A Second Visit to the Home of the Infamous Encinitas Jim

Acapella Triolon Excalibur Mk IV ($180K)

Acapella Triolon Excalibur Mk IV

Each channel/side consists of a 7’ woofer tower which is comprised of two sealed, acoustically inert enclosures, each containing two 10” SEAS drivers which handle frequencies below 170 Hz, plus two internal passive drivers per side which can be activated or disabled by the user (in Jim’s system, they were engaged). In addition to the 650lb. woofer enclosure, there is what Acapella refers to as a spear (essentially a 200lb. trapezoidal structure which is mirrored on the front) which provides the support for a 31” spherical horn which handles frequencies from 170-700 Hz. and a second 19” spherical horn which handles the range from 700-7000 Hz. The level of the smaller horn is adjustable in half decibel increments between flat and -2 db. Both use top end Scanspeak drivers manufactured specifically for Acapella. The link between the woofer tower and the spear is a bridge which supports the in-house manufactured plasma tweeter (7000- 40,000 Hz.) which produces sound by selectively heating air molecules, thus eliminating the need for a diaphragm. The tweeter level is continuously adjustable via a rotary switch on the back. While all these adjustments sound somewhat daunting, in practice, they are user friendly. The resulting speaker is 7’ tall, 3.5’ wide and 3’ deep. The cabinets are finished in piano lacquer black, the front of the spear is mirrored, and the horns may be any color which the owner chooses. In practice, this speaker is highly dynamic and is capable of incredible retrieval of micro-detail without the tonal colorations that usually plague horns. The ion tweeter is clearly in a class of its own. The challenge was to design the other drivers and their loading in a manner that presented a coherent whole. In this, Acapella has been largely successful. At the same session where Arian Jansen measured the Marten S­-2s, he also did measurements on the Triolons. Surprisingly given the multiple drivers with their different radiation characteristics, the Triolons were phase and time aligned, perhaps the best that he had ever measured. The earlier versions of this speaker, while essentially a 6-ohm load, dropped to 1.9 ohms around 32 Hz. making them a difficult load for many amplifiers. Various changes in the Triolon Mk IV have eliminated this dip, including the replacement of capacitors in the crossover with inductors.

The Supporting Cast

The supporting cast for the Triolons included: Acapella LaMusika interconnect, speaker wire, and power cords; Kuzma Reference Turntable (STABI XL4) with both Airline and 4-Point tone arms; Koetsu (Rosewood Signature Platinum) and Transfiguration Orpheus L cartridges, EMM Labs XDS1 v.2 SACD player (one in each system); HRS Reference equipment stands (MXR) and platforms (M3X); and Einstein preamp (The Preamp) used primarily with the Berning amps.

The supporting cast for the Marten S-2 speakers included: Einstein preamp used exclusively with the Berning amps, EMM Labs XDS1 v.2, Jorma Prime bi-wire speaker wire, Jorma Prime or Nordost Odin interconnect and power cables; and a duplicate set of HRS Reference stands and platforms. The two systems are set up on the short walls at opposite ends of Jim’s room which is approximately 675 sq. ft. with dimensions of 21’ by 32’ by 12’.The S-2 are 9 ½ feet center to center and 7 ½ ft from front driver to the wall behind, the Triolons 10 ft center to center (ionic tweeter) with the outer horns 14’ apart at the outer edge, and the tweeters 6 ½ feet from the wall behind. The two sets of speakers are some 19 ft apart.

The Listening Sessions

During the nine days I spenT in Encinitas, I hoped to: i) get the measure of the amps by using each to drive both the Marten S-2s and the Triolons and ii) get the measure of the S-2s by comparing them to the Triolons which I considered “a known quantity”. [What I initially did not consider was how different Jim’s room was from mine (interestingly, even though they are similar dimensions) and the effect of having the speakers at opposite ends of a room whose acoustic treatments were optimized for the Marten end. Nor did I initially consider whether the room treatments had over-damped the Marten end of the room softening both bass and dynamics.] To the extent possible, the ancillary equipment/ cables remained constant so that comparisons could be quickly made of the same piece of music played by each system and to reduce system variables (identical test track compilations were made). Those “quick turnaround” comparisons were augmented by lengthier listening sessions with each system.

Not surprisingly, reproduction of the piano played a significant role in the assessments. In many ways, the piano is, after the human voice, the most difficult instrument to reproduce with realism in a home environment. Jim maintains two 7’ Mason and Hamlin Grand pianos in his home and was able to play short solo piano measures of the Beethoven Piano Concerto #4 as a tonal reference which could then be compared against the sound of either speaker reproducing the same selection on the Bachauer disc. Due to their different vintage and the wear of the keypads, the two pianos exhibited tonal differences on the same order of magnitude as heard in some of the component comparisons.

Kuzma/Einstein/Ypsilon/Emm Labs XDS1 v.2

Listening on the first evening focused on the Triolons with the Einstein preamp and the Berning amps. (The Acapella Integrated was not available, being “on loan” for use in the Acapella room by Hermann Winters at THE Newport Show.) While the woofers of the Triolons are notoriously difficult to control, the 60-watt Berning amps had absolutely no problem driving them. The Berning amps appeared to require as much as an hour and a half of warm up before reaching their best sound. Prior to full warm-up, they were very listenable but lacked the precision and detail that make them special. (Running them in the “Standby” or “Conserve” positions extends tube life but does not appear materially to reduce the time required for warm-up.) The Berning/Einstein sound on the Triolons was surprisingly dynamic; liquid; and had a touch sweet, but with excellent retrieval of detail. The Bachauer/ “Beethoven Piano Concerto #4” was particularly well served by this combination of speaker/ amps. We followed this with the Rubinstein/ “Liszt Piano Concerto #1,” a relatively “bright” piece especially as recorded and exhibited in the opening crescendos of the first movement as well as in the top piano octave. As Bachauer strikes the keys of the Beethoven concerto, the sound is harmonically full and never becomes shrill¸ although it comes ever so close in the top octaves of Rubinstein’s Liszt performance. The Rubinstein piano was clearly less rich and had less presence than the Beethoven (here as if Rubinstein were on a Steinway and Bachauer on a Bosendorfer). Massed strings were realistic, and the triangle in the Third Movement of the Liszt (hence it’s nicknamed the “triangle” concerto) was distinct without being bright, delicate with excellent decay.

We conducted a “trial” comparison of the S-2s and the Triolon with the Marten M system, before moving the Berning amps to that end of the room, hoping to get a “baseline” reference for the S-2s as driven by the Marten M amps. Unfortunately the S-2 sound was very disappointing due in largemeasure — as we discovered later — to inadequate warm-up of the Marten M amps and the effect of some ill advised changes in placement of several sound absorbing panels that had been made after a recent optimization of that end of the room/system.

Substitution of the Berning amps yielded much improved results, namely noticeably more air and top end extension, coupled with better depth, tighter, better controlled bottom end, and much better retrieval of low level detail, particularly with respect to percussion. Finally, there were dynamic gradations.

Switching out a long run of Odin interconnects between the EMM Labs XDS1 and the Einstein to Jorma Prime eliminated a touch of stridency; however, the tonality was otherwise little affected. The S-2/Berning combination produced prodigious bass on the Dubois organ recording (track 1), while not overshadowing the female voice, which remained pure and very clear. Detail in the upper registers was stunning. On track 4 (“Sanctus”) of the Rutter Requiem, the balance between the organ and voices was quite nice as was the intelligibility of the voices. On the following track (“Agnus Dei”) the female voice was nicely balanced against the male choir. Distortion was very low even as the piece got louder and more complex. Insertion of the EAR 912 preamp on the Bernings in place of the Einstein caused some muddying of the lower registers of the piano. Removing four 3’ by 8’ acoustic absorption panels helped to resolve the problem. [It is so easy to blame an equipment change for a detrimental change in performance when the real culprit is something else, particularly when dealing with a system which is full range and extremely revealing.] Complex multi-driver systems are exceptionally difficult to drive well. High power/ high current amps are not always the best solution. With respect to the EAR and Einstein preamps, the Einstein is more harmonically complex, with more frequency extension at each extreme, lower noise, lower distortion and certainly better leading edge definition, but without sacrificing the decay. The EAR is somewhat euphonic but always consonant with live music and at half the price of the Einstein, a “best buy”.