• 02-10-2005, 12:02 PM
    andy13
    Are bookshelf speakers better than floorstanders?
    I have heard people say that bookshelf speakers soung better than floorstanders. I always thought that bookshelf couldn't reproduce the deep bass floorstanders can. Would a 3,000 bookshelf sound that much better than a 3,000 floorstander? I was looking at the Sonus faber Cremona Monitor. Any suggestions?
  • 02-10-2005, 12:33 PM
    Buzz Roll
    It takes talent and materials ($$$) to make a floorstander sound great. Depending on your needs, $3K can buy a nice sounding floorstander. For me, at $3K, a floorstander would be my choice. Even at that price, there's only so much bass you're gonna get, and for music, subs are very difficult to get right.
  • 02-10-2005, 06:52 PM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by andy13
    I have heard people say that bookshelf speakers soung better than floorstanders. I always thought that bookshelf couldn't reproduce the deep bass floorstanders can. Would a 3,000 bookshelf sound that much better than a 3,000 floorstander? I was looking at the Sonus faber Cremona Monitor. Any suggestions?

    It all depends upon your preferences. You cannot reproduce first octave bass (20 - 40 hz) from a typical bookshelf speaker. Period. That's why there are 300 lb floorstanders. You can, however, reproduce the top nine octaves in such a speaker. My preference (for what that's worth) is to find a balanced speaker that excels in the critical midrange and sacrifices a bit of the low end to one that may extend downwards a bit at the expense of an overall balance. You can always add subwoofers to supplement the bottom end if that's your thing. As a point of reference, if you want to really run full range, then you'll need something like the Alon Grand Exoticas (120k). They can reproduce a 32' organ pipe (16 hz) with authority.

    <img src="http://home.comcast.net/~ralphwallace/images/audio/alon_small.jpg">

    rw
  • 02-10-2005, 09:48 PM
    Pat D
    No, but may be more cost effective.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by andy13
    I have heard people say that bookshelf speakers soung better than floorstanders. I always thought that bookshelf couldn't reproduce the deep bass floorstanders can. Would a 3,000 bookshelf sound that much better than a 3,000 floorstander? I was looking at the Sonus faber Cremona Monitor. Any suggestions?

    The deep bass is nice to have but really, a nice flat midrange and a smooth upper midrange, treble and highs are much more important.

    Some standmount speakers can reproduce deep bass at reasonable levels, such as the Totem Mani-2, and there are quite a few that have useful bass to 30 Hz, such as the Paradigm Studio 40. However, to produce deep bass at high levels takes big drivers and hence big speakers. Some monitor speakers can produce bass down below 40 hz, including my own PSB Stratus Minis and the Paradigm Studio 20

    Floorstanders can do just as well in the midrange and highs as smaller speakers can. Floor standers have a bigger box, of course, and so can often reproduce bass lower and louder than smaller speakers. Deep bass in a speaker generally costs money.

    On the other hand, for really deep bass, I think a subwoofer is best and more cost efficient. I personally have not found it particularly difficult to integrate a subwoofer with the main speakers. One wonders if those who find it so hard to do have ever tried to get an even deep bass response from main speakers: that can really be a task. A subwoofer makes things so much easier as one can place the main speakers where the stereo image is best and put the subwoofer where the bass response is best. These are seldom in the same place..

    Price has only a very rough relation to quality in speakers. A $3000 list price doesn't guarantee the speaker is better than one considerably less expensive. It may well cost less to get a good small speaker and a subwoofer than to get a large speaker of comparable quality.
  • 02-10-2005, 11:26 PM
    RGA
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by andy13
    I have heard people say that bookshelf speakers soung better than floorstanders. I always thought that bookshelf couldn't reproduce the deep bass floorstanders can. Would a 3,000 bookshelf sound that much better than a 3,000 floorstander? I was looking at the Sonus faber Cremona Monitor. Any suggestions?

    You can't generalize but yes I would find the Studio 20 completely 100% unnacceptable for bass heavey content even pop and rock music much of which doesn't have much true bass content - I'm not wholly convinced by their ability in the midrange either. On the flip side you could spend double what paradigm is charging and still not get a helluva lot better(indeed worse very possibly) the B&W 705 is much more expensive than the Studio40V2 and I'd take the latter.

    It's not always just about the bass number - The bass frequency is one thing but how does it load the room - Plenty of speakers claim 40hz - My Wharfedale floorstanders are 40hz and they will eat most all standmounts claiming 40hz for lunch spit them out and you will laugh riotously at which one will generate room shaking bass - 40hz SHOULD room shake(ie wall shake glass shake) and you SHOULD feel it hit you in the chest. I don;t mind giving some of that up if the price is right - The Audio Note AX two for $550.00US I can accept a bit of lesser bass especially since it'sso nice to listen to - at $3k it better do sub 30hz and it better do it well --- floorstander or standmount is irrelevant --- whichever does the best job... Indeed I'd rather have a floorstander because then I don't have to buy stands. In my case it simply worked out that the Standmounts had the bass had the dynamics had the ability to do it all at acceptable levels and I couldn't find floorstanders that did it as well for the same money and also manage that and be highly efficient - something most designers claim is impossible.

    It took me a long time to buy new speakers and rather than sell my Wharfedale Vanguards I decided to keep them in the second room because after hearing most $2k-3k alternatives they generally leave me unimpressed. The Wharfedales are more designed for rock but sound plausible with everything which is more than I can say for most speakers that don't have the bass not even close - don't have the dynamics. If you want loud and you want bass and you want that big presentation as opposed to the thin presentation you are nto going to like most standmounts. There are few I like. Sure they have less colouration(that only applies until the start being pushed because then they get into serious trouble and compress

    The reason I bought my standmounts is that they integrated the BIG sound of bass filled floorstanders with the cohesion and quickness of electrostats and good standmounts while also providing horn-like dynamics and an overall sense of openess and ease. $3500.00US. Standmounts versus floorstanders is a non-issue - because few speakers could do even what my Wharfedales can do --- and I felt if I was going to upgrade to a new speaker the new spekaer should at least do pretty close to the best things my Wharfedales could do and do everything else better.

    For $3k I'd look at my speakers on the Standmount front and possibly the Reference 3a MM De Capo and AN/K.

    If these don't do it look to BIG floorstanders. Don't pay attention to what some people say - listen and decide - you can hear and it's your money --- don't let someone buy your speakers for you.
  • 02-11-2005, 05:03 AM
    theaudiohobby
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by andy13
    I have heard people say that bookshelf speakers soung better than floorstanders. I always thought that bookshelf couldn't reproduce the deep bass floorstanders can. Would a 3,000 bookshelf sound that much better than a 3,000 floorstander? I was looking at the Sonus faber Cremona Monitor. Any suggestions?

