Bodotes, that is a fairly decent sized room, glad the 6's are doing a great job there! How is your bass quantity/quality there? Also, have you tried them further apart, with your listening position you might find things open up a bit more. I certainly find the Larsen to be a very spacious sounding speaker, without losing the musical plot.
Yep, tubes can work very well with them too, again all about feeding them with good quality power, tube or solid state. Enjoy them! Keep us posted as time rolls along. Tim |
Frazeur1,
My Larsen 6s are in the living room, which is approx. 17 1/2 x 30. There speakers are placed approx. 8' apart, on either side of a fireplace which is in the middle of one of the long walls. The main seating position is a 10' long couch, and approx. 10' from the wall the speakers are on at the closest point.
I was intending to use a Belles integrated amp I have had for a while, but after trying my Audio Note OTO SE integrated amp I think that I will just keep using that. It sounds great, no matter where you sit in the room. |
Hey, can there ever be too much of a good thing? ;>) |
PRice on Larsen's are not bad for what they might do I would say, especially for a European import.
MWTs are another option I have considered at present if I do something someday. VEry small footprint and probably the right size. But do I really need 4 pair of OHMs? I also like some variety and new toys. %^]
The Triangles are fitting the bill there for now. I don't get to listen in there very often, but it is nice to in there on a nice, sunny day. |
Map, the Larsen Model 4 might work okay in that room, just don't shoe-horn them too much into the corners, but they are fairly tolerant of that to some degree. The little guys are only about 30" tall, and 9" wide by about 10.5" deep. Easy to position, play a bit with listening distance, the usual stuff. Give them about 50 wpc and reasonable current delivery and you should be good to go.
These come in at $1995/pair, which is really pretty decent for a product brought in from Sweden. Mine are in a cherry veneer, and while maybe not quite up to say Totem or Paradigm Studio levels, fit and finish are very good, better than Ohm in most cases.
Certainly Map, I could also recommend Ohm's Micro Walsh Tall, maybe in an omni configuration that John does special for those, and it is actually cheaper too. But you already know about the MWT's obviously.... |
Mapman you might look at the High Emotion Audio if space is a concern. The tweeter is very fast and neutral, as well as nearly omni-directional. You can place them very close to the rear wall- 1.5 to 2 feet works fine.
[ur]http://www.highemotionaudio.com/products[/url] |
Small Larsen's might be perfect for my wife's 12X12, vaulted ceiling, acoustic nightmare sunroom.
It's my wife's room, so my options in there are limited.
I have various speakers I have used in there that I can get to work to various degree but none to-date hit the bulls-eye perfectly.
OHM 100S3s are over kill and bass resonances are hard to get under control. I can't move these out into the room to help tame bass and improve soundstage and imaging in there like I can in other rooms.
Dynaudio Contour 1.3mkII monitors have similar issues but to a lesser extent.
I use my small Triangle Titus XS on low stands 1" off the floor currently and find this to be a pretty good fit, but something a bit larger might still be nice if bass levels can be managed with speakers flush against the wall.
Not a big deal for me but I might have to look into that at some point. |
Optimal setup for OHM and Larsen is bound to be different. Larsen is clearly designed to go right up against the wall for best results, which is a very useful thing for many. OHM Walsh can go close maybe just a couple feet in most cases, but not flush, better in this regard than 100% omnis, like original OHM Walsh model F, or modern mbl for example.
I find in most cases I tend to like my Walsh 5S3 and 100s both out at least two feet, probably more from the wall. What works best will vary by room acoustics and user goals. |
Well somehow my last post must have gotten lost in cyberspace....
Bedotes, congrats on the Larsen purchase, I hope that these will continue to make great music for you for many years to come! I would love to get a listen to the 6 and 8's, someday I am sure.
I would love to know more about your electronics that you are using with your Larsen as well, and also maybe a bit of detail on your room and how the Larsens are spaced with relation to your listening position.
I find with my Model 4's, they can be spaced fairly far apart, mine are about 11' center of each speaker, and my listening position is about 7-8' from the front plane of the speakers, although the nice part is, there isn't a real sweet spot with them, and that is what I like.
