2. speakers
  3. 158283-129692

Seeking advice on Speakers that create an intimate 2 channel listening experience

So the past month I started a couple of threads on speaker choice on AVS forum (One asked for Powered/Active floor standing Speaker choices and another one around non-active FS speakers for a tube amp I was looking at).

But I've come to realize this was the wrong tact, got lots of flack much deserved and wanted to try to solicit the advice/opinions on this forum which I just discovered.

Short background...Hunkered down in a suburb just outside NYC now for the past 3-4 months, I started to get the itch for a dedicated 2 channel stereo Turntable setup in our living room in May. After much research and twists and turns and immediate upgraditis, as some know on here from other posts, I've finally settled in and now own a Rega Planar 10 Turntable. I also own a Sutherland phono --20/20 with LPS and that's staying. Right now the phono preamp is hooked up direct to a pair of ELAC ARF51 floorstanding speakers (all drivers powered by built in AB amps) which I like a lot BUT ITS HERE THAT I WANT MORE. Btw, I love the ELAC design of mounting the tweeter concentric in the mid driver -- makes sense to me.  I kinda wish ELAC would take the same design and make a reference speaker but thats for another day.

So to swap out the ELACs, I will obviously need an amp, but I will figure that out later and want to focus on getting the right speakers for me for what I want. So what do I want?

1. Floorstanders. Close to full range as possible. No subs.
2. Looks count since in my main living room.
3. Speakers that prioritize Imaging Imaging Imaging. That disappear in the room creating an intimate but 3D listening experience. Clean (Accurate) warm sound. No distortion. I would easily sacrifice low end for untiring highs and warm mids I don't listen to metal or hiphop anymore so I don't need loudness, more like lounge experience if that makes sense. Apologize if I got the adjectives wrong but its personal description of what I'm seeking.
4. Price Point - -$10k-25k. Room is 22x18 with 25 foot ceiling

I would like to audition/demo before I buy and since I live in the Tri-State area it should be possible. But I'm finding that obviously difficult to do right now. I listened to a pair of Salk speakers but didn't love them. And have an appt with the Audio Doctor in NJ in two weeks.

Thanks in advance.
aj523
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,903 posts
 

Duke, the "reason" I was referring to is your facts about the SPL drop difference between point source subs (yes, they are omni-directional, but for this discussion that is immaterial) and line source loudspeakers. Dipole planars share the 3dB drop off per doubled distance figure with line sources; a "6dB" sealed or ported sub will then be balanced with a planar speaker at only one listening distance---halve or double that distance and there will then be a 3dB imbalance. A dipole sub, on the other hand, will remain balanced with a dipole loudspeaker at all listening distances (assuming of course they were balanced to begin with ;-).

Finnish company Gradient offered dipole subs for both Quad ESL’s, the 57 and the 63. They were compromised by poor drivers and electronics, unlike the OB/Dipole Sub from Rythmik Audio/GR Research. Rythmik’s Brian Ding designed the sub’s plate amp/control panel and dipole-compensation network, and has the electronics manufactured for him in China. Danny Richie designed the OB-specific 12" woofer, and has it made for him by TC Sounds, well known for their superior woofers (including the monster 18" LMS 3400).

In addition, sealed and ported subs load the room differently than do planar woofers (such as the two bass panels in the Magneplanar Tympani T-IVa loudspeakers, a pair of which I own) and open baffle/dipole woofers and subs. The dipole null to either side of planars/line sources/dipole subs eliminates sidewall-to-sidewall modes, and with both the front and rear of the woofer cone/planar Mylar being "open" to the room and therefore not increasing and decreasing the bass pressure in the room itself---as do sealed and ported subs (when the cone moves inward, room pressure is decreased, when it moves outward pressure is increased)---the sound of the room itself being pressurized is conspicuously absent. Employing four subs instead of two does not provide that benefit, does it?

The OB/Dipole Sub offered by GR Research in collaboration with Rythmik Audio is more Danny Richie’s (GRR) baby than Brian Ding’s (Rythmik). Danny is a proponent of open baffle loudspeakers and subs, and when he learned of fellow-Texan Ding’s new servo-feedback subs thought combining Brian’s servo with an open baffle woofer would set a new standard in low frequency reproduction. And so it has! Ding prefers the room-loading characteristics of sealed and ported subs to that of open baffle/dipole. Each to his own. ;-)

tomavodka
33 posts
 
Demo
Magnanpan 3.7i,   with  a good high current amp.
You will be in music niverna!

Good luck in your quest
aj523 OP
374 posts
 
@tomavodka

Magnepan is now the lead vote-getter. Unfortunately, I don’t think I have the proper room set up for them. Speakers are limited to about 2-3 feet from the back wall at most and most of that back wall consists of HUGE 15 foot windows. I was told that would be a sonic disaster with planars...
audiokinesis
2,750 posts
 
@bdp24, whether or not a sound source behaves as a point source or a line source depends on its physical dimensions in comparison to the wavelengths produced. The Rhythmik/GR Research dipole sub is far too small to approximate a line source at subwoofer frequencies.

" The dipole null to either side of planars/line sources/dipole subs eliminates sidewall-to-sidewall modes..."

Not entirely, but it does take the side-to-side modes longer to develop. Remember the front wave and back wave are each spreading out omnidirectionally, cancelling where and when they combine out-of-phase, but not cancelling elsewhere and elsewhen. You can think of a dipole as two monopoles back-to-back, in opposite polarity, with a wrap-around path length separating them. After a sufficient number of bounces the frontwave and backwave have energized all of the room modes, but their energy is also dissipating as this is happening, so a dipole does have somewhat smoother in-room bass than a monopole.

But two intelligently-positioned monopoles approximate the in-room smoothness of a single dipole, and impact is preserved. This is why I use four monopole subs in my system, which is designed to blend well with two dipole main speakers.

"... the sound of the room itself being pressurized is conspicuously absent. Employing four subs instead of two does not provide that benefit, does it?"

I’m not convinced that a net unpressurised room is an advantage at low frequencies. My experience has been that good, solid low-end impact is facilitated by pressurization.

That being said, it is quite possible to configure four subs to not provide net pressurization at low frequencies. Just reverse the polarity of two of them. I have done this and imo it does some things well but impact is noticeably softened, so it is not something I recommend. 

On the other hand, I generally find reversing the polarity of ONE of the four subs to be beneficial. Or as an alternative, the phase of two of the subs can be set 90 degrees apart from the other two. These techniques improve the in-room bass smoothness in the modal region while preventing excessive bass energy down below the modal region.

I owned a set of those Gradient subs when I had Quads and agree with your assessment.

As I said before, I have NOTHING against the Rhythmik/GR Research subs. I’ve chosen to do something different, which arguably also works well.

Duke
glupson
7,842 posts
 
I highly recommend you audition Revel.
More to discover