Triangle Esprit Antal Ez Review (Tower Speaker)

[B4ICU]

Speaker Listening Tests
B4, why not to save the reader the search, and provide manufacturer spec. It states down to 40Hz @ - 3dB. test shows like 70 Hz. Big deal.
It states it's min. impedance is 3 ohms. the test show 2.7 ohms (10% lower). No Big deal.
The sensitivity is stated as 92 dB/w/m. Do not recall such test.
The manual: https://www.trianglehifi.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/TRIANGLE_ESPRIT-Ez_UM.pdf shows on page 28 (ENG) the recommended
placement. it also has (by adding distances) room recommandations. Were they kept?
This has a major significance to how a speaker would sound. Room size and placement...
It is important to say what were the other system components, participating in the listening test. Just to give a clue and to enable someone to reproduce the listening session. NONE!
If the Amp. would be given (DF), the speaker cables gauge and length would become significant. They are always significant, but by having that info., we could say how far they were from the calculated requirements (Yes, there is such a thing).
Compare to another set of speakers, cost 10 times, ($24,000.-) is not a fair fight. Not that I care for the Triangle Esprit Antal Ez , but I do care for being fair.
If my memory calls correctly, there were speakers of this price level ($ 2,000 to $3,000 price range) or even less expensive, that been approved.
Why not using the same colored bar graph, that could position the Triangle Esprit Antal Ez among its competitors.
A speaker for $2,400.- is still not expected to go down to the very low bass (below 40 Hz). A complementary sub would do it the justice.
Way better than EQ. A $24,000.- Is expected to have a down to 25 - 30 Hz bass, or better.
This comment and comparison is kind of bathering. A 10 times scale is not a way to go (down, to $240.- or up to $24,000 or the next leap of $240,000).

Two models of A). BOSE 901 (https://products.bose.com/pdf/customer_service/owners/901iii_guide.pdf) and B). KEF 104.2. came with a small EQ box. The KEF was called the Kube. (https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/kef/kube-1042.shtml).
None was continued or reached the 10 best speakers ever, or the hall of fame. A point to think about.

 

[Loathecliff]

It fell into the bass reflex port

Posit:- Astute Panther runs through Amir's figures, glances at the price tag, and dives in through the bass port in search of value?

 

[Vini darko]

Speaker Listening Tests
B4, why not to save the reader the search, and provide manufacturer spec. It states down to 40Hz @ - 3dB. test shows like 70 Hz. Big deal.
It states it's min. impedance is 3 ohms. the test show 2.7 ohms (10% lower). No Big deal.
The sensitivity is stated as 92 dB/w/m. Do not recall such test.
The manual: https://www.trianglehifi.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/TRIANGLE_ESPRIT-Ez_UM.pdf shows on page 28 (ENG) the recommended
placement. it also has (by adding distances) room recommandations. Were they kept?
This has a major significance to how a speaker would sound. Room size and placement...
It is important to say what were the other system components, participating in the listening test. Just to give a clue and to enable someone to reproduce the listening session. NONE!
If the Amp. would be given (DF), the speaker cables gauge and length would become significant. They are always significant, but by having that info., we could say how far they were from the calculated requirements (Yes, there is such a thing).
Compare to another set of speakers, cost 10 times, ($24,000.-) is not a fair fight. Not that I care for the Triangle Esprit Antal Ez , but I do care for being fair.
If my memory calls correctly, there were speakers of this price level ($ 2,000 to $3,000 price range) or even less expensive, that been approved.
Why not using the same colored bar graph, that could position the Triangle Esprit Antal Ez among its competitors.
A speaker for $2,400.- is still not expected to go down to the very low bass (below 40 Hz). A complementary sub would do it the justice.
Way better than EQ. A $24,000.- is expected to have a down to 30 Hz bass.
This comment and comparison is kind of bathering. A 10 times scale is not a way to go (down, to $240.- or up to $24,000 or the next leap of $240,000).
Two models of A). BOSE 901 (https://products.bose.com/pdf/customer_service/owners/901iii_guide.pdf) and B). KEF 104.2. came with a small EQ box. The KEF was called the Kube. (https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/kef/kube-1042.shtml).
None was continued or reached the the 10 best speakers ever or the hall of fame. A point to think about.

The cea2034 graph at the beginning of the review is conducted at 1W if I remember correctly. The speaker shows agreement with the 92db spec above the bass region.
Amir's amp is some chuncky Mark levinson 1kw job.
Wires are decent enough for testing (not that it makes any difference really).
Comparisons are just for some kind of reference with whatever is to hand.

 

[B4ICU]

The cea2034 graph at the beginning of the review is conducted at 1W if I remember correctly. The speaker shows agreement with the 92db spec above the bass region.
Amir's amp is some chuncky Mark levinson 1kw job.
Wires are decent enough for testing (not that it makes any difference really).
Comparisons are just for some kind of reference with whatever is to hand.

