LEGEND L800

pitdogg2 wrote: »

Frank Malitz

This guy is a world class buffoon.

Solar System class -- at least.

Unfortunately, that Carver 275 amplifier, though named to leverage the McIntosh MC275 mystique, is a 15 watt amplifier in terms of "continuous, wideband power at a reasonable level of harmonic distortion". Mind you, that doesn't mean it is a bad sounding amplifier... it likely sounds pretty good connected to appropriate loudspeakers (I haven't heard one). But it is not the kind of amplifier platform any of the SDA loudspeakers, and certainly not the L800, were designed for.

The crossover in the L800 will soak up 15 watts of input power and disburse it as heat!



OK, that's not quite true -- but the sensitivity and the electrical efficiency of the L800 is low, in keeping with modern trends, since amplifier power today is cheap.

I bet he is not driving L800’s with it. I have no doubt the 275 sounds nice. I also have no doubts that it is a relative lightweight shan’t it comes to supplying the current needed to drive anything but speakers of the highest efficiency.

invalid wrote: »

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I bet he is not driving L800’s with it. I have no doubt the 275 sounds nice. I also have no doubts that it is a relative lightweight shan’t it comes to supplying the current needed to drive anything but speakers of the highest efficiency.

No he was driving magnepans

Depending on the model, they present an easier load than the Polks do…

I got three words for ya'll.

It. Repairs. TOOBS.

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I bet he is not driving L800’s with it. I have no doubt the 275 sounds nice. I also have no doubts that it is a relative lightweight shan’t it comes to supplying the current needed to drive anything but speakers of the highest efficiency.

Klipsch ? 😳

Well, I mean, there's Altec and JBL, too, you know?
Thankfully.

OldCrow wrote: »

I had such high hopes and was sad and disappointed to return them. Have we heard from any L800 owners?

I own them, and in my space they sounded better than my fully modded 1.2TL's. I do agree that the sound is more focused, in that the impression of SDA wrapping around you tends to not be there like on the older models. To my ear, this makes for a more precise, believable soundstage. The sounds of an electric guitar should come from the front of the soundstage, not from the sides or behind you.

That said, SDA Pro takes an extreme amount of time to break in. It took over two hundred hours to settle in and continued to improve afterwards for closer to 500 hours. Before that 200 hour mark, I too was very dissatisfied with the sound, but I could hear moments of brilliance so I kept at it.

For me, it was very much worth the time, and they have transformed my listening experience.

nooshinjohn- this is for you. I've been posting lengthy comments trying to describe my experience. You wrapped it up with a bow in one paragraph! That is exactly what I was trying to describe. I actively seek the wrap around headphone effect. Keyboard seem to be the worst for believability. So...the SDA Pro is not designed to mimic the SDA effect. All is well in my world again. This is been a thorn in my side for 10 months- thank you. I'll bet I was pretty close to 500 hours. They sounded wonderful right out of the box. They absolutely sounded better than my SRS but not that much. It put to rest my fear of aging crossovers...mostly.

Hi Emily. You're right, abysmal was overly harsh. Truth be told, I thought the L800 was an exceptional speaker, best I ever had. I was completely on board with the sound. But, it seems I had unreal expectations of the speaker. I assumed the SDA Pro would produce the amazing headphone effect of the SDA. Your comment substantiates nooshinjohn's post. Thank you also.

My experience with the L800 was they produced a wrap around sound like a surround sound set up, but from 2 speakers. That is not realistic and is not what I have ever heard from any vintage SDA model.

L800’s vs. vintage SDA SRS’s
How are the L800’s in the extreme low end compared to the the SRS big boys? I have heard few speakers old or new that have the excitement in the deep bass area that my SDA SRS’ do driven with my Threshold S500. Low volume or extremely loud I’ve never heard anything I would rather have at home.
Interested in all comparisons between the 2

OldCrow wrote: »

Here are some pics:

That one on the left might have a hole somewhere.

That sounds the opposite of my experience. My go-to track for SDA is the intro of Sheep, Pink Floyd Animals. The two electric piano "hands" are clearly and distinctly located in their respective back corners of the room, both 90° away from the center line. I understand the physics of it but it still seems like a magic trick! Sure, minimizing inter-aural crosstalk seems like a good idea, but who w

I agree with you, Jesse. However, I do believe that what is being mistaken for deeper bass might be heard, as more controlled and articulate bass, which might give the impression of it being deeper.

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I agree with you, Jesse. However, I do believe that what is being mistaken for deeper bass might be heard, as more controlled and articulate bass, which might give the impression of it being deeper.

John, reading what you've shared above - got it. Curious. Can you speak a little more on "deeper" bass? I'll help with specific questions - lower frequency, or just greater sense of presence?

I've had experiences where there's tons of bass, but it's just hitting hard/greater presence, but turns out this is sometimes at higher low frequencies, which gives the impression of tones of bass. Not a bad thing at all with respect to certain tracks, eg. one of my test tracks, which has character that IDs phase and capability, and it's not even that low. That said, I can see where this performance at higher-low level freaks might present like more bass.

So I was just confirming what you meant with "deeper bass". Is the sense greater extension? Like, you think it's lower? I suppose some of it could be room and placement related as well, given that the L800s are ported and your 1.2TLs sealed.

For the first time, last 2 to 3 years or so, I had experiences with quality bass with subs at first. It was a profound experience, to say the least. Like jaw dropping, holy crap moments. Controlled, impactful, increased presence, and, what I think is called, bass texture? Tone and detail in the low frequencies as opposed to "one-note-wonder"? This jumped out at me initially with one track in particular - Jane's Addiction's Ted Just Admit It. There's this passage where there's a build up, then a pause, then everything comes in hard core. For the decades I've enjoyed this track, it presented as jumbled mess at that stage, but when I first got a ML Abyss sub in house, that passage was tight, fast, impactful and articulate. I remember saying out loud to myself HOLY SCHIIT! and messaging @rooftop59 shortly after, since he's the one who turned me on to ML subs.

Anyway, just some personal context there with respect to bass observations and wondering what you think.

@msg ...

As I sit listening to them now, there is much more detail in the lower range that there was to my TL's. I concur with Jesse when he says the 1.2TL's have more bass, but the L800's are able to dig deeper into the music and retrieve micro-details within that region and lift that information in a way that allows your ear to hear things that were previously jumbled in with the rest of the lower frequencies.

We talk a lot about how we tend to find new details in the mid or higher frequency range of recordings when we change one speaker for another or restore the crossovers/tweeters in the SDA's. The L800 do the same thing for the bottom end. Right now I am hearing the after-vibrations of a kickdrum and it is as if I can hear the air move around it. On the 1.2TL's, they were very good at delivering the kick, but that 'suck out' that occurs immediately afterwards disappeared. The L800 is exceptional from top to bottom in delivering what is in the recording.