Which speakers will fill 5,000 cubic ft coherently
In porevious threads I've bemoaned the fact that my Kharma 3.2 FEs don't fill the room, 17 X 23 X 15 ft ceilings with a vertical enough soundstage, as though the speakers are literally too small. I have been advised to raise them,which I have done, , I have told to get taller, line arrays, even given names of custom speaker makers. Any specic recommendations from those that have had, and have conquered, this issue.
Shadorne, all the changes will be incorporated in the bass equalizer, an external box, placed between the amp and preamp. It wont affect the speaker design physically. Because it will be placed in the corner, almost, Bob will utilise this fact to reduce bass demand from the amps and other technicalities that are beyond me........
Thanks for giving feedback - I would only add that it might be wise NOT to modify the SP Techs or alternatively make sure you have a kit to make them standard again...just so that you keep your resale options open and also the option to move house or change their location in your house.
Thank you all for your input. It is most appreciated. I am going with the SP Tech Revelations III, guided by many who have listened to them as well as the other contenders. I am especially indebted to Duke, who despite being a competitor, gave frank and honest advice. The only reason that I didn't buy the Jazz Module is one of size and likelihood that the far taller Revs would fill the room better. Furthermore, Bob Smith, the owner and designer will modify them to accomodate my awful room placement issue and will design a passive equaliser for close-to-corner placement and to reduce the demands on the Atma-Sphere for bass drive. I am taking a small risk in that the Revs may do better with biamping with ss for the LF, but will cross that bridge when I have tried the A-S amps. I have been really impressed with Bob Smith's out-of-the-box approach to tailoring his speakers to both the room and the amp and his sound reasoning for (hopefully) making this work.
Thinking over your problem again I think I'd be taking a look at reflections from the floor under your system. Your high ceiling may be changing what might normally be balanced by an 8 ft ceiling. Could you advise your flooring around your system & speakers?
I'm impressed with what I've read about SP Tech. I spoke to Bob and he does not feel the location (near the front wall) or size of the room, or the fact that I have a tube OTL amp are impediments. (I know, I know, 8 ohms is better)- but I still haven't found the ideal speaker in theory, and SP Tech is getting raves. Comments?
Pick your poison. I would go for a wide range single driver midrange. Look at the classics like Ls3-5a, original Quad, Spica TC-50, original Advent, etc. All were as simple as possible. K.I.S.S. Time has taught us (some of us) that complexity brings with it complication.......and problems.
I'd direct you attention back to the Selah line arrays. I have a pair of their custom Incredarrays (similar to the Alexandrite) and they will definitely fill your room, with great dynamics and proper room height. The height thing bothered me with many speakers I owned until I got the Selahs. There's a thread over at Audio Circle called 'why line arrays' that you might find interesting. One post from that thread:
"1. They fill a room more evenly with sound, not too loud up close or too quiet at a distance. This is because, as mentioned elsewhere, the SPL from a line array decreases by 3db for each doubling of distance vs a regular speaker that decreases by 6db. This is a huge difference. 2. They have a sweet spot that is orders of magnitude larger, a direct result of #1. 3. The nature of how sound disperses from a line array leads to better in-room behavior. Not only is floor and ceiling bounce virtually eliminated, but that also eliminates the floor/ceiling room mode from having an influence. 4. They sound "bigger"."
I wouldn't be overly concerned about a SS amp driving the sub frequencies. And even with music with minimal low bass, the lower extension that subs provide will add greatly to the 'realism' of the performance.
they easily fill my room ;) The soundstage is as wide and tall as appropriate for the music. I once had some Audiostatic electrostatics and the soundstage was TOO tall - singers were like 10' tall, heheh...
I have mine out about 6 feet BUT since they have an adjustable 11 band bass eq and level/Q controls you can adjust for that pretty easy - soundstaging and imaging is better placed farther from the wall. They are rated at 87db but remember they have a 400wpc bass amp built in to each speaker. I drive mine with 70wpc Cary monos and they can play VERY loud if called on to do so ;)
I'd concur that integrating a good sub effectively with a pair of speakers definitely improves upon soundstaging abilities of the mains in my experience. These improvements have been in the 3-dimensional depth and width of soundstage, and in pinpointing and resolving images in space. It does not, in my experience, however, do anything to increase the "vertical soundstage" (from your original post)...or at least what I'm interpreting your meaning of that to be, which is to say, the scale of imaging. Though more impactful (did I just made that word up) in ways I have never found it to increase the scale of the images produced by the mains. I have certainly heard systems where the scale of the imaging seems larger than life, as it were (I'm assuming this is what you mean by "vertical soundstage"). I'm not sure that I'd appreciate that on a long term basis though. Perhaps. It certainly is a novel experience when I hear it. I wonder if the novelty would wear off. I don't know what qualities speakers/system need to have to pull that off. One such system that impressed me that way consisted of NHT 3.3's and all top-shelf Levinson gear. It wasn't my cup of tea, but it was memorable and impressive in many ways. The scale of everything it reproduced seemed larger than life, and the space it was in was quite large itself, both in footprint and volume. A piano seemed larger than it should in real life and human vocals made the singers feel like giants in some way. If you are looking for this from a speaker/system that doesn't already render something like it already, I don't think a sub will move the sense of scale in that direction. Apologies in advance if I've misinterpreted your meaning.
Your request for education is refreshing. Help is on the way. What Tvad says about subwoofer implementation, however strange, is certainly true. Incorporating subs can be very tricky,as you need to place them in such a way as to blend with the speakers you have already. Purchasing speakers with pre-engineered and pre-optimized inboard subs removes obstacles that you otherwise might never overcome. It is also advantageous to consider powered speakers which have onboard amplification and generally exclude passive crossovers and the compromises they introduce. The better powered speakers often have a separate amp for every driver and an electronic (active) crossover on hand to handle crossover points and slope assignments. It is also advantageous to reproduce as wide a midband as possible without crossing over at all. This is usually the province of very small limited range dynamic drivers like Lowther and Fostex or rather large planars like Sound Lab or Magnepan. The former will not begin to fill your spave and the latter is too large for where you need to put them. While we are at it, Beveridge is not only too large to fit but needs surrounding space which you certainly can't provide. Another suggestion called for Infinity Kappa Nines. These, if I remember correctly, hold a special place in the H.O.F. for hardest to drive speakers of all time. A very, very unwise choice for an OTL owner.
I'm a Zu guy as is well known but there are some other speakers that might suit your purposes. Perhaps Vandy Fives would fit.
>>03-22-08: Tvad Hard to believe, but adding a sub (or two) to monitors has a substantial effect on increased image height and size. Quite amazing, actually...<<
Should I cancel the sale?:):) Are you saying that a recording of content (eg a soprano, violin, piccolo, flute, oboe) well above 60 Hz - an arbitrary cut-off for a suubwoofer - when the subwoofer presumably will not be employed (or will it??) raises the soundstage? What if I tell you that 90% of what I listen to is in the aove 60 Hz range? Then what? I am not being facetious - educate me........
>>03-22-08: Psacanli Sure you could change to bigger louder speakers, but, if I were you I'd experiment with subwoofers to provide the sound you want. Your speakers are fabulous,very hard to beat at what they do, but were designed to be used with subs. Experiment with quality fast subs.<<
I believe these speakers were designed for smaller spaces, and have already sold them. Besides, I dont believe that the vertical soundstage and imaging would be that much affected by subs. But it's moot.
Sure you could change to bigger louder speakers, but, if I were you I'd experiment with subwoofers to provide the sound you want. Your speakers are fabulous,very hard to beat at what they do, but were designed to be used with subs. Experiment with quality fast subs.
Despite the fevered claims of some tubaholics, there is a definite advantage to be had by using tubes above 50 Hz and solid stste below that point.
This certainly works well for me (presently) and has worked well in the past as well. I'm currently using my Quicksilver 300B SET amps to push Silverline Sonatinas in a near-field space of moderate volume. Bass without subs is OK, but certainly not visceral. Really good for a 9 watt SET amp compared to others I've heard. I've added an ACI Force XL sub (internal 250W SS amp). At first I found it a bit tricky to integrate, but once integrated the combination is very rewarding. I'd used an ACI Titan in the past (different space and speakers) and found it similarly musical, fast (able to keep up with very sensitive, fast horns), and rewarding. A good friend, who's already chimed in on this thread, tried bi-amping his Maggie 20.1's with a VTL 450 on top and various hi-powered SS amps at the bottom, eventually settling on Parasound JC1's. I got to hear a few different permutations while he was trying to decide on the SS amp, as well as having heard the speakers pushed only by the VTL's. Vertical biamping was a definite improvement in every way for those speakers (though ultimately I felt his room was a bit small for them). The tube/SS combination did work great to my ears. Later on he determined he was not happy with it and went to a second pair of VTL 450's on the bottom. Never got to hear that combo myself, but he liked it much better than the JC1 (ss) on the bottom. Anyway, it certainly can work well IMO.
"I suppose ideally, with an amp such as the A-S MA 2.2, it seems redundant to have a built in sub amp (the Zu)which is unlikely to be as good as the A-S amp. So a full-range speaker without a sub amp would seem to be the theoretical ideal and so far only the Coincident seems to fit the entire bill."
Despite the fevered claims of some tubaholics, there is a definite advantage to be had by using tubes above 50 Hz and solid stste below that point. There is some discussion afoot about whether newer class D designs outperform the conventional A and A/B amplifiers but very few would argue that tubes provide better bass reproduction than SS can. Furthermore, it is certain that splitting low bass duties out of the main amplfier's assignment will improve it's ability to control the mids. That's why statement products are often multi-amped and/or actively powered.
Having spoken to some people whom I greatly respect, I have added the Coincident line to my final few as well as Duke's Jazz Module; I would look for a Total Eclipse, but they are not available on A'gon, but the Total Reference is. Zu Defintions remain high up, but I don't seem to get a handle on their sound, other than the 6 Moons review, which is more akin to a racing car review:) Any views on the Total Reference? I suppose ideally, with an amp such as the A-S MA 2.2, it seems redundant to have a built in sub amp (the Zu)which is unlikely to be as good as the A-S amp. So a full-range speaker without a sub amp would seem to be the theoretical ideal and so far only the Coincident seems to fit the entire bill. But can they be placed close to the front wall?
My Definitions are close to the rear wall with no problems. I have not hear the Zu Presence or the other speakers that you are considering. The metal on the Zu speakers (Def and Presence) can be anodized black; and the cabinets can be painted any color - matte or gloss. Personally, I like the gloss black with the aluminum driver trim (it is not chrome, btw); for the record, Architectural Digest agreed. However, if your wife wants wood veneer, then Zus will not work.
When I design a loudspeaker I try my best to keep above 8ohms and near stable. 16ohms even better. But many tubes amps will do fine into 4ohms just depends on design, transformers etc. Still best to shoot for 16ohms or at least 8 ohms if you want to run tube amps. For OTL -SET best to match loudspeaker carefully. Some of the better systems I have heard used costly OTLs wont mention from who:) But I have also heard the same basic system with diferant loudspeakers that wasent so hot at all. This is true for most all systems best to match up gear designed to work together. See many wanting to use 4ohm 88db bookshelfs or other hard to drive loudspeakers with SETs or OTL. Many post asking. I can see why they are not so thrilled if they try these amps. Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot or pissin in the wind....Your not going to like the results but its your fault not the systems..
My Definitions were 12 inches from the rear wall with no boom, no problem. However, I would still recommend the Presence for your situation. Black hardware is available and your wife can choose any color on earth. My speakers are the color of new copper tubing. Glossy and metallic, they look like old fashioned radios with their woofer lenses showing slivers of dark grill cloth. Flat paint is also available so you can match them to your sofa or your Navajo rug. Be creative.
By the way, thanks Ralph, for your input. Your 24/7 availability and objectivity certainly adds to the pleasure and privilege of owning Atma-Sphere amps & preamps.
Now that I've sold the Kharmas (25 offers in first 12 hours and I was expecting a month or two wait..........first firm offer to buy disappeared into thin air - that really pisses me off, so second buyer, a real gent, gets them), the serious search is on: Zu Definitions, Custom-made Selah Line arrays adjusted for corners, room size and 13 ohm impedance, built in sub-woofer, gorgeous wood craftmanship, Audiokinesis Jazz Modules and Tyler Woodmeres currently in the frame. Only thing I dont like about the Defintions is the aesthetics - wife went green when she saw chrome and metal, but I am told they can be painted black..... All input welcome, and appreciated.
Atmashpere, in your opinion which is more important - the speaker's relative impedance or the smoothness of the impedance curve? For instance, would an amp rather see a speaker that rated at 16 ohms which actually varies from 12 ohms to 45 ohms, or a smooth 8 to 12 ohm load? Or is it something that can't really be expressed this simply.
BTW, your contribution to the Forums is invaluable.
It seems I need to clarify something here. My comment above referred to **all** tube amps, not just Atma-Sphere (and FWIW, our MA-2 is quite comfortable driving four ohm loads).
However- what everyone in audio (and thats a lot) need to realize that there is a trade-off between sound and impedance. **FOR ALL AMPLIFIERS**
I highlighted that but I don't intend to be yelling... the point is, that even transistor amplifiers sound better on higher impedance speakers than they do on low impedance.
Steve McCormick is well-known for making rugged transistor amplifiers- has for years. In a recent email to Paul Speltz, who makes the ZERO autoformer, Steve reported that his amplifiers sound better driving 4 ohms *through the ZERO* than they do direct. In this case, the ZERO was loading the transistor amp at 16 ohms.
On hearing this, I asked several transistor amplifier manufacturers at CES what was up. Universally, they all responded, to paraphrase: 'Just because the amplifier is comfortable on 4 ohms does not mean that they sound best there- they sound better when you run less current through them. Yes, they do sound better into higher impedances'.
What this tells me is that 4 ohms is to get power as a tradeoff against sound quality. Everyone take note!
So I am amending my statement made some months ago above:
'If you are investing in an audio amplifier (tube or transistor), your investment dollar will be best served if the speaker used is at least 8 ohms or more (all other things being equal), if sound quality is your goal.'
To me, high end audio is **only** about sound quality.
While your amplifier might sound great on a given 4 ohm speaker (for example Magnaplanar tells me all the time that their speakers 'never sounded better' than on our MA-2), it will sound smoother and more detailed if you could magically change the impedance upwards without changing anything else.
Right now the closest we are to that is to use a set of ZEROs.
The Zu Presence weighs 80 lbs, has a 14 inch wide front baffle that narrows toward the rear at a 60 degree angle. It is biamped, highly efficient and sports a 16 ohm flat impedance curve. The owner of Atmasphere uses a similar Zu speaker with his amps. This suggests that he might think they work well as a combo. Zu has a return policy. If you keep them, you pay freight one way, just like any other speaker. If you return them, you pay freight the other way too. It's a small gamble.
Zu has a serious jump factor. Sound emanates effortlessly from the full range driver and the seamlessness of no crossover reproduction holds many of us in awe. They may not solve your problem completely but I would say they stand a better chance than most any other speaker, given your preferences and constraints.
This is the most interesting thread in a while....what a conundrum of imposed constraints (amplification equipment, speaker placement, and loud unstrained sound to fill a large space, and not least of all the WAF factor). All understanable constraints but nevertheless making this problem fairly unique!
I'd suggest another option: biamping! Why not use an active filter to split the preamp signal to allow the beautiful 58 tubes to drive the midrange and tweeter of a nice dynamic three or four way. Then use a big bad boy SS amp on the woofers...and caboom - you got the smoothness and clarity you want in those tubes with the ooomph you need for a large space for blissful unstrained dynamic sound (not only will the big bad boy amp driving big woofers fill the room in mind bending accurate bass but you will ease the strain on the amplification to the mids and tweet, which can play louder and sweeter too!)
...anyway I just thought I'd toss that idea in....
I think some people are stretching the point about tube amps not working well with sub-8 ohm loads. As a rule OTL designs prefer high impedance loads, but tube amps as a whole can work perfectly well into lower impedance speakers. If you take into account the output impedance of the amplifier you'll find that most tube amps work best with speakers that have smooth impedance responses. But that is also the case with most transistor based amps. With the proliferation of single end triode type amps, which as a group don't do low impedances, all tube amps are being unfairly tainted as incapable of driving real world speakers. Any number of Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, VTL, Manley, EAR, etc. amps thrive on driving low impedance speakers.
Swampwalker- As far as the Woodmeres go..If Ty says that they would work fine with an OTL amp..then you can take him at his word.
He's never steered me wrong.
BTW..if you go with Tyler..I guarantee you will not be disappointed with not only with the sound of the Woodmeres, but thier more than obvious craftmanship, too.
Unless I miss my guess, the output autoformers are essentially the same thing as using the speltz autoformers (which have different impedence multiplying taps), except that they are internal to the amp. So we are still back to the same issue; most tube amps (and esp. OTL amps) prefer/sound better with a high impedence load. However, (and here I may be wrong) the large # of output tubes in the bigger Atma and Joule amps, make them a better match for a lower (not low) impedence speaker (assuming a flat impedence curve) than might otherwise be expected.
To quote McIntosh... "Output autoformers, a feature of many of our amplifiers, assures that you get all the power you paid for. Other amplifiers, optimized for 8-ohm speakers, have warnings not to use with many speakers that are 4 or even 2-ohm impedance. Others are optimized to work with these low impedance speakers, but deliver only a fraction of their potential power with 8-ohm speakers. Output autoformers avoid this problem, with separate connections for all three popular speaker types, insuring full power, without stress, into any speaker regardless of impedance."
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