    I agree with Pat D earlier post that "a nice flat midrange and a smooth upper midrange, treble and highs are much more important." and smaller bookshelves tend to those things better as there is less cabinet to deal with, whilst larger floorstander can do deep bass, inadequate bracing of many cheaper floorstanders works against them causing some loss of transparency and speed in the midrange, on the flipside, many smaller speakers cannot reproduce deep bass at all, many start to roll-off from the ~60Hz -80Hz and by 40Hz are already couple of dB down, some even struggle with lower midbass, to compensate for this limitation, some settle for a midbass hump (which many mistake for deep bass) after which they roll-off fairly rapidly. For example, listen to the Cremona Auditor against the Concerto Home, The Concerto Home sounds fuller because of the midbass bump, even though the Auditor is far better quality speaker.

    A good subwoofer is a cheaper way of getting good quality deep bass, speaking for myself ,it was relatively straightforward to integrate a subwoofer with my bookshelf, though I did not have similar success with a true full-range floorstander. Also as Pat D has mentioned earlier, it is easier to position a bookshelf/subwoofer optimally, since the bookshelf can be positioned in a different location from the subwoofer.

    An important point to note is that filling in the lower octaves actually improves the intelligibility of the midrange, so given drivers of equivalent quality, a driver that rolls off after 40Hz will generally sound more transparent than a driver that rolls off before, I suppose the former driver is simply letting more information through.
  • 02-11-2005, 06:22 AM
    newbsterv2
    I'll have to agree with RGA here. B&W's 700 series is, in my opinion, junk. They sure look nice but they have a funky tonal balance as in they push the sound too forward in the midrange. Now the 800 series is a totally different ballgame. They used to call the series Nautilus 800 but now the speakers have been slightly tweaked and they are just the 800 series. I would recommend you go listen to those speakers. I'm going to either end up getting the 805S which is the best bookshelf I've ever heard for $2,250 or the 803S which is a floorstander for ~$3,200. Theaudiohobby I would definetely listen to those speakers to see if you like them. They have beautiful cabinetry, that cool ass nautilus tube tweeter, and are just smooth as silk. Detail with no etch or sizzle..



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    You can't generalize but yes I would find the Studio 20 completely 100% unnacceptable for bass heavey content even pop and rock music much of which doesn't have much true bass content - I'm not wholly convinced by their ability in the midrange either. On the flip side you could spend double what paradigm is charging and still not get a helluva lot better(indeed worse very possibly) the B&W 705 is much more expensive than the Studio40V2 and I'd take the latter.

    It's not always just about the bass number - The bass frequency is one thing but how does it load the room - Plenty of speakers claim 40hz - My Wharfedale floorstanders are 40hz and they will eat most all standmounts claiming 40hz for lunch spit them out and you will laugh riotously at which one will generate room shaking bass - 40hz SHOULD room shake(ie wall shake glass shake) and you SHOULD feel it hit you in the chest. I don;t mind giving some of that up if the price is right - The Audio Note AX two for $550.00US I can accept a bit of lesser bass especially since it'sso nice to listen to - at $3k it better do sub 30hz and it better do it well --- floorstander or standmount is irrelevant --- whichever does the best job... Indeed I'd rather have a floorstander because then I don't have to buy stands. In my case it simply worked out that the Standmounts had the bass had the dynamics had the ability to do it all at acceptable levels and I couldn't find floorstanders that did it as well for the same money and also manage that and be highly efficient - something most designers claim is impossible.

    It took me a long time to buy new speakers and rather than sell my Wharfedale Vanguards I decided to keep them in the second room because after hearing most $2k-3k alternatives they generally leave me unimpressed. The Wharfedales are more designed for rock but sound plausible with everything which is more than I can say for most speakers that don't have the bass not even close - don't have the dynamics. If you want loud and you want bass and you want that big presentation as opposed to the thin presentation you are nto going to like most standmounts. There are few I like. Sure they have less colouration(that only applies until the start being pushed because then they get into serious trouble and compress

    The reason I bought my standmounts is that they integrated the BIG sound of bass filled floorstanders with the cohesion and quickness of electrostats and good standmounts while also providing horn-like dynamics and an overall sense of openess and ease. $3500.00US. Standmounts versus floorstanders is a non-issue - because few speakers could do even what my Wharfedales can do --- and I felt if I was going to upgrade to a new speaker the new spekaer should at least do pretty close to the best things my Wharfedales could do and do everything else better.

    For $3k I'd look at my speakers on the Standmount front and possibly the Reference 3a MM De Capo and AN/K.

    If these don't do it look to BIG floorstanders. Don't pay attention to what some people say - listen and decide - you can hear and it's your money --- don't let someone buy your speakers for you.

  • 02-11-2005, 06:00 PM
    RGA
    Newbster where are you located? Audio Note dealers will ship you the AN J - run em against the B&W's. If you can stomach their appearance I suspect you'll like em.
  • 02-13-2005, 03:07 PM
    Woochifer
    As with everything when it comes to speakers, you're assessing tradeoffs when looking at bookshelf speakers versus floorstanders. Bookshelf speaekers generally cannot go as deep into the lower bass range as floorstanders, while floorstanders generally have compromised imaging compared to equivalent bookshelf models, and can be very susceptible to box resonance if they're not designed or built right. Basically, there are more things that can go wrong with a floorstanding speaker.

    The Sonus Faber Cremoras are very sweet sounding bookshelf models, with very even well balanced sound all around. No idea how they would compare with other speakers given that I only listened to them because I was testing a DVD-A/SACD player using those speakers. They have reasonably good bass extension, but you do miss the lower octave. (And that can be remedied by adding a subwoofer and letting it pick up where the bookshelf speakers leave off)

    Bookshelf speakers do not reproduce the lower bass because they are not designed to, nor are they asked to do so. You generally go with a bookshelf speaker if you're willing to trade off the lower bass extension for more coherent imaging, and better balance in the highs and midrange.

    The Studio 20 v.3 is an excellent bookshelf speaker in its price range, and one that you should definitely give a listen precisely because it illustrates the benefits of a well designed bookshelf speaker. When positioned correctly, it has impeccable imaging that creates a very convincing front soundfield. The overall tonal balance is excellent with no discernable peaks or emphases from top to bottom. Compared to the larger Studio 40 v.3, the 20 sacrifices some of the deep bass extension, but it has that edge in the imaging that is reminiscent of what great bookshelf speakers in higher price classes can deliver.

    I don't know where RGA gets this idea that it's "100%" unacceptable for bass heavy pop music, because I've heard them with both trip-hop and heavy metal, and it's has a very tight yet appropriately aggressive and punchy sound. (I don't even know if he's actually heard the Studio 20 v.3 with those types of sources, or if he's even heard them at all; his comments on the Paradigm Studio v.3 series have always been attacks on the Studio 100 v.3) There are other floorstanding speakers I've heard that play those same tracks back with deeper bass, but they make tradeoffs in other areas. A floorstanding speaker will deliver deeper bass because of the larger cabinet, but that does not guarantee that the bass will be of decent quality.

    Keep in mind that below 200 Hz or so, the bass is increasingly influenced by your room acoustics and the speaker placement. Depending on the type of room that you have, a floorstanding speaker can be overkill because in small to medium sized rooms, you have a cabin gain effect that props up the lower bass. The smaller the room, the more pronounced that this effect becomes and the earlier it starts. Corner placement maximizes the bass reinforcement (this is the recommended placement for the ANs that RGA mentions), but the effect also differs significantly from room to room, and if the distance between corners is overly wide relative to the seating position, then it will also have detrimental consequences on the imaging.
  • 02-13-2005, 03:46 PM
    RGA
    I have heard the following studio series loudspeakers:

    Studio 100V1,100V2, 100V3, 80V2, 60V2, 40V2, 20V2 and original 20. The bass is less on the 100v3 compared to the 100v2 the 100v3 is a bit light in the loafers as it is and unless you're saying the 20V3 has the same bass as the 100v3 then I'm making an assumption it doesn't have enough bass.

    And discussing what you think the AN's will sound like is irrelavant --- I have heard the AN's in rooms 40 feet wide with 20 foot or so ceilings in corners not in corners in rooms ~9 feet wide with 20 foot ceilings and about 25 feet long)speakers on the 9 foot wall. In normal listening environments with 8 foot ceilings ~14X16(W/L) In room's about 13 feet wide and 20 feet long in nearfield, farfield, and 90 degrees off axis -- have you?

    To the original poster -- I would not put your eggs all on soundstage and imaging --- listening to the trees for the forest is a bad idea --- speakers that advertise this and proponants of speakers who talk endlessly about are likely going to proposition you into a speaker that sounds like a speaker. I respect the fact that people are looking for this in a speaker to a degree (I do) but it's hardly the only thing ---- and it's not hardly the most important thing. Here's a take on soundstage which I agree with --- you may not which is totally fine as well --- it's an opinion after all... http://dagogo.com/Borden02044.html

    By all means audition the other suggested speakers ---- in fact I WANT you to if you can directly against some of the ones I suggest. You don't need to corner load the AN speakers --- They have so much bass that sacrificing some of it by positioning them as a free-standing speaker will still be more impressiv than most. Hi-fi Choice got 20hz-3db with the AN J in their room (which has no corners) and that is a better result than Audio Note claims (25hz-6db in a corner). You want significant bass --- I recommend you ignore the specs anyway -- like I say plenty of speakers like burger houses claim lots of bass and meat ---- where's the Bass where's the beef is usually what happens.
  • 02-14-2005, 05:26 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    I have heard the following studio series loudspeakers:

    Studio 100V1,100V2, 100V3, 80V2, 60V2, 40V2, 20V2 and original 20. The bass is less on the 100v3 compared to the 100v2 the 100v3 is a bit light in the loafers as it is and unless you're saying the 20V3 has the same bass as the 100v3 then I'm making an assumption it doesn't have enough bass.

    In other words, you have not heard the Studio 20 v.3 that you claimed was "100%" "wholly unacceptable".

    A negative recommendation based on an assumption, that's a new one. Then you might as well say that EVERY bookshelf speaker on the market is "100%" unacceptable. How would you be so "wholly unconvinced by their ability in the midrange" given that you haven't even heard them in the first place?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    And discussing what you think the AN's will sound like is irrelavant --- I have heard the AN's in rooms 40 feet wide with 20 foot or so ceilings in corners not in corners in rooms ~9 feet wide with 20 foot ceilings and about 25 feet long)speakers on the 9 foot wall. In normal listening environments with 8 foot ceilings ~14X16(W/L) In room's about 13 feet wide and 20 feet long in nearfield, farfield, and 90 degrees off axis -- have you?

    I'm simply noting that the recommended placement for the ANs is in the corner where the bass reinforcement is maximized. That's simple physics and room acoustics 101. You can brag about the AN's bass all you want, but if someone else cannot place those speakers in the corner, or if they prefer the high and midrange characteristics from a midwall placement, then obviously they'll hear something different.

    In my room, the speakers would be 18' apart from corner to corner with the listening position less than 7' from the frontwall. Are you telling me that spacing those speakers, or any other speaker for that matter, that wide apart in relation to the seating position would not have a detrimental effect on the imaging and soundstage, compared to midwall placement?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    To the original poster -- I would not put your eggs all on soundstage and imaging --- listening to the trees for the forest is a bad idea --- speakers that advertise this and proponants of speakers who talk endlessly about are likely going to proposition you into a speaker that sounds like a speaker. I respect the fact that people are looking for this in a speaker to a degree (I do) but it's hardly the only thing ---- and it's not hardly the most important thing.

    Oh brother. You're really losing it now. So, now people who discuss soundstage and imaging are "propositioning" people into "a speaker that sounds like a speaker." Last time I checked, I was playing music and movie soundtracks through my speakers. No sounds that I can recall sound like speakers (which are pretty quiet when they're just sitting there).

    The soundstage and the imaging are about creating the sonic illusion that allows the speakers to seem more like they disappear. That's how I define imaging, and the reason why I regard it as an important factor, alongside the tonal balance and bass extension. That's a balanced view, hardly putting all your rhetorical eggs into one basket.

    I mean, when you discuss how your "40 Hz" floorstanding speakers will "spit out" or "laugh riotously" at bookshelf speakers because they can make the room shake, I'm guessing that you regard that as the picture of a well balanced all around speaker? Pretty funny. And at the same time, how would you even know that the bass on a particular source extends down to 40 Hz, or doesn't have huge peaks elsewhere in the bass range, in these listenings that you're talking about? I mean, boomy bass makes the room shake, but that doesn't mean that it sounds good or anywhere close to real.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    By all means audition the other suggested speakers ---- in fact I WANT you to if you can directly against some of the ones I suggest. You don't need to corner load the AN speakers --- They have so much bass that sacrificing some of it by positioning them as a free-standing speaker will still be more impressiv than most. Hi-fi Choice got 20hz-3db with the AN J in their room (which has no corners) and that is a better result than Audio Note claims (25hz-6db in a corner). You want significant bass --- I recommend you ignore the specs anyway -- like I say plenty of speakers like burger houses claim lots of bass and meat ---- where's the Bass where's the beef is usually what happens.

    Yah yah, I know, the Audio Notes are the magic bullet speakers that can't do anything wrong because they're your favorites and you own them. They are immune to the laws of physics, so they destroy every other design on the market. And Hi-Fi Choice uses a cornerless room? Unless they're measuring the thing outdoors or inside of a tilt up shed, that would be quite a feat. No matter the shape, you still get a significant cabin gain when the speaker's indoors if it's smaller than about 400 square feet.

    You want bass? Ignore the specs! Oh yeah, and room effects are a copout too! LOL
  • 02-15-2005, 07:36 AM
    Pat D
    Better read that review of the AN-J again, RGA.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    I have heard the following studio series loudspeakers:

    Studio 100V1,100V2, 100V3, 80V2, 60V2, 40V2, 20V2 and original 20. The bass is less on the 100v3 compared to the 100v2 the 100v3 is a bit light in the loafers as it is and unless you're saying the 20V3 has the same bass as the 100v3 then I'm making an assumption it doesn't have enough bass.

    And discussing what you think the AN's will sound like is irrelavant --- I have heard the AN's in rooms 40 feet wide with 20 foot or so ceilings in corners not in corners in rooms ~9 feet wide with 20 foot ceilings and about 25 feet long)speakers on the 9 foot wall. In normal listening environments with 8 foot ceilings ~14X16(W/L) In room's about 13 feet wide and 20 feet long in nearfield, farfield, and 90 degrees off axis -- have you?

    To the original poster -- I would not put your eggs all on soundstage and imaging --- listening to the trees for the forest is a bad idea --- speakers that advertise this and proponants of speakers who talk endlessly about are likely going to proposition you into a speaker that sounds like a speaker. I respect the fact that people are looking for this in a speaker to a degree (I do) but it's hardly the only thing ---- and it's not hardly the most important thing. Here's a take on soundstage which I agree with --- you may not which is totally fine as well --- it's an opinion after all... http://dagogo.com/Borden02044.html

    By all means audition the other suggested speakers ---- in fact I WANT you to if you can directly against some of the ones I suggest. You don't need to corner load the AN speakers --- They have so much bass that sacrificing some of it by positioning them as a free-standing speaker will still be more impressiv than most. Hi-fi Choice got 20hz-3db with the AN J in their room (which has no corners) and that is a better result than Audio Note claims (25hz-6db in a corner). You want significant bass --- I recommend you ignore the specs anyway -- like I say plenty of speakers like burger houses claim lots of bass and meat ---- where's the Bass where's the beef is usually what happens.

    You misunderstand waht the Hi-Fi Choice review says, I'm afraid. Their review af the AN-J does not give a low frequency extension for the speaker. It notes that the response from bass driver rolls off below 60 hz and that the port reinforces the deep bass from 20-90 hz, but does not say what level the port produces relative to the response of the speaker (which is best shown in a graph, anyway)..

    "The port resonance looks very broad indeed, providing a deal of reinforcement from 20Hz-90Hz (-3dB points) while the driver itself rolls off to 60Hz (-6dB)."

    http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=1577

    Stereophile provides graphs of the responses of the various drivers in a speaker and the contribution of the port is often well down from that of the drivers. I point this out to illustrate that there is a distinction between the overall response of the speaker and the response of the port. So, you are reading more into the review than is there. Check on Figure 2 in a review of a speaker you have approved of:

    http://www.stereophile.com//loudspea...30/index4.html

    Hi-Fi choice also measured the sensitivity of the AN-J as 89.5 dB. The higher 93.5 dB given by Audio Note is probably a reverberant field measurement, so it cannot be directly compared to the usual anechoic measurements.
  • 02-15-2005, 11:53 AM
    RGA
    PATD - Yes you are correct -- in room in a corner the Audio Note number is the correct one 25hz -6db. Martin Colloms tested the E in the same manner noting the port at 29hz and in corner response of 17hz -6db (at good drive levels). The J and E are similarly sounding loudspeakers until you get into something like the Saint-Saens and while I don't care for the piece musically if one loves it they would be behooved to go for the E(hearing the piece on a professionally set up quad panel and Rel Sub was a dissapointment because the bass sounded too one note though it did have the visceral feeling - I'd take good bass over more one note bass but hey whatever).

    The in room response though of the J is under 30hz at signifcantly loud levels -- this one can determine with a frequency test disc --- if the disc like mine will run you a steady state frequency starting at 4hz to 20khz( I can only hear to 16khz so beyond that makes little difference for me anyway) and run for 30 seconds. Mine for example will run a steady state frequency at 16hz 20hz 24hz 28hz 32hz 40hz 50hzetc - then use an SPL meter versus the 1khz setting say 90db(which is plenty plenty loud). Problem there is the room boost but there is a compensation guide -- I no longer have my SPL meter though so what I can determine only is if the speaker is outputting sound at those frequencies and determine how loud it is going compared to the other frequencies -- but then that is a facotr of our hearing as well. There is an obvious slope here like the E and any speaker I've read at Soundstage where a speaker starts to rolloff. The E for instance was measured by Audiophile out of Germany at 87db 1khz and it's 87db at 30hz and it uses the same driver as the J so both woofers will exhibit the same rolloff where in the cabinet and port takes over.

    I can't for some reason post the E graph in here because it's on excel and when I cut an paste it to a new file it comes up as a scrap document. When I try and post it here it says it needs to be in JPEG format. Which is highly irritating. I could show you the graph which contains the 30degree off axis response as well but until I can figure out a way to get into a jpeg it's no help. The J graph should be pretty much identical except in the lower registers where bass of 8-10hz is lost. Ie the difference between the K and J is huge. The difference between J and E not as huge. Of course all one needs to do is really listen to the J directly against say the Studio 100V3 where the proof is in the pudding as it were.

    So if you can tell me how to post an excel graph in here I can post it.
  • 02-15-2005, 12:54 PM
    RGA
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    In other words, you have not heard the Studio 20 v.3 that you claimed was "100%" "wholly unacceptable".

    A negative recommendation based on an assumption, that's a new one. Then you might as well say that EVERY bookshelf speaker on the market is "100%" unacceptable. How would you be so "wholly unconvinced by their ability in the midrange" given that you haven't even heard them in the first place?

