Fullrangers win Stereophile product of the year

[Poultrygeist]

The article is not out yet but here's the review of these $29k back loaded horns. I wonder if they sound any better than PoppaC's DIY Frugals?

Voxativ Ampeggio loudspeaker | Stereophile.com (http://www.stereophile.com/content/voxativ-ampeggio-loudspeaker)

[Ajani]

I'll be really impressed when a DIY Open Baffle Speaker wins Stereophile product of the year :devil:

[RGA]

The single driver is certainly appealing. But $30k. I'd like to see them compare the Teresonic Ingenium also a single driver but they start at around $5k. Sound was terrific.

[Feanor]

The article is not out yet but here's the review of these $29k back loaded horns. I wonder if they sound any better than PoppaC's DIY Frugals?

Voxativ Ampeggio loudspeaker | Stereophile.com (http://www.stereophile.com/content/voxativ-ampeggio-loudspeaker)
Humm ... interesting, I guess.

In the first place any $30,000 speaker ought to be effing amazing regardless of technology. I don't think you have to spend that kind of dough to get an excellent speaker for you average living room. One justification for spending more is a large room and accordingly a speaker that can fill it at high volume of sound. This Voxativ doesn't fill that bill.

The whole full-range thing doesn't intrigue me personally. (This is apart from the question of whether a driver with two cones is really full-range.) There is ample evidence that you can build multi-driver speakers without many compromises. Speaking of compromises, one, argueably, is that multi-drivers are less efficient: who cares when you can get superb sounding 400 wpc amp for $600? Empircal evidence doesn't support the contention that crossover networks, even passive ones, really compromise purity of sound to a significant degree.

[mnally]

testing

[Poultrygeist]

Passive vs Active Crossovers

"The vast majority of loudspeaker manufactures prefer passive crossovers, usually second or third order except for very high end ones such as the first order VMPS or the now defunct Dunlavy, and the fourth order B&W 800's, or the Joseph Audio eighth order. Only a few, especially pro audio types use their own active crossovers with built-in amplifiers, thus imposing complete control over the sound of their loudspeakers."

"For horn enthusiasts, active crossovers are the ideal way to go as they allow us to use flea powered 2a3 or 300B amplifiers for their superb mid and high ranges and push pull tube or solid state for their bass. One gets the best of speed, transparency, control and drive by not putting passive components between the amplifiers and drivers." - Bill Gaw ( Enjoy the Music )

Bill Gaw: AA Chapter 43 Marchand Electronics XM-44 Active Crossover (http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0403/aachapter43.htm)

[Feanor]

Passive vs Active Crossovers

"The vast majority of loudspeaker manufactures prefer passive crossovers, usually second or third order except for very high end ones such as the first order VMPS or the now defunct Dunlavy, and the fourth order B&W 800's, or the Joseph Audio eighth order. Only a few, especially pro audio types use their own active crossovers with built-in amplifiers, thus imposing complete control over the sound of their loudspeakers."
...
Active crossovers are preferred according to the general consensus. When you look at professional speakers it's most often the case that they have active crossovers and separate amps per driver, even in case of small monitors

One must speculate why audiophile speakers don't employ passive ACTIVE crossovers. The big reason, by my guess, is that it's seems less complicated. The follow-on questions is why more speakers don't have built-in amps (downstream of active crossovers). In this case I think it's explained by the desire of audiophiles to select amps separately from the speakers and to fine-tune the amp sound to his/her taste. Or to put it another way, it's more fun to have separate components.

[Ajani]

Active crossovers are preferred according to the general consensus. When you look at professional speakers it's most often the case that they have active crossovers and separate amps per driver, even in case of small monitors

One must speculate why audiophile speakers don't employ passive crossovers. The big reason, by my guess, is that it's seems less complicated. The follow-on questions is why more speakers don't have built-in amps (downstream of active crossovers). In this case I think it's explained by the desire of audiophiles to select amps separately from the speakers and to fine-tune the amp sound to his/her taste. Or to put it another way, it's more fun to have separate components.

Imagine trying to sell a commercial (audiophile) 2,3 or 4 way speaker with no passive crossover - It would require the buyer to purchase an active crossover and 2 to 4 stereo amps... even assuming the speaker maker includes a preset active crossover, the consumer would still need 2 - 4 stereo amps... That would be a major turnoff to many persons... Generally only audiophiles looking for statement products want to make such a commitment...

The other option is to sell active speakers. As you rightly pointed out; they lack flexibility - So no easy upgrade option by swapping out power amps...

[Ajani]

The whole full-range thing doesn't intrigue me personally. (This is apart from the question of whether a driver with two cones is really full-range.) There is ample evidence that you can build multi-driver speakers without many compromises. Speaking of compromises, one, argueably, is that multi-drivers are less efficient: who cares when you can get superb sounding 400 wpc amp for $600? Empircal evidence doesn't support the contention that crossover networks, even passive ones, really compromise purity of sound to a significant degree.

I can't say that I'm remotely interested in using a single driver in some extremely complicated horn arrangement. Also, I find the term full-range highly misleading (since most of those speakers aren't actually full-range). However, a two way design using a "full-range" and a woofer does seem interesting to me... This one in particular (cheap and easy to build):

http://www.quarter-wave.com/Project09/Two_Speakers.jpg
Project 9 : Eminence Alpha 15A Experimental Open Baffle Design (http://www.quarter-wave.com/Project09/Project09.html)

I really hope to try that out with a Class D Audio SDS-470 on top and my Emo XPA-2 on the bottom + a Behringer Active Crossover...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I can't say that I'm remotely interested in using a single driver in some extremely complicated horn arrangement. Also, I find the term full-range highly misleading. Extended-Range sounds more realistic. However, a two way design using an Extended-Range and a woofer does seem interesting to me... This one in particular (cheap and easy to build):

http://www.quarter-wave.com/Project09/Two_Speakers.jpg
Project 9 : Eminence Alpha 15A Experimental Open Baffle Design (http://www.quarter-wave.com/Project09/Project09.html)

I really hope to try that out with a Class D Audio SDS-470 on top and my Emo XPA-2 on the bottom + a Behringer Active Crossover...

A,
At least on the recording side of things, a fullrange speaker will extend down to 40hz flat. A extended range speaker will extend down to 20hz flat.

[Ajani]

A,
At least on the recording side of things, a fullrange speaker will extend down to 40hz flat. A extended range speaker will extend down to 20hz flat.

Guess I need a different term then... since most "fullrange" speakers don't go down to 40hz flat.... Don't know why I thought extended range was less than fullrange...

[E-Stat]

Guess I need a different term then... since most "fullrange" speakers don't go down to 40hz flat....
Exceptions include full range electrostats like the larger Sound Labs models which provide flat in room response down to 25 hz.

rw

[Feanor]

Imagine trying to sell a commercial (audiophile) 2,3 or 4 way speaker with no passive crossover - It would require the buyer to purchase an active crossover and 2 to 4 stereo amps... even assuming the speaker maker includes a preset active crossover, the consumer would still need 2 - 4 stereo amps... That would be a major turnoff to many persons... Generally only audiophiles looking for statement products want to make such a commitment...

The other option is to sell active speakers. As you rightly pointed out; they lack flexibility - So no easy upgrade option by swapping out power amps...
While I think you're right, I also think that consumer, active speakers would be, (indeed are), quite feasible and could be sold relatively economically. Again, professional monitors are proof of this. Passive speakers and separate amps are much a traditional as anything else.

In the HT and low-end markets, people are used to buying receivers and integrateds -- it's a mind set and it's what the big companies are delivering. In the high-end market I think the tweaking aspect, not to mention the fixation on tubes, is more important.

But to me when you're in the $30k range, I think it's sane that a speaker ought to come with a custom crossover network & amps finely tuned to the drivers and box. My experience with digital amps demostrates to me that you don't need large, heavy, very expensive power amps. If you want to color you music, do it at the front end with a tube preamp.

[Poultrygeist]

I primarily listen to jazz where a stand up bass only goes down to 41hz. Many folks confuse bass extension with bass weight and opt for a sub when bass weight is what's missing in their system. The upper bass is where much of an orchestra's foundation and weight lies. It is in this critical range that OB wide band woofers shine with clarity and realism while boxed woofers sound unnatural and boxy.

[Ajani]

While I think you're right, I also think that consumer, active speakers would be, (indeed are), quite feasible and could be sold relatively economically. Again, professional monitors are proof of this. Passive speakers and separate amps are much a traditional as anything else.

In the HT and low-end markets, people are used to buying receivers and integrateds -- it's a mind set and it's what the big companies are delivering. In the high-end market I think the tweaking aspect, not to mention the fixation on tubes, is more important.

