For what it's worth, I agree with you completely, Frank.
This is one of the reasons why I went for relatively large speakers - in my experience, a large sized sound requires a 3 way large loudspeaker. Small speakers, while they can be good, still always sound small.
Regarding active speakers, my experience has it that it's best to go to companies which have been making them for 30+ years. The old Philips Motional NFB speakers from the close of the 70ies - and their later Grundig version - were excellent, in my view.
If purchasing ready made, I'd be looking at two companies: ATC from UK and Klein & Hummel from Germany. Both I think are excellent examples of their breed.
I had an experience recently that shows a remarkable quality of real music which hi fi sometimes looses ( always ? ) . I would call it tonality due to timing . Beethoven and Britten . The Beethoven was for all the world 78's , the Britten what it would be on CD or Vinyl allowing for how they differ . I noticed for the first time in my life a micro world of texture in the Beethoven . I also heard stereo which is seldom so obvious . Sheldonian theater in Oxford . The point is , same musicians , same place , same time , same mood . Not the same sound . Similar numbers of players and instruments used . The Britten arrangements of Mahler also different . I am not saying I never heard it before , this time I noticed how important it is .
Big fi . If listening to E L P Nutrocker one needs big fi ( LP only perhaps ) .
Big fi . If listening to E L P Nutrocker one needs big fi ( LP only perhaps ) .
Very possibly so, I really wouldn't know what an average British living room looks like or how big or small it may be.
But that's not the point. The point is that we are being told that small speakers lack nothing, and in fact, "image" better than large speakers. Both are outright lies. No doubt some small speakers will do a bit of bass better than others, and surely some small speakers will "image" very well, but both are traits not naturally inherent to small speakers as such. They are the result of better or worse quality engineering, therefore only from case to case. Just as everything else.
The problem of refraction, which naturally increases in importance as the size of the speaker increases, is hardly a new one. AR for example tackled it on my 94s by surround the tweeter with a porous cloth, which serves to prevent undue refraction. Avalon and my speakers, and lately many more, use shortened and angled sides and tops to reduce the available refraction area. Sony use machined speaker fronts on their GS series to create a rough surface, naturally not prone to refraction. And so forth.
Consequently, large speakers are, also on a piece by pice basis, more or less prone to rfraction, just like small ones. Some suffer from it, some not so much.
I actually took off from work(!) to stay home and listen to my Magnepan speakers, when I first got them. I was THAT amazed. And I don't even have the bigger OR newer ones. IMO, they couldn't be bettered by new speakers for less than about $5000 a pair. But used, they cost only about $500 a pair (for a pair of MG-12/QR; goal: MG-3.6/R or better. The Magnepan ribbons are often cited as the best tweeter ever made. And the bass is often said to be lacking, but is actually literally perfect, with no booming resonance artifacts, which most box-speaker listeners seem to have been trained to expect.).
If you have heard some and weren't totally-blown-away by them, then assume it was improper room placement and/or room treatment (or ill-trained expectations). It HAD to be.
If you have heard some and weren't totally-blown-away by them, then assume it was improper room placement and/or room treatment (or ill-trained expectations). It HAD to be.
One of the best rooms at the recent audio show used these. Trouble was, they brilliantly highlighted a change of source type: music server good, CD transport not good; the poorer sound would not be tolerable for me. So, having "great" speakers is not going to solve your problems elsewhere ...
Frank
Tom, Frank makes a powerful point here.
It is also my experience that when people are suddenly faced with a top quality, though perhaps not so well known, product, which does its job with flying colours, in most cases they will not like it.
Chances of this are the greatest with loudspeakers. They tend to show up all the little and big problems in any system. And people are vain, they actually don't want to suddenly discover that their say CD player, which they hold to be well neigh perfect (usually without much substance), is in fact a mediocre unit at best, only their speakers never managed to show it up.
The least chance goes to power amps. This only because they are much more easily explainable, say more power, more output devices, bigger caps, etc.
But when you achieve a great marriegae between an amp and a pair of speakers, meaning real life synergy, then you're in real trouble. People look at you like you are some kind of pervert lurking in dark, with the sole job of making people unhappy.
My own speakers pair exceptionally well with my Karan and my HK 6550 integrateds. Two friends, both sworn tube lovers, with componantes from Conrad-Johnson, VTL, Infinity andsuch like, whistfully accused me of pulling a dirty trick of some kind, because they felt I got a typical SET tonal quality without any SET shortcomings and with all the advantages of SS speaker control and power.
But when I told one of them, years ago, that Infinity speakers were known for their difficulty of drive (damn big 4 way speaker, with a 12 or even mayde 15" bass, lower mid cone, upper mid EMIM, top EMIT) and were by default a bad match for the VTL monoblocs, he still bought the Infinities. But I really killed him when I took my HK 6550 integrated to his place and had it run the bass unit. All this spanned a period of some 10 years before he got the point. The HK drove those bass speakers with aplomb, its nominal 50 WRMS/8 Ohms power output notwithstanding. The VTLs are rated at 60 WRMS/8 Ohms. They sound good, but need effcient speakers to do their stuff.
There are oh so many cases like that around. That guy felt bad because a $500 integrated did a better job than his $5,000 monoblocs, but he was the one who caused it all with a poor amp-speaker match. Has he done anything about it? Of course not! How can he admit that a mass produced HK does better with his speakers that the revered David Manley VTL?
It is also my experience that when people are suddenly faced with a top quality, though perhaps not so well known, product, which does its job with flying colours, in most cases they will not like it.
Chances of this are the greatest with loudspeakers. They tend to show up all the little and big problems in any system. And people are vain, they actually don't want to suddenly discover that their say CD player, which they hold to be well neigh perfect (usually without much substance), is in fact a mediocre unit at best, only their speakers never managed to show it up.
The least chance goes to power amps. This only because they are much more easily explainable, say more power, more output devices, bigger caps, etc.
But when you achieve a great marriegae between an amp and a pair of speakers, meaning real life synergy, then you're in real trouble. People look at you like you are some kind of pervert lurking in dark, with the sole job of making people unhappy.
My own speakers pair exceptionally well with my Karan and my HK 6550 integrateds. Two friends, both sworn tube lovers, with componantes from Conrad-Johnson, VTL, Infinity andsuch like, whistfully accused me of pulling a dirty trick of some kind, because they felt I got a typical SET tonal quality without any SET shortcomings and with all the advantages of SS speaker control and power.
But when I told one of them, years ago, that Infinity speakers were known for their difficulty of drive (damn big 4 way speaker, with a 12 or even mayde 15" bass, lower mid cone, upper mid EMIM, top EMIT) and were by default a bad match for the VTL monoblocs, he still bought the Infinities. But I really killed him when I took my HK 6550 integrated to his place and had it run the bass unit. All this spanned a period of some 10 years before he got the point. The HK drove those bass speakers with aplomb, its nominal 50 WRMS/8 Ohms power output notwithstanding. The VTLs are rated at 60 WRMS/8 Ohms. They sound good, but need effcient speakers to do their stuff.
There are oh so many cases like that around. That guy felt bad because a $500 integrated did a better job than his $5,000 monoblocs, but he was the one who caused it all with a poor amp-speaker match. Has he done anything about it? Of course not! How can he admit that a mass produced HK does better with his speakers that the revered David Manley VTL?
Big Fi , is what is known here to me , as Big mouth sound , where in everything sounds big , 12ft wide female voices , every instrument big , nothing sizes correctly , big ESL's and horn speakers i have heard over the years does this , with a big clear oversized sound.
Hi-fi is at its best when it gets out of the way , where there is no recording , but the sense of live instruments and scale, some call this, the " they are here " or "you are there "presence, the best of them does both. The sizing is very important for realism , a singular voice cannot be as big as the choir , the tympani's have to have power , mas violins should be discernible as such and not sound as one ...
I do agree with Gootee about box overhang , or box speakers at their worst , the panel speakers do have an unnatural decay too, real bass and drums have a natural "hang time " and decay , fullrange panel speakers get this wrong IMO, along with a lack of percussive energy , they do get other things right, but pianos for eg. lack realism and power on everyone except the big apogees i have heard over the years ..
I'm also happy to announce the amp widower is a favorite amongst the maggie crowd and do agree panel speakers can be a bitch to setup and get right, big power supply need only apply.
Last but not least , Spendor is still around , go figure .....
Hi-fi is at its best when it gets out of the way , where there is no recording , but the sense of live instruments and scale, some call this, the " they are here " or "you are there "presence, the best of them does both. The sizing is very important for realism , a singular voice cannot be as big as the choir , the tympani's have to have power , mas violins should be discernible as such and not sound as one ...
I do agree with Gootee about box overhang , or box speakers at their worst , the panel speakers do have an unnatural decay too, real bass and drums have a natural "hang time " and decay , fullrange panel speakers get this wrong IMO, along with a lack of percussive energy , they do get other things right, but pianos for eg. lack realism and power on everyone except the big apogees i have heard over the years ..
I'm also happy to announce the amp widower is a favorite amongst the maggie crowd and do agree panel speakers can be a bitch to setup and get right, big power supply need only apply.
Last but not least , Spendor is still around , go figure .....
Last edited:
Wayne, getting it wrong is the easiest way to go for anyone.
Just as I object to the small sound of miniature speakers, I also object to unnaturally big sund from big speakers. As you said, a female voise 12 feet wide is doing something really wrong.
As I see it, big boxes should be able to allow for a freedom of sound, from compession caused by speakers, NOT to enlrage anything, just let it play at its natural size.
The question is: when will you KNOW you have agood speaker?
One way is what Tom said - when you are willing to fool around with your job because your speaker entices you to listen more and more. That's a good sign, no doubt.
In my case, I know I have a great speaker because it will do what it does with just about any amp I can throw at it, the lowly Toshiba 45 (El Cheapo delivring 40 WRMS/8 Ohms) and with the high-up Karan (180 WRMS/8 Ohms), but while doing its stuff, it will clearly show the differences between any two amps. It is NOT indifferent to amp quality, and will clearly let you know whether it's the Karan, or the HK, or the Sansui (yep, got one of those as well, model AU-X 701, nominally 100 WRMS/8 Ohms), or the Marantz.
I do believe that because this is o I sometimes come across as perhaps oddly biased in my tastes. This may be so, but I simply enjoy changing the scene every now and then. Tonally, the Karan is easily the best of the lot, but fantastically (to me, at least), the lowly HK 6550 comes amazingly close to the Karan, with Marantz firmly holding the third place. Currently, Sansui is off the list simply because it badly needs a complete refresh, after 29 years of service life, it's earned it fair and square. THEN I can compare it with fairness.
Just as I object to the small sound of miniature speakers, I also object to unnaturally big sund from big speakers. As you said, a female voise 12 feet wide is doing something really wrong.
As I see it, big boxes should be able to allow for a freedom of sound, from compession caused by speakers, NOT to enlrage anything, just let it play at its natural size.
The question is: when will you KNOW you have agood speaker?
One way is what Tom said - when you are willing to fool around with your job because your speaker entices you to listen more and more. That's a good sign, no doubt.
In my case, I know I have a great speaker because it will do what it does with just about any amp I can throw at it, the lowly Toshiba 45 (El Cheapo delivring 40 WRMS/8 Ohms) and with the high-up Karan (180 WRMS/8 Ohms), but while doing its stuff, it will clearly show the differences between any two amps. It is NOT indifferent to amp quality, and will clearly let you know whether it's the Karan, or the HK, or the Sansui (yep, got one of those as well, model AU-X 701, nominally 100 WRMS/8 Ohms), or the Marantz.
I do believe that because this is o I sometimes come across as perhaps oddly biased in my tastes. This may be so, but I simply enjoy changing the scene every now and then. Tonally, the Karan is easily the best of the lot, but fantastically (to me, at least), the lowly HK 6550 comes amazingly close to the Karan, with Marantz firmly holding the third place. Currently, Sansui is off the list simply because it badly needs a complete refresh, after 29 years of service life, it's earned it fair and square. THEN I can compare it with fairness.
Big Fi is valid , it is super real . All we need is it can be hi fi when asked . The best motorcars have this . Although bottom draw of supercars I asked my friend why the Golf GTi was so well liked ? " because your granny can jump straight in and drive it , it will forgive and encourage " . I suppose perfect has three qualities . Big , accurate and forgiving . The Phoenix cinema in Oxford has moments when it is hi fi of this type . It is when a high hat is played I notice . The other cinema I go to is fine , problem is at best mid fi . At that cinema I have to watch the film instead ( I go to please another often , life of Pi , my jury is still out on that one , it was visual big fi ) .
Dvv mentioned he liked the film about our old King George if I remember correctly ? It has the Beethoven 7 second movement . The Phoenix almost was as good as it gets at that point of the film . Ricardo Muti is an interesting version . One day I will get the courage to ask to see the set up . If I ever get my big amp finished ( and I do mean big ) I hope they might accept one from me as a gift . I will be the first to tell them if mine is not as good as theirs . They asked me about fixing the speakers in the bar , they never got back to me and they know I will do it for free . That shakes ones confidence ? Not really , the modern world has no attention span and sees no value in gratuity . They forgot more quickly than I offered is my guess ? I am a bit diffident like that George , maybe they couldn't read my offer ?
Dvv mentioned he liked the film about our old King George if I remember correctly ? It has the Beethoven 7 second movement . The Phoenix almost was as good as it gets at that point of the film . Ricardo Muti is an interesting version . One day I will get the courage to ask to see the set up . If I ever get my big amp finished ( and I do mean big ) I hope they might accept one from me as a gift . I will be the first to tell them if mine is not as good as theirs . They asked me about fixing the speakers in the bar , they never got back to me and they know I will do it for free . That shakes ones confidence ? Not really , the modern world has no attention span and sees no value in gratuity . They forgot more quickly than I offered is my guess ? I am a bit diffident like that George , maybe they couldn't read my offer ?
Toole's comments on the issue at hand ...
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_28_r.pdf
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_28_r.pdf
Indeed I did, Nige, "The King's Speech" is up there among my personal Top 10 films ever. Not surprisingly, over one half of my own Top 10 movies ever was British made. NOBODY does historical movies and series like the Brits, except perhaps the Aussies (who are Brits by extension, with a lot of the Irish thrown in the mix).
What I didn't tell, as it didn't seem relevant at the time, is that my cable TV receiver is connected to my Luxman preamp, and hence the entire soundtrack of the film came to via Luxman-Marantz Dynamic Duo. I only watch American movies with headphones, due to an inordinate number of powerful explosions, train wrecks, helicopter busts, etc.
"Loudspeakers are not the biggest problem in the audo industry" - Yesss!!!
But ... "The loudspeaker/room/listener interface is a very serious problem ..." - disagree severely !!
What he said is true, IF the system is producing an audible level of highly objectionable distortion artifacts. Typically this is the case, so then the solution is to engineer that aforementioned interface like crazy to ameliorate the problem, sweep the dirt under the carpet.
However, I believe there is a better way, which is to not let the dirt get in the room in the first place. A very clean system in other words, which gives the ear/brain plenty of room to breathe in; the mind then does all the "hard work" sorting out the sound in a quite effortless way, irrespective of room peculiarities, etc ...
Frank
Well I do believe Toole when he talks about the difficulty of measuring loudspeakers. Some people on the Enabl thread are screaming for measurement proof when I believe it's unrealistic to measure all the nuances of all we hear without extraordinary cost and time - if it can be done at all. Or at least it seems to me with my limited experience.
There are not many anechoic chambers around. And although the great outdoors could in principle suffice, with the loudspeaker well above the ground along with the measurement mics, where, anymore or if ever, are things quiet enough and free from breezes?
An intermediate approach is measurement on a ground plane, which with sufficient assumptions and corrections can almost get you there for some of the characteristics.
By the way that's a stunt double on the cover. Floyd has never sanctioned his portrayal as an action hero
Ground plane measurements are actually considered as good as measuring in an anechoic chambers ( when not raining and snowing ) very much what i use as oppose to above ground , If doing gated indoors , I only do 1k-22K ...
AES E-Library Ground Plane Acoustic Measurement of Loudspeaker Systems
Tom Danley, of http://www.danleysoundlabs.com, has some excellent ideas and thoughts on the subject ...
Edit: Excuse the brain dead editor this website uses, I've given up trying to get that link to be inserted correctly ....
Frank
Last edited:
Indeed I did, Nige, "The King's Speech" is up there among my personal Top 10 films ever. Not surprisingly, over one half of my own Top 10 movies ever was British made. NOBODY does historical movies and series like the Brits, except perhaps the Aussies (who are Brits by extension, with a lot of the Irish thrown in the mix).
What I didn't tell, as it didn't seem relevant at the time, is that my cable TV receiver is connected to my Luxman preamp, and hence the entire soundtrack of the film came to via Luxman-Marantz Dynamic Duo. I only watch American movies with headphones, due to an inordinate number of powerful explosions, train wrecks, helicopter busts, etc.
Sorry that the conversation has already moved on but I've been meaning to say that I share your appreciation of Harman Kardon and Luxman. I have several of each (receiver/amps) that I have purchased Used, from the late 1970s or early 80s, mostly, and am always amazed at how good they sound. Incredibly good, really. Even the little 50-watters seem to drive the 4-Ohm Maggies perfectly. (Actually, even a 30-Watt Adcom drives them almost as well as my biggest power amp, which is rated to do 1000 Watts into 1 Ohm, average, continuously.)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.