andyjevans said:
An addendum to my earlier post, all of which is IMO, of course:
I didn't mention timbre, detail or life in my post because IME, if the speakers are mostly flat and have small dips rather than humps in the response then these things will take care of themselves if the electronics get them to the speakers and the room doesn't trash everything. And that's a gigantic if!
I'm not a big fan of the "speakers = weak link in the chain" school of thought. They have lots of problems, sure, but the only ways in which they really kill the music is if they're too inefficient* or if they have lots of frequency response / resonance problems. Even the latter doesn't deter many people - look at the popularity of full-range drivers!
*If it weren't for power compression, inefficiency wouldn't be a defect of speakers as the core problem stems from bigger amps not sounding as good as smaller ones.
For orchestral music, you need SCALE. So you need big speakers in a large room.
As Navin correctly pointed out, the room is one of the most crucial 'components' as well as the speakers.
I don't have that big a room but do enjoy classical orchestral music on my OB's that use a Goodmans 201 (12 inch) from 70 Hz upwards with a tweeter coming in at around 10K to help out. There are also some TL woofers keeping things fairly flat down to 22 Hz.
The only criticism I may have to this system is a slight lack of dynamics that I guess you would get wih a horn system. And that is the only other speaker that I will investigate.
As Navin correctly pointed out, the room is one of the most crucial 'components' as well as the speakers.
I don't have that big a room but do enjoy classical orchestral music on my OB's that use a Goodmans 201 (12 inch) from 70 Hz upwards with a tweeter coming in at around 10K to help out. There are also some TL woofers keeping things fairly flat down to 22 Hz.
The only criticism I may have to this system is a slight lack of dynamics that I guess you would get wih a horn system. And that is the only other speaker that I will investigate.
What makes a good classical speaker Post #1
I've noticed that many systems seem to have difficulty reproducing orchestral music.
" I've noticed that many systems can't even reproduce the backgorund chorus in simple pop music."
The reason my Post #2 was so short was to illicit a response on midrange drivers. I find it quite easy to reproduce bass so it's tight and accurate. Treble is a matter of personal taste. Over the years and listening to 100's of systems, I've broken it down to listening to a system, not as a whole, but by it's individual components.
If the tweeter didn't sound good I would then listen to it's bass. If it didn't sound good I would listen to it's midrange. At first I always assumed the midrange speaker was always good since it was the easiest frequency range for a speaker to reproduce. After reading many posts on loudspeaker design, I finally found little hints that the midrange is very important. More important than I thought. It's easy to find a good woofer. It's a little harder to find a tweeter, since it becomes a matter of personal taste. i.e. Dome, Ribbon or Electrostatic. Finding a good midrange????
That's my next project that I'm going to start on today.
I did finish building a Line Array. I was able to reproduce the background chorus so that it was clear and each individual voice was distinct. What this Line Array didn't reproduce so cleanly was orchestral music played at high levels. Was it the Xmax (3mm per driver), the quality of the midrange drivers or both???
So what would it take to reproduce orchestral music???
Many good speakers ala Line Array or a few very expensive drivers???
I've seen on this thread many responders quickly point to "Already Built Systems"
http://www.glacieraudio.com/Manufac/gilmore-b.html at $20,000!!!!
It does resemble a Line Array
Did dvdwmth want to spend that much on a pre-built system or build his own??
I would guess that $1000.00 US would put him really close to building his own..
I've noticed that many systems seem to have difficulty reproducing orchestral music.
" I've noticed that many systems can't even reproduce the backgorund chorus in simple pop music."
The reason my Post #2 was so short was to illicit a response on midrange drivers. I find it quite easy to reproduce bass so it's tight and accurate. Treble is a matter of personal taste. Over the years and listening to 100's of systems, I've broken it down to listening to a system, not as a whole, but by it's individual components.
If the tweeter didn't sound good I would then listen to it's bass. If it didn't sound good I would listen to it's midrange. At first I always assumed the midrange speaker was always good since it was the easiest frequency range for a speaker to reproduce. After reading many posts on loudspeaker design, I finally found little hints that the midrange is very important. More important than I thought. It's easy to find a good woofer. It's a little harder to find a tweeter, since it becomes a matter of personal taste. i.e. Dome, Ribbon or Electrostatic. Finding a good midrange????
That's my next project that I'm going to start on today.
I did finish building a Line Array. I was able to reproduce the background chorus so that it was clear and each individual voice was distinct. What this Line Array didn't reproduce so cleanly was orchestral music played at high levels. Was it the Xmax (3mm per driver), the quality of the midrange drivers or both???
So what would it take to reproduce orchestral music???
Many good speakers ala Line Array or a few very expensive drivers???
I've seen on this thread many responders quickly point to "Already Built Systems"
http://www.glacieraudio.com/Manufac/gilmore-b.html at $20,000!!!!
It does resemble a Line Array
Did dvdwmth want to spend that much on a pre-built system or build his own??
I would guess that $1000.00 US would put him really close to building his own..
Well, if you want actuall driver recommendations, I recommend the Selenium WPU1507 for the bass, a Selenium D405 compression driver with the HM39-50R (60x30) or the HM47-50R (90x40) horn lenses. The D405 uses a phenolic diaphragm, which I prefer over titanium. For the tweeter, the ST324 does a very good job. The Seleniums are a bargain for the quality. The WPU1507 needs a usable 7.1 cubic feet, for a -3db point of 30Hz. This will give you a very capable classical loudspeaker.
http://www.highefficiencyloudspeakers.com/EnclosurePlans.html
http://www.highefficiencyloudspeakers.com/EnclosurePlans.html
I've seen on this thread many responders quickly point to "Already Built Systems"
http://www.glacieraudio.com/Manufac/gilmore-b.html at $20,000!!!!
It does resemble a Line Array
Did dvdwmth want to spend that much on a pre-built system or build his own??
I would guess that $1000.00 US would put him really close to building his own..
Since this is a DIY forum I'm sure he is looking to DIY.
My take on the Gilmore is an open baffle line source which has interested many in the past.
http://www.snippets.org/alsr/dbs23.html
I've not gone this route so my only point of reference is the Gilmore. In my mind it was superior to more conventional designs like the TAD Model 1 at half the (retail) cost. Some have built variants of the OB line source/cone woofer combo and some of them have said the Linkwitz Orion is superior. Neither of these options is "inexpensive".
Set design goal first.
I'll jump in here, & saying Ive found Rogers & Spendors to be great at classical music. All of the Rogers were large bass-reflex 2way designs, most likely a SBB4 alignment.
The one thing that makes a great classical speaker is timbre or tonal balance. I once compared a range of speakers in my local hi-fi dealers & this is the one criteria which stood above all others, if that wasn't right then it didnt matter if it had great detail/imaging etc. a cello has to sound like a cello (for pop who knows what a synthesizer sounds like?)
Line array could work so could a well done 3way or MTM, each will have there own strengths & weaknesses. Because there are so many options, you have to define size, SPL requirement & amplifier.
No point building a low efficiency 4ohm speaker if your driving it with 8w SET!
No point building a 10ft line array if you are sitting 4ft away from the boxes in a 8x12ft square room!
I'll jump in here, & saying Ive found Rogers & Spendors to be great at classical music. All of the Rogers were large bass-reflex 2way designs, most likely a SBB4 alignment.
The one thing that makes a great classical speaker is timbre or tonal balance. I once compared a range of speakers in my local hi-fi dealers & this is the one criteria which stood above all others, if that wasn't right then it didnt matter if it had great detail/imaging etc. a cello has to sound like a cello (for pop who knows what a synthesizer sounds like?)
Line array could work so could a well done 3way or MTM, each will have there own strengths & weaknesses. Because there are so many options, you have to define size, SPL requirement & amplifier.
No point building a low efficiency 4ohm speaker if your driving it with 8w SET!
No point building a 10ft line array if you are sitting 4ft away from the boxes in a 8x12ft square room!
jeff mai said:
are you suggesting that fullrange drivers have more problems that their range limited counterparts - lets compare a few popular drivers. The Vifa P13 or PL11 midbass or M10 midrange v/s the Seas H143 midrange or H216 midbass v/s say the Fostex FE127. Now I am only looking at 4.5-5" drivers here but the same can be done for 3", 4", 6", 8", drivers. I just chose something in the middle.
from what i can see the vifa or seas drivers mentioned above (albeit much cheaper than the fullranges mentioned) are about as sensitive. The Jordan JX92 has about the same Xmax as the Seas or Vifa midbass.
how would one consider spending $100-130.
Jordan JX92 or Vifa PL11 ($42) + D27 tweeter ($22) + XO ($30) or Seas H216 ($50) + H1149 ($30) + XO ($30)?
navin said:
I'm suggesting that they have frequency response problems and that listeners simply adjust to them. Every one that I've heard (Lowthers, Fostex, Coral) suffers from excessive upper midrange and cast a papery colouration over everything that sounds like 'ffffffff' to me.
This isn't to say that there aren't multiway speakers that have as bad or worse problems with frequency response.
I was just making the point that many people choose to live with pretty severe frequency response deviations from their speakers - furthering my contention that speakers are not the weak link that some say they are.
dvdwmth said:
Ok then, get a pair of good midrange speakers. My accuton C94's play Carmina Burana with real gusto. Sure, the 12" sub helps, but it's the midrange and to a lesser extent the C23 tweeters that make it sound good. It doesn't go insanely loud, but it's clear and distinct.
I'd go about finding a similar pair of mids from Seas Excel, Accuton, Visaton, Eton, etc (but remember to pick one with a stiff cone, not some paper or plastic alternative). Then I'd design a pair of exotic, well-damped enclosures for them. Well-damped means 2 things: the sound inside the box is absorbed using every (decent) technique available, AND you use every (decent) technique available so the walls of the box don't resonate.
What I actually did was design a pair of 2-way speakers plus subwoofer, but then I took ages upgrading from passive crossovers to active even though I had 5 channels to work with right from the start. I recommend that you go active or digital right from the start, and skip the unnecessary upgrade step.
What I'm most concerned about at the moment though is being able to hear the instruments, the various melodic lines and harmonic structure, and the different tones and textures.>>
Well, I'm getting that right now from my system - it's not perfect and there are some resonances I have to deal with, but all the instruments are there, distinct from each other, and the textures are very clear. I use a Kef B110 as mid-bass (as in LS3/5A) with a Peerless tweeter, all film caps in the crossover. But I had that setup before without the last ounce of clarity. and that last ounce was nothing to do with the speakers - it was cables, tube rolling, and two huge mains conditioners. As others have said - you can't assume that the electronics are good so the problem is the speakers or the room. Everything counts from beginning to end, including the CD transport - I improved the power supply of that and hey presto, more detail. It's a long, long painstaking task to get the last levels of detail. You pretty much have to go through the whole system, item by item, componant by componant, questioning, swapping, re-listening. Takes years for many of us. Could be a month on resistors, a month on capacitor swapping etc etc. A good system isn't one 'big' thing it's a hell of a lot of little things.
Well, I'm getting that right now from my system - it's not perfect and there are some resonances I have to deal with, but all the instruments are there, distinct from each other, and the textures are very clear. I use a Kef B110 as mid-bass (as in LS3/5A) with a Peerless tweeter, all film caps in the crossover. But I had that setup before without the last ounce of clarity. and that last ounce was nothing to do with the speakers - it was cables, tube rolling, and two huge mains conditioners. As others have said - you can't assume that the electronics are good so the problem is the speakers or the room. Everything counts from beginning to end, including the CD transport - I improved the power supply of that and hey presto, more detail. It's a long, long painstaking task to get the last levels of detail. You pretty much have to go through the whole system, item by item, componant by componant, questioning, swapping, re-listening. Takes years for many of us. Could be a month on resistors, a month on capacitor swapping etc etc. A good system isn't one 'big' thing it's a hell of a lot of little things.
dvdwmth
The reproduction of classical music is a challenge because it is both complex and very dynamic over such a broad spectrum. I would consider a 3-way system as a minimum requirement along with lots of headroom.
I would keep efficiency as high as possible, and bi- or tri-amp the system. Amps are cheap these days, and the small op-amp units, or even digital amps can sound very good, and tubes sound great, so long as the drivers are efficient and the loads benign(flat impedance).
While the single full range drivers offer a very simple solution and have their own unique blend of charms, they inevitably get congested when driven hard with complex material. Split off the bass frequencies to a sub or woofer, and add a little high frequency supertweeter, and it might work for you. Basically, a wide band mid with augmentation either end. This would be a minimal system for a medium sized room. Heavy metal - nah.
For real snap and dynamics, horn loading can provide a more realistic rendering than many other configurations, but they are more difficult to implement, have their own problems. Best bass I have heard, though, is still a horn sub. Multiple drivers can work well too to keep efficiency and dynamics up.
Best advice is to listen to as many systems as possible, with your classical music playing. Doesn't really matter what kind of system. Just pay close attention to the attributes that appeal to you the most and note them for addition into your own system.
Tim
The reproduction of classical music is a challenge because it is both complex and very dynamic over such a broad spectrum. I would consider a 3-way system as a minimum requirement along with lots of headroom.
I would keep efficiency as high as possible, and bi- or tri-amp the system. Amps are cheap these days, and the small op-amp units, or even digital amps can sound very good, and tubes sound great, so long as the drivers are efficient and the loads benign(flat impedance).
While the single full range drivers offer a very simple solution and have their own unique blend of charms, they inevitably get congested when driven hard with complex material. Split off the bass frequencies to a sub or woofer, and add a little high frequency supertweeter, and it might work for you. Basically, a wide band mid with augmentation either end. This would be a minimal system for a medium sized room. Heavy metal - nah.
For real snap and dynamics, horn loading can provide a more realistic rendering than many other configurations, but they are more difficult to implement, have their own problems. Best bass I have heard, though, is still a horn sub. Multiple drivers can work well too to keep efficiency and dynamics up.
Best advice is to listen to as many systems as possible, with your classical music playing. Doesn't really matter what kind of system. Just pay close attention to the attributes that appeal to you the most and note them for addition into your own system.
Tim
Re: dvdwmth
dont stiff cones have resonance problems in the upper midrange? this usually dictates higher order crossovers and other correction. wont all these crossover components add their own sonic signature on the the sound? going active is one solution but with 5.1 one needs atleast 16 channels of power for a 3 way (midrange flanked by woofer and tweeter) and a sub.
I started out assuming the XO freqs are 200/250Hz and 4000/5000 Hz (assuming we find a midrange that can cover this range well) and the XO is a 4th order acitve (like Marchand) we would still need three 5 channel amps (10W/ch for the tweeter, 60W/ch for each midrange and each woofer). Assuming we are using a 7"-8" woofer, 3"-4" midrange and ribbon tweeter we are looking at 5 cabinets 1.5-2 cu. ft each and we have to make all this WAF compatible. ouch!
another option would be to use a 5"-6" midbass in a smaller cabinet (0.5-0.75 cu. ft) that can cover 100-3khz and use a tweeter above that. but that puts the XO in the upper midrange where the ear is still reasonably sensitive. ouch!
Maybe augmenting a fullrange above 6000hz is a way to go. However most fullranges I know (even the aluminum coned Jordan JX92) dont have stiff cones. While siff cones do offer a lower degree of distotions due to cone flex most of them suffer from abberations in the higher frequencies and this makes them unsuitable for fullrange/widerange use.
confused? I sure am!
BTW Tim, I find it hard to refute any of your arguments. To design a system that can do equal justice to Jurrasic Park, Chopin, AC/DC and Ella Fritzgerald is a real challenge. Building it requires an even stronger constitution.
I agree that active is THE way to go. However given the demands of 5.1 every extra XO point requires 5 more channels of power. Also given the demands of 5.1 the 5 fullrange channels must be reasonably small (more so for small apt. dwellers like me).
Maybe a sub (discretly hidden) mated to a fullrange and supported by a tweeter above 5k or 8k or at whatever freq the fullrange needs support is the way to go. then one can use a 60-100W amp for the fullrange and a smaller 5-10W amp (SE tube if your spouse is willing to tolerate 6 transformers) for the tweeters.
CeramicMan said:
dont stiff cones have resonance problems in the upper midrange? this usually dictates higher order crossovers and other correction. wont all these crossover components add their own sonic signature on the the sound? going active is one solution but with 5.1 one needs atleast 16 channels of power for a 3 way (midrange flanked by woofer and tweeter) and a sub.
I started out assuming the XO freqs are 200/250Hz and 4000/5000 Hz (assuming we find a midrange that can cover this range well) and the XO is a 4th order acitve (like Marchand) we would still need three 5 channel amps (10W/ch for the tweeter, 60W/ch for each midrange and each woofer). Assuming we are using a 7"-8" woofer, 3"-4" midrange and ribbon tweeter we are looking at 5 cabinets 1.5-2 cu. ft each and we have to make all this WAF compatible. ouch!
another option would be to use a 5"-6" midbass in a smaller cabinet (0.5-0.75 cu. ft) that can cover 100-3khz and use a tweeter above that. but that puts the XO in the upper midrange where the ear is still reasonably sensitive. ouch!
Maybe augmenting a fullrange above 6000hz is a way to go. However most fullranges I know (even the aluminum coned Jordan JX92) dont have stiff cones. While siff cones do offer a lower degree of distotions due to cone flex most of them suffer from abberations in the higher frequencies and this makes them unsuitable for fullrange/widerange use.
confused? I sure am!
BTW Tim, I find it hard to refute any of your arguments. To design a system that can do equal justice to Jurrasic Park, Chopin, AC/DC and Ella Fritzgerald is a real challenge. Building it requires an even stronger constitution.
I agree that active is THE way to go. However given the demands of 5.1 every extra XO point requires 5 more channels of power. Also given the demands of 5.1 the 5 fullrange channels must be reasonably small (more so for small apt. dwellers like me).
Maybe a sub (discretly hidden) mated to a fullrange and supported by a tweeter above 5k or 8k or at whatever freq the fullrange needs support is the way to go. then one can use a 60-100W amp for the fullrange and a smaller 5-10W amp (SE tube if your spouse is willing to tolerate 6 transformers) for the tweeters.
Options
I like the Basszilla idea or a dipole, myself, as a fairly simple project for a DIYer that has no real knowledge in design. Big sub/bass box, or dipole woofers, simple open baffle mid, and a tweeter. Bi-amp, or use a plate amp, with a simple first order passive on the tweeter or ribbon.
If the bass box is too big(the original was 95dB 15" Audax woofer, IIRC), use the Jordan mid and a good Peerless(CSX) or Seas 8", 10" or 12" to match efficiency and provide extension, yet fit in the box size you desire. Tweeter to taste.
Just use the same wide-band Jordan, Fostex, Visaton, Ciare Audax Pro 170MO, whatever , in a small sealed enclosure or OB for the other channels.
For the more seasoned builders with box size a concern, an all Seas Excel system might be great, like the Thor MTM, or S. Linkwitz's Orion.
I personally prefer the sound of a system that is efficient and loafs along, sounding unrestrained on dynamic peaks. But the box size goes up with driver efficiency.
Tim
I like the Basszilla idea or a dipole, myself, as a fairly simple project for a DIYer that has no real knowledge in design. Big sub/bass box, or dipole woofers, simple open baffle mid, and a tweeter. Bi-amp, or use a plate amp, with a simple first order passive on the tweeter or ribbon.
If the bass box is too big(the original was 95dB 15" Audax woofer, IIRC), use the Jordan mid and a good Peerless(CSX) or Seas 8", 10" or 12" to match efficiency and provide extension, yet fit in the box size you desire. Tweeter to taste.
Just use the same wide-band Jordan, Fostex, Visaton, Ciare Audax Pro 170MO, whatever , in a small sealed enclosure or OB for the other channels.
For the more seasoned builders with box size a concern, an all Seas Excel system might be great, like the Thor MTM, or S. Linkwitz's Orion.
I personally prefer the sound of a system that is efficient and loafs along, sounding unrestrained on dynamic peaks. But the box size goes up with driver efficiency.
Tim
Jeff Mai
I agree with you completely. I also believe that the owners of compromized systems adjust their musical tastes to the system, whether consciously or not. Ever notice how nobody plugs AC/DC or the "1812 Overture" in when listening to their full range drivers. Always seems to be the intimate jazz trio, or "little girl with guitar".
I know this will aggravate folks, but it is just an observation, and I have found myself doing it on occasion.
The realism of big orchestral dynamics, or the raw power of a full symphony, or an outrageous rock band are difficult to render without very serious design concerns and multiway systems.
Close as one can get simply and at low cost, is the basszilla or dipole arrangement, and even that will have some shortcomings.
Tim
I agree with you completely. I also believe that the owners of compromized systems adjust their musical tastes to the system, whether consciously or not. Ever notice how nobody plugs AC/DC or the "1812 Overture" in when listening to their full range drivers. Always seems to be the intimate jazz trio, or "little girl with guitar".
I know this will aggravate folks, but it is just an observation, and I have found myself doing it on occasion.
The realism of big orchestral dynamics, or the raw power of a full symphony, or an outrageous rock band are difficult to render without very serious design concerns and multiway systems.
Close as one can get simply and at low cost, is the basszilla or dipole arrangement, and even that will have some shortcomings.
Tim
You should remember that the whole point of the .1 in a 5.1 system was so you didn't need 5 large woofers cluttering the room. Designing an active speaker system with 16 channels just so that there are 6 separate bass channels is just ridiculous! It's not necessary unless you're an elephant with 1m of separation between your ears. Sure, go for 6 subwoofers, each operating below around 100Hz (even up to 150Hz is probably reasonable), but make them mono. There, now it's only 11 channels.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.