You tell me Audiotroy and Inna. I agree with prof that Blue Jean cables are musically adequate (not for me). They outperform many HEA cables costing $5K, $10, $15/m However, that's because of the defects in those cables; in particular, I dislike High Fidelity cables with their huge magnets in-line with the signal. However, Monster 300 original ICs are just as cheap and besides rolled off at the frequency extremes, quite musical. My friend built phono cables 20+ years ago using fine shielded silver conductors with similar to Blue Jean cables, extremely low capacitance. The result is an excellent phono cable still used by another friend who can't afford my upscale phono cables from the same manufacturer. I paid $375/m for my phono cables, which is exorbitant to some of you posters, but for the labor involved (see GroverHuffman.com), a real bargain. I've got a $16K analog front end (table/arm/cartridge/isolation), so spending $375 to complement the sound was a wise choice.
I had another friend purchase Blue Jean cables for long speaker and IC runs (20' and 25') because he wanted to build an inexpensive music system. He bought a Yamaha CR620, Dynaco 35s, Project table, Pioneer DV-05 DVD/CD player and has a decent sounding system. Not high end. But could it be lower mid-fi for under $1K ? |
I vote for Legacy Focus (originals or 20/20) for the best bang for the buck with the "warm" sound of analog music using Kevlar mid-ranges. Cheaper, more efficient and easier to drive (current hungry though) than so many new speakers. Deep bass, wide soundstage. What's not to like from a guy who had Acoustat X, 2&2s and Martin Logan Monolith IIIs for over 20 years prior. |
I used to think that tone controls were necessary decades ago. With the ability to hear music at both high and low levels, I don’t have a problem with hearing frequency extremes and mids. My 78s have limited bandwith and I only need e.q. for their differing recording e.q. (especially acoustic horn recordings). As to modern recordings, I leave it up to the mastering engineer to determine the sound. Overall, the sound is usually more than adequate. I’ve noticed on some other audio systems that (low cost generally), they are unable to consistently sound adequate with differing recordings (some sound great, others sound bad or unlistenable) as well as an inability to sound good at low or loud volumes. These are not good audio systems. |
Since I’ve installed 32 Synergistic Research HFTs, my slap echo and other room acoustic anomalies have abated. Each HFT appears to broaden the reflection soundwaves, probably increasing the reflection times. They certainly don’t shorten the soundwave reflection times.
In the typical concert hall, seats closest to the rear wall don’t usually sound good because of the hard rear wall surfaces with quick reflection times and in the front rows there is little reflection, nearly all direct sound.
As a music reviewer for the UCLA Daily Bruin back 45 years ago in Royce Hall, I swapped my front row ticket for rows 10 through 20 to get the best sound for a combination of direct and long reflective sound. So many people wanted the front row seats there despite the inferior sound. It was probably a visual preference for them. |
I was so lucky to have heard Ashkenasy, Arrau,
Bachauer, Ciccolini, Kubelik/Bavarian Orch and so many other great classical musicians in ideal conditions from where I sat. Royce Hall was renovated maybe 15 or 20 years ago and the balcony has good sound now and more consistent sound except in the front 3 rows. |
I guess all the posters think that my Kevlar 7" pair of mid-range drivers produce poor mid-range sound and don't integrate with my dome tweeter and ribbon super-tweeter. However, somehow Legacy has managed to make a superlative sounding speaker, using cheap drivers like these and a trio of cheap 12" paper cone woofers. No one who has heard my main system will argue with the results. The Legacy Focus is a great speaker, with cheap drivers in a vibrating/heavy cabinet.
Harbeth's sound great too and they use thin wall construction with drivers that shouldn't integrate either. Go figure. |
That is part of my problem with Magico and Wilson. They play sound okay but not music. That's with about 15 or more auditions of each of those two brands. Never heard a Harbeth I didn't like. I own Legacy Focus and Signature IIIs (originals). I like vonSchweikerts and Lumenwhites a lot. They have timbre and rhythm correct with adequate dynamics to make the sound lifelike to the recording. The Harbeth has some contraints in the frequency extremes and dynamics but is otherwise a very musical sounding speaker. I came up from owning large electrostats for over 20 years (Acoustat X, Acoustat 2&2 and ML Monolith IIIs). While I liked what they did right, my wife did not like what they didn't do-tight deep punchy bass and dynamics. Also, the speakers I like tend to be easy to drive, unlike the Magico and Wilsons. |
I admit that I have enjoyed some recordings on Wilson speakers, but generally the smaller speakers sounded better. I've heard big Wilson's from the start decades ago (abysmal) which sounded like 5 boxes of sound, incoherent music. The Sabrina, Alexa were the most recent ones I heard and they sounded good with massive tube power amps (VTLs). I prefer more efficient speakers.
As to Magico, that's where I've heard truly bad sounds. Their Q1 playing Scheherazade sounded about the size of a boombox (not much bigger). I heard the S5 make a guitar sound like a ukelele. I've heard the Q5 sound dark and minimally dynamic with Jadis gear. Otherwise, the better Magico systems I've heard were meh, not musically interesting.
The worst was bringing my wife to her first audio show. She walked out of every Magico system saying that they're uninteresting. She loved the Ultra 11 vonSchweikert. We both loved the Lumenwhite, the Stein audio, Volti and Marten speaker systems. She liked the Harbeth 40.2 a lot. So, these speakers were especially good at presenting a musical/warm sounding tone.
Some people love Magicos and Wilsons. I've never heard the Magicos sound tonally interesting. Smaller Wilsons, better. |
I know. I've held off in buying $50-60K efficient speakers because I'm getting so much great sound/music from my Legacy Focus speakers using older high end equipment and recently acquired tweaks, When I upgrade, it will cost a lot to exceed my current sound. Buy used older Legacy's for great timbre plus their other attributes for a bargain that beginning audiophiles can afford. |
Although my wife liked all the Harbeths she heard, I can appreciate their sound but would not own them. My old Legacy Focus have superior dynamic range, bass, highs coupled with a more neutral sound. The vonSchweikert and Lumenwhite speakers are even more neutral. The Magico speakers (I haven't heard the A3) are extremely neutral but that is not the problem when I've heard them which I mentioned previously.
As for the WIlson's, the smaller ones sounded very nice and the newer models are their best sounding. Older Wilson's=worse sound, especially their Max speakers of 20 to 30 years ago.
The other point I made was that I prefer efficient rather than inefficient speakers. jones4music points out that the Magicos and Wilsons sound best with huge monoblocks. That's not what I want to use to drive speakers. I have 125w. tube monoblocks. I've heard Wilsons with huge VTL and Magicos with huge Solution monoblocks. So what? I still didn't like the sound. Yes, maybe they are too neutral for me. The sound did not move me as much as a cheaper 40.2 Harbeth with it's highly colored and less resolving sound (I prefer the Volti horn speakers to Harbeths for nearly half the price).
I'm glad you enjoy the Magico and Wilson speakers. They don't meet my requirements.
|
My original Legacy Focus speakers use cheap paper woofers (3 per speaker) and kevlar mid-ranges (2 per speaker). Legacy upgraded the cones and doubled the magnets in these speakers as Focus HD and SE. Neither of the two newer speakers sound as musical as my old fashion, cheap cone material speakers. How much better would my Focus speakers sound with Harbeth cone drivers? Apparently, a lot better. But to date, my Focus speakers are overall more enjoyable than Harbeth 40.2s I've heard four or five times (sounding very nice too). |
My wife insisted on removing the large electrostats from my systems and replace them with speakers with bass and dynamics. For me, I required a speaker that sounded good off-axis, basically good along a 10 foot wide sofa, 13’ from the center between the speakers.
Some have commented on how wonderful the inexpensive Tekton speakers are. They maybe but they are reportedly aimed for on-axis performance, like giant headphones. These would not meet my 10 foot wide good sound criteria. Neither do original Quad speakers to those who have heard them.
I also desired a speaker which is easy to drive but can handle moderately high power as well (play quietly and loudly). Once one increases the demands on the speaker measured facilities (bass, dynamics, efficiency, wide seating area), then one has to select other criteria which makes it musical such as timbre, imaging, coherence, slam, PRAT, low-level detail. So, I have limited myself as far as speaker choices which is a good thing because there are so many fine speakers made today to choose from. |
prof I have a pair of Legacy Focus (originals) in the main listening room and a pair of their Signature IIIs in the living room.
I have managed to achieve a wide sweet spot only recently. I aim my speakers so that I can just see the inside sides from the center seat 13 feet away. Then I use two pair of Shakti Hallographs and 32 SR HFTs mostly on the walls (none on the face of the speakers though-doesn't work for me). My room is larger at 25' X 23'. I couldn't imagine the speakers at a 45/45 angle towards me.
The sound within four feet to the left and right of center now does not have a pronounced sound from the closest speaker on that side. I find that a very happy situation as just two years ago, there was a severe drop off of sound from the further speaker toward the 5' edges away from the center spot.
I've heard several Audio Physic speakers and that's something they're great at, disappearing from the room and creating a wide listening area. Many small monitors can do that too but are destined for smaller rooms. My former 5 pairs of high end (at the time) electrostats were not good for wide listening areas. They beamed the sound towards the center spot (heard the same from Sanders speakers-really narrow listening area).
Among the best disappearing speakers are omnidirectional speakers. Recently, I auditioned the Carver Amazing speakers which excelled in the mids and highs sending sound evenly throughout the large room (as well as incredible stable imaging). |
prof I have a pair of Legacy Focus (originals) in the main listening room and a pair of their Signature IIIs in the living room.
I have managed to achieve a wide sweet spot only recently. I aim my speakers so that I can just see the inside sides from the center seat 13 feet away. Then I use two pair of Shakti Hallographs and 32 SR HFTs mostly on the walls (none on the face of the speakers though-doesn't work for me). My room is larger at 25' X 23'. I couldn't imagine the speakers at a 45/45 angle towards me.
The sound within four feet to the left and right of center now does not have a pronounced sound from the closest speaker on that side. I find that a very happy situation as just two years ago, there was a severe drop off of sound from the further speaker toward the 5' edges away from the center spot.
I've heard several Audio Physic speakers and that's something they're great at, disappearing from the room and creating a wide listening area. Many small monitors can do that too but are destined for smaller rooms. My former 5 pairs of high end (at the time) electrostats were not good for wide listening areas. They beamed the sound towards the center spot (heard the same from Sanders speakers-really narrow listening area).
Among the best disappearing speakers are omnidirectional speakers. Recently, I auditioned the Carver Amazing speakers which excelled in the mids and highs sending sound evenly throughout the large room (as well as incredible stable imaging). |
prof I have a pair of Legacy Focus (originals) in the main listening room and a pair of their Signature IIIs in the living room.
I have managed to achieve a wide sweet spot only recently. I aim my speakers so that I can just see the inside sides from the center seat 13 feet away. Then I use two pair of Shakti Hallographs and 32 SR HFTs mostly on the walls (none on the face of the speakers though-doesn't work for me). My room is larger at 25' X 23'. I couldn't imagine the speakers at a 45/45 angle towards me.
The sound within four feet to the left and right of center now does not have a pronounced sound from the closest speaker on that side. I find that a very happy situation as just two years ago, there was a severe drop off of sound from the further speaker toward the 5' edges away from the center spot.
I've heard several Audio Physic speakers and that's something they're great at, disappearing from the room and creating a wide listening area. Many small monitors can do that too but are destined for smaller rooms. My former 5 pairs of high end (at the time) electrostats were not good for wide listening areas. They beamed the sound towards the center spot (heard the same from Sanders speakers-really narrow listening area).
Among the best disappearing speakers are omnidirectional speakers. Recently, I auditioned the Carver Amazing speakers which excelled in the mids and highs sending sound evenly throughout the large room (as well as incredible stable imaging). |
prof I have a pair of Legacy Focus (originals) in the main listening room and a pair of their Signature IIIs in the living room.
I have managed to achieve a wide sweet spot only recently. I aim my speakers so that I can just see the inside sides from the center seat 13 feet away. Then I use two pair of Shakti Hallographs and 32 SR HFTs mostly on the walls (none on the face of the speakers though-doesn't work for me). My room is larger at 25' X 23'. I couldn't imagine the speakers at a 45/45 angle towards me.
The sound within four feet to the left and right of center now does not have a pronounced sound from the closest speaker on that side. I find that a very happy situation as just two years ago, there was a severe drop off of sound from the further speaker toward the 5' edges away from the center spot.
I've heard several Audio Physic speakers and that's something they're great at, disappearing from the room and creating a wide listening area. Many small monitors can do that too but are destined for smaller rooms. My former 5 pairs of high end (at the time) electrostats were not good for wide listening areas. They beamed the sound towards the center spot (heard the same from Sanders speakers-really narrow listening area).
Among the best disappearing speakers are omnidirectional speakers. Recently, I auditioned the Carver Amazing speakers which excelled in the mids and highs sending sound evenly throughout the large room (as well as incredible stable imaging). |
I agree with helomech. Paper & pulp cones may breakup smoothly relative to rigid/metal cones. I didn't know that paper & pulp cones had a limited bandwith. Many full range and coincident cone speakers use paper & pulp cones. |
While I currently have a dedicated listening room 25X20X12.5 built 25 years ago, I built it wrong with a vaulted ceiling, windows, staggered 6" studs on an 8" plate and dual 5/8" X drywall. Yes, my wife can sleep through 100db sound at night but the inside sound suffered. My Legacy Focus speakers are 6’+ from any wall and I use 2 pairs of Hallographs for 15+ years and added 32 SR HFTs to correct for slap echo and lack of focus. No bass problem though. Before the tweaks, my listening room sounded bright and unfocused. Now, resplendent with horn-like dynamics and smooth 35hz to ? extended highs, captivating mid-range. It didn't hurt to add Omega E-Mats.
I am about to build in my new house, a new listening room but following the principles of first addressing bass absorption where the fundamental notes and mid/high overtones begin (and I’ll save a lot of money).
I intend to follow Dennis at Acoustic Fields recommendation of a dual shell building, ordinary on the outside but with carbon filter panels on a 12" deep interior shell, using birch plywood on the inside surface. Flat 12’ ceiling also treated. This is based on modern sound principals and not my guessing. A turnkey procedure to obtain even better sound than I have now from the start. Basically, the Cardas Golden Rule is not golden and non-parallel walls are so much more difficult to engineer probably using physics. Most audiophiles mistake using home theater, studio and orchestral hall physics and dimensions for use in dedicated 2 channel listening rooms. I don’t want to make that mistake.
|
My Legacy Signature IIIs are 4 ohm and 94db efficiency but only dip a little lower. They are very easy to drive. I bought them when I brought along a Sherwood 7100 18 watt receiver. Fantastic bass and dynamic as well. I've driven them with Yamaha CR 620 35 watt receivers as well. Tom Port of Better Records drives his Legacy Focus with the same Yamaha despite their 4 ohm impedance, 1 ohm lower bass impedance than the Signature IIIs but 96 db efficiency.
I've noted whenever I see difficult to drive speakers like Magico, Wilson and B&W, that the bigger the better solid state amplification is needed. I'll stick with high efficiency speakers despite lower impedances (which just means that they are often current hungry). My favorite speakers generally have lower impedence, higher efficiency and easy to drive with smaller tube and solid state amps. |
