Curious what people think is the best "value" high end speaker (~5K to 15K)

"I've tried to like the new B&W's... but I don't."

I absolutely LOVE my Bache Audio Tribecas!!!  Will post pictures of them, I really like the small footprint and clear, excellent sound.  They blow away my Jade 7 Wharfedales and the bass/highs are equally excellent!!  They were awesome to deal with and even have a custom, champagne color!!  Second to none and under $7000 !!!  Review to come,

Brett

Thank you gene3x.

I’m going to focus on big issues in this post; nothing against refinements, but imo the big issues need to be addressed first.

So here is the big issue when it comes to trying to get a good soundstage across a wide listening area: For off-centerline listeners, the image will be pulled towards the nearest speaker. And the further we go to either side, the more the image is pulled to that nearest speaker. This issue cannot be addressed by incremental loudspeaker refinements; rather, it’s going to take something drastic.

Let’s quickly let’s look at HOW the ears determine the direction of a sound source (I’m going to simplify a little bit). The ear goes by two things: Arrival time, and intensity (or loudness). So if you have two speakers set up normally, maybe with a little bit of toe-in, and you’re sitting in the “sweet spot”, arrival time and intensity are the same for both ears so the image of a center vocalist is right in the middle. So far, so good.

Now suppose you scoot your chair to the left a foot or two. The left speaker inevitably “wins” arrival time because it is now closer. But the left speaker also “wins” intensity, in part because you are closer, but also because you are now on-axis (or nearly so) of the left speaker and quite far off-axis of the right speaker. So the net effect is, the center image shifts to the left even farther than you have!

It is a good thing these two localization mechanisms exist, because they offer us a solution: What happens if the sound arrives FIRST at the left ear, but it’s LOUDER in the right ear? Well, these two localization mechanisms will tend to cancel one another out somewhat, and we can end up with the center vocalist back in the center! Let’s take this information and return to the listening room, and see if we can figure out a way to make the FARTHER speaker the LOUDER speaker.

What I’m going to describe next is not the only possible radiation pattern and set-up geometry, but it works well, and it is what was taught to me by the incredibly smart man I learned all of this from (Earl Geddes).

First, we want our speakers to have a radiation pattern that’s 90 degrees wide in the horizontal plane (-6 dB at 45 degrees to either side of the central axis). Next, let’s use a very unorthodox configuration: Let’s toe the speakers in by 45 degrees, such that their axes actually criss-cross in front of the center of the sweet spot(!). Up and down the centerline, arrival time and intensity are the same, just like before. But off to the side, things are very different.

If we sit to the left of center, the left speaker still “wins” arrival time because it is the closest. But the right speaker “wins” intensity! How is this possible? This is how: We are now virtually on-axis of the right speaker (the far speaker), but we are very far off-axis of the left speaker (the near speaker)! So even from well off to the side we still have a good soundstage with a decent spread to the instruments. The soundstaging won’t be as good as along the centerline, but it will still be enjoyable.

I use this configuration all the time at audio shows. People look at the extreme toe-in and think the soundstage will be narrow but it never is. Whenever possible, I have one chair up against a side wall, beyond the plane of the speaker on that side. People usually avoid that chair but every now and then someone sits in it because the room is so full. I always ask them how it sounds. They are inevitably pleasantly surprised that it still sounds quite good, and that they still hear an enjoyable spread of the instruments.

The KEY to this configuration working as I have described is this: The output of the near speaker must fall off SMOOTHLY and RAPIDLY as we move off-axis. This setup will not work as described with a wide-dispersion speaker because the near speaker will still be too loud.

One way to get this kind of radiation pattern control is to use a low-coloration constant-directivity waveguide-style horn whose pattern is 90 degrees in the horizontal plane, crossed over to a midwoofer at the frequency where the midwoofer’s pattern has also narrowed to 90 degrees. I’m not the first to use this pattern-matching in the crossover region plus constant directivity above it. I think the Altec Model 19 and Model 14 were among the first, followed by the magnificent JBL Model 4430 studio monitor, Wayne Parham’s Pi Speakers, Earl Geddes’ designs, and many modern JBL designs like the M2 and 4367.

Now finally we come around to why a large speaker can do this better than a small speaker: A large waveguide, pattern-matched with a large midwoofer, will maintain our desired radiation pattern down to a lower frequency than a smaller waveguide and midwoofer. But imo unless a large speaker deliberately makes use of its size to get good radiation pattern control, its only advantage over a small speaker would be in SPL and/or bass extension.

I don’t know of any other approach that can maintain such good soundstaging for off-centerline listeners. The near speaker will always “win” arrival time, and the only way to offset that is for the far speaker to “win” intensity. An ultra-wide radiation pattern (like with an omnidirectional speaker) reduces the intensity discrepancy relative to conventional speakers in a conventional configuration, but the near speaker is still louder than the far speaker, so it does not offset the arrival-time discrepancy. Only a fairly narrow, very uniform radiation pattern with that unorthodox criss-crossing geometry does a good job of offsetting the arrival time discrepancy for off-centerline listeners with no downsides.

So why don’t you see this type of speaker and this type of setup more often? Imo it is because the market is dominated by svelte, audio-jewelry, high wife-acceptance-factor speakers, which in turn implies that most audiophiles shop with their eyes moreso than with their ears. How many audiophiles see a horn and immediately form a negative opinion, as if all horn speakers have that annoying cupped-hands coloration? Some do, but the good ones don’t!

Soundstage depth is another topic which I will get into somewhat when I respond to recluse’s request to go into small rooms.

The closest I can come to a specific speaker recommendation would be, used GedLee Abbeys or Nathans + subs, or contact Wayne Parham of PiSpeakers, tell him your requirements including the footprint constraints, and see if he can do a custom adaptation of one of his designs, perhaps a pair of maxed-out 4 Pi’s atop matching subs. Wayne was one of my teachers. In my opinion his designs offer superb value, better than mine. I don’t know how he does it; my suspicion is that his day job pays well enough that his speaker business is more for love of the hobby and the kindred spirits he finds therein than for profit. So between Wayne’s speakers and used speakers by Earl Geddes (Earl has retired), I guess I did end up having some nominations for “best absolute value” after all.

Duke

@recluse wrote: “I for one would be very interested in Duke from AudioKinesis discussing soundstage in a large *and small* room.”

Imo the main problem in small rooms, as far as soundstaging goes, is the quick arrival times for the reflections, especially the first ones, because the path lengths are so short. These impose a “small room signature” on top of every recording.

The general background principle is this: Early reflections are generally detrimental, and late reflections are generally desirable. In this context, “late” would be about 10 milliseconds after the first-arrival sound. Sound travels a little over 1 foot per millisecond.

Before we go on, if you really want to get the best out of your room, engage a professional like Jeff Hedback of Hedback Designed Acoustics. Jeff is an award-winning acoustician who is still affordable. My room treatment suggestions that follow don’t begin to hold a candle to what he can do. After evaluation he can tell you exactly what kind of treatment, in what amount, and in what place, and can tell you how to do it yourself inexpensively. The smaller the room, the greater the room for improvement.

Imo there is an argument for locating the speakers close to the listening position in a small room. If we are sitting within about 4 feet of the speakers, this is what’s called a “nearfield setup”. The speakers are close enough that their first-arrival sound is significantly louder than the detrimental early reflections, which helps us to hear "more of the recording" and "less of the room".

Even with a nearfield setup, ime there is an argument for using speakers that minimize early reflections, and to treat those early reflections, ideally with diffusion but in some situations we’ll have to resort to absorption.  Too much absorption can "suck the life out of the sound", so we don't want to overdo it. 

The way to find the first reflection zones is this: Sit in the sweet spot and have a friend place a mirror against the floor or wall in the area of the reflection, and move it around. When you can see the reflection of the speaker’s drivers in the mirror, in particular the tweeter, that’s a first reflection zone.

The set-up I described to gene3x in my post above minimizes early sidewall reflections because the left-hand speaker’s first significant sidewall reflection will be off the right-hand side wall, and vice-versa. This is desirable because when the reflection arrives at the opposite ear from the first-arrival sound, it is generally beneficial, unless the room is very small. The narrow-pattern/cross-firing setup will give a wider listening area even in a small room. Not sure you can realistically do “nearfield setup” and “wide listening area” at the same time... but I haven’t tried it.

The floor and ceiling bounces are harder to address. A fairly narrow radiation pattern in the vertical plane helps to minimize them. A couple of small thick throw rugs on the floor in the left and right floor-bounce zones (in between those speakers and the listening area) can help. Recording studios go to the trouble of treating the ceiling bounce as well.

Not much we can do to dodge that first reflection off the wall behind the listener’s head – we’ll have to diffuse or absorb it.

There is a technique for tricking the ear/brain system into thinking the room is bigger than its physical dimensions, thus reducing “small room signature”. Disclaimer – this is something I’m commercially involved with.

First, the back-story: The ear judges the size of a room by the time delay between the first-arrival sound and the “center of gravity” of the reflections. So if we can push that “center of gravity” back somewhat, we can make it sound like the room is bigger than it really is. Fortunately all this work we’ve put into minimizing those first reflections is a good start!

But we can take it to the next level by deliberately adding more reverberant energy that arrives after a worthwhile time delay. “Worthwhile” in this context is about 10 milliseconds. The technique I use is to have a secondary array of drivers behind the main speakers, aimed up towards the ceiling. By the time the energy from those drivers has bounced off the ceiling and reached the listening area, 10 milliseconds or more have passed. The ear/brain system thinks we’re in a bigger room, so less “small room signature” is superimposed on top of the recording. We hear more of the recording and less of the room. I expect everyone to be skeptical of this claim, so let me offer some evidence:

Maggie owners have first-hand experience with this (as do owners of other dipole or bipole speakers). Maggie owners have learned the hard way that their speakers don’t sound all that good if they’re right up against the wall. So they start pulling them out from the wall, and they sound better and better. At about 5 feet out from the wall (ballpark), the soundstage is deep and a sense of immersion in the soundfield on the recording sets in.  Five feet out = 10 feet round trip for the reflection path = about 10 milliseconds = a beneficial "late" reflection.  At this point they are hearing “more of the recording” and “less of the room”.

So to recap, here are the general principles to keep in mind if you’re dealing with a small room:

1. If possible sit fairly close to the speakers, as that way they are louder than the reflections.

2. Minimize early reflections through speaker choice and set-up (narrow-pattern, cross-firing works well), and use diffusion or (if necessary) absorption in the early reflection zones.

3. Relatively late reflections are generally beneficial. If you have dipole speakers, get them out into the room so that the reflection path off the wall behind them is fairly long.

I have yet to build a “small-room-friendly” speaker system that brings together these and other ideas. One of these days.

Duke

"With Revel you're dealing with the Harman Kardon mega-church which provides shitty customer service."

Just FYI, the Lone Star Audio Fest is in early May, and its location is less than half an hour from McKinney.  Wayne Parham of Pi Speakers is a regular there.  He's the founder of the show. 

I'm about twenty minutes east of McKinney in Princeton, but I don't have a showroom, just a workshop. 

Duke

This is getting interesting. A speaker company [B&W] with a long tradition of building really esteemed products gets more than just one "not my kind" response on this thread. Again, no haters but just not impressed ones. I thought I was the only one out there. I guess it is time to come out of the closet. Maybe higher models are significantly different?

At CAF today I heard the TAD ME1 speakers and they were incredible.