Arrakis 2

[FrantzM]

over the top ease and scale involves much more than just deep bass headroom, or even height of deep bass output, it also needs plenty of driver surface top and bottom in the mid-bass too. which is where subwoofers alone cannot make up for single mid bass drivers only down below. you may have been inferring that with your comments.....but it's a significant distinction.

more music lives in the mid-bass by far than in the subwoofers.

I fully agree with your last point. Let's take an example of speaker with an incredible sense of scale and power: The IRS V. I would say I am pretty familiar with it. I have lived with its little brother the Genesis II for a while actually three of my best friends had the gen II so I know how they sound and have set up two of those three systems ... More than an afternoon familiarity Yet these systems weren't world -beaters in the mid-bass department, despite the sense of scale they could reproduce better than most speakers, including today's greats. They were not the last world or even good in mid-bass (80~200Hz) IMHO. Speakers like most Dunleavy (SCV, SCIIV, SC-III) or Duntech (Sovereign , Crown-Princess, Black Knights, etc) had that sense of weight and sublime mid-bass reproduction, even the Magnepan speakers were better in this department. Yet no one will joke about the sense of Scale of those Infinity and genesis speakers. Thus I agree with the theory to a point but not entirely
The other thing is that displacement is a function of surface but also of membrane travel. It is true that it is difficult to a have linear travel over longer elongation but some drivers are more linear than others and in the case of the Q7 it seems that Magico has had thought very hard about such. The speaker is sublime in the mid-bass. Another thing is that it is far from a small speaker. It is actually big about 1.5 meter tall. Also if one looks at its complement of drivers, they have a 2 X 12 inchers and a rather large mid-bass driver , I believe an 8 inches… so it has its capabilities in the mid-bass. The choice was made between surface and travel and by the sound of it it is not lacking in mid-bass nor in the sense of scale. And as far as my ears could tolerate the speakers didn’t seem to have any power compression. It still would not plum the depth like a Gen 1.1 . Your speakers are an interesting design BTW, they are full range augmented with subwoofers in a line source configuration. By their lone selves they can go low.. then you add to that some serious woofing and wattage. Same with the VR-9 or VR -11 . I would surmise that a Magico 7 (or other speaker of distinction) with subs, not necessarily their own, I don’t believe in that theory BTW can be made to have something similar to the sense of power the Gen 1.1 project.. This will require a few subs and these days there are alternatives. Such system will not be a simple affair to set-up. Once you get to that level you better believe that things ain’t plug and play. I would have gone with several subs in a line source to match the sheer (ridiculous? ? ) output of the Gen 1.1 say 4 Paradign Sub-2 in dual stacked config or since we are dreaming 6 sub2 or 6 Seaton Submersive or 4 Gotham, etc … One can dream…

 

[microstrip]

So I FINALLY managed to hear these...i(...)

Loyd,

Great posts- many thanks. All we need now is finding what determines the scale of an audio system. We seem to agree on some particular speakers that have scale - although power limited I would add the big SoundLab's as a speaker that with some types of music can have an impressive scale - but I have found that scale is not an easy subject.

 

[LL21]

... I would surmise that a Magico 7 (or other speaker of distinction) with subs, not necessarily their own,...can be made to have something similar to the sense of power the Gen 1.1 project.. This will require a few subs and these days there are alternatives. Such system will not be a simple affair to set-up. ... I would have gone with several subs in a line source to match the sheer (ridiculous? ? ) output of the Gen 1.1 say 4 Paradign Sub-2 in dual stacked config or since we are dreaming 6 sub2 or 6 Seaton Submersive or 4 Gotham, etc … One can dream…

Very interesting...I have heard the XLF, Grand Utopias and others on their own without sub, and they are not close to Genesis 1.1s or Arrakis in scale on medium-sized classical ensembles or orchestral, or even live acoustic rock.

Are you saying above that (properly setup with a series of subs) a Q7 + Subs or XLF/Grande Utopia + Subs...might equal the scale and size of Genesis 1.1s? I know that minimonitors do scale up with a sub...but the mids/uppers and midbass do not really truly scale up as much as that the lower frequency helps fill in the overall picture better so there is a grander sense of delivery...but again I do not recall thinking the strings, etc had actually increased in scale itself.

To increase the scale overall incl strings/voices/etc, I have that only going with bigger full-range speakers has helped in this regard. I first learned this, after comparing Guarneri + Sub with SF Strad in the same room/same system. I had never owed a full-range speaker before, preferring mini+sub...but the Strad showed me where scale comes from for mids/uppers.

But given that we are now talking Q7-level, do you think they can make that leap with well-setup subs? From a room-size perspective this is very very important because many of us struggle to have rooms that will fit a Genesis 4-tower or even Arrakis. But a Q7 fits in a lot more rooms, and hopefully we can find the floor space for at least 2 great big subs. Thanks for your thoughts on this.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Any comments on the side firing woofers of the arrakis versus frontfiring models ?

 

[Bruce B]

Hi

Jack touched upon something here about energizing bass in the upper half of the listening space. I am widly speculating here but I have found that big, tall speakers present a larger scale than smaller one in my experience. A Of course all that sighted and the likes. I am a DBT proponent ater all so those caveats must be out of the way

They can present large scale, but not small. There is only a handful that can do this accurately. I get tired of 12' pianos and 7' solo singers.

My Alexia's can present scale exactly the same as my MM3's did.

 

[LL21]

They can present large scale, but not small. There is only a handful that can do this accurately. I get tired of 12' pianos and 7' solo singers.

My Alexia's can present scale exactly the same as my MM3's did.

I agree...and I further would agree, as per my comments somewhere above, that the Alexias can be shocking on something like Dark Side of the Moon, where it presents such an incredibly large soundstage I was truly amazed. The best I've ever heard from a speaker that size.

That said, I was equally amazed that the Arrakis can shrink down so easily to a little solo passage or a single Norah Jones and the rest of the venue is still there (ie, you can 'feel' the venue space)...but the venue is just black while the solo or voice just carry on in between the 2 speakers, appearing as far as 10 feet back.

EDIT: correction, my notes show that Norah was upfront, but that the guitar string note that starts off the song was incredibly rounded, three dimensional and full-scale, as in it had the power of a live guitar rather than an excellent facsimile...and appeared about 7' behind her voice. That was quite cool.

 

[LL21]

Any comments on the side firing woofers of the arrakis versus frontfiring models ?

Hi Andromeda,

Unfortunately, this is one of those areas where I am not going to pretend to be able to observe more than I know. I could not say whether side or front would be better...all I CAN say is that I did not notice anything different or unusual about the bass delivery, balance of the frequencies or anything else. It was a very impressive presentation overall in all regards.

Now...I did comment above about how I felt the sound felt a touch 'crowded' and when I went back about 3 feet it helped. Is THAT side-firing woofers? heck if I know. Certainly, that never occurred to me...I felt intuitively the size of the room was one factor. The other was that, somehow, having heard what happens to images and instruments when you put Ultra 5s under the amps, or sometimes SS that controls big speakers better, you get less image waver...and as a result the images don't crowd each other but remain rooted in their own space...helping to give a more clear, uncongested presentation. So the only fault I could find was, in my mind, related to room size and possibly better isolation of tube amps...not the side firing woofers.

Sorry cannot be more helpful than that. If I may turn things around, what do YOU think of side firing woofers in a design like this one? I think you know something about speaker design, so your thoughts are much appreciated!!

 

[microstrip]

Loyd,
Can you tell us what was the whole system, besides the Siegfried's?

 

[Jazzhead]

LL21 great write up , highly informative and enjoyable , Thank you .

 

[Jazzhead]

Loyd,
Can you tell us what was the whole system, besides the Siegfried's?

 

[LL21]

Hi Microstrip,

The cables are custom designs similar in design to Tara Labs best...actually developed by Ernest with a former Tara guy I think. The digital is from Korea...transport + DAC...do not remember name. The rest is VTL. You can see the room treatments which apparently are quite old and have not been changed according to Ernest in some time.

 

[Roysen]

Any comments on the side firing woofers of the arrakis versus frontfiring models ?

The Arrakis bass is crossed over at 100Hz from what I understand. At that low frequency the human mind can not locate the source of the sound. So side firing woofers shouldn't be a problem. What puzzles me a little is why Andy has not installed woofers on both sides to cancel out each others effect on the cabinet.

 

[jfrech]

The Arrakis bass is crossed over at 100Hz from what I understand. At that low frequency the human mind can not locate the source of the sound. So side firing woofers shouldn't be a problem. What puzzles me a little is why Andy has not installed woofers on both sides to cancel out each others effect on the cabinet.

My guess here is the inertness of has cabinets has something to do with not needing this...

http://rockporttechnologies.com/#/enclosures/

 

[andromedaaudio]

I know that frequenies become less directional as they go low and lose directonality below a certain point .
But first hand listening reveals sometimes things that surprise.
a woofersystem aimed sideways at each other can/will sound different from a frontfiring one aimed at the listener ,as the soundwaves travel differently

The Arrakis bass is crossed over at 100Hz from what I understand. At that low frequency the human mind can not locate the source of the sound. So side firing woofers shouldn't be a problem. What puzzles me a little is why Andy has not installed woofers on both sides to cancel out each others effect on the cabinet.

 

[Randall Smith]

Andy has started to design speakers that have front-firing bass drivers simply because people have a hard time wrapping their mind around side-firing drivers. If Andy Payor says there is no difference, I believe him. IMHO, there isn't another speaker designer who knows more. However, sometimes you have to deal with misconceptions. I believe his main reason designing a speaker with a side-firing driver was to reduce the width of the cabinet, not because it sounds different.

 

[LL21]

The Arrakis bass is crossed over at 100Hz from what I understand. At that low frequency the human mind can not locate the source of the sound. So side firing woofers shouldn't be a problem. What puzzles me a little is why Andy has not installed woofers on both sides to cancel out each others effect on the cabinet.

I see your point and wondered the same thing. That said, it would require a lot more 'machinery' in one cabinet, more crossovers (I guess), etc. And further, I can confirm that with my trousers and shirt flapping in the wind of the bass, I put my hand directly on the cabinetry within 1 inch from the 15" woofer...and it felt like the speaker was OFF. That does not mean internally there aren't internal issues with sound pressure, waves, distortion, etc...all I can say is that the external cabinetry did not show any external signs of vibrations even when my trouser pants and shirt were flapping due to the low bass wave pressure. Cool!

 

[spiritofmusic]

Lloyd, cool as it is to have your clothes caught in a wind tunnel like the Maxwell Tapes man, can one really play music at these sort of levels in a domestic environment? Certainly not me. So I'm happy to run spkrs that run full range to 35Hz with real world augmentation down to 16Hz, to give me a "taste" of the "real thing", at volume levels that won't wake the dead. But the pursuit of full range realism must be a lot of fun if you have the space/funds/goodwill of neighbours.

 

[LL21]

Lloyd, cool as it is to have your clothes caught in a wind tunnel like the Maxwell Tapes man, can one really play music at these sort of levels in a domestic environment? Certainly not me. So I'm happy to run spkrs that run full range to 35Hz with real world augmentation down to 16Hz, to give me a "taste" of the "real thing", at volume levels that won't wake the dead. But the pursuit of full range realism must be a lot of fun if you have the space/funds/goodwill of neighbours.

I am telling you Spirit...it was not that loud...I had to really speak up to the Dealer who was 5 feet away, but it was not like I was shouting and deaf like in a night club. In fact, it was more like being in the mid section of tables in a jazz club live. So loud but not deafening. And the pants were flapping...ok...not a flag in a hurricane, but definitely flapping. After all, I was standing next to the speaker. This is easily a level at which you might play an action movie with the family.

 

[spiritofmusic]

You've put my mind at rest Lloyd, I was a bit worried you might get blown away into a vortex of sub 20Hz low frequencies! My sub bass drivers are downward firing, so I'll not be able to repeat the same test. I know you're very opinionated on the subject of real low bass capabilities, running a sub on your Wilsons. I find it very interesting that the Arrakis' low bass crosses over at 100Hz; my Zu Definitions 4s run full range to 35Hz which is where I dial in my sub bass drivers.
In reality should a low pass filter point of 35Hz lend itself to easier bass-room integration than a figure of 100Hz ( I realise this is comparing apples to oranges, since Arrakis drivers aren't full range unlike Zu; just interested in the possibilities)? I find that the temptation to pump up the volume of the bass and set the low pass filter higher than 40Hz always ends up interesting but ultimately unsuccessful re bass smear.

 

[Roysen]

I know that frequenies become less directional as they go low and lose directonality below a certain point .
But first hand listening reveals sometimes things that surprise.
a woofersystem aimed sideways at each other can/will sound different from a frontfiring one aimed at the listener ,as the soundwaves travel differently

I would say that if the bass is crossed over low enough it must be other issues than the placement of the woofers which cause human detection of directionality. It is more likely either the room or the speaker cabinet resonating at a higher frequency.