What makes sense??

[Al M.]

I have observed on many occasions that some fellow a'philes do not in fact have priorities or goals that are clearly understood. This seems to lead to constant gear swapping, constant flip flopping on what is their expectation for their systems and unfortunately a great deal of disappointment. In some instances, I suspect this disappointment has lead to a change of hobby. I do think that that many dealers and manufacturer's are also guilty of propagating this disappointment. Steve's mantra seems to make a lot of sense....question is how many people follow it?

Yes, and it's important that you don't just know your priorities, but also know to protect them and not get distracted. My minimonitors don't go low in the bass at all, but for almost a decade I had no subwoofer because I did not want an extra crossover from my speakers that might affect the vividness of their midrange, a feature absolutely vital to me. Then, in 2000, I read about the REL concept of a subwoofer running in parallel to the main speakers, without crossover from them (I think they were the first ones with that concept, but I may be mistaken). So I added a REL subwoofer to my system, with great results beyond expectations.

 

[DaveyF]

Yes, and it's important that you don't just know your priorities, but also know to protect them and not get distracted. My minimonitors don't go low in the bass at all, but for almost a decade I had no subwoofer because I did not want an extra crossover from my speakers that might affect the vividness of their midrange, a feature absolutely vital to me. Then, in 2000, I read about the REL concept of a subwoofer running in parallel to the main speakers, without crossover from them (I think they were the first ones with that concept, but I may be mistaken). So I added a REL subwoofer to my system, with great results beyond expectations.

That is exactly what I thought when using my SF's. The midrange was so pure, why do anything to disturb the magic. Like you, I added a REL and am extremely pleased. There is a LOT of musical info in the lower regions. I have come to the conclusion, that in some ways, it is a simple design flaw or a BIG negative on any speaker that cannot deliver decent bass reproduction. This typically goes for ALL of the monitor type speaker. The loss of low level information is IMO...almost criminal. Having said that, I do believe that there have to be restrictions based on the size and cost of the designs and more importantly the room that the speaker is likely to be utilized in. ( BUT the addition of a sub, shouldn't have to be mandatory in most instances).

 

[Al M.]

That is exactly what I thought when using my SF's. The midrange was so pure, why do anything to disturb the magic. Like you, I added a REL and am extremely pleased. There is a LOT of musical info in the lower regions. I have come to the conclusion, that in some ways, it is a simple design flaw or a BIG negative on any speaker that cannot deliver decent bass reproduction. This typically goes for ALL of the monitor type speaker. The loss of low level information is IMO...almost criminal. Having said that, I do believe that there have to be restrictions based on the size and cost of the designs and more importantly the room that the speaker is likely to be utilized in. ( BUT the addition of a sub, shouldn't have to be mandatory in most instances).

Why? I don't see the concept of minimonitor as design flaw at all, even when it does not deliver deep bass output. Large enclosures of full-range speakers tend to have their own problems -- I prefer them when they are done as perfectly as in the Magico M Project, the best speaker I have heard. Otherwise they have the potential to turn into design flaws.

Minimonitors are fine in their own right, and if the bass does not go deep enough, supplementing them with a subwoofer is the system of choice.

What I do find criminal is when minimonitors are reviewed without ever pairing them with a sub during the entire review period.

 

[DaveyF]

What I do find criminal is when minimonitors are reviewed without ever pairing them with a sub during the entire review period.

That's my basic point. Plus, I'm not sure how much the consumer realizes how much of the musical spectrum is in fact mia. OTOH, the fact that the mini monitor has a very important part to play in the small room could off-set the
potential for major room mode issues. I guess, stating the speaker design is 'flawed' and almost criminal is too big a statement.

 

[Blizzard]

Why? I don't see the concept of minimonitor as design flaw at all, even when it does not deliver deep bass output. Large enclosures of full-range speakers tend to have their own problems -- I prefer them when they are done as perfectly as in the Magico M Project, the best speaker I have heard. Otherwise they have the potential to turn into design flaws.

Minimonitors are fine in their own right, and if the bass does not go deep enough, supplementing them with a subwoofer is the system of choice.

What I do find criminal is when minimonitors are reviewed without ever pairing them with a sub during the entire review period.

I find it criminal for a speaker manufacturer to sell a minimonitor without offering a matching companion sub for those who ever want to upgrade. I've been building my speakers in a minimum of 2 parts for years now.

View attachment 22894

 

[flez007]

Bud

My mantra in this hobby has always been, "let your ears and your wallet guide you"

I liked that!

 

[andromedaaudio]

To be honest , despite all the measurents i made and read about , your ears should lead the way if you really want to enjoy things , but on the other hand good design and good measurments go hand in hand
Designing a good monitor LS criminal , i know of a lot more bad things which are criminal , large HQ/ wide bandwith designs, you aint gonna get them for monitor prices, HQ monitors can give you 70 % of the expirience imo

 

[rockitman]

My mantra in this hobby has always been, "let your ears and your wallet guide you"

No truer words ever spoken with regard to audio.

 

[NorthStar]

If our ears, our music passion is truly true to us, and the rest will follow automatically...it don't matter how fat or how thin our wallet is...only us can make it fatter to the extent of our 'no limit' music passion.

* Since I was about 13, I figured that I spent about a million dollars in music recordings. All my friends considered me a real "lunatic" living on another planet of our galaxy. Very very few are living there with me...and those few that do...they are also considered "lunatic" by all other "normal" people.

It doesn't matter where we spend our money; music recordings, audio gear...what does is the transparency of our musical soul. :b

 

[Al M.]

I find it criminal for a speaker manufacturer to sell a minimonitor without offering a matching companion sub for those who ever want to upgrade. I've been building my speakers in a minimum of 2 parts for years now.

There is not necessarily a need for a matching subwoofer by the same manufacturer. REL and other subwoofers match just fine with many speakers.

Clean-looking design in your picture.

 

[andromedaaudio]

There are also other factors why a monitor in most cases wouldnt match with a woofersystem / subsystem , efficiency matching being the main obstructor.
With a full bandwith system everything can be matched from the ground up as with a monitor sub design its mostly a compromise

 

[rbbert]

REL may have the first to recommend driving the sub low-pass filter from the amplifier speaker terminals, but running the main speakers full-range and only the sub with filtering has been an option with both adherents and detractors since the '70's when separate subs first came into vogue (IIRC Janus was an early somewhat popular brand), so really not much has changed in that respect.

I do tend to look more favorably on single-brand systems (Usher and Vapor come immediately to mind) incorporating monitors with matching subs.

 

[Blizzard]

There is not necessarily a need for a matching subwoofer by the same manufacturer. REL and other subwoofers match just fine with many speakers.

Clean-looking design in your picture.

Thanks!

My thoughts are there's no better way to match a system than engineering it to operate as one unit. Also it takes up pretty much the same footprint to have a cabinet with woofers in it as a stand. So if you want to upgrade, replace the stands with woofer cabinets.

 

[NorthStar]

If the music lover is strictly oriented by say Jazz music genre, and that 99% of all his music recordings have no true content to say below approximately 40Hz, not having that last octave, then a subwoofer can be omitted without losing much. IMO

And if integrating a sub with a pair of smaller monitors, it's a good idea to use one that has his own 5-band parametric EQ integrated (or 3-band @ a minimum, and if manually adjustable within say a range of 20 to 80Hz, even better).

I can see future subs with Dirac Live integrated in them...that would be a big gain for all. IMO

 

[Al M.]

I do tend to look more favorably on single-brand systems (Usher and Vapor come immediately to mind) incorporating monitors with matching subs.

Well, my monitors and sub are very well integrated. Just look at the reactions of others in my system thread (link in signature).

 

[Rodney Gold]

With modern DSP its simple to integrate a sub and correct both sub and mains under 200hz or so..and not pricey at all.
The point of using subs is manifold , even with full range speakers.

You get a widening and depth of soundstage improvement as more venue ambient cues are reproduced, even if there is no music content there
You also obviously get more and more depth in the bass and can remove a lot of stress on mains, whatever the size
You can place the bass driver where it / they can deliver the best bass at listening position
You can use multiple subs to actually smooth the room via distributed bass

The only thing that I have reservations over is to get the sheer scale and grandeur of music that large speakers tend to provide .. I have had both systems and none of my monitor/sub combos have come close to big boxen in that regard.

 

[Blizzard]

With modern DSP its simple to integrate a sub and correct both sub and mains under 200hz or so..and not pricey at all.
The point of using subs is manifold , even with full range speakers.

You get a widening and depth of soundstage improvement as more venue ambient cues are reproduced, even if there is no music content there
You also obviously get more and more depth in the bass and can remove a lot of stress on mains, whatever the size
You can place the bass driver where it / they can deliver the best bass at listening position
You can use multiple subs to actually smooth the room via distributed bass

The only thing that I have reservations over is to get the sheer scale and grandeur of music that large speakers tend to provide .. I have had both systems and none of my monitor/sub combos have come close to big boxen in that regard.

Having played around with modern DSP quite a bit, the only way to achieve flawless integration at the same level as a high end passive speaker is if every DAC in the system shares the same master clock.

 

[c1ferrari]

...and it's been lots of fun and great listening. my analog centric friends think I'm a bit crazy. others can't understand why I did not get bigger into digital sooner. others think I'm crazy investing in PCM. there is no right answer for everyone. but in the end it made sense for me.

Good for you, Mike!

 

[Al M.]

The only thing that I have reservations over is to get the sheer scale and grandeur of music that large speakers tend to provide .. I have had both systems and none of my monitor/sub combos have come close to big boxen in that regard.

No argument from me on that. However, you might want to read Madfloyd's comments about scale in my system (link in my signature). He has Magico M Pro speakers.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Do you guys want a mini monitor on stands that makes an amazing stab at sounding like a full range floor stander?
Evolution Acoustics Micro? No.
Magico Mini? No.
Kiii? No.
KEF LS 50? No.

NO, the answer is the absolutely sensational Elac B6, £300/$500. Me and two friends drifted into the Elac room at the Windsor show y'day, having got so fed up w/how poor the statement setups using Kef Muons, Magico S7s, Wilsons were sounding, expecting nothing.
30 mins later we were still sitting there, trying to lift our jaws off the floor, muttering "this cannot be possible!"

The most amazing giant slayer in audio atm. No sub needed LOL.