My monitor/subwoofer system

[Al M.]

7) I did hear a slight rounding of the leading edge, which had me searching up the amps' measurements online, and did find the previous model's Stereophile review which does show that slight rise delay. Unlike the predecessor amp's slight ringing after the rise event in the same measurement, this amp did not sound to me like there was ringing; I felt that, if it were to be measured, it would show a slight rounding of the leading edge, post-rise, as well as that ever so slight rise delay. Having said that, it never bothered me a single bit.

This is the one observation I cannot agree with, Ack. Yesterday, the day after you had visited, I re-checked transients, which so far I had found excellent in my new system, in fact, one of its strong points. A week ago I had made an acoustic change, which is adding an absorbing panel on the sidewall that the right speaker stands relatively close to (I had already had diffusing panels there). While I had noticed that it helped with 'ringing', I thought perhaps this had deteriorated transients and led to your observations.

What I found was, after listening critically to a variety of material:

1) There was no deterioration of transients by the absorbing panel, and they were as excellent as I had always found them.

2) On the Stockhausen piano the removal of the absorbing panel again led to more ringing at extreme treble notes, which objectively can only slow down transients. Yet superficially transients did initially seem 'faster', but that was only because they hardened up (the frequency balance hardly, if at all, changed). This was not genuine increase in speed, but perceived greater speed due to artificial hardness and 'etching' induced by speaker/room interactions. Thus a harder acoustic can lead one to believe that transients are faster, but it is not necessarily the case that this is really so.

When it comes to true transient speed and accuracy, and without etching, there will undoubtedly be systems that are even better than mine (and on some material I still deal with a certain amount of etching probably mostly due to room acoustics that remain imperfect after all the work). Yet so far, on all but the most demanding material *), I have not heard any that are better in this particular respect, including yours.

Obviously, audio inherently deals with compromises, and every system has its weak points. Also my system has a number of weaknesses that I readily concede -- and which I also considered upfront in my initial planning of the system --, and you rightfully pointed out a few of them. However, in my view speed and accuracy of transients is not one of these weaknesses. I am quite confident about this issue. Yet while I do not expect that to be the case, perhaps I will change my mind when I hear your system again next month, and I also look forward to hear the positive changes in it. I will certainly keep an open mind about perceived transient speed. Obviously, some differences in tonal balance between systems can also lead to perceived differences in transient behavior. I notice this also in different concert hall acoustics, which lead to varying tonal balances.

(I don't think the square wave measurements that you showed shed meaningful light on the issue, and as you point out, the rise delay of that 10 kHz (!) square wave is short. John Atkinson, by the way, was impressed by the overall performance he measured.)

___________________

*) when played very loudly, the most complex material, such as large-scale orchestral climaxes, produces some blurring of sound on my system, under which obviously transients will suffer as well

 

[LL21]

Thank you, Ack, for your kind words, and I am glad you enjoyed the system so much. It was a fun afternoon! You found the system often to be 'offering frightening levels of realism'. I am not so sure about that, but I am pleased with this nonetheless .

You made some very good observations, including the vibrations of the cabinet of the JL subs, which indeed should not be there. The torture test of Mahler's 2nd Symphony with the final choir blasted loud did indeed sound quite torturous, even though I think you said the system did not totally fall apart, which apparently was a positive compared to some other systems (I still didn't like what I heard ). I look forward to hear this on your system. My system fares much better on something large-scale purely instrumental, like Bruckner Symphony 9 or Shostakovich Symphony 4, as long as peaks do not exceed ca. 95-97 dBa (around 100 dB).

Hi Al,

Congrats and great reading! If you wish to see what i have done on my Velodyne DD18+, let me know. It has 5 Artesania damping plates on top, each with 25-45 lbs of weight on top. it all sits on top of Auralex Extra Large platform and Stillpoints...but you cannot hear it from the floor below, and it has 'superstilled' the sub so that you can now watch Marvel Comics movies at full tilt, and the weights have not moved even the width of a couple sheets of paper (some of the weights on top are that close)...and the old 'glass of still water thing' does actually now work.

 

[Al M.]

