Eldatford,please disregard my last post,except the "last" sentence.You certainly have the right to voice an opinion,and I am sorry for being so defensive.Now I am "done" with all this sub business,and will do some needed listening.-:)
Best. |
I've struggled with the "two sub" question,though I currently have a REL Stentor reinforcing my Avalons(which have output below 30 hz,and are a sealed design).
My sub is positioned in the right/rear of room,not in corner,but not too far away (3from back x 2ft from side),and close to my right channel speaker.Very good blend!
I have called REL/Sumiko and was very interested in obtaining a second one,even though my own set-up does not call for it,on my own impressions,but have read SO much about the two sub option.
Sumiko adamantly stated my main speakers definitely did NOT require this second sub,since it's output was so good,and were against selling me one.
For a mfgr to recommend against selling "product" my radar told me that #1--here was a responsible company,and #2--my own impressions,which are often pretty good,should be adhered to.I am sticking with one sub...BUt my room is not large,at only 22.5 ftx 13 ft.
Go figure. |
Raul,in two years much can happen!...I changed my mind because, #1...I am very satisfied with my current(as of now) results,and #2...I have heard alot of superb set-ups since!!...The latest,being a Zanden/VTL/VAC/Brinkman/JM Labs Nova speaker driven "super system",in a large room.I liked the sound,like others present,but still have no reason to want more from my own low end performance,which I have greatly improved as of late....Also,my own group of audio friends(who have actually "heard" my set-up) are against the second sub,in "my" room!They've been in my room loads of times,so forgive me if I go with their recommendation.
"Til today I think you are a wise and mature man"...
Well sorry if you think otherwise!..Actually I can reverse the sentiment,as I would have thought that someone with your supposed experience would reserve judgement until something is actually "heard".In this case you are simply "assuming" something,based on theory.I choose my decisions on my actual aural experience.This is where we differ,I guess.
Best. |
Raul,with all due respect I think you can use a bit more education,on the sub bass issue!
First of all,to flatly mention that two are automatically the way to go is just wrong!!...There are some circumstances to consider(crossover point),which I adhere to...before I make ANY changes in my system.
As to low bass,and the "need" for a sub...this is absolutely based on the "in room" performance of the main speakers.
A sub can be added for different reasons,and I will give you two...
Firstly,if the main speaker does not go "very low" in bass,then your theory is best,and one will "most likely" benefit from two subs....BTW,I have owned two BIG Infinity speaker systems,BOTH employing two multi driver sub cabinets,so I know about the bass issue in my room.
My current speakers,unlike yours are moved quite far out into my room,to maximize their amazing soundstage capabilities.I can do this because I have a dedicated room.However,one loses some bass impact(not frquency loss)due to the "particular" room loading issue.
I have useable output down to the mid to low thirty hz with this positioning,but the extreme bottom needs a bit of added heft.Not alot,and at very low frequencies!Most likely lower than you go in "your set-up"!From your pictures,you seem to have the main speaker far back,which affects stage depth.
So,the second point(one you MUST take into account before automatically telling someone to spend money on a second sub)is "how low do the main speakers go,in the room,and where does one need to crossover to a sub"?
Before I made any sub choice,I obtained the advice of Dave Wilson(I think he knows a bit about the subject),and maybe you don't know that bass frequencies below 60 hz are perceived as "omni directional",so if the "main" speakers go low enough,and one crosses over low enough(I crossover at 24 hz)then the issue of two subs comes down to a pretty irrelevant decision.
If one sub, set up with very good room loading/blend,and coming in very low,does the job,and if the main speaker has superb low bass output,the second sub is not a necessity.
Of course if one needs the sub to crossover in the upper bass,then two is the way to go.I believe your thoughts relate to a higher crossover point then I need.
I'm going with Dave Wilson on this one,not to mention that I am quite satisfied.
Best. |
"I don't want to follow this dialog because your non know-how about only could confuse to other people"....Raul,you're lucky I have always liked you so much!
That is "exactly" how I feel about "your" input on the subject, as it relates to "my own situation".So we do agree on something!Let's agree to leave it at that.
BTW,to me,this is just friendly disagreement.
Best. |
BTW Raul,my mention of "education" had NOTHING to do with how I perceive your "formal" education.Just your knowledge of all things sub-bass related(we can "all" continuously learn).The business of "distortion" you mention has nothing to do with my application.....I think you are taking this a bit too seriously.
Best. |
Eldartford,I guess you are more knowledgeable than Dave Wilson.I look forward to your future posts for enlightenment. |
Eladtford ---you are not viable to me,mainly because you seem to "want" to be a contrarian,without knowing the subject matter,and I don't think you know what you are talking about.LOW frequencies...NOT the midbass that Maggie 1.6's produce!I won't respond to you again,unless you seem plausible about a subject you are not "assuming" things about,without true first hand experience!Sorry,I don't want to be rude.Let's leave it there,if you can?
Raul,...NOW you are "intentionally" being insulting!!
None of my responses to you were meant in the way you apparently took them....It was YOU who decided to take a particular comment made by me,about my not feeling I needed two subs,and you basically went "ballistic" over that,and started with the insults about my understanding of the subject!..You accused me of lying because TWO years ago I felt differently about the subject.Well,two years ago I didn't like red wine,and NOW love it!
You turn almost any response I make into some stupid assault on my knowledge of subject matter,AND you have NOT ever heard my system....ALL my audio friends have heard it,and are set "against" a second sub!!!They happen to be as knowledgeable/experienced as you,but now I am beginning to think alot less of you,due to your "original" instigation,and ongoing negative comments.
I have always defended you when others attacked you for "what I felt was only enthusiasm",but now I am beginning to change my mind a little....This has got to be one of the dumbest conversations(not "you",the actual conversation) I've had on Audiogon,in a long time!!
Is your ego so big that you simply must insinuate yourself into something just to keep your supposed reputation in tact,because I prefer a one sub set-up in my room(which you have never even heard).I stated that there are times when one might not need two subs....Do you actually think that the ONLY way to go is two?...Do you understand the main speakers "room loading" as well as overall low frequency performance greatly affects this?....Are you afraid other regular posters will think less of you,if a subject does not go your way?...What is the BIG DEAL??........OK,I give up!...You can be right!Every situation where a sub is needed should be dealt with by adding two!!...Happy?..
|
Raul,since you claim not to understand my implementation of only one sub, as stated by you... "you still are talking about "only" one sub woofer goal,you are not taking the whole "view",why? I can't understand it"...I will give it one "last" attempt.....This is it...Because my MAIN speaker has superb output at "very low frequencies",AND I am ONLY using my sub to crossover at "24 hz"!!So,In MY ROOM,and with the particular "room loading" of the main speaker with "this" sub a second,third or whatever sub would be "overkill" to me,and those who have "heard" my system agree. I would rather put my money elsewhere!
It is NOT a "stand alone subject",but dependant on the room,main speaker's low bass,how low one crosses over "the main speaker" to the sub,not to mention that I am totally happy as is!AND I "think" I am pretty critical.
I really hope you follow my logic,as it pertains to me.It might not be your way of viewing the subject,but makes sense to me,and BTW I also greatly respect my friends who were responsible for introducing the hobby to me many years ago...I am done discussing my own taste and approach,and hope you are happy with your own choices.
Best. |
Judsauce thanks for lowering the testosterone.Btw,how do you know how happy clams are? -:) |
Raul,Sorry...I forgot to ask you a final question about "your" set-up.Could you please tell me at what frequency your main speaker crosses over to your subs at?Just curious.
Best....Btw, I hope this post is not repeated,as I had to keyboard it twice. |
Eldatford,thanks for the info...to answer your question..."NO"...Not if you believe frequencies below 55-60 hz are "not" omnidirectional!But I have not heard your set-ups,so I know little about you,other than sarcasm.
Best to you anyway,as this should all be in fun! |
Thanks for the info Raul....and you have to know that I have always considered you a "friend"!
Best |
Downunder,drop me a line,and we'll talk.
Best. |
Raul,you are correct in about 50% of your arguement.But about 100%(almost)of the time,when speaking about analog subjects -:) ...First of all you simply cannot make the statement that in ALL cases two subs are the way to go,as you say it is "simply physics".Sorry,not so!And,in fact,the laws of physics CAN break down,under certain circumstances, current science believes.Also,the "Harmon" website discussion is concerning even bass response from multiple listening seats,like a movie theater.Most audiophiles have a far narrower sweet spot,as our rooms are not theater sized.
Speaking of theory,I believe your non-bending arguement is based on this(theory,not actual experience).I don't mean to be insulting,and wish to have a debate,without getting too hot under the collar.Just god fun,so here goes.....
Firstly,I have owned,in two separate dedicated rooms,the BIG dual bass systems you feel are the ONLY way to go!From my experience,your arguement ONLY has merit under certain conditions.One would be if the crossover point approaches or goes into the "mid bass".In your set-up,from what I can see,you have little ability to move the main speaker(not subs) into the listening room.So,if your ADS speakers actually go as low as you claim,the corner placement would kill bass definition.THAT itself is probably good physics,but I'll settle for my own assumption here....So,it is most likely a better scenario,for you,to cut of the main speaker,and use your subs for the remaining "non boomy" bass(due to not ideal main speaker placement).A good alternative!As I see it,your subs are out further into room,so if this is actually the case,I understand your assertion,but you do nobody total justice by hammering away,about everyone HAVING to have two subs,as ideal always!Not so!
If someone,like Downunder for example,has a superb "main speaker"(the Strads fit this),which plummet far enough in depth,why should it's design be compromised,if it is going low and with good definition.He makes a good point about affecting the design's specific design goal sound.Some of us(myself included)just wish to "tickle the bottom octave" in order to lend a bit more weight to an "exsisting superb speaker".The ROOM,and "room/specific" set-up will absolutely impact whether two subs are "needed",not to mention the owner of that system!Also,in my case,I would FAR prefer my main speaker's "sealed" box design's bass definition,over the sub's ported pitch definition,at the frequencies you adhere to!
Also,sorry,but LOW bass is NOT stereo,and if the freq is "low enough",it should NOT seem to be coming from a specific area.If it "is",you don't have it set up right!
I have had a previous dedicated "single sub set up",and two different BIG Infinity four tower designs,so I know,from actual experience what I am talking about.Those designs specifically have the ability to crossover as far up as 120 hz,so the "two sub option" is a MUST in that configuration,for best results.
In the case of someone like Downunder(I must assume),or myself(now)the MAIN speaker is SO well implemented,in the room,giving enough good low freq response,that we simply want to "goose the extreme bottom octave" a bit.What don't you understand about this?...One very good sub(sorry if you don't like REL,btw)can easily do the trick.In "this scenario",two is NOT mandatory or necessary.
Personally,my current configuration has more believeable low freq,than "any" of my previous set-ups,so I can confidently save the "few" posters, who actually care about this,some money.You don't HAVE to go with two,based on the room/set-up in specific use.Period!
Raul you are also incorrect in stating "servo bass" is the best.These types of systems(I've owned one or two)do not provide miracle cures.They are an alternative design concept,with their own advantages,and disadvantages.
The main benefit,is for a given freq response,a smaller enclosure can be used,than would otherwise be needed.This comes at the expense of requiring greater amplifier power,that is,lower effective efficiency in the woofer.
This can be a valid design choice in some situations,although in many cases cone "excursion" or "thermal" dissapation(there's your distortion,again) becomes the "limiting" factor in achieving extended bass response.
The servo controlled system has the ability to correct for non-linearities in the low freq driver itself.BUT,the "superior" approach is to employ a well designed driver that needs no correction,just as a well designed amp can be built using no negative feedback.
Concerning transient response,there is NO advantage to using other alternative systems compared to a non equalized system.This is because the transient response merely describes an alternative view of the freq response.So,by utilizing a servo controller adjusted to obtain the "perfect" transient response of a sealed enclosure with a Q factor of .5(which my current main speaker has,btw),the freq response will necessarily be the same for "both" systems,regardless of how that freq response was attained!
Although electronic methods allow for easier adjustment of the system parameters,most systems are designed for impressive anechoic freq response at the expense of "accurate" transient response!
The vast majority of bass systems(even in main speakers)store resonant bass energy.Many folks like this sound,and it is one reason why ported designs are so popular,but the ONLY way to have "accurate transient bass response" is from a sealed design,with a Q of .5!The "original" Avalons ALL adhered to this(unlike the new designs,which are just fine,but designed to "sell"),as do the current Magico designs.What these designs seek,is the absence of "stored resonant energy" particularly in the bass frequencies.To have a ported sub design substituting for "some" mid bass frequencies,that a good main speaker already has is tantamount to "throwing out the baby with the bath water".My current sealed Ascents would positively "kill" any sub,in bass definition.Unless one likes Heavy Metal as a staple for good audio.
So,if one wanted the best subwoofer,it would have to be a sealed box,but it would also have to be BIG!That is why we see so few.
I have a close friend who got the superb Magico Minis six months ago.He has low bass down to a recently measured 31 hz,in his room.Yet,some of my other audio pals are adamant that he attempt to get deeper bass.Personally I think his low freq performance is absolutely stellar and I have heard it shake his room beautifully,but the other guys want more deep bass(one of them owns BIG Pipe Dreams using two separate 18 inch subs...which suck,IMO)...If "any" sub were employed in that set-up(my friend's Magicos),to come in as high as you,Raul,have mentioned is almost universally necessary(I think you stated up to 200 hz!!) for the business of IM distortion etc,I can guarantee the "magic" of that speaker would be gone!!!No sub can match the speed,and definition of that mid/bass driver from what I have heard from that speaker.
So,we all look for something,maybe a little different from oneanother.One reason to adhere to the "logic" of there is always "more than one way to skin a cat".A popular expression,from where I come from.
Best. |
Gregadd,I felt the way you do,about my friend's potential from the Magico's bass(before he actually bought them),but I am talking relatively flat to 31 hz(down maybe 5db at most),which is where the meter can measure NO lower!!What can I say,it's not my speaker,and I was bowled over by it in my friend's room.Some other's want to hear(feel)"more" bass.Personally,from my own taste,it is fabulous the way it is!The speaker has huge transient behavior,and the bass/mid driver has significant air moving ability.But at the expense of "needing" huge power delivery from the amp!
Best. |
BTW,forgot to mention,if there is coloration from the Magico Minis,like Gregadd assumes must occur,I cannot hear it(except maybe a touch of upper mid softness,which is rather nice actually).It IS "that" good a speaker,and makes me think that the BIG speakers will go the way of the Dinosaur in the future. |
Raul,my feelings on the subject are from "real world" experience,as stated,as well as careful listening(by myself, and other hobbyists I respect,who have actually heard ALL of "my" systems over the years)and believe it or not, somewhat of an understanding of the "system/room/design goal of the specific hobbyist" who has the option to employ "STUFF" as he/she feels is most effective to them!...Without the arrogance of someone telling them they don't understand the subject!
And PLEASE get off the "IM distortion thing"!!!I don't hear "it" and either would you!!!....
The thing "you" simply cannot understand is not everybody thinks in an actual textbook fashion,once the "listening experience" speaks to us.Some folks should,rightly,make configuration choices based on what they hear,in their room!...Period!!....Also,I have no reason to believe your system sounds anything less than superb,as I respect your word.
BTW,yes my REL Stentor is ported,but it comes in "below" my main speaker,and the "pitch definition"(something I am beginning to doubt you have really ever experienced)at this "low freq" is far less obtrusive on the main speaker,as it would be if one was to cross over as high as you adhere to.To my way of thinking,and with my speaker,a big mistake to cross over higher up!Sorry,it's my call on the subject,and I will bet I am at the very least as crirical as you....
BTW,don't take any of my input as my being upset,or mad,as I am not!!..I am "actually" waiting for my wife to come home,so we can go to dinner.Hence, the time to keyboard for awhile,hopefully in good spirits.I got carried away with this kind of stuff two years ago,with another poster,and have learned my lesson about pushing it too far!
Also, if I were NOT very attentive to "all things audio" my friends are SO rediculously critical that they would mention any distortion/aberrations in a New York Minute!
Take a look at the BIG Nola Grand Reference(I have extensively heard this HUGE four tower design,as a client owns one).The main towers have "sealed" midbass drivers extending down to 40 hz.The secondary two sub towers,are ported,and designed to come in below 40 hz!They,the ported sub towers, are the achilles heel of the design as the "pitch definition" of the ported towers cannot match the sealed mid bass drivers,BUT it is SO much FUN to listen to the speakers,that one just does not get bent out of shape over this.Of course you would -:)That was a joke,btw!
Btw,Raul....I don't know why you are getting so excited about all of this.I am not stating(like you do to me...but I love you anyway -:)that you don't know what you are talking about!...I am simply giving you a counter arguement,based on my experiences,within my own systems,and others I am intimately familiar with.
I DO get impression that "some" have not necessarily heard what really superb pitch definition sounds like,at very low frequencies.It is very much like finding the EXACT sweet spot on a very good "arm/cartridge" set-up.Sometimes we fish around for a long time before hitting the magic.Once you hear/experience it,you know it!
You simply have to be able to accept alternative positions,without arguing that the person doesn't know what they are talking about.
Personally,I feel that "you" don't seem to grasp that I am NOT stating two subs are not most effective.I am stating,based on actually owning three or four of the system types(including my current one,which I consider the most realistic and involving one I've had so far...but I am NOT saying it is the best of "anything",only it serves my tastes)covered in this discusson that "conditions" DO exist where the "TWO SUB" option is not "mandatory",as you imply!AND,it does NOT mean you automatically have IM distortion issues(or you don't understand the "sub" issue) if you go this route!
What don't YOU understand about "that"!! -:)
Best....as always,and I am wearing my football helmet as I await your response!....also a joke. |
OK Raul,I give up!...Have a nice weekend.-:) |
"well you use the best tools for measure:your experiences ears/brain,through them(IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT KNOW HOW)you know if things are fine"!!!!!!!!.......
Raul,didn't I emphatically,(and obviously hopelessly) state "that" thought...."multiple times",with you completely ignoring this?.....Amazingly, NOW you use this response(your own words) as a way to avoid a legitimate question from another poster!....When I,myself, took the time to post my own,and experienced friends', same exact experiences,you seemed to completely ignore this,and claimed I did not understand the subject of the thread/bass/IMD!!....Unbelieveable!!!!....Before you get upset,just understand that you are not under attack,from me or anyone else here!And this should be just a good debate(even if somewhat heated).
As I had mentioned before,there are those people who feel there are alternative "Views" to the subject.I am one of them!...Yet,still I believe you have a superb system,and knowledge of music reproduction...in a home environment.A very good thing,IMO!
You asked me a few threads ago if I "understand" the subject...The answer I "did" give you(in my overly long post),but let me state simply....YES!....Yet,I am still adamant about my own "polite" and valid response to you.....Do you understand "MY OWN" point at all??
Also,PLEASE do not think I am attacking you,or trying to embarass you,as you know I have "always" been a BIG fan(and consider myself a friend)of yours.I always view your thoughts as coming from a person with great enthusiasm, and not intentionally insulting!You know(I hope) that I have defended you many times in the past!.....Here,it is JUST that you are SO stubborn,that I simply cannot remain silent!...though I am definitely NOT spending more time on this,here.
You seem frustrated by my counter arguement,but seem to refuse to understand what I am stating,which is NOT far from your own thoughts!!....Just an alternative approach..."under SOME circumstances"!"Under certain(not uncommon)conditions"!..."my ear/brain/experience" emphatically tells me this IS so!
BTW,do you have wooden flooring,or some other material under the system?Just curious.
I will not post about this, here, again as I am played out,but I will ALWAYS find you an interesting/passionate/enjoyable hobbyist....even if you are stubborn as heck(a joke) -:)...now go listen to some classical music...maybe Oliver Messien's Turangaleila Symphony,on EMI!That should tell you alot..."WITHOUT TEST MEASUREMENTS"! -:)
Best...as always,and I do mean "best" to you! |
Bob,I could not agree more,with your "audio philosophy",as stated in your last post. |
Raul,I DID state my experiences,in a "today,or any other today, and yesterday" system!As my friend Sid Marks always states---"if I cannot hear the distortion(or my friends cannot either)then I don't care"....He knows a thing or two about music,as he wrote ALL of the Mercury Living Presence and many RCA LP reviews for TAS,back in the glory days.
He is also a bass fanatic,and I mean "fanatic"!!So if he has no issues with my low freq response,I don't worry too much.
Also,something I would understand you not being aware of(since you are not familiar with my speakers),is my current "main" speaker system has a very complex crossover(two separate ones,at 55 lbs each)which have select/custom damping circuits,that specifically are designed to eliminate IMD,downd to about 28 hz!The system is tri-wired due to this configuration.I "should have" mentioned this before,BUT I did state "this" configuration has given me the better low freq performance(not "more bass",but superior "pitch defined" low bass,and THAT is a big issue unto itself)of all previous "yesterday" set-ups,which had two subs employed in them.
I admit to not mentioning this before,so there could be some confusion here....Sorry!
BTW,you don't have to keep responding to me,as I am sure you are busy with other things,and I would like to move on as well.
Best,as always -:) |
Yes Raul,I guess you cannot gain any further insight from me,so I will not post,here,on the subject.
Best. |
Well Raul,the actual reason why Avalon stopped adding this crossover to future designs was due to it's extensive cost/wife acceptance factors/additional crating/shipping costs,amongst other factors...Not performance limitations!..Sometimes I believe you are way too analytical,to the detriment of "musical performance"!
This is a topic I have discussed with quite a few "industry" folks,including the "new" folks at Avalon,and the response I have gotten was,in exact words..."We had forgotten just how good that speaker sounds"!And that was from experience with the equipment of the "yesterday era".With today's top equipment the performance is unrivaled,IMO.One reason why I hold on to them,and have made exceptional attempts to compare to other designs!
I assure you(a guarantee,actually)you have NO idea what the Ascent MK-II is capable of with "today" equipment,but I am sure you will post something "negative".
In truth,the complexity and design of the crossover is the absolute "strength" of the design,which is a "fact"(and I have "extensively" looked into this),but I know I am banging my head against a wall in trying to convince you of "almost any audio matter",so let's just call it a day -:)
Good luck |
Raul,from a "purley listening experience" perspective,and from what "your own ears" told you(not some importer), what problem did you think you encountered with the Ascent's "complex" crossover(btw,it is over 130 parts,whew)?....I'd be interested in how you arrived at "why" the complexity of the crssover is to be considered a "weakness" from a "listening criteria only",since the speaker is as "clear as spring water" to me.Maybe I need to reevaluate my tastes?
This gives me a clue as to how you actually view the hobby....Whether you "hear the problem",or you feel the fact that there are too many component parts employed is the weakness.
Also,could you please let me know what your listening room's floor material is?Wood?Concrete?etc
Just curious,as this gives me some perspective as to your specific tastes.
Thanks. |
Thanks Raul,you've told me all I need to know.
Best. |
Raul I simply cannot let your assumption of audio theory trump a "fact",which greatly affects the listening experience,and "minimizes a designers expertise,and great effort"...of course you may take the comments as my being defensive about your thoughts,and it may be correct,to an extent...BUT you are absolutely clueless about your impression that more parts in the Ascent Mk-II crossover "means" loss of signal transmission or loss of musical information,or just some kind of weakness....I definitely believe your exposure to the speaker was from some demos given by your friend,who was the distributor,and your claims are baseless to me,and owner of the design,and someone who was at it's inception into the audio community.From it's introduction onwards.
Distributors want to "distribute/sell" equipment.They "generally" are not privvy to the minutiae of design,and I don't blame them.
Your claim about the Ascent crossover being a weakness "absolutely" tells me you have no knowledge what-so-ever,as to what has gone into this design.
What we want from a speaker,aside from great sound,is the ability to drive it with a wide variety of amplifiers.Hence,keeping the load/impedence relatively easy for whatever amp one wants to use.
We want a constant impedence,and a sensitive design with good efficiency.The vast majority of "popular" speakers today are poor representations of this.ALL of the newer Avalon Designs are now ported(Re-read my previous posting about the .5 Q factor and transient behavior,as they are FACT,not assumption)and have loads that go down to 3.2 ohms,which are hard on an amp(distortion?).
They also have internal crossovers,which are absolutely not the best place for sensitive parts,but lower production costs.
The AVATAR was the last design Charles Hansen designed for the "original "Avalon!It was designed to a price point(unlike the "cost no object" Ascent MK-II)and was a far cheaper product than the Ascent.Still a very good speaker,but totally outclassed by it's big brother!.
The Ascent MK-II was a clean slate speaker design that was designed with no limit on costs,hence the "two" external crossovers(total of 110 lbs,and 350 lbs for the speakers themselves)and the ABILITY to keep a CONSTANT impedence of 6 ohms across the ENTIRE freq range.It NEVER drops below 5.5 ohms.The crossover's complexity is another reason why "each seperate driver" see's it's own dedicated amplifier,from one amp ONLY,AND the sophisticated damping circuits employeed allow for this HUGE advantage!Far less IMD(a term you like alot).
Your lack of "true knowledge" about this design(having heard it is no substitute for actually knowing every aspect of it design benefits),and the incorrect/negative comments made about the crossover,takes away from the original designer's extreme efforts that went into "that" speaker!!
AND the design efforts were thorough,and EXTREME!!One reason I know this is I had followed the design development(from afar,but greatly interested) and personally knew the original reviewer,who gave credibility and exposure to such a "landmark "product.
It is a "textbook" speaker,for those "understanding" the significant advantages of "constant impedence","easy load","extraordinary transient response","open sound with stunninmg clarity/definition/harmonic truth",and almost non-existant stored energy,not to mention a "still" unequalled ability to soundstage properly!..
Of course you are free to draw any conclusions you want,but as of the here and now,you have exposed yourself as being human,like the rest of us...That is you make assumptions without "all" the facts,let theory affect your thoughts,and are as influenced by industry trends as all of us!
Not a bad thing,really.Just human!
Best. |
Raul,I am glad you state it is only your "opinion".Now we are getting somewhere!
... Also,you did a nice web-search regarding your "latest" post info on the Ascents....
That does not replace my extensive exposure to the product....BTW,I completely disagree about the Eidolon's superiority,as I specifically auditioned them,and compared.I have also spoken with numerous folks who felt the Ascent was the superior design,and they owned both!Information "not" gotten by doing a web-search,but in actual conversation.
Also,one can "easily" make a case for your own speakers having poor time domain issues(among other things),as they are used by you(just an example).You have a front firing tweeter,a back firing tweeter(without much room behind it)and an add on super-tweeter,which will be a disadvantage(technically)if not extremely close to the front tweeter.Of course,I have not heard it,but according to "your own" way of viewing the "technical" issues,it may not be very good.Just my "assumption"!-:)
I am being sarcastic,to make my point,in case you do not follow me.
The ONLY reason why I seem to be making it "a big deal",is because you are totally in the dark regarding actual negative comments,which do NOT stem from actual long term exposure,and knowledge of the design.You are very knowledgeable on many matters.This is NOT one of them,and both you and I know it!!
Actually,and in truth,if you go back about a week or two ago(on this thread)it is YOU who came out of left field and attacked my input regarding a comment made by me two years ago,regarding the "sub" issue!A surprise to me,at the time,especially coming from you.
Believe me,I am simply giving you some "heat",but have absolutely kind feelings towards you,as always....
You are simply going to have to be prepared for some folks to challenge your input when it is "wrong",and accept it.
BTW,I have the "ruler flat" read-outs on the speakers,but am not about to photo/scan it just to prove my point.You can use this to gain some silly advantage,if you want.
I look forward to suporting you on future threads,like I usually have in the past.Just post accurate information.
Best to you Raul,
Mark |
I happen to have a carefully voiced dedicated room(thank goodness)of which I am very satisfied finally,but after alot of sweat/experimentation....However I have heard "some" room/set-ups that have little actual treatment,or attention to acoustics,which sound "marvelous"!
A close friend, owning new Magico Minis,lives in an apartment building.His room is also a general living room,and has ordinary furniture,a T.V. and over sized coffee table,full rug etc...But he is a dedicated hobbyist!
Of course his "biggest problem" in getting a good sounding acoustic is his "wife" -:)...Just kidding,but you get my point!....She actually deserves a medal,for allowing the "hobby" to develop to such an extent in the ONLY spare room available(there is a kitchen and bedroom too).....But there are still acoustic issues which will "never" be addressed....Yet,and yet..it sounds "fabulous"...What can I say? It really does!....My friend is a "wine collector",so maybe his generous offerings are one reason I like his sound SO much -:)..I'm going there soon,I hope.
