|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
My room is 13x12x8.
I hear you saying for a room that small go for a mini-monitor.
Been there done that - I want a 3-way floorstander.
Please help folks who have 3-ways in their small rooms!
Any particular models? Please give your room size and comments on the bass handling, any problems etc.Thanks
olpot---- attachment ----
For those curious where I am coming from, read my reasoning for a 3-way floorstander below.
IMHO, most 2-way floorstanders are in fact stretched monitors in the same model line, so a floorstander would have more woodwork (you have to pay for), but a cavity at the bottom (to be sand/shot filled), in place of a corresponding monitors's stand.
But its drivers still have to work two-way, anyhow.
So you paying more for the convienience of not having to pay for a stand, more than for the real sonic benefits :)I've got two major complaints for the mini-monitor speakers.
One is a necessity of a good stand, which is a major hassle and in most cases a rip-off (just take branded stands from B&W, Sonus Faber, JMR etc as examples).
The other - which is a main one - is a mid-woofer compromise.
With minor exceptions most mini-monitors are 2-way, so their second driver has to serve both bass and midrange.
Based on my experience, this compromise usually has a detrimental effect on the lower end of the spectrum.
Even though most good 2-way speakers seem to have sorted their midrange well and most of them even beat analogous floorstanders (due to smaller box size and its induced colorations), bass in a 2-way speaker typically becomes a poor cousin.
I am yet to hear a stand-mount speaker with a clean and undistorted mid-to-upper bass and full-sounding at the same time (lower bass is supposed to be absent by definition).
That's where most of them sound muddy in comparison to a 3-way which have a crossover at 200-400 (typically) and a dedicated woofer.
I know, one more crossover brings its own problems, but somehow to my ears well-designed floorstanders sound much cleaner, 'unboxy', 'bigger' and 'unrestrained' than 2-way monitors.On the other hand, 2-way monitors usually belong to one of three different camps in regards to their bass handling.
Category #1. This one I would (conditionally) call a 'studio monitor' (in my sense of this word, others might have a different interpretation of this [overloaded] term).
These supposed to be accurate by all possible means and are not supposed to fool a listener by any sort of tricks.
Those normally have 'flat' output and do not try to extend bass below theoretical limits (for a given box size).
So, they would go down to 50Hz or so and steeply roll off below that.
To my ears those sound sometimes thin, sometimes small (as they, in fact, are) or both.
But many people like them for their tonal accuracy and ultimate care about the precious music signal which they do not try to affect in any way. WYHIWYG (what you hear is what you got).
The absense of deep bass can be solved with a sub, but the thinness is harder to fix.Category#2 - 'british mini-monitor' with a hump in mid/upper-bass to create a perception of presense.
Even though they sound more full then aforementioned 'studio monitors', they don't have true bass extension.
This results in robbing the music of some important content which is missing from reproduced sound.
So, no pipe organ or wall-shaking timpani on this type of speakers.
Piano also sounds smaller than it is.
People love these for their intimacy, nice voice band and holographic soundstage and for the fact that they allow one to skimp on a sub (if you are not an organ or synth freak but rather a jazz or chamber fan).
But adding a sub normally fills a missing deep bass gap.
Integration with a sub could become a problem though - especially if a main driver gets all 100% of signal with no high-pass filter.
For this reason - hassle of integration, necessity of a HP filter etc - I don't wanna go this path.
And in all systems that I heard so far, such a combination of a small monitor with a sub still does not yield that 'big' sound that 3-way floorstander is capable of, even in a small room.At last, Category#3 - 'muscular monitor'. Good example - Dynaudio 1.3SE, JMR Offrande etc.
These babies go down to a typical mid-size floorstander's limit of 30-40Hz or so.
The way they do it - using very sophisticated design solutions and expensive cabinets etc to squeeze that last ounce of bass out of what still remains a small box. As a result they are capable of working in big rooms - by all their capabilities.
In fact, nothing unites them with a typical monitor of the above two categories apart from a small cabinet size.
I've got a problem with these - they don't seem to work well in small rooms.
Somehow a small room seems to exacerbate those compromises of squeezing a 30Hz bass out of a shoebox size cabinet.
I guess all of these speakers produce much of their lower bass output with their vented ports (or transmission lines which is almost the same in this context), whereas a floorstander does it by means of a dedicated woofer's (typically of much bigger size) cone.
To my ears those puffs of air being fired out by the port do not sound as good as a woofer's cone at work.
Plus in small rooms ports seem to interact with room acoustics to bigger extent than woofers do (is it true or I just have imagined this)?
Even in a bigger room bass from a 'muscular' ported 2-way sounds more 'thumpy' as opposed to it being 'punchy' coming out of a 3-way floorstander.
Only finest (and very expensive) 'muscular' mini-monitors seem to address this problem rather well, so they are capable of competing with floorstanders in terms of bass accuracy.
For comparison - IMHO, the Dyns 1.3SE handle bass much better than the 1.3mkII (besides 1.3SE actually going lower).But the problem that a 2-way never seems to be able to solve is the perception of 'freedom' and 'ease' that is present in a big 3-way floorstander. In comparison, 2-way monitors no matter how muscular they are, often sound somewhat 'compressed'.
I mean you always have a feeling that they have to work and work hard, whereas with a floorstander you don't notice them to do any work at all, they don't sweat, they just seem to play at their pleasure. And this perception is not about power or loudness or anything, it's something different.
It's like to compare a small capacity turbo-charged high-revving four-cylinder with a low-rev/high torque V8 (you could get the same power output/speed from either, but the perception of the 'ease' of how they achieve it would be rather different).
Normally you feel this difference when music becomes busier and faster - big orchestral climaxes or massed instruments, jazz boogie, choral etc.
I believe in this case this difference could be explained by the fact that a midwoofer's cone in a 2-way while working on reproducing the mids has also to reproduce bass at the same time, and by its both sides (the rear side's output goes out through a port to add to the front side's output).
Inevitably a driver has to work harder like a high-revving engine in a turbo charged mode. You get your speed and power delivery eventually but you don't get a perception of ease of that having achieved.That's why I want a 3-way floorstander. I don't even need or want it to go too low - 40-45Hz extension would suffice.
But I also want it to be able to reproduce midrange as well as the best monitors can do.I know many people would disagree, but here is my opinion and I might well be mistaken.
Follow Ups:
...has a sense of "ease" to it. Very detailed and relaxed presentation. Monster soundstage (for its size) and fairly easy on the wallet. Just a "maybe" audition...
NT = nautilus tube
Before you start playing with different speakers and like. Advise, treat your room and you will receive improvements like no other equipment can provide.A buddy did that in his store and I must admit, 100% improvement using the same set of equipment before and after treatment.
Yup, hard to believe but I dropped my jaws on the improvement the treatments did to his room.
olpot, what monitor do you have now? Apparently it has failed to satisfy you....
IMHO, I don't subscribe to that ... Naim speakers for example have both 2-way and 3-way, and all are great.
Room acoustics is a very important factor. Try placing a table radio in a bathroom and see how it sounds compared to the bedroom. Ignore room acoustics at one's own peril ... unless you are driving the speakers active, in which case you can adjust the crossover settings to blend with your room, like those from FM Acoustics or Naim.A friend just invested USD 5000 worth of ASCs to treat his room, and he has not regretted it, and is ordering some more ! Of course, there are other cheaper ways to treat the room, and even just 4 of the Echobuster corner triangles will be a significant improvement against bad bass.
Also, in a room about the size of yours, I have heard the huge Genesis V speakers, and bass is just perfect. Bass that will shake the foundation like a small earthquake literally, but everything totally under control without boom, just wonderful sensations. All made possible by home-made imitation ASC tube traps all around the room ... This also tamed the Genesis V's metallic tweeters ...
Of course, the quality of the electronics upstream play a role too ...
I agree with you about a three way system. For several years I DIYed 2 way monitors and never achieved the sound I desired. As a kid I always remembered those big 3 ways pounding out music so full and effortlessly (the rich boys had them). I finally DIYed my own and although not fully broken in, I'm very happy. Morel makes a few production 3 ways that seem to be high quality. I'm using one of there tweeters and midranges in my system-excellent quality and sonics. For the woofer I'm using a takeoff of a Dynaco aperiodic vent design. Seems to be working in a smaller box of 20x12x10"For Morel check the USA site.If you want the address just ask and I look it up.
Charles
In my 11x13 room, I am using N804 B&Ws to good effect. The port is at the front , which seems important . Yes smaller rooms give an advantage as to power needed. Last night the Rocket in triode mode made magic with all of it's twenty wpc. Would the new V12i be better, --you can be sure.
claud,Could you share your experience of N804 with Bel Canto and Cary Rocket.
What are the each other's strengths and weaknesses?
Is there any area where Bel Canto wins over Cary?
...a friend of mine put Paradigm Monitor 11s in a small room (12x12). While it kills what he previously had, the towers simply need more room to breathe. 3-way, 5-drivers (in a 3 foot top-to-bottom span) need a bit more room to "gel" than sitting 7 feet away from the front baffle, especially when ALL room boundaries are so tight. Hhmmm... how would small Martin-Logans (Aerius) work in your room?
Logan Aerius works perfectly in a small room.A friend of mine owns the Aerius and his room is even smaller than mine (his I guess is something around 11x12 or so).
He listens nearfield all the time.
The only obvious complaint he has is a loss of soundstaging - you just won't get good imaging from a combination of nearfield with large dispersion area of a planar speaker.
Plus, planar speakers are not known as imaging champs anyway.On the other hand, integration of the bass driver and its linearity and well-behavior are nearly perfect I ever heard.
But! I don't quite like how the electrostatic speaker sounds.
To my ears it falls short in two areas - dynamics and slam (rock is nearly unlistenable) and somewhat 'plasticky' highs.
Midrange is its forte though, as well as weighty and well-controlled bass.
I am suprised you said they are not the greatest imagers. Well, O.K., maybe not the best but the center fill (vocals) on the Aerius was so palpable and see-thru it seemed like a physical object in space. My dealer was using ARC stuff - that probably helped a little. And the bass would be the one complaint I have with ML! It just seemed... I dunno... a little too "fuzzy". I guess another example of different strokes for different folks!
Perfect imaging is hard to achieve in a planar speaker because the radiation area is large and it increases the proportion of reflected vs direct sound which is the anthithesis of perfect imaging.
This is all by nature (physics) of things.Imaging on the other hand is all about directivity which is relatively easier to achieve in a cone speaker which behaves much more like a point-source at the frequences that are relevant for good imaging (upper mids and lower HF).
The fact that Aerius can project an image in the middle does not mean that it possesses a perfect imaging and 3D soundstage.
Imaging is not only about left and right but also about front and rear and top and bottom. It is three dimensional.
Even though Aerius has a very good imaging for what it is (a planar speaker), it is not able to give the kind of 'holographic' 3D picture that a good cone speaker is capable of.My friend has his Aerius partnered with very good (and expensive) Aronov amplifiers and Meridian CDP (better than my electronics, for sure!), but he was astonished when once he visited my house when I had a pair of ProAc Response 1.5 on audition and he heard them.
He immediately noted their superior imaging to his beloved M-Logans.
By no means M-Logan is a slouch in terms of imaging and beats many comparable (price-wise) cone speakers, but it can't beat the best of them.
As for the Aerius's bass - it is very good. I think if you heard the Aerius producing 'fuzzy' bass it may indicate some problems with room/positioning or poor bass control on the amplifier's behalf (you can rule this one out if you think ARC is good at this:)
Now that you mention it, a half-year ago I listened the big Logans (not sure which...Odessey?) We switched from the 100 WPC ARC to a 200 WPC Classe - the Classe did have better bass control and just plain deeper. Other than said bass issues, I was suprised how similiar the 2 amps were. And true, the room could be a culprit...
I have Logan Aerius is a fairly large room. They lack bass which I make up for with a couple of subs, but I have found they image very well. I often times turn off my center channel because the Logans offer excellent center fill, plus their on a much better amp than my center.
I agree that there are some definite advantages to choosing a larger design, like an octave (or two) more bass extension, increased sensitivity and increased power handling. I think the laws of physics are more difficult to circumvent than was once assumed. Big systems do give a sense of ease and flow and "power under control," that small systems often struggle to match. I think I know why.The importance of sensitivity should not be overlooked. A sensitive system requires less power to create a given SPL than a non-sensitive system. Large speakers are almost always more sensitive than small ones. Don't become obsessed with sensitivity though. 90 dB/W/1m is sensitive. To achieve even more sensitivity requires giving up bass extension in all but the most gigantic speakers. Furthermore, don't overlook the importance of power-handling. All speaker drivers are not created equal. Those that can handle more power can work harder (and go louder). Small speakers utilize drivers that are matched to their enclosure size. Speaker designers (with 1 or 2 rare exceptions) use smaller drivers (with less powerful magnet structures) for their bookshelf 2-ways. As a function of the physics of bass reproduction, big size also imparts deeper bass extension, so a physically large system can play lower and louder with less distortion than a small speaker system.
The sense of ease and "power under control" that a 3-way system can create does not come about accidentally. The drivers don't have to work as hard individually in such systems. They are not worked past the point of pistonic motion, which is crucial. Furthermore, the crossover points between the drivers can be arranged so that the drivers always produce wide-dispersion. This is the key to producing an even room power response. Small systems, in contrast, produce an uneven power response. A small system will often have to be toed in to achieve a high sound pressure level (sound power will drop off steeply as you move away from the speaker's reference axis - the speaker beams), but the wide dispersion of a 3-way system insures that this sound pressure level can be heard from multiple angles (toe-in is not necessary).