When "...some a chunky Mark levinson 1kw" is the kind of Spec. you have (No model or link) than you may say that "Wires are decent enough for testing (not that it makes any difference really)".

If you know the thrill, could you please be kind to say What is decent enough in # AWG and for what length it applies?
Also if you state "not that it makes any difference really", what is the recommended relation between the power Amp and the speaker cable resistance (set by # AWG and length (meters))?
I would really be pleasantly surprised if you would have a clue about that.

 

[LTig]

I think the main reason to get floor standers instead of stand mounts is to get lower bass. Not here though. Even my tiny Genelec 8020a beat them with an f3 of 66 Hz.

Is it possible that they are designed for a specific distance from the front wall and rely on reflections to fill the falling FR below 90 Hz?

 

[Vini darko]

When "...some a chunky Mark levinson 1kw" is the kind of Spec. you have (No model or link) than you may say that "Wires are decent enough for testing (not that it makes any difference really)".

If you know the thrill, could you please be kind to say What is decent enough in # AWG and for what length it applies?
Also if you state "not that it makes any difference really", what is the recommended relation between the power Amp and the speaker cable resistance (set by # AWG and length (meters))?
I would really be pleasantly surprised if you would have a clue about that.

I don't remember the model number of the amp.
16-12 gauge wire is fine for hifi speakers over normal distances imo.
Heres a link to some charts on the subject.
http://www.interfacebus.com/AWG-table-of-different-wire-gauge-resistance.html

 

[Dogen]

Aren’t Triangle speakers generally recommended for low-power tube amps? The low sensitivity of these speakers would be a horrible match. What would be the audible effects of trying to drive these with such an amp?

 

[MerlinGS]

The manual: https://www.trianglehifi.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/TRIANGLE_ESPRIT-Ez_UM.pdf shows on page 28 (ENG) the recommended placement. it also has (by adding distances) room recommandations. Were they kept?
This has a major significance to how a speaker would sound. Room size and placement...

The speakers are tested in mono, so the placement recomendations are only relevant from the perspective of distance from the speaker and quality of room. Considering they were in the same room as Amirm's main speakers, the room would meet their requirements as would the listening distance (are you suggesting Amirm was listening at less than 6 feet away?)

It is important to say what were the other system components, participating in the listening test. Just to give a clue and to enable someone to reproduce the listening session. NONE!

All you need to know is if the DAC and amp were of sufficient quality. The amp used in the photo, transparent enough, the DAC used is also transparent, one can purchase a transparent DAC for less than $200. To replicate his findings all you need is a reasonably designed amp and DAC. There is nothing magical about the gear he is using, and there is no requirement the user buy magical equipment to replicate his findings.

If the Amp. would be given (DF), the speaker cables gauge and length would become significant. They are always significant, but by having that info., we could say how far they were from the calculated requirements (Yes, there is such a thing).

You can see where the amp is in the picture. Just a few feet away. Are you suggesting Amirm is using 30 AWG wiring for listening? If you would like to know what wiring to use. 12 AWG at 20ft or less far exceeds your requirements for transparency. Just make sure you don't use wiring with filter boxes to alter the signal (e.g. MIT cables).

Compare to another set of speakers, cost 10 times, ($24,000.-) is not a fair fight. Not that I care for the Triangle Esprit Antal Ez , but I do care for being fair.

This is fair, but as @Vini darko explained, it only serves as a reference. Too bad he did not have access to a Revel Concerta F12. Almost half the price of these speakers, but likely far superior by virtually every measure.

Two models of A). BOSE 901 (https://products.bose.com/pdf/customer_service/owners/901iii_guide.pdf) and B). KEF 104.2. came with a small EQ box. The KEF was called the Kube. (https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/kef/kube-1042.shtml).
None was continued or reached the 10 best speakers ever, or the hall of fame. A point to think about.

Not sure what your point is. Analog x-overs also eq the speaker, only they are far poorer than digital x-overs. But since you would like to compare with speakers using eq. Look at any current Genelec, Neuman, JBL M2, etc. Extremely well engineered speakers using digital eq boxes (some internally and others externally).

 

[MZKM]

Aren’t Triangle speakers generally recommended for low-power tube amps? The low sensitivity of these speakers would be a horrible match. What would be the audible effects of trying to drive these with such an amp?

The super high impedance at 2kHz would cause these to sound harsh in a tube amp.

 

[MerlinGS]

Aren’t Triangle speakers generally recommended for low-power tube amps? The low sensitivity of these speakers would be a horrible match. What would be the audible effects of trying to drive these with such an amp?

Any well designed amp would be transparent at low wattage. Are you suggesting the speaker needs an amp that alters the signal? A low powered amp with high output impedance so that it eq's the signal? That would be a very poor speaker design and any eq provided in such a manner would be somewhat unpredictably.

BTW, these are not extraordinary high sensitivity speakers. The JBL M2 are just as sensitive and can be powered by far more wattage than the amps used in this review.

 

[MerlinGS]

Also if you state "not that it makes any difference really", what is the recommended relation between the power Amp and the speaker cable resistance (set by # AWG and length (meters))?
I would really be pleasantly surprised if you would have a clue about that.

There is nothing magical or particularly complex about wire requirements in home audio. The link to the chart @Vini darko provided clearly explains it. It is very interesting that you felt the need to attack @Vini darko personally in your last sentence. You may want to consider what others have to offer before dismissing them in such poor fashion. Or to paraphrase you, it may be of value to have a clue.

 

[Dogen]

Any well designed amp would be transparent at low wattage. Are you suggesting the speaker needs an amp that alters the signal? A low powered amp with high output impedance so that it eq's the signal? That would be a very poor speaker design and any eq provided in such a manner would be somewhat unpredictably.

BTW, these are not extraordinary high sensitivity speakers. The JBL M2 are just as sensitive and can be powered by far more wattage than the amps used in this review.

Not suggesting that at all. Just curious that these speakers are said to perform well with low power amps, when the measurements say this wouldn’t be true.

 

[VintageFlanker]

I don't remember the model number of the amp

Mark Levison N°53? 25,000$ each.

 

[B4ICU]

Links to discussions over cables... Please get serious. What make you buying that say? Did you ever tried it? Well I did and they do not hold water (An expression in Hebrew). For the record, the lame say of 12-14 AWG are all you need are absolutely incorrect.
The 1st thing to look at, is that a cable resistance (R) = Ro (copper constant conductivity) x length (in meters) and / by it's cross section in sq. mm.
As so, If checking the AWG table: https://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm, a 14 AWG has a 2.525 ohms per 1000m. A 12 AWG has a 1.588 ohms per 1000m. It does not provide a solution for any resistance you may calculate. Up's did you ever tried this trick? As I remember, the only thing you measure about cables, is the length. So if they are long enough, you are done? Wrong. So wrong!
The reason for 14-12 AWG has nothing to do with audio or electronics. It is the thicker wire to use as is with standard banana plugs or spades.
I hope that when you go for a heart bypass surgery, you will get better than this.
Amps have a DF spec. for a reason. The cables resistance shall consider that and be calculated accordingly. For higher DF the thicker the cable you need. How thick? well up to the calculated value. If you go thicker, sound won't improve. If you are under, like 50% under, you get only 50% of your system's potential. Yes, 50%. You read correctly. In other words, if you spent $40k on your sound system, you are hearing only $20k worth.
So you rather go by some articles on the web, and flash down the toilet $20k? Now it makes sense. Try it first with a $100 bill, get the feeling and than enhance it with the rest.

 

[Vini darko]

Mark Levison N°53? 25,000$ each.

Thanks , I didn't remeber them being so pricey

 

[B4ICU]

The speakers are tested in mono, so the placement recomendations are only relevant from the perspective of distance from the speaker and quality of room. Considering they were in the same room as Amirm's main speakers, the room would meet their requirements as would the listening distance (are you suggesting Amirm was listening at less than 6 feet away?)


All you need to know is if the DAC and amp were of sufficient quality. The amp used in the photo, transparent enough, the DAC used is also transparent, one can purchase a transparent DAC for less than $200. To replicate his findings all you need is a reasonably designed amp and DAC. There is nothing magical about the gear he is using, and there is no requirement the user buy magical equipment to replicate his findings.



You can see where the amp is in the picture. Just a few feet away. Are you suggesting Amirm is using 30 AWG wiring for listening? If you would like to know what wiring to use. 12 AWG at 20ft or less far exceeds your requirements for transparency. Just make sure you don't use wiring with filter boxes to alter the signal (e.g. MIT cables).


This is fair, but as @Vini darko explained, it only serves as a reference. Too bad he did not have access to a Revel Concerta F12. Almost half the price of these speakers, but likely far superior by virtually every measure.


Not sure what your point is. Analog x-overs also eq the speaker, only they are far poorer than digital x-overs. But since you would like to compare with speakers using eq. Look at any current Genelec, Neuman, JBL M2, etc. Extremely well engineered speakers using digital eq boxes (some internally and others externally).

DAC? Sorry, but the DAC do not interact with speakers. Amps do. The Amp. is the one to deal with the 2.7 ohms impedance (not the DAC) and so it's the one to get control over it (DF, DACs have none relevant).
You see two speakers. I assume that the one without the grill is the Triangle. What I should assume about the Reel to Reel tape? the cabinet, the distance or the unit next to the cabinet, that to me, looks like a PC.
Didn't suggest any cable. Just asking what AWG it has, how long is it and what Amp is used. I'm asking, no suggesting. You have no idea what are the requirements. What makes you say that?
EQ is not about analog or digital implementation. Amir wrote that his first attempt didn't improve sound. EQ has bad effect on dynamic range (a 6 dB adjustment would cut power by 4. So a 100W amps turns into a 25W...). It also get into SNR and THD, two cable (In and Out) and more.
EQ is so 70's idea. we are way passed that approach. Look at the 10x more expensive speaker sounded, with no EQ. Would you EQ a $50k speaker?
So lets keep it out. It may do the job for teen agers that are hooked on bass. I'm more into a flat clear sound as is.

 

[B4ICU]

Thanks , I didn't remeber them being so pricey

Is it the one used for testing?
Even if it is the DF spec. is missing: Output impedance: not specified
https://www.stereophile.com/content...ence-monoblock-power-amplifier-specifications

https://www.excelia-hifi.cz/mark-levinson/manual/mark-levinson-53.pdf

So we need to call them and check this out (after the weekend

 

[MerlinGS]

Not suggesting that at all. Just curious that these speakers are said to perform well with low power amps, when the measurements say this wouldn’t be true.

My bad, my apoligies. You clearly implied that when you stated they had poor sensitivity, I erroneously assumed you meant high. A sensitivity of 92 dB is not bad with low powered amps. I have used some in the past that could work well with as little as 10 w/ch (however, if by low powered you mean 2-3 w/ch, then it gets pretty tough). But as you know, there are a number of factors that would determined compatibility; i.e. room size, what is the desired output, is it being assisted by a sub...and so on.

 

[Robbo99999]

DAC? Sorry, but the DAC do not interact with speakers. Amps do. The Amp. is the one to deal with the 2.7 ohms impedance (not the DAC) and so it's the one to get control over it (DF, DACs have none relevant).
You see two speakers. I assume that the one without the grill is the Triangle. What I should assume about the Reel to Reel tape? the cabinet, the distance or the unit next to the cabinet, that to me, looks like a PC.
Didn't suggest any cable. Just asking what AWG it has, how long is it and what Amp is used. I'm asking, no suggesting. You have no idea what are the requirements. What makes you say that?
EQ is not about analog or digital implementation. Amir wrote that his first attempt didn't improve sound. EQ has bad effect on dynamic range (a 6 dB adjustment would cut power by 4. So a 100W amps turns into a 25W...). It also get into SNR and THD, two cable (In and Out) and more.
EQ is so 70's idea. we are way passed that approach. Look at the 10x more expensive speaker sounded, with no EQ. Would you EQ a $50k speaker?
So lets keep it out. It may do the job for teen agers that are hooked on bass. I'm more into a flat clear sound as is.

I'm not gonna get into the core of this discussion you're having with people here, but with regards to EQ, EQ is not a "70's idea", it's a very useful tool which can improve every speaker out there, both in RoomEQ and also Anechoic EQ of the speaker (using Amir's measurements).....EQ is definitely a positive. You do loose some headroom in the amp by having to run a negative preamp to cover the boosts in your EQ Curve, but most of the time it'll probably only be in the range of -5dB.....there's enough headroom in good amps & DACS to handle that without negative effects. Anyway, this is just a point re EQ that you raised, not the main point you're discussing with others here....so I'll let you continue with your main discussions with others on here.

 

[MerlinGS]

Amir wrote that his first attempt didn't improve sound. EQ has bad effect on dynamic range (a 6 dB adjustment would cut power by 4. So a 100W amps turns into a 25W...). It also get into SNR and THD, two cable (In and Out) and more.
EQ is so 70's idea. we are way passed that approach. Look at the 10x more expensive speaker sounded, with no EQ. Would you EQ a $50k speaker?
So lets keep it out. It may do the job for teen agers that are hooked on bass. I'm more into a flat clear sound as is.

The amp is rated at 1000/ch at 4 ohms. There is no concern there. Regarding cables, you talk as if this some exotic domain of audio. It is well understood and any reasonable cable 12 awg cable from Canare or the like will suffice. As to eq' a 50K speaker, of course I would. Why would I disadvantage myself of the opportunity to ensure the speaker is not performing at its best in the room it is being used? As you may know, the JBL M2, the Kii and Dutch & Dutch make extremely well regarded speakers, and they all use digital eq. B&O's highly regarded Beolab 90 costs 120K and relies on digital eq. The Wisdom Audio LS4 costs in excess of 100K and requires DSP (the Infinite Grand 700K). The Adam Audio Olympus Sound System (OSS) cost $340,000 and requres DSP. I'm guessing you get the point. The x-overs used in every well designed expensive speaker are equing the sound. DSP is required for any audio system pursuing excellence. I have no idea what flat, clear sound means, but if your pursuit is to ensure the speakers perform as well as possible in the environment they are used, DSP is a must.