Planars/ Electrostats benefits over box speakers?

Thank you! 🙏

Thanks Mapman.

Shameless plug:

ES/planar fans, I have my STAX SR84 Electret phones up for sale here if anyone is interested. You won't find that planar ES sound for any less than these anywhere. Plus they work well with most any amp.

Why am I selling these you ask? I am in process of clearing out some of my older currently unused gear that has value. If they don't sell I'll probably set up yet another system in the house with them someday, maybe running off a SET amp.

http://app.audiogon.com/listings/over-ear-stax-sr84-lambda-pro-jr-earspeakers-and-15-foot-extension-cable-2015-07-03-headphones-21136-reisterstown-md

BTW the other STAX up for sale on this site currently are all 10X plus what I am asking for these. These sold for $300 back in 1998 or so. I also have a long STAX extension cable included to make listening possible from most anywhere in a room.

Back to the original question, I own Maggie 3.6s with one Maggie DWM bass panel.

I thought I was getting bored so I traded an old amp for a pair of Thiel cs 3.6's.

After about a month, the Maggies are back in place - just more alive and room filling than the Thiels.

By the way, the bass panel adds a lot. I am looking for a used second one.

Crossovers have a sound, and can degrade the music no matter how complex or simple, crossovers kill.

Also, multi driver systems always seem to sound like multi drivers to my ears.

I have listened to a few cone speakers that came close to stats, such as Verity Audio, and the Sonus Faber Stradivari.

Also the old Tannoys had a similar coherent point source sound, but the price was not as fast or clear as a stat.

I used to have Vandersteen 2ci way back and a pair of Quad 63 I used to switch between.

The Quads were better, but not by a great margin.

The Vandersteen five that I heard were very good with much better bass than any stat in my experience, except for a pair of Ultimate One Soundlabs that I've also had the pleasure of listening to at an audiophiles home.

It was a different kind of bass, but very full none the less.

The Soundlabs were the best stats I've heard and one of the best speakers I've heard.

07-05-15: Cerrot
When my system isn't knocking my sox off, I check the phase and sure enough, house keeper cleaned the buttons on the remote again. ts like a speaker is wired backwards (lol). Sucks the life out of the presentation.

Presumably the switch on your remote just affects absolute phase, aka polarity, which ZD correctly referred to just above. If changing that setting results in major changes as you described above, and not just on those few recordings which have been engineered with "purist" techniques (i.e., just two or three mics, and minimal post processing), then what is most likely occurring is that your preamp itself sounds different in the two settings.

Keep in mind that when you change that setting you are not only changing the polarity with which the recording is played back, you are also changing the circuit configuration within the preamp.

BTW, although I haven't read through a lot of this thread, I second all of the comments in ZD's most recent post. I would just add to it that for a speaker to be time and phase coherent (or simply time coherent, which automatically implies phase coherence as well), in addition to the drivers moving in the same direction at any given time the crossover (if there is one) has to be first order (i.e., 6 db/octave). Among box-type speakers which have a crossover, only those made by Vandersteen, Thiel, and Green Mountain Audio, and perhaps a small handful of others, meet those criteria.

Regards,
-- Al

When my system isn't knocking my sox off, I check the phase and sure enough, house keeper cleaned the buttons on the remote again. ts like a speaker is wired backwards (lol). Sucks the life out of the presentation.

Box speakers are more accurate in the bass and highs.

"I'm not sure what music you listen to, But for me PHASE is laughable. Because all the vinyl I listen too was recorded back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's do you think everything was recorded in the same phase?? It wasn't, I assure you! Phase means nothing, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it that's for sure."

There are different ways that a system can be in or out of phase. What you're talking about is absolute phase. The effect is usually small and very difficult to hear. Also, its worth noting that recordings are still not consistent when it comes to phase. The same thing is still going on today, and that's why you see so many preamps and sources with a phase invert switch.

Absolute phase is not the same as phase correct speakers, like my Vandersteens (Or the Thiel's that Cerrot and his friends destroyed). With phase correct speakers, all of the drivers move back and forth at the same time. The effect is much more audible. You can also have a situation where one speaker is out of phase with the other. (The entire speaker as a whole, and not just the drivers.). The effect is huge and is almost always due to someone connecting the speaker cables in error. If your speakers sound like Bose, this is probably why.

Cerrot...." (and don't forget phase - can't believe how many systems are out of phase)".

I'm not sure what music you listen to, But for me PHASE is laughable. Because all the vinyl I listen too was recorded back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's do you think everything was recorded in the same phase?? It wasn't, I assure you! Phase means nothing, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it that's for sure.

I'm not falling into your trap Cerrot. lol. You know I use time and phase correct speakers. And I know what you do to them. My Vandersteen's are not going to be the victims like those poor Thiels were. Better luck next time, and happy listening to you too.

Zd542. I sense your frustration. No worries. There are alot of us here on agon with great systems that are set up properly that can guide you along your journey to better sound. Remember, those speakers frame the sound stage. The sounds comes from between them and along side them, but not from them. Feel free to PM me. I enjoy helping those less fortunate than myself.

Happy Listening!

Integration of the bass drivers with the Stat panels is the most difficult process manufactures face.The Australian Whise HA1500/Nakamichi Dragon is the only affordable (under $20k) Stat that I have heard that has integrated this well.

Fully active with separate 100 watt class A/B Power Amps for each of the Panels and Bass drivers they produce a seamless musical experience with massive soundstage.

I have heard many very high qualty dynamic floorstanders, but none (up to $25k) have reproduced the same seamless overall quality of the Whise HA1500.

Unfortunately it is difficult to find as there are only around 170 pair in captivity.

I've had both planers and box speakers. If you want really huge sound on a "budget," you might want to replicate one system that I had years ago.

1. Accustat 4's. I paid $1000.00 for the mint pair that I no longer own.

2. Two of Van Alstine's 250 watt stereo amps with his crossover devise. This gives you 800 wpc.

3. A good tube preamp & phono stage.

I'm only suggesting this system if "looks" aren't an issue for you. But as we all know ... with the lights out, they all look the same.

Take the grill cloths completely off of the speakers.They will look like 4x5 industrial radiators.

After hooking them up, play them as loudly as you want. They will fill the entire room and the depth is such that the entire back wall will fall down. Detail, imaging, tonality is amazing.

I still miss that system in a lot of ways.

"06-21-15: Cerrot
Zd - you do not hear any sound coming from my speakers in my room."

I know. I told you not to buy anything until your country gets electricity. What did you expect?

Zd - you do not hear any sound coming from my speakers in my room. The soundstage just floats.

If a rig is set up properly, you should not hear any music coming from the speakers (sitting in the sweet spot). They need to dissappear. If they don't, youre not done.

Cone speakers I've owned-Klh,JBL L65,Mirage M3si, Vandersteen 2 c,Rogers LS 3/5a,Mission 770,Tannoy Arden, Merlin MMxe,Ref 3a Grand veena, Vr4,Meadowlark Heron I,and more.

Planars- Mag.sma, Acoustat3 medallion,Martin logan sequel, CLS 2Z,Quad 63, stacked Quad 57,Acoustat monitor X with direct drive servo amps.

I've always gone back to planar speakers .

I like the smack of cones, but multi drivers usually start to wear on me.

I much prefer a more seamless presentation, which is what planars give me.

My experiences go too far back and are not current enough other than a few of the newer Martin Logan designs AND a pair of Quad 2905s that a friend owns. On a further note I was recently talking to my dealer/friend who has owned Soundlabs and been a fan of the virtues of planer/electrostatics while realizing their shortcomings and attends many shows. He recently got back from Newport and was absolutely enthralled with the Roger Sanders designed ESL w/integrated woofer that he claimed was virtually seemless with the panels. If that is the case it would certainly be one to investigate further. I've noted it with a recent ML, can't remember the model # but about 15K a pair, certainly an improvement over past efforts but still less than perfect to my ears, YMMV.

The points made in the early posts by Onhwy61, Mapman and Marty should be noted. There is PLENTY of variation between the Planer/Electrostatic/Ribbon (Apogee) designs that I've listened to over the years that things can't be simply categorized or explained in words other than to listen first hand, there is no other way around this. The discussion of differences between Planer/Electrostatic/Ribbons could fill a book, adding dynamic speakers into the comparison equation, volumes.

I certainly would agree on one point "that isn't talked about enough", panels (Maggies in particular) can provide a lifelike image size that, to me, can draw you in. Now to their drawbacks. It's subjective and only you can determine what works. Brownsfan's example as a longtime Maggie owner that went to a dynamic speaker is telling about the subjectivity among listeners. Great comments above to give better insight.

"I've heard lots of sub-$100k box speakers, but I've yet to hear one that sounds as life-size as a $5k Magneplanar. Sorry if that pisses you off!"

It doesn't piss me off. I don't have any of these problems.

Cerrot,

I have yet to understand something you say.

"We actually don't even hear the spreaker (well, your not supposed to, and thats how it is in my system)"

What exactly do you think a speaker is? And does?

Zd, I did not (mean to) suggest your system is out of phase. Just an alert to others. I agree some what on small sounding speakers but disagree that the speaker is the final abritrator - the room is. We actually don't even hear the spreaker (well, your not supposed to, and thats how it is in my system); You can put the same speakers in rooms with different height ceilings and you will see what I mean; you can put RPG diffusers on the ceilings (and floors if youre careful) and you will hear soundstage height double on many rigs.

"I can see how they could make things smaller, but the speaker is the final arbitrator. The sound is being squeezed through those drivers the same no matter what signal they are fed. If a speaker sounds "small", nothing upstream can change that characteristic of the speaker, I don't believe.
Bdp24 (Threads | Answers | This Thread)"

"06-14-15: Cerrot
Mattmiller, a box speaker still needs to be a certain size to do that. Regardless of the electrinics you throw at them, the Magico Mini II is one speaker that was never able to vertically fill a soundstage."

The only reason you guys don't believe it is because you haven't had the experience of hearing this for yourself. I'll say it again, the effect can be huge. Images can be a lot bigger than the speaker itself. Its the equipment that is mainly responsible for this.

"06-14-15: Mattmiller
"The sound is being squeezed through those drivers the same no matter what signal they are fed"

This IMO is not true. I have found that with proper electronics a conventional speaker can put out a huge (to the ceiling 8,10,12ft) presentation or soundstage. With the wrong electronics you will never hear this, the sound will be just barely above the speaker or worse down near the floor!"

He's not making that up, or exaggerating in any way. He's just heard this for himself. Also, its not the system being out of phase, Cerrot. If you read my posts, I recommend checking phase to people with problems at least as much as anyone else on this web site. I know instantly when a system is out of phase. Also, with larger images, its pretty hard to miss.

Mattmiller, a box speaker still needs to be a certain size to do that. Regardless of the electrinics you throw at them, the Magico Mini II is one speaker that was never able to vertically fill a soundstage. The smaller YG's fill more with more power, but they get maxed out height wise very quickly. I think room accounstics and treatment actually help more than the electronics, one you get to having enough power and no impedence mismatching (and don't forget phase - can't believe how many systems are out of phase).

I've heard only one $100k-$250k speaker, the big Wilsons at Brooks Berdan's shop, and it did sound huge. They are the only Wilsons I've heard that I could live with---too bad I can't afford them!. Brooks knew that life-size image and scale is of particular importance to me and some of his other customers, and, though preferring overall the Wilsons and Vandersteens that he sold, acknowledged to me the inherent advantage panels have in that area, and for us carried Quads and Eminent Technology LFT's. I find the effectively-point source Quads to also have that sound-being-squeezed-through-a-hole sound I find so objectionable, though they're great in other ways. I've heard lots of sub-$100k box speakers, but I've yet to hear one that sounds as life-size as a $5k Magneplanar. Sorry if that pisses you off!

"The sound is being squeezed through those drivers the same no matter what signal they are fed"

This IMO is not true. I have found that with proper electronics a conventional speaker can put out a huge (to the ceiling 8,10,12ft) presentation or soundstage. With the wrong electronics you will never hear this, the sound will be just barely above the speaker or worse down near the floor! So thanks, but keep your "door panels" and I'll stay married with my "square speakers". O and of the 40 or so speaker manufactures that produce 100k to 250k systems almost none (and except Martin Logan) use electrostats??? hmmmm.

The interaction between speaker and room can effect apparent image size. But the components upstream of the speakers? I can see how they could make things smaller, but the speaker is the final arbitrator. The sound is being squeezed through those drivers the same no matter what signal they are fed. If a speaker sounds "small", nothing upstream can change that characteristic of the speaker, I don't believe.

"06-08-15: Bdp24
Not with Vandersteens or the smaller Wilsons, in my experience. The big Wilsons are a different story, for those who can afford them. But for five or ten thousand, panels rule!"

You're right in that I didn't use Wilson or Vandersteen, I did it with a pair of mid 90's Mission floor standers that retailed for around $1000. The images I got were so big it wasn't believable. I didn't really care for the overall sound. My point was that it can be done without panels if you know how to match your gear for that type of result,

Not with Vandersteens or the smaller Wilsons, in my experience. The big Wilsons are a different story, for those who can afford them. But for five or ten thousand, panels rule!

"As fine a loudspeaker as both companies make, the instruments and voices coming out of them sounded 1- Severely miniaturized, much smaller than in life and to the full size images coming from even the modestly-priced .7's. And 2- I found myself looking down on the performers, the sound of instruments and voices being about three feet off the floor."

You can deal with those issues without having to get a panel. With proper equipment matching, you can make images/scale just as big.

At last weekend's T.H.E. Show in Irvine I took a good listen to the new Maggie .7, and to an ESL I hadn't before heard---a Sanders. I liked them both a lot, the Sanders a real lot. And a huge difference between a panel and a box speaker was reinforced by also listening to Vandersteen 7's and a couple of Wilsons at the show. As fine a loudspeaker as both companies make, the instruments and voices coming out of them sounded 1- Severely miniaturized, much smaller than in life and to the full size images coming from even the modestly-priced .7's. And 2- I found myself looking down on the performers, the sound of instruments and voices being about three feet off the floor. For me, that immediately destroys the "suspension of disbelief" a speaker needs to provide if I am to listen to music through it everyday. But that's just me!

Cerrot ohms from early 80s would not likely do what you say. Those were the gen 1 models. I mentioned. The later revisions up to and including current x000 line are up to snuff in comparison to other very good modern speakers I hear.

I had those originals for years along with other more modern designs to compare including the newer ohms. I've a/b Ed them side by side so I am confident with my assertions accordingly.

"05-17-15: Cerrot
An agenda, other than sharing my thoughts on this hobby? wow..."

Looks like your memory may not be working like it was just a few short weeks ago. I can refresh it for you if you like?

An agenda, other than sharing my thoughts on this hobby? wow...

on tunes, try buddy guy, done got old. You should hear his breath like he is hanging on your shoulder. You should feel the emotion coming over your shoulder lke a sledge hammer. My system is incrdedibly resolving. I had a pair of ohms back in 1982-84. Thy spent a year as front speakers, being relegatded to the rear channels shortly there after. Not a bad speaker but truly no where near the resolution of my stats.

A summary of planar characteristics vs. dynamic box speakers is contained in this Absolute Sound review of the Maggie 20.7s under the heading, "Design Advantages of a Large Dipole Loudspeaker." I think this is a pretty good description that addresses the OP's original question.

I found that his comments corroborate my own impressions of my 1.7s.

Broadstone, your accounting is 100% in line with what I might expect having had a limited sampling of the various technologies and products mentioned, including Rogue Sphinx which I have rated quite highly in my current audio toys draft ratings.

Don't waste you time with Cerrot. He has an agenda. He's just trying to set up the dialogue so he can seamlessly drop it in. Kind of like the way a bird drops a load of carp on your head, just at the right time.

Cerrot do you use plex? If so we can hook up as friends on that site and
both have access to my music library to compare the same source files on
each of our systems. I think as a friend you might even be able to
download files. Not sure. Most of my library is cd quality Flac format.

Cerrot give me some more sample tunes to try and what to listen for and I'll give it a shot and report back. I don't have any of those specifically to try.

I can say I have heard similar details in various recordings but of course every recording is different so need to compare apples and apples.

Also I can say I have listened to many high end systems and live performances in the process of putting my rig together and my goal that I feel I have achieved quite well is little or no compromise.

I've been in this hobby since 1958 when I built my first Heathkit amp and "Sweet Sixteen" speaker (monaural) in jr high school. Since then I have owned very many speakers, both "boxed" and planar. I won't go into the tech aspects as that has already been done by others more qualified than I, but I'll pass on my personal observations.

Until about 35 yrs ago I used only conventional speakers of the highest quality that I could afford and was almost always satisfied with the sound that each produced. My first experiment with planars was a pair of small Acoustats that I found in a pawnshop. I had no knowledge of even the concept of electrostats but knew, at first listen, that this technology was going to be in my consideration for the future.

Next I purchased the Magnepans (don't remember their model numbers) and owned 3 different sets, all medium to large panels and found them to be the most musical, smooth and overall appealing speakers that I'd used to date. I would still be using Maggies if the only music I listened to was light jazz, string quartets and acoustic guitar. I had teenagers at the time, though, and found them not to be the best choice for rock and roll at higher volumes but, on the other hand, orchestral music at similar volumes was wonderful.

I then went back to electrostats using Martin Logan Prodigy, SL3, CLS, Odysseys which I owned for about 14 yrs, and now the Ethos. I was very happy with all of them and the only reason I'm now staying with electrostats over the Magnepans is that, even though I enjoy the transparency of both, I feel that the 'stats are more versatile.

Both need relatively powerful amplification but the Martin Logans need high current capable amps because of the extreme low impedances presented to them at high frequencies. For those of you who enjoy action movies, regardless of panel size, will want a decent subwoofer or 2 to get the chest thumping bass associated with that form of entertainment. I also have a comment on one post in this thread regarding use of the Rogue Audio Sphinx with Martin Logan speakers. I know that the power specs wouldn't seem to meet the criteria assumed necessary for the Martin Logans but perhaps the best sound of any pairing that I've used would be the Sphinx with the Odysseys.

These comments are based on my personal listening tastes and not meant as recommendations to anyone else but I have been the recipient of very good advice and info in these forums that provided time and money saving shortcuts to good sound. I thought it was time that I make at least some small contributions.

Mapman - do you hear the calluses on a guitar players fingers running up a steel string, the turning of sheet music or creaking of Bella Dovadivich's chair on those $1,000 walsh speakers? Buddy Guy exhaling on Done Got Old?If you can, boy have I wasted money!

I got my first panel speakers in November 2013, Magneplanar 1.7s. The first
thing I noticed is how *noisy* all my previous speakers had been--noisy with
cabinet vibrations and enclosure turbulence. The Maggies put out a much
cleaner sound without all the drama of trying to contain and manage the
backwave. Even though my previous main speakers were constructed to
recduce cabinet noise as much as possible (curvilinear enclosure, extensive
chambering and bracing, no parallel cabinet surfaces whatsoever), the
Maggies that replaced them made me realize that I'd been listening through
a pile of low-level noise all that time.

This makes perfect sense; a driver is putting out the same amount of sound
to the front as to the rear. The front waves fill the listening room; with a box
speaker, the rear waves are all supposed to be inaudibly contained in a
relatively small box, the speaker enclosure.

Furthermore, with box enclosures, the rear waves of the big drivers bounce
off the back of the enclosure and affect the forward motion of the very same
drivers. With panel speakers you get *none* of that: the rear wave dissipates
into the room at large. The panel frame does not have to tame and contain
the back waves.

Panel speakers are line sources; as was pointed out previously, line sources
only lose 3dB per doubling of the listening distance vs. 6dB for point
sources.

Panel speakers have advantages in coherence, as all frequencies emanate
from the same plane, and the rise time of all frequencis is within a tighter
range.

Panel speakers have large radiating surfaces, which means diaphragm
motion is very small, which reduces the artifacts of inertia, such as overshoot
and ringing.

Being dipolar, panel speakers have a figure-8 radiating pattern, with self-
canceling voids to the sides. This significantly reduces the sidewall bounce
so typical of dynamic speakers.

I have also found the dipolar radiation pattern to be an advantage in bass
control. While deep bass may need a subwoofer, the bass in the 100-200 Hz
range is much cleaner and easy to manage, thanks to the self-canceling rear
wave. You just don't get that annoying upper bass "hump" so
typical of floorstanding speakers, and less need for corner bass traps to
manage it.

"" I feel you have to spend 6 figures for a box speaker to get the sound I get from $8k stats. It costs alot of money to get that cabinet out of the way. And alot of technology.
Cerrot (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)"

You can get it it in a small to moderate sized room with a piar of smaller used OHM Walshes sometimes for well under $1000. Those that use later revisions of the OHm Walsh CLS driver are best, mk/series II, III or current X000 series.

The first genration OHM CLS drivers used in original OHM Walsh models from teh early to mid 80s sound similar but are not nearly as refined sounding as good modern speakers, ES or otherwise. Those can still be had in all sizes for all sized rooms still on teh used market all for under $1000 usually.

I apologize in advance if this is not a concern for you but it's worth noting that most planers,electrostats, etc.... Do not blend in very well with room decor but if you don't have a significant other to be concerned with or have a dedicated room you can happily ignore this comment

" I feel you have to spend 6 figures for a box speaker to get the sound I get from $8k stats. It costs alot of money to get that cabinet out of the way. And alot of technology.
Cerrot (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)"

6 figures? Vandersteen can get the box out of the way. You can even get into 6 figure territory if you start 2 decimal places to the right where the pennies are accounted for.

I have never heard anything like ESL's myself. I feel you have to spend 6 figures for a box speaker to get the sound I get from $8k stats. It costs alot of money to get that cabinet out of the way. And alot of technology.

But when talking about "waveform launch", its important to note that other than in an anechoic chamber, the surroundings/room plays a very significant role.

I tend to find that when a good speaker of each unique type is set up well, with room acoustics properly factored in, that they all tend to sound more similar than different in presentation.

I tend to think in terms of listening to teh music in my room, not what is coming out of the speakers, though that cetrtainly is the source. I try to use my room and then perhaps tame it slightly as needed whereas some choose to more "fight" the room after the fact of having placed a system that does not sound right in there in the first place.

Its all a matter of what players are involved and how one chooses to play the game. In the game, it can all work out similarly well. The variety of systems out there that all sound really good are the proof.

"A major difference is the "waveform Launch" of a big Magnepan Vs a cone speaker!"

That is a common difference.

The difference between a wide range omni and either planar or cone speakers is even greater. Some will love it and never look back. Others might not ever take to it.

Most people are conditioned towards the sound of box speakers at home. Those with good ears who are also well conditioned towards what non-amplified music sounds like live are most likely to take to the omni sound. IMHO of course.

One of the couple of best systems I've ever heard was a pair of big SoundLab ESL's driven by big Atmasphere amps. I think the SL A1 or A3 was a favorite of J. Gordon Holt. For my money much preferable to Martin Logans, with Quads in the middle. But now Roger Modjeski of Music Reference/Ram Labs is making a direct-drive (no transformer) ESL/amp system that I'd love to hear.

"05-06-15: Mapman
Zd what's behind the speakers and distance to it certainly matters and worth tweaking for owners but I've moved on to omnis and not looking back anymore"

Sorry, I didn't mean for my post to be just for you. It was just a general statement. I brought it up because it seems like a counter-intuitive thing to do. It's worth a try if you're looking to get more focus.

A major difference is the "waveform Launch" of a big Magnepan Vs a cone speaker!

If you want "punch" of heavy rock a long throw 12" cone works best, and is identical to what rock bands use.

If you want the "tone" of a big acoustic standup bass, or even a cello, a six foot tall panel launch is much more realistic.

Panels also give "Big" realistic images that boxes do not.

Thanks again to those who responded, especially "Almarg" who always provides valuable technical information.
Yes, Al. I still have the Rogue Sphinx which has performed excellently over the year since I bought it.

To a degree I am still chasing my tail about speakers, but at a reduced pace which means I might give up. I am trying to find a smaller, slimmer speaker just as potent as the AZ Adagios. (BTU, I am using Grover Huffman speaker cable which is very good, and better in many areas of sound than the Audio Art SC-5. The GH's offers good balance and excellent bass)

But back to the focus of the thread: Maggies, even the new .7 would overwhelm the listening area of 12X14. As you mentioned, Maggies need power, and I was also told before, they have a inconsistent impedance to amp ratio which could spell trouble for the Rogue class D amp. Nevertheless, the M-L's EM-ESL might be the better and more practical choice. The ML Theos are too big and would create a nuclear meltdown on the homefront( which is now in Los Angeles). Member bpd24 recommended the Eminent Technology 8B, so I might take look and listen

On another related speaker issue, the Dynaudio Excite 16, or the Reference DeCapo 3A BE could be contenders if I should to go with a monitor speaker. Cheers to all!!