Arrakis 2

[LL21]

Hi Lloyd, first I have to echo what others are saying...quality guy and love your writing style. You make your points on differences, but in a very classy way....Thanks for all you do here!

As a Altair owner, and having a friend nearby with Arrakis, I really have to agree here. The sense of scale is different, it's not a tonality or detail or ease of expression...they sound very similar actually with exception to scale and sheer bass power/control.

I might add, and maybe this is owner bias, the simplicity of the Altair, one amp, single wire etc has some advantages...maybe it's just easier set up. The Arrakis is double everyone..more interconects, speaker cables, amps...etc....it takes some time to get right (as my friends are certainly right I might add)

Thanks for stopping by on the way to the airport! Seems like you maybe getting a Rockport bug one day...

Great to hear from a high-end Rockport owner...rather than just a wannabe! In truth, I have asked about the Arrakis in passive mode for exactly the reason you state...no matter how OCD i am, i cannot see myself doing 2 sets of mono amps, dedicated cables from Preamp to the Active Crossover and 2 sets of cables out of the Active Crossover to the Amps...nightmare, mess, expense, room, you name it.

Plus, i really, really was wondering whether i care THAT much about scale. Ultimately, what was nice about coming home was that after a few minutes of clearly remembering the huge scale of the Arrakis...i very quickly re-acclimated to my music at home...and i think that is because the purity of the tone, very very low noise floor helps create a purity of music that i just simply enjoy. And after a while, you go back to listening to music...and by the way, with pretty darn good scale.

So coming back to Altairs...because i love my bass...and by the way not at high volume...just really care about getting a chest-punch when playing Nickelback or deep house even at 'volume 10' on my CJ GAT...i wonder whether for me the real solution is Altairs plus dual subs. Not it wont produce the mid-range scale when playing Norah Jones...but it gives me the punch and i think with the scale of Altair 2 being so exceptional with, as you say, pretty much the exact same voice as the Arrakis...might that not be a far better, cleaner, solution...that also provides me with far greater flexibility in setup at home and future homes? Could well be....could well be.

What the Arrakis did for me, besides show me scale again, was reemphasize just how organic, tonally pure and effortless the Rockport sound really is. I loved listening to the Arrakis, and it ranks up there to my ears with Gary's flagship 1.2s.

 

[Roysen]

I must just say that your never ending positive attitude and contribution to this forum is very much appreciated LL21!

Agreed! Its always a pleasure to read his knowledgable contributions.

 

[DaveyF]

Great to hear from a high-end Rockport owner...rather than just a wannabe! In truth, I have asked about the Arrakis in passive mode for exactly the reason you state...no matter how OCD i am, i cannot see myself doing 2 sets of mono amps, dedicated cables from Preamp to the Active Crossover and 2 sets of cables out of the Active Crossover to the Amps...nightmare, mess, expense, room, you name it.

Plus, i really, really was wondering whether i care THAT much about scale. Ultimately, what was nice about coming home was that after a few minutes of clearly remembering the huge scale of the Arrakis...i very quickly re-acclimated to my music at home...and i think that is because the purity of the tone, very very low noise floor helps create a purity of music that i just simply enjoy. And after a while, you go back to listening to music...and by the way, with pretty darn good scale.

So coming back to Altairs...because i love my bass...and by the way not at high volume...just really care about getting a chest-punch when playing Nickelback or deep house even at 'volume 10' on my CJ GAT...i wonder whether for me the real solution is Altairs plus dual subs. Not it wont produce the mid-range scale when playing Norah Jones...but it gives me the punch and i think with the scale of Altair 2 being so exceptional with, as you say, pretty much the exact same voice as the Arrakis...might that not be a far better, cleaner, solution...that also provides me with far greater flexibility in setup at home and future homes? Could well be....could well be.

What the Arrakis did for me, besides show me scale again, was reemphasize just how organic, tonally pure and effortless the Rockport sound really is. I loved listening to the Arrakis, and it ranks up there to my ears with Gary's flagship 1.2s.

