-
Speaker Characteristics and Why?
A couple questions I'm curious of ya'lls perspective on....
1) Soundstage - what exact technological qualities in a loudspeaker give a large, clear and defined soundstage? Assuming all other factors are equal..amp, source, room, etc.
2) Detail in the tweeter - is this as much a quality of the amplifier being able to actually amplify and keep clear and send those detailed signals as it is for the tweeter to produce them.
3) Silk tweeters vs. others, opinions?
4) Cabinet vs. woofer size - any opinions on what is more important - or is there some good ratio that manufacturers go off of as a general rule of thumb and then tweak? Anything else about this?
Go!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicAdam
A couple questions I'm curious of ya'lls perspective on....
1) Soundstage - what exact technological qualities in a loudspeaker give a large, clear and defined soundstage? Assuming all other factors are equal..amp, source, room, etc.
2) Detail in the tweeter - is this as much a quality of the amplifier being able to actually amplify and keep clear and send those detailed signals as it is for the tweeter to produce them.
I would make the case the most of this occurs in the recording and not the speakers or front end gear. IMO soundstage is quite good across most stereo systems if properly set-up and the recordings are up to the job. And the reason I say this is that I have read several reviews on the bigger brother of my speakers who have claimed opposite results and even within the same review - which indicates that it is the ability to resolve the recording. Speakers that have inherently wide or deep soundstages IMO are speakers that are concerning because certainly all recordings DO NOT have wide and deep stages. Bose 901's have massive stages but a 6 foot piano should not seem 40 feet wide so while it may be "impressive" it isn't accurate. This takes me back to this article http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin.../audiohell.htm
And the importance of staging to beging with as noted here by a fellow dagogo reviewer http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=398
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicAdam
3) Silk tweeters vs. others, opinions?
All drivers have certain pro's and cons and are chosen to get a desired result. Lynn Olsen wrote an article on which drivers he liked best and why he didn't like others. I think over the years I have come to some correlational preferences but for me the main issue with speakers that use unlike drivers is that they tend not to sound cohesive. But it really depends somehwat on the ability to detect it or place emphasis on it. It's not that a Silk dome is inherently better than a metal dome or that paper is better than Kevlar it has to do with implementation I suspect and also that some makers are very concerned with image and marketing. Sometimes you need exotic materials to advertise. I watched one car advert that went on at length about the stereo, blutooth and other features - didn't mention any driving related subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicAdam
4) Cabinet vs. woofer size - any opinions on what is more important - or is there some good ratio that manufacturers go off of as a general rule of thumb and then tweak? Anything else about this?
Go!
There are some who have strong feelings about single drivers, two ways, three ways and the driver size differentials. For example that a 6 inch woofer is better suited to a 1 inch tweeter than an 8 inch or 10 inch woofer with the reasoning that a 6 inch woofer can better navigate midrange frequencies better than an 8 or 10 - obviously I am in disagreement with that since I have heard no better two way than those using 8 inch and 1 inch - and frankly I haven't heard any that are even remotely close in the midrange - and you also give up a sizable amount of bass. Measurements versus comparison to live instruments and at the seated position are not the same.
As for cabinets manufacturers treat them differently. Harbeth and Audio Note use the Cabinet to reinforce and control frequencies - they use the cabinet in the overall sound of the speakers. Most makers do not - they treat the speaker cabinet as a necessary evil and try and get rid of the cabinet with heavy damping materials so that you can't hear the cabinet. This actually works to certain degrees from a measurements standpoint but IMO they also tend to sound boxy and dead sounding. Which is why so many panel fans rail against boxed loudspeakers. These boxes lack an openness, speed (Transients) and sound like drivers in a box. Panels have no such pitfalls. High sensitive boxed speakers almost always sound fast and dynamic, fast and open, and they cost a lot more to do well but really there is not much substitute if you have the coin IMO. High efficiency tends to overcome some of what panel guys complain about. And of course they have far more bass and scale and take up less room.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicAdam
A couple questions I'm curious of ya'lls perspective on....
1) Soundstage - what exact technological qualities in a loudspeaker give a large, clear and defined soundstage? Assuming all other factors are equal..amp, source, room, etc.
2) Detail in the tweeter - is this as much a quality of the amplifier being able to actually amplify and keep clear and send those detailed signals as it is for the tweeter to produce them.
3) Silk tweeters vs. others, opinions?
4) Cabinet vs. woofer size - any opinions on what is more important - or is there some good ratio that manufacturers go off of as a general rule of thumb and then tweak? Anything else about this?
Go!
1. I have always thought from my listening experience that a pinpoint raiating speaker gives the best combination of soundstaging, imaging and depth. That is why I am more of a stand mount two way kind of guy. I do have to admit the extra bass with the RS6's is worth a little less in the imaging department.
2. I am not always sure what people mean by detail in the tweeter. Since we both have the RS6's I will refer to them once again. I find the tweeters detailed but not overly extended or airy. String tones are very nice along with cymbals. If the speakers are not toed in for a good balance they can be bright.
3. My OML 1's are silk and the RS6's are metal. Years ago when I had some Celestion speakers with titanium tweeters. I decided never to buy speakers with metal domes again. I think tweeters have improved much and there are good examples of all. I am excited about hearing some of the new speakers using the Heil Air Motion Transfer drivers. I used to think ribbon tweeters had such a different character from the woofers they were paired with that I need to give them a listen again.
4. Again back to my love of stand mount speakers. The smaller the cabinet the more rigid it can be made with less expense. Of course there is more to it than rigidity. I remember the early Boston Acoustics speakers such as the A200 where the front baffle was wide which if I remember was to act like an infinite baffle. There was quite a distance from the tweeter to any edge so diffraction was unlikely and all the surface area minimized bass cancellation. The proximity of the woofer to the floor also helped with the bass.
Here is an interesting speaker that was designed to give the drivers optimum mounting areas. We tend to like our speakers to be attractive which may not be the best way to support the drivers.
-
various driver designs do quite well.
dynamic designs with cones and domes can be excellent for example the rogers (et al) LS3/5As of yore. i had them (and now i have spendor s3/5s) every recording and sometimes on the same record (likely recorded in different rooms).
planars such as maggies (i have MMGs) do a nice job as well with staging. i have also spent much time listening to martin logan reQuests. they all are a bit different but valid.
pinpoint imaging has been criticized as non existent in actuality but i am not so sure that is true. with classical music, the mics are many times placed above the conductors head and hears pretty much what he hears. what better listening position can there be? the conductor certainly must get that kind of soundstaging and needs it to control the sound of the orchestra.
failed designs like the bose 901 can never reproduce the image of an orchestra, only a pseudo floating image that can be detached from the speaker itself but never accurate.
if you want to make the best image in your room (provided you are willing to work at placement of the speakers), get a pair of LS3/5As (there is a pair of them on audiogon right now for about $850) or some dahlquist dq10s to name just two exemplary examples. the LS3/5As are difficult to mate to a sub (which is why i have s3/5s instead) but are uncanny on voice and soundstaging.
dq10s are much easier to add a sub to and shouldnt cost more than $500 or less used. of course, there are many others that image well so youre not really that limited.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicAdam
A couple questions I'm curious of ya'lls perspective on....
1) Soundstage - what exact technological qualities in a loudspeaker give a large, clear and defined soundstage? Assuming all other factors are equal..amp, source, room, etc.
2) Detail in the tweeter - is this as much a quality of the amplifier being able to actually amplify and keep clear and send those detailed signals as it is for the tweeter to produce them.
3) Silk tweeters vs. others, opinions?
4) Cabinet vs. woofer size - any opinions on what is more important - or is there some good ratio that manufacturers go off of as a general rule of thumb and then tweak? Anything else about this?
Go!
1) The simple answer for what performance characteristics a good speaker should have are:
1. Flat frequency response
2. Wide and even off-axis dispersion
3. Low distortion
Dr. Floyd Toole worked for decades testing speakers and listener preferences at the National Research Council in Ottawa and after retiring there continued his work with Harman International. Here is a link to an excellent white paper on speakers:
http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompa...ndRoomsPt2.pdf
If you think this might be biased, they list a number of scientific publications which may be downloaded, including some by Dr. Toole, though this may be more than you want to know!
http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompa...20Publications
2) Any decent amplifier will have no difficulty amplifying signals in the audible range and well above unless it is driven outside its design limits. The sounds you hear are mostly the result of the program material, the speakers, and the room acoustics and speaker placement.
3) The performance of the tweeter is what is most important. As a consumer, I am not terribly interested in what materials the speakers are made of but how they perform. There are good tweeters with hard domes, soft domes of various materials, and some are not domes but ribbons or other configurations.
4) It is important to cross over the tweeter to the woofer (in a two system) low enough so that the woofer still has a wide radiation up to an beyond the crossover point. The rule of thumb is that a driver maintains a wide dispersion until the wave lengths of the sound become shorter than the diameter of the driver. Unfortunately, a small tweeter driver generally cannot handle too much power or too much excursion, so one does not want to put the crossover too low.
A large woofer will start to beam well before most tweeters kick in. An 11 inch woofer would have reasonable dispersion up to 1000 Hz, which is way too low a crossover point for most small tweeters. In a two way system, the tweeter generally crosses over around 2000 Hz give or take, where there is less musical energy, in a two way system. So, most two way systems have smallish woofer-midrange of about 6-7 inches, so that there can be a smooth crossover between the woofer and tweeter, and the speaker can maintain a wide and even dispersion up until quite high, for even a 1 inch dome tweeter will become progressively more directional in the extreme highs above 12000 Hz.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifitommy
...
pinpoint imaging has been criticized as non existent in actuality but i am not so sure that is true. with classical music, the mics are many times placed above the conductors head and hears pretty much what he hears. what better listening position can there be? the conductor certainly must get that kind of soundstaging and needs it to control the sound of the orchestra.
....
I certainly agree with HFT on this point: whether you get imaging at a live (acoustic) performance depends on the house and your seat in it.
Furthermore even if you rarely heard "pinpoint imaging" in a live concert, this shouldn't condemn speakers that can deliver it since it clearly indicates that they have superior resolution.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat D
...
A large woofer will start to beam well before most tweeters kick in. An 11 inch woofer would have reasonable dispersion up to 1000 Hz, which is way too low a crossover point for most small tweeters. In a two way system, the tweeter generally crosses over around 2000 Hz give or take, where there is less musical energy, in a two way system. So, most two way systems have smallish woofer-midrange of about 6-7 inches, so that there can be a smooth crossover between the woofer and tweeter, and the speaker can maintain a wide and even dispersion up until quite high, for even a 1 inch dome tweeter will become progressively more directional in the extreme highs above 12000 Hz.
Totally true. The basic consideration is that driver starts to beam when the effective diameter of its radiation surface is greater than 1/2 the wavelength being reproduced.
Thus a typical, nominally 6.5" woofer, (actually the frame diameter), might have a radiating diameter of as much as 5". Given a typical sound velocity of 1130 feet/second, you can calculate that that speaker will start to beam above about 1350 Hz. What isn't impressive is that such speakers are often combined with tweeters crossed over at 2500 Hz.
Parenthetically, our good buddy RGA has commented for years about "suck out" with B&W models that have high crossover points (like 3500 Hz) from 7" mid/bass drivers, but finds no problem with Audio Note speakers with 8" drivers. Maybe he will enlighten us about this phenomenon.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicAdam
A couple questions I'm curious of ya'lls perspective on....
1) Soundstage - what exact technological qualities in a loudspeaker give a large, clear and defined soundstage? Assuming all other factors are equal..amp, source, room, etc.
> Good question and I can't speculate. I suspect it has much to do with the dispersion capabilities of the mid and tweeter.
2) Detail in the tweeter - is this as much a quality of the amplifier being able to actually amplify and keep clear and send those detailed signals as it is for the tweeter to produce them.
> Both, you need an amp with low distortion, high frequency extension, and a tweeter capable of handling the job of reproducing fine detail. I do NOT submit to all amps sound the same or any amp will do the job, simply not true. And, the source material has to have what you are listening for, as well a source unit capable of retrieving it.
3) Silk tweeters vs. others, opinions?
> I personally am not loyal or against any particular tweeter material. I've heard good and bad. For instance, there are titanium haters but I love a good titanium tweeter, probably some of the best cymbal and brass reproduction I've heard. Some people like ribbons, not my favorite. Sometimes it's more what is done with the material opposed to the material character itself. A lot of it is just personal preference. A certain material is no guarantee of anything.
4) Cabinet vs. woofer size - any opinions on what is more important - or is there some good ratio that manufacturers go off of as a general rule of thumb and then tweak? Anything else about this?
> A lot of the cabinet size depends on ported vs sealed, what port or bass reflex design and what the driver was designed to do. A driver optimized for a sealed enclosure will not usually perform well if stuck in a ported box and vice versa. Back in the day it was large woofers and large cabinets. Now, it's tall slendor boxes with 6" drivers. Some not so good, other brands are able to make the tall speakers sound great through research and technology. Not trying to promote but as an example I am amazed at how well Dynaudio is able to reproduce drums with the big sound they should have. With playing with my Klipsch I am also starting to believe we could be missing something by not having a large woofer. Drum rolls with a large woofer just have a character that most smaller drivers aren't going to be able to reproduce. A sub isn't going to help either because usually they are crossed too low to help where I'm talking about. It seems there is a trend to see how low we can go but don't under estimate the importance of a good mid-bass. I also don't want to dismiss low bass because I am amazed at how well a good sub seems to effect the over all presentation, which to me shows there is something to the harmonics thing.
Go!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
-
I kind of agree that soundstaging is mostly in the recording, but just like other things in the recording you need a system that can bring that out. Separation and resolution and detail...I would guess these are all things necessary to convey width and depth to a soundstage.
The amp matters but so does the source. Don't ask me why this is exactly, but my Apollo resolves detail and separates instruments much better than my 650BD. Of course, one would expect it to but it was quite alarming for me to actually hear the difference.
Many say metal domes are too harsh. I had a pair of Energy C-1 speakers that used a metal dome and didn't find then to be harsh at all. But I had a pair of Monitor Audio RS5 that I found to be too much. The conclusion I drew was that if a speaker employs a metal dome, perhaps it's a good idea not to bump up the frequency response in that region. Energy measures quite flat, whereas MA does not.
I think both driver and cabinet size play a role. Floorstanders get their fuller and bassier sound through larger cabinet volume often with relatively small drivers, but I think a larger driver can provide a more effortless sound and of course will move more air. But doesn't the choice of size largely depend on your room? I found the Monitor Audio RX2 to be way too much speaker for my small room, and the rear ports surely didn't help.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Parenthetically, our good buddy RGA has commented for years about "suck out" with B&W models that have high crossover points (like 3500 Hz) from 7" mid/bass drivers, but finds no problem with Audio Note speakers with 8" drivers. Maybe he will enlighten us about this phenomenon.
Well for me I gave up trying to convince the measurements folks because most of them have not heard the speakers. The AN J was already subject to a level matched blind audition - and it did very well (so did the E) - and that not in corners where they should have been placed. Regardless, most people who have heard a properly set-up AN speaker and Harman speakers choose AN speakers - reviewers who hear most of the speakers out there and have the ears for it clearly do. Compare the representation of speakers sold versus reviewer's purchases and it's not hard to determine which is more preferred. And far more reviewers have auditioned Paradigm that Audio Note.
As for the crossover the AN speakers are not crossed that high. They are hand tested and the drivers AN uses are slightly different from SEAS and thus the crossover points will be slightly different (not to mention there are several driver choices). They usually are crossed in the low 2khz range. Tested and measured from a corner position which is about 9-10 feet from the listening position. They are tested with real word conditions in mind and influenced by the research of Bell Labs and Acoustician, expert speaker designer (most speaker books reference him) and opera house designer L.L. Beranek not to mention Peter Snell. Their research confirms that sound best comes from corner loading, and that this is the "perfect" box shape ratios.
The research seems correct from an auditioning stand point as they sound uniform from room to room (so long as there are corners) there is virtually no side wall issues to deal with. The reflective wave follows the direct wave in under 4ms (which is inaudible) so you get a stage as big as your wall or larger, you get no nasties from side walls and they are far clearer and cleaner than any and all free standing designs that I have heard of remotely sensible cost.
Soundhounds sells Magnepan, Audio Note, Paradigm. All of the sales staff and owner without exception prefer to listen to the Audio Note's. Selling speakers for 35 years listening to all of them set-up by the manufacturers, with the best equipment. Measurements are fine and good and all but I don't listen to measurements - the discussions are always with people who have not heard them or very little. Measurements tell a story, they may even tell you 80% of the story but that 20% can be absolutely critical. For instance the AN E from a corner can produce a "pressure gradient" to use Fred's words which I can not truly account for from measurements - it's there and it is not reproduced from any panel I have heard at any price, nor is it produced from Harman inspired speakers. To me it is the difference between the sensation that instruments are in the room and a box with drivers. The box may have a flatter frequency response but if it does not provide the "real" sensation then it matters not for the ear compensates for minor frequency anomolies - it can fill in those gaps - it can't fill in the pressure. http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=694
Anyway, I am not going down that road. Choose what you wish and be happy. I am. If you want Audio Note's perspective on measurements talk to Peter as he discusses it on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEUW3...eature=related
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
....
As for the crossover the AN speakers are not crossed that high. They are hand tested and the drivers AN uses are slightly different from SEAS and thus the crossover points will be slightly different (not to mention there are several driver choices). They usually are crossed in the low 2khz range. Tested and measured from a corner position which is about 9-10 feet from the listening position. They are tested with real word conditions in mind and influenced by the research of Bell Labs and Acoustician, expert speaker designer (most speaker books reference him) and opera house designer L.L. Beranek not to mention Peter Snell. Their research confirms that sound best comes from corner loading, and that this is the "perfect" box shape ratios.
...
Good stuff, RGA, but it really doesn't answer the question.
Physics dictates that those 8", (say 6+" radiating diameter), woofers are beaming from 1200 Hz to point where the dome tweeters are taking over 2000 Hz. Since the speakers are beaming in this important mid-range segment, corner placement cannot reinforce the sound in this range.
BTW, I'm not saying AN speakers can't sound good but if they do it's despite that they beam in an important frequency range.
-
1 Attachment(s)
I would love to hear the Esoteric speakers using the magnesium woofers and tweeters. I have read very good reviews and wonder if I like the RS6's because of the tweeters and woofers are all metal. I seem to be sensitive to changes in materials as music is produced by multiple drivers. This was one of my complaints about The Dahlquist DQ 10 back in the days. I am not saying it is a bad speaker just not for me. Other speakers with multiple crossover points have caused audible problems for me.
The OML 1's with their small baffle provide very good imaging and soundstaging.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Good stuff, RGA, but it really doesn't answer the question.
Physics dictates that those 8", (say 6+" radiating diameter), woofers are beaming from 1200 Hz to point where the dome tweeters are taking over 2000 Hz. Since the speakers are beaming in this important mid-range segment, corner placement cannot reinforce the sound in this range.
BTW, I'm not saying AN speakers can't sound good but if they do it's despite that they beam in an important frequency range.
I don't see the point of your argument. You can't hear any beaming and of all the two way speakers I have heard in the last 20 years the speakers are easily the least "directional" of the lot of them. If they beamed they would be directional - they're not.
-
Having owned a pair of Smaller Advents I was always impressed by Henry Kloss' design for the Large Advent. He used a combination of a smaller cone on a larger frame so the woofer could make large excursions. This combined with a tweeter that crossed over at 1,000 hz allowed the tweeter to take over befor serious beaming could result. Larger woofers begin to beam when crossed over too high.
-
Another example of beaming is the two pair of speakers I currently own. Both have 6 1/2 inch woofers and 1 inch tweeters. The OML1's crossed over about 2,000hz and the RS6 are crossed over about 3,000hz. I find the RS6's require more toe-in than the OML1's for the same mid/upper frequency balance. An obvious sign of beaming.
-
I would love to try out AN-K speakers, but they are double my current price point. Once I save up I will definitely make time to listen to them. I watched the video of Peter Qvortrup and I have to admit that the "less is more" way of thinking just seems to make a lot of sense and I think I'm hearing that in my own personal listening.
As for the Studio 20, which is looking like the front runner to be my next speaker, it's crossed over at 2kHz, and uses the same material for both the woofer and tweeter (and the port too), which is pure aluminum. So I guess this is a good thing. It uses a 2nd order crossover, which I've read in UHF isn't the best, but can be used successfully if executed right.
I've always toed my speakers in, if just to tighten up the image. Most speakers in my experience sound better this way. When you guys say beaming, do you mean that certain frequencies are fired in a straight line and do not disperse the way the rest of the audio band does?
-
You all got me wondering talking about crossover points. I was thinking 2k puts a lot on a tweeter. Come to find out my t2.5 crosses over at 1600Hz. FWIW I have my speakers pointing forward. The only speaker I've found that I prefer toe in is the Klipsch.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
You all got me wondering talking about crossover points. I was thinking 2k puts a lot on a tweeter. Come to find out my t2.5 crosses over at 1600Hz. FWIW I have my speakers pointing forward. The only speaker I've found that I prefer toe in is the Klipsch.
My Missions have no toe in and as a result, off axis listening sounds good. I find that toe in definitely increases the soundstage and in some cases, can create marvelous effects with certain recordings.
My Sound Dynamics are on either side of a corner. This came as a necessity due to space. One day I decided to toe them in and the result was incredible. There was a real 3D soundstage that went WAY left and right of the speakers. For three piece jazz the seperation was mind boggling, and the players truly did sound like they were in front of me.
I have done alot of reading on room placement and such. The bottom line is you must get out of your seat and try. Make use of corners and also damping throughout the room.
As for metal tweeters, my Sound Dynamics have those. Infact, they are very sought after. There is a classic Energy speaker for which they are a drop in, as well as replacing the Sound Dynamics themselves. My experience has been that amplification DOES matter. I have had them on certain combos in which they sound awful. Presently a vintage SX-650 gives them a wonderful sound.
That's the thing about metal dome, if you can find the right combo, WATCH OUT!! They are simply untouchable and convey the highs in a super fun yet realistic manner. I love 'em.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Well for me I gave up trying to convince the measurements folks because most of them have not heard the speakers. The AN J was already subject to a level matched blind audition - and it did very well (so did the E) - and that not in corners where they should have been placed. Regardless, most people who have heard a properly set-up AN speaker and Harman speakers choose AN speakers - reviewers who hear most of the speakers out there and have the ears for it clearly do. Compare the representation of speakers sold versus reviewer's purchases and it's not hard to determine which is more preferred. And far more reviewers have auditioned Paradigm that Audio Note.
Rich I don't want to feed into Feanor's point, but I think you recall how my AN experience went. If there is one brand I want to hear again, it's them.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/...e6084a8670.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/...a51304d9cc.jpg
-
I realize speaker placement depends on the speaker but it's been my experience when toeing in the bass seems to lose detail or become a bit murky or booming. The Dyn's truly disappear, if you have your eyes close you couldn't tell where they were at and depending on the recording the sound stage typically goes beyond their borders. Toeing in may also have to do with how well a speaker disperses sound. Toeing in may be less necessary the better the dispersion. The Klipsch with the horns needed toed in, limited dispersion compared to the other speakers I've experienced.
-
any speaker's quality is in the ear of the beholder. I tend to shy away from speakers that employ multi-stage crossovers, not to mention various other circuits to compensate baffle step correction, zobel networks, attenuation networks... Some of the best home systems I've heard involved multi-amping, much like car systems.
I like the wideband driver approach, in which a single driver covers as wide a range as possible (limited number of single drivers do this well), with a supertweeter crossed over where a single driver begins to become peaky (usually around 12khz) and a powered sub to cover the lowest frequencies.
You gotta hear a good single driver concept speaker at least once in your life, if you haven't.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
I realize speaker placement depends on the speaker but it's been my experience when toeing in the bass seems to lose detail or become a bit murky or booming...... Toeing in may also have to do with how well a speaker disperses sound. Toeing in may be less necessary the better the dispersion. The Klipsch with the horns needed toed in, limited dispersion compared to the other speakers I've experienced.
Canton's need no toe in and the Canton literature tells you not to toe them in. Cantons give a huge sound stage and fills a room with sound...very good dispersion. I have played with toe in with Cantons...a very slight toe in at that, and find the sound stage shrinking but a more intense sound stage. Cantons don't beam at all.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I don't see the point of your argument. You can't hear any beaming and of all the two way speakers I have heard in the last 20 years the speakers are easily the least "directional" of the lot of them. If they beamed they would be directional - they're not.
Oh come now, RGA! The measurements we have of the AN-E Lexus Signature ($12,200) in Stereophile show it has a dip in the upper midrange lower treble and some unneveness off axis. This is quite clear in the measurements and it certainly has audible effects, though they can be ameliorated to some degree by careful placement and toe-in.
http://stereophile.com/standloudspea...an/index4.html
Art Dudley noted that the left hand notes of the piano sounded louder than they should have, which the humpiness from about 150-550 Hz indicates. John Atkinson made some comments on the measurements and his listening:
"It didn't measure as badly as I expected it to, its designer obviously having worked hard to produce a neutral balance in-room. But I was disappointed by the very lively cabinet and by the discontinuity at the top of the woofer passband, the effects of both of which I could hear with the sample that I measured."
Here is what Art Dudley said about the 'lower' priced AN-E/SPe HE ($6900), which he didn't mention in his earlier review of the AN-E Lexus Signature:
"But the woofer's size—or, more to the point, the challenge of crossing over an 8" driver to a very small tweeter while maintaining flat lower-treble response throughout the entire listening area—made itself known as a persistent response dip centered at 2kHz. Sure enough, every Audio Note AN-E speaker I've tried has made voices and some instruments sound a little dark and thick through a portion of their range."
http://stereophile.com/standloudspea...an/index5.html
OK, so those things don't bother you and Art Dudley (who at least noticed them!), but the measurements are simply not good enough for me to consider such speakers.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat D
Oh come now, RGA! The measurements we have of the AN-E Lexus Signature ($12,200) in Stereophile show it has a dip in the upper midrange lower treble and some unneveness off axis. This is quite clear in the measurements and it certainly has audible effects, though they can be ameliorated to some degree by careful placement and toe-in.
http://stereophile.com/standloudspea...an/index4.html
Art Dudley noted that the left hand notes of the piano sounded louder than they should have, which the humpiness from about 150-550 Hz indicates. John Atkinson made some comments on the measurements and his listening:
"It didn't measure as badly as I expected it to, its designer obviously having worked hard to produce a neutral balance in-room. But I was disappointed by the very lively cabinet and by the discontinuity at the top of the woofer passband, the effects of both of which I could hear with the sample that I measured."
