Which Tannoys, folks?

I have just read this thread. It took a long time. I am not knowledgeable about Tannoy speakers (but have enjoyed them the twice I have listened) so no comments here.

I have a couple of points to make though.

Firstly several posters mentioned the superiority of a single 15" unit over multiple small units "because it hardly moves". Well clearly that depends! 4 8" units will move -less- than a single 15", and have 4 motors. I am not disputing what is heard, I haven't compared a speaker with a 15" bass unit with one with 4 8" units... Just sayin'

Secondly when I worked for Garrard in the 1970s manufacturing cost being 10% of retail was a fact.
The manufacturing cost being piece-part plus assembly. I was told this was industry standard, apart from Linn who priced based on what the market could stand (ie -much- more than 10x manufacturing cost at that time, its a fashion business ;-)).
Now at that time all punters expected a 30% discount, so this was factored in to this markup. IIRC the dealer markup was 15% (+ the 30% to allow for a discount to match Comet), distributor margin was 15%, Garrards margin was 10%, the rest went on tooling, R&D and general infrastructure investment.
Yes thats right, the company with the highest skill, most employees and biggest risk had the smallest margin, but otherwise nobody would have stocked it.
We looked into supplying a full range of electronics at the time, since many dealers were forced to stock (and aggressively market) turntables by the Japanese majors if they wanted to sell the electronics. A highly regarded cassette player sold by Pioneer for >£100 was available from the OEM for £9, if we wanted it. And so forth.
It is not just HiFi, the only other product I have in depth experience of is cars, and they are about the same.

Linn certainly worked on the 10 times figure, the £499 Lingo (on launch) costing £47 or so to make (their rep told me). I suspect Naim do too, if not more on their more expensive products. Anything the customer will pay :(

Yep, I'm mentioning them again, but Rega used to work an approximate 7 times, cost to retail on their speakers certainly, although I was told that on their cheaper turntables, the arm was far more profitable than the decks themselves.

The figures mentioned mirror similar figures which I'm aware of for other brands too. What I find incredulous though isn't that a £400 product costs £40 to manufacture, it was what Tannoy gave as a reason for not using decent connections within their speakers. David was told that £1500 to £2000 might be the impact at RRP cost of using a decent block connector and soldering a few other connections. I don't believe that it would add that much because I don't believe it would cost them anywhere near £200 to £300 per pair of speakers to do the job properly. It more likely would add £50 to a set of speakers at manufacturing stage to do a proper job.

Quote:

---

It more likely would add £50 to a set of speakers at manufacturing stage to do a proper job.

---

Indeed, and why it's a disgraceful rip-off if the figures, quoted from Tannoy, are true!

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reffc

The figures mentioned mirror similar figures which I'm aware of for other brands too. What I find incredulous though isn't that a £400 product costs £40 to manufacture, it was what Tannoy gave as a reason for not using decent connections within their speakers. David was told that £1500 to £2000 might be the impact at RRP cost of using a decent block connector and soldering a few other connections. I don't believe that it would add that much because I don't believe it would cost them anywhere near £200 to £300 per pair of speakers to do the job properly. It more likely would add £50 to a set of speakers at manufacturing stage to do a proper job.

---

Hi Paul

The numbers I used with Tannoy were £200 to £300 for Tannoy to get it right. Bear in mind that included a set of 8 WBT 0710ag silver binding posts that cost me £350. They of course would get them much cheaper, say half what I paid. The tag block in place of the dreadful Molex connector would cost literally pennies and hardwiring in place of the automotive push on spades likewise. However the canteen lady could no longer assemble them.

The main point I trying to was make was that these costs in the grand scheme of things for a speaker which now costs more than £23000 are minimal and to continue using Christmas cracker quality connectors pretending that its "state of the art" amounts to treating your customers with contempt. It shows the very low regard they have for us as customers believing that we are not smart enough to understand what they are up to. The analogy I used with Tannoy was that it was a bit like selling a Ferrari fitted with cross ply tyres and allowing the customer to find it did not handle well (when he landed in the ditch on a bend?) and then have to find and buy himself a set of low profile radials. Can you imagine the fun Jeremy Clarkson would have with a high end motor manufacturer who was silly enough to do that!

I have to say that I nearly did not do these upgrades, because working with Westminster Royals even the simplest job is daunting and onerous because of their sheer scale and weight. I was lucky that I had some very good and interested friends who very kindly helped with some of the heavy lifting and moving. Strangely it does not bother me now because in the course of my 10 month project (yes it took me that long) I learned how to handle the cabinets easily and safely so only when they need to be directly lifted or lowered do I now need any help.

I think one of the reasons that manufacturers can still get away with this kind of thing is because we customers are a very diverse bunch. We have different levels of knowledge and experience, different combinations of kit, different systems architecture and completely different listening environments. Probably most of all we have different expectations from our systems and last but not least, completely different listening tastes. This enables them to hide behind the platitude that says "but you customers all want something different. How can we possibly cater for all of your requirements?"
The reality I suspect is more banal and mercenary. They actually do not know what should be done because they do the bare minimum R&D and testing to bring a product to market and no more. So many of the design and production decisions that should have been made after thorough listening tests are simply not done. "we can't do that, another product is scheduled into the test facilities tomorrow". The result is that cost and manufacturing convenience take priority over sound quality and long term customer satisfaction.
Unbelievably, one unguarded comment I got from their technical sales people was "but we're only manufacturers". Now ain't that da troof!


I must get off my soap box now, I've been up here so long I think it's got woodworm.

David :):lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Indeed, and why it's a disgraceful rip-off if the figures, quoted from Tannoy, are true!

Marco.

---

and they are

Many long standing engineers refuse to accept, or at least severely doubt, that subtle changes like this (wiring, terminals, caps-n-coils) can make any audible difference at all. My possible argument is that "better" components can actually bring the crossover to theoretically perfect setup perhaps?

In a speaker costing as much as Westminster Royals, I think it's mad to deny this speaker the best connectors inside and out. I mean, back in the early 1980's, the extensive research they carried out showed just how intrusive the rotary switches were on their earlier crossovers, especially a few years after manufacture. That's why they changed to the gold plated screw tag strip as I recall. Why they couldn't take this thinking just a little further into the connectors inside and out is a mystery. gawd, even stalwart brand Harbeth uses nice looking and very heavy gold plated terminals and even their standard wiring is a good gauge, while remaining flexible enough for the task.

Back in the 80's, audio was priced high, but in the UK, we seemed to have enough disposeable income to allow the manufacturers huge profits. These days, the few left that still make loads are clearly exposed - in my opinion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tannoyman

Hi Paul

The analogy I used with Tannoy was that it was a bit like selling a Ferrari fitted with cross ply tyres and allowing the customer to find it did not handle well (when he landed in the dich on a bend?) and then have find and choose himself a set of low profile radials. Can you imagine the fun Jeremy Clarkson would have with a high end motor manufacturer who was silly enough to do that!

David :):lol:

---

It is unlikely that a motor manufacturer would supply Clarkson with a car with defective tyres. I would be prepared to bet 5p of my own cash that cars for evaluation are fitted with higher grip (poorer wear) tyres than standard since that is the easiest way to make a car look good and do a quick lap in the hands of Stig.
Inside many cars there are some massive economies though. It does require great cleverness for a manufacturer to cut manufacturing cost without it being spotted by the customer.
Cars are the same cost wise BTW, I happen to know that a very highly rated executive sports saloon retailing around £40,000 costs 4500-5000 Euro to make, depending on options.
I remember when Lotus were trying to sell their active technology in Detroit that a purchasing guy told him they paid $1 per damper from the OEM!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSJR

Many long standing engineers refuse to accept, or at least severely doubt, that subtle changes like this (wiring, terminals, caps-n-coils) can make any audible difference at all. My possible argument is that "better" components can actually bring the crossover to theoretically perfect setup perhaps?

---

Hi David

If such engineers still exist in audio industry perhaps they should consider another career path.

David:doh:

[QUOTE=f1eng;388445]I have just read this thread. It took a long time. I am not knowledgeable about Tannoy speakers (but have enjoyed them the twice I have listened) so no comments here.

Secondly when I worked for Garrard in the 1970s manufacturing cost being 10% of retail was a fact.

Hi Frank

One additional point here is that the business model was somewhat different in the 1970's. Manufacturers, including top flight ones such as Garrard, SME, Shure, Goldring Lenco, Rogers, Kef and Wharfedale all distributed to retail stores through the wholesale channel so there was an extra margin involved. Companies such as Harris & Russell and Brown Brothers distributed high end hi fi equipment in those days. Towards the middle and late 1970's multiples like Comet (RIP) and Laskys with greater purchasing power entered the fray along with a myriad of small local specialist stores. Distribution then switched from Manufacturer to Wholesaler to Retailer to Manufacturer direct to Retailer. The reason for this was of course as always pecuniary - better margins for all concerned.


So very different times

David :);)

Good point David.
It was very different then. Garrard were very proud of their engineering and looked for clever effective but, where possible, inexpensive to manufacture solutions.
Nowadays people seem to make a virtue of the astonishingly expensive solutions chosen, even when there is no need...
Mind you the strobe markings on the 401 were cut with a gear hobbing machine - somewhat overkill but nice looking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by f1eng

Good point David.
It was very different then. Garrard were very proud of their engineering and looked for clever effective but, where possible, inexpensive to manufacture solutions.
Nowadays people seem to make a virtue of the astonishingly expensive solutions chosen, even when there is no need...
Mind you the strobe markings on the 401 were cut with a gear hobbing machine - somewhat overkill but nice looking.

---

Hi Harry

How many modern pieces of hi fi will be treasureed in the way that vinage Garrards are today in 50 years time? (answers on a postcard:lol:)

I owned a Garrard 401 in 1970 purchased through the wholesale channel (Harris & Russell in Reading) and regret ever selling it. It is an ambition to get a nice late oil bearing 301 (with gear cut strobe markings) for my vintage system. Perhaps 2013 will be the year. :D

David ;)

David

The thing I remember, and this was right at the end, was that Garrard were always helpful and happy to send out spares at not too silly money. The only real problem I have with their early 70's stuff is that by this time, Dual had raced ahead with regard to precision auto decks. Kind of makes my well-working (in fairness) AP76 seem a bit flimsy and agricultural, especially when the trip pawls seize up :lol:

Having said that, I have plans for yet another Garrard auto deck :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSJR

The thing I remember, and this was right at the end, was that Garrard were always helpful and happy to send out spares at not too silly money. The only real problem I have with their early 70's stuff is that by this time, Dual had raced ahead with regard to precision auto decks. Kind of makes my well-working (in fairness) AP76 seem a bit flimsy and agricultural, especially when the trip pawls seize up :lol:

Having said that, I have plans for yet another Garrard auto deck :rolleyes:

---

Hi Dave

Dual another blast from the past. I remember being very proud to own a Dual 1219 auto deck in about 1969. It put the cheap Garrards to shame in terms of design and finish but not their better stuff.

I find it interesting that you choose to use very old equipment of modest quality. I regularly have musical evenings with a pal whose kit is of truly horrible 1980's origin (Amstrad or some such brand) and we have delightful evenings just listening to and discussing great music and the system doesn't matter a tinker's damn.

David :)

I can't afford expensive gear any more, so don't actively look there for personal use. The systems I have a huge fun, keep me sane (just) and are actually still quite good.

The Micro Seiki CD player though, is hardly "modest quality," in fairly recent times seeing off many sub £3000 players. I found I was reacting negatively to the balanced-phono chunky-silver cable mark Grant made for me (sorry Mark) and fished out some twin-lapped mic cables sold by RS around 20 years ago, terminated the ends and found the sonics much better and less "spot-lit." The Dual 701 is a great precision vintage auto deck IMO and with the right cartridges and extra mat, makes for a highly quiet and stable musical platform for vinyl - you cannot beat their auto mechs either :) The Crown "D" amps were inherited (I sold part of this system to the original owner), they compare VERY favourably with the best Glenn has to offer (once the preamp had a pair of updated op-amps and four 1uF caps replaced and we spent hours listeng at hifi dave's to confirm - he has a complete set of his own now) and I'm delighted with the quality of the sonics which were steered away from in the late 70's because of the valve revival (all rose tinted and pretty horrid with hindsight). The BC2's have toned right down with the old but still good Cable Talk Excel 4 I recently purchased and still have a great midrange/lower treble. We sold loads of this speaker cable and used it for many of our non Linn or Naim dems (think of a small-scale VDH The Wind as Marco uses - no treble hash or "splatter"). The office setup has a great vintage Denon 1520 CD player as transport (Sony ES linear motor drive sled mech I think), which inverts the phase on the audio output, making the result a bit wishy-washy, a tricked up QED Digit which comes to life once the output stage is separately powered and the nasty output caps are replaced with "better," a collection of turntables you wouldn't even look twice at, my beloved Croft preamp (equivalent to an R now)an ex-editing suite HH power amp which still delivers the goods after twenty years 24/7 (I'm planning on getting "my" Quad 33/303 back at some point) and a pair of again, ex editing suite Rogers "BBC" LS5/9's I'm custodian of.

The thing is, the whole "HiFi" thing is really a hiding to nothing once you've gone so far. Rich people can go into the likes of KJ West One and indulge themselves in the latest OTT products imported by Absolute Sounds, but in reality, are they actually buying a *better* sound? BIGGER certainly and beautifully presentated in most cases, but BETTER?????

Had I the funds and the room, I'd be seriously looking at some SP Acoustics monitors I think. Active and passive, the drivers are amongst the best out there and the mid driver is run wide, leaving the bass units for the bass only (no mid smear that afflicts so many three ways) and the tweeter handles only VERY high frequencies (I'm assuming the dispersion is ok done like this...). A pal with ears I trust implicitly raytes them as the best medium sized monitors he's ever heard. The fact that the designer was responsible for the original AE1 and its family and that they're based between AVI and ATC in that region of Gloucestershire really does pique my interest :)

Sorry to go on, but good cheap and/or old gear can still cut the mustard I think, as long as it's correctly matched and allowances made for more limited capabilities sometimes.....

Hi Dave

I obviously got it wrong when you spoke of early Garrards. Please accept my apologies

David:)

Dave's comment about cheap and /or old kit still cutting it is bang on IME.

I recently set up a frien's TD150 which he's owned from new. It was set up with a Quad 34/304 (recently serviced and upgraded) amps played into Heybrook HB2 loudspeakers. It sounded fab. That whole lot together cost less than my current MC cartridge which made me i) feel pretty ashamed and ii) was capable of surprising resolution, and more importantly emotion.

My upgrading days are over now (please do quote me on that!) so any replacements in future will be older or refurbished kit. I'm very pleased with the 1970 401 I've refurbished this year (complete strip down and rebuild) and having fitted it with a Hadcock full cryo arm and an excellent vintage Shure m95He it's making great music with the Tannoys. I use that deck more than the Gyro these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reffc

Dave's comment about cheap and /or old kit still cutting it is bang on IME.

I recently set up a frien's TD150 which he's owned from new. It was set up with a Quad 34/304 (recently serviced and upgraded) amps played into Heybrook HB2 loudspeakers. It sounded fab. That whole lot together cost less than my current MC cartridge which made me i) feel pretty ashamed and ii) was capable of surprising resolution, and more importantly emotion.

My upgrading days are over now (please do quote me on that!) so any replacements in future will be older or refurbished kit. I'm very pleased with the 1970 401 I've refurbished this year (complete strip down and rebuild) and having fitted it with a Hadcock full cryo arm and an excellent vintage Shure m95He it's making great music with the Tannoys. I use that deck more than the Gyro these days.

---

Hi Paul

I totally agree. I recently bought a Quad 33/303 and a Quad 66 CD player and am taking two of them to Huntingdon tomorrow for same day servicing. Contrast that with major Japanese manufacturers where some machines from post 2000 can no longer be repaired because parts are no longer available. That of course is the major caveat with vintage gear. Even if you are handy at repairing yourself if you cannot get parts you're buggered. This point needs to be taken into account when calculating the correct price to pay. The servicing availibility is the reason why vintage Quad kit still sells for very good money

I would love to buy a nice Sony SCD 777es Universal player but I am a bit wary because I understand that you can no londer get replacement lasers for them. I am still very tempted, but they sell for £800 - £1000 so if it went wrong I could be left with a very expensive door stop

David :scratch:

There's plenty on the Quad 66 CD player to turn it into a really nice player. I used to use mine (one I "borrowed for a few months from work for use as transport) with a Croft made 4A rated mains filter, which helped no end on so many of these 1541 based machines. Apparently, replacing the film caps around the DAC chip with higher value types (as Marantz did on mostl of their machines at the time) helps too, although Quad used SMD types. A clock upgrade probably wouldn't go amiss either, although how much life is left in the laser is obviously another matter...

The Linn LP12 owes its very existance to the TD150 layout, and it's amazing how close all the dimensions are too ;) Obviously the RD11/LP12 when first launched was basically a "blue-printed" TD150, but conversely, some careful setting up and re-plinthing on a TD150 can work wonders for the sonics. I don't mind the crude old arms fitted either, since there are many good sounding cartridges that would work in these nowadays after a careful fettling...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by f1eng

I have just read this thread. It took a long time. I am not knowledgeable about Tannoy speakers (but have enjoyed them the twice I have listened) so no comments here.

I have a couple of points to make though.

Firstly several posters mentioned the superiority of a single 15" unit over multiple small units "because it hardly moves". Well clearly that depends! 4 8" units will move -less- than a single 15", and have 4 motors. I am not disputing what is heard, I haven't compared a speaker with a 15" bass unit with one with 4 8" units... Just sayin'

---

Getting it back to the speakers :eyebrows:

I think the point is here is that to get some kind of realistic sound level you do need to move a lot of air, or at least be capable of doing it when called for!

The thing with the Tannoys is the coaxial tweeter that effectively makes all the sound radiate from one place, that single driver. Generally most people will think of the 15" unit as optimum simply because it can move the most air.

Personally I'd go for a Tannoy that one of the members on here owns (can't think of his name right now) that uses a smaller 10" coaxial driver & a pair of 12" drivers for filling in the bass. At bass frequencies sound is omnidirectional, so you'd never notice it wasn't eminating from a single driver anyway. I'm also sure that a 10" driver would do a better job in the midrange (less distortion) up to the crossover frequency of the tweeter than a 15" would, simply because it'd act as more of a piston.

Give the bass over to those 12" drivers at less than 150Hz say & I'm sure it'd be something to behold :D

Tannoy appear to be going back to a similar setup with their modern speakers, a smaller coaxial but paired with a 15 or maybe even an 18" bass unit in there largest speakers.

It makes total sense :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reid Malenfant

Getting it back to the speakers :eyebrows:

I think the point is here is that to get some kind of realistic sound level you do need to move a lot of air, or at least be capable of doing it when called for!

The thing with the Tannoys is the coaxial tweeter that effectively makes all the sound radiate from one place, that single driver. Generally most people will think of the 15" unit as optimum simply because it can move the most air.

Personally I'd go for a Tannoy that one of the members on here owns (can't think of his name right now) that uses a smaller 10" coaxial driver & a pair of 12" drivers for filling in the bass. At bass frequencies sound is omnidirectional, so you'd never notice it wasn't eminating from a single driver anyway. I'm also sure that a 10" driver would do a better job in the midrange (less distortion) up to the crossover frequency of the tweeter than a 15" would, simply because it'd act as more of a piston.

Give the bass over to those 12" drivers at less than 150Hz say & I'm sure it'd be something to behold

Tannoy appear to be going back to a similar setup with their modern speakers, a smaller coaxial but paired with a 15 or maybe even an 18" bass unit in there largest speakers.

It makes total sense :)

---

Hi Mark

I think that big drivers, particularly when horn loaded, seem to be able to move the air in the room effortlessly. It's a bit like driving a 4.2 litre Jag on the motorway at 70mph. It's working well within its capabilities and it shows. A small driver trying to do the same thing is going like stink and that extra effort is reflected in the quality of the output which by comparison sounds strained.

Kind regards

David

What you say is true if you are asking a smaller driver to do deep bass, if it isn't & other drivers are then there is no strain...

There is also less intermodulation distortion as the smaller driver doing say 150Hz upwards isn't flapping about like a single one would which was reproducing 30Hz. So you won't be modulating your midrange with a 30Hz signal ;)

Also as I pointed out, the smaller driver given the same diaphram stiffness/thickness of material will act as a piston to a higher frequency.

Just thought of another one. A smaller diaphram is also omnidirectional to a higher frequency as well.


Win, win, win situation using a smaller driver from say 150Hz upwards & a seperate bass or bass drivers :cool:

Mmm... Don't forget the huge value to some of the 'point source' effect and the superb imaging abilities and coherence, associated with that, provided by Tannoy DCs ;)

Whenever I listen to 'normal' speakers now, with multiple drive units for reproducing different parts of the frequency range, the sound is rather 'disjointed' in comparison, as I find myself listening to bass, midrange and treble 'firing' at me almost as separate entities, rather than, tonally, blending seamlessly and unobtrusively into the musical mix, as one gets with the best Tannoy DCs.

Aside from their other enviable traits, the above reason would be enough to make it very difficult for me to want to change from my Monitor Golds to speakers with multiple drive units, no matter how good those drive units were at what they did, individually or collectively... :)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Mmm... Don't forget the huge value to some of the 'point source' effect and the superb imaging abilities and coherence, associated with that, provided by Tannoy DCs ;)

Whenever I listen to 'normal' speakers now, with multiple drive units for reproducing different parts of the frequency range, the sound is rather 'disjointed' in comparison, as I find myself listening to bass, midrange and treble 'firing' at me as almost separate entities, rather than, tonally, blending seamlessly and unobtrusively into the musical mix, as one gets with the best Tannoy DCs.

