| Post removed |
Who here other than me doesn't get the same level of soundsaging from horns that other speakers give? I've owned the Sound Labs, obviously a 'stat speaker--they offer remarkable soundstaging--so I'm not 'tied to' dynamics. But, I've never heard a horn sound quite right,(to my ears obviously) in terms of just raw staging. What is it that I'm missing? And which horns can and do stage accurately? This comment is not meant to illicit an angry of defensive response, but more of a simple question. |
Lrsky, your comments about soundstaging have so offended me I would like to meet you half-way between our two residences for a fistfight. Ok, seriously, I think this is an issue with multi-way front horns and I think it's a coherence issue. (Single-driver) back horns don't have this issue - in fact, they usually soundstage very well indeed. |
Lrsky, the field-coil powered Classic Audio Loudspeakers will do the same imaging and detail as the Sound Labs, without horn artifact. The speaker is 98 db and goes from 20Hz to 35KHz. If you search this website look for comments on the speaker from either the RMAF 2008 or T.H.E. Show 2009. One thing to keep in mind is that most horns will not sound right with transistors- that in fact is where the 'horn sound' myth comes from. For more information see http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/paradigm_paper2.html Field-coils are the dynamic speaker equivalent of the powered Electrostatic Field in an ESL. In essence this gives the driver the same speed that an ESL can exhibit, and for the same reason: the motive field does not sag when the amplifier powers the diaphragm to move. |
Ok Atmasphere, Most horn devotees snarl when we mere mortals speak of 'horn sound' or 'horn artifacts', as if that phenom doesn't exist. I'm not sure that I do either, but they definitely have their own 'flavor'. You say that these have the same imaging and detail as the SL's, wow, that's saying something. The Sound Labs, even to most who don't like 'stats, are still revered. They are virtually colorless and VERY, to my ear, lifelike, both texturally and tonally. Low level res is rediculously good. And as I've said, I have an enormous listening room which they filled with no problem whatsoever. How much are these jewels? |
But, I've never heard a horn sound quite right,(to my ears obviously) in terms of just raw staging. Perhaps it is the narrow dispersion pattern that gets you. To produce convincing sound that feels real for the room you are in it helps to have wider dispersion and EVEN dispersion (no discontinuity in beam width between drivers at the crossover). Not all horns are narrow. Not all designs suffer from abrupt changes in beam width. Some Westlake's and JBL's are wider dispersion - particularly the big bad 4 or 5 ways. Many of the modern horn designs have wider dispersion these days. |
Lrsky, I know what you mean about the Sound Labs- I've heard them many times as I have lots of customers and friends who have them or had them. The detail and cohesive quality that ESLs are capable of on a day to day basis is something that usually leave magnetic loudspeakers in the dust. Until field coils re-emerged. Field coils were common in the old days until sometime in the 1950s- permanent magnets are cheaper to produce. It seems to be the curse of audio that there is a movement always to the bottom, but in high end we are concerned more with performance, so it is only natural that field coils would show up again. I think the Classic Audio Loudspeakers, fully equipped with field coils top to bottom, are in the +$50K range. The field coils seem to have the property of doubling the cost of the speakers, which are also available with alnico magnets. |
Atmasphere, Just read about field coil technology. Everything old is new again. This makes incredible sense to me. Since loudspeakers are the greatest producers of distortion, essentially due to a lack of control over the moving mass--(over simplification but the basic idea is there), the field coil acts to virtually eliminate it with greater flux density, aka, magnetic strength. I know you know this, I only mention it to help others understand the basic principal. I know I was not aware of these beauties. Wow, I'd love to hear these things. I'm not in the market at this moment, but, who knows. |
Field coils drivers are very tasty indeed. They have an "ease" that you simply do not find with - anything else, probably. I had a Supravox field coil setup. The 8", augmented with the giant bass drivers on an OB. Could not really get them to gel in my room. My favorite setup with them was actually the 8" alone on the JE Labs-type baffle. Heavenly sound, bass to 50 Hz. The Cogent and Classic horns are pretty special also, of course. Big $$$, of course. |
I have been to ALL the shows and when I come back home I feel that my vintage speakers just sound more MUSICAL...more LIKE THE REAL THING! Sure, modern gear has gotten a lot better but they are a few vintage speakers that will remain the best of all time! These speakers that are made today are made for {Home Theater} Everything is for home theater these days!!......... |
I don't know that vintage speakers are the best or not but it might be true that more people will agree more often on models that have been around for awhile because more people have had actual exposure to these compared to any newly released model. For example, I would be willing to bet that Klipschhorns, which have been around forever, would get lots of love from the masses compared say to some newer horn design that might be superior. Generally, when something survives for along time, there is a good reason. Kind of a form of natural selection, I suppose. |
Add some and it will sound even better........... or settle for just "damn good!". :) Vintage or not - balanced room acoustic treatment will benefit ANY listening room and music reproduction. We all know the "aroma" of good coffee - how much sugar or cream you like in it, is your personal choice. Mariusz |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
"Audiophiles like modern speakers...Music Lovers like vintage speakers!" I think, audiophiles are sound lovers. They constantly like to try new gears for better sound (which may not necessarily end up being better, but just different) Music lovers focus on music, spending lots of time on listening to music (either at home or at concerts). Audiophiles tend to be affluent and usually have enough money to spare for gears from time to time, or frequently overspends compared to their income level, sometimes leaving their family in despair. Or yet, skillful and crazy enough to build their own gears at relatively cheap cost, or smart enough to buddy with rich folks who can afford high end gears and enjoy the sound from their buddys' systems. Many audiophiles are music lovers, but I guess rather small amount of music lovers are audiophiles. Just my opinion. I would rather say myself a music lover, but trying to be an audiophile with stiff opposition from WAF. |
Age of listeners v age of speakers, is I think relevent, but I would add that a lot depends on the recording practices and electronics that existed in the period of time when the recordings were made and how they would sound on equipment contemporarily available. I would offer the following observations to support that. We went thru a transition tube/analog with closed box dynamics or horns stuff in the 50s/60's to SS electronics w/ported dynamics, and panels, in the 70's and 80's, to digital and a reassessment of tubes/electrostats/panels and high resolution dynamic speakers in the 90's to the present. In the early 80's I had full frequency response, phase correct, vented three way boxes, driven by SS and some fairly decent sources. The Telarc digital LP's that came out in the late 70's sounded wonderful, bass drum and all - and I think that is because they were recorded with my kind of system in mind, not Quad 57's. :-) Today, these same recordings, either the LP's or digital, but especially the CD's, sound relatively airless. I've also found that a lot of the RCA and Merc digital 'remasters', and some of the LP's, can sound a bit thin and/or bright, which I think reflects the status of equipment in the 50's/60's. In response to the OP's question, the 'best' speaker must judged in relationship to the 'age' of the recorded music and electronics in use when it was recorded IF you interested in the most 'musical' result and you love RCA's and Merc's you want to voice your system accordingly. There is no one size fits all. Apart from personal sonic pleasure that is. FWIW, that is MHO anyway. |
Let's see...just because I have the money to afford more expensive audio products--I don't love music. Submit: A 12 year old boy who listens to (read: falls asleep to Nancy Wilson, Joanie Sommers (who sang What's New with Big Band arrangements), played his first gig, playing Alto Sax, his heros being Charlie Parker, Paul Desmond, Cannonball Adderlery--and at the age of 13, went to hear Miles Davis live in Louisville at the Brown Hotel in Louisville, even when HE WASN'T ALLOWED TO STAY THERE!!!!, went to a radio station to discuss Jazz with the Jazz jock of the day with Terry Adams of NRBQ, who I thwarted playing with because he played 'crap', not jazz I, WHAT?, don't love music? Someone get a hose, and hose this site down...NO ONE, not any reviewer, from Clement Perry to Jon Valin, loves music and audio more than I do!!!! |
Each upgrade of my gears made me happy since I could hear more and better sound, and the music sound more musical. I don't know when the series of upgrades would stop. It may never stop until I die or get broke. It is hard to quantify how much someone loves music and/or sound, but to my wife I appear to be more of a sound lover than a music lover. Even though it upsets me to hear that, well, it is hard to dispute her judgment. I am writing this and listening to Wagner's Tirstan Und Isolde, and I feel short of SOUND from my system. Why don't I just enjoy the music as it is now and forget about upgrades! |
"Why don't I just enjoy the music as it is now and forget about upgrades?" Dammed if I know, but it seems to be a disease, some sort of a masculine thing, that all audiophiles suffer from, at least to some degree. FWIW, at least it worked for me, I made a point about becoming informed about the music I was playing as well as the performance, etc, - then, when my potential critics arrived and started to launch an attact, ala your wife's, where I could dazzle them with knowledge, they would feel inadequate about their own music knowledge, and leave my obsessions alone. Works for guests as well, just don't try it on a musicologist! And the side benefit - In the process of acquiring all of this knowledge I acutally enhanced my own enjoyment of the music in the process. Go figure. :-) |
Newbee, the idea that a certain age of music recordings is designed to sound right on a certain vintage of speaker and amplification is a red herring. Often recording engineers, just like today, are recording on location and using headphones. Mic placement theory has not changed in the last 40 years. Any engineer worth his salt knows that the monitors in the studio are not telling the truth, and that the recording will have to be heard on several different systems, and that it will have to sound right on all of them. That has also been universally acknowledged since the 1950s. Your descriptions of the Telarc are spot on though. And a lot of the re-issues. I think you are hearing things right. |
Atmosphere, I find your comments interesting. You may be right. You certainly are right about the 'golden age' of recording techniques 50 years ago that survived the initial introduction of stereo (ping pong anyone) and ultimately, and unfortunatly I think, grew into excessive multi-miking, spot miking/mixing, etc. There were/are some great recording engineers, just not enuf I think. In this case I'm not sure that the exception proves the rule. At least when I started listening to the RCA's and Merc's I had modest stuff and didn't start to appreciate their sonic 'greatness' until Harry Pearson started pointing it out and I had started to assumble some stuff that let me hear what was actually in the groves. I was listening to a couple of those original RCA LS's last night on my modest analog system (SP10 II, Oracle TT, Benz Glider, and MMT arm) and the results were excellent. Every bit as good, or better, than quality, contemporaneously recorded, digital over a system addmittedly tuned to flatter digital. BUT, and you knew there was a BUT (or butt, as the case may be) remasters on the RCA .5 series, the Chesky series, the Classic reissues, and some CD's, just didn't rise to that level. Perhaps wrongly, I assumed that the folks resonsible for re-issues were using equipment to assess the reissues that flattered the reissues and it was equipment contemporaneous to the re-issue process - equipment that was/is not in my possession. Hell it must have sounded good on someone's stuff, I've seen it get many accolades. This suggested to me that, as with my Telarc experience, my supposition had some merit. But I'm often wrong, especially when I extrapolate from personal experience some thing more universal. :-) |
