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.
Indeed as mentioned loudspeakers are the most important components of a good audio system. This however hinges on locating speakers in a proper room perhaps with dimensions measuring 16X21.5X8 feet to minimise echoes and room reflections of sound waves. Having owned a Anthony Gallo 3.5 pair of speakers, which I found to be excellent, although reasonably priced I would be happy to know from members their views of this speakers. Thank you.
ZSeems the SET amplification has been officially coveted as the only amplification for the task. But there are draw backs with the SETs. They do not produce music likea PP can in certain complex, hard driven signals. They can get overwhelmed witha single 845 trying to master all the complexities thrown its way. PP has the muscle to channel all that high voltage music.
All this agonising over amplifiers, which in the end, basically all sound the same? ’SET amplification has officially been coveted as the only amplification for the task‘. Dig the pompous nomenclature - Kinda makes amplifier choice crucial to the system performance in my book.
Seems like the Speaker shootout at the OK Corral i started wayyy back in 2001? has not been settled. This topid is now Speaker Shootout Part 2. WE've all come alonggg way since then. It was simply amazing how the single Diatone 6.5 driver blew away the Seas Thor, all due to one tiny characteristic specification. ~~Sensitivity~~. This to me is critical , all important ingredient when conisderinga speaker, Test/charts, I am not the least bit interested. The Diatone/Vifa might have peaks and valleys, all over the chart, off axis, etc. I am not even the least interested. If speaker A sounds superior to speaker B, thats all that counts, But then we must consider the listener's ears, = what exactly is he looking for. as Mentioned by larryi above. It all comes down to ,,well yes and no, If any audiophile can honestly say the Thors sound superior to the Diatone 6.5, I question his ability to hear, or he may need a hearing aid, Juts seems to me, the new developments in single point source/FR drivers over the past 10 years, has resulted in significant gains in high fidelity resolution. This is the purpose to this topic. To shed light on the new FR technology as the true champion, the king of all speaker designs. 2nd to none. Now we need to explore what amplification is allowed to be matched to these new single source drivers. ZSeems the SET amplification has been officially coveted as the only amplification for the task. But there are draw backs with the SETs. They do not produce music likea PP can in certain complex, hard driven signals. They can get overwhelmed witha single 845 trying to master all the complexities thrown its way. PP has the muscle to channel all that high voltage music.
yes, good eye, that is a Genelec HT3 sub. It is part of a home theater system completely separate from the 2 channel. I have a Trinnov processor running a 7.3.6 system. You can see the L-R Paradigms sitting inside the bass horns too. You can't see the 10 foot screen that hinges down from the ceiling in front of the rack or the 4K Sony projector in the back of the room. I'll post that system one of these days
Yes exactly, Trade offs is expected, But the tradeoffs employing the Thors is not worth the fine vocals, bass. have to add gain to get results and this means stress and = music has a certain attack quality. There are nice things about the seas Thors , but next to any high sens FR, it isa wet blanket speaker = dinasaur.
Although Ines at Vox and Richard both hold the belief SET's are ideal amps for FR. Here you can listen to a PP with the 6.5 Diatone 95db, Vifa tweet 91db. Its not bad at all, in fact quite nice, = could live with this speaker and not go any further. But my quest takes further. From the SET uploads on YT, there is not 1 that I can say <,WOW>> I am using the tweet section of the Thors for the Vifa.
Box speakers? Heck no, I’ve listened to electrostatics for 40 years!
All is relative to the installation, vibration/resonance control and acoustic....
My box speakers ( 50 dollars used) sound better in my good room than my friend in principle "better" magnepan in a bad room .... They are so good any upgrade is useless....Dont ask me the branded name ask me how is it possible? any relatively good speaker could deliver miraculous sound....Any.....
Anyway all qualities coming from any type of speakers is a balanced trade-off with ALWAYS positive and negative.... Especially for speakers under some money treshold....The room acoustic can help greatly to compensate some aspect of this trade off....My mechanical equaliser is PART of my speakers and PART of the room....Then for me speaking of speakers on the shelf of the manufacturer for their design advantages is not the way to go through the essential .... They most work in a specific room to reveal their potential....
Like i said acoustic is the sleeping princess and everyone pay attention to only the 7 working dwarves....
I think acoustic panels can be considered components, and they add to a room. Two well placed $200 panels will impact a system more than $20,000 of cables.
I am glad to concur with this advice....Save for the fact that i know for sure that you dont give much credit to cables upgrade in pure S.Q. improvement like myself to a point ... Then i must take your post with a pinch of salt.... Anyway i concur with you for their usefulness... i will only add that sometimes adding panels is better than a new costly amplifier upgrade..... 😊
Now i try to calculate what we must pay for a benefit in upgrade on par with my active room tuner the mechanical Helmholtz equalizer?
In all audio thread acoustic is the sleeping princess.... But all people bet on the working dwarves....
I think acoustic panels can be considered components, and they add to a room. Two well placed $200 panels will impact a system more than $20,000 of cables.
Mahgister has been relentless in his posts about his room and I appreciate his passion, but optimizing the room does not fit with the idea above about picking the most critical component because most of us don’t have the luxury of picking our room. We do pick our speakers. So I’m fine with the idea that the room is critically important when optimizing your system, but it does not fit with the idea of picking the most critical component because again, most don’t pick their room.
You are completely right...
I will only add that i speak about "transforming" a dedicated room which is available...
No need to own an ideal room at all...You can pick anyone...A living room would not did for me save a very high cost for the esthetical devices....
In my experience ANY room can be transformed at low cost but we must have a room ONLY for audio...
The notion that there is only one right approach, which implies only one correct set of priorities, is unreasonable. I am a fan of extremely dynamic speakers, such as full-range, full-range used as wide range drivers in multiway systems, and horn-based systems. But, there is no one approach that does everything right and so we all pick our favored set of compromise
Completely agree, which brings us full circle to the original point of this thread which is "most critical component" which to me means the one component you must start with ........ again
we all pick our favored set of compromises
so the one component that has the largest number of inherent weaknesses that must be overcome or lived with, the one with the largest number of differences in performance from model to model, the one that must be most carefully chosen to integrate into the given room, the one which forces us to make the largest number of compromises is the speaker... so therefore, one must start with speakers that meet their criteria then build from there i.e. speakers are the most critical component.
Mahgister has been relentless in his posts about his room and I appreciate his passion, but optimizing the room does not fit with the idea above about picking the most critical component because most of us don't have the luxury of picking our room. We do pick our speakers. So I'm fine with the idea that the room is critically important when optimizing your system, but it does not fit with the idea of picking the most critical component because again, most don't pick their room.
My philosophy which has served me well is you have to start somewhere and build around it otherwise you will be constantly changing one thing to make up for a difference in another. You need a solid foundation to build on. You need one constant in your system to build on.... buy the best speakers you can afford to meet your preferences then go from there. I've had the same speakers for almost 20 years with no desire to change.. everything else has changed and most many times.
Which leads me to me final point. Most of this thread has been people talking past each other because they are talking about different things. "Weakest Link" and "room optimization" and "garbage in/out" and "speaker differences" and "everything matters" and "most critical component" and all the rest are all valid considerations, but even though it is all intertwined, they are different considerations.
If you have a different definition for "critical component " then the points above don't apply.
You could rename this thread ‘One Giant Advertisement for Voxativ Horns
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ can't Ines the speakers engineer at Voxativ, just emailed me, Says my Defy7 is <<NOT>> a match for Vox drivers. I told her, well being half german, i have a bit of bull head, = Sinatra's I DID IT my way. So inspite of Richard and Ines suggestion, that the PP amplification is not <, The Ideal> match for the Vox, I plan to go through with the Vox project sometime next year, After I recoop my huge $1800 loss in the recent thor upgrade. Camn't give em away. There is no demand for speakers at the moment, Thought I'd let you guys know, What you buy new, at purchase you just lost 50% market value and will havea very hard time selling.
So in the meantime. A guy in lafayette La just wrote that his exp of the LII fast 8 was stunning, so for $230 I just ordered the LII Fast 8 which will hold me over til i can recoop some audio budget cash and add the Voxatic ...Let me get these numbers correct,,Its their entry model ~~~AC-1A~~~ That will be next year, as i have dental bills. anyway, I will post a Youtube vid once I build cabinets. At $230 a pair, + $60 Home Depot snaded plywood, this will be a nice experiement in Full range with PP amplification. I notec there are a few PP + LII Fast8 on Youtube. Ines might be as Richard Gray;s opinion, which is as old as the hills, SET + FR = Perfection. thing is, from the YT vids I've heard of SET amps, I really did not care for any of the SET. Besides can a SET amp, voice thick, rich, full, very complex ( Schnittke, Pettersson, Carter) with the ~~Dynamics~~ Details, speed, clarity, bass, highs that I hear in the KT88's...?? I just don't think so. So far I'm not impressed with SET's in clasical music.
I will upload a YT vid on the Diatone + Vifa clone DavidLouis today, You make the call. I know well witha compression TI Horn, we will have even superior soundstage in the uppers. A Vifa Neodynium, as good as it is, is no match for a TI Compression horn. btw this topic now has over ~~~4000~~~ views. Folks are curious in this old tech xover/box traditional speaker vs FR shootout will end. Once you have heard a FR, you will never ever go back to xover/box traditional speakers.
One could ask: what is it you want to achieve and like in particular with with wideband speakers/drivers? A noteworthy trait is their alluring simplicity sans cross-over of any kind, and another is they're a single point source per channel - with all that entails and the advantages that offers. I would imagine though some people also have an inkling towards their often found character or signature (as elaborated on by poster @larryi just above) as a certain flavor of sound they like, even though it may deviate from a more "correct" imprinting in certain respects.
Where a point source goes Tom Danley's Synergy horns are a potential "having your cake and eat it too" scenario that offers the advantages of a point source without the pitfalls of most wideband drivers. They do need a cross-over however to handle the response of the different drivers (that sum as a single point when configured the way they are), be that active or passive, and presently they're only found as pro segment offerings - which nonetheless shouldn't keep one from acquiring them for a home setting. Danley does have their more domestically oriented Signature Series coming soon, for those interested:
The notion that there is only one right approach, which implies only one correct set of priorities, is unreasonable. I am a fan of extremely dynamic speakers, such as full-range, full-range used as wide range drivers in multiway systems, and horn-based systems. But, there is no one approach that does everything right and so we all pick our favored set of compromises.
I've heard a lot of different wide-range drivers and I have not found any particular approach is consistently best. Among my favorite is a large field-coil driver--Jensen/ERPI M10 (13" driver); I also like the AER 8" driver and several systems I heard with Voxativ drivers. At the Capital Audiofest, I heard a prototype speaker by Classic Audio (I believe) that had an 8" field coil driver and a powered woofer; I really liked the vividness of the speaker, but, if I were to ever own it, the sibilance would have to be substantially tamed. Sibilance, peaks in the upper midrange and treble, lack of bass and weight, are common issues, particularly with the smaller wide range drivers. Larger drivers are typically lacking in top end response and have too narrow high end dispersion (even when they employ whizzer cones to improve dispersion).
I have not heard a "holy grail" driver of this type. I know a lot of fans of the Western Electric 755a, but it is too thin, colored and rough sounding for my personal taste (substantially improved with a tweeter added to the system); I much prefer the Western Electric 756 (but it really requires a tweeter). My personal pick would be the Jensen M10 with a field coil tweeter, but, I don't think I can afford that system.
@mahgisterdo you have links or papers about this active treatment? did you ever compared active vs passive treatment? I mean, 95% of top level studios still use simple passive treatment. when well made, its very good...
Paper?😁
I am not a scientist in any way...
My idea come from an article in acoustic research from japan in 2008...When i was arguing with an engineer about imaging...
I used homemade tuning set of pipes and tubes orientable and tunable...The idea is first in Helmholtz...
Any room being a distribution of pressure zones i used my tubes and pipes grid or mechanical equalizer and tuned them like someone tune a piano...
Better than a mic : your 2 ears... My sound is good for my nearfield listenin(3feet) and very good also for my regular position (8 feet) i have a dedicated 13 feet square room height: 8 1/2 feet....
The response frequency from a mic adjust the sound for a position of listening in millimeter.... It is a partial helping tool that do not replace a passive acoustical treatment...But complement it for some people ... I dont have one...Instead i used my own device...
I called my mechanical equalizer activation of the room because the tool is an active part of the room....Unlike an electronic equalizer and without his limitations...
the passive treatment is useful and the active after that is powerful...
read that to begins with my idea comes from these concepts:
I use orientable straws of different size and diameter, plumber copper pipes and pvc tube in my basement...
I tune 32 of them of different size between 8 feet and 12 inches around my room and near my speakers... you will understand why reading the article.... The location is important and the orientation of the neck also in the room....
It takes me hours to created them on an evening whim but few weeks for the best tuning... 😊😉
You must use ONLY acoustical timbre perception of voice or instrument to tune the sound...No electric or amplified or electronical music.... The reference point is human timbre...
my 500 bucks system is one of the best in relation to the ratio S.Q/price....
Upgrading it appear useless to me....
I know that a relatively good audiophile experience is related mostly about acoustical settings if we supposed relatively good basic gear to begins with...
People dont know acoustic power they bet their money on very costly gear.... this is simply ignorance...
For sure many system are better than mine but i can assure you that they dont cost 500 bucks.....Anyway when the piano filled my room 3-d i dont think about the limitations of my system .... there is none that put me in the urge to invest money .... It takes me 2 years to figure out how to controls: vibrations, decease the electrical noise floor but the most hard part was the acoustic...
My goal is the best possible at NO COST.... i succeeded...
@mahgisterdo you have links or papers about this active treatment? did you ever compared active vs passive treatment? I mean, 95% of top level studios still use simple passive treatment. when well made, its very good...
@ mozartfan as far as im aware, for some reason, voxativ dont show measurements of their drivers. from what i gathered, they are excellent drivers, but I dont know for that kind of money id go field-coils supravox. or hell, id get WE 755a. these are the best wideband ive ever heard and often refered as the wholy grail of widebands
as for dual 6" in your thor, those are likely better in the bass vs voxativ any wideband needs a sub cause the light cone and weak magnet needed for a wideband driver compromise the bass.
going with a bigger 8 inch wideband I think is a safer choice since at least youlll be able to play loud without too much imd distortion ect. but be aware they will still need a sub especially for symphonies. however, like everything it is a compromise. getting a 8 inch wideband comes with beaming and reduce HF dispersion vs smaller wideband. If you dont listen loud, id get a 6.5 inch voxativ and dual REL S-R-G series subs
https://www.stereophile.com/content/voxativ-ampeggio-loudspeaker-measurements the graphs here show +5 db between 2khz and 10khz relative to 100hz to 2khz. this will sound incredibly coloured. maybe great for a show audition, but long term id never be able to live with such coloration. hence why id suggest 5" or 6.5" voxative drivers as they are likely smoother in the treble vs their 8" widebands
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well yeah, i can agree. I'm sure Richard would not disagree. Even he is aware his ~~The Baby Gray~~~ Dynaco ST70 EL34 mod is wayyy less than 1/2 the weight of the Defy yet performs quite close in sonics.
Not sure what the LoftiWhite gonna cost me and need the weight. I am old now, can't lift more than say 50-60 lbs, make that 50/lower. can you provide a link for purchasing the LoftiWhite. The guts look stunning.
I was seriously thinking about adding this BIFrost Seas kit as a alternative to the Thor, Just now i cked the db sens Are you ready ~~~~~~84db sens~~~~~~ Seas is going in reverse. They are wayyy behind the new technology. They need to invent kits which are at the very least 92db, if not 93db sens at the very lowest range. THis is the Flagship Cresendo tweeter. http://www.seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=386:bifros-seas-diy-kits&...
Just got in a DavidLouis HK Vifa Neodynium clone tweeter, Much superior highs vs the Millenium, The issues with the Millenium and I'm guessing the newest flagship The Cresendo is theyy try become a mid range anda tweeter all in 1. Neither of which come through with success, due to the extemely low sens, 87 db. Its <,wet blanket>> tweeter. The $50 /pair Vifa clone works just fine, vs Seas $700 pair flagship ~~bombs~~
Hows about a true Loftin-White with NO CAPS in the signal path to mess things up. Design elegance always trumps boutique components. i‘m available.......
And by the way, you haven‘t addressed any of the issues I have raised.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~Loftin White looks stunningly gorgeous, A bit heavy and price??? also can not recall what exact issue you wish i respond to. Refresh please Richard mentioned for a really good SET, amp should weigh over 100 lbs. = not doable. My Defy7 is 25 lbs too heavy for me. @ 75 lbs. I am about to have Ricahrd put chrome handels near the trans, for easy handling, But then becomes unsellable. Has anyone hearda push pull with FR single drivers? How was the result?
PS: im quite confused by the Voxativ hype. The frequency response is average at best. I feel like audiophile community look at the prices and automatically assume Voxativ are the best cause they are extremely highly priced.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @ Murphythe cat Quite a impressive DIY project you have going on. The 4 inch Fostex is not enough bass for me. This 6.5 Diatone chinese clone, is not bad, livable/doable, But looking fora bit more So I figure if Im going to pay $2k for the Voxativ, better go 8 inch, I've livied with these Thor dual 6.5's, nice bass, but want the lower registers to come through.+ a single wider cone , as i listen at low gain, nice easy relaxed sound. I'm not after perfection, uphoria, Nirvana, Speaker heaven, Not at all. Consider i lived with the 87db Thors for 20 years, A 8 Vox will be as close to Mt Everest as these ears will get in my remaining years. Tradeoffs WE all agree, tarde offs on every amp, source, speaker. I am waiting on Richard Gray to provide at least 3 alternatives for my Defy KT88 amplifier. He says FR is the wrong speaker, same vote as my Thors, So far he has not written back. The 3 alternatives to my Voxativ, I am more than surem, all 3 will have ~~issues~~ tradeoffs that will be close to the Thors ~~faults/weaknesses/issues~~~ You say the Vox chart looks dreadful. I can not read charts, diagrams, I know one tech on YT says charts are 1 thing, listening is yet another,,Wait tahts the founder of Voxativ stating this idea. I've heard the Vox only via YT uploads, I LOVEEEEE what I heard. + I;'ve read some comments from YTers who attended the Audio Shows, both said to the effect ~~~Voxativ was best room at the show~~~ For what reason would they be biase? Even lie? No reason at all. You can raed comments all over the Inet that Voxativ's speakers are the finest musical voiced speaker they have ever experienced. Its all over the Inet testimonies from real audiophiles. You can not find even 1 speaker which has such accolades, super high prasies. Vox is the only speaker where folks say ~~Simply the finest~~~ Why would they lie? I see no reason they are selling snakeoil,. Not like the snakeoil we have all been guzzling these past 40+ years about speakers. Vox is the New Kid on the block, Which is why there is so much resistece. The Lab is in Berlin. My guess is sales are far higher in the EU vs the USA. can anyone here provide a alternative choice in speakers for the Defy7 KT88, other than Voxativ entry model, all i can Afford after The Thor $1900 upgrade broke my bank. You also mention Vox are ~~high priced~~ Most are wayyy out our budgets. But they offera few entry models at near $2k-$3k. Considering the used market for box/xover designs here on audiogon, most are in the $$$$$$$$, wayyy over the $2k mark + Shipping = $$$$$ = Voxativ's are budget/low priced/ = a steal. Worlds finest sounding pre high fidelity speaker for alotttt less than any of Troel Gravesen's 2 or 3 way xover designs Vox are best bang for the buck.
as for the discussion about room acoustic being king, i disagree. and my room is fully treated. a well treated room wont make a P3ESR sound like a harbeth 40.1. room acoustic is extremely critical for good sq and one cannot get best SQ without proper early reflection treatment and bass traps ect, but speakers are the most important tool
You speak about passive room treatment...
There exist also Active room treatment that use tubes and pipes resonators in a precise distribution to complement powerfully the passive treatment...They work by conveying the timing wavefronts of sounds coming from each speaker to each ear...
And nobody can contradict the fact that speakers is important and everybody know that ...
acoustic on the contrary is completely underestimated.... especially with people owning very costly speakers...
And acoustic can transform good average speaker in a better experience... with my mechanical equalizer made of resonators i control imaging, timbre, soundstage, listener envelopment etc...
Maybe Richard can loan one of his SET amps, and compare to Defy7, If SET wins out I’ll buy Ricahrd’s SET, and dump the glorious Defy7 with all new Mundorf SESGO + F&T caps. New navships internal silver wiring. New copper speaker posts. NOT selling on the cheap. She’ll be priced mid level. ain’t gonna take a hit. R
Hows about a true Loftin-White with NO CAPS in the signal path to mess things up. Design elegance always trumps boutique components. i‘m available.......
And by the way, you haven‘t addressed any of the issues I have raised.
yeah, I think OP’s opinion is valid in many ways. Wideband/FR speakers do things in the midrange/treble that no multiways can achieve. The transition and transients with the mid to treble is just unique in character. however, I dislike large format wideband (4 to 6.5 inch wideband are the best) and so they are extremely limited in the bass, cannot go loud and since wideband use very light cone and weak magnets, the bass they make is truly subpar next to a 12 inch based 3 way for example.
I’m listening right now to a pair of Fostex ff105wk that ive implemented in a minimus enclosure. https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/inspired-by-the-chinese-abomination-thread-h... These roll off around 110hz, ive added a REL T5 sub and yeah, there’s magic there in the mid that my SEAS A26 cannot match. but they sound anemic when played loud, not as even in frequency response in the treble and the bass is definitely weaker vs the A26.
as for the discussion about room acoustic being king, i disagree. and my room is fully treated. a well treated room wont make a P3ESR sound like a harbeth 40.1. room acoustic is extremely critical for good sq and one cannot get best SQ without proper early reflection treatment and bass traps ect, but speakers are the most important tool
PS: im quite confused by the Voxativ hype. The frequency response is average at best. I feel like audiophile community look at the prices and automatically assume Voxativ are the best cause they are extremely highly priced. cough cough https://www.stereophile.com/content/voxativ-ampeggio-loudspeaker-measurements
Maybe Richard can loan one of his SET amps, and compare to Defy7, If SET wins out I'll buy Ricahrd's SET, and dump the glorious Defy7 with all new Mundorf SESGO + F&T caps. New navships internal silver wiring. New copper speaker posts. NOT selling on the cheap. She'll be priced mid level. ain't gonna take a hit.
Richard Gray finally wrote me about pairing the Voxativ's Ac1C driver with the Jadis Defy7 mark2, 100 wattts channel, 12 Kt88's, its a beast of a amp. 1st Ricahrd tells me quite often past 8 months, the Thors are <,the wrong speaker for the Defy>>> , now he tells me the Vox high sens is not the <<ideal/right? speaker for the Defy. I just wrote Ricahrd, <Look we only have 2 choices, box/xover low sens or FR high sens>> Then he says the Vox single will requirea large cabinet, as i told him i will build mid size, lighter weight. He says not doing. I can see Vox has small bookshelf speakers, not sure the size, maybe 6.5 driver. anyway. Richard is throwing road blocks in my path to the Vox project. I need to havea long discussion at his shoop there on Jeff Hwy, acoss from Oschner Hospital, monay, He is only open mon-wednesday. We are going to get to the bottom of this speaker mis-match thing. If anyone has experience in this matching tube + speaker please chime in. Richard says the match is the SET amps, Vox has one, like $20k-$30k can't recall price, She's a beaute. But I have no cash for another amp. I'm part german and bull headed, I am going Vox for either success or ~~~disaster~~~~ Thing is, I have the chinese Diatone 6./5 and find it very pleasing, and could easily live with that driver + a TI Horn, with no complaints. But I'm looking for more. and @ $2k, its attainable.
I’ve just been re-reading some of this stuff, and the Dynaco St70‘s (I’ve built four of them) and Shanlings don‘t exactly do it for me. I would be looking at some serious upgrades before changing speakers. Get serious folks........
Well designed SS amplifiers are just as capable as tube amplifiers in ANY application.
You are right Sansui proved it with a comparison many decades ago between his best S.S. design and his own Best Tubes design.... Impossible to distinguish the two by listening...
@mozartfan I have been building tube amps for 40+ years, and tubes are by far my preferred mode of amplification. However I can not agree with a blanket statement such as
I might even go so far as to say a well designed ss amplification may be acceptable if pair with full range/TI compression.
Well designed SS amplifiers are just as capable as tube amplifiers in ANY application. It’s all about the creator, and not what devices they chose to implement their vision.
How to compare anything in a bad room non controlled acoustically ?
This is ridiculous...
A single straw location in a room in my experience can destroy the S.Q. of any product...Or enhance it...
Boasting about design choices is ridiculous, any electronic design is the results of a complex chain of TRADE-off...With his own advantages or inconvenients corresponding to a palette of possibilities all useful on some time, location, or with other piece of gear... No absolute here... IDEALS?
The real question when our choices are made is how i could install my gear in an optimal controlled room and environment ?...
Is it not simple?
I dont think that any designed kind of speakers is absolutely superior on all counts and for all location and for all use....
But we can argue about the respective values of these trade off design for sure, like it is the case here.... Then i apologize for my intrusion....But sometimes some thing must be said also....
«The critical component is the location of our brain in the room»- Acoustic made simple by Groucho Marx 🤓
Alas, marketing, consumerist folly, and sheer corporate might will all conspire against your noble ideals. In five years Seas and Scanspeak will be doing fine MARK MY WORDS. And so might Voxativ......
I share your love of high efficiency minimalist speaker systems, rotating a pair of lowly Hammer Dynamics for “Roll yer Own SET’ thrills and spills. Love to get my hands on a pair of 100db+ horns
already @ 2900+ views, going to bust 4k views come sunday, ALOTTT of folks are very curious as to how this discussion shootout is going to end. Will the box/xover traditional style speakers which Troels Gravesen is building going to be left standing? To play just one more day. There is not even 1 box/xover/trad speaker in existence that would tempt me to give up my FR/TI Horn dream. The A/B test with Seas, which he Excel are the best drivers in the world, vs the single 6.5 Diatone. My Thors will never ever be heard by these ears ever again. can't/won;'t happen. Seas Exel Thors are the worlds finest **OLD tradition** drivers made today. Best of The Old vs The Best of the New shootout. Seas really dropped the ball, not pursuing FR way back when they 1st developed the Exotic FR @ $800 each. What happened? Did the Seas engineers ears go deaf. Anyone at seas could have heard their old tech drivers were just that, **dated dinasaurs** next to their Exotic FR. Now they are wayyyy behind the curve as is ScanSpeak, Both will go defunct in comming years, Voxativ will push both in the graves. RIP
Of course I ran some opinions which may not be always true, but in general, with most of my classical cds (LPs might vary nuances to a greater degree) Richard Gray's modded Dyanco ST70 el34 sounded very VERY close to the Defy7 kt88 At least from faint memory. The 3 diigital sources, the Shanling did show up a winner, but onlya nuance superior to the Cayin. I might even go so far as to say a well designed ss amplification may be acceptable if pair with full range/TI compression. And thats a huge break from my idea that the only way to experience living music is via tubes.
Thats how much important I am placing on the speakers as the main critical compoent in a system. So if we are talking FR/TI compression tweet, it really might not even matter which amplification one is employing. And if we could have Richard Gray set up a massive blind test, with all sorts of dif amplification, , sources, both digital, phono, ahhh tell ya what, throw in some cables, wires boutique caps, etc on the xovers and inside amps, Might take a week to complete this **whole system shoot out**, Then have Richard tally his results,, trust me, alot of old audiophiles mightm, in fact will be very UN-PLEASANTLY surprised at their voting. These shootouts are slippery. Richard has staged such events , only with a few **mystery* amplifiers, resulting in a few participants steaming mad that he has been **duped/tricked* Both with amplifiers and speakers. **The RG Experiment* would have most of us here on audiogon, scratching our heads, as to how we could ever get so many of our long held, cherished, rock-solid opinions/ideas, stubborn views on equipment and brand names, so so ~~~~ wrong~~~. Leaving scratching our heads. This is the end result of this ~~~RG Complete Shootout~~~ Voxativ would come out the clean, clear winner of all and every component involved. That is to say a much higher %age would vote Vox as winner in the speaker category. At least everyone would get the speaker votes right. caveat here: provided we have honest UN-biased participants. Good luck with that.
@mozartfan there are a couple of assumptions you make I must cordially disagree with. You dismiss SS out of hand. I argue it’s all in the implementation rather than the devices used or the topology adopted. There‘s good and bad in both camps.
All well designed tube amps sound very close. Except some are just more transparent than others, some have more of a spark of life in their music making, some are just plain more involving to listen to. Moreover, SET’s don’t sound like PP’s. I own an ARC VSi60 and a Leben CS600, both well respected PP‘s, but quite different sounding.
I also appear to discern greater differences between digital sources than you.have personally outlined.
would be the one that was the weakest in the chain, and that the OP was arguing that speakers had greatest potential to fulfil that criterion.
Agreed, cheap digital has come a long way, but it was important for it come a long way - the source was, and is the most important thing to get right. Cost is not an issue here: just because you can get a source that satisfies you for $100 doesn‘t make it any lesser in importance. It may cost you considerably more to acquire an agreeable analogue front end.
By sunday this topic will have over ~~~~3,000~~~ views, Just waiting on the box/xover fanatics to bring on some better, more substance aginst FR and for xover/box tradtional style speakers, At this point in this topic, I wish to thank all the members here for keeping things civil, respectful as honorable gentlemen and scholars . ~~~just wish we had more participation , I know there are some of you here that are side lining on us, and wish you would jump in this converstaion.
I bet any money, If you tooka group of audiophilesm, seasoned ones, not greenies who don’t know how to listen to a speakers performance/grading qualities. So we placea huge paper thin curtain in front a massive collection of speakers, lerts see amp will be one of Jadis’s , lets take the jadis Orch Refer, nice lil amp, no tell ya what, Lets take Richard Gray’s modded Dyanco ST70 amp, The Baby Gray, something anyone can afford, EL34’s. Source, any old cd player, cabels Rat Shak <specials> we used to buy back in the 70;’s. OK now, we will blind test speakers, I’d bet any money the **Full range** 8 inch + TI Horns will get the most votes over all of Troel Gravensen’s ScanSpeak/Seas designs with 8 inch midwoofers. . Once we pull the curtain after testing,, folks will be shocked their beloved box/xover designs has lost the contest. You don’t believe me, Richard Gray tells me about these type stunts he pulls on audiophiles with their rigid hot heads.
Active DSP crossovers negate many of those issues.
point taken
You can also implement DSP in a digital front end but impossible to implement in my analog chain .... Turntable >> Phono stage >> volume control >> amplifier >> speaker without digitizing my signal which is a non-starter. It also adds another layer of complexity and expense to a digital path that many wish to avoid.
however, if already in the digital domain I'm not opposed to additional processing as I do have convolution filters created using AudioLense implemented in HQplayer
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.
