The later version S45 is not a bad sounding speaker.

It's big drawback is the foam surrounds on the bass driver. I had a pair of S50's I really liked had plenty of bass which the original S-45's were a bit light on.

Really it just depends on your tastes and whether you want to go to the trouble and expense of most likely having to refoam your bass drivers on the revised versions

I have a pair refoamed, with my BM 2400 they were playing in my workshop for over a year, its one of those speakers you dont tired of listening to. Good background music, normal level radio, one can listen to them the whole day without fatigue

Ricardo and Søren,

You have both managed to thoroughly confuse me and I do mean completely.

Ricardo, while the original S-45.2 speakers did not have the bass of the S-75’s, I, who adore bass, perhaps in the extreme, do not find them lacking in this area…. NOT IN THE LEAST!

Søren, I confess I have no idea what you mean by your saying that you can listen to speakers all day without becoming fatigued. Perhaps I am missing something, but honestly I could listen to virtually all of my speakers, save the S120.2’s forever in pure and unadulterated enjoyment. 🙂

I am not saying to don’t choose my speakers depending on my music selection. If I want BASS like for the organ, no question I would choose the McIntosh ML-2’s with their four 12” woofers.

If I want unbelievable crispness say for harpsichord or violin, then the Linn Isobarics would be a natural choice. A very natural choice and a good one for most any occasion!

That said, for amazingly accurate reproduction sans a lot of fanfare, the S-45.2’s would be an excellent choice.

And if you want the basic sound of the S-45.2’s with just a small bit more boom, the S-75’s take center stage.

Back to Søren, perhaps my hearing is less sophisticated than yours, but I really don’t tire of any of my speakers except the aforementioned S-120.2 speakers, which in my opinion are not very good, except in the high end. Ricardo, if you are looking for speakers with poor bass response, look no further than the appalling S-120.2’s.

Søren, all this discussion tosses me back to another thread where several members, including me, suggested that you need to add a pair of S-75’s to your collection. Now, more than ever I suggest you redouble your efforts to find a suitable pair.

Of course I am like you, trying to live within a budget, but finding the “right” deal I would dearly love to add pair of M-150 or MS-150 speakers to my collection. Why? Because on paper, they sound incredible.

Jeff

Piaf wrote:

Ricardo and Søren,

 

You have both managed to thoroughly confuse me and I do mean completely.

 

Ricardo, while the original S-45.2 speakers did not have the bass of the S-75’s, I, who adore bass, perhaps in the extreme, do not find them lacking in this area…. NOT IN THE LEAST!

 

Søren, I confess I have no idea what you mean by your saying that you can listen to speakers all day without becoming fatigued. Perhaps I am missing something, but honestly I could listen to virtually all of my speakers, save the S120.2’s forever in pure and unadulterated enjoyment. 🙂

 

I am not saying to don’t choose my speakers depending on my music selection. If I want BASS like for the organ, no question I would choose the McIntosh ML-2’s with their four 12” woofers.

 

If I want unbelievable crispness say for harpsichord or violin, then the Linn Isobarics would be a natural choice. A very natural choice and a good one for most any occasion!

 

That said, for amazingly accurate reproduction sans a lot of fanfare, the S-45.2’s would be an excellent choice.

 

And if you want the basic sound of the S-45.2’s with just a small bit more boom, the S-75’s take center stage.

 

Back to Søren, perhaps my hearing is less sophisticated than yours, but I really don’t tire of any of my speakers except the aforementioned S-120.2 speakers, which in my opinion are not very good, except in the high end. Ricardo, if you are looking for speakers with poor bass response, look no further than the appalling S-120.2’s.

 

Søren, all this discussion tosses me back to another thread where several members, including me, suggested that you need to add a pair of S-75’s to your collection. Now, more than ever I suggest you redouble your efforts to find a suitable pair.

 

Of course I am like you, trying to live within a budget, but finding the “right” deal I would dearly love to add pair of M-150 or MS-150 speakers to my collection. Why? Because on paper, they sound incredible.

 

Jeff

Well that makes me really happy to know I am not the only one who can become really confused by speaker selection. In a way  you answered your own question in that depending on how you want to color your sound you might select one type of speaker over another.

Right now I am listening to a Beatle LP on the BC9000 using RL60.2. The sound is full, expansive and well detailed. Much more alive than if I use the Beovox Cona CX100 set.

The S45-2 is a wonderful match for my 2400 but I just like the S-75's bigger sound footprint better.

I guess in the end it doesnt matter what the other forum member opinions are about one speaker set vs another. My ears will be the final judge in the end.

Btw,  the S-75 was an excellent mate for my pizza box set up.

I do prefer the look of dual fret on the revised uniphase

Ricardo wrote:

I guess in the end it doesnt matter what the other forum member opinions are about one speaker set vs another. My ears will be the final judge in the end.

Btw,  the S-75 was an excellent mate for my pizza box set up.

I do prefer the look of dual fret on the revised uniphase

I was just thinking about my answer to this, Richard beat me to it, my answer would have been nearly the same except for the sneaky  pizza box- S75 remark (Soren you will have to get S75s, goes even with your pizzas)🙂

As for the bass preference, Go and listen to an symphony orchestra concert, you will never hear these electronic made deep and/or booming bass tones, I have a setup, front, center and sub woofer, mostly for watching movies, playing music very seldom the sub is kicking in, the bass in the 3702 is normally enough for music, but dolby sound from movies sometimes makes the window panes rattle, the sub is a small Dayton Sub 800, that does it for me. As Richard mentions, its up to you and your preference, and the condition of your hearing. My hearing is shot after nearly 50 years in noisy working environment.

This is such a small topic yet profoundly interesting. Thank you guys for the mental stimulation. I also thoroughly enjoyed the “sneaky pizza box” commentary, which was brilliant.  😁

Søren, I had never thought about it before but you are entirely correct about the boomy electronically altered sound of our home stereos vis-à-vis an actual live concert. And like that typical consumer I have been “conditioned” by my environment to both like and expect a lot of bass.

As for speaker selection, there is where specifications kind of fall apart because in the end it is what we, the listener likes….. and this is as it should be.

I have talked a good deal about my 42 year old McIntosh ML-2 speakers which continue to amaze even after all these years. Not always well treated, twice being banished to the garage due entirely to changing tastes….. the “Mediterranean” look that was so popular in the early seventies has not aged well, but the cabinet appearance does not diminish the marvelous sound these massive speakers produce.

I don’t have too many regrets in life, but if I had it to do all over, I would have purchased the ML-3’s, which were known as “over-kill” in their day with their 8 12” woofers. Of course if I find the ML-2’s ugly, can you imagine taking that ugly garish look and making it a third bigger. (Maybe I choose right the first time…)

Søren, I am not sure how we got fixated on S-75 speakers, but if you want a speaker that you will never tire of, In my opinion you would be hard pressed to find a better choice than the S-75.

I acquired mine one at a time from a friend in California who decided I needed these speakers. This friend looked for bargains on eBay and when he found one, he purchased it and shipped it unopened to me.

No doubt this coloured my view of these speakers negatively in that they were not exactly a matched pair, basically someone’s rejects and the veneers were/are far from perfect. These speakers got tossed around until one day I actually sat there and listened, very belatedly realizing how truly nice these speakers sound.

Then fate dropped a second pair for free on my doorstep and I have become a major fan ever since.

We all have different tastes, but I am virtually certain that Søren would enjoy the S-75 experience.

Jeff      

I bet it would even make his 901 sound more robust. I really really liked matching them up with my Beomaster 1600.

I got the idea of mating the S-75 with my BS 5000 from Peter - he had mentioned once that he had run that setup and liked it.

My choice was S-75 and BM5000. That was the setup I kept the most in my office. Later I tried it with 5500/6500/7000 BM's , but the result was not impresiv. With a little fatigue as mentioned above :)

I started out with a set of type 6302 S-45's (the earliest style) and recently picked up a set of type 6427 (the later early 1980s style with the split front). The type 6302 and 6312 have three components and the 6427s only have two. I have found that the 6302s are a bit more neutral and some might find them a little less distinct. The 6427s are easy to refoam and definitely worth it in my opinion. They have a 'sharper' sound to them and, of course, look awesome on the optional stands. 

One last thought, I would disagree on Piaf's comment that the speakers were 'cheapened'. Yes, they are down one component, but they have a slightly different sound than the 6302s. I would not call it better or worse, just different. It all comes down to preference. Also, after refoaming you must allow a period for them to burn in again before you can really compare the two.