Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

coops wrote:

Cessaro will be playing ….  the full Gamma system at next years Munich show….

Since I promoted the Cessaro Gamma to be a contender for the most promising commercial loudspeaker I would like to pass a few critical comments about the Cessaro flagman model - the Gamma. Any loudspeaker is a set of compromises where very frequently money is what we invest into minimizing the compromises. However, Cessaro Gamma, I feel suffers from the Lamm ML3’s syndrome – the syndrome what the cost of dealing with compromised defeat the topological purpose and rational of the design.

I have written before that in case of the Lamm ML3 might be OK amp but the price tag of ML3 makes is very inadequate solution. It is not the fact that it is expensive but rather the fact that the purpose/benefits per dollar ratio is way inflated. Lamm usually come up with price multiplying the self-cost by 10 time. So wit the list price of $136,000 the cost of ML3 is $13.6K. That is reasonable cost price, if you built the amp similar to ML3 you would most like end up with the same amount. However at the same place it proposed that any SET, as soon the investment to make it exceed $5.000 shell go DSET – you have incontestably better result and the purpose/benefits per investment become way more balanced and rational. Did I mention the better Sound per better invesment?

The Cessaro Gamma is in the VERY SAME boat. The list price for this speaker it looks like 150K Euros that make it $230K US. It is a lot of money but what is more important would be the answer: what set of residual compromises will people get for Cessaro Gamma’s ¼ million dollars? Well, liking what Cessaro I feel that Gamma is not a reasonable price/compromised solution and it still stay in the realm of $20K-$70K loudspeakers competing with Edgars++, Avantgardes Trio ++ and the similar.

Sure the Gamma’s lower MF horn should not be angled but I think it would be easy to fix. The Gamma’s upperbass horn is too short. I make a conclusion is that the upperbass use too large throat perhaps 7”-8”/ This loading would be great for $15K acoustic system but not for $230K. The 100Hz might be loaded lower; I feel 3” is a critical throat diameter for 100Hz Tractrix and 4” for exponential. Then the use of TAD driver throughout… I have to admit that I am not a huge fun of TAD drivers. They have a good bacterially clean sound but truly nothing really special. Do you see yourself shopping for more interesting vintage driver for your loudspeakers AFTER your spend million dollars for your acoustic system? Then, the amplification…. At the level of $230K any acoustic system should come with own amplification, add price if you wish but the thinking about acoustic system at this level of seriousness must include the amp-driver interface. In the end - the bass. The Gamma’s bass solution is great for $50K but not for $230K. The objectionable bass must include open bottom bass solution. For ¼ million dollars you need to have separated lower and mid bass. The Gamma’s midbass might be OK (I do not know how good they made their W-bins) but as soon the array of those W-bins will be asked to push octaves lover then the moth rate then sound will turn to shit. It is not the Cessaro’s bad implementation – it is the topology’s limitation. It might be a solution for Cessaro to divide 2 of this 4 LF section for horn load midbass and 2 for sealed lower bass but it looks like they all horn loaded. If so, then it is not the $230K-worth solution but a comprise that might be used in the acoustic systems of $10K-$50K level…Macondo has the similar comprise letting the lover bass section to care the midbass. However, Macondo is a loudspeaker of $25K, thought Macondo does honest $25K. If Macondo were ¼ million dollars acoustic system then it would be very different set of solutions. Cessaro Gamma does cost Gamma ¼ million but does not offers for this money any design substance.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site