Big speakers, are they really the best way to get great sound?

@mihorn ……

 

lol. You’re not helping your business by doing this YouTube comparison BS! Get a clue dude. 

mofojo

@mihorn … lol. You’re not helping your business by doing this YouTube comparison BS! Get a clue dude.

Do you think "A" sounds better than "B" in YT, but "B" is better than "A" in real? I don’t think so.

I exhibit my audio system in an audio show every year and I heard almost every rooms in the show every year. I know what I heard. Alex/WT

@phusis Wrote:

I'll still maintain though that as a standalone speaker the LS3 5A's aren't big sounding in my book (eyes closed and all), even disregarding my own speaker context at the opposite end of the size scale.  

I agree!

Mike

@phusis Wrote:

@mijostyn wrote:

I live with 8 foot tall electrostatics and you would be surprised. With enough power (200 watts/ch) and crossed out at 100 Hx 48 dB/oct the little suckers (LS3 5As) will punch it out louder than anybody needs.

With 200W/ch you’d be hard pressed to reach 100dB peaks at the LP with those "little suckers," and that’s unloading all the available power into them with thermal compression at full display, voice coil lacquer smelling and headroom MIA. Sorry, no - you’re not speaking for everybody here. Granted, 100dB’s is loud, but I’m talking peaks, effortlessly, and 100dB’s can be easily reached during crescendos of classical music if an approximation of realistic playback levels is attempted.

It’s about how those peaks are reproduced, not that they’re merely (i.e.: just barely) reached. 90 dB peaks, another matter, and that’s still fairly loud, but then you wouldn’t speak for the needs of everybody either.

Look, people: you can’t have your cake and eat it too with small, low efficiency speakers - there’s no bending the rules of physics here. That’s not saying small speakers can’t be a great addition to a setup, and large speakers can have their own limitations as well. Whatever floats your boat.

I agree spot on! 😎

Mike

No, no, no, no., NO!

Someone stated - "there’s no bending the rules of physics here."

This is driving me nuts!

We are not "bending" physics, we are generating what is to us, "new" physics.

And changing some of what we "thought" about the classic modeling structure itself.

Because we were just wrong. And "That was hard to say".

Because everyone here seems to be stuck.

Stuck on ONLY using physics of the "Classical Modeling" type.

I have figured a few things out. Things which never made any sense.

Until I realized that good-ole classic, basic physics. Was missing a few things.

And so are the people who are designing most of the "top end" system components today. "Missing a few things".

But I simply cannot be the only one who has made this "shift" in thinking.

Because it "IS" going to happen.

Yet try as I might, I haven't found anyone else that see's what I am seeing. And hearing! This is why I am writing this.

It is possible to build speakers that "can" reproduce (near perfect) sound.

But it simply cannot be done with "Point Source", (Cone type speakers)!

And in that area? "No" You cannot bend any physics that I know of.

And the same can be said for "Mass". There just is no "small speaker" substitution, for what a large speaker system can achieve very easily.

Currently, if you have been paying attention to the world of technology.

You may have noticed that we are smack-dab in the middle of a revolution in ALL of out tech because of breakthroughs in modern physics. 

Both in "classical", AND in that new-fangled type, - "Quantum Physics".

Especially in the area of "Field Theory".

A revolution that will make looking back at the industrial revolution as if it were merely a "speedbump" in history.

And "All" of our contemporary thinking and attitude's about "sound reproduction" is about to get an "Overhaul" of "Biblical" proportions!

I know this post is a bit "Off-Topic".

But I write this because I am frustrated with the thinking that I find here and everywhere else currently.

I have built, "And I am still tweaking" a two-channel, speaker system which does things it should not.

And it doesn't seem to care much about room size. Though it definitely loves it's "room treatments".

It is a "84" tall "dipole" configuration. With a width of 30" and is true line source, using a hybrid electrostatic transducer array. Throwing a cylindrical wave of sound 360 degrees. And it is producing that wave at complete (75") out of the (86") available which is the ceiling height. (The high percentage of wave production area "vertically" is key here)! 

"Meaning", It isn't a (Line Source) if you just stack, say 40 x 1"-point source transducers vertically and as tight as you can get them. And call it a day.

You may "think" that. (Many do), But no. Just no.

In my case, at least for my systems full range of (150Hz. - 40,000Hz) I am using just (2) transducers to cover that entire vertical line of wave formation. (80% is covered by just one transducer).

The (60 - 150Hz.) range is driven in a cabinet of similar height and weight, (430Lbs.). (8 x 12") transducers. But I am stuck using point source transducers for this, and also a nine-subwoofer array (3 x 3 x 10") for all 60Hz. and below. 

All point source components utilize "very-stiff", coated, Aluminum-Magnesium alloy, metal cone. And more.... but I digress.

And the entire system can be built for about $12,000. "Minus all labor".

I still do not understand why my system does everything that it does.

"Like the incredible imaging and coherence even, (Behind) me".

"Yes" I did say, "Behind" me.

But I am getting there. "I hope".

I do apologize if you believe this post isn't relevant.

But the arguments here are getting a bit redundant when it comes to things such as this. Especially when the matter has been "solved".

And it's time to, "Move On"! 

Anyway, "Good Luck" to all in their quest for better sound!

Because I am here to tell you, "YES" It does exist!

And maybe, if you could, forgive my rant...