Hi Al,

Congrats and great reading! If you wish to see what i have done on my Velodyne DD18+, let me know. It has 5 Artesania damping plates on top, each with 25-45 lbs of weight on top. it all sits on top of Auralex Extra Large platform and Stillpoints...but you cannot hear it from the floor below, and it has 'superstilled' the sub so that you can now watch Marvel Comics movies at full tilt, and the weights have not moved even the width of a couple sheets of paper (some of the weights on top are that close)...and the old 'glass of still water thing' does actually now work.

Thanks, Lloyd. That sounds like an elaborate treatment of the sub! I am certainly interested in the damping plates and weight on top. Your platform must make a huge difference, as do my ASC SubTraps. I haven't tried the JL Audio subs without them, since they are so heavy to move, but I know from my old REL that putting the sub on the floor produces pure misery, compared to what it sounds like on the SubTrap. But then, I have a wood floor that just shakes with the bass. Perhaps on a concrete floor it is not so bad.

 

[Al M.]

By the way, since Ack swears by Isodamp material, I may also try that, which some serious weight on top. Just thinking out loud.

 

[ack]

This is the one observation I cannot agree with, Ack. Yesterday, the day after you had visited, I re-checked transients, which so far I had found excellent in my new system, in fact, one of its strong points. A week ago I had made an acoustic change, which is adding an absorbing panel on the sidewall that the right speaker stands relatively close to (I had already had diffusing panels there). While I had noticed that it helped with 'ringing', I thought perhaps this had deteriorated transients and led to your observations.

What I found was, after listening critically to a variety of material:

1) There was no deterioration of transients by the absorbing panel, and they were as excellent as I had always found them.

2) On the Stockhausen piano the removal of the absorbing panel again led to more ringing at extreme treble notes, which objectively can only slow down transients. Yet superficially transients did initially seem 'faster', but that was only because they hardened up (the frequency balance hardly, if at all, changed). This was not genuine increase in speed, but perceived greater speed due to artificial hardness and 'etching' induced by speaker/room interactions. Thus a harder acoustic can lead one to believe that transients are faster, but it is not necessarily the case that this is really so.

I think as you listen more closely, you will probably eventually pick up that delay as well. Notice, I mentioned it a couple of times, before I pulled out my iPhone looking for those measurements. That included piano, violin and wind instruments. Nonetheless, it's not a big deal, and I do not think it has anything to do with room treatments. Like the loss of resolution, it's probably electronic.

 

[the sound of Tao]

As also Ack pointed out, the speakers are capable of great rhythm and liveliness. Let me also make a plug for the Schiit Yggdrasil DAC in this regard, since everything starts at the source. While early digital had been severely handicapped in terms of rhythm, it has come a long way, and I perceive the Yggdrasil DAC to be one of the best rhythmic performers that I have heard, regardless if digital or analog. Very dance-able too!

Thanks Al, I guessed since you tune systems to play similar music to me that some of the values of coherence and micro dynamic rthymic shift and timing would be also on your radar. Apologies on the horrendous typos on my spelling of Reflector... dunno where I got the K from so I was updating my post with corrections and additional thoughts as you responded. But I get that these are qualities these speakers have in spades as well. Sounds like a really nice sound to me. Fully subscribed into your further discovery.

 

[LL21]

Thanks, Lloyd. That sounds like an elaborate treatment of the sub! I am certainly interested in the damping plates and weight on top. Your platform must make a huge difference, as do my ASC SubTraps. I haven't tried the JL Audio subs without them, since they are so heavy to move, but I know from my old REL that putting the sub on the floor produces pure misery, compared to what it sounds like on the SubTrap. But then, I have a wood floor that just shakes with the bass. Perhaps on a concrete floor it is not so bad.

As to your request on PM...i could not send files via PM, so here they are:


1. From on top so you can see how I placed each piece:
- Definitely a proper elastomer/damper FIRST.
- Then an HRS Nimbus Coupler on top.
- Then actual polished chrome or solid brass scientific weights.
- NOTE: I put in between each metal plate/weight a rubber sheet...comes for 50 cents from those silicon pads...see photo attached. THIS is what enables you to have lift off in your room at full tilt...and the weights will literally not move at all...not even 2 sheets of paper thickness.

2. From underneath, so you can see I have placed it on top of 4 Ultra 5s (hidden) and then on top of Auralex's largest isolation platform.

