Does size matter?

[tfarney]

Ah, but have you heard what Wilsons can do? Their new Sophia 2 are extraordinary. Mind you, so is the price and when I think that my Ushers were considerably cheaper then I got an awful lot of speaker for the money.

I have heard several Wilsons, though last year's models, and Sonus Fabers and the big, high-end Vienna Acoustics...all the way up to The Music.

The Music is, IMO, the best of the breed, probably because this...



...is essentially a single full-range driver sitting on a huge passive sub, augmented by a super tweeter. It gives me what I'm accustomed to from reference headphones -- a critical midrange uninterrupted by the distortions of a passive crossover.

YMMV, of course, and there are things that the Wilsons and speakers like them do very well. But to my ear, purity in the mids, where most of the music lies, is not on the list.

Tim

[MartinT]

But to my ear, purity in the mids, where most of the music lies, is not on the list.

You really need to hear my speakers. Purity of midrange is high on my list, too

[Joe]

Tim, why is it that I becaome devil's advocate on here and the HDD forum? I'm slated for being a vintage zealot on one, yet am taken to task for not fully "understanding" valvey/vinyly thinking on here I try to understand both ways of thinking and tailoring my little stereo to get the best from both...

You're more like the little boy pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. The truth can hurt

[tfarney]

You really need to hear my speakers. Purity of midrange is high on my list, too

What speakers are they?

Tim

[DSJR]

Less of the "little" please

[tfarney]

Tim, why is it that I becaome devil's advocate on here and the HDD forum? I'm slated for being a vintage zealot on one, yet am taken to task for not fully "understanding" valvey/vinyly thinking on here I try to understand both ways of thinking and tailoring my little stereo to get the best from both...

Dave, perhaps you're an undiscovered Buddhist? The watercourse way flows naturally. It finds the most efficient path. That path winds, never reaching for the extremes on either side, always finding balance without effort.

Or maybe not...

Tim

[MartinT]

What speakers are they?

As in my footer - Usher Dancer Be-20.

[tfarney]

As in my footer - Usher Dancer Be-20.

I haven't heard those, but I just surfed over to have a look at them. Gorgeous. I have heard some of the small Ushers, I don't recall the model, that I would put up there with the best of the passive monitor-type speakers I've heard. Very nice.

Don't get me wrong; what I (don't) hear in active designs is not a night and day thing; it's pretty subtle, a matter of degrees. And there are plenty of passive speakers out there that do midrange well, given properly-designed crossovers and generous headroom. So often, though, they're not, and then the differences get much more dramatic. There is no doubt that you can drive a small monitor, even a lot of big floor-standers in the mid-80s db range, with 50 watts, to great spl levels. I just don't care for the sound of them when you do.

Tim

[DSJR]

Dave, perhaps you're an undiscovered Buddhist? The watercourse way flows naturally. It finds the most efficient path. That path winds, never reaching for the extremes on either side, always finding balance without effort.

Or maybe not...

Tim

I try to be..

".... I carry life with me, wherever I go, and there's no end or beginning, though I am not a circle......." Tama Starr, early seventies

[Marco]

Hi Tim,

The Music is, IMO, the best of the breed, probably because this...



...is essentially a single full-range driver sitting on a huge passive sub, augmented by a super tweeter. It gives me what I'm accustomed to from reference headphones -- a critical midrange uninterrupted by the distortions of a passive crossover.

...and passive crossover aside, the design above has distinct elements of a classic Tannoy dual-concentric drive unit, with of course 15" ones having no need for a subwoofer

Honestly, I've heard plenty of open-baffle designs and speakers using full range drivers with super-tweeters, and can confidently say that Tannoy Monitor Golds (and other similarly capable Tannoy DCs) give 95% of the midrange clarity of OBs and full-rangers, but with massively more (controlled) weight and scale with which to underpin music and allow it to be reproduced convincingly and realistically, instead of as an anaemic sounding poor relation.

YMMV, of course, and there are things that the Wilsons and speakers like them do very well. But to my ear, purity in the mids, where most of the music lies, is not on the list.

I completely agree with the bit in bold, but in my opinion "purity in the mids" is simply not enough if the sound of a loudspeaker (and partnering system) overall isn't properly balanced, otherwise all you're doing is putting your eggs into the one basket to prioritise accuracy at certain frequencies - and that isn't how real music sounds....

For me, "purity in the mids" is very important, but not at the expense of other important elements of music reproduction. It must also be accompanied by realistic weight and scale (not forgetting detailed high frequency extension), in order that instruments which require convincing authority in the lower registers to be heard properly, are reproduced believably and accurately. Otherwise, all you end up with is a thin, mid-forward sound, lacking in the natural richness and tone real musical instruments (and voices) possess.

This is why I could never live with small loudspeakers, as they're simply too much of compromise - and shoving a subwoofer into the equation isn't the answer either; certainly not in terms of how I consider music as being believably and accurately reproduced.

It goes back to the "no free lunch" thing again, of course, but in my experience so far, the best overall balance of compromises is achieved with large high quality dual-concentrics, fitted with the best quality modern crossovers, inside huge inert cabinets, and driven by high quality valve amplification (which measures superbly as well as sounds fantastic). Others and I here own such designs. If I should hear anything better then I'll honestly only too gladly hold my hands up and acknowledge it!

I've never heard any of the big AVis, though I'm sure they were good. Even better, I suspect, matched with AVi components.

Well I've heard some AVI CDPs, amps and standmount speakers (although admittedly not their large floorstanders) and would feel very confident that putting a system together using those components would outperform their ADM9s, sonically, in most areas - note that I say 'most' and not 'every' area, which takes us back again to the 'balanced' sound thing again I referred to earlier. In effect, I'd be very confident that the bigger system would be less of a compromise and have a better balance of sonic virtues, overall, for most people.

But consider the source -- I'm convinced that the best synergy, by far, is engineered synergy, as long as you have a good engineer, of course. While others are seeking balance and searching for the proper matches, I'll be listening to music, through components balanced and matched by design.

I agree with that in principle, and I've heard many examples of both approaches, good and bad, but I guess it ultimately boils down to what you're satisfied with. The limiting factor with your approach is intrinsically how good the designer/engineer is at their job and how many genuinely top-quality components have been used in the design due to budget constraints. You also automatically inherit the chosen compromises of the designer/engineer whether you want them or not, and I personally hate other people (effectively) voicing the system I use.

When you move outside of that rather restrictive 'safety net', as it were, of having a system designed by one manufacturer, and spread your wings a little, using your ears and (considerable) experience to build a system that's free from such budget constraints, like I have, then the potential sonic rewards are far greater should you pull it off successfully. I believe that I've managed to do precisely that, as I'm sure others here like Martin have with their systems.

It's about going the extra mile, striving for excellence, speculating to accumulate in the process, leaving comfort zones and having the confidence to trust your ears and instinct implicitly when building a system, and not allowing others to dictate the terms on which your chosen system is built - *that* for me is what it's all about, and what usually separates a merely good/competent system from a truly great one.....

Marco.