or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Swan Owner's Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Swan Owner's Thread - Page 6

post #151 of 3884
Thread Starter 
My questions above in post #139 might have been missed due to the extra posts today from TAI's awesome sale. But the sale prompted the questions. I was wondering about the integration issues versus surround suitability of the Diva 5.2R and my current 4.1s.
post #152 of 3884
I have own swan 2.1 for years and recently got a great deal of 4.1 and C3 for a fella in audiogon. I generally do not like to post comment in a forum. However, after owning the equipment so long, I thought I owe to the forum to give my 2 cents for those who might considered buying swan.

I have not use swan to set up a HT yet, I mainly used it for music. The equipment I currently own are:

Hometheater and Music
NHT VT2.4, NHT VS2.4 and Onix ELT( surround )
Sunfire TG1 and Sherbourn 5210

Music
Shengya A-802, Emovtiva BPS-1
Swan Diva 2.1, Swan Diva 4.1

Experience (from serious auditing in store and from my cousin)
(My favorite music speaker in decending order)

1. ATC SCM20SL
2. Dali Helicon 800
2. Dynaudio Contour 1.3 MKII
3. Totem Forest
4. Strata Mini
5. swan diva 4.1
6. NHT M6
7. NHT VT2.4
8. swan diva 2.1
9. Dali Ikon 6
10. and so on including many from B&W, Martin Logan, Onix, PSB, Paradigm ...

Review is on Swan 4.1

The strongest point for swan diva is really the midrange presentation. It was very clean, distortion free of sound in which you can turn your volume very loud without hurting your ears. It also has very good midrange detail that many high end speaker have hard time to produce. More important the midrange is very open and very smooth. What does that mean to your ear. Well, if you like to hear vocal, you are in paradise. The sound of the vocalist is so lived. Swan Diva 4.1 's midrange remind me a lot of my favorite speaker ATC SCM20SL. This is a high praise for those who know ATC. Of course, ATC do just a percentage better in all area of the midrange compared to swan. But for day to day use with music, you will be very happy with swan. The artist I used include Diana Krall, Allison Krause, Eagles, Micheal B. and etc. No matter it is female or male vocalist, the midrange swan present is just clean, detail, open and smooth.

So now is my least favor character of swan, the tweeter. Although the tweeter never sound fatigue and at same time, ti sound smooth, it lack of the ultimate details you want. In another word, you will have more desire for more. However, don't interpret this as swan is warm an laid back speaker, it is not. It is neutral for what it can produce. Well, to draw a comparison, swan's compare to ATC or Dynaudio, it certainly missing some details. But when it is comparing to NHT, it is very equivalent.

Now, this is the best part I found with swan 4.1 of not the entire series. The bass is tight and deep. Given it can hit in the 40Hz region, it is sure that it hit very well. The bass is tuneful and chest pounding. It has authority to make you smile with R&B music and popular music. With Jazz music, you will hear many details. What surprise me most is this twin 5.25 driver can produce bass feel alot deeper compare to dual 10 in the VT 2.4 in music only. I still puzzle how such small tower can achieve that. I thought Monitor Audio Silver 5 is pretty good in bass for small speaker. The swan 4.1 outclass Silver 5 and honestly VT2.4 (which I hated to admit)

As you can see, I like swan alot. Swan Diva series really deserve with have a high quality amp and preamp to drive. I remember initially with 2.1, I use yamaha DSP A2(2095) to drive it, it sound harsh. Ever since I switch to separate with Sherbourn and Sunfire, it make it sound very very high end. Lately, I bought the Shengya hybird amp, now is hook with 4.1, it make the swan sound close to very expensive speaker. To a point, I no longer crave for my favorite speaker ATC. What a relief(money wise)? So, for those of you who might find swan not sound as good as it advertise, make sure to hook up a quality amp before making your final judgement. I think you will be reward with that.

So much for my long review. I really like to thanks the folks who bring swan to the market here (both av123 and theaudioinsider) I hope future version of swan can improve the tweeter while keeping the rest intact. So long and enjoy!
post #153 of 3884
I have written a review of the swan 5.2f and 4.2c speakers.

Check it out at: http://www.gearwolf.com

-jason
post #154 of 3884
Hey fellas,

Does anybody have experience with any of Swans multimedia models, other than the M200? I had the M200's for awhile, and while they sounded extremely good on most genres, they didn't quite cut it for me in my genre of choice; rock.

I ended up selling them and getting a 5.1 Boston Acoustics setup, which sounds great. However, with Windows Vista the 5.1 ability is, more or less, unsupported for the majority of games. I don't want to get into the how and why, that's just the way it is.

So now I'm thinking about a good 2.1 setup. Has anybody had the privilege of listening to any of their 2.1 sets? In particular, I'm intrigued by the M10 setup listed on the Audio Insider, though the M20 set looks great too, but I don't see it anywhere for purchase.
post #155 of 3884
Any one have some good pictures of the Tweeter mounted on top of the 6.2 or 5.2's . I have never seen these in person and I don't want a cheap looking tweeter on top of these . I remember some Wharfedales I purchased one time with the tweeter pod and those were cheap plastic looking thingys .

The sale they are having really has my attention .

Thanks
post #156 of 3884
Jason,

Have you have a chance to compare swan x.1 series vs x.2 series? Sound wise, what are the improvement or if any lacking with the X.2 series. I like swan but just thought if they could be a bit more details in the high, not bright per say, but bell out more finner details, it would be speakers to get at 1K range. Does the new X.2 series have better details, although it looks like they use the same tweeter.

In general, I assume you might know, what have been change from x.1 series to x.2 series other than the drivers in mid and bass?
post #157 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by drunkonjack View Post

Any one have some good pictures of the Tweeter mounted on top of the 6.2 or 5.2's . I have never seen these in person and I don't want a cheap looking tweeter on top of these .

I've seen it and heard it. I wouldn't consider the look "cheap". It's nicely done. The plastic gold trim is subjective but I like it. The base where the tweeter is attached to is plastic and easily distinguishable from the piano black end caps. It's definitely not ideal, but I think it doesn't look "cheap" (at least from a few feet away).

Sound wise, it's not as refined as I'd like.
post #158 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by swartzy.baby View Post

Hey fellas,

Does anybody have experience with any of Swans multimedia models, other than the M200? I had the M200's for awhile, and while they sounded extremely good on most genres, they didn't quite cut it for me in my genre of choice; rock.

I ended up selling them and getting a 5.1 Boston Acoustics setup, which sounds great. However, with Windows Vista the 5.1 ability is, more or less, unsupported for the majority of games. I don't want to get into the how and why, that's just the way it is.

So now I'm thinking about a good 2.1 setup. Has anybody had the privilege of listening to any of their 2.1 sets? In particular, I'm intrigued by the M10 setup listed on the Audio Insider, though the M20 set looks great too, but I don't see it anywhere for purchase.

I have the s200a media speakers and they are very nice, although not 2.1, you could get the sub200, those 2 together would rock you out of your room. I can't even turn up the s200a's half way, very detailed, imaging is good, tonality, I was pleasantly surprised but no doubt they would benefit from a sub. Just wanted to add you will be stunned by the fit and finish Audiophile grade media speakers IMHO.
post #159 of 3884
I've no doubt the combination of s200 and the sub200 would rock my world, but $800 is a lot more than I'm currently willing/able to spend. Hence my nod at the M10 at about $100 from TAI.

But man, someday I'll be able to have a killer setup that leaves nothing to be desired. Just not today
post #160 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by swartzy.baby View Post

I've no doubt the combination of s200 and the sub200 would rock my world, but $800 is a lot more than I'm currently willing/able to spend. Hence my nod at the M10 at about $100 from TAI.

But man, someday I'll be able to have a killer setup that leaves nothing to be desired. Just not today

keep checking the deals page on the TAI forum
post #161 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by drunkonjack View Post

Any one have some good pictures of the Tweeter mounted on top of the 6.2 or 5.2's . I have never seen these in person and I don't want a cheap looking tweeter on top of these . I remember some Wharfedales I purchased one time with the tweeter pod and those were cheap plastic looking thingys .

Thanks

Here ya go DOJ. These are of my 5.2s:

post #162 of 3884
Nice pics Einsteinjb. I do like the tops of the .2's more than the .1's.......but I sure like the sound of my 6.1's. I've seen the .2 series in the HiVi shop in Pasadena, CA. Ya can't go wrong "sound wise" either way - .1's or .2's.
post #163 of 3884
I like the way .1 integrate the tweeter better. The plastic base really killed it especially where it overlaps the end caps. It doens't look nearly as good as that in person. Nice photo work there, even dusted before the photo.
post #164 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by openwheelracing View Post

I like the way .1 integrate the tweeter better. The plastic base really killed it especially where it overlaps the end caps. It doens't look nearly as good as that in person. Nice photo work there, even dusted before the photo.

Huh? What do you mean "doesn't look nearly as good as that in person"? Those are actual pictures of my actual 5.2s in my actual room, no Photoshopping of any kind. So how could they not look as good "in person"?? I'm confused. That is exactly what they look like (when the sun shines on them of course)! If you don't like the look, you don't like the look, but unretouched pictures don't lie.
post #165 of 3884
Thanks for the pictures it looks much better than those Wharfadales I had for awhile . And better than I was imagining them to look . Thanks again for taking the time to do it .

Does anyone know why there is no tweeter pod on the matching center channel speaker ? Wouldn't it match better if they used the same tweeter for the center . Or am I missing the center somewhere ?
post #166 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by einsteinjb View Post

Huh? What do you mean "doesn't look nearly as good as that in person"? Those are actual pictures of my actual 5.2s in my actual room, no Photoshopping of any kind. So how could they not look as good "in person"?? I'm confused. That is exactly what they look like (when the sun shines on them of course)! If you don't like the look, you don't like the look, but unretouched pictures don't lie.

Pictures don't tell the story 100%. Super models don't look as good as their glamour shots. I was very turned off by the integration of the tweeter base. The gap is too big, the finish of the plastic is subpar compare to the end-cap. They should've just put the tweeter directly on the end-cap (like the .1s). At most angles, you can easily tell the difference. I haven't even mentioned veneer and other built imperfections. They were consistent on all 3 pairs I saw.

The point is: it doesn't look nearly as good at the pictures shown. I don't know why you would have a problem with my comment. Swan owners seem very sensitive to me. Am I only allowed to praise Swan speakers?
post #167 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by openwheelracing View Post

Pictures don't tell the story 100%. Super models don't look as good as their glamour shots. I was very turned off by the integration of the tweeter base. The gap is too big, the finish of the plastic is subpar compare to the end-cap. They should've just put the tweeter directly on the end-cap (like the .1s). At most angles, you can easily tell the difference. I haven't even mentioned veneer and other built imperfections. They were consistent on all 3 pairs I saw.

The point is: it doesn't look nearly as good at the pictures shown. I don't know why you would have a problem with my comment. Swan owners seem very sensitive to me. Am I only allowed to praise Swan speakers?

No bash them and any other speakers you want.
post #168 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by openwheelracing View Post

Pictures don't tell the story 100%. Super models don't look as good as their glamour shots. I was very turned off by the integration of the tweeter base. The gap is too big, the finish of the plastic is subpar compare to the end-cap. They should've just put the tweeter directly on the end-cap (like the .1s). At most angles, you can easily tell the difference. I haven't even mentioned veneer and other built imperfections. They were consistent on all 3 pairs I saw.

The point is: it doesn't look nearly as good at the pictures shown. I don't know why you would have a problem with my comment. Swan owners seem very sensitive to me. Am I only allowed to praise Swan speakers?

LOL, I don't have a problem with your OPINION, as long as you're stating it as such. You are speaking as though it's a stone cold FACT that "it doesn't look nearly as good as the pictures shown." I happen to disagree, and think they look exactly like the pictures, for good or bad (and I should know, I have the speakers and I took the pictures).

The solution is quite simple really -- they look like those pictures, period. If you don't like them, cool, don't buy them! I happen to think they look just fine.

And for the record, if you inspect them closely in good light, sure you can tell where the real veneer ends and the plastic begins. I happen to feel it looks excellent and is very well integrated. In fact I definitely prefer this nice sleek look to the older integration where the tweeter is just kinda plopped on top of the box. Remember these are $1000 speakers, not $12,000 B&Ws where you pay for aesthetic perfection.

Just my opinion, to each his own, YMMV, etc.
post #169 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by openwheelracing View Post

Pictures don't tell the story 100%. Super models don't look as good as their glamour shots.

Those super model pictures are airbrushed, computer enhanced photos. The Swan photos are not. Use your head.
post #170 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riblet View Post

I have had white noise problems in car-audio systems before. In each case, it was something in the signal before reaching the speakers. One time, it was the sub-woofer dedicated amplifier (feedback to the other amps on the power supply side?). Another time, a digital EQ that converted the analog to digital, processed it, then converted back to analog. In competitor's cars, I have seen where poor wiring location caused various noises, but not what I would describe as hiss.

In your case, the search for the cause will be easy.
  1. Turn on the receiver, no active source, and with the volume turned all the way down. Do you hear the identical hiss you have been describing?
    1. If not, increase the volume, does the hiss start?
    2. If not, you have a problem with one of your sources or the wires going to them.
    3. Try different sources, and see which ones have problems with hiss. Also test to see if the hiss occurs with the volume turned all the way off.
  2. If you could hear the hiss with no source in the first test, move your receiver and the speaker to another location (or just to the middle of the room) away from all your other equipment
  3. Using a short raw wire, hook the speaker to the receiver.
  4. Turn on the receiver, but with the volume turned all the way down. Do you hear the identical hiss?
  5. If you do, use one of the other speakers. If you hear the same hiss again, it is coming from your amplifier.
  6. Last thing to check, if there is no hiss with the receiver and speaker pulled away from the other equipment, but is there with the other equipment hooked up. You have a problem with you wiring, or a rogue device plugged in but not the active source. Start removing components, one at a time, and see which is the culprit. It may be as simple as a large loop of wire sitting on a transformer.

Thanks for the info. I did some of the tests and had the volume cranked all the way up and the radio was playing. Also on some other settings when it was on 10+ dB there was noise but not the radio, just static. There is no static when the gain is turned down like -30dB. I think it is the receiver, but will play with the cords in the back. May be in the market for a new receiver, any suggestions?

DVA
post #171 of 3884
As far as looks are concerned, I am not a huge fan of the tweeter mounted on top on my swan x.1 speakers. I love the rosewood and the paino gloss end caps but I would have preferred a slightly more integrated look for the tweeter. The x.2 pics posted earlier actually look much better. I also dont like the gold band around the tweeter. BUT....I still love the speaker and I am willing to live with the small inconvenience of that look.

One of the things I found that makes the x.1 plastic-tweeter-mount integrate better was to shine it with a little Pledge. That gives it a sheen that matches the piano gloss black a little better.
post #172 of 3884
The original C3 center had the tweet on top. The design was changed due to complaints of the unit not fitting inside entertainment centers. There were also some sound issues that some folks mentioned. To my knowledge, the .2 series never had the tweet on top of their centers.

The tweets used on both the .1 and .2 series are identical - TN28.

There's a recent thread speaking of the tweets on top. Evidently, you can get them IF TAI or OZ have an order for 25 to the factory. My C3 is due soon from OZ. I've also put in my request to Steve for a top mounted tweet on the C3 if one becomes available.

Re the .2 tweet on top: I've seen the .2 series inside their Pasadena shop. To me, there's a better integrated look to the .2 series.....I've got the 6.1's. I thoroughly enjoy the 6.1's and have no regrets purchasing them over the .2's. I could have had either....and I got to see and hear the .2's before purchasing the .1's.

The 6.2 is an awesome speaker. I decided on the 6.1/C3/R3's for reasons important to me. It's all about what YOU prefer...if you go by YOUR preference priorities you can't go wrong.

I'd like to somehow take off the gold band on the tweeter and make it a black band. Someday I hope to own the 800D's - now there's an extremely nice looking top mounted tweeter...YMMV


Quote:
Originally Posted by drunkonjack View Post

Does anyone know why there is no tweeter pod on the matching center channel speaker ? Wouldn't it match better if they used the same tweeter for the center . Or am I missing the center somewhere ?
post #173 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by einsteinjb View Post

LOL, I don't have a problem with your OPINION, as long as you're stating it as such. You are speaking as though it's a stone cold FACT that "it doesn't look nearly as good as the pictures shown." I happen to disagree, and think they look exactly like the pictures, for good or bad (and I should know, I have the speakers and I took the pictures).

The solution is quite simple really -- they look like those pictures, period. If you don't like them, cool, don't buy them! I happen to think they look just fine.

And for the record, if you inspect them closely in good light, sure you can tell where the real veneer ends and the plastic begins. I happen to feel it looks excellent and is very well integrated. In fact I definitely prefer this nice sleek look to the older integration where the tweeter is just kinda plopped on top of the box. Remember these are $1000 speakers, not $12,000 B&Ws where you pay for aesthetic perfection.

This started with a question from a member, I though he might want to know my thoughts since I have seen the speakers, and I don't sound like a sales man here. You OBVIOUSlY has a problem with my opinion simply because I had something negative to say about your almighty Swan speakers. That's a compliment to your camera skills, how about a thank you? I don't have to state my opinions as opinions. That's ridiculous if every opinion must be stated as opinions. In fact, it is a FACT that they don't look nearly as good as the pictures above, period. I saw it with my own eyes and I don't own Swans. Did you see the speakers in person before purchasing?

I wasn't talking about veneer seams. Not sure where you are taking that. However, the dimple effect on the rosewood is noticeable upon close inspection. BTW, I sure hope you didn't pay $1000 for a pair of 5.2s.
post #174 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splicer010 View Post

Those super model pictures are airbrushed, computer enhanced photos. The Swan photos are not. Use your head.

It's a dramatic metaphor. Use your brain. Not all are airbrushed either, or CGIed.

Got anything to offer here regarding the speakers?
post #175 of 3884
My Swans look terrific, sorry you didn't like the ones you saw. My veneers are perfect, the rosewood shines in just the right amount, and I really like the look of the top mounted tweeter. Oh yeah, they sound THE BALLS, and cost way less than comparable speakers!
post #176 of 3884
I've read that repeatedly from the same few Swan owners. It seems to be the gospel around here. Be careful not to hit the tipping point. That could turn potential buyers away.
post #177 of 3884
Again, why the incessant Swan bashing? Did you ever get the X-series you were waiting for? Just curious, what did you finally decide on?
post #178 of 3884
LOL, did you search my previous posts to see what I own? WOW.

I'll save you the trouble, this is what I own: Vienna Acoustic Haydn Grand, Rockets (modified), X-LS, Insignias (modified), and SVS PB-12+. So yes, I did get the X I was waiting for, and I was able to AB between it and 4.2s (thank you Jenny from HiVi). I was very tempted to keep the Swan, but didn't.

What Swan bashing? Take a good look, no one is bashing Swan here. In fact, Swan fanboys are bashing me simply because I didn't like the tweeter's plastic base. What's the big deal that someone didn't like the way a tweeter is assembled? It was a suggestion. Relax.
post #179 of 3884
Quote:


I like the way .1 integrate the tweeter better. The plastic base really killed it especially where it overlaps the end caps. It doens't look nearly as good as that in person. Nice photo work there, even dusted before the photo.

I have the swans 4.1 and to me the look of that 5.2 tweeter integrated with the top looks much better And i don't think the picture was altered at all, i'm sure he dusted it off first but why wouldn't he? So you didn't like it when you saw it, maybe you should have got a dust rag out. Who cares if he paid $999 for 5.2's. There are plenty of worse speakers out there for $1k +. Swans are a great value even at $999. BTW, I only paid $200 for my pair of 4.1's, and now after listening to them, I'd say they are easily worth 500-800 which is what they typically sell for per pair.
post #180 of 3884
I wanted to jump on the 4.1s at $100/each, but they were sold out when I went back. I should've pulled the trigger faster. I auditioned the 4.2s at home, but returned them. I could've had 4.2s all around at roughly the same price of that deal (after newegg's shipping costs), but I didn't like them. Plus I had to get the package for that deal.

At those prices, they are no brainers. However, I am VERY picky.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Swan Owner's Thread