mijostyn,
Even my tiny little Spendor 3/5s spec'd only down to
90Hz have a palpable "thereness" that I haven't heard from any
electrostat. Adding a dynamic woofer to an electrostat seems to produce
pallpability in the region covered by the woofer, but the frequency
range covered by the panel has that ghostly sound.
So every electrostatic I've heard (a lot!) either full range or hybrid, has had the characteristics I described. I guess I'll just have to take your word that a Black Swan version exists somewhere that sounds different.In any case, I'd say my generalization about electrostics, especially any of a size/price I'd ever be in a position to own, is inductively sound. :)
|
@prof, I too have heard that "ghostly sound" from planars (most recently a pair of Maggie 1.7’s), but that can be and often is a result of comb-filtering caused by the back wave of the speaker bouncing off the wall behind it, meeting up with the front wave, and causing frequency-related cancellation. Planars are less effected by sidewall reflections than are point source loudspeakers, but much more effected by those from the front wall. That an OB/Dipole sub cannot produce anything below 40Hz is complete and utter nonsense, assuming it is constructed properly---in an H-frame (GR Research/Rythmik) or W-frame (Linkwitz. See below), to prevent front-to-back dipole cancellation. Anyone who has heard the Gradient made for the 63, such as yourself, can attest to that fact. Robert E. Greene reviewed the Gradient/QUAD 63 combination in TAS, and reported no lack of bass below 40Hz. Same with those (such as myself) who have actually heard the GR Research/Rythmik OB/Dipole Sub. Remember too that Siegfried Linkwitz employed an OB/Dipole woofer section in his outstanding LX521 loudspeaker, and it also had no problem reproducing the bottom octave. Does anyone really believe an engineer with as much knowledge of and talent at designing loudspeakers as had Siegfried would let one out of his lab if it had no bottom octave output?! What IS true is that the output in general of an OB/Dipole sub is quite a bit lower than that of a sealed sub using the same driver (for instance, it takes four of the GR Research/Rythmik OB’s to equal the output of a single Rythmik F12G). But that is unrelated to it’s bottom octave---it is frequency-unrelated. It is for that reason some OB/Dipole sub owners use them in multiple sets, stacked atop one another. A Google Images search will lead you to pics of two, three, even four OB/Dipole Sub stacks. Not cheap, but SOTA never is. ;-) On the other hand, the Gradient SW-57, made for the original QUAD, WAS deficient in the bottom octave. But then, it employed a pair of 8" woofers, and they can play only so low, whether in an OB/Dipole design, sealed, ported, or infinite baffle. The LX521 uses a pair of 10" Seas aluminum-cone woofers, the GR Research/Rythmik a pair of 12" paper-cone woofers designed by Richie and Ding and custom-manufactured for them. The same woofer, with an aluminum cone, is the one Rythmik installs in their F12 sealed sub (the F12G has the paper-cone woofer. Confused yet? ;-). |
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 |
There are those who still feel the best bass QUALITY they ever heard was that produced by the two bass panels of the Magneplanar Tympani loudspeakers; the original T-I up through the final Tympani, the T-IVa. The T-IVa (upon which the new MG30.7 builds) also contains the great Magneplanar ribbon tweeter, and a "pretty" good (;-) magnetic-planar midrange driver. Not quite as transparent as ESL’s, but what is? One aspect of ESL’s (in fact, all planars) that cannot be ignored is their line-source sound propagation characteristics. Their wave-launch is completely different than that of a point source, and it would appear a person prefers one or the other. When I replaced my Tympani T-I’s with Fulton Model J’s in 1974, I learned I was a line-source man. As with everything, ya gotta learn and chose your priorities, ’cause ya can’t have it all. |
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. |
@mijostyn, Siegfried Linkwitz disagreed (R.I.P.) with you ;-). Have you actually ever heard an OB/Dipole sub, or are you speaking in purely theoretical terms? Rythmik's Brian Ding, even though collaborating with Danny Richie on the OB/Dipole Sub (it is more Danny's baby than Brian's), finds it to sound too "lean" for him. One complaint about subs mated with planars is their tendency to sound too 'plump", a little fat and tubby. That can certainly not be said about the OB/Dipole, and one reason why it works so well with planars. |
Speaking of transparency.....it was when I read Harry Pearson say in a review of a loudspeaker that it was "transparent in the same way the original is" that I realized he didn’t actually understand what the term transparent means. If the original were "transparent", you wouldn’t hear it! That's like saying a photo copy is as transparent as the original. If the original were transparent, there would be nothing to see or copy! Transparent means what J. Gordon Holt said it did: the ability of a component to be invisible, like an open window. Lack of transparency (JGH sometimes likened that to a layer of what he called "scrim" placed between source and listener) is any veiling, adding of texture, change in vocal and/or instrumental timbre and color, reducing of dynamic contrasts, hardening, or any other artifact added to the original; Doug Sax performed bypass tests to evaluate the transparency of any piece of gear he was considering for use in his studio. If the insertion of the component was absolutely undetectable, it was perfectly transparent. If it added any of the above, it wasn’t. Interestingly, in spite of their unequalled transparency, Sax didn’t choose ESL loudspeakers for monitoring his recording and mastering work. |
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. |
Actually, though most of Doug Sax's work was as a mastering engineer, he DID do some recording, including the Sheffield Direct-To-Disk albums. On those he was recording AND mastering engineer, mastering of course as the recording was taking place. |
@mijostyn, what were the dimensions of your OB/Dipole sub frames? Were they H-frames, or W-frames? Linkwitz chose to go with the W, Danny Richie with the H (though he provides plans for both on his GR Research website). Did you incorporate the mandatory shelving circuit (6dB/octave boost below 100Hz) to compensate for the endemic dipole cancellation? The OB/Dipole version of the Rythmik plate amp does, and the sub absolutely reproduces the bottom octave. Honest! ;-) Siegfried Linkwitz was nothing if not a methodical scientist, measuring everything. He published all the test results of his measurements on the LX521 loudspeaker, including those of its’ OB/Dipole woofer. That woofer too reproduces the bottom octave, and the LX521's electronics include the OB/Dipole-mandated shelving circuit. That shelving circuit is NOT optional in an OB/Dipole sub, it is mandatory. |
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.
|
I know
Doug Sax used Altec 604E for monitoring with crossovers designed by his brother.
These monitors where called Red Monitors. |
A 3dB boost at 20Hz is NOT a shelving circuit. A shelving circuit is a progressive low-pass compensation filter, not a static figure (6dB/octave, the boost therefore increasing as frequency decreases), which exactly compensates for the 6dB/octave front-to-back cancellation inherent in dipole speakers and woofers. Without it, an OB/Dipole sub WILL exhibit declining output with frequency, and of course not perform optimally. That's just a poor or incomplete design, not an insolvable weakness in the design. ALL designs present their own challenges to be solved by a speaker designer. Siegfried and Brian Ding did just that, and their OB/Dipole subs do NOT exhibit the failing of a missing bottom octave. Linkwitz didn't chose to go with an OB/Dipole sub out of blind allegiance to some "pet theory". Give the a little more credit than that! He (along with Russ Riley) invented the Linkwitz-Riley filters, fer cryin' out loud! The dipole-cancellation shelving circuit is well known to professional speaker designers, and is included in the DSPeaker Anti-Mode 2.0 Dual-Core. I wonder if the fact that both Gradient and DSPeaker are located in Finland has anything to do with that? |
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. |
@mijostyn, you sound like the guys on the Home Theater Subwoofer sites. They too consider the SPL output capability of a sub as the only criteria with which to assess it’s quality. Linkwitz and Richie/Ding designed their OB/Dipole subs for the reproduction of music, not car crashes and bomb explosions ;-). OB/Dipole subs are not for everyone, and obviously not you. Each to his own! I still have a pair of the original HSU subs utilizing cylindrical enclosures. Also a pair of KEF B139 woofers each in it’s own quarter-wave transmission-line enclosure, and a pair of sealed subs with 15" woofers. I bought the latter as a kit, and designed my own 4 cu.ft. enclosure: 18" w x 24" h x 24" d, inner cabinet (cross-braced every 5") separated from the outer cabinet by 1/2", that 1/2" filled with sand. Got that idea from Danny Richie, who posted plans for his 12" sub on his GR Research website. |
Going back to the op's question, why is it that there seems to be two camps of audiophiles. One favoring musicality and tone/timbre and the other wanting detail, and accuracy. Shouldn't an "accurate" system also get the tonality right? Why can't we have both? I personally much prefer accurate tone but I don't know why one needs to compromise. I understand that no system is perfect but is it too much to ask for a system that is fairly accurate tonally yet detailed with good soundstage? |
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. |
Hi @mijostyn ,
Yes he did. But he used "improved" crossover that made frequency response more flat.
Regards,
Alex. |
jaferd
It seems intuitively obvious that an accurate system would reproduce the beautiful tonality of natural instruments and voices, so that's what "everyone" would shoot for.
I think this all gets complicated by the vast number of colorations inherent in the recording/mixing/mastering/reproduction chain (including speakers designs, different rooms etc). I've seen some people, who know more than I do about speaker design, explain that it's essentially impossible for a speaker to truly, accurately reproduce the original sound of instruments (different polar responses and other issues being a bugaboo). Whether that's strictly the case or not, it seems like many can do better than others, at least to our individual ears.
My ideal is a speaker that would indeed reproduce the amazingly wide variety and richness of "the real thing" (be it piano, voice, guitar, and many other instruments). Some seem to get closer than others. But as a compromise, since much of what we listen to is artificially constructed (and often sounds that way), I at least want a speaker that helps me enjoy the music as much as possible, and I'll go with a speaker that has a general "voice" that sounds generally "right" in terms of an organic quality, even if strictly speaking it's not able to perfectly reproduce the original sound.
As per my OP, I'm not wedded to only the Spendors. Not at all. I have a number of speakers that for me all capture some essentially "right" and pleasing qualities.
|
jaferd that's what I think too:)I've striven to assemble a system that does both.Not perfect, but the beauty of tone with enough detail to not get boring.Detail without a organic tone is fatiguing to me.
|
@prof, your third paragraph perfectly expresses my own feelings on the subject. There is of course no such thing as a perfectly uncolored (or transparent, or anything else) loudspeaker, but some allow me to "suspend my disbelief" enough to enjoy the music. Each of us has our own personal requirements for what will achieve that objective, the challenge now is in finding a way to hear all the potential candidates. That, and finding the money to pay for the one of our choice! |
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. |
Both Gordon Holt and Doug Sax (both mentioned above) eventually discovered active ATC. ATC are the speakers they used daily until they passed away.
The tone of the Spendor S 3/5S is mainly the polypropylene cone - the plastic is quite flexible and they tend to roll off early. A polite upper mid range BBC dip is the characteristic tone - not as lively as other materials. Harbeth and Rogers and other plastic cone speakers tend to share this tonal character. |
Interesting tread, I often find, and I may be totally wrong in that big speakers with many drivers need a lot of power to sound good, and mostly they sound at their best at higher listening levels, I myself went the bbc route a couple of years ago (Graham Audio LS5/9) and the first thing that struck me was how wonderfully it sounded at low volume, and as the op, tone and timbre sounds really good, but for a big room (American) they would probably not be powerful enough, unless used as near-field monitors.
My bigger speakers, I usually played louder, the 5/9 not so much, mostly 70-85db and I still get the same enjoyment, if not more from the 5/9. |
Speaking of polypropylene and plastics, it never ceases to bewilder me how the thin mylar membrane in my Quad ESLs can sound like a brass cymbal or a wooden xylophone. |
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.
|
I agree tone rules. Who cares what else a speaker can do if it doesn't sound tonally realistic?
I've owned a string of British box speakers over the last 30yrs - a pair of 3-way Heybooks, 3 pairs of Proacs, 3 pairs of Harbeths and now 2 pairs of ATCs.
Tonal 'rightness' and realism has reached a pinnacle for me with the ATCs. The Harbeths were very good, but not really neutral in the bass and a bit 'sleepy' sounding dynamically - where the ATCs have far superior bass IMO and are alive with realistic dynamics.
I think the little SCM19 I own should be much more popular given their quality of reproduction (tonal accuracy and dynamics) - they need a powerful amp, but watts are cheap these days. Does anyone in the world build a more seriously engineered 5-6" mid-bass driver than the one ATC build for the 19's (and scm20's)? - that thing weighs 9kg and makes up half the weight of the speaker!
The active ATC SCM100s I'm listening to as I type this are another level again. Neutral, but marvellously tonally robust and realistic with terrific dynamics. They can play the big stuff with ease but also sound wonderful with delicate acoustic material. Probably the end of the road for me.
|
Wharfedale builds some of the best speakers on the planet regardless of price. The oldest speaker company in the world, and totally vertically alligned they build their own everything down to the internal wiring.i still have my Diamond 8.1 the first budget speaker to use Kevlar drivers, their tone is very similar to the Quad Esl 57's. The Diamond 225's reputation is well deserved, outstanding drive units, I just bought the D330 a killer little Floorstander, Spendor I feel has tone science down very speaker companies do, all the Wharfedalea new and old have it... |
