Component Choice : The Audiophile Perspective

[Al M.]

Yes, Frank. I think you are right with live music being performed in a room. It will sound great from almost anywhere, even outside in the hallway. But it is different when trying to make two stereo speakers sound convincing, IME. Much more difficult. I have never heard reproduced music from an audio system sound convincing unless the speaker/listener/room relationship was done to maximize the sense of presence. When it all locks in, it is quite noticeable. However, most of my experience is limited to smaller dynamic speakers and a little with planar speakers. If this relationship is not right, one can still be left with other wonderful sonic attributes, but not with a believable sense of presence. Dynamics and imaging may also suffer. This is just my experience, as you say.

Well said, Peter. And it is my experience too.

The point about speakers vs. live instruments is crucial. They have vastly different radiation patterns.

 

[Al M.]

Hi if you are sticking to dynamic speakers, subs, and digital, try going multichannel, especially with auro 3d or atmos if you like classical.

Do demo a couple of systems with that set up. Audioguy and RBFC are going down that route. Kal and fitzcarldo are strong advocates of MCH too, and edorr and Brucemck2 both have one. Philip o hanlon was telling me about a MCH with vivids and the NADAC and how good it sounded. Can totally believe that. With MCH, soundstage, imaging, detail and room correction are the best, no matter what your 2 CH system is. Where you compromise are if you like the tone of vinyl and certain speakers like horns. All IMO

Also listen to a WE 16a with GIP drivers. And think of having two systems, like a Jadis with quads plus one with dynamic speakers. Look at tri stacking quads

And with MCH limiting yourself to 100s or 1000s of recordings vs. multiple millions? Where's the music in all of this?

 

[audioguy]

I would have preferred an essentially full range speaker because the better scale well. Small speakers in my book remains small even when helped with a sub below … When proven wrong I will bow to the evidence for now I maintain this POV.

I'm not sure what "small" means but if you mean one that does not get down to, say, 30HZ easily, then I see that much differently.

Clearly, a physically small speaker will have it's limitations, regardless of how many subs you use. However, my last two sets of speakers [neither of which are "audiophile approved"], were not "full scale", but only had/have significant output to about 60HZ to 70HZ. followed by a 12db per octave rolloff. Both use/used dual 10 or 12 inch woofers. Both were/are VERY efficient and could play at stupid SPL's without audible distortion. And when coupled with an appropriate number of high quality subs, they sound as big as any of the actually big speakers I have ever heard. Sub/main integration is a no brainer given measurement tools, like REW or OmniMic and something like one of the miniDSP devices (and some knowledge of acoustics).

The two sets of speakers I referenced are the active/powered Seaton Catalysts (turned out I was not a huge fan of the compression drivers, particularly when pressed to high SPL's) and now the passive Triad Platinums. When considering how I use my system - music at reasonable listening levels and action movies, at, on occasion, WAY more than reasonable listening levels , if I were to win the lottery tomorrow, I would not replace my LCR speakers. I enjoy them that much. I must add, however, that I no longer listen to 2 channel music with 2 channels and that may influence my decision.

Once, like you, I figured out that subs and mains don't belong in the same physical space to optimize the full frequency response, it made no sense to me to spend the extra money on full range speakers - so I haven't - and never looked back.

I know you would have no reason to find yourself around 80 miles east of Atlanta, but should you find yourself near, I invite you to come hear what non-full range speakers sound like when coupled with ample sub woofage.

 

[audioguy]

I also agree with Cello for testing purposes, it's not easy to get right since the sound is across such a wide variety of frequencies and if there are discontinuities across drivers Cello can highlight the issues. Then vocals, we have an innate feeling for if they are right or not...

Try listening to plucked stand up bass as a demo. You will quickly find out how well the bass drivers are integrated with the rest of the system.

 

[audioguy]

Hi if you are sticking to dynamic speakers, subs, and digital, try going multichannel, especially with auro 3d or atmos if you like classical.

Do demo a couple of systems with that set up. Audioguy and RBFC are going down that route. Kal and fitzcarldo are strong advocates of MCH too, and edorr and Brucemck2 both have one. Philip o hanlon was telling me about a MCH with vivids and the NADAC and how good it sounded. Can totally believe that. With MCH, soundstage, imaging, detail and room correction are the best, no matter what your 2 CH system is. Where you compromise are if you like the tone of vinyl and certain speakers like horns. All IMO

Also listen to a WE 16a with GIP drivers. And think of having two systems, like a Jadis with quads plus one with dynamic speakers. Look at tri stacking quads

If one listens to live classical music, you discover that things like imaging, which we as audiophile obsess over, really doesn't exist. It's just HUGE mono. In fact, when my wife hired a 3 piece jazz combo to play in our home [they positioned themselves on a catwalk joining two section of the upstairs portion of our home], imaging was "vague" to say the least.

My most recent product upgrade (Datasat RS20i), does move me more in that direction. I almost never hear speakers any more. Sounds emanates from a true 3 dimensional space - JUST LIKE LIVE MUSIC. And I agree about Atmos and Auro. Moving from 2 channel listening to 3D multi-channel is a very difficult for the true audiophile to take on. It is just so "un-audiophile-ish". But I highly recommend giving it an audition in a place where a dealer or individual has done the proper setup. You might just move from the "dark side"

 

[MadFloyd]

If one listens to live classical music, you discover that things like imaging, which we as audiophile obsess over, really doesn't exist. It's just HUGE mono.

This couldn't be further from my experience. I go to the BSO regularly and am always amazed at how localized each instrument is - not just left to right but the depth as well. I don't sit at the back of the hall, mind you.

 

[FrantzM]

I'm not sure what "small" means but if you mean one that does not get down to, say, 30HZ easily, then I see that much differently.

Clearly, a physically small speaker will have it's limitations, regardless of how many subs you use. However, my last two sets of speakers [neither of which are "audiophile approved"], were not "full scale", but only had/have significant output to about 60HZ to 70HZ. followed by a 12db per octave rolloff. Both use/used dual 10 or 12 inch woofers. Both were/are VERY efficient and could play at stupid SPL's without audible distortion. And when coupled with an appropriate number of high quality subs, they sound as big as any of the actually big speakers I have ever heard. Sub/main integration is a no brainer given measurement tools, like REW or OmniMic and something like one of the miniDSP devices (and some knowledge of acoustics).

The two sets of speakers I referenced are the active/powered Seaton Catalysts (turned out I was not a huge fan of the compression drivers, particularly when pressed to high SPL's) and now the passive Triad Platinums. When considering how I use my system - music at reasonable listening levels and action movies, at, on occasion, WAY more than reasonable listening levels , if I were to win the lottery tomorrow, I would not replace my LCR speakers. I enjoy them that much. I must add, however, that I no longer listen to 2 channel music with 2 channels and that may influence my decision.

Once, like you, I figured out that subs and mains don't belong in the same physical space to optimize the full frequency response, it made no sense to me to spend the extra money on full range speakers - so I haven't - and never looked back.

I know you would have no reason to find yourself around 80 miles east of Atlanta, but should you find yourself near, I invite you to come hear what non-full range speakers sound like when coupled with ample sub woofage.

Very nice post and a lot of things with which I concur.


There was a very nice fellow that when by the name of Morbius on AVS, met him at Steve William's home. Effaced , extremely smart and knowledgeable. I expected him to join the WBF but haven't heard from him nor here or AVS. He proposed an explanation why most so-called "small" speakers even when helped by subs would not sound like "big" speakers. Radiation patterns of the drivers or non-uniformity of radiation patterns was at play among other things. My speculation along the same lines plus what you mention here.
The entire Audiophile world is not fully aware of the notion of dynamic-compression. Many speakers, especially mini-monitors suffers from it. Their Frequency Response varies with the SPL...
Of course their Distortion characteristics worsen with increase in SPL
Non-linearity with SPL increase.. Comes a point where some drivers simply cease to go louder regardless of the input level and this without being destroyed (not that we would wish so). The different drivers exhibit that compression differently .. To give a concrete example: asked to reproduce 95 dB at 500 Hz .. Serious power compression.. at 5 KHz maybe not much... IOW the speaker would stop getting louder past a signal asking for 95 dB at 500 Hz but would nicely play up to 100 dB at 5 KHz ... You can avoid this by using multiple drivers (Yeah! I know they come with their own set of problems .. Success in the Real World is about balancing compromises) .. Wilson does not publish their crossover points (do they ? ) but I bet that the critical bigness region (good output between 200 and 800 Hz) is often taken care by a substantial driver whose only job is to cover that range handling the rest to a larger driver under that and a smaller driver over that.. With a typical mini-monitor a relatively small driver has to go low down to 60 Hz or even less and up to meet the midrange/tweeter somewhere .. Room for power compression.. It is not an issue with 2-ways but with most (not all ) mini-monitors IMO and IME. What we have come to call "big" speakers are those with usually many drivers, so they need the real estate fro those drivers .. and power compression is dealt with. There are 2-ways who do not suffer from such but they usually use larger driver than what typically found in audiophile 2-way mini-monitors e.g the JBL 4367 or the Geddes speakers. Audiophile speakers which seems to have taken this in very serious consideration is Vivid.. They sound the same loud or soft and are comfortable playing loud .. the Q series of Magico Q3 and up, I have NO experience with the Q1) can play waaay loud and that before one notices how loud because of the lack of distortion; to name those two there are others..
The problem remains in the fact that the TOL of a speaker line uses the better drivers. So While you may not need the low end of these speakers if you actually want the ultimate you may need the TOL if you can afford it .. It is also a fact that the more LF radiators you have in a room, the more you increase the likelihood of smooth Low frequency response in that room.. So it is a bonus to have full range speakers in a room after all but not a requisite for serious bass and serious output.
I may not have expressed well the purpose of this thread. I am building a speaker system. Room Acoustics will be taken of very seriously and with all the care my budget can afford me with room to make it better and experiment. Room will be built for the purpose with AC power HVAC, etc .. A room within a shell is what I have in mind. I have learned the virtue of patience so I am bidding my time while learning from this discussion.

One more thing: I don't think I will go MCH..likely 2-ch as high performance as possible.. DRC for sure and speaker/subs optimization is likely.

Another purpose of this thread, is to gather the impressions of those ( I know you're out there ) who have gone or experienced for the Pro stuff and combined it with "audiophile" stuff. Read for example a person using crown on the bass panels on his Mg 20.1 and tubes om mid and tweeter ... Or how good the JBL and other so called Pro speakers and gear are when compared to what we simply go for what I call for the lack of a better term "audiophile-approved". However we try to sidestep the issue by being nice .. A person who uses a Crown amplifier rather than a say Pass on his Wilson speakers would raise (virtual) eyebrows. Same with someone replacing a Giya with a JBL ... Hi! Dallas

 

[audioguy]

This couldn't be further from my experience. I go to the BSO regularly and am always amazed at how localized each instrument is - not just left to right but the depth as well. I don't sit at the back of the hall, mind you.

I sat in row G, 2 seats off dead center at the Atlanta Symphony for 25 years (sat there on purpose so I could see the solo pianists hands). General leftish and rightish placement? Maybe [more so with plucked instruments]. Distinct positioning on the stage? Not even close. Depth? None. Had I been sitting in one of the balconies, I might have had a different experience but the one time I did sit there, the sense of mono was even more exaggerated. That far back, the room over-dominated the sound from the stage.

As you noted, clearly our experiences differ, apparently very significantly. Given that huge differences we experienced, I can only wonder how much of what I heard vs what you heard was the acoustics of the hall we were in.

 

[Al M.]

This couldn't be further from my experience. I go to the BSO regularly and am always amazed at how localized each instrument is - not just left to right but the depth as well. I don't sit at the back of the hall, mind you.

Yes, it depends if reflected sound overwhelms direct sound or not. If you sit close to the performers in a decently large venue, direct sound is the main sound, and you get great localization of instruments. If you sit further back imaging is thrown out of the window.

So I agree with both you and audioguy, it just depends where you sit.

 

[Al M.]

Given that huge differences we experienced, I can only wonder how much of what I heard vs what you heard was the acoustics of the hall we were in.

Our answers to Madfloyd's post crossed. Yes, I think the acoustics of the hall are a determining factor as well.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

While I will not go as far as to say that it is a huge mono in most of the concerts I have gone to? In some instances the left and right is well defined bu the imaging we are talking ad infinitum? in a concert hall? Not something I have experienced.. YMMV...

 

[Al M.]

I know you would have no reason to find yourself around 80 miles east of Atlanta, but should you find yourself near, I invite you to come hear what non-full range speakers sound like when coupled with ample sub woofage.

Alright, Frantz already got two invitations for listening to systems out of this thread

 

[FrantzM]

Alright, Frantz already got two invitations for listening to systems out of this thread

I will actually embark some time on a "tour" and listen to as many systems as possible... Just to put things in perspective.

I have been in the hobby for a very long time... before I was a teen and am now in my 50's ... I have gone the traditional "audiophile" route for most of my life and spent a very good amount of money in the process.. these days, I am yearning for a, if-possible, better and more cost-effective way and to me this discussion is just that, not looking for cheapie things ... not really but we may have to keep in mind that finding a speaker that when one put feet down .. a speaker like the Maggie 20.7 at $15k is an ear-opener and so could be the JBL 4367 should one spend go spending $50 k or more on a speaker? that is only marginally better if at all ? The discussion is not about the price of speakers and gears but rather of experience about different components about system-building. otginal thoughts on componets, out of the box stuff ...
... Too bad that we devolve our discussions into disputes but I value the contributions of many who no longer post here: Blizzard and DDK come to mind there are many others whose name currently escape me.. their POV may be very different from my (current) owns but one learns more from disagreements than from congrats so ...

 

[Al M.]

... Too bad that we devolve our discussions into disputes but I value the contributions of many who no longer post here: Blizzard and DDK come to mind there are many others whose name currently escape me.. their POV may be very different from my (current) owns but one learns more from disagreements than from congrats so ...

On this thread I think we disagree without being disagreeable. That's the way it should be.

 

[Al M.]

I will actually embark some time on a "tour" and listen to as many systems as possible... Just to put things in perspective.

That will be interesting. I have also learned a tremendous amount from listening to other people's systems.

 

[bonzo75]

This couldn't be further from my experience. I go to the BSO regularly and am always amazed at how localized each instrument is - not just left to right but the depth as well. I don't sit at the back of the hall, mind you.

Hi when I referred to imaging, it wasn't about localisation. It was about the left to right plus center imaging. One of the challenges of two channel are to stop the sound coming from the L and R speakers only. While to some extent in two channel this is a factor of the soundstage of the speakers, we try various other stuff like speaker positioning, changing cables, moving the rack out of the middle, etc, and various such tweaks to fill in that gap in the middle properly. This is actually easily solved if the center channel is the same as the L and R channel. Even in a cheap MCH.

It's that continuous wall of coherent sound that gives you good imaging

One of the differences between a Wilson duetta and Alexandria will be height and scale. Tall planars also give you that height. But a duetta with the MCH and ceiling speakers of auro 3d (the Datasat that audioguy referred to does that) gives greater height and scale than the Alexandria, via multiple speakers

 

[bonzo75]

And with MCH limiting yourself to 100s or 1000s of recordings vs. multiple millions? Where's the music in all of this?

No you get more choice, because MCH is extended from a 2 ch, and you can play both. Also reason I mentioned classical specifically is that there are over 3k MCH classical discs at least worth owning

 

[bonzo75]

Hi

While I will not go as far as to say that it is a huge mono in most of the concerts I have gone to? In some instances the left and right is well defined bu the imaging we are talking ad infinitum? in a concert hall? Not something I have experienced.. YMMV...

The WE 16a mono I mentioned fires sound in a different way so that it fills the whole stereo image from a mono source. Very interesting speaker, initially made to address a theater of 800. Unfortunately nothing in our audiophile experience helps us extrapolate to what it will sound like except listening to it (it definitely is not like playing one of our stereo speakers in mono).

 

[Al M.]

Hi when I referred to imaging, it wasn't about localisation. It was about the left to right plus center imaging. One of the challenges of two channel are to stop the sound coming from the L and R speakers only. While to some extent in two channel this is a factor of the soundstage of the speakers, we try various other stuff like speaker positioning, changing cables, moving the rack out of the middle, etc, and various such tweaks to fill in that gap in the middle properly. This is actually easily solved if the center channel is the same as the L and R channel. Even in a cheap MCH.

It's that continuous wall of coherent sound that gives you good imaging

Which is perfectly present in my 2-channel system, thank you very much. The speakers vanish completely, and I have a continuous soundstage left to middle to right and all gradations in between, with loads of depth front to back as well.

 

[bonzo75]

Which is perfectly present in my 2-channel system, thank you very much. The speakers vanish completely, and I have a continuous soundstage left to middle to right and all gradations in between, with loads of depth front to back as well.

So you compared this to a MCH set up with three identical front speakers?