The LS 3/5a is a magic little loudspeaker. We listened to them in awe back in the late 70's and they were part of our ultimate apartment system. Sub woofers were just coming around then and I never got a chance to match them up with subs but I can not help to think that the results would be fantastic....in a smaller room where levels over 90 db were not required.
A funny thing happens when there is a mismatch between image size and volume. Distortion levels may be fine but as volume exceeds image size the illusion of reality collapses and there is no denying that you are listening to an electronic recreation. The best way to minimize this is to get the speakers up on stands at ear level. This is why tower systems have become the norm as they sound "larger." But what they are trying to mimic is an LS 3/5a on stands! It was the speaker that started it all.
Now back to everybody's favorite subject psychoacoustics. We get very use to what we have been listening to and deviations from our norm will sound wrong. Speakers can sound quite different with just small shifts in frequency response. As an example a speaker with a small dip in and around 3000 Hz will sound smoother than a speaker with a flat response in this region. This takes the sting out of sibilance. When you have the ability to alter the frequency response of a system you can discover all kinds of tricks like dropping 100 Hz 3 db takes the fatness out of some speakers giving you a seemingly tighter more detailed bass. Speakers that are flat out to 20K sound fine a low levels but as the volume increases become progressively shriller. The squint factor. So the way a speaker performs depend very much on the volume you like to listen at. Here lies the importance of tone controls. As the volume increases you lower the treble from flat. As the volume decreases you increase the bass from flat. Tonality is thus a moving target. |
bdp24, any loudspeaker is going to change tonality (frequency response characteristics) with different environments. A speaker that sounds right in one room may not in another. Smaller speakers with limited low frequency response are easier to integrate into a room reliably just like the LS 3/5a. It is under 100 Hz where all hell breaks loose in most normally sized domestic rooms. Coloration below 100 Hz most definitely effects the lower midrange (voices). I find coloration like this most annoying. No bass is better than bad bass. (unless you are only into theater) But, put on a record that has someone just talking for a bit. Have someone stand between your speakers reading Shakespeare. There is no mistaking the real voice. It is larger with more resonance. It is not easy making a system reproduce voice at the level where you could be fooled into thinking it was a real voice. So most of us have to compromise in some way depending mostly on what type of music we like to listen to at what volume. The biggest challenge in system set up is choosing the right speaker for the job based on the client's preferences and pocketbook. For someone who was not a bass freak in a smaller room the LS 3/5a was an easy choice. In larger rooms the Dalquist DQ-10 was another easy choice. if you want a modern speaker that sounds like an LS 3/5a on steroids listen to the Sonus Faber Venere S. |
Prof, if you ever get the opportunity you must listen to a set of full range electrostatic loudspeakers. Quads or Soundlabs. I think your opinion on what a loudspeaker can do will evolve a bit.
Audioguy85, it is not that the Whardales are cheap it is just that many speakers are comically overpriced as would be indicated by resale values. Just pick out the most expensive drivers you can find and add up the prices. Double the sum for labor and crossover parts. Is there any box worth $200,000? |
Prof, The reason ESLs sound "skeletal" to you, and I hate sounding like a stuck record is that the ones you have been listening to switch radiation characteristics in the mid bass. They are acting like linear arrays above 250 Hz but like point source radiators below, square of the distance versus cube of the distance. A linear array has to be taller than the lowest wavelength you need to reproduce. Their ability to radiate power drops off dramatically below 250 Hz as you move away from the speaker. Add dipole effects to this and you wind up with wimpy bass. This is what glued everyone to the Acoustat 2+2s. They were the first planar loudspeaker that did not do this. The Soundlabs you want to listen too if you get the opportunity are the Majestic 845s in an 8 foot room or the 945s in a 9 foot room. A linear array that terminates at boundaries above and below acts as a linear array into infinity. At the beginning of Roger Water's Amused to Death is a segment with a barking dog. A friend's medium poodle went ballistic when the dog started barking. Never play Amused to Death with someone's dog in the house.
This notion that dipole subwoofers fit dipole speakers better is faulty. There is just no getting away from the cancelation and front wall effects. The result is very lumpy frequency response and no bass at all below 40 Hz. They will make the satellites sound better as long as you are crossing out of them but that is about it. The mistake people make is trying to match a point source subwoofer to a linear array loudspeaker. Linear array subwoofers either have to be as tall as the room or as wide as the room. That is a lot of woofers.
|
bpd24 There is a very good reason that there are very few dipole subs.
If you think you are going to block a sound wave with a wavelength of 20 feet with a panel of any size or type that you could fit in a room I would love some of the stuff you are drinking. Dipole subs will make lots of bass you can hear and will sound quite different if you move them just one foot. What they will not do reliably is make bass you can feel. It found favor with people trying to avoid cabinet resonance and complexity unfortunately it does not work. Having said that the best dynamic loudspeakers I ever heard were a D' Appolito array, two 5" drivers and a diamond tweeter on a sandwich of MDF and solid surface material with a 6db/oct crossover at 2K and a 100 Hz cross to a pair of 12" subwoofers.
The panels were hung from the ceiling on decorative chains. They were also home made! Brilliant.
Comb filtering is not much of a problem at higher frequencies. It is a huge problem in the bass (just another reason dipole subs do not work) The rear wave interferes most with image specificity. All you have to do is put acoustic tile on the wall behind the speaker and everything snaps into focus. Won't do a thing for bass performance which is why I cross to enclosed subwoofers. |
Interesting description, "ghostly" as in "not there." That is right, ESLs can disappear. Point source speakers can not. You always know you are listening to a dynamic speaker particularly when you walk up to it.
Essentially we are in agreement as before I got the 2+2s all the ESLs I had listened to and owned where missing the kind of dynamic punch I was looking for even with subwoofers attached. But, that did not chase me back to dynamic speakers because to me the benefits of ESLs out weighted the problems which proved to be surmountable. What makes the 2+2s and Soundlabs Majestics special (black swans) is that they are full range linear arrays and project power in the bass and mid bass like no other type of speaker. The result is a speaker that disappears but has more thereness. I can put you 10th row center at a Nine Inch Nails concert or front row at a Melos String Quartet performance. I can make dynamic drivers be just as powerful, Bob Carver's Line Source is a good example but they will not do the same disappearing act the 2+2s or Majestics will do. The Majestics are currently the only full range line source ESLs I know of available new which is a pity.
Prof, I love the LS 3/5a. It is the best little loudspeaker ever made and probably the most copied loudspeaker ever made but what I am talking about is in an entirely different league.
Mike |
bdp24, Siegfried was quite the character and I quite agree with him on the subject of dipole speakers however he took it a bit too far with the subwoofers. I have not bought a subwoofer since 1987-88. I make my own as commercial subwoofers have too many compromises. I have made every type of subwoofer using dynamic drivers except horn and infinite baffle. Yes, I certainly did make dipole subwoofers using 4 12 inch drivers per side. Not only did I build them but I also have the ability to impulse test them and have my computer graph their frequency response. After playing around with them for a year I built 8 enclosed subs sold 4 of them and kept the other 4 which I currently use. I was using the Dipole subs just before I sold my Apogee Divas so that would have been mid 90's or so. The dipoles only saving grace was that being right next to the Divas they did not drive the ribbons nuts as the Divas were right in their null zone. The best analogy for their response below 100 Hz would be the venetian blind. After playing around with the enclosed subs I now use for a couple of years I wandered into the configuration I now use. I can still do better. I have the design of a new sub in my head that I will use in the current configuration. I hope to build them next Winter after my right arm recovers.
As for Doug Sax, the studio world is in another galaxy. Doug probably uses near field monitoring and ESLs are just too big for that environment. I would bet that he never even tried them. Doug does not do recording. He is a mastering engineer (and trumpet player) He takes the tapes and mixes them down to 2 channels. IMHO the best job he ever did was Tower of Power Direct. Great record. I think he did most if not all of the Sheffield Lab records.
Interesting comment about Mr Pearson. So much for audio philosophy.
Mike |
Oh as for plump subwoofers, I think most subwoofers sound "plump." This is probably due to cabinet resonance which is one problem dipole subs should not have. My current system sounds anything but plump dipoles and all. So I guess you have to watch it with the generalizations. |
Correct. It all had to done at the same time. Tower of Power Direct is an amazing disc. Lee Ritenour also had some great direct to disc albums on JVC records. Lee also has a new album available in high def on HD Tracks which is killer. It sits you right in front of the band and the cymbals are tight to the drums like they are supposed to be. 95 db puts you right there. |
Even methodical scientists have their pet theories which sometimes over run their thought processes.
They were more like Linkwitz's W. I was using speaker (room) control from the start and a lot of power. The response of the subwoofer's was measured and a correction curve calculated. On top of this I always boost 20 Hz 3 db. Looking at the response curve there were large variations in volume up to 15 db if I remember correctly. The interesting thing is that when you started to boost the lower frequencies you would wind up increasing the volume only at certain points depending on how far the sub was from the front wall. The rest would stay almost the same due to cancellation effect. It required a lot of power to get anywhere which I had. But no matter what I did listening to something like a big organ as the bass traveled down the scale some notes would be loud then others would drop out. If you had a situation were the front wall was at some distance like 15 feet you could probably smooth out the bass response quite a bit but in most rooms that is impractical. Having a larger baffle will not do anything as the wavelengths are too long. There is one approach that I did not try which is to make four 2 driver subs and place them very close to the front wall in the positions I now use. I still do not think that would work. Wire your speakers out of phase and see if you can get the bass back moving the speakers around.
|
No idea bdp24. But I think you missed the point. I was actually measuring what the subs were doing and had total control over the target curve sent to the woofers. There is no possible way yet anyway to maintain flat frequency response in a dipole woofer. The variations are so steep and at the magnitude of 15 db that you will clip your digital filters and probably your amp trying to do it. I had to back off the correction curves at several frequencies to prevent just that. Scientists experiment with lots of stuff. Doesn't mean that it will all work. No pain no gain. At the end of the day it is far better to use a subwoofer with naturally flat response which requires little correction and power to achieve the bass response you are looking for. The best way to do this is with very stiff and heavy sealed enclosures with opposing drivers which force cancel (like Magicos sub). The stiffest enclosure you can make for this purpose is a cylinder. The cylinder I plan to use will be a decagon with 2" to 3" thick walls about three feet long and 15 inches in diameter. I promise you there will never be a dipole speaker that will come remotely to the performance of these woofers. They will be able to punch out 20 Hz at 120 db all day long. |
Alex, I did not know he used those. They are a 15" (I think) coaxial driver with horn in the center. Altec called it a duplex driver. It was mounted in a simple ported enclosure. It would be about the right size for a studio monitor. Probably very efficient. |
jaferd I am most definitely with you. A good system should do everything right and play all music correctly. Unfortunately to get it all right requires a fair expenditure beyond what most of us can afford so we have to make compromises. This is where the various opinions come in. Some issues are more important than others and this varies from one person to another. What many of us prefer is a little inaccuracy like the distortion with tubes which creates a warm blush over the music. It gives you a greater sense of space. I would not say there are just two schools. Some of us are easier to please as we tend to listen to less demanding music like light Jazz and classical. You wouldn't need to have a monster amp and subwoofers to get Smashing Pumpkins up to 110 db. But I think it is important to know that some of this stuff is stupid expensive and one need not spend that kind of money to get a top notch system and that is where the fun lies, creating that system without emptying your retirement account. |
Simple noromance, The plastic is almost the same mechanical impedance as air. What you are really listening to is the electricity!
Speakers that are a bit brighter with heavier bass sound better at low volumes. Consequently the same thing holds for speakers with a depressed midrange. It is that Fletcher Munson thing again. With digital loudness compensation or really good tone controls you can make a speaker sound good at any volume as long as it is not distorting.
|