Here is what Art Dudley said about the 'lower' priced AN-E/SPe HE ($6900), which he didn't mention in his earlier review of the AN-E Lexus Signature:
"But the woofer's size—or, more to the point, the challenge of crossing over an 8" driver to a very small tweeter while maintaining flat lower-treble response throughout the entire listening area—made itself known as a persistent response dip centered at 2kHz. Sure enough, every Audio Note AN-E speaker I've tried has made voices and some instruments sound a little dark and thick through a portion of their range."
http://stereophile.com/standloudspea...an/index5.html
OK, so those things don't bother you and Art Dudley (who at least noticed them!), but the measurements are simply not good enough for me to consider such speakers.
So is that how RGA is able to enjoy "warm" sounding music on "neutral" gear? :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchmon
Canton's need no toe in and the Canton literature tells you not to toe them in. Cantons give a huge sound stage and fills a room with sound...very good dispersion. I have played with toe in with Cantons...a very slight toe in at that, and find the sound stage shrinking but a more intense sound stage. Cantons don't beam at all.
Mission is the same thing. The seller had the original owner's manual and 700 series sales brochure. They rec NO toe in.
-
Patd
Have you ever heard them? Have you ever heard a speaker that you can say sounds EXACTLY the same as them that you have concluded to be crossed off your list.
If you think you know how they sound because you read measurements of a designed for corner speaker to be heard at the listening chair based off a measurement where the speaker is 1 and 2 meters away average placed in the middle of the room then you're deluding yourself.
The speaker has a deliberate design to take advantage of corner rear wall and floor reinforcement. Those are "calculated into" the design. Two Stereophile writers own them and the third claimed a room with the E was the best he had ever heard (Wes Phillips). Did any of them buy the Paradigms? They're great so long as someone else buys them.
Sorry PatD - I understand looking at measurements but at some point experience has to come into play, and when a speaker is very widely considered to be a standout performer it is simply ridiculous to say - well it has a dip so I'm not going to listen to it because I've heard two other speakers with a dip and didn't like them. Especially when it brings a FAR greater sense of scale and macro and micro dynamics, clarity, resolution, bass, cohesiveness than an S2.
And you can claim that Art has idiosyncratic tastes but that would mean a LOT of reviewers have the exact same idiosyncratic tastes which seems odd to me. There are a staggering number of reviewers who own Audio Note speakers (which is shocking considering that they are tiny blip of a company compared to the big boys. Wes Phillips (claimed not long ago that they were in a system he felt was the best sound he'd ever heard, Peter Van Wellenswaard (owns), most of the writers at Dagogo, at least one writer at enjoythemusic.com, 6moons, Audiophile in Germany, and Hi-fi Choice which uses them as a reference to evaluate other gear.
I could see not making the time for some unusual measuring speakers that don't get that kind of press and acclaim and have not stood the test of time but my bias or not, I think you are only doing yourself a disservice by making an assumption because you think measurements tell 100% of the truth.
The issues in the measurements are a little noticeable although less on their equipment and less if they're properly positioned in corners - no speaker is perfect - except that the E is well balanced at the listening position where people listen. They also tend to be an end of the road product. People trade their Paradigms in for Audio Notes - not the other way around. I'm not saying everyone will agree. Jack Roberts likes the Teresonic single drivers over the Audio Notes but there is a room factor to consider and the Ingeniums are unbelievably good speakers. I was mightily impressed by a single driver that could cover the range it does. And while it's always fun to take snippets of quotes to note that a speaker like the AN E has a weakness - it should also be noted that the budget conscious Art Dudley did accept the weakness in the E and purchased them. He could have spent far less and bought an S2 or any other pile of 6 inch two way standmounts for less money. Art Dudley the guy who is always looking to save a buck obviously felt those other speakers had a LOT more shortcomings than the AN E.
Taking quotes of the S2 is easy too:
This is a little closer to the sidewalls than I use for full-range speakers, which adds some needed boundary reinforcement to the midbass with minimonitors. Even then, the Reference Signature S2 sounded light in overall weight
That means lacks bass weight
Occasionally I thought I noticed a touch of "gruffness" in the S2's presentation of bass instruments,
Grainy
But a 32Hz sinewave, even at modest volumes, produced some audible "doubling" (the addition of second-harmonic distortion). I never heard any wind noise emanating from the front-mounted port, by the way, but what I did hear from both speakers when I played the half-step–spaced toneburst track on Editor's Choice was some rattling of the grille between 90Hz and 160Hz. I fixed this with the strategic application of some Blu-Tack, but given that the grilles are so important to producing the correct treble balance, I was disappointed by this.
That means badly built.
As the toneburst went through the upper notes in the 512–1024Hz octave, each toneburst could be heard to acquire a very slight "shadow" at a different pitch. The same thing happened an octave lower, but with the shadow at the higher-pitched tone.
Shadow = ringing.
Compared with the Dynaudio Special 25, the Signature S2's treble balance was a little on the forward side,
Another term for bright - a second read between the lines indicator of bright.
"The voices on Vaughan Williams' Serenade to Music (with the Corydon Singers and the ECO directed by Matthew Best, Hyperion CDA66420) were presented slightly in front of the speaker plane, and the work's climaxes sounded edgier than I was anticipating, even given this CD's fairly early digital provenance (it was recorded in 1990). In general, the Signature S2s were better suited to good modern classical CDs, such as Keith Johnson's recording of Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade with the London Philharmonic under José Serebrier (Reference RR-89CD), than to aged ones suffering from analog tape distortion and noise modulation, such as the 1962 performance of Delius' La Calinda from the Philharmonia under George Weldon (EMI Studio 7 69534 2)—much as I love the latter on musical grounds."
Read between the lines - most of your recordings will have to be thrown in the garbage because these speakers only sound good with certain recordings - in other words BRIGHT.
Thunderous? Well, up to a point, given the Signature S2's relatively diminutive size. No one who rates dynamic range as a major priority will be looking for a minimonitor as a first choice. In the tradition of the BBC LS3/5a, this Canadian speaker is not about loudness but about the ability to preserve subtleties and to maximize the purity of instrumental colors. Even so, I found a hardness that developed in the mid-treble to be the ultimate speed limit on loudness, rather than the fuzz and blurring that resulted from low-frequency overdrive.
Dynamically inept. Will compress badly and can't play bass at realistic levels. And they will get hard (which means bright - again with the read between the lines on brightness). Perhaps they're best suited for people close to 60 who need added ringing to make out the treble due to loss of HF hearing over the years.
And looking at the measurements
The port response rolls off smoothly above 50Hz, but I was alarmed to see a high-Q resonance present just above 800Hz. This aberration is severe enough to create a suckout at the same frequency in the woofer's response.
Suckout in a critical region. Far from perfect me thinks
the woofer's output shows slightly more of a boost in the upper bass in fig.3 than I expected from the nearfield measurement technique, implying a slightly underdamped bass alignment that, as I heard, will tend to compensate for the small speaker's lack of low bass.
Add a midbaass hump to cover for a lack of real bass. Common but nevertheless inaccurate.
The tweeter comes in with a third-order slope and is flat for the first octave and a half in its passband, but has a shelved-up response in its top octave, broken up by some interference effects.
Shelved up responses = Bright - here it is again.
However, a slight suckout can still be seen at 800Hz—the frequency of the resonant mode in the port's output—and the tweeter is slightly too high in level compared with the speaker's midrange level.
Yes the usual boom and sizzle effect of metal tweeters coupled with non complimentary woofers. You always will hear the tweeter independent of the woofer and it will always be noticeable. = Bright.
slight excesses of upper-bass and mid-treble energy apparent. The former goes some way toward compensating for the S2's lack of mid- and low-bass output, while the latter is not unexpected, given my feelings about the speaker's slightly forward treble balance.
boom and sizzle = bright. A lack of low mid and low bass combined with forward treble. I am not surprised no one there buys them.
I dunno. But they don't look totally without weaknesses Pat. I am sure the humongous levels of advertising didn't hurt Paradigm here to get a good review but reading between the lines - JA got his warnings in safely.
To Pat and Poppachubby
I would ask that you take the time at some point to have a quality long listen at some point. I was roundly unimpressed with the AN E when I first heard them. I don't know where you live but there is an Audio Show in San Franciso at the end of the month run by Dagogo. Something like $10 for a 3 day pass (I won't be able to make it unless I can swing a cheap flight). Bring your own music because depending who runs the room (and this applies to all the rooms) they tend to put on soft classical pieces without really giving a general sense of what a system can do. Unfortunately, Dave Cope who runs most of the shows has tinnitus and he was running the last show. This can be an advantage because he can leave you alone with it while he goes out in the hall. At CES he had to leave the room when Peter would put the crazy metal on at stupid levels. If it can't do metal it's not a good speaker - PERIOD. And virtually every standmount is so dynamically challenged that they compress badly - if they compress badly on that why does anyone think they can suddenly handle Beethoven's 9th which requires "more."
To a degree I understand that exhibitors play soft classical or Diana Krall all day because you can't expect the exhibitor to play Slayer at 100db all day for 3 days. But IMO people walk in and will listen to whatever is playing for 5-15 minutes make a decision and leave. If you are playing a mediocre recording during those 15 minutes then people presume it's the stereo. Audio Note is one of the very very very few exhibitors that BRING and PLAY lousy recordings with a lot of noise because they simply play music they like. Obviously, put up against a demo from another maker who plays the same well recorded and not challenging Krall album 102 times over and over covers their butt a lot better. Always put your own music on and turn the volume knob. The exhibitors have set it up to how they're suppose to be set-up (positioning wise). They are using the equipment that is supposed to be used, they have taken care of room treatments as best as the room can handle.
All quotes from http://www.stereophile.com/standloud...s/705paradigm/
-
Yes Rich as I said, I want to hear them again. Remember, I have indeed heard them. I also could care less what Stereophile think about anyhting.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Patd
Have you ever heard them? Have you ever heard a speaker that you can say sounds EXACTLY the same as them that you have concluded to be crossed off your list.
If you think you know how they sound because you read measurements of a designed for corner speaker to be heard at the listening chair based off a measurement where the speaker is 1 and 2 meters away average placed in the middle of the room then you're deluding yourself.
The speaker has a deliberate design to take advantage of corner rear wall and floor reinforcement. Those are "calculated into" the design. Two Stereophile writers own them and the third claimed a room with the E was the best he had ever heard (Wes Phillips). Did any of them buy the Paradigms? They're great so long as someone else buys them.
Sorry PatD - I understand looking at measurements but at some point experience has to come into play, and when a speaker is very widely considered to be a standout performer it is simply ridiculous to say - well it has a dip so I'm not going to listen to it because I've heard two other speakers with a dip and didn't like them. Especially when it brings a FAR greater sense of scale and macro and micro dynamics, clarity, resolution, bass, cohesiveness than an S2.
And you can claim that Art has idiosyncratic tastes but that would mean a LOT of reviewers have the exact same idiosyncratic tastes which seems odd to me. There are a staggering number of reviewers who own Audio Note speakers (which is shocking considering that they are tiny blip of a company compared to the big boys. Wes Phillips (claimed not long ago that they were in a system he felt was the best sound he'd ever heard, Peter Van Wellenswaard (owns), most of the writers at Dagogo, at least one writer at enjoythemusic.com, 6moons, Audiophile in Germany, and Hi-fi Choice which uses them as a reference to evaluate other gear.
I could see not making the time for some unusual measuring speakers that don't get that kind of press and acclaim and have not stood the test of time but my bias or not, I think you are only doing yourself a disservice by making an assumption because you think measurements tell 100% of the truth.
The issues in the measurements are a little noticeable although less on their equipment and less if they're properly positioned in corners - no speaker is perfect - except that the E is well balanced at the listening position where people listen. They also tend to be an end of the road product. People trade their Paradigms in for Audio Notes - not the other way around. I'm not saying everyone will agree. Jack Roberts likes the Teresonic single drivers over the Audio Notes but there is a room factor to consider and the Ingeniums are unbelievably good speakers. I was mightily impressed by a single driver that could cover the range it does. And while it's always fun to take snippets of quotes to note that a speaker like the AN E has a weakness - it should also be noted that the budget conscious Art Dudley did accept the weakness in the E and purchased them. He could have spent far less and bought an S2 or any other pile of 6 inch two way standmounts for less money. Art Dudley the guy who is always looking to save a buck obviously felt those other speakers had a LOT more shortcomings than the AN E.
Taking quotes of the S2 is easy too:
This is a little closer to the sidewalls than I use for full-range speakers, which adds some needed boundary reinforcement to the midbass with minimonitors. Even then, the Reference Signature S2 sounded light in overall weight
That means lacks bass weight
Occasionally I thought I noticed a touch of "gruffness" in the S2's presentation of bass instruments,
Grainy
But a 32Hz sinewave, even at modest volumes, produced some audible "doubling" (the addition of second-harmonic distortion). I never heard any wind noise emanating from the front-mounted port, by the way, but what I did hear from both speakers when I played the half-step–spaced toneburst track on Editor's Choice was some rattling of the grille between 90Hz and 160Hz. I fixed this with the strategic application of some Blu-Tack, but given that the grilles are so important to producing the correct treble balance, I was disappointed by this.
That means badly built.
As the toneburst went through the upper notes in the 512–1024Hz octave, each toneburst could be heard to acquire a very slight "shadow" at a different pitch. The same thing happened an octave lower, but with the shadow at the higher-pitched tone.
Shadow = ringing.
Compared with the Dynaudio Special 25, the Signature S2's treble balance was a little on the forward side,
Another term for bright - a second read between the lines indicator of bright.
" The voices on Vaughan Williams' Serenade to Music (with the Corydon Singers and the ECO directed by Matthew Best, Hyperion CDA66420) were presented slightly in front of the speaker plane, and the work's climaxes sounded edgier than I was anticipating, even given this CD's fairly early digital provenance (it was recorded in 1990). In general, the Signature S2s were better suited to good modern classical CDs, such as Keith Johnson's recording of Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade with the London Philharmonic under José Serebrier (Reference RR-89CD), than to aged ones suffering from analog tape distortion and noise modulation, such as the 1962 performance of Delius' La Calinda from the Philharmonia under George Weldon (EMI Studio 7 69534 2)—much as I love the latter on musical grounds."
Read between the lines - most of your recordings will have to be thrown in the garbage because these speakers only sound good with certain recordings - in other words BRIGHT.
Thunderous? Well, up to a point, given the Signature S2's relatively diminutive size. No one who rates dynamic range as a major priority will be looking for a minimonitor as a first choice. In the tradition of the BBC LS3/5a, this Canadian speaker is not about loudness but about the ability to preserve subtleties and to maximize the purity of instrumental colors. Even so, I found a hardness that developed in the mid-treble to be the ultimate speed limit on loudness, rather than the fuzz and blurring that resulted from low-frequency overdrive.
Dynamically inept. Will compress badly and can't play bass at realistic levels. And they will get hard (which means bright - again with the read between the lines on brightness). Perhaps they're best suited for people close to 60 who need added ringing to make out the treble due to loss of HF hearing over the years.
And looking at the measurements
The port response rolls off smoothly above 50Hz, but I was alarmed to see a high-Q resonance present just above 800Hz. This aberration is severe enough to create a suckout at the same frequency in the woofer's response.
Suckout in a critical region. Far from perfect me thinks
the woofer's output shows slightly more of a boost in the upper bass in fig.3 than I expected from the nearfield measurement technique, implying a slightly underdamped bass alignment that, as I heard, will tend to compensate for the small speaker's lack of low bass.
Add a midbaass hump to cover for a lack of real bass. Common but nevertheless inaccurate.
The tweeter comes in with a third-order slope and is flat for the first octave and a half in its passband, but has a shelved-up response in its top octave, broken up by some interference effects.
Shelved up responses = Bright - here it is again.
However, a slight suckout can still be seen at 800Hz—the frequency of the resonant mode in the port's output—and the tweeter is slightly too high in level compared with the speaker's midrange level.
Yes the usual boom and sizzle effect of metal tweeters coupled with non complimentary woofers. You always will hear the tweeter independent of the woofer and it will always be noticeable. = Bright.
slight excesses of upper-bass and mid-treble energy apparent. The former goes some way toward compensating for the S2's lack of mid- and low-bass output, while the latter is not unexpected, given my feelings about the speaker's slightly forward treble balance.
boom and sizzle = bright. A lack of low mid and low bass combined with forward treble. I am not surprised no one there buys them.
I dunno. But they don't look totally without weaknesses Pat. I am sure the humongous levels of advertising didn't hurt Paradigm here to get a good review but reading between the lines - JA got his warnings in safely.