I think active speakers will gain traction with the younger crowd; Those persons who don't regard "convenience" as a bad word. Older die-hard audiophiles are far less likely to accept the lack of tweaking options... However persons who just want plug and play combined with great sound quailty, will be more open to the concept... I gave my younger brother my M-Audio actives and he is in love with them (no way would he ever opt for typical audiophile seperates), So I can certainly see active speakers connected to Dock/Dac/Computer gaining popularity...


But to me when you're in the $30k range, I think it's sane that a speaker ought to come with a custom crossover network & amps finely tuned to the drivers and box. My experience with digital amps demostrates to me that you don't need large, heavy, very expensive power amps. If you want to color you music, do it at the front end with a tube preamp.

If you're spending $30K, you should be ridiculously demanding about exactly what you want... With that kind of coin you could have your setup custom built if you so desire...

[Ajani]

Exceptions include full range electrostats like the larger Sound Labs models which provide flat in room response down to 25 hz.

rw

Certainly. I was thinking of Cone drivers though. The problem I have with Electrostats that reach 25hz is the price (and I suppose the size as well).

[Feanor]

...
If you're spending $30K, you should be ridiculously demanding about exactly what you want... With that kind of coin you could have your setup custom built if you so desire...
There are megabuck audiophile active speakers out there ... these Meridian DPS8000's would be nice I should think, (specs HERE (http://www.meridian-audio.com/media/14218/dsp8000-ds2.pdf)).

http://www.meridian-audio.com/media/14210/dsp8000v2.png

[Ajani]

There are megabuck audiophile active speakers out there ... these Meridian DPS8000's would be nice I should think, (specs HERE (http://www.meridian-audio.com/media/14218/dsp8000-ds2.pdf)).

http://www.meridian-audio.com/media/14210/dsp8000v2.png

That's an ultimate example of where I think audiophile systems will eventually go (for persons who don't care about whether they can tweak by changing components)... Active speakers with DSP and digital inputs. Not sure if the amps are class d though... Which would be the ideal in such a scenario:

Take the notion of a NAD M2 - everything kept digital up to the output stage (combined with DSP and active crossover and multiple amps) and direct to the speakers and you have something really interesting.

[Ajani]

Just to make sure my point about the M2 was clear, this diagram does a great job of illustrating:

http://a248.e.akamai.net/pix.crutchfield.com/ImageHandler/scale/500/500/products/2010/9/745/x745M2-t_AAS.jpeg

http://a248.e.akamai.net/pix.crutchfield.com/ImageHandler/scale/400/400/products/2010/9/745/x745M2-t_DDAS.jpeg

[Poultrygeist]

I'm afraid those Meridians look better than they sound. My son-in-law, who's in the business, has a pair that belonged to Emmitt Smith. He hates to admit that my OB's are way better.

[Ajani]

I'm afraid those Meridians look better than they sound. My son-in-law, who's in the business, has a pair that belonged to Emmitt Smith. He hates to admit that my OB's are way better.

I've read mixed opinions on the Meridians... I have no idea whether they actually sound good... But the concept is good (even if the execution might be lacking)...

I want to do something somewhat similar with my OB project - use DSP to smooth out the in-room frequency response (since one of the complaints about 'full-range' drivers is uneven FR)... Should be fun...

[Poultrygeist]

He has a pair of the DSP 6000 which he traded for. I'm just glad he didn't spend hard earned cash for them.

[Ajani]

Here's an example of a SOTA speaker more in line with the project I'm interested in:

http://www.lotusgroupusa.com/Images/_DSC3393ColorSaturationSm2.jpg
The Granada Loudspeaker (http://www.lotusgroupusa.com/Granada.htm)
Lotus Group Granada
Active Crossover, DSP, Open Baffle, Full-Range Driver mated to dual 12" Woofers
Only $125,000/pair

[Ajani]

I'm afraid those Meridians look better than they sound. My son-in-law, who's in the business, has a pair that belonged to Emmitt Smith. He hates to admit that my OB's are way better.

Does that mean he's admitted it (though reluctantly) or that he refuses to admit it (which means he is in denial OR really just does not agree with your opinion)?

[Poultrygeist]

Yes he's like "da" river in Egypt.

[RGA]

Unfortunately - you need to be careful about falling in love with an "idea" and actually bother to directly compare these technologies to determine how it fits.

Active speakers come in a variety of shapes and sizes. The dealer I most frequented (soundhounds) carries the big Meridian active speakers - and they sound pretty good - but hardly anything to rave about and they cost a LOT of money. And you can't alter the presentation because that's the way it comes. I can actually accept that - if Meridian views that as the ultimate sound then live and die with it I say - but it didn't exactly beat any of the non active speakers in the store hands down, as some here seem to indicate that it would (without ever auditioning them). Quad non active, Harbeth non active, Dynaudio non active, Sonus Faber non active, Magnepan non active, B&W non active were all just as good in some ways better and some ways not.

I have heard active systems from PMC, ATC, and Genelec and a few others. As hi-fi they all sound pretty awesome. If that's the sound you're after go for it. But do do the side by side comparisons level matched - and f you are really persuaded by specs and technology do it blind.

[Poultrygeist]

Back to OP.

I found the info on the Voxativ's award over at diyAudio with some interesting follow up quotes which are related to it's common diy design and not it's outrageous price tag.

"It's good to see our little niche of the audio world get some mainstream recognition. This speaker beat out newest versions of the B&W 800, Magico Q5 and Wilson Sophia for the honor."

"All of us can't be completely crazy about what we hear. B&W, Magico and Wilson can continue to blend dissimilar ( dones to cones made from different materials ) and stick them in inert boxes as long as there's a market for them but WE hear the problems crossovers make and WE hear the benefits a more elaborate, more difficult, optimized box can produce. We also hear the benefits no box at all can produce ( open baffle ) and still choose to utilize our favorite full range drivers rather than woofers that go up to 2.5k and tweeters that give you tinnitus"

"Having heard expensive, multi-driver speakers from Dynaudio, and the above mentioned brands, I must say I've never been envoius of their wares after listening to them."

"Wait until all those little, inexpensive digital amps begin trumping Krell and other expensive solid state...and tube amps. I think the sub $50 Sonic Impact was rated class D in Stereophile a couple years ago. The Hi-End was in trouble for being more expensive but there may come a time the sound of 'traditional' technology is trumped by simplicity and application "

The author of the last three quotes was the first to go with the Tang Band 1808 OB's over H-Frame Alphas which I duplicated and rejoice over daily.

[Ajani]

Unfortunately - you need to be careful about falling in love with an "idea" and actually bother to directly compare these technologies to determine how it fits.

Agreed. Proof of the pudding is in the....

At the end of the day execution will matter far more than the concept...

[Ajani]

To get back to the OP... I just received my digital copy of the latest Stereophile and am still perplexed as to how the Voxativ Ampeggio won Product of the year! It was only runner up in Speaker of the Year category (beaten by the Magico Q5), so how did it win Product of the year?

[RGA]

Magazines are incredibly inconsistent on these "awards."

How many people agree with the academy Award winner for Best picture?

GO back to 1990 and look at all the nominations and winners - I think I agree with them 3 times - maybe 5 more that were in the ballpark - and the rest I would not have had in my top 10.

While some voters let their maid's fill in the ballot at least for the most part the voters are in the business and there are thousands of people voting. So there is a clear consensus.

With audio gear - take our magazine - we have something like 10 writers - very few of us have heard a given amp in our system. If we were to do an "awards" section - it would basically come down to the reviewer and the editor - 2 people (as it is WHOLLY done at Stereophile. It comes down to John Atkinson - if he likes it it gets class A - if he doesn't it doesn't. PERIOD.

So it should be the John Atkinson product of the year award not Stereophile - since the magazine is not one person.

Jack Roberts on our staff loves the Teresonic Ingenium - He owns them and loves them - so he would probably vote for it being award worthy. I heard it at a show and loved the sound - so I might back him (although it's less credible being under show conditions). I bet no one else on staff has had these speakers at home in their system.

And that is true at Stereophile and TAS. In fact there is clear evidence that a reviewer will give something class A but it winds up getting class B. The editor supercedes the reviewer. The award is given solely and entirely by the editor.

It's their magazine after all - but an award implies that there is some reviewing body who came together and agreed upon a given product. That is not happening at the magazines that give out such awards. Hi-Fi Choice has the decency to call the award "the Editor's Choice Award" so at least you know ONE person made the call.

If I chose best pictures - Pulp Fiction, Leaving Las Vegas, and Goodfellas would have one - A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator and Lord of the Rings would not.