Alsyvox planars...prepare to sell your Magico's, YG's, Wilson's, Cessaro's. Maggie's, and all others!!

[morricab]

Playing with semantics and definitions. My point was clear - in normal use speaker distortion and speaker coloration have different meanings.

Now who is playing with semantics?? I gave a very clear, non-sematical definition that I think most engineers would agree with. Just because you like to think of them as two different categories doesn't make it so. They have different origins because I think you are mainly referring to harmonic distortion that is caused from the motor system of the driver, are you not? That is only one of many types of distortion afflicting drivers...thermal compression is another type of distortion in that it impacts accuracy of the amplitude of response (probably frequency as well) primarily and could be considered then a linear type of distortion...like frequency response errors.

 

[morricab]

You mention driver problems, cabinet problems and crossover problems with many conventional cone speaker brands. Have you not auditioned Rockport Technologies speakers, or have you auditioned them and found them to have the same problems as these other brands but you forgot to add Rockports to your post, or have you auditioned them and found them not to have the same problems as these other brands?

My experience with Rockport is limited to a couple of demos I have heard in Munich with the Absolare monos and hybrid amp. I think it was the big Altair II speaker. My memory was that with the tube monos and preamp the sound was quite good but not in the same league with the best horns at the show. My memory with they hybrid (same speakers, same room) was Meehh...kind of boring. I didn't hear overt coloration, like I don't with Magico but in engineering out the self-noise they both seem to be throwing the baby out with the bath water...Kharma also always manages to greatly disappoint even with their new carbon drivers and diamond tweeters.

 

[morricab]

Morricab has a good point ( can I say that??) All drivers have their own individual set of problems. The question becomes which speaker manufacturer has dealt the best with what they have available. On Saturday, I listened to the new YG XV-1's with their new hybrid tweeter, made of silk and metal. IMO, these tweeters are an excellent driver. However, here's the main thing, the overall speaker design of the new YG's wasn't flawed as to BIG areas of its reproduction, like the Acoustats! ( or for that matter all horn speakers that I have heard). IOW, one wasn't missing bottom end clarity and punch, top end sparkle and air, precise imaging etc. Sure, these particular speakers require a lot of up front muscle from your amp and a huge room, ( and a very healthy sized wallet!) but if you have these things, you will get a product that can give you a very decent overall sound.

nothing missing I am sure...except good sound...LOL!

 

[DaveyF]

nothing missing I am sure...except good sound...LOL!

It is very clear now that what you consider as good sound, is probably what I would consider as almost unlistenable...and I’m sure the opposite is true too.
Maybe that’s what makes this hobby so interesting?

 

[morricab]

It is very clear now that what you consider as good sound, is probably what I would consider as almost unlistenable...and I’m sure the opposite is true too.
Maybe that’s what makes this hobby so interesting?

Maybe, maybe not. But I can tell you that I find most box speakers to be fatally flawed because they steadfastly refuse to sound real. Sure they can be balanced, neutral Yadda, Yadda, Yadda but if this doesn't add up to a convincing facsimile of the real thing then IMO it is a fail. Horns, for all their flaws, which are not really more flaws than box speakers, just different ones, often sound more realistic, especially with well recorded acoustic music of wide dynamic range.

That said, I heard small YGs sound pretty good in Munich with Nagra electronics...not my dream system, particularly when you consider the cost, but it was pleasant, neutral and transparent. Tone was only ok though as were dynamics.

 

[microstrip]

Now who is playing with semantics?? I gave a very clear, non-sematical definition that I think most engineers would agree with. Just because you like to think of them as two different categories doesn't make it so. They have different origins because I think you are mainly referring to harmonic distortion that is caused from the motor system of the driver, are you not? That is only one of many types of distortion afflicting drivers...thermal compression is another type of distortion in that it impacts accuracy of the amplitude of response (probably frequency as well) primarily and could be considered then a linear type of distortion...like frequency response errors.

Here we go again - thermal distortion is not an issue since long ... Engineers monitor the real current in the coil easily ... It is not rocket science, just basic Kirchhoff's and Ohm's law at audio frequencies ...

BTW, using a simple talk, sometimes the keyword to separate these different categories is time - delayed errors are different from excitation errors.

Anyway, I fail to understand how horn lovers in WBF seem to completely ignore Paul Wilbur Klipsch papers on the science and sonic advantages of horns and go on just with coffee talk such as easiness ... Perhaps because it needs a little of mathematics to be debated ...

 

[DaveyF]

Maybe, maybe not. But I can tell you that I find most box speakers to be fatally flawed because they steadfastly refuse to sound real. Sure they can be balanced, neutral Yadda, Yadda, Yadda but if this doesn't add up to a convincing facsimile of the real thing then IMO it is a fail. Horns, for all their flaws, which are not really more flaws than box speakers, just different ones, often sound more realistic, especially with well recorded acoustic music of wide dynamic range.

That said, I heard small YGs sound pretty good in Munich with Nagra electronics...not my dream system, particularly when you consider the cost, but it was pleasant, neutral and transparent. Tone was only ok though as were dynamics.

I would suspect that what you consider as 'realistic' is going to be what I consider as canned. IME, horns are flawed in so many ways that they almost immediately disqualify themselves for me. The 'cupped hands' effect is a major problem for me, add that to the very poor imaging that they typically portray, the artificial sounding 'tone' and I am left cold. Dynamics are their strength, but IMO dynamics are only one part of the 'live' aspect of music. An important part, but not the whole picture.
Here is where I think horn devotees place their importance..above all else---dynamics. To the horn devotee, imaging, depth portrayal, accurate tone and to use a descriptor that HP made famous...the 'gestalt' of live music, is not so imperative. IMO.

 

[microstrip]

It is very clear now that what you consider as good sound, is probably what I would consider as almost unlistenable...and I’m sure the opposite is true too.
Maybe that’s what makes this hobby so interesting?

For me the interesting part of the hobby is that I think I can appreciate what each of you consider good sound and I have my own different preference ...

 

[sujay]

I would suspect that what you consider as 'realistic' is going to be what I consider as canned. IME, horns are flawed in so many ways that they almost immediately disqualify themselves for me. The 'cupped hands' effect is a major problem for me, add that to the very poor imaging that they typically portray, the artificial sounding 'tone' and I am left cold. Dynamics are their strength, but IMO dynamics are only one part of the 'live' aspect of music. An important part, but not the whole picture.
Here is where I think horn devotees place their importance..above all else---dynamics. To the horn devotee, imaging, depth portrayal, accurate tone and to use a descriptor that HP made famous...the 'gestalt' of live music, is not so imperative. IMO.

Agree fully. I love the sheer physicality and force of presentation of horns over any other speaker and would take them just for that. For everything else, there are speakers that do better although the price of entry is high. Some cone speakers when set up well, painstaking as it is, sound as coherent and realistic as stats. I have heard stats side by side with cones set up well and enjoyed pretty much both presentations though vastly different.

 

[Leif S]

Ron, I've heard the same lack of complaints about Magico speakers ever since they developed the M Pro with its diamond coated tweeter. No one complains about the tweeter in the S series Mk2 or the new M series.

I actually prefer the Mk 2 versions but it really isn't because of the Diamond tweeter. If you look at the M Projects frequency response it tells you why the tweeters aren't as aggressive as the Mk 1. He uses a tilt circuit where the bass is a little louder than the midrange and the midrange is louder than the tweeter.

This is from Jonathan Valin's review of the M Project
You can see the tweeter dive bombs at 16k
Doing this you are no longer reference measurements but can gain a much more forgiving speaker. I enjoyed listening to the S3 Mk2's at a show and thought it was a big improvement.

 

[Tango]

Agree fully. I love the sheer physicality and force of presentation of horns over any other speaker and would take them just for that.

Actually they do other things superbly too...just like others have said. But you have to find the right one to get the whole package. The same also applies to cones. Personally I view them not as horns but as speakers. They match better with tube electronics that sonically fit my preferences. For me the only drawback of horns is the size and estate required for them. If I start out fresh, I believe I could get the level of sound I want from horn type speakers with tube electronics at much less investment than from cone type speakers system too.

Best wishes,
Tang

 

[bonzo75]

That said, I heard small YGs sound pretty good in Munich with Nagra electronics...not my dream system, particularly when you consider the cost, but it was pleasant, neutral and transparent. Tone was only ok though as were dynamics.

They are way under driven by Nagra. Even the guy who set them up with Nagra in 2017 moved to boulder in 2018 and when I spoke to him he agreed. He sells both. It's Ajay Shirke who also owns audio lounge in the UK and the SME firm

 

[marty]

I actually prefer the Mk 2 versions but it really isn't because of the Diamond tweeter. If you look at the M Projects frequency response it tells you why the tweeters aren't as aggressive as the Mk 1. He uses a tilt circuit where the bass is a little louder than the midrange and the midrange is louder than the tweeter.
View attachment 45712
This is from Jonathan Valin's review of the M Project
You can see the tweeter dive bombs at 16k
Doing this you are no longer reference measurements but can gain a much more forgiving speaker. I enjoyed listening to the S3 Mk2's at a show and thought it was a big improvement.

As has been mentioned several times in this forum, the "ideal" frequency response of loudspeakers at the listening position is never flat. Studies by Harmon, B&K (see Fig 5: https://www.bksv.com/media/doc/17-197.pdf) and many other have shown this quite clearly. What is rather surprising is that it seemed to have taken Alon Wolf quite a while to figure this out and voice his speakers accordingly. The graph below superimposes the Valin M Pro response with an approximation of the "ideal" loudspeaker response advocated by B&K. It's not surprising that all Magico speakers post M Pro have a far more attractive sound to most listeners than their earlier work, which strived for a technically flatter response thus yielding a sound that was brighter and less balanced.

 

[bonzo75]

Agree fully. I love the sheer physicality and force of presentation of horns over any other speaker and would take them just for that.

I think with this you are mainly referring to your Tune Audio Anima session at Munich. Some horns are attractive for other things. There are more variations between horns than there are between horns and cones. Cones and planars are relatively (relatively) more consistent with each other

 

[Ron Resnick]

I don’t hear or have a hard edge with the Lyra. I know this is the rep that they have, but I am really only now understanding why people think this. It is because they typically hear these cartridges with ss phono preamps or SUT’s. Several members have mentioned to me that with these type of amplification devices, the Lyra will sound as you described. Not so with a tube phono stage and tube ancillary gear.
So, yes in a way you are right, I have dealt with the issue...by using an appropriate tube phono stage and tube ancillary gear.

DaveyF, why do you keep banging the same drum? We fenced last week over my observation that you seem congenitally unwilling to accept that not everyone in this subjective hobby likes Lyra cartridges. Instead of accepting that intuitively obvious and unassailably logical proposition you twist yourself into a pretzel to explain why the people who don’t care for Lyra cartridges are defective in their listening faculties, are misguided in component matching, are listening to improperly aligned cartridges, are making invalid comparisons, etc.

 

[Ron Resnick]

My experience with Rockport is limited to a couple of demos I have heard in Munich with the Absolare monos and hybrid amp. I think it was the big Altair II speaker. My memory was that with the tube monos and preamp the sound was quite good but not in the same league with the best horns at the show. My memory with they hybrid (same speakers, same room) was Meehh...kind of boring. I didn't hear overt coloration, like I don't with Magico but in engineering out the self-noise they both seem to be throwing the baby out with the bath water...Kharma also always manages to greatly disappoint even with their new carbon drivers and diamond tweeters.

Thank you, Brad.

 

[Al M.]

DaveyF, why do you keep banging the same drum? We fenced last week over my observation that you seem congenitally unwilling to accept that not everyone in this subjective hobby likes Lyra cartridges. Instead of accepting that intuitively obvious and unassailably logical proposition you twist yourself into a pretzel to explain why the people who don’t care for Lyra cartridges are wrong, are misguided in component matching, are listening to inproperly aligned cartridges, are making invalid comparisons . . .

Everything depends on system context, Ron. And Davey didn't exactly say that he does not accept that not everyone likes Lyra cartridges. He gave an explanation, which may be correct or not, of why he thinks people react to Lyras the way they do. Also, not every Lyra sounds the same. I haven't heard his particular model, have you?

 

[PeterA]

Everything depends on system context, Ron. And Davey didn't exactly say that he does not accept that not everyone likes Lyra cartridges. He gave an explanation, which may be correct or not, of why he thinks people react to Lyras the way they do. Also, not every Lyra sounds the same. I haven't heard his particular model, have you?

I agree, Al. This reminds me of the reports I've read about the Magico Q series sounding sterile, analytical, bright, etc. It depends so much on system context and the listener's preferences and biases. I was a bit concerned about my Q3 which is why I had the great fortune to be able to audition and live with it for a month before committing to buying it. With careful set up, and in my particular system context with Pass amplification and vinyl only, the sound is not what others typically ascribe to the Q series.

I don't think this is all that different from what DaveyF is saying. Context matters. Yes, there is a house sound identifiable over a broad range of contexts, but within that range, one can find samples that are "just right" for that listener.

 

[sujay]

Actually they do other things superbly too...just like others have said. But you have to find the right one to get the whole package. The same also applies to cones. Personally I view them not as horns but as speakers. They match better with tube electronics that sonically fit my preferences. For me the only drawback of horns is the size and estate required for them. If I start out fresh, I believe I could get the level of sound I want from horn type speakers with tube electronics at much less investment than from cone type speakers system too.

Best wishes,
Tang

Agree on both counts actually - definitely on the real estate requirement and the fact that like to like, the spend is more on cones probably because of amplification requirements.

 

[christoph]

Having owned Acoustats and other panels, I would still own these speakers IF they had anything like the SQ that one hears from the YG's...
Horns are a big FAVE for some on this forum, they aren't generalizing about their merits...but yes, people like what they like at a given point in time--- and certainly seem only too happy to ignore their faults.

I love Horns AND Dipole Stats but I would never say ALL horns and ALL Dipole Stats are excellent. Far from it.
I have heard WAY more bad Horns than I have heard good Horns, let alone excellent Horns
Almost the same applies to Dipoles but not to such vast extent like with Horns...

Don't you think it is also a virtue to listen to what a given set of speakers can offer and do well rather than to look for shortcomings?
There will never be a set of Speakers, that can do anything better than all others in all aspects, not at any Price.
You have to find what is most important to you and juggle virtues against shortcomings against budget