Alexandria three-dimensionality?

[FrantzM]

This has been my experience as well. The Arrakis seems to be very adept at presenting a scale which is commensurate with the original performance and recording. I've simply never heard anything like it from a speaker that large. I always thought that my Aquilas were good in this regard, and in comparison to the other speakers in their class, and above, that I've heard they are. The Arrakis are on a completely different level.

Play a small jazz ensemble and they behave just like the best mini monitors. Play a full orchestra and they throw a stage that you can mentally walk through. Simply amazing.

I thought I was done with speakers once I got the Aquilas, but after hearing the Arrakis (and knowing that I'll likely never be able to house them) I'm seriously considering the Altairs.

Have not heard the Arrakis but have a friend who's considering the Altair ... And from his point of view (he's heard most of the uber-speakers out there) the best he's heard ...
The footprint of the Altai is exactly the same as that of the Arrakis. I would think that aside from height issues , if a room can accommodate an Altair it wil an Arrakis ... putting financials aside although, they are, not small issues by any stretch.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I've never understood this line of reasoning. Many audiophiles seem to argue against the possiblity that there is any compromise in the biggest most expensive speakers, relative to smaller ones. Do they really imagine that the the size of the cabinet, the number and array of drivers, the number of crossovers in a system, the placement of bass drivers in the room, the height of the mid and high-end drivers relative to the height of the listener's ears, the relationship between the room and the size/output of the speakers...that all of this has no impact on the sound? And if they believe that it does (and of course they do), can they really believe that a smaller, less complicated speaker can't have its advantages , when scaled properly to the room? Because that's what it sounds like. It sounds like they believe that bigger and more expensive is simply better, that there are no advantages to fewer crossovers, smaller cabinets, moveable bass drivers, etc. A larger than life scale is impressive. But it's not everything. Can it really be that huge speakers which place the mids above your head and the treble transients halfway to the ceiling of your listening room project a more realistic soundstage to a listener seated 8-10 feet away, listening to a string quartet? Really? How does that work?

I find exactly the opposite to be the case. I've had the opportunity to listen to a lot of big, medium and small speakers. And I find that at every level they have their strengths, weaknesses and ideal set up (more about placement of speakers and seating than room size, really). I've come away believing that in a moderate domestic space allowing a listening position 10, 12 feet back - mid-sized floor standers or stand mounts with a sub or two are not only good enough, they're often what's best. I think the perfect size, in the perfectly treated room, may be the mid sized floor stander -- a two way sitting on a passive sub. And in the best possible implementations, with enough amplification, I even find very little compromise in the "passive" part (did I say that out loud?).

But few rooms are perfectly treated and the inability to move the sub is a deal breaker for me. YMMV.

Tim

 

[trponhunter]

I've never understood this line of reasoning. Many audiophiles seem to argue against the possiblity that there is any compromise in the biggest most expensive speakers, relative to smaller ones. Do they really imagine that the the size of the cabinet, the number and array of drivers, the number of crossovers in a system, the placement of bass drivers in the room, the height of the mid and high-end drivers relative to the height of the listener's ears, the relationship between the room and the size/output of the speakers...that all of this has no impact on the sound? And if they believe that it does (and of course they do), can they really believe that a smaller, less complicated speaker can't have its advantages , when scaled properly to the room? Because that's what it sounds like. It sounds like they believe that bigger and more expensive is simply better, that there are no advantages to fewer crossovers, smaller cabinets, moveable bass drivers, etc. A larger than life scale is impressive. But it's not everything. Can it really be that huge speakers which place the mids above your head and the treble transients halfway to the ceiling of your listening room project a more realistic soundstage to a listener seated 8-10 feet away, listening to a string quartet? Really? How does that work?

I find exactly the opposite to be the case. I've had the opportunity to listen to a lot of big, medium and small speakers. And I find that at every level they have their strengths, weaknesses and ideal set up (more about placement of speakers and seating than room size, really). I've come away believing that in a moderate domestic space allowing a listening position 10, 12 feet back - mid-sized floor standers or stand mounts with a sub or two are not only good enough, they're often what's best. I think the perfect size, in the perfectly treated room, may be the mid sized floor stander -- a two way sitting on a passive sub. And in the best possible implementations, with enough amplification, I even find very little compromise in the "passive" part (did I say that out loud?).

But few rooms are perfectly treated and the inability to move the sub is a deal breaker for me. YMMV.

Tim

excellent post

 

[Bruce B]

excellent post

I concur.... just because you can, doesn't mean you should!

 

[cjfrbw]

Real simple, big speakers, big penis.

 

[Steve Williams]

Real simple, big speakers, big penis.

I think you're onto something there Carl

 

[microstrip]

(...) Do they really imagine that the the size of the cabinet, the number and array of drivers, the number of crossovers in a system, the placement of bass drivers in the room, the height of the mid and high-end drivers relative to the height of the listener's ears, the relationship between the room and the size/output of the speakers...that all of this has no impact on the sound? (...)
Tim

Tim,

Surely all of them have an impact on the sound. But whether it has positive or negative effects in sound quality will depend on the implementation, not in the property itself.

And most of the sound properties you describe in your text are also due to the interaction between the amplifier, source and speaker. Rigid audiophile rules always face many exceptions because of the complexity of the systems.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Tim,

Surely all of them have an impact on the sound. But whether it has positive or negative effects in sound quality will depend on the implementation, not in the property itself.

And most of the sound properties you describe in your text are also due to the interaction between the amplifier, source and speaker. Rigid audiophile rules always face many exceptions because of the complexity of the systems.

+1.

it requires more effort and precision to get a speaker with wider frequency range and more dynamic capability to behave than a speaker of less capability. but the upside of the higher capability speaker is greater too.

medium sized speakers don't have any built in advantage; only higher odds of synergy that go with less overall capability. they don't push rooms, systems, and set-up as much to be optimal as large speakers do.

same with a room. a modestly sized room is simpler to get to work, although it's got limitations that larger rooms don't have as much. the largest rooms which are very live are truely challenges, but again that is where the highest potential is.

risk and reward is operative. it's complex for sure to get big speakers with involved systems to work in big spaces but when you do it's pretty great.

 

[JackD201]

Like I always say, the greater your bandwidth, resolution and raw SPL capability, the more work you have to put in.

A funny analogy is penmanship. How in our youth we would leave chicken scratched notes to our folks or friends but write as carefully and nicely as we could manage when writing a lady friend being wooed. The room is the paper, the pen is the system. Neither any use without the writer.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It sounds like they believe that bigger and more expensive is simply better, that there are no advantages to fewer crossovers, smaller cabinets, moveable bass drivers, etc. A larger than life scale is impressive. But it's not everything. Can it really be that huge speakers which place the mids above your head and the treble transients halfway to the ceiling of your listening room project a more realistic soundstage to a listener seated 8-10 feet away, listening to a string quartet? Really? How does that work?

So then, micro, Mike, jack, I take that as a yes?

Tim

 

[microstrip]

It sounds like they believe that bigger and more expensive is simply better, that there are no advantages to fewer crossovers, smaller cabinets, moveable bass drivers, etc. A larger than life scale is impressive. But it's not everything. Can it really be that huge speakers which place the mids above your head and the treble transients halfway to the ceiling of your listening room project a more realistic soundstage to a listener seated 8-10 feet away, listening to a string quartet? Really? How does that work?

So then, micro, Mike, jack, I take that as a yes?

Tim

I think I was clear, IMHO, neither a yes or a no.

Your whole post is not conclusive, it refers to "they" (audiophiles) positions as usual, misrepresenting them by excessive generalization.
And in my experience many huge speakers (perhaps you consider the Alexandria X2 and the Aida that I have experience as such ... ) have very realistic soundstage on trios, quartets and quintets. For the details on how it works you have to ask the experts ...

 

[jap]

I think I was clear, IMHO, neither a yes or a no.

Your whole post is not conclusive, it refers to "they" (audiophiles) positions as usual, misrepresenting them by excessive generalization.
And in my experience many huge speakers (perhaps you consider the Alexandria X2 and the Aida that I have experience as such ... ) have very realistic soundstage on trios, quartets and quintets. For the details on how it works you have to ask the experts ...

Unlike you, I doubt Tim has heard any of the current SOTA big hiend speakers like the X2s, Aidas, EAs, etc, so his excessive generalization is understandable.

 

[Steve Williams]

As a matter of interest I am still wanting to know which large speakers trponhunter has heard that didn't disappear.

 

[trponhunter]

As a matter of interest I am still wanting to know which large speakers trponhunter has heard that didn't disappear.

Steve, normally I am very willing to be direct, but listing names would turn into a bloodbath debate. You can take away from my descriptions of why and what the issues are with some larger deigns as to which ones would be most affected by diffractionary effects based on their designs. But... again, know matter how well it seems that a large speaker appears to disappear, unless diffraction was a serious part of its initial design, I think its unlikely that if placed in the same room, that a smaller or simpler sysem with less diffraction would not be even more precise and 3 dimensional.

 

[Steve Williams]

I understand however as Frantz suggested that you might want to relisten. I would hasten to add that if the speaker doesn't disappear from the room then IMO it has something to do with setup and not the speaker

 

[A.wayne]

Yeah but I hear more the opposite problem with many speakers sounding like you're playing The Lilliputian Symphony Orchestra.

trponhunter

You may need to listen to some of today's large speakers. The Wilson Alexandria image as well as or better than the best mini-monitors I have experienced plus the images have a "body" that you will never find in small speakers. THis is not about low bass reproduction only, small speakers even when helped by adequate subwoofers .. Do continue to sound small ....We may have to open a thread on the subject .. Don't you think people?

Agree .....

 

[A.wayne]

The only large multi driver full range speaker , in my experience, that images as well as a small mini is the Rockport Arrakis. It's large, sweeping, curved enclosure was designed with particular attention to diffraction. You cannot have large, multiple box enclosures, extending out past some drivers, or square or very small radiuses edges on enclosures and not have it have an effect on diffraction, and ultimately on imaging.

Agree and this was true in the past , when very few big speakers sounded big or could image .. !!!!

That may not be true today , where most are paying better attn to detail in regards to baffle design and time alignment , aided by better testing technique and software ...

Regards

 

[A.wayne]

Like I always say, the greater your bandwidth, resolution and raw SPL capability, the more work you have to put in.

A funny analogy is penmanship. How in our youth we would leave chicken scratched notes to our folks or friends but write as carefully and nicely as we could manage when writing a lady friend being wooed. The room is the paper, the pen is the system. Neither any use without the writer.

Lol, Secrets slipping there Jack ........

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think I was clear, IMHO, neither a yes or a no.

Your whole post is not conclusive, it refers to "they" (audiophiles) positions as usual, misrepresenting them by excessive generalization.
And in my experience many huge speakers (perhaps you consider the Alexandria X2 and the Aida that I have experience as such ... ) have very realistic soundstage on trios, quartets and quintets. For the details on how it works you have to ask the experts ...

My apologies. Please assume the word "many" in front of the word "audiophiles." There are always exceptions. And please remember that the point is not just about the speakers, but the room and the setup. Given enough distance from the speaker, yes, I'm sure huge speakers can image small ensembles. How far back from your speakers do you sit? How much free space is around them? Here are the Alexandrias...



I don't know how tall Mr. Wilson is, but he seems to consistently be the tallest man in every group photo I've seen him in. So that tweeter is 4.5, 5 feet off the floor. That tweeter carries the attack transients of nearly every instrument recorded, and the attack transient is what our hearing and brain use to "locate" sounds. Sit down, 10 or 12 feet away from those speakers, and those locating transients are well above your head. Now, make your classic equilateral triangle. Get those speakers out far enough away from the walls to work properly. get the listening position far enough away from the wall behind it. You've got a pretty good system setup for a listen distance of 10 - 12 feet in a room, what? Pretty close to 20 x 20. That's a good sized room, and the perspective is still such that the sound stage would assume your string quartet is up on a high stage and you're in one of the first few rows.

Unless you're telling me that the dispersion of the tweeters (the most directional of all speakers) in those Alexandrias are so good that their vertical position in the array is completely transparent. That would be very, very good. I've played with speaker position for years. I'm absolutely convinced that you get the best imaging if the tweeters are very close to ear level. I don't seem to be the only one who has come to this conclusion. The inability to place tweeters and woofers optimally, is, IMO, the Achilles heel of super-sized floor standers. All speaker types have their weakness. This is theirs. At least that's the way I hear it. YMMV.

Tim

 

[trponhunter]

My apologies. Please assume the word "many" in front of the word "audiophiles." There are always exceptions. And please remember that the point is not just about the speakers, but the room and the setup. Given enough distance from the speaker, yes, I'm sure huge speakers can image small ensembles. How far back from your speakers do you sit? How much free space is around them? Here are the Alexandrias...

View attachment 6584

I don't know how tall Mr. Wilson is, but he seems to consistently be the tallest man in every group photo I've seen him in. So that tweeter is 4.5, 5 feet off the floor. That tweeter carries the attack transients of nearly every instrument recorded, and the attack transient is what our hearing and brain use to "locate" sounds. Sit down, 10 or 12 feet away from those speakers, and those locating transients are well above your head. Now, make your classic equilateral triangle. Get those speakers out far enough away from the walls to work properly. get the listening position far enough away from the wall behind it. You've got a pretty good system setup for a listen distance of 10 - 12 feet in a room, what? Pretty close to 20 x 20. That's a good sized room, and the perspective is still such that the sound stage would assume your string quartet is up on a high stage and you're in one of the first few rows.

Unless you're telling me that the dispersion of the tweeters (the most directional of all speakers) in those Alexandrias are so good that their vertical position in the array is completely transparent. That would be very, very good. I've played with speaker position for years. I'm absolutely convinced that you get the best imaging if the tweeters are very close to ear level. I don't seem to be the only one who has come to this conclusion. The inability to place tweeters and woofers optimally, is, IMO, the Achilles heel of super-sized floor standers. All speaker types have their weakness. This is theirs. At least that's the way I hear it. YMMV.

Tim

another excellent post - correct and agree on many of the points. In addition, as I was called out previously for my support of the Rockport Arrakis, I would invite all to go to their website and take a good look at how they're deisgned - tweeter at ear height, large rounded, sweeping enclosire with no sharp edges or boxes hanging over - it's not coincidence if you look carefully at a loudspeakers design and then listen astutley, you can start to see or hear their issues - there's no magic bullet to defy the physics of good or flawed design.