    I was talking about the BASS being unnaceptable -- and since even paradigm fans have said the new version has LESS bass then do I really need to hear it (I heard the Studio 20V2 which is not wholly different -- the 40V2 while good is gutless as well so unless you're saying the 20V3 has MORE bass and can have more bass at louder volume than the 40V2 then and only then would I need to take back my comment. It's called making an inference. The BASS of the 100V3 is boring and not particularly deep --- are you saying that the 20V3 has MORE bass than the 100V3...wow you should tell Paradigm of your discovery.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    I'm simply noting that the recommended placement for the ANs is in the corner where the bass reinforcement is maximized. That's simple physics and room acoustics 101. You can brag about the AN's bass all you want, but if someone else cannot place those speakers in the corner, or if they prefer the high and midrange characteristics from a midwall placement, then obviously they'll hear something different.

    Maybe I have not been clear or that i'm giving the impression that you can place AN speakers any old place and you'll get the exact same sound --- If that's the impression I apologise...heck even if you place the speaker in a corner -- he sound will be altered by the physical material of what the wall is made out of. I suppose I should be talking more to the tonal and dynamic structure of the reproduced content - obviously many elements will be changed with positioning such as most obviously the soundstage imaging and one has to account for that with positioning etc. AN has a viewpoint that I grant is different about the importance of the soundstage and the imaging -- their speakers do it well incidentally but they have a different view of it. it is really hard to describe something in words that needs to be heard -- give the right hemisphere a work out and listen to one sometime -- you're in California or San Fran no?-- there are five dealers around those parts.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    In my room, the speakers would be 18' apart from corner to corner with the listening position less than 7' from the frontwall. Are you telling me that spacing those speakers, or any other speaker for that matter, that wide apart in relation to the seating position would not have a detrimental effect on the imaging and soundstage, compared to midwall placement?

    Yes that is not a good room for AN speakers if you insist on placing them in a corner --- but like I said -- Hi-Fi choice got excellent results in their listening panels without a corner. My living room does not have any usuable corners either. I't an apartment of about 27 feet long and 14 or 15 feet wide. I had the speakers on the long wall not near any corners and sit about 10 feet back and still got excellent results -- maybe the term is room friendly. Indeed as you know I have horn speakers -- if someone walks by say the left one while I'm listening (and I mean they stand in front of the speaker about a foot away from the speaker -- the entire sound is gone and all you hear is the right speaker. At Soundhounds the other day I was listening with another fellow and a sales guy stood in front of the left speaker blocking the drivers completely from site and it didn;t seem to affect the sound much if any at all --- that is indeed interesting -- well maybe not because I've never tried it and perhaps it's very common with non horn speakers.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Oh brother. You're really losing it now. So, now people who discuss soundstage and imaging are "propositioning" people into "a speaker that sounds like a speaker." Last time I checked, I was playing music and movie soundtracks through my speakers. No sounds that I can recall sound like speakers (which are pretty quiet when they're just sitting there).

    The soundstage and the imaging are about creating the sonic illusion that allows the speakers to seem more like they disappear. That's how I define imaging, and the reason why I regard it as an important factor, alongside the tonal balance and bass extension. That's a balanced view, hardly putting all your rhetorical eggs into one basket.

    Again I apologise for the way that comes across --- I was not trying to say that soundstage was valueless --- indeed I would be attacking excellent speakers including Audio Note speakers if I said a speaker that soundstages well is crap. Sometimes I don;t complete the thoughts --- What I was attempting to say is that in itself soundstage and imaging are not the whole game in that if one gets this right but ignores many other important factors such as as you say tonal balance and bass extention treble believability and many other factors you will have a speaker that may do great soundstaging bit will sound like a speaker (ie not believable). It's an overall package.

    Another person on another forum once told me that he preferred a speaker that would be SOTA in one area even at the expense of several other things. So he would rather own a speaker that gets a 10 for imaging even if tonal balancs was a 3 and bass was a 3 etc. I said I would rather a speaker that gets 7s, 8s and 9s across the board than something that has big holes but does some things brilliantly well. So this was my eggs in one basket comment -- of course this means I'm not chucking out Soundstaging because if the speaker gets a 3 there then that is a big hole as well. What I'm seeing and the article I posted is saying is that it's being thrown around as the main key element to sound --- I believe otherwise --- I can't PROVE it and nor was I trying to --- it's that I have been hearing highly fatiguing speakers which don;t sound right at all to me that I can also say place instruments very well and for which I can sit well off axis and get pretty much the same sound -- so I can say great soundstage - great imaging --- but yucky sound when it comes to instruments and voice. Hope this clarifies.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    I mean, when you discuss how your "40 Hz" floorstanding speakers will "spit out" or "laugh riotously" at bookshelf speakers because they can make the room shake, I'm guessing that you regard that as the picture of a well balanced all around speaker? Pretty funny. And at the same time, how would you even know that the bass on a particular source extends down to 40 Hz, or doesn't have huge peaks elsewhere in the bass range, in these listenings that you're talking about? I mean, boomy bass makes the room shake, but that doesn't mean that it sounds good or anywhere close to real.

    Well I can't prove to you whether it sounds good or is boomy or not on an internet forum. One can listen to music at the volume one likes and compare them --- I like rock and trance at level --- some of this in fact has plenty of bass --- syntheziers are wonderful bass generators - when I want to crank some bass heavy dance trance music it has to sound GOOD when listening --- I'm uninterested in anything that does not sound good --- putting my B&W 302's on at loud levels and they compress sound thin and lack bass. I don;t mind that perfromance from a $300Cdn loudspeaker but why should one buy the Studio 20V2 at 3-4 times that and not get much better for this kind of content? And neither are particularly believable at jazz or classical to me -- to you it may be perfectly acceptable --- but it seems I'm not allowed an opinion on what I hear eh?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Yah yah, I know, the Audio Notes are the magic bullet speakers that can't do anything wrong because they're your favorites and you own them. They are immune to the laws of physics, so they destroy every other design on the market. And Hi-Fi Choice uses a cornerless room? Unless they're measuring the thing outdoors or inside of a tilt up shed, that would be quite a feat. No matter the shape, you still get a significant cabin gain when the speaker's indoors if it's smaller than about 400 square feet.

    No the speakers are not perfect - yes they are a favorite -- have you said thing one bad about a Paradigm speaker ever in your life? Oh they're perfect too right? I can simply say I've heard both brands --- to my ear it's not a matter of whether AN is better or not -- to me it's not even a horserace. You may feel very differently - and that's fine by me --- it's called an opinion. It's good I think that forums have differeing viewpoints and opinions on DBT's etc...I personally would not have imposed the DBT rules this forum has gone too even though I have problems with DBT's I respect the reason that people buy into it and new posters SHOULD be able to evaluate for themselves which side of the fence they're on.

