Line Arrays - Competitive with best dynanics, ESL?


Line arrays don't get talked about very often at all. We all talk about our Wilsons, or Kharms, or Von Schweikert... of course the representatives from the planar camp, the maggies, ML, Soundlabs... Also the horns - Avantegarge, Acapella, etc....

What about the line arrays? I used to have a pair of bottlehead straight 8s. Cheap, well implemented line array, and they sounded awesome. They didn't rewrite the books of detail or dynamics, but threw a very lush soundstage, and had a tonal "rightness" about them.

Has anyone changed from a well-regarded dynamic, planar, or horn and moved to a line array? Pipedreams? Wisdom? Others? What are the pros/cons of line arrays in your opinion?
goatwuss

Showing 1 response by richards

Pros/cons of line arrays?
I'll share my experience (listening, not technical) with the Selah Audio Incredarrays (consists of 10 Seas Excel W15 mid-bass drivers, 8 Fountek JP-2 ribbon tweeters and 2 Peerless XLS 12” subwoofers per side). This is coming off of several $15K dynamic speakers, as well as dipoles and ribbons.

Here's what they do better than any other speakers I've owned:
1) dynamics. Having 20 very good drivers per side conveys a lifelike punch and an instant transition from soft to loud and back again
2) leading edge transient response is amazing/startling and akin to the real thing
3) lifelike height! Compared to these, most speakers I've heard vertically shrink the soundstage.
4) presence, especially to vocals, that's uncanny
5) detail, and more detail, without etch or glare
6) integration. The drivers are reasonably seamless without a hint of breakup at transition points
7) room loading. They don't fight with the room, needing far less correction from my Tact than my last speakers
8) air. 16 ribbons that are quick enough to make cymbals really shimmer
9) easy to drive. your choice, tubes or SS.
10) not the absolute best in depth (my Genesis were better) smoothness (my Talons were smoother (but too recessed through the mids) or width (think 15' apart Dunlavys)-- but they're more balanced and natural in both soundstaging and imaging

Nitpicks:
Some might want more lush mids. Some may want a less forward presentation (stage-wise) and a softer upper mid/treble perspective. I thought they might be a little harsh in the highs on some material, and that saxes were a touch on the ruthlessly revealing side when I first got them, but now I think they're just right in these regards, accurately portraying what's on the recording.

Cons:
They're big!
6' tall and 2' deep rectangular boxes 8' into the room. But I've yet to hear a speaker presents a realistic stage that isn't way into the room. I'd considered smaller speakers (since I have corner subs (time-aligned with the Tact) but once you hear the dynamics and presence of the big boys it's hard to go back.

YMMV.