I know we've been over this Q hundreds of X's over the past 20 years here on audion, You can find dozen of topics dealing with this Q <which is the ,,,,most important component...>> well time for yet 1 more topic dealing with this,, perhaps unanswered, un-resolved issue. I'm bringing up the old hachet due to my recent experience acutally hearinga FR in my system. Let me tell you, there is not even 1 traditional/conventioanl/xover design <The Boxed Type>> in the world that could convince me , there is something that will beat out FR (caveat, FR requires some sort of high sens =sensitivity, tweeter) in the Boxy world of speakers. That is to say, FR + Compression Horn is the future of 21st Century high fidelity. One lab has already brought us these ~~~SHF~~~ aka SuperHighFidelity single drivers. The code word here is ~~SHF~~~ which can not never be employed when describing xover/trad/conventioanl style aka The Box designs. db level under 91 are _<<IN-EFFICIENT>> , = dysfunctional, out dated, old school , = Dinasaurs. For amps, I only consider tube amps (PP and SET) as ~~SHF~~~ I can not include ss amps in this topic. IMHO all well made tube amps sound very close, a kt88 in brand X will sound close to brand Y. So amplification takes a distant 2nd place in critical component. No need to break the bank buying amp A vs a lower priced kt88 amp B CD players, nearly all tube DAC's , tube cdp-ers sound close. No need to braek the bank over X vs Y. My Jadis DAC is only miniscule gain over the Shanling, the Shanling only a miniscule gain over the Cayin CD17. Now as for best source , phonograph is the ideal playback medium vs cds. I have some LP's now , but my main collection are classical cds, most not on LP version. Cables , I did note some gains employing silver/copper wiring throughout my entire system including inside the Defy. Tweak worthy. New Mundorf caps in all componets, tweak worthy. Yet the main central component remaisn the speakers. Here is where the entire audio resolution either rises to Nirvana or falls to <<distortion/muddy waters,/pollution/anti-fidelity voicing issues. Your system's fidelity is ultimately dependent on what speaker you have chosen to employ. Forget all you've learned over the years, The new mantra is <,The speaker is key component> All else is just extra tweaks/nuances. To sum up, a ~~SHF~~ driver will match even the top of line Wilson weighing in at hundreds of lbs priced $$$$$$$ overa single FR driver. FR beats out any/all xover box design speakers. Mostly due to that key specification ~~db level~~~ which is everything in speaker design and thus in resolution/fidelity.
" I have not calculate the exact size where controls of the timing early and late reflections will be more difficult"
what do you mean? Do you have early reflection panels (absorption) ? Cause one thing that is very clear in the acoustic world, any small room need at the minimum absorption at every early reflection points. DSP or EQ will not remove the decay problems caused by early reflections. Only absorption (in a small room) will. You could make your room measure flat FR wise with EQ and DSP, but without absorption at the early reflections points (ceiling, side walls and behind your listening position) any ECT measurements will clearly show that your room decay is not even at all frequencies and certainly not -15db within 20ms or even 100ms
"acoustic is the sleeping princess and the future queen, the gear is the 7 working dwarves’’ Agreed 100%
- Active treatment with DSP/EQ colours the sound, that cannot be avoided. that is undebatable. - Passive Tuned helmholtz resonator will work just as well as active subs cancellation methods or active helmholtz resonator and will avoid all this EQ nonsense.
exactly...
Tuning a room is like tuning a piano....
The geometry/topology of the room is like the geometry/topology of the piano case...
The Helmholtz resonators are like the strings of the piano for the piano tuner...
It takes me a month to reach optimal results...
Each of my resonator is segmented and mechanically tunable...
No cost at all...
Audiophile experience may cost peanuts.... It is not perfect but i will never dream to buy anything more.... Is it not something?
I wrote that because i am the only one claiming that and i want to help those who dont have money to fulfill their dream like me 7 years ago... Thats all....i learn how to make it.... Nobody here ever say that simple truth.... I never bought "tweaks" i replicated them at no cost or create new one....
lets list the top 10 arguably best studio in the world or you know, some very well respected studio.
Abbey road 1 and 2 Conway Recording Studio Village Recording Studio Sound Factory Sunset sound Chicago Recording Company Studio 4 Circle Studios, Birmingham East West Manifold
NONE use active treatment. Why? Cause Passive treatment works perfectly, without any drawbacks (apart from visually)
Why do you think i advocate active controls for SMALL ROOM?
Because they are difficult to deal with....
my room is 13 feet...
But if someone know what to do it is easy to control one...
"20 feet" do you have any data to back this up? Your throwing numbers out there and imo you exagerate.
You are not wrong here in your remark.....
I have not calculated the exact size where controls of the timing early and late reflections will be more difficult.... And less rewarding and easy... A great hall is not a 13 feet room....
My room is 13 feet square and it is easy to use reverberation from the back for example to create a listener envelopment experience... And easy to use reflection from the first reflection points for the better ...
And for the skeptic my sound is not unnatural at all.....I say that because the general saying to always absorb reflections in general is simplistic... We must use our ears to know what to do in a specific room....
I did that by listenings experiments...
20 feet seems to me a good approximation separating big room and small one....But i had not calculated this scientifically with the many variables involved...
In a small room using all acoustical passive and active controls is rewarding at no cost....
I read somewhere that my 13 feet room is supposed to de difficult....
I experience the opposite...
It is because people usually use only passive material treatment ( balance between reflections,diffusions,and absorbing surfaces)
I used also a grid of resonators to control not only bass nodes but all the way up and control the timing and differentiate each wavefront of each speaker differently for each ear ...This give me a 3-d filling the room if the recording make it possible...Most classic recording are good...
My results are more amazing than anything i could dream of and no upgrade is on my future...
It is why i wrote this:
« acoustic is the sleeping princess and the future queen, the gear is the 7 working dwarves»
Most people here claim the opposite...The upgrading frustration confirm to me that i am right....people dont know how to install or embed their audio system... They read specs sheet thinking that only electronic compatibility is enough...
Perhaps the gear over some amount of money play a more important role, for those who can afford 100,000 bucks system perhaps and even in this case i listened harsh unnatural sound quality coming from many costly system in youtube ... Then acoustic for me is the key.....
My 500 bucks system is enough to make me smile...
Audiophile experience is linked to basic common sense and science especially psychoacoustic...
Yup DSP is not the answer for any but the lazy or misinformed. Having said this DSP is getting better and may at some time in the future be ready for prime time. All DSP is not created equal as well.
Sorry but how many of these studios used JBL speakers back in the day? Most know what speakers the BBC used and they are preferable to JBLs but not SOTA.
@ maghister: " And no passive material treatment can do it only by itself in a room under 20 feet....Sorry..."
"20 feet" do you have any data to back this up? Your throwing numbers out there and imo you exagerate.
lets list the top 10 arguably best studio in the world or you know, some very well respected studio.
Abbey road 1 and 2 Conway Recording Studio Village Recording Studio Sound Factory Sunset sound Chicago Recording Company Studio 4 Circle Studios, Birmingham East West Manifold
NONE use active treatment. Why? Cause Passive treatment works perfectly, without any drawbacks (apart from visually)
- Passive treatment gives SOTA performance... even in relatively small rooms. - Active treatment with DSP/EQ colours the sound, that cannot be avoided. that is undebatable. - Passive Tuned helmholtz resonator will work just as well as active subs cancellation methods or active helmholtz resonator and will avoid all this EQ nonsense.
" My 50 vintage bucks speakers sound like SOME not so good 15,000 bucks"
but your 50$ vintage speakers doesnt come close to the best 15000$ speakers out there.
FIVE this fact that some speaker sound already good in some room contradict absolutely not what i speak about... Sounding already good and working at their peak S.Q. potential is not the same thing......
I am very pleased to say that you are right when you are...
@mahghiter you are an intelligent and articulate individual. However my ATC SCM11‘s sound absolutely wonderful in. my bedroom system without any room treatments.
FIRST I am sure what you said is true....
SECOND some speakers in some room sound "good" without any acoustic control...
THIRD of these fact you cannot deduce that this is a rule...It is an exception...
