Not to beat a dead horse, especially since this thread is a little old, but I am sort of astonished by the arguments here.
The speaker, unlike anything else in the chain of a stereo, is the electro-MECHANICAL piece that actually produces the sound.
Being the last piece in the chain, it uniquely takes on the character of every other piece before it.
As such, why is it so unreasonable to mate an extremely good speaker, regardless of cost, with extremely good electronics, regardless of their cost?
The argument of "it's not a real world representation" is very much off the mark.
Mating something like the YG Anat with anything other than a brute force Krell (or something like it) is more akin to deviating from the real world. Here, cost has nothing to do with it.
Because the YG is such a ridiculously demanding load, even pairing it with the equally expensive Lamm ML3 would make is sound like dog crap. The YG REQUIRES a brute force amp.
This is what real pairing is all about when considering speakers/electronics.
The EA/Dartzeel combo is nothing of the sort described above.
If I had a budget of, say, up to $4,000 for a speaker, I would want to know which speaker sounded the best on the best equipment. This is patently logical to me.
A speaker that sounds state of the art on the best equipment is not going to sound like crap on modest equipment. At least not any more crappy than the electronics themselves. And definitely not any worse than a speaker that still sounds like crap when paired with the best electronics.
It's simple math here.
Crap+crap=lots of crap.
Excellence+crap= less crap overall.
PLUS, knowing that I had invested in a truly great speaker leaves me with the possibility of focusing on better electronics in the future while not worrying if my speakers are going to keep up.
How is this not logical?
The speaker, unlike anything else in the chain of a stereo, is the electro-MECHANICAL piece that actually produces the sound.
Being the last piece in the chain, it uniquely takes on the character of every other piece before it.
As such, why is it so unreasonable to mate an extremely good speaker, regardless of cost, with extremely good electronics, regardless of their cost?
The argument of "it's not a real world representation" is very much off the mark.
Mating something like the YG Anat with anything other than a brute force Krell (or something like it) is more akin to deviating from the real world. Here, cost has nothing to do with it.
Because the YG is such a ridiculously demanding load, even pairing it with the equally expensive Lamm ML3 would make is sound like dog crap. The YG REQUIRES a brute force amp.
This is what real pairing is all about when considering speakers/electronics.
The EA/Dartzeel combo is nothing of the sort described above.
If I had a budget of, say, up to $4,000 for a speaker, I would want to know which speaker sounded the best on the best equipment. This is patently logical to me.
A speaker that sounds state of the art on the best equipment is not going to sound like crap on modest equipment. At least not any more crappy than the electronics themselves. And definitely not any worse than a speaker that still sounds like crap when paired with the best electronics.
It's simple math here.
Crap+crap=lots of crap.
Excellence+crap= less crap overall.
PLUS, knowing that I had invested in a truly great speaker leaves me with the possibility of focusing on better electronics in the future while not worrying if my speakers are going to keep up.
How is this not logical?