Shadhorn, You state: " I do not like omnidirectional or dipoles or forward and rear radiating panels or ribbon speakers for the very reasons you give about the reverberation they create. It creates ambience at the expense of imaging and soudstage and clarity." This is actually NOT the case with German Physiks - makers of the only full-range, single-element point-source omni driver. That is what really enamored me of the brand and why I took on the US distribution. UltraAudio just reviewed the HRS-120 model from GP, with Jeff Fritz observing: They produced the most expansive, most three-dimensional soundstage Ive yet heard in my room. The sound was melt-the-walls-away wide and deep. The result was that the speakers truly "disappeared" from the music, leaving behind only some of the most beautiful sound Ive ever heard. The HRS 120s kept a stable image even when I listened a couple of feet or more off axis. What I instead heard was bass that was reasonably extended ... with good speed and integration. The HRS 120s could flat-out rock when called on to do so. Germans Physiks loudspeakers have something unique: their sound. The Dick Dipole Driver, now virtually perfected, has been put to good use in the HRS 120, where it produces a sound that is quite marvelous -- I loved listening to these speakers. You might just fall in love with them. If you do, I can just about guarantee that youll be the first on your block to have a set, and that your audiophile friends will gawk in amazement when they first hear them. In my mind, the DDD driver is the most technically accomplished omni driver design extant. It is a "have your cake and eat it too" proposition, providing huge soundstaging, as well as proper and lifelike imaging. So far my experience has been that GP speakers are the only direct-radiating omnis to accomplish this feat. (no - it is not just a present-day Walsh driver. Check out the DDD technology page on German Physiks' web site for the background: DDD TECHNOLOGYGerman Physiks speakers are probably the more expensive omni options out there, but they are invariably also the most highly accomplished. Cheers! Chris |
Well, I have picked my speakers, and they are not the Beolab 5s.
I love the idea of the B&O speakers, but on careful listening, I have to say that the B&W 800D speakers appeal to me more.
Granted, with proper amplification they are about twice the price of B&Os Beolab 5 speakers. But they are more appealing to me. I've already ordered them.
But in time if B&O stays with their innovative thinking I think they will get it right. |
I just noticed I was asked questions on your post.
1. I question that review, only because that particular mag never ever in my experience recommends something that expensive, and it is clear the author had a prior thing going on the design of the Beolab. But I question it mainly because they never,ever never recommend anything that expensive in that magazine, but then again, it may be that good. So I don't disregard it, it just strikes me as very strange.
2. I have no idea about the reviewer, except I generally believe most reviewers try to do a good job and he seemed fairly technically knowledgeable during the review.
And I LIKE omnis, because you are not nailed to a sweetspot ...and no matter what anybody says, the omnis I have measured have better dispersion than any box speaker I have measured, by a fair amount. It is a tradeoff if you are not sitting in an exact spot, which, I agree, will tend to be the absolute best measured place if a room is done right. The question is, do you want a solitary hobby or one you share... do you want to sit in more than one spot? If so, omni, if no... box.
Cheers!
Chris |
Oxia,
I agree. I do not like omnidirectional or dipoles or forward and rear radiating panels or ribbon speakers for the very reasons you give about the reverberation they create. It creates ambience at the expense of imaging and soudstage and clarity. BTW: I have soffit mounted my mains - so I have eliminated the nasty rear radiation in the omnidirectional mid bass (with its inherent quarter wavelength cancelations that the listener hears as a "comb filter", altering certain notes as it affects harmonic balance in the lower midrange) The improvement from soffit mount versus non soffit mount is significant - image and tangibility of sounds improve further and make for a very solid soundstage but most people would never bother to go to this much trouble. |
"Not all conventional box speakers have narrow dispersion ( no side radiation ) - good speakers will have wide dispersion at least as wide as far as it matters (to be affected by side wall reflection to listener)."
Shadorne,
I think that the reason for our disagreement is due to the way that we're each using the term "wide dispersion". I am not disputing that there are conventional front-radiating speakers with wide dispersion, but it is a fact that all conventional front-radiating speaker will become increasingly directional as you go up in frequency.
To illustrate my point, please take a look at the polar response graphs in this website.
http://www.mcsquared.com/speakers1.htm
Notice how the bass is virtually omnidirectional even for a front-firing speaker, but the midrange and treble gets increasingly directional. This happens because the wavelength of sound becomes shorter and shorter as you go up in frequency, hence the sound waves cannot "wrap" around the loudspeaker. Yes, some front-firing designs manage to achieve exceptionally wide dispersion through a narrow baffle configuration, but in the end there is no way to cheat the laws of physics and a front-firing speaking will never be able match the broadband off-axis output of a true omni-directional design. This is why an omni speaker will always be more susceptible to early reflections from nearby surfaces compared to a front-firing speaker (even when compared to a front-firing speaker that has exceptional dispersion), thus greater care in positioning is required.
In the end, my point is that you cannot apply the exact same method of speaker placement to both front-firing speakers and omni speakers. Placing a conventional speaker 3 feet from an untreated wall may have worked for you in the past, but this just isn't going be optimal for an omni speaker. When you switch to an omni speaker, the difference in its radiation pattern simply requires a change in your thinking.
|
the BeoLab5 radiates full power throughout the mid-to-treble range towards the side (unlike a conventional box speaker whose output sharply attenuates to the sides) Not all conventional box speakers have narrow dispersion ( no side radiation ) - good speakers will have wide dispersion at least as wide as far as it matters (to be affected by side wall reflection to listener). |
Hdomke,
To clarify my statement about Beolab 5 imaging-
I used a double negative:
I was stating tha the imaging problem (like the congestion problem) may be due to poor performance by the speaker or may be due to set-up. I just don't know. That's why I said an in-home demo in a room large enough to get the speakers away from the walls will be essential.
I'm happy that B&O accomodated you. The sound I heard was poor enough in certain, specific ways that I am inclined to believe that (at least) part of the problem HAD to be the set-up, otherwise those rave reviews would be hard for me to understand.
OTOH, Shadome heard a pair that seemed to be set up in a better (though perhaps still less than ideal) way and heard some of the same issues. I am eager to hear about your demo and i look forward to your post.
To sum up:
1) I wouldn't dismiss this speaker until I heard it set up properly
2) The demo I heard was pretty terrible for a speaker in this $ range.
I hope that clarifies.
Marty |
Hdomke,
You are correct about the 180-degree radiation pattern, and I mentioned that in my post. However, despite the fact that midrange and treble energy is not being radiated towards the rear, the speaker is still radiating full power to the sides and is thus susceptible to early reflections from the side walls. Consequently they should be either positioned well away from the side walls and ideally the walls should have something in front of them to absorb the energy from the speaker (such as absorptive foam, upholstered furniture, drapes, etc.). Hard surfaces like glass are the worst, as it creates a very acoustically live environment. I reckon that if the speaker is positioned close (within 3 feet or less than one meter) from the glass side wall, given that the BeoLab5 radiates full power throughout the mid-to-treble range towards the side (unlike a conventional box speaker whose output sharply attenuates to the sides), the result would be that the reverberant energy coming off the sidewalls would arrive at the listener's ears with sufficient force and vivacity as to obscure and smear musical detail much more so than in the case of a conventional front-firing box speaker in the same acoustic environment.
The BeoLab 5's DSP should be able to auto-EQ the bass to mitigate excessive room gain (bass boom) caused by the close proximity of walls, but the DSP does nothing to cure the early reflections of midrange and treble energy coming off the sidewalls. For that, good old fashioned attention to positioning and acoustic treatment is needed. |
Oxia
To place an omni speaker three feet from a corner where the side-wall is made of a highly reflective material like glass is nothing short of a disaster.
Im not sure if it matters, but I dont believe the Beolab 5s would properly be called an omni directional speaker since the speaker covers only 180-degrees.
As Paul Messenger wrote in Ultraaudio:
The Beolab 5s elliptical reflectors are shaped to cover a 180-degree semicircle horizontally, and to restrict the vertical "window." Nearly all of a drivers output is thus directed forward, reducing the proportion of room-reflected sound the listener hears, effectively increasing the efficiency in the listening zone, and creating a speaker whose output is substantially independent of proximity to the rear wall. Because the Beolab 5 effectively has its own built-in "rear wall," it is immune from reflection-induced colorations caused by the actual room wall behind it. |
Onhwy61,
The Beolab narrows your choices down to a single digital source component.. For most audiophiles this would completely eliminate the Beolab from consideration since part of the fun of being an audiophile is working out the system synergy issues!
Then Ill probably never be an Audiophile. I LOVE the idea of simplicity. I want the system to sound and look as good as I can get. Then I plan to hold on to it for a few decades.
Audiophiles like big hulking speakers and 100lb. amplifiers dominating a room. Is that what you want?
Actually, I think it looks pretty cool. However, we will see what my wife says when she sees the 400 watt amps sitting next to each of the B&W 800Ds.
If you go to a concert hall you won't hear pinpoint imaging, but a more diffuse type of sound.
Interesting point. Are you saying that the kind of sound stage that Shadorne is looking for is artificial if the goal is to reproduce a live musical experience?
Thanks for the suggestions of Meridian equipment, Ill see if I can find a dealer who has some. |
Johnk,
" Will advancements in dig amps and DSP make it primitive in the near future?"
I'm guessing that if it sounds wonderful today, that it will continue to sound wonderful for a few decades regardless of how much digital amps and DSP improves.
However, I agree with your concern that about how well they might respond to a voltage spike. These are remarkably compact and complicated speakers. A lot is inside there and I expect repairs would be expensive. |
Marty,
this speaker would require an in-home demo and a large listening room. I don't know if B&O would accommodate such a request.
B&O has already said yes to my request for an in home demo, even though I live 2.5 hours from them on a farm in the middle of Missouri. There will have to be some sort of payment if I dont buy the system. Same with the B&W dealer.
BTW, I can't state with confidence that the Beolab 5 doesn't image (soundstage) well.
I wonder what others would say about this. I went back to David Ranadas review in Sound & Vision: it can produce good stereo imaging from a very wide listening area and extremely good imaging when heard from a prime listening position.
Does anyone else have experience with this speakers imaging qualities? |
Shadorne
About the B&W 800D speakers you wrote:
Yes do buy these over the Beolab - far better, IMHO. This is a fine speaker. A bit hard to drive but with the right SS amplification they will sing
.this is an absolutely outstanding speaker. World class.
I am tempted, and I dont mind buying a powerful amp to drive them.
At the store they were using the 400 Watt Classe CA-M400 Monoblock Power Amplifiers. I have to admit I liked the way they looked and looks matter to me as much as the sound.
However, we are doubling the price here. The Beolab 5s are listed as $18,000. On the other hand, the B&W 800Ds list for $23,000 and if I go with the Classé amp and matching preamp (the Classé CP-500) that would come to $37,500. I can accept that if the sound truly is much better. I need to go back and listen again, but I on my first try the B&W speakers sounded more natural; more real.
I would like to hear the Wilson Watt Puppy 8 speakers and the Revel Ultima2 speakers. Other suggestions? I already tried the Vandersteen Model Five speakers and found the bass response oddly boomy. |
Shadorne,
Right *after* I had submitted my question to you regarding the positioning of the BeoLab 5 during your audition, audiogon posted this from you.
"In my audition they were about three feet from the corners - so to me the congestion was from the speaker not the placement."
Based on this, I must say that the it's no surprise that the speaker sounded so disappointing. To place an omni speaker three feet from a corner where the side-wall is made of a highly reflective material like glass is nothing short of a disaster. Honestly, the people in the B&O store should have known better. That's about as silly as putting a set of QUAD ESLs 3 feet from a front wall that's made of glass. It's so ridiculous that it boggles the mind.
One must consider that unlike a conventional box speaker, an omnidirectional speaker is radiating almost full-range in all directions. The amount of reflected energy coming off those glass walls would have definitely caused smearing of musical detail and this would almost certainly be a prime contributor of the diffuse sound you heard.
In comparison, a conventional box speaker may be close to flat across its frequency range when measured on-axis and up to about 30-degress off-axis, but as you go further off axis the amplitude of the radiated energy starts to fall off non-linearly across its bandwidth. Therefore you may get away with putting a front radiating box speaker 3 feet from a side wall (although even here, some acoustic damping from furniture or curtains would be helpful), but the same configuration for an omni speaker is just silly.
To quote from Don Morrison: "Yes, the speakers should be brought out from the side and back walls. And yes, there should be room treatment on the side walls to tame the first reflection". |
Finally, if you like the Beolab concept you should also consider the Meridian line of active speakers. I agree wiith this suggestion. I am partial to active speakers - so it is goes against my preference to recommend a passive speaker over teh active Beolab 5's. Onhwy61 is correct that I prefer mointors that image like no tomrrow and sound as accurate as possible and that this is not what the majority of people seek. These speakers will sound harsh just like real instruments ....when a trumpet is played loud then your hair will part - not everyone's cup of tea!! So as I said above in a previous post- take into account my preferences when you read my impressions of the Beolab 5 (it is after all a fine and awesome speaker)...a grain of salt if youu like. |
How much space was there between the speakers and the side walls? About 3 feet - so enough not to ruin the image. If you want to listen for imaging and soundstaging, then sitting in the sweet spot (equidistant between both loudspeakers) is essential in my opinion. Correct. You should indeed listen in the center to maximise the imaging experience and especially when making evaluations. On reflection I agree that you have a good point. My point about 10 db is actually referenced in the link I gave.... The Haas Effect is, simply stated, a factor in human hearing where delay has a much bigger effect on human perception of direction than level does. Helmut Haas in Germany showed that although identical audio sources sent to two speakers at equal level resulted in a center image, a 5 - 20 ms delay to one of the signals shifted the image to the non-delayed side, and the delayed side had to be made 10 dB louder to get the image to shift back to the center. This is also called Precedence Effect. |
Hdomke, one of the issues that comes up in high end audio is system synergy. A great system functions better than the sum of its components. Speakers like the Beolab greatly simplify the issue. If you were to purchase a speaker like the B&W or Wilson you would have to match them to an appropriate amplifier, preamp, digital converter, interconnects and speaker cable. At the sonic level you're dealing with each component interaction can be critical to the overall system's performance. The Beolab narrows your choices down to a single digital source component.. For most audiophiles this would completely eliminate the Beolab from consideration since part of the fun of being an audiophile is working out the system synergy issues! I would also advise you to look at Audiogon members virtual systems and see if you like the visual effect of having a large amount of audio equipment in your living space. Audiophiles like big hulking speakers and 100lb. amplifiers dominating a room. Is that what you want?
Two people have taken the time to listen to the Beolab and report their findings. In reading their comments you should take into account that both writers favor monitor type speakers which excel at pinpoint imaging. If you go to a concert hall you won't hear pinpoint imaging, but a more diffuse type of sound. Instruments emerge from clearly defined areas, but they are not point sources. I also suggest that you re-read the available reviews of the Beolab in light of the posters' comments. A reviewer typically has a product for weeks if not months in order to evaluate its performance. That gives someone ample time to work out issues that can't be resolved in an hour or two audition.
One other thing to consider is that you could get a "better" speaker than the Beolab and paradoxically end up enjoying it less. There are countless posts about people who comment that their highly resolving systems make their music collections sound "bad". This is partly due to the synergy issue I mentioned earlier, but it also involves listener preference in both sound and music. You may not want the most accurate speaker.
Finally, if you like the Beolab concept you should also consider the Meridian line of active speakers. |
Shadorne,
I just have a question for you regarding your audition of the BeoLab 5.
You said that the speakers were in a square-shaped room with glass on both sides and no acoustic treatment. How much space was there between the speakers and the side walls?
The reason why I ask is because of the design of the Beolab permits almost 180 degree dispersion throughout the treble and midrange, and the high reflectivity of the glass surfaces would undoubtedly play havoc with the speaker's ability to produce accurate imaging and soundstaging.
I've never heard the BeoLab 5 yet, but I am quite interested in hearing it for myself. So far my most favourable impression of an omni-directional speaker was a Morrison, but that's going back many years. My current speaker is the Merlin VSM-MM, so it would be interesting to hear firsthand how the BeoLab 5 sounds in comparison.
Aside from this, I just have to call you out on two claims you made.
1. "Other conventional box speakers can have wide dispersion and hence a large sweetspot AND image like there is no tomorrow."
It has to be clarified that any conventional front-firing box speaker will be highly directional the higher you go up in frequency. If you observe the lateral frequency response graphs published by Stereophile, typically for box speakers the treble frequencies from 10Khz on up will fall off rapidly the more that you move off axis. "Wide dispersion" in this case just cannot be compared to the dispersion characteristics of a true omnidirectional loudspeaker design, which means that special consideration is required for room positioning, in order to minimize early reflections that can cloud the sound and make it seem congested.
2. "No it is not necessary to sit at precisely the right spot on widely dispersive high quality speakers such as you can find at this price. Location of sound is NOT all about volume level in fact this is a misconception propagated by the industry to try and sell more center channels. You can have one speaker 10 DB louder than the other and yet the sound can come from directly between them....it is timing that tells us the location much more than volume level "
I would agree that your lateral seating position isn't overly critical for a box speaker with wide dispersion if you were only listening for tonality. However, I completely disagree with you that seating position does not matter if you are listening for imaging and soundstaging.
While it is true that the human ear perceives spatial relationships through detection of amplitude and timing differences in the sound that reaches our left and right ears, I think that your example is rather exaggerated, and isn't very helpful to Hdomke's attempt to understand how to optimize his ability to hear proper imaging and soundstaging.
A 10 DB difference in amplitude would make speaker "A" sound twice as loud as speaker "B". Thus if both speakers and the listener were positioned like points on an equilateral triangle, the centre image would be perceived to be shifted toward the side that speaker "A" is on. In practical terms, if you were listening to a vocal track where the singer is supposed to be situated dead centre, now the singer will sound like s/he is standing to one side.
In order to equalize the effect of the amplitude difference, you would have to significantly increase the spatial distance between speaker "A" and the listener, until the increase in arrival time and the attenuation in perceived volume of the sound coming from speaker "A" no longer predominates over speaker "B".
Should anyone auditioning speakers have to go through this? I don't think so. If you want to listen for imaging and soundstaging, then sitting in the sweet spot (equidistant between both loudspeakers) is essential in my opinion. |
Also, the congestion I heard at demo may be due to distortion generated by the speaker as loudish, complex musical passages tax the drivers and force them to misbehave. Or, as I noted, it could have been the set-up or some defect. I was not listening at crushing levels and I found the problem instantly identifiable. Marty, I agree with you. It was immediately identifiable. In my audition they were about three feet from the corners - so to me the congestion was from the speaker not the placement. I too felt that taxing passages at higher volumes stressed the midrange, as the lower/middle mid range seemed to get buried by the bass and treble. However, like you say, it is impossible to be "conclusive" about this in a short listening test with a Sales Rep over your shoulder. All I can say is that it was pretty obvious to me, although I am used to a rather forward midrange presentation so my impression could be influenced by my reference. In any case, there is no way I would be reaching for the checkbook for this sound. So it seems we heartily agree. I would add that there is no way I would bother to get these in the home (given my tastes for precision - they just don't suit me at all except for their impressive tight bass response). |
I gather you are referring to the lack of the illusion of the musicians laid out properly in space in front of you. Yes Exactly. I wonder if that flaw is the price one pays for the benefits of the Acoustic Lens technology? This technology allows for a much wider Sweet Spot but perhaps the sweet spot we get isnt as sweet as it would be in a more conventional speaker. No. Other conventional box speakers can have wide dispersion and hence a large sweetspot AND image like there is no tomorrow. Like Marty - I fully expect a vocalist to appear as a solid single image in a mix - clearly positioned - not dispersed vaguely in front of me. When a duet is singing I can clearly hear that they are positioned two feet apart in the soundstage when they are mixed that way. I felt that the Beolabs hinted or gave glimpses of precise imaging in certain sounds or vocals but did not do so solidly all the time - much of the time there was a certain diffuseness to everything) To help accomplish this{Soundstage}, do Audiophiles always try to sit at precisely the right spot when they are doing active listening? No it is not necessary to sit at precisely the right spot on widely dispersive high quality speakers such as you can find at this price. Location of sound is NOT all about volume level in fact this is a misconception propagated by the industry to try and sell more center channels. You can have one speaker 10 DB louder than the other and yet the sound can come from directly between them....it is timing that tells us the location much more than volume level (most people are unaware of this). Of course the image will move slightly as you sit in front of one speaker or the other but the soundstage should not collapse. Also if timing is messed up or poor then volume level will weigh more heavily in how you determine the position of instruments in the soundstage. You both also complained about congestion/compression and congested/cluttered in upper midrange. Please help me understand. Im guessing that you mean that in parts of the music the differences between instruments might blur, which makes it hard to differentiate or even identify the instruments? Yes is was "blurred" or not razor sharp clear in the upper mid range. It sounded "softer" or less piercing and less harsh then I would expect from natural sound. It made for a less exciting or involving sound as there was no "edge" to leading instruments or vocals. If this is indeed the 3' Vifa Dome Midrange driver that is being used then it only has a linear Xmax of +/- 0.5 millimeters - which is not much better than most tweeters (i.e. terrible) - this dome midrange will compress all to easily if driven too low in frequency which means that either you lose lower midrange energy from compression at high levels or you need to crossover very high into the midrange with the 6 inch woofer - either way this concerns me but it is conjecture as I have no proof that is definitely is the 3" Dome Midrange from Vifa that Beolab 5's are using. (The midrange dome on my speakers has an Xmax of 3.0 mm or six times more linear excursion than the Vifa mid - so I get more than enough crystal clear midrange energy before non-linearities/compression sets in) I spent a couple hours in the afternoon listening to the B&W 800Ds in a very fine listening room. The words that kept coming to my mind were natural and real. Perhaps those are the speakers I will buy
Yes do buy these over the Beolab - far better, IMHO. This is a fine speaker. A bit hard to drive but with the right SS amplification they will sing. The large midrange tends to "beam" slightly in the top of the midrange (less wide dispersion or even sound field from 2 to 4 Khz) and they come on a bit strong around 4 Khz (when the widely dispersive tweeter kicks in) - however this is nitpicking - this is an absolutely outstanding speaker. World class. It would seem to me that the ideal next step would be to get the Beolab 5s and the B&W800Ds into my listening room at home, preferably at the same time for some extended A:B comparisons. I am not sure I agree but it is your taste that counts not mine. (As you know by now I think the 800D is a far better speaker, however, I also think you owe it to yourself, at this price, to audition a few other speakers. It would be worth the price of a weekend trip to CES just check out other designs, at your price point.) |
Hdomke,
To get a sense of soundstage go to a nearby high end dealer and ask him to demo any speaker that he feels will impress with its soundstage. Most will be able to find a recording and system that will make it very clear what the term means. Ironically, some people (justifiably) point out that you rarely hear this type of spacial illusion at a real performance. Usually, that is quite true. Yet, the quality in a stereo is critical to me. YMMV.
BTW, I can't state with confidence that the Beolab 5 doesn't image (soundstage) well. Few speakers will do so when jammed into corners. Also, the congestion I heard at demo may be due to distortion generated by the speaker as loudish, complex musical passages tax the drivers and force them to misbehave. Or, as I noted, it could have been the set-up or some defect. I was not listening at crushing levels and I found the problem instantly identifiable. I find it hard to believe that neither of the reviews linked to this thread mentioned the problem, so I'm inclined to believe that it was unique to the Beverly Hills set-up.
OTOH, Shadome may have heard a similar problem. It's quite possible that the wide dispersion pattern makes distance from the side walls critical to best results. A speaker which pours so much energy off axis may sound congested due to early side-wall interactions. Shadome, how was the set-up at your demo?
To sum up, I left the demo feeling like I knew very little about the speaker, other than buying this speaker would require an in-home demo and a large listening room. I don't know if B&O would accomodate such a request.
Good Luck,
Marty |
Design has much merit and is well thought out. My problem with a all digital amped, DSP loudspeaker is time. We all know how well computers age will this loudspeaker be fairly worthless in the future like a old computer or DAC? Will advancements in dig amps and DSP make it primitive in the near future? While folks who bought conventional loudspeaker designs can still upgrade amps etc. Will the digital section hold up as well as the transducers or if it gets a voltage spike is it toast? |
Marty and Shardone,
Thanks for the ongoing discussion! It helps educate me before I spend a large amount of money.
The biggest concern with these innovative speakers that you both share is the missing soundstage. I gather you are referring to the lack of the illusion of the musicians laid out properly in space in front of you. I wonder if that flaw is the price one pays for the benefits of the Acoustic Lens technology? This technology allows for a much wider Sweet Spot but perhaps the sweet spot we get isnt as sweet as it would be in a more conventional speaker.
Being new to High End Audio, I cant say that Ive developed my skills at detecting the soundstage yet; but it must greatly enhance the sense of being there. To help accomplish this, do Audiophiles always try to sit at precisely the right spot when they are doing active listening?
You both also complained about congestion/compression and congested/cluttered in upper midrange. Please help me understand. Im guessing that you mean that in parts of the music the differences between instruments might blur, which makes it hard to differentiate or even identify the instruments?