I have never gotten a chance to listen to the "real" Ohm Walsh, the A or F, my experiences with the Walsh line have all been mainly the CLS versions and a few of their box speakers as well. I did have some comparisons with the Ohm 3000 and my Larsens, I would have to say they are very similar overall, more so than not, but I felt as if the Larsen was a more detailed speaker and had more clarity in the upper mids and treble region. Probably would say the Ohm went a bit deeper in the bass end, but not by much.
The Ohm Walsh 4000/5000 I would think would be a great comparison to make with the Larsen Model 8, and price wise, a fairly close match. Would be interesting indeed! I certainly would like to see how these two would compare bass-wise to each other.
While the current Walsh series can be sited fairly close to the wall, this is one thing I find very nice about the Larsen, it gets tucked right up to the wall as close as you can get it, and on you go. Nice to have a bit of floor space back and still retain very good depth of image etc. Just not a lot of fuss with regards to setup in general.
Again, good to see some comments around omni-types of speakers here, and while Ohm has a good deal of information in the infamous MWT thread, good to see the Larsen making an appearance too. I hope that it continues to get some good exposure as they are very good transducers! Tim |
Quite a stimulating discussion.
Back to the recommendation:
http://www.larsenhifi.com/en/historien.htm
Larsen 8 is made to be placed against the wall.
http://www.teenageengineering.com/od-11 (don't know if these are available)
I had looked at these researching omni speakers.
P.s no affiliation to either!
Hope it helps? |
Tim,
Your timing was good. I just bought a pair of Larsen 6s and am in (audio) love. My living room never sounded so good. Almost as importantly, my wife loves the way that they look in the room, especially that they are right up against the wall. She still hasn't gotten over my Maggie addiction from years before.
Your mention of the Ohm Walsh speakers is also interesting. I had a pair of original Ohm Walsh Fs, and later a pair of the newer Ohm Walsh 5000s. Although some might disagree, I found the 5000s to be much better than the original models. And based on my dubious audio memory, I think that the Larsens are much better. Thee acoustic image is more clear and defined, and the bass response is also much better. I would have gone for the 8s except that, for the price, the 6s are absolute giant killers.
I make no apologies for being a fan. Thanks |
Bodotes, I am coming in a bit late to this conversation, not that I will have much to add to it really, other than to comment on the Larsens you mentioned. I have lived with the smallest of the line, the Model 4, and as you put it, it is one fantastic speaker, one of very few wall boundary types of speakers that seems capable of doing depth and eliminating the typical 2-D cardboard cutout effects that most seem to have. These speakers are indeed very good! Good to see them finally getting some press and appearances at some of the shows.
I alternate speakers every now and then, and my other "reference" for what it is worth, is a pair of Shahinian Obelisk 2's which I have owned for a year now. I also have owned Ohm Walsh in various types, never the real Ohm Walsh however. I do tend to enjoy the omni/semi-omni presentation in general more so than any other speaker that I have owned.
The Obelisk has gotten to be quite expensive over the last few years, well worth it in my opinion, yet I find the Larsen maybe a bit more cost effective, and as it stands, I dare say the small Larsen Model 4 gives up little in comparison. Yes the Obelisk to my ears is better, but in general, either one does the job for me.
And probably, if I wasn't fortunate enough to own these two, Ohms would be what I would own, again a serious contender for reasonable prices. I would also give the nod to the Ohms for their sheer dynamic ability over either of the two speakers that I own. Especially when you are in the 4000/5000 series of Ohm, a very good speaker indeed.
I would love to someday hear Dukes creations as well, a very well thought out and interesting design. I try to not get too worked up over design and theory, but allow my ears to tell me what is good for me. Many ways to skin the cat so to speak.
I am glad that the Larsen was brought up though. I have tried to maybe temper my thoughts at times on these, some may think I am too Fanboy about them! At any rate, good discussion here! Enjoy guys. Tim |
Here is the easy recipe for very good sound for veritually no cost for many to hear recordings sans room acoustics and reflections. Its pretty good! If you don't need room acoustics to get the sound you want, this may be all most people would ever need.
1) RIP a few tracks from CD to .wav using any good quality ripping software. Windows MEdia player set to store lossless .wav does nicely.
