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.
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...
- 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....
" 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%
The golden rule in PASSIVE treatment is simple: BALANCING the relation between absorbing and reflecting and diffusive surface...We need the three in some ratio according to each room specificities...
I did it by listening experiments...
For the first reflection point all is relative to other factors in the room: geometry, topology, size, acoustic content of furniture, walls, ceilings floors etc.
Then NO RULE is valid for ALL room save a balance that must be created by the tuning experiments by our own ears...
For the reflections point coming from front and back meditate this short abstract of a scientific paper:
«A new physical measure for psychologicalevaluation of a soundfield: Front/back energy ratio as a measurefor envelopment.M. Morimoto (Environmental Acoust.Lab.,Facultyof Eng.,KobeUniv., Rokko,Nada,Kobe,657Japan)and K. Iida (Kobe Univ., Kobe,657 Japan andMatsushita Commun.IndustrialCo., Ltd., Japan) Broadening is one of the important characteristics for the psychological evaluation of a soundfield.Several investigations indicated that broadening was comprised of two elemental senses, i.e.,auditory source width(spaciousness) and envelopment [M. Morimoto et al., Proc. 13th ICA, Belgrade2, 215-218 (1989); J. AcoustSoc.Jpn.46, 449-457 (1990); and Hidaka et al., J. Acoust.Soc.Am. 92, 2469 (A) (1992)]. They inferred that the degree of interaural cross correlation of late reflections correlated with envelopment. This paper,however, shows the results of psychological experiments that envelopment is affected by theenergy ratio of reflections coming from the front of the listener to those coming from the back of the listener,even if the degree of interaural cross correlation of the late reflections are equal.Namely,envelopment grows as the energy of the reflection coming from the back of the listener increases. This result suggests the need to measure the ratio which has never been measured.»
This is only an example of one of the paper that inspire me...
The ACTIVE mechanical controls of the room has 2 aspects: control of "timing" of early and late reflections complementing the passive treatment but control of the relation between each speaker direct wave with the location of different resonators near the speakers and around the room, this use of each speaker will make easier for each ear the recreation of distance then of "imaging"....It is possible to modify the timbre perception and the listener envelopment at will...The goal is the more natural is the best....
I am not a scientist only someone who listen by experiments....But i discover my idea reading some papers in psychoacoustic research...
I am totally convinced that people throw their money because they dont know how to control vibrations/resonance, and decresing the electrical noise floor and controls the acoustic at low cost...
All audio thread are about the gear electronical design , never mainly about how to install it rightfully... And the irony is that all in all electronic design is mature for decades now... It is not difficult to afford a relatively good pieces of gear now...
Then people throw themselves in an upgrading chase ignoring simple fact hypnotized by the weight of money which is for most the only way to reach a very good S.Q.
It is false...
If not, am i deaf?
With my 500 bucks system...
Perhaps.... who knows ? 😁
Nobody with a costly system will accept what i said easily .... but i never pretended that my systen rival costly one i only said that the ratio price/S.Q. of my system is very high.... And enough for me....
I spoke for those who dont have money to create sonic heaven... It is possible....
Ok i spoke too much...I hope it will help and made people think....
First, I agree 100% with you about the importance of acoustics. its a crucial aspect of sound quality. Id go as far as say that I dont think you can get hi-fi sound without a properly treated room.
" For the reflections point coming from front and back meditate this short abstract of a scientific paper"
early reflections coming from the front wall? physically impossible, reflections coming from behind the speakers are secondary reflections and will affect the SBIR, but apart from open baffle or Maggies, no early reflections are coming off from the wall behind the speakers. secondary reflections are good by definition. early reflections are always bad. no matter the room. do you know the definition of a early reflection and the difference between early and secondary reflections?
" For the first reflection point all is relative to other factors in the room: geometry, topology, size, acoustic content of furniture, walls, ceilings floors etc. Then NO RULE is valid for ALL room save a balance that must be created by the tuning experiments by our own ears..."
ok, so no mics or measurements?
The understanding of early reflections and how to make a small-medium room transparent acoustically is well established by now. Acoustic is a science. Not much mysteries left there. every room is different, but every room will have early reflections points. and the same method to stop the detriments from early reflections is either diffusion if you have a huge room, or in any normal room, absorption. "furniture" wont change anything here. Rugs either.
" control of "timing" of early and late reflections complementing the passive treatment but control of the relation between each speaker direct wave with the location of different resonators near the speakers and around the room, this use of each speaker will make easier for each ear the recreation of distance then of "imaging"
wow, not sure i understand this sentence. Resonators tackle specific FR bands. every room will need wideband absorption at early reflection points.
Acoustics is relatively simple
1- find the best listening position. good guideline is start at the 38% rule. 2- Find the best speaker position. Place a mic at the Listneing position and move the right speaker around until you have the smoothest bass without major peaks, avoiding the most crude bass modes. repeat with the Left speaker. 3- absorb the early reflections ( ceiling, side walls, floor, behind the listening position) 4- add 20 inch bass traps floor to ceiling in every corner of the room
Everyone following these steps will have a good measuring room (FR and decay wise)
I dont want to argue but like i said EACH room is different...
And what is important save the optimal ratio between reflection and absorbtion and diffusion related to EACH specific room is the TIMING THRESHOLDS Optimization...
Then i use contrary to general rule some reflection at early reflection points this is NOT AN ADVICE i give to all.... This is MY SITUATION in my room.... General rule in audio thread are only that general rule, i prefer my listening experiments and optimization for my room and for my ears and scientific research to help me....😁
Read that to have some idea of what i speak about:
«An essential point is that an auditory temporal window does not have a rectangular shape, but it has a slope at each end. Therefore, the conventional rectangular division of reflections into an early and late part in time is overly simplistic. As suggested by the definitions of ASW and LEV mentioned before, the perception of them relates strongly to the law of the first wavefront [17]. Namely, as Bradley and Soulodre describe in their paper [4], sound arriving shortly after the direct sound is integrated or temporally and spatially fused with the direct sound. Thus, increasing levels of early lateral reflections increase the apparent level of the direct sound and cause a slight ambiguity in its perceived location. These two effects contribute to the resulting increase in ASW. Later arriving sound is not integrated or temporally and spatially fused with the direct sound, and leads to more spatially distributed effects that appear to envelop the listener. This description well explains the relation between the perception of spatial impression and the law. However, it is insufficient for a deep understanding of the relation, because it is qualitative but not quantitative. Here, to facilitate understanding of the relation, let us suppose a simple sound field consisted of a direct sound and a single lateral reflection of constant level. According to the law, when the delay time of the reflection does not exceed a critical value, which depends on the kind of source signal, only one sound image is perceived in the direction of the direct sound. Then, ASW is perceived, but LEV is not as explained above. That is, the reflection contributes only to ASW. On the other hand, when the delay time exceeds the critical value, two sound images are perceived separately in the directions of the direct sound and the reflection [18]. This phenomenon is called ‘‘image-splitting.’’ Then, LEV is perceived as explained above. Furthermore, only LEV is perceived, based on the conventional physical measures which divide reflections into an early and late part. However, some questions arise from this case. Should not ASW also be perceived simultaneously? If ASW is also perceived, how much does the reflection contribute to create each of ASW and LEV? »
Resonators tackle specific FR bands. every room will need wideband absorption at early reflection points.
I use resonators in my own way to guide and change asymmetrically the driver and the tweeter direct wavefront of each of my speaker then differently for each ear and i use reflection to guide these waves to my ears in time...This help me to create this listener envelopment impression....
The 32 resonators distributed in particular locations with variable and orientable necks help me to control the timbre perception and imaging....I even use 3 cylinders without neck....
Like i said general rule are only that general rule...I dont go with a general rule, it is useless for optimization i did LISTENING EXPERIMENTS.... And the extraordinary results are only reach by some optimization of the resonators and of the reflection/absorbtion timing ratio...I cannot give a rule always the same for each room sorry....
Optimization ask for timing threshold coordination with reflection not only absorbtion...I used reflection at early reflection
What i do anyway is not for a living room by the way....
My audio room is ONLY for audio ....
But the most important luxury in audio is not the cost of the gear but a dedicated room....
But the most important luxury in audio is not the cost of the gear but a dedicated room....
I agree
On the other hand I also think that good speakers sound better in a non-dedicated room than some bad speakers in the same room ... that's why in my opinion, the speakers (after the room) are the single most critical component.
It’s truly not complicated. For me it’s ML Summits. Everyone has their own favorite. Personally, I don’t care for boxes. Even open baffles are good. So, there you go.
Maybe this finally died, possibly a good thing as there sure seem to be a lot of one-trick ponies on this thread, running the same track over and over, with nothing new to offer. Hmm. It would appear that the OPs real goal was to tell us all we're fools for not loving FR speakers. Funny that over years and years of audio shows and visits to dealers I have never, ever heard one hot-to-trot FR type speaker that could do the frequency range and not be too lean, therefore nearly non-listenable over time. I've tried. They stink IMO. As for the critical importance of speakers first, I agree with "dletch2" when he writes:
'No, just ... no. Give me a $150-$500 DAC with volume control, a
$2-3,000 amplifier, $20,000 speakers (of my choice), and enough money to
fix most of the acoustic issues in a room. I will put that against any
$5,000 speakers, I don't care what electronics you connect it to, and
that goes quadruple if you don't fix the acoustic issues.' I gotta pay more attention to an OP's motives as they become clear.
WEll I agree, the OP is not very well expressed, just a jumble of ideas, more about opening questions, new thoughts /ideas. You will find the majority here agree, speakers is the vocal chords of the system. What I am learning over the past few weeks testing out different drivers and FR speakers, is this : speakers are indeed the critical component, and sensitivity is the critical spec that should be conisdered at the 1st. IMO, go directly to sens rating. We all want huge soundstage, details, very low coloration/distortion, etc etc. A speaker with average sens = 92db/below, might acheive some of these distinctive qualities, then again, might not. Whereas a higher sens, 94db+ might not only acheive these characteristics, but voice them in a way a lower sens speaker has no chance in the same degree. Lately the only spec i look at is sens. If the sens is 94 db, its up for consideration. Some of the lower grade FR small cone drivers I've been testing lately are rated 91db and perform as such = rejects. Also buyer beware, some FR/Ribbon/ etc drivers will show specs that might very well be *spiked*, Seriously consider subtracting 2db from many if not all the so called *FR* drivers comming out of china. China is pumping the sens rating, in order to gain more sales. \ No big surprise there.
One other observation about these new *Full range* speakers, is that they are more about *midrange*. The low bass is a bit rolled off, the highs are definetly rolled off. Which to me is not a big issue. AS 90%+ of the fq's in my classical music falls in this critcal fq zone. I can esaily add bass and highs. So to sum the many discoveries made these past few months A) Speakers Most critical B) Sensitivity most critical C) Midrange most critical. Only via these 3 ingredients can true high fidelity enter into your system. All else is fluff, if not The Hype.
audition__audio849 posts05-24-2021 11:01amI dont think the OP had any motive other than some cathartic brain dump.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My topic has the most views here on audiogon as far as new threads. For a reason many here know i have some 40 years exp in audio, and trust some of the new developments/new discoveries I've made these past few months, experimenting with various speakers.
If you don't have something of value to add to the open fair, honest discussion, best just to stay on the sidelines and learn something.
Certainly one thing I could learn from you is how not to communicate. I also could learn how not to present a discovery if I wanted it to be taken seriously. Far too many definitive statements, far too many generalizations and a grand oversimplification of something which is very complex. I dont disagree with your basic premise, just much of what you puked after the title of the OP. I think some basic advice on presentation is very constructive. I mean it really wasnt a discussion just you monologuing.
Mozart fan I think reducing an evaluation down to one aspect - efficiency- of the many issues to consider is not the idea. Its like saying you'll only consider a car that gets over X miles per gallon as a proper car. What if you want a sports car? Or if you want a truck to haul things? Different motors, different efficiencies. Efficiency is NOT the only thing that matters in engines or drivers.
From product management experience at JBL and with ATC, a driver can be optimized for bandwidth OR efficiency. If you want more low end from a driver, it WILL be less efficient. IF you are willing to forgo some low end, you can go for efficiency.
I know for example ATC SCM19/20 systems average 87dB SPL 1w/1m. In its sealed box, that 7 inch SL driver has response down to 30-40 hz. Why give up this low end for a higher efficiency when amp power is so affordable these days? Its not like the old horn days, where a 70W amp was about as large as they get (at least in tube power amps).
box, that 7 inch SL driver has response down to 30-40 hz. Why give up this low end for a higher efficiency when amp power is so affordable these days?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well some of what i said above has tp be qualified, re-hashed in view of further considerations.
Agree if you can find woofers, especially in the 7-8 inch range which deliver solid bass with clear low mids, (crossing say no higher thahn say 2k), here db level is not so important, My seas W19E001's with new Mundorf Supreme Silver caps, have increased the performance of the woofer. Seas has the W18E001 rated 87db. With the old Hovland caps, the bass was not as punchy. Not sure how to explain what the Mundorf caps a 10uf+ 2.2 uf have added to the W18's performance, but its superior bass vs the old cheapo Hovland 8.2 cap. Its really in the midrange and even more in the say,,,,12k+ fq's where sens really beccomes a critical issue. So far my testing of some cheap chinese *FR* drivers has given me some insight how the sensitivity rating becomes so important. Also the use of a Magnovox tweeter horn, guessing 96db sens, also has proven to be a superior speaker vs a say 90db/under dome tweeter. The Millennium 87db tweeter is old school. The wteeter i should have upgarded to was the Seas Exotic 94db sens tweeter for the same price. I just didn't know much about how this sensitivity comes into play. My guess, looking at the fq sens chart for the Exotic 8 woofer, the deeper bass fq's is just not there. The W18E001's , guessing, outperform the Exotic and the new Seas Graphene W18 no doubt outperforma sthe older Exel W18. Woofers rated lower than 90db is acceptable. Its in the midrange and highs where any driver under say 94db, will not perform on the same level as a 95+db *Full Range* speaker in mids. From what I've heard the lows/highs tend to be rolled off in *Full Range* drivers. Which concurs with my testing of cheap chinese *FR* drivers, the highs are rolled off, the lows are not as solid and punchy as the Seas W18. Bass can be had from any high quality higher end 7-8 inch SB Acoustics, Scan Speak, Seas. But these woofers are pricey. + Your xovers will be expensive. I am getting ever so closer to designing my *final* speaker, The Frankenstein. The W18's will remain as bass, The Voxativ Ac1A for mids/ upper bass, and either the Magnovox tweeter horn with a 2.2 Mundorf cap or a AMT Planar tweeter /just bought off ebay/ , arrives next week. Both in a shootout for ultra highs. 10k+fq. I have no idea the fq range on the Voxativ, so hard to say how The Frankenstein will evolve. So yes to answer your Q, the very 1st spec i look at/consider is the sensitivty rating. With 100 watt/channel amplifier I really don't need the 97db, but since its avaliable at same price as Vox's 91db speaker, may as well help myself to the added 6db sens. Dome tweeters with under 90db rating, just can not compete with high sens FR in the lower mids through high mids + low highs 10k/under Just can't. When you look at your dome tweeter in the speaker, its old technology due to lower sens rating. You are missing alot of the nuances in the music. The wet blanket treatment.
Yes but you need to discuss the sound of the old technology dome tweeter vs tweeters of differing designs. Not to mention that the characteristics of exotic material drivers when driver beyond their comfort level can be a real problem which forces the designer's hand in terms of the crossover. You can feel that sensitivity is the single most important factor for you, but this is not gospel.
~~~~~~~~~~ This is what I am preaching, and no other doctrine/dogmas. Sens is the most critical spec when considering midrange/tweeter fq's. There I re-adjusted my thesis. Excluding woofers, as my W18E001's are 87db yet still remain one of the finest sounding bass speakers. AS we know FR has some issues with rolloff in the low bass region. Voxativ calims their FR drivers go into the 20hz zone, but from what i am hearing , added bass is needed. I have no idea how low the W18E001's go now, with the Mundorf Supreme caps, the bass reproduction on kettle drums in my classical music is rich, tight , just wonderful. Note the 20hz-30hz, not much in classical music in that fq range. Maybe jazz fans need the 20-30hz, but in classical its miniscule notes in this fq range.
Dome tweeters in my experience can not match what a higher sens horn tweeter can do. The shootout always goes to the horn. The AMT planar tweeter arrives this week, rated 97db, We will see how this shootout goes.
The higher sensitivity = the superior speaker. (excluding the massive compression horns which are not meant for high fidelity home stereo)
Dual woofers = superior toa single woofer Based on what I just read on Troel's page, his CNO Grande has dual Seas Nextel Titanium voice coil woofers, Read just below the pics of his testing cds. Dual woofers havea combined cone area which moves more air, , making the bass seem deeper, punchier vs a single woofer. Thougha single woffer might go as low as 20hz, dual 7's even at 40 hz, have a more solid bass line. Which confirms what I am now hearing with the new Mundorf Supreme caps, a 10uf anda 2.2uf. My next plan , after the Vox AC1A , is to swap out the lower W18E001 with Seas newest W22, their Graphene cone with Titanium Voice Coil. = $1000/pair.
Should bring the bass fq's down to the 20hz and really add a richness to the 100hz-1600hz. The Vox AC1A will have all the support in this fq range to make a truly FULL range, emotive sound stage.
btw Troel 's web page is gold mine for understanding the many layers of fq ranges.
Well research what dual woofers in series does to your impedance. What about sealed vs. ported cabinets? Again if things were only this simple. There is no solution that doesnt also present negatives.
It’s truly not complicated. For me it’s ML Summits. Everyone has their own favorite. Personally, I don’t care for boxes. Even open baffles are good. So, there you go.
Even the very best speakers have many times more distortion than ALL of the rest of the preceding audio chain.
For over a century when it comes to speakers, it's been a question of choosing which distortions you can live with the best.
For many people open baffles, horns and electrostatic panels currently offer a good match to the majority of music that we listen to today - heavily compressed digital format Pop/Rock/Rap etc.
Dynamically challenged speakers are just not doing it in 2021 for many people.
Efficiency is NOT the only thing that matters in engines or drivers.
And yet it's rarely prioritized or recognized as even ONE of the core parameters in speaker engineering.
From product management experience at JBL and with ATC, a driver can be optimized for bandwidth OR efficiency. If you want more low end from a driver, it WILL be less efficient. IF you are willing to forgo some low end, you can go for efficiency.
To some extend at least you can have your cake and eat it too: add size, but that's usually the one thing audiophilia wants to avoid, so, in that case it's either/or.
I disagree. I think efficiency is beginning to enjoy some well deserved attention. One of many things to consider when buying speakers. Impedance is certainly one of my strongest considerations because I love OTL amps.
Every thing begins at the beginning; when you read a sentence, do you start at the period and go backwards? If vinyl, the signal begins at the cartridge, therefore it's the most important, and from there on down the line until the signal leaves the speaker as music. That makes the speaker the least important.
Do you think you could get good sound from a lousy cartridge and turntable with the worlds best speaker?
As expensive as the best speakers are, it's for certain I'll never own one; however I will own competitive gear up the rest of the signal chain.
It seems that some of the best speakers, according to "Stereophile" cost in the vicinity of 20K.
My speakers are custom built with a crossover designed by a crossover engineer. They are designed to have no sound of their own, just the sound of the music. This is not something I recommend, it took 10 years to get it just right, but they do what they're supposed to do.
Audiophiles can be divided into two camps; equipment lovers and music lovers. Equipment lovers may not be aware of that fact, but they use music to hear equipment, not equipment to hear music; consequently, those of us who are music lovers may have to make that determination as to whether or not they are one or the other.
An inordinate emphasis on the importance of speakers is a clue, but not a verification. When they go all over the map on different types and brands of speakers, that's a verification that they are indeed "equipment lovers"; especially when each speaker changes the music dramatically. If a person likes all those different types of speakers, he's a speaker lover, not a music lover.
East is East, and West is West, as the saying goes, and never the twain shall meet, and so it is with equipment lovers and music lovers.
Every thing begins at the beginning; when you read a sentence, do you start at the period and go backwards? If vinyl, the signal begins at the cartridge, therefore it’s the most important, and from there on down the line until the signal leaves the speaker as music. That makes the speaker the least important.
I.... what? It is the first word, therefore the most important, we have read it, yet we know nothing.
I love.... okay, but again, what? Dang. Two words, still nothing.
I love music.... now we’re getting somewhere! So the last word is the most important!
I love music but .... wait, what?!
I love music but not right now I’m trying to write. Oh, now I get it! ALL the words matter. AND the order they are in. AND the context! No one single part any more or less important than any other.
East is East, and West is West, as the saying goes, and never the twain shall meet, and so it is with equipment lovers and music lovers.
Why not trying something more sophisticated than left and right or black and white?
Why not trying to look for music lovers who cherish the equipment also, or to some music lovers who without money succeed to reach real audiophile sound experience with low cost means and science?
And after discovering that there exist 4 categories why not exploring the rest of the audio world?
In the music lover side, by the way, do you goes on distinguishing rock lovers and classical music lovers?
If you do, remember that there exist group of people who like the 2 kind of music and this is a third category to add also....
i am myself in my own unique category with only one member....
I dont give a dam about equipment, i prefer to control my environment and the acoustica of the room at NO COST...
I like very peculiar musicians and composers and not so much all the others....
I listen to gong music....
I refuse membership....
I also try to keep the world out of the binary traps categories game.....
A lot of things matter, but not all equally - I’d say that goes without saying, or it should. Implementation on the other hand is wholly important. To say speakers are the least important because they’re at the end of the signal chain is just rubbish. They are, together with the acoustic environment they inhabit, by far the most signature imparting element of all. With limited funds selective $50 DAC’s of today are not the sonic bottleneck to point your finger at, nor are cheap pro amps coupled actively or low cost cables in this context. The speakers and the acoustics however are, how they’re positioned and the way their digital XO is configured. But who wants to tell their audiophile friends they have $50 DAC’s, cheap pro amps, DSP units for active XO and, preferably, high efficiency horn-loaded pro segment speakers, DIY or not? The ones that don’t care about the typical audiophile narrative and are instead willing to invest their time where it matters the most - without being brand, segment or price numbed. Implementation is key, and letting physics have their way.
If we are talking about ultimate audio,(ultimate for my pocketbook) and speaking of order of importance: the cartridge would be first, followed by TT, followed by phono pre, followed by preamp, followed by power amp, and last the speakers.
The speakers will display whatever the preceding components present to them. The speakers are followers, not leaders, therefore, out of that batch of components, they are the least important.
In terms of expense, I would like for the cartridge, TT, and phono-pre to be as much as I could squeeze out, hopefully rated Class A or B by Stereophile, no lower than Class B (that's my frame of reference) same for pre-amp and power-amp. Some of us have unlimited budgets, I don't, and since speakers are suppose to follow the leaders, that's where I go with a good pair of neutral speaker, not the most expensive. In my scheme of things, speakers come in last relative to expensive components.
When I upgrade the cartridge, better sound comes out of the speaker. When I upgrade the phono, better sound comes out of the speaker. When I upgrade the pre-amp, better sound comes out of the speaker. I've had the same speakers since 2000, but they keep sounding better, maybe I got magical speakers?
As someone who has been perpetually in the upgrade sickness.. I can tell you that no matter how great your components are, it’s all for not if you have crap speakers! the speakers deliver the truth! Therefore, the speakers are the key component, or the foundation for which all other components must pass through.
this is why I feel the speakers are the most important step in audio nervana.
this is why I feel the speakers are the most important step in audio nervana.
I know very well that my Mission Cyrus speakers are only "relatively" good speakers....In their price bracket even if they punch over...
Then why i dont want to upgrade my speakers ? even if i could....
Is this because my speakers branded name is the most important link ?
Not at all....
Total acoustic mechanical controls after a well done passive material treatment...
A Helmholtz mechanical equalizer and diffusers...
And some others tools i will not mention here....
Room acoustic rule ESPECIALLY in small room under 20 feet....
Room acoustic is the sleeping princess, anything else are only the seven working dwarves....
It is very important to know that science could overpower any marketing claim...
No speaker beat the room where they work...
But a controlled room can throw "relatively" any good speakers on the audiophile moon...
This is my experience resulting from my experiments.... Not from my "no limit" purchasing power and ability to boast about my branded name product of choice...
I paid 50 bucks my speakers used....😁😊 I can boast about that luck....
They will ashame most owner of better speakers here that dont know how to use acoustic.... They will not perhaps beat them but the margin of S.Q. between mine and some others relatively to price will awake some from market publicity to science: Acoustic.....
For sure anybody must buy some "relatively good" speakers first....
But it is of no avail in an average uncontrolled room... You will only live without ever knowing what your speakers are able to do in optimal environment...
A nice summing up that could save someone an awful lot of time and money.
Whatever magic @mahgister has conjured up through optimum embedding of his system could only be more wondrous through better speakers than his Missions.
In my experience no other component offers a greater pound for pound range of performance than a pair of loudspeakers.
In fact the only one I found that came remotely close was turntables. Nowadays, I'm not even too sure of that. One good test would be to compare a Rega Planar 1 against the Planar 10.
On the other hand you cannot easily mistake a pair of Tannoy Westminster's for a pair of their entry level bookshelves.
LMA: Efficiency is NOT the only thing that matters in engines or drivers.
Phusis: And yet it's rarely prioritized or recognized as even ONE of the core parameters in speaker engineering.
Lone Mountain: Who on earth told you that? That's not true. Transducer engineers HAVE to consider ALL parameters to achieve a result that fits the target. More bass? Smaller size? Lower distortion? High reliabliity? Needs to be cheap? Needs to be high performance? Part of a mulitway application so bandwidth to 20K isn't an issue? A zillion decisions to make by the product manager/engineer in driver design with a specific goal in mind. So it goes like this: "I need a LF driver in a three way that has the lowest distortion possible, rolls off at around 42 Hz, system levels are to be 100dB sustained without failure for 24hrs. Price has to be under $500 retail". That's a helluva puzzle to solve. Most speaker manufacturers call up a their wholesale driver supplier and see how close they can get to something off the shelf that achieves that. Someone like Peerless in India, or JBL in India. Some try and build their own, like ATC. Transducers (drivers) are one of the most significant physics puzzles of audio, involving materials science, hydraulics, electrical science, acoustics, mechanics- its a true rubiks cube. It is not some afterthought.
LMA: From product management experience at JBL and with ATC, a driver can be optimized for bandwidth OR efficiency. If you want more low end from a driver, it WILL be less efficient. IF you are willing to forgo some low end, you can go for efficiency.
Phusis: To some extend at least you can have your cake and eat it too: add size, but that's usually the one thing audiophilia wants to avoid, so, in that case it's either/or.
Lone Mountain: A transducer engineer, a good one, cannot set an issue aside cause he's guessing what his customer's customer cares about. They are engineering to hit some goal, always narrowly defined; there is no " oh lets go through a 5 year process to build this new driver and spend 10s of thousands on tooling and lets just see what we get when we are done". They know what the target is, they are working with materials and designs of things like formers and coils and spiders LONG before the first new driver is built. There is no guessing in engineering-most principles are well understood. There might be some experimentation, but that requires a very well funded engineering department and some very deep insight. Ray Cooke is such a person (KEF), as is Billy Woodman (ATC), Floyd Toole (JBL), Doug Button (JBL), etc etc.
Efficiency has it biggest influence because it determines what else you can or can't do in your design. Picking efficiency out of the very long list of design criteria as THE pointer to performance is like saying that one spec (THD) defines how great a piece of electronics sounds, one spec (MPG) tells you how good the car is, one spec (brightness) tells you how good a TV is. All of us involved in the making of audio gear know this idea is not true- unless we are unaware or just ignore all the other differences. There are some highly efficient speakers that just sound awful, no? Tube PreAmps sound amazing to many yet the THD spec indicates it would be horrible. Vinyl vs digital files- need I go on?
You are trying to reduce a very complex issue into some simple yes/no question and that is not possible with transducers or audio in general.
Whatever magic @mahgister has conjured up through optimum embedding of his system could only be more wondrous through better speakers than his Missions.
I dont know why people dont understand my point....
FIRST: i own Tannoy dual gold speakers for a long time and they are better than my actual Mission...
SECOND: how can someone argue against a common place fact like: some speakers are better than others ?
Third: my claim is instead of going with the urge to upgrade their speakers, why not listening what they are able to do with acoustic basic laws...
Fourth:
There is no " magic" in science based controls of mechanical vibrations, electrical noise floor, and acoustic...
Instead of buying costly speakers i recommend to people to buy a book about acoustic.... 😁😁
The urge for upgrade is most of the times waste of money because many dont understand the basic of embeddings controls in the 3 working dimensions of any audio system....
Is it not clear and simple ?
Then opposing to my affirmation the meaningless fact that some Tannoy speakers are better than Mission is a commom place fact not an argument....
Power is cheap and the market is flooded with 200 plus watt per channel amps. It doesn’t make sense to say that amps hardly matter but efficiency in a speaker is paramount. Why is efficiency important if you can readily find enough power and the quality of that power doesn’t matter? To me efficiency IS very important because the best sounding amps are low-powered and amp quality matters a lot.
You can take Jadis' JA800 mono blocks , thats 4 chassis at like 150+ pounds each, and pair these monsters witha say Wilson 85bd monster, and it will indeed sound likea wet blanket has been thrown over the speakers = the JA800 has been rendered down to garbage, with all its pure tube experience sucked bone dry by a low efficiency xover dinasaur speaker. AS larry says above, , massive power is not going to deliver super high fidelity, not when the speaker is below 90db efficiency. BIg power amps is not going to make magic happen if the speaker is sucking the life blood out the amperage. The only way you can acheive super high fidelity is via super high sensitivty speakers = aka the new Full Range speakers. (caveat, Vox does have quite a few 91db speakers, but we are talking a TRUE rating, not fudged, and its a clean nearly flat sensitivity across the entire fq spectrum,,, more important, extremely low distortion which offers 91db acceptable) Speakers rule, They are the Kings in your system, the amp/source serve the speaker as ministers. The speakers is The King. Most xover/low sens designs , please deduct 2db from the manufacturers spec claims. Your 87db is now a miserable 85db. = Good luck with that efficiency.
@larryi and mozartfan you are both making generalizations that fall apart all over the place. There are some fine sounding low power amps but there are also many fine sounding high powered amps. 85dB/watt/meter is not a problem if you have a Simaudio Moon 888. It is a very expensive solution but it certainly will go loud enough. 64 watts will get you 104 dB at one meter, plenty loud enough. Super efficient loudspeakers are mandatory only if you are using pea watt amplifiers and most of these are just distortion boxes. But, some people like the sound. I have no idea why. My favorite loudspeakers are rated at 89dB/watt/meter. 30 watts will get you to 104 dB. I have another 320 watts to handle the peaks. There are some very efficient full range drivers I would love to hear. I would not mind setting up a system around a Dynakit Stereo 70 for nostalgia reasons.
I've heard some good high powered amps, and if I had speakers that required that kind of power, I would own such amps. But, I have personally not heard a high powered amp that I preferred over a good low-powered amp when driving efficient speakers. I've heard, and liked, amps from Constellation, Soulution and Ayre, but, I still prefer certain low-powered amps when driving high efficiency speakers. A local dealer that only sells tube amplification has a Parasound Halo amp that is used for demonstration purposes against the mostly low-powered tube amps in the store. I have not met anyone who preferred the solid state amp when driving speakers of medium-high efficiency (like Audio Note AN-E's).
If I owned the likes of a Soundlab or Magneplanar speakers (I like these brands of speakers), I would own a medium to high-powered solid state amp, and I certainly would be happy with the combination. All systems involve some compromises and making a small compromise with going solid state is something I would do (for higher power I actually prefer solid state over tubes). But, I happen to own high efficiency speakers that I like, so I can stick with the low-powered amps that I prefer.
. There are some very efficient full range drivers I would love to hear. I would not mind setting up a system around a Dynakit Stereo 70 for nostalgia reasons.
~~~~~~~~ QAudio shows should be back up this fall, or spring, Alfred Kainz at AEshoreports on youtube, has the AER and Vox on his YT channel. He sells both speakers. I have no issues ordering the newest Vox w/o demo, Its only $2k and have done my research. The Dynaco ST70 is one heck of a lil amp, Richard Gray has modified the ST90 calls it The Baby Gray which quite a few of his customers are very happy with it. It gives the Jadis Defy7 a good shootout. My point is The Crown Jewel in our systems in not the amplifier, The Speakers are the **main event*. I'm a high sensitivty speaker guy for midrange/highs, bass, the Seas Excel low sens line is doable. I will keep those in my system along with the Vox 97db for low mids- highs. W18E001's as added/boosted bass. Maybe the single Vox will deliver enough bass, can't say til they arive. So in bass, any woofer from top lines Seas, Scan, SB Acoustics, = acceptable, In mids./highs, only high sens (94db++) will work for me. Below 94db = reject.
of power, I would own such amps. But, I have personally not heard a high powered amp that I preferred over a good low-powered amp when driving efficient speakers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am aware low power, = the 845's, offer sme gorgeous mids/highs, ok in the bass. Thing is all my music is highly demanding complex full orchestra, = Debussy's La Mer. I have the hench the PP amps will deliver more **pizzah* Gutso, when crunch time comes. Besides I have huge investment in the upgrades in the Defy = can't part with it. So it will be Defy7 100 wopping watts paired with the Vox 97db. Certainly not a match made in heaven, they;'ll just have to learn to get along.
I actually agree that speakers are the most important component in the playback chain. Then you work your way back. Next would be your amp then preamp then the source. After that it would be the cables and interconnects.
orpheus108,611 posts06-12-2021 6:40pm It seems that some of the best speakers, according to "Stereophile" cost in the vicinity of 20K.
~~~~~~~~ Many of us old timers here read Stereophile with a *grain of salt*, not saying all the product reviews are snakeoil, but surely read with extreme caution. I can imagine Stereophile pumping the idea *the more you spend on a speaker = the better it will sound*, Which obviously we all know now in 2021, its simple not true. I am very surprised Stereophile has not awakened to the concept, higher sens = superior speaker. I am far advanced ahead of that *gang* pumping some agenda to get folks to spend money.
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.
