Meadowlark Swifts - heard em?

Guys, in my hunt for speakers, I was initially looking at ATC SCM12’s – bloody good standmounts by all accounts that I really ought to consider.

Anyway, whilst looking at a group review the ATC’s I came across the gorgeous looking Meadowlark Swift floorstanders. Beautifully carved out of solid ash, ‘leaning back’ profile so they look less imposing and apparently happy near the rear wall as, unlike the popular Kestrels, their transmission line port is on the front. Best bit is that these exquisite beasties retail at £1K.

The $64K question is – are they any good? There is certainly a favourable review or two out there (although the ATC’s won the group test review in question) but have any of you good people had a chance to listen to the Swifts?

Also, any comments on the ATC SCM12’s would be appreciated.

Just as a reminder, source will be Quad 99 CD-P, power amp is Bel Canto eVo2.

Matt.

 

Matt
Not heard the swifts, but i am using Kestrel hotrods. Your welcome to give them a pop with your amp.

 

I've heard the Swifts, they're nicely made and look good, but I didn't think they were anything particularly special. A decent enough speaker, but not in the same class as the ATCs, which are definitely worth an audition.

My advice would be to have patience and stick with the Harbeth plan. You may have to wait (they don't appear very often) but they're worth waiting for.

-- Ian

 

Or look out for some Von Schweikert VR-1 standmounts, IIRC they came out as good if not slightly ahead of the Swifts in some areas in a comparative review.

Found it, try under loudspeakers Von Schweikert

They can be had for around £850 (not cheap but I think around same price as Swifts - well new anyway)

 

I lay odds of 100:1 none of you have heard a run in pair yet

 

what he ^^ said

 

Ah the old 'run in' line.

 

well tis fairly obvious with speakers
being moving parts, al la pistons

 

The ATC SCM12s need a big helping of clean power to wake them up. The ATC SIA2-150 integrated will do it, or maybe a digital amp. Don't bother with lacklustre sources and amps because the SCM12s will tell you how pants your kit is.

I tried the SCM12s in two systems:

Roksan Caspian CD, Musical Fidelity A308

Arcam Alpha 9, ATC SIA2-150

In both cases they sounded a bit slow and uninvolving. The Arcam/ATC combo was better than the other one. This was before I had any mains treatments (Trichord, Omiga) which woke my system up considerably so I suspect the SCM12s would give a quite different performance now.

The bass was very clean and although it starts to roll off quite early, it rolls of quite slowly so it goes quite deep in-room. It integrated with the REL no problem and sounded better with the sub than without. The treble was very smooth and precise but could emphasise sibilance if the CD player is prone to it. The midrange was excellent, clean, transparent. Imaging was a bit iffy but I didn't expend a lot of effort trying to improve it. Depth was quite good though.

Anyway, they will sound different in a different room so give them a try.

 

I suppose 'running in' is key to any speaker, not just a meadowlark.

Matt, I dont know much about harbeths, rogers, spendor - speakers of that ilk - but I found a website with some on, you might want to take a look. I couldnt say if theyre any good or good value, because of lack of knowledge.

Cheers
Chris

http://www.audiogold.co.uk/catalogue/default.php?cPath=5_7

 

my god that place is pricey!

 

Thanks for the feedback folks.

It seems as though the Swifts really do need some running in; a reviewer said that got considerably better after 10 solid days of running in, WM reckons 300 hours! Once they are run in though they are thought to be pretty special speakers with surprising bass extension for a single 5.5” woofer.

There’s actually a good review of them in that link badchamp provided: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/archives/

I guess the downside of such a long running in period is that the chances of finding a demo pair with 300 hours under their belt may be slim.

The only other downside is that being made of solid wood, the wood you require makes a big difference to the price (unlike with veneers where there’s little in it. For example, standard wood is ash and a pair of those cost £1000 but if you want cherry or mahogany you’re looking at £200-£300 extra!

The upside it that I showed her indoors a picture of them and she thought they were really nice!

Meadowlark make an interesting point on their website regarding the use of solid wood cabinets and that is that you wouldn’t dream of building a musical instrument like a violin out of MDF so why a speaker cabinet? It’s a contentious point I guess but, having played a lot of guitars over the years, it’s fair to say that (even with electric models) there’s a world of difference between those with real wood bodies/tops and those made from ply or MDF.

Matt.

 

Meadowlark

I haven't heard the Meadowlark Swifts but FWIW in my experience, a good standmount will ususally be a better bet at this sort of price range compared with a floorstander. Only problem with the standmounts are that decent stands tend to be exxy.

Cabinet effects are usually less obtrusive in a good standmount and bass is often more nimble and less overblown.

Gross generalisations I know, but distill my findings before I bought my Dyn's

 

errrr.. maybe it's because acoustic instruments like guitars, drums, violins etc are meant to resonate. It's part of their voicing. Speaker cabinets on the other hand are meant to do the complete opposite.

I'm afraid to say that medolark have completely shot themselves in the foot with that argument. Wood is not as dead as MDF. For instance certain tribes even make drums out of hollowed out tree trunks because it resonates so well. Some snare drum manufacturers use solid wood to give more tone to the drum than the ply equivilants.


GTM

GTM

 

Doesn't it depend on the design? I was looking at Harbeth's, amongst others, and their Compact 7 I understand uses thin cabinet walls and a screwed on baffle designed to work with the sound rather than to be totally inert. Weren't some of the LS3/5A designs along the same lines too?

Matt.

 

Ports and transmission lines are deliberately introduced resonances in cabinets.

 

Thin wall speaker designs tend to have damping (often bituminous) applied, either inside or as a sandwich.

The cabinets of my Castles seem to be deliberately designed so that some parts of the cabinet can vibrate slightly to add just a touch of euphony. This makes the speaker more musical and involving and less sterile.

 

Not strictly true. Ports deliberately introduce resonances in to the air volume of the speaker, not the cabinet itself. 1/4 wave TLs do a similar thing. The cabinet itself should be as inert as possible, unless of course you believe in the "euphonous" method to speaker building as Techno aludes to. Those speakers wont be accurate transducers though, no matter how "nice" they sound.


GTM

 

Which speakers are you referring to as inaccurate, could you give an example or two? The speakers I own are no more inaccurate than other speakers despite thin walls and lossy joints.

 

Joel,

I was talking generally. As a point of definition, no speaker which allows the cabinet to resonate and hence colour the sound can be considered accurate. However, I agree that not having a perfectly inert cabinet necasarily means that the speaker will be any more inaccurate than one that does, given the possibilities for inaccuracies elsewhere in the design.

As far as speakers are concerned, even the best are so far from true accuracy, (as defined by output matching input), that it is probably best to talk about speakers in general in terms of degrees of inaccuracy.

GTM