After a little poking around on the web I found the following review -
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/97195-revox-agora-b-mkii-speakers.html
Okay, let's go for a little review of both of them, I mean Mk I and Mk II.
I'll start with the Mk I since I've owned these for nearly two years by now.
These are real beasts. Small and old, yet SO much performing and amazing. In a way, I've never heard a speaker like this. Of course there are better, but the size/performance/price ratio is unbelievable. I am never going to sell them. One day, when I buy much bigger and better boxes, I will still keep these for bedroom or something.
They sound so open. So big. So fluid. So powerful in bass, even if they are missing a real bass driver. Having stood them on a pair of small stands the sound has lifted up from the floor and now they nearly sound like big speakers. After two years with no improvements in the hifi set, I am still being amazed. Still in love with them, I'd say.
But they lie.
Since I've bought the Mk II, I am experiencing a much more precise sound. Now I really understand what all the people were telling to me about the lack of detail, treble inadequacy, bass inaccuracy etc. Mk II are better. Technically. There's no doubt. In every aspect they sound more precise, better defined, the bass is more contoured, the details spring out, the voices sound like real and so forth. People who like classical music made their opinions after five minutes of listening and they were absolutely right.
Well, whatever.
I don't care.
To me, after switching to Mk II the sound dimished. It gained all that accuracy and everything, but somehow it also went smaller, regardless on the stands. The bass doesn't go so deep anymore and loses its punchiness in exhange for being well-defined. The midrange doesn't sound that liquid and seamless since then. I can now hear all the tiny things in the treble area but who cares. There's less life, less joy, less reality in the music for me. Now the speakers make no lies. They sound exactly like small boxes, just as they really are. They do not hide anything, nor do they make you feel like "wooow, now what's this!" anymore.
Definitely, the Mk I is my cup of tea. The Mk II is more like a monitor kind of a speaker, with all it's pros and cons. In many respects they remind me of the Studer A723 studio monitors which I also happened to have at home for some time. They actually use the same tweeter and midrange speakers.
Now, of course I was little exaggerating. Any of these two are neither the best or bad speakers. Compared to any modern competition within reasonable price margins they still kick ass. The built-in amps are a big plus; one doesn't need to seek an amplifier and spend another fortune for it. The sound color is very normal, neutral and pleasant, there's no harshness or synthetic impurity in it, they are not directional and the sweet-spot is huge, the sound is compact and seamless and everything. I have heard some definitely better speakers, such as Quadral Titan or B&W Matrix 800 or Dynaudio Consequence, but these cost different money and need strong amps that cost just as much also.
So, here's my summary:
Anyone who's looking for an accurate, detailed and monitor-like sound, should go for the Mk II.
But people who value features like rather huge sound mass with a lot of clarity and liquidity to it might find the Mk I better.
Does this do?
Sorry for being so wordy.
J.
PS: The Mk II are for sale... Czech Republic, Europe.
