Speakers to hang on for life

[StevenSurprenant]

I've had three different speaker brands which have left a major impact on my life. I was wondering what speakers others have had or still have that have left a life long impression on you.

For me, and in order of when I owned them...

Phase Linear Andromeda/Phase III
Quad ESL 63
DIY Newform Tweeter R45 with SEAS woofers

All of these excelled in transparency and naturalness. The Newform/SEAS have the best soundstaging (by a huge margin) compared to the other two speakers I've owned.

The first two are dipoles and the last one sounds like a dipole with dynamics.

The best I've heard, but didn't own are...

Avalon's flagship model ($70,000) with Spectral gear- These actually fooled me into thinking someone was in the room with me. Amazing soundstaging.

Wilson Watt/Puppy with Pass Labs 45watt amp - This system went over the top with soundstaging. The space between each performer was so distinct that every performer was in their own space. The Avalon's did this too, but the Wilson's seemed to take it a little too far. The music didn't blend into one song, rather it seemed like each performer was playing something different because they were too separated, (Hard to explain). Still, Very impressive! I should also mention that I heard these same speakers with different electronics and they were less than captivating, more wall paper than 3D in that system.

Third would be a pair of Magnepan 2.0 (I believe) that blew my socks off. I'm not sure what electronics were used, but the clarity and soundstaging were very good. I heard these same speakers at other stores with different electronics and room setups and they always sounded lackluster, but not here. I should also mention that Magnepans rarely sound good in stores. Rarely are they set up right with the right equipment. My take on these is that they have great potential but great care has to be taken with room placement and electronics.

I really like the higher end Martin Logans too even though they never had a 3D soundstage to the extent as the speakers mentioned above. They sounded much like the Quad ESL's and the Quad's, at least in my home were not 3D soundstage champs. However, they sounded smooth, detailed, and very natural. I loved the Quads!

There are others, but this is the top of my list for speakers that have grabbed my attention and left a permanent impression in my mind.

Anyway, what floats your boat?

[Mr Peabody]

If anyone knows me here they could probably answer this for me. The Danes and I have been together for at least ten years. I also love the Martin Logan electrostats. If I had to buy new speakers, I'd listen around to be sure but I can't even think of any other speakers than these that might come close.

I heard a pair of Snell several years back that are worth mentioning as a good impression. Thiel wasn't my thing when I heard them but I did find them a pleasant listen and if I was rich enough to have several listening rooms would entertain maybe having a pair.

When I worked at an electronics store in the 80's we sold Electro Voice and they had a pair of 15" 2-way cabinets I loved, the 1503, I believe. Don't let anyone say a horn speaker can't sound good, these were fabulous. I'd like to hear a pair today to see if my taste has changed.

[winston]

QUOTE MR PAEBODY

When I worked at an electronics store in the 80's we sold Electro Voice and they had a pair of 15" 2-way cabinets I loved, the 1503, I believe. Don't let anyone say a horn speaker can't sound good, these were fabulous. I'd like to hear a pair today to see if my taste has changed.

OOH MR P.
had a pair of the 12 inch they got wreck in hurricane Andrew those were some great speaker" for every type of music (subs were not the in thing then. but they would have put them to shame anyway) since then i have only seen the professional ones. your mentioning them sure reminds of some good times i had with those ELECTRO VOICE thank you

[Feanor]

I've had three different speaker brands which have left a major impact on my life. I was wondering what speakers others have had or still have that have left a life long impression on you.
...
Anyway, what floats your boat?

My speaker history over 35 years:

Dynaco A25
AR 7
AR 5
Braun L710
Ohm F -- omni-directional, full-range Walsh driver
B&W DM7
Paradigm Mini Monitor v.3
Magneplanar MMG
Magneplanar MG 1.6QRI owned the B&W DM7's for over twenty years; they were a sad mistake and I came to really regret selling the Ohm F's. Lack of cash and other priorities kept me from doing anything about it for far too long. Today I'm loving the Maggies -- no mistake there.

By the way, I'd love to hear those Newform Research (http://www.newformresearch.com/) of yours. A possibility for me some day is the need to move to a smaller room were the dipole Maggies wouldn't work: DIYs with Newform R30 tweeters could be just the ticket in that scenario.

[Worf101]

See title above. Great thread, great responses. The only topic that would ellicit (sp) a greater response from me would be "cars to hang onto for life." I love it when a topic makes me think and remember fondly. I'm only going to list speaks I own, loved and KEPT!!!

1. Ohm Walsh 4's - Just big enough and detailed enough to show me what decent speakers were SUPPOSED to sound like.

2. Epicure/EPI 100's - With a old SS or a good tube these "bookshelves" give great, great sound and masterful soundstage on the cheep.

3. Allison 4's - Beautiful to look at, beautiful to hear when properly placed in the "right" room.

4. Platinum Audio Studio 3's - First and only "modern" speaker I own. I've seen the future and it's slimline.

Da Worfster

[StevenSurprenant]

By the way, I'd love to hear those Newform Research (http://www.newformresearch.com/) of yours. A possibility for me some day is the need to move to a smaller room were the dipole Maggies wouldn't work: DIYs with Newform R30 tweeters could be just the ticket in that scenario.

Actually, I just moved the Newform/SEAS speakers into a smaller room and they sound very good.

A note on Newform speakers: Many years ago I heard a original pair of Newform speakers with the R45 and even though they sounded good, I could distinctly hear the woofer and tweeter separately. I was very close to them when I was listening. This was a big problem that everyone experienced which led to modifications and a user forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Newformgroup/ . From what I've read, these modifications fixed the problem. I went a different route and used different woofers (SEAS). With the SEAS, integration between the woofer and the tweeter was perfect. In addition, I think the SEAS are more transparent that the original Newform woofers, but they lack the bass. It's a trade off, but I rarely feel the need for a sub. I am using 2 SEAS W18EX001 woofers per side, but the Seas W18E001 (no X) go deeper.

As for crossover point, I've tried crossing over anywhere from 800Hz to 3,000Hz and it all sounded good. At the present time, they are crossed over at about 2,000Hz.

Another bit of good news is that I using Trends 10.1 T-amps that only output about 5 watts which is enough to play very loudly, so power is not an issue.

By the way, your profile says you live in London, Ontario. I've been there many times, nice town. It's grown a lot since I was first there (1970). I was there about 4 years ago too. I realize that times have changed, but in 1970 I was traveling down the Queens highway and my engine in my Volkswagon quit so they towed me to London. They put in another engine for about $200 which included labor, what a deal!. What impressed me the most is that they offered to pay for my bus tickets to go downtown while they did the work and put me up in one of their homes for the night. They even offered me a job. Well, because of how the people there treated me, that stuck in my mind as a place I would want to live. I realize that times have changed and that there isn't much chance of that happening again (people change), but I still have a warm spot in my heart for London.

Perhaps some day if you're in the area we can get together. Just so you know, I'm still tweaking. (Never ends) I've plans to upgrade my Behringer DCX crossover with a new power supply, clock and input chip. Now if I can do that without destroying the DCX, I'll be very happy. I also plan on graphing the output of these speakers on my computer so I can make any adjustments I need. So far, I've only adjusted by ear. I'm even considering changing the system to a 2.5 where I cross over the upper range of the second woofer on each side lower than the other on the same side (clear as mud). It doesn't cost any money to do this and I've read where other people have heard improvements by doing this. I have to tell you that while it's nice to be able to go out and buy your dream system, It's a lot more fun to DIY.

I also have Magnepans for my surround system and a Panasonic SA-XR25. The Panny isn't being used right now, but I have no intention of getting rid of it, it's a great little receiver. I'm using a Yamaha receiver now because of the HD decoding that it provides for movies.

Well, let me know when you're in the Chicago area. I live about 50 miles south of downtown.

I have to tell you that it makes me very nervous that you might come here someday and not like my system. It's not perfect, but it's a labor of love on a shoe string budget. I'll get over it.

If you're really serious about building your own, SEAS has free plans for building the Odin MK3 with W18E001 Woofers and crossover at 2.5KHz. This would be similar to my system with two woofers per side. All that would be left to do is to add a crossover for the Newform ribbon and adjust levels. Madisound has the Odin kits, but they are $1,745, which is not cheap, but they do come with a tweeter. The woofers by themselves are about $800 (4 of them). Still not cheap. Then you would have to buy the Newform R30 tweeter which is $880 in USD. Throw in another $120 for parts and build your own box and the total cost is about $1,800. Not cheap! At this price point, you would have to justify the price with how it sounds. I guess that you'ld have to hear my system before you'ld even consider spending that kind of money. I would! Well, it's just something to think about.

I was fortunate because I bought the R45 and the 4 SEAS from someone who bought them new and never used them. I paid $550 for all the drivers together.

[Feanor]

Actually, I just moved the Newform/SEAS speakers into a smaller room and they sound very good.

A note on Newform speakers: Many years ago I heard a original pair of Newform speakers with the R45 and even though they sounded good, I could distinctly hear the woofer and tweeter separately. I was very close to them when I was listening. This was a big problem that everyone experienced which led to modifications and a user forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Newformgroup/ . ....

As for crossover point, I've tried crossing over anywhere from 800Hz to 3,000Hz and it all sounded good. At the present time, they are crossed over at about 2,000Hz.
...

I was fortunate because I bought the R45 and the 4 SEAS from someone who bought them new and never used them. I paid $550 for all the drivers together.

Glad to hear your comments, Steven.

I'm a relative new comer to London, ON, myself; we've been here only 4.5 years having come from Regina, SK, and before that Toronto. Thanks for the invitation; likewise, you're certainly welcome to visit if you make it back to London sometime.

I guess I'm a bit surprised that you're using a 2000 Hz crossover with the R45's. Personally I'd be hoping to take it as low as possible to get all the speed and resolution the ribbons can deliver, but sometime things sound better on paper than they do to the ear.

Of course there are so many options for the DIY designer. And for me the self-design is part of the fun. For that reason building a kit, even a really nice one like the Odin, isn't so appealing. My recent design musing, (all still on paper), contempate a seal box, wide baffle, and close to the wall placement. This to be topped off (so to speak) by a tweeter with good power handling and response extented down to at least 1500 Hz -- or more with a suitable driver such as the Newform or a BG Corp planar.

[E-Stat]

I was wondering what speakers others have had or still have that have left a life long impression on you.
My three are similar:

Magneplanar MG-II
Acoustat X / Monitor 4 / 2+2
Sound Lab U-1

If I reach back 35 years like Feanor, it would also include Advents (have an updated set of doubles in the garage today) and Braun LV-1020s. The first significant ear opening event was while still in high school, I heard Magneplanar Tympani IIIs tri-amplified with Audio Research electronics. These were far and away more natural sounding than the large Bozaks, AR-LSTs and my Brauns (forerunner to A/D/S) of the day. I ended up buying a set of MG-IIs and drove them with an Audire amplifier. I sold the upper drivers of the 1020s and used the powered 12" woofers as subs.

About a year and a half later, I was invited to dinner with two other audio buddies to Dr. Cooledge's (he wrote for many a year at TAS as JWC) house for a listen that began a friendship that lasts today. It was there I first heard the Dayton-Wright XG-8s full range electrostats. They were unusual Canadian made speakers that did not share the power limitation of the early Quads. He drove them with amps including the Yamaha B-1 VFET and Ampzilla. They had a purity that the Maggies of that era couldn't match.

Since that time ('77), I have owned two brands (albeit with multiple flavors) of full range electrostats. I find they still offer a level of purity and coherency not matched elsewhere. The U-1s were made in heaven for me.

rw

[StevenSurprenant]

I guess I'm a bit surprised that you're using a 2000 Hz crossover with the R45's. Personally I'd be hoping to take it as low as possible to get all the speed and resolution the ribbons can deliver, but sometime things sound better on paper than they do to the ear.

I'll probably take it back down to 1000 or even 800. These SEAS drivers are very good and very fast. To be honest, the reason I raised the crossover was because I thought that there might be a possibility that the larger cones of the SEAS would move more air and hence sound a little more dynamic. I have to wait till I set the crossover down again to verify this. Either way, it sounded good.

When I set it at 3000 I lost some of the imaging so I backed it down to 2000.

There are too many variables to know what to do. After I measure the speaker outputs and adjust for a flat response, I plan on moving the crossover around and remeasuring/Listening.

It's a hobbie and if I ever get it perfect I won't know what to do with myself. Well I guess that I could start by hanging my speaker wires from the ceiling, put my gear on cones or rubber feet, and maybe, just maybe, I'll start putting stones on top of everything. I think I have a pet rock somewhere around here that I could start with.

Actually what really peaks my interest is the DEQX,,,

The only thing is that is cost more than double of my entire system and if it's as good as some say it is, then I guess that I'm finished. Now where did I put that rock?

[topspeed]

This is a very thought provoking topic. Well done, Steve.

I'd have to say...all of them! Great speakers never die, they just get refoamed :lol: I don't know why, but I have never even considered selling or upgrading any of my speakers. I just look for another room to put them in when I buy something new.

For example, my Mission 780's have been serving me well for nearly 25 years now. Are they that good? No. They are rather bright and don't have the bottom end of a true full range speaker. However, when the wife demanded I take the hulking black monoliths out of the bedroom, I simply moved them down to my office. The crappy Sony's that were in the office became Frankenspeakers (thanks to partsexpress.com) and are now keeping me company in the garage on the weekends.

I dunno, when I went off to college, my dad gave me his old Wharfedales and Marantz 2230. The Wharfies are gone (sold to my roommate so I could buy a pre-amp) but I can easily see myself passing down the B&W's or Von Schweikert's to my kids when they run off to 'SC as well.

This probably isn't the response you were looking for, but it's my interpretation of the question.

[theaudiohobby]

Tannoy Definition D900
IMO, they are essentially pitch-perfect i.e. they sound very tonally correct so much I get to appreciate the music captured by most recordings without much regard for recording quality, It makes me wanna get up and dance :8: Explosive dynamics, stable soundstage, efflortless low bass, uncontested neutrality. This is a very great speaker

ELAC 310iJET
Just a nice little speaker with excellent tonality.

Quad ESL
Perfect for my future bedroom system, I want to hang on to my vintage pair forever, it sounds very sweet with chamber music and voice.

Genelec 8040/8050
I do not own these speakers for ergonomic reasons, but this active speaker has accurate tone and timbre, had the pleasure of listening to them over a couple of days in a huge music shop with a large selection of pianos, gosh did they capture the tone of the Monty Alexander's piano to a Tee.

[Pat D]

[quote=theaudiohobby]It's listening test, you do not need to see it to listen to it! /quote]

But . . but . . but . . . if I can't see it, how can I know what I'm listening to????

LOL--love your tag line.

[mlsstl]

I've got a couple of speakers on my list that I wish I still owned. Right out of college and into my first job my first big purchase was a pair of Ohm Fs. They floated an image in space in a way I'd never heard before. Stupidly, I later sold them while working at a stereo store in the mid 1970s to get a pair of Genesis IIIs. We sold Genesis and I got a great price. I almost instantly regretted the move as a major mistake. About six years ago I auditioned a pair of Ohm 200s and they were just missing the magic I remembered.

In between, I built a set of tri-amplified transmission line speakers with KEF drivers that I used for about 20 years. They sounded great, but I never fell completely in love with them. Of course, kids were smack dab in the middle of that chapter in history so they they were a great placeholder during this period of audio dormancy.

While the Ohm 200s flunked the audition, the Magnepan 1.6QRs passed. They came very close to floating an image in the fashion I remembered from the Ohm Fs and were even a bit more lifelike in the lower midrange. A cello recording on the Maggies was downright eerie.

I would have probably been content to stay put with these had we not moved. The listening room at the new house was simply too small and wrong for a pair of planars. That led to a cruise through several speakers in the Spendor line. I've settled in with the SP1/2Es which are just about perfect for the current digs. When I'm in the sweet spot they are just amazing. I think they are more tonally accurate than either the old Ohms or Maggies, but lack that last bit of holographic sense of space that can be so engaging. However, given the listening room limitations, they are an almost perfect choice.

Of course, this top brings up the corollary question: what speaker purchase do you most regret? As noted above, the Genesis were a mistake for me. Not a bad sounding speaker but just nowhere near what I really wanted. Just a youthful mistake where the prospect of a "deal" overwhelmed my sense of sound quality.

[nightflier]

I've had dozens of speakers go through my home, some of them odd-ball brands. I have rich friends who buy stuff, don't know how to use of it, tire of it, and then let me try it out to see if I can get it to sound better. So I've had the good fortune to audition and learn from gear that I could never afford or that I would never be willing to pay for myself. It costs as much as a car, you say? Well then why didn't you get the car? Lots of it (e.g. B&O, Chord, Gallo) was bought because it looked trendy with little regard for how it sounded and more often than not, I also didn't know how to pair it with the right gear, so sometimes I missed out on good opportunities too.

Anyhow, these are some of the speakers that made an impact on me:

Polk 600i Towers
I know these are cheapo outdated speakers, but they were the first speakers that I purchased with my own money and made me realize that with good electronics, there's more to the music. I didn't have friends with expensive gear that I could compare it to back then, but I'm pretty sure that under some circumstances these speakers would have pulled their own weight - they were not complete duds. I eventually blew the drivers, so they were followed up by the 2000i speakers because I wanted more bass. This lasted until I discovered there were such things as subwoofers. I thought the 2000s were high-end speakers until I bought web-only speakers on practically a whim (see below). They were sold these shortly after that. :blush2:

SVS subs
I've owned three different types of cylinder subs, two from SVS, one from Hsu. The 16-46Pci with upgraded 500W amp is my current fav. There is simply nothing else out there that can do what this monster can do for under a grand. I used to play the organ in church and swore I would never listen to another organ when I left home - ironically, I now own more organ and organ-based music that anyone I know - funny how that works. My life changed after I discovered SVS (and I stopped blowing speakers out). :wink5:

Axiom Audio M80
True story: I bought these unheard for two reasons - a single positive review and because they were called M80's (hearkening back to my anarchist rebellious past). When I compared them to the Polks, I was floored. I ended up re-building my whole HT around Axiom speakers; at one time or another I owned every model Axiom had. I very much enjoyed these, blew the midbass drivers (as well as on a pair of QLS4s), and Axiom support / exchange was top notch. I eventually sold and upgraded these with Viennas (see below) but it was hard to see them go. :frown2:

Quad M22
At almost $2K delivered, these were my first pairs of "expensive" speakers, that looked even more expensive from what I thought was a top-of-the-line manufacturer, LOL. Great speakers, but not much of an improvement over the Axioms. I was sorely disillusioned by the reality of diminishing returns as I moved up in price. I thought I had bought British hi-fi, only to realize that to get good sound I had to go much higher in price. The speakers had great air and unbelievable bass, but lacked in the mids. I sold them shortly after having burned them in.

MB Quart QLS830
Imaged like a laser, awesome sound-stage, and super-tight bass. I unfortunately sold these without using them with better electronics and probably would have been able to cull more performance out of them if I had. They were my first 4 ohm speaker that brought my amps to their knees - I learned a lot from them (even more after I sold them). These were the one speaker that "got away." Sound-wise, they are about as German as the stereotype suggests - perhaps a bit too analytical, but everyone should have one pair of analytical speakers around for reference and these are at the top of the value-vs-performance chart. Had I not sold them, I'd still be listening to them. :rolleyes:

Dynaudio 72
Funny story: bought them to try and disprove to myself that I needed to spend $5K+ for a good pair of speakers. I had had a couple of much more expensive speakers in my home such as Vandersteen 3 series and B&O's pyramid speakers, which aside from sounding good don't score high on the WAF/practicality scale. The Dyns sounded like crap until I bought a Pass amp. That's when I realized that a speaker "system" involved a correct pairing with an amp. The Dyns need oodles of amperage to sound right. Now that the MBQs were gone I realized my error. Although they are great speakers, I didn't keep them, I gave them to my father who is using them with NAD ref. gear - great match, but not my cup o' tea. My brother who is into trance, rave and techno loves them, too. They are a true jack of all trades and inexpensive for the performance level, too. :3:

Vienna Webern, Schonberg
When I had to combine my audio room and HT rooms together I needed to downsize. I auditioned tons of on-wall speakers and never heard one that didn't sound like an on-wall speaker. In-wall was even worse. Then I stumbled on a Magnolia fire sale of 7 Vienna speakers. The Schonbergs were part of the deal, but I sold those right away, and kept the Weberns as a 5.1 setup. I believe the inside of these aluminum airplane-fin-looking speakers are actually lined with wood, and these sound nothing at all like you'd expect. A tad bright, but for movies, esp. dialog, these speakers are awesome. And upgrade from these, if I ever would, might cost me many times more. These are keepers for a long time to come. FYI: they do need lots of clean power to sound right. :thumbsup:

Meadowlark Kestrel and Swift
I guess this was my mellow period where I was looking for speakers that sounded pleasant and great at low volumes. I also "thought" that a good speaker needed to be carefully made out of solid wood, not MDF or other composite materials. I still own the Swifts - great little speaker and for what I paid for them, a screaming bargain; definitely giant-killers. The Kestrels I purchased with severe water damage from someone who didn't know what they were - paid next to nothing for them, took them to a cabinet maker who fixed them up and sold them for a handsome profit to boot. But because of this, I never got to audition them at length. Considering how much I like the Swifts, that was probably a mistake. :frown5:

Magnepan 1.6qr and MMG
Despite all the rave reviews I never got what the Maggie sound was all about. Back when I had the 1.6qrs in my home I probably never set them up properly and used inferior amps. Then just recently I tried the MMGs and really gave them a good workout to no avail. Then I found out that it's likely these speakers were defective. So this is not a jab at Magnepan, but I never got to hear what the magic was all about. This may change one day. :wink5:

Odyssey Audio Nightingale
I've owned lots of Odyssey gear and the Nightingales sing, well, like nightingales. Awesome air and treble. They also look like no other speaker out there - sort of like the B&O Penta, but made of wood. The cabinets were made by an art-trained woodmaker in Canada, exclusively for Odyssey, and I bought them based on these looks and because of my good experiences with other Odyssey gear. They were, however, a bit bass shy, despite the specs, and in my home that's a no-no. I eventually sold these for a lot less than I paid for them, mostly because not a lot of people know how good these speakers are. In hindsight, I probably should have kept them. :frown2:

Talon Audio Khouros and Khite
I ended up with these mega-expensive speakers because my friend didn't like the fact that they were ugly. True story, and honestly they are. He eventually took the floorstanders back (when it dawned on him how much he paid for them) but let me keep the Khites for a pittance. These are, bar none, the best speakers that have ever passed through my house. The Khouros I didn't get much time with, but the Khites changed my understanding of what a bookshelf can do. They image great, can handle 500W! of power, are 8 Ohm & fairly sensitive, and have fantastic stage depth and width. I've compared them to SF, Vienna, VS, and Dyn bookshelves in their price range and they outperformed everyone of them in spades. Did I mention the bass? I didn't think that was possible from such a small speaker. :thumbsup:

There were lots of others, but these where the ones that in one way or another changed my perspective on speakers. The Talon Khites are now my reference. I'm sure there is better out there, but for a $5K bookshelf (new), there is nothing that compares at even twice the price. If there is, I haven't heard it.

P.S. The engineers from Talon are now at a new company called Escalante Design and they seem to have taken much of the design philosophy with them. The speakers are still uber-expensive, but, in a move that is finally getting some traction in this industry, they are hand-made by fair-labor out of all natural and renewable / plentiful materials, while the internal electronics also meet European green standards for electronics. To top it off, they are an American company. This is a company I can believe in. If I upgrade, I will probably purchase one of their models. There was an auction not too long ago for their top-of-the-line Freemonts, but I was outbid. I'm still on the lookout, for a good deal, though.

[audio amateur]

I've had dozens of speakers go through my home, some of them odd-ball brands.
....

There was an auction not too long ago for their top-of-the-line Freemonts, but I was outbid. I'm still on the lookout, for a good deal, though.[/I]
How do you manage to destroy so many speakers?

[nightflier]

Bass, every time.

That and cheap amps. I've learned from this, though. I haven't fried a speaker in years.

Anyhow, I haven't killed that many speakers, have I? The Polks couldn't handle the bass w/o a subwoofer (which I did not own at the time), and the Axioms got zapped watching Nemo, believe it or not. The sub was not set properly, that time, if I remember right. The Maggies were probably bad before I got them (the verdict is still out on what's wrong with them).

[audio amateur]

Ok 2 is maybe not many. Perhaps many in my standards. I've only ever fried a speaker once, that was a 4in driver in a Velo satellite speak. Was playing a 20Hz tone for the sub, forget the speaks were having it fed to them aswell and there it went. :cryin:
I've put some of my speakers through hell with no results. I guess I was just lucky:smilewinkgrin:

[theaudiohobby]

It's listening test, you do not need to see it to listen to it!

But . . but . . but . . . if I can't see it, how can I know what I'm listening to????

LOL--love your tag line.

Thanks, you've got remind folks from time to time that it's not a visual arts hobby :lol:

[E-Stat]

It's a listening test, you do not need to see it to listen to it!
Not to listen, but to avoid running into / tripping over components!

rw

[Pat D]

Thanks, you've got remind folks from time to time that it's not a visual arts hobby :lol:

I hadn't realized you were a member here, too. I still look in here every once in a while, mostly at Rave Recordings, but I haven't posted much over here for some time.

[theaudiohobby]

I hadn't realized you were a member here, too. I still look in here every once in a while, mostly at Rave Recordings, but I haven't posted much over here for some time.

I post here every now and again when there is an interesting thread, I hardly ever go to Rave Recordings though.

[theaudiohobby]

Not to listen, but to avoid running into / tripping over components!

rw

uh...oh you want avoid thumping your big toe ;)

[runt]

As said, this is fascinating Steve!
And.. after enjoying the Mission 737Renaissance while paying humungous mortgages in th 'eighties and 'nineties (!) I have at last made it to the 770Freedoms that I couldn't afford in those days!
And after grabbing these from ebay and asking Mission Service to 'do the business' I am listening as I write, and loving the definition of the bass, the timing, the textures, the voice, THE MUSIC!
Since I now have brand new drivers, I was advised "no high volume whilst they soak in"..any idea how long I must be patient..?
Keeping them forever!

Paul/runt

[Pat D]

I have heard quite a few speakers that I thought would do for a long time, and I will say something about some of them.

I have owned the following models which were quite good to excellent:

Kef 104 (later modded to 104aB), Quad ESL-63, PSB Stratus Mini, Paradigm Signature S2. The Quad and the Paradigm could certainly be lifetime speakers--assuming they last that long.

Long ago, I heard the original Quad ESL (now often known as the ESL-57) and the Yamaha NS-1000, which also seems to have stood the test of time. Another old speaker that impressed me was the sensitive Altec 19, a large box with a big woofer crossed over to a sectoral horn at 1000 Hz, which could be adjusted to give a very even response (but could be adjusted to sound awful, too). It threw a wide and deep image, very detailed.

The Kef 104 sounded very good on vocals, piano, and most orchestra recordings, but crossing the 8" woofer over at 3 kHz means the off axis dispersion is not so even and the power response would have what John Atkinson would call an off axis "flare" around and above the crossover, since the woofer is much more directional there than the tweeter. This shows up on some choral and orchestra recordings. But they are quite even in response in a listening window and with careful set up, can still sound quite good.

In a proper set up (fairly large room), the Quad ESL-63 is first class, but our living room is far from ideal for them. In a smaller room, they can still be very good, but other types of speakers can work better. The newer Quad ESL speakers have received much praise, but I haven't personally heard them, but in the right set up, I imagine they would sound superb.

In our present living room, I could not get piano to sound as good as I wanted with the Quad. I discovered the PSB Stratus Mini worked better in our living room--after a Quad blew its power supply, I got them with a view to putting them in the family room later. But for a while they worked quite well as the main speakers, and I found I had fewer bad sounding recordings. A very easy speaker to listen to, and they work very well for us on movies.

The Paradigm Signature S2 is a wonderful monitor speaker, even smoother than the Stratus Minis and with more even off axis dispersion. I like them a lot and I have no plans to change them. They are very neutral, and the horizontal dispersion is so wide and even that the exact degree of toe-in is not critical, as long as they are well away from walls. The Paradigm Signature S8 is great, too, but I imagine I would have difficulty get a smooth room response in the bass. I haven't yet heard the second versions of the Signature Series.

I have heard others which are excellent, too. Most recently, I heard the PSB Synchrony One tower which is superb. It might be ever so slightly forward for my taste, but they are very smooth and neutral and throw a great image. I might find the smaller Synchrony Two tower more suitable, since we have a big subwoofer. I was not quite as impressed by the Synchrony One B monitor, which I do not think is quite as neutral or invisible as my Signature S2, but it is very good.

I also recently heard another excellent monitor, the B & W 805S, which was very smooth. I generally like laid back but this was perhaps a bit too laid back for my taste. But it is excellent.

[E-Stat]

uh...oh you want avoid thumping your big toe ;)
Big toe, shin and whole body into seven foot tall monoliths!

rw

[bboylesjc]

There are two designers who's speakers I particularly enjoy because they both make value speakers - performance for the buck. They are Roy Allison and Bud Fried. I own from Allison:

Allison AL 110 currently in my basement listening area.
Allison 125 currently stored. I haven't given them a chance. I am planning to put them in as main speakers with the AL 110s as surrounds.
Allison AV 6 surround package - center and surrounds working with the AL 110s. Surrounds will go into storage. Woofer module providing base to bookshelf speakers in my son's room.
RA Labs Reference 4A in my living room on bookshelves.
RA Labs Subwoofer - working with the AL110s

From Fried:

Beta Vs in my TV room on bookshelves.
A-6 with MARS technology in storage.

I enjoy all these in their own way. I don't have enough room to use them all at once, so I rotate them.

Intense listening in basement. Living room and TV room for background/second system.

[Deadeye]

In 1976 I bought a pair of Maggy MG-1's new. A couple of years later they were traded in on a pair of Acoustat 3's (old style). I sold them during a acrimonious divorce. I bought my present Spectra 22's a year or two later and haven't had any thoughts about replacing them in the 9+ years I've had them.
The only speakers I would consider using as replacements are other ESL's, Apogee's or Maggy's. After those MG-1's in 76 nothing in a box has ever sounded right.
It would seem to me that constantly changing speakers suggests one is making poor choices!

[nightflier]

It would seem to me that constantly changing speakers suggests one is making poor choices!

I'll plead guilty to that.

[GMichael]

I doubt that I'll ever replace the Strata Mini's I have now. With the planner tweeters and mids, they give me that sweet sound that I loved when I listened to a set of Maggy's. But with the conventional mid-woofers, and woofers (driven by built in amps) they give me the dynamics that I love for raw rock-n-roll. They are perfect for my needs. And they look good too.:ihih:

[Mr Peabody]

There's a pair of Martin Logan ReQuests on Craigslist for $1,100.00. This would be a "no brainer" as it is a heck of a deal but I don't have the room to place them any where. My brain has been working this over time. I wish I hadn't seen them.

[Deadeye]

If you get a pair of Martin Logans you will make room because you won't need any other speakers.
Seriously, that sounds like a good deal. I presume they're in good or better condition. People that own nice gear usually take good care of it.
Don't go listen to them. They might getcha! They would love those MV60's

[thekid]

Interestingly enough since I now have so many speakers that my wife regularly threatens to kill me if one more pair shows up so this really could be a life or death question..... :)

If I had to chose from what I own it would be;

DCM TF-600's
Optimus 5's
Genesis 1's
EPI 100's
Dynaco A-25

The Genesis,EPI's and Dynaco's are all very similar in sound but there are slight differences depending on the music playing and are great for classical and accoustic music.

The Optimus 5's and TF-600's do not enjoy a audiophile reputation but are very good all around speakers.

[mlsstl]

Interesting about the Martin Logans; they've always left me a bit cold. I've never cared for the way they integrate the electrostatic panels with the woofer. That has always been their weak point for me, regardless of model. Just shows each of us has a slightly different set of priorities when it comes to evaluating equipment.

[nightflier]

Interesting about the Martin Logans; they've always left me a bit cold. I've never cared for the way they integrate the electrostatic panels with the woofer. That has always been their weak point for me, regardless of model. Just shows each of us has a slightly different set of priorities when it comes to evaluating equipment.

I've read on several occasions that the top-of-the-line models integrate the woofer better. Of course, I haven't really heard their better speakers, so I don't know. But for those of you that have, do the ML's get better up there? Also, don't they have models that are just electrostatic (no woofers)?

[E-Stat]

I've never cared for the way they integrate the electrostatic panels with the woofer. That has always been their weak point for me, regardless of model.
Indeed, it is a real challenge to mate a monopole woofer with dipolar uppers. I also prefer full range stats as opposed to stats that run full range - having separate woofer / tweeter sections.

rw

[E-Stat]

Also, don't they have models that are just electrostatic (no woofers)?
They have reintroduced a new version of the CLS called the CLX. While there are no dynamic woofers, it has separate electrostatic woofer and mid/tweeter sections.

rw

[JoeE SP9]

Right now the only ML's without a sub are the CLX's. A bit pricy to me. Yes, to my ears they do get better up there. The integration of sub to ESL is better now than it used to be. All speakers that use a sub (internal or external) have the same problem to varying degrees. It's just more noticable on an ESL.
After the crossover from the sub there are no more crossovers to provide an discontinuity to the sound. So you get smooth seamless sound that nothing else can give. That smoothness makes the crossover from the sub much more noticable.
I suspect that freedom from crossover induced distortions is a major reason why ESL lovers generally stick with them.

[JoeE SP9]

Interestingly enough since I now have so many speakers that my wife regularly threatens to kill me if one more pair shows up so this really could be a life or death question..... :)

If I had to chose from what I own it would be;

DCM TF-600's
Optimus 5's
Genesis 1's
EPI 100's
Dynaco A-25

The Genesis,EPI's and Dynaco's are all very similar in sound but there are slight differences depending on the music playing and are great for classical and accoustic music.

The Optimus 5's and TF-600's do not enjoy a audiophile reputation but are very good all around speakers.
The system I put together for my mother has a pair of EPI 100's. I bought several boxes of mortite and lined the insides of the cabinets and the back of the (none on the magnets) metal speaker baskets with it. I also put some real binding posts on. They now sound considerably better than stock. It's a very cheap upgrade. I started to put some real crossovers in but she didn't want to go without music for that long.

[Mr Peabody]

The ML's do integrate the woofers better today than they have in the past. I don't like them with certain electronics, like Krell, for instance. What really draws me in to them is being matched with good tube gear. Tubes with the ESL is magic. With that type of presence any flaw is just secondary. I do listen to a wide variety of music though and doubt if they'd suffice as my main speakers. If I had the room, a pair of Requests for a grand, I'd grab them just for the occasional enjoyment.

I get my ML models mixed up, their flagship with the powered woofer is actually quite good and I wonder if, you, could hear any gap or hump. I heard them with an all T+A system and it was very good, no noticeable irregularity did I hear.

ML is also using more complex enclosure design for the woofers and most if not all the cones are aluminum.

[mlsstl]

That raises an interesting question - how many "second chances" do you give a line of speakers (or any product for that matter) when multiple experiences over a number of years have yielded similar results?

Every good salesman is going to tell you that they "fixed that" (whatever your complaint happened to be) in the current model. That happens sometimes, but it sure isn't a given in my experience.

I do want to clarify that Martin Logans are not in the "refuse to listen" category for me. I find them quite interesting in many ways but they've always had a lack of congruity in the lower midrange that I find quite noticeable. I think it depends on the person. Think of a horn lover who listens to a speaker that doesn't have quite the dynamics of his beloved horns. That is going to stand out as a deficiency more to him than someone else who isn't quite as sensitive to that characteristic.

Back to my comment above, with ML I'll gladly listen to a new model if I just happen to be somewhere but they've already had too many bites at the apple for me to seek them out for an audition.

[Mr Peabody]

Good points. Especially, where different people might tend to focus or tolerate different characteristics of a speaker. The Requests are guilty as you charged but mmost of the models after that generation have improved. If one just don't like the mix of the two technologies though it's doubtful they'd ever be your cup of tea.

It's also true that speaker manufacturers may change/improve, or not, on their product, but their basic approach usually stays the same, Klipsch still uses horns, Thiel still uses passive radiators, ML still mixes dynamic with ESP etc.

[Florian]

I tend to keep my hybrid ^^ Not everyone can afford a fullrange ESL ya know .....

[jvc]

Speakers to hang on for life
To me, that would be any Allison speakers you can get your hands on. I have a pair of AL-115 speakers, but they need to be refoamed, so they aren't being used at the moment. Hopefully will be refoaming them soon, so I can use them again. They've been used almost every day for 15 years. These are speakers I will never get rid of............ :D

[JoeE SP9]

Another good thing about ESL's, no re-coning no replacing foam surrounds!

[E-Stat]

Tubes with the ESL is magic.
Absolutely. I find they match well.


I get my ML models mixed up, their flagship with the powered woofer is actually quite good and I wonder if, you, could hear any gap or hump.
The issue for a stat freak like me is not gaps or humps in the response (although dipoles are somewhat easier to get linear response at the bottom). For that matter, there are quite a few exceptionally linear dynamic systems available today. It is the reduced coherency due to the low frequencies having a different radiation pattern and transient response from the rest. The Bass. Everything Else. If you recall both the first (CLS) and last models (CLX) were / are full range designs. I remember the CLS quite well having heard them back in late 70s IIRC. JWC of TAS bought a pair to replace his Daytons.

rw

[E-Stat]

I tend to keep my hybrid ^^ ...
It would have been interesting if Apogee had used separate ribbon bass towers in the Grand to supplement the bottom octave maintaining consistent dipolar response. Sound Lab makes the UB-1 electrostatic subwoofer for those who wish to extend the 25 hz response of the standard models. They are optimized for first octave response having double diaphragms like the woofer panels in the M-L CLX.

rw

[JoeE SP9]

At one time I had a pair of Acoustat 3's. In the room they were in bass response was so good I never thought about adding a sub. The low frequency at the beginning of Zarathustra was easily heard and felt. Unfortunately the next room I put them in never produced decent bass from them no matter what I did.
E-Stat has it right about different dispersion characteristics (Di-Polar vs. Cone) causing a discontinuity in the sound. I've always missed that coherence when using a sub but I've got to have my "earthquake" sounds.
The new subs I built (transmission line from Pass Labs DIY site) seem to do better in this area. I wonder if it's because of the way speakers are mounted. They are at the bottom of tubes sitting on spiked 12"x12"x1" granite slabs. The back of the magnets rest directly on the slabs with some Blu-Tack to couple them. They are crossed over at 75Hz..
There is no enclosure around any part of the speakers. The tubes are mounted on 1/2" thick coupling rings that slide into the tubes 1/2". They are glued to the rings with epoxy. The speakers are bolted directly to the rings. That's the whole thing except for some polyfil stuffing! I don't have any children or pets so knocking them over is not an issue. When I get around to covering them maybe I'll use some drapery tie-backs to ensure against falling.
Anyone who is a DIY'r should look into this design. They play loud go deep (18Hz with Eq) and are clean. They are also inexpensive and incredibly easy to build.

[Mr Peabody]

At the time I was seriously looking for main speakers one of the things that was hard to get used to with ML's is the lack of that physical sensation you get from a box speaker. That does make sense the different disspersion patterns.

How long are the tubes/lines from the funnel the speaker sits on? Transmission Line is supposed to be a very effective technique. In fact, Bose has exploited it very well. My favorite if the power is available is still the sealed enclosure.

[nightflier]

Joe, I have a hard time picturing those. What do yours look like?

[Florian]

Well, the bass panel alone when run fullrange can do 18,5hz. It has enough power, no question. I personally prefer the subwoofers in the Grand. More accurate in my opinion, and with enough power to do over 120db... those electrostats wonnt do this, most likely.

The Fullrange Apogee does 23Hz... its not a technical problem but a design choice.

Cheers

[E-Stat]

with enough power to do over 120db... those electrostats wonnt do this, most likely.
No they won't. A better question is: why would anyone want to damage their hearing at such levels?

rw

[Auricauricle]

Does anybody have an opinion about supertweeters? I have a pair o' Polk 7c's, which are pretty sweet, but think that they would benefit if they were allowed a bit of breathing room. Sometimes, I listen to chamber and jazz ensembles, and wonder if they are just a wee tight...I just don't get that nice, open sound at times, even with all the clicks and switches at my disposal....

[Mr Peabody]

Yeah baby, nothing opens up a good pair of speakers like those Radio Shack Super Tweets they sold back in the 80's you could hook up and just sit on top of your speaker cabinent. Remember? About $40.00 a pair, black with silver front. Talk about your bang for buck tweak.

Nothing rocks your dizzle like a super tweet sizzle. I think I'll change my name to Ice-P

[JoeE SP9]

Joe, I have a hard time picturing those. What do yours look like?

Right now they look like construction formers with a speaker looking in one end. Soon I'll be covering the tubes with some kind of fabric. No Spandex. I don't want to look at all that industrial type printing and logos. They are about 6 1/2' tall 12" in dia. They look kind of agricultural (tractor chic) right now. However they sound really good.

[Auricauricle]

Mr. P: Are you serious here? The word sizzle's got my neurotic dander up.....I saw a pair o' Heils the other day, but I worry that the sound would sound too "zingy"...Or am I just gettin' all paranoid 'n such...?

[Mr Peabody]

I was seriously just making fun of the Radio Shack set. I'm sure Heil is a good product. Way back just starting and being poor I actually owned a pair of those RS Super Tweets. As if cheap receivers didn't already have enough brightness. I had them on the back deck of my Buick LaSabre at one point. I had a little amp cranking those and a set of 6x9's. I think these are the ones not to hang on to for life :)

[Luvin Da Blues]

I had them on the back deck of my Buick LaSabre at one point. I had a little amp cranking those and a set of 6x9's.

LMAO, I can relate.

RAWK ON DUDE!!!!:3:

[Florian]

No they won't. A better question is: why would anyone want to damage their hearing at such levels?

rw

Its not so much about doing all the time. But sometimes, when one plugs in "The Doors" or the "The Who", who where the loudest band ever. Same as Manowar! For me personally, i dont want any limits in my audio system. I want a huge stage with enough power to beat the crap out of me. Just like they do live! I could get a huge PA sytem, true, but then again i sometimes listen to lower levers with sweet orchestra, piano etc...

I dont have to listen that loud, but i CAN if i want to... and thats what it all boils down to me. If one doesnt need this, then hell yes a soundlab or soundlab subwoofer would be kick ass. Taste and preference....i guess

[nightflier]

Sorry for the ignorance here, but since we're talking about electrostatics, how do the higher-end Maggies (3.x and above) handle the integration between the treble and the bass panels?

On another note, for those who don't have a lot of room (& I don't) what are some options for panel-based speakers with good bass integration? I'm a big fan of clean, taught bass, but I can't really do the E-Stat-style room divider thing. Actually, in my world, most of the Martin Logans and even Magnepan's 1.6s are already too big. Or is this just like asking for fuel efficiency from a Lamborghini?

[E-Stat]

f one doesnt need this, then hell yes a soundlab or soundlab subwoofer would be kick ass. Taste and preference....i guess
Absolutely. Yours is the ultimate high level kick ass system! Since I listen largely to acoustical music, the average output is in the 70-80 db range. I confess that I would love to have a pair of VTL Siegfrieds to double the power and maintain the finesse.

rw

[E-Stat]

Sorry for the ignorance here, but since we're talking about electrostatics, how do the higher-end Maggies (3.x and above) handle the integration between the treble and the bass panels?
Overall, very well since they operate dipole full range. To these ears, I hear a larger degree of discontinuity when one mates dipolar planar drivers with monopole dynamic woofers. While I have not heard the 3.6, I have listened to the 20.1s at length in an exceptionally nice system. One does need some distance for driver blending, but they do very well. I seriously considered buying a pair. To these ears accustomed to thirty plus years of listening to full range electrostats, they lack ultimate resolution at the lowest levels (which you would never discover listening to compressed rock music) and the same degree of seamless coherency regardless of listening distance.


On another note, for those who don't have a lot of room (& I don't) what are some options for panel-based speakers with good bass integration? I'm a big fan of clean, taught bass, but I can't really do the E-Stat-style room divider thing. Actually, in my world, most of the Martin Logans and even Magnepan's 1.6s are already too big. Or is this just like asking for fuel efficiency from a Lamborghini?
Unfortunately, dipoles must breathe for optimum linearity and imaging. The smaller Sound Lab designs do work well in smaller rooms and - unlike virtually any other kind of speaker - full range electrostats sound exactly the same at two centimeters as they do at two meters or twenty meters. There are no dissimilar drivers to blend. Much less blending very different types

rw

[Mr Peabody]

Florian wants to "Blow Your Speakers With Rock N Roll"! I don't know too many other people with Manowar albums. This particular one was triple D quite an unusual find in Heavy Metal. I believe the record levels were low being this was from the 80's but I'd have to dig it out and listen, I don't remember it sounding compressed. I don't have it but I remember a friend of mine having one of their albums where the bass player does the William Tell overture. Manowar wasn't exactly a household name in the U.S. In fact, I probably wouldn't have heard of them if it wasn't for a college radio station and that friend I mentioned. Oh well, that occasional "call of the wild" is what prompted me to mono out my CJ amps.

[nightflier]

John Ulrich at Spectron keeps pushing the Analysis speakers (I think they're made in Greece?) over the Maggies. They have some smaller models, but the bass extension is a little less than what I'd be interested in. IMO bass is key in establishing presence and dimension. My current speakers are bookshelves and while they have amazingly tight bass for the size, they still don't reach that low. I've been working with an SVS sealed sub to try and get that extra octave in there, but it just doesn't seem to do it either. So I guess in the end, they aren't speakers to hang on to for life either. At some point I'm going to have to break down and get full-range speakers, so panels are probably in my future.

John also believes that the only real way to drive an electrostatic speaker is with enough power and he says that there is no way to get that to the speakers with any other kind of amp besides a class-D one. Now obviously, that's what he sells, but I was just wondering what the thoughts were on this. I own a little Spectron amp that has been next to amazing (well aside from having to have it repaired twice now). But when it works, it's the best amp I've ever had for driving heavy loads / big speakers. One of the reasons that panels are on my list is because I do think I have the power to drive them (and someday, when my situation changes, I will move out of this apartment-sized cubby hole that passes for a house, here).

[Mr Peabody]

That's interesting because the feedback I've been getting from some of the digital amps is that they don't do well with difficult loads. But maybe Spectron has a different approach.

The ML CLX are about $20k and large so they are not a consideration. I wouldn't mind finding a nice small ESL even without a bass module. Small enough I can sit them out of the way when not in use and drag out oaccasionally for some nice concertos or vocal. I love my current speakers but isn't variety the spice of life.

[Florian]

The Analysis Audio models are definetly better then the Maggies, no doubt. And they do have a lot of bass power, just depends on placement and recording. At least in my experience

[RGA]

Nightflier

First I disagree with power requirements - My dealer carries the Quad 2905 and they were running the Audio Note OTO Push Pull amp with these speakers all day very well - it's not the power it's the quality of the power supply. Quite beautiful sound too considering the price of the amp and the one box matching cd player. The speakers live in the midrange are seamless and are one of the best around - the last thing I'd want to do is ruin it all with a high negative feedback solid state design. Quite an exceptional match - perhaps why Quad had AN's designer work for them building their matching Quad amps - definitely some synergy with AN front ends and Quad loudspeakers.

As for E-Stats comments the Quads easily have it all over the 20.1 in terms of low level resolution. I played a few tracks but it was Jackson Browne's live Acoustic Vol II disc that made me wonder about this loudspeaker's resolution - The midrange of the quad is open tranpsparent and quite wonderous while the 20.1 sounded like hands over the mouth sludge in direct comparison. This may be less of a knock on the 20.1 and more praise for the 2905 but to my ear electrostatic panels sound more natural than the non electrostatic panels (though Martin Logan hybrids are excluded) - they seem to have few to no hiccups in the upper mid lower treble and they do not possess treble band noise that some perhaps associate with "air" My audition of Soundlabs albeit briefly confirms to my ear what I hear with Quad.

For me I could live with the Quad 2905 for $14k and I would sell the 20.1 at $14k. The Quad was happy with 12 watts - and thus it also gives you amplifier freedom. The 20.1 does not.

[nightflier]

The midrange of the quad is open tranpsparent and quite wonderous while the 20.1 sounded like hands over the mouth sludge in direct comparison.

I appreciate the input from your experience, but I have to take this with some skepticism. Were the 20.1s being driven by the 12W amp? If not, then was the amp adequate? Maybe the problem was more about the amps than the speakers. After all, everything I've heard about the 20.1s and the lower-priced 3.6s is that they excel in the midrange.

Now I've been impressed with Quad for years. I even had a pair of the 22Ls, which were supposed to be voiced according to the higher-end models (not really, IMO). I like the fact that they are smaller and slightly easier to drive, but the problem with them is the bass. Either you have to add subwoofer panels or drivers, which brings back the specter of integration we've been talking about.

[E-Stat]

...while the 20.1 sounded like hands over the mouth sludge in direct comparison.
That wasn't my impression in the system I heard driven by Burmester 001 CDP, C-J ART pre, Joule Rite-of-Passage amps through Valhalla. I could easily live with them. Very good bass for a planar. I've been told that the stock crossover is responsible for some of its ultimate lack of resolution.

rw

[RGA]

Nightflier

Well I suppose one could argue that you should not believe everything you read. I happen to believe in sight bias and people often listen with their eyes. A number of panel guys also like the 1.6 more than the 20.1.

No the dealer was running high power SS (Sim Audio's top amp I think) with the Magnepans and the OTO with the Quads. Bass was fine enough. My dealer www.soundhounds.com has stiff competition. Most of the other dealers carry one line of expensive speakers and so direct comparisons are often difficult to make. Comparing the two speakers as well as a speaker I believe sounds better than both of them all head to head is something most dealers can't provide. I enjoyed the 1.6 well enough against much of the store's competitors and at $2k it makes some sense - not thrilling in the treble and a wonky frequency response may bother some. Great soundstage and imaging if you don't move your head more than an inch. To me there is nothing the 20.1 has over the Quad except for bass. To get bass the panels start to get domestically unfeasible for most.

Also, if you had them at home you might be able to tailor the sound to what you like. Nevertheless, they were set up well away from all room boundries and in a large enough room with large enough power. So while you could "improve them" to fit your ear you can still get a great deal of what they're about at that store. And all the other speakers they carry have the same disadvantage so...

Anyway give em a listen YMMV.

E-Stat - crossover - for $14k people should not have to fiddle with after market crossovers - charge $16k and get ti right. To me that's an excuse - spend $14k for poor sound but then after you've bought them and are STUCK - you can then try and fix them with after market crossovers. And to my ear soundhounds sells another $14k speaker and a $7k speaker that to my ears mopped the floor with 20.1. I could also make a credible case for the Sonus Faber Cremona the store also sells which is cheaper - admittedly a box with some boxy traits, but if it was between the two I'd take the Cremona as well.

Granted I prefer boxes but if the point of the panel is midrange beauty and holographic sound and smooth treble the Quad is to my ear in another league, can be driven with better (SET) amplifiers while the Maggie needs bags of power and don't sound better. The OTO PP is something like $2k and the CDP $2500 - the front end driving the Magnepan was well over $15k. Factoring in the front end costs the Quad looks even better.

[nightflier]

for $14k people should not have to fiddle with after market crossovers - charge $16k and get ti right....

...if it was between the two I'd take the Cremona as well.

...The OTO PP is something like $2k and the CDP $2500 - the front end driving the Magnepan was well over $15k. Factoring in the front end costs the Quad looks even better.

I think the bass integration is really the problem for panels. Panel bass drivers are just not feasible in most homes. The same argument can be made for horn-based bass drivers. While I'm sure there are fans who have the room and funds for this kind of setup, it does not work for most folks. I think technologically, there needs to be another solution, & one that doesn't cost in the tens of thousands.

That is also why I brought the digital switching amps into the discussion. With hard-to-drive speakers, you need monster amps, especially if you want to do tubes. So there too, a better technology is needed. John Ulrich, Paul McGowan, and the folks at Rowland seem to think that digital is the only real solution, there. Now granted, this isn't always a good synergy. In my own experience (mostly with inexpensive gear - hey, I'm not made of money either), it's been extremely difficult to find speakers that gel well with my PS Audio and Spectron amps. With my other solid state amps, it was much easier.

Anyhow, I'm just wondering why there aren't more people who use digital switching amps with panels. I know it takes some trial and error to get the right match, but after a few auditions, there should be something that works for these kinds of speakers. My experience with panels is still limited, but I am very curious and will continue to audition panel speakers that come my way. Maybe I will find that one speaker to hold onto for life.

[RGA]

Nightflier

I believe above all else in system synergy and rather than trying to fit a speaker with an amp you have it may not be the worst idea to evaluate a system rather than individual pieces. For example; If I bought a PMC Bryston Stereo and I enjoyed it and one day I heard JM Labs/Classe more and liked the system much more I might buy the JM Labs and sell the PMC. But oh no the Bryston sounds bad with the JM Labs - I do not get derailed and start looking for a speaker for the Bryston - I sell the Bryston and get the Classe because that was the system I heard and liked better.

I've heard, the Maggie MMG 12, 1.6, 3.6, 20.1, an Acoustat at about 6 feet tall and, Apogee Duetta sig and Scintilla, Martin Logan Aerius i, Prodigy, Oddysy, (a surround system from them), Inner sound Quad 57, 63, 989, 2905, Soundlabs U1. The last three are the only ones I would consider when it comes to sound quality. The rest have various issues (acoustat was old and possibly worn out) the ribbons sound like ribbons which is to say they don't sound like instruments. The Quad 57 and 63 I'll also reserve judgment on due to age and wear. The Soundlabs could be made to be a star I suspect with the right SE amp and the 2905 - well hell it sounded terrific with a $5k front end - so I would love to hear it again with some serious upscale amplification and sources. But if you like Rock and Roll - you either need a massive panel - the Quad 2905 doesn't cut it I'm afraid or look at cones.

[E-Stat]

E-Stat - crossover - for $14k people should not have to fiddle with after market crossovers - charge $16k and get ti right. To me that's an excuse - spend $14k for poor sound but then after you've bought them and are STUCK - you can then try and fix them with after market crossovers.
While I don't think owners of MG-20.1s are *stuck* - many go the best approach still and choose active tri-amplification which bypasses the passive xover completely. I will agree, however, they should offer an option for better passive components that is priced within reason. That is the approach Sound Labs takes for the U-1. Their "hot rod" backplate option comes at an 8% premium to the basic model. Such a premium would suffice for the Maggie as well.

On the other hand, I can think of one speaker brand that takes the "hot rod" kit premium to ridiculous heights. Imagine starting with a $3k speaker which requires a 1200% premium to reach the next level using essentially the same box and drivers but with updated wiring and crossover. If that isn't outrageous, there is yet another model that for a modest 4000% additional cost, offers the ultimate incarnation of the basic design. WTF?

rw

[E-Stat]

The Soundlabs could be made to be a star I suspect with the right SE amp...
Do you know of any 800 watt SET amps? That is the power level they are burned in at the factory and what they need to achieve live levels. Unfortunately, my VTL monoblocks fall slightly below 3 db that power level. What they really need are Siegfrieds.

rw

[nightflier]

Merlin?

[Feanor]

...

E-Stat - crossover - for $14k people should not have to fiddle with after market crossovers - charge $16k and get ti right. To me that's an excuse - spend $14k for poor sound but then after you've bought them and are STUCK - you can then try and fix them with after market crossovers. And to my ear soundhounds sells another $14k speaker and a $7k speaker that to my ears mopped the floor with 20.1. I could also make a credible case for the Sonus Faber Cremona the store also sells which is cheaper - admittedly a box with some boxy traits, but if it was between the two I'd take the Cremona as well.
...

I assume the Cremona you're talking about is the Auditor if it's under $7k. I recently had the pleasure of listening at length to a fellow audiphile's system that included the Cremona Auditor M. We listen to various genre of music, excluding any hard rock forms. With due respect to his personal preferences, I was underwhelmed by the Auditor. Beautiful cabinet work but mediocre sound, IMO, considering the US$5650 MSRP (including the custom stands).

It seem to me that the Magneplanar MG 1.6 crush the Auditors in virtually every department: soundstage, imaging, resolution, timbre, and dynamics. In fairness, my fellow audiophile says he reposition the Auditor for much better soundstage (which I can believe). They might also have been disadvantaged by the 40 wpc tube amp he was using vs. my pair of Monarchy SM-70 Pros. But whatever: bottom line under the prevailing listening conditions, not even close.

[RGA]

The Sonus Faber Cremona speaker was over $10k - I was not a huge fan of the smaller standmounts which are the only other ones I've heard except for their top of the line model. I would not call the 1.6 remotely dynamic - quite the reverse - excellent left to right stage but not much depth and not much in the way of pressurizing a room. The Sonus Faber I heard was connected up with Linn's new streaming front end at over $10k and Simaudio's Moon i7 amplifier.

E-Stat - I get what you're saying but rather than look entirely at the "next model up" at 1200% increase why not start at the bottom. Because there are roughly 10 versions of the speaker you the customer with your hard earned money can decide which version you want and which upgrade you want and which you think is patently absurd.

I have no problem with your argument regarding increased prices but no one is holding a gun to your head. The best speaker soundhounds sells is the AN E/LX HE at $6,500 in my opinion and the guys who sell them opinions. So it's not expensive relative and is easily the best value in terms of sound they sell (granted subjective opinion based). The people who buy the upgrade models are people that want "more of the same" and added refinement in what they already feel is the best loudspeaker design on the market. People who think Magnepan is the best loudspeaker on the market would probably like to have upgrade paths - better ribbon, crossovers, connectors, etc. And if they love their speaker - they'll be willing to pay to get more out of it.

To me that is more "relevant" than the fact that AN also make a $125k version with external crossovers that use over $30,000 worth of Silver parts and all silver wired voice coils in a very rare Alnico Tweeter. Is it better than the $6500 version yes - is it worth it - probably not. It will only be worth it if you the rich customer believes it to sound better than every other speaker $125k and under.

I respect the fact that others may prefer what they prefer but walking away from those auditions at Soundhounds to be perfectly blunt the 20.1 was seriously and roundly embarrassed by the Quad, and the AN E/LX HE and the Cremona too. The salespeople just watch my reaction and laugh with a subtle "yeah we know."

But of course you and Feaner are talking to someone who is not a die-hard fan of panels - you are talking to someone who prefers HE/SET based set-ups so clearly we hear it differently. So I respect your choices and your hearing of it - you may very well go there and walk away with an entirely different perspective.

Sometimes I get too "I'm right" about this. I am merely saying this is what I heard in direct comparisons - I would be interested in your direct comparisons if you ever get an opportunity.

[Mr Peabody]

Just my opinion, the only electrostats I've heard have been Martin Logan. I can over look any blending issues with them because when listening I get more involved or attracted to the presence given by the panels. Electrostats are vastly different sounding than Maggies. I personally didn't get anything from the Maggies I've auditioned. I heard what I think must have been the 20.1's driven by Levinson and was amazed at the lack of bass response. To be fair the room this system was in had a lot of glass which could surely have been a problem. The 1.6's are at a good price and seemed to have a decent bass response to a point. But Maggies I am I guess indifferent about, I don't dislike them in the way I do Klipsch or Vandersteen, yet I don't find them to be something I desire to listen to either. To my ears the clarity and soundstage imaging pales in comparison to the ML's.

Before this thread I was not aware of Analysis Audio. After reading a couple reviews I would love to hear a pair. They also are reported to be exceptionally, or comparatively, easy to drive for a panel speaker.

I also was curious of Quad and found some Stereophile articles. Although one reviewer actually used Quad 63's as his reference as he wrote about the 989 which he admitted was better than the 63 his article didn't get me excited to want to hear a pair.

[RGA]

MR. P

You're probably talking about Art Dudly of Stereophile - he's been a long time owner of Quad panels. My contention is that for those people who like Electrostats then if there is a box speaker that you're going to like it's probably going to be the AN J or E. When I first heard stats I was a fan and they were the plan for a long time. Stat guys go to stats for a very good reason - and it's going to take something "special" to get them to change their mind. The AN E convinced Art Dudly so I am not sure why so many hav eissues with my views. Granted the way I state my opinions often comes across dogmatic.

ML's were created to get around size issues to make them domestically feasible - IMO they're not nearly as good as the Quad or Soundlab that I heard. Maggie and Quad are both panels but they're world's apart.

[E-Stat]

I have no problem with your argument regarding increased prices but no one is holding a gun to your head.
You're preaching to the choir. I'm not one of those who insists that companies who market $30k speakers are all crooks and walk away with enormous amounts of money. I've been to Dr. West's home and he does not live in a palace. In all fairness, however, AN should be included in your "for $14k, they should get the xover right" indictment.


I respect the fact that others may prefer what they prefer but walking away from those auditions at Soundhounds to be perfectly blunt the 20.1 was seriously and roundly embarrassed by the Quad, and the AN E/LX HE and the Cremona too. The salespeople just watch my reaction and laugh with a subtle "yeah we know."
And yet Feanor has experienced the opposite on different systems. The challenge with any hi-fi store is optimizing the system and the space for the speaker. And it most certainly does boil down to preference. I'm going to make a broad statement - while there are always exceptions, I find that "planar people" typically prefer classical or other forms of unamplified music. That is certainly the case with Bill and me. What music did you play in the speaker comparison?

rw

[nightflier]

It seems to me that the problem with bass is not really being addressed well by the industry. Horn and panel based bass modules are unwieldy and cone-based bass speakers are too slow to mate well. I'm just wondering, are there any other noteworthy but technologically different solutions to producing good bass?

Mr.P,

What speakers are you using in your 2-channel system? Or are you using headphones only?

[Mr Peabody]

My two systems share the Dynaudio t2.5. I should probably add something about that to my sig. I just switch the cables at the speaker for the application.

[RGA]

E-Stat

With regards to crossover - it depends if you're upgrading to fix a problem that if otherwise un fixed would lead you to sell the loudspeaker for something else or if you are upgrading to get an improvement merely because you can afford to. The design is the same the parts are improved - In the 20.1's case is the design altered or is just improved parts?

With the AN E part of the reason is that two things are changed - the woofer is changed for a different material which means a different crossover and or the type of woofer. The AN E has 6 different woofers at increased costs as one moves up the line. When you change a woofer it also requires a different crossover.

The AN E was originally designed by an opera house designer and acoustics expert L.L. beranek- Peter Qvortrup has one of the worl's largest collections of classical music. The original distributor Leonard Norwitz was and is a classical music reviewer. I think it's pretty safe to say the speaker is designed first and foremost with classical music in mind. It just happens to be able to do other things not just classical music. I don't see why one can't have their cake and eat it too. Art Dudly seems to enjoy listening to classical music on them as well.

My comparison is an assortment usually Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, Vivaldi's Four Seasons, Albinoni Oboe concertos (I played the Oboe), Barber. I am by no means "expert" on classical music beyond the emotional gut level. One poster on AA Soundmind/Skeptic would go on about the superiority of Piano over people who played violins and judged talent by the difficulty of the instrument. And his all Rock was rubbish and Coltrane is a talentless hack routine. If it moves me then I like it - for me that's the point of music.

Nevertheless, the dynamics in other kinds of music and recordings are important because if the system can't reproduce say Sarah McLachlan's "Silence" or Big Band, then it likely isn't doing classical justice either. It may be that the classical only speaker is shying away from the heavey lifting by compressing the sound into something pleasing but not giving you most of what's on the disc.

Granted I also usually bring something like Loreena McKennitt's The Lady of Shalott, Jackson Browne Acoustic stuff, Gloria Estefan, Madonna. I don't believe this music should suffer so greatly because franly it isn't that difficult to reproduce. Which means the speaker that can't do it can't do complex full range classical music either. As a classical music listener it is usually the first genre of music I play. Piano - the full rich tonality of the instrument. It's the acoustic instruments that makes the AN E stand out at Soundhounds. The Cremona has good bass and can play rock loud - you could as a rocker make the case for them or the B&W 802D that Soundhounds also carries. Quad and Magnepan have the exapnsive soundstages.

For me with acoustic instruments and human voice the only thing there that is in the running is the 2905 at double the price. But it is seriously compromised on Sarah McLachlan type stuff, rock, Madonna etc. Preferences - bottom line.

[E-Stat]

With regards to crossover - it depends if you're upgrading to fix a problem that if otherwise un fixed would lead you to sell the loudspeaker for something else or if you are upgrading to get an improvement merely because you can afford to.
There is nothing to *fix* other than to improve the quality of the parts. Just like with the Sound Lab hot rod option. There is no requirement to use Vishay resistors or Jensen inductors any more than there is the need for $40,000 worth of silver wire.


My comparison is an assortment usually...
Very well. Different music requires different gear. I like the fact that the AN design is a simple two-way affair.

rw

[nightflier]

I just got this from AudioAdvisor. Apparently they are now carrying Thiel speakers, at the same price as Crutchfield, BTW. What caught my eye is that Wes Phillips considers the CS3.7s speakers to hold onto for life. Considering he's hear some of the best speakers in the world, including ones that cost in the tens of thousands, it's a remarkable endorsement for a speaker that "only" costs $13K (that being about the price-point above which most people here seem to agree the price does not equate the value):

http://campaign.constantcontact.com/render?v=001zf5nZgAVThyQVjLyfbRLnI05pL7UKecTfz7HdO DT1L_HC7eGHq0Ws2OJdovHsRDjnKS6LEN6dZ9j_hCaVfcNGfjd j2A8jkAp335xFeInaVo%3D

Anyhow, for those who won't go planar, which it seems many people here consider the speaker to hold onto for life, maybe this is one alternative. I've only heard these at briefly in a show setting, so I can't really say much about them, but they did not sound special or different to me. Maybe I should give them a try.

On a more practical note, I wonder what their little SCS4s can do? In that size, I had always considered the little Harbeth HL-P3ES-2s the speaker to hold onto for life. But I'm not familiar with either.

[RGA]

I said this on another forum but if you are going to trust reviews then the two best ways to me are as follows.

1) Consensus - if many reviewers at many different magazines all agree about the sound of a particular product then it may have a better chance of you liking it too.

2) Find a reviewer with a similar ear to you. If they have reviewed 10 things and it is obvious from reading between the lines that you agree with that reviewer in most or all cases then if he likes something it may be worth seeking out.

You can't hear everything so the above two can widdle down the choices.

PS: Wes Philips is one guy like any reviewer. This is what he said about a system with the AN E:

Forget best sound of show, for sheer emotional delivery, timbral clarity, dynamic agility, and, yes, the highest fidelity, the Audio Note system may have been the best hi-fi I have ever heard. It was one of those magical moments that we audiophiles put up with all of the hassles for.
After the Audio Note demo. the rest was noise, so I quit on a winner. Not many people who come to Vegas can say that." http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2009/

For me personally I like to read that because I have been saying it for years and keep getting pounded for it. Nightflier - you clearly do not need any reviewer to tell you what's good. I suggest just listening and forgetting what reviewers have to say - be the reviewer!

[nightflier]

RGA, I take it that Wes has an ear similar to yours, LOL.

[RGA]

Nightflier

Actually I have not read a whole lot of Wes Philips and I'm not a big fan of Thiel but it's been a long time and opinions change - I hated V8 in my teens and now I quite like the drink.

But here's the thing because Wes made the comments he did and I agree with him - it makes me now want to revisit Thiel - because obviously the guy has good ears.

This is what I found about Art Dudley - he bought a pair of AN E's and so I went back and revisited the Quads. I never cared for the 57 or the 63 but he did love the 989. I went and auditioned a few times and the 989 replacement the 2905 I found a dose of magic in. I might find the same with the Thiels.

[IBSTORMIN]

My speaker of a lifetime is Infinity's RS-1B and there is a pair (four towers) on E-bay right now, no bids and $2250 to start! Haven't heard them, but would like to own them. I hear they are outstanding! I wish I could drive out there and pick them up. ANYONE in LA that can, please listen to them and tell me what they sound like!!!!!! Drool a little for me too.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p3907.m263&_trkparms=algo%3DSI%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D 15%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D54&item=200314072001&category=140694&viewitem=

[JoeE SP9]

I haven't heard them but I have heard the IRS Beta's I loved them. Still do!

[IBSTORMIN]

I haven't heard them but I have heard the IRS Beta's I loved them. Still do!

Ya just had to one up me, didn't ya. OOOHHHH YEAHHHHH IRS Beta - The Holy Grail ! ! ! Now That's what I REALLY want ! ! !

[nightflier]

I guess I was just fishing for some opinions on Thiels. They are still a bit out of my budget, but if they could be speakers to hang onto for life, it would be a good investment. Up there with Revel, Dynaudio, and Legacy, perhaps?

[JoeE SP9]

Ya just had to one up me, didn't ya. OOOHHHH YEAHHHHH IRS Beta - The Holy Grail ! ! ! Now That's what I REALLY want ! ! !

They still want your first born, right testicle and your right foot for them! I'm considering trying to negotiate a deal.:yikes:

[basite]

I guess I was just fishing for some opinions on Thiels. They are still a bit out of my budget, but if they could be speakers to hang onto for life, it would be a good investment. Up there with Revel, Dynaudio, and Legacy, perhaps?


definately check them out...

heard the CS3.7's numerous times and was amazed of what they can do. Especially when you compare them with much more expensive speakers...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[E-Stat]

They still want your first born, right testicle and your right foot for them! I'm considering trying to negotiate a deal.:yikes:
Not as much as the original IRS. Where the Betas went for a *mere* 10k, the IRS was more like $90k in its final years. I first heard them back in 1980. The Beta was a scaled down version of the monster. :)

Infinity Reference System (http://www.infinity-classics.de/infinity/models/IRS-series+Beta+Gamma-Delta-Sigma-Epsilon-1988-95-98/IRS/body_irs.html)

rw

[nightflier]

Just the right testicle? Hmmmm.

[IBSTORMIN]

They still want your first born My first born is my 32 year old son that moved away from us to San Diego. A year ago He took my first grandchild, apple of my eye three year old granddaughter, with him. I'm pissed at him so they can have him.
right testicle I got two, been married 33 years to the same woman so I don't use them much anymore. They can have that too.
and your right foot for them! Now that might be a problem. Can't dance to the music.:23:

[JoeE SP9]

My son is a sophomore at Rutgers. So, he might as well be gone.
My testicles I want to keep. I have a new girlfriend who is magazine pretty.
I need both feet. They give me traction when were doin' the do'.

Although, if someone made me an offer I might think about it! NOT!!!
BTW I saw a pair for sale recently. I think it was on Agon.

[Florian]

Didnt you post that you would give a testicle for the Grand ;-)

[GMichael]

They can have one of my testicles when I'm dead. Till then, I'll settle for the speakers I have.

[JoeE SP9]

Didnt you post that you would give a testicle for the Grand ;-)

Are you ready to make a deal?:biggrin5:

[GMichael]

He's got enough balls now.

[Mike Cason]

I would have to say my favorites are the speakers I built myself. I built the main cabinets in 1995 with Rat Shack drivers & xovers. In 2002 after completing my new home, I purchased a 65" TV and the speakers just didn't match what the large screen presented, like in a movie theater.

I toured the high end shops and couldn't afford the 20k plus speakers on display, and quite frankly, most weren't worth the asking price IMHO. I decided in order to get what I wanted, I had to build them myself.

For the past 7 years, I've built, rebuilt, tore down and rebuilt them again so many times and have finally acheived an awesome setup. I've built my own mains, center speaker, and dual stacked subwoofers. I have 16-15" passive radiators in my mains and subs and a soundstage that puts you in the front row, center chair of any music concert or movie you watch. I re-designed the Bang & Olufsen Redline 60 surround speakers. You can listen to my system at high SPL levels virtually distortion free.

To put a value on my system would be impossible with the many hours of R & D, software, and drivers I've used and changed. The bottom line is that DIY, if done correctly and patiently, can be very rewarding.

I hold auditions for DIY groups, HT installers, and regular folks; all leaving my home in awe.

It's all about how bad you want something and how hard you will work to get it.

Mike

[Feanor]

I would have to say my favorites are the speakers I built myself.
....
To put a value on my system would be impossible with the many hours of R & D, software, and drivers I've used and changed. The bottom line is that DIY, if done correctly and patiently, can be very rewarding.

I hold auditions for DIY groups, HT installers, and regular folks; all leaving my home in awe.

It's all about how bad you want something and how hard you will work to get it.

Mike

Welcome to AR Forums, MIke. Have you got pictures of your stuff you can share with us? :)

[Mike Cason]

Feanor,

I tried to upload a few, but they all need resizing and I need to get to a job. I'll try to do that this evening when I get in.

In the mean time, you can visit my website in my signature and see large photos of each of the speakers I built with descriptions. I have links to Yahoo and Photobucket on the lower right side of my home page with many detailed construction photos.

Mike

[Florian]

Are you ready to make a deal?:biggrin5:

The real question is, are you? :aureola:

[Feanor]

Feanor,

I tried to upload a few, but they all need resizing and I need to get to a job. I'll try to do that this evening when I get in.

In the mean time, you can visit my website in my signature and see large photos of each of the speakers I built with descriptions. I have links to Yahoo and Photobucket on the lower right side of my home page with many detailed construction photos.

Mike

Mike, that's a great site.

I'll take the time later to read you design notes later. I'm interesting in building some speakers myself, perhaps when I'm retired in a year of so. I'd like to explore using WinISD; right now I'm doing some research using Harris Tech's BassBox and Cross Over Pro programs that are easy to use.

I respect your interest in concert DVDs. Personally I listen mostly to straight music in stereo, but I'd like to expand my opera on DVD collection which is currenly only 8 or so operas.

[Mr Peabody]

Feanor, for music on video you should be getting the Blu-ray. Big difference in audio over DVD when using the Tru-HD or DTS-MA.

[Mike Cason]

Mike, that's a great site.

I'll take the time later to read you design notes later. I'm interesting in building some speakers myself, perhaps when I'm retired in a year of so. I'd like to explore using WinISD; right now I'm doing some research using Harris Tech's BassBox and Cross Over Pro programs that are easy to use.

I use Crossover Pro 3 and it works very well.

I respect your interest in concert DVDs. Personally I listen mostly to straight music in stereo, but I'd like to expand my opera on DVD collection which is currenly only 8 or so operas.

Thanks for visiting my site and your compliment.

I've been a stereo fan for years, but with my new NAD AVR and its exceptional decoding capabilities, I find myself listening to more music and concert DVDs in Pro Logic as well as stereo.

In stereo, my mains really shine and in Pro Logic, you feel like you are in the audience with all of the suround sounds of the people and music, still with outstanding musical quality thanks to my redesign of the Bang and Olufsen Redline 60s and the quality drivers I've used in my mains..

I'll still try to resize some photos this weekend.

[Feanor]

Feanor, for music on video you should be getting the Blu-ray. Big difference in audio over DVD when using the Tru-HD or DTS-MA.

No doubt you're right, Mr P. But before I get Blu-ray I've got to get an HDTV. 27" CRT -- die, die, DIE!!

[Mr Peabody]

Back to ML's for a moment. I ran across this review of an older Quest speaker which I thought was pretty good, the reviewer hits on a lot of points you all brought up. I thought the whole matching of dynamic driver to panel was over blown because it just wasn't that apparent to me. According to this Stereophile review it wasn't to them either. They also have reviewed several models. With that being said he does talk about how you have to move front to back to get the correct, or what sounds right, spot for good tonal balance. I ran across this by accident and when he began to address disspersion patterns, crossover frequency and placement it seemed relevant to what we were discussing. Newer models do an even better job in my opinion.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/1093ml/index1.html

I think I linked to the 2nd page, the first page also has some good info.

[mlsstl]

With that being said he does talk about how you have to move front to back to get the correct, or what sounds right, spot...

That gets back to the question of just how many second chances a speaker (or any piece of equipment) should get.

A year or two ago I was curious about how many different makes and models of speakers were on the market. I quit counting at one thousand. It would simply be impossible for any one person to give a thorough audition to every speaker on the market.

Martin Logan is probably in the top 20 or 25 speakers that I've heard multiple times and my reaction has been consistent. I realize that one more listen when the wind is from the east at 20 knots, there is a gibbous moon phase and Venus is in the west may provide perfection, but it shouldn't be that hard. ;-)

I had a similar conversation with a fellow over on Audiogon concerning horn speakers six months or so ago. He was quite insistent that I just hadn't heard the right one and it seemed very important to him that I develop the same level of passion that he possessed on the subject.

[JoeE SP9]

The real question is, are you? :aureola:

Gee Florian. I'm only willing to give up one. The foot and my first born are totally negotiable.
Back to reality:

I have my eye on a pair of Duetta II's. I'm currently trying to negotiate with the owner. We'll see. Wish me luck.

[02audionoob]

Anyone here got any thoughts on JM Reynaud speakers, especially the little ones like the Offrande?

[E-Stat]

With that being said he does talk about how you have to move front to back to get the correct, or what sounds right, spot for good tonal balance.
The spooky thing about a true full range electrostat is that their character remains constant whether you have your face pressed up against the panels or you are at some distance away. Walking up to them from a distance has virtually no effect on the tonal balance or perspective. Just like real instruments. That is simply not the case with most speakers. My daily live reference is wifey playing her baby grand. Perhaps I am hyper-sensitive to coherency, but ever since I heard Dayton-Wrights back in '76, I have favored their uniformity. Perhaps the M-L design would be more successful to diehard planar guys like me if they chose a complementary dipole woofer arrangement as in found in Siegfried Linkwitz' highly regarded Orion. If not driver type, why not at least choose a consistent radiation pattern top to bottom?

That's most likely why I share Mlsstl's feelings about horns - while you can drive them with linear flea powered amps, each frequency range exhibits a different radiation pattern.

rw

[Mr Peabody]

I believe there can be good sounding horn speakers based on very good ones I've heard from Electro Voice. However enjoyable the liveliness or whatever you want to call that type of presentation they will always have short comings by design for sitting between them engaged in critical listening. I haven't heard the ultra expensive horn speakers but for me it don't make sense to by a 3 watt amp to have to spend $25k to hear it at adequate levels and maybe or maybe not have good sound quality.

If some one don't like ML's that's fine. I don't like Vandersteen and some do. I just didn't find the reason given justified or totally accurate. In E-stats case, if I heard other ESL designs as he has maybe I would understand that better. I agree that I don't particularly want a speaker that is difficult to set up to sound the way it should nor do I want to be the only one to enjoy them because only the "sweet spot" is where they sound "correct". I guess ML's will share with horns the fact that some will enjoy them but each will have their limitations. I found ML's have a lot to offer and some one who hasn't heard them should at least give them a try to see for themselves.

[mlsstl]

Just to set the record straight, I think people should listen to Martin Logans if they are in the speaker market. They've got a big following and plenty of places sell them so you don't have to do the pilgrimage to some remote mecca to audition them.

I also like other electrostatics. I've heard the Quads and think they are great. I'd love to own a pair if I had the right room and the money. I also like planars which share a lot of characteristics with electrostatics. (I owned a pair of Magnapan 1.6QRs for several years and only sold them due to a house move.)

As noted much earlier in this thread, I think people differ in their priorities for the various characteristics one can assign to audio reproduction. That explains why every well regarded speaker on the market always has a dedicated following as well as a contingent that simply says "yeah, whatever...."

That certainly doesn't bother me. In fact, it keeps things interesting.

[JoeE SP9]

Well said mlsstl. It's all about what you yourself like. I could live with just about any planar. Any horn or JBL's or any of the Japanese JBL clones leave me saying "whatever". I could go on and on. Everyone has their preferences. It's the same thing with the music itself.

[nightflier]

for me it don't make sense to by a 3 watt amp to have to spend $25k to hear it at adequate levels and maybe or maybe not have good sound quality.

I think the industry really hasn't addressed the problem. Electrostatic and panel speakers, for all their virtues have significant shortcommings (size, power requirements, room positioning, bass integration, necessary tweaking, etc.). We can all agree that there is no perfect speaker, but jeez, there ought to be one that is decent and possible to live with. It seems to me that there ought to be something that works better.

Another thing I try to keep in mind is that many inefficient speakers use more power than what is socially responsible. I know not many people care about this, but consider that a 200W amp, used for a few hours a day, five days a week will consume about 180KWH (Kilowatt Hours). Granted, 200W is high, but not when we consider multi-channel amps and receivers (not to mention all the other gear) that many people use as well. Multiply that by about 100K people in the US, that's 20K MWH, which equates to about 1 million gallons of oil, just to satisfy our audio pleasure (paraphrased from Teresonic website). Perhaps our desire for big panel speakers, and the huge amps to drive them, is tied to the bigger, louder, more obnoxious syndrome we all succumb to every once in a while.

There has to be a better way. Horns aren't the solution, although they have their place. If Coincident, Westlake, Teresonic, and Legacy can design speakers that are way more efficient and still highly-rated, then maybe that should be the goal. Von Sweikert, Magnepan, Dynaudio, Apogee, and the rest are perhaps the Hummers of the speaker world and need to be go on an Obama-style diet, LOL.

[Mr Peabody]

Was that article talking about class A/B? If using a digital switching amp I wouldn't think the consumption would be that bad. Besides that I'm sure there's more wasteful things to worry about, crank it!

[RGA]

Mr. P

You don't have to run a 3 watt amp if you don't want to - the great thing about efficient speakers is that you can run any amplifier - you buy based on sound quality not power requirements. Many speakers seems to need many hundreds of watts - those amps typically sound - not great. So you spend large on a tough to drive speaker and then you have to buy an expensive high watt high negative feedback amp to drive them.

[E-Stat]

but jeez, there ought to be one that is decent and possible to live with.
I've had various stats, all of which have been quite possible to live with for 32 years. "Bass integration" is unnecessary when you use a single driver or multiples of the same driver for all ten octaves.


It seems to me that there ought to be something that works better.
Full range ion speakers are as yet impractical.


Perhaps our desire for big panel speakers, and the huge amps to drive them, is tied to the bigger, louder, more obnoxious syndrome we all succumb to every once in a while.
Huh? Louder, more obnoxious? You're certainly not talking about any Maggie or electrostat I've ever heard.


There has to be a better way.
But, there isn't. Yet. :)

rw

[theaudiohobby]

I've had various stats, all of which have been quite possible to live with for 32 years. "Bass integration" is unnecessary when you use a single driver or multiples of the same driver for all ten octaves.


Having own some electrostats (still have two ESLs in storage) and now a horn loaded dynamic speaker, "bass integration" is as much room issue as a driver issue, infact I will go as far as saying that given a competent design, room issues are a much bigger factor than drivers similarity. Non of the full-range electrostats I have owned have integrated (smoother bass response) as well as my current Tannoys (horn-loaded coaxial) in my room. Furthermore, the Tannoys sound more coherent than the Audiostatics they replaced, coherency is influenced by a couple of factors with speaker drivers being just a single factor in that equation.

[nightflier]

What about Coincident as a speaker to own for life?

[Auricauricle]

I think that the previous post that considers the material being a key component in determining one's preference for speakers is well worth revisiting. I also subscribe to the fact that in speakers, no one has successfully developed a "one-size fits all" device.

In terms of electrostatic speakers go, to my ears, the Quad ESL 63's were and are some of the best producers of voice, wind instruments and strings. Chamber ensembles are reproduced with great presence and the coherence and staging made me feel as though I had taken a chair joined in....

With planars, I have been lucky to know a local audio dealer sells ML's, which I have spent a little time listening to. Very pleasant they were, too, but did not reproduce near the fat, round tones of the Quads, IMO. For vocals and strings (especially accoustic guitar), the ML's were very good, but I just didn't get that "wow" feeling that the Quads gave me. Other planars I have listened to are the Apogee Centaurs and the Carver Amazings. Unfortunately, I cannot recall much about the Centaurs and the Carvers weren't that amazing....

Horn-wise, I have been fortunate enough to listen to quite a few Tannoys. A friend owned a nice pair of Studio Red Monitors that reproduced big bands (with Ella Fitzgerald) very faithfully, with crisp drums and brassy trumpets and horns (yeah, I know...). I have also listened to their higher-end models including the Signatures, the Edinburghs, the Sterlings, and the Westminsters. I spent an afternoon gushing over the Edinburghs' ability to pump Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here with great finesse. Similarly, the big Tannoys were very adept at reproducing orchestras. Beethoven's 6th (Omar Suitner, Denon) was played with beautiful subtlety and love, and I fell in love with the speakers (until I saw the price). I finally bought a pair of Klipsch Hereses, which I enjoyed for awhile, until the horn-sound became unlistenable. I liked the Hereses' ability to jam out Bruce Springsteen, etc., but when my taste in music became more refined (ahem), I found their sound a bit harsh.

In conventionally designed speakers, some of the best I have listened to include some very impressive boxes made by Fried. The speakers I listened to reproduced all sources with smooth and transparent alacrity, allowing me to enjoy an immense wealth of material.

At present, I own and listen to a pair of Polk Monitor 7c's with an Eosone RSP-112. While they are not in the same league as the speakers you guys are talking about or as the ones mentioned earlier in the post, they are pleasant and enjoyable enough to endure while I grope my way through grad-school....

Just a few thoughts to wrinkle a couple of eyebrows and noses....

[AJinFLA]

At the time I was seriously looking for main speakers one of the things that was hard to get used to with ML's is the lack of that physical sensation you get from a box speaker.

That's because it is a velocity source, there is no net pressure change in the room as the box (pressure source).

Nightflier, being in CA, you really should visit Linkwitz for a listen to his Orion system. It combines all the attributes of the panel type speakers (dipoles) using much smaller piston sources (dynamic drivers). The full setup (++) includes pressure source subs that you can certainly feel, though no so much in the 80hz region as you might desire on occasion. Go give a listen for yourself.

cheers,

AJ

[E-Stat]

At present, I own and listen to a pair of Polk Monitor 7c's with an Eosone RSP-112.
Should sound pretty nice. I use Polk RTi35s with a pair of Eosone RSP912s in the HT with a third octave EQ on the subs.

rw

[Auricauricle]

That must make for some mighty impressive teeth rattling, I suppose!

Although the set-up isn't full-range, this is my first experience with a passive radiator, it is a pleasant one nevertheless. Vocals are fairly neutral, and I can reproduce the timbre of woodwids somewhat pleasantly. Brass is passable, tending to be a bit less metalic than I would like. Still, for full orchestra, they hold their own pretty firmly....Okay, enough o' this. let's hear about your set up as well as the rest of you guys' gear. I love the sound of electrostatics, and this conversation has been quite good.

....As y'all were saying:

[theaudiohobby]

That's because it is a velocity source, there is no net pressure change in the room as the box (pressure source).

Nightflier, being in CA, you really should visit Linkwitz for a listen to his Orion system. It combines all the attributes of the panel type speakers (dipoles) using much smaller piston sources (dynamic drivers). The full setup (++) includes pressure source subs that you can certainly feel, though no so much in the 80hz region as you might desire on occasion. Go give a listen for yourself.

cheers,

AJ


Welcome AJ :6: , glad to see you here.:)

[theaudiohobby]

The spooky thing about a true full range electrostat is that their character remains constant whether you have your face pressed up against the panels or you are at some distance away. Walking up to them from a distance has virtually no effect on the tonal balance or perspective. Just like real instruments.

rw

The tonal balance of real instruments change as one moves closer, strings (including piano) and brass get brighter as one moves closer.

[AJinFLA]

Hi Hobby,

Stumbled across the site by accident a couple days ago. Seems that the most views are for speaker related topics. Thought I'd chime in :).
Like the sound of your Tannoys. Heard them as well as E-Stats Soundlabs. No need to settle for the better attributes of each, when you can have them all (yes, all those audiophile terms like coherency, transparency, etc,etc....and of course real life dynamics, the Achilles heal of the panels that identify them as speakers and not real musicians in the room).
When one becomes familiar enough with live acoustic music, the illusion becomes more difficult to recreate. But it's possible to come pretty close.

cheers,

AJ

[Mr Peabody]

Electrostats driven by good tube gear can reproduce a presence nothing short of haunting. It's been a while since I've had the pleasure of sitting in front of a pair so I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to lack of "dynamics". But nothing has given me more of a feeling of a real human than that combo. Have you ever had some one silently walk up on you and you could just feel their presence, it's that kind of thing. The best dynamics I've heard was probably Krell and Dynaudio. I've never heard any other combo come as close to making the snap, crash and impact of actual drums like that combo. Quite a powerful transcient response.

It was an abundance of macro and micro dynamics that brought me to Conrad Johnson tube gear. I found for the sitting and long listening that I preferred the textures and more natural feel but I had to give up that extreme transcient impact of Krell.

To me if you get the right electronics behind the ESL's to take the chill out of them acoustic instruments can sound great. I'm talking about true ESL's not just panels in general.

[AJinFLA]

It's been a while since I've had the pleasure of sitting in front of a pair so I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to lack of "dynamics".

Hi Mr. Peabody, my apologies, I should have been clearer. I speak of limited dynamics as constrained by the physics of physical reality, not as an audiophile. Things that are quantifiable, measurable (Spl, IM, etc.) and yes, quite audible.


The best dynamics I've heard was probably Krell and Dynaudio. I've never heard any other combo come as close to making the snap, crash and impact of actual drums like that combo. Quite a powerful transcient response.

Krell and Dynaudio? I've heard large models (direct radiator cone 'n dome box affairs) of both of those brands too. Hmm, you are a bit far from FL, but only about an 8hr drive from MI. Perhaps you could contact Dr Geddes to arrange a listen to his system (he's most accommodating to such requests from audiophiles) one weekend? See how close it comes to the matching the dynamics and realism of the Krell and Dynaudios?



To me if you get the right electronics behind the ESL's to take the chill out of them acoustic instruments can sound great. I'm talking about true ESL's not just panels in general.

I was unaware that ESL's suffered from low temperature issues. That's quite unusual, but perhaps (thankfully?) not as prevalent around my part of the nation? I'm still not sure how the thermal output of the amplifier would make it to the speaker terminals, as the connecting cables should dissipate heat rather quickly. Bizarre.
The Soundlabs I heard sounded quite nice, having many of the audible attributes I would want, but as stated earlier, was still constrained by the limits of physical reality (the surface area of the transducer(s) vs wavelength, etc, etc.). I can see where some (unaware of all the other possibilities) might be drawn to them.

cheers,

AJ

[Mr Peabody]

:) Let me apologize this time, I was saying "chill" as in the sound quality not temperature. I have heard Martin Logan on some solid state gear that made strings sound cold, or maybe a better way of saying it would be more unnatural. I prefer ML's better with neutral to warm electronics.

[E-Stat]

The tonal balance of real instruments change as one moves closer, strings (including piano) and brass get brighter as one moves closer.
Sorry, but I was talking in the context of the home environment in which we use our speakers. My wife's baby grand piano sounds no differently up close or fifteen feet away. Either you have a far larger room than my 25'x16' one or you are talking about comparing row C vs. the loge in a symphony hall, in which case I would agree.

rw

[E-Stat]

That must make for some mighty impressive teeth rattling, I suppose!
Hmmm. I think you're responding to my post, but if not, sorry. Actually, I use dual subs for qualitative purposes, not quantitative ones. Yes, it does provide more headroom, but I have two other reasons:

1. I address room placement / mode issues using the equalizer on the subs ONLY where I can fix the 60 /120 hz peaks and corresponding troughs in between. In order for that to be effective, however, it requires a higher crossover frequency than usual for the subs.

2. Integration of satellites to dual subs avoids directionality issues that would arise from using a single one given my choice above.


Okay, enough o' this. let's hear about your set up ...
Look here (http://cgi.audioasylum.com/cgi/mail.mpl?user_ID=2150)for details and pics.

rw

[Auricauricle]

Sorry for the delay in the reply....Just had to see how many shades of green I'd go through....Sweet, sweet....I especially liked the Souther!

[AJinFLA]

2. Integration of satellites to dual subs avoids directionality issues that would arise from using a single one given my choice above.

Eh?
If this isn't audiophile-speak for localization (issues), then you've lost me rw :confused5:

cheers,

AJ

[theaudiohobby]

AJ

A product that combines the best attributes of the soundlabs and the Tannoys would be very interesting :smile5: , which products fulfil that brief?

[E-Stat]

If this isn't audiophile-speak for localization (issues), then you've lost me rw
The perception of localization arises from a speaker's directional output. Get it?

rw

[theaudiohobby]

Sorry, but I was talking in the context of the home environment in which we use our speakers. My wife's baby grand piano sounds no differently up close or fifteen feet away. Either you have a far larger room than my 25'x16' one or you are talking about comparing row C vs. the loge in a symphony hall, in which case I would agree.

rw

I cannot speak for your home environment, but even in smaller spaces I experience tonal balance changes listening 15ft away and putting one's ear very close to the headboard and sure do not want to test your theory by putting my ear close to the mouth of a large horn :D , however I agree with the larger point that tonal changes will be less dramatic in smaller rooms due to the closer proximity of the room boundaries. :smile5:

[AJinFLA]

AJ

A product that combines the best attributes of the soundlabs and the Tannoys would be very interesting :smile5:

A dipolar large format coaxial.



which products fulfil that brief?

Nothing marketed to audiophiles. But that should never be an impediment to the determined :wink5:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b117/wolf_teeth_speaker/Lex2008andThiel/100_4091.jpg

(sorry, I didn't take the pic)

cheers,

AJ

[AJinFLA]

rw, you said

Integration of satellites to dual subs avoids directionality issues that would arise from using a single one given my choice above.

How does dual subs "avoid directionality" vs a single one?


The perception of localization arises from a speaker's directional output. Get it? rw

No I don't. What directionality? You are clearly referring to the subwoofers. You said nothing about localization until the post above. What does subwoofer directionality have to do with localization?

cheers,

AJ

[E-Stat]

You are clearly referring to the subwoofers.
Yes. I actually agree with RBNG (imagine that!) that a single sub crossed over at 120 hz is quite easy to locate due to the directionality at that high a frequency.

rw

[AJinFLA]

No, you are misinformed. A 120 hz wavelength is nearly 9 1/2 feet long, far in excess of the piston source and baffle size. You sub will be purely omni-directional over it's (as implemented) passband. It's "directionality" has nothing to do with localization. HF (including motor generated harmonics) getting through above the sub (or receiver) low pass filter would make it localizable. In that perspective, it is advisable to have them close to the mains (like you have them).

cheers,

AJ

[E-Stat]

HF (including motor generated harmonics) getting through above the sub (or receiver) low pass filter would make it localizable. In that perspective, it is advisable to have them close to the mains (like you have them).
I'm glad you agree with my experience in the real world. Surely you understand the notion that a 12 db/octave crossover does not act like a brick wall filter for frequencies above the nominal setting. I found a single sub operating at that range was quite localizable. :)

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra

rw

[JoeE SP9]

I'm glad you agree with my experience in the real world. Surely you understand the notion that a 12 db/octave crossover does not act like a brick wall filter for frequencies above the nominal setting. I found a single sub operating at that range was quite localizable. :)

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra

rw
This has been my experience also. That's why I built 2 new subs. I have them placed on the wall almost directly behind my Stats which are 49 1/2" from the wall 8 1/2Ft apart and slightly toed in so the centers cross about 2Ft behind my head while in my chair.

When I use one sub I get a sensation of more depth and richer room sounds on whatever side of the room the sub is placed closest to. For most music it's not really noticable. However, some of my Audiophile/Demo quality recordings make it very evident. On Jacintha, Here's To Ben the soundstage width and depth seems to collapse on one side to the real size of my room. This only happens with one sub asymmetrically placed. The collapse occurs on the side away from the sub. If the sub is placed symmetrically I lose soundstage width on both sides (not so much as asym) and a small amount of depth.
With 2 subs the front wall and the first 1/3 of the side walls sonically disappear. Of course this extreme effect only occurs with a good recording. No multitracked recording I've ever heard has this kind of "large room around and behind the speakers"sound.

If someone out there has a multitracked recording they believe has the soundstage I'm describing I'll listen.

IMHO: A soundstage has height, width and depth. A good soundstage has the same properties but they extend beyond the physical dimensions of the room. A spread of instruments/sound from left to right is not a soundstage. It is nothing more than pan-potting a instrument/sound somewhere between left and right. We seem to forget stereo means 3-Dimensional! Technically, no depth means no stereo. That's why I call most studio recordings multi-track mono.

[theaudiohobby]

:biggrin5: Thanks AJ

Could you tell us more about your prototype and some more pics please :smile5:

[E-Stat]

Could you tell us more about your prototype and some more pics please :smile5:
He really needs to update his website with pics of more current projects. You will find a number of OB "mutants" as he calls them. :)

AJ's Workshop (http://openbafflespeakers.com/)

rw

[AJinFLA]

:biggrin5: Thanks AJ

Could you tell us more about your prototype and some more pics please :smile5:

It's just something I cobbled together one week, after work each day, to take to a diy event at a studio in Lexington Kentucky. Simulated, built and measured in about 12 hours. No listening :crazy: (till I got there). Mainly so folks there could hear somthing different from the typical dome over cone boxes, panels, horns, etc. that most have heard. The coax is similar to your tannoy in design (although slightly modified [throat damping to reduce HOMs] ,by me). The tweeter is a BMS ring radiator. About 96db/2.83v, >200hz, 127db transient capacity per side. Open baffle for dipolar response, graduating to monopole at HF. Less power radiated into the room, nulls at the sidewalls and ceiling, directional HF and a symmetric polar response from the coax format. The bass section is active and can be switched from monopole (12" Peerless XLS), dipole (15" TC2+) or mixed, cardioid mode, depending on the room (that thing most speaker designers never seem to have heard of :wink5:). No pics other than that one taken by someone in the studio. It's a prototype (and ugly). Doesn't affect the soundwaves (though it would for audiophiles).
I actually brought them out of storage recently and plopped them at the new place. Here's a shot from about head position in the listening chair in cardioid mode (1/6oct and no doctoring:) ).http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc73/AJinFLA/Seat.jpg
I'm running them in dipole mode right now. Probably take a few more in-room measurements this weekend. Or maybe I'll just listen to more tunes (just kidding, we know meter readers don't actually listen :biggrin5:)
Oh yeah, I won't be hanging on to them for life. Just until the next evolution.

cheers,

AJ

p.s. You're right E-stat, I probably should do something with that site. But probably won't :smilewinkgrin:

[theaudiohobby]

AJ

You've whet my appetite, Your prototype literally combines attributes from dipoles and horn-loaded coaxials..yipee :11: to my ears. How does third party (i.e. me) go about recreating your mutant. The potential dynamic capability of your creation is a boon to my ears, if not eyes :wink5: , you gotta find a way making it look more attractive, black is so out :wink5: What's the combined weight of the pair?

[emailists]

jumping in very late to this discussion.

First: I love Soundlabs as well. A friend has U1's with PX technology. An amazing speaker I would love to own, but too large for me and my significant other, (who hated the Crosby/Quad 63's I used to own due to their size.)

The other thing I wanted to mention is that a number of times a year a friend has a great bluegrass jam in his apartment, I have listened to the variety of acoustic intruments up very close (3-4 feet) and from further back, say 10-15 feet.

I do this sometimes with my eyes closed to remove the visual identification with real instruments, in an effort to imagine I am in my home listening room, and to remember the sound of the real thing.

I did notice a very similar room coloration when I was further back, similar to what I hear when further back in the room from a speaker system.

Yes they were still totally identifiable as the same instrument, but it was interesting to hear the room acoustic wreak the same havok it does with electronically reproduced music,

[Mr Peabody]

Welcome to the forum emailists and feel free to jump in any time.

[AJinFLA]

AJ

You've whet my appetite, Your prototype literally combines attributes from dipoles and horn-loaded coaxials..yipee :11: to my ears. How does third party (i.e. me) go about recreating your mutant.

Those aren't the mutants, these are
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc73/AJinFLA/Orion1.jpg.

As for the coax prototypes, get the T/S parameters from Tannoy for your raw driver and we'll get some models started.


The potential dynamic capability of your creation is a boon to my ears, if not eyes :wink5: , you gotta find a way making it look more attractive, black is so out :wink5:

Prototypes are always black and ugly. That's why they're prototypes, not finished products.
http://carsspyphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/all-new-jaguar-xj.jpg


What's the combined weight of the pair?
>200lbs. Mostly due to the large ferrite motors on each driver, save for the neodymium tweeter,

cheers,

AJ

[theaudiohobby]

Thanks AJ, I will contact you off-line after I have spoken to Tannoy.

[Auricauricle]

Not to interrupt a perfectly good conversation, but I'm looking at hooking up with a good deal on an Optimus Pro CS 5 center channel in the near future. The reviews on this site look pretty solid. Any thoughts from the beaten crowd?

[nightflier]

I have a date with a pair... (Rich, if you're reading this, get your mind out of the gutter, I'm talking about speakers) of Tamino Monitors this weekend. Now I know they are the bottom of the line, but I was told that Verity was the kind of speaker to have for life.

IMO, anyone can make an expensive speaker that sounds great, but to make an inexpensive one that sounds great, now that's talent. Let's hope these impress; they are going up against my Talon Khites. One thing I did notice is that the resale on used Verity speakers keeps up very well, kind of like Lexus - that's probably a good sign.

[Auricauricle]

Man, I gotta just shut up and remember who I'm playin' wit'!

[Mr Peabody]

Verity is a brand I'm not familiar with, don't forget to give us some feedback.

[Gary Hubbard]

For general great sound _ I have yet to hear anything that compares to my Acoustat Spectra 22s through a hybrid tube pre-amp and good mosfet amp.

[IBSTORMIN]

After owning them for a few months now, it is the first speaker I have owned that I would put on the list, the Magnepan Tympani 1D. I believe someone else already mentioned them in an earlier post. I will keep these even if I upgrade. It's just cool to hear sound from a pair of 4' x 6' three-panel folding room dividers. If you grow tired of the sound, just re-angle one of the panels and they sound different. Change one component or I found if you just shorten the speaker wires they are so revealing, you have to listen to your whole collection again. Neat speaker.

[thekid]

From my perspective......

DCM TF-600
DCM Timwindows 1

and The Wall

[theebadone]

I have listened to quite a few speakers in my day, But the big Altecs win by a large margin. To my ears, the best i have heard so far, and will (never) be selling are the Altec A7 VOTTS, Altec 878A SANTIAGOS, And Altec model 15s. I guess I am A horn man.

[nightflier]

PS I never got to play with the Verity speakers, the guy wanted them back before I even got them unpacked and was rather insistent, so I never even had a chance to listen to them. Apparently he needed money and thought selling these would solve all his problems.

On the bright side, I'm getting to play with a beat-up pair of Klipsch RF7s in an unusual setup: powered by a NuForce Icon (and iPod). It's for a Halloween haunted house, so not exactly a prime listening environment, but we've been cranking classic rock through it for the past few weekends during the construction and for such a simple setup, it really does rock, even with power tools buzzing. I wonder how this little amp would do with a good pair of Omega or Zu speakers.

[dakatabg]

Pioneer CS-R580 12" Woofers

Pioneer CS-G403 15" Woofers

Scott 315D 15" Woofers

Good stuff and all of them like new!!! :thumbsup:

[JoeE SP9]

For general great sound _ I have yet to hear anything that compares to my Acoustat Spectra 22s through a hybrid tube pre-amp and good mosfet amp.

See my sig.

[MikeyBC]

For general great sound _ I have yet to hear anything that compares to my Acoustat Spectra 22s through a hybrid tube pre-amp and good mosfet amp.

I have a friend who had a pair of those with the matching bass module, he ended up selling them and to this day i wonder why I didn't buy them...probably the easiest speaker to listen to that have heard and loads of detail.

[theebadone]

My big Altecs will be sold only, (AFTER) I pass away. :eek: