In search of my last great loudspeaker

[Mike Lavigne]

I missed out the Holst planets Mars. What I heard there is best summarized by Ron's comments below extracted from his review:

Postscript: I visited Steve today to catch up with I'm before I go back to London. I brought with me a CD of the Genesis album with the “Drum Duet” track -- with Phil Collins playing the drum kit on the left side of the stage and his colleague playing a drum kit on the right side of the stage. (Henk very kindly gave me his CD of that album.)

When the track was finished at Henk’s place my wife and I turned to each other and each of us basically said “Oh my God, that was amazing!” So I was really curious to hear this drum track on Steve’s very full-range and bass capable system. (Steve supplements his big Wilsons with JL Audio Fathoms.)

On Steve’s system the drum track today was very good but it was not involving and mesmerizing like it was on Henk’s system. Listening to the drums on the Grands seemed to my wife and me like an experience.

This is absolutely no criticism of Steve’s system. As I have written many times I love the sound from Steve’s system. I am very confident what I heard from this track on the Grands versus on conventional cones means that Kedar was correct about the amazing bass reproduction on the Grands: the woofer panel on the Grands -- which covers about 70 Hz to about 250 Hz -- is the best reproducer of that frequency range I have ever heard in my life. I do not think any dynamic driver speaker -- not Wilsons, not Genesis woofer towers, not Pendragon woofer towers, not any set of cones -- is going to reproduce 70 Hz or so to 250 Hz or so with the articulation and realism and power of those big, trapezoidal woofer panels on the Grands."
"

well ok. here we go.

the MM7's have -4- 11" ceramic woofers per tower which cover 40hz (rolled off into the mid-20hz range) to 250hz. plus -4- 'active' 15" drivers that cover 7hz (3db down) to 40hz. the -4- 11" ceramic drivers are 96db 6 ohm efficient.....so lots of driver surface, very low excursion, lightning fast and stiff ceramic membranes, and very linear in the mid bass. and with the dart 458 being 550 watts into 8ohms and 800 watts into 4 ohms with such an easy load you have an ease and explosiveness in the mid bass that is amazing.

those other references of Ron's do not have the mid bass air moving capacity of the MM7's in exactly that 70hz to 250hz range.....and they are all tougher loads so amplifier performance in that frequency range is theoretically less ideal.

again; there are no absolutes. and Ron's opinion as well as yours, and mine too are just opinions and subjective perspectives. I get that the apogee has set your clear reference. references get re-set sometimes. mine, yours and Ron's. so my mind is open to hearing the Apogee's better the MM7's.....or not.

but on paper the MM7's likely can do the same job in it's own way. please visit and listen.

 

[bonzo75]

Bonzo you could be right about panels , me hearing them on possibly no more then 3 occasions , so i cant compare either .
I am sure panels due to their tech. differences have some attributes dynamic speakers cant duplicate and vice versa .
The tallest soundstage i ever heard and i found it to be to tall was when i heard dali megalines

I wouldn't use the word panels. Other panels are pretty weak on bass. I have heard the megalines. I am referring specifically to certain apogees from certain restorers. Not panels, Logan, Maggie's analysis audio, etc, which are pretty meek on the bass front

 

[bonzo75]

Mike I intend to!

Possibly next summer as the West coast is a tough journey

 

[Zero000]

I wouldn't use the word panels. Other panels are pretty weak on bass. I have heard the megalines. I am referring specifically to certain apogees from certain restorers. Not panels, Logan, Maggie's analysis audio, etc, which are pretty meek on the bass front

I was listening to some Matteo Monero last night via TIDAL. The bass on that stuff is just phenomenal even via up spec'd Duettas. It is just MASSIVE, ultra fast, super articulate, deep etc.

Those sort of experiences are entirely why I use Duettas. It also why we built them like brick shithouses. The frames keep the speaker still in a way that a standard Duetta cannot maintain.

Very, very, very few box speakers can present bass like that. I have never heard one that can, TBH.

EDIT: just to be clear, boxes will give louder bass, handle lower frequencies etc but the speed and articulation just isn't there to the same degree.

Anyway back to the topic...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike I intend to!

Possibly next summer as the West coast is a tough journey

excellent! can't wait.

it will be up to us West Coaster's to make the trip memorable enough to be worth it. and we will.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

We are veering OT.. I am with Mike again when it comes to bass. However much that I remember how good the Diva bass was ... What one gets from a properly designed cone speaker or horn speakers is in a different league... This is a physics thing.. Multiple cones with linear excursion are capable of much better SPL and at a lower distortion than the Apogee Ribbons. This is physics and however much we looooooooove here at the WBF to think physics do not dictate what we hear. Physics do ...
To me the reference when it comes to mid-bass articulation are the Dunelavy-designed speakers, specifically the Duntech Sovereign, Dunleavy, IV,V,VI. THey are surpassed in other ways by some modern day speakers.. Few speakers approach them or surpass them in the critical midbass area. I haven't heard MikeL speakers so can't opine on them. I have no doubt their midbass is the real thing , they have the engine for that .. BTW , I like the configuration of the MM series of speakers basically MTM.. In the case WWMTMWW supplemented by serious woofage

back to Marty search. Scaenas? Horns?

 

[bonzo75]

Hi

We are veering OT.. I am with Mike again when it comes to bass. However much that I remember how good the Diva bass was ... What one gets from a properly designed cone speaker or horn speakers is in a different league... This is a physics thing.. Multiple cones with linear excursion are capable of much better SPL and at a lower distortion than the Apogee Ribbons. This is physics and however much we looooooooove here at the WBF to think physics do not dictate what we hear. Physics do ...
To me the reference when it comes to mid-bass articulation are the Dunelavy-designed speakers, specifically the Duntech Sovereign, Dunleavy, IV,V,VI. THey are surpassed in other ways by some modern day speakers.. Few speakers approach them or surpass them in the critical midbass area. I haven't heard MikeL speakers so can't opine on them. I have no doubt their midbass is the real thing , they have the engine for that .. BTW , I like the configuration of the MM series of speakers basically MTM.. In the case WWMTMWW supplemented by serious woofage

back to Marty search. Scaenas? Horns?

Totally for physics, so can't understand how your teeny weeny cones can compete with giant wide panels moving the whole vertical plane speedily my way, Frantz - not to mention that I have heard many more horns than you have and they were my my first choice until displaced by the Aps. Hate to break this to you, but as someone once told me, most people who owned Apogees haven't heard them

 

[Zero000]

Hi

We are veering OT.. I am with Mike again when it comes to bass. However much that I remember how good the Diva bass was ... What one gets from a properly designed cone speaker or horn speakers is in a different league... This is a physics thing.. Multiple cones with linear excursion are capable of much better SPL and at a lower distortion than the Apogee Ribbons. This is physics and however much we looooooooove here at the WBF to think physics do not dictate what we hear. Physics do ...
To me the reference when it comes to mid-bass articulation are the Dunelavy-designed speakers, specifically the Duntech Sovereign, Dunleavy, IV,V,VI. THey are surpassed in other ways by some modern day speakers.. Few speakers approach them or surpass them in the critical midbass area. I haven't heard MikeL speakers so can't opine on them. I have no doubt their midbass is the real thing , they have the engine for that .. BTW , I like the configuration of the MM series of speakers basically MTM.. In the case WWMTMWW supplemented by serious woofage

back to Marty search. Scaenas? Horns?

From the Martin Colloms review of the standard Duetta:


The spectrum analyser was pressed into service for some distortion measurements. Given that 30Hz is the main resonance, when driven at this frequency to the usual higher 96dB sound level (8.9V RMS) the distortion was likely to be at its worst. Here 3rd-
harmonic predominates with a satisfactory reading of 10% (-20dB). The 4th-harmonic is down at 1%, with no significant higher
modes. Given that full acoustic output was available to 30Hz, this is a good result - below the hreshold for audibility on programme and comparing well with the industry average at this frequency. Only very large woofer systems can surpass it. By 55Hz the Duetta shows improving linearity, with an inconsequential level of -32dB for the 2nd harmonic, and higher overtones at -60dB (0.1%) or better. Remaining at 96dB and moving up the range to 500Hz, 2nd was moderate at I% and 3rd very low at 0. 15%, while at 2kHz the tweeter ribbon results were excellent at 0.1% of 2nd and little else, with 2nd harmonic held to 0.12% at 8kHz These
frequencies were not specifically chosen and illustrate the exceptional performance of this large panel design, while when the sound output was reduced to a cruising level of 86dB the speaker showed even lower levels of distortion, down into the regions associated with purely electronic devices."

So at 86DB, still quite loud, the performance is fantastic. Don't forget that is a standard Duetta, with the 30Hz bass hump. Mine do not have that bass hump. Loud and you need a pretty good dynamic setup to beat it. At 86DB you're gonna have real difficulty.

In room FR of mine versus the standard Duettas I used to own. Standard Duetta refurb is green, Interstella is red.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Justin, it's all well and good stating how stellar the bass on your Interstella Duettas is
But Marty has turned down possible Divas because of fears of bass performance
And Divas are meant to have better bass than Duettas, yes?

 

[treitz3]

Hello all, please forgive my intrusion on the conversation. When Apogees are mentioned, what model or type are you referring too?

Tom

 

[Zero000]

Justin, it's all well and good stating how stellar the bass on your Interstella Duettas is
But Marty has turned down possible Divas because of fears of bass performance
And Divas are meant to have better bass than Duettas, yes?

Yeah I have no issue with Marty I am just clearing up the argument that cone bass produces less distortion. Or making a vain attempt I expect LOL.

Divas were flatter than standard Duettas in the bass. Interstella isn't a standard Duetta. Its bass is much flatter. See above. Its distortion will be quite a bit lower than Martin measured, especially at higher volumes.

Many people liked that 30 Hz bass hump. It can sound crazy. They didn't like Divas because they didn't have it.

 

[bonzo75]

Justin, it's all well and good stating how stellar the bass on your Interstella Duettas is
But Marty has turned down possible Divas because of fears of bass performance
And Divas are meant to have better bass than Duettas, yes?

Yes, but he did not turn them out after listening to them and neither justin nor I have heard Rich's divas. His duettas were phenomenal

 

[Audio_Karma]

Go listen to the all new Martin Logan Renaissance ESL 15A Electrostatic Loudspeakers...some say they are their best speakers in their whole line! :b

If I had the money these speakers would be in my house right now! but I might end up buying their all new ESL X's..."The Baby Renaissance ESL's", that sound pretty d@mn good too in a smaller room!

 

[Zero000]

Go listen to the all new Martin Logan Renaissance ESL 15A Electrostatic Loudspeakers...some say they are their best speakers in their whole line! :b

If I had the money these speakers would be in my house right now! but I might end up buying their all new ESL X's..."The Baby Renaissance ESL's", that sound pretty d@mn good too in a smaller room!

17 years with MLs is enough, LOL.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Ked, we can safely assume Rich's Divas' bass is more linear and extended than his Duettas
And yet Marty turned them down because the FR graph showed the bass would fail in his situation

What I find fascinating about this is not the circular arguments about whether ribbons bass is better than cones bass
But that Marty has gone so far as to check on FR figures on Apogees, and other speakers, and turned them down based on these
I can't think of many others who would make buying decisions this way

 

[spiritofmusic]

Justin, Marty has already turned down a pair of box speakers because he didn't like their mid bass hump
Are we now saying he turned down Rich's Divas because he didn't like the absence of a bass hump?
Surely not

 

[Zero000]

Justin, Marty has already turned down a pair of box speakers because he didn't like their mid bass hump
Are we now saying he turned down Rich's Divas because he didn't like the absence of a bass hump?
Surely not

No. My posts are not concerned with Marty's decision.

Marty needs to move on and find something he thinks he'll like.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Justin, I have no axe to grind
I'm still awaiting my invite to Jon to hear his Graz Duettas, and a visit to the UK owner of Rich's Graz Divas
Unlike Marty, any decision to buy Divas or Duettas on my part would be a lot more subjective and visceral than go/no go based on Pink Noise and a FR graph as per Marty's decision
What I do find fascinating is that Marty has turned down Divas precisely for these criteria
I believe Marty has moved on, but this is the first time I've heard a potential buyer turn down Divas based on skepticism of bass performance, esp with the rest of his rig being ribbons friendly ie Spectral SS

 

[marty]

back to Marty search. Scaenas? Horns?

Frantz, since you've asked twice, I'd like to address these options.

Regarding the Scaena's, this was an obvious consideration since I enjoyed my Pipedreams and these are in many ways, the more modern equivalent. In particular, they benefit from superior ribbon tweeters, but still suffer the problem of trying to integrate large subwoofers with a 4" midrange driver which is an exercise that I can assure you leads to certain hair loss over time. Scaena's have never sounded as good to me as when the late George Bischoff set them up at shows. Now there was a man who was not only modest and knowledgable as hell about things audio, but also had a great set of ears. I, along with many others, miss him. Still, the Scaena's Achilles heel is that their subwoofers are driven by integral DSP'd amplifiers and therein lies the problem. When subs are placed behind the Towers, the laws of physics demand that one needs to retard the time arrival of the sound from the towers to match the arrival time from the subs. There is no way on god's green earth one can do this by DSP'ing the subs. Yes, you can provide good EQ, but you will never integrate them properly in the time domain. The best you can do is be off approximately a half-cycle at the crossover point. This works satisfactorily for sustained bass note such as organ pedals, but for transient bass notes, there is always a disconnect. It's just a none-starter for me. There are better solutions out there.

Regarding horns, it's rather simple for me. I have just never heard a set of horns that impressed me with formidable full range capabilities. Period. There are some horns out there that are superb midrange reproducers (I think of DDK's system in particular) but to capture the full audio spectrum generally requires some mating with subs below and something else on top, or at least horns that do top end better than the one's I've heard, which generally lack the requisite air or "penumbra" of sound I hear in the hall. Furthermore, once horns are mated to something else either below or on top, they never sound like a system that is cut from the same cloth, IMHO. Now I will also be the first to admit I have far more limited exposure to horns that just about any other transducer design, but the truth is, I'm just not interested in exploring them any further based on what I've heard to date. I may be entirely wrong on this as I know there are strong devotees of horn systems out there, but I'm just not one of them. I do however, like the sound of a good saxophone. Does that count?
Marty

 

[KeithR]

I'm a recent YG Carmel 2 owner and compared every speaker at and or below their price range. My speaker quest took me about a year as this was a huge purchase and commitment for me. My final two selections came down to I wanted a 2 way and a sealed cabinet. I felt the bass on a sealed speaker was so much more realistic.

Nevertheless I went with YG over Magico S1mk2 because Yoav Geva the designer I feel is beyond anyone in the industry with his technology. While other brands use "Exotic" Materials for their drivers I felt his proprietary crossover algorithm in which he wrote is the "Key" and Secret sauce if you will which put his speakers beyond his competitors.

His speakers are correct in both the time and frequency domain. No other manufacturer regardless of price has this technology or some of his others as well.

http://www.yg-acoustics.com/category/technologies

The proof is in the listening as his products have the most incredible and natural sound I've ever heard. Since you are in NJ you should give Bill Parish a call at GTT Audio if you haven't made up your decision yet.

The current YG line warrants a listen if you shopping in this range of products.

I like YG a lot, but they aren't time and phase coherent loudspeakers by design like a Vandy.