Based on previous experience I was skeptic at first, but I thought it was great! At first my brain had trouble accepting this new illusion, but within half an hour it started to work really well. However, I made sure I had the best seat of the house. I hear it is less convincing if you're seated at the sides or too close to the screen.
Hey Earl and fellow Geddesphiles....
I haven't posted for a while. I've had my Abbey's for almost a year and continue to love them.
I have a couple of questions for the more technically oriented fellow Abbey owners.
(1) SUBS - I currently have a single Rythmik servo sub which I position midway between my Abbey's on the same plane. I've read all of Dr. Geddes posts/white papers, as well as others on various forums, on multiple, asymmetrically located subs being the best approach for optimal LF response in small rooms....and I buy in. My question is how much does sub quality matter based on your collective experience? I know where Dr. Geddes sits on this topic.... So....if I am to get 2 more subs would the $120 Polk's mentioned earlier in this thread be just as good as 2 more Rythmik servo subs or JL Audio F110 subs? Also, in terms of set-up which software tool do you recommend as being best?
(2) DIGITAL CROSSOVER - I have a Metric Halo LIO-8 DAC, ADC, DSP, Pre-Amp and was considering as an experiment trying to implement the Abbey crossover digitally in the LIO-8. Has anyone tried this? I see Dr. Geddes' posts about at best it being as good as the passive. At this point, I think I'll skip it.
Thanks!
David
I haven't posted for a while. I've had my Abbey's for almost a year and continue to love them. I have a couple of questions for the more technically oriented fellow Abbey owners.
(1) SUBS - I currently have a single Rythmik servo sub which I position midway between my Abbey's on the same plane. I've read all of Dr. Geddes posts/white papers, as well as others on various forums, on multiple, asymmetrically located subs being the best approach for optimal LF response in small rooms....and I buy in. My question is how much does sub quality matter based on your collective experience? I know where Dr. Geddes sits on this topic....
So....if I am to get 2 more subs would the $120 Polk's mentioned earlier in this thread be just as good as 2 more Rythmik servo subs or JL Audio F110 subs? Also, in terms of set-up which software tool do you recommend as being best?(2) DIGITAL CROSSOVER - I have a Metric Halo LIO-8 DAC, ADC, DSP, Pre-Amp and was considering as an experiment trying to implement the Abbey crossover digitally in the LIO-8. Has anyone tried this? I see Dr. Geddes' posts about at best it being as good as the passive. At this point, I think I'll skip it.
Thanks!
David
This got me thinking, since I realized that I was not really listening at the optimal 22 degree angle. So I played some music, and then Siegfried Linkwitz's alternating pink noise recording with the speakers at various angles of deeper toe-in.
It seems to me that the image is a bit more focused with the speakers toed more as you suggested (so that the angle to my ear is closer to 22 degrees, and the actual toe-in w.r.t the front wall is more like 65 degrees). I doubt this has anything to do with the optimal frequency response (since that was already very good) - but more likely a consequence of less reflection from the near side walls and greater reflection from my LCD, which is placed dead front and center. What do you think?
Those are interesting findings Doug. I just read the white paper on directivity today and this all became clear to me now. Like pjpoes said I used physical markers, I used magazines laying on the floor to represent the speakers (my wife thinks I'm nuts laying this all out and I won't have the speakers for a while yet). If I place the speakers 8' apart and 4' out from the wall it is 14' to my listening position. Toeing in the speakers at 45 degrees gives me 22.5 degree off axis at my listening position (A on the drawing on pg 9 of the white paper). The rt speaker is pointed directly at the seat to the left of my listening position (C on the white paper). These are the only two seats in my listening area besides a love seat that is off to the rt which is very seldomly occupied so it is not a big concern. So for my application that is where I will start with the placement. I see now that moving the listener plane (from the drawing) further or closer to the speakers would have an effect on the toe in angle wrt to the wall to achieve the 22 degree angle at the listening position. Does that make sense to you guys?
Sounds to me like you have the idea. The setup that you suggest is exactly the way the speakers were setup in my room, but you might not have noticed since you weren't thinking about it. My listening is back only about 12', but thats about the only difference. If possible don't place the speakers all the way back against the wall behind them, some space is best. And lots of damping on the wall behind the speakers is highly recommended by both myself and Floyd Toole. Heavy drapes work well and look fine.
The concept is so simple, and yet so effective. Its hard to believe that it isn't more common, albeit, as Matt (PJPoes) points out, very few speakers can do this because of the poor directional control.
The concept is so simple, and yet so effective. Its hard to believe that it isn't more common, albeit, as Matt (PJPoes) points out, very few speakers can do this because of the poor directional control.
Last edited:
Only digital signals in my system! Everything is digital right up to the power amps, no other A/D or D/A are used anywhere (excluding the subs, but they arn't very sensitive to errors). Going back and forth analog/digital is always a bad idea because this is were virtually all of the errors that remain in the audio path reside. With a single D/A just ahead of the power amp, it is operating at a fairly high signal level, which makes the D/A a whole lot easier and cleaner. This is precisely the reason that Pro gear works at much higher signal levels than consumer audio (when in analog mode) - pros often have no choice but to go back to analog. This isn't so true today since virtually all of the signal processing is now done digitally.
I agree with Earl on this point. I've had my Abbey's for about 9 months and have experimented with different front end configurations. IMO, one gets the highest accuracy at the least cost by using a single component to do the DAC and pre-amp functions.
I use a Mac Mini as music server with an async FireWire interface to a pro converter which directly drives my amps. The converter includes 8 channel 24/192 DAC/ADC, volume control (which operates in the analog domain but is controlled digitally either from a remote or the front panel) and a DSP which can be used to control multiple subs, for example. The device can also serve as a phone pre and/or headphone amp.
When I tried outboard pre-amps all they did was color the sound....and cost more.
I use a Mac Mini as music server with an async FireWire interface to a pro converter which directly drives my amps. The converter includes 8 channel 24/192 DAC/ADC, volume control (which operates in the analog domain but is controlled digitally either from a remote or the front panel) and a DSP which can be used to control multiple subs, for example. The device can also serve as a phone pre and/or headphone amp.
When I tried outboard pre-amps all they did was color the sound....and cost more.
Before the Abbey's I owned Wilson Watt/Puppy and Dynaudio Evidence speakers. In addition, before moving to Richmond two years ago I lived 10 miles from Goodwins High End in Boston and had a chance to listen to an array of high end speakers there including Rockport, Magico, Verity and Avalaon.
In terms of comparison, the Abbey's are the first speaker I've heard that sound like live music. They make my previous speakers (and others I've listened to) sound compressed, closed-in and colored, especially in the critical mid-range. Live music has rich tonality, texture, large dynamic swells, speed, three dimensionality and subtleties. The Abbey's get it all right. If the recording has a large soundstage that's what you hear. If the recording was close-miked in a small studio, that's what comes through. Individual instruments and vocalists are all presented in a life-like 3D soundstage. The dynamic capability, high frequency and midrange of the Abbey's are amazing and while they roll off quickly below 50hz the bass they do produce is among the very, very best I've heard. Tonally rich, properly delineated, without bloat or overhang and properly positioned in the soundstage.
And the Abbey's will play at insane levels with no noticeable compression and without "head in vise" imaging - you can stand up and move around in the room and still have excellent imaging - the perspective just changes as you would expect. Lastly, the fact that I am getting this type of performance in a less than optimal room reinforces the advantages of the controlled directivity design.
I rate the Abbey's as the best speaker I've owned and heard. When one takes into account price/performance I don't think they can be touched.
Other than the above, I really don't like them at all....
In terms of comparison, the Abbey's are the first speaker I've heard that sound like live music. They make my previous speakers (and others I've listened to) sound compressed, closed-in and colored, especially in the critical mid-range. Live music has rich tonality, texture, large dynamic swells, speed, three dimensionality and subtleties. The Abbey's get it all right. If the recording has a large soundstage that's what you hear. If the recording was close-miked in a small studio, that's what comes through. Individual instruments and vocalists are all presented in a life-like 3D soundstage. The dynamic capability, high frequency and midrange of the Abbey's are amazing and while they roll off quickly below 50hz the bass they do produce is among the very, very best I've heard. Tonally rich, properly delineated, without bloat or overhang and properly positioned in the soundstage.
And the Abbey's will play at insane levels with no noticeable compression and without "head in vise" imaging - you can stand up and move around in the room and still have excellent imaging - the perspective just changes as you would expect. Lastly, the fact that I am getting this type of performance in a less than optimal room reinforces the advantages of the controlled directivity design.
I rate the Abbey's as the best speaker I've owned and heard. When one takes into account price/performance I don't think they can be touched.
Other than the above, I really don't like them at all....
Great question dwr and something I am interested in as well.
From 1992-1993 I owned the Bose Acoustimass, Bose 201 and JBL satellite system (competed with the Bose Acoustimass).
From 1993-1994 I owned the B&W DM640i - a tall 3 way ported loudspeaker using a metal dome tweeter, 6 inch Kevlar midrange and dual 6 inch polypropylene woofers.
From 1994-1996 I owned Legacy Audio Studios - a 2 way stand mount using a Focal dual voice coil midwoofer and cheap Taiwanese metal dome tweeter.
I took a break from loudspeakers from 1996 onwards because I went to medical school and it was not until residency which started in 2002 that I returned. In the interim I used a nice headphone system with a pair of Sennheiser HD580's.
From 2002 until 2010 I owned a pair of North Creek Music Okara II's. This was a 2 way floor standing loudspeaker that used the Scan Speak 9500 tweeter and Vifa P13 (5.25 inch) midwoofer made popular by Lynn Olson in his Ariel and ME2 loudspeakers designs. It was known at the time to have one of the smoothest midrange transfer curves ever. I would have to agree. The Okara's was recently sold four weeks ago after I purchased a pair of Abbeys.
There is a HUGE difference between the two loudspeakers in terms of dynamics, image size, image specificity, and soundstaging. No doubt there is also a large difference in their piston areas. They are very similar in tonality. The Okara's really started to shine after I treated my room.
The Abbeys are a no brainer in a nutshell. They shine even more in bigger rooms, but they actually do quite well in the small room. They set the standard for how loudspeakers should be designed and measured. There are only a handful of loudspeakers that are designed with this degree of precision.
Anand.
Studley....very funny....but alas....true....you will have to suffer until they arrive knowing how fantastic they are going to sound.... BTW, if you want to hear the Abbey's at their very best, IMHO, use OTL amps. I use Atma-Sphere M60 Mk3.1's and they are devine. Over the years I've owned an array of SS, tube and hybrid amps. The OTL's are in a league of their own IMO. The Abbey's are an 8 ohm nominal load with a reasonably flat impedance curve which makes them well suited for OTL's. Two other Abbey owners have also gotten Atma-Sphere M60's for their systems. Like me they had a lot of experience with various amps and they also greatly prefer their OTL's.
. BTW, if you want to hear the Abbey's at their very best, IMHO, use OTL amps. I use Atma-Sphere M60 Mk3.1's and they are devine. Over the years I've owned an array of SS, tube and hybrid amps. The OTL's are in a league of their own IMO. The Abbey's are an 8 ohm nominal load with a reasonably flat impedance curve which makes them well suited for OTL's. Two other Abbey owners have also gotten Atma-Sphere M60's for their systems. Like me they had a lot of experience with various amps and they also greatly prefer their OTL's.Thanks for the replies folks, and Studley I understand the patience thing I have 12a speakers on order too, we will just have to be patient. I will be very interested when I get the Abbeys to hear the difference in my room to my previous speakers, Martin Logan Ascent i electrostatics, and then Linkwitz Orions. Sounds like I am in for a real treat, if they are anything like the Summas I listened to at Earls they should be great.
Mine is a long list but something like this:
- Martin Logan CLS, Cogan Hall subs
- Thiel CS3.5, CS3.6
- Vandersteen 2c, 3a sig
- Aerial 10t
- Maggie 3.6
- Paradigm Reference 100's
- Reimer Teton GS (big)
- Merlin TSM-MX w/Titan subs
- Merlin VSM-MX
- Merlin VSM-MXe
- Emerald Physics CS2's w/very highly modified Behringer DCX
I've had the Abbeys since last fall with 1 Rythmik sub, 2 dual GR-Research OB subs and could not be happier. While that list above includes some great speakers I could and did live with for a long time, the Abbeys are the ones I WANT to live with. Their ability to get the range and dynamic ebb/flow of music just right and keep me involved in it are amazing. At the same time I feel like I'm hearing all the details I should, but not being overwhelmed by them. Wood instruments sound woody, brass is brassy, plucked strings like string, all as they should be. Most of that is also true with the Merlins, which are terrific speakers in all respects, but the dynamic capabilities of the Abbeys are what set them apart for me.
I'm spending most of my time just listening to music for a change, not twiddling too much with the hardware. Life with the Abbeys is very good and I don't feel at all inclined to break the bank with my associated gear.
Tom
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.