@daveyf --
Indeed, we listen for different things in our setups. That’s as it should be, or certainly that’s how it is. As I mentioned previously I’ve listened to the Guarneri’s at a couple occasions, and they’re very good speakers, I find - relaxed sounding, balanced, tonally "mature" and very resolved and easy on the ears.
@mijostyn wrote:
Darn, I like your philosophy. I also like your system. Please explain what you mean by, "actively configured"?
Thank you. Actively configured, as in digital crossover/DSP prior to amplification on signal level, and 3 stereo amps looking directly into their respective driver sections with no intervening passive crossovers whatsoever.
The only thing I do not like is running the 15" woofer up to 600 Hz. I assume this is because of the horn’s low frequency cut off. I would use a very high order cross.
The horns control directivity all the way down to 500Hz. For pro cinema installations they are/were crossed at 500Hz/12dB octave passively, or 24dB/octave actively, so they can to take the juice with fairly shallow slopes and the lowest recommendable XO. I cross them higher because I find they sound better here, and I use 36dB/octave L-R slopes. Using the 15" woofers this high is no issue. Meyer Sound’s EXP cinema series are crossed at 580Hz (with 15" woofers as well), and they sound excellent. JBL’s DD67000 Everest’s and M2’s are crossed at +700Hz, and they are very good sounding.
Minimizing room interaction by limiting dispersion is a very important concept. Omni Directionality is a problematic attribute as it maximizes room interaction. You "hear" the room which destroys the impression that you are in a large space. It is also much harder to achieve controlled directionality and not overdo it and limit reasonable listening positions. Horns are really good at limiting dispersion without overdoing it.
Never really cared for the sound of omni’s, and also for the reasons you outline. Yes, horns and their dispersive nature are very much helpful here and makes the room characteristics less of an issue.
You have a full frequency, limited dispersion point source system. I have a full frequency, limited dispersion line source system. I also configure everything "actively", by which I mean all crossovers and processing are done digitally and each driver or transformer has its own amplifier. I would love to be able to compare the two systems.
Indeed, it would be interesting to compare with our similarities in approach, and yet vital differences here and there. Floor to ceiling ESL’s, not least high-passed and properly subs augmented, are beastly performers.
@rolox wrote:
Live music is loud, effortless and impactful. Small speakers never really are. I can never be fooled into thinking I’m in the room with the musicians as I listen to small speakers.
To me, small systems are the equivalent of a very nice photography of an event; you will see everything on it but you’re not "there".
YMMV and we all have our preferences but I sure like a grand piano to sound like a GRAND piano!
+1
|
@mahgister wrote:
It is possible to enjoy an immersive inclusive soundstage engulfing the listener with swmall speakers ..
I know it because i enjoy it ...
@mihorn wrote:
I agree with him saying “Every speaker above 50 Hertz is a small speaker” in below video. It doesn’t have to be large speakers for a big room. My system consists 5.24” woofer 2way speakers with 8” powered sub. I am very happy.
An individual enjoying/being happy about the sound from a small speaker system is all well and important to the one feeling this way about it, but "enjoyment" here is no measure in itself when it comes to assessing the true capabilities against a larger, more physically all-out speakers system and the traits that follow here. And no, no acoustics fiddling or trickery will change that.
Different ways to skin your cat, as they say, and priorities I can deal with, but diminishing the importance of physics of speakers (i.e.: size and efficiency) and effectively saying "a small, inefficient speaker package compensated perhaps with more power will do the same (or "enough") as the larger, more efficient combo" is being delusional. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. In vital, related parameters small, low efficiency speakers won’t do the same, not by a mile or even in a relatively small listening space, and anybody who’s intricately familiar with a well implemented, large displacement and true full-range speaker system that’s wholly effortless in its entire frequency range at any desirable SPL - and it needn’t be placed in a large environment to properly come together as such (in fact I favor a moderately sized locale) - will know full well it’s an experience unique to this segment of speakers. If one can do without this kind of experience and feels no need to pursue it, perfectly fine, but what’s enough and enjoyable to some (with small speakers) only tells you about their priorities, perceptions and particular context.