Marco.

---

Hi Marco

That's spot on.

I had a friend round (my wife very disparagingly says, to "play") on Friday evening and his comment was that the Tannoys present the recorded ambience whatever it is, in a totally coherent and believable way. Like you, I think this is down to the overall coherence of the sound. Big things sound big and small things sound small and you get a real sense of the space around instruments and voices on well recorded material. Many smaller speakers do not seem to have the ability to differentiate scale in this way. Everything sounds either small or overblown, usually the former. I am probably luckier than many because my music room is large and the speakers are able to sit 17' apart which makes a huge difference in the imaging department.

I find it disorientating when I listen to other peoples' systems playing recordings I know, because the Tannoys, create a totally different type of all enveloping experience. I have to adjust my listening when I go somewhere else and my visitors have to do likewise when they come to me.

Still it all contributes to making audio the fascinating hobby that it is.


David:):cool:

Hi David,

Quote:

---

I had a friend round (my wife very disparagingly says, to "play") on Friday evening and his comment was that the Tannoys present the recorded ambience whatever it is, in a totally coherent and believable way.

---

Absolutely. Big Tannoy DCs do that better than any other speakers I've heard. They're not perfect, no speakers are, but if you value the effect you've described, and for me it's fundamental in creating an illusion that one is listening to 'real' instruments and voices, as opposed to an unconvincing facsimile of such, then nothing else will do!

Quote:

---

Like you, I think this is down to the overall coherence of the sound. Big things sound big and small things sound small and you get a real sense of the space around instruments and voices on well recorded material. Many smaller speakers do not seem to have the ability to differentiate scale in this way.

---

Yup! I've heard speakers with smaller drive units, augmented by huge sub-woofers, tall floor-standers, ported with multiple arrays of 6 or 8" drivers, huge floor-standers with twin 12" bass units, and all sorts, but NONE create the sense of effortless scale (and scale is a very different thing from low-frequency bass extension), as ONE 15" driver (per side) in huge enclosures, such as with your Westies, or to a lesser degree, my Lockwoods.

When listening to live rock music, and also to live classical performances, when an orchestral movement hits a full cresendo; the sense of 'physicality' and SCALE is enormous: the sheer 'thrust' from the sound, which travels through your body, is monumental in its intensity (if you like to sit near the front of the concert hall, like I do!) - and big Tannoy DCs replicate that effect better than any other speakers I've heard, which in comparison, just play at it. To obtain maximum realism from recorded music, that effect is very important for me.

Quote:

---

I find it disorientating when I listen to other peoples' systems playing recordings I know, because the Tannoys, create a totally different type of all enveloping experience. I have to adjust my listening when I go somewhere else and my visitors have to do likewise when they come to me.

---

Yup - ditto! But when I do, if the system is good, I usually appreciate and enjoy the different 'take' it has on reproducing recorded music. Like you say, it's simply a matter of acclimatisation.

Quote:

---

Still it all contributes to making audio the fascinating hobby that it is.

---

Absolutely - it would be a very boring world if we all liked the same thing!!

Marco.

I'm not convinced that for small to medium sized rooms that subs or multiple large drivers are necessary at all to reproduce low bass effortlessly. There are difficulties with going down the multiple driver/box/subwooder route not least of which is phase accuracy and the additional intrusion into the room of multiple boxes and cables.

For my own room (about 20ft by 14ish), the single pair of 10 inch drivers deliver more than enough bass and do it effortlessly. Tom has heard what they're capable of in my room and I'm sure would agree that they probably have as much of not greater authority than his 15 inch MGs, and most poeple who've never heard the Prestige range but own or have heard the older Tannoys have said the same thing. The newer prestige range do the bass thing very well indeed. Greater power handling and good cabinet design are part of the reason.

The comments above about the single point advantages of DC's are also very true. None of the other Tannoy multilpe driver ranges (newer ones) seem to image as well as the single DC units. The however only becomes much of an issue for closer listening and nearfield listening. In a larger room I'm sure it wouldn't be as much of an issue. My previous Horning Agathon Ultimates and Lumley Lampros 300AB's were equally as convincing to my ears in a large room. Close too though (3m or less) and the Tannoy DCs win out every time for my tastes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Mmm... Don't forget the huge value to some of the 'point source' effect and the superb imaging abilities and coherence, associated with that, provided by Tannoy DCs ;)

Whenever I listen to 'normal' speakers now, with multiple drive units for reproducing different parts of the frequency range, the sound is rather 'disjointed' in comparison, as I find myself listening to bass, midrange and treble 'firing' at me almost as separate entities, rather than, tonally, blending seamlessly and unobtrusively into the musical mix, as one gets with the best Tannoy DCs.

Aside from their other enviable traits, the above reason would be enough to make it very difficult for me to want to change from my Monitor Golds to speakers with multiple drive units, no matter how good those drive units were at what they did, individually or collectively... :)

Marco.

---

+1 :cool:

That is the magic that you just don't get with a multi-way design. It's the most natural sound I've ever heard and yet they can 'REALLY' boogie. It's all about that single point that seems to make you want to sit down and listen.

Also, I've never found a genre of music that they don't do.. Rock, Dance, Electronica, Classical... I've thrown the lot at mine and they just don't even flinch.. They just do everything with style.. love em!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reid Malenfant

Personally I'd go for a Tannoy that one of the members on here owns (can't think of his name right now) that uses a smaller 10" coaxial driver & a pair of 12" drivers for filling in the bass. At bass frequencies sound is omnidirectional, so you'd never notice it wasn't eminating from a single driver anyway. I'm also sure that a 10" driver would do a better job in the midrange (less distortion) up to the crossover frequency of the tweeter than a 15" would, simply because it'd act as more of a piston.

---

Depends on the sort of music you listen to. One of the things I hate about multi-driver speakers is the bass (especially upper bass which you'd certainly get from a 12in driver) coming from 'below the horizon'.

I recall borrowing some mid-spec Martin Logans, which tonally were quite nice, then my wife came in and asked why the string quartet I had on had a really tall pair of violinists, but a midget cellist coming of of the bottom of the speaker unit. I had noticed this but when she put it in those terms, it became a bit of a joke. Probably less of an issue with rock music, perhaps but for classical chamber music, MLs just don't cut it.

I think the sort of multi-driver arrangement proposed here would have similar problems, I've certainly heard the same from Open Baffle designs where the bass frequencies are tipped down towards the floor. Though it may not be impossible to limit these issues with a good cabinet design.

On your post Paul, I do agree the bass from the 10in driver low and solid - possibly less of a drop-of than with my 15in GRFs - though that's a cabinet issue, with the GRFs you gain mid-horn punch but trade it for a steeper than normal drop-off in low bass response below. Cabinets like the Lockwood Major would definitely get more bass out of 15in cones than a 10in. (As do the cheapo Lancaster cabs though 'more' bass is not necessarily 'better' with such a poor cabinet design).

Overall I feel the smaller Tannoys are very good but I prefer the big ones as they just have a greater sense of scale and authority. The tricky thing to get right with the big vintage drivers is the crossovers, I've found the originals to be a bit ragged around the crossover frequency of 1khz, a very tricky zone, a combination of using premium components and enough current from a good PP design gets rid of all that.

[QUOTE=Reffc;389443]I'm not convinced that for small to medium sized rooms that subs or multiple large drivers are necessary at all to reproduce low bass effortlessly. There are difficulties with going down the multiple driver/box/subwooder route not least of which is phase accuracy and the additional intrusion into the room of multiple boxes and cables.

Hi Paul

I agree. Big drivers in small rooms are not a good idea. There is a need to optimise and if considering speakers for the smaller room a good 10"DC is likely to win out every time. The Kensington which I have heard many times is a good example. It is almost impossible to control the bass output from large units in too small a space. Some would say you should treat the room. I am not a fan of room treatment which in my experience is a blunt instrument. You intend to lose not only things you don't want to lose but also things you do not. Some people may benefit if they have a particularly bad room but otherwise I would avoid it. I may be in a minority on this and in any event I am fortunate that my room is very benign sonically.

There was an interesting demo at Whittlebury with identical kit in treated and untreated rooms. I preferred the untreated room because the sound had life and energy. In the treated room, to my ears the sound was dull and lifeless.

David:):)

[QUOTE=tannoyman;389459]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reffc

I agree. Big drivers in small rooms are not a good idea. There is a need to optimise and if considering speakers for the smaller room a good 10"DC is likely to win out every time. The Kensington which I have heard many times is a good example. It is almost impossible to control the bass output from large units in too small a space. Some would say you should treat the room. I am not a fan of room treatment which in my experience is a blunt instrument. You intend to lose not only things you don't want to lose but also things you do. Some people may benefit if they have a particularly bad room but otherwise I would avoid it. I may be in a minority on this.

---

The big drivers certainly like a big room, on moving from a 3.5m x 5m house (firing length-wise) to 5.5m x 7.5m room, the performance of the GRFs improved significantly.

agreed.. I feel the 12" MG'S in my room are just on the cusp for the firing area, so quite perfect I feel. Although I do have some standing waves but hey... lol

Did you get your crossovers sorted, Tom?

On your post Paul, I do agree the bass from the 10in driver low and solid - possibly less of a drop-of than with my 15in GRFs - though that's a cabinet issue, with the GRFs you gain mid-horn punch but trade it for a steeper than normal drop-off in low bass response below. Cabinets like the Lockwood Major would definitely get more bass out of 15in cones than a 10in. (As do the cheapo Lancaster cabs though 'more' bass is not necessarily 'better' with such a poor cabinet design).

Overall I feel the smaller Tannoys are very good but I prefer the big ones as they just have a greater sense of scale and authority. The tricky thing to get right with the big vintage drivers is the crossovers, I've found the originals to be a bit ragged around the crossover frequency of 1khz, a very tricky zone, a combination of using premium components and enough current from a good PP design gets rid of all that.[/QUOTE]


Hi Tom

I agree. The other point to bear in mind with the large DC units is high efficiency. One of the reasons for effortless sound is that the amplifier does not have to have an arm-wrestling contest with the speaker to get it to comply. Efficient speakers like the DC's will produce the tiniest nuance of sound with the same ease that they will produce the triple forte of full orchestra, organ and chorus or rock band. This is also is also reflected in way that it moves between those two extremes - the dynamics.

David :):)

I think we're all pretty much in agreement with this. For (most) uk medium sized rooms, the 10 inch is all you'd likely ever need as IME (having owned larger drivers) controlling larger units becomes the main problem, they can dominate and the room then needs to be heavily treated. In a large room (such as Toms and most likely yours too David) the larger units just seem to work better. The 10 inchers are also very sensitive, so they don't require very much amp power either. A few watts gets them going. What large and small units need though to control the bass is a good amount of current on tap and (preferably) lowish output impedance with decent damping factors. I say preferably because I have heard well controlled bass from an 8w SET amp on my Tannoys but where, very oddly, the main problems occurred in the mid range.

I did speak to Lockwoods about their 15 inch HPD units mounted in the Major cabs but decided that it would have been overkill for my room, which is not a heavily treated studio (which can get away with being quite small) but decided after hearing the 10 inchers, they were ideal size wise. The thing that has opened my eyes, and I'm not sure if it is the same with the vintage Tannoys, is that amp matching is pretty critical. Not any amp will do and you have to try a fair few before finding one that will suit the Turnberrys in your own particular listening room. Folk who say that any well designed amp will sound the same may have a point on paper, but the reality of testing many very respectable amps is that each gave different results, some markedly so. The Turnberrys demand very refined amps to get the best from them.

I have a small, but well damped listening room and use 8", 10" and 12" Tannoys with no problems, even the bass extension seems natural.

I think some people miss the point completely with Tannoys. I'm well aware of the treble horn colourations and the sometimes 'woody' tone from the bass regions, they don't bother me, as you just tune into the sound. What no other speaker does as well that I've ever heard, is to produce that pinpoint positioning and the degree of image depth through the midrange. You really feel that you're hearing through the speaker rather than to the speaker!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walpurgis

I think some people miss the point completely with Tannoys. I'm well aware of the treble horn colourations and the sometimes 'woody' tone from the bass regions, they don't bother me, as you just tune into the sound. What no other speaker does as well that I've ever heard, is to produce that pinpoint positioning and the degree of image depth through the midrange. You really feel that you're hearing through the speaker rather than to the speaker!

---

I agree with that entirely, though they'd be even better if they were 'coincident' rather than just coaxial :)

The different distances between the two voicecoils & the listener prevents this however ;) If you do some research you'll see that Tannoy did a lot of R&D into delay lines to attempt to get round this.

They are still awesome drivers though, designed on sound (:eyebrows:) principles, you can't fault the engineering & what it brings to proceedings music wise :D

My Tannoy Turnberry's are very well suited to my medium sized 5m x 4m lounge, and i really enjoy their lovely musical bass quality. What nobody has mentioned yet is how ideal Tannoy dual concentrics are when watching movies. I no longer use a centre speaker, just my Turnberry's, and vocals seem to fill the screen of my pioneer 508xd plasma tv. I also find i no longer need a sub, because the Turnberry's provide plenty of low end rumble, making them an ideal speaker for music and movies.

Hi Paul,

Quote:

---

I think we're all pretty much in agreement with this. For (most) uk medium sized rooms, the 10 inch is all you'd likely ever need as IME (having owned larger drivers) controlling larger units becomes the main problem, they can dominate and the room then needs to be heavily treated.

---

That isn't my experience of using 15" Tannoys in Lockwood cabinets. See below, later. I just use them in an ordinary (pretty small) room, and they sound fantastic! 10" drivers just sound 'small' and lacking in heft, in comparison.

Quote:

---

I did speak to Lockwoods about their 15 inch HPD units mounted in the Major cabs but decided that it would have been overkill for my room...

---

That's a shame, not that your Turnberrys aren't great, but I'm almost certain that the Lockies (with 15" HPDs) wouldn't have been overkill in your room, as they aren't in mine - and my room's smaller than yours! ;)

The Lockwoods work best right up against the rear wall, and you can put them into corners too, with no bass boom whatsoever; in fact they will boom if you place them out into the room - it's the way that the cabinets are designed.

Lockwoods (with 15" Monitor Golds) in situ, chez-moi (not a big room, by any means. Incidentally, behind the white door is a cupboard, it's not the entrance to the room):


http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/5...dmajors027.jpg


...yet, although the room is small, they sound stunning in there. My listening position is only about 3m away from the speakers!


And in situ at the Wigwam show at Scalford Hall, as part of the AoS system:


http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/6008/scalford2.jpg


http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/256...rdhall2010.jpg


That was a big room, and even in there, they sounded best placed in a similar position as I use them in at home... Trust me, you must try a pair some time, Paul, as I guarantee that you'll love them and they'll work just fine in your room. You don't have to restrict yourself to 10" drivers :)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reid Malenfant

I agree with that entirely, though they'd be even better if they were 'coincident' rather than just coaxial :)

The different distances between the two voicecoils & the listener prevents this however ;) If you do some research you'll see that Tannoy did a lot of R&D into delay lines to attempt to get round this.

They are still awesome drivers though, designed on sound (:eyebrows:) principles, you can't fault the engineering & what it brings to proceedings music wise :D

---

My previous speakers were Kef Reference 2.2's, which used the uni-q coincident drive unit, and although in theory a coincident drive unit should be better than a coaxial drive unit, in practice, and imo, the tannoy 10" driver in my Turnberry's was preferable, providing superior imaging.

It works the other way around too!

My little System 800 Tannoys can fill a fair sized room with a pretty authoratative sound. No shortage of welly at all.

http://i49.tinypic.com/e6si2x.jpg

And yes, that is a pair of i12 drivers on top of my Eatons if you're wondering.

With out a question, those 800s are good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Hi Paul,



That isn't my experience of using 15" Tannoys in Lockwood cabinets. See below, later. I just use them in an ordinary (pretty small) room, and they sound fantastic! 10" drivers just sound 'small' and lacking in heft, in comparison.



That's a shame, not that your Turnberrys aren't great, but I'm almost certain that the Lockies (with 15" HPDs) wouldn't have been overkill in your room, as they aren't in mine - and my room's smaller than yours! ;)

The Lockwoods work best right up against the rear wall, and you can put them into corners too, with no bass boom whatsoever; in fact they will boom if you place them out into the room - it's the way that the cabinets are designed.

Lockwoods (with 15" Monitor Golds) in situ, chez-moi (not a big room, by any means. Incidentally, behind the white door is a cupboard, it's not the entrance to the room):


http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/5...dmajors027.jpg


...yet, although the room is small, they sound stunning in there. My listening position is only about 3m away from the speakers!


And in situ at the Wigwam show at Scalford Hall, as part of the AoS system:


http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/6008/scalford2.jpg


http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/256...rdhall2010.jpg


That was a big room, and even in there, they sounded best placed in a similar position as I use them in at home... Trust me, you must try a pair some time, Paul, as I guarantee that you'll love them and they'll work just fine in your room. You don't have to restrict yourself to 10" drivers :)

Marco.

---

Interesting Marco. The Lockwoods are very large cabs and as we already have a lot of furniture in the room, it would have been a tight squeeze to get them in. My experiences previously were with a pair of Horning Agathon Ultimates in which each speaker housed two 12 inch drivers. I could never quite tame the boom which is also down to the room dimensions and layout, although since then I have added some room treatment which has improved things.

I'm pretty happy with the Turnberrys TBH. They're very domestically acceptable and simply get better the more running in they've had. The addition of the stands has made a big improvement.

No worries, matey.

I totally get the big cablinets/lots of furniture thing (domestic acceptability), and that's an important consideration, but in terms of allowing the Lockwoods to work, sonically, I'm pretty sure that you'd have no problems.

The only issue might be if you live in a modern house, with square-ish rooms and thin walls, but if you have nice solid walls and an irregular-shaped room (to break up standing waves), like mine (I also have oak beams helping, too), then you should be fine.

Just a thought if you're ever tempted to try some of the 'big boy' Tannoys! :)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Just a thought if you're ever tempted to try some of the 'big boy' Tannoys! :)

Marco.

---

Wid'yee stoap it Marco San !!, ya forever trying tae disturb others domestic harmony aren't ya. :steam::D

Joking apart you are very lucky you've got a man cave for you hobby, something many of us don't/never will have the luxury of, :(
one thing amazes me is how some on here and other fora's have such beautiful rooms that lets their system breath,
great thread been enjoying it all the way through. :cool:

Lol... I can assure you that if we ever move house, the No1 priority would be finding one with the right room to put the system into!

Fortunately, I'm lucky to have a wife who would agree... ;)

Aside from the Lockwoods, upstairs in the 'man cave', as you call it, we've also got a pair of Celestion Ditton 66 Studio Monitors, like this:


http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/8...lestion66s.jpg


(Picture taken from the AoS room at Scalford Hall two years ago)


...downstairs in the lounge (fed from the system upstairs), so with simply a quick change of speaker cable, we also have superb sound in the lounge, and the Celestions offer an nice alternative, musically, to the Tannoys.

Marco.

It's amazing you know, when I was changing gear back in the 80's, I never considered some Ditton 66's, despite the fact that they'd have gone perfectly in my small bedroom/listening room. Maybe I thought they were good but out-classed, I don't know, or more likely, the fact that so few came up for sale back then. We did have some 551's and 661's traded in, and they sounded really, really nice, but the cabs and grilles were tatty on both and the fact that Celestion had only just run out of tweeter dome assemblies sort of put me off :(

I always liked the Ditton 66's. A cracking set of 'speakers by any standards and well worth searching out used.

My listening room is being slowly cleared now and a new carpet recently down has helped things quite a bit:

http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/...n/_MG_5965.jpg

For scale, the acoustic panels behind the speaks are a little larger than Lockwood major cabs in frontal area! (also that screen for reference is a 42 inch screen). These are sometimes lifted out during music sessions and one placed in front of the flat screen, the other on the RHS mid way to the listener

Hi Paul

What a very nice room. The Tannoys fit beautifully in terms of size.

Am I right in thinking that the speaker axes cross in front of the listening position? If so does that help the imaging?

David:)

Hi David

thank you. Yes, at present the speakers cross just in front of the listener as I'm still experimenting with positioning. I sometimes turn them so they only have about 5 degrees of toe-in and depending on what's playing they can sound pretty good that way too. They're roughly 8 feet apart at the minute. I'm selling the sofa in the picture and smaller fabric sofa's are coming soon (yup...I'm changing furniture to help with room acoustics!) following which I'd like to try a more near-field listening position within 2m of the speaker plane as this is where the sound stage seems to open up into an astonishingly believable image.

Nice, Paul. I'm sure it sounds fab! :)

Have you ever thought of putting your gear where the TV is, and the TV where your kit is now, but angled out into the room slightly, so you could see it from your sitting position?

That way, you'd remove the negative effect the TV (and the other 'gubbins') there is having on imaging (and the sound in general), and you'd also be able to shorten your speaker cable substantially, which would also improve the sound, and give you even better results than you're getting at the moment.

Ideally, you don't want anything sitting in between the speakers, but if you had your kit (and racks) there, you could put them behind the front plane of the speakers, so that imaging wouldn't be affected. I'm sure that the cumulative effect of doing that would be sonically beneficial - dunno, though, about domestically! ;)

Just a thought....

Marco.

Kit between the speakers has a huge negative affect on the sound. You need to move the speakers forward, or the gear back. Another thing I have often done when installing a system, is to drape a blanket or duvet over the equipment/TV. Might look crap but sounds a whole heap better.