Best speakers at low volume

[gleeds]

If the Fynes don’t use a 1st order crossover then they are not phase coherent. They probably sound pretty coherent but technically they would not be.

Yes, perhaps but to my ears they (as of my most recent listen Friday) they check the boxes on the topic at hand - clarity and engagement at low levels. Your correct, the Fyne's uses a second order filter topology.

 

[morricab]

Yes, perhaps but to my ears they (as of my most recent listen Friday) they check the boxes on the topic at hand - clarity and engagement at low levels. Your correct, the Fyne's uses a second order filter topology.

I am sure you are right that it sounds coherent, having some experience with other coaxial speakers (that are rarely technically phase coherent) it is a good approach to minimize issues, like lobing, that can affect the impression of incoherence. It is not trivial though to make sure the two drivers don't unduly interfere with each other, which is why frequency response measurements on some coaxial drivers are a bit uneven.

 

[Folsom]

Nothing is phase coherent. It's a complete lie. A driver isn't even "coherent" with itself. Speaker driver simply cannot radiate sound exactly from the same spot on multiple frequencies like instruments/voices can. What you have to do is align the phases in the given spectrum so where they cross it'll be similar and the changes in phase approach a direct that is agreeable to listening.

For the same reason time alignment is a misnomer. Aligning drivers can be helpful in many ways but there is no such thing as full time coherence. You can get closer than really far away from alignment but can't actually fully align.

Considering where speakers cross with tweeters typically, the entire point is absolutely moot about the crossover order. A capacitor changes the phase, and inductors do too. If you go 4th order phase is back to normal, but a lot of people prefer 3rd which is not. The variables that matter are not the stuff that just isn't true.

 

[Folsom]

Measurement is of both speakers at my listening position. I forgot what exact configuration, as I have tweaked it over time, but somewhere between 2.5 and 2.8 meters.

That's why it looks more complete. If you did a proper speaker measurement you'd see all the faults. What you have is like over DSPing, it looks normal on a graph but sounds less normal when you listen to certain types of music. Your drivers are so far apart from one another that you gets lots of phase cancellation between them "comb filtering". And the bass isn't what it could be because you have no BSC.

Baffle step correction accounts for the fact that a lot of acoustical energy is going everywhere, but the higher frequencies are going directly towards you. This makes the high end much hotter (although with yours the comb filtering makes it look less hot, but it's really hot and cold, not just average).

There's lots of things you can do to change that. There are some you may not like at first or may not be the best suited way to go with your amplification. I'm a fan of bipolar with single drivers because the bass is powerful or even a bit more than needed so you can do a port or transmission line that rolls off gently and it comes out very nice. You keep the full sensitivity of the driver but can't increase it. In fact there is no way to increase the sensitivity without losing something else. That's why certain manufacturers use drivers that have an inverse relationship to SPL and frequency. The high frequencies are much more sensitive than the lower ones, because the lower ones they can use acoustical gain from horn shapes and transmission lines, so they end up with a higher overall sensitivity.

 

[hopkins]

That's why it looks more complete. If you did a proper speaker measurement you'd see all the faults. What you have is like over DSPing, it looks normal on a graph but sounds less normal when you listen to certain types of music. Your drivers are so far apart from one another that you gets lots of phase cancellation between them "comb filtering". And the bass isn't what it could be because you have no BSC.

So far I have not found any album in my music collection that I don't enjoy listening to. But thanks for all your recommendations. I have had a lot of people tell me all the issues with these speakers. Funny those are never the ones who have actually listened to them... On the other hand, I have heard plenty of speakers that perform well on paper but that I have not enjoyed, so I am not going to embark on a completely new project based on theoretical advantages, without actually listening first... Nobody's perfect

 

[Folsom]

They aren't theoretical. It's extremely basic physics. How did I get to know more about it? Because I use to fiddle around and make stuff that I thought sounded ok then later found out it wasn't so good and there was so much more to do. I assure you that I've heard many fullrange setups.

But if you're happy then it's fine.

 

[hopkins]

They aren't theoretical. It's extremely basic physics. How did I get to know more about it? Because I use to fiddle around and make stuff that I thought sounded ok then later found out it wasn't so good and there was so much more to do. I assure you that I've heard many fullrange setups.

But if you're happy then it's fine.

It is theoretical. Basic physics doesn't tell you anything about the significance of these various phenomenon to our ears.

I know these are not perfect. I have been told exactly what you have told me before. I have played around with various added wings, for BSC and at the end of the day it is not worth it (to me). Perhaps I have my own tastes...

Now let's drop the theory and let me know of a speaker you appreciate and can recommend (preferably less than 5000€, that can be driven by a 16w amp, and one that plays well at low volume, since this is the topic), and I would be more than happy to put it on my list of audio equipment to audition - if I have not already heard it!

 

[hopkins]

.. it looks normal on a graph but sounds less normal when you listen to certain types of music.

Sorry to continue here, as this is a little off topic, but what "type of music" will reveal the horrible comb filtering that you suggest I experience? I am really curious to know. Thanks. I benchmark the accuracy of the overall frequency response of my speakers by comparing with the sound I hear on a variety of headphones, listening to a variety of music. Aside for bass issues, I do not detect frequency imbalance. So what magical track do I need to use?

Perhaps you would also like to elaborate how measuring comb filtering at the listening point is not relevant and how any other position would better reflect the listening experience. I'm also very curious about that one...

 

[Solypsa]

@hopkins perhaps on topic, and since you ( per your bio page ) are in France....have you heard Fertin full range drivers on OB? I realize there are / were two different 'Fertin' within the family. Either? Just curious

 

[morricab]

@hopkins perhaps on topic, and since you ( per your bio page ) are in France....have you heard Fertin full range drivers on OB? I realize there are / were two different 'Fertin' within the family. Either? Just curious

I heard them at Black Forest Audio many years ago. Interesting sound but like all fullrange drivers, light on the bass and I am just not a fan of the whizzer cone sound for the highs...its a buzzy indistinct sound.

 

[hopkins]

@hopkins perhaps on topic, and since you ( per your bio page ) are in France....have you heard Fertin full range drivers on OB? I realize there are / were two different 'Fertin' within the family. Either? Just curious

Not really. I had the chance of hearing the EBM L5c speaker in a demo in Paris (http://ebenisterie-musique.fr/Gamme EBM.html), but this is not an OB. It has a "custom" EMS/Fertin driver (without a filter), and a tweeter. The listening room, a small living room, barely furnished, in a modern flat with low ceilings, had terrible acoustics and that was very distracting. I did not follow up on this.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I don't get why any speaker would be better at low volume than another unless they have a tailored response that approximates Fletcher Mulson. That is a characteristic that I certainly would not want. At low volume nothing is stressed so there should be no challenges at all for any decent speaker system.

Rob

How much experience do you have with Magnepan loudspeakers?

 

[microstrip]

I have often read that Quad ESL 57 speakers perform well at low volume. They are around 93db sensitive, but the large driver surface may have a role to play as well.

Yes, iI found they perform well at low volume. But unfortunately your quoted sensitivity is too optimist - I have seen values around 83-84 dB at 2.85V.

The ESL63 also performs well at low volume. But they do it only when used with an adequate amplifier for this purpose - we should remember that perceived loudness is not just a question of physics, but also of psychoacoustics.

 

[morricab]

How much experience do you have with Magnepan loudspeakers?

I have enough to know that working well at low volume and Magnepan are basically never used in the same sentence.

 

[bonzo75]

How much experience do you have with Magnepan loudspeakers?

no inefficient speaker is going to compare with efficient ones at low volume. They lose low level details at high volume as it is. There might be efficient speakers that are bad, but any decent one will be here at low volume

 

[Al M.]

So Apogees lack low level detail?

 

[bonzo75]

So Apogees lack low level detail?

compared to good horns, yes.

 

[bonzo75]

So Apogees lack low level detail?

i used to like apogee because they had excellent midrange, and big stage. They had superb bass, especially midbass and weight for tympani and drums, unlike any other. But then I heard 4 dual FLHs which all matched Henk’s apogee grands equally on that parameter, plus added the lower level detail and micro dynamics and textures that came from faster, lower grip requiremen dual 15 inchers backed with low watt SET texture.

The midrange and openness can be retained, bettered, or worsened based on which driver and horn configuration is used.

i find things below dual FLH like angle woofer or down firing etc a sought compromise in the bass. Hybrid active is sh@t.

 

[Al M.]

i used to like apogee because they had excellent midrange, and big stage. They had superb bass, especially midbass and weight for tympani and drums, unlike any other. But then I heard 4 dual FLHs which all matched Henk’s apogee grands equally on that parameter, plus added the lower level detail and micro dynamics and textures that came from faster, lower grip requiremen dual 15 inchers backed with low watt SET texture.

The midrange and openness can be retained, bettered, or worsened based on which driver and horn configuration is used.

i find things below dual FLH like angle woofer or down firing etc a sought compromise in the bass. Hybrid active is sh@t.

Micro-dynamics are important, I agree.

If I remember correctly, you also dislike hybrids with midrange/HF horn but regular passive box woofer. A concept like the Volti Rival, for example, or JBL 4367.

 

[bonzo75]

Micro-dynamics are important, I agree.

If I remember correctly, you also dislike hybrids with midrange/HF horn but regular passive box woofer. A concept like the Volti Rival, for example, or JBL 4367.

Yes. I have not heard Volti.

At a lower price such designs can be accepted add compromise if space is constrained