Refusing to acknowledge the importance, and to begin with the very existence of parameters like uninhibited dynamics, scaling, ease, true full-range abilities, physicality of presentation and this wash of immersion one simply cannot attain from a smaller speaker package, is not seeing things for what they are and can be. I’m not trying to impose anything onto others, and each to their own and all that jazz, but let’s not fool ourselves.
|
@mihorn wrote:
I see your system and I understand why you believe that. Then I want to hear the truth. Do you have a live recording of your system online? Alex/Wavetouch
I don't, and if you want the "truth" it would hardly be the proper approach.
@mahgister --
Much of this, it appears, comes down to semantics and which meaning to ascribe to terms. It seems to you "immersion" is linked to acoustics predominantly, while to me it isn't (predominantly). When you spoke, or rather wrote about "an immersive inclusive soundstage engulfing the listener with swmall speakers," I found it "stole" into the realm of mainly horn-loaded and to some degree panel speakers of considerable physical size, speakers that to my ears have been the only real way to experience a large radiation bubble of said "wash" of immersive, and indeed visceral quality. Having posted my previous reply and after re-reading it a bit later (while then being unable to make further edits) I saw what could be interpreted into what your reply then pointed to (and apologies for any perceived insinuations here, which weren't my intention), but thought "Oh, well - I'll deal with that when the opportunity presents itself," and here we are.
I'm aware of immersiveness as it relates to headphones, but while a much more controllable means of listening to music I've never bought into their presentation, in some respects at least, as anything particularly natural and convincing to my ears. An asymmetrically placed and mono-coupled DBA sub setup kinda gives me the same-ish "bass in the head"-experience that, while it may be relatively flat in FR, just doesn't sound natural to me. Though I'd no doubt take such a bass presentation compared to any headphone ditto for sure.
@daveyf wrote:
IMO, large speakers many times equates to large problems, but I guess if all else is equal, the large can out do small....BUT it better be in a room that has been designed for what the larger speaker brings, warts and all.
Speaking for myself and my context of large speakers with large format horns, overall prodigious air radiation area, separate subs and active configuration that translates into limited (i.e.: fairly narrow), controlled dispersion and elaborate means of tweaking on the filter/DSP side of things (incl. delay), acoustics and room size isn't as much of a factor here. Conversely I could easily imagine a pair of large, direct radiating, full-range, multi-way, lower efficiency and load-heavy passively configured speakers to be a potential nightmare setting up, not only acoustically but as well with regard to amp pairing. And that's just the problem with this segment of passively configured, large speakers, as you point to yourself; as a fixed, all-in-one package you're much more dependent on the listening room being designed around them than actually being able to integrate them into an existing, variable environment. As such size isn't the real factor here as it is dispersion characteristics and the means of integration at one's disposal.
|
@mihorn wrote:
If you don’t have a live recording of your own, please let me know you think/believe/heard the best sounding large speaker in the world. Or may be the closest sounding system to your system. I’ll count it as your system. It is OK to include > $million speakers. Please list few if you can. Then we can talk about the proper approach. Alex/Wavetouch
Let’s take a previous reply of yours once again:
“Every speaker above 50 Hertz is a small speaker” in below video. It doesn’t have to be large speakers for a big room. My system consists 5.24” woofer 2way speakers with 8” powered sub. I am very happy. Alex/Wavetouch
If you truly believe the above then I can only assume you haven’t heard the difference a large, preferably high efficiency speaker setup can do. There’s no easy domestic equivalent to the system I have in my home, but some setups I’ve heard that resemble it in core areas is the actively driven Vitavox Thunderbolt system with 10-cell Vitavox mids horns (w/S3 drivers) and Mundorf AMT’s (augmented with 15" ATC subs), or JBL’s 5672 cinema system.
Are they among the best I’ve heard? In some areas, yes. The Thunderbolt bass horns, non-truncated (but of course 1/4-wave), are hitting ~40Hz, so close to your 50Hz number mentioned, and yet they’re anything but small to say the least - that’s what 105dB’s sensitivity is about per Hofmann’s Iron Law. In that light a ~5" woofer/midrange + dome tweeter(?) and 8" subs augmented, indeed any such variant, sounds small and utterly malnourished by comparison.
So, is sounding "big" a quality in itself? No, not necessarily; depending on the context you can overdo it for sure. The main takeaway here to my ears is what sounds more natural, uninhibited and live-/life like in core areas, and not least effortless, and the high eff. systems mentioned (well-implemented) - including my own - can do just that.
I’d like to stress that what I’m after/advocating is not about effect or being easily impressed here - though some of the members around here would like to believe it is - but simply what presents itself less reproduced and, again, more natural. That being said you can only do so much trying to convince others who believe the higher price tag with low eff. stuff from known hifi brands is the sole quality marker, and who finds anything big (and off-segment) in speakers to be an inconvenience or offence even (and I’m not pointing my fingers at you here). Indeed: what’s "natural" sounding to some obviously isn’t to others - if only it came down to that.
|
@mihorn wrote:
I don’t agree that the natural sound to me is unnatural to some others since we hear natural sounds (voices, winds, dog barking, car tire and engine sounds, water flowing, etc.) everywhere. Alex/Wavetouch
The problem is going from the original performance or production of sounds/music to its reproduction (i.e.: recording + home playback), the latter of which I’m referring to here; this invariably involves compromises and making prioritizations, and not everyone agrees on which aspects in reproduction (because it involves choices) that most effectively mimics naturalness, if it’s even articulated and actually sought after as a trait with a live reference.
I am curious what do you think is "the best audio sound system in the world" (you heard or believe)? Please list few. Could you let me know videos or articles? Alex/Wavetouch
The specific gear/brands is not really the point, but rather the designs, how they adhere to core physics and their overall implementation. I might send you a video or refer to a listening session that, as a standout experience, was really about a successful implementation, but upon learning of that most would likely point to the gear and make it about that mainly - that is: the brands, models and the price level. It’s about the gear also from a design point of view, but everything is only a potential that has to be more fully brought out.
I prefer active configuration via DSP, because it optimizes the amp-to-speaker interface getting rid of the passive crossover in between. I prefer physically more all-out speaker designs with high efficiency over the entire frequency range, preferably emulating a point source (or as few crossover points over the mains as possible) per channel with flat power and phase response. Loads of headroom, everything working effortlessly without strain at any SPL, less room interaction (with limited and controlled, fairly even dispersion characteristics), etc. All of this is not exclusive to a brand or some guys wanting a gazillion for their secretly sauced statement product.
I’ve mentioned design details already from systems I’ve heard that in different aspects represents some of the best you can achieve in a home environment - irrespective of price. Making it all come together with these physical means, cleverly used (i.e.: relatively restrained and sonically evaluated) acoustical measures and DSP tools is what it’s all about to me.
Some audiophiles want to convert their self-imposed or externally influenced limitations into advantages so to feel better about their situation. Maybe we all do that to some extent, but the damn fact of the matter is you can’t cheap out on physics with speakers, and size being an inconvenience to most ’philes makes it an excellent example of what is sacrificed NOT for reasons of considering the best sound, but because it’s DICTATED upon them or brought on as the BS rationale of "fitting your speakers to the listening room size-wise." End of rant.
|
@daveyf wrote:
If you don't believe in fitting your speakers to your listening room, size-wise, you clearly have never heard a speaker that is too large for said space. There are numerous examples of less experienced a'philes trying to shoe horn a too large speaker into their listening space.
I've heard my share of small, even very expensive such speakers sounding small, strained and much less than natural (to my ears) in a variety of listening spaces, more so than large speakers that were sonically hampered by being "shoehorned" into crammed listening rooms.
Which is the real, and bigger issue here, and to whom? I'd refer to my own moderately sized (i.e.: definitely not small, not very large either) listening space and physically all-out speaker setup as that which functions very well, the reasons for which I've tried to outline at more than one occasion.
To reiterate I'm generally no champion of large, multiway, low efficiency, full range-ish and passively configured speakers, because they can indeed be hell to integrate properly in most any space - for a variety of reasons - apart from not sounding right to my ears. My context of large speakers and how and why I find them to work well in a variety of spaces, you know by now, and that's my outset.
|
@mihorn wrote:
Below videos are my audio system consists 5.25" 2 way speakers. Do you hear such a strained and less natural? My room is 22’ x 14’ x 8’. Alex/Wavetouch
Compared to what? It doesn’t really take much of a SPL to begin feeling the effort of reproduction via low efficiency, smaller speakers (and subs) when what you’re used to is something different altogether and physically much more capable. Experience, and perspective.
@daveyf wrote:
... all speakers with a 5.25" bass driver cannot really push huge amounts of air. As such, when a bass wave that would drop down into the 20Hz range is needed to be played back, well it is MIA. The listener will not feel anything like the punch or air that a much larger driver in a much larger speaker can deliver.
+1
IME, in a small room, the subwoofer is just as crucial. In fact more than one subwoofer is crucial. Now, that subwoofer has to be tailored to the room size and type of main speaker, so again phusis’ point about not caring about tailoring your speaker size to your room, is IMO totally incorrect.
What is incorrect here is your assumption of my not caring about the speaker-room interaction. I’m saying parameters like limited/narrow, controlled and even dispersion characteristics, means of integration from active config. + DSP and separate subs makes the room and acoustics potentially less of a factor, or certainly one that can more easily be worked around. Summation of the driver segments at the LP is paramount, and depending on the design this can be achieved with large displacement speakers as well - even without requiring long-ish listening distances.
Bass capacity, practically speaking, can hardly be overdone; it’s the integration and overall balance of the presentation that matters - and, as they say, headroom is your friend. Few seem to realize that more cone/effective air radiation area in the bass and subs region doesn’t come with the requirement of it to be dialed more hot (although it can be, without tipping the balance, being it’s typically a cleaner bass at a given SPL). Instead, more capacity equates into more headroom and thereby provides for a cleaner, less distorted bass, although deeper bass with proper volume and energy is more likely to excite room modes and therefore requires more with regard to integration - be that with subs placement, more sources of theirs or and/or digital room correction and acoustical means.
|
@mijostyn wrote:
Watched the movie Oppenheimer last night. Highly recommended.
Received the 3-disc 4K UHD last week on release day, and it's an excellent movie indeed while also sporting fantastic technical merits - both aurally and visually.
@lemonhaze wrote:
I firmly believe if more people heard speakers of this ilk with their effortless dynamics and convincing realism some would find a way to incorporate them into a domestic setting.
I'm not so sure about that. Many if not most audiophiles have been "conditioned" to a segment of speakers that are - by and large - direct radiating, inefficient and relatively small. Suddenly being confronted with very large, probably industrial and form-follows-function looking behemoths of horns/horn hybrid variants will likely go sideways of the known narrative to many an audiophile, and by the mere looks and anticipation of it will spell sonic calamity to them. "effortless dynamics and convincing realism" stands the chance of being regarded as a character, something exaggerated or just another flavor, not traits.
@mihorn wrote:
One of serious limitation for big horn speakers (compression driver) is the dirty and rough sound. Only thing it does well is hard hitting sound such as a drum. I don't want to listen C Rock all the time.
A ridiculous, ignorant statement. If anything it's all the more clear where you're coming from..
|
@daveyf wrote/quoted:
I thought you did not care about speaker-room interaction because upstream you posted this:"brought on as the BS rationale of "fitting your speakers to the listening room size-wise."
You're missing an important piece of information, because as I stressed at the end of above quote: "size-wise." Your (and many others') presumption of fitting speakers to a given listening space is based on a size matching criteria (that is: small speakers to small rooms, (not least) large speakers to large rooms, and everything in between), a strict adherence I don't buy into, whereas I care about fitting bulky speakers of high efficiency into a given listening space that isn't necessarily a large one (fitting smaller speakers into larger listening spaces is usually problematic, unless sitting relatively nearfield and having the mains subs augmented and preferable high-passed). So, I DO care about speaker-room interaction, just not the way you'd like for it to pan out.
While my position, at not least my context of it isn't representative with regard to speaker segment and configuration, I will state categorically that a large speaker system CAN work extremely well in a moderately sized listening room, and that a larger ditto isn't mandatory for the same to come true. In fact larger listening rooms can bring about new challenges with added room interaction, as you've no doubt experienced re: your OP, that - unless taken very well care of - can make matters worse.
|
@mijostyn wrote:
Small speakers only sound small because of no low bass and visual considerations.
I have set up, lord knows, maybe 10 LS3 5A systems with two subwoofers crossed at 100 Hz. I always put the speakers up on stands in positions people would normally use for towers. Close your eyes and they sound as big as any Wilson or Magico.
Our vision and eyes are intimately connected. Our eyes and ears have to agree on our position in space or you get vertigo and sea sick. Our brains are also very suggestible. You tend to hear what you see which is why I always close my eyes when evaluating a system.
The LS3 5A's are lovely speakers in their own right, but they're also hideously inefficient and will have to be used within their confinements. High-passing them of course will help adding more headroom.
With regard to perceived sonic size, yes, a pair of subs will also help. As such (not least high-passed @100Hz) they could really be regarded as 3-way speakers with a 4 1/2" midrange/upper bass driver.
I'll still maintain though that as a standalone speaker the LS3 5A's aren't big sounding in my book (eyes closed and all), even disregarding my own speaker context at the opposite end of the size scale.
|
@mihorn wrote:
I will compare to any audio system in the world. Please you show me any audio system’s live recording video sounds better than mine. Alex/Wavetouch audio
So, you're the sole judge of that - based on a video?
|
@daveyf wrote:
The point you seem to be making is that a big speaker can be made to work well in a small space.
It seems repeating myself is necessary to bring some clarity. Once again, I wrote:
... a large speaker system CAN work extremely well in a moderately sized listening room
You wrote:
I would not dispute this, but what it also means is that the big speaker is probably not working to its fullest in said space due to size limitations.
In a small listening space, no - likely not.
What you say about a small speaker in a large space is not always true either. IME, a small speaker can be made to work well in a large space, but the job is also not easy.
And as I wrote previously:
fitting smaller speakers into larger listening spaces is usually problematic, unless sitting relatively nearfield and having the mains subs augmented and preferable high-passed
Maybe we just disagree on the reasons why or how smaller speaker can be made to work well in larger listening spaces.
@mijostyn wrote:
I live with 8 foot tall electrostatics and you would be surprised. With enough power (200 watts/ch) and crossed out at 100 Hx 48 dB/oct the little suckers (LS3 5As) will punch it out louder than anybody needs.
With 200W/ch you’d be hard pressed to reach 100dB peaks at the LP with those "little suckers," and that’s unloading all the available power into them with thermal compression at full display, voice coil lacquer smelling and headroom MIA. Sorry, no - you’re not speaking for everybody here. Granted, 100dB’s is loud, but I’m talking peaks, effortlessly, and 100dB’s can be easily reached during crescendos of classical music if an approximation of realistic playback levels is attempted.
It’s about how those peaks are reproduced, not that they’re merely (i.e.: just barely) reached. 90 dB peaks, another matter, and that’s still fairly loud, but then you wouldn’t speak for the needs of everybody either.
Look, people: you can’t have your cake and eat it too with small, low efficiency speakers - there’s no bending the rules of physics here. That’s not saying small speakers can’t be a great addition to a setup, and large speakers can have their own limitations as well. Whatever floats your boat.
|
@mijostyn wrote:
200 Watts will get you 106 dB with an 83 dB efficient speaker, more than enough to handle peaks from a comfortably loud 95 dB.
We'll have to remember that's a best case, theoretical estimate - at 1 meter, mind you - that doesn't account for the unavoidable thermal compression (subtract several dB's here at full tilt). Run full-range these speakers come with a 30-80 watt amp recommendation, so pouring 200 watts into them will have those small voice coils + filter components, even high-passing the woofer/mids, becoming hotter than damnation itself with prolonged treatment of this kind.
I know, that's a at-the-end-of-their-ropes scenario one would normally avoid with such speakers, and for the more typical listening sessions they'll do fine - certainly high-passed. I've only heard them full-range at a fairly close distance, and with regard to tonality, voice authenticity and soundstaging at moderate SPL's they're very good. As I wrote earlier, and what you indicated as well: within their confinements...
@lemonhaze wrote:
@phusis, your horns look impressive and I'm sure sound the same. This format is rare to see these days and probably intentionally overlooked because of their appearance and also because no retailer would be prepared to stock non-sellers. Pity.
Thank you. And yes, the look of the EV's (and subs) is likely off-putting for many of the audiophile inclined, seeing these are intended to be placed (and hidden) behind perforated cinema screens; that's raw functionalism out in the open originally intended to fill large theater spaces with sound at prodigious SPL's. It's pro segment, so there's no exposition in anything hifi-related. I was lucky to be around when they (and other EV siblings) became available from a cinema in Germany following Atmos upgrades that came as whole-package deals, and thus replaced all of the existing speakers.
I've heard and helped with 2 systems, an Edgar Horn and an Altec VOTT and decided then that one day I would build something similar and to this end was interested in Tom Danley's design but has not happened yet.
Never heard the Edgar Horns. Did they come with the Seismic(?) subs as well? My Tapped Horn subs are actually a Danley patent (DIY'ers are allowed to make their own iterations). Which of the Danley's designs do you consider - the Synergy horns? They're on my "to-do" list sometime in the future..
|
@mijostyn wrote:
There seems to be a genital competition here. It has been my experience that most persons, lacking exposure, really have no idea. They like Hollandaise sauce but have never had real homemade Hollandaise. The trick is to leave the butter out overnight. The only horns most people have ever heard were something like Altec Voice of the Theaters which, to be polite, were the aural equivalent of chewing on cardboard.
I believe in this case we have to acknowledge that quite a few horn-loaded speakers, even at more moderate price levels, avoid sounding "dirty and rough" per se (not to say they sound their best). It’s simply missing the target making such a general statement (i.e.: the "dirty and rough" remark), and pointing that out - from my chair - doesn’t equate into a swinging d*ck mentality.
The best horn systems are expensive and very large, difficult to deal with. They are not common so most have ZERO experience. You have also made that leap to digital signal processing which has developed its own peculiar mythology based on poor conceptualization.
The thing with horns and for them to work their best is large size, design and implementation, and usually that’s not all of which the domestic varieties will accommodate easily. Myself I’d much rather have big pro segment horns than smaller, expensive "hifi" dittos; what the latter seeks to achieve with "cultivation," fancy finishing and higher prices, typically passively, is hampered by a physically compromised outset that can’t be compensated for, while failing to take advantage of a DSP approach actively - what you touch upon yourself.
Speakers and rooms not being perfect, it is the only path to the highest performance unless you are extremely lucky. I have seen this once in my lifetime, the system of a high school teacher. This was in 1978 or so. The speakers were Pyramid Metronomes with Threshold Electronics thrown haphazardly into the livingroom of a small apartment in Miami Florida. This was the very first time I heard a system image correctly. What a wonderful system.
Indeed, few really nails it.
|
@daveyf --
When you describe the sound of the mega $$ system you’re referring to as "somewhat larger than life," then what do you gather is your predominant reference here - live acoustic sound, or mainly the sound presented by your own setup? In your last paragraph, you wrote:
I listen in a very small room, and by necessity in the near field, yet I think the overall intimacy of this type of listening experience is better for me ...
I believe it would be fair to say that if what you’re being treated with sonically on a daily(?) basis is from a near field listening-based set-up with small 2-way "mini monitors" as seen on your systems page (and a great setup it appears to be - I know those Sonus Faber’s quite well, and they sound exquisite), then judging whether what’s heard from a much bigger system/room is actually larger than life-sounding may be somewhat hampered or "colored" as a credible observation. The question remains whether a larger set-up by necessity does hold the potential to give a more accurate representation of a live event, but in my experience that’s a definite ’yes.’
To say the the overall sound was BIG would be accurate, but also I noticed something else, that I typically hear with big speaker systems. Generally, the speakers were right on edge of overloading the room, depending on music, the dreaded bass boom could be heard. But, the whole presentation was greater in impact than most any smaller speaker system, yet it was almost unlistenable for the long term.
This to me sounds like an acoustically related issue and a listening space being "saturated" at higher SPL’s (and room modes excited at low frequencies), and it points to the need to properly accommodate a setup capable of higher SPL’s + prodigious LF-output within a given acoustical context. Large direct radiating speakers of low efficiency and more wide and uneven dispersion (if such is the case here) in my experience are typically more challenging in this regard compared to a higher eff. segment of speakers.
The question I asked myself, is do we really want this type of presentation in our home audio systems?
If you’re referring to your specific experience then it sounds like a flawed outset that isn’t representative of what a larger system is truly capable of in a home environment. There’s also taste and what one is habitually exposed to. What I have myself (though in a more moderately sized listening space) is definitely the type of presentation I’m after, and that setup could fill cinema auditoriums with sound effortlessly.
... I also thought that this type of speaker is akin to the large box dynamic speakers of yesteryear. For example, a set of large horns from Altec Lansing or similar was reminiscent of this sound. Makes me believe that if one has a big room, a similar sound can be obtained from most any large speaker system and at a fraction of the price.
Absolutely - or in varying ways at least. That is, price isn't as much a factor here than overall implementation and the segment, principle and configuration of the speakers used.
|
@daveyf wrote:
My point though with regards to very large speakers like these is that even with a large enough room, and room treatments, I think the overall sound will be unlike what hears in a ‘live’ setting, due to the seeming inability of speakers like these to sound intimate enough, when called for.
What is it about a local context of a large system + listening space that makes you deduce the observations made here translates into a general characteristic of other, similarly-ish sized systems - the astronomical price of +$1M? - does that make it a representative for all larger sized speaker setups? If anything it goes to show price in itself doesn’t tell you much about the potential at hand (as you have indicated yourself), also not knowing about the hardware specifics, nor the overall implementation acoustically or otherwise.
Why the secrecy - what’s so important to keep the lid on exposing the speakers at play here? It’s just your opinion - calling out über-expensive speakers + gear for sounding less than ideal shouldn’t be a more precarious matter than saying the same of less expensive speakers. I take it there’ll be no red dot placed on your forehead for spilling the beans, as they say.
Personally, I cannot see paying anything like the ask for a speaker like this. They truly reminded me of the first time I listened to Altec VOTT’s and when I subsequently heard Quad ‘57’s years later. IMO, two different types of performance…and I much preferred the Quads.
You mentioned earlier that a live event is indeed your reference about the statements made on the size of the presentation, and yet to my mind it’s not wholly compatible with your home speaker choice in a small listening space (as well as the Quad’s mentioned above) that I’d say your preference and habitual, sonic exposure is indicative of something other than what emulates of large (or even more intimate), live acoustic space with full dynamic range and frequency extension into the lower octaves.
The question, and I believe this is where I was going with my OP, is such a large and ambitious speaker with the ability to easily override a room really what we want in our listening room? To that, is it possible that even with room treatment ( and a very large room) that a speaker can still sound too large? I believe the speakers in question ( which admittedly I have only heard this one time) could possibly have a design flaw that actually appeals to some, and not others (like myself).
Larger, more SPL savvy and true full-range speakers, as is also pointed to in other posts above, can more easily trigger and challenge an acoustic space into saturation and nasty room modes, but it needn’t be the case depending on how one goes about the implementation and the choice of speakers + their configuration.
What’s more the general notion of the need of fitting large speaker systems in comparatively large listening rooms is blown out of proportion, as I see it, but let those quarrel about that who have neither the inclination nor can find the spousal approval or monetary means (i.e.: because they favor speaker brands, models and segment that already in their mini monitor iterations are insanely expensive) to realize such a project.
@ghdprentice wrote:
I am not sure how many of these large speaker systems / electronics are really trying to sound like the real thing.
True, and an important observation, but the physicality of a larger speaker setup more readily holds the potential to emulate a live setting, certainly in the parameters of dynamics, ease, scale and full-range capabilities.
|
@daveyf wrote:
While the speakers I had the pleasure of hearing definitely seemed to not portray what I felt were the same level of specific detail and intimacy that other smaller systems I have heard can; I do agree that a generalization cannot be made. I do not believe I was trying to say that ALL large speakers fall down in this way, although most that i have heard certainly do.
As you've indicated already this may be down to a near field listening preference with smaller, 2-way speakers vs. a far field, or certainly further away presentation from larger, likely multi-way dittos - with all that involves in regards to added room interaction, more complex speaker topology, added LF energy, heavier amp load, etc.
My own setup context with high efficiency, actively configured and large main speakers + subs aren't representative of a larger scale, home segment for sure; the mains sport 2x15" woofers and a large format horn + compression driver per channel, so a 2-way system with a fairly narrow, controlled and uniform dispersion pattern over a single crossover point placed between 600 and 650Hz, and a sound that sums smoothly and coherently at ~11ft. listening distance. Add a pair of horn-based subs and everything dialed in actively as a single speaker system per channel. There's no lack of presence or intimacy at the LP, I can tell you that, nor the lack of a vast sense of scale when called for.
What would be point of disclosing the speaker in question, besides to feed your curiosity? It is a model that has- and is receiving the highest in hype and praise (as it should for its asking price!) To many on this forum, I suspect they would consider it to be SOTA, which just goes to show the variety in tastes.
Knowing which speakers you're referring may give me/us a better idea of what we're dealing with - certainly I'm simply trying to hone in more precisely on your specific listening context.
As to what I hear live, I am an ex-pro studio musician, so i have had some exposure to the ’live’ unamplified sound... mostly fairly close up, although also many times in large halls. This is where I come from as a 'frame of reference'. What is your 'frame of reference'?
Maybe this is at least part of an explanation for your near field preference in music reproduction. My own frame of reference is hardly only one, but it can be seated among an audience, typically between row 7 to 10 and listening to what you people are playing for us in a live symphony orchestra. I'm also inspired by cinema sound, with a preference in particular for Meyer Sound EXP-fitted auditoriums, as well as aspects of IMAX sound. There's also another, "unto itself" element of what forms my preference that's more of a synthesized, unknown ingredient; something that more overtly just makes me feel the sound is "right" or intriguing. I'm not trying to be elusive here, but rather that I can't, in earnest, but sure of what that's really about. Do you know of that exhaustively with regard to yourself, and what forms your preference in sound reproduction?
|