My friend Sid Marks(of Mercury Living Presence fame,as the reviewer for TAS....and I "ONLY" mention him in the context of his "expertise and high standards",an understatement actually)is NOT one to go out of his way to treat a listening room....He actually puts his efforts into still acquiring interesting LP's,to add to an almost unmatched collection,which takes up most of "his" premises(he is a bachelor).But he is VERY critical of "anything" taking away from musical authenticity.I don't question him anymore.He's proven himself too many times.
Yet(like Raul most likely is very fortunate to have),his room is "absolutely" fabulous!!I mean everyone lucky enough to hear his set-up(which defies logic,it is just SO GREAT)cannot believe how good the "basic" room "allows music to develop"!Who knows for sure how these things "always" work?...Looks can be deceiving!
He(Sid) has a big,bold,dynamic system which puts out alot of energy("probably" similar in energy output to Raul's)....but the acoustic energy just happens to be very well controlled,from the overall room dimensions/wall material,outer room openings etc.Yet,as I mentioned before,not much by way of acoustical treatment.Go figure!!
One cannot really assume a picture of a room,or description tells us everything about it's sound.I have NO reason to believe Raul has anything less than superb sound,really!The guy has been at this for a long time,and is passionate,like so many of us.
Also,a "true" friends group of hobbyists are usually relentless in being worse than "catty women" in critique!So,not to worry....if anyone has audio pals,they will keep you honest......And in my case,caused me to "build from scratch" a dedicated room!Lucky for me,interest rates were cheap at the time it was built.
I was unlucky(lucky in the long run,actually)in that when I bought my home,I thought the "first room" would be OK,but when my friends came over for a listen,they made the criticism on this thread look like a "peace rally"!!-:
Especially Sid who said..."It is a disaster Mark,and some day you will thank me for being SO honest"!!
The comments absolutely embarrassed me,in the poor attention I had paid to things(not to the actual acoustic,but the room's ability to let my speakers "breathe").
I've since solved my problem,but the ONLY way to know if one is successful,is from actual "in person auditioning"!
Best to all. |
Raul,I am happy for G.Morris.
Best. |
Raul,you did not do your homework -:)
Since I assume you are still trying to convince "me" about the "why" I should add a second sub in my own set-up....
Well G.Morris "is" someone I like,and trust.....BUT....he has a completely different speaker/presentation/configuration/room than me.Also,my own speaker goes lower in freq(with more low freq weight than the "superb",but a bit rolled off Maggies.I know them extremely well,so I post from experience,not theory.
Besides -:)....I absolutely "love" my current "full range" sound.No complaints,other than still waiting for my table(coming on the 24th).My new Phantom and Orpheus "need" to play some vinyl!!
Raul,there are some times(I say this from experience)when things can be screwed up,if taken too far.In my room,with my equipment,and the "still surprising me daily" Ascent MK-II's I feel(from listening observation)that I can too easily make a mistake by adding a second sub,for "only" the lowest frequencies.Which(btw) I can "do" quite well,as of now!
Hope you can understand my point of view.
Best regards. |
Raul,one other point.....Please re-read the "last" line,in your original "Post"!!
You ask us to let you know "what we think"!
I,and some others have done that,and you STILL adhere to your "own" specific agenda(nothing wrong with that,btw).Yet,you seem to become contrary to any opposing views.Under "some" circumstances....like,"maybe some of us are really happy already,and(miraculously)actually have very good,"linear" low frequencies....because ALL rooms are different,in how they support bass"!!!
My own point(which is ONLY in MY room,with MY PARTICULAR set-up)is that "SOME" rooms,and particular speakers/system set-ups may not necessarily benefit much by a second sub.SOMETIMES,and it is NOT uncommon!!
If you don't agree with the somewhat opposing thoughts,then I suggest you re-word the "last line"(of your post),to read.....
"What do you think,so I(Raul) can disagree,and tell you so,if the information is NOT to my way of thinking"!!
Best,as always,
Mark -:) |