To Pat and Poppachubby
I would ask that you take the time at some point to have a quality long listen at some point. I was roundly unimpressed with the AN E when I first heard them. I don't know where you live but there is an Audio Show in San Franciso at the end of the month run by Dagogo. Something like $10 for a 3 day pass (I won't be able to make it unless I can swing a cheap flight). Bring your own music because depending who runs the room (and this applies to all the rooms) they tend to put on soft classical pieces without really giving a general sense of what a system can do. Unfortunately, Dave Cope who runs most of the shows has tinnitus and he was running the last show. This can be an advantage because he can leave you alone with it while he goes out in the hall. At CES he had to leave the room when Peter would put the crazy metal on at stupid levels. If it can't do metal it's not a good speaker - PERIOD. And virtually every standmount is so dynamically challenged that they compress badly - if they compress badly on that why does anyone think they can suddenly handle Beethoven's 9th which requires "more."
To a degree I understand that exhibitors play soft classical or Diana Krall all day because you can't expect the exhibitor to play Slayer at 100db all day for 3 days. But IMO people walk in and will listen to whatever is playing for 5-15 minutes make a decision and leave. If you are playing a mediocre recording during those 15 minutes then people presume it's the stereo. Audio Note is one of the very very very few exhibitors that BRING and PLAY lousy recordings with a lot of noise because they simply play music they like. Obviously, put up against a demo from another maker who plays the same well recorded and not challenging Krall album 102 times over and over covers their butt a lot better. Always put your own music on and turn the volume knob. The exhibitors have set it up to how they're suppose to be set-up (positioning wise). They are using the equipment that is supposed to be used, they have taken care of room treatments as best as the room can handle.
All quotes from http://www.stereophile.com/standloud...s/705paradigm/
RGA...you make the Signiture S2 sound worse than John Atkinson or the report intended. Lets get a little context because you have used his words out of context a little for your perspective on Audio Note Speakers.
To be fair RGA, I think you should have noted the fact that the article was written in 2005, the very first year the Reference Signiture S2 came to market. In 5 years I am sure Paradigm has cleared up the problems of there Reference speakers, but as we all know, no speaker is perfect, not even Audio Note. You should have also mentioned up until that point, Paradigm had never built a speaker for the high end speaker market, Up until then, The Studio Reference 100 was the best they offered in the top of the mid fi speaker market.
And you never said any good points that JA had to say about the new speaker that was just hitting the market.
At best you have painted a picture of Paradigm that I think has been unfairly ascribed to them because of you and your party bent towards AN speakers.
This is how JA ended the review....it would have been wonderful if you had mentioned it.
"Summing up
If you value ultimate loudness and bass extension, then you should check out Paradigm's similarly priced, more utilitarian-styled Reference Studio/100 v.3. But if you're willing to sacrifice those attributes in favor of nuanced higher-frequency purity and the ability to develop a stable, detailed soundstage, Paradigm's Reference Signature S2 might well be for you, particularly if you have a smallish room. Drop-dead gorgeous at an equally attractive price, with faults that are minor and strengths that are major, the S2 comes highly recommended."
Below are a few comments you made......I added your quotes within the context.
"Sound
I set up the Paradigms on 24" Celestion stands, the central pillars of which were filled with a mix of sand and lead shot, in the positions where the Dynaudio Special 25 that I reviewed in June had worked well. bass This is a little closer to the sidewalls than I use for full-range speakers, which adds some needed boundary reinforcement to the midwith minimonitors. Even then, the Reference Signature S2 sounded light in overall weight. However, its rich upper-bass register meant that only occasionally did I feel that I was being shortchanged on low frequencies. The Fender bass on the channel-identification tracks on my Editor's Choice CD (Stereophile STPH016-2) had a reasonably full-bodied tone, but with a slight accentuation of each note's leading edge."
"Occasionally I thought I noticed a touch of "gruffness" in the S2's presentation of bass instruments, but provided the playback level was not extreme—this is a small speaker, after all—this was never a serious issue in my auditioning. "
"This track also revealed some slight problems with midrange clarity. I created this test signal, which steps a sinewave burst from 32Hz to 4kHz and back again for each channel individually, because it quickly reveals when a speaker's drive-units have problems speaking with a single voice. As the toneburst went through the upper notes in the 512–1024Hz octave, each toneburst could be heard to acquire a very slight "shadow" at a different pitch. The same thing happened an octave lower, but with the shadow at the higher-pitched tone. I wasn't sure if I could consistently hear anything like this effect when listening to music; with spectrally pure sounds, however, such as the clarinet on my Mosaic CD (Stereophile STPH015-2), the instrument occasionally sounded a little more sour in intonation than I was anticipating.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppachubby
Yes Rich as I said, I want to hear them again. Remember, I have indeed heard them. I also could care less what Stereophile think about anyhting.
Poppachubby you should have heard the Snell Type E that the AN E was based on as well as the other Snell speakers with the same letter designations. I really liked the Snells. My neighbor had the Snell Type A's which I listened to as much as I could.
The photo shows a different woofer since the original had a foam surround.
-
Frenchmon
I mentioned that anyone can take quotes from a review to create a negative picture which is precisely what PatD did. So I took his loudspeaker and illustrated my point.
What PatD does not get is that ALL speakers are inaccurate. There is not perfectly accurate loudspeaker which is why designers - you know designers - the people with engineering backgrounds can't even decide whether or not to use a dynamic driver or ribbon, or electrostat, whether to house them in a box or have an open baffle whether to have one driver or 2 or 10 drivers, whether to go active or passive, whether corner load, horn load etc.
To know whether something is accurate (something is either 100% accurate or it isn't) then you MUST have an actual reference point. In other words if every engineer on the planet past present and future who agree upon ONE set of loudspeakers as being "perfectly" accurate ONLY then can you possibly be able to make comparisons and say speaker X is 89% accurate and speaker Y is 23% accurate.
We have as Peter eloquently noted an elephant in a room with one light above and we are looking at the shadows trying to determine what the Elephant looks like. We are trying to piece back together what it is we're looking at.
If we accept the fact that they're all inaccurate then it comes down to the two things sitting on the side of your head. Dynamics timbre tone and "naturalness" are the lifeblood of music. Frequency response while important changes dramatically in room, your ears forgive frequency issues but can't put dynamics back or bass or pressure. And the S2 is not perfect in terms of frequency - not even remotely so. So why take a theoretical better response for actual in room results?
As for coming out with a new version every 4 years - IMO that is convenient. New product buzz 6 months before release. Product hits market and makes rounds through the review press for 2 years. Sales then plateau in the 3 and 1/2 year range and then it's suddenly time to get the hype machine geared up for the next version. Version 5 is out now right? Same type of cabinet - some new driver to advertise and it will be doubtful if any of them are as good as Version 2 - version 3 and 4 were much worse and cost more.
-
I think it's still v.2 for the Signature line, it's v.5 for the Studio line. Cabinets are all new btw, curved rather than square. IMO there is nothing wrong with releasing new versions, if they can improve on something from the prior version that is. We must remember that to some folks a new version may sound worse than an older one, but to others it may sound better. Depends on taste, room, and system. There are probably lots of fans of v.3 and v.4 despite you hating those versions, RGA. Now, do companies that don't release new versions believe their speakers cannot be improved on? Granted, Paradigm may take it to the extreme, but they are a business and many businesses tend to play the marketing game. It's up to the buyer to determine if an "upgrade" is worth it.
Now I'm not too sure why this veered off to Paradigm...RGA has some kind of hate on for this company! Okay, it just seems that way sometimes, like in this thread where I don't think anyone really brought them up before he set his sights on them. I know you've said RGA, they are competitive with other brands making that kind of speaker and so I'll overlook the frequent negative comments as some kind of indication that is not the case, and more just that they are a favorite whipping boy.
Now as for Paradigm reviews, these reviews are so positive that it's ridiculous. I can't wait to hear v.5 of the Studio 20.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/paradigm.htm
http://www.goodsound.com/equipment/p...tudio10_v5.htm
http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/508para/
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by YBArcam
I think it's still v.2 for the Signature line, it's v.5 for the Studio line. Cabinets are all new btw, curved rather than square. IMO there is nothing wrong with releasing new versions, if they can improve on something from the prior version that is. We must remember that to some folks a new version may sound worse than an older one, but to others it may sound better. Depends on taste, room, and system. There are probably lots of fans of v.3 and v.4 despite you hating those versions, RGA. Now, do companies that don't release new versions believe their speakers cannot be improved on? Granted, Paradigm may take it to the extreme, but they are a business and many businesses tend to play the marketing game. It's up to the buyer to determine if an "upgrade" is worth it.
Now I'm not too sure why this veered off to Paradigm...RGA has some kind of hate on for this company! Okay, it just seems that way sometimes, like in this thread where I don't think anyone really brought them up. I know you've said they are competitive with other brands making that kind of speaker.
Now as for Paradigm reviews, these reviews are so positive that it's ridiculous. I can't wait to hear v.5 of the Studio 20.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/paradigm.htm
http://www.goodsound.com/equipment/p...tudio10_v5.htm
http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/508para/
He has been beating the one note AN drum for as long as I can remember. They sound good to his ears but what sounds good to your ears is what is important. Once you are home listening to music he will not be there with his shiny coin saying AN is best, you want AN, buy AN, AN is best and now you are getting sleepy.
-
Rich is Canadian and therefore Paradigm is his birthright. We have proprietary rights to love or hate them.
I suspect he targets the digms because it's a brand alot of people know and like. You would have to ask him I guess.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMichael
He has been beating the one note AN drum for as long as I can remember. They sound good to his ears but what sounds good to your ears is what is important. Once you are home listening to music he will not be there with his shiny coin saying AN is best, you want AN, buy AN, AN is best and now you are getting sleepy.
haha, yes I know. I've noticed his posts for a few years. But he's not so bad. I respect his opinion, because it's different than what one would typically read. He's eloquent and I see the logic in what he says. I've bounced around between many different 2-way thin baffle designs and while I'm still happy to do so I recognize it'll soon be time to try something different. In all fairness to RGA, he has no problem admitting there are good examples of the design type that he's not particularly fond of. So it's cool!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Patd
Have you ever heard them? Have you ever heard a speaker that you can say sounds EXACTLY the same as them that you have concluded to be crossed off your list.
If you think you know how they sound because you read measurements of a designed for corner speaker to be heard at the listening chair based off a measurement where the speaker is 1 and 2 meters away average placed in the middle of the room then you're deluding yourself.
The speaker has a deliberate design to take advantage of corner rear wall and floor reinforcement. Those are "calculated into" the design. Two Stereophile writers own them and the third claimed a room with the E was the best he had ever heard (Wes Phillips). Did any of them buy the Paradigms? They're great so long as someone else buys them.
Sorry PatD - I understand looking at measurements but at some point experience has to come into play, and when a speaker is very widely considered to be a standout performer it is simply ridiculous to say - well it has a dip so I'm not going to listen to it because I've heard two other speakers with a dip and didn't like them. Especially when it brings a FAR greater sense of scale and macro and micro dynamics, clarity, resolution, bass, cohesiveness than an S2.
And you can claim that Art has idiosyncratic tastes but that would mean a LOT of reviewers have the exact same idiosyncratic tastes which seems odd to me. There are a staggering number of reviewers who own Audio Note speakers (which is shocking considering that they are tiny blip of a company compared to the big boys. Wes Phillips (claimed not long ago that they were in a system he felt was the best sound he'd ever heard, Peter Van Wellenswaard (owns), most of the writers at Dagogo, at least one writer at enjoythemusic.com, 6moons, Audiophile in Germany, and Hi-fi Choice which uses them as a reference to evaluate other gear.
I could see not making the time for some unusual measuring speakers that don't get that kind of press and acclaim and have not stood the test of time but my bias or not, I think you are only doing yourself a disservice by making an assumption because you think measurements tell 100% of the truth.
The issues in the measurements are a little noticeable although less on their equipment and less if they're properly positioned in corners - no speaker is perfect - except that the E is well balanced at the listening position where people listen. They also tend to be an end of the road product. People trade their Paradigms in for Audio Notes - not the other way around. I'm not saying everyone will agree. Jack Roberts likes the Teresonic single drivers over the Audio Notes but there is a room factor to consider and the Ingeniums are unbelievably good speakers. I was mightily impressed by a single driver that could cover the range it does. And while it's always fun to take snippets of quotes to note that a speaker like the AN E has a weakness - it should also be noted that the budget conscious Art Dudley did accept the weakness in the E and purchased them. He could have spent far less and bought an S2 or any other pile of 6 inch two way standmounts for less money. Art Dudley the guy who is always looking to save a buck obviously felt those other speakers had a LOT more shortcomings than the AN E.
Taking quotes of the S2 is easy too:
This is a little closer to the sidewalls than I use for full-range speakers, which adds some needed boundary reinforcement to the midbass with minimonitors. Even then, the Reference Signature S2 sounded light in overall weight
That means lacks bass weight
Occasionally I thought I noticed a touch of "gruffness" in the S2's presentation of bass instruments,
Grainy
But a 32Hz sinewave, even at modest volumes, produced some audible "doubling" (the addition of second-harmonic distortion). I never heard any wind noise emanating from the front-mounted port, by the way, but what I did hear from both speakers when I played the half-step–spaced toneburst track on Editor's Choice was some rattling of the grille between 90Hz and 160Hz. I fixed this with the strategic application of some Blu-Tack, but given that the grilles are so important to producing the correct treble balance, I was disappointed by this.
That means badly built.
As the toneburst went through the upper notes in the 512–1024Hz octave, each toneburst could be heard to acquire a very slight "shadow" at a different pitch. The same thing happened an octave lower, but with the shadow at the higher-pitched tone.
Shadow = ringing.
Compared with the Dynaudio Special 25, the Signature S2's treble balance was a little on the forward side,
Another term for bright - a second read between the lines indicator of bright.
" The voices on Vaughan Williams' Serenade to Music (with the Corydon Singers and the ECO directed by Matthew Best, Hyperion CDA66420) were presented slightly in front of the speaker plane, and the work's climaxes sounded edgier than I was anticipating, even given this CD's fairly early digital provenance (it was recorded in 1990). In general, the Signature S2s were better suited to good modern classical CDs, such as Keith Johnson's recording of Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade with the London Philharmonic under José Serebrier (Reference RR-89CD), than to aged ones suffering from analog tape distortion and noise modulation, such as the 1962 performance of Delius' La Calinda from the Philharmonia under George Weldon (EMI Studio 7 69534 2)—much as I love the latter on musical grounds."
Read between the lines - most of your recordings will have to be thrown in the garbage because these speakers only sound good with certain recordings - in other words BRIGHT.
Thunderous? Well, up to a point, given the Signature S2's relatively diminutive size. No one who rates dynamic range as a major priority will be looking for a minimonitor as a first choice. In the tradition of the BBC LS3/5a, this Canadian speaker is not about loudness but about the ability to preserve subtleties and to maximize the purity of instrumental colors. Even so, I found a hardness that developed in the mid-treble to be the ultimate speed limit on loudness, rather than the fuzz and blurring that resulted from low-frequency overdrive.
Dynamically inept. Will compress badly and can't play bass at realistic levels. And they will get hard (which means bright - again with the read between the lines on brightness). Perhaps they're best suited for people close to 60 who need added ringing to make out the treble due to loss of HF hearing over the years.
And looking at the measurements
The port response rolls off smoothly above 50Hz, but I was alarmed to see a high-Q resonance present just above 800Hz. This aberration is severe enough to create a suckout at the same frequency in the woofer's response.
Suckout in a critical region. Far from perfect me thinks
the woofer's output shows slightly more of a boost in the upper bass in fig.3 than I expected from the nearfield measurement technique, implying a slightly underdamped bass alignment that, as I heard, will tend to compensate for the small speaker's lack of low bass.
Add a midbaass hump to cover for a lack of real bass. Common but nevertheless inaccurate.
The tweeter comes in with a third-order slope and is flat for the first octave and a half in its passband, but has a shelved-up response in its top octave, broken up by some interference effects.
Shelved up responses = Bright - here it is again.
However, a slight suckout can still be seen at 800Hz—the frequency of the resonant mode in the port's output—and the tweeter is slightly too high in level compared with the speaker's midrange level.
Yes the usual boom and sizzle effect of metal tweeters coupled with non complimentary woofers. You always will hear the tweeter independent of the woofer and it will always be noticeable. = Bright.
slight excesses of upper-bass and mid-treble energy apparent. The former goes some way toward compensating for the S2's lack of mid- and low-bass output, while the latter is not unexpected, given my feelings about the speaker's slightly forward treble balance.
boom and sizzle = bright. A lack of low mid and low bass combined with forward treble. I am not surprised no one there buys them.
I dunno. But they don't look totally without weaknesses Pat. I am sure the humongous levels of advertising didn't hurt Paradigm here to get a good review but reading between the lines - JA got his warnings in safely.
To Pat and Poppachubby
I would ask that you take the time at some point to have a quality long listen at some point. I was roundly unimpressed with the AN E when I first heard them. I don't know where you live but there is an Audio Show in San Franciso at the end of the month run by Dagogo. Something like $10 for a 3 day pass (I won't be able to make it unless I can swing a cheap flight). Bring your own music because depending who runs the room (and this applies to all the rooms) they tend to put on soft classical pieces without really giving a general sense of what a system can do. Unfortunately, Dave Cope who runs most of the shows has tinnitus and he was running the last show. This can be an advantage because he can leave you alone with it while he goes out in the hall. At CES he had to leave the room when Peter would put the crazy metal on at stupid levels. If it can't do metal it's not a good speaker - PERIOD. And virtually every standmount is so dynamically challenged that they compress badly - if they compress badly on that why does anyone think they can suddenly handle Beethoven's 9th which requires "more."
To a degree I understand that exhibitors play soft classical or Diana Krall all day because you can't expect the exhibitor to play Slayer at 100db all day for 3 days. But IMO people walk in and will listen to whatever is playing for 5-15 minutes make a decision and leave. If you are playing a mediocre recording during those 15 minutes then people presume it's the stereo. Audio Note is one of the very very very few exhibitors that BRING and PLAY lousy recordings with a lot of noise because they simply play music they like. Obviously, put up against a demo from another maker who plays the same well recorded and not challenging Krall album 102 times over and over covers their butt a lot better. Always put your own music on and turn the volume knob. The exhibitors have set it up to how they're suppose to be set-up (positioning wise). They are using the equipment that is supposed to be used, they have taken care of room treatments as best as the room can handle.
All quotes from http://www.stereophile.com/standloud...s/705paradigm/
You just keep showing you don't understand measurements, RGA. You should also distinguish between what the measurements say and your own preferences in sound.
We already know you don't like monitor speakers and you don't like subwoofers. If you really wanted to compare a Paradigm Signature speaker to the AN-E Lexus Signature, you should have picked the bigger Signature S8--still at half the cost. Comparing the biggish AN-E to my little Paradigm Signature S2 speakers brings it down to a matter of taste in speaker formats.
One wonders how well you can understand what you read. John Atkinson's concerns were quite minor. The 800 Hz suckout is very narrow and JA noticed something on test tones but was not sure he could hear anything untoward on music, and that on a recording he himself had made.
A little bass hump in the S2? Really tiny in the room response--but you don't seem to be aware that JA's frequency response measurements in the bass tend to add a little bit of a bass hump as an measurement artifact. He often mentions it in reviews. He evidently prefers to leave the data he gets there as is and let an intelligent reader assess what is happening.
JA's measurements will show ringing in a tweeter, but usually, as in this case, well above the audible range--another illustration that you don't understand measurements and say things you don't really understand.
A slight shelving in the treble? Well, it it's kind of hard to see that in the NRC measurements for Soundstage, which I presume are more accurate.
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me..._signature_s2/
In your hurry to try to find support for your contention that the Paradigm Signature S2 is bright, you only quoted part of JA's sentence. Granted, it is not the best sentence he ever wrote, but still, taken in its entirety the meaning is clear: the treble is less forward for the S2 than for the Dynaudio Special 25:
"Compared with the Dynaudio Special 25, the Signature S2's treble balance was a little on the forward side, though not quite to the same degree as the Danish speaker."
This is also quite evident if you actually look at the measurements for the Dynaudio speaker:
http://stereophile.com/standloudspea...io/index3.html
Take a little more care next time. Even JA can write a convoluted sentence.
OK, if you want a speaker with a shelved up response below about 600 Hz, a depressed response between 1-4 kHz, that's fine with me. Probably sounds pleasant enough most of the time, like the old Celestion 66.
Your remarks on how old recordings will sound seem to be a gross misinterpretation of what JA actually said. It's you who say they should be unlistenable on the S2 speakers. As for me, I have lots of older recordings and CD reissues of older recordings and find they generally sound better than ever on my Signature S2 speakers. Occasionally older recordings are rather bright--that's one reason I like the Quad 44 preamp, which has its Tilt control and if need be, elaborate filters. But I very seldom use the Tilt control or the filter. Of course, I listen mostly to classical music, and some of the labels (London comes to mind) seem to have done a very good job on their early CD reissues. Ansermet's recordings of De Falla and Mussorgsky are examples.
Of course, if you check the room response of the less expensive Audio Note AN-E/SPe HE loudspeaker, you will find that the treble and highs fall off above 2 kHz by about 4 dB/octave, at a guess! Similar with the Harbeth M40.1, BTW. Yeah, you won't get brightness there--the speaker doesn't reproduce the treble and highs at level. No wonder you think flatter speakers are bright!
And check out that big hump in the bass centered at 60 Hz in the room response for the AN-E SPe HE! And you have the gall to complain about a tiny bump in the Paradigm's upper bass response!
http://stereophile.com/standloudspea...an/index6.html
The Audio Note AN-E Lexus Signature loudspeaker has that monstrous hump in the lower midrange and moving them closer to the corners is only going to increase the bass to match it. It will do nothing to flatten the response from 1-4 kHz or ameliorate the anomalies in the horizontal dispersion from about 1.5-5 kHz or so.
JA found major strengths with only minor faults in the Paradigm Signature S2, faults and gave it a Class A, Restricted Extreme LF.
The Audio Note AN-E Lexus Signature got a Class B, Full Range rating. It's measurements show some pretty major anomalies. One would never get around to discussing minor faults such as found in the Paradigm Signature. Art Dudley at least notices them, but they don't seem to bother him much. As he said in his review: "But people who are sensitive to departures from perfectly flat frequency response should consider themselves forewarned." They don't seem to bother you, either. But I am forewarned. As Bob Neill has often suggested, they aren't for everybody. Remember, I haven't said I would expect them to be unpleasant sounding, just that they have some quite audible anomalies of types I know would bother me.
A few years ago, when I was in Denver, I said to myself, maybe I should just try to listen to some AN speakers to see what RGA is talking about. I called up the AN distributor in Boulder, Audio Federation, and at the time, they had no AN speakers in--they were busy with one of the audio shows, she said. Not too many people carry them. Maybe there is a reason for that.
Again, I repeat, you should compare the full range AN-E Lexus Signature or, for that matter, to the AN-E SPe HE, to Paradigm Signature S8, another full range speaker, rather than compare them to a small monitor speaker. Surely you couldn't complain that the S8 lacks bass or won't play loudly enough.
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/p...gnature_s8.htm
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me..._signature_s8/
Another fine speaker would be the PSB Synchrony One, one of the best large speakers I have heard.
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/p...chrony_one.htm
http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/408psb/
-
Check out this link because I want the Audio Note ANE Sogon for only $108,000. Oh wait I hope that is the pair price.
http://www.higherfi.com/spkrlist/speakerlist_page4.htm
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMichael
Nah, that's just cheap stuff. Look on page 2 for some good stuff for around $200,00. You have to pay that much to find something really good.
http://www.higherfi.com/spkrlist/speakerlist_page2.htm
Or, you could take the interest on that money to travel to lots of live concerts . . .
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMichael
$108.000 for these??? I would not pay that kinda money for something that looks like that! For that kinda money, I dont care how good it sounds, it better not look like a Radio shack speaker from the 80's.
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/8...ogon180404.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Every speaker on that page looks like a $100.000 speaker...all but the Audio Note speakers. I suspect someone at Audio Note is laughing all the way to the bank and have been for years.
-
I hope it sounds good for $108k and only a 8" 2-way. Interesting Audio Note says they use very little damping material or internal bracing, I guess this is another point they choose to do the opposite of most other manufacturers. The only $100k speaker I've heard was the Dynaudio Evidence and it's hard for me to believe the AN-E could sound like that, keeping an open mind though because I've never heard the AN-E. The Evidence played lower than any speaker I've heard including subs and reproduced sound pressures like at a live show, although with more control and quality to the sound. It just doesn't seem possible for an 8" 2-way to do that. "Live show" is so open to interpretation but there is just no way to put into words the amazing force of the Evidence.
Following JM's link I am surprised at how many speakers you can buy over $100k that I've never even heard of :)
-
PatD -
First - let's set some things straight. Art Dudley wanted the AN E speaker to be given a class A rating - quite vehemently so and he bought them. Wes Phillips hailed his audition as the best sound has he ever heard from an audio system (he would be in the non idiosyncratic camp by the way) and Wes I am pretty sure was a Dynaudio contour speaker owner at the time so he has heard this kind of design.
Art Dudley is not the editor of Stereophile - though he was the editor for Listener a better magazine with less advertising pull. John Atkinson is the arbiter of what is represented in the Stereophile listing - one guy one vote but it depends on who holds the biggest vote. That's fair enough since he is the editor but that is hardly representative. Two of his writers own the AN E and a third hails it the best sound he's ever heard - and nobody bought A Paradigm anything except one writer who owned before he was reviewer. And that writer tends to get the Paradigms.
Since Peter Qvortrup and John Atkinson have a "history" well I am not convinced by the objectivity there. Measuring a "known" corner speaker freestanding is laughable but fortunately those with money, ears, and brains know this.
I have auditioned the S2. I noted the issues I had with it - JA mentions those same concerns. I find them VERY noticeable, he mentions that to HIM some of these issues are not a big deal. But to some of us they ARE a big deal. To my Paradigm dealer and every single guy working there those issues are a big deal. You are welcome to disagree but it would be nice if instead of spending thousands of hours reading white papers and trying to claim that your preference is best because you have some measurements that you actually bother to listen to loudspeakers widely considered to be "some" of the very best in the world.
|