Funny that you should end the last post by writing I want to hear the sound as close as possible to what is on the source...additional colorations, no matter how pleasing, are something I try to avoid. I spent a couple hours in the afternoon listening to the B&W 800Ds in a very fine listening room. The words that kept coming to my mind were natural and real. Perhaps those are the speakers I will buy
But I remain deeply interested in the Beolab 5s. One variable that has undoubtedly had a big impact on all of our listening experiences was poor listening rooms. It would seem to me that the ideal next step would be to get the Beolab 5s and the B&W800Ds into my listening room at home, preferably at the same time for some extended A:B comparisons.
Is that a reasonable next step? |
""The term applied to the use of comb filters to obtain special sound effects."
Is that what you mean by flanging? Henry What I mean by flanging is exactly that. In the case of two tape recorders playing the same signal slightly out of time then you will get a "comb filter" frequency response - some frequencies double where the signals reinforce and other frequencies completely cancel. There is a harmonic relationship between the signals that cancel and the signals that reinforce. The sound can be either "full" or "thin" depending on the instrument. True "flanging" as done on the guitar will give a "swirling effect", perhaps this is what Marty expected to hear and did not, --- with true flanging the time delay is varied (not fixed) with a foot pedal and this creates dramatic movements of the sound. In the case of the Beolab 5, the sound is bouncing off the frizbee on top, it is also posssibly bouncing off the bottom frizbee on the bottom and thirdly it is hitting your ears directly from the dome drivers themselves ( no bounce ). So in essence it is like having three tape recorders all playing exactly the same music with a FIXED time delay between each recorder and the volume levels different (the loudest sound probably comes from the reflected sound bouncing off the underside of the frisbee above the dome driver, the next loudest may be either the direct energy from the driver itself or the sound reflected again off the bottom frizbee after it has already hit the top frizbee) These three signals are identical except they are offset (time delay) with respect to eachother and of course the principal one is much louder than the others. Critically these all radiate into the room with their fixed delay. So your ears will hear all three signals mixed or muddled together (they are much too close in time to separate into "echos"). The time delays are very similar to natural reflections and what I am describing are all well known facts about how audio delay can affect the perception of audio. Notice how Figure 5 - Comb Filter With Signal Level Adjustment bears a slight resemblance to this frequency plot. In the case of the Beolab 5 the delays (if they exsit) would be of the order of 1/2 to 1.5 millisecs (governed by the distance between the frizbees of around 8 inches and the speed of sound in air). This may affect cymbals, horns, vocals and lead instruments. IMHO, it will likely make the treble sound less harsh or piercing. With me was an experienced audiophile friend. He has a pair of Wilson Sophia speakers at home. He was not impressed. He described the sound as "analytical" "dry" and "lacking certain timbral nuances." I would agree with your friend. I found the sound to be slightly congested/cluttered in upper midrange. Treble sounds were not crystal clear and precise. It made for a softer more agreeable and less revealing sound then I would normally associate with Wilsons or another forward "precise" type speaker. I agree about the timbral nuances and this is perhaps my perceived issue with the lower mid range sounding too "thin" (and this could indeed be room related). However, as Marty pointed out the speaker was, on the whole, very neutral sounding. Bear in mind that my criticisms are aimed at a $23,000 speaker...on the whole the sound was what most anyone would call wonderful, amazing or awesome (as it darn well should be at this price!!). The bass response, as I have previously stated was particularly impressive. However, given my taste for transparent sound; take my comments with a good pinch of salt! I want to hear the sound as close as possible to what is on the source...additional colorations, no matter how pleasing, are something I try to avoid. Since you are looking for something that you can live with for twenty years then your judgement is what counts! |
My wife and I headed into LA for dinner last night and she wanted to do a bit of shopping in Beverly Hills beforehand. So, prompted by this thread, I arranged an audition at the B&O store on Rodeo Drive. She asked me if I was going to buy something.
"I'm going to listen to a $23K speaker", I replied "There is very little chance that I am buying something" "But", I added "That is not the same as No Chance."
Although a bit skeptical, part of me wanted to be so blown away that this post would end with the cliche "I bought the review pair!"
Unfortunately.......
To be fair, the listening set-up at Beverly Hills B&O is horrible. The speakers were jammed into the corners of a roughly 15 X 22 ish foot room. They were within a foot of the front wall behind them and within inches of the side walls.
Nevertheless, bass response was very good. Octave to octave balance struck me as fairly neutral other than reduced output in the upper bass/lower mids. The speakers are definitely on the lean side for a high end design. This may correlate to Shadome's observation about this range. Definitely lean relative to my Merlin VSMs, which themselves are often cited as "too lean" sounding by some on this forum (I disagree).
I heard no flanging effects which I could identify.
I also heard no semblance of a sound stage (Duke Ellington meets Coleman Hawkins can produce a ridiculously wide stage on a good set-up). Tonally, reproduction of this CD was very, very good. I would only note diminution of impact of the bass line relative to what I'm accustomed to. Sax and piano sounded beatiful and drums had real impact. No problems there. Overall, the missing sounstage was the real disappointment here.
Once I switched to Joan Armatrading's DNA the audition went downhill fast. This track features JA's very distinctive voice over guitar driven accompaniment that gets busier as the song progresses. With the volume up, any congestion/compression becomes quickly evident. And it did. Very evident and wholly unacceptable in the price range (I was quoted $19,950). The same problem occurred with Richard Thompson's "Guns Are The Tongues". After that, I cut the session short, thanked the very nice salesfolk and left.
Now the caveat. It is possible that the distortion was due to:
A) A problem upstream of the speakers.
B) A problem with the left speaker - the issue seemed a bit left speaker centric with both tracks.
C) A sympathetic vibration (rattle) somewhere in the room near the left speaker.
The experience was disappointing, but may (or may not) be more an indictment of B&O Beverly Hills than the Beolab 5. If my experience was typical, getting a good handle on this speaker may be difficult.
Good luck.
Marty |
Shardone,
Thanks much for your VERY thoughtful observations! If I can summarize to make sure I understand, you are saying that for the Beolab 5 speakers:
1. The Bass was very good.
2. There was some "flanging" in the higher frequencies.
3. There was a lack of precise imaging.
4. There was a very wide area for optimal listening horizontally, but not vertically.
5. You perceived something missing in the lower mid range
I'm a relative newcomer to high-end HiFi and I don't know all the terminology, but I think I understand most of what you said. However, I didn't know what "flanging" is, but I looked it up in Master Handbook of Acoustics by F. Alton Everest. He said "In the early days of multitrack recording experimenters were constantly developing new, different and distinctive sounds. Phasing and flanging were popular words among these experimenters." In his glossary he defines flanging as ""The term applied to the use of comb filters to obtain special sound effects."
Is that what you mean by flanging?
I too went to hear the speaker yesterday. Unlike your listening space, mine (at the B&O store in Kanas City) was in a heavily acoustically treated dedicated listening room. My only observation was that it may have been too "dead" since it was optimized for demonstrating home theater equipment.
I listened for a couple hours and was deeply impressed with the natural and unstrained sound coming from the speakers. I tried listening in many positions in the room, high and low as well as way off to the side and it remained excellent to my novice ears.
With me was an experienced audiophile friend. He has a pair of Wilson Sophia speakers at home. He was not impressed. He described the sound as "analytical" "dry" and "lacking certain timbral nuances." He too shared your opinion about the lack of precise imaging. However I tried as hard as I could to hear it with my eyes closed and could not perceive it. And I tried this with two other speaker systems.
I wonder about the "dip somewhere between 400 and 1 Khz" that you heard. Could that have been a function of the room? The reviews I have read have not commented on that and testing does not reveal that. |
Shadorne, excellent post! Do you now understand why I referred to it earlier as a high end lifestyle product? It's certainly not cheap, but for the money you get a lot of product (speakers, amps, EQ and digital conversion) in what some consider an attractive package. |
I listened to the Beolab 5 today. It was in the local B&O store. They were setup in a special listening room (also set up for 7.1). A bit square in shape and with glass on two sides and with no acoustic treatment - so not an ideal set up - although ceilings were high (good) and as with all B&O decor and industrial design everything was modern but impeccable and tasteful. The B&O rep was very knowledgeable and clearly understood the physics of the speaker although he said the drivers were made by B&O (however I am not sure of this as IMHO is looks very much like the Vifa 3" Dome Midrange D75MX-41-08 or at least it is indistinguishable from this 3" vifa dome). I listened to mostly "Brothers in Arms", Dire Straits and a few demo disks as well as some DVD's. Observations: Excellent articulate bass (it definitely does not need a sub) and they can play fairly loud cleanly. As I had feared, there is some "flanging" in the upper mid range and treble giving an airy or atmospheric quality to the sound with the imaging not nearly as precise as it is on my home system. Vocalists were still centered but not perfectly tangible so that you could say the singer was there in the room standing between the speakers. As has been reported by others, the sound field is very even in a horizontal plane around the room - you could move around and it sounded much the same, however, there is a significant difference between the seated and the standing presentation (I was sitting 10 feet back with the speakers 8 feet apart near the corners of the small room). You need to be seated at the correct height to enjoy these speakers. I also perceived something missing in the lower mid range. It seems the lower mid is covered by a forward facing 6" driver and somehow (to my ears) there was a dip somewhere between 400 and 1 Khz ; perhaps this 6" driver was not as dispersive as the dome mid or I detected a crossover issue. Overall the sound was similar to Ribbons except that you had serious high quality bass, placement was much easier ( no problem 2 feet from a wall) and that the sweetspot was way larger than you find for ribbons. Nevertheless for some $23,000, this is an expensive speaker and as far as I am concerned the ATC SCM 100ASL is a much better speaker. Personally I would also prefer similar priced Wilsons over this speaker but I am not keen on "atmospheric"or "airy" sound - I much prefer precision. So that is just my taste. |
Shadrone, interesting speculation, but you need to listen to the speakers. In theory many, many speakers don't work (metal dome tweeters, full range drivers, ported bass alignments, etc.), but that never stopped manufacturers from making excellent sounding designs with the flawed technology. |
specifically the use of acoustic lenses to achieve omni-directional dispersion, has actually been around for a while and is a proven concept (see Hegeman / Morrison, Walcott, Duevel). Oxia, Thanks for the info, I would add MBL to that list. I am not against omnidirectional and from my understanding most omnidirectional designs would not create the flanging effect (one signal delayed with respect to another). you ought to listen first and then let your ears decide. I agree fully but it does not hurt to be an informed buyer about the possibility of audible colorations. Sorry if I offended anyone. |
Hdomke,
There is a store locally - I will see if If they have them. Please understand that flanging can be pleasant sounding and it is done on many recordings. George Martin of the Beatles fame found that you could achieve this by messing around with tape recorders and adding a slight delay to one tape recorder to produce "thicker sounding vocals". So this effect is inevitably on many pop recordings. Also microphone height from a reflective wooden floor will have some influence too. So it is more than likely a pleasant coloration that gives more openness or spaciousness to the sound. That this issue will occur seems inevitable to me given that you can physically see the dome drivers sticking up out of the bottom frizbee in the photographs taken at what would approximate a listening position with respect to the speaker...it seems inevitable that some sound will go directly from the driver to the listener whilst the majority of the sound is intended to reflect off the lens above. |
Shadorne,
Regarding your 1st and 3rd points,
-The Beolab 5 may be a novel design in terms of its unique implementation, but the one technological feature that you seem to be focusing on, specifically the use of acoustic lenses to achieve omni-directional dispersion, has actually been around for a while and is a proven concept (see Hegeman / Morrison, Walcott, Duevel).
-The point that "barely any audiophiles seem to own this design" is your weakest argument as it is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. The fact that you may know of few audiophiles that own a Beolab 5 speaks more of audiophile-accepted trends, attitudes and prejudices rather than the inherent qualities of the Beolab 5 (or any other non-audiophile accepted product, for that matter).
As Microjack rightly pointed out, you ought to listen first and then let your ears decide. |
Shardone, If you would be willing to audition these speakers I would be grateful. Then you can tell me if in the "real world" you can hear the design flaw you have detected. B&O can only be auditioned at B&O stores. Their website lists them. Here is a link: http://www.bang-olufsen.comOn the left hand side of the home page is a a link called "Store Locator" |
Why in god's name would you suppose to know of a deficiency that you have not heard? What motivates you to caution against something you are guessing about? Macrojack - I am curious and cautious because 1) this is a novel design 2) rave reviews 3) barely any audiophiles seem to own this design (yet it has been around for 4 years) There are tens of thousands of ordinary box speakers with forward facing drivers that have been built over the years, with good reason => this type design works well. A novel design that looks like a Dalek has my "hype alert" sensors showing yellow warnings! I agree that an audition is the best way forward but perhaps it helps to be aware that pleasant sound effects may not necessarily be accuracy and that there is very little of a track record behind this novel & very expensive design. |
Shadorne - Scores of people who HAVE HEARD this speaker think it sounds great, yet, you who do not say that you have heard it, theorize that it cannot work.
Aren't you one of the people who cautions everyone never to buy a speaker without hearing it in their own system? Why in god's name would you suppose to know of a deficiency that you have not heard? What motivates you to caution against something you are guessing about? |
From this plot it sure looks as if the direct sound from the driver and the reflected sound from the frizbee above it are mixing. I was expecting or looking for this but it took me a while to find a plot so let me explain... This is an effect called flanging and it can be quite pleasant as it creates an extremely spacious sound effect such that you cannot locate the source. This trick is well known and can be used to create the impression of stereo from a mono track. One signal is delayed by a fixed amount relative to the other and when summed you get the characteristic "comb filter". In this case the flanger is a fixed delay rather than a swept delay (like you get from pumping a guitar pedal). You can tell this is likely going on from the characteristic sharp notches on the frequency response of the horizontally mounted drivers with frisbees: the dome midrange and dome tweeter) I am surprised Tom Nousaine did not remark on this possible issue. He is an engineer and should have at least explained why it might not be a problem of this design. Clearly the dome drivers are visible from the side and therefore the listener must be hearing two tweeters and two midranges: one directly and one delayed by the distance between driver and the frizbee that it reflects from. The fact that some reviewers have reported being baffled that even a lone BeoLab 5 speaker makes it hard to detect the source of the sound is a dead give away that this might be happening: the spacey rock guitar sound. Since the tweeter is aimed upwards at the frizbee then this signal will be much stronger than the one radiated sideways directly from the driver to the listener, which means the notches will not be that deep (as seen on the plot). I am sorry to say but this design fails the basic acoustic physics back of the envelope test. I remain flabbergasted by the outstanding reviews - perhaps I am completely missing something? Ironic that a spacey looking speaker might also make a "spacey sound". YMMV, this is conjecture as I don't have these speakers available to me in a lab to test out what appears to be happening. Perhaps B&O have a perfectly reasonable explanation of how they deal with this design issue, in which case I would apologize for my erroneous ramblings/conjecture. |
You should also take a look at the Beolab 9. It's abou half the price and I have been told it is excellent too. I have not heard it myself though. |
One might draw that conclusion.
It is important to recognize that audiophile buyers are sheep who are insecure and driven by consensus opinion.
A dealer I know provided me with this definition of the audio hobby. "Audiophilia is predicated on dissatisfaction and populated by people who listen with their eyes rather than their ears".
In order for a manufacturer to succeed in this business, he must do much more than merely build a better mousetrap.
Back in the 80s I worked for a company called Listen Up who was a B&O dealer and, as such, required all of us sales people to attend Bang und Olufsen school in Elk Grove Village, Illinois. During the indoctrination proceedings, we were made aware of the many innovations and inventions B&O has made to the audio industry over the years. I don't remember any of it now but I recall that the list was very impressive.
Another matter to keep in mind is the fact that many audiophiles are not programmed to absorb big losses upon resale and therefore feel safer buying items that have received high praise by the higher profile audio review pubs. Those are more likely to sell quickly and retain the most value.
If you like the Beolab 5, there is no reason to be dissuaded from purchase.
Of course, if anyone asks me, I always recommend my favorite. |
Macrojack, Thanks for the links you provided. In general, the consensus of what you sent seems remarkably positive. It makes me wonder why Audiophiles dont pay more attention to these speakers. If these speakers are as good as these reviewers/listners say, it would seem that they would be wildly popular with those interested in High End. Here are some quotes from the links you sent me: David Ranada from Sound and Vision: It can play very loud, very clean, it has a very smooth tonal quality free of major colorations and resonances
B&Os BeoLab 5 is the best speaker Ive heard in some time, and it embodies extremely important technical innovations that deserve further exploitation. HomeTheaterForum.com To find that the only audio publication I have ever respected has given a B&O product such a glowing review - heck, more than a glowing review - floors me.
[He is referring to The Audio Critic which he quotes:]
the overall sound was superb, as transparent, defined, and alive as I have ever heard out of any speaker From your link I went to Peter Aczels review in The Audio Critic. Here is the link: http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=6&blogId=1Quotes from that review: the speaker that makes my dream come true in every detail, bar none. I can hardly believe it. Amazing. Speakers will never be the same again.
Bang & Olufsen really did it this time. The Danish firm whose philosophy always seemed to be cosmetics (Dansk design) first, engineering second, has leapfrogged the whole speaker industry with an engineering design so advanced and so imaginative that it leaves everyone else in the dust
The most obvious difference between the measured response of the BeoLab 5 and that of any other speaker is the complete absence of high-frequency rolloff at any angle off axis horizontally
The Adaptive Bass Control alone, once activated, produced obviously superior results. The low-frequency response was utterly smooth, effortless, powerful, without the slightest lumpiness, and extending all the way down to dcor so it seemed. Unbelievable bass. The wide horizontal dispersion of the frequencies above 500 Hz also resulted in a unique listening experienceyou can sit anywhere in the room with these speakers, as long as they are somewhere in front of you. The aiming of the midrange and tweeter has become totally uncritical. That alone is worth the price of admission. It is interesting that speakers this good and this innovative have never been reviewed in the two dominant Audiophile magazines in the USA: Stereophile and The Absolute Sound. Could that fact that B&O never advertises in those magazines have anything to do with that? |
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/speakers/480/bang-olufsen-beolab-5-speaker.html
http://www.time.com/time/2003/inventions/invspeakers.html
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/speakers-subwoofers/211355-bang-olufsen-beolab-5-best-speaker-made-today.html
http://www.synthtopia.com/news/2004_01-04/BeoLab5SpeakerARevolution.html
Above are a few pieces I Googled quickly. They provide a variety of opinions that issued from sources other than the unfamiliar David Moran.
A number of comments were offered concerning speakers which, at first blush, appear to have similar pricing, but these guys fail to recognize the important fact that amplification is included in the Beolabs. All you need is a digital input. I see no reason why you could not feed them directly with a hard drive.
Incidentally, I noticed that the price has increased from $16,000 to $18,000 over the last 4 years. B&O may have increased the price but I think it more likely reflects the result of our plummeting dollar.
Merry Christmas. |
Chris, Thanks for the tip on the Sensible Sound Review. You are right that David Moran gave it a rave review. Here are some quotes: In my view the BeoLab 5, with its exceptional horizontal radiation, is demonstrably the finest loudspeaker system designed and manufactured thus far...
To get right to the point, in every instance I heard things I had never noticed before in quite that way: inner details, lines and strands that were newly followable, everything revealed under fresh, clear lighting. I worked my way through Mozart string quartet passages, then '60s and '70s rock (and not in gussied-up new mixes, either: old Fleetwood Mac, old live Cream). From CD to CD, tonal balance seemed oddly right--neutral, accurate were the words that kept coming to mind... I don't know who David Moran is. Is he a respectable reviewer? Can I believe him? Is the Sensible Sound a reasonable publication? |
The Sensible Sound, of all magazines, highly recommended the B&O, for the sound and technology. I've never seen such an effusive review of a piece of high-end equipment in that magazine before or since. They usually love things for two grand and other. See if you can get an archived copy of the review, well worth reading.
For this amount of money, please please audition two or three different speakers in your home. You can find dealers who will do that, and maybe, if B&O isn't willing to do that, maybe they are not the ones for you.
A general comment, if you plan on keeping these for a long time, they have many moving parts, built-in amplifier, etc. In other words, more stuff to go wrong, and if it does go wrong after the company stops supporting it, what, for instance will you do to replace the internal amps?
I am not a big fan of Class D amps, not any I personally have heard, but that does not mean YOU may think they are the best thing since the cheeseburger.
I would also consider not listening to those who say they might not be "audiophile speakers".... and their point is????? If you like how they sound, and if you like how they look, and if you have tried one or two other speakers and you still like it, then at least you know you made the right decision for you.... Not trying speakers in your home with your electronics is like not bothering to test drive a car because somebody gave you a ride, close but no cigar.
\
Cheers,
Chris |
I'll second Onhwy61's recommendation. Wilson doesn't have and cannot match B&O's technological resources. The fact that one company has buddied up with the reviewing community and the other one has not makes for a higher audiophile profile but not necessarily a better product.
When I heard the Beolab 5, I was very impressed and would have bought them if I had had the money at that time.
Bear in mind that many of the comments you read on here are the AMEN CHORUS from Stereophile, etc. |
Hdomke, I've been reading and posting these forums for a number of years and I've come to the conclusion that for many audiophiles swapping equipment frequently is normal and expected behavior. They think of it in terms of "upgrading", but to a large extent I believe they just want to change something for change sake. Nothing particularly right or wrong with that. Music lovers, musicians and others just don't seem to have that constant need to change things.
B&O is nothing like Bose. A better comparison is Meridian. If it were me, I'd take the Beolab over the Wilson any day, but YMMV. |
Shadorn, the Beolab looks like it came from Forbidden Planet I agree that it looks odd, but I'm okay with that. I am pleased that they are relatively small for their capability and the fact that there may be more freedom in room placement due to the adaptive bass control and acoustic lens technology. Since you listen to music as a background thing then it may well be the correct choice. I think these speakers would be overkill for background music. I'm looking forward to becoming an Active Listener The Wilson's may not elicit automatic comments from guests but they are a more conventional tried and proven box speaker design I'm not trying to impress guests with the looks of the speakers. I live on a farm in the middle of the Missouri and I don't have many guests. But my wife and I care what the listening room (read: Living Room) looks like. The Wilson's (at least the Sophia's and the WATT Pupplies) are quite a bit bigger than the Beolab 5's and with room placement issues, I think they actually might dominate the room more. However, having auditioned the Wilson Sophia speakers last week I have to say I was deeply impressed - the best I have ever heard. When I audition the Beolab 5 speakers if they are not at least as good at the Wilson Sophia's then I won't get them. |
Hdomke,
People have their own definitions, but IMHO an audiophile is a hardware hobbyist. You needn't ever swap out gear, but if you meet the definition of "audiophile", you're always thinking about it at some level. If that's not you - Don't call yourself an audiophile! (and certainly don't feel slighted)
The Beolab looks very interesting, but for much less cah you can implement full spectrum deqx processing/digital X-over with any # of speakers featuring the dispersion pattern of your choice. The packaging will probably be less slick than the B&O and the set-up more labor intensive, but the results should meet or surpass the Beo-Lab for most (though probably not all) ears.
Good Luck,
Marty |
20+ years is a long time - so choose wisely. If you want a statement/conversation piece then the Beolab looks like it came from Forbidden Planet - no guest will miss it - it is a stunning art item as well as a speaker. Since you listen to music as a background thing then it may well be the correct choice. However it is towards the "unconventional" fringes of designs. The Wilson's may not elicit automatic comments from guests but they are a more conventional tried and proven box speaker design with plenty of models in service for many years and with many parts available. |
Onhwy61 I suspect that the typical B&O buyer enjoys music just as much as any audiophile, but unlike the audiophile they keep the same components for years without any changes. I'm interested by that comment. Are you saying that to be a bona-fide Audiophile one must change out gear rather frequently? If so, that suggests that the audio quality is not the issue, but the pleasure of changing gear and tweaking. Yes? Incidentally, you are right that I plan to buy the Beolab 5 and hold on to it for a couple decades. I guess I won't be able to call myself an Audiophile. |
Just be aware that omnidirectionals work best pulled way out into the room (6 to 8 feet from wall/window). The Wilsons will give you more placement options, IMHO.
If you place the BEO 5's too close to those glass windows then the soundstage may collapse and it will sound "claustrophobic". These type speakers are not as forgiving with regards to placement as conventional forward radiating designs. |
Every manufacturer who uses the ICE power module buys it from B&O.
Many innovations have issued from B&O over the years. An investigation into the company will uncover a rich background of audio firsts.
Several years ago, I made a pilgrimage to the B&O mall store in the Cherry Creek Shopping Center to hear the Beolab 5. I thought it was very intriguing and lived up to their hype. I can't offer any more than that because it was too long ago and because the listening environment was positively abysmal. I do remember that the dispersion was extremely broad and seemed consistent and that you could hear the correction when the salesman reset the automatic room correction calibration.
I think that anyone who isn't especially anal about audio would think that they are exquisite. I also remember that using them with analog required some kind of forfeiture of features. You'll have to do your own research on that point however as I can't think of what the deal was in retrospect.
$8000 for a used pair seems like a very worthwhile experiment provided you can feel comfortable about your seller. I think you could probably run a MacBook straight into them with a USB adaptor. |
