XTZ 99.25: A Review. UK First MkII.

Member 96948

Distinguished Member
9925trioqv9.jpg


First Impressions.

Each speaker comes in single thick cardboard box, and further protection is provided by expanded foam top an bottom caps, and finally a individual sock of foam lined polythene sheet. Taped to the sock, is a bag containing the instruction manual and the jumpers/links for tuning the crossover. The remaining items packaged with the 99.25s are jumper plates for the two sets of binding posts on each speaker and a foam bung for the reflex port all of which ship in place.

Nuts & Bolts.

As with the 99.36s there issues are that extends beyond simply choosing a colour although in the case of the 99.25s, it's simply one of shape. If you choose the gloss black option, it is in a rectangular cabinet hewn from 1" MDF with very smoothly rounded corners preceded by a gentle chamfer on all faces. In Walnut or Matt Black, the 99.25 has the truncated teardrop cross section in 3/4" MDF as per the 99.36s I have tested. The thinner MDF is possible due to the curved sides of the cabinet being a naturally more rigid shape. I like the density of the thicker cabinets which are very inert to the knuckle rap test. There's something satisfying about 'mass engineering, regardless of how clever the alternatives are.

Close inspection of these resolutely gloss black examples shows a very tight fit and finish. So tight in fact, the tweeter would defeat the proverbial fag paper and the interference fit is tight enough that the tweeter will stay in without screws. The single port is aligned behind the tweeter and has a totally seemless flair out onto the rear of the cabinet. This positioning is fortuitous as it allows you to ‘persuade' the tweeter out of the cabinet to change it's orientation.

Change it's orientation? Depending on whether you chose to lie the centre 99.25 flat beneath a screen, or stand it upright like the left and right speakers (as I do) the tweeter needs to be aligned vertically. Unlike a dome tweeter a ribbon has a very wide horizontal, but restricted vertical dispersion pattern, so it's orientation is important.

By the way, check out the depth of that gloss. What looks like texture on the side of the nearest one, is actually a dead flat reflection on the texture of the door next to it. It's deep, very smooth and extends seemlessly all the way into the port. With the slab of aluminium for the speaker terminals, absolutely flush driver mounting and complex radius to the cabinet edges, the overall impression is of something of a much higher price.

As with the 99.36s, the tweeter is a Fountek NeoCD3.0 ribbon tweeter with claimed output to 40kHz. Please refer to that review for greater detail on the unit, but suffice to say, this is the same unit as used in the Monitor Audio Platinum series so it's no slouch. The mid bass unit is again an XTZ specific version of the 18cm SEAS Excel W18E, the specific differences being in a black anodizing of the magnesium cone, a silver anodizing of the copper phase plug and chamfering of the driver basket to fit the narrow cabinet profile.

Turning to the rear, the four heavy binding posts can accept 4mm plugs, bare wire or 8mm spades and are soldily bolted onto a thick plate of aluminium, sealed by a gasket and clamped secured by six screws. These plates also house the 4mm terminals for the treble level adjustment. Levels of +4dB, -2dB and -4dB can be set relative to the nominal '0dB' flat position with no links inserted. Bass tuning is provided by a single port plug.

b165037cp0.jpg


Setup.

In my 16x13ft living room, I started with the 99.25s where the 99.36s had sat - about 60cm out from the nearest side wall and with the front baffle about 90cm out from the rear wall, but ended up with the port plugged and the speakers placed about 15cm further back. All three were orientated vertically and placed on identical stands that placed the tweeters at ear level. Plugging the rear ports resulted in the smoothest extension, removing a touch of chestiness from voice. It has to be said my PMC TB2 centre suffers from the same trait, but lacks the tuning option to compensate. As with the floor-standers, toe in only effected the width/depth of the soundstage with no noticeable change in treble levels. I eventually settled with them only slightly toed in – maybe 5 degrees or so.

Listening: Music

At this point, you could probably turn to the 99.36 review and take heed of all the comments from the bass up. Unsurprising really, as the 99.25 is the 99.36 minus the bottom half of the cabinet and it's associated driver. This is also goes someway to explaining the consistent tonality across the floor-standers when combined with the stand-mount centre in multichannel mode, where a subwoofer is handling all of the deep stuff from 80Hz down.

Used as a stand alone speaker without a sub, the 99.25s don't offer anything like the extension of the 99.36s giving rise to the impression that they are a more forward sounding speaker and it's true to a point – the 99.36s are a much warmer sounding speaker when used in isolation, due to that serious bottom end they have. The flip side is that the 99.25s are far more suited to smaller rooms or mounting closer to a wall and if you add a sub, you can make them as sound warm as you like.

Particular strengths remained the very open midrange that slides smoothly up to a slightly elevated, but very civilized treble. The precise placement and size of individual musicians/instruments within a soundstage was, if anything, even more impressive from the smaller cabinets. This remarkably open presentation is underpinned by a bottom end that is swift and solid and as well extended as most speakers of it's size. There are those that go deeper, but its not by much and normally at the expense of sensitivity, or just at the expense of expense! It's a personal preference, but I found the earlier, but more gradual, bass roll off resulting from plugging the port didn't give quite the kick of the open port, but it just seemed better timed with a better sense of rhythm. In the end, bass levels were subjectively similar as I ended up with the speakers slightly closer to the wall to compensate. Either way, the choice is yours and the speakers offer one.

However, I don't generally listen to speakers by themselves. I like to use a sub and I like to use one that has been EQ'd to suit the room, whilst taking advantage of my processors bass management to save the speakers being troubled by the bottom two octaves of bass. In my room at least, this was by far the preferred musical listening experience of any of the speaker/sub/no sub combinations I've had at my disposal. If the 99.36s bordered on just a bit too much power (mainly due to the rooms contribution), then this combination added an additional grip, delivered to even greater depths, whilst allowing the midrange to shine even further. It was like lifting the proverbial veil or some other such hackneyed expression and was not something I'd turn my back on in a hurry.

Listening: Movies

I've already expounded upon my dislike of some of the weird concoctions foisted upon us as 'dedicated' and 'matching' centre speakers and finally using all three 99.25s across the front was the moment I'd been looking forward to. It was the reason I had got interested in the XTZs in the first place. I'm somewhat pleased and more than a bit relieved, to say that they have proven to be right up my street.

The coherence of the three 99.25s is exactly as you would expect, with absolutely seamless panning of sounds/effects across the front three. The tonal match is obviously perfect and if you can use the centre upright, its an effect that is maintained over a very wide sweet-spot. The comparative lack of treble roll off as you move off axis in the horizontal plane, means you can be a lot further from the farthest speaker before it's contribution is overshadowed by the nearer ones with comparatively higher treble output. I hadn't thought of that possibility, but then again I don't think much at all. Further experimentation showed this to result in a stereo music soundstage that didn't immediately collapse into the nearest speaker when moving around either, so that's double nice.

I even dug out some music DVDs again and let them play out in multichannel and rather enjoyed them. With two positive multichannel music experiences in recent weeks, I even picked up an SACD/DVD-A capable player this week. Okay, I needed something for spinning R1 disks and I don't think I'll be rushing out to replace my CDs, but I'm turned back on to the idea that they can be fun again, rather than just a demo novelty.

As with the 99.36s, I found the ability to turn the treble up specifically for movies to be a resounding success. In the case of the 99.25s, the extra is preset at +4dB against the +3dB of the 99.36s, but the effect was much the same - An extra bite to the edges of effects that whilst not strictly accurate (after all, the disk wasn't mastered with elevated treble) lends an added impact to the leading edge of dynamics. The refinement of the tweeter prevents a nasty sibilant edge spoiling the effect with over emphasized sibilance, so again, I find I can have my cake and eat it.

Whilst on the subject of dynamics, it was slightly noticeable that there wasn't quite the kick, the near double cone area, that the floor-standers could stump up. Fair enough, there's always a bigger speaker that can do more of something and they do cost 50% more, so you'd expect a little something extra.

Either way, they were comfortable at reference levels, without getting at all 'shouty' and fatiguing and as an additional point they were much easier to drive. Whereas the floor-standers were really hamstrung by driving all five speakers from just the Rotel power-amp, the stand-mounts were an altogether less fussy proposition. The difference the Audiolab power-amp made was still quite obvious in terms of transparency and detail, but its absence didn't cause everything to fall apart as dramatically as before. This would lead me to suggest that slightly more down to earth receiver owners won't find themselves struggling.

Conclusion.

As I said in the 99.36 write up, I've had a few speakers through the room lately, but in the context of my room/system/preferences, these really are the star turn.

With the clarity of the big boys, dovetailed into the depth and power of EQ'd sub-bass, these are a speaker that won't pull apart more moderate amplification*, but are more than capable of revealing the differences made by upgrades further up the chain when you come to afford them. The performance available for the price means anybody considering a speaker+amp package could maintain their speaker quality AND squeeze a better amp into the budget too - Worth a thought.

*Having spent a day listening to the 99.25s on the end of an Onkyo 875, I can confirm that both the amp and speakers (and my ears!) were very comfortable at Dolby reference levels.

The more room tolerant positioning offered by the stand-mount/subwoofer setup may well be a more interesting proposition in the average size of UK front room too. Done carefully, you won't give up much in some areas (dynamics) whilst gaining on the bass quality front by compensation. For those dedicated to pure stereo and with large rooms, then the 99.36s may well be right up your street and offer a similarly favourable cost v performance ratio that makes it's own compelling argument.

That us music lovers have a couple of such choices and can further combine this with some added movie 'zing' has proven to be enough for me. I've had more expensive options to play with, hell, I even own a set, but the XTZ 99.25s will be the ones that are staying.

If anyone can explain how I'm going to make Mrs russ.will understand that this must be so, I'm all ears.

Russell

b165042ht3.jpg


Edit 16/11/08 - Pictures added.
 
Last edited:

MI55ION

Distinguished Member
Great review Russ, a joy to read! :) Sounds like you've really found your match, does this mean you'll retire the PMCs?

These speakers are intriguing, I would like to pick up on the following bit of your review:

...very open midrange that slides smoothly up to a slightly elevated, but very civilized treble

In my limited experience, I've found what excels a speaker from the average to pretty damn good is their ability to deliver better midrange to treble transition without one over powering the other, usually treble being the spoiler. Would you say however that the 'slightly elevated' high end might be a consequence of the room or an inherent character of speaker design. Does the option to cut the higher frequency help in this regard or would that sacrifice detail?

Cheers
 

kbfern

Distinguished Member
Very interesting read Russ,these XTZ speakers (the whole range) are looking like a real find and may turn out to be the new SVS price/performance reference.

Can't wait for the sub review to see if they have managed to span both speaker and sub end of the market with superb sounding value/performance models which is no easy thing to do.
 

norliss

Well-known Member
I have to say I think I might have to stop reading your reviews, Russ. They keep making me want to spend money :D

These (and their floorstanding brothers) look very good. How crucial is the vertical placement for the centre, though? In a projector (or wall-mounted TV) set-up this requirement is ok, but it might be a bit tricky for a speaker that needs to be sat in a rack/stand underneath the TV...
 

Smurfin

Distinguished Member
These (and their floorstanding brothers) look very good. How crucial is the vertical placement for the centre, though? In a projector (or wall-mounted TV) set-up this requirement is ok, but it might be a bit tricky for a speaker that needs to be sat in a rack/stand underneath the TV...

I was wondering exactly the same :)

Russ, just how much do these bely their price point? Difficult question, but rightly or wrongly, I believe people do make judgements based on the price tag...
 

nuttyboyz

Active Member
I've had my XTZ speakers a couple of months now. I found they do need a good run in, you'll notice to sound will become more richer as the seas unit runs in, once well run I found they sound rich and relaxed, without the bass ports and no subwoofer. I find the presentation the be on the relaxed side, compared to say the Revolver Music 1 which are more holographic and punchy, the XTZ is more richer, a deeper bass, and laid back in the midband.

Value for money? I really don't think there is much better, fit and finish is the best I've seen at this price point, everything is quality, it gives you pride of ownership in it's looks and build, a bit of a bargain really.
 

kbfern

Distinguished Member
Hi Nutty

Which XTZ's do you have.
 

Smurfin

Distinguished Member
I've had my XTZ speakers a couple of months now. I found they do need a good run in, you'll notice to sound will become more richer as the seas unit runs in, once well run I found they sound rich and relaxed, without the bass ports and no subwoofer. I find the presentation the be on the relaxed side, compared to say the Revolver Music 1 which are more holographic and punchy, the XTZ is more richer, a deeper bass, and laid back in the midband.

Value for money? I really don't think there is much better, fit and finish is the best I've seen at this price point, everything is quality, it gives you pride of ownership in it's looks and build, a bit of a bargain really.

Must admit I'm wary when I hear the word "relaxed" used, reminds me of dullness and the old cloth over the speakers cliche (that's just my psychological reaction to the description though!)
 

nuttyboyz

Active Member
Must admit I'm wary when I hear the word "relaxed" used, reminds me of dullness and the old cloth over the speakers cliche (that's just my psychological reaction to the description though!)

Oh, nooo, nothing like that, sometimes to notice how a speaker performs I find it best to compare it to another speaker, in my case I compared it to a favorite of mine the new Revolver music series 1, compare the two side by side you get two totally different presentations, both equally valid, the Revolver is one of the most holographic little speakers I've heard, whereas the XTZ presentation is more richer and the vocals are not so far forward, more inbetwwen the speakers whereas the Revolvers are more out in front, in no way would I describe the XTZ as dull or as if they had in cloth over them, the main SEAS driver is pure class, just run it in well.
 

Member 96948

Distinguished Member
How crucial is the vertical placement for the centre, though? In a projector (or wall-mounted TV) set-up this requirement is ok, but it might be a bit tricky for a speaker that needs to be sat in a rack/stand underneath the TV...
I don't think that placement is good for any speaker, but you'd need to work out what sort of offset angle you would be working at. 5-10deg won't make much difference at all - it's not until you get to 30deg plus, that there's noticeable roll off and that's actually quite steep.

The fuss I made about restricted vertical dispersion relates more to ceiling/floor reflections which in the case of the former are drastically reduced compared to a normal dome tweeter.

Russell
 

reaper12

Active Member
Another cracking review Russ. I can't wait for my XTZ system to arrive. I have cleaned out my old speakers and everything is good to go.

Your review now makes me a very happy camper, I have bought their 99.12DSP sub as well, so it should work together fairly smoothly.
 

cribeiro

Well-known Member
Whilst on the subject of dynamics, it was slightly noticeable that there wasn't quite the kick, the near double cone area, that the floor-standers could stump up. Fair enough, there's always a bigger speaker that can do more of something and they do cost 50% more, so you'd expect a little something extra.
Did you experience this with the speakers alone or with speakers+sub?
 

Member 96948

Distinguished Member
With and without, but it was obviously more noticeable with the speakers alone.

Even with a sub, the extra bass driver of the 99.36 gives useful output up to nearly two octaves above a typical 80Hz crossover used in AV. It delivers a little more upper bass kick, but then again it should; it's a much larger speaker.

Russell
 

Member 96948

Distinguished Member
Great review Russ, a joy to read! :) Sounds like you've really found your match, does this mean you'll retire the PMCs?
Yes.
In my limited experience, I've found what excels a speaker from the average to pretty damn good is their ability to deliver better midrange to treble transition without one over powering the other, usually treble being the spoiler.
I'm right with you on that one. I've sat down to many speakers and been turned off almost immediately by splashy, over emphasized treble balanced for show room appeal.
Would you say however that the 'slightly elevated' high end might be a consequence of the room or an inherent character of speaker design.
Possibly both. My room is slightly hard and the Audiolab amplification is renowned for not exactly dulling things down. I don't mind a bit of extra treble, but if it displays any of the qualities noted above, I don't care what level its set at.
Does the option to cut the higher frequency help in this regard or would that sacrifice detail?
Detail is not related to treble levels. The 'AV' balance I allude to above is simply a way of faking detail, which is in fact purely a quality of the drivers resolution. It's the equivalent of turning the contrast up on a poor picture - it gives it more bite, but doesn't actually add any detail information.

That extra bite is fun with films, but tiresome and obvious with music that has a lot more constant high frequency information. That's why I like the treble level setting of these speakers. Incidentally, I never mentioned the minus settings in the review, because they weren't appropriate in my room. If you were sitting only 2-3m from the speakers, the -2dB setting may prove closer to a subjective flat response, with the nominal 0dB setting being considerably brighter. This is after all a room tuning feature and not the 'movie switch' I've perhaps labeled it to be - that's a happy side benefit.

Russell
 

norliss

Well-known Member
And again, I'd be interested to hear how these compare with similar-ish priced competitors from MA, Quad, Kef, B&W etc...?
 

Smurfin

Distinguished Member
And again, I'd be interested to hear how these compare with similar-ish priced competitors from MA, Quad, Kef, B&W etc...?

The fact that Russ is retiring his £1000 PMC floorstanders for these babies says it all really...:thumbsup:
 

Member 96948

Distinguished Member
It's a little hard to say as at least part of preferring a speaker over another is in the subjective judgment of the tonal balance and whether your ears/room like it. That and the fact that I haven't heard all, or even most of those speakers in my front room to give a subjective ranking.

If you want an example, then the one speaker that these immediately put me in mind of were MA GS10s and they certainly compare with speakers at that level rather than price equivalent RS range.

A point worth noting is that the rest of your components have to be a quality equivalent rather than price equivalent. If your GS10s demand at least (for instance) a Denon 4308, then don't expect dropping a pair of these on a 3808 to give a similar level of performance. That said, if you do, you will have bought speakers that will make more of and survive through more stages of upgrading of other components.

It's still a matter for your ears though.

Russell
 

cribeiro

Well-known Member
And that.:)

If I can find the cash.....

Russell
It may be challenging, with a "little russ" on its way ;) (congratulations, by the way). I am "uncle Al" since Saturday last week. Uncle sounds... old :rolleyes: (older than "father", actually :confused:).

You made me very curious about these speakers, but they may not be for me (I like my sound a bit "laid back"). OTOH, our new bedroom has room enough for another AV system... :devil:
 

norliss

Well-known Member
Thanks again for your comments Russ: this sounds very encouraging.

I hear your point about quality of other components: right now I'm only running an Onkyo TSXR605 - all the speakers mentioned would be in a different class to that - but I plan to replace that with something far better in time. Ideally I'd like speakers that will be run ok with what I've got now but crucially be able to cope with upgrades.
 

AngelEyes

Distinguished Member
Great review old chap. :smashin:

For the brief listen I had at Russell's, I was very impressed with the 99.25s although it was hard to determine what made the biggest difference as almost every item in the chain was different to the last time I was there and of course there is the carpet too.

All I can say for sure is that the entire setup sounded much better than the PMC / Denon / Rotel combination I heard previously.

The 99.25s arrive tomorrow care of my portly delivery boy, so I will be directly comparing them to M&K 850s on a middle of the range Receiver, the Onkyo 875, which will hopefully be of interest to people with less exotic setups than Russell.

Of possible interest to norliss and Smurfin, I will have the centre on it's side below my wall mounted Plasma so I should be able to asses any issues with the front panning in this configuration.

Adam :)
 

reaper12

Active Member
I will be interested in your thoughts too angel eyes. I have a Marantz Sr8001 which is in the same class as the Onkyo 875. My center speaker will have to go on it's side as well and below my Plasma.

Now just waiting for a write up from Russ on the 99.12 DSP sub!!
 

AngelEyes

Distinguished Member
I will certainly pass on my findings and I am sure Russ will chip in as well, especially with regards to the comparison with the M&K speakers and matching with the Onkyo.

Russell and I have always been somewhat opposed when it comes to speaker presentation, so I was very surprised at how much he likes the sound of his new setup. Previously I found the PMC/Denon/Rotel combo to be quite muddy and almost like someone had placed a box of tissues over the tweeter... my own opinion of course :rolleyes:.

I know Russell looks at my M&Ks as 'faking' detail with more emphasis on the treble but the overal sound did seem, to me at least closer to what I am used to than what he had previously. (in fairness he had set the speaker treble to the +4db (AngelEyes) setting for my benefit and probably doesn't listen like that himself).

I think the Audiolab has reduced the noise floor and added a ton of detail and perhaps the XTZs are making a better job or reproducing it accurately, anyway I am waffling on with speculation, tomorrow I will have the chance to compare in a more familiar environment.

FWIW, just based on the short listen I have had so far, I have already started putting things in the classifieds in anticipation of an impending AV spendathon :D

Adam
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: REL T/9x Subwoofer + Bowers & Wilkins PI7 Reviews, AV Shows in a Pandemic and more
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Hisense announces US TV and soundbar ranges for 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 5th May 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
AVForums Movies Podcast: 4th May 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Creative launches Dolby Atmos SXFI Carrier soundbar
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Marvel trailer reveals cinema release dates into 2023
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom