View Full Version : A good Big-Un, always beats a good Small-Un
We are talking speakers here of course. I am of the opinion that it is impossible to obtain a satisfactory rendition of all frequencies and harmonics without a large (probably 3-Way) speaker.
Wiki :
A harmonic of a wave is a component frequency of the signal that is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency, i.e. if the fundamental frequency is f, the harmonics have frequencies 2f, 3f, 4f, . . . etc. The harmonics have the property that they are all periodic at the fundamental frequency, therefore the sum of harmonics is also periodic at that frequency. Harmonic frequencies are equally spaced by the width of the fundamental frequency and can be found by repeatedly adding that frequency. For example, if the fundamental frequency is 25 Hz, the frequencies of the harmonics are: 50 Hz, 75 Hz, 100 Hz etc.
I have heard many small, medium and large speakers from cheap to ridiculous (price wise). I attended the Heathrow shows regularly in the 90s and was sometimes impressed with what seemed to be the "Rabbit out of a hat" trick where the soundstage belied the size of the cabinet. However, it was a very hit and miss affair dictated mainly by the choice of music chosen by the particular exhibitor. What always happened was that I would come away with a favourite system/component which always contained large floorstanding speakers.
I often see someone post who has bought a pair of stand-mouts. They say I like what they do, but I need the bottom end filled in. The answer is to buy a subwoofer. These work well in my opinion (probably some better than others and of course dependant on room modes and placement). However are we kidding ourselves that we are hearing all that we should?
As some may have read I experimented during the May BH with an old pair of PA speakers, run in parallel with another pair of speakers. I also run two subwoofers (both set up very differently).
Can you ever "have it all"? Well I think I have! I just love what it does. Each channel comprises a 10" sub bass 15" bass, 8" bass/mid, Horn Mid, 5 tweeters (main cab) 1 soft dome tweeter.
The results are tangible. Could I get this with a small stand mount?
Discuss
Rob.
The Grand Wazoo
27-05-2012, 10:13
A good Big-Un, always beats a good Small-Un - the theory is a good one. Trouble is, so often people forget the operative word there is 'good'. With a limited budget, it's all too easy to end up with a compromised big-un that's usually worse than a compromised little-un of the same price.
+1! :)
Also, always remember that scale is a very different thing from deep bass. High-quality floor-standing designs (with multiple small-ish drive units) do the latter, no problem, and give a decent semblance of the former, but you really need large baffle width, BIG enclosures, with 15" drivers in use (or bigger), in order to create a palpable sense of scale and 'physicality', where you 'feel', as well as hear the music.
Big wide ones (girth) do it better, IME, than big tall skinny ones! Hehehe... ;)
Scale, and creating a genuine sense of authority and gravitas (shifting copious quantities of air in a controlled fashion) is much more important to me than (ultimate) deep bass, I.E. how low certain drive units go down to, in terms of frequency response. Subsonic bass doesn't really interest me, but I'd imagine that some people like Mark (Reid Mal) would have a different view :eyebrows:
Much depends on the music you listen to.
Marco.
Loudspeakers - the most interesting and the most varied of all the hi-fi components. Not half enough discussion about them relative to amps, CD players etc IMO.
I'm fully in agreement with you Rob. I don't find small loudspeakers give a totally satisying sound even if they are expensive and use high tech drivers like ribbon tweeters etc. I've heard bookshelf louspeakers at under £100 sound as good as bookshelf speakers costing over a grand. It's a small cone in a small box, regardless of cost it will simply not do proper bass or dynamics and those laws of physics have not yet been breached. I can understand that a large system is an impossibilty for many due to size of room, I just don't think it is worth buying expensive small speakers in any case.
Back in the 90s I designed (on the back of an envelope:eyebrows:) and had built a couple of sets of speakers using 8'' mid bass (one kevlar & ported, the other paper and closed cab) with various tweeters. I had the cabs made big enough to be optimal for the driver -they were about 50 litres IIRC- the purpose being to see if a 2 way like this would give proper bass if the cab size was optimal, so unlike any commerical variations on this theme. They did, but the paper driver was being asked to do too much, spoiling the upper mids - the kevlar driver in the ported cab was much more effective even run full range.
As you say a well designed big 3 way is really were the fun starts. I'm hoping to try my Ditton 44's in a small (10'x11') room in the near future as I am thinking they may work well even hard up against a wall, unlike the 2 way WAF towers that are now ubiquitous on the current market. They just don't have enough power handling to work in free space in my current room.
prestonchipfryer
27-05-2012, 10:34
+1! :)
Big wide ones (girth) do it better, IME, than big tall skinny ones! Hehehe... ;)
Marco.
Oooooh, what are you like - wide girth - wide berth for me. :eyebrows:
Seriously though, a lot depends on room modes, well it does for me, 'cause my listening room is quite small. The Spendors I use have a port, rear of speaker at close to floor level. I have found by blocking the port with foam makes a tremendous difference to bass - cleaning it up nicely.
