This music is not my taste at all ... 😊
The two system are good at most ... Not top sorry ...
The timbre perception is not optimal in the two case...Milhorn lack bass impact and probably highs refinement ...Toddalin lack mids density ...
Why my criticism of the two ?
The room controls matter the more and is lacking in the two case it seems and because we cannot hear anyway the speakers/room relation from the internet ... How is the soundstage? the listener envelopment and immersiveness ? and to really judge the timbre and immersiveness and the spatial aspects of sound we need something else than this commercial tune , as a chord quartet or a big band jazz etc ...
I apologize for my rudeness or frankness ...
Toddalin system
Original music
|
@ phusis
All quite correct. However, nobody in their right mind would run them that way. It would damage your ears. The real immediate limiting factor is the woofer. Run full range the woofer will start doubling when pushed too hard which is very annoying. High passing solves this issue completely. Next is the tweeter and I really do not know how much it can take. All I can say is I have never seen one blow.
Watched the movie Oppenheimer last night. Highly recommended.
|
Toddalin system
Original music
Alex / Wavetouch
Please compare to the original music (center). I will respect members’ opinion. Please post your opinion. I’ll post my feedback tomorrow. Thank you for participation! Alex/WT
|
@mihorn:
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
OK, I've heard your videos and I’ll play. I cobbled these together with used professional JBL PA parts (2241H, 2251J) and Heil AMTs that I modified. The crossovers are of my design and use Audyn Q4 caps, heavy air core chokes, and Dale 1% resistors. Total cost was under $1,500. I’ve done some work on them since the video was made.
Source is an Oppo95 through a Yamaha RX-Z9 Receiver in "Pure Direct" mode. Recoding was performed with a Nikon D750 SLR placed in the sweet spot. There is no eq or room correction, either electronic or physical being used.
Unfortunately, you can’t hear the soundstage and imaging which is stellar outshining anything I or others have ever heard.
If you like Steely Dan, select something with a bit more variety of instrumentation and we’ll do a new video.
So who decides and what do I win?
|
@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..
|
@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. 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.
Regarding the BBC LS3/5A monitor, it is, IMO, overpriced and over hyped. The original used a Kef B110 mid/bass with a, by today's standard, rough peaky response which required some clever application of notch filters to tame the rising impedance and poor out of band irregularities. This then needed an XO with many components which will even with the best parts suffer. Today with improved technology drivers can be found with smooth roll off extending for a few octaves beyond the chosen knee, vastly simplifying XO design and requiring fewer components resulting in a more natural and for want of a better description, an easier and more rewarding listen. To me the little squeaker, I mean speaker, sounds dynamically constipated. Apologies to all you LS3/5A junkies.
It is amazing how something like the above speaker takes on a position and reputation far beyond its merit, simply because it is so often praised even by folks who have never heard them. Crazy. There are kit speakers available for 1/3 the cost that outperform them.
|
An acoustic revolution of biblical proportion is in the making , you are right on this one ... But we dont need a revolution in field theory for that perhaps the incoming A.I. will help for sure but we must wait for this A.I. help for a couple of years for now .. ...😊
Dr.Choueiri is the real deal for now and he works is in acoustics...I dont think that his plasma physics doctorate was needed for his BACCH filters revolution ( acoustics is his hobby) ...
I still do not understand why my system does everything that it does.
"Like the incredible imaging and coherence even, (Behind) me".
I trust you on this too ...
You know why ? 😁
Because with my system in my first dedicated room , among other things , tuned with 100 mechanically adjusted Helmholtz resonators the imaging and the soundstage was encompassing the listener position , and for some recording , because it is recording dependant for sure , the sound was coming behind me too and filled the room ... it is called acoustical control of the room , mechanical control and with some DSP tool it can help , but i was using none in my case ...😁
The money value of my system was low : Sansui amplifier, Mission speakers Cyrus, french battery dac SPS...Nothing miraculous with the gear but nothing too bad either ...
Myself unlike you as you said , i understood precisely why my system/room was doing what it was doing , because all was born from a mechanical tunable treatment and controls parameters of the room for my ears location, it is called acoustics with an (s ) ... Was it perfect ? No ...Was it stunnning ? yes ...
Try this audiophile top level recording in any controlled room and you will hear voices all around you even behind if there is mechanical right controls in place , the recording is the FIRST main spatial information source not the speakers choice...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR33bL5aNTk&t=2244s
No system/speakers can do anything without ears and room double controls ( mechanical and electronical as for the BACCH filters) and you need good recording for sure by the way ...
I dont doubt a second by the way that you gear is way better than mine but so good it could be it does not replace system/room/ears control for the spatial information translation ... To reach perfection here we need Choueiri BACCH filters ...It is the beginning of the revolution you spoke about ...more to come for sure ...
Acoustics is the sleeping princess and the kissing prince is your ears/brain , the gear system is only the 7 working dwarves ...
|
@phusis
Sorry guy, but you are wrong here. Run full range you are correct but not high passed at 100 Hz, 48 dB/oct. The little woofers become a super midrange driver. I have set up many of these systems and they handle peaks absolutely fine up to a reasonably loud volume according to my ear which is used to listening to a very large 8500 watt system. 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. No, they will not handle peaks with the grace of a large system at high volume like yours or mine, but they are an easy match for most dynamic tower systems and with the right subwoofers will have even better bass. More importantly, in a well treated room they will image better than most speakers which was always the attraction, for me at least. I remember the first time I listened to them at the store back in 1978. They were casting a better image than most of the larger speakers in the store, as long as you could manage without any bass. The real magic did not come along until we had digital crossovers with high order slopes for subwoofers.
|
@uberk, yes indeed. The salesman says: "Sir with these top of the line speakers you will never need a subwoofer, they go down to 20Hz." This type of comment is a result of BS baffles brain or just plain ignorance.
Get those same speakers into a room, any room, without due cognisance of room acoustics and you will have poor performance. Now place those same speakers in a properly treated room and paradoxically you will still have poor sound albeit better than no treatment. I explained this in an earlier post. The speakers will obviously be positioned where they provide a decent sound stage with good imaging but the bass source will be compromised causing peaks and nulls. Subs can be used as tuning devices where judicious placement will smooth out the low frequencies.
|
No, no, no, no., NO!
Someone stated - "there’s no bending the rules of physics here."
This is driving me nuts!
We are not "bending" physics, we are generating what is to us, "new" physics.
And changing some of what we "thought" about the classic modeling structure itself.
Because we were just wrong. And "That was hard to say".
Because everyone here seems to be stuck.
Stuck on ONLY using physics of the "Classical Modeling" type.
I have figured a few things out. Things which never made any sense.
Until I realized that good-ole classic, basic physics. Was missing a few things.
And so are the people who are designing most of the "top end" system components today. "Missing a few things".
But I simply cannot be the only one who has made this "shift" in thinking.
Because it "IS" going to happen.
Yet try as I might, I haven't found anyone else that see's what I am seeing. And hearing! This is why I am writing this.
It is possible to build speakers that "can" reproduce (near perfect) sound.
But it simply cannot be done with "Point Source", (Cone type speakers)!
And in that area? "No" You cannot bend any physics that I know of.
And the same can be said for "Mass". There just is no "small speaker" substitution, for what a large speaker system can achieve very easily.
Currently, if you have been paying attention to the world of technology.
You may have noticed that we are smack-dab in the middle of a revolution in ALL of out tech because of breakthroughs in modern physics.
Both in "classical", AND in that new-fangled type, - "Quantum Physics".
Especially in the area of "Field Theory".
A revolution that will make looking back at the industrial revolution as if it were merely a "speedbump" in history.
And "All" of our contemporary thinking and attitude's about "sound reproduction" is about to get an "Overhaul" of "Biblical" proportions!
I know this post is a bit "Off-Topic".
But I write this because I am frustrated with the thinking that I find here and everywhere else currently.
I have built, "And I am still tweaking" a two-channel, speaker system which does things it should not.
And it doesn't seem to care much about room size. Though it definitely loves it's "room treatments".
It is a "84" tall "dipole" configuration. With a width of 30" and is true line source, using a hybrid electrostatic transducer array. Throwing a cylindrical wave of sound 360 degrees. And it is producing that wave at complete (75") out of the (86") available which is the ceiling height. (The high percentage of wave production area "vertically" is key here)!
"Meaning", It isn't a (Line Source) if you just stack, say 40 x 1"-point source transducers vertically and as tight as you can get them. And call it a day.
You may "think" that. (Many do), But no. Just no.
In my case, at least for my systems full range of (150Hz. - 40,000Hz) I am using just (2) transducers to cover that entire vertical line of wave formation. (80% is covered by just one transducer).
The (60 - 150Hz.) range is driven in a cabinet of similar height and weight, (430Lbs.). (8 x 12") transducers. But I am stuck using point source transducers for this, and also a nine-subwoofer array (3 x 3 x 10") for all 60Hz. and below.
All point source components utilize "very-stiff", coated, Aluminum-Magnesium alloy, metal cone. And more.... but I digress.
And the entire system can be built for about $12,000. "Minus all labor".
I still do not understand why my system does everything that it does.
"Like the incredible imaging and coherence even, (Behind) me".
"Yes" I did say, "Behind" me.
But I am getting there. "I hope".
I do apologize if you believe this post isn't relevant.
But the arguments here are getting a bit redundant when it comes to things such as this. Especially when the matter has been "solved".
And it's time to, "Move On"!
Anyway, "Good Luck" to all in their quest for better sound!
Because I am here to tell you, "YES" It does exist!
And maybe, if you could, forgive my rant...
|
@phusis Wrote:
@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.
I agree spot on! 😎
Mike
|
@phusis Wrote:
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.
I agree!
Mike
|
@mihorn … lol. You’re not helping your business by doing this YouTube comparison BS! Get a clue dude.
Do you think "A" sounds better than "B" in YT, but "B" is better than "A" in real? I don’t think so.
I exhibit my audio system in an audio show every year and I heard almost every rooms in the show every year. I know what I heard. Alex/WT
|
@mihorn ……
lol. You’re not helping your business by doing this YouTube comparison BS! Get a clue dude.
|
@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
phusis So, you're the sole judge of that - based on a video?
This is a plan. You choose a live recording video from online. Then I'll upload my system's live recording of same music. One condition, the music is NOT an instrumental. The instrumental music is harder to judge. So, the music must have a singer. Alex/Wavetouch
|
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
Like phusis stated above, based on a video?? Even in a ’live room experience’, you cannot truly compare two complete systems and come up with an absolute as there are so many variables, starting with different rooms, listener preferences, gear, cabling, power distribution, climate and on and on.
The best one can say is that system A meets your own preferences better than system B on a given day. Not that it is better than ’any audio system in the world’!
In my OP, I referenced a system that was not only far far more expensive than the system that you tout, but also was probably able to easily out do your system in several areas. Would this make this system a ’world beater’...I think not. As I mentioned, it was not one that I personally could see myself living with for the long term, and yet I presume there were plenty of folks at this demo that day, that absolutely could~
|
@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.
|
@mihorn Below videos are my audio system consists 5.25" 2 way speakers. Do you hear such a strained and less natural?
My Rival - Steely Dan, Wavetouch audio live recording
Lidia Borda - Cuando silba el viento, live recording
phusis 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.
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
|
|
@daveyf
I think I’m trying to say that a large speaker in a moderate (what I have) to large size room is ideal.
I would think that there must be a formula that would measure room size to volume of air mass that technically would be ideal, though it might be irrelevant to sound quality after all.
|
@unreceivedogma Your proviso makes sense. Room size and room tuning are important regardless of the size of the speaker. But it is indeed all relative.
Which brings me to @phusis The point you seem to be making is that a big speaker can be made to work well in a small space. 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. 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.
The point I think some are missing here, is this. If you try and shoe-horn a large speaker into a small ( not even medium) space that is too small for the speaker, then you will not be listening to what the large speaker can deliver, assuming that it has decent SQ in the first place. Conversely, if you try and place a small speaker into a too large space, then you will most likely also have to deal with various issues, and if not done, the small speaker will probably sound...small. Which is why i do believe that fitting your speaker size to the size of your room is very important, otherwise you will have to fight the lack of synergy at the very least.
|
Imho the more air you move, the better. So, the bigger the better, … relative to room size and room tuning.
|
uum, The ultra tight miniature musician presentation with the hyper detail is super cool, especially in the evening. I always end up owning systems that compliment live recordings tho even if I listen mostly to studio recordings.
|
@phusis
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. As a system for people who really do not want big speakers in the room this is a wonderful solution which is why I have done so many of them. The last one being for my son in law around Harbeth P3 ESR XDs crossing to two 12" subs digitally with a MiniDSP HSD.
@bubba12
No need to change that approach if you pick the right line. Check out the Franco Serblin Ketema. One of the best dynamic speakers I have ever heard and relative to other top of the line speakers dirt cheap. They are also really good looking.
|
An interesting thread @lemonhaze as I had the same question to my dealer (who is very pragmatic … and definitely believes in diminishing returns)
His view on reference speakers ($100k+) is they were “money is no object” speakers and really not about sound. Look and best of everything … with no real return on sound.
In my case he believed the “tipping point” for diminishing returns was the Sonus Faber Amati.. half the price of a reference (or even less than half) and incredible sound with a tonne of volume and fullness.
After 40 years of selling audio .. those are his dream speakers .. when he could have any speaker.
|
@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.
|
@phusis
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.
|
@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.
|
@phusis 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."
IMO, if you want to run too large a speaker into too small a room, there really is nothing you can do to compensate for this error. Sure, you can make the speaker work, but it will NOT work anywhere near what its full capability is. Therefore, the highlighted point is incorrect, as it is of major importance to fit your speaker to your room, size-wise, IMO. As I stated before, there are numerous examples of this mistake, many foisted on the a’phile by the fact that he wants the biggest speaker possible (and re-enforced by his/her dealer, as large speakers are typically more $$) but not having the room to accommodate the speaker.
|
@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.
|
@audioman58 makes a good point.
So it depends on what you consider great sound. If imaging and disappearance is more important to you than coherence and presence then small stand mounts are likely to sound greater to you.
Of course the higher you go up the investment levels the more you get both.
|
Alex, while I agree that @phusis point about small speakers sounding small. strained and much less natural in a variety of listening spaces is a very wide and somewhat incorrect statement, I do think we have to be fair to him. Your speakers, and really 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. From this perspective, phusis’s point about Physics becomes a factor, which there is no getting around. This is why I add subwoofers to my small stand mounts. 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.
|
|
No absolutely not ,very good quality stand mounts dissapear better as well as image in many cases , justhave quality stands and feet and a good pair of quality powered subwoofers depending too on budget that will allow you the flexibility to adjust ,I have theSVS SB 4000s and it has a great app and you can down load a sub app-and buy a $100 usb Microphone and really dial-in the room with the REW App, if you want it perfect ,or pay someone to set your bass up, which too would save a lot of money andyou can buy a wireless kit as another option.
|
@daveyf +1 totally agree. And some bookshelf speakers can image like nobodies business. Mine do, particularly well.
I’m running my Usher Be-718’s full range with no sub and that’s all I’ve experienced so far but I can only imagine how much bigger the sound’s gonna be when I add a sub.
|
@phusis Personally, I would much rather hear a small speaker hampered by a large room and consequently sounding small; than a large speaker in too small a space- that totally overloads the room. YMMV.
|
@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.
|
@phusis 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.
|
@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.
|
"Big speakers, Big problems" is probably true 90+% of the time; but not always.
If one has the room, the ancillary gear and the set up expertise, then they will provide a sense of scale, which IME, small speakers cannot. BUT the question is what you are also leaving behind. Personally, I totally dislike horns for this reason. Almost all horn designs are large and fall into the saying you posted above. Plus, the issues typically are not that recognizable, until a listener gets to hear a system with none of the problems. Only then do they become glaringly (pun) obvious, IMO.
|
There is an old saying,"Big speakers Big problems".
|
Or, you can optimize your system so that it works the best in whatever room you are working with. Instead of just plopping some over size speaker into a room and hoping it will work. Then you can 'just bang on rocks with sticks'!
|
I love these questions. Why is it the big speakers matter? Why is it the cables matter? Do I really need to spend a lot of money?
you don’t have to do any of this. You can just bang on rocks with sticks,
|
|
daveyf: Me personally, I want it all when it comes to being able to experiencing the full frequency range and also the entire musical spectrum in my room-----no matter how small (within reason, of course). Most all speakers, even stand mount speakers benefit from being placed in a large, spacious room (as you see Borresen bookshelf speakers being showcased in huge rooms at the shows). However, so many audiophiles, like us, do not have the luxury of having very large rooms at our disposal in our homes, so we have to make due with what we have. Now, you have to make a personal decision as to what size speakers you want in your small room. You’re correct, my speakers aren’t huge compared to the speakers you described, they’re more midsized as you said (but still large for my room). But the Revel Salon 2 speakers work really well in my small room because they are so adjustable and can be toned down to be sonically feasible in a small room like mine (most speakers can't be adjusted) So, when it comes to larger speakers in small rooms, it really broils down to two things: speaker selection and your own sonic personal goals that you’re trying to achieve in your small room. My speakers provide me with such an extraordinary high level of sonic bliss in my little room that I feel like I’m listening to something very special ever time I turn up the volume. Lastly, I get incredible, near world class bass response in my little room as well, so I really am getting it all. Take care and happy listening
|
I dont know milhorn secret sauce for speakers but he is right on this ... Musicality is a natural experience not an artificial or biased taste ...Psycho-acoustics science and experience rules audio not specific relative individual tastes ...
The fact that some human prefer to eat their victim living or /and dead has nothing to do with french or chinese refined culinary chemistry ...And the excellence of french or chinese culinary is grounded in perspectival educated cultural choices in chemistry grounded in the humam metabolism not in ungrounded idyosyncrasique arbitrary tastes ...Only sellers and marketers think that ...
Then "natural" soundfield is not arbitrary but conditioned by acoustics and psycho-acoustics concepts and conditions not by price tags ...
phusis what’s "natural" sounding to some obviously isn’t to others - if only it came down to that.
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
natural sound vs. unnatural sound speakers comparison.
phusis what’s "natural" sounding to some obviously isn’t to others - if only it came down to that.
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
natural sound vs. unnatural sound speakers comparison.
|
phusis
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.
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
|
phusis what’s "natural" sounding to some obviously isn’t to others - if only it came down to that.
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
natural sound vs. unnatural sound speakers comparison.
|
@kennymacc Your room is definitely on the small size, like mine. OTOH, I don't think that your Revel's qualify as large speakers. They are, at least to me, mid size. When I am talking of large speakers, I am thinking of the likes of Wilson Alexx's, Chronosonic's, top Focal's, YG Sonja's with bass cabinets etc., These speakers are much larger and in a room your size would probably not work.
I recently heard the new Borresen X3's, which I thought to be superb. Problem is that they would never work in my room, simply too large. Yet, for a more typical room, say 15' X 18', they would be ideal. In your room, they would work, BUT you would not be able to hear what they are truly capable of. I suspect your Salon 2's would also work better in a larger space.
|
