In search of my last great loudspeaker

[microstrip]

In that case if I had a Wilson main loudspeaker set of around 89 db , and I had 2 current versions of Thors hammers at hand I would try/experiment using them passive without the controller (...)

Do you want to operate the Thor full range?

BTW, I have owned the old Watchdog (than included the controller and amplifier) with Wilson System 7 - a perfect integration, except in color - the speakers were Ferrari red and the subwoofer burgundy ... At that time Audio.de ranked the Watchdog plus System 7 higher than the MAXX3.

The main problem with Wilson subs is size - even the smaller Watchdog is enormous - and very deep.

BTW, you can see detailed photos of the controller at this eBay auction: https://www.ebay.de/itm/Wilson-Audio-Watch-Controller/153066834669?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140131123730%26meid%3Df028b7caf5f0497d9844847a8c3c2739%26pid%3D100167%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D15%26sd%3D132616526042%26itm%3D153066834669&_trksid=p5411.c100167.m2940

 

[andromedaaudio]

They will roll off themselves gradually ,i dont know what the membrane material is ,but if the break up is not that drastic it will be certainly try able, besides that you can also always invert phase with the cables leading to the passive thor , put red on black and vice versa to match it with the mainspeakers
Better is off course to make a passive low pass filter in the cable to the thor , but most audiophiles dont have measuring gear or know how to make that.


Brg HJ

 

[microstrip]

They will roll off themselves gradually ,i dont know what the membrane material is ,but if the break up is not that drastic it will be certainly try able, besides that you can also always invert phase with the cables leading to the passive thor , put red on black and vice versa to match it with the mainspeakers
Better is off course to make a passive low pass filter in the cable to the thor , but most audiophiles dont have measuring gear or know how to make that.


Brg HJ

Can't understand why you want to use 60+ keuros of subs in an improper way against the advice of the manufacturer ...

 

[andromedaaudio]

Because i never heard a active sub succesfully integrated uptill now .
Plus i think i know better , thats why

 

[microstrip]

Because i never heard a active sub succesfully integrated uptill now .
Plus i think i know better , thats why

Can you tell us which passives your hears that were successfully integrated? The only experience I had in my room with passives was the Ensemble profundo, but unfortunately the satellites on the custom Gibraltar stands sounded much better without the subs.

Long ago I had another nice experience with actives subs - the Cellestion 6000 dipole subs with Quad ESL 63. Very good integration although the ESL63 did not look nice on the top of the subs!

 

[andromedaaudio]

No to explain myself better ,i never heard bass improve with a seperate bass box quality wise , was there more bass , yes .
They hardly make passive ones , doubt if i ever heard one .
But if i would want to make a sub for the market it would be a passive sub .
As i make speakers myself i can easily decouple the basssystem to know exactly what it does , both by ear and measurement gear .
Best bass i heard was from standalone main speakers , i like the MAXX 2 ,plus a certain older kharma model forgot the type

Brg HJ

 

[marty]

I am MOST curious about your experiences with the mighty Arrakis at Maine...Rockports HQ. Particularly about the bass. I admit to having been stunned in Hong Kong when i heard them there. Please indicate more about the 'nebulousness of bass' you heard.

Lloyd, the most memorable example was on human voice, particularly for basso singers. For example, the classic basso in the Fairfield Four sounded diffuse in width through the Arrakis. You didn't hear the bass coming from a chest of normal width but rather, one from a body far wider than any human being. Same was true for stand-up bass. It just wasn't size accurate, particularly for width. for several kinds of source material. Granted, this was a minor aberration in what is a well-regarded superior loudspeaker. Believe me, if someone dropped a pair of Arrakis speakers off at my door, I would not turn them away.

I become more interested in hearing about the CH Precision M1s when i read comments like yours, alongside JackD201s, Gians, all great, great ears imho with tremendous experience. Any particular commentary would be appreciated as well

Nothing to say here other than I'm looking forward to the day I can try these amps in my own system.

finally, absolutely agree perfection is the enemy of good! And i would not part with the Velodyne DD18+, and what it does for the system. The error of commission that might come from imperfect frequency balance/cleanliness in lower registers is FAR smaller for me than the error of OMISSION of losing that absolutely effortless deep-bass thwack even at low levels where it becomes a small but satisfying compression of air.

+1 Home audio reproduction set-up often requires some trade-offs in getting to where you want to be.

 

[ddk]

Can you tell us which passives your hears that were successfully integrated? The only experience I had in my room with passives was the Ensemble profundo, but unfortunately the satellites on the custom Gibraltar stands sounded much better without the subs.

Long ago I had another nice experience with actives subs - the Cellestion 6000 dipole subs with Quad ESL 63. Very good integration although the ESL63 did not look nice on the top of the subs!

Celestion 6000 subs were passive, didn't come with built in amplification. The full System 6000 included the SL 600 satellites and the dedicated crossover, still one of my favorite speaker systems.

david

 

[ddk]

Because i never heard a active sub succesfully integrated uptill now .
Plus i think i know better , thats why

Neither have I, thinking of all the active subs I've heard in high context horrible is the only adjective that comes to mind.

david

 

[microstrip]

Celestion 6000 subs were passive, didn't come with built in amplification. The full System 6000 included the SL 600 satellites and the dedicated crossover, still one of my favorite speaker systems.

david

Yes, you are correct, but they can be considered as "active" in the sense that they come with an active crossover and need a separate power amplifier - in opposition to what andromedaaudio was referring - an add on passive speaker without a different amplification. It is a question of semantics, we can't please everyone!

 

[ddk]

Yes, you are correct, but they can be considered as "active" in the sense that they come with an active crossover and need a separate power amplifier - in opposition to what andromedaaudio was referring. It is a question of semantics, we can't please everyone!

It is and it is not semantics, when it comes to subs AFAIK the term active has always been used with units that come with built in or dedicated external subs supplying your own puts them in the passive category. On the other hand active speakers didn't always come with their own electronics it meant dedicated amplification needed for each section.

david

 

[microstrip]

It is and it is not semantics, when it comes to subs AFAIK the term active has always been used with units that come with built in or dedicated external subs supplying your own puts them in the passive category. On the other hand active speakers didn't always come with their own electronics it meant dedicated amplification needed for each section.

david

As I said, you are correct. However, considering that the SL6000 come with a dedicated tailored active crossover, useless for other speakers, and can't be operated with any other crossover unless you have one custom made, makes me unhappy calling them "passive" subs - the SL 6000 is a system.

 

[ddk]

As I said, you are correct. However, considering that the SL6000 come with a dedicated tailored active crossover, useless for other speakers, and can't be operated with any other crossover unless you have one custom made, makes me unhappy calling them "passive" subs - the SL 6000 is a system.

You've aroused me with all the System 6000 talk Francisco , I have to go to the storage and bring one of the sets I have home! I can drive them with two pairs of Lamm amps, M1.1 & M2.1, they're going to ROCK!!!

david

 

[ack]

My intent was to replace them with the new DMA 500s but much to my surprise and disappointment, Goodwin’s refused to sell them to me unless I bought the commensurate DMC 30SV preamp. Don’t even get me started. My anger knows no bounds here but their policy, as poor as I think it is, was firm.

Congrats on the new amp (stereo???), but I would also tell you that it may not be wise to pass on the DMA-500s, if you can turn a blind eye and buy their preamp, then sell it as New, and we in turn may not notice if you make a finger gesture westward in utter frustration. Nonetheless, this hobby, like any, is supposed to be fun, above everything else.

 

[Leif S]

You need separate amp/amps for the Thor and and a matching analog external electronic crossover with low pass filter.



I don't have those but run my own subs in a similar fashion with an analog electronic crossover. People (ie. end users) mention timing issues like a mantra for the most part IME are chanting nonsense without any expertise. One can place the subs behind main the speakers without any timing issues if you know what you're doing. IMO the worst case scenario is a processor+plate amp driven speaker it's for HT and not high end audio. The fallacy among many is that pushing a button or moving a couple of points on a graph solves the problems of proper placement.

david

Sorry......I have to disagree with you on that one since it is completely measurable unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. Now someone might be able to put subs back behind the mains and it may sound good to them, but the simple fact is that the subs aren't mechanically aligned with the drivers in the mains and have to have a way of compensating for the distance. Some view this isn't as critical in the sub frequencies as it is when we are talking about mid bass or even more critical midrange and treble.

 

[ddk]

Sorry......I have to disagree with you on that one since it is completely measurable unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. Now someone might be able to put subs back behind the mains and it may sound good to them, but the simple fact is that the subs aren't mechanically aligned with the drivers in the mains and have to have a way of compensating for the distance. Some view this isn't as critical in the sub frequencies as it is when we are talking about mid bass or even more critical midrange and treble.

While there's value to measurements there are also plenty of limitations and they don't necessarily equate good sound or correct placement, I've gone through this with too many people that use measurements to set up their speakers only to find out they weren't even close. I'm familiar with all the consequences of poor subwoofer setup, bass cancellation, lower to upper mid muddiness, excessive body, etc., etc. These are all issues that can be addressed with placement and a proper analog or digital electronic crossover but how do you address continuity and seamlessness reproduction in a highly resolving system with plate amps and digital DSP if not the main speakers are driven with other types of electronics and passive networks?

david

PS At the end of the day it's only about good sound not measurements!

 

[marty]

Now someone might be able to put subs back behind the mains and it may sound good to them, but the simple fact is that the subs aren't mechanically aligned with the drivers in the mains and have to have a way of compensating for the distance. .

Absolutely correct. Woofer placement behind the mains require compensation for sound arrival alignment at the listener position. The use of a phase control can effectively align phase response but the fact remains that the sub will always be delayed by at least a half cycle from the leading impulse signal from the mains. The only way to align the impulse signal is use dsp and retard the time arrival of the mains. These are uncontested facts. Barry Ober from JL Audio and others have discussed this ad nauseum. However David is correct that "at the end of the day (uh, how about the beginning of the day also?), it's only about good sound and not measurements". Barry would agree and feels that even without dsp, you can get very satisfactory sound with a good phase alignment control for the woofer. If this is done well, the slight offset in the impulse wave between sub and mains will not sonically detrimental to most listeners. Here once again, perfect can be the enemy of good. Many, if not most, audiophiles who use subwoofers do not use dsp and find their sound to be sonically pleasing with judicious set-up of their subs.

 

[Elliot G.]

Absolutely correct. Woofer placement behind the mains require compensation for sound arrival alignment at the listener position. The use of a phase control can effectively align phase response but the fact remains that the sub will always be delayed by at least a half cycle from the leading impulse signal from the mains. The only way to align the impulse signal is use dsp and retard the time arrival of the mains. These are uncontested facts. Barry Ober from JL Audio and others have discussed this ad nauseum. However David is correct that "at the end of the day (uh, how about the beginning of the day also?), it's only about good sound and not measurements". Barry would agree and feels that even without dsp, you can get very satisfactory sound with a good phase alignment control for the woofer. If this is done well, the slight offset in the impulse wave between sub and mains will not sonically detrimental to most listeners. Here once again, perfect can be the enemy of good. Many, if not most, audiophiles who use subwoofers do not use dsp and find their sound to be sonically pleasing with judicious set-up of their subs.

Hello Marty,
All the best on your speaker selection although I have to admit your choice has surprised me from our past conversations,
I could not agree with you more that perfect is the enemy of good and even excellent.
I have had a lot of experience with 4 piece systems like the IRS and Genesis back in the day. I don't really know how much they were playing with the bass wave forms but when set up properly at HP or at Lyric or at some of my clients they were really great sounding systems. They were in my opinion very difficult to get right or almost right.
I am not a fan of sub woofers used in audio unless they have been designed with the speaker and this can be great but usually EXPENSIVE . I think asking a consumer to be a speaker engineer is asking a lot. I have seen and tried numerous brands with different speakers and always feel at the end it was better without.
There are various reasons for that. One they by insertion into the listening space cause problems just being there. Second the sonic signatures of the different speaker systems don't play nice together. When done passively always create a bump in the bass . Fourth they can adversely effect imaging and phase as you mentioned. If done with an electronic crossover this is probably the best
way however this is a very expensive and complex process. I understand why people try it since the position of a speaker for low frequency coupling and balance is not always the right place for sound stage and midrange and hi frequency balance.
The cost of goods plus gear IMHO is usually much more than finding a better speaker system and for many this exercise is more science fiction than actually improving the sound of the system.
My choice in music is not pipe organ nor electronic and having a natural midrange and great soundstage with layering is far more to my taste.
Hope all is well and enjoy the music

 

[marty]

I think asking a consumer to be a speaker engineer is asking a lot.

+1111111
Best line of the entire thread thus far!

Elliot, I've had the Alexandrias for about 18 months. The title of the thread is "In search of my last great loudspeaker". Don't believe everything you read! I doubt the Alexandrias are it but they ain't too shabby and thus quite satisfactory for now. I mean honestly, there are always nits, but if you have a problem enjoying music through Wilson Alexandrias, then you really have a problem!

 

[Elliot G.]

+1111111
Best line of the entire thread thus far!

Elliot, I've had the Alexandrias for about 18 months. The title of the thread is "In search of my last great loudspeaker". Don't believe everything you read! I doubt the Alexandrias are it but they ain't too shabby and thus quite satisfactory for now. I mean honestly, there are always nits, but if you have a problem enjoying music through Wilson Alexandrias, then you really have a problem!

I don't believe that at all LOL. Priaptor had told me many times he was not getting another pair of speakers EVER.. Well that was not true.
I hope that you will get a chance to hear my new toys later this year after we are finally done with the showroom. I know I am prejudiced but I put down my cash and I think they are amazing. Shows are only that and a properly set up system for any great speaker is quite another kettle of fish. I have heard the big wilson XLF's a few times that they were really good. This was at Karen Sumner's place not any loaded showroom or a audio event