2. speakers
  3. 166005-136265

Speakers The single most critical component

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. 

mozartfan
mozartfan OP
2,143 posts
 
Elegance in design always beats brute force


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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. 


mozartfan OP
2,143 posts
 
@Pesky wabbit
please ck your messages

mozartfan OP
2,143 posts
 
SET amps wayyy too havy and too pricey, 
Sticking with the Defy
murphythecat
181 posts
 
@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
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,011 posts
 
@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:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223804282_The_relation_between_spatial_impression_and_the_law_of_the_first_wavefront


The creation of this device cost me nothing...

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...



More to discover