This is my second review on these speakers after I replaced them with my new wonders (PMC TB2). – you may check out my first review dated Sep, 2000 – Ok, after more than two years of extensive listening of this spk and changed to use a so-called ‘monitor-speaker’, I know the actual character of the spk. First of all, I still miss the silky heights of this little wonders because of its tension and power when playing string. Even my ‘not-totally break-in’ PMC can’t perform the heights as well as the Mission right now. I think the vocal performance is the second strength of the missions. And may be its silky height helps this a lot so I will say the vocal is involving and musical. It’s time for weaknesses, bass is decent but weak and definitely have no low to hyper low frequency. You should heard some audio editors said that nice bass costs you a lot. So for a small, inexpensive speakers, this is the first thing to forget. One thing that I really don’t like is its ‘range of working volume level” is relatively restricted. It sounds weak and thin when the volume is small (may be due to the low sensitivity) but it will cramp up quite easily when you turn the volume ‘loud’, just ‘loud’. Finally, I will say that if you are looking for a nice looking, small musical generators for your bedroom, look no further. But they will restrict your choice.

Smooth, non-fatiguing sound; Bi-wiring capability; slender profile; great "Sonus Faber" styling

85dB sensitivity, lack of lower bass

Quite simply, these are the best darn $300 speakers I could imagine! I bought two pairs in rosewwod on closeout at AudioAdvisor, and that's how I ended up with such a great price. For $300 and being run "small" I'm pretty sure there's very little that can touch this speaker. Before I found this deal, I was contemplating the NHT SuperOnes, the Paradigm MiniMonitors, the Acoustic Energy Aegis Ones, etc. I did get to hear the S1 and MM, both of which had their strengths, but the 772 is simply in the next class.

The 772s have a 5-inch Aerogel (matrix of kevlar and carbon fiber) woofer and a 1-inch soft dome tweeter, which is decoupled from the front baffle. Instead of a conventional dustcap, there is a metal "phase correction plug" that juts out from the center of the woofer and is stationary. This tames some unwanted reflections as well as lowering the mass of the woofer. Sounds like it's working to my ears. The 5-inch woofer is the reason that these can only go down to around 60Hz, but since they're being run "small," they only ever see 80Hz and up signal. That being said, a 5-inch woofer is slightly more articulate on midrange than a 6.5-inch woofer would be, all else being equal.

On all kinds of music, from Diana Krall to Pearl Jam to Radiohead to SRV to Miles Davis, the 772s can handle it without a sweat, even at loud levels (95-100dB peaks). The highs are never fatiguing, and this can be attributed to the "British" sound inherent in these speakers as well as the fact that they use a soft-dome and not metal. Also, I have them running off a Denon receiver, and Denon is supposedly the "warm" sounding brand of receivers.

All in all, it adds up to wonderfully smooth sound, albeit not the last word in detail at all times. However, having Magnepan MMGs in another system, I can say that having the absolute last word in detail is not always the best idea. As most recordings are not top quality, it's wonderful to have a forgiving setup like the 772s and a Denon receiver. That being said, the 772s and a 77c1 center on 5-channel stereo sound phenomenal. I upgraded my HT rig so that it would be closer in performance to my 2-channel (MMGs, NAD c340) setup, but having listened to the Mission setup in 5-ch stereo, I think I would actually prefer them for some kinds of music!

At regular price ($600/pair), the 772s do have some pretty good competition from the usual suspects. However, at the $300/pair that I got them, I'm pretty sure they're untouchable, save DIY speakers, etc.

My system:
Mission 772 x4
Mission 77c1
JBL TLX-PS10 (possibly to be replaced by Mission 700ASi)
Denon AVR-1700
Pioneer DV-525
Sony 200 disc changer

Similar Products Used:

Mission 77c1 center (see review)
previous mains: Infinity RS-5

The high end sounds like silk and the mid range is accurate and musical at this price range.

Lower end sucks.

Everyone knows that spending millions of dollars on delicate equipment and fine tuning the listening will produce something called ¡¥perfect sound¡¦. I am not a dot com billionaire living in Silicon Valley. Thus, making the best use of my money is my greatest concern.
First of all, Mission looks great! Although aesthetic is a rather subjective matter, you can¡¦t say that Mission is uglier than other speakers that look like fat and dull laundry boxes.
I have auditioned the Tannoy and the Kef, both of them are decent speakers and having their strengths. Tannoy is an effective speaker and the bass is heavy and powerful but a bit noisy. Kef possesses the air crispy soundings at its high ends but the mid range is a bit lifeless. I chose Mission because it brings music to live among these speakers. That¡¦s what I want and it is a basic requirement of a speaker. It¡¦s bass is gentle, or more exactly, weak but it seems unavoidable.
I know that there are many speakers in the world, but this is what I want at this moment. ( I may up great it to Vandersteen later¡K)

Equipment:
Mission 772
Rega Brio
Rega Planet
Audioquest Topaz
Synergy speaker cable

(if you want more bass, go and buy a Cerwin Vegas subwoofer and bother your neighbors)

Similar Products Used:

Kef Q15, Mission 750, Tannoy

Smooth, full, decent bass

Soft, there are better competitors

These speakers list for $600, and at that price I really couldn't recommend them at all. Audio Advisor offers them at a discount of 50%, which makes them quite a bit more of a value. They offer a smooth, laid-back sound, which decent amounts of detail. I didn't test things like imaging or soundstaging, since my current setup doesn't allow for proper speaker placement. It sounded a bit soft for my tastes though. I tend to like a brighter, more "analytical" sound, however you want to characterize it. My main system consists of Thiel 2.3 speakers. I simply found the Mission speakers to be a little flat, closed, clouded, veiled. It wasn't that the speaker was warm, just that it sounded less open. In particular, the Castle Isis sounds much more open, the highs are crisper, there's much more detail, more air is available, and thus instruments are separated a bit better. The Mission do have better bass than the Isis ... but this is remedied by the Castle Tay speakers, which are one step above the Isis. Which is why I said that at $600, I really could not recommend the Mission at all. For $300, they could probably be acceptable. AND, the Castle Isis and Tay are both discontinued. I will be ordering a pair of Castle Richmond for $349 and will compare them to the Mission speakers. If you want a very detailed, forward, clean sound, I really think that Castle offers the best speakers for less than $1,000.

I let the speakers break in for around 60 hours. Main listening was classical and rock, CD and FM radio. Associated components were an NAD 304 integrated, Marantz tuner, and Panasonic CD player. This is my secondary system.

Similar Products Used:

Castle Isis, Castle Tay, Paradigm Atom

compact size, room filling sound,good looks
decent bass output

can't find a buyer in my area

mission 772 series speakers (bookshelf) overall the speakers sound great and have nice
tonal balance. not a speaker for bassheads,but
just fine for audiophiles with little room for
speakers. i use my system in a room 20'by20' and
the sound is phenomenal. am very happy with their performance so far. the sound of the mission 772's playing music is a riveting expierience coming from such a small speaker they produce lows with great impact and feel giving you sense of having 8 inch towers. highs are almost ear piercing at high levels and crystal clear at nominal to moderate volume levels. i can't say
enough about these speakers performance during movie play back through my dvd player. i would not be able to do them justice. so if you can find a dealer and have $600 to spend on a pr of speakers buy them. if you can afford the extra money buy the whole 772 series system for $1800
you won't be dissapointed. long live mission!
(i rate this product 4 stars)
home theater addict,
jim b.

Similar Products Used:

klipsch

very detailed, has a deep image, the treble is very silky or soft, and the midrange is natural

Sensibility 85db/1w/1m , but I can drive them with a 50 RMS amp!

The change was really an upgrade to another level of audio quality. The Q15 is an excellent speaker for the price, I think that is a little more than an entry level, …, in fact I love my old Q15, I think that these are audiophile speakers (for just $350).

In coparision with the KEF Q15, the Mission 772 represent different story, the price is almost twice ($600 list in the US) than the KEF, and so reproduce much less bass (60 Hz – 20 Khz), so the speaker is less efficient (85db/1w/ 1m).
Take into account that for $600 or a little more you could get a couple a tower speakers. So why should I buy a speaker these more expensive, with less bass and inefficient speaker, the reason should be obvious: this speaker represent an upgrade toward a more natural and detailed music experience.

Strengths: The 772 is very detailed, has a deep image, the treble is very silky or soft, and the midrange is natural.

Weakness: a little bright and some metallic sound, but this was solved with some time of work and with another cable, all you need is time to break up the cables, and then the Mission will get soft with an excellent tonal balance.

I got my Mission at a half price at AudioAdvisor, just incredible for $300 (plus $20 for shipping and handling), that is a great deal! At this price the 772 became just unsurpassable, a “big bang for the buck”.

My system:
Integrated Amplifier: NAD 340
CD player: NAD 540
Subwoofer : Boston Acoustics PV450
Interconnects Cables: Apature (with silver conductors)
Speaker cable: bi-wiring with Kimber 4VS

Of course, If I would had to pay the list price $600, I would audition some B&W, Celestion, Tannoy, Paradigm, NHT, …, with similar characteristics in the range of price $600 to $1000. In fact I’ve listen some NHT of $650 and Boston Acoustics of $800 (VR-M50), and think that the Mission 772 are much more natural and detailed, and can be easily compared with more expensive models.

Similar Products Used:

NHT, Kef

very detailed, has a deep image, the treble is very silky or soft, and the midrange is natural

Sensibility 85db/1w/1m , but I can drive them with a 50 RMS amp!

In my previews review I omitted a paragraph, it was just a mistake! So here is the complete review:

I have change my speakers from a pair of Kef Q15 to a pair of Mission 772 (I’m a fan of the British speakers!), well I wished (and I wish now) a couple of KEF RDM Two, but the price is about the $1.200, so …, I bought the Mission for $300! Take into account that the list prices for these babies is $600, so it was a very good bargain.

The change was really an upgrade to another level of audio quality. After two years with my Kef I believe that the Q15 is an excellent speaker for the price, I think that is a little more than an entry level, …, in fact I love my old Q15, I think that these are audiophile speakers (for just $350).

In coparision with the KEF Q15, the Mission 772 represent different story, the price is almost twice ($600 list in the US) than the KEF, and so reproduce much less bass (60 Hz – 20 Khz), so the speaker is less efficient (85db/1w/ 1m).

Take into account that for $600 or a little more you could get a couple a tower speakers. So why should I buy a speaker these more expensive, with less bass and inefficient speaker, the reason should be obvious: this speaker represent an upgrade toward a more natural and detailed music experience.

Strengths: The 772 is very detailed, has a deep image, the treble is very silky or soft, and the midrange is natural.

Weakness: a little bright and some metallic sound, but this was solved with some time of work and with another cable, all you need is time to break up the cables, and then the Mission will get soft with an excellent tonal balance.

I got my Mission at a half price at AudioAdvisor, just incredible for $300 (plus $20 for shipping and handling), that is a great deal! At this price the 772 became just unsurpassable, a “big bang for the buck”.

My system:
Integrated Amplifier: NAD 340
CD player: NAD 540
Subwoofer : Boston Acoustics PV450
Interconnects Cables: Apature (with silver conductors)
Speaker cable: bi-wiring with Kimber 4VS

Of course, If I would had to pay the list price $600, I would audition some B&W, Celestion, Tannoy, Paradigm, NHT, …, with similar characteristics in the range of price $600 to $1000. In fact I’ve listen some NHT of $650 and Boston Acoustics of $800 (VR-M50), and think that the Mission 772 are much more natural and detailed, and can be easily compared with more expensive models.

Similar Products Used:

kef, nht

Mission 772
I recently had the opportunity to audition the new Mission 772 bookshelf speaker, and I must say that I am impressed. The 772 is a very unconventional looking bookshelf design with an unusually slim profile. I find the cherry finish cabinet very attractive.

Simply put, the 772 sounds good. I used four test criteria for the 772. 1. Could it reproduce piano accurately? 2. How well do the speakers reproduce upper orchestral strings? 3. Does the bass have rhythm? 4. How does the speaker handle the voice?

To test piano reproduction, I used, a difficult to reproduce well, disc of Liszt piano works. The 772s took just a few minutes to ace this test, displaying highly unusual accuracy. To my ears, the piano sounded dead perfict. The 772s reproduced the Liszt with finesse and weight. These pieces sounded beautiful. I have never heard piano reproduced this well by any set of speakers. This test left me salivating for more.

To test upper orchestral string sound, I used a disc of Schubert's 8th Symphony. This disc can sound unbearably steely and harsh on the wrong equipment. I listened for glare and shriek on upper string registers, but I did not hear any. The treble sounded well controlled without excess glare or sibilance. In fact this test revealed the sweet character of the 772's treble.

The Schubert sounded impressive in it's lower registers as well. I heard a lovely bloom to the strings that conveyed a sense of depth and scale. This is not at all what I expected from such small drive units.

After the 772s aced the string test, I tested for bass rhythm and timing with Crystal Water's "100% Pure Love" track. I immediately recognized the "Mission Sound" of old. The dance track was reproduced with a lot of slam and quick, agile timing. The bass slammed in true disco fashion creating a wall of sound. Yet, behind this wall, the lack of low bass, bass below 70 Hz, was evident. The 772s seem to have been tuned for maximum impact and considering the size of the cabinet, the bass performance was a good compromise, even though for its class, the 772s lose out in the bass department to speakers such as the Tannoy Mercury M2. The overall effect of the 772's tuning can fairly be criticized for sounding lightweight, brash, and glassy.

Finally, I tested for voice reproduction using a disc of Motown hits. I heard good separation of voices and good accuracy with a trace of sibilance. Voices sounded just a bit nasal and pinched, as I have heard with previous Mission models.

Overall, the 772s are the most accurate sounding Missions that I have heard so far. They impress deeply with classical music, but are just slightly off the pace with dance and rock, which I judge to be an excellent compromise given their enormous strengths. Sound-wise they are way ahead, but they do cost $600/pair, which is twice the price of most of their bookshelf sized competitors.

Furthermore, I question their construction. A rap of the knuckles reveals a hollow sounding, under-damped cabinet, generally not a good sign. The panels seemed sturdy enough, but the grills are made of cheap, lighweight, easily broken plastic as evidenced by the broken peg on the demos. This is a problem that I have noticed with past Mission designs. Build quality should be better for $600 bookshelf speakers.

Despite the cheapness of the box, a lot of thought, skill, and engineering has evidently gone into the 772 design to judge by the quality of its sound. On sound quality alone, the 772 scores value points. Though, they are not built to last, the Mission 772s are guaranteed to bring much enjoyment. I rate them five stars *****!

Mission 772 (87 dB/w/1m; 8 ohms; 60Hz-20kHz) *****

1. Piano Music (Liszt) *****
Very accurate, crisp, clear, impressive

2. Upper Orchestral Strings (Schubert's 8th) *****
Very impressive sound. Beautiful depth and bloom. Nice scale. Treble sounded well controlled with no excess sibilance, glare, or shriek

3. Bass Rhythm (Crystal Waters) *** 1/2
Very rhthmic, excellent timing & slam; lacking in deep bass (ext. to 70 Hz or so), somewhat lightweight and brash sounding.

4. Human Voice (Motown Hits) ****
Good separation of voices. Accurate sounding voices in Gaye/ Terrell duet. Just the slightest amount of sibilance. Just slightly pinched.

Build Quality **
Lightweight construction. Broken grill peg in typical Mission fashion. Hollow sounding to knuckle rap.

Looks *****

Value ***

The Mission 772 is the larger of the two bookshelf speakers in Mission'snew 77 series. Housed in a cabinet measuring 16.6 inches (422 mm) h,
6.8 inches (172 mm) w, and 10.5 inches (267 mm) d, the 8 ohm speaker
boasts a 5 inch woofer with a 1 inch fabric dome tweeter. Sensitivity
and frequency response are reported at 85 dB/1w/1m and 60 Hz - 20 kHz
plus/minus 3 dB. The cabinet is offered in a choice of real wood veneer
in Rosewood, Cherry, or Black Ash. The speaker retails for $600 a
pair. The company's web stite can be located at www.mission.co.uk. Two
other members (771 and 774) of the 77 series have been reviewed at
www.hifichoice.co.uk.

Impressions

I had settled on another brand for my new speakers and had
brought a pair home. In addition to the 772, I had auditioned Tannoy's
M2 and R1; B&W 601, Energy C2; Snell SR.5, Wharfedale Emerald 93; and
several tower speakers. However, my audition of the 772 left me with
lasting memories that I could not escape, most vividly the reproduction
of the 4th movement of Saint Saens' 3rd Symphony which had cause me to
shed tears of joy. So I brought home a pair of 772s to test against the
the incumbent speakers. The incumbents were sent packing. Even my
Luxman R-3030 seemed to be happy with the choice. I have been playing
them almost 8 hours a day not to break them in, but because the music is
so wonderful.

I am a classical music enthusiast, and this speaker seems to have been
designed for this genre of music. First of all, this is a very
transparent speaker. Its lack of "richness" produces a clear and
articulate rendition of the entire orchestra. Big bass lovers had
better stop here. Bass is lovely, smooth, soothing, and most adequate.
The tympany of soft kettle drums such as in the orchestral version of
"Pictures at an Exhibition" is wonderful. Dynamics are more than you
might expect from such a small speaker. The subtle volume changes in the
second movement of Beethoven's 5th Piano Concerto are reproduced with
uncommon accuracy. Imaging is very good. The midrange is this speaker's
domain - crystal clear and accurate. When it comes to chamber music, the
772 is at home with an immense soundstage that gives the listener the
feeling of being in the front row. I had never realized the sonic
splendor of Kalinnikov's 2nd Symphony until I played it though these
speakers.

Soft jazz pieces are reproduced very well with good, soft bass and
articulation. Marching bands are not reproduced to their entire
splendor because of the lightweight bass. However the accurate
reproduction of instruments such as the piccolo in "Stars and Stripes
Forever" and of subtle intonations of instruments normally buried in
background such as the triangle in the same work will satisfy immensely.
Remarkable.

Unfortunately the vast majority of my vocal music, both male and female,
is composed of AAD or ADD recordings. Thus, Judy Collins' wonderfully
clear voice was rendered flawed by the quality of the recording through
the 772s. The best vocal I could test against was The American
Boychoir. The 772 did a magnificent job reproducing those angelic
voices which were performed softly for the most part. I am not an
aficionado of opera and will defer to another more skilled in that area
of music for a more skilled review. I will say that excerpts from "La
Traviata", "Pirates of Penzance", and "The Mikado" were wonderful to me.
Overall, the 772 does a grand all around job that was satisfying to this
set of ears in the vocal arena.

Conclusions

I've lived with these speakers for almost 2 months and the are still
Pure Sonic Heaven. Shedding tears over the Saint-Saens and knocking off
the richer sounding speakers I had bought won my heart to this speaker.
Its sound is very clear and uncolored for the most part. However, this
along with a lack of bass drive may bias some against it. Even so,
listening to the cascades at the end of Mozart's "Marriage of Figaro"
and the softness of the piano in Beethovan's Fifth Piano Concerto will
win many a heart over to this speaker. Its performance is truly nector
for the audio gods. Most importantly, it gets a solid SAR (spousal
approval rating) of 5 stars from my wife because it does not boom
throughout the house like the other speakers did. If you like
excellent, clear, natural MUSIC from a bookshelf, add this speaker to
your list of auditions along with Tannoy, Castle, Ruark, and
Wharfedale. I have bi-wired the speakers and have received increased
definition and clarity. My assessment is a solid 5 star with no
reservation.

The Mission 772's are the first speaker I auditioned and for their price are a fantastic buy. They lack in the bass department but render most CD's very accurately and with a degree of warmth.
My purchase was the KEF Q15 however which is in the same price bracket and has a much more defined soundstage and a bit more bass. The 772 is a great speaker but consider running it up against the KEF... My rating...