High Sensitivity Speakers


Within the last year I purchased a Pass Labs XA 60.8 ... which I am pleased with.  It’s a great match with the rest of my system which includes Avant-garde Uno Gen 1 speakers (sorry about the hyphen but the spell check insists).  I like the speakers a lot but they are now 17 years on so I assume speaker technology has moved in quite a bit in thus time.  So as I considered new speaker alternatives I discovered that the Pass Labs 60.8 (69 w class A, 120w class A/B) are “underpowered” for a number of speaker brands.  I am not keen to trade my amp up but it’s an option.  So looking to upgrade speakers I an looking at Avant-garde Duo Gen 3.  Any input on other speaker brands that might be sensitive enough to match with the amps I currently have?  I live overseas so by brand choice is a bit limited to “well known” brands.  My system: SME 20/2 tt, Tom Evans The Groove phono preamp, Brooklyn + DAC, PS Audio 15 Power Plant, Joule Electra line preamp, 4 Rel 812 subs, room size 30’x21’x10’ ceiling), assorted decent power cables and interconnects.
chilli42
After 15 yrs, speaker technology is still almost the same, although there may have been some advances in implementation brought about by research.
Well usually research is how advances are made :)

I'm a fan of the Classic Audio Loudspeakers and have a set of T-3s. They are 16 ohms, 98dB and go flat to 20Hz.  The midrange driver is field coil powered for less dynamic compression and employs a beryllium diaphragm with a Kapton suspension. Its first breakup is at 35KHz; as a result the speaker is detailed, fast and smooth.

 Also the bass got flabby/slow/less present.
@chilli42  One thing to be careful about in the bass department: 'tight' bass is a coloration brought on by the amplifier having excess damping of the woofer(s). Many audiophiles like it, but out in the real world its a very difficult thing to encounter! Another issue is standing wave; the most elegant solution I've seen is the use of a Distributed Bass Array which may have been what you were trying with the Rels. Did you place the Rels asymmetrically in your listening room?




@mahlman --

You touch on something rarely mentioned I fully agree with. Pro gear just has much more headroom and effortless superb output. All I would consider for my own use is now Klipsch pro gear starting with at least a KI-904 or better or older versions at least as good as the KPT-456 or better. Some of my speaker buddies have Danleys and love them. It really boils down to what is most important. Sound or looks and here sound wins. Danleys are darned hard to find and so is Klipsch pro gear but the Klipsch does show up from time to time. I listen to a takeoff of the MWM bin from the MCM-1900 ( stock MWM is 40" deep mine is 60" deep same basic configuration though just bigger) made so it goes down to an honest 27hz and with a Klipsch 402 horn and driver on top out to well past 18khz. This is a true two way all horn system and you just cant beat horns for best sound. It is why I recommended the Jubilee because it too is an all horn system and the gateway to superb sound.

Thanks for chiming in. Pro gear usually has that rugged and industrial look, and with amps and other electronics I actually tend to prefer that look; it’s just more "honest" with a functionally clean, understated and at times even elegant appearance (take the Crown Studio Reference or Macro Tech amps, as an example). With speakers I like it when they’re made of and actually looks like wood (i.e.: not lacquered to glossy death), but that comes expensive. I would though gladly and without any hesitation whatsoever go with the "ugly" pro speaker if it means better sound (and much cheaper at that), because as you say it’s what truly matters vs. mere appearance.

Klipsch pro gear has great offerings - the Jubilee’s among others have had my attention for a while. Going all-horn is a necessary step few are willing to take, but it makes a potential difference the majority will likely never face.

Pro gear is usually where the real innovations are made, like Danley’s Synergy horns. It’s arguably approaching the holy grail in sound reproduction as a single, phase coherent point source per channel - carefully summed by a closely placed, multitude of drivers - that covers down to where the subs take over. It’s brilliant, really.

@atmasphere --

Also the bass got flabby/slow/less present.
@chilli42 One thing to be careful about in the bass department: ’tight’ bass is a coloration brought on by the amplifier having excess damping of the woofer(s). Many audiophiles like it, but out in the real world its a very difficult thing to encounter! [...]

What’s really addressed by the OP here is a lack of coherency; the authentic fullness of bass reproduction that is to be implied by the quoted passage of you above (and that I agree with as something that doesn’t come across as "tight" per se), doesn’t distinguish itself incoherently from the rest of the frequency spectrum above, but rather it "flows" in organically. If that’s what the OP had actually heard - i.e.: named authentic fullness - he’d have known the difference and wouldn’t fault it.

Indeed, a specific term calls attention to itself from poster @chilli42’s description, namely "presence," or a lack thereof. One of the core characteristics of horn-loaded bass is exactly that: presence, and one that is wholly enveloping in a way the direct radiating bass, distributed array or not, won’t achieve in a similar fashion. What’s more, "flabby" and "slow" bass as an antithesis to "tight" is hardly a compelling trait as something associated with natural bass.

This is not about the age of speakers, and that’s not saying the OP should keep his current horn-hybrid speakers. On the contrary, I clearly feel he should replace them and patiently seek out an all-horn approach that will maintain high efficiency, but add in coherency. This has been done for decades by those sufficiently dedicated. What could be a further interesting addition though, and where the latest technological advancement comes in handy, is effectively emulating a point source and achieve coherency in the time domain as well.
@phusis Just to be clear, nowhere did I state that
What’s more, "flabby" and "slow" bass as an antithesis to "tight" is hardly a compelling trait as something associated with natural bass.
I simply pointed out that overdamped speakers often results in a phenomena known as 'tight bass'. I've heard it in stereos many times but have yet to encounter it in the real world.
One of the core characteristics of horn-loaded bass is exactly that: presence, and one that is wholly enveloping in a way the direct radiating bass, distributed array or not, won’t achieve in a similar fashion.
Horn loaded bass is a rare thing to hear- on account of needing a bass horn that is very long- 20 feet or more. Even audiophiles with a relatively wide open budget may find such size a bit daunting! But the issue that isn't solved by any bass system that originates in front of the listener is standing waves. Standing waves can't be solved by room correction either; if there is a standing wave causing a lack of bass at a certain frequency at the listening chair, you can put as much power as you like into it without significant change. But if you employ a distributed bass array the standing wave is corrected and you will have 'wholly enveloping' bass.

@atmasphere --

Just to be clear, nowhere did I state that
What’s more, "flabby" and "slow" bass as an antithesis to "tight" is hardly a compelling trait as something associated with natural bass.

Correct. I read your remark in reply to @chilli42's comment "Also the bass got flabby/slow/less present" as a presumption mostly that his idea of natural bass might be have been inclined towards unnaturally tight bass, and thereby indicating, without elaborating on your own idea of natural bass, that what he lamented was a closer match to authentic bass. 

I simply pointed out that overdamped speakers often results in a phenomena known as 'tight bass'. I've heard it in stereos many times but have yet to encounter it in the real world.

I fully agree on this, and it's a rare sentiment that counters or exposes an element of "analysis" in assessing sound that veers away from authenticity - not only in the realm of bass. In general and in the whole frequency band it seems "fullness" in the reproduction of sound (which I believe to be an important aspect in realism as well) in domestic, audiophile environments is avoided in preference of a leaner, more HF or detail oriented presentation.  

Horn loaded bass is a rare thing to hear- on account of needing a bass horn that is very long- 20 feet or more. Even audiophiles with a relatively wide open budget may find such size a bit daunting!

It is rare, yes, and explains why few can ever comment on the sound of horn bass, but while 20 cubic feet (folded) horn subs aren't small, which gives you 20-25 Hz, they're manageable still - at least to those who haven't abandoned the mere thought of their implementation for whatever reason (mostly practical, it seems). What might surprise some is that building, or having build horn subs (apart from a few pre-build options from the likes of Danley Sound Labs and JTR) mayn't be that expensive, certainly not compared to Funk Audio or JL Audio with a comparable radiation area. Indeed, mostly what it comes down to is deciding to house horn subs and have them build (or building them oneself), and not that their price empties pockets. 

But the issue that isn't solved by any bass system that originates in front of the listener is standing waves. Standing waves can't be solved by room correction either; if there is a standing wave causing a lack of bass at a certain frequency at the listening chair, you can put as much power as you like into it without significant change. But if you employ a distributed bass array the standing wave is corrected and you will have 'wholly enveloping' bass.

I won't deny the importance of this, and had space and budget permitted I'd have gladly gone with 3 or 4 horn subs. But to reiterate, 2 subs - symmetrically placed to the mains - can make wonders still with care invested in their integration, and I'll maintain that a symmetrical placement in close proximity to the mains is of utmost importance (depending to an extend on the chosen cross-over region). Believe me, I've tried a myriad of combinations placing my subs most everywhere else, but the symmetrical option has always prevailed; things simply fall into place sonically. Having an array of direct radiating subs around you can certainly envelope one with bass in a literal sense, but even a pair of horn subs 'envelope' in a way quite differently. The proof in the eating of the pudding, as they say. 
I've tried a myriad of combinations placing my subs most everywhere else, but the symmetrical option has always prevailed; things simply fall into place sonically. Having an array of direct radiating subs around you can certainly envelope one with bass in a literal sense, but even a pair of horn subs 'envelope' in a way quite differently. The proof in the eating of the pudding, as they say.
My speakers are flat to 20 Hz and for many years I have preferred speakers that allowed one amp to run the entire range. This was in part due to the fact that our amps are full power to 2Hz- much lower than most tube amps, and as a result play bass better because there is no phase shift in the audio band to mess with impact.


But when I've encountered standing waves (as I often have doing audio shows) its made no difference that my speakers go that low or are easy to drive. So my existing speakers are part of my distributed bass array, since the woofers cross over at 500Hz. That sorts out the bass nicely. But as you point out, integration is key; to that end the side/rear subs have to cross over below 80Hz so as to not attract attention to themselves.