2) upload tracks to amazon cloud player website. You can do up to a few hundred tracks for free. Only tracks in Amazons music catalog will upload though, so some will not.
3) Grab a pair of good quality earbuds or earphones, plug it into a good quality newer PC. Nothing fancy needed, just avoid junk. I find Klipsch S4 earbuds at well less than $100 do very well. OR use an Ipad, iphone, android device or any device with decent sound quality and a browser to access Amazon Cloud player website.
4) You should get pretty decent sound quality, sans room acoustics. Makes for a decent reference for constrast and comparison. You'll need a decent home system set up right (not easy in comparison) to get better results most likely. Of course, earbuds and speakers in a room are two totally different beasts, but both can be very satisfying these days.
Does not have to cost much to get in the game with this approach though. I'd be willing to bet that the average intelligent youth these days weans better sound quality out of a setup like this than many audiophiles who have labored for years and spent many $$$Ss trying to just get decent sound that might hold their interest over time. |
I had some success with Daad3 bass traps. They dont catch much bass but help with lower mid and vocal - in my case - if placed three feet or so behind the main speakers. |
Only if you take steps to mitigate reflections from the wall. That's all there is to it. |
B_limo,
With my OHM omni's, speaker distance apart has little effect on soundstage width. It is wall to wall, about 20" total even if speakers are just a few feet apart. My room is L shaped with the OHM's sitting at the base of the L firing into the long dimension, which is narrow. Omnis are are a perfect fit there. I had Maggies there prior and could never get them to work as well as I knew they could from prior experience with them in other rooms.
Achieving soundstage depth is the biggest challenge in this room as with most in that having speakers too far out from rear wall is a practical problem in many cases, but the OHMs do a good job even with just enough distance from rear wall to avoid early reflections. I like the distance the reflected sound travels to be about 2X that of the direct, to the extent possible, for best results.
A large room, wide and deep, with lots of space behind, does help not only with enabling a large soundstage, but also helps our ears to be able to triangulate on sound locations within the soundstage better and with more detail, ie perceive imaging within the soudstage accurately. Our 2 ears and two eyes work similarly in this way in terms of being able to see or hear in "stereo" and being able to locate things spatially in three dimensions.
Generally, you will want more room behind the speakers to work well with more space between. WHen speakers move closer to rear wall, less space may be best between speakers as well. It's mostly about getting the right distribution, balance, and magnitude of direct and reflected sound from the two stereo speakers at the listening location or locations.
An excellent tweak otherwise would be to move one's ears further apart somehow. Not likely to happen though, so lots of open 3-D space for the speakers to image in is your friend in general otherwise.
Things work similarly in smaller rooms, but on a smaller scale. Its like having a 15" TV versus a 70" big screen in essence. If set up right including listening position, similar good things can still happen, just on a smaller scale.
I find omni's overall to be easier to setup for good overall results than more directional designs, though fine tuning for absolute best results is still needed as well.
At my reference mbl demo behavior appeared similar ie distance to rear wall was the key as long as early reflections from side wall were not in play.
That room was also heavily treated with curtains and other soft absorbent materials, which were absent at show demos with lesser results. Also the room area behind the mbls was tapered, not rectangu;lar, much like a musical instrument, probably to minimize resonances.
If I had a room like that, I think there is a chance my OHMs could probably challenge the mbls for soundstage depth and maybe even beat them in most every other way, but I may never know for sure.
My big OHMs ended up costing me about $2500 a couple years back, with sale price at the time and maximum trade-in value (40%) applied. They go for about $6500 brand spanking new these days, less if OHM Walsh CLS driver "can" is mounted in older refurbed cabinets, like mine, which are refurbed OHM F cabinets that could be a good 30-40 years old by now.
Dynamics are top notch as well. I do not feel wanting after a good horn speaker demo when I come home.
The big mbl 101s may be the boss in terms of bass output potential and dynamics there though. THe mbls I heard were "only" 111e's. Have never had the pleasure of hearing 101s.
TO challenge bass output from 101s perhaps, OHM now has a 5015 model with powered subs integrated into the cabinets for about $10K. I would love to hear a shootout between those and mbl 101s each set up optimally. |
Excellent thread! Thanks guys.