Hi Lloyd, thanks for the great write up of the Arrakis session and the comparison's to the Altair's, etc.
One point that you made about scale is interesting to me, and that is the statement that scale is more important to some than others. I don't completely agree with that. I believe that scale is VERY important to all who are seeking to reproduce the "live" event, however scale is severely limited by the size of room that the typical a'phile has available.
It is simply unfeasible to generate "lifelike" scale in just about all our in home listening rooms. IF one happens across a very large room with speakers like the Arrakis in situs, then the bonus of scale is much more likely to be present.
IMHO, many a'phile's make the BIG mistake of attempting to get "lifelike" scale in a room that simply cannot illicit this aspect and the result is usually frustration. Personally, I would rather have the right size speaker in a room, than one that completely overloads and dominates the room due to its size and driver capability. Unfortunately, your experience lead me to believe that the Arrakis would work well in VERY FEW typical a'philes rooms.IMHO.

 

[NorthStar]

So I FINALLY managed to hear these...in Hong Kong. Ernest Lau was an absolute gentleman and accommodated me when I was rushing to the airport. Got a good solid chunk of time with him...4 VTL Siegried 2 monos. They reminded me in many ways of the enormous scale one gets from the big Genesis 1.1s which I have also heard. It is very different from what I have heard from the innumerable setups of big Wilsons I have also been fortunate to hear in my life including at home.

I would say, like for like, the scale of Nirvana Unplugged, Norah Jones, Dark Side of the Moon...all are about 50% bigger, fuller, realer than what I have ever heard from any of the big Wilsons. And when I mean bigger, I don't mean Norah Jones was 7 feet tall, but rather that the sense of the auditorium size for Kurt Cobain, the spacing of the players...everything felt very much like they were spread out across a stage...you can get that sense from big Wilsons, Tidals...but for some reason when I heard the big Genesis and now the Arrakis...I got a bit of an 'ear opener' about what lifelike scale is for even those kinds of small to medium scale ensembles.

On DSOTM, I was amazed at something a distributor once said about them: amazing scale, effortlessness...but he was not sure about detail. I initially thought the same thing on music I was not familiar with...when I got to DSOTM...I heard everything I have ever heard on this album before...its just it is not obvious at all...because the scale of it all is so large, you are 'just hearing'...you don't have to actively 'listen' for music...its just in front of you in a very large-lifelike scale...so the side of your brain which seems to switch on is more the one that switches on when you are walking around in real life or going to a concert...than the one that switches on in an audio den where you are scrutinizing a system. When the 'listening to a live acoustic' side of the brain switches on, thoughts of detail go away...but the nice thing with Arrakis is that when you consciously activate that side of your brain to evaluate...you realize (with great surprise)...its all there.

BTW, on build quality...we had bass so powerful that when I stood next to it, my trouser legs were flapping along with my shirt...but my hand on the side of the cabinet less than 2cm away from the edge of the 15" woofer...had no vibration whatsoever...the speaker felt like it was actually OFF.

In sum, I will say this about Arrakis...it is not a difficult speaker to make sound great imho. Having heard Altair now in a totally different system, my gut tells me (as confirmed by many) its voice is the same as Arrakis and much of the Rockport family...and so it does have a voice. And its an easy to get along with because its tonal quality is organic...extremely powerful...but again, remarkably detailed without showing it (at all until you really start to evaluate tracks you know well.) But it also is not an SF speaker which has a definite signature.

Now to make it sound AMAZING...you do have to work at it as with all things. I felt intuitively the Wilsons are easier to finetune...the Arrakis is a beast...and even in that room in Hong Kong, I stepped back 3 feet behind the couch and felt more 'breathing' in the music. Not a criticism, just an observation.

The one thing I would say is that having heard these tracks above in several systems...I am still a sub guy and would still go with one with Arrakis. A kick drum has a certain gut punch that even the Arrakis did not deliver fully on its own...much more powerful than the 2 times I auditioned the XLF...but still not like my X1s plus sub, nor I am told like XLF + Thor.

Final note, I am utterly convinced that the big Genesis and Arrakis (for me) rank in another league above the Tidals, Aida, Grande Utopia, XLF...the Arrakis is 'relatively' smaller than the big Genesis. I could not possibly compare the 2 at this level and pick a winner, and surprisingly, despite their very different technologies, and very different 'stereotyhpical' sounds from which their technologies hail...the sound I heard from both was far more similar than different. Organic, fast, slam, etc. Could easily be happy with either...its about having the room. One man's opinion.

I read your above post with great passion Lloyd. ...Thx for sharing, I am dreaming higher...that closer music sound reproduction life's reality.

 

[JackD201]

Hi Lloyd, thanks for the great write up of the Arrakis session and the comparison's to the Altair's, etc.
One point that you made about scale is interesting to me, and that is the statement that scale is more important to some than others. I don't completely agree with that. I believe that scale is VERY important to all who are seeking to reproduce the "live" event, however scale is severely limited by the size of room that the typical a'phile has available.
It is simply unfeasible to generate "lifelike" scale in just about all our in home listening rooms. IF one happens across a very large room with speakers like the Arrakis in situs, then the bonus of scale is much more likely to be present.
IMHO, many a'phile's make the BIG mistake of attempting to get "lifelike" scale in a room that simply cannot illicit this aspect and the result is usually frustration. Personally, I would rather have the right size speaker in a room, than one that completely overloads and dominates the room due to its size and driver capability. Unfortunately, your experience lead me to believe that the Arrakis would work well in VERY FEW typical a'philes rooms.IMHO.

Speaker and room matching is the cornerstone for achieving "proper" scale. Scale is relative after all. I think of it as analogous to having the right screen size for a given range of viewing distances.

 

[LL21]

Hi Lloyd, thanks for the great write up of the Arrakis session and the comparison's to the Altair's, etc.
One point that you made about scale is interesting to me, and that is the statement that scale is more important to some than others. I don't completely agree with that. I believe that scale is VERY important to all who are seeking to reproduce the "live" event, however scale is severely limited by the size of room that the typical a'phile has available.
It is simply unfeasible to generate "lifelike" scale in just about all our in home listening rooms. IF one happens across a very large room with speakers like the Arrakis in situs, then the bonus of scale is much more likely to be present.
IMHO, many a'phile's make the BIG mistake of attempting to get "lifelike" scale in a room that simply cannot illicit this aspect and the result is usually frustration. Personally, I would rather have the right size speaker in a room, than one that completely overloads and dominates the room due to its size and driver capability. Unfortunately, your experience lead me to believe that the Arrakis would work well in VERY FEW typical a'philes rooms.IMHO.

On the one hand, I suspect you are right...that Arrakis does not work in too many rooms. However, I have spoken with 2 dealers who have said that its such a well controlled speaker with no anomalies, flairs in its frequency range that it actually does surprisingly well in smaller rooms...not ideal, but surprisingly well. I cannot say either of course.

I also do wonder what would happen to scale in my room if we went Arrakis. I suspect it gets bigger and more effortless.

 

[LL21]

Speaker and room matching is the cornerstone for achieving "proper" scale. Scale is relative after all. I think of it as analogous to having the right screen size for a given range of viewing distances.

Probably right that scale is relative in that the human mind can adapt...though I have to admit that when you heard a singer sized such that your human senses immediately takeover your cognitive ones...and register 'that is the proper size for a human being who is singing'...it is quite a cool experience. And if you really dig that, there aint no going back to 'scale'. The good thing is I am told that it can happen more often than you think with certain speakers even in smaller rooms...Arrakis being one of them. I cannot say for sure having only heard the Arrakis once before, but I can say that in yesterday's room...it really was lifesized/lifescaled with life-like weight which felt about 30%-50% more than the X1/X2/XLF from a purely instinctive standpoint.

 

[JackD201]

That is my experience as well with VR-11s, IRS', Big Dunlavys and 1.1s. I'm pretty sure that that would also be the case with X-tremes and the Arrakis. The ability to energize bass evenly in the upper half of the space while having less dynamic restrictions just results in so much more ease since you don't actually have to play louder to move as much air. I agree LLoyd, it's really tough to go back.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

That is my experience as well with VR-11s, IRS', Big Dunlavys and 1.1s. I'm pretty sure that that would also be the case with X-tremes and the Arrakis. The ability to energize bass evenly in the upper half of the space while having less dynamic restrictions just results in so much more ease since you don't actually have to play louder to move as much air. I agree LLoyd, it's really tough to go back.

+1 for the MM7's.

no replacement for displacement....absolute power corrupts absolutely.....and all that kinda stuff.

 

[JackD201]

No doubt. I'm sure the MM3s were no slouches in that department either.

 

[LL21]

Yes, in terms of the scale ting where my non-audiophile senses immediately took over because as opposed to adapting to the sound and interpreting, the soundstage just came out at me like it does in life, the speakers which did this were:
- Genesis 1.1s
- Arrakis 2

The ones that were close (70%-75% of scale) but still occupied my audiophile/cognitive side:
- Tidal Sunray + Tidal Tower Subs...it came close 1 or 2 times, but on Clapton, the soundstage fell back to sub-life (80%?)
- Grande Utopia
- X1/X2/XLF + Sub

- My limited experience left me with impression these are not totally in this category, but not quite the next level in scale down either: Altair 2, YG Anat Ref II, SF Aida, big Maggies, and every once in a while with the right track, the Alexias can really scale up out of nowhere...not always, but it can be shocking sometimes...DSOTM is a prime example on a pair of Alexias

Next up:
- SF Strads
- Alexias...again, can really scale up surprisingly well on a few tracks...shockingly for its size
- CLX + Descent Sub
- big Thiels

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Jack touched upon something here about energizing bass in the upper half of the listening space. I am widly speculating here but I have found that big, tall speakers present a larger scale than smaller one in my experience. A Of course all that sighted and the likes. I am a DBT proponent ater all so those caveats must be out of the way

I have never felt that sub + mini-monitor did ever get to that sense of scale , regardless of how well the bass was integrated. The speakers in my experience with the best sense of scale seem to have woofers in the top or line source, e.g Magnepan. Then there are exceptions, the Magico Q7 does have that sense of scale. It doesn't not however have the sense of unfettered bass power that a Genesis project (What speakers can?), I suppose for that it would need subs. Then again in my world view any speakers this side of the 1.1 (The king of scale), MM7, VR11, etc need subs

 

[LL21]

Hi

Jack touched upon something here about energizing bass in the upper half of the listening space. I am widly speculating here but I have found that big, tall speakers present a larger scale than smaller one in my experience. A Of course all that sighted and the likes. I am a DBT proponent ater all so those caveats must be out of the way

I have never felt that sub + mini-monitor did ever get to that sense of scale , regardless of how well the bass was integrated. The speakers in my experience with the best sense of scale seem to have woofers in the top or line source, e.g Magnepan. Then there are exceptions, the Magico Q7 does have that sense of scale. It doesn't not however have the sense of unfettered bass power that a Genesis project (What speakers can?), I suppose for that it would need subs. Then again in my world view any speakers this side of the 1.1 (The king of scale), MM7, VR11, etc need subs

I am totally with you on a few points here...I love minis + subs and have run that setup since I 1994 when I got my first sub with Celestion SL6si's. Next, I would love to hear the Q7s and in particular hear them with a pair of their own Magico QSubs. Finally, I also walked away with the absolutely firm conviction in the room in Hong Kong, the Arrakis 2 should also be run with subs. Yes, it needs subs less than a lot of other speakers, but when the bass drum does not punch you in the chest like it does in any live situation, I really feel like at this level, you need it. (ok...at least I need it.)

 

[LL21]

...Jack touched upon something here about energizing bass in the upper half of the listening space. I am widly speculating here but I have found that big, tall speakers present a larger scale than smaller one in my experience.... The speakers in my experience with the best sense of scale seem to have woofers in the top or line source, e.g Magnepan. Then there are exceptions, the Magico Q7 does have that sense of scale. It doesn't not however have the sense of unfettered bass power that a Genesis project (What speakers can?), I suppose for that it would need subs....

Hi...I re-read your post and found it fascinating. I have not heard the Q7 and originally had been discouraged from going out of my way to do so by a couple of people...but now I am consciously ignoring that advice and going to inquire about an audition. Are you saying that, IF (big IF) the right sub could be blended with Magico Q7 (say, QSub), the Q7 scale (in mids/uppers as well as bass power) might be the equal of the truly gargantuan speakers that are (imho) at another level...Genesis, Arrakis, likely MM7?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hi

Jack touched upon something here about energizing bass in the upper half of the listening space. I am widly speculating here but I have found that big, tall speakers present a larger scale than smaller one in my experience. A Of course all that sighted and the likes. I am a DBT proponent ater all so those caveats must be out of the way

I have never felt that sub + mini-monitor did ever get to that sense of scale , regardless of how well the bass was integrated. The speakers in my experience with the best sense of scale seem to have woofers in the top or line source, e.g Magnepan. Then there are exceptions, the Magico Q7 does have that sense of scale. It doesn't not however have the sense of unfettered bass power that a Genesis project (What speakers can?), I suppose for that it would need subs. Then again in my world view any speakers this side of the 1.1 (The king of scale), MM7, VR11, etc need subs

over the top ease and scale involves much more than just deep bass headroom, or even height of deep bass output, it also needs plenty of driver surface top and bottom in the mid-bass too. which is where subwoofers alone cannot make up for single mid bass drivers only down below. you may have been inferring that with your comments.....but it's a significant distinction.

more music lives in the mid-bass by far than in the subwoofers.

 

[MylesBAstor]

over the top ease and scale involves much more than just deep bass headroom, or even height of deep bass output, it also needs plenty of driver surface top and bottom in the mid-bass too. which is where subwoofers alone cannot make up for single mid bass drivers only down below. you may have been inferring that with your comments.....but it's a significant distinction.

more music lives in the mid-bass by far than in the subwoofers.

Sager words have not been written Seems to me that people just lose the proper musical balance in the quest for low end and the midrange just doesn't move enough air.

 

[LL21]

I agree...its just that to get that level of air movement takes a lot of space...a lot of speaker. And in the compromises many of us must make...cost and room...having a sub is better (for me anyway) than not having a sub at all. The balance is not perfect, but at least you get some portion of the slam and scale of a truly "full-scale speaker" (to be differentiated as Mike points out from "only" "full-range speaker") .

 

[JackD201]

Hi

Jack touched upon something here about energizing bass in the upper half of the listening space. I am widly speculating here but I have found that big, tall speakers present a larger scale than smaller one in my experience. A Of course all that sighted and the likes. I am a DBT proponent ater all so those caveats must be out of the way

I have never felt that sub + mini-monitor did ever get to that sense of scale , regardless of how well the bass was integrated. The speakers in my experience with the best sense of scale seem to have woofers in the top or line source, e.g Magnepan. Then there are exceptions, the Magico Q7 does have that sense of scale. It doesn't not however have the sense of unfettered bass power that a Genesis project (What speakers can?), I suppose for that it would need subs. Then again in my world view any speakers this side of the 1.1 (The king of scale), MM7, VR11, etc need subs

There's something special about "flown" subs. I believe Amir has one installed in his full on Synthesis room. It's a wall to wall, ceiling to floor pressure wave as opposed to an even floor bound foundation provided by grounded multiple subs. I was very titillated by the Mark Seaton install where he did just that in a room featuring a pair of Arrakis 2s. All the best rock concerts I've attended like U2 in Tokyo had subs flown too.

Add midbass to that (11 the upcoming VR-111, 1.1, MM7 et al) with time and phase coherence and it is full range pressure. Considering it is the LF that supposedly provides cues to venue size and highs and mids propagation supposedly provides instrument sizing, the combination is more akin to iMAX than even Anamorphic without having a singer with beach ball sized pores. While the 9s play big, and are tonal dead ringers of the 11s, when it comes to the BIG works, the stage is stunted by comparison. The caveat of course is that with really big speakers like those mentioned, large well treated rooms are an absolute requirement.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I respect all of you guys striving for that full range/full scale/bottomless bass performance, to approximate the real thing. I live in a double height 27' x 22' x 13' space, very lively with pretty good acoustics, solid concrete floors etc, and some minimal acoustics solutions. Been running Zu Audio Definitions Mk4 spkrs with a self powered 12" downwd firing sub driver per spkr, set to come in at 40Hz where the full range drivers thin out at, ie a whole lot less in driver area than Lloyd's Wilsons/subs, Mikes MM7 towers etc. These drivers have Griewe loading and digital tailoring, and extend to 16Hz in room, and even with only a couple of sub drivers, I have to be REALLY careful how to choose settings not to overpower the room. Can't imagine how I'd integrate Arrakis, XLF, MM3/7 etc.
But I'm finally getting bass that really underpins the spectrum above, and while kick drum doesn't pin me in my seat, it's got extension and power I've never experienced before at home, giving me a realistic peek twds the "real" thing, and that's sufficient for me (and my neighbours!).

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Sager words have not been written Seems to me that people just lose the proper musical balance in the quest for low end and the midrange just doesn't move enough air.

and it's even more than just moving the air; it's the linearity and ease of moving that air, which involves driver surface, driver excursion, cabinet volume, speaker sensitivity, and amplifier responsiveness (and even crossover type). when you have headroom in all those areas, the mid-bass ease and control becomes the 'heart' of overall ease and scale. the subwoofer headroom and height then become the cherry on top of the mid-bass main event.

the 'real life-like' impact and transient snap from a drum kit at full tilt boggie comes from the mid-bass; when it has that ease and effortlessness then everything else lays out correctly. and when you hear that done right it does become addictive.

i'd even go so far as to say that in speaker design, the mid-bass is the 'hard part'......and where the music breathes.