FOUR you cannot know and you are not interested by the way they could sound even better with some acoustic passive treatment and some active controls.... It seems not necessary because they sound already good and i understand you... Who want to introduce acoustic control in a bedroom?
FIVE this fact that some speaker sound already good in some room contradict absolutely not what i speak about... Sounding already good and working at their peak S.Q. potential is not the same thing......
@mahghiter you are an intelligent and articulate individual. However my ATC SCM11‘s sound absolutely wonderful in. my bedroom system without any room treatments.
Decent speakers can be found at a very modest price. What you put into a system can never be regained.
You are right for sure but nowadays it is perhaps not so easy to buy a good dac like buying a good speaker but anyway it is relatively easy too...
The technology is coming to maturity...
What is difficult, underestimated, and most of the times simply not known is the transforming power of psychoacoustic and acoustc basic facts....
In a small room with a limited amount of money nothing can replace the S.Q, improvement linked to acoustic controls....It is my experience and experiments...
Agree that the speakers have the biggest effect on the signature of the sound - ESL's, horns, Full Rangers, Omnis, open baffle etc. I just feel like the signature is a taste and preference thing. Once someone settles on a style of speaker, there are ranges of quality within that style. And then matching gear is needed in order to get the synergy right and get the most out of the speakers.
Splitting hairs I guess, but when a direction has been established, then all equipment is of equal importance. If I want to change up the sound, the source remains the same, but amplification changes with the choice of speakers I'm listening to.
Have to disagree that the speaker is the most important. The room is the most important followed by system synergy.
I am glad to be with another audiophile with common sense....
Almost no existing design with the usual technology could nullify or exceed the acoustic control of the room...
Someone not knowing that is the victim of marketing hypnosis or delude itself with a product which is related to what most people called their "taste"...Speakers design is always TRADE_OFF not a miracle cures of all problem...
By the way a natural sounding instrument timbre is a fact not a "taste" ....Imaging and listener envelopment are acoustical factors not "taste"....
Yes room treatments affect this also.
Any speaker need room acoustic control to reach his peak working possibility.... And no passive material treatment can do it only by itself in a room under 20 feet....Sorry....
Reverberation time is useful if we know how to use it with the timing of early and late reflections using also ACTIVE mechanical control to adapt the speakers limitations and ENHANCE them with the room controls (Helmholtz resonators grid).....
Ignoring acoustic put you in the arm of speakers publicity designers market....
Give me any speaker for a small room i will adapt the room to it and he will sound next to a very costlier speakers...
If no one said it, the speaker is the only item in the reproduction chain which effects the pattern of sound dispersion in the room. For those of us who like eg omnis, bipoles, dipoles, open baffle, and wide dispersion boxes, these differences are more significant than one can achieve by changes in other components.
Have to disagree that the speaker is the most important. The room is the most important followed by system synergy. Every part of the system is important. The speaker can have the biggest impact from a sonic signature standpoint, but that doesn't make it the most important. Whats important about a speaker in my mind is the it has the kind of sonic signature that is pleasing to the listener and that it is a good match for the room it is being placed in.
I am a big fan of full range drivers and have built many of them. They have their place, and sound amazing to my ears when matched with the right amplifier and music. They have their limitations however. And I think your logic around how much better a larger FR driver will sound, is flawed. As they get bigger, they have a greater difficulty with transients and sibilants. Go bigger than 8", and it becomes a factor. 6 1/2" seems to be a sweet spot for bass response (pending driver and cabinet design) while maintaining nice high frequencies.
Now, a 10", 12" or 15" coax is a different story. But, then you are dealing with a crossover...
btw, the 8 wide band 94db just arrived, tested w/o cabinet vs the Diatone 91db w cabinet the 8 94db reduced the Diatone 6.5 91db to ~~Wet Blanket~~ status, Things are really starting to click now with this sensitivyty thing. The higher the sens the superior the imaging. So the Diatone 91 smashed the seas Thor 87 db to Wet Blanket status, The 8 94 db sens, smashed the diatone 6.5 91 db to Wet Blanket Status. Now what do you think a 10 98db goning to do to the 8 94db sens??? Anyone? Well I'll tell you what the 10 / 98db will do to the 8/ 94db, Going to smash it to Wet Blanket speaker. This is how this db sens game works.
I'm guessing 98db is about as high as i figure i want to go in this deal. I'm quite surea Field Coil will blow away the 98 db 10, for sure. But at $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, Is it worth it? I have few recordings in my collection that would justify speading that kind of cash on a speaker. The 10/98 db will put my sound near the Mt Everest peaks. Had I not invested the $1800 in the Thor upgrade, I'd be there by now.
position and shaped it into what it is, but it can also be a rigid stance that limits oneself from further exploration.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stubborness is my middle name. I’m from the old early days of audiophile comos. xover low eff was The Speaker, nothing else existed. I am cking our FR as of a few months ago,
Now that i have ACTUALLY listened to a high , well 91db Diatone, efficiency, now i can say xover low efficiency is not my cup of tea. I have completely shoved off the table the traditional xover designs. Also have shoved completely off the table Voxativ designs, as the US dealers are *Not Avaliable* for ordering.
= AFAIC, Vox does not even exist. I’m going 10 inch wide band/compression horn and its a done deal. Last and final train ride on the speaker merry-go-round. Ricahrd Gray has shared a stoey of one client that had these 83 db speakers and made the ~~fateful~~ decision to adda SET Atmosphere 2.8 watt amp. Blew the SET’s like 2 or 3x’s. as the Atmos dealer told the buyer <<oh yeah sure our Atomos can drive the 83 db speaker, BY ALL MEANS**, after 3rd blow, the owner called Atmnos,,<<well what we mean, is not play too loud>> ^%^$#@#&*(^&%%%$%
I’m going in the opposite direction,. Pairing a 100 pure watt per channel with a 97 db wide band. Massive waste of wattage, but it is what it will be.
talk about resist changes, WOW, I will not continue down the xover design any longer, 40 years of xovers is quite enough for this audiophile. You can have em.
I suppose you refer to passive cross-overs first and foremost, and (if so) on that we agree. Instead of going totally sans XO though I’m using one actively (DSP), implemented prior to amplification and with one XO-point on the main speakers only - in the more or less critical band (just above 600Hz), that is; a XO-point is also placed below 100Hz for subs augmentation.
Debate arises over where the lesser harmful XO-point(s) should be placed, but in a 2-way main speaker design that can be dictated by factors that wouldn’t consider the most optimal XO-point as an outset. Using non-waveguide loaded dome tweeters necessitates a XO typically not much lower than 2kHz, whereas acoustic transformers can lower that point considerable with dome tweeters, AMT units and compression drivers alike (with the latter offering the lowest extension), and hereby give way to experimentation - in conjunction with other design considerations - on where to most optimally place the XO-point.
To me the very important "power region" (~150 to 600Hz) should be left untarnished - that is, sans XO-point here - and be reproduced with ample radiation area. One or two high efficiency paper coned 15" drivers here, not least actively driven, simply smothers anything lower eff. typical 8" or smaller alternative with a more unforced, dynamic and naturally full presentation here. They won’t extend clear of the central midrange though, but that mayn’t be an issue with a large horn to cover from 6-700Hz on up, offering qualities here - also in regard to directivity control - that direct radiating, smaller coned drivers wouldn’t be able to replicate.
Resisting changes mayn’t be a bad thing, not least in light of what has gone before that position and shaped it into what it is, but it can also be a rigid stance that limits oneself from further exploration. I’ve expelled myself from much of typical hifi and wouldn’t dream of changing that with what I know now. One the other hand, if spacing and economy had allowed I’d have cherished seeking out a secondary set-up with a smaller pair of passively driven 2-way speakers (or even XO-less widebander) and a good integrated amp and source - and just that with no subs or anything other. Simple, clean - like it all started..
talk about resist changes, WOW, I will not continue down the xover design any longer, 40 years of xovers is quite enough for this audiophile. You can have em. Take all you want the listings are loaded.
I do think however that the device turning the AC current into audible bliss is the foundation upon which the rest of the system relies, and the qualities it voices.
Affirming a common sense fact does not erase another common sense fact...Ordering the 2 facts ask only for some logical reasoning...
It is relatively easy to find relatively good speakers...( relatively to your purse but this does not invalidate my point at all).
Then without negating the impact of the choice of speakers, my point was to indicate a deep underestimated fact: psychoacoustic phenomena...
Like you just said it is important to adapt the room to the speakers... If not, the speakers will never give their optimal S.Q.
(Anyway at the speed of sound the waves crossed my room many times before my brain analyse all this, i listen in a small room to the multiples reflected frontwaves even in near listening...)
Give me any good speakers i could make it sound great....i know howto do it now at no cost...
Take any good speaker put it in a bad room... listen...This will seems "good" only because people will have no idea at all the way they would have sound in a good room...
Then it is easy to buy relatively good speakers but the most important piece of the job is acoustic...
The only reason people dont understand that is simple.... They never lived through it.... I did...Like i said passive material treatment is only half of the job, we need also unbeknownst to most active mechanical room controls...Especially if our speakers are not very costly one in more costly acoustic room.... active acoustic controls may cost peanuts it is the good news ...It cost me peanuts...
There is no comparison at all between a pair of speaker in a good room compared to the same pair in a bad room....Even the increase in S.Q. by an upgrade will not do the job most of the times save if you go over the roof in price perhaps...Most people think that imaging, timbre perception, soundstage are ONLY attributes of the gear, but they are only partially right, most of these factors depend heavily on room controls not only on passive materials treatment...
A simple example...Why most very rich audiophiles invest more in the room sometimes than in the gear, mike lavigne for example ? do they think that their speakers are so great they can put them in an ordinary room?
By the way i installed springs under and over my speakers with my own method... This give a big difference in S.Q. But this difference is very small compared to the huge transformation of the room....It is the same thing for the decresing of the electrical noise floor...It is an audible difference when we decrese the noise floor but this does not compared to the room acoustic either.... For sure none of these changes is replaceable by the others but the more impactful audibly is the room controls on ALL aspect of sound in a more than audible way....Transformative completely....
There’s no getting past the transducer/s that produce the sound. The loudspeaker is where the rubber hits the road, I would agree that to have a truly immersive sound, the speakers come first.
The rest of the equipment, even the room, and the recording aught to compliment the speakers. Of course without synergy it all collapses, I do think however that the device turning the AC current into audible bliss is the foundation upon which the rest of the system relies, and the qualities it voices.
I’m sorry. My tongue was firmly planted in my cheek as I wrote that. I wasn’t seriously questioning you or the laws of physics. Although, without ever seeing it, I have to wonder what an interior decorator would say about your room.
I’m not too sure about the room accoustics guy, either. He’s at least scraping up against the side of the guardrails.
Dont insult me please...
The room "acoustic guy" like you said NEVER spoke or RAVE about ANY audio consumers products here...
I created my own devices...
And acoustic and psychoacoustic had what we called " laws"...Nobody can ignore these laws...
Thats all...
If i speak POLITELY about my experience and i sell nothing save creativity and simple facts that means certainly that "i dont scrape up against the guardrails"
It is NOT your case insulting me...
is it clear?
Speak TO ME directly next time....Not about me to others....
And dont assimilate me to anything you judged being a "nutcase".... i dont trust your judgement seeing it at work in this post....
I feel like I’m watching a breakdown in slow motion. I’m worried about mozartfan. Sure audiophiles are an eccentric lot. Sure they have strong opinions. But he seems to have crashed through the guardrails. Should Audiogon do something? Call the cops, call somebody?
I’m not too sure about the room accoustics guy, either. He’s at least scraping up against the side of the guardrails.
I’m surprised that otherwise sane members of this forum would take mozartfan seriously after he admitted that he hadn’t heard the speakers in question.
I read the review in Absolute Sound. It was positive but they’re all positive. It was very positive, actually. But it wasn’t a rave, the reviewer didn’t write like he had discovered cold fusion.
You and others are presenting critical information, but it is falling on deaf ears. There is no acknowledgement of it let along a rebuttal.
To that end, there is information being presented, but no communication is occurring. Communication requires two active participants.
I'd even go a bit further with that statement: audiophilia in general is in love with its own narrative, and not at all inviting of "other voices." Backlash is one thing, muteness quite another..
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.
