the Studio 140 mk II, Response D28, and Response D38; and I’ve listened to the Response D1 and D2 at a local dealer.

The D2 is my favorite standmount speaker of any brand, and I would use the D1 in a room too small for D2. I haven’t compared the Tablette or 1SC to the D1 or D2, so I can’t comment on how they compare.

It sounds like everyone above has a good experience with the Studio 140 mk II. My experience was that treble was bit aggressive, and I preferred my move to the D28 which has an air-cooled tweeter that is the same (or very similar) to the D2 and D38. The D28 has smoother treble IMO than the Studio 140 mk II, but still somewhat sharp in my room. Oddly, I have never had the problem with too much bass (with any ProAc), which some people experience. The D28 has a warm cabinet coloration which sounds great with acoustic bass.

I eventually moved to the D38, which feels like a significant step up the ProAc ladder. It has less cabinet coloration than the D28 (which I actually miss), deeper and tighter bass, and the treble is about perfect for me. I would say the midrange stands out a bit more but not in a bad way, perhaps due to the extra mid-bass driver or due to the height of the upper mid-bass driver. The D38 doesn’t sound compressed at higher volumes, yet has excellent resolution at lower volumes. The size of the soundstage is life-sized, and more realistic than previous models that I’ve owned (image firmness and tonality are improved upon).

For anyone contemplating ProAc, one of their strengths is imaging (very spatial, almost holographic), but they can be fussy with pairing of electronics and cables. The good thing as well as the bad thing about them is that they will show the faults of everything else in your system, but I like that characteristic. Some people may feel it’s because they’re not as balanced or neutral as other brands, but I feel it’s because they are revealing and I find that a good trait. And although they may sound warm in some respects, they can also sound forward. But I've found that I prefer this quality, because they sound good at lower volumes (the D38 also plays loud just fine).

If you like ProAc, the next question is what type of amplification and speaker cables are you using? I’ve heard that they sound their best with tubes or Class A solid state, but I haven’t tried that combination yet. I’ve been using Simaudio integrated amplifiers (I-5, i5.3, 600i, 700i). While perhaps not the best combination for ProAc, I am fond of the spacious and somewhat holographic sound of Simaudio, which shares some of the same traits as ProAc, IMO.

bainbmil's avatar
bainbmil OP
4 posts
 
I have to say, and I forgot to mention this in my initial post, that I absolutely agree with the love for the Response 1SC.  That is one heck of a magical speaker.  Quite possibly the best resolution I've ever heard from a loudspeaker - only eclipsed by some very high-end headphones. But the 1SC was lacking in both bass and dynamics, compared to the 2S, and the Studio 140 Mk. II are in a completely different league in terms of those characteristics.

Since it was also mentioned above, I am driving my ProAcs, and always have been, with Naim amplification.  I've also heard them with Linn amplification, which also sounded superb.  Many people say ProAcs sound their best on tube amps, but I've never personally encountered that combination.  They do a wonderful job with solid state amplification, and I read several years ago that Stewart Tyler used a Naim NAP-250 as his reference amp for testing his speaker designs.
itzhak1969
369 posts
 
I use SS Macintosh amp with superb results.
I agree that Proac speakers do need good and amplification and cables to perform best and that they are viscerally revealing weak parts in your system chain.
gnostalgick
88 posts
 
Having recently purchased the Studio 148, I find myself spending a lot less time reading forums online.  Hoping to get a chance to hear them paired with Sugden and/or First Watt later this year.
rspyder
75 posts
 
Enjoyed reading everyone's journey with ProAc.  I'll share the last part of my journey.  I had tried the ProAc C-6, but it didn't meet my expectations for a ProAc.  I then skeptically tried the K-6 thinking there wouldn't be a noticalbe difference between the two.  Was I wrong!  The K-6 was in sound a completely different speaker from the bass up.  Completely and seemlessly coherent/balanced.  Also, I have yet to hear a speaker with a footprint as small as the K-6 that goes as deep, full and controlled in the bottom end.  The seemless transition from the ribbon tweeter to dome mid was noticably better in the K-6 over the C-6.  The soundstage is so wide and deep you can drive a car into it.  Placement and set up was also easier than the C-6's.  Dialed in easily.  My dealer was great.  He advocated for a complete custom pair in Bird's Eye, gray stain, piano gloss and no bullet holes since I don't use grills.  I've had them for three years and have yet to find a better sounding speaker even ones that are over twice the price.
More to discover