|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.208.188
In Reply to: RE: New Reference 3A Monitor... posted by RGA on July 29, 2016 at 13:27:26
It has two desirable features for my sensibilities:
1. Runs woofer full range with no inductor or other crossover parts.
2. Tweeter uses but a single cap for high pass duty.
For $12k, you can almost get an M-3PX. :)
Follow Ups:
But like anything a simple crossover is a trade off. A more complex crossover can be done well if you really know what you're doing. Then again I really think the best way to do a multi way speaker is as an active syste.
But I'll add that a floor stander 3A was one of a few speakers I've heard that I liked a lot and could live with because at times it almost sounded alive rather than like a wonderful recording.
Been there, done that. I owned Wilson Benesch Vertex, previously auditioned and nearly purchased the original Ref 3A De Capo i, and I've tried to get into the Totem Element speakers too.
The number one problem they all have is an uncompensated baffle step response, which guarantees a non-neutral rising response right in the critical midrange frequencies. In the De Capo i and Element Fire, it gives them a prominent shouty/hooty coloration to my ears. In the Vertex, it was more of a thinness or hole in the lower midrange. The other problem they typically have is in the crossover region. The De Capo i sounded a little rough and unrefined in the presence region. Whereas the Element Fire and Vertex, because of their higher crossover point, just seem to have an excess of lower treble due to overlap.
I do miss the amazing transient response I heard with the Vertex, and the better than average dynamics for their size. But I was always messing around with toe-in trying to fix the treble balance, and in the end I couldn't live with the lack of neutrality in the midrange anymore.
Ref 3A and Wilson Benesch have 3-way models which seem to suffer less from the baffle step issue, but I still find a small 2-way with "normal" crossover to be more coherent.
I don't really like to make many assumptions based purely on the design since with every speaker they come with strengths and weaknesses. I have heard pretty much every Reference 3A speaker that has come out since about 1997. I have heard many of the new ones here in Hong Kong with the BE tweeters. I like the new ones a lot less since they moved to BE tweeters. Other speakers in the same room with $30,000+ MSB gear sounded better - RossoFiorintino and Harbeth (in a similar room with the same MSB gear). Same equipment but both lines to me sounded better.The crossoverless approach is fine but would that not rely more heavily on the sonic signature of the drivers? Reference 3a was designed by Daniel Dehay and they had a silk dome mated to a softer woofer material and the hand off was mostly seamless with a sort of BBC depression if I recall. Nevertheless it sounded warm and inviting. The new designers have opted for the BE tweeter - and now it sounds all attack and leading edge and rather tiring. The dealer in Hong Kong directed me to RossoFiorintino speakers instead (also a metal tweeter) but sounded largely correct. I think some outfits are just slapping in technically advanced drivers because "Hey - BE is sexier than a silk dome" and it will sell because on paper perhaps it looks better. To me the speaker has lost that certain something character that it had under Dehay.
I heard a small floorstander but the dealer blew the woofer in my audition, so I could not get much of a read on how it sounded.
Edits: 07/31/16
There is definitely a quite long break in period required for the BE tweeter on this speaker and seemingly all Ref 3a products as they all use the BE tweeter. I had issues during the audition but figured it was break-in related which proved all too true. YMMV but I would ask if you've heard a Ref 3a product with BE properly broken in outside a dealer showroom and in a home environment? It is quite a lengthy process.Just bringing it up because I've seen you make numerous negative comments about the BE of Ref 3a products and metal tweeters in general which I too would generally agreed with in my experience. I think Tash nailed it here as I find it extremely well implemented and a dramatic improvement over a pair of L'Integrals with the soft dome tweeter I am quite familiar with. The Decapo demonstrates no brightness with a superb sense of transparency, clarity and soundstaging with no edginess. I have a friend with the Taksim, again a long break-in which I suspect is still going on but it IS improving, more relaxed as time goes on paralleling my experience with the Decapo.
Edits: 08/03/16
You nailed it Tubegroover. I had the same results when I upgraded my Ref3a Master Control MMCs. Once broken in, the result was a very significant improvement over the Vifa softdome that was originally used (interestingly, the L'Integrale and La Veritas, both of which I also owned, used the same Vifa tweeter). I also upgraded the tweeters in my L'integrales but to a better softdome from Seas. That too was a big improvement but not nearly as good as the Be tweeter upgrade. Resolution was across the board improved without any metallic hardness.
I would have eventually upgraded my L'integrales as well if I hadn't found a super deal on my Odeon horns.
I also found the integration to be quite good and the time coherence of the speakers gave better overall coherence than most other two-ways.
I don't really have issues with metal tweeters. I have issues with their lack of integration with drivers that have sonic signatures that don't sound anything like metal tweeters. At some crossover point both the woofer and the tweeter are reproducing the exact same notes at the exact same time and two very dissimilar sounding drivers can be heard battling each other in my opinion. It's why so many people like single drivers and electrostats. Two way speakers (and three+ways) fail to varying degrees to sound cohesive enough. Truthfully, none of the Reference 3a speakers even under Dehay were the best at this IME which is why in direct comparisons in the same room with the same gear - I wound up with speakers that sounded a lot more neutral and cohesive in the midrange.
The issue isn't break in or room related. It is simply a preference. It's similar to my KEF LS-50 which has a metallic aftertaste in the presentation. Even though the measurements are superb and Stereophile hails them as one of the best standmounts ever made - they reside firmly in 4th place of the speakers I own. One of which is 1/3 less money.
I have the Reference 3a Grand Veenas and I concur with your assessment.
Oz
Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill
Then again I really think the best way to do a multi way speaker is as an active syste.
How much more would that small monitor cost given the added complexity - need for multiple amplifiers, additional cabling, etc.?
not as much as you'd think since the speaker contains the amps and the interface of amp/driver is superior without the passive crossover which is also more costly than the active installation.
not as much as you'd think since the speaker contains the amps
Contains the amps? Been there done that. Never again. I thought you were talking about external amps.
...without the passive crossover which is also more costly than the active installation.
Sorry, but that makes no sense at all.
Good passive crossover parts are getting very costly. Equalizing an amp uses much smaller parts.
By the way, given the choice I'd prefer the amps even on an active speaker to be external for microphonics, etc. But most active speakers, like the excellent ATCs, put the amps on the back of the speaker.
Good passive crossover parts are getting very costly.
For which the sum total for the speaker discussed is the part.
But most active speakers, like the excellent ATCs, put the amps on the back of the speaker.
Let's see. 350 Watts of AB power in 17 lbs plus the weight of a crossover board? Pass!
It's always compromises but even on the back of the speaker a well designed active speaker is ultimately superior to a passive crossover speaker and to even come close you'd need one of the uber costly mega amps. The reactive load of a crossover is a real job at minimum for an amplifier.
... a well designed active speaker is ultimately superior to a passive crossover speaker
Many will disagree. You're welcome to that opinion.
The reactive load of a crossover is a real job at minimum for an amplifier.
Which I why I don't buy weakling power amps. :)
Agree , never heard a full active speaker to beat a passive setup , best is a hybrid combination of passive /active, passive is best thru the midrange/high area ..
Agree , never heard a full active speaker to beat a passive setup...
Just don't liked getting fenced in with compromised "plate amps" built in the speaker cabinet for anything beyond sub duty.
The first system to completely recalibrate my point of reference as to how good an audio system could sound (circa '74) was tri-amped Tympani IIIs using an Audio Research active crossover, ARC amps for top and mids and Crown DC-300a for the bass. I think with that system, you could not have duplicated the results using a single amp and passive crossover.
As you indicate, however, I just don't see the need for the added complexity of additional (external) amps in a top end three way system. As for me, I think the folks at Nola and Scaena do a fine job of making the crossover disappear. Neither Dave Wilson nor Alon Wolf buys the active concept either.
...best is a hybrid combination of passive /active, passive is best thru the midrange/high area
Agree in many cases. In my decidedly lower performance level HT system, however, I do enjoy using an "active" arrangement - Acoustat 1+1s high passed at 80 hz supplemented by a pair of powered subs. The mains never sound strained even if high levels push the subs a bit.
we as an audio community spend a LOTTTTT of cash on amps, integrated amps, etc.... As well as LONG arguments of tubes vs SS, design preferences, Brands we like and hate, etc....
All this to do what - drive some speakers.
So am I to believe that all this can be replaced with what is basically a watered down version of the bulk of our hobby! ????
Should I sell all my gear and my a Keiger plate amp?
Well, there certainly is a practical side to that approach that I'm sure appeals to the pro industry.
Why care if the amps exhibit compromised capability so long as the speakers can play at high levels, right?
My priorities, however, are different.
I'm sure in some application loud is the goal. Like in a concert audio system. Why carry 100 amplifiers when you could just have them packed inside a speaker cabinet.
Why carry 100 amplifiers when you could just have them packed inside a speaker cabinet.
There's no debating the practicality here. Once Harman owned both JBL and Crown, you find a lot of integration between the two products.
Concert sound systems are nothing like the old days when they had to lug around a 100 guitar amplifiers and a truck load of tubes.
Now a few dozen speakers, a mixing board and a crate of cabling and you're off to the show.
Did you ever read about the Grateful Deads wall of sound. At one point I think they used 300 McIntosh MC2500 power amplifiers and 600 JBL speakers at 75 tons. Now THAT'S how to use a Mac.
My brush with fame story: for some reason I was emailing Phil Leash of the Dead. turns out the guy was a Mac freak and I was selling a rare piece (eventually was sold to a guy in France).
We got emailing and he was telling me how they used separate (but several) amplifiers on each string pickup on his bass guitars. That setup with amps and speakers was heavier than my car.
We emailed for a few weeks. I think because I wasn't a Dead head and wasn't particularly interested in pestering him. But he was a big Mac fan and I was helping him repair a MC5200 (??) at the time.
They originally used MC3500's , then the switch to SS with the MC2300 and it was a disaster, John Curl was involved with them at that time ..
Edits: 07/31/16
I have the older Grand Veenas with the Murata Supertweeter. I far, far prefer no crossover. Crossovers are designed to overcome speaker deficiencies which well designed ones can do. Their next problem is to "do no harm" which is very, very difficult to do. My speaker's only requirement is that I provide a high quality amp to push the midrange and tweeter directly which my Quicksilver 88s do superbly.
Edits: 07/31/16
IMO, Multi-way speakers with an Xover is vastly superior to any one single piston dynamic driver , the shortcomings and increased distortion you described is what you are really listening to with that wide open driver, not the other way around , only a large surface area full range ESL could support HI-Fi without an xover ..2driver Speakers with a Dome tweeter is not xoverless
Edits: 07/31/16
If you are implying that the GV has increased distortion, I would sincerely ask if you have heard this speaker?
I have owned a lot, and I mean a lot, of speakers over the years. The Grand Veena stands at or near the top of that list.
Oz
Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill
It has plenty xover ....
"Inside the Grand Veena
A veena (in case you've been wondering) is a musical instrument from southern India that looks like the offspring of a lute and a sitar. The Grand Veena is Reference 3A's latest venture into the market of speakers of near to full frequency range. With two 8" woofers covering the bass, a 6.5" midrange/midbass driver, a dome tweeter, and a ceramic high-frequency exciter/supertweeter operating above 20kHz (more about this later), R3A's intention for the Grand Veena is to leave no frequency uncovered, even those usually considered inaudible. With a rated sensitivity of 90dB and a resistance of 5 ohms (+0.5 ohm), the speaker is compatible with most amplifiers.
The midrange/midbass driver is the Grand Veena's heart. It functions unfettered by electronic crossovers or capacitors, which makes it extremely sensitive and responsive to musical information. Its operation is regulated only by the sealed enclosure, which starts rolling it off with a mechanical first-order, high-pass crossover at about 94Hz; its low-pass mechanical fadeout starts at around 3kHz. Cone breakup is minimized through the use of such materials as carbon fiber and an intrinsically rigid "hyperexponential" shape (like the bell of a trumpet), which also helps it achieve its goal of maintaining phase accuracy across its frequency range. That goal is aided, too, by an unusual blunt-ended phase plug in the middle of the driver."
Never implied nor were my comments directed at the GV, my comments where about xoverless dynamic speakers in general.
Ok, good enough.....{-:
Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill
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: