ACOUSTAT 1 plus 1 Floorstanding Speakers
ACOUSTAT 1 plus 1 Floorstanding Speakers
USER REVIEWS
[Apr 11, 2020]
noelm
Strength:
More dynamic than other full range electrostatic speakers without woofers. Big sound. It can make music sound beautiful. Good styling. They seem like modern art sculptures at 7'10" tall. Crystal clear sound at any volume. No boom in the bass which is good to 50 hertz in my room. Volume seems to be the same at far distances as at near distances. It sounds great on my Acoustat TNT 200 watts per channel amp, as well as on a Sonance 60 wpc amp which can also handle very low ohm speaker loads. Reveals differences in equipment. Laid back mellow sound compared to conventional cone speakers. Very durable speakers. Weakness:
With no woofer, better for symphonies or jazz than for hard rock or metal. A (sub)woofer blended in at 50-100 hertz is needed for real full range sound, and to sound more dynamic. 7’10” tall. Needs a big room to sound its best, and for better imaging. Treble rolls off at extreme high frequencies. The imaging sweet spot is small in small rooms, but amazing. Reflections from the wall behind the speaker can be a problem. Proper positioning for best sound takes time. Very fussy about amplifiers. It will sound bad with amps that cannot provide lots of current. Not dynamic or punchy enough for people who prefer dynamic speakers. Cats try to use them as scratching posts. ;-) Price Paid: 800
Purchased: Used
Model Year: 1990
|
[Jan 09, 2011]
MrAcoustat
AudioPhile
I have owned Acoustat's speakers for more than 25 years Spectra 22s - Spectra 33s - 2+2s - and finaly my favorite 3 pairs of 1+1s dollar for dollar there is'nt a better speaker out there i am including a couple of pictures you may choose the one you want mor the model number the fact that you have none available. MrAcoustat
|
[May 12, 2005]
atigus1953
Audio Enthusiast
Strength:
Excellent image, nice and tight bass, maybe not the lowest.. non-fatigue factor.
Weakness:
Getting the right room and amp. Found these at a yard sale. Asking 500.00 but got them for 200.00. This is my 4th pair. Only reason I have sold others in the past was because of low ceiling height. These speakers seem to do most things very well. Running them with a 100 watt hybrid int-amp. In my room they image nice. Bass is nice and tight, and as other owners say, no listener fatigue. I am not sure, but this pair that I have now dont seem to have that 1 sweet spot where if you move your head approx a foot or so either way, you lose that side. (beaming) I think they call it? Anyway, I removed the grill cloth (cat attacked) and also used a hair-dryer (carefully) to tighten up the membranes. Cheap upgrades. Opened up the sound considerbly. Will try spikes to see if there are any improvements. Similar Products Used: Acoustat 2+2, Acoustat 3, 1, 4, Quad esl-63, Yamaha NS1000M (for sale), Martin Logan CLS2z, Sequel, |
[Mar 12, 2000]
Anthony Pierre
Audiophile
Strength:
Everything electrostatics are known for
Weakness:
Critical placement and extreme bottom end I bought these speakers new in the mid 80's. They have the Medallion modification. When I was looking to replace my DCM TimeWindows/AudioPro combo, I was intrigued by these speakers. Their size and appearance caught my attention in addition to a few reviews that I had read. I liked and listened to Maggies, but did not like how they sounded on large classical works (my main listening). They were limited in their dynamic range and bottom end response. The Martin Logan CLS was good, but again, limited dynamics. I auditioned the 1+1's and compared them to their larger sibling, the 2+2's, Pro Ac's and Duntechs. I thought that the 1's sounded better. They were faster, and didn't sound as heavy as the 2's (strange considering that the 2's were really two 1+1's put together). They had the imaging of the Pro Ac's (deep soundstage, correct image height), but feel short of the Duntech Sovereign's which excelled in every audio aspect. But then, they were three times the price and would have required a moving company to deliver and help me set up. After extensive listening, I bought the 1+1's. Setting them up out of the box was easy (you have to attache the transformers, base and speaker together). Getting them "right" in my room took a little time. They need space (the more the better) behind and on the sides of these speakers. They just don't work well close to or against a wall. When they were "right" they presented a wide AND deep soundstage with plenty of image height!! You could actually visualize the placement of instruments/singers or whatever in a good recording. They have the dynamic range that almost satisfied my large scale classical works (here, dynamics win hands down). They were fast in transients, and reproduced the audio spectrum seamlessly (something about full range speakers). You can hear the brushes as they move across cymbals. The pads on saxophones opening and closing as they are being played. All the little details that are recorded in the music (and they have to be there in the first place in order to hear them) are present. These speakers will also allow you to hear the differences between cables and other equipment. They are that revealing. They are amp hungry. Powered them for a long time with a Carver 1.5t and then Counterpoint SA220. |
[Mar 05, 2001]
Michael D
Audiophile
Strength:
imaging, midrange, presentation
Weakness:
low end, not the last word in dynamic Bought these in 1986, sold them in 1994 to upgrade other equipment - big mistake, as I have been searching for a speaker as good as these since. They are the best I have ever owned, and the technology is 20 years old! Similar Products Used: Dynaudio 1.3, 1.8, magnepan, apogee, martin logan |
[Sep 14, 2000]
Craig Davies
Audiophile
Strength:
Most everything!
Weakness:
The last octave. These are one of the best speakers period. The fact that they are no longer made is a crime. They love tubes and need power to bloom. They are as revealing as any speaker made. If the music they are making does not sound right, it's something else in your system. These speakers let you hear the differences in the mics used in the recording. These are a musicians speaker (a professional musician turned me onto them). They are the exact inverse of a microphone, point source, no crossovers, almost no moving mass, dipolar. I think that a nation wide pettion to draft Jim Strickland back into making these is in order! I will NEVER sell mine. I often like to read while listening to music. The 1+1's will always make me put my book down and like a tractor beam, they pull me into the music. I lose track of time and find that the music becomes a transcendental experience. If you desire this kind of experience, find a pair ASAP. Similar Products Used: Quads 63's and 57's |
[Jan 02, 2001]
mark g
Audio Enthusiast
Strength:
highly accurate
Weakness:
needs a huge room, and an amp with lots of current. if you can get a set, do so. they are great. i had given up being an audiophile until i got these speakers as a gift. Similar Products Used: home designed ribbon tweeters |
[Jun 27, 2001]
Drew
Audio Enthusiast
Strength:
Amazing clarity and soundstage, overpowering appearance.
Weakness:
Overpowering appearance, bottom octave kick. About 15 years ago, I remember auditioning a pair of these at The Stereo Shoppe in Boise, Idaho. They were the best sounding speaker that I'd ever heard, but as a starving college student, I didn't have the $1800 to drop on a pair. Similar Products Used: Quad 63 |
[Dec 01, 2001]
Christer Ohrnell
Audiophile
Strength:
Upper bass,mids and lower highs. I use 2 pairs connected in parallell which makes a tough load on the amp, an Audio Research 100 transistor amp.
Weakness:
Demanding load. Difficult to set upp for proper imaging. Kind of plastic coloration in lower mid. Stunning with brass-band music. Anyone out there with a suggestion how to modify them? |
[Jan 07, 2002]
Ed Park
Audiophile
Strength:
Transparency, imaging, immediacy, clarity, speed, balance, 'musical'-ness.
Weakness:
None of any significance. I have the 1+1S (with subwoofer) that I bought new in their first year of production (always thought I got them in '83, but have recently learned they weren't made until 1984). I am still using them, 17 years later. |