    With subjective speaker choice I have an opinion just as I have an opinion why Lord of the Rings is a grossly overrated marginal simplistic themed trilogy that is weakly written. I'm not RIGHT in the eyes of the people who love the trilogy as the greatest films of all time to them -- Thanks but I would make a case for the original Star Wars trilogy(less RotJ). When I hear AN I perceive I'm hearing the real deal -- when i hear Paradigm I hear something lesser --- period -- the verbiage is a copy of ingrained stereo rags over the years. Like film reviews I believe my opinion is right and some will agree some won't -- betcha I'm in a big minority with LOTR (Though I would recommend them I don't think they're great works). I believe I try and stress that it's an opinion...If I write a comparison essay on two poems and I state that Poem A is superior and here is why it is superior -- it behooves the reader of my eassy to have read both poems to see whether or not the agree --- or at the very least see the argument as being valid.

    Speakers - if I compare the AX Two and the 705 it helps little to anyone who has not heard both in the same room with the same gear as I have heard... lots of people have followed my advice and gone to Soundhounds to determine for themselves if they're in agreement -- some will NOT agree with me and prefer the 705 --- that's fine by me -- I don't want ANYONE to ever buy anything off of what I say but if I hear something that impresses me I want to say hey check this one out -- in the AX Two case it really puts people in a no lose situation because if I'm right you get a better speaker for 1/3 the price and if I'm wrong no big deal because you're no worse off than before but you've crossed off a speaker. the fact that i like AN speakers over Paradigm well big deal -- AN is generally a lot more money and bloody well should be better...there are lots of speaker that are more money than Paradigm that I don't think justifies the price --- the CD 9NT doubled the 100V2...that left me questioning.
  • 02-15-2005, 12:54 PM
    RGA
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    In other words, you have not heard the Studio 20 v.3 that you claimed was "100%" "wholly unacceptable".

    A negative recommendation based on an assumption, that's a new one. Then you might as well say that EVERY bookshelf speaker on the market is "100%" unacceptable. How would you be so "wholly unconvinced by their ability in the midrange" given that you haven't even heard them in the first place?

    I was talking about the BASS being unnaceptable -- and since even paradigm fans have said the new version has LESS bass then do I really need to hear it (I heard the Studio 20V2 which is not wholly different -- the 40V2 while good is gutless as well so unless you're saying the 20V3 has MORE bass and can have more bass at louder volume than the 40V2 then and only then would I need to take back my comment. It's called making an inference. The BASS of the 100V3 is boring and not particularly deep --- are you saying that the 20V3 has MORE bass than the 100V3...wow you should tell Paradigm of your discovery.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    I'm simply noting that the recommended placement for the ANs is in the corner where the bass reinforcement is maximized. That's simple physics and room acoustics 101. You can brag about the AN's bass all you want, but if someone else cannot place those speakers in the corner, or if they prefer the high and midrange characteristics from a midwall placement, then obviously they'll hear something different.

    Maybe I have not been clear or that i'm giving the impression that you can place AN speakers any old place and you'll get the exact same sound --- If that's the impression I apologise...heck even if you place the speaker in a corner -- he sound will be altered by the physical material of what the wall is made out of. I suppose I should be talking more to the tonal and dynamic structure of the reproduced content - obviously many elements will be changed with positioning such as most obviously the soundstage imaging and one has to account for that with positioning etc. AN has a viewpoint that I grant is different about the importance of the soundstage and the imaging -- their speakers do it well incidentally but they have a different view of it. it is really hard to describe something in words that needs to be heard -- give the right hemisphere a work out and listen to one sometime -- you're in California or San Fran no?-- there are five dealers around those parts.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    In my room, the speakers would be 18' apart from corner to corner with the listening position less than 7' from the frontwall. Are you telling me that spacing those speakers, or any other speaker for that matter, that wide apart in relation to the seating position would not have a detrimental effect on the imaging and soundstage, compared to midwall placement?

    Yes that is not a good room for AN speakers if you insist on placing them in a corner --- but like I said -- Hi-Fi choice got excellent results in their listening panels without a corner. My living room does not have any usuable corners either. I't an apartment of about 27 feet long and 14 or 15 feet wide. I had the speakers on the long wall not near any corners and sit about 10 feet back and still got excellent results -- maybe the term is room friendly. Indeed as you know I have horn speakers -- if someone walks by say the left one while I'm listening (and I mean they stand in front of the speaker about a foot away from the speaker -- the entire sound is gone and all you hear is the right speaker. At Soundhounds the other day I was listening with another fellow and a sales guy stood in front of the left speaker blocking the drivers completely from site and it didn;t seem to affect the sound much if any at all --- that is indeed interesting -- well maybe not because I've never tried it and perhaps it's very common with non horn speakers.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Oh brother. You're really losing it now. So, now people who discuss soundstage and imaging are "propositioning" people into "a speaker that sounds like a speaker." Last time I checked, I was playing music and movie soundtracks through my speakers. No sounds that I can recall sound like speakers (which are pretty quiet when they're just sitting there).

    The soundstage and the imaging are about creating the sonic illusion that allows the speakers to seem more like they disappear. That's how I define imaging, and the reason why I regard it as an important factor, alongside the tonal balance and bass extension. That's a balanced view, hardly putting all your rhetorical eggs into one basket.

    Again I apologise for the way that comes across --- I was not trying to say that soundstage was valueless --- indeed I would be attacking excellent speakers including Audio Note speakers if I said a speaker that soundstages well is crap. Sometimes I don;t complete the thoughts --- What I was attempting to say is that in itself soundstage and imaging are not the whole game in that if one gets this right but ignores many other important factors such as as you say tonal balance and bass extention treble believability and many other factors you will have a speaker that may do great soundstaging bit will sound like a speaker (ie not believable). It's an overall package.

    Another person on another forum once told me that he preferred a speaker that would be SOTA in one area even at the expense of several other things. So he would rather own a speaker that gets a 10 for imaging even if tonal balancs was a 3 and bass was a 3 etc. I said I would rather a speaker that gets 7s, 8s and 9s across the board than something that has big holes but does some things brilliantly well. So this was my eggs in one basket comment -- of course this means I'm not chucking out Soundstaging because if the speaker gets a 3 there then that is a big hole as well. What I'm seeing and the article I posted is saying is that it's being thrown around as the main key element to sound --- I believe otherwise --- I can't PROVE it and nor was I trying to --- it's that I have been hearing highly fatiguing speakers which don;t sound right at all to me that I can also say place instruments very well and for which I can sit well off axis and get pretty much the same sound -- so I can say great soundstage - great imaging --- but yucky sound when it comes to instruments and voice. Hope this clarifies.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    I mean, when you discuss how your "40 Hz" floorstanding speakers will "spit out" or "laugh riotously" at bookshelf speakers because they can make the room shake, I'm guessing that you regard that as the picture of a well balanced all around speaker? Pretty funny. And at the same time, how would you even know that the bass on a particular source extends down to 40 Hz, or doesn't have huge peaks elsewhere in the bass range, in these listenings that you're talking about? I mean, boomy bass makes the room shake, but that doesn't mean that it sounds good or anywhere close to real.

    Well I can't prove to you whether it sounds good or is boomy or not on an internet forum. One can listen to music at the volume one likes and compare them --- I like rock and trance at level --- some of this in fact has plenty of bass --- syntheziers are wonderful bass generators - when I want to crank some bass heavy dance trance music it has to sound GOOD when listening --- I'm uninterested in anything that does not sound good --- putting my B&W 302's on at loud levels and they compress sound thin and lack bass. I don;t mind that perfromance from a $300Cdn loudspeaker but why should one buy the Studio 20V2 at 3-4 times that and not get much better for this kind of content? And neither are particularly believable at jazz or classical to me -- to you it may be perfectly acceptable --- but it seems I'm not allowed an opinion on what I hear eh?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Yah yah, I know, the Audio Notes are the magic bullet speakers that can't do anything wrong because they're your favorites and you own them. They are immune to the laws of physics, so they destroy every other design on the market. And Hi-Fi Choice uses a cornerless room? Unless they're measuring the thing outdoors or inside of a tilt up shed, that would be quite a feat. No matter the shape, you still get a significant cabin gain when the speaker's indoors if it's smaller than about 400 square feet.

    No the speakers are not perfect - yes they are a favorite -- have you said thing one bad about a Paradigm speaker ever in your life? Oh they're perfect too right? I can simply say I've heard both brands --- to my ear it's not a matter of whether AN is better or not -- to me it's not even a horserace. You may feel very differently - and that's fine by me --- it's called an opinion. It's good I think that forums have differeing viewpoints and opinions on DBT's etc...I personally would not have imposed the DBT rules this forum has gone too even though I have problems with DBT's I respect the reason that people buy into it and new posters SHOULD be able to evaluate for themselves which side of the fence they're on.

    With subjective speaker choice I have an opinion just as I have an opinion why Lord of the Rings is a grossly overrated marginal simplistic themed trilogy that is weakly written. I'm not RIGHT in the eyes of the people who love the trilogy as the greatest films of all time to them -- Thanks but I would make a case for the original Star Wars trilogy(less RotJ). When I hear AN I perceive I'm hearing the real deal -- when i hear Paradigm I hear something lesser --- period -- the verbiage is a copy of ingrained stereo rags over the years. Like film reviews I believe my opinion is right and some will agree some won't -- betcha I'm in a big minority with LOTR (Though I would recommend them I don't think they're great works). I believe I try and stress that it's an opinion...If I write a comparison essay on two poems and I state that Poem A is superior and here is why it is superior -- it behooves the reader of my eassy to have read both poems to see whether or not the agree --- or at the very least see the argument as being valid.

    Speakers - if I compare the AX Two and the 705 it helps little to anyone who has not heard both in the same room with the same gear as I have heard... lots of people have followed my advice and gone to Soundhounds to determine for themselves if they're in agreement -- some will NOT agree with me and prefer the 705 --- that's fine by me -- I don't want ANYONE to ever buy anything off of what I say but if I hear something that impresses me I want to say hey check this one out -- in the AX Two case it really puts people in a no lose situation because if I'm right you get a better speaker for 1/3 the price and if I'm wrong no big deal because you're no worse off than before but you've crossed off a speaker. the fact that i like AN speakers over Paradigm well big deal -- AN is generally a lot more money and bloody well should be better...there are lots of speaker that are more money than Paradigm that I don't think justifies the price --- the CDm 9NT doubled the 100V2...that left me questioning.
  • 02-15-2005, 06:01 PM
    Pat D
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    PATD - Yes you are correct -- in room in a corner the Audio Note number is the correct one 25hz -6db. Martin Colloms tested the E in the same manner noting the port at 29hz and in corner response of 17hz -6db (at good drive levels). The J and E are similarly sounding loudspeakers until you get into something like the Saint-Saens and while I don't care for the piece musically if one loves it they would be behooved to go for the E(hearing the piece on a professionally set up quad panel and Rel Sub was a dissapointment because the bass sounded too one note though it did have the visceral feeling - I'd take good bass over more one note bass but hey whatever).

    The in room response though of the J is under 30hz at signifcantly loud levels -- this one can determine with a frequency test disc --- if the disc like mine will run you a steady state frequency starting at 4hz to 20khz( I can only hear to 16khz so beyond that makes little difference for me anyway) and run for 30 seconds. Mine for example will run a steady state frequency at 16hz 20hz 24hz 28hz 32hz 40hz 50hzetc - then use an SPL meter versus the 1khz setting say 90db(which is plenty plenty loud). Problem there is the room boost but there is a compensation guide -- I no longer have my SPL meter though so what I can determine only is if the speaker is outputting sound at those frequencies and determine how loud it is going compared to the other frequencies -- but then that is a facotr of our hearing as well. There is an obvious slope here like the E and any speaker I've read at Soundstage where a speaker starts to rolloff. The E for instance was measured by Audiophile out of Germany at 87db 1khz and it's 87db at 30hz and it uses the same driver as the J so both woofers will exhibit the same rolloff where in the cabinet and port takes over.

    I can't for some reason post the E graph in here because it's on excel and when I cut an paste it to a new file it comes up as a scrap document. When I try and post it here it says it needs to be in JPEG format. Which is highly irritating. I could show you the graph which contains the 30degree off axis response as well but until I can figure out a way to get into a jpeg it's no help. The J graph should be pretty much identical except in the lower registers where bass of 8-10hz is lost. Ie the difference between the K and J is huge. The difference between J and E not as huge. Of course all one needs to do is really listen to the J directly against say the Studio 100V3 where the proof is in the pudding as it were.

    So if you can tell me how to post an excel graph in here I can post it.

    Do you have the URL for the German review?
  • 02-15-2005, 06:08 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    I was talking about the BASS being unnaceptable -- and since even paradigm fans have said the new version has LESS bass then do I really need to hear it (I heard the Studio 20V2 which is not wholly different -- the 40V2 while good is gutless as well so unless you're saying the 20V3 has MORE bass and can have more bass at louder volume than the 40V2 then and only then would I need to take back my comment. It's called making an inference. The BASS of the 100V3 is boring and not particularly deep --- are you saying that the 20V3 has MORE bass than the 100V3...wow you should tell Paradigm of your discovery.

    Well, if the Studio 20 v.3 is wholly unacceptable for bass, then you've pretty much written off the vast majority of bookshelf models as well. Then again, you don't really know until you actually listen to it.

    And of course, you also made presumptions about the midrange of the 20 v.3, again without having heard it first hand.

    Keep in mind that bass is not entirely about quantity, but about quality as well. With a bookshelf speaker, sure you can extend the bass down further by tweaking the port, but that also creates dips and peaks throughout throughout the bass range. Sure, it will go deep, but do you really want to listen to it?

    And in my listenings, what the v.3 models that I've heard deliver is quality bass that's very linear throughout the bass range. The v.2 series had deeper bass extension, but also allowed for a larger deviation in the 40-80 Hz range compared to the v.3. To my ears, the bass with the newer models is better articulated, more even, and tighter sounding. Coupled with the noticeable improvements in the midrange, highs, and imaging, I'd say that makes for a better overall speaker. For bass heavy pop music, just set the crossover frequency down to about 40 Hz and add a subwoofer.

    This whole machismo kick you're on with the bass and beef analogies is pretty funny actually.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Maybe I have not been clear or that i'm giving the impression that you can place AN speakers any old place and you'll get the exact same sound --- If that's the impression I apologise...heck even if you place the speaker in a corner -- he sound will be altered by the physical material of what the wall is made out of. I suppose I should be talking more to the tonal and dynamic structure of the reproduced content - obviously many elements will be changed with positioning such as most obviously the soundstage imaging and one has to account for that with positioning etc. AN has a viewpoint that I grant is different about the importance of the soundstage and the imaging -- their speakers do it well incidentally but they have a different view of it. it is really hard to describe something in words that needs to be heard -- give the right hemisphere a work out and listen to one sometime -- you're in California or San Fran no?-- there are five dealers around those parts.

    Thanx for clarifying. Much better idea of what you're getting at.

    Only one AN dealer that I'm aware of within reasonable driving distance, and they're available by appointment only.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    Well I can't prove to you whether it sounds good or is boomy or not on an internet forum. One can listen to music at the volume one likes and compare them --- I like rock and trance at level --- some of this in fact has plenty of bass --- syntheziers are wonderful bass generators - when I want to crank some bass heavy dance trance music it has to sound GOOD when listening --- I'm uninterested in anything that does not sound good --- putting my B&W 302's on at loud levels and they compress sound thin and lack bass. I don;t mind that perfromance from a $300Cdn loudspeaker but why should one buy the Studio 20V2 at 3-4 times that and not get much better for this kind of content? And neither are particularly believable at jazz or classical to me -- to you it may be perfectly acceptable --- but it seems I'm not allowed an opinion on what I hear eh?

    Of course you can't prove boominess or not, but then again those Wharfedales that you say extend down to 40 Hz is not really a benchmark for what actually occurs at that frequency. For all you know, those floorstanders might actually extend further down due to cabin gain effects. A standmount that claims 40 Hz might be able to extend that far, but depending on the port opening/cabinet volume relationship, that 40 Hz extension is just the extension. The frequencies leading down to 40 Hz might be very nonlinear -- a normal tradeoff that many speakers make to allow a smaller speaker to extend further down.

    When you talk about speakers that make the room shake, 40 Hz is reasonably deep, but it is not room shaking when it's linear with the rest of the bass range during normal listening. However, if a large 10 db+ room-induced peak occurs around that frequency, then it can create the illusion of more bass (well, because it IS MORE bass), but that won't be consistent with the rest of the bass range or necessarily sound too good either. It's more when you start venturing down below about 32 Hz that the real room shaking effect begins, even with a relatively flat bass response. And with a flat measured bass response, it's not about creating bass that hits you in the chest. Boomy bass will hit you in the chest, and give you a headache in the process. It's about bass that's full and even, and in proportion with the other sounds in the mix. If the sound is supposed to hit you in the chest, then it will.

    I have measured my Studio 40s down to 35 Hz in room, which is fine for most sources. The subwoofer extends that down to 25 Hz (22 Hz -3 db), and the placement and equalization that I use reduce the room effects and natural deviations that I had when using the 40s by themselves for the deep bass. Since I've had a chance to compare and assess the change to my system, I've concluded that it's the linearity in the bass range that I value more than the deeper extension. Yes, the deeper bass extension is a great asset and increasing in importance as more 5.1 soundtracks feed the deep sounds through the LFE channel, but getting rid of the room induced peaking and tightening down the overall low frequency response has helped with a lot more of my normal listening.
  • 02-15-2005, 07:15 PM
    RGA
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Pat D
    Do you have the URL for the German review?

    Not any longer. The only thing that seems to be around now is Martin Colloms measurements but they still didn't post a graph I don't get that Stereophile uses them to measure amplifiers but didn't post the speaker measurements on their archives...ditto for Hi-fi Choice.

    I should have saved the picture rather than copying down the frequncy and what db each was at. Someone will no doubt measure it sometime. I realize some peole won't trust what they hear.

    Woochifer

    I agree with you -- regarding bass -- when badly done wehn you put it up in volume it can completely smudge what it is your hearing such that the midrange is made difficult to hear --- I avoid the measurements not because I can;t or won;t do them but that they are obvious when one listens --- I can play the Wharfedales very loud and it is clear with tight deep bass response -- The idea in my view is to get the most pleasing "to the ear" sound --- and to do that all you need is your ears. Is there a frequency spike maybe --- but as kex offerred a while ago flat treble response can often sound bright -- UHF notes that a dip is often preferable --- I'm not living in a recording studio -- I want something all -day listenable...and there are many choices that can be made --- I gather you like the speakers you bought and if that is so --- don't bother booking the appointment!!! It is obvious that people value different things in the audio world --- one reason I tend to completely bypass the H/T forum and cable forum.

    I'm going to try and avoid comparing Audio Note to other stuff and speak to the product on its own merit (ie what it does in my auditions -- there really isn't any point to bring in other speakers except to say what I have heard or unless I'm asked for a comparison or an opinion because talking about the same points over and over is unhelpful and takes up bandwidth) Like I have tried to illustrate and perhaps badly -- people like yourself and PatD don't hear it the way I do and thus you need pay me zero heed. It's the people who here it like me that might like an alternative suggestion. And I am hopeful this will cause less animosity and bickering over minutia.