:)
Oooooh, what are you like - wide girth - wide berth for me. :eyebrows:
Hahaha - indeed, the girls often run away screaming! :lol:
Live music, either acoustic or amplified, always has a sense of presence, scale and expansiveness, which despite the many admirable sonic traits of quality stand-mounts, they cannot replicate, simply due to the laws of physics.
However, deep bass and scale aside, for me, if speakers don't get it right in the all-important midrange, where all the serious 'action' happens, then forget about it! :nono:
I need it all!
Marco.
doesn't matter how big speakers are , if they can't throw a proper soundstage it's all a bit pointless really.
The claims in some vicifeous quarters about three ways not working and "always" sounding worse than two ways is a bit wild, but does have basis in truth. So many three way designs put the bass to mid crossover right in the middle of the vocal range and it can be very difficult indeed to properly integrate the drivers for seamless transition and no "smear" where they overlap, even when it's done in an active configuration. Indeed, back in the 70's it was known that it was difficult enough to get ONE driver to behave, let alone adding one or two others to the mix :) Trying to do this in a DIY setting may end up being impossible to properly achieve unless the formula is copied from a previous thorough design IMO.
Given the room though, a properly designed large loudspeaker just has an ease and grace about it's sonics that NO squitty little 9 litre box could ever hope to emulate, no matter how linear and long the cone travel, or how well the drivers are designed. The little 'un will be hobbled on full range and full scale music by the size - and it's not just opinion, but provable scientific fact! Reduce the sensitivity of a small driver to get bass extension and you run out of cone travel at low fequencies, as well as increasing midrange distortion as the heavy cone flap modulates the midrange. Increase sensitivity, as in my AVI Pro 9's, and you lose bass - simple!
Apologies all for spouting on and I hope much of the above makes sense and is basically truthful. I've had one too many spats this week with a certain online "presence" who markets his little two ways in an agressive manner while dissing other people's attempts at getting a good (better?) sound, his disciples hanging on to his every word, and I'm very sore about it, because of the half truths that get shouted out as facts... Bit like some religions really, isn't it? :steam: maybe i do talk a load of bollox, but I try not to and apologise if I'm found in error, as I was over the Sabre DAC chips on the Audiolab DAC thread.
Why do you give yourself the grief, Dave? That lot are way beneath you. I've been reading the utter agenda-driven shite of JC's Bum on pfm, and simply shake my head in disbelief! :rolleyes:
I don't know why Tony puts up with it. That's why we banned his ass, along with that of that other monkey, AJ. They add absolutely nothing of worth to any of the forums.
Forget them. They're no-marks. The sooner they both retire and bugger off, the better. In fact, with the age of them now, it says a lot about the so-called 'success' of their business that they're still working, instead of sipping cocktails in their villas in the South of France, listening to their tinny little speaker-ettes.... ;)
Marco.
Why do you give yourself the grief, Dave? That lot are way beneath you. I've been reading the utter agenda-driven shite of JC's Bum on pfm, and simply shake my head in disbelief! :rolleyes:
I don't know why Tony puts up with it. That's why we banned his ass, along with that of that other monkey, AJ. They add absolutely nothing of worth to any of the forums.
Forget them - they're no marks!
Marco.
I grieve no more,
I think it all boils down to utilizing the space that is available efficiently. For instance, I would struggle to accommodate anything larger than the DM2's in my listening room from both a physical and aural standpoint due to the rooms size. In the DM2's I've found a compromise that works very well in this particular environment. The driver compliment in this design might also be a factor and this discovery has given me a path to explore should I wish to upgrade the speakers at some point in the future. Harbeth SHL5's would seem the natural choice here... :cool:
There is "something" about the classic two-cubic-foot two-ways that seems to work in UK rooms. I don't know what it is, but it IS, if you see what I mean :) Wifey hates the Spendors for their bulk and ugly stands (they're nothing like as nice looking as Alex's SP1's), but I find the bass quality of the BC2 and SP1 to be perfectly good and extension is just right for me. I can't play loud and just find these fine at lower levels for me. The SHL5 is a good few steps down the refinement road from mine and I'm sure the current model is slightly slimmer in size than the much older HL models, but if it isn't, it's a great restyle...
some very interesting points made chaps. What I don't neccessarily agree with from my own experience is that if you have a small room, you must have to have small speakers. I have found large speakers can work in a small room. As Marco says it depends on what sort of music you listen to.
Live music, either acoustic or amplified, always has a sense of presence, scale and expansiveness, which despite the many admirable sonic traits of quality stand-mounts, they cannot replicate, simply due to the laws of physics.
I have a live version of Fileds of Gold by Eve Cassidy. No deep bass, no nothing in fact apart from a geetar and her voice. Spine Tingling.
Scale, and creating a genuine sense of authority and gravitas (shifting copious quantities of air in a controlled fashion) is much more important to me than (ultimate) deep bass, I.E. how low certain drive units go down to, in terms of frequency response. Subsonic bass doesn't really interest me, but I'd imagine that some people like Mark (Reid Mal) would have a different view
I would agree Marco. I have IMO that sense of authority, you know when you say to yoiurself "oh yeah - this is good". I have spent a lot of time with placement and phasing of the subs, and perhaps a bit of luck to get what I am hearing now. I only use the subs to give the best tightness to the bass, and not really to get the deepest.
Rob.
some very interesting points made chaps. What I don't neccessarily agree with from my own experience is that if you have a small room, you must have to have small speakers. I have found large speakers can work in a small room. Rob.
+1 with bells on :lol:
+ 100 with bells, trinkets and bobbins on!!!
Marco.
some very interesting points made chaps. What I don't neccessarily agree with from my own experience is that if you have a small room, you must have to have small speakers. I have found large speakers can work in a small room. As Marco says it depends on what sort of music you listen to.
..
There are small speakers voided to sound large and large speakers that sound quite 'small' so it is not so cut and dried. You can't sit just five feet from a big 4 way and expect to get the full benefit because you are going to hear the individual driver contributions. Tannoy DC and the like you do not have that problem although they should still work better in a larger space than a smaller one.
Seems that there's consensus that a good big'un beats a good little 'un and I would generally agree with that. Clever design and materials technology though have closed the gap, and there are some pretty stunning stand mounts around that do deliver some surprising bass (not boom) which would be more than adequate for smaller rooms. My Hornings (now sadly sold) had twin 12 inch drivers giving an equivalent area of a single 18 inch driver, and it was perhaps the only loudspeaker I've owned or listened to that would drop bass below audible levels when hooked up to an amp with a decent damping factor. Great for organ music!
As someone has already mentioned, there's not enough chat about the 'speaker end of the chain on forums and its the one area where there are genuine differences in desgin and implementation to offer a variety of solutions for various listening rooms. There's been very little new in amplifier design for a good 40 years, but loudspeaker design has continued to refine and improve upon the basics as well as produce some intresting new designs.
Its no good though having a good big box if your room has nodes that produce peaks that create boominess as this will muddy bass notes, nor is it ideal to drive large boxes with amplifiers that are not capable of controlling the speakers properly. It does tend to be overlooked when matching amplifiers as what most people erroneously look at is just the sensitivity figures, which don't actually tell you how good a match your am to speakers is, it just tells you how loud they will go for a given wattage.
A whole interesting topic on its own this one and IMHO one really worthy of expansion as its perhaps the most important one to fully understand when selecting hifi kit for a room. Bit of a deviation from the big v's little debate, but relevant because whatever the size of the box, understanding what it's load characteristics, damping requirements and room interaction issues might be are all important to get the best from any system.
There is "something" about the classic two-cubic-foot two-ways that seems to work in UK rooms. I don't know what it is, but it IS, if you see what I mean :) Wifey hates the Spendors for their bulk and ugly stands (they're nothing like as nice looking as Alex's SP1's), but I find the bass quality of the BC2 and SP1 to be perfectly good and extension is just right for me. I can't play loud and just find these fine at lower levels for me. The SHL5 is a good few steps down the refinement road from mine and I'm sure the current model is slightly slimmer in size than the much older HL models, but if it isn't, it's a great restyle...
How do you mean? The SHL5 by all accounts is one of the most refined loudspeakers currently available by all accounts. I hope so as I've just ordered a pair!
spendorman
27-05-2012, 14:59
"A good Big-Un, always beats a good Small-Un"
I think that statement, or something similar, was made by Gilbert Briggs, the Guru of loudspeakers.
I read his books cover to cover, unfortunately, I no longer have them.
Not quite sure how we got from good big un's beating good little un's to floor standers beat stand mounts. ;)
I can think of a few floor standers that benefit from a stand albeit possibly only a few inches high.
"A good Big-Un, always beats a good Small-Un"
I think that statement, or something similar, was made by Gilbert Briggs, the Guru of loudspeakers.
I read his books cover to cover, unfortunately, I no longer have them.
Correct, Briggs was the author of that truism.
If it's good gear that you like I'm not into better, just different. I adore my baby Harbs and the work beautifully in my 12 x 12 foot room. I couldn't be without them but if I had a spare bigger room I'd have a system with bigger Harbs like a shot. It's certainly all about room integration with speakers. The little uns at not far from the ears can give a sense of intimacy and sound stage like nothing else, the big uns a sense of scale to die for.
They're all great ;-).
I'm not trying to be a diplomat either, I really do believe this.
Reid Malenfant
27-05-2012, 17:29
"A good Big-Un, always beats a good Small-Un"
All things being equal I'd go along with that statement, however it takes a good bit more work & clever design to make the big un as good as the little un in the enclosure department :rolleyes: The same goes with bigger drivers to a certain extent.
Assuming it can be made to have as little colouration (enclosure & driver wise) as the little un though, the big un will win hands down as it'll be producing far less distortion at the same listening level.
Its no good though having a good big box if your room has nodes that produce peaks that create boominess as this will muddy bass notes, nor is it ideal to drive large boxes with amplifiers that are not capable of controlling the speakers properly. It does tend to be overlooked when matching amplifiers as what most people erroneously look at is just the sensitivity figures, which don't actually tell you how good a match your am to speakers is, it just tells you how loud they will go for a given wattage.
The Jamos are 94dB, so not a demanding load, but as these are paralleled with a pair of Griffins I use bridged monoblocks capable of well in excess of 200W. The system just cruises nicely with no hint of strain or harshness.
Incidentally there is an interesting debate on Diyaudio at the mo about the effects of bridging and the resulting power available.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/chip-amps/181492-controversy-regarding-bridged-amplifier-power-output.html
How do you mean? The SHL5 by all accounts is one of the most refined loudspeakers currently available by all accounts. I hope so as I've just ordered a pair!
What I mean is that after my old BC2's, I don't regard the SHL5 as a WOW kind of improvement, because crude and under-damped these nearly forty year old Spendors may be, the doped bextrene driver, the selected crossover components and legendary HF1300 main tweeter (which Alan Shaw admires) still blend together very well, almost as well as the BC1 could. What the SHL5 adds to this, is a sense of ease and refinement and, despite the warmth, the QUALITY of the bass is excellent IMO.
In my opinion, I think a good domestic playback system should aim for the heart, rather than the head, in order to "suspend disbelief." If you can accommodate a large speaker and choose carefully from the decent ones out there (which cost now I'm afraid), then go for it :)
If it's good gear that you like I'm not into better, just different. I adore my baby Harbs and the work beautifully in my 12 x 12 foot room. I couldn't be without them but if I had a spare bigger room I'd have a system with bigger Harbs like a shot. It's certainly all about room integration with speakers. The little uns at not far from the ears can give a sense of intimacy and sound stage like nothing else, the big uns a sense of scale to die for.
They're all great ;-).
I'm not trying to be a diplomat either, I really do believe this.
Never a truer set of words sir, and something the likes of AVI's mouthpiece doesn't and will NEVER understand, let alone accept. You see, the "reason" your baby harbs sound so involving and "intimate" is because the bass is booming and the lovely sweet treble is the passive crossover smearing everything up. Silly man he is ;)
Oh yeah, the bass on the little P3ESR's is so basically convincing at domestic levels that you don't NEED a sub, unlike a certain tiny active 9L box I'm thinking of.
Reid Malenfant
27-05-2012, 19:29
This may well open up a can of worms, but from what I have experienced it's far easier to get a decent extended bass response in a smaller room :)
Most people will start waffling on about the fact that you won't be able to hear bass below the longest room dimension - this is simply a load of cobblers :lol:
If that was the case then how do you explain how come you can hear below about 7KHz when listening to a pair of headphones? After all, your ear canal is only about 4cm long ;)
My experience shows that a smaller room raises the lowest room mode to a frequency where its possible to treat it. Below this frequency there simply are no room modes at all & you can hear down to the lowest frequencies that the speaker in question can reproduce.
So bring on the big guns is what I say :D
This may well open up a can of worms, but from what I have experienced it's far easier to get a decent extended bass response in a smaller room :)
Most people will start waffling on about the fact that you won't be able to hear bass below the longest room dimension - this is simply a load of cobblers :lol:
If that was the case then how do you explain how come you can hear below about 7KHz when listening to a pair of headphones? After all, your ear canal is only about 4cm long ;)
My experience shows that a smaller room raises the lowest room mode to a frequency where its possible to treat it. Below this frequency there simply are no room modes at all & you can hear down to the lowest frequencies that the speaker in question can reproduce.
So bring on the big guns is what I say :D
Very good post Mark and all very true IMHO.
Indeed! Bigger rooms often simply create bigger problems. The key, much like it is with speakers, is that bigger must also equate to BETTER ;)
Marco.
This may well open up a can of worms, but from what I have experienced it's far easier to get a decent extended bass response in a smaller room :)
Most people will start waffling on about the fact that you won't be able to hear bass below the longest room dimension - this is simply a load of cobblers :lol:
If that was the case then how do you explain how come you can hear below about 7KHz when listening to a pair of headphones? After all, your ear canal is only about 4cm long ;)
My experience shows that a smaller room raises the lowest room mode to a frequency where its possible to treat it. Below this frequency there simply are no room modes at all & you can hear down to the lowest frequencies that the speaker in question can reproduce.
So bring on the big guns is what I say :D
All that happens when you operate below the lowest room mode is you move from a free-field or anechoic situation to an echoic situation, best described as a piston in a sealed chamber. I discussed this a while back showing one could produce 20Hz notes in a typical living/listening room, provided you had enough power to drive the speaker.
hoopsontoast
28-05-2012, 06:40
I think it depends on your requirements.
A mini-monitor will do things that no larger speaker can if you have a small room (like myself) where I can no play at high volume levels.
Soundstage, imaging, intimacy and low box coloration are all benefits that you get from a small speaker/cabinet. Like the Kolts, they do the tightest bass I have had (low QTS driver in sealed box) but are obviously seriously lacking in bass depth and high SPL.
Its a trade off I am willing to make, as they do everything else really well. I would rather compromise on bass depth and high volume capability to get everything else right.
tannoy man
28-05-2012, 10:15
In my opinion, I think a good domestic playback system should aim for the heart, rather than the head, in order to "suspend disbelief." If you can accommodate a large speaker and choose carefully from the decent ones out there (which cost now I'm afraid), then go for it :)
+1
Another '+1' from me.
However, you can acheive that enviable goal without sacrificing neutrality, and therefore, realism. You don't *have* to choose between one or the other. Done right, there's no reason for any truly 'wide-open', accurate, wide-bandwidth system to lack musicality.
Mine certainly doesn't... You just have to get the right bits in place and be willing to think outside of the box! ;)
Marco.
If one thing is for sure, I have *never* heard a 3-way that gets anywhere close to the naturalness of a 2-way or single driver speaker.
For me there are more important things than big drivers such as time-alignment of drivers, decent off-axis response, quality of drivers themselves and that all-important synergy with the rest of your components.
Trust me, if you listened to my system behind curtains you would swear that you were listening to some floorstanders. Just because a speaker looks big, doesn't mean it sounds big!
RobbieGong
04-06-2012, 10:14
If one thing is for sure, I have *never* heard a 3-way that gets anywhere close to the naturalness of a 2-way or single driver speaker.For me there are more important things than big drivers such as time-alignment of drivers, decent off-axis response, quality of drivers themselves and that all-important synergy with the rest of your components.
Trust me, if you listened to my system behind curtains you would swear that you were listening to some floorstanders. Just because a speaker looks big, doesn't mean it sounds big!
Same here Neil, Also in my experience speaker and room size kind of go together ie: little speakers in a large room dont generally work as well, samely huge speakers in a small room are overkill. Hence my mediumish Mission 752 Freedoms give me scale and good bass and treble extension in my mediumish room - Hope I'm making sense :)
def + me , 94 db does everything right even at low volumes , of all that i have owned the koss' simply do it right for me
If one thing is for sure, I have *never* heard a 3-way that gets anywhere close to the naturalness of a 2-way or single driver speaker.
There are some very good 3-way speakers out there, but in general I'd agree, which is why I use big Tannoy DCs! :)
Marco.
There are some very good 3-way speakers out there, but in general I'd agree, which is why I use big Tannoy DCs! :)
Marco.
With those Tannoys you also get time alignment with those cool tweeters... hmm they do tick the boxes for me.
With those Tannoys you also get time alignment with those cool tweeters...
Don't I know it, matey, along with superb coherence and stereo imaging, if you dig that kinda stuff. What puts the biggest smile on my chops, though, is that they boogie like bastards and sound so goddamn real! :exactly:
Marco.
(last seen being escorted from a local venue shouting “I was only trying to time align the band”) ;)
Lol - nope... Merely getting reproduced recordings to sound as close as possible to that which originally left the studio. *That*, muchacho, is the ONLY benchmark we have...! ;)
Marco.
Reid Malenfant
04-06-2012, 16:18
With those Tannoys you also get time alignment with those cool tweeters... hmm they do tick the boxes for me.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong ;) The tweeter voice coil is sat a few inches back from the bass/mid voice coil.
So while they are coaxial, there are not & never have been co-incident.
The only driver I can think of with that covered is made by KEF.
I still know which I'd prefer though & that would be the Tannoy :eyebrows:
realysm42
04-06-2012, 16:40
Is time alignment not a big deal for speaker design?
Is time alignment not a big deal for speaker design?
given 99% of speakers are not time aligned I would say it is pretty far down the list of priorities.
I'd take issue with those arguing that a 2 way is 'better'. The main driver has too much to do, the compromises are too great. Dynamics get limited and a busy soundstage can collapse into a mush as a consequence. Not an issue if you mainly listen to music with simple mixes like 'singer with a guitar' stuff. but it is if the band have used all 48 tracks on the desk. Not so much an issue with a big Tannoy DC but then they are very different from a typical 2 way,
Single driver has more going for it as no crappy crossover to muck things up but harder to get the air and sparkle in the top and the bass problem is still there unless you get fancy and use horn loading or a decently long transmission line.
Reid Malenfant
04-06-2012, 16:56
No, it is a big deal :eyebrows: If drivers are not time aligned then at the crossover frequency you'll get beaming as the mis-aligned coils will both be radiating the same thing.
So instead of the sound being radiated in a nice way there will be dirty great big gobs of sound spat off in the general direction of the ceiling (usually), though this does depend on how the drivers are configured on the front baffle of the speaker.
Properly aligned you'll get a simply remarkable stereo image, assuming the baffle isn't stepped which will make diffraction a problem :doh:
given 99% of speakers are not time aligned I would say it is pretty far down the list of priorities.
It may be down most peoples lists, but it ain't down mine :cool:
It may be down most peoples lists, but it ain't down mine :cool:
I knew you'd say that ;)
One thing with loudspeakers in general is that as you fix one problem it makes another one audible. You fix that and then something else becomes an issue because the system is gradually becoming more tranparent. In theory you can go on forever like that. Lack of time alignment isn't an issue with most loudspeakers because they have so many other problems that it is buried beneath them .IMHO of course.
Reid Malenfant
04-06-2012, 17:16
I knew you'd say that ;)
:eyebrows: Well it's true...
One thing with loudspeakers in general is that as you fix one problem it makes another one audible. You fix that and then something else becomes an issue because the system is gradually becoming more tranparent. In theory you can go on forever like that. Lack of time alignment isn't an issue with most loudspeakers because they have so many other problems that it is buried beneath them .IMHO of course.
Very well said Martin, I totally agree with all that you said there :)
No-one has mentioned electrostatics yet. I had a listen to Graham Northwest's set (ESL 57) a couple of weeks back now. He had said to me previously 'when you hear them you'll want some'. Which I took with a pinch of salt, however they are truly impressive in the mid band especially. I did think my speakers, which have had 10 years of running in, were pretty open and transparent in the mid until I got home and was playing some tunes and found myself thinking 'christ this sounds shit'.
This went on for a couple of days during which I was cursing Mr Northwest for ruining my enjoyment of my system. Fortunately the old aural memory is not that great and after a week or so I had pretty much weaned myself back onto my speakers. It does show that a cone in a box, whilst it may work for the lower frequencies, is really a terribly crude method of reproducing all those instruments (and the voice) that are reproduced in the midband. If I was designing an ultimate speaker I think it would have to use an electrostatic mid range, or something comparable.
Reid Malenfant
04-06-2012, 17:35
If I was designing an ultimate speaker I think it would have to use an electrostatic mid range, or something comparable.
Good point :) Something like the ESL63 would no doubt be simply stunning & produce a load more output if it didn't have to do any deep bass. It's those bass notes that gets them arcing :doh:
So maybe a cone speaker up to 200Hz & then the ESL from there to say 10KHz & a nice beryllium tweeter to take it up to 30KHz :D
Sounds like a plan :hmm:
Mr Kipling
04-06-2012, 18:09
I'm sorry, but you are wrong ;) The tweeter voice coil is sat a few inches back from the bass/mid voice coil.
So while they are coaxial, there are not & never have been co-incident.
The only driver I can think of with that covered is made by KEF.
I still know which I'd prefer though & that would be the Tannoy :eyebrows:
Hi,
I'm not 100 % certain, but I think Technics in the '80s had a high quality monitor that used co-incident drivers. I think there was three model with three variations. The idea seemed to get dropped and wasn't carried on to later models.
Kind Regards,
Stephen
Reid Malenfant
04-06-2012, 18:11
Yes, I think you are right. They used flat honeycomb aluminium diaphrams if I remember correctly :scratch:
Mr Kipling
04-06-2012, 18:14
Sorry. There was one model with three variations.
Stephen.
Mr Kipling
04-06-2012, 18:18
That's ríght Mark.
No-one has mentioned electrostatics yet. I had a listen to Graham Northwest's set (ESL 57) a couple of weeks back now. He had said to me previously 'when you hear them you'll want some'. Which I took with a pinch of salt, however they are truly impressive in the mid band especially. I did think my speakers, which have had 10 years of running in, were pretty open and transparent in the mid until I got home and was playing some tunes and found myself thinking 'christ this sounds shit'.
This went on for a couple of days during which I was cursing Mr Northwest for ruining my enjoyment of my system. Fortunately the old aural memory is not that great and after a week or so I had pretty much weaned myself back onto my speakers. It does show that a cone in a box, whilst it may work for the lower frequencies, is really a terribly crude method of reproducing all those instruments (and the voice) that are reproduced in the midband. If I was designing an ultimate speaker I think it would have to use an electrostatic mid range, or something comparable.
I have to agree with you Martin. I came away from my Magnepan 1.7 listening experience very impressed. They even managed sensible bass at 30-40 Hz.
But, I ain't got maggies and while they did show up my boxes in some areas, such as image and delicacy (if that's the right description) they just couldn't quite match my boxes for boogie factor and grunt.
Course, I've probably just come to appreciate a bit of distortion over the years. :eyebrows:
First step for me now is to see just how much of a difference going active makes. By the time that's finished at this rate planar speakers will be doing grunt and deep base at an affordable price.:doh:
spendorman
04-06-2012, 18:27
Good point :) Something like the ESL63 would no doubt be simply stunning & produce a load more output if it didn't have to do any deep bass. It's those bass notes that gets them arcing :doh:
So maybe a cone speaker up to 200Hz & then the ESL from there to say 10KHz & a nice beryllium tweeter to take it up to 30KHz :D
Sounds like a plan :hmm:
Shackman Dynastatic or B&W DM70?
Ali Tait
04-06-2012, 18:43
Good point :) Something like the ESL63 would no doubt be simply stunning & produce a load more output if it didn't have to do any deep bass. It's those bass notes that gets them arcing :doh:
So maybe a cone speaker up to 200Hz & then the ESL from there to say 10KHz & a nice beryllium tweeter to take it up to 30KHz :D
Sounds like a plan :hmm:
Aye I used to have a pair of ER Audio ESL III's that Colin built with a sub built into the bottom. Trouble was the cone driver could never keep up with the static panels no matter what I tried. Only way round it was to buy statics with bigger panels.
Hopefully when I eventually have the direct coupled amps done I should have something as transparent as it's possible to have without spending insane amounts of cash! I won't have serious amounts of bass, but they do reasonably well and there are always compromises to make. I'm happy to trade a bit of bass for the other things the system should do so well.
Ali Tait
04-06-2012, 18:46
Hi,
I'm not 100 % certain, but I think Technics in the '80s had a high quality monitor that used co-incident drivers. I think there was three model with three variations. The idea seemed to get dropped and wasn't carried on to later models.
Kind Regards,
Stephen
Yes you're right, I used to have a pair. SB 7000 or something like that. There is definitely something to be said for time alignment.
tannoy man
04-06-2012, 18:52
Time Alignment, I Almost Bought a Pair of These Many Moons Ago, They were on Sale in Laskys
at the End of Production-- Very Cheap
http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/view_images.php?cat=Speakers&catnick=speakers&cfid=131976&image_id=1051118
Reid Malenfant
04-06-2012, 19:00
Time Alignment, I Almost Bought a Pair of These Many Moons Ago, They were on Sale in Laskys
at the End of Production-- Very Cheap
http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/view_images.php?cat=Speakers&catnick=speakers&cfid=131976&image_id=1051118
Not the way to do it unfortunately. Putting big steps on the baffle causes it's own problems :doh:
Take a look at MartinTs' Ushers, they are time aligned by sloping the baffle :)
Mr Kipling
04-06-2012, 19:27
Has anyone read an American publication The Audio Amateur? I used to subscribe to it in the '80s. Those Americans. . . I remember one design that used moving coil drivers (god knows how many. Actually I think it was 16 per speaker!) They had two baffle faces giving direct and reflected sound. Think there was a driver on the back, just incase! Another guy built these electrostatics which were something else. HONEST-TO-GOD they were MONSTERS!! God knows what the size of his room was, but they were HUGE! I wouldn't have dared walk in front of them for fear of being fried. I'll have to dig them out. Heil Air-Motion operation always used to fascinate me.
Kind Regards,
Stephen
I have to agree with you Martin. I came away from my Magnepan 1.7 listening experience very impressed. They even managed sensible bass at 30-40 Hz.
But, I ain't got maggies and while they did show up my boxes in some areas, such as image and delicacy (if that's the right description) they just couldn't quite match my boxes for boogie factor and grunt.
Course, I've probably just come to appreciate a bit of distortion over the years. :eyebrows:
First step for me now is to see just how much of a difference going active makes. By the time that's finished at this rate planar speakers will be doing grunt and deep base at an affordable price.:doh:
I agree on the boogie factor and grunt. It wasn't there with the ESL 57 but this was a near field set up with electrostatics and I am used to far field with big boxes so there is an element of apples and oranges. I take your point about appreciating distortion, meaning in the bass, well I agree but what does an electrified bass use to make a sound? - A big paper cone in a box. That is where the electrostatic falls down for me.
WOStantonCS100
05-06-2012, 07:22
It's been years since a friend invited me over to hear her and her husband's Krell driven Maggie reference speakers. They go down to around 25Hz (up to 40kHz).
A little bit of wee wee comes out every time I think about the 3 or 4 hours I spent there. No lack of bass (and not over-bloated). No lack of midrange. Treble free of grain. Incredibly realistic scale with a right-sized soundstage. My dad has large Definitive Tech's. Still no match. (sorry, dad) As it would happen, I visited a shop today which had Wilson's, Gallo's, B&W's and a few others. The big Maggies remain the best I've heard... ...in my life. One day... one day...
I believe you are referring to the Technics SB-RX*** series:
http://mackern.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/technnics-sb-rx50.jpg
From what i can see there were SB-RX30, 50, 70 and 100.
Looks well made also.
More info here:
http://www.niji.or.jp/home/k-nisi/sb-rx70.htm
BR /Micke
tannoy man
05-06-2012, 12:44
A Good Big Un, and a Bit of a Gift if You had the Money and Room
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/190683425047?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649#ht_11614wt_1202
You are going to need one hell of a 'bookshelf'
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/JBL-800-ARRAY-BG-3-WAY-8-PROJECT-ARRAY-SERIES-HOME-AUDIO-BOOKSHELF-LOUDSPEAKERS-/180880302077?_trksid=p4340.m185&_trkparms=algo%3DDLSL%252BSIC.NPJS%26its%3DI%26itu %3DUCI%252BUA%26otn%3D10%26pmod%3D190683425047%252 B190683425047%26po%3D%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D89203482 66898575855
Rare Bird
05-06-2012, 13:11
Important factors for me in my location where i can't listern loud: High efficiency speaker that gives a very good detailed rendition a low level. no Bass heaviness.. (i always always use low powered amps)..
Ali Tait
05-06-2012, 13:13
These are the ones I had-
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=technics+sb+7000+speakers&hl=en&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=vgXOT7uJCYq08QOM8OjPDA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CEcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=672
Stratmangler
05-06-2012, 13:23
I'd take issue with those arguing that a 2 way is 'better'. The main driver has too much to do...
Who was it that said a 2 way speaker had to have 2 drive units?
These speakers are 2 way speakers.
The crossover is a 2 way crossover, and the four drivers are series/parallel wired.
These speakers are exceptionally fast in response, do proper bass, and image like bastards.....
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/colin/EDINGDALE13.JPG
Not the way to do it unfortunately. Putting big steps on the baffle causes it's own problems :doh:
Take a look at MartinTs' Ushers, they are time aligned by sloping the baffle :)
Thiels too (sloping the baffle).
This is another way to do it:
http://ii.alatest.com/product/full/7/7/Argon-2-2way-bookshelf-speaker-in-cherry-wood-0.jpg
Have just upgraded from the above Amphion Argon2 to the Amphion Argon3 along with a total system upgrade, so will let you guys know when it all arrives :). Was very tempted by some Gradient speakers (same philosophy as Amphion with controlled dispersion & minimal room interaction), but couldn't demo them:
http://walyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Gradient-Helsinki-1.5-Speaker-1.jpg
I used to have Amphion Xenons . They were utterly superb and finished in Finnish White Birch. Nice stiff cabinets too.
Maggies and Martin Logan's are my favourite speakers for their ability to get air moving in a room and their lack of cabinet coloration. Both are excellent and I can always hear the box singing along when I hear other loudspeakers.
Does any one remember the Wilson WAMM? This had an ideal array of moving coil bass and electrostatic midrange. I only heard them once in the US but integration was remarkable all things considered.
Reid Malenfant
05-06-2012, 21:26
Does any one remember the Wilson WAMM? This had an ideal array of moving coil bass and electrostatic midrange. I only heard them once in the US but integration was remarkable all things considered.
I thought they were seperated enclosures for each driver?
I can't remember Wilson ever using electrostatics :scratch:
Ali Tait
05-06-2012, 21:35
Me either?
BTH K10A
05-06-2012, 22:14
You are going to need one hell of a 'bookshelf'
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/JBL-800-ARRAY-BG-3-WAY-8-PROJECT-ARRAY-SERIES-HOME-AUDIO-BOOKSHELF-LOUDSPEAKERS-/180880302077?_trksid=p4340.m185&_trkparms=algo%3DDLSL%252BSIC.NPJS%26its%3DI%26itu %3DUCI%252BUA%26otn%3D10%26pmod%3D190683425047%252 B190683425047%26po%3D%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D89203482 66898575855
And Big - Uns are certainly better
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f120/emttsd15/IMG_1472-1.jpg
In reality
augmented 2 ways probably offer the best solution. The JBL Everest DD6600 uses a 2nd bass driver crossed over at a very low frequency and a supertweeter that cuts in above most peoples limit of hearing.
I used to have Amphion Xenons . They were utterly superb and finished in Finnish White Birch. Nice stiff cabinets too.
Maggies and Martin Logan's are my favourite speakers for their ability to get air moving in a room and their lack of cabinet coloration. Both are excellent and I can always hear the box singing along when I hear other loudspeakers.
I was tempted by the Magnepan 1.7, but they would have had to sit directly in front of a fireplace. Do panel speakers really need room behind them? Yeah the Xenons certainly looked superb haven't had a chance to hear them.
The Grand Wazoo
05-06-2012, 23:22
I thought they were seperated enclosures for each driver?
Correct
I can't remember Wilson ever using electrostatics :scratch:
The second unit down from the top (the one with the three faceted baffle that looks a bit like a taller Acoustic Research LST or MST) in the multiway enclosure was an electrostatic.
Mr Kipling
05-06-2012, 23:59
http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/690wil
Reid Malenfant
06-06-2012, 16:07
The second unit down from the top (the one with the three faceted baffle that looks a bit like a taller Acoustic Research LST or MST) in the multiway enclosure was an electrostatic.
I learned something new today :)
I was tempted by the Magnepan 1.7, but they would have had to sit directly in front of a fireplace. Do panel speakers really need room behind them? Yeah the Xenons certainly looked superb haven't had a chance to hear them.
Yes loads of room because they are true dipoles, but Maggies are light and the suggest pulling them out for a listening session and then pushing them back again afterwards. Easily done
Yes loads of room because they are true dipoles, but Maggies are light and the suggest pulling them out for a listening session and then pushing them back again afterwards. Easily done
Thanks Darren, not an option for me due to a 4yr old & small living room. Cheers for removing a "what if" variable though haha. Music's almost always on, can't be dealing with moving stuff around for a session. :)
Thanks Darren, not an option for me due to a 4yr old & small living room. Cheers for removing a "what if" variable though haha. Music's almost always on, can't be dealing with moving stuff around for a session. :)
Wuss! :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.