|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.175.102.219
Hello,
I am considering a new pair of speakers. I currently own Focal 826W which are powered by a Pass x250. I only listen to vinyl. I listen to rock, jazz and classical. I would like to find speakers that are not as bright. Otherwise, I do like these very much. I appreciate their low end, but I am not obsessed with bass. I like that the bass is tight and punchy and not distorted and booming. How/where should I begin? Should I consider the used market or is it too risky? I would appreciate any advice. Thank you.
Follow Ups:
The Focal's are not bright, especially using vinyl! Cables can make all the difference...most people on the AA use crap cables IMHO. FYI, cymbals are made of metal and they tend to sound like....METAL!! It always amazes me how may people want to mask the music so they can go Perry Como and RELAX. Try an MIT or Transparent cabling option to hear all the music reproduced correctly....clarity but without nails on a chalkboard:)
dave_b
I recommend you wait till April and attend the Axpona show since you live near Chicago. You will be overwhelmed if you have never attended a show before but you will also get to hear many brands of speakers.
Foot print no bigger than a smallish stand mount but 94db/watt means you can also get rid of the Pass and get a sweet sounding tube or hybrid amp.
...especially if buying locally and in person. If you can check the condition and hear them before buying, there is little risk. Negotiate a good deal and you won't take a loss if you don't like them and need to sell them.
Dean.
reelsmith's axiom: Its going to be used equipment when I sell it, so it may as well be used equipment when I buy it.
Do yourself a favor and ditch the Focals for something else. I find them irritatingly bright myself so I can understand what you are hearing. Get a speaker with a nice smooth silk dome tweeter and your edginess will be gone. Just because Focal is a well respected brand doesn't mean that they are for everyone and every situation. Read my post further down about what I went through when I wanted to desperately keep my speakers. 20 thousand bucks later with all new components didn't do anything and I ended up getting rid of my bright speakers. I should have followed my heart and I would have saved myself a ton of cash. I now have to work 2 extra years (I am 62) because I refused to believe it was the speakers.
"Far away across the field
The tolling of the iron bell
Calls the faithful to their knees
To hear the softly spoken magic spells."
jm
I used to have speakers (DIY effort) with Focal tc120tdx2 tweeters. Sure, they are "revealing" (like many other good soft-dome) but they shred flute and certain string instruments IMO.
I was much happier when I got away from these specific drivers.
Assuming proper crossover design, I would rather listen to a modest soft-dome tweeter with reasonable distortion measurements.
I've not heard the Focal Beryllium tweeters. The ragged top end of the Beryllium drivers (due to breakup) has me scratching my head.
I'd take a good Scan Speak soft dome over these drivers any day.
Cheers,
Presto
I built a kit with Focal drivers about 10 years ago. I actually took it apart and GAVE that drivers away.
Muddy bass and a Dentist like drill sound from the metal dome tweeter. What I don't understand is how they skillfully modeled that sound INTO the speaker?
If you're a Jazz and classical man, stick with paper coned woofers and silk dome tweeters.
charles
Yeah, as I get older I don't seem to be as partial to extremely rigid cone materials. I do like certain kevlar or fiberglass midranges used properly... some woven, some not.
Paper and treated paper is still a very good cone material. Then again, there are many different ways to do "paper". Right? :P
Cheers,
Presto
. . . were some Focal inverted Kevlar domes, in an Aria 5 kit about 25 years ago. They just had a buzzsaw quality that even the competent kit design by Joe D'Appolito couldn't tame. That speaker later got bad reviews in both Speaker Builder and Stereophile, and both mentioned the excruciating treble as the main drawback. Focal dropped production of the Kevlar domes shortly thereafter. I haven't heard any of their metal domes, nor do I have any particular desire to.
My current (for the last 20 years!) reference speakers have Dynaudio D28-2 silk dome tweeters, which are the best I've ever heard -- incredibly resolving but with no trace of fatiguing shrillness. Other speakers I have around use Vifa, SEAS, or North Creek silk domes, and one pair has Bohlender Graebner Neo-3 planars. All of these are entirely liveable with.
Ah yes, the good old TC90K. Heard that in a design from Europe once. Can't even remember the brand. Yeah, that tweeter had a certain hardness about it, definitely a unique sonic character. Not for me.
I'm stuck on quality soft domes now, and the occasional aluminum dome. Titanium and superhard superlight metals? Not my bag. Plastic or kevlar for tweeters? Fuhgedaboudit!
Cheers,
Presto
I find the CDT tweeters in my Gallo Ref. 3.1s to be very pleasant indeed. And their dispersion capability, approx. 300 deg., allows for an exceptionally wide sweet spot. They can also take a real beating, you'd have to throw several thousand watts at them before breakup and/or destruction...
-RW-
You're right, it was an over-generalization, which I usually don't make with speaker cone materials. I guess I am suspicious of non-silk dome tweeters "for me", these days.
I have not heart that Gallo tweeter and it looks like a totally different animal. Also, electrostatic speakers have a membrane that does high frequencies. Ribbons *can* be pleasing if done properly and not crossed over too shallow or too low.
I guess I'm stuck in a happy rut with quality dome tweeters. Easier to integrate with mids/midbass drivers, very low Fs available, predictable response in various baffles, good off-axis behavior, and sometimes even small faceplate for tight MTM or WMTMW spacing.
Everyone has their own flavor of tea (or koolaid) they like right!
I like how the Gallo speakers look for a speaker that clearly values function over form. Normally "technological" looking speakers look too... technological, where some even appear to be boxes stacked on one-another. These might even pass the WAF test with some...
Would love to hear them!
CHeers,
Presto
Cheers,
Presto
. . . are indeed a different sort of beast, and sadly unavailable to us DIYers. I believe they are considered a "flexing wave" driver. A cylinder of very light-but-stiff material is split lengthwise down the back, and the edges of the slit are driven with a nearly-indestructible piezo element. Somewhat similar in principle to the Linaeum tweeters, except those had a magnetic drive and a dipolar rather than nearly-omnipolar dispersion pattern.
I agree with Presto re: tweeters. Even with some degree of high frequency hearing loss, the metal/plastic even ribbon tweeters have a 'hardness' or shrillness about them. I've tried listening blind to paper vs. metal/plastic tweeters, and invariably pick out the difference (and my preference.) Yes, I miss some of the detail and clarity, but I enjoy more of the music. IMO
I wouldn't sweat it too much. Ribbons, for example, tend to have (in general) high-ish 2nd order harmonic distortion which, like some tube amps, is not "more accurate" - just pleasantly distorted! This can possibly lead to someone perceiving this as "more air" or "more shimmer" or "more detail" etc.
Nothing wrong with it... but the distortion measurements don't lie.
That said, I've heard some pretty darned impressive sounding designs using ribbons. Maybe I like the pleasing distortion too! haha.
Cheers,
Presto
With ribbons it depends very much on the implementation.
Generally they are pretty good above 5kHz and less than ordinary below when it comes to distortion.
Basically not much good in a 2way speaker but they can be excellent in some 3ways.
Scan speak make metal and beryllium domes too, that sound just as neutral as their soft domes.
I was saying I am not partial to Focal metal dome tweeters specifically. As for Be breakup, it's a real phenomenon.
Cheers,
Presto
I listen to a pair of the beryllium Focal tweeters at a distance of 1 meter. As originally set up they were brutal on overly bright recordings, such as the Mercury Living Presence CDs. This remained even after I removed obvious reflections from my listening environment.
The cure was simple. On the back of my Focal Twin-6be monitors there was a treble control. I turned it half way down. This amounted to a 3.5 dB roll-off at 10 kHz (no more than 4 db at any higher frequency according to the manual). At this point the most balanced recordings sounded neutral, such as the Reference Recordings orchestral recordings, while the Mercs sounded slightly bright but musical and not annoying at all. I don't find any of my library annoyingly bright or excessively rolled off. A natural tonal balance can be realized by nothing more than adjusting the volume control.
What I get on a good hi-res recording is an amazing presence that raises the hairs on your arms. Really natural strings on the Late Beethoven Quartets by the Cypress String Quartet. (This recording has high frequencies up to the 40 kHz rating of these tweeters.) These speakers also provide natural drum kit sound at in the room volumes, as seen on "Little Drummer Boy", an extra on Lyn Stanley's "Lost in Romance". Both of these recordings can be found on Blue Coast Records.
No kids or pets around, so I am not afraid of being poisoned by any Beryllium dust from damaged tweeters.
I would not recommend these speakers to anyone who is not prepared to spend several days (it took me weeks) setting them up with the help of a calibrated microphone and RTA software. These were needed to get good in-room bass response. The high frequency house curve was pretty easy to dial in by ear given a set of reference recordings.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Focal Twin-6be monitors...
I will give these a listen - a local music shop has them featured as one of their many brands of studio monitors.
I wonder - is that a level control (lpad) or a shelving filter?
Maybe the Be tweeters are a different animal. The older inverted titanium tweets needed special amps, special cables, special tubes... I just got rid of these "special tweeters" and I don't need special equipment to get enjoyable sound.
How far away are you listening to these, Tony? Flat orientation as designed? Or did you stand them up into a MTM config?
Cheers,
Presto
The twins have a shelving control for both the bass and the treble. These are powered monitors with balanced line level interconnects, but they can be set to higher gain if desired. I run them through a sub 6 powered subwoofer which also has a bunch of cross-over controls, gain, low pass, high pass, phase, polarity.
I originally ordered the Twins without the sub, but wasn't able to get the bass I wanted, mostly because around 80 Hz there was a room null with the positions I had to use in the room. When I added the sub, I could move it around. After a lot of effort with an RTA I got reasonably flat response with no nulls in the bass. I was still stuck with some room mode peaks, but I took these down with a parametric equalizer and while I was at it I boosted the bass around 28 Hz a bit. In the end I got flat response down below 30 Hz. Once I got this balanced out by measurement I just played with the treble controls until a collection of reference recordings sounded good. Getting the highs to sound right was not hard in my room after I dealt with some reflecting surfaces. It won't be possible to get low bass (20 Hz or lower) out of the 11 inch sub, as I found by bottoming out the driver in one sweep test. I was able to hear 30 Hz without doubling.
One thing that is a little quirky about the Twins is that both 6.5" drivers run together for the lower midrange and there is some uneven response if you do not sit on axis. This is fine with my setup. These are near field monitors and not intended to fill a room.
The Focal twins come with integrated plate amplifiers, three per speaker. The bass and mid amps use variable voltage rails for power efficiency, but the tweeter has 100 watts of class AB which creates the heat, making it hard to leave your hand on the metal back panel for a long time.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I agree that you should look into your vinyl rig a little more carefully. You can add some capacitive loading to tone down an overly bright presentation.
As others have hinted......room treatments. If you truly like the speakers other than the "brightness", room treatment ( both absorbing and defraction) offers a the biggest bang for the buck. Cabling will help as well. For a nice very musical laid back presentation, I like the entry level Cable Research Labs Blues Note IC's and speaker cable.
I have Focal 333s, with 7KO11dbl woofers and TiO120 tweeters that I now use with my TV. They are very accurate speakers and have, to my ears, no obvious faults. Based on my experience -- and your satisfaction other than the brightness -- I agree with the suggestions for room treatment and/or modest crossover adjustments -- caps or resistors. Cables are more risky and expensive.
Despite the fact that I have argued with Bobby and his worshippers, you should give the Merlin TSM a look as well as a used version of the Merlin VSM-SE. I would not worry about the latest / greatest from Merlin as Bobby continues to ring the cash register via upgrades. Just fined one used and you will be happy.
I would have to agree. I rotate various speakers through 3 different systems; presently I have Dynaudio C1's, Meadowlark Blue Heron II's, B&W 801F's, and original Rogers Ls3/5a's (15ohm). I find myself coming back to the system with the Merlin VSM-MMx's with super Bam over again.
Not a plug; just IMO.
I've been happy with my Merlin VSM's since 2007. Even after attending RMAF twice in the interim I have no thoughts of upgrading.
If you get confused, listen to the music play (Garcia/Hunter)
Seeing as you have not answered my question about budget...
AFAIK it will be announced at CES that The Sound Organisation of Dallas, TX we re-commence importation of Wilson Benesch loudspeakers.
Although I have not heard it, Wilson Benesch's second-generation Square One (as in, Back to Square One, I think), looks to be a worthy successor to their standmounted 2-way of nearly 20 years ago, which I did hear at length and was very impressed by. I think that of all audio scribes in the US, I have heard more Wilson Benesch than the rest put together.
In 2015, this speaker should be under $4000, AFAIK, stands not included.
Because of a rear-mounted passive radiator, it claims surprisingly deep response.
I emailed Steve Daniels of The Sound Organisation on your behalf, and he invites you to phone him, but only after CES is over--10 days or so.
972-234-0182
NB, I have no relationship with either entity, I just take pleasure in connecting the right person with the right speaker. All are invited to read my previous Stereophile coverage of Wilson Benesch, from IIRC 2001.
ATB,
jm
Nice pic! JM
But I am reliably informed that tomorrow is another day.
jm
For that money the Ref 3a Da Capo is a better value IMO. I almost bought a pair of Arcs some years ago but found the Odeon Orfeo standmounter to sound more alive. That or the Odeon Rigoletto would do a very nice job and at 94db/watt opens a lot of amp doors.
I have heard (extensively) a pair of the Ref 3As with eye-wideningly expensive low-power tube amps, and there are some things they did amazingly well, at the cost of doing other things not remarkably well.
It's absolutely a matter of which sonic phenomena you are will to give up, to max out others.
I'd rather her Wilson Benesch's latest improved version of the 2-way standmount on a comparative budget driven by a solid state Class A amp with only two output devices per channel.
Horses for courses.
jm
"at the cost of doing other things not remarkably well."
Such as?
And I have found Wilson Benesch speakers to sound dynamically constrained...similar to what i hear with Dynaudio speakers. Smooth and even in frequency response but can't seem to get out of first gear.
Ref 3a speakers have an aliveness that most speakers that size struggle and fail to obtain. The only small ones I have owned as lively were the Odeon Orfeo but they had comparatively little bass output. You don't need a megabuck tube amp to make the Ref 3as sing either. A small Class A amp like you suggest would work very well indeed with them... better than with the WBs, which are not very sensitive at all.
Not saying WBs are bad by any means but my experience with both has told me that WBs lack certain realism cues (i.e. dynamics) that are critical with acoustic music.
A bit over a decade ago, I short-listed the original De Capo, WB Arc, Focus Audio 688, and Totem Model 1. The De Capo was dynamic and immediate and sounded good at low volumes, but I wasn't comfortable with the midrange. I felt that acoustic instruments were a little too rich in harmonics and there was some horn-like projection or coloration of voices. The top end was maybe a bit hot as well, but I felt that could be made good through amp selection, cables, or just toe-in. The WB Arc was a little bit analytical, and even a little dark in the upper treble, especially with a tube amp. I also remember the Arc being fast and clean in the bass almost like a sealed design. But I fell in love with the Focus Audios and purchased those.
This year, I finally moved on from the Focus Audios chasing a bit more transparency, neutrality, and dynamics. I didn't audition the latest De Capo this time, but I did audition the Wilson Benesch Vertex and ended up buying it. To my ears it is more transparent, more dynamic, and even faster than the Arc. And better at low volumes than what I had, but not as good as I remember from the De Capos. The mid-bass driver is directly connected like the Ref 3a and I'm impressed they're able to make it sound so neutral and seamless all the way to 5 KHz without anomalies, using only acoustics to shape the response.
Before I settled on the WB Vertex, I also went through a couple of audition sessions with the Penaudio Cenya Signature. You should try to hear it if you can, because there were some aspects of its performance that reminded me of the De Capos that I auditioned way back when, e.g. immediacy, vibrancy, rich harmonics on strings, good at low volumes, informative, top end a little tipped up. The soundstage was huge with tons of air and ambient information, although the presentation was slightly laid back. The dealer nearly had me hooked with the combo of Cenya Signature with a Unico 100 hybrid, but it just wasn't neutral enough in the midrange for me to get comfortable, especially with female voices.
My only real complaint with the WB Vertex is the treble balance. Depending on how much you toe them in, either the low treble sounds right and the top end is a bit dark, or top end sounds right and the low treble sounds a bit forward. Some of that might be due to my listening room being relatively damped, but I also noticed it to a lesser degree in the dealer's room which led us to try a whole host of amps before I was sufficiently happy to buy. I think the tweeter level needs to come up a little bit to account for the big change in dispersion from woofer to tweeter at such a higher crossover frequency. The balance is probably just right in a small, lively room, but in my room it could benefit from more compensation than the mild waveguide on the tweeter provides.
BTW, I really like Dynaudio speakers, especially the C1 & C2. I own the latter. They are so neutral and seamless in the midrange and the treble is so natural and non-fatiguing without sacrificing any details. They do sound flat at low volumes, but they come alive at moderate levels in a big room (as I use them). You might have to push them to louder levels in a small room though. And they need space.
"The WB Arc was a little bit analytical, and even a little dark in the upper treble, especially with a tube amp"
Sums them up pretty nicely and why I didn't buy it. I bought at that time the little Odeon Orfeo...great little speaker and lively as hell...the horn tweeter worked very nicely for directivity as well.
I haven't heard the newest upper end models from WB though. I would like to hear the Endeavor at some point.
The Ref 3a that is probably the best overall is not one in their current lineup. It is the Royal Virtuoso with Corian cabinets. THey smoothed out the midrange in that one in a way they didn't do before or after. I have the really old Master Control MMCs and there is something special going on with them.
Taking out the relatively cheap Vifa tweeter from my MMCs and putting in the new BE tweeter made a huge resolution improvement but also further down in the mids. Be is a strange metal because it is extended in a way I have never heard from soft domes but "soft" compared to every other metal tweeter. Weird but I see why it has become the tweeter metal darling.
My mains now though are big Odeon 2-way horn speakers (model "La Boheme"). 98 db and utter realism coming forth...hard to beat really. 10 inch back horn loaded woofer and a 1 inch compression driver in a solid wood spherical horn. 1st order xovers and time aligned. These were darn rare and darn expensive 15 years ago...I searched a long time to find them from a guy in Germany.
It is good to see that WB is going towards this crossoverless midbass concept...20 years after Ref 3a but better late than never as I am sure it makes the WBs more transparent and more engaging as well...now if they could just get 92db out of their speakers as they clearly have superior cabinets to just about everyone else.
"My only real complaint with the WB Vertex is the treble balance. Depending on how much you toe them in, either the low treble sounds right and the top end is a bit dark, or top end sounds right and the low treble sounds a bit forward. Some of that might be due to my listening room being relatively damped,"
Sounds like an uneven off-axis response. That is the issue with 1st order xovers often...off-axis often suffers...Ref3as are no exception...perhaps the positioning when you heard them wasn't optimal either. Why don't you reduce the damping in your room and see what you get? Try diffusers instead.
"They do sound flat at low volumes," I would also add that they compress pretty early at louder volumes too. It is because of these issues that I sold my Dynaudio Kit and later my Dynaudio Contour 1.8 MKIIs. Smooth, even balance, good at moderate levels for rock/pop and some jazz but no good for classical unless cranked and then you hear the dynamic limitations on the other end.
Only the big Evidence seems to have these issues beat for the most part.
Hi from the datasheet i see a x-over freq of 5kHz
I wonder if the midbass unit asked to reproduce high level bass and midrange at the same time cannot give some kind of distortion.
5kHz is extremely high for a 170 mm cone.
Just wonder of course.
Kind regards,
bg
In my opinion, that wideband mid-bass driver is Wilson Benesch's biggest accomplishment and it's the first reason why I became interested in their speakers. I own the Vertex, which is a small two-way incorporating the latest version of the driver, the Tactic II, as well as WB's own tweeter.
I have made some pseudo-anechoic measurements of the speaker with both drivers connected, and with the mid-bass driver only, and with the tweeter only. I used a time gate that provides anechoic response from 500 Hz up. The mid-bass driver ouput looks impressively flat and free from anomalies from 500 Hz to 5 KHz and then rolls off smoothly. Below 500 Hz, my measurements are not anechoic and include room effects. So from 200-500 Hz, the measured response includes room related peaks and nulls, but the trend is flat and looks smooth with 1/3 octave filtering. Below 200 Hz, the response is dominated by room modes, cancellation nulls, and other boundary effects, so it's hard to draw conclusions. Considering the wide bandwidth and the lack of any electronic baffle step compensation or other equalization, I'm really impressed by the frequency response of this driver in its enclosure.
One of the measurement tools I use is OmniMic, which includes a broad-band distortion measurement. From the mid-bass up, distortion products are in the noise floor of my measurements, at least when measuring at a level of 85 dB at the listening position. The distortion/noise floor varies from 40 dB down to 50 dB down depending on frequency. I don't have an anechoic chamber so I can't measure lower than that. I do see harmonics coming out of the noise floor when you get down around 50 Hz, which is typical, but I can't remember the level. It is certainly no worse than other high end two-ways of comparable size.
The main downside to using a driver of this size with a high crossover frequency is narrowing dispersion. At the top of its band, the mid-bass driver output is fairly directional, which makes it hard to achieve both a flat on-axis response and a smooth power response through the crossover region. Wilson Benesch incorporated a shallow waveguide into the design of their tweeter, which better matches the dispersion characteristics of the two drivers but doesn't seem to completely match them. There is also a drop in tweeter output above 10 KHz which I presume is intentional and intended to achieve a subjective balance in the far field response. Because of their dispersion characteristics, I have found that they are more sensitive to toe-in than most speakers, and their perceived treble balance is room dependent. In my room, I haven't been able to get the perfect balance of low treble & high treble. I can make one or the other sound right but not both at the same time.
Hi and thanks a lot for the very interesting information
Honestly i like the idea of x-overless mid bass a lot indeed
Like the Epos approach for instance but also Eggleston Works i think
Still i have in mind the old rule that divides the audio band broadly in 4 sub-bands when the task is to reproduce it with conventional drivers
1) low bass
2) bass
3) mid
4) high
On this basis any other solution is a compromise
But if you say it works i have no doubt
In this case i think that distortion measurements would be key to understand the performance of the speaker
When the same driver is asked to reproduce a strong low bass and the delicate midrange ? what would be the outcome ?
For strong bass i think something like 100Hz/90dB at 2 meters
Some distortion measurements would show the real situation i guess
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 01/13/15
I tend to prefer 2-way speakers with 120-170mm mid-bass drivers used with stereo subs. I have experienced very few 3-way designs which sound as coherent in the midrange as a good 2-way. Most 3-way and 4-way designs usually put a crossover right in the middle of the lower midrange somewhere between 300-500 Hz, which is the most crticial frequency range and the hardest place to achieve a seamless transition between drivers. The tradeoff with using fewer drivers to cover the same frequency range is usually less efficiency and lower maximum SPL capability, but that is a tradeoff I'm happy to make.
Anyway, as of now I am only able to measure distortion using a swept sine signal, which provides harmonic distortion but not IM distortion. I suppose I could try to create a test signal with a 100 Hz tone mixed with a 1 KHz tone, and then look for distortion products with an RTA. It would include the room contribution and any background noises, and I wouldn't have any data from other people & other speakers to compare to, so I don't know if it would be worthwhile.
" I tend to prefer 2-way speakers with 120-170mm mid-bass drivers used with stereo subs. I have experienced very few 3-way designs which sound as coherent in the midrange as a good 2-way. Most 3-way and 4-way designs usually put a crossover right in the middle of the lower midrange somewhere between 300-500 Hz, which is the most crticial frequency range and the hardest place to achieve a seamless transition between drivers. The tradeoff with using fewer drivers to cover the same frequency range is usually less efficiency and lower maximum SPL capability, but that is a tradeoff I'm happy to make. "
Hi and thanks very interesting indeed.
Actually there are many top speakers in a 3-ways format around.
Maybe it is just to select properly the drivers.
Me too i do not like cuts in the midrange ...
" Anyway, as of now I am only able to measure distortion using a swept sine signal, which provides harmonic distortion but not IM distortion.
I suppose I could try to create a test signal with a 100 Hz tone mixed with a 1 KHz tone, and then look for distortion products with an RTA.
It would include the room contribution and any background noises, and I wouldn't have any data from other people & other speakers to compare to, so I don't know if it would be worthwhile. "
I see it is already something. I am sure that even the basic HD measurements tell a lot.
IMD measurements would be very interesting in the midrange.
I read that human ear is more sensitive to distortion in the mid-range (true? )
If you will have some nice results in future i will be interested to see them
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
one loudspeaker are unwilling to hear a second opinion.
Life is short.
I am going upstairs to listen to some music.
If you agree to hear my caveats out in good faith, I am willing to do the unpaid work.
But if your mind is pre-closed, I have better things to do.
jm
I asked you to elaborate on a specific speaker and you jump to conclusions that I am a fan boy of a single brand of speaker.
I own both Ref 3a and Odeon horn speakers but have had ribbons (2 or 3 different brands), electrostats (3 different brands), dynamic speakers (many), horn speakers (2 different brands) etc. Only an omni speaker is missing from my, bought and tried it, list.
My mind is more open than most.
Speakers all have their drawbacks - to be fair one person's ear may be drawn to certain cues and without those the speaker is unlivable no matter how good they may do something else. These boards are filled with panel owners and horn owners and they don;t sound much alike. You gravitate to something.
The De Capo in the early 2000s was my favorite standmount speaker and I also loved the Reference Master and the big floorstanding model that UHF magazines uses as their reference speaker (the name of which escapes me but it was something like the Supreme or La Supreme and was over $10k). Soundhounds in Victoria carried Reference 3a back in the day.
I chose the Audio Note K/Spe over the De Capo and would choose the E or J over the La Suprema and over any of the current line with the BE tweeters that I heard in Hong Kong because I wanted to make the rounds to be sure the AN E would hold up.
Wilson Benesch I have had the opportunity to audition in Hong Kong again directly against Audio Note since the same dealer carried both. The E up against the Vecteur and the Cardinal (beautiful looking speakers). I would again take and did take the E.
Here's the thing - you can have ten reviewers all of whom have listened carefully to the same 100 loudspeakers and choose ten different speakers. And you can point out some aspect of the sound you like better or why the other speaker is "lesser" but in the end the overall sound when you happened to hear them either moves you or they just don't. And if the sound from the speaker/system gives me the goosebump factor then whether it is a bit coloured or doesn't "image like crazy" or whatever other weakness it has - it got the overall impression or "gestalt" (Old School's favorite word) then I can bypass the weaknesses.
And ultimately it is unlikely that anyone gets swayed from their preference.
Lastly John - plenty of people read these forums - it's quite fine to go in some kind of depth as to what it is about a given speaker like the WB's that draws you to that sound over what the Reference 3a or others are doing.
You should try to hear the Ref 3as again with their new Be tweeter.
It brought my MMCs to a whole other level...
I have heard a fair amount of the AN speakers now...up to a pretty high level...and I still can't hear what you are hearing from them. A friend of mine dumped his 100K all AN system because he found it too dull to listen to after some time. I still would like to have his Meishu Silver signature though...that was a nice amp!
None of these box speakers though have the resolution of a good ribbon, electrostat or horn. The Odeons I have now are the first speakers I have had since getting rid of my planars with planar like resolution and transparency AND horn dynamics...best I have owned yet!
The Meishu isn't particularly my favorite amp from them - at demonstrations when the Meishu is used they been the weakest sounding AN systems in my experience. It seems more suited to the K or J. Peter's favorite tube is the 211 and I am in that camp because I find the Meishu and E creates a bit of a flat sounding over there presentation. Strangely though the M2 with Quest (might be Quest Silver) Monoblocks is entirely a different matter for around the same price.
I have heard the new Ref 3a line with BE tweeters like I said. I tried them before buying the AN E to be sure. I am sure.
Bottom line is speakers no matter how much you or I like them aren't for everyone. I have heard plenty of panels over the last 20 years - if there was one I liked I would have bought a pair. I directly compared the 20.1 to the AN E. There are aspects of them I like but they always wind up not doing it for me.
The arguments of "I knew a guy who sold his system for XYZ" works both ways as I know plenty of people in the "I sold XYZ for Audio Note". Indeed, my favorite audio shop Soundhounds does after all carry Audio Note, Magnepan, Quad and used to carry Reference 3a, Martin Logan, Acoustat. So those kinds of things are what they are.
I really don't hear what you and some others hear in the E. It doesn't sound terribly transparent and seems overly warm balanced...particularly when put in a corner as recommended. Also it has soft dynamics, which don't translate well to what I know from hearing live unless I am very far away from the players. The high end is also not particularly extended and so sounds a bit rolled off.
So to me it is a bit warm, soft with not so impactful dynamics and not the last word in resolution. It definitely has a pleasant character though and I could imagine have a nice time listening to music overall. IMO, it is a speaker in stark contrast to Peter's professed comparison method that says an accurate system will show maximum contrast in recordings. To my ears the Es that I have heard do not allow for this. Ref 3as, Wilsons, big ribbons and stats and better horns all do this compare and contrast of recordings far better. Some of these have other disqualifying issues but I hate the feeling that I am not hearing everything on the recording.
In contrast, a lot of the newer speaker designs that go for max resolution are thin, piercing and brittle sounding...especially those with metal or ceramic drivers. A poor tonal balance is also not acceptable.
Well you can read the Old School - he HATED the sound of the AN E several times on hearing them at shows and then heard them set up by Warren Jarrett at CAS and did a total reversal hailing it as the best sound of the show.
They usually always sound at least "good" but they don't always sound "spectacular." And just because someone spent $100k on it doesn;t mean they will get the results either. At CES in 2010 AN had two rooms - the cheaper room was "spectacular" and the expensive room was rather average until the last day when audiofederation (the dealer) let AN UK's guys set it up.
Fred Crowder and I both noted how the speakers were able to pressurize the instruments in the room - startling and I never hear that with any panel, or the likes of Wilson Audio, Magico - they play loud with bass but that's not the same thing.
When you hear them do that then you're hearing them. The give away to me is when you call them warm - they're not warm loudspeakers like a Harbeth. So something upstream is what is causing that. Corner placement is tricky - not done right and it becomes a boom as it was at CAS 2012 which muddies the midbass and makes a fatter bloated presentation.
My comparison between the AN K and Reference 3a MM De Capo were a polar opposite to you. The De Capo presented my recordings the same way - vocals pushed back - the shell of the music and not the meat. The AN K did that on some recordings, sounded tight and fast on others and warm on others. The De Capo I found beautiful, the K was transparent crisp and clean. It also varied in sound far more when the amp changed. The OTO which I have is on the darker warmer end of the scale. When that amp is used a more mellow presentation will result. With the ASL AQ 1003 the sound was bright.
Interestingly the AN K has been described as overly bright and by others has rolled off and overly warm. Seems to do contrast quite well since a speaker should be able to exhibit both depending on the recording and the gear used.
Likewise I always get a kick out of reviews of the AN E. Described as having a vague soundstage by some, then another sites them as having a panoramic soundstage - to Peter Bruninger comparing their stage to MBL, to not having soundstage depth to Steven Rochlin giving them near full marks for soundstage depth. It seems to me that depending on the gear and the recording the speaker can produce a vast wide and deep stage all the way to a vague small stage. Can be both coloured and transparent, bloated yet fast and tight.
Having said all that - it is partly the responsibility of the demonstrators to get it right. Even when rooms suck you have to be prepared to get them to work right.
Warren seems to have the right idea by bringing his own corners and front end gear that perhaps will be a little more truth than beauty.
I'd love to hear his set-up.
"pressurize the instruments in the room "
Were the speakers in the corners? Put other speakers in the corners you will get pressurization...proabably an imbalance in FR as well but pressurization.
I could get good room pressurization with my big Acoustats...even with a solo violin (the instrument also pressurized the room when played live so I had a very good comparator).
"Reference 3a MM De Capo were a polar opposite to you. The De Capo presented my recordings the same way - vocals pushed back - the shell of the music and not the meat"
Well then you weren't hearing them the right way either. Vocals are quite present...more so than what I have heard from AN speakers (we have an AN dealer in Switzerland about an hour from me where my friend bought all his stuff). Midrange is more transparent and, well less warm. I hear greater contrasts between recordings with the Ref 3as than the AN speakers, which surprised me given Peter Q's "white paper". I have not heard AN speakers outside of a full AN system though.
" having a vague soundstage by some, then another sites them as having a panoramic soundstage "
Something can be panoramic and vague (probably they meant imaging). I found the imaging to be vague, especially when they are in the corners...the stereo illusion is not so great then. Ref 3as have very well focused images and deep and wide soundstage. THe soundstage of ANs seemed ok but with vague focus of the elements in that stage.
I haven't tried them at home though so I will say that maybe you are right about the setup and ancillary gear; however, I find the AN electronics to be the stronger part of their lineup...at least in the dearer price ranges. My friend had the Conqueror amp and found the output transformer was pathetically small and under specified for its job. It should be able to make about 8 watts but he found because of the output transformer it was only able to get 2 clean watts before core saturation set in. His Meishu, though, had huge double "C" cores (it was either the Silver or Silver signature) and had serious sound potential.
What kind of amp(s) did you hear the Ref 3a De Capo with? Mine really like both my NAT hybrid and my JJ 322 parallel 300B amp. They also like the VAC30/30 i had for a while. The L'Integrales sound more like AN E speakers...a tad less resolution but more powerful bass and slightly warmer sounding.
I can't speak to the Conqueror. There are some AN amps I like and some I don't see the value in - same with their other components. The cheaper AX Two for example sounds better than their signature version of the speaker to me and to the dealer in BC. So nobody's perfect. The Sig was dropped.
I hear greater contrast in the ANs than the Reference 3as and for me it's not particularly close. So what are we to do. I won't convince you with words and if you don't hear it you don't hear it and if I don't hear it in the 3a then I don't. There is a Reference 3a dealer that carries the entire line about 20 minutes from my home. I've gone there a number of times - the same building is where I discovered Line Magnetic. I almost bought a second hand De Capo but went with the KEF LS-50 as it was new and less expensive - but I prefer the De Capo and it's not particularly close.
Corner loading pressurizes the room - which makes me wonder why every speaker isn't designed like this because it's a pretty critical element to realism and no amount of flat frequency response or for that matter imaging trumps a lack of realism. I don;t go to any live event and say to people - hey check out the image placement of the third violinist - how awesome is the sound-stage? That's hi-fi BS to help focus on stereo sonic fetishes than any semblance of taking the mind off the pyrotechnics and into the music.
At Soundhounds it was really simple. I was in their not often used basement room where the AN E was set up (by Mario Binner) in an all AN system and I listened for about an hour. Moved up stairs to hear the Magnepan 20.1 with the same music run by expensive well reputed gear and within 1 minute I was shaking my head at how utterly poor it sounded in comparison - I looked over to the dealer and he looked back and smiled and said "we know" in that way where they knew before I sat down what was going to happen.
No speaker or amp will be all things to all people. In around 2000 I was all over raving about Reference 3a and irritating people, so personally I am very gratified that people including you love them.
I nearly bought them last year and if I was in the market for a floorstander the Veena would be near the top of the list because it doesn't have idiot prices and it's a lot of loudspeaker for the money. So I really don't want to pit my favorites against each other.
There are speakers I like that I could live with that do things better than the AN E. Jack Roberts sold his AN E and bought Teresonic Ingeniums for example. I can see and hear why he would make that decision - the single driver has a more open and arguably "quicker" sound and is spotless in the midrange. It even has some bass and the sensitivity opens the door to 1 watt amplifiers.
A few rooms down the hall I put the same music on the AN E and they answer with a smoother more extended treble, deeper bass, more dynamics, and that ability to pressurize the room (even when not in a corner). But it's not as holographic - they are more clouded than the Ingeniums - you make your choice for which thing you can live without. The balance between truth and beauty.
I take the goosebump factor of reproduction that pulls at the heart of the hi-fi elements of supreme known accuracy. If one system lets me hear every butt scratch of the player that's great but if system two which doesn't let me hear the butt scratch but is far more emotionally engaging then system B wins for me every single time.
If there were twenty sonic elements (bass, treble, imaging, staging tone etc) I might give the AN Es an 8-8.5/10 in every area - but it is no class leader in any. Another speaker I might have ten areas where I award them 10/10 but it may have five areas where it scores an 8/10 and five areas where it performs for me at a 5-6/10. I'll probably take the AN E over the latter. But I get why people will take the latter. I auditioned expensive Avantgarde horns at a NAT dealer in Hong Kong and ultimately the AN E was better. The Avantgarde did some things on cymbals though that were very impressive - the size and scale the AN E doesn't really approach. But when we switched to Eva Cassidy - the Avantgarde was virtually unlistenable and the AN E trounced them. Avantgarde captured arguably more of the wetness and all the hi-fi blather but the AN E captured the woman in the space and the beauty and the emotion - the Avantgarde probably captures more of the sound I suppose but that is small comfort to me if I have a headache after 10 minutes.
"Corner loading pressurizes the room - which makes me wonder why every speaker isn't designed like this because it's a pretty critical element to realism and no amount of flat frequency response or for that matter imaging trumps a lack of realism. I don;t go to any live event and say to people - hey check out the image placement of the third violinist - how awesome is the sound-stage? That's hi-fi BS to help focus on stereo sonic fetishes than any semblance of taking the mind off the pyrotechnics and into the music.
"
I disagree, the whole point of stereo was to create the spatial effects that were missing from mono. Just like a viewmaster (remember those) made 3d images. That 3d imaging and soundstaging creates realism...pressurizing the room only does so if you were to have a live quartet in the room. I have found with really good setups that you can get both...at least if the recording is really present. I once made a solo violin recording in my apartment...the live violin pressurized my smallish room very intensely...but so did the playback at realistic levels!
Stereo IS a sonic fetish...so if your stereo doesn't do it then there is something wrong with it. If you don't like that then listen to mono. You have to realize that this is how the stereo recordings are made and a live concert you don't do this because you SEE where the people are placed so it takes no effort to place the sound as well...vision helps this a lot and it is why home theater can slide with lower sound quality.
AN speakers, shoved in a corner, don't do it and this is a big problem IMO because they are smearing the recording as a result. IMO, companies that downplay their imaging and soundstaging abilites as unimportant to "the music" are trying to spin a negative into a positive. If it is on the recording then it has to come across accurately.
You have to also realize that recordings are not made usually to sound like you are mid to back hall in perspective. They are usually made up front and very very close. This means that if your stereo is making everything sound mid hall and somewhat diffuse then it is modifying rather severly most recordings. IF you sit very close to the performers it is no problem to have very specific placement of musicians and the sound is very present and up front as well. People who don't like that sit further away but most recordings are made this way. I have no problem with people buying gear to move the perspective back but they have to know that they are seriously modifying the truth of the recording to fit their tastes.
Finally, in the absence of vision it is clear that a bit of hyper reality is necessary to give back the missing visual element. The recordings are often made this way.
"At Soundhounds it was really simple. I was in their not often used basement room where the AN E was set up (by Mario Binner) in an all AN system and I listened for about an hour. Moved up stairs to hear the Magnepan 20.1 with the same music run by expensive well reputed gear and within 1 minute I was shaking my head at how utterly poor it sounded in comparison - I looked over to the dealer and he looked back and smiled and said "we know" in that way where they knew before I sat down what was going to happen.
"
Different rooms, different systems...you call that an experiment? But nevermind, I find Magnepan to be one of the worst planar speakers on the market...but I still find them more realistic sounding in a lot of ways than the AN setups I have heard.
"In around 2000 I was all over raving about Reference 3a and irritating people"
And now you do it with AN and Line Magnetic :).
"I am very gratified that people including you love them."
Love them? Er, no. Do I think it is one of the best small speakers I have heard...yes. Do I think my big Acoustats were far and away more realistic sounding...definitely yes. Do I think my big Odeons are more realistic sounding? Yes. Did I keep the little MMCs with Be tweeters for my second stereo system? Yes because they sound good and are room friendly.
"But it's not as holographic - they are more clouded than the Ingeniums "
It is this veil I hear on the AN speakers that turns me off. Ref 3as are more transparent, all my ribbons and estats of the past were far more transparent as are my Odeons (one of the least horn sounding horns you will ever possibly hear). Also that cabinet sing along clearly adds its own signature to everything...as is the plan apparently.
"If one system lets me hear every butt scratch of the player that's great but if system two which doesn't let me hear the butt scratch but is far more emotionally engaging then system B wins for me every single time.
"
Believe it or not, you can have both.
Selfishly I would rather more people NOT bother with AN because I really don't want to wait 6-12 months to get anything.I don't think AN downplays their soundstaging or imaging abilities - but they correctly note that it is largely recording dependent and speaker position dependent. A vocal can be recessed or upfront - a mid hall perspective or up front perspective. And since AN has been commanding $10k to $200k prices on them for 25 years whatever some may feel about their staging affects doesn't seem to be negatively influencing consumers or reviewers who have heard pretty much everything else. I have the KEF LS-50 a staging and imaging darling - it doesn't stage or image better than the AN E in my room. The AN E does it better in fact.
You are correct that the gear I auditioned the Magnepan with differed with what AN uses but whose problem is that? If I use Audio Note amplifiers and sources on Magnepan some nit on a forum will tell me I need 500 watts minimum because "trot out whatever reason" and I could use said 500 watt amp on the AN but it isn't designed for that. That's why AN supplies their own amps (and even within their own offerings they have "preferred pairings" - Peter Qvortrup when he runs a show runs them with a variation on the Ongaku (the power amp version of it or the Jinro and Tomei). That's his favorite tube - that's what he runs and IMO that's what is BY FAR the best sounding pairing. His least favorite tube is the 300B and because that's the cheapest one it is what gets paired to the AN E.
I have heard the AN E speaker in the same room with the same amps/cables and source. Switch out the Meishu with a Jinro and the sound shifts dramatically. Why do you think I bought the LM 219IA? You know I like Audio Note but the Meishu is the only integrated they have in the $8k range. The Jinro is $26k - The LM has the bigger sound of the Jinro at the expense of nuance but for me the Meishu leaves the music a little far field and over there. It doesn;t do that with the AN K interestingly enough and I find that combo tremendous.
Audio Note makes a complete system and so Audio Note controls the amp/source and cables. If other makers gave a damn then they would DEMAND that their speakers use XYZ amp/source and cables or better yet make an amplifier that is specifically designed for the loudspeaker.
Otherwise they ALWAYS trot out the excuse that "the gear wasn't good enough - or you should have used ABC." I have heard Magnepan probably with a dozen different amps and sources and ANY component I list will be met with "ahh but you should have used Y amp with Z source." This is fair enough which is why I generally don't say anything about a product until I have heard it three times with three quality front ends. Especially if the sound I heard wasn't particularly good. But on the flip side of this if a speaker is truly that picky then the speaker maker should ship their dealers the specific front end that sounds the best or provide a list of "known" references and demand that a dealer use those products.
Front end gear matters a LOT and even different amps in the same company line-up. The Jinro versus Meishu to me is STAGGERING even though they both cost about the same.
At the dealer here in HK they had the AN E's connected to flagship Einstein gear - meh. An Einstein fan will blame the speakers. As I know the AN's I'm blaming the Einsteins. It's not that the Einsteins are bad - but this just isn't a match. The magic fairy dust was removed and it all became mechanical. Although I am sure that on some graph someplace the Einstein will measure better as hi-fi and be deemed more accurate.
To be clear - Yes there are specific speakers that do certain things I like better in the midrange (single drivers - and ESL) and big horns for their overriding dynamic ease and scale - each have weaknesses which are generally more egregious to me which makes them less balanced. Their weakness is more noticeably audible and bothersome to me.
At this moment in time if I had $30,000 the speaker I would buy is the AN E/Spx HE Hemp Alnico because out of all the speakers I've heard I have not heard one of any design from anyone that I personally like more. I would change this opinion in a large room but not in small medium rooms.
My view is the same as Wes Philips' hearing of them at CES (second last paragraph). And what a surprise - it was the 211!!
Edits: 01/19/15
"I have heard Magnepan probably with a dozen different amps and sources and ANY component "
I and my friends are truly experimentalists when it comes to matching gear with speakers. One of the absolute best sounds I ever heard with Magnepan came from a pair of MG1.6s powered by a Silvaweld SWC450 preamp (small but potent) and a pair of Audio Note P4 se monoblocks. All 18 glorious watts of them...naturally it was in a small room. Naturally we didn't play super loud. The only other time I have heard the Maggies sing like that was the same speakers in same room powered by the same preamp and a pair of Silvaweld OTL monoblocks.
Never before and never since have I heard maggies sound like I could live with them.
I heard one of the upper scale Es with the Jinro monos and the DAC 4.1x or whatever. was warm and musical with whatever was spinning in the disc transport. Not terribly impressed given the price. The dealer seemed pleased with it though.
"The Jinro versus Meishu to me is STAGGERING even though they both cost about the same."
The Jinro is a lot more expensive than the Meishu... at least the base Meishu.
"At the dealer here in HK they had the AN E's connected to flagship Einstein gear - meh. An Einstein fan will blame the speakers. As I know the AN's I'm blaming the Einsteins."
Depends on the Einsteins. As a former Einstein hybrid integrated owner, I would say-meh if that is what they used but the preamp and OTLs are pretty smashing...at least on horns and on Living Voice speakers (another one I would choose over AN speakers).
FWIW the best I've heard from the Magnepans was also with an Audio Note amp - Considering I heard the 1.7 with $30,000 worth of bryston and the AN was a $5k SORO I was impressed. Although the SORO seems like a black sheep of the line in that it seems less popular in many circles (I prefer the less expensive OTO). That was the first time I actually understood why people would like Magnepan because they (1.6) were bright as hell and "thin" sounding virtually every time p[reviously. Interestingly I love reviewers who never mention the problems with the speakers BUT when the 1.7 comes out only THEN do they say the treble is smoother over the ragged bright 1.6. Hmm nary a word on them sounding thin and fatiguing BUT then mention it when the replacement FIXES the problem. An entire cottage industry grew around the previous Magnepan models with various "upgrades" and "mods" to "fix" them. By the time people bother doing all that they could have probably bought a KingSound, Quad, or Soundlab and been far better off without having to ship them around the world to get someone to fix them to sound good.
Still at 18 watts or whatever ithe SORO is would probably be a hard sell to convince people to mate them to Magnepans which according to their supporters need at least 200 watts to get them to "open up." Then again Soundhounds was wasting tube life using the combo all day - presumably every day to demo. But I maintain the gear will fix up a lot of speakers. The N801 sounded better than it has ever sounded connected to a Wyatech Labs 211 amp. Butt Ugly purple beast but the combo was excellent. But again a lack of power and sensitivity means it will be a tough sell. But jeez it destoryed the Classe which I suppose is the appropriate match.
The Meishu Silver Sig is $22,000 - the Jinro is $26k. So they're in the ballpark. I just felt it would make more sense to buy the $4k M2 preamp and then buy some monoblocks - that would be cheaper than the Meishu and not sharing one power supply. The result of the separates opens the sound up a lot more. Even the Jinro while good is better when it is used as a power amp and an M6 (or M3) is placed in front with SOOGON silver cables.
Warren Jarrett was using Music First Audio preamp and NAT and Empress power amps. The MFA is an interesting transformer passive and will very likely sparkle up the sound. That's an intriguing non idiotically priced preamp by the looks of it. There are no dealers in my area to try it out.
I would also suggest listening to the AN E in the nearfield - equailateral triangle. Because they are in the corners - they are physically a lot further away. Setting them up 6-8 feet apart and the listener 6-8 feet away provides a different perspective that some may very well like a lot more.
But in the end we're right back where I said we would be. They've been selling them for 25 years and they command a rather loyal fanbase.
I had the AN J for 10 years - I auditioned oodles of speakers and I was trying NOT to go to the AN E because I wanted to be less of a fanboy and "an objective reviewer" but as time and auditions went on and I heard so many speakers I said - forget that - I am putting out my own money on this stuff and I am getting what I love listening to not something that is supposedly "accurate" but which I won't be truly happy. I just wish they looked as sexy as other speakers and I wish they had some whiz bang techy stuff to talk about. Hemp isn't exactly that - I say hemp and I am thinking of a guy with a bong.
I have found a really good SET will make almost any speaker sound better than the so called "good match" that some people here propose. In contrast to them, I have hooked up SETs on everything from a 78db electrostat to 105db horns and many many others in between.
I took my KR VA350i and hooked it up all kinds of things. STAX electrostats, Acapellas, horns, Apogees, normal mid efficiency speakers etc. etc. etc. and it never failed to make them all sound...better.
I wouldn't mind having a butt ugly Wyetech 211... :).
Morricab Have you auditioned Wilson Benesch Vector , I see Steve Huff who used to enthuse over Sonus Faber Guanari Evolution has sold his Evolution & prefers WB Vectors, however like many he changes his mind like the weather.
Edits: 01/20/15
No, I haven't heard the Vector. I have heard the A.C.T, A.C.T. 60, Discovery, Arc, Curve, Bishop but not any of the new ones with their new tweeter and minimal use of crossover elements. I always found the sound a wee bit analytical and slightly on the cold side of neutral. The newest ones might be better in this regard.
Now that they have figured out how to go crossoverless on the mid/bass driver and 1st order on the tweeter I think there is a greater potential for directness in sound. Of course the sensitivity is still not very high, unlike Ref 3a that gets around 92 db by eliminating most of the crossover (my Ref 3as have only a single high quality cap for the high pass and no crossover on the midbass).
I have always found the Sonus Faber speakers to sound musical but ultimately a bit of sameness due to colorations. That said I haven't heard the model you describe...just older iterations of the Guarneri. I have heard the newest Flagship model and the older Stradivarius as well as the Amati homage and some of their Olympica and cheaper lines. They ultimately lack the resolution I want from my reference systems. A transparency that I came to value from all the ribbons and electrostats I have owned in the past. The Ref 3as get close for a "conventional" speaker and my Odeon horns are resolution masters...right up there with the best planars.
OK Many thanks, I am going to get an audition of the Wilson Benesch Vector as soon as possible, I am intrigued as to why Steve Huff has changed from the Sonus Faber Guanari Evolution (impractical with their very heavy stands) but they are the only model in the SF range that I like.
The Vector is nice. I got to hear it at the Audio Note dealer in Hong Kong early last year back when they carried Wilson Benesch.
Is the WB Vector better than Sonus Faber Guanari Evolution
Hi-
I have great respect for what the 3A is doing and I can cheerfully admit the possibility that it is delivering the input with less transformation in the transfer function than does a typical Wilson Benesch.
At an audio show once, I listened very carefully to a very rare CD I have from a boxed set that has many Beach Boys Pet Sounds individual multitrack tracks, e.g., just the backup vocals to "Wouldn't It Be Nice." On the 3 As, it sounded like an X-Ray and perhaps an MRI... .
I was interested in writing about them but for some reason that fell to Art Dudley, and I think he did a very admirable job.
I have since heard a pair locally with very ultra SE tubes and everything very how shall we say it, soigné. On piano music, you hear the starts and stops of notes and the die-out is very finely sketched, and the dynamics are startlingly jumpy. But for me, the experiential balance is too much toward the "X-Ray image" idea, and not enough of the fleshy center of the notes.
It all comes down to personal prefernce. I guess I prefer to sit farther back in the hall, where most of the acoustical energy is later reflections, and not up front, closer than the "critical distance," where you really get the sound of the hammer's impact on the string before the string begins ringing.
And if somebody wants to say that Wilson Benesch's more complicated crossover is adding in time smear distortion and that that is what I like, fine. It's my dinner, and I'd rather eat it using only a fork than using only a filetting knife.
I don't think I have ever been secretive or coy about my listening preferences...
FWIW & YMMV.
JM
I understand your take on them. The reason I was drawn to the De Capo over the usual suspects of standmounts in the 90s was largely because of their dynamics and bigger scale over the usual suspects of the time. And not enough of the center looking back was arguably why I didn't buy them.
I guess you weren't a big fan of Apogees or Acoustats back in the day? The Ref 3as are one of the better resolving speakers of the box variety so if you think they are to X-ray it is likely the electronics and/or recordings. I was able to change the sound of mine profoundly with different gear.
Now, I listen with Odeon "La Boheme" (they named them not me) that have even better resolution and transparency but even more jump factor. I agree that if you sit far back in a concert hall you don't get this...but nearly all recordings are miked much closer than that so what you SHOULD hear from the recording is probably not mid to back hall unless there has been some serious mixology going on by the sound engineer. Deliberately pushing the sound back with the gear is not the answer...finding recordings that offer that mid to back hall perspective is the answer.
It is not really debatable though that the Wilson Benesch crossover does more damage to the signal than virtually no crossover (my Master Control MMCs have only 1 very high quality cap on the tweeter and nothing on the woofer) and the Ref 3a speakers are also time coherent...part of why they "X-Ray" image. Sure, the FR could be better but it seems that it is pretty easy for the ears to adapt to this being off by even quite a lot. Other distortions are harder for the ear/brain to compensate for, IMO.
The Square 1 that John recommended has nothing on the mid-bass driver and a 2nd order (cap + inductor) on the tweeter. Some of their other models have just 1 cap on the tweeter, just like the Ref 3a.
Whether or not FR is more important than other aspects of performance, e.g. dynamics, is really personal preference. When I started out as an audiophile, I valued a big soundstage with palpable images, strong & tight bass, and some sparkle. I didn't care as much whether the FR was flat because it was something I got used to. But my tastes in sound have changed and these days neutrality seems very important to me and I get hung up on and distracted by FR anomalies. I also care more about speed and precise timing than I used to.
I'll grant you that the De Capo I heard was more dynamic and expressive than the WB. I'm guessing you're more interested in the "performer is in the room with you" kind of experience. I'm more of "you are there" person and more of an analytical listener than an emotionally involved listener. Maybe that's part of the difference.
First they claim time coherence but one look at the design disqualifies that. Then they say first order crossover on the tweeter BUT look at the specs page and it says:
Second order tweeter crossover
Selected polypropylene capacitors and air cored inductors are used throughout
So, which is it? They don't mention a woofer xover so probably that part is true.
From what I can see of their range the only one that might be time coherent is the Endeavor, which claims to have a 1st order tweeter crossover, no crossover on the woofer AND the tweeter mounted below the woofer that can give time alignment.
Their literature used to be consistent about the crossovers, but I hadn't looked at the site in 6 months. What I have been told by WB and their former importer is that the Geometry series speakers use a 1st order (cap only) on the tweeter and the Square series use a 2nd order. I think this might be due to the different tweeters. The Geometry series use WB's own tweeter, while the Square series uses a ScanSpeak.
They have been inconsistent and stretching the truth a bit regarding time alignment, sometimes saying their design improves time alignment or offers better time alignment (true), and sometimes misleading people into thinking their designs are time aligned (false).
Anyway, I think the main benefit they get from using a wide bandwidth mid-woofer with no crossover is transient performance.
I would agree about the transient benefit of no crossover on the midbass driver. My Ref 3as date from 1993 and probably were one of the first to explore this with a carbon fiber driver and no xover to a single cap protected tweeter. They bothered to time-align as well and the transient response is top notch yet very natural. I now have Ref 3as own Be tweeter and that is something special...Speed and extension of a metal dome with much of the softness of a soft dome.
THe Endeavors are possibly time-aligned by putting one of the woofers above the tweeter...I am not sure what effect the one on the bottom (seems to be an isobaric design) would have...might put the bass frequencies a bit out of sorts. Of all the models on their site that is the one I would seriously be interested in (can't afford a Cardinal).
The Endeavour is out of my price range and I doubt it will show up here in the USA. But I would like to hear it also. I would be particularly interested in the integration of the isobaric driver pair with the midrange driver given the crossover frequency of 500 Hz and given the filtering on the midrange driver is purely acoustic.
"The Square 1 that John recommended has nothing on the mid-bass driver and a 2nd order (cap + inductor) on the tweeter. Some of their other models have just 1 cap on the tweeter, just like the Ref 3a.
"
I will have to look into that but given the layout of the drivers it is a bit of a waste then because it is not possible for them to be time-aligned that way. You need to offset the tweeter in some manner (sloped box, assymmetric positioning etc.).
"But my tastes in sound have changed and these days neutrality seems very important to me and I get hung up on and distracted by FR anomalies"
All things being equal I would tend to agree; however, I went through my whole "Speaker/room correction" phase to get super flat response from the speakers but it didn't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse...there are just too many other flaws in most designs that are causing more audible damage. In fact, I would argue that you were more likely hearing other issues rather than the FR, unless it was WAY out of whack. Driver breakup, cabinet and crossover resonances and energy storage and bass alignment are often bigger issues because they are inconsistent and therefore difficult to get used to.
"I'm guessing you're more interested in the "performer is in the room with you" kind of experience. I'm more of "you are there" person and more of an analytical listener than an emotionally involved listener. Maybe that's part of the difference.
"
I am both actually, depending on what I know about the recording. If it is miked up close then I want my system to portray that accurately with the "They are here" perspective and if it is more naturally miked then I want the "You are there" perspective. A well balanced system will give you both depending on the recording. Very few systems can do this really well.
But feel free to ignore me!
One of my Peak-Experience listening sessions was hearing my avant-garde solo accordion recording on Shahinian Diapasons at a mid-1990s CES.
Ciao,
jm
PS, I also heard big Apogees from 3 feet away in the (tiny) factory listening room, early 1990s, and, with very carefully selected program material (Jason Bloom's favorite Victor Feldman LP) it sounded REAL. But if those bass panels were "ribbons," I am the Dalai Lama.
jm
The midrange and tweeters on Apogees are true ribbons. The bass is a planar magnetic panel.
Nope.
Nyet.
Quite the contrary, they claimed to be a "full range ribbon."
jm
I would have to review the Apogee press literature to be sure but for sure the reviews made it clear.
Which as far as I was concerned went beyond "creative writing."
I never heard the Blooms' home system, but Arturo Delmoni did. Arturo later told me that on their system, he could hear edits that he could not hear on any other system. He said that the edits themselves were not audible in terms of the music, but that the momentary change in the quality of the room sound was the tip-off.
It was an interesting factory tour, guided by Sara Bloom's father.
jm
I had effects like that too with my Apogees and also with my Audiostatics and Acoustats. Since then, only my recent horn purchase gives me this much insight into the recordings.
They had patent disputes with magnepan, so the liberties with advertising copy could have been a consequence.
Still Apogee Divas gave he best reproduced sound I've ever heard,
lol
Nice speakers, wheres the rest of it?
4K for bookshelves with no woofers or stands?
"Price Tier", sounds so pretentious.
$800 tops for those speakers.
John is just trying to help, why anger? Check the madisound pages and seas excel kits: up to 1,600 each! Ad the cost of woodwork and you'll see how fast the costs ad up.
“Somebody was always controlling who got a chance and who didn’t. - Charles Bukowski
Edits: 01/03/15
I see that Eldragon!
OK, so it shows those seas at 65Hz -1.5dB and down ~13dB @ 40-45Hz, which is why I scoffed at the idea of a 4K solution with similar drivers that are not a complete component. Not a "Full range" solution.
While most of us are not bass-heads, bass is pretty important and not as easily achieved as treble.
Rarely anyone asks, how can I get more treble?
So it's not so much the price as it was the solution not fulfilling the requirements.
Profit margins have no direct correlation to perceived sound qualities. IMO the higher things are priced, the more wildly they can fluctuate from the actual intrinsic value of the device.
Wander over to eBay, the most expensive Seas device is $650 bucks for some nice 12" alnico woofers. The next cheaper listing is a pair of Dynaco A25 with Seas woofers for $339 or best offer.
These prices are realistic values that closely reflect the intrinsic value.
Although the budget is unknown, so maybe the OP would drop 4K on bookshelves and then fill in the low end with some active bass etc, but chances are is pair of speakers are just is as nice and could maybe benefit more from a different component change.
I hear you brother...
Some people apparently have enough money to spend 10K on mini-monitors. I was always puzzled about that. What prompted me to look was, Joseph Audio Pulsar monitors ($7000). I always respected Jeff, and was interested in the reason for the markup on his latest line - and when I saw the kit prices on the same components I realized, it's a tough gig! He probably gets them for less than the Madisound prices, but still...how much 'footwork' he gets?
“Somebody was always controlling who got a chance and who didn’t. - Charles Bukowski
A good pair of small 2-way standmount speakers can give you levels of resolution, coherence, and soundstaging that aren't available from floorstanders of a similar price, assuming you have the requisite equipment and room to take advantage of them. I would much rather spend my money chasing those aspects of performance even if it means sacrificing the bottom octave and even some of next octave. And then I'd probably add a sub or two later when funds permitted.
It takes a lot of extra money to move up from a good small 2-way standmount to a floorstander without sacrificing much. For example, the big brother to the Pulsar is the $13k Perspective. That's almost double the cost. To my ears, I'd have to have a budget over $10k or have a big room in order for the floorstander to be the preferred option. Otherwise, I'll take the little speaker and add subs if I feel the need.
No doubt, I'm sure it is a tough gig.
It boggles my mind at times, it seems there is more speakers available then audiophiles to buy them!
I ponder that same thing myself. Not only speakers, but insert any component in your statement. I can only assume it must be a labor of love ( not money) for many manufacturers.
You don't like bright then you should check out Vandersteen! I owned a few pairs years ago 2ce and 3a's and believe you me the one thing they are is not bright!
Edits: 01/02/15
TS-
strongly consider Thiel loudspeakers.
Sorry to disagree, but I owned Thiel CS 3.6 speakers and found them rather hard and bright, which the original poster is trying to avoid.
In his review of the new Thiel 2.7s Anthony Cordesman, who is a long time Thiel fan, cautioned that an amp with a less strident high end be paired with them.
Best,
George
I think you're in a difficult situation because everything others have mentioned matters.
I have been in your same situation multiple times. I am VERY sensitive to perceived brightness. Cables, room treatments, power, different speakers could all help diminish perceived brightness, but I could never get it to be acceptable until I got rid of solid state amps and preamps.
I may be extreme in this regard, but for me, I'm pretty sure that there is no detailed, balanced, revealing, transparent system in which I could listen to most solid state amps, even good ones like Pass, without quickly developing listening fatigue from brightness. I was really tired of tube amp maintenance issues, like retubing, and wanted to go solid state badly. But I couldn't get rid of small residual brightness until I replaced a Pass XA series amp with a tube amp. And this was after room treatments, power conditioning, cabling, source changes, etc.
So I can't offer a solution, but I can sympathize! If it were me, I would try a tube amp based on the fact that the Focals are detailed, balanced, reasonably uncolored speakers and worth working with, and knowing my sensitivity to solid state brightness. As always, YMMV.
Good luck!
I agree with much of what has been said.
Metal dome tweeters have a tendency to brightness but Focal tweeters seem to be among the best of the bunch and can be made to sound neutral (I heard this most recently at the New York Audio Show 2014 with Focal Grand Utopia speakers being driven by all VAC electronics).
A cheap tweak that I recommend trying is to go to a fabric store, buy some felt, cut out a circular piece of felt (with a hole in the middle) and place it around (but not touching) the tweeter using rubber cement as an adhesive. "Felting" will cut the tweeter level by a couple of decibels (because the naked, flat baffle around the tweeter acts as an acoustic lens, amplifying the tweeter's output like the reflective material around a flashlight bulb...felting has the exact opposite effect) and improve imaging at the same time (by preventing diffraction effects from the baffle edges).
At the most you will be out of five bucks...but this tweak could make all the difference.
It's really hard to cut felt rings neatly with scissors or an X-acto knife -- especially the center hole. Always seem to wind up with some raggedy-fuzzies around the edge. The linked rings from Madisound -- which I have used in numerous DIY speakers with excellent results -- are stamped out with a cookie-cutter die, and very tidy. Also adhesive-backed, so you don't have to mess with petrochemical mucus (ie. rubber cement) and smell the solvent.
The ring doesn't so much reduce overall tweeter level as just eliminate some of the phase-garbled early reflections at the very highest frequencies. The result is cleaner sounding treble.
A number of speaker designs over the years -- LS3/5A, Spica TC 50, some Vandersteens, I think some Wilsons -- have incorporated felt-covered baffles around the tweeter. The sonic benefits are readily apparent, but most manufacturers don't do this, probably for cosmetic reasons.
Best sounding speaker for that type of listening.
Wonder why the tweeter is off centre. Irritating.
Cheers
Bill
This is to reduce diffraction-related ripples in the frequency response, by making sure every path length from the center of the dome to the edge of the baffle is different and corresponds to a different wavelength/frequency. That way no one frequency is reinforced by diffraction.
Centered is actually the WORST place to put a tweeter on a flat baffle -- see the examples in the attached article, showing the effects of round, square, and rectangular baffles. Many manufacturers do it, but presumably for looks rather than sonic benefits.
Thanks for that most informative post.
Now how do I cure my OCD!
Regards
Bill
You just need to indulge it in a more creative and productive pursuit. Like, say, speaker building. Then you can obsess over things like, say, acoustic offset of driver centers, phase tracking through the crossover region, cabinet and port resonances, and nearly imaginary sonic differences between capacitor types. Fortunately, the PE Tech Talk board is there for group therapy. Or is it co-dependent enabling?
In our Structural Engineering, a little OCD is good. I try to instill in the guys in the office some mania with regard to accuracy in Foundation, columns and beam designs. Outside the office I tend to be like Detective Monk ( No Shirona ). I did make couple of speakers, Horn designs based on Fostex full range drivers and thoroughly enjoyed but not quite satisfied by the results. I am planning a new design with Eminence drivers.
Best Regards
Bill
I have a very similar set up with SB-29Tweeter and 12" Altec made Utah woofers. 1/2 mH coil on the woofer and 10uF cap on the Tweeter. 1.5 cu ft sealed box.
Good bass weight and the SB 29 is about as good a silk dome as you can get.
$110.00 for the Tweeters at Madisound and the Utah woofers are $30 bucks here at the Trader or on Ebay.
At the request of the Moderators,
This space has been deleted
It's hard to give advice when we don't know what you are comfortable spending.
I also assume that if you can, you will trade in your current speakers.
jm
I have read all the comments and remarks on this and in my opinion, it's time for new speakers. I was in the same situation many years ago, where I loved the bass but the treble fatigued me quickly. I took everyone's advice and replaced all my source components, amplifier, cables, power conditioning, etc. I tried tweaking the living room, moving the speakers here and there and adding padding at various places to take away the brightness. After spending over 20K on all the upgrades, the system still sounded bright!!!
I solved my problem by going with a speaker that uses a silk dome tweeter (old school), and lo and behold all the brightness went away. Moral of the story for me was that if the system is too bright for, changing everything other than the speakers is just a band aid. I also agree with you that I find the Focal brand too bright for my taste.
"Far away across the field
The tolling of the iron bell
Calls the faithful to their knees
To hear the softly spoken magic spells."
brightness can be caused by poorly shieded cables, poor power quality, early reflections, a reflective room, digititis, etc, etc. Those speakers are not actually bright when the source and room is OK.
Look into damping that first reflection. I did with chairs and blanets a feww feet from the speakers, and even glued some carbon fiber type pads to the speaker cace around the tweeters...did wonders and I'm hearing less hectic sound.
Those speakers are very good. But the Pass is very revealing.
Have you tried removing the tweeter grilles from the Focals?
-reub
Check out page 2 third paragraph in the link:
I have bought a lot of new speakers and a lot of used ones too. It doesn't make any difference whether the speakers you buy are new or used, within reason, of course. What matters is whether or not you are pleased with how they sound. For many people, how they look is also somewhat important if, as I do, you have them in your living spaces rather than in a dedicated room where decor doesn't matter.
You would certainly be well advised to audition anything you are considering, but in my experience, such auditions cannot substitute for several weeks of living with a pair of speakers in your listening room, with your electronics and your well known source material. A brief audition will tell you whether there are serious technical or gross sonic problems with a pair of speakers, but in someone else's room, with their electronics and only a brief time to listen, only so much can be gleaned.
I know when I hear a new pair of speakers, there is a tendency to seize on differences from what I am used to that seem exciting, maybe "better", but over time, those differences seem to fade and those elements of long term listening satisfaction emerge. Differences between your old and new speakers takes time to uncover.
I have enjoyed over the last ten to fifteen years buying a lot of well regarded used speakers. As another respondent mentioned, when I sell them I either make a profit or get my money back. And, I know what I am giving up and what I am holding onto.
Given what you said, in the used market, you might like to try for a pair of PSB Stratus Gold or Goldi. They are a really nice sounding, articulate speaker with great bass and smooth musical treble. They are reasonably priced on the used market at ca. $800-1,000/pair. I owned a pair for ca, 10-12 years and was very pleased with them. Awhile ago, I bought a pair of Stratus Minis for a family room system and love them.
Right now, I am enjoying swapping between my two main pairs--Quad ESL-63s and B&W Matrix 801 Series IIs. Both fine speakers.
Good luck!
George
Good suggestions on placement & room treatment, along the same line of thought, have you tried other brands of speaker cables? You should be able to borrow cables for audition from most hi fi shops. Or, online with a return window if not happy. I really don't know what to suggest, Analysis Plus seemed to be a very natural sounding cable with smooth top end. You'd have to ask some who sales them, Cardas used to have a series that was voiced a bit on the warm side.
Here's what I use. The picture says 12-gauge, but they send you 10-gauge wire. I don't know why they don't take a new picture. It was the same picture when I bought mine more than two-years ago.
KnuKonceptz Kord Speaker Wire Ultra Flex Blue OFC 10 Gauge Cable 25' True AWG
I terminated my speaker cable with these Nakamichi banana plugs, which are the good ones with solidly connected spring contacts. I removed the screws and soldered them to the wire.
10 NEW Nakamichi Audio Adapter Speaker banana plug connector 24K USA Shipping
These DIY speaker cables work very well with my speakers. I tried some very expensive Cardas speaker cables, but they didn't sound any different at all. Therefore, my philosophy is put the money into the speakers -- not into the wire.
I have the same amp and love the sound with Revel Performa F52's, which is what I'm currently using with no plans to change. These can be found at a great price used as the newer Performa 3 series is out. The F52 are of the 2nd series. The 3rd series have a totally different sound. The F52's have a controlled bass that plays so low it's like having a sub, but the bass, even low is highly detailed. I don't find the F52's overly bright but another nice feature for you the F52's have a control on back to tailor the treble by I believe .5dB and there's only two clicks up or down. There's also a boundary control for the bass if close to walls or furniture. I find them as flat and detailed as a studio monitor. If you were interested and couldn't find any I know a guy in my area who is selling his, he had a full surround set up with them. He just moved to Salons.
I am also a fan of Dynaudio which should be an easy audition in your area. If budget permits I recommend the Contour series. The Focus series is nice as well. The original Focus has a very nice dark sound character. I really like them but may not be the best for all types of music. The sound with Jazz seemed to transport you to a dark smoky Jazz club. The newer Focus sound great but are more neutral than the original, IMO
I read the posts below. I bought a pair of ADS L710's at a thrift store for $20. These speakers amaze me every time I listen to them. They are very smooth and accurate and fill the room very well. For just a little money it is worth a try.
However I also think your speakers SHOULD sound good. If they cannot then you will likely have the same issues with different ones...
Be sure it's the speaker - it may be your source or an issue with the room. Although metal tweeter often sound - metallic and lean to the bright side of the spectrum. You get the sense of added detail or presence but "all magic comes at a price" (oops).You could also try toeing the speakers in so that the tweeters cross above a meter in front of you OR face them directly ahead with no toe in. Either method can work. Treating half or the entire wall behind the speakers is also an option. Bob Hodus uses Focal in his recording studio and at an Audio Show he treated the entire wall - it was one of the best sounds at that show and the best by far that I have ever heard Focal sound. He also raised the speakers 2-3 inches higher than recommended and that too likely made a big difference. These solutions are generally cheap to try so do that before you buy new speakers - as the new speakers may also have issues in the room.
If all this fails - then look for speakers. They all have compromises - it's finding the ones with the set of compromises you can live with.
One speaker I like in around $2k is the Audio Note AZ three floorstander. Silk dome with a hemp woofer and plenty of bass and sensitivity, so it opens lots of low powered tube amp options. Downside is that it's not a looker and needs to be placed in corners or right up virtually touching a back wall.
I am not generally a fan of speakers with 2-3 6 inch(ish) drivers stacked up in a narrow cabinet. Generally this is for looks with a lot of babble to try and sell their sonic merit but they almost always sound artificial.
If that style and finish are critical to you then I was pleased by a brand called Usher and recently Rosso Fiorentino - indeed, the latter was in the same room as Reference 3a and to my surprise I much preferred the Rosso Fiorentino speakers. The Certaldo I liked more than the Veena and I believe the Rosso speakers are less money. But I am not 100% on that because the fellow didn't have much English.
Just some under the radar selections but to me this is all a last resort if you can't get the Focals right.
Edits: 01/01/15
Some room treatment to limit reflectivity or tone controls. Sounds like you like the speakers. Or try a different cartridge.
Edits: 01/01/15
"Should I consider the used market or is it too risky? I would appreciate any advice. Thank you."
The best value is in used gear. My speakers are 50 years old and FWIW I basically bought them on written reputation alone.
I pounced on them when they came up for sale.
Although the seller did play them for me, they were not in the optimal enclosure etc.
I was primarily concerned with condition, they let me open the back for a peek.
If you were just wanting individual drivers, then yes it may make sense to buy them new and build the rest etc.
Also the nice thing about used speakers, if you buy them right you can usually unload them pretty easy for what you paid.
New speakers depreciate a tremendous amount, so I consider them a riskier purchase unless you have the opportunity to try them in situ.
...buying anything without auditioning - could possible land you what you are looking for. But, highly unlikely.
“Somebody was always controlling who got a chance and who didn’t. - Charles Bukowski
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: