Are there any "giant-killer" speakers?

[FrantzM]

Peter, State-of-the-Art is simply a coinage for describing the best that current technology is capable of delivering in a given industry. You can rest assured that SOTA performance levels in high-end audio sound nothing like live music. I thought that dead horse was already beaten.

Is that the point? or was the OP about sanely priced speakers who would rival the performance of so-called SOTA speakers? Those sporting a heart-stopping tag price?

Red herring? I tend to think so...

 

[stehno]

I would disagree with you about performance stehno. "Nothing like live music" is a bit strong, IMO, but we've had that discussion in the other thread.

I suspect it's only a bit strong to those who think SOTA-level systems sound anything like live music. Not that I need to but yes I do remember other thread entitled, “How real does it sound?”. Do you recall this quote from audioguy in that thread?

I use to believe that as well. And then my wife, as a surprise, hired a three piece jazz combo to come to our home for my birthday. I can tell you NOT EVEN CLOSE. ….

Do you think he and I are alone? But I digress.

So, if by SOTA we agree that it is the best that current technology is capable of delivering, then we are talking about heroic efforts at speaker design. That simply can not be had for peanuts. IMO, it is not possible.

You seem to be implying nothing matters but the speaker and the heroics of speaker designers. IMO, speakers are given far too much credit and are really no more or less important than other significant components. But it seems by default since all sound emanates from a speaker, all the glory goes to the speaker. If there was any significance to that claim, wouldn’t you suppose the science-minded types would have narrowed speaker designs and executions down one or 3 designs at most by now? Instead of designs and executions being all over the map just like everything else?

The other issue is that it is a question that requires a subject opinion to answer. And that is why there is not a lot of consensus.

What does consensus have to do with truth? Rarely are real truths derived by consensus. A consensus never makes anything true nor does it make anything false. Something is either true or false regardless of consensus. Remember when as kids our parents would tell us, “Just because the consensus runs over the cliff doesn’t mean you should too.”? They were trying to warn us about the potential harm of the consensus.

I agree with the poster who asked why is it not yet possible given the advanced state of audio science and what we do indeed know about technology and hearing.

That was me. I just wanted to see if any science-minded type would step forward with an attempt to answer the OP’s simplified question. Not to just stir up strife, Lord knows there was enough of that in the “audio science” thread and so many other threads that seem to go nowhere (never even reaching a consensus).

No, I brought it up with the hope of bringing to light the value of “audio science” when posed with what should be a simple yet valid question to a real world problem and what should require a relatively simple and straightforward answer.

 

[Al M.]

You seem to be implying nothing matters but the speaker and the heroics of speaker designers. IMO, speakers are given far too much credit and are really no more or less important than other significant components. But it seems by default since all sound emanates from a speaker, all the glory goes to the speaker.

You imply too much about Peter implying. I didn't read it that way at all, and if you knew Peter and his system you would also know how important he judges the source to be as well as the amp(s).

I do agree with you though that speakers are given far too much credit and are really no more or less important than other significant components. 24 years ago I had less than no clue to what advanced level of resolution the sound coming from my speakers, which I still have, could progress. While the speakers experienced some upgrades also, it was for the most part a matter of changes to the chain preceding them -- digital source, amp upgrades, acoustic upgrades. And the most dramatic advance has come all within the last 3 years, when the speakers underwent no modifications at all.

 

[PeterA]

I suspect it's only a bit strong to those who think SOTA-level systems sound anything like live music. Not that I need to but yes I do remember other thread entitled, “How real does it sound?”. Do you recall this quote from audioguy in that thread?



Do you think he and I are alone? But I digress.



You seem to be implying nothing matters but the speaker and the heroics of speaker designers. IMO, speakers are given far too much credit and are really no more or less important than other significant components. But it seems by default since all sound emanates from a speaker, all the glory goes to the speaker. If there was any significance to that claim, wouldn’t you suppose the science-minded types would have narrowed speaker designs and executions down one or 3 designs at most by now? Instead of designs and executions being all over the map just like everything else?



What does consensus have to do with truth? Rarely are real truths derived by consensus. A consensus never makes anything true nor does it make anything false. Something is either true or false regardless of consensus. Remember when as kids our parents would tell us, “Just because the consensus runs over the cliff doesn’t mean you should too.”? They were trying to warn us about the potential harm of the consensus.



That was me. I just wanted to see if any science-minded type would step forward with an attempt to answer the OP’s simplified question. Not to just stir up strife, Lord knows there was enough of that in the “audio science” thread and so many other threads that seem to go nowhere (never even reaching a consensus).

No, I brought it up with the hope of bringing to light the value of “audio science” when posed with what should be a simple yet valid question to a real world problem and what should require a relatively simple and straightforward answer.

stehno, why be so argumentative? Yes, other components matter, but I mentioned speakers because that is what the thread is about. Please refer back to the title. There are, IMO, amps for example that are certainly giant killers in some contexts, but that is a different topic from what the OP is discussing.

Let's not revisit other threads about systems sounding real. This thread is veering off topic. The OP is about giant-killing speakers. That is the topic here at hand. If you would like to discuss something else, perhaps you should start another thread. Let's try to have a more cordial discussion.

 

[stehno]

You imply too much about Peter implying. I didn't read it that way at all, and if you knew Peter and his system you would also know how important he judges the source to be as well as the amp(s).

I do agree with you though that speakers are given far too much credit and are really no more or less important than other significant components. 24 years ago I had less than no clue to what advanced level of resolution the sound coming from my speakers, which I still have, could progress. While the speakers experienced some upgrades also, it was for the most part a matter of changes to the chain preceding them -- digital source, amp upgrades, acoustic upgrades. And the most dramatic advance has come all within the last 3 years, when the speakers underwent no modifications at all.

Al M, I was taking Peter's comments somewhat at face value, since that's all I have to go on from an internet perspective, regarding many postings from may posters.

And I appreciate what you said about speakers. Also, I'm not trying to slight speakers importance in any way. But the point I was eventually going to elude to was that with the right mindset and superior alterations upstream, one could turn most any reasonable or better pair of speakers into "giant killers".

But you kinda' got there first.

And since a playback system is very much like a vineyard where every component has its role and area of responsibility with little or no overlap into other parts of the vineyard, that same principle applies to every other major component as well. IOW, if one can turn any reasonable loudspeaker into a "giant killer" (whatever that means), then simultaneously one most likely have also turned their other reasonable components into "giant killers", aka superior performers.

No component is an island, right?

 

[stehno]

stehno, why be so argumentative? Yes, other components matter, but I mentioned speakers because that is what the thread is about. Please refer back to the title. There are, IMO, amps for example that are certainly giant killers in some contexts, but that is a different topic from what the OP is discussing.

Let's not revisit other threads about systems sounding real. This thread is veering off topic. The OP is about giant-killing speakers. That is the topic here at hand. If you would like to discuss something else, perhaps you should start another thread. Let's try to have a more cordial discussion.

Peter, I meant no ill-will but as you might have noticed I was troubled by a few of your statements. I'm not trying to be argumentative, at least not just for the sake of being argumentative. But, for example, you made it a point of saying there was no consensus. Well, it should be well known by now in this or perhaps any other industry if everybody waited for a consensus, we'd be going nowhere for a very long time.

I, perhaps as much as anybody here, prefer not to revisit previous rabbits holes, but there seems to be excellent probability for any one of these threads to do so, regardless of the thread's title. So I figured I'd just cut to the chase and see what if anything the science-minded types had to practically offer when faced with a real world problem.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Speakers, analog sources, and very weak, out-dated DACs generate the overwhelming majority of the distortions in any audio reproduction system. How anyone can conclude that they (speakers) are not more important than other major components is mind-boggling.

Tim

 

[stehno]

Speakers, analog sources, and very weak, out-dated DACs generate the overwhelming majority of the distortions in any audio reproduction system.

It seems obvious to me every last little detail including fastener connections and soldering joints have the potential to introduce distortions to one extent or another regardless of component, cable, or speaker. But some have speculated that anytime a signal is amplified, there's potential for inducing significant amounts of distortion. To that I'd venture with recent observations between active vs passive preamps i.e. amplified gain stages and some developments with amplifiers specifically, I'd hedge my bet toward active preamps and amps as possibly having a rather large lead in the distortion inducing dept. But then again, my experience is quite limited.

But in support of my earlier statement about speakers. To one degree or another and at best a speaker can only accurately reflect the fidelity of the end result signal of absolutely everything upstream (and that's assuming that's a good thing). At worst, a speaker reflects less than the fidelity of signal resulting from everything upstream (and that too could be a good thing depending on the system) and/or a speaker induces significant ancillary distortions of their own. And this should be true if it's only 1 or 2 components upstream or 8 or 10. The speaker only recognizes the final signal the amp sends to it and nothing more. The same can be said about each and every component and cable upstream. In other words, there's nothing more magical about a speaker's part of the vineyard than other parts of the vineyard. Since science has yet to invent a signal loss recovery program, a speaker (or an amp) should not make a grossly inferior CDP sound wonderful. If it did, there's something wrong with the speaker (or the amp) as it must be inducing a coloration of sorts. What am I missing here?

How anyone can conclude that they (speakers) are not more important than other major components is mind-boggling.

I guess two of us are mind boggled. How does your first sentence offer any justification or support for your concluding second sentence? The sentences seem unrelated.

 

[Rodney Gold]

its the room that counts more than anything else , speakers included.. you wont know you have a giant killer if your room is rubbish

 

[ddk]

No surprise here. I think the combination of small active monitors and subs can kill a lot of audiophile giants. They're not all great, of course, but some of them are spectacular and the ability to control the crossover, volume and position of the low end is always an advantage. There is no downside. In fact, I think the latter would have long ago become the standard if audiophiles didn't have such a love of big, impressive-looking speakers.

Tim

Would be nice to see a couple of examples of this type of monitors, I don't need charts or graphs but I'm curious to see which ones you consider giant killers.

david

 

[stehno]

its the room that counts more than anything else , speakers included.. you wont know you have a giant killer if your room is rubbish

Is it the room itself? Or is it a given speaker's interaction with the room?

 

[Al M.]

Al M, I was taking Peter's comments somewhat at face value, since that's all I have to go on from an internet perspective, regarding many postings from may posters.

Stehno, you had taken one of my comments about acoustic room treatment in another thread also "at face value" and concluded that I had said something outrageous, which I hadn't, as further clarification of my statement proved. You should learn not to assume the worst from others and their statements, but to give them the benefit of the doubt, as well as read their comments in the context they are embedded in. In context a particular single statement usually turns out to be less dramatic than it seems. As Peter explaned, the context of this thread is speakers, and that's what his comment was about. And in the context of my remarks about acoustic room treatment on that other thread, that one 'fateful' sentence was clearly less offensive and more correct than when taken by itself.

Remember, in discussions on the web we do not write articles that arise over a considerable amount of time, and where every sentence is triply scrutinized and mulled over before publication. We simply write posts within a matter of minutes, usually, where not every sentence gets the utmost attention that it would get in an article.

As Peter said, let's be less argumentative and try to have a more cordial discussion. I know I am not that good at the 'cordial' part either, but I try. I have bitten my tongue yesterday on one post, where I changed the wording so that it would not sound unnecessarily offensive but in essence said the same thing.

And I appreciate what you said about speakers. Also, I'm not trying to slight speakers importance in any way. But the point I was eventually going to elude to was that with the right mindset and superior alterations upstream, one could turn most any reasonable or better pair of speakers into "giant killers".

But you kinda' got there first.

And since a playback system is very much like a vineyard where every component has its role and area of responsibility with little or no overlap into other parts of the vineyard, that same principle applies to every other major component as well. IOW, if one can turn any reasonable loudspeaker into a "giant killer" (whatever that means), then simultaneously one most likely have also turned their other reasonable components into "giant killers", aka superior performers.

No component is an island, right?

Yes, no component is an island, i fully agree. For example, the resolution of my digital source came through much more fully when I implemented external power supplies for the amps in my system, which resulted in removal of a lot of electronic noise that had buried a substantial part of the resolving power of the source -- and of the amps themselves of course.

 

[Rodney Gold]

Is it the room itself? Or is it a given speaker's interaction with the room?

It really is the room that is the final determinate of sound.. speakers matter of course and so do their interaction with the room , but stuff like room nodes and reflective surfaces or long decays etc are all present regardless of what speaker is used.. the room also adds bass gain and treble droop at listening position..also a given

I have never found small monitors and subs give me the scale of sound I require.. I play at fairly high levels..
Tried it many times , but always go back to "big" speakers

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It seems obvious to me every last little detail including fastener connections and soldering joints have the potential to introduce distortions to one extent or another regardless of component, cable, or speaker.

This is a sidebar to the OP, so we shouldn't let it take over here, Al, but I will answer briefly. Of course everything in the signal chain has the opportunity to introduce distortion, it's a matter of how much.

But some have speculated that anytime a signal is amplified, there's potential for inducing significant amounts of distortion. To that I'd venture with recent observations between active vs passive preamps i.e. amplified gain stages and some developments with amplifiers specifically, I'd hedge my bet toward active preamps and amps as possibly having a rather large lead in the distortion inducing dept.

You don't need much experience, and if measurements don't convince you, take that active preamp out of the system, replace it with another one, and another one, and listen to how much difference it makes. Get someone else to do it for you and see if you even know which pre you're listening to. Now, leave the best pre in place and start switching speakers. If you heard more difference between preamps than between speakers, throw them out and buy some mid fi.

But in support of my earlier statement about speakers. To one degree or another and at best a speaker can only accurately reflect the fidelity of the end result signal of absolutely everything upstream (and that's assuming that's a good thing). At worst, a speaker reflects less than the fidelity of signal resulting from everything upstream (and that too could be a good thing depending on the system) and/or a speaker induces significant ancillary distortions of their own. And this should be true if it's only 1 or 2 components upstream or 8 or 10. The speaker only recognizes the final signal the amp sends to it and nothing more. The same can be said about each and every component and cable upstream. In other words, there's nothing more magical about a speaker's part of the vineyard than other parts of the vineyard. Since science has yet to invent a signal loss recovery program, a speaker (or an amp) should not make a grossly inferior CDP sound wonderful. If it did, there's something wrong with the speaker (or the amp) as it must be inducing a coloration of sorts. What am I missing here?

You're not missing anything; you're just concluding that everything makes a difference without thinking about how much difference. The sonic differences between speakers are huge, to the point where ABX testing is pointless; anyone can differentiate A from B. The differences between competent electronics are very small. You would, to put it in your own words, have to get to a component that was "grossly inferior" to create the kind of difference speakers make. Heck, you might need a whole chain of grossly inferior components to create the kind of obvious sonic difference between, say, a Klipschorn and a Magico. As far as colorations (distortions) of the signal are concerned, speakers and electronics are not even in the same league.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Would be nice to see a couple of examples of this type of monitors, I don't need charts or graphs but I'm curious to see which ones you consider giant killers.

david

There are too many examples. Go to a decent online studio supply store (Sweetwater will do) and look at brands like JBL, Dynaudio, Focal, Genelec, Neuman and Event. Keep scrolling till you get the the more expensive stuff, there is a lot of cheap "project studio" stuff in these stores.

In normal listening rooms, I actually prefer the best 2-way systems available, with the smaller mid-bass drivers (around 6" or less), paired with the recommended subs. It's hard to get above $2k each in this class of monitor, and that includes amplification and, often, DAC and DSP. If you've got a really big room, you might feel the need to step up to more powerful monitors with 8" or 10" mid-bass drivers, but to my ear, you lose some clarity in the critical mid range when you do. You'll still be at a fraction of the cost of "high end" passive speakers, and you won't have to buy amplification.

Just buy the subs the manufacturer matches to the monitors of choice. Pro audio engineers really are better at "synergy" than audio hobbyists.

If you really want to step up, look at midfield monitors or mastering monitors. The much-discussed JBL M2 system is arguably the SOTA, while they're not cheap, they still look like a heck of a bargain compared to high end passive speakers and amps.

This approach -- active, sub/sat, is the very definition of "bang for the buck," and the bang is so strong, you'll wonder what you've been doing with your money all these years.

Tim

 

[RDSChicago]

I have the original US-made NHT Super Zeroes, with the passive subwoofer and separate subwoofer amp which Stereophile raved about here: http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/804/index.html

Every time I listen to them, I am dumbfounded and mystified over how good they sound, particularly because I paid around $300 for the entire set up (which included five Super Zeroes) after finding them locally on Craigslist.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I have the original US-made NHT Super Zeroes, with the passive subwoofer and separate subwoofer amp which Stereophile raved about here: http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/804/index.html

Every time I listen to them, I am dumbfounded and mystified over how good they sound, particularly because I paid around $300 for the entire set up (which included five Super Zeroes) after finding them locally on Craigslist.

That reads like some serious bang for the buck.

Tim

 

[DaveC]

Is this becoming the next Audio Science thread? Nobody reads these super-long novel posts, fwiw...

 

[bonzo75]

If they can do it in a 9' wide room, please let me know immediately!!)

Hi Diapson, I remember you had a thread about not being satisfied with the sound in a narrow room. Since you have narrow room, the best speaker, and maybe ddk can add, will be the Western Electric 16A, because it is like a mono, you can attach it to the LONG wall, not Short wall, and it sounds the same 2 feet away or at almost 180 degrees. It was built to play in the cinema and sound great both for people seated in the two corners of the front row, as well as those seated further back. Not only will this sound better than most audiphile speakers in big rooms, it will be unbeatable in a small room. Since you have a longer room than a wider room, it will be fantastic on the long wall.

However, it is not cheap. The setup with GIP drivers will cost you around 30k EUR, with Line Magnetic drivers will cost you a bit less. It will be magic though. If you want a demo, suggest you plan a flight to Leipzig, flight will be cheap but probably you will have to stay over.

 

[Diapason]

That's an interesting one, Bonzo, and I wouldn't say no to a trip to Leipzig. Sadly, my budget would be more like 30-40% of that number, which is quite a long way off.

In a way I've given up on ever getting really top-level sound in my room, and I'd be perfectly happy with "enjoyable" at this stage. That's another story, however, and not really my motivation for this thread, since even if budget was infinite I'd never fit the Rockport Arrakis and Avant-garde Trios of this world into the man cave. This thread is more born out of simple curiosity!