|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.124.18.126
I attended on Sunday from about 11 AM to 5PM. I likely heard perhaps 1/3rd of the rooms, and even then didn't have a strong impression of many.
I'm really only going to review speakers, as I assume that at such a show, all demonstrated electronics are well able to drive systems more than adequately and have good enough intrinsic
fidelity.
Let me get some whinging preliminary rants out of the way.
The music:
Yeah, it's mostly jazz music and too similar. But I don't mind jazz as much as some other people, but I want good, interesting jazz, and I didn't hear as much of that. I also think that small instrument ensembles of the sort typically played are really bad to distinguish audio systems. The acoustically simple music hides many flaws, except possibly really obvious (10db+) mid-bass resonances. Way too much of that 'slow breathy female vocalist + bass guitar + languid drum kit', crap. Unless you know the person's voice live, you don't know what
she's really supposed to sound like. (Alan Shaw, principal scientist of Harbeth uses recordings
of his wife's voice to calibrate)
I'm a classical fan myself, and in particular, I like using classical as there is an absolute
acoustical reference point that I think I can recognize reasonably easily---certain flaws in
critical tonality become immediately apparent (like within a few seconds) with classical recordings,
in particular mid ranges of violins, which could be masked easily with the you-know-what-kind-of-recordings
they play. I feel that large-scale diversified orchestral presents the greatest challenge to realism
and reproduction, and fortunately there has been no classical 'loudness war'.
In my opinion, the best single test is a modern (after 1990) recording of large orchestra playing something complex: e.g. Mahler or Stravinsky. And to be truthful, no recording and 2-ch playback really will get you to the experience of being in Row 4 in front of the Vienna Philharmonic at full tilt. Chamber music reproduction can come pretty damn close though.
Unfortunately I had no opportunity to ever use the music on my USB stick that I brought, and frequently
the classical selection was limited---and much of the time the only thing was some particularly annoying
Rimsky-Korsakov, I think I heard it 4 times?
Weird audiophile fetishes (aka stuff I don't like):
There are certain popular audio fetishes which attract substantial and dedicated fans, and I just plain don't get them, or I think they're nuts.
So, getting started with the gratuitous insults....
* Most overt horn, and single driver speakers. Just....no. I'm not prejudiced, I'm postjudiced. They just sound distinctly inferior, colored, distant, or unclear compared to many other well designed speakers I heard. And I'm not an orthodox zealot on speaker engineering approaches: I like the omni MBL's, and many planars quite a bit.
At least these designs were a minority there, and after a few examples I just stopped going into those rooms.
* Phonograph recordings, aka "vinyl". Unlike horns, "vinyl" "spinners" were everywhere. Reverently fed and lovingly worshipped.
Aannd, with only a few exceptions, coming up was obvious high noise level, congestion, and popclickpoppop, and not infrequently, just lousy tonality. With bigger differences in quality between digital and LP playback than many speakers.
It's just a big WTF for me. Either it was OK but nothing amazing, or substantially worse than digital.
I know I know---for pop and other genres there could be a good reasons as the digital versions might be dynamically smashed at the master where the LP recording (must not utter v-word!) wasnt.
But for classical, I heard NO advantage, and plenty of disadvantage. Wasn't different from what I remember about LP with my dad in 1983.
This is the second time I've been to this show. My first impression last year (I had never heard high-end LP playback before) was the same. Confirmed again. I've ruled out "vinyl" in my future.
The few reel-to-reel playback systems sounded perfectly good however.
I won't mention anyhing more about a typical cable rant (overpriced placebo) or tube electronics (unlike horns & vinyl, these can sound quite nice and fully competitive acoustically, but I just don't want to deal with the expense, efficiency, and reliability challenges)
Now on to very subjective and imperfect and music-dependent impressions.
Followed by highly subjective "cum laude", "magna cum laude", and "summa cum laude" sections.
---------------------------------------------------------
General observations.
Contrary to what many people report, I heard quite a bit of good systems, and good mostly sounds similar, not surprisngly.
Lots of 2-way standmounted speakers as usual. And pretty much all well designed ones sounded about the same to me. Some were a bit brighter, and others a bit fuller, but I'm not sure I could make enormous distinctions between them.
I won't report electronics because I don't remember any of it and don't care.
Thrax: playing a super crackly record. Generally decent tone but don't remember much else.
Morosonic: big square thing with a horn in the gullet. honky, nasal, distant, no.
Acoustic Zen: two rooms, one with big ones, one with huge ones. Decent overall, dynamical,
but not fully transparent to my ears. Got to play Mahler 2 on the monsters at the end of the day.
Harbeth 40.2: big, warm, steak and a cabernet (cabinet?) sound. As svelte as George Foreman.
Voxativ: single driver, no
Raidho: good pulse and clarity. Expensive.
Perfect 8: open baffle, made from glass. Expensive as sin!
Evoke Eddie speakers: three way large standmount, with planar magnetic mid, and ribbon tweet.
Didn't like the veneer. Sound---I had high expectations. Engineering seemed solid, PhD
designer was present. But I heard a bit too much forward and sibilant character, but I think
this could have easily been the pop recordings being played. reserve judgement to later.
Axis voicebox: small standmount 2-way with ribbon tweeter.
Roksan something: small standmount 2-way with ribbon tweeter.
Gamut: medium standmount 2-way with a not-ribbon tweeter. Had a 'grill' which was more symbolic than real.
Spendor: medium standmount ?-way with a ? tweeter. Had a conventional grill. Bit warmer than the others.
Big Wilson something in big room playing rock: sounds like it would be great with rock.
Odyssey: their own speakers, orignally a 3-driver but owner said that the additional woofer
was overloading the (very small) room. Can get package with their own amplifiers, seems like
very high value. But for classical, on goes a LP which I think had terrible tonality,
couldn't judge speakers, assuming the recording was the problem.
Revel Concerta (?): nice tonal balance as usual, but not quite transparent as I like.
Revel Performa (smaller one): just a tad too light tonality. (I have high standards for Revels, and
they perhaps should be in my next category up.)
Analysis Audio: their top of the line planar. Being a ribbon maggie owner I've always wondered about
these. Pretty good, but given the price, $22K, not as special as I'd need to justify.
They had better deep bass, but I think the midrange is better on the maggies.
Emerald Physics: large open dipole. Seems promising, as I like planars, right? As soon
as classical went on, immediately & obviously sounded wrong. Violins were constrained and distant,
to a degree not present with many other products. Disappointing.
Salk: actually pretty good but playing such simple music (usual stuff) I couldn't really judge them.
Fantastic looks, and price was much lower than the typical. Upside potential.
Kii: self-powered large, deep standmounts. Apparently very high tech---very clear and crisp, a bit
too sharp and cold tonal balance for me.
Cum Laude:
A ginormous Wilson thing which looks like some kind of Imperial Enforcer Droid. No doubt frightfully expensive.
Playing just a single piano recording. The recording engineer was in the room; it was
a live recording of Emanuel Ax playing Beethoven Piano Sonata Op 31. The performance was
magnificent and I was lost in the genius artistry and composition, and loved the change after
too much uninteresting jazz. Sound was perfectly good, and full sized, but I doubt it
did something substantially better that my 3-series Maggies couldn't do for < 10% of the cost.
No doubt on something else requiring bass & SPL, these things would be awesome, at least in Raw Power.
Larsen -- gets points for an engineering solution for an interesting problem. You can put them
directly, flush against the wall. Have some hidden drivers and are engineered with wall interaction
in mind. Unique product in market and sounded quite good.
KEF Reference + Wyred 4 sound: only got a short hear of these, and not with my sort of music,
but my immediate impression was that they sounded tonally 'flat/right'. The room was sponsored
by Wyred4Sound and they were selling electronics, not speakers. They have a new blingy power amp.
Angel City Acoustics: Made in Los Angeles. Proprietor was a Chinese gentleman. 4-driver floor
standers---I think called "Seraphim". Sounds good.
Magna Cum Laude:
Revel Ultima2 Studios. As I expected, high performance, clarity and correct tonality. Tim Duncan
of audio--just performs day in and day out.
Kyron Dipoles: really nice warm and enveloping & clear---warmer than most. Astonishingly expensive
total system with huge amps & boxes @ $112K.
Summa Cum Laude---value for money:
#2: Magnepan MMG. Playing in a three-channel stereo, with #3 synthesized by a Bryston something or other.
Very clear, and $600?
#1: You picked it already. Elac UB5. $500 a pair? Insane. Sounded spectacular at that price.
Super crowded room with Mr Jones talking. I'm not sure I could easily distinguish this from
any of the other small standmounts anywhere in the show regardless of price.
Look you could take a UB5, pair it with a good sealed sub with appropriate bass management, and
99% of the world would be DONE with audio upgrading.
Summa Cum Laude--absolute sound
Missing: Revel Ultima 2 Salon. Didn't get to hear, but my memory of last year would put it here.
#2T: MBL 101. Big fat omni, tons of depth, texture, total clarity, great for a large space.
Looks like some kind of Protoss pylon. Costs as much too.
#2T: The absolute sleeper. PTE Technologies Phoenix SG self-powered speakers. Wow! This was
a small room in a terrible location out of the main flow. Company is obviously run by
engineers---marketing material and website is awkward but informative.
Very large 3-driver heavy, self-powered standmounts.
Great, full sound, can go to high volumes. Very inviting tonality.
They deserve much more attention! One of the men of the room asked me if
there was something I didn't like about the sound (first one to do so), and I
think I heard just a bit of a low bass resonance, which is very likely due to
the small and square room.
#1: Sanders. Electrostatics + transmission line bass. Got to hear a number of orchestral selections.
If you're in the (narrow) sweet spot? Stunning!!
Full clarity on the most complex music, close to true live orchestra, from lowest to highest
frequencies, unbroken, and at substantial level.
Buy the whole system for $22K (speakers, dsp, and 2 of their monster amps), and you're fucking
DONE with 2-channel if you can abide by the placement requirements.
Sanders or Bust!
Follow Ups:
Didn't find them coherent. Everytime I heard bass I stared down at the bottom driver which seemed a blip behind.
"I'm really only going to review speakers, as I assume that at such a show, all demonstrated electronics are well able to drive systems more than adequately and have good enough intrinsic
fidelity."
This was your first BIG mistake...major. It is just about impossible to make a worse assumption. You can night and day a system with the electronics...the speaker is in a lot of ways far less important.
"In my opinion, the best single test is a modern (after 1990) recording of large orchestra playing something complex: e.g. Mahler or Stravinsky. And to be truthful, no recording and 2-ch playback really will get you to the experience of being in Row 4 in front of the Vienna Philharmonic at full tilt. Chamber music reproduction can come pretty damn close though."
Exactly so why then say that this is the best test recording for a HIFI system? It is not because as you rightly said no system can really do a big complex orchestra truly correctly...at least not any I have heard. I have heard and owned some systems that could do smaller stuff quite correctly.
"* Most overt horn, and single driver speakers. Just....no. I'm not prejudiced, I'm postjudiced. They just sound distinctly inferior, colored, distant, or unclear compared to many other well designed speakers I heard. And I'm not an orthodox zealot on speaker engineering approaches: I like the omni MBL's, and many planars quite a bit."
There are some horns that are extremely realistic sounding...more so than just about anything else... but many more are less so. I was and still am a planar guy (had lots of stats and ribbons over the years) but the most realistic sound I have heard is from horns and now I own horns as well but I chose very carefully as they had to lack the colorations you are describing (seeing as I came from the planar world).
I think one has to hear horns on SET 's to really appreciate them , I have heard many highly rated ones sound like poo poo , yet on a good SET , they are world class , especially on small ensembles and single acoustic instruments ...
On SS and other tubes types there is better to be had ....
I have heard some great horn speakers at shows in the last few years and the best of these (OMA Mini and Volti Audio Speakers) did not sound colored at all...but rather astonishingly realistic and tonally correct...eerily so...they sounded virtually holographic.
I would not write off all horns too soon.
I do love the Sanders speakers, but every time I see them, they seem to be using the same Tascam digital recorder as source, with only select music they put on their media, through the digital EQ. It's difficult to judge how they would sound with other music of varying quality and other electronics..
Edits: 06/11/16 06/11/16 06/11/16 06/11/16 06/11/16
I grow weary of the rooms that have preselected music at preselected volume. Sanders and Magnepan both pulled this stuff at the last US show I attended. The dealer I go to that carries Magnepan noted that they like to control the content and the volume for Magnepan as well.
Put Noisia "Split the Atom" on either one and they will stink it up. And let's face it - if it can't do this properly it can't do Beethoven's 9th properly either.
But these sorts of speakers look cool so I get the appeal.
best sound at that show was German physiks and MBL
Analog blew the digital out of the water- no contest
If you add up the prices posted by my count $165K - and think I'd use that money toward an Audi R8 V10 - seriously!
I didnt get to hear German Physiks, they were packing up by the time I arrived. Something I wish I had the chance. Prices seem very high--if they cost as much as Magnepans I would be all over them.When you say analog, do you mean magnetic tape or phonograph? I thought the tape was fine, but didnt feel blown away by LP at all.
Edits: 06/10/16
the best front end I heard was in the Karma roomhigh end turntable - forget brand- playing record "Something Else"
just a magic moment for me at the show
also Prince "pop life" on the MBL room - goosebumps you are there type feeling - best I will ever hear Prince again
but the German Physiks were just off the chart good even vs the MBL
Edits: 06/10/16 06/10/16
side note - stax 009 with blue Hawaiian amp was stunning
Edits: 06/10/16
Nt
Enjyed the report.
Many of the speakers were not at Axpona which I attended. Some I did hear we agree on. I liked the Sanders & MBL a lot. The Thrax, Lyra, was an amazing stand mount and I think if you had a better demo you would enjoy them. I also like the Revel Ultima models, I liked the Performa 2 but not overly excited on the Performa 3. Indeed, the Elac was crazy good for the price.
Just curious if you've heard the JBL Synthesis, and, if so, do you apply the same horn criticism? We could disagree here, LOL
Oh, Emerald Physics I heard, I really liked the technology but I did hear a medrange abnormality. I noticed it on a familiar vocal. I heard it as I was walking out though and attributed it to being off axis or room issue. Now, I have to believe my ears.
| Just curious if you've heard the JBL Synthesis, and, if so, do you apply the same horn criticism? We could disagree here, LOL
Not this time, but I remember just a little bit from the previous year.
And I would 100% not apply the criticism to JBL waveguides. Given what I know of their seriousness in such matters I bet it would be awesome and awesomely expensive.
As a physicist, the notion of horns is appealing, increasing the acoustic coupling from driver to air ('impedance matching') but I think it is more difficult to implement and may require some serious scientific testing & understanding to do it very well.
and generally not a fan of horn designs either, here is one design that I think has the best potential. Danley horns employ all drivers radiating from a single "mouth" using controlled directivity. Naturally, that allows for using arrays of their synergy horn products (of which there are many).
Danley Sound Labs SH50
and I love the attention to acoustics... Place your woofers and midranges in an enclosed cavity and have the sound radiate out a relatively small "port hole" in the side of the horn? How can that sound good?!? Acoustics! and Tom looking
It is all about coherent waveform propagation.
As a full range electrostatic planar owner you know that...
"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat" - Confucius
I agree, I would count that one along with JBL as high potential
Many of the Synthesis are in the Studio 2 price range or less, then, of course, you have the Everest that do reach up there a bit.
JBL usually brings K2s and Everests to shows. Both really are horn speakers using compression drivers.
I agree on using classical. Nothing like a large scale orchestra recording to cover the full gamut. I also agree about analog LP's. I just don't get the popularity. I grew up with them, and at that time, that was all we had. However, a well recorded CD will crush any LP (OK, let the flames begin).
Nice report.
A point on classical music and shows. I agree completely that well recorded large scale classical music is the best sort of music to shake down and evaluate a system. This is what I use for critical evaluation.
Unfortunately many audiophiles do not care for classical music. I joke that the quickest way to clear out your room at a show is to start playing classically music.
We always bring classical music to shows but rarely is it requested. We try to get in a few cuts during the day. It is hard to get folks to sit and listen for 10+ minutes to a given selection.
I find it hard to engage with music in the European orchestral tradition so it would be difficult for me to use it as a tool of measurement. Would using soundtracks with orchestras be just as good? Many have the same dynamic range.
> Would using soundtracks with orchestras be just as good? Many have the same dynamic range.
Yes, they would be excellent. Most of them are also music in the European orchestral tradition. John Williams is the greatest orchestrator since Maurice Ravel and is extraordinarily versatile, channeling among many the late 19th through 20th century styles of Holst, Dukas, Stravinsky, etc well through Ligeti.
I liked him better when he was Johnny Williams, he was a lot hipper then. I will include his later stuff next time I need to do an evaluation.
Thanks.
It makes me think of Bud Fried(IMF and Fried speakers. The only thing you would hear in his demos was classical. He didn't consider anything else real music. When I visited him and brought folk music, I recall him calling it tinkle music.
"Tinkle" music? I guess sometimes it can make you do that.
There is no beer in food, but there is food in beer.
of anything not classical was typical of him.i considered him a stuffed shirt genius. sat MANY hours in front of IMF Monitor IIIs improved and IMF RSPM IVs PLUS my veberable Model RIIs that i am listening to these days.
i have most of his newsletters and realize that he brought many goodies from over in England and such and have the utmost respect for him in that realm.
the RIIs continue to amaze me, limited low end and all. they respond well ti a small twist of the bass knob on the ARC SP3a1. still detailed and equipped with slam.
a word about the ELACs that were played, the room was too small (acknowledged by Andrew) and bassy and anybody that heard them COULD have gotten the wrong impression.
...regards...tr
You kind of get Bud. I understood his pluses and minuses but overall he was a lot of fun and source of lots of good info. Interesting your use of the RII. It's a really old design and a great improvement over the original R mainly from the new crossover KEF designed for Bud.
the RIIS were quite fast and faster than the venerable MIIIs imp. and the tight but fairly extended RIIIs image a bit better than said larger speakers.
i was dubious about waking up the Rs but thought better of that after a while of listening.
...regards...tr
I like just about everything. Classical is probably 30% of what I listen to.
I feel sorry for those that have such narrow tastes in music. There is great stuff to be found in every genre.
i might like a fraction of other genres of music (5 pct of pop, 2 pct of hip hop, 15 pct of 'alternative' and 20 percent of jazz), but i dont have enough time or mind to go through the filtering and learning what i like vs liking 65 pct of classical. And i am lucky enough to enjoy a genre where loudness war in mastering is null to small.
That wasn't the point, just that the comments made me think of Bud, one of the interesting figures in audio over many decades. And I will ad that testing without tons of classical music is for me highly flawed.
With all rock and almost all pop the sound has been so massaged and mangled that who could trust what they hear to be anything like true reproduction of instruments?
Agreed. The typical studio multi-mic, panned mono recording is not that useful for critical evaluation. Minimalist mic classical or jazz tells us what we need to know.
Pop/rock is great music and can sound wonderful in many cases. Still not much of a benchmark for determining system performance.
Large scale classical is the most demanding type of music in terms of harmonics, acoustics, dynamics. If a system sounds/performs well with large scale classical it will sound great with anything else.
But if many audiophiles don't care for classical no need to beat a dead horse and force them to listen at shows.
I agree with most of the above, and I particularly recall Gordon Holt advocating recordings of live, unamplified music for assessing equipment. I have had useful symphonies, lieder, and especially string quartets for the purpose. Not necessarily always the greatest performances of the greatest pieces, but always records or tapes with which I was very familiar so as to quickly hear differences. Comparison of sonic personalities with technical measurements has always been a matter of interest to me.
Content preferences for music- (as opposed to equipment-) listening are matters of taste, not subject to any measurement I know of.
Jeremy
I'm with you on the MMMGs - they are unbeatable for the price.
And one of these days I might get to hear the Sanders.
Nice summary. I heard most everything but didn't keep notes. Agreed on the Sanders Sound, which always performs well at THE Show. The ELAC room was crowded when I was there but even from the door it sounded nice (and I was sure the sub was on but, apparently, not).
I've never liked the MBLs and found them a bit 'shouty' but I've never heard them played with the usual audiophile muzak (kudos to MBL for that). The Kyrons are impressive but, to me, not warm. A bit incessant for me.
As a counterpoint to you, I am more interested in electronics and less in speakers!
Regards
13DoW
I don't get these speakers. Kyron were showing the Gaia at the Sydney hi-fi show 2012 and a lot of people thought it was the best of show. To me, they had a forward presentation projecting the singer out in the room at the expense of limited soundstage width and depth. I also thought the treble was a bit spitty and unrefined, and overall transparency was just average. IMO, Linkwitz is getting much better sound out of the same design concept for a lot less money.
The Kyron model they were showing wasnt the Gaia, but Kronos.
I heard warm enveloping dipole midbass, more than most others. But ive never heard a Linkwitz design, and I really respect him and agree with his design principles.
Could you see from where you were what amp was driving the UB5 ?
Cheers
Bill
nt
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: