Most of us here are familiar with the huge OB system assembled by StigErik. He listens from very close distance. Maybe this is needed with the latest generation minimal baffle OB speakers. The speakers are unusually neutral and you need to place yourself up close to get a strong sense of the energy.
I didn't find that with the LX521 . . . in fact I preferred the "further back" seating position in SL's living room. But that may be just me, and the kind of music I listen to . . .
My set up has the speakers 4' 8" from the wall behind them. 3' 4" from side walls and my listening position is 14' from the speakers. Occasionally I'll move forward to about 10" from the speakers. Never closer.
[edit] That's my position for pretty much all my speakers including my big OB system, with 33" x 41" flat baffle.
[edit] That's my position for pretty much all my speakers including my big OB system, with 33" x 41" flat baffle.
Last edited:
What I was talking about was particularly evident with the Maggie 1.7s I was trying. They actually measured flatter and more extended than my digi-Orions, but were missing some 'liveliness' in comparison.
This could be due to faults with the Orions (the bloom for example) but overall that's why I flipped the Maggies.
Maggies suffer from and a lack of dynamics. The newer ones are better than they used to be. That is probably what you are hearing. You won't find that in any of my speakers, particualrly the Note II RS.
I traded the Neo3 on a Note clone for a Raal, and it was like the speakers had been plugged in. I guess too much time in my youth with a Heil. Different ways to get where you want to go in this journey.
Cj
Raals have a very different presentation to Neo 3s, with a much more brightly-lit explicit quality. I've experimented with both- I have the Raal 70-10D- using analogue active and passive crossovers as well as active digital (Mini DSP) The differences remain. The Raal sounds 'better' over its more limited usable bandwidth in the sense that it makes sounds seem clearer, better differentiated in terms of tonal colour and stereo imaging as well as having a more obvious sense of liveliness and 'transient attack'. There is also sometimes a slightly disconcerting lack of obvious 'air' compared to several other good hf units I've heard over the years. My take on this is is that this is not an artifact of the drive unit as such, since this varies a lot with different recordings, but I suspect is a lack of diaphram break-up/ hash, and possibly the ultrasonic extension, compared to other drivers. I've been happiest with the sound crossed over higher than Raal recommends, with 3.8kHz being the practical compromise I've chosen. The Neo 3 sounds rolled off at the top end by comparison with the Raal (which it is of course) and generally softer sounding throughout its range. Usable bandwidth is wider and its a lot cheaper! So, bandwidth aside, the Raal is far better then? Well, in the ways mentioned, yes, but the Neo 3 has some real strengths too. Although softer sounding, the actual clarity is very good, and although it doesn't sound as focussed as the Raal, the flipside is a relaxed spacious sound, reminiscent of the later Quad electrostatics. Nothing is really missing compared to the Raal, it's just a much more relaxed, laid-back presentation. It does sound a bit unexciting compared directly with the Raal, but the trade-off is a very civilised, easy to enjoy sound that doesn't murder iffy recordings as the Raal can. I'm really not damning the Neo 3 with faint praise either- I think it's a really good drive unit that is often underestimated because it's not as frighteningly expensive or 'impressive' as some other drivers. I should add that this is all with the standard chamber on the back of the Neo 3, which is quite shallow. It should sound even better used as a dipole, or using a deeper rear chamber of the sort GR Research use. As always, just my experience- YMMV!
Last edited:
SAC,
Toaster explained it better than I could have articulated it, so thanks Toaster. I traded the Neo3 pdrw for the RAAL 140-15D. With my Note clone, I made a "waveguide", or frame, for the Neo3 out of 1" PVC. No waveguide for the RAAL.
Regarding crossover and "faults", both tweeters had a similar frequency response past my hearing abilities.....
Cj
Toaster explained it better than I could have articulated it, so thanks Toaster. I traded the Neo3 pdrw for the RAAL 140-15D. With my Note clone, I made a "waveguide", or frame, for the Neo3 out of 1" PVC. No waveguide for the RAAL.
Regarding crossover and "faults", both tweeters had a similar frequency response past my hearing abilities.....
Cj
Yep, no point fixing it if it ain't broke! Would using the AST2560 allow a lower crossover frequency and reduce the directivity 'bloom' displayed by the Nao II that the Note addresses? I've no idea if this would work, but taking a cue from the Note, perhaps the baffle of the Nao II could be cut away either side of the '2560 to increase its directivity in the horizontal plane to get a smoother transition?
There are two issues with bloom. One is the dipole bloom of the mids which could be reduced by using a narrower baffle to raise the dipole peak. The problem with that is it increase stress on the mids at lower frequency and is not an option unless lower max SPL is acceptable. The other is tweeter bloom which requires a wave guide or higher crossover point, or both. The Note avoids dipole bloom as much as possible, by narrowing the baffle and then having the tweeter x-o high with a little wave guide helping too.
My concern with the AST is that it probably has pretty wide horizontal dispersion, but limited vertical. Maybe mounting it rotated 90 degrees might be the trick. I have a couple of other tricks I'm looking at to improve the NaO II as well.
Last edited:
About a week ago at a friends place I heard a side by side comparison of the Neo3 against the AMT Heil, with the Heil coming out on top. I would rate it around the same as the Raven, but none on them in the same league as the RAAL (but then again I haven’t heard the smaller 70-10).
Last edited: