Can you get "bookshelf sound" from a floorstander?
Listened to B&W's 6 series and much prefered the 686 and 685 to the more expensive floorstanders. I'm a junkie for clear and coherent vocals and the floorstanders seemed to muddy the sound. Listened to Dynaudio Focus 110s and loved them. Compared them to the Contour 5.4s and I loved the top end of them even more than the Focus' but was again bothered by what I want to call an incoherence... lack of focus... integration... with the low end.
Owned Totem Arros and Dreamcatcher monitors with Dreamcatcher sub and prefered the dreamcatcher monitors over the Arros and without the sub, too.
Am I just a bookshelf guy? Was it my choice of floorstanders? Setup? Anyone have better words to describe what I'm trying to say? I certainly love the low end and dynamic grunt of the big ones but not at such expense.
05-21-09: Tvad My second reaction is to wonder if you have matched any of the 16 pairs of speakers with an optimal amplifier. Some of the qualities you describe as unsatisfactory (brightness, for example) can often be attributed to tonal imbalance due to the speaker being driven by an amplifier that does not produce midrange and bass decibel levels in balance with the highs.
And also room treatment and placement. Eyediver's dismissive summary of the Mirage OM-5 bi-polar speaker (which he mistakenly called an Ohm 5 dipole) indicates he may not be spending enough time with each speaker to assess proper tuning and placement. Reviews of the OM-5 indicated it needed at least a 16x18 room to not overload it, and needs a listening spot at least 8-10 feet away to get the tonal focus that the speaker can offer.
Yeah, where's Mr. T when you really need him? He can derail a thread with the best of them. But then his threads are derailed from the beginning.
Eyediver is learning that some people take this very seriously, as they should considering the kind of investment that can be involved. Besides, I think his question has already been answered.
tvad, eyedriver had already started a different string so i did not see the harm in going on with 9rw. 9rw, many in audio that think they have a benchmark design take it as far as they can to really refine it. how many watt puppys and vandersteen 2's have there been thus far. the merlin vsm has been made for 15 years and there have been 7 generational changes during that time. many thousands of pairs have been built and sit in their homes around the world. countless great show reports, reviews, manufacturer recommendations/usage and most importantly, sales, have prolonged the life of this now, mature product. i am very proud of it because it is my life's work. i do not take kindly to having a person who had owned a pair 10 years ago imply that they are the same today without even hearing them. does that sound fair to you? it seems very few share your opinion of the vsm and in fact, there are more great reviews coming from europe where they have all of the product we have here and more. i'll tell you what, read http://merlinmusic.com/reviews/ital_tsmmme.htm because this was just published and if you get back to me without the "i know better than you attitude", i may be able to find the time to tell you what we have changed. but i will not take the time to try and explain something to a person who already has preconceptions about it. i say this because it will take some time to do. in fact why not call me at the plant this weekend at 585 367 2390. i will be there every day. best, b
Good reviews, which these days are a dime a dozen, and your enthusiasm are what got me to buy a pair of VSM SE's in the first place. While they weren't by any means terrible speakers, they never lived up to the promise -- at least not for me.
So I don't care if you point me to a dozen rave reviews, which are often the result of buying ads and being popular with writers and publishers as much as anything else.
Also, I forgot to mention that another preamp I had with the Merlins was the Levinson 380. When I replaced it with the ARC LS25, you said it was an improvement over the Levinson. It was, but I guess it still wasn't what's needed to make the Merlins sing. That's what I was referring to when I entered this thread. The Merlin speakers are incredibly fussy about associated gear. If that's not the case anymore, I stand corrected.
So while you make a generous offer for me to call you on a holiday weekend, I think I'll pass. I do wish, however, that you would tell everyone about how exactly the drivers, crossover and cabinets differ from the ones I had in 1998. I'm sure you can summarize.
And, finally, I have often praised you as an individual for your passion, the quality of the components and the build quality of your speakers, and your customer service. I don't know of any better. Thank you.
9rw, i will respond to some of this today in your mail and the rest over the next 2 days. got lots going on now.
Good reviews, which these days are a dime a dozen, and your enthusiasm are what got me to buy a pair of VSM SE's in the first place. While they weren't by any means terrible speakers, they never lived up to the promise -- at least not for me.
the last 5 words are very important because maybe they didn't for you, but they did and more for many others.
So I don't care if you point me to a dozen rave reviews, which are often the result of buying ads and being popular with writers and publishers as much as anything else.
these people do not know me from adam and merlin has never adverised there. this is in italy. the reason i sent it to you is because andio morotti is the pen name for two gentlemen, one a musician and the other and engineer. even though it is a review of the tsm mme i thought it would give you greater insight into many of the things that are important to you.
Also, I forgot to mention that another preamp I had with the Merlins was the Levinson 380. When I replaced it with the ARC LS25, you said it was an improvement over the Levinson. It was, but I guess it still wasn't what's needed to make the Merlins sing. That's what I was referring to when I entered this thread. The Merlin speakers are incredibly fussy about associated gear. If that's not the case anymore, I stand corrected.
current production has shown people using ss and tubes with many types of cable brands. the days of being fussy are over. and if you go to the audioreview and read many of the consumer comments you will see people saying that the speaker made so much more of their music collection listenable, even their poor recordings.
So while you make a generous offer for me to call you on a holiday weekend, I think I'll pass. I do wish, however, that you would tell everyone about how exactly the drivers, crossover and cabinets differ from the ones I had in 1998. I'm sure you can summarize.
i will start tomorrow, sunday with the first of two installments.
And, finally, I have often praised you as an individual for your passion, the quality of the components and the build quality of your speakers, and your customer service. I don't know of any better. Thank you.
9rw, the bam came out in 1997 and was first an ac device. in a year or two we came out with the battery bam which ran on 4 x 9.6v german mnh cells. a charger was internally included. at first 170 mah cells were avalable, then later 200 mah and now 230 mah. it is documented here on agon what the people who owned them thought but as the battery potential went up the resound/dynamics and bass extention/fullness did too. the batteries played the system in a smoother, clearer, more expansive manner with more bandwith than the ac version. later the bam was upgraded to the sbam with a switching power supply that opperated from 100 to 230v and at 50 or 60hz so it could be used here in the us or anywhere in the world. the charging caps were changed to nichicon muse series and the voltage regulation lessened by 25%. this last change made a huge difference as the unit sounded way more expasive, more extended in bandwith, fuller, clearer and smoother with less distortion. do not down play the sbam's importance, it is a dual bandpass filter and equalizer enabling the vsm to play with bass associated with much larger speaker systems. it filters rfi and emi in the top end and out of band energy in the bass below the fs of the woofer at 28 hz. this reduces 2nd and 3rd order harmonic distortion in the bass and im distortion in the mids. the bass driver can be played much louder than a basic unit because the voice coil is kept in linear drive in the gap much longer and at mouch louder levels. it is also in the signal path and its affects are extremely obvious. again well documented here by users and reviews. and with you not hearing these changes this will be your only source of information. last came the lead free super bam and that was the crowning achievement. it made the unit play with more substance, bandwidth and a blacker background. many have sold the earlier versions on agon to get the lead free version because it sounds so much more continuous and natural. best, b
9rw, the drivers are similar but both have been changed. the esotar 330 had the suspension related amplitude depression moved lower in freq and deminished making it sound more linear and dynamic/less nasal. output went up and distortion down. the torque settings holding the face plate on were more correctly adjusted to the driver's needs in our speaker system. then a few years ago the drivers were made lead free and soon after we started taking them apart and changing the solder internally to the cardas trieutectic lead free we use in the crossover. comparing the sound of a millennium top end to the se and earlier is quite startling. the mme/mxe even more so. the woofer, up until the se was the stock scanspeak 8545. in the millennium and later, the 8545-06. this is a driver that is made for merlin only. it uses a mueller latex compound to add mass to the cone which quiets the upper end resonances evident in the mids of se. latter versions of the 8546-06 were made lead free and shortly after that we started soldering them internally with the cardas lead free trieutectic we use in the tweeter and networks. the result is a more continuous and smooth transition to the woofer. this makes the speaker sound more coherent, like a one way. crossover and cabinet tomorrow. best ,b
Thanks so much for the detailed response. So adjusting the tightness of the screws holding the tweeter in place, changing batteries in the BAM, using lead-free solder and removing the tiny amount of lead contained in the drivers has led to a $6,000 increase in price and a night and day difference in the VSM's sound. Well, those and the other tweaks you mentioned. That certainly works for me. I'm glad so many people feel the same way and are willing to spend $11,500 plus another $20,000 to $30,000 for the recommended cables and electronics. Dedication and passion deserve to be rewarded.
9rw, do i sense a little bit of sarcasm surfacing again?
the vsm was designed to be an all out effort for small to moderate sized real world environments. if it is used the way it was designed to be used, there is no reason it should not be a stellar performer for its listener. with its amplitude deviation being plus or minus 2.1 db from 35 hz to 19.5 khz, the superb drivers, the careful choice crossover parts (many proprietery) and the thoughtful design approach, this thing should be capable of enormous resolution and it is. it is easy to drive, offers wide bandwidth, it is efficient and distortion free. a product like this will make little things/changes very obvious to the listener. so when i tell you the cabinet was changed with new construction techniques for the new pan fiber cabinet material, polyeurathane glues used, new proprietery z foot coupling feet, foot orientation/fasteners, port tuning/anti chuffing design, internal damping materials to dacron fiber fill, bracing added and the minimizing of diffraction effects... can you hear a difference? well imho and to most others, it was "huge" as you say.
over the years we carefully worked with the networks too adding proprietery inductors, added q circuitry in the hf, changed wiring harnesses to proprietery cardas, cardas patented terminals, cryo and lead free lead to even bigger improvements in the sound.
just because it looks very similar to an earlier vsm doesn't mean it sounds like one. ever compared a strad to a yamaha violin? i have. they both look like violins but only the strad sounds like one.
you also keep mentioning people using $20,000 to $30,000 in ancillaries like it was bad or a necessity. we have people using very low powered low cost amps (nad, sugden, audio analogue etc.,) with zip cord or signal cable and from what they tell me, enjoying themselves a very great deal. at least the vsm does not cover up or hide the effects of expensive gear. it changes in sonic character in the way of completeness or oneness when a better match is found. but because it is neutral it does not embellish the the faults found in some pieces.
and last of all the price. you mention $11,500 like it is a rip or i over charge. the truth is, suggested retail is a function of cost and mark up. industry standard is 4 to 5 times and many mark up more so. some i know of go as high as 8 to 10 times. the vsm mxe cost me $3300 to build. this is a 3.5 time mark up and an industry low. you also mention that the speaker has gone up $6000. well the finish alone on the mxe costs merlin $850 a pair to have done. this reflects in $3000 in retial. this finish was not available at the time that the speakers sold for $6000. nor were many of the other parts included in current production. i think it would be more fair to compare apples to apples... in 15 years do you not think my costs have gone up? everything has gone up at least 30 to 60%. i made little profit at the beginning and i still do. now that i have taken the time to explain all this to you, try and be a little more fair minded. enjoy memorial day. i got up early to take care of this for you. best, b
Marty: Thanks a lot, but I think Bobby's last post covers everything. By the way, do you still own a pair of Merlin speakers? If so, what do you use with them? Thanks for sharing.
Of course. My mistake. It's been so many posts ago that I had forgotten that the VSMs are one of his many pairs of speakers. I'm surprised he hasn't had to replace that horrible ARC LS25.
I was glancing at the Merlin web site and noticed that the BAM device as described sounds very similar to OHM's "Sub Bass Activator (SBA)" circuit employed in most all of their more recent designs, including all WALSH designs, I believe.
Both appear to provide a boost to the low end while concurrently providing subsonic filtering.
Very interesting...
BTW I ordered the SBA kit for my OHM Ls and did the mods myself on those. So I believe all 3 pair of OHMs in my system utilize the SBA.
I'd be curious to learn more about how BAM + SBAs work and wht are the similarities and differences in more detail.
I don't know why you'd be surprised that I've kept the LS 25. Oh, yeah, I do - it's because you're not remotely as clever as you think you are.
I don't replace electronics in my listening room very often. The ARC stuff is nearing age 12/13/14ish and remains my primary chain. Since I rotate speakers fairly often (when the mood strikes, as this is a hobby for me) I do have other electronics I use when I feel the ARC isn't the best choice - including those ocassions when the VSMs are in rotation. I also have set-ups in my gym, office, family room, etc. which accounts for the balance of the inventory.
Marty: You are so wise and knowledgeable. That must be why you were so baffled by my putting phase- and time-coherent speakers like Thiel, Dunlavy and Vandersteen in the same category. And your treatise on first-order crossovers is something that needs to be studied by Jim Thiel and Richard Vandersteen. It's just a shame that John Dunlavy isn't still around to learn from you. Please let me know when you expect to have your next paper published.
9rw, what marty did say is that there are different types of coherence/accuracy and imo, some may be more important than others as far as what is actually heard. this will vary depending on the listener and the product considered. there are no absolutes here. mapman, when you have a chance e-mail me the information or link to the augmentation/filter device and i will have a look for you. best, b
Thanks for your kind offer, but there is not much technical info available that I know of for the OHM SBA other than some tidbits on the OHM site that describes what it does for the listener with specific speaker models in very general terms.
The SBA is a circuit board that inserts inline between crossover and woofer and provides a combo tailored boost and filter there as I understand it.
The kit also comes with a port adapter that you insert into the built-in port to tune it to a somewhat lower frequency, I believe.
OHM sells this as a low end enhancement for most every speak they've ever sold, both conventional and Walsh, plus use it in most all newer speaks out of the factory as well, I believe. There have been dozens of models of OHM speakers sold over the 30-40 years they've been around I'd say. The kit cost me ~$70 dollars for a pair of OHM Ls that listed for about $500 new 30 years ago.
I suspect the exact technical specs of the SBA device might well vary by model in terms of the boost, filtering and frequency the port adaptor is designed to tune the specific model to, but I do not know this for fact.
mapman, yes, it should be designed with a specific model of speaker in mind to have its effects as positive as possible. let me know if anything ever gets published. have you read the page on the sbam? http://merlinmusic.com/vsm_bam.htm this describes it and its effects quite well. best, b
m, is the sba passive or used in the line level signal path like the sbam? there is no doubt that these types of devices work and work very well indeed. i am totally surprized that more are not using them. the positive aspects totally out weigh any negative ones that you could think of. however, they are not easy to make sound like they are not there. best ,b
I never said 1st order crossovers were worse than any other design, merely that they presented their own advantages AND disadvantages. I assure you that Thiel, Vandersteen, and Dunlavy would be the first to agree with this statement. They prefer working around the trade-offs presented by first order crossovers.
OTOH, designers from several other respected companies go a different way. Current favorites from Magico and YG are good examples as are the most recent top models from Revel, among many, many others. Maybe they missed the news. But I'm sure you can point out their errors to them - maybe in a peer review journal.
Now, let's talk about someone with real credentials - Sigfried Linkwietz, who literally wrote the book on modern crossover design. If you have any willingness to explore the issue (which I doubt), I'd suggest you look at the work posted by Linkwietz at his website where he explains the advantages and disadvantages of various crossover designs. Oddly, he uses different crossover slopes for different projects, as he deems optimal. He rarely first order designs, though, finding that the DISADVANTAGES usually outweigh the advantages. Of course, I'm sure you'll explain to him why he is wrong. In one of those peer review journals you seem to enjoy so much.
Are you really arrogant enough to believe that every attempt at SOTA loudspeaker design must perforce employ first order crossovers? Because less than a handful of respected designers chose that route? While so many others have gone a different way?
I guess you are. And just plain smug, to boot. And wrong. Again.
Marty: Did you even go to school? Based on your posts and your writing prowess I tend to doubt it. Your ability to misinterpret is almost as impressive as your arrogance. I never claimed that you said "1st order crossovers were worse than any other design." Comprehension clearly isn't one of your strengths.
Perhaps you should go into your office, your gym, your living room, your sauna -- you have so many systems -- and just kick back and enjoy listening to Madonna -- or whatever it is you use to evaluate a system. Also, I clearly state that I like the Totem Arro a lot, and I am fully aware that it does not employ a first-order crossover design. Over several decades, though, I tend to gravitate to speakers that do because they tend to capture the realism a bit better. Some of the most brilliant speaker designers of our time have believed that, too.
I'll be happy to read what Linkwietz has written, but what matters most can only be judged by how a speaker sounds. I think you can agree on that. Perhaps you should enter the speaker industry. You obviously know so much about it.
I hold a Masters degree from the Stern school. I have been published more than once. I can play a piano. The last concert I attended was an organ recital at the Great Cathedral in Passau, Germany, the largest such instrument in Europe. I have also served as EP on the most recent release by a prominent LA based French Horn player (who shall remain nameless as I have an economic interest in this product). Want to make any more guesses about my tastes, experience, or credentials?
I'll give you this: You're consistent. Unlike even a broken clock, you're never right.
Marty: They obviously didn't teach you English. Master's needs an apostrophe "s," LA-based should be hyphenated and what's the name of that school again? Also, was the cathedral or Passau the largest such instrument? Oh. You meant the organ. You have yet to show me where I'm wrong, except that you still have a pair of Merlin speakers. I had forgotten that tidbit because I was bored to death with your drivel.
I can only assume that you're kidding. Grammar and syntax? Psst - I got a secret for ya. Folks take some liberties with the formal rules of the language on this here internet thingy. It's called "conversational" English and it's assumed to be the default choice for exchanges like this one. Even a numbskull like you could not possibly have been confused by any of the linguistic constructions you cited in your post. That makes 'em okay here.
BTW, I've been paid for authoring technical articles on subjects ranging from alternative energy finance structures to DWDM technology in subsea cables. I've also been very well paid for my work on drafting complex financial documentation. When I need to employ more formal language, I do so. It's just that I know when it's appropriate. You can't distinguish such context? Who'da guessed that? Pedantic ass.
As to your repeated mistakes, well, let's see. You have speculated about my taste in music, preference for pro gear, inexperience with first order loudspeaker designs, and educational background, among other things. In each case, you were wrong. Are you starting to see a pattern?
Marty
FYI, The Stern School is the business school at NYU. Last I looked, the admission policy at Stern was among the most academically selective in the country.
Marty: I'm not kidding. You are a moron. You weren't taking liberties with the English language. You're sloppy and you obviously don't know better. You can be thankful people edit -- probably heavily -- anything you may have "authored."
The only pattern I see is that you think you know a lot more than you will ever know about most things in life. My conjectures were merely intended to reinforce that fact, which was made evident by your posts. It's called sarcasm.
Well, I have already wasted too much time on you. Enjoy your system.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