I also am an MBL lover. Heard them the past two years at RMAF. MBL 101's are still the best sounding speakers I have heard, in my oppinion, to my ears, for my tastes. It's the only set-up I've heard that rivals the Funktion One set-up at Beta Nightclub in terms of dynamics.
This thread got me thinking about speaker placement again. I prefer my speakers to be pulled out as far as possible from the wall behind them because it makes the soundstage deeper in my experience, but for some reason, I didn't appy that logic to side wall distances. I felt like my soundstage is wider the further apart the speakers are but I'll be revisiting that theory of mine. Maybe I can get a wider soundstage if I pull them away from the sidewalls a little more... Room is 11x13 fyi. |
In the last 2 years there were only bad demos with different horn loudspeakers in the Netherlands during shows.
The rooms are not that good. But I still think that the knowledge of the people who sell it is not good enough.
Often they are not music lovers. The music they use is not the music they love. But they use it because they think it gives them a good demo.
At shows there need to be more told about music and artists. I want live music and I want to talk about it. |
Avantgarde speakers is another example of speakers that very often sound bad
at shows. One would not expect this to be the case, as by design the sound they
produce should be affected less by the room (unlike in the MBLs). However,
audio dealers are "resourceful" (at least in the Netherlands) and they
manage to find so many ways to screw up the sound of a system.
With the right settings for the crossover and when driven with appropriate
electronics they will put out a large and realistic sound-stage. This even when
placed right against the wall. If, however, one is driving them with Bryston
power amps (like the dutch importer does) that tends to happen less often. |
Mapman: I have heard Avantgarde two times at audio events, not in my room. The first was bad and not properly adjusted I think. The second was great, all my preconceptions about horns just fell flat. So I don't know, these may work even better in your context, than Audiokinesis speakers. But for me, in my context, I like these speakers better, they are not so totally horny if you forgive a phrase, there is more conventional driver action, which I like. They are more mainstream so to speak. So I feel no need to change. |
"Bo, the reality is that people are misinformed and ill advised everywhere not just
in audio."
So true, unfortunately.
The information is there more than ever, but so much noise to blur the picture.... |
Duke's speakers always catch my attention, though I have yet to hear.
Like I said, Duke is the man here when it comes to talking about and explaining these things. That goes a long way for me. |
Mapman - sounds like a good conclusion.
I am not going to sell my Dream Makers anywhere soon. I have no commercial connections. I suggest you try to get the chance to listen. It is the best I have heard so far. I have not heard MBLs but I have heard lively Bang Olufsen speakers trying the same, Martin Logans, etc. I can only say, in my system, I was lucky to get the Audiokinesis speakers. |
Here is a photo of those Goto horns at Capital Audiofest a few years back that I heard. This was a top 5 all time most impressive system demo for me I would say. Not to mention the speakers, setup room and venue were all simply gorgeous. |
I would love to have a pair of large, good horns. Avantegarde would do nicely. Not sure I would have the right room for those though, but I would love to have the chance.
THe best horn speaker demo I have ever heard was a pair of large full range custom horns GoTo drivers and large bass modules, similar to Avantegarde perhaps, at Capital audiofest a few years back. THat was one occasion where the mbl demo was not fully up to snuff. The GoTo's got my personal best sound of show award that day, FWIW. Soundstage and imaging was not to the scale of the benchmark mbl demo, but still excellent and all the rest was exhilarating as well, with excllent trademark horn transients and dynamics. I only got to listen for 20 minutes or so though. |
Nvp:
"minimise the first order reflections and create a symmetric listening environment."
I agree. But James Romeyn, co-designer of new Audiokinesis speakers, has suggested one should try a bit of offset from full symmetry, like 1.5 inch (moving the whole "axis" of the system a bit towards one of the side walls). My room is a bit asymmetrical anyway, so it may not be needed in my case. He also suggested my sub (which I have to place close to the wall) would sound best with 90 degrees phase, which turned out to be right. |
I have never owned any speakers designed to go up against wall + maximize soundstage depth, which is what suffers the most usually when speakers are close to the wall.
OHM Walshes are designed to be able to go closer to walls than pure omnis, in order to make placement more viable for most. When set up right, soundstage depth is very good. The kinds of rooms most people are stuck with (unlike United Home Audio where I heard the benchmark mbl demo) and have to also live in are often a practical limitation and OHM is unique in its ability to create a large and reasonably deep detailed soundstage with placement closer to walls than possible with true omni, but not against.
Blue Circle had a model a few years back based on the OHM Walsh design that was designed to go flush against walls.
There are other speaker designers that tackle thepractical issues most have to deal with when locating speakers from teh perspective of soundstage and imaging. Larsen is one that was mentioned above that appears to have a good approach but I am not very familiar with. At a glance, they remind me a bit of Vandersteen which is quite well known.
BEfore teh current Walsh line, OHM offered several models using unconventional driver orientations to help reduce effects of early reflections that remind me of what Larsen appears to do. OHM often has refurbed versions of their older models with latest and greatest components installed for reasonable cost if of interest. Check out the catalog of older models on teh OHM site for more info on some of the FRS, CAM (very well received at the time with rotatable "egg" shaped tweeter mounted on top), or the OHM I, which John Strohbeen has cited as perhaps the best OHM ever in terms of pure output capabilities. |
Mapman and Audiokinesis, thank you for the stimulating discussion. Ill start by citing Audiokinesis: Reflections done right are beneficial from the
standpoint of envelopment and spaciousness and a sense of immersion,
timbre, clarity, and liveliness. They can preserve the three-dimensionality of
the recording, something that reflections done wrong will degrade.
Obviously, there are two extreme possibility: Reflections done right and reflections done wrong. Mapman talks about the benefits associated with the first one, i.e. Reflections done right, while I warn people to be cautious as reflections done wrong can be very detrimental. There is a reason why MBL speakers only on occasions sound breathtaking while very often they are unable to image properly or sound good. If MBL representatives (who are supposed to be experts in setting up MBL speakers) often cant do it, then one can not expect the average audiophile or sell person to do it. Consequently, my take is that if one wants to have a good sound-stage with realistic sizes for the instrument and voices, than his/her best bet is to minimise the first order reflections and create a symmetric listening environment. I did not argue that one needs to completely suppress all reflections (which is a task impossible to achieve in ones room anyway). What I argue is that beside altering the spectral balance, too many reflections are also likely to give an unrealistic sound-stage, e.g. singer/voices having unnatural sizes (30 inch or more). As such I feel it is better to minimise reflections rather than to maximise them. There is a reason why recordings are mixed in near-filed. In the end it is a matter of preference (also because the ideal" reverberation time depends on the type of music one listens) and in this regard me and Mapman have very different preferences. I own Avantgarde horns (i.e. speakers that control the directivity of sound and thus minimise reflections) whereas Mapman owns Ohm speakers (i.e. speakers which try to maximise the reflections). For what it is worth Mapman, I have a PhD in theoretical/computational physics and I am doing research in university in the field of vibrational spectroscopy for almost 15 years now. |
First - Nvp and Mapman - sorry for using the critique word, possibly leading to a misunderstanding. We share the basic ideals and I agree with most of what you write. Indeed I want to hear the recording venue, not my room. My point is just, we can't avoid the room (at least not, with more volume, bigger speakers etc), so we must make it play along. The Audiokinesis Dream Maker speakers I got last year do it better than others I've owned (Dynaudio Consequence, Abrahamsen Fs401, Aurum Cantus, Proac clones, even Bose 901 in the 1970s) in my fairly large 20 x 27 feet room. But it is not exactly up against the wall. The best close-to-the wall imaging I have achieved, is with smaller bookshelf or desktop speakers, sounding best if "clamped" (from above + below) but I have given up on that in my main rig. Speakers have to stand 4-5 feet from the wall, or more, to sound their best. For a while, I used the Aurum Cantus L2SE - great nearfield listening (esp for the money), although not a serious contender in the main rig, but even these small speakers sounded best 5 feet or so from the wall (now, a good fit for my Ming Da integrated amp at the cottage). The Dream Makers perform the trick of creating, both, the room energy and the "big" music making - *and* intimate images, but they are best almost six feet from the wall, so this is somewhat OT. |
Duke,
All of what you say rings true to me, as usual.
A large 3-D soundstage created by properly managed reflected sound is like a large format well done 3-D movie. Our eyes can resolve things more completely and accurately in 3-D compared to a projection of 3-D into 2-D. Aslo, in the case of sound, there is always a time component as well that must be addressed properly during playback. Reflected sound and the timing delays associated enable that.
Bose helped give reflected sound a bad name with audiophiles, not so much because the concept was wrong,but that the implementation apparently did not float many audiophile boats.
OHM with their omni designs is the company that has been around a long time like Bose that has traversed those seas most aggressively for the longest period of time, I suspect. Magnepan as well with their planar dipole approach. TWo different designs, two different dispersion patterns, two speakers that will likely seldom ever both sound best in teh same location, due to differences in how direct and reflected sound occurs. Toss mbl, a true omni design, in the same boat, I've owned both for many years and found each satisfying in their own way when set up right. Each has different requirements for best performance in a room and details of placement relative to walls is a key difference. Standard box designs have some inherent limitations, but designers, like Duke, have found many unique ways to address those effectively as well.
I have extensive technical background and experience in digital map imaging for military applications (hence my moniker). I draw largely on that to help me understand what I hear as well. |
|
"We all know that this expansion of the soundstage is lost when the speakers are too close to the side walls"
In what kind of world do you people life? I create lost of depth with all speakers I use. Even when they are closed to the wall. |
To create a deep and wide stage and an intimate stage. Is not that difficult anymore as in the past. These days with less money it can be achieved.
When people still buy those speakers which cannot give depth and are average in imaging. You never will achieve a good endresult. It doesn't matter what amp, source and cables you will buy.
What's not there, stays what it is! |
If there is sufficient time delay between the first-arrival sound and the onset of significant reverberant energy, we can have the best of both worlds - imaging and envelopment.
Reflections done right are beneficial from the standpoint of envelopment and spaciousness and a sense of immersion, timbre, clarity, and liveliness. They can preserve the three-dimensionality of the recording, something that reflections done wrong will degrade. The benefits of reflections done right are why acousticians do not design anechoic chambers for recording studio mastering rooms, nor for recital and concert halls.
Relying upon the direct sound from the speakers to deliver all reverberant information (and suppressing anything that involves the room) looks good at first glance. But what's not obvious is the fact that the worst possible direction for the dominant reverberant energy to come from is direct from the speakers. Controlled listening tests have shown that when reflections come from the direction of the speaker only, the ear/brain system tends to interpret them as coloration. As the direction of the reflections' arrival detaches from the speakers, the ear/brain system interprets it as ambience and spaciousness. As we add time delay to the onset of those reflections, the ambience and spaciousness improve, and any degradation of sound source localization decreases (there are exceptions to this, but it's true for most decent home listening rooms). As we increase the relative amount of energy in a spectrally-correct, late arriving, decorrelated, and diffuse reverberant field, the benefits mentioned increase, up to a point. It is possible to overdo it... imo Amar Bose overdid it.
So I'm not saying there's no tradeoff in sound source localization precision vs spaciousness from reflections done right, but the loss in localization is small, and in return we get significant benefit in several areas.
I would like to comment on one statement above:
"Note that there are also reports (also from reviewers) mentioning that the walls of a (small) room have simply disappeared and what was left was a beautiful large stage. This happens when the amount of secondary reflection is minimal and this is exactly the point that I am making."
That can also happen in a small, untreated room with a loudspeaker system that gets the reverberant field right.
From a show report by a reviewer, of a system that arguably incorporated "reflections done right", in a 13' by 19' hotel room, with ZERO acoustic treatment:
"Really nice, big spacious open sound. Again, it actually expands beyond the physical confines of the room. I dont think ANY other system at the show has been able to pull that off."
That was written at RMAF 2013, Sunday afternoon, after the reviewers (there were two of them) had nearly finished making the rounds. If anyone is interested I can provide a link to the full commentary by the reviewers, wherein you can tell they are experiencing many of the other benefits I mentioned.
For the record, I never set out to build a speaker with particularly good imaging. My focus is always timbre. Just so happens that, far as the reverberant field goes, what's good for timbre can also be good for imaging.
Imo, ime, ymmv, etc.
Duke |
Psag, if with your eyes close you can tell when listening to music that you are in a small room, than that is because of the secondary reflections. If there will be no secondary reflections you will not be able to tell whether the room is large or small.
Note that there are also reports (also from reviewers) mentioning that the walls of a (small) room have simply disappeared and what was left was a beautiful large stage. This happens when the amount of secondary reflection is minimal and this is exactly the point that I am making.
No reflections at all is weird for the brain. However the brain does not care from where those reflections are coming (i.e. from our room or from the recording). The brain only associate spatial information to the music we are listening once it has detected secondary reflections.
Like Mapman was saying, it is a matter of taste and one has to play with speaker positioning and speaker types in order to determine what he/she prefers. Nothing is written in stones. |
Bo,
I've seen you mention that you were the best "absolute" sound at a show many times. Here in the U.S. when someone is best in show they will be written about and shown on many websites. Are there any websites in your country that discuss and show your setup from that show and if so, could you share some links?
If you have no links, could you tell us the name and date of that show? |
"How do we reconcile these two contradictory
statements?"
Personal preference and perspective.
THere are many favorite flavors of ice cream. Even more
beautiful women, no two of which look the same. |
Bo, the reality is that people are misinformed and ill advised everywhere not just in audio. People with less Sounds like a great motto for all audiophiles. We all are missing something, e.g. a deeper sound-stage, or a wider sound-stage, or deep bass, or money to buy more equipment, most likely also some parts of the brain, etc. The list is pretty pretty long. You give me a good laugh Bo. |
In my experience speakers with a faster response have less acoustic limitations compared to those who are slower.
I owned both the B&W 802N and later the B&W 800 Signature. The last one is bigger and goes deeper. But I had less acoustic problems with the 800S. It was with the same amp, source, conditioner and cables. |
When I was called the absolute sound of last year. One of the main reason was that I did use Audyssey Pro ( my way) Without it I would never had such a balanced and physical 3 dimensional stage.
The rooms are not that good at shows. The system solved a lot of the limitations overthere. It gives you an advantage.
I also demoed the roomcorrection on and off. The faces of people said everything. People were amazed by the difference. I also demoed Audyssey EQ and Volume on and off. This is the best way of letting people hear what it is and what it does. Hearing is believing. |
Perfect sound does not exist yet. Many demos at shows are not that good. Even those who made it are often not able to give a good or stunning demo.
At the end of every show the most demos were not that good. Those people come back next year. You keep a big % average or even poor level of audio equipment.
You have a lot more average imaging speakers than exeptional good imaging speakers. People still buy these average speakers.
Many customers are not good adviced in audio in general. Most will not have a stunning sound. It is that simple. At the end this is the truth!
People with less |
"
in order to clearly hear the secondary reflections that have occurred in the recording room/venue, we need to minimize the reflections in our room."
On the other hand, I think most of us would agree that music sounds best when there are reflections.
How do we reconcile these two contradictory statements? |
O_holter, it was certainly not my intension to criticise Mapman. Regarding
your comment about great speaker, it is a matter of setting up properly the
speakers in the room - the room will always "sing" along with any speakers
irrespectively whether it is a good or a bad speaker. We have all heard great
speakers sounding like crap.
Mapman, I am sorry if as suggested by O_holter, my post sounded like
criticism. I merely wanted to explain why you interpretation of what you have
read about secondary reflection is not correct. I was not the first one to point
this out. I have hoped that by making an analogy with the more known effects
induced by the room on the bass, it will be easier for people to follow my
argument. Obviously, as O_Holter message above indicates, I was wrong. Ill
give it another try and Ill be as succinct as possible.
Of course I agree/know that secondary reflections provide informations to our
brains about the surroundings - because of them we know immediately
whether we are in a small room or in a large room. Therefore, it is logical that
one needs secondary reflections to create a three-dimensional sound stage.
However, the key point is that on recordings that have a good sound-stage
the secondary reflections that give information to our brain about the venue
where the recording was made have been captured by the microphone during
the recording process. Consequently, my point is that in order to clearly hear
the secondary reflections that have occurred in the recording room/venue, we
need to minimise the reflections in our room. We talk about delicate details
which may be masked by the secondary reflections that occur in our rooms. I,
for one, am trying to hear the venue where the recording was made and not
my room.
Of course one can make use of the reflections in his/her room to
increase/decrease the soundstage to his/her liking. But, like in the case of
bass, the results may not always be beneficial/accurate. There is a reason why
so many MBL shows (organised by MBL personal) go wrong. I agree that when
properly set up MBL speakers can sound mesmerising (maybe not 100%
accurate but 100% accuracy is not my goal anyway.) |
Coherency among drivers matters for soundstage and imaging as well. Crossover can be a big factor there. |
"speakers should get a grip on the room."
That's a very good way to put it! Its fundamental to best sound. Room acoustics always determine the end result in all ways.
No early reflections always. Then tune in from there as needed. Many ways to get tuned in accordingly. Distance from walls, treatments, whatever works best. |
In my personal view you only can achieve a stunning 3 dimensional image if you are able to get all the properties out of a speaker who owns the properties to build a deep and wide stage.
Most speakers use average or poor crossovers. They are not even able to give a lot of depth and with.
Same thing about the cabinet and speaker units. They need to be exeptional to give you a 3 dimensional image
Those speakers who can give a wide and deep stage need amps and sources who also can do this at an exeptional level.
When you compare and test different amps you will realize that most will not give you a deep and wide stage.
Even when the speakers are capable, sources and amps can easilly change the image from 3 dimensional to 2 dimensional.
Last year I asked many people at a show who had an audio shop if they knew which of their brands can give a 3 dimensional image. Many did not know. They asked me how I created it.
They do not understand the properties of the products they sell. I was thinking; how the F.. do you sell audio?
I need the best cables to bring in the blacks for a stunning physical image. I use silver for their extra resolution and decay. And the extra air around voices and instruments.
A stunning image only can be created by using speakers, amps, sources, conditioners and cables togheter to the max. All properties need to be there for the absolute sound! |
Nvp - my experience seems very different.
You critisise Mapman for thinking speakers should get a grip on the room.
>What you are saying is equivalent to saying that in order to >have good bass one needs to excite the modes of his/her room
and you go on to say this is not right.
Good speakers play together with the room. Simple as that. |
"Speakers are very important, but you need to know were they capable of. Often people only get a few properties out of their speaker.
Imaging is also created by amps, sources and cables for a big part."
That's very true. One bad component can completely wreck a system's imaging. |
You give a good example how difficult audio can be. After 16 years I know that most people in audio are not able to get a stunning and convincing sound out of a system.
Often at shows as in many shops I can hear the limitations in sets. Often it is incomplete. But there are also many brands who do not have the properties ( qualities) to create an image with depth.
2 years ago there was a Naim system with speakers of about 50.000 dollar. It gave a full 2 dimensional image with a voice of about 2,5 metres. At those moments I get very irritated, because this has nothing to do with quality and a realistic image. You must be blind ( deaf) or a big F....idiot to spend this kind of money to a 2 dimensional image.
When I asked a few simple questions about stage and depth, they could not even answer it. Those people sell audio. |
"It is not only the harsh sound. The mid freq. are not that natural and realistic. With classical music a violin sounded a lot different than in real."
With the good mbl demo I heard, these were exceptional with no qualifications, especially when the source was modern reference standard RTR. Vinyl and CD in order were less perfect. That was clearly mostly do to limitations with the source material and format. The differences were never more striking to me than this mbl demo, where the RTR source truly sounded like a real orchestra spread out immediately in front of me with enough size and space to be able to pinpoint ever detail, much like in a high res 3-D image versus low.
It could be that only with a large 3-D soundstage and highly accurate imaging within that resolution differences from format to format can truly be heard. The RTR blew anything else away. Most people have never had a chance to hear the differences in a setup such as the one I heard at United Home Audio.
Same setup at Capital audiofest two different years...meh. THe magic was not there at all. Things were not even close to being properly dialed in, though many sat there and were mesmerized still. I heard many systems better on both occasions, some quite world class, but still not teh reference standard overall including imaging and soundstage in comparison. |
