KeithR's "Dream Speaker" Search

One other thing I have noticed is that with my horns, the 10 inch midbass coupled to the back horn gives tremendous mid bass punch. There is not so much deep bass (probably little below 35hz) but the range from 50-120 is simply huge and equivalent to several 15inchers I would estimate...all that and the cone itself is not even visibly moving at all. This lack of motion also helps to reduce distortion in the bass so there is a lot of texture coming through.

While a lot of mid bass can be impressive, it can also be too much, so that realism gets lost (same as when there's too little). The golden balance is where it's at. Perhaps you achieve it in your room, but your post makes it sound as if more per se equals better.
 
Speaker makers struggle with too much/too little in midbass... Partly some want it because it makes other bass sound louder, but also you're fighting a natural filter effect that tends to reduce it because the distance from the reflection of the floor is just right to make it weak... results of trying to correct it may vary in quality/response, and may vary from amp to amp.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al M.
While a lot of mid bass can be impressive, it can also be too much, so that realism gets lost (same as when there's too little). The golden balance is where it's at. Perhaps you achieve it in your room, but your post makes it sound as if more per se equals better.
Based on what I hear from live sound, both amplified and unamplified, midbass is usually lacking in home systems.
 
The term I like to use is good weight/midbass, grounded, with linearity through the midbass. Which means It sounds to have the right weight, full, but without a bump or leanness.

Some gear can be described as top down or bottom up. Top down you get a mope airy feeling first, as compared to the weight. Bottom up is a heavy feeling first, as opposed to light and airy.

I don't think one is wrong as compared to the other for decent systems if other things fall in place. I prefer not to have thin sound nor a regular bump in the midbass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the sound of Tao
The more I listen, the more I think bass is where it's at. Modern speakers are doing well these days with the mids and highs, from single drivers that sound amazing, many box speaker manufacturers upping their game to very high levels, horns that are clear and uncolored, etc.. you can pick what you want and live happily ever after... but bass is definitely not equal across manufacturers, especially for the price.

I've been switching back and forth a lot lately between my box and horn speakers. Both are great, but the 15" woofers in the horn speakers are just so much better than the dual 7" woofers in my box speakers. It really changes how the mind perceives the other frequencies and for me, the extension, lack of distortion and effortless sound of the 15" woofers is a big part of a much more engaging listening experience. The mids and highs are give and take, but the box speaker is better on vocals and for sure has a flatter frequency response.

Bass bellow the Schroeder frequency is also due to how the speaker couples with the room - and here manufacturers have to guess. Peaks and nulls in this zone can give us a wrong feeling about the whole speaker balance. And we should remember that unless properly positioned most box speakers will show terrible peaks in the main resonances of the room.

The type of construction has a strong influence in bass quality. Houses built with heavy stone walls or concrete will increase bass significantly, creating an excess of bass in some frequencies and nulls, light building or drywall can absorb bass making it more linear, but sometimes absorbing too much in some frequencies.

BTW, IMHO discussing bass without proper measurements is very circumstantial and brings little to the subject. Properly handled, deep bass can make wonders in sound balance perception. However sometimes bass is really a curse!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lagonda
Drum kits and electric bass (for example). So, probably not deeper than 40hz up to probably 120Hz.

Thanks. There is no agreement at all with the qualifiers sub - mid- low when applied to bass - medium - high frequencies.
Curiously I have found that a few systems I have measured with REW have excessive output in this zone due to peaks and the most often recommended treatments for bass are bass traps operating in this zone.
 
Speaker makers struggle with too much/too little in midbass... Partly some want it because it makes other bass sound louder, but also you're fighting a natural filter effect that tends to reduce it because the distance from the reflection of the floor is just right to make it weak... results of trying to correct it may vary in quality/response, and may vary from amp to amp.

I think this is one of the reasons that Magico had both the Q and S series of speakers. The midbass performance is considerably different based on my exposure to the speakers.
 
I think this is one of the reasons that Magico had both the Q and S series of speakers. The midbass performance is considerably different based on my exposure to the speakers.
Peter, could you elaborate on this?
 
I am not subscribing to the notion that horns won’t provide backward layered imaging when pulled out into the room in the same way we might do with cones. I haven’t found any evidence to support this with any of the 3 pairs of horns I own (or owned). All have benefitted the layered imaging when pulled away from the wall.
This is my experience, too ;)
 
Based on what I hear from live sound, both amplified and unamplified, midbass is usually lacking in home systems.

I have heard plenty instances where mid bass is exaggerated in a system. Related to this, see also Folsom's comments above, from a speaker design perspective.
 
I have heard plenty instances where mid bass is exaggerated in a system. Related to this, see also Folsom's comments above, from a speaker design perspective.
It sounds exaggerated because it is not under control and sounds indistinct or muddy. This is often because designers design a box with a high Q that gives a bump in the mid/upper bass but it doesn't stop and start quickly and has overhang. They want fullness but want to cheat and get it in a small box and/or with small drivers. This doesn't sound at all like what I am describing...
 
The term I like to use is good weight/midbass, grounded, with linearity through the midbass. Which means It sounds to have the right weight, full, but without a bump or leanness.

Some gear can be described as top down or bottom up. Top down you get a mope airy feeling first, as compared to the weight. Bottom up is a heavy feeling first, as opposed to light and airy.

I don't think one is wrong as compared to the other for decent systems if other things fall in place. I prefer not to have thin sound nor a regular bump in the midbass.

A lot of home speakers get a full midbass by creating a bump from the tuning of the box. This usually sounds flabby or uncontrolled. This then sounds exaggerated. Live sound usually gets there by high sensitivity, large diameter drivers (15, 18 or even 21 inch) that couple well with the air and don't even have much in the way of deep bass. They are tuned for speed and punch.

The two live amplified concerts I went to last week both had very powerful drums and bass lines...like you never hear at home. One was a smallish jazz club the other was a medium sized outdoor venue. One was Jazz (Nik Bärtsch) and the other was Swiss rock. Both had a foundation that was gut punching...especially the way they had the drums balanced...much more forward in the "mix" and having far greater impact on the music...perhaps the problem is also the recordings are not balanced this way...
 
It sounds exaggerated because it is not under control and sounds indistinct or muddy. This is often because designers design a box with a high Q that gives a bump in the mid/upper bass but it doesn't stop and start quickly and has overhang. They want fullness but want to cheat and get it in a small box and/or with small drivers. This doesn't sound at all like what I am describing...

No, I mean actually too much mid bass, even when the perceived quality of it is good. And that can be on large enclosures with large drivers too. On rock a lot of mid bass is mostly a good thing, on other material it depends.
 
some short comments now that my system has been back up and running for a few days:

generally speaking I find the Devores smoother with more decay than the Avantgardes, but there is an engagement factor or "in the soundstage" factor that the latter is very good at and is quite beguiling. The Gibbon Xs clearly aren't as dynamic as the AGs, but do have a bit more warmth than what I heard in London two weeks ago. I also noted in my audition that I heard some harshness on distorted guitars - well, I don't hear that at home, so either the speaker isn't as transparent or the recording is really like that.

i also took a video in London at the end of my audition and did the same with my Devores the other day on the same cut - its been humorous sending to a few audiophiles to discern differences between the two. i would say there is little consensus on preference and honestly that the videos aren't reflective of the auditions. And to those wondering, no I will not post them on this thread :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Folsom
one last thing - we have an application on a rental house and should find out today. i'll post up a video of the new room if and when appropriate!
 
some short comments now that my system has been back up and running for a few days:

generally speaking I find the Devores smoother with more decay than the Avantgardes, but there is an engagement factor or "in the soundstage" factor that the latter is very good at and is quite beguiling. The Gibbon Xs clearly aren't as dynamic as the AGs, but do have a bit more warmth than what I heard in London two weeks ago. I also noted in my audition that I heard some harshness on distorted guitars - well, I don't hear that at home, so either the speaker isn't as transparent or the recording is really like that.

i also took a video in London at the end of my audition and did the same with my Devores the other day on the same cut - its been humorous sending to a few audiophiles to discern differences between the two. i would say there is little consensus on preference and honestly that the videos aren't reflective of the auditions. And to those wondering, no I will not post them on this thread :p

I have no doubt that the Gibbons are "smoother" at least in terms of frequency response (AGs are not known for being ruler flat by any means). For sure the AGs are more revealing than the Gibbons. That harshness could be the electronics as well and speaker just refuses to smooth it over. If you miss warmth then this will most certainly be the electronics...I felt the same way hearing this Nagra 300b amp on Marten speakers.
 
+1

(I felt this post deserved more than a “like.” :))

I STILL think (for my ears) that Magnepan 20.7s (or Analysis Audio Orion or bigger) driven by very high-power tube amps or hybrid amps + carefully selected and integrated stacked subwoofers (e.g. REL “six- pack”) in a room in which the speakers are at least six feet from the front wall get you absolutely SOTA (especially for vocals) sound for relatively reasonable cost. The Pendragon gets you (me) to the same place and provides peace of mind regarding integration of the subwoofer system since it all comes from the same designer.

(I am still waiting for MartinLogan to make a four column Neolith which would get you (ah, which would get me) to the same indifference curve.)

Keith likes the greater and easier dynamic pop of a highly sensitive speaker, and I totally get this and I understand it.

One of my favorite audio show rooms of all time was Maggie 20.1's with ARC amps. Amazing combination.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing