Luxury Sedan Priced Speakers- they have fancy car paint, but do they sound better?

[RUR]

Revel Salon 2
1" x 1
4" x 1
6.5" x 1
8" x 4
Total displacement = 43.5"

Wilson Alexandria 2

1" x 2 (counting the rear-mounted super tweeter)
7" x 2
13" x 1
15" x 1
Total displacement = 44"

Salon2 has only 3 8" drivers. If we're discussing displacement, cone surface area would seem a more useful comparison:

Revel Salon 2 = 197 square inches
Alexandria 2 = 388 square inches

i.e. Alexandria 2 has nearly twice the surface area of the Salon2.

Cone extension is another factor, but that data may be hard to discover.

 

[mojave]

Total displacement = 43.5"

Total displacement = 44"

Displacement is the surface area of the cone times the Xmax. For example, a 15" driver with a 26mm Xmax has twice the displacement of a 15" driver with a 13mm Xmax.

The surface area doesn't exactly follow the driver diameter because the surrounds can be different sizes. The Sd parameter give the actual cone surface area. However, for the sake of argument, I used the actual diameter for the following measurements. The surface area of the Revel drivers is 197.23 square inches. The surface area of the Wilson drivers is 387.79 square inches. Without knowing the Xmax you still can't make an adequate comparison.

 

[RUR]

...The surface area of the Revel drivers is 247.47 square inches.....

We're on the same wavelength, so to speak. See #8" driver correction in my post. Salon2 surface area is actually 197.33 square inches.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

when you said.....

That's just not my experience.

......i agree. until your reference gets challenged it's hard to see what i'm saying.

Well, you read what you wanted to believe into that, because as I inferred, the experience I was talking about was setting up PAs -- at the extreme, stacks of drivers, massive cabinets, thousands of watts pushing huge amounts of air into rooms bigger than most big houses, at the small end, several hundred watts and speaker systems only a little bit larger than most full-range audiophile systems, filling clubs as large as the most cavernous domestic great rooms. Now, before you go there, yes, I understand that such systems do not match good domestic audio in terms of refinement, but in the area of moving air, they exceed almost all hifi. Even the smaller stuff. That's where I learned that it's just not as simple as "there is no replacement for displacement," where I learned that sometimes an array of smaller drivers, properly placed and powered, can do a better job than mass.

Seems I gave the Salon an extra woofer. No matter. That's just one factor. It's not simple. And it is very much room-dependent.

Tim

 

[steve williams]

sure; there are rooms and systems where the X-2's would be entirely competent; but past a certain point they would still be wanting. why did Steve add the Gotham's? for a good reason.

Mike, FWIW I added the dual Gotham subs when I switched from my Audio Research Ref 600 Mk lll amps at 600 wpc push pull to the Lamm SET which is 32 wpc....a big difference IMO to moving air. Trust me when I tell you Mike, there was nothing lacking bass wise with the ARC Ref 600's playing through the X-2's

 

[fas42]

Even the smaller stuff. That's where I learned that it's just not as simple as "there is no replacement for displacement," where I learned that sometimes an array of smaller drivers, properly placed and powered, can do a better job than mass

A tiny speaker, properly tweaked and correctly driven will be far superior in creating a big sound, a convincing illusion of a musical event then the largest, most expensive speakers out there hooked up on the end of a normal system.

Frank

 

[JackD201]

+1 to everything AMP said

I will just add one thing. We know the fancy paint jobs that can cost additional thousands more won't change the sound.

Still, I'd really like to see someone call the factory and say, "I don't care how it looks send the darned thing to me raw and pass on the savings to me". Looks matter to me and I'm not ashamed to say it. If I'm going to set aside funds so I can buy myself something, which is really just patting myself on the back for being able to attend to the REALLY important stuff in life, it defeats the purpose to spring for something that will make me wince whenever I look at it.

Of course if audio WAS my life, looks wouldn't matter nearly as much.

 

[DaveyF]

I recently had the displeasure of listening to a pair of $20K speakers with four(4) fifteen inch drivers per side in a four way config. The 15" drivers were powered internally by a 1000 watt amp per channel!
I say 'displeasure' because while these speakers could make the walls in the listening room flex, they simply did not sound at all like music and were able to drive me out of the listening seat in no time at all
IMO, there are a number of speaker manufacturers who simply do not seem to know what the sound of a real instrument is in an un-amplified setting and therefore do not know how to design to that ideal.
The size of the drivers has IMHO very little to do with how the speaker will ultimately sound....Although many manufacturer's have priced their wares based on this factor.
OTOH, I do agree that large drivers are usually needed to move enough air to dig deep in the bottom end, BUT that is not by any means the end of the road to realistic reproduction.

 

[audioguy]

A tiny speaker, properly tweaked and correctly driven will be far superior in creating a big sound, a convincing illusion of a musical event then the largest, most expensive speakers out there hooked up on the end of a normal system.

Frank

I guess we get to agree to disagree. That is not my experience. I don't know what big speakers you have listened to but even the "lowly" Dunlavy line (including the rather large VI's) have pinpoint imaging as good or better than anything I have ever heard.

Obvioulsy, YMMV.

 

[fas42]

I guess we get to agree to disagree. That is not my experience. I don't know what big speakers you have listened to ...

That's fair enough, the confusion is in my using the words tiny versus large, which I was using to emphasise that the size of the speaker doesn't hinder or guarantee performance. The key words in what you quoted is "properly tweaked and properly driven", which is me saying that if the system prior to the speakers is not adding distortion, and the speaker themselves don't have weaknesses because of poor design or assembly, then you will have good sound. On the other hand, the most perfectly engineered, most exquisitely assembled, most expensive speakers you can buy, will merely highlight, magnify and emphasise every failing and deficiency of the system that's connected to the speaker terminals. In other words, excellent speakers can't make up for problems elsewhere in the setup.

I would agree that if all other things were equal, that bigger speakers would often be better than smaller ones just from the point of view of the drivers not having to work quite as hard at peak volume levels. On the other hand they may have more problems because of, for example, panel resonances.

Frank

 

[KlausR.]

IMO, there are a number of speaker manufacturers who simply do not seem to know what the sound of a real instrument is in an un-amplified setting and therefore do not know how to design to that ideal.

Knowing how the real instrument sounds is pretty much useless, IMO, for designing loudspeakers because of the very different radiation patterns of instruments, as compared to the patterns of loudspeakers. Because of this difference in radiation pattern and the directional characteristics of human hearing there is a perceptual difference between the sounds of instrument and reproduction:

http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/se...=JASMAN&key=DISPLAY&docID=20&page=1&chapter=0

and

Caussé et al., Radiation of musical instruments and improvement of the sound diffusion techniques for synthesized, recorded or amplified sounds”, ICMC Proceedings 1995, p.359:

"Perceptual evaluation
In a first experiment we have studied the perceptual difference between a real trombone (chosen for its radiation pattern which presents a cylindrical symmetry and a monotonic variation according to frequency) and the dodecahedron programed to reproduce various directivity indices. During listening tests, people were asked to judge the “psychological dissimilarities” between the real instrument and the radiation stimuli. The results have shown that we are sensitive to the directivity index variations (Caussé et al., 1994) and that it is possible to approximate the perceptual characteristics of the trombone when the simulated directivity index is close to that of the real instrument. Recent listening tests were dedicated to the comparison between different linear combinations of the first zonal spherical harmonics synthesized with the second reproduction method."

The following sources show graphs of radiation patterns of musical instruments:

Meyer, “Acoustics and the Performance of Music”, Verlag Das Musikinstrument, 1978
Meyer, “The Sound of the Orchestra”, J. of the Audio Engineering Society 1993, p.203
Le Carrou et al., “Some characteristics of the concert harp’s acoustic radiation”, J. of the Acoustical Society of America 2010, p.3203
Otondo et al., “New method for the directional representations of musical instruments in auralizations”, International Computer Music Conference, p. 248–251. Göteborg, Sweden, 2002
Otondo et al., “Directional patterns and recordings of musical instruments in auralizations”, Proceedings of MOSART workshop on Current Research Directions in Computer Music, S. 230–232. Barcelona, Spain, 2001
Meyer, “Akustik und musikalische Aufführungspraxis”, Verlag E. Bochinsky 1995
Meyer, “Directivity of the bowed stringed instruments and its effect on orchestral sound in concert halls”, J. of the Acoustical Society of America 1972, No. 6 (pt. 2), p.1994

Pätynen et al., “Directivities of symphony orchestra instruments”, Acta acustica united with Acustica 2010, p.138:

"In the design of concert halls, auralization is utilized to simulate the acoustics based on a computer model of the space [8, 9, 10, 11]. In such models the directivity properties of the sound source have to be defined. As the acoustical modeling is usually employed for larger music performance spaces, the ideal sound source is a symphony orchestra with correct directivities."


Klaus

 

[DaveyF]

So Klaus, you believe that knowing how real instruments sound is pretty much useless in the design of a speaker
If what you say is true, then I ask you, what is a speaker designer attempting to make his speaker sound like.....rice krispies in a bowl of milk?....Which BTW, if he can truly succeed at that he might be on to something... That speaker would most likely have a reasonable ability to sound like a 'live' instrument in some areas of frequency response. My point being, that if you know what the reference sounds like, then you should try and design to that goal.
OTOH, if you do not have a reference in 'live' sound, then the results will speak for themselves!IMHO!

 

[KeithR]

which is why i love my Evolution Acoustics MM3's. plenty of cabinet volume, plenty of cone surface, great integration, great refinement. under $50k list price. it's most unattractive feature is it's low list price. which removes it from consideration as an 'uber-speaker' to many. which is a shame really.

is spending in the $40k-$50k range for speakers crazy? maybe. but to most people spending more than $500 is crazy for speakers. a better way to look at it is......are the best speakers in the $40k to $50k price range better than speakers just below that price range? are buyers getting something for their additional dollars? then what about just above that price range?

where do more dollars not really equal more performance?

i don't feel the EA speakers limiting factor is price---its appearance. they are massive and look it in every way with the huge woofers on both top and bottom. they work great in your amazing, dedicated barn---but would be extremely tough on a normal living room environment. some day i will have to hear a pair. have always wanted to.

i believe that is why large wilson speakers have been fairly successful---while large, they can be placed near walls and can still go in a living room (since you can specify color).

 

[KlausR.]

So Klaus, you believe that knowing how real instruments sound is pretty much useless in the design of a speaker

If you look at the radiation pattern of musical instruments, and if you consider the fact that human hearing is directional, then you will see that a loudspeaker can never sound exactly like the musical instrument, it simply can't. I came across this literature not very long ago and these facts render the race for "sounds like the real thing" a race lost in advance, in my opinion that is. Maybe the radiation pattern of crispies in a bowl of milk is more like the pattern of typical loudspeakers, no idea, the pattern of musical instruments is not, that's a fact. Feel free to mail me for pdf's of those papers.

And since this race is lost right from the start, there's no need to spend loads of cash on loudspeakers. Floyd Toole and Sean Olive have determined objective criteria for what makes a loudspeaker a good loudspeaker. I wonder how may of all those luxury sedan priced speakers meet those criteria.

Klaus

 

[muralman1]

I look at it this way. Some instruments, such as horns, are more direct than others, such as the triangle, which sends sound in every direction. All musical instruments, and singers send their sound in a fan to cardioid shape.

I have to confess I can get my best sound from a recording made in an anechoic chamber without reverb added. That way, my cardioid emitting speakers will put the sound into my room as if the performance was gracing my home. The rest of my music catalogue asks me to envelope my consciousness with their place. That is easy to do.

 

[LL21]

i am inclined to agree with one of Steve William's first posts here (2nd post) and take it further. from my standpoint, if you wish to produce high quality mids, highs, etc...with unrelenting dynamics and low-bass capabilities, it costs money. Feeling super-low, ultra-controlled bass (that you feel more than you hear) during Dr. Dre, Missy Elliot, Dennis Ferrer...and at club loud levels...and then the ability to flip over to Bach Starker mercury living cello sonatas, John Williams guitar solos or Ella, or Eva Cassidy...and then recreate a sizeable big band Duke Meets Count...and then back to an action flick with unlimited action-flick explosive firepower...is very, very difficult to do unless you're going to spend some money. Particularly if when you listen to starker, you are going to expect a life-sized cello facsimile.

i do not disagree that SF Guarneris, Apogee Stages, Quad 2905s, and numerous other great speakers deliver T-R-E-M-E-N-D-O-U-S musicality, air, natural tonality, space and magic...for a lot less. i have been fortunate to hear each of these at lgenth and own some. But if you are trying to get something that can deliver superlatives in nearly ALL these areas of musical reproduction, in my own experience over the last 25 years, it takes size and it costs more.

no doubt, there are times when someone out there gets away with charging absurd premiums for mediocrity due to good marketing ("You can fool some people all of the time" as Lincoln said)...but whenever i have been fortunate to hear no holds barred, money no object systems which are well thought-out and designed...they often do things "ordinary human" systems cannot do. That does NOT mean i would buy those systems even if i could...sometimes the balance is not my taste...but i have usually had to admit that the system did things that are tremendously difficult to reproduce without a pretty big "sedan like" budget. my two cents.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

A tiny speaker, properly tweaked and correctly driven will be far superior in creating a big sound, a convincing illusion of a musical event then the largest, most expensive speakers out there hooked up on the end of a normal system.

Frank

That's fair enough, the confusion is in my using the words tiny versus large, which I was using to emphasise that the size of the speaker doesn't hinder or guarantee performance. The key words in what you quoted is "properly tweaked and properly driven", which is me saying that if the system prior to the speakers is not adding distortion, and the speaker themselves don't have weaknesses because of poor design or assembly, then you will have good sound. On the other hand, the most perfectly engineered, most exquisitely assembled, most expensive speakers you can buy, will merely highlight, magnify and emphasise every failing and deficiency of the system that's connected to the speaker terminals. In other words, excellent speakers can't make up for problems elsewhere in the setup.

I would agree that if all other things were equal, that bigger speakers would often be better than smaller ones just from the point of view of the drivers not having to work quite as hard at peak volume levels. On the other hand they may have more problems because of, for example, panel resonances.

Frank

Frank,

reading your comments, i'll bet that you have enjoyed the clarity of a small 2-way stand mount (or bookshelf) speaker compared to the same speaker in a 3-way floor standing configuration. particularly at modest price points, small 2-ways sound better than 3-ways of the same general price range simply by being simpler. sins of ommision (2-ways) are always easier on the ears than sins of comission (3-ways).

but there are full range speakers at higher price points that are able to do everything right those 2-ways can do and add the bottom 2 octaves to boot. in other words, the advantage of 'simple' at lower price ranges does not exactly 'scale' to higher (or highest) price ranges.

'tiny' speakers sound 'tiny' in the context of SOTA.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

i don't feel the EA speakers limiting factor is price---its appearance. they are massive and look it in every way with the huge woofers on both top and bottom. they work great in your amazing, dedicated barn---but would be extremely tough on a normal living room environment. some day i will have to hear a pair. have always wanted to.

i believe that is why large wilson speakers have been fairly successful---while large, they can be placed near walls and can still go in a living room (since you can specify color).

i'll agree the MM3's are not speakers which 'blend into' everyone's living room environment. with those 15" subwoofers and large cabinets up top they work best in a dedicated room....unless one has his/her priorites right.

OTOH with a sealed box as opposed to a port and all those bass adjustments i'll bet the MM3's could be adjusted for being near walls better than any ported truely full range speaker (like a big Wilson).

visually; the 1500 layers of Baltic Birch on the MM3's appeal to many people (not all, maybe not even most...but many) more than the R2D2 look of Wilsons, whatever color. aesthetics are a personal choice.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, FWIW I added the dual Gotham subs when I switched from my Audio Research Ref 600 Mk lll amps at 600 wpc push pull to the Lamm SET which is 32 wpc....a big difference IMO to moving air. Trust me when I tell you Mike, there was nothing lacking bass wise with the ARC Ref 600's playing through the X-2's

Steve,

i respect the low frequency performance of the X-2's. world class for sure. i even said.....

sure; there are rooms and systems where the X-2's would be entirely competent

i get that going with a low powered tube amp required help for full range as opposed to the 600 watt ARC's.

however; there are also large rooms where a pair of powered sealed 15" subs per side will have more headroom in terms of ability to move air and easily pressurize the room than the X-2's with high power. passive, ported designs have limitations.

it's not a matter that the X-2's are not capable of performing this task very well; it's more that other design approaches can do it even a little better IMHO. who knows? if i heard your speakers in my room i might change my opinion. i've just not heard a passive, ported design do bass like the best of active sealed boxes.

why doesn't JL use a ported design for the Gotham?

added note; designers of true state of the art full range speakers must make many tough choices for low bass performance.
--how easy to drive does it need to be?
--passive or active bass?
--can it be powered full range with one amplifier?
--ported or sealed box for woofer/subwoofer.
--one or two towers.
answers to these (and many other) questions result in compromises in one way or another. the marketplace votes on the validity of the those choices.

Wilson wanted an easy to drive, full range, single amplifier, passive speaker. so it choose a ported design. i'd say they hit it out of the park with the X-2. but that is not to say that there are no compromises in the design.

if you consider the Magico Q5 (just to **** off a few more people); they choose a passive sealed box and kept the driver and box size smaller so it was drivable. but; the driver size results in limited ability to provide warmth (move enough air) and many listeners view it as cold and sterile if very transparent and articulate; the passive sealed design requires high power. again; compromises in low bass design of an expensive speaker.

personally i much prefer the compromises of the X-2.

 

[steve williams]

Mike

I agree with everything you say. There are compromises with every design. Pick your "flavor" as Ron Party always says