The disadvantages of large systems must be played against the strengths. Passive crossovers produce distortion. They interfere with the sound coherence of the system. Going to a 3-way design requires inserting yet another crossover into the audioband, but using an extra crossover this way can be an advantage if the designer considers the non-linearity of human hearing. Our hearing is most sensitive at 4 kHz and hearing acuity tapers off the farther you go (frequency-wise) away from this point. So, where you place the crossover is just as important as using it in the first place. A 3-way system does allow more flexibility to avoid placing the crossover between 2-4 kHz. Yet, more often than not, this is still unavoidable.
Furthermore, a large structure is inherently less rigid than a small one and large speaker systems have more of a tendency to resonate than small ones. Resonating boxes obscure and interfere with the output of the drivers. For this reason, large systems require much more elaborate (and expensive) bracing than small ones to prevent excessive box colorations. Moving to a large speaker greatly increases the expense of the speaker (when you factor in the additional cost of the larger box, the extra bracing, the extra crossover components and the extra-driver).
Moreover, large systems can easily overload small rooms. To get away with a large system in a small room you'll need to choose a system with a very dry (over-damped) bass alignment (ruler flat or very gently declining bass response - electrically these designs do not show wild impedance swings or tough phase angles in the bass). Such systems sound tight and fast as opposed to loose and boomy.
A large system then is not inherently stronger than a smaller one, when the advantages and disadvantages (of going large) are weighed. The greatly increased material(s) cost of a large system often prompts manufacturers to skimp on parts quality (sadly). Quality large 3-way systems are significantly more expensive than their 2-way bookshelf counterparts, so two models of the same price of each type are not necessarily equal. It's difficult to compare apples with oranges in this scenario.
From a consumer perspective, choosing a quality 3-way system is more complicated than choosing a quality small system and requires much more listening time and effort (in addition to more money). Don't be fooled by the size of the box or the number of drive units. Bigger is not inherently better. I would examine each individual driver in the 3-way system. Are they the best? or 2nd or 3rd rate? Compare the drivers to those available in OEM catalogs. Look at power handling. Driver weight indicates a larger magnet structure. In fact, overall system density (not just weight) is a good clue that quality parts are used. Examine the box carefully using music and your knuckles. Bigger boxes tend to have more problems with resonances. It's difficult to see inside the box (unless you remove the drivers), but the knuckle wrap does give a good clue as to how well the box is damped. For a large system, you want very thick MDF (around an inch). Finally, it's so important to LISTEN to the system. Spend a lot of time listening to many different types of music from different angles (not just the sweet-spot). This is the only way to test the quality of the speakers crossovers and assess the system's coherence. A quality system will sound good from many different listening angles (crucially the tonal balance in such a system will not change dramatically as you walk about the room or change position). Don't overlook the additional expense of the extra amp power that larger systems often require. Good luck.
Amphion Xenon
http://www.audiophilia.com/hardware/amphion.htmJMlabs Mezzo-Utopia
http://www.secondbeat.com/html/articles/issue7/mezzo.htmlHarbeth Monitor 40
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0801/harbeth40.htmPMC IB1
http://www.audio-ideas.com/reviews/loudspeakers/pmcib1s.html
Have you tried a good monitor with a good subwoofer, or two, the wining combination for me...
olpot,
I am with you on this issue. I myself ended up using 3-way floorstander in a small room. No regrets.
The model I have now is Mission 783.
thanks Alex, I know you are the Man on a Mission :)I have heard the 783 model, as well as the smaller 782.
Did not guite gel with the Mission sound though.
To my ears it was very smooth and refined, but... somewhat short on PRAT.
Dynaudio in comparion sounded much more 'powerful' and dynamic.
(I am no Dynaudio fan anymore but then I prefered its sound over Mission's back then).thanks for the feedback, anyway
I currently have Wharfedale Emerald 99's in the living room of my small apartment and they are doing fine. I had them less than four days, so it is too early to give a detailed impression. They are just now getting broken in. But so far I am finding the midrange and bass very pleasing. You didn't mention the price range you are thinking of. If your budget is high, I'm sure others will have suggestions that might be even better. For the Wharfs, I paid $354 (including shipping) from Ubid (warning: many posters have had problems dealing with Ubid). So far, I think they are excellent value for the money. But I have not done much comparative listening and, again, I have only had them for a few days. To me they at least prove the general point though -- floorstanders can work fine in a small room. And I just like 'em!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: