Agreed. I have tested my Reference 3A at someone's-sleeping-in-the-house levels, and they still sound alive and articulate.
Best speakers at low volume
- Thread starter Ricco275
- Start date
Agreed. I have tested my Reference 3A at someone's-sleeping-in-the-house levels, and they still sound alive and articulate.
That is what I feel about my Syrinx, perfect for low to medium levels and at very high levels they tend to fall apart sonically. To solve this I run parallel with the bigger Kitahras. The Syrinx is colourfully called the LOWspeaker. LoL
I use 102db speakers and they play great (to my ears, obviously) at low volume, contrary to some less efficient speakers I have used in the past that "collapsed" at low volume. But I have found that the entire system has a role to play, not just the speakers.
Here is an illustration around 70db measured in front of my listening position. This is the typical volume I would play them at night, but enjoy it also lower.
The phone recording masks the detail a little but it should provide a sense of the sound.
Here is an illustration around 70db measured in front of my listening position. This is the typical volume I would play them at night, but enjoy it also lower.
The phone recording masks the detail a little but it should provide a sense of the sound.
Last edited:
There is no crossover. Each speaker has 4 drivers in parallel, directly wired to the amp's outputs. This configuration has some obvious limitations (ex: bass rolloff below 40hz - active subwoofers could be added).
Oh, so you have massive comb filtering and basically missing frequencies... I guess some of them would come through at 102db that are within the right wavelength between the distance from top to bottom. I'd guess around 120-600hz can do 102db.This explains the thinner sound with no kind of BSC and why it sounds like weird phase drop outs.
Define "massive"?
The speakers ate quite sensitive to speaker placement and you do get comb filtering, as you do with any speaker. I did not say "this is the best speaker", it was an illustration, and with the speakers in a slightly different placement than usual. You can check out the frequency response graphs here: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/open-baffle-system.35850/post-841983
Perhaps some day I will add subs, but for the time being I am happy without.
When I went to buy my current turntable I heard a pair of Eclipse TD212mk2, they don’t really do loud, particularly as they were being driven by a couple of Watts of Thomas Mayer valve amp and aren’t that efficient but did they did have a certain appeal. Might be rather challenging of WAF but that would depend on the wife, mine rather liked them.
A little "piqued" by the previous comment (from Folsom), here is another video taken with my phone and this time an average volume of only 60db:
And the same track, same volume, recorded with my Tascam DR100 and Superlux microphones:
It is always interesting to hear how phone recordings sound compared to better recording equipment...
Listening to that track on Qobuz (https://open.qobuz.com/track/21452011) with my HD400 Pro headphones which go down to 20hz, it is obvious that my speakers lack that deep bass. Adding subs has not been a priority and it is whole other can of worms.
Anyway, the better recording gives a better picture of the actual sound in the room, and you can better evaluate the level of detail at low volume. The sound is very similar at higher volumes, which is not something I experienced with some other less efficient speakers.
And the same track, same volume, recorded with my Tascam DR100 and Superlux microphones:
It is always interesting to hear how phone recordings sound compared to better recording equipment...
Listening to that track on Qobuz (https://open.qobuz.com/track/21452011) with my HD400 Pro headphones which go down to 20hz, it is obvious that my speakers lack that deep bass. Adding subs has not been a priority and it is whole other can of worms.
Anyway, the better recording gives a better picture of the actual sound in the room, and you can better evaluate the level of detail at low volume. The sound is very similar at higher volumes, which is not something I experienced with some other less efficient speakers.
Last edited:
Sons are spec'ed at 96dB according to the website, which is rather sensitive. I haven't heard Singer yet.
Modern JBL's from the UK. Very fun and interesting design!
My theory on why Quads sound engaging at low levels is its amazing coherence and the relative ease at which the diaphragm moves air down to its rather high cut-off point.
Keith Rochelli has Fyne F-12 which I have listened to several times and are both very efficient (96db) and phase coherent thanks to its coaxial driver. A real sleeper for low-level and high level listening, offering both efficiency and full-range performance that also plays nice with both tube and solid state amplifiers.
Measurement is of both speakers at my listening position. I forgot what exact configuration, as I have tweaked it over time, but somewhere between 2.5 and 2.8 meters.
Stratton Elypsis 1512 Defines Dynamics | The Ear
The Elypsis 1512 is the result of an industrial designer’s dreams and a loudspeaker designer’s expertise. David Fowler is a designer who’s worked on a wide
the-ear.net
It would be fun to hear a recording of this speaker.i did not find any demos on YouTube.Stratton Elypsis 1512 Defines Dynamics | The Ear
The Elypsis 1512 is the result of an industrial designer’s dreams and a loudspeaker designer’s expertise. David Fowler is a designer who’s worked on a wide
If the Fynes don’t use a 1st order crossover then they are not phase coherent. They probably sound pretty coherent but technically they would not be.
Similar threads