3. Again the 3rd photo is the silicon padding stuff...i do NOT use the silicon pads themselves, but the surrounding 'throwaway' silicon edges that are leftover after you have used up all the actual silicon pads. That stuff works perfectly. I have sent this photo on to RogerD as well regarding his own isolation for his subs.

I have not tried all subs out there...not the Magico QSubs, but all the ones i have tried vibrated at volume and seemed to benefit from some element of isolation. I have done this piece by piece, layer by layer and this is where i have ended up which has worked very well.

Hope that helps...let me know if you have any questions.

 

[LL21]

BTW, those picture frames are there to effectively hide all of the weights from the front (sub in the corner which is the only place it could go). Interestingly, after several movies and several hours of intensive Marvel Comics/Lord of the Rings, Mission Impossible, Man from UNCLE, those picture frames have not moved one fraction of one inch.

 

[Al M.]

I think as you listen more closely, you will probably eventually pick up that delay as well. Notice, I mentioned it a couple of times, before I pulled out my iPhone looking for those measurements. That included piano, violin and wind instruments. Nonetheless, it's not a big deal, and I do not think it has anything to do with room treatments. Like the loss of resolution, it's probably electronic.

Well, I will hear again what your system has to offer next time. I have a feeling that this is a debate where the last word has not yet been spoken.

 

[Al M.]

As to your request on PM...i could not send files via PM, so here they are:


1. From on top so you can see how I placed each piece:
- Definitely a proper elastomer/damper FIRST.
- Then an HRS Nimbus Coupler on top.
- Then actual polished chrome or solid brass scientific weights.
- NOTE: I put in between each metal plate/weight a rubber sheet...comes for 50 cents from those silicon pads...see photo attached. THIS is what enables you to have lift off in your room at full tilt...and the weights will literally not move at all...not even 2 sheets of paper thickness.

2. From underneath, so you can see I have placed it on top of 4 Ultra 5s (hidden) and then on top of Auralex's largest isolation platform.

3. Again the 3rd photo is the silicon padding stuff...i do NOT use the silicon pads themselves, but the surrounding 'throwaway' silicon edges that are leftover after you have used up all the actual silicon pads. That stuff works perfectly. I have sent this photo on to RogerD as well regarding his own isolation for his subs.

I have not tried all subs out there...not the Magico QSubs, but all the ones i have tried vibrated at volume and seemed to benefit from some element of isolation. I have done this piece by piece, layer by layer and this is where i have ended up which has worked very well.

Hope that helps...let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks Lloyd, very cool! I'll have to consider something like this.

 

[LL21]

Thanks Lloyd, very cool! I'll have to consider something like this.

The weights were largely 2nd hand from scientific/weights manufacturers who had taken in trade-ins from commercial companies, and the polished chrome free weights you can get from Amazon. The key was getting the Artesania damping plates...putting those first made a big difference for me as opposed to just pure metal on top. The other was those silicon sheets (not even 1" by 1")...just enough that the slightest unevenness between the metal weights no longer mattered (ie, no rattling) at all. And of course, as the weight increased, the overall box began to still more and more and more.

 

[Al M.]

I am just replacing some Harbeth 30.1s from my living room system and am caught between going for Harby 40.2s (which I had here for a while) or going something like the Reflectors that makes also SET more of an option. For bass extension the 40.2s made the cello sound just more bodied and visceral than the 30.1s and also made the left hand of the piano seem sufficiently weighty and appropriately balanced but the 30.1s just had a coherence and immediacy on their side. You go to concerts and listen to a similarly diverse range of music from memory so if you were playing piano or cello chamber or concerto music would the Reflectors portray these instruments well minus the subs.

Hi Sound of Tao, I just checked a few recordings:

1. Cello:
Janaki String Trio, Debut -- even though preferred with sub, for most music fine without sub, especially with the Beethoven Trio. Only the Penderecki was a bit thin.
Berg, String Quartet and Lyric Suite (New Zealand String Quartet on Naxos) -- fine without sub
Bach cello suites (Andras Schiff) -- for this one perfectly fine without sub, I might even turn down the sub entirely for myself

2. Piano:
Haydn piano sonatas (McCabe/Decca) -- great without sub, could perfectly live without it
Stockhausen piano pieces (Stockhausen Verlag) -- a bit thin on the left hand without sub
Beethoven, Diabelli Variations (Brendel/Philips) -- great without sub, could perfectly live without it

3. Ensemble:
Stravinsky, Histoire d'un Soldat (Stravinsky cond.) -- fine without sub, though I'd like to have one on this piece
Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers -- perfectly fine without sub
John Coltrane, Trane's Blues -- great without sub (!)

So overall, more hits than misses without sub actually. For the Beethoven Diabelli Variations, the Haydn piano sonatas and the Bach cello suites I'd probably not know if the sub was turned off if I didn't control it myself and hadn't heard the recordings before.

A majority of rock/jazz rock though will need a sub. There are the usual exceptions: even though preferred with sub, John Mc Laughlin's 'To The One', Frank Zappa's 'Sheik Yerbouti' and Pink Floyd's 'Wish You Were Here' are fine without sub.

Again, this is the worst case scenario, with wooden house, sort of dry wall, and speakers well away from front wall. In a different situation, need for sub will decrease further.

Hope this helps
Al

PS: great, often incisive (yet not etched) transients

 

[Al M.]

The weights were largely 2nd hand from scientific/weights manufacturers who had taken in trade-ins from commercial companies, and the polished chrome free weights you can get from Amazon. The key was getting the Artesania damping plates...putting those first made a big difference for me as opposed to just pure metal on top. The other was those silicon sheets (not even 1" by 1")...just enough that the slightest unevenness between the metal weights no longer mattered (ie, no rattling) at all. And of course, as the weight increased, the overall box began to still more and more and more.

Thanks, Lloyd.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Hi Sound of Tao, I just checked a few recordings:

1. Cello:
Janaki String Trio, Debut -- even though preferred with sub, for most music fine without sub, especially with the Beethoven Trio. Only the Penderecki was a bit thin.
Berg, String Quartet and Lyric Suite (New Zealand String Quartet on Naxos) -- fine without sub
Bach cello suites (Andras Schiff) -- for this one perfectly fine without sub, I might even turn down the sub entirely for myself

2. Piano:
Haydn piano sonatas (McCabe/Decca) -- great without sub, could perfectly live without it
Stockhausen piano pieces (Stockhausen Verlag) -- a bit thin on the left hand without sub
Beethoven, Diabelli Variations (Brendel/Philips) -- great without sub, could perfectly live without it

3. Ensemble:
Stravinsky, Histoire d'un Soldat (Stravinsky cond.) -- fine without sub, though I'd like to have one on this piece
Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers -- perfectly fine without sub
John Coltrane, Trane's Blues -- great without sub (!)

So overall, more hits than misses without sub actually. For the Beethoven Diabelli Variations, the Haydn piano sonatas and the Bach cello suites I'd probably not know if the sub was turned off if I didn't control it myself and hadn't heard the recordings before.

A majority of rock/jazz rock though will need a sub. There are the usual exceptions: even though preferred with sub, John Mc Laughlin's 'To The One', Frank Zappa's 'Sheik Yerbouti' and Pink Floyd's 'Wish You Were Here' are fine without sub.

Again, this is the worst case scenario, with wooden house, sort of dry wall, and speakers well away from front wall. In a different situation, need for sub will decrease further.

Hope this helps
Al

PS: great, often incisive (yet not etched) transients

Great explanation on this Al, am getting what I feel is a fairly clear understanding on it. There is just no opportunity to demo these for me so your comments are much valued. Thanks again
Graham

 

[Al M.]

You're welcome, Graham.

As for the coherence and immediacy you crave for, these speakers offer it in spades.

 

[ack]

Well, I will hear again what your system has to offer next time. I have a feeling that this is a debate where the last word has not yet been spoken.

Keep in mind that I have yet to see a single tube amplifier with as good a squarewave response as typical great solid state, and it's quite a common issue with tubes. That attribute alone doesn't obviously make SS better than tubes, but it is definitely a differentiating factor. On the other hand, I have also seen "soft" solid state squarewaves, which attempt to mimic that attribute of tube sound. Regarding, Isodamp, it will be interesting to see if they do anything to your amps and subs, at least when it comes to inherent higher-order vibrations in the subs than what we felt with our hands.

 

[Al M.]

Keep in mind that I have yet to see a single tube amplifier with as good a squarewave response as typical great solid state, and it's quite a common issue with tubes. That attribute alone doesn't obviously make SS better than tubes, but it is definitely a differentiating factor. On the other hand, I have also seen "soft" solid state squarewaves, which attempt to mimic that attribute of tube sound. Regarding, Isodamp, it will be interesting to see if they do anything to your amps and subs, at least when it comes to inherent higher-order vibrations in the subs than what we felt with our hands.

I am now thinking of the Isodamp option, since both you and Alan report on good results, provided that good weight is applied on top of it, and you can easily cover a large surface. I could have an Isodamp plate on top of the sub, and then put a concrete tile on top of it, like the ones under my speaker stands (those tiles are really heavy). I would wrap the tile into black cloth, for visuals and protection of the sub surface (even though the Isodamp layer would be in between). Or perhaps even better, spray the concrete tile with black protective rubber coat.

 

[ack]

I just listened to the Rihm Tutuguri CD that you introduced us to, and I will let you judge for yourself when you visit. Meantime, we should really turn others' attention to this remarkable recording, which is a REAL TORTURE for systems with that drum track on CD2 - I'll let you fill in the details, but this one is kinda beyond reference, much like the Mahler 6th's hammer strikes, except that it goes on for ~40 minutes

 

[Al M.]

I just listened to the Rihm Tutuguri CD that you introduced us to, and I will let you judge for yourself when you visit.

I look forward to hear this on your system!

 

[Al M.]

Today I listened again to Ack's excellent system, see my report here:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...end-of-round-1&p=505511&viewfull=1#post505511

I had been very curious about the transients, since Ack had found them a bit lacking in speed on my system, as he reported earlier in the thread. I brought diverse music where I particularly had paid attention to the transients in my system. Great as his transients were, as expected I heard nothing that would make me doubt the speed, dynamics and energy of the transients in my system. I have to say though that the sound has also become purer in my system in the meantime, due to the more complete break-in of the Octave amp (the official 300-hour break-in time is not overstated); perhaps the speakers have even further improved and the speaker cables more broken in as well.

The tone has also improved considerably; for example where it had been somewhat grey on the Kremer CD of Bach partitas for solo violin, it is now much fuller and more complete. Also, the rough transients from Kremer's playing, while retaining the great incisiveness and energy they always had, sound less aggressive now. I am curious how Ack will judge the transient performance the next time he comes, perhaps he will change his mind, perhaps not.

One thing that had greatly disturbed me was the extreme distortion on his recording of the final chorus of Mahler's 2nd symphony (with Ozawa/BSO) that he had played on my system (I had alluded to that in an earlier post). Well, it's not just my system; on Ack's system that is otherwise very clean the chorus sounds just as painfully distorted, both from the CD and the LP (blame it on the early Philips digital recording). On the other hand, I was totally wowed by the unbelievably effortless rendition of orchestra at up to 105+ dB peaks on Ack's system (see my report under above link). This is something that my system surely cannot do!

A relatively comfortable rendition of orchestra peaks out at about 95 dBa (ca. 100 dB) on my system. Even then it is still not as effortless and clean as with some larger speakers. Yet I listened yesterday to the 9th Symphony of Shostakovich, and parts of his 10th, and I was pleasantly surprised how well this went on those particular recordings (with Janssons conducting, on EMI). Very well, in fact. Much better than with my old amps driving my old monitors. Great tone on the double bass section too (as prominently used by Shostakovich, also in isolation), courtesy also of the new JL Audio subs. I had partially targeted my system upgrade also towards better rendition of orchestra, and I am pleased with the result. And in my view the system certainly reproduces lots of other music better and with more precision than I could have gotten for the same investment from larger speakers and amp(s) than can effortlessly drive them.

But again, this is personal preference; if I would listen mainly to orchestral music or have a larger room, I might have other inclinations. Yet even for rock music the monitor/sub combo does really great in my room. Certainly, I can not listen extremely loud to that music as I could on larger speakers, but I don't want to damage my ears long term either. I listen to rock at maximum peaks of 92 dBa (if ever, mostly at peaks of 90 dBa, ca. 95 dB). Like other music, rock is well served by the incisive liveliness of sound, as well as the precision and dynamics through the bass range (upper, mid, low), which also makes rhythm irresistible.