KeithR's "Dream Speaker" Search

[Folsom]

When an equipment got two out of three. You go audition it further in different systems or associated gears. Sound stage is easily change with different amplifications. But why want sound stage so large all the time to be impressive and natural?Bigger the better?

Different strokes for different folks. I'm not a soundstage person (I'm into other stuff more like you are), but I respect that it can be impressive (very). Clearly some really enjoy it.

 

[KeithR]

I think people are mis-reading my comments. I never said the sound stage was small necessarily, but that it was low and didn't scale up. The dealer told me compared with Wilson that he sold previously that the Stenheim had much more midrange shove or presence which I found to be true. I have a friend who is going to hear them as well, so it will be interesting what he thinks - I told him to try out the setup on the CH gear which might be a better match

 

[PeterA]

There might be something to this. Andy Payor has focused a lot on narrowing and curving his baffles.

There definitely is something to this, Ron. Look at Magico M series speakers, among many others. Cabinet shape is important.

 

[tima]

Sound stage is easily change with different amplifications. But why want sound stage so large all the time to be impressive and natural?Bigger the better?

I suspect there are several factors affecting soundstage, amplification perhaps to some extent, but moreso, imo, is speaker coherence and source coherence. Perhaps for some a bigger the better soundstage is preferred. Width is one thing, width proportional with depth is another - narrow baffles are associated more to the latter - or so I've thought (thinking back to my Audio Physics Avantis.) 'Natural dimensionality and proportion', including height, is what I'm after if I pay attention to that area. The psycho-acoustic stuff is, uh, mutable, but I've thought it tied to timing and what can throw that off.

 

[bonzo75]

Apparently that was not a noticeable attribute in the particular demo Keith experienced.

I did mention in an earlier post my demo was with FM and audio consulting. This post was more for Folsom who seems to provide theoretical attributes of cabinet shape and size for why they might not

 

[morricab]

Smoke and mirrors...

Dipole speaker does the same thing

 

[Folsom]

Dipole speaker does the same thing

 

[BruceD]

Dipole speaker does the same thing

Don't know about the Mirrors-

--but I recall a demo of the Hill Plasmatronics at Neil Sinclair's Santa Ana Store

Plenty of Smoke though--literally!

Sorry!-- back to Keith's crusade--

BruceD

 

[morricab]

Don't know about the Mirrors-

--but I recall a demo of the Hill Plasmatronics at Neil Sinclair's Santa Ana Store

Plenty of Smoke though--literally!

Sorry!-- back to Keith's crusade--

BruceD

Would have loved to hear/see those!!

 

[christoph]

Dipole speaker does the same thing

No, it does NOT.
A Dipole does it full range and in a perfect figure 8 radiation pattern as a wholesome Dipole, not just to add some sizzle up top from the back of the cabinet

 

[morricab]

No, it does NOT.
A Dipole does it full range and in a perfect figure 8 radiation pattern as a wholesome Dipole, not just to add some sizzle up top from the back of the cabinet

Well, the effect is similar because it is largely high frequencies that help us define the sense of space and distance, and a tweeter that is out of phase on the back is acting as a dipole over that frequency range, which is also covered by a full-range dipole. So, what I said is not incorrect, a dipole speaker does the same thing (i.e. sprays some sizzle up top to the back). I didn't say that a normal speaker with a tweeter on the back does the same thing as a dipole speaker. They are not interchangeable statements.

 

[KeithR]

Heard the O Reference later that evening- high ambient at a party in a loft style dealership:

 

[spiritofmusic]

Keith, they just look wrong. Either they should be one continuous cabinet, maybe w the twin subs drivers set horizontally. At the very least the veneers should be identical. My eye is drawn more to the subs cabinets and less to the main ones.
A big miss from me.

How did they sound?

 

[KeithR]

For those of you sound stage critics, this had a much higher sound stage despite the diminutive height of the O References.

I sat (hogged) sweet spot for 40 minutes and in general thought they were Devore to a "T" - highly musical, but more refined and very dynamic. I am not going to give a full review under the listening circumstances. Also, no bass heavy information was played (to my dismay and others- one cut we could hear the room leveled but only for 2 seconds). The system was on Nagra front end with EAR mono amps.

I spoke with JD at length about the design - and came away very impressed. He's thought of so many details that the pictures don't show. All the drivers are basically new except the dome of the tweeter. The bronze horns take away resonance that was being absorbed by the former polycarbonate horn used in Orangutans. The cabinet is differently shaped towards the rear for more volume and a blend of Orangutan and the Silverback designs - with "D Mass" extensively used inside (sorta like carbon fiber apparently). The A cabinet still is tuned in typical JD fashion and the ports don't touch the cabinet at all and tie into a large bottom plate. I believe he said the speaker weighs twice what an Orangutan does with the cabinet changes as well as the beefy Alnico driver-based mid range with bronze casket. The bass cabinet was switched to a passive radiator design as the force of the woofer was much higher than initially anticipated. He said a 6" wide port that is 6' long was what it would have required to retain a ported structure for this monster woofage. Also, the "B" cabinet doesn't have to be side-by-side just that it takes more of the room away which he prefers in these kind of environments. He included phase and two additional frequency controls to help room placement.

I think folks may have issues with Devore *ever* selling a $85k loudspeaker as his brand specializes between $5k-$15k, but the thought, materials, and design are clearly there. The sound definitely had promise, too.

 

[morricab]

For those of you sound stage critics, this had a much higher sound stage despite the diminutive height of the O References.

I sat (hogged) sweet spot for 40 minutes and in general thought they were Devore to a "T" - highly musical, but more refined and very dynamic. I am not going to give a full review under the listening circumstances. Also, no bass heavy information was played (to my dismay and others- one cut we could hear the room leveled but only for 2 seconds). The system was on Nagra front end with EAR mono amps.

I spoke with JD at length about the design - and came away very impressed. He's thought of so many details that the pictures don't show. All the drivers are basically new except the dome of the tweeter. The brass horns take away resonance that was being absorbed by the former polycarbonate horn used in Orangutans. The cabinet is differently shaped towards the rear for more volume and a blend of Orangutan and the Silverback designs - with "D Mass" extensively used inside (sorta like carbon fiber apparently). The A cabinet still is tuned in typical JD fashion and the ports don't touch the cabinet at all and tie into a large bottom plate. I believe he said the speaker weighs twice what an Orangutan does with the cabinet changes as well as the beefy Alnico driver-based mid range with bronze casket. The bass cabinet was switched to a passive radiator design as the force of the woofer was much higher than initially anticipated. He said a 6" wide port that is 6' long was what it would have required to retain a ported structure for this monster woofage. Also, the "B" cabinet doesn't have to be side-by-side just that it takes more of the room away which he prefers in these kind of environments. He included phase and two additional frequency controls to help room placement.

I think folks may have issues with Devore *ever* selling a $85k loudspeaker as his brand specializes between $5k-$15k, but the thought, materials, and design are clearly there. The sound definitely had promise, too.

Is there some kind of plan to bridge this new price Grand Canyon?? Perhaps something in the price range you are looking into?

 

[bonzo75]

But I already prefer that 15k to many 100k

 

[KeithR]

Keith, they just look wrong. Either they should be one continuous cabinet, maybe w the twin subs drivers set horizontally.

They looked beautiful in person, as all Devore speakers do. I'm surprised you haven't ever heard a pair.

 

[bonzo75]

Take the O96 and Shun Mook them. All that wood with the mook ebony will resonate away to magic at 20 - 25k

 

[KeithR]

Is there some kind of plan to bridge this new price Grand Canyon?? Perhaps something in the price range you are looking into?

Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to ask that exact question as John got called away. If I had to throw something out there, it would be a new Orangutan would be up next with some of the improvements of the Ref. I haven't really gelled with the O before but this sounded much more refined.

It was also nice going to an event where millennials and others were hanging out (even ladies!), drinking Japanese whiskey, and wine - it was the exact opposite of a $400k Techdas crowd with Fremer being paid to spin records. Gave me some hope for this industry.

 

[morricab]

https://live-act-audio.de/live-act-series-lautsprecher-reference-line/

One of the most realistic sounding new speakers I have heard. First heard them at the "Klangschloss" near Zurich and then at Munich and both times they really lived up to their name "Live Act Audio". The Radian Coax drivers they use (I think with Be diaphragms) are something when a proper crossover is applied. Pity that they don't have representation outside the German speaking world...