Some say these speakers are among the best too
Canton Reference 9K Canton Reference 3K Canton Reference 1K
QLN Prestige 3 QLN Prestige 5
Canton Reference 9K Canton Reference 3K Canton Reference 1K
QLN Prestige 3 QLN Prestige 5
104 responses Add your response
No, not "huge." Not even remotely as big a part as the speakers.You are right, the speakers characteristcs will weigh more than the electronics design of the dac or the amp and even of the 2 most of the times if not always... But the room will weigh on par with the speakers design half the time, and for the other half will weigh even more... :) Theater design is more important than the speakers in the theater, if there is some, no need in a good acoustical theater of powerful amplification or electronics to compensate the room....No need even less for some particularly more refine amplifier design.... :) Polykleitos the Younger is much older than Edison; acoustic science precede faithful modern reproduction of sound (hi-Fi)... This is the reason why a good audio engineer is also an audiophile, and why most audiophiles dont need the urge to becomes audio engineers.... :) « Why dont you own a stereo system? I prefer Greek theater»- Groucho Marx |
There is a relative trade-off between soundstage and imaging.... Yes, but i just increase these 2 qualities today, and improved also the timbre, by moving a single piece of metal thin enclosure (a fan) in my room... You can play with this trade-off then, he is not an absolute number linked to electronic design only, but it is mainly the variable sonic mirror of your room ... People dont imagine the powerful effects that acoustic controls do in a room....They wave brand speakers name without thinking that the Edison business of design recording high-fidelity is relatively new, but Greek theater marvel has already some thousand years old... Audiophile life is more linked to acoustic than engineering electronics.... More linked to your ears experience than to electronic marketing....We do not listen first to an electronic component, speakers, dac, or amplifier, we listen to music in our room first, and at the end.... A good amplifier is necessary, but the full experience is delivered by your room.... It is one of the three necessary embeddings of any audio system... Embeddings are on par with design for producing the full experience... |
Audio Physic Virgo II. These image like nothing I've ever heard (and I've been to a few shows). I used to own a pair and 'upgraded' to MBL 121s. Even though others have cited the MBLs as imaging masters, the Virgos were even better IMHO. I miss them in many ways, even though they are so cheap - they're a real bargain. Interesting. I've had the Virgo IIs at my house - and the Audio Physic Libras, and I owned the AP Scorpios. I also owned the MBL 121s for many years (just sold them not too long ago). The AP speakers are definitely up there with best soundstaging/imaging.They just do a spooky disappearing act. Not sure I'd quite put them in league with the MBL 121s. The most amazing disappearing/imaging act goes to the MBL 101s IMO. I've always enjoyed soundstaging/imaging/disappearing speakers so that's been a requirement. Next to the AP speakers I'd place Waveform speakers (with their egg-shaped head module) for a crazy disappearing act. Also my current Joseph Audio Perspectives really do soundstaging/disappearing. Other honorable mentions: Hales Transcendence 5s imaged wickedly.Probably the biggest surprise were a pair of Shun Mook Bela Voce speakers. Plain "made-in-wood-shop" looking speakers that somehow soundstaged like giants! For small monitors: My Spendor s3/5s do a crazy disappearing/imaging act, probably only exceeded by a small pair of Meadowlark Swallow speakers - those were insane. Holy geeze...forgot about my original big dynamic speakers, the Von Schweikert VR4 Gen II. Those were known for their 3D effect (with rear firing ambience retrieval tweeter) and that was true 3 dimensional sound. But if I had to nominate one overall best imaging/soundstaging speaker I've had it was probably the Thiel 3.7s - Thiel's final flagship speaker.The reason is that, despite their size, they disappeared from top to bottom in an utterly coherent way beyond anything I'd heard. Soundstaging was as vast and deep and wide as I've ever had.But, crucially, the sonic images had a focus and density, a palpability and "thereness" that tends to escape other speakers. |
I am proud to say that i create "imaging" and "soundstage" at nearfield listening (3 feet) and at regular listening (7 feet) in my smal irregular room by passive materials controlling acoustic methods and also with many different active methods (mainly different size and kind of resonators) Most people stick on their favorite brand of speakers, completely unconscious of the importance of the room acoustic.... I even speak with some " reviewer" that argue against the too much importance given to acoustic.... He was not conscious of the fact that the Greek theater exist before Edison.... Hi-Fidelity recording of sound is slave of acoustic rendering by the room at the end.... :) I call my method the triple embeddings of an audio system...(mechanical,electrical,and acoustical) Give me a good speakers, certainly half of them are good, i will make it imaging like crazy.... If not his design is very bad.... Like engineering electronic design, acoustic is an art of trade-off, your ears are the judges.....And we live with our judges then why not using them? I call that listening experiments, it is fun, and the only way to reach, incrementally, one step at a time, at low cost, audio paradise.... |
Image precision is primarily delivered by the first-arrival sound, and is degraded by very early reflections from the speaker itself (including diffraction), and also by early room reflections, but not so much by later reflections unless they are too strong. Envelopment or immersion ("you are there") is delivered primarily by a clear differentiation between the first-arrival sound and the later reflections, which means that early reflections are once again particularly undesirable. Early reflections are not all bad - for instance early sidewall reflections can can make it sound like the soundstage is wider than the space between the speakers, something that most of us enjoy. But the same auditory mechanism which expands the soundstage to the outside due to strong early sidewall reflections also reduces imaging precision and in particular soundstage depth, so it’s a trade-off. These are not the only things that matter, the time coherence of the speaker also matters. ("Phase coherence" is virtually a marketing term and imo usually means very little.) So ime the IDEAL balance might be really good first-arrival sound, then little or no early reflections, and then a lot of (but too much!) spectrally-correct late reflections. "Late" within the context of home audio being "about 10 milliseconds behind the first-arrival sound". This can be accomplished with a combination of speaker choice and setup, and maybe room acoustic treatment. One example might be, a pair of relatively uniform-pattern fullrange dipole speakers positioned at least five feet out from the wall behind them, perhaps with a considerable amount of toe-in to minimize early same-side-wall reflections. The best imaging I have ever heard was from a pair of Supravox wizzerless 8" fullrange drivers, listening nearfield in a large room, with one aimed at each ear. Sweet spot was head-in-a-vice, soundstage was incredibly deep, but the presentation wasn’t "you are there". Best imaging with more practical speakers was Earl Geddes’ personal three-Summas-plus-subs system in his dedicated listening room. This system also did an excellent job with "you are there", but not the very best I’ve heard. Sweet spot was exceptionally wide. The best "you are there" I have heard was from a pair of SoundLab Ultimate fullrange electrostats in a large room, set up with maybe seven or eight feet behind them. Again, wide sweet spot (but not as wide as Earl's Summas, relative to room width). Duke yeah I’m a SoundLab dealer |
I think every pair of speakers I’ve owned imaged well. Some speakers are easier to place than others. Some companies take the time to match each pair to within a half a dB of each other, some believe in a narrow baffle some use horn loading tweeters and some will flush mount them. I did have 1 pair that imaged better, as in spooky detail, but the tweeters were cheap and let the rest of the design down. |
I’ve found that imaging is mostly a factor of proper setup, proper room treatment and overall room acoustics. Most speakers will image if the above are addressed correctly. Yes, the speaker plays a part after that, but until you have those other 3 set right you can’t really compare one speaker vs another to say which is "best".Good to read common sense and experience in few lines..... I will add mechanical resonance controls, and electrical grid house controls to help better focusing of the imaging.... I call that 3 embeddings ways for any audio system....More important than even the choice of electronic components sometimes... There is many brand of speakers that can produce imaging but do not or do it wrongly because of insufficient controls not only of the acoustics but of the noise level of the house and of the vibrations-resonance problem.... We can all drop names of speakers but the question is how to make them imaging? :) |
This gives you a very small taste how these Acora Acoustics SRB's sound. Just wait until you hear them in person WOW! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9zHNLWUHTk |
A friend of mine just got some new Acora Acoustics SRB stand mount speakers and these speakers have the best imaging I have ever heard! These speakers just come on the market and they are made from Granite. These speakers sound so realistic..more so than any I have ever heard! They cost $20K with their Granite speaker stands. I'm going to wait to hear the bigger Acora Acoustics SRC-1's before buying! Once you hear these speakers your never want to go back! https://www.acoraacoustics.com/ |
Back in the 90's went to my neighbor hood audiophile store in New Haven, CT. The store rep said to my wife and I come and here this. This was the Duntech Sovereign massive speakers, Audio Research Mono-Block amps(maybe 150watts each) and Accuphase CD player. The rep played various CDs to provide a sense of what is possible. The imaging was truly holographic and life size. You could "see" the precise placement of the drum set and actually hear the felt on the hammer hitting the bass drum. CD of Whitney Houston you could swear she was in front you at least five foot tall. And the 16Hz tone of the organ you cannot hear but you can feel it as the Duntechs produced all the vibration. Amazing system I'll always remember. |
35 YEARS EXP, 1. BEVERIDGE 2 SW ADD ANY GOOD SUB,,TALL N HIGH IMAGING,CLOSE YOUR EYES YOU WILL FEEL THE REAL MAGIC FANTASTIC AND VERY VERY CLEAN PLAY SOME HIGH CLASS RECORD SINGLE PIANO VIOLIN GUITAR OR FIRE BIRD ,YOU WILL AGREE, NO HARDROCK . 2. Rogers LS3/5a (15ohm) ADD JANIS SUB GOOD BUT NARROW SOUND,SMALL ROOM THE BEST,PLEASE REMEMBER ALL THE MEGA DOLLARS FRONT END DO THE JOB IS FOR SPEAKERS SO SPEAKERS IS THE CROWN OF THE HIGH END SYSTEM.THANKS |
35 YEARS EXP, 1. BEVERIDGE 2 SW ADD ANY GOOD SUB,,TALL NHIGH IMAGING,CLOSE YOUR EYES YOU WILL FEEL THE REAL MAGIC FANTASTIC AND VERY VERY CLEAN PLAY SOME HIGH CLASS RECORD SINGLE PIANO VIOLIN GUITAR OR FIRE BIRD ,YOU WILL AGREE, NO HARDROCK . 2.Rogers LS3/5a (15ohm) ADD SUB JANIS SUB GOOD BUT NARROW SOUND,,THANKS |
about 10 years ago i owned a pair of proac response 1sc which had a reputation for vivid soundstages. i had them paired up to an exposure pre/power amp but the soundstage was more 2d and lacked involvement. it wasn`t a very good pairing and eventually sold the system. back then i had no idea about tube amolifiers. i only ever looked at solid state stuff. about a year or maybe more ago a tube amplifier caught my eye. one of the chinese ones. the yaqin mc100b. i ended up buying one and reading some reviews, some people were recommending quads L2 range of speakers. i bought a pair of quad 12L2. nothing prepared me for the soundstage i got! the only way i could describe it apart from saying depth and width would be solid, vivid, mildly warm, textured, layered and very transparent. there was a bloom to the bass and midband which i absolutely loved. closing my eyes, my brain registered that there was a band in front of me playing instruments and a singer directly in front of me. i had the sensation i could lean right forward and be able to touch whats in front of me. when you open your eyes is kinda strange and to a point fairly freaky, again your brain is registering people are there. you can pin point the voice, the guitar, drums and bass or if other instruments are playing. all thats missing are the actual people! another thing i loved was closely mic`d singers. the reality was astonishing. there`s no doubt much better out there but for me it was an amazing experience. currently building up a new tube pre/power system :) |
The mbl 111s were the best I've heard. 101s are probably as good or better and more dynamic from what I know but have never heard them. Magico minis were also very good in a smaller room and so were PSB Synchrony series. OHM Walshes are also very good. mbls had deeper soundstage but not wider. OHM Walsh omni sound levels are physically damped in wall facing directions, which may inhibit soundstage depth but enables them to go closer to walls and fit into rooms easier. They also cost about 1/5th or less than comparable mbls. OHM sound is more coherent through the midrange than mbl 111 due to the single wide range Walsh driver. Dynaudios and Triangles can do the trick very well also when set up correctly. |
For full range, multiple drivers configured to approximate a point or short line source might image almost as well as a single driver can because the geometry of how the sound propagates is similar. There are some omni designs that do this trick with inherently wider dispersion in 3-d. Morrisons, Wolcotts, and OHM Walshes are good examples. Small monitors and some floorstanding Totems like the Arros are other examples in a more conventional box design. I like these designs for good imaging best, especially for more nearfield listening. For listening from a distance in some larger rooms, taller line source or floorstander designs with multiple drivers can work better as well. |
Strange coincidence. I've heard the Gallo 3.X refs on any number of ocasions, but today I happened to hear the new Gallo towers for the first time. They were very, very good sounding speakers, but off a severey limited audition they seemed like very good, but not great imagers. (Just a quick impression, more time would be needed for more confident commentary). I'd say the same of the 3s, very good, not great. I know that the Gallo 3s have a 300+ degree dispersion tweeter that crosses in quite low, so I'd suspect that the overall radiation pattern looks a bit like the smaller MBL floorstanders. However, they've never struck me as imaging like omnis. The 3s are wonderful, small, pretty much full range, seamless, reasonably priced speakers, but their imaging capabilities never seemed remarkable to me. Marty BTW The big MBLs switch from radial drivers to conventional drivers at app 100ish hz. In this respect, they may be more appropriately compared to Ohm Sat 5000 w/Ohm subwoofer. OTOH, they aren't biamped, so neither comparison is strictly apples to apples. |
Tex, I'd be interested in your assessment of the OHMs versus the Gallo's. When I was shopping, I auditioned the Gallo's, which I liked but were then bested by the top of the line Quad stats for 4-5 times the cost. I think the OHMs compete with the Quads and have better dynamics and impact than the QUADs for sure but at almost half the cost or less. |
If you would have asked me 6 months ago, I might have offered either the Gallo Reference 3s or Dunlavy SC-IVs that I owned. However, the Digital Phase AP-4s (little known brand made in Tennessee) outdid them both in terms of imaging so I would rate them at the top of my list. That is, possibly till this evening when the Ohm Walsh 5's I purchased arrived (hopefully undamaged) from UPS. The great thing about this hobby is there are so many choices. Maybe none of them 'perfect' but finding the speaker that brings you closest to your musical nirvana is a journey worth taking. |
Marty, I think the most apples/apples comparison would be the full range MBLs versus the 300 or 5 Ohms in a suitably large room with an appropriate good high current SS amp driving both. A sat/sub OHM combo would be interesting to compare as well (I've never heard these either), but I suspect this would not be quite as apples/apples for purposes of judging "hyperrealism". I like that term. It seems to fit the unique MBl listening experience well from what I have read and would envision. I don't know if it's a term I would attach to the OHms though. They have very good "realism" but I'm not sure I'd consider it "hyper" in magnitude as Dylanhenry describes the MBLs. I find that term to be consistent with what I expect MBLs would sound like given their design and the unique nature of their dispersion pattern, even in comparison to Walsh drivers. I really need to hear the big full range MBLs sometime......... Any MBL dealers in the Washington/Baltimore metro area? Maybe next time I get to NY I'll hunt them down. think I've seen a dealer advertised there. I Last time, I visited SOund By Singer. Nice stuff, but no MBLs that I remember. |
Map, (sorry all if this wanders a bit off thread). I'd need to hear larger Ohms to answer the question. I talked to John about possibly switching to the Sat 5 for use with my subs, but even if I go that route, its gonna be a bit off in the future. Until that happens, 100s are the only Ohms I know. Very fine and - in some ways - I prefer them to any MBLs, but not for that quality of imaging/dynamics Dylanhenry dubbed "hyperrealism". As to room matching, I would expect the MBL 101s to overwhelm my medium sized room with info below 150hz or so. I have always felt that the bass from this speaker is a bit "ripe", even in the 2 VERY large rooms I've heard them in. For this reason, I thought the little MBL 121 and a good sub might be a better choice, but I was a bit disappointed when I heard them. The same applies to the smaller MBL floorstanders (111 and 116, I believe) - they provide just a taste of the 101, but not the whole enchilada. So, its tough to speculate about bigger Ohms without a listen. One day (pretty) soon I may have a better basis for this comparison... Marty |
Martykl, I've often thought of the OHMs as the poor man's MBLs. Do you think they are alike enough in terms of imaging and sound stage that this is a fair comparison, or might one who likes the unique presentation of MBLs have a reasonable chance of being satisfied with OHMs at a fraction of the cost? Also keep in mind that in larger rooms the larger OHM Walsh models will produce a more dramatic (meaning "dynamic") presentation than the smaller ones (I've actually proven this to myself with my 100s and 5's in my larger room), so Walsh 300s or 5's at $5000-$6000 new might be a more valid comparison to MBLs assuming their natural habitat is in larger rooms. That's still only about 1/10th the cost of full range MBLs though it seems. In smaller rooms, the dramatics of the smaller OHMs might be better suited to match larger MBLs in the same room size. |
Map, I've heard every MBL (except for the new monster Extremes with the separate bass towers) on multiple ocassions and, as you know, I own Ohm 100s. The big MBLs definetly offer a more dramatic (Dylanhenry's term "hyperrealistic" is a good one) presentation than the Ohms, particularly at the crushing SPLs that MBL likes to use for demos. OTOH, my $1800 Ohms offer -IMHO- a much more neutral octave to octave balance than I've ever heard from the >$50,000 101s. But for this thread, imaging only, I'd still point to the MBLs. Marty |
MBL 101Es. By far the most realistic soundstage and imaging speaker I've ever heard. Perhaps not so much "realistic" but "HYPER realistic". You are not only there, but you've shrunk a couple of sizes and everything is "lifelike", but also "GIANT"! It's real, but you feel like caterpillar in a forest when the "trees" are only blades of grass. Vocals come from a 30ft woman, you live in the sound hole of a plucked acoustic guitar. Quite possibly the most real and UNREAL speaker I've heard in my life. |
02-04-09: Stereo I picked up a pair of used Proac Tablette 50 Signatures not too long ago and have to concur with the above. The Proacs imaging is just superior to most speakers that I've owned and listened. |
Ggavetti, my source was the same turntable for comparison. However you are right about the pre & amp-they were superior to my dated 33/303 system. I've never done a comparison since then and I must say I got tremendous enjoyment from my Quad set-probably would still be enjoying it today if I had not made what I felt was an upgrade. Room size is a very important issue as well. Today in a smaller room I would prefer a small/medium speaker with excellent dispersion to add life to the music. I felt the Quads were simply far too limited in the dispersion area. Well made smaller 2 way speakers are normally good imagers as well. |
