New Evolution Acoustics "SYSTEM" Speakers paired with Dartzeel

[Mike Lavigne]

MY QUESTION: CAN YOU STACK THE BASS TOWER SO IT IS 3 OF THE 4X7" CONES ON TOP OF EACH OTHER? I am concerned about having 6 speakers in a room...4 is already quite a lot of room.

since my answer to you was incomplete, i left out important things, i'm going to expand my answer to this part of your comment.

there are good reasons for more than one subwoofer tower.

when dealing with subwoofer towers outputting under 50hz, having twin sub towers flanking the passive main tower is preferrable to a single outboard tower as sonically it's more balanced relative to the other frequencies. and extending the tower higher, assuming the room can handle that, is also preferrable since the individual bass sources are more distributed and so the room nodes are reduced. single subwoofer towers are what you see since it's more practical and cheaper, not due to any performance advantage. and we are use to seeing it that way. triple towers requires our comfort zone to be expanded.

seeing a system designed from the ground up with multiple bass towers is different. and an advantage.

and remember, the Evolution Acoustics SYSTEM approach is a single speaker system, not pieces. the main tower is rolled off at the bottom, matched to the slope of the bass towers, and the bass towers get their signal from the speaker terminal of the main towers. i'd put the coherence of my MM7's up against any full range speaker system anywhere for coherence. and the new SYSTEM is no different in that way.

 

[LL21]

Hi Mike,

Thank you and totally appreciate that. I could believe it. In fact, your description applies to the entire high end audio experience. It always is about balancing all-out performance with practicalities (cost for one, space for another). How wide would 3 towers be (approximately)...and would you be able to line them up [almost] side by side...or would they all have to be fairly widely spaced? If 3 were 27" wide in total (9" per tower), that is manageable...but if they then need to be spread out and it is 4 feet on each side, that really starts to eat into space.

 

[bazelio]

I can vouch for this as I was there. Sunday was, to me, vastly better than Saturday. The sound was not just better, it was very significantly better. Or in my more commonly used vernacular, amazingly supreme and so, so real.

edited to add YMMV and IMHO.

What changed between Saturday and Sunday with the room or the setup, and in what areas did you observe this significant improvement day over day? I was there Saturday.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hi Mike,

Thank you and totally appreciate that. I could believe it. In fact, your description applies to the entire high end audio experience. It always is about balancing all-out performance with practicalities (cost for one, space for another). How wide would 3 towers be (approximately)...and would you be able to line them up [almost] side by side...or would they all have to be fairly widely spaced? If 3 were 27" wide in total (9" per tower), that is manageable...but if they then need to be spread out and it is 4 feet on each side, that really starts to eat into space.

they can be as close together as their outboard footers allow. which ends up about 7"-8" apart. ideally each tower would be equidistant from the listening position. so a slight arc, but it's not too noticeable. but at 50hz the system wave launch coherence is not too significant. for sure it will be about the same footprint side to side as my twin tower MM7's. but less deep as the cabinets are about 10 inches shorter front to back.

my MM7 footprint is 42" side to side, the triple tower SYSTEM footprint would be about the same, maybe 3-4 inches wider. you can also locate the bass towers almost anywhere in the vicinity of the main towers without much consequence. they could both be behind, or one to the side and one behind. visually i prefer the side by side. the flexibility and modularity of the SYSTEM allows for it to grow with system development, or room improvement seamlessly, without lowering the ceiling potential.

earlier you asked about the crossover; i've seen (impressive) pictures of it; it's a twin level affair, and contained in it's own sealed cabinet, to eliminate any cabinet resonance, in the rear of the middle M-T-M module in the main tower. the crossover began with the MM7 design, and was changed considerably.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I rewatched and re-listened to my show video tour on the desktop iMac.

On the Eva Cassidy clip it is clear that the pumping of the cones is unrelated to the vocal. The pumping happens regularly and consistently, once approximately every second. I think Mike's theory about infrasonic rumble is very plausible.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I rewatched and re-listened to my show video tour on the desktop iMac.

On the Eva Cassidy clip it is clear that the pumping of the cones is unrelated to the vocal. The pumping happens regularly and consistently, once approximately every second. I think Mike's theory about infrasonic rumble is very plausible.

it's not just a theory, but i respect that since it's a bit of a new approach, that people have to process it and get their heads around it.

a 1hz rumble from a slight warp will happen once a second. all speakers except this one will never know it's there. it's below any hearing threshold for sure. the -3db @ 7hz and -6db @ 3hz spec for the MM7 bass towers were new ground too. but with cones and not domes this did not jump out at you, and MM7's were never at an audio show. except when i had one in my room.

but you can be confident than any sound that can be captured on a recording will be reproduced. how much of the lowest octave will be audible will depend on which SYSTEM you choose. more amps and drivers result in less excursion needed and more audible output.

with a SYSTEM 9 and it's -6- 1000 watt amplifiers and 24 drivers (below 50hz) per side, it will all be there.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

What changed between Saturday and Sunday with the room or the setup, and in what areas did you observe this significant improvement day over day? I was there Saturday.

a few things i know about, and some i don't know the whole story about.

----the power grid improved Friday to Saturday dramatically, tripling the single 15 amp circuit for the whole system, to three 15 amp circuits. for Sunday a bit better balancing of how those circuits were used. but this was still a major limitation to such a potentially dynamically alive system.

----the prototype darTZeel cartridges were massaged a bit (don't know the details myself) between Saturday and Sunday.

----one of the prototype bass tower sections had a failure sometime on Saturday, caught late in the day, fixed for Sunday. the main towers did have many hundreds of hours on them, but the bass towers were brand spanking new for the show. so some learning was going on. and no vinyl had been used in the speaker development until the show. digital had zero pumping issues. so the subsonic pumping 'thing' was something new to deal with. the only performance issue was the power grid consequences of that pumping, but the visuals for listeners caused lots of understandable hand wringing. hard to 'unsee' it. much discussed between Herve, Joel and Kevin.

 

[bazelio]

When I used to think there was a specific and narrow range for tonearm resonance that had to be adhered to when selecting cartridge/arm pairings, the literature I'd read indicated that warp was almost always in the range of 4-6 Hz. It's theoretically possible for warp to be all the way down at 1 Hz (1 cycle per second), but that would be highly unlikely according to what I'd seen reported. In any event, I can agree it's only sensible that something related to the source playback system created this phenomenon. The question is why would that kind of extreme driver excursion related to something other than the musical content be acceptable? Intuitively, it seems as though it must result in distortion as it interferes with the intended excursion of the driver that is trying to simultaneously reproduce musical information. Are we to avoid vinyl playback with this system? Install rumble filters (which will have their own side effects)? Or else, what is the general solution going to be? Reproducing information to DC seems impressive but may need to be reconsidered.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

When I used to think there was a specific and narrow range for tonearm resonance that had to be adhered to when selecting cartridge/arm pairings, the literature I'd read indicated that warp was almost always in the range of 4-6 Hz. It's theoretically possible for warp to be all the way down at 1 Hz (1 cycle per second), but that would be highly unlikely according to what I'd seen reported. In any event, I can agree it's only sensible that something related to the source playback system created this phenomenon. The question is why would that kind of extreme driver excursion related to something other than the musical content be acceptable? Intuitively, it seems as though it must result in distortion as it interferes with the intended excursion of the driver that is trying to simultaneously reproduce musical information. Are we to avoid vinyl playback with this system? Install rumble filters (which will have their own side effects)? Or else, what is the general solution going to be? Reproducing information to DC seems impressive but may need to be reconsidered.

fair points. for now, i don't have answers other than the same phenomena occurs with my MM7's to a lower degree but is not evident visually. and with more headroom in drivers and amps, the SYSTEM 9 will do this to a lower degree than the show SYSTEM 7. and as this is a new issue for Kevin, he will have a chance to work it out.

my MM7's have amazing bass capability with vinyl. so i have 11 years of experience with it. in balance the net result is standard setting bass performance.

i don't necessarily agree that there is a performance issue related to this issue assuming sufficient power grid support. but agree that there is some effect. is it better for a system to simply skip deep bass playback? it is simple for Kevin to filter it out, listen both ways, and choose. we did talk about that as one way to go.

not a big deal in the end.

 

[Ron Resnick]

it's not just a theory

Sorry Mike, I did not know that you knew this as a firm fact. I thought this was just your prior educated speculation.

 

[Gregadd]

I do see where I compared to a white elephant. I can see where some might consider that disrepectful. No disrespect was intended. Despite being a Magico man , I think Wilson could give lessons oh to showcase a big speaker.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Sorry Mike, I did not know that you knew this as a firm fact. I thought this was just your prior educated speculation.

my info is from Kevin as far as how things work. not any speculation from me. how credible is Kevin? well; after designing all the Evolution Acoustics speaker systems, he gets the benefit of the doubt from me. that's 15 years of winners. i've visited his home where he does his work and listened to each of the EA speakers prior to their intro over 15 years, and so have seen bits and pieces of his processes. 5 years ago i heard the first iteration of the "SYSTEM" M-T-M module. i heard the promise then.

how the observer or listener interprets what they see and hear is a different thing. it is Kevin's problem to navigate the perception issues. and they are real. it's more than fair for you or anyone to be skeptical. i can trust the expert, and at the same time you can have a different view.

 

[mtemur]

When I used to think there was a specific and narrow range for tonearm resonance that had to be adhered to when selecting cartridge/arm pairings, the literature I'd read indicated that warp was almost always in the range of 4-6 Hz.

a 1hz rumble from a slight warp will happen once a second. all speakers except this one will never know it's there. it's below any hearing threshold for sure. the -3db @ 7hz and -6db @ 3hz spec for the MM7 bass towers were new ground too. but with cones and not domes this did not jump out at you, and MM7's were never at an audio show. except when i had one in my room.

High excursion of woofers without music or at the silent passages between songs is because of rumble. Mostly vinyl rumble.

Existence of a low frequency rumble with a vinyl playback system is inevitable. Some have more than the others depending on interaction between turntable, tonearm, cartridge, isolation solution and quality of the components.

Vinyl playback is a mechanical process where stylus rides in the groove inevitably causes some vibration no matter how smooth the vinyl surface is. I don’t remember where I read it but it’s up to 7Hz in general. That’s why cartridge-tonearm resonance (peak vibration) needs to be kept higher than that and lower than music (20Hz) in order to prevent interference which will yield amplification of resonance. Chosen 8-12Hz looks safe in this regard but if you have a relatively high quality-low rumble setup you can safely lower it down.

Low frequency rumble is eliminated mostly by subsonic filters (below 20 or 15Hz) found in phono preamps. Most phono pre manufacturers may deny employment of subsonic filter in their circuit but it is there. It may be a part of RIAA circuit. On the other hand some of them are really made without subsonic filter and high woofer excursion occurs.

 

[LL21]

they can be as close together as their outboard footers allow. which ends up about 7"-8" apart. ideally each tower would be equidistant from the listening position. so a slight arc, but it's not too noticeable. but at 50hz the system wave launch coherence is not too significant. for sure it will be about the same footprint side to side as my twin tower MM7's. but less deep as the cabinets are about 10 inches shorter front to back.

my MM7 footprint is 42" side to side, the triple tower SYSTEM footprint would be about the same, maybe 3-4 inches wider. you can also locate the bass towers almost anywhere in the vicinity of the main towers without much consequence. they could both be behind, or one to the side and one behind. visually i prefer the side by side. the flexibility and modularity of the SYSTEM allows for it to grow with system development, or room improvement seamlessly, without lowering the ceiling potential.

earlier you asked about the crossover; i've seen (impressive) pictures of it; it's a twin level affair, and contained in it's own sealed cabinet, to eliminate any cabinet resonance, in the rear of the middle M-T-M module in the main tower. the crossover began with the MM7 design, and was changed considerably.

Thank you. That is super helpful. Depending on depth, I suppose we could look at 3 rows of speakers on each side...but it is a lot. That said, let me ask you this:

knowing the System as you seem to...what do you think. How does this System 9 compare with your MM7? Any thoughts, listening notes or intuitive observations are much appreciated!

 

[Pokey77]

What changed between Saturday and Sunday with the room or the setup, and in what areas did you observe this significant improvement day over day? I was there Saturday.

I see that Mike has answered your question, I am unable to provide any other insight. All I know is that I can tell you that the SQ very dramatically increased from Saturday to Sunday. Saturday was great and Sunday was off the hook.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Thank you. That is super helpful. Depending on depth, I suppose we could look at 3 rows of speakers on each side...but it is a lot. That said, let me ask you this:

knowing the System as you seem to...what do you think. How does this System 9 compare with your MM7? Any thoughts, listening notes or intuitive observations are much appreciated!

returning to my room, it struck me the degree of immersion, seamlessness, and flow i experience in my system. the musical connection checks all my boxes as it ought to. which makes it so hard to compare. in my room i sit in the nearfield, in a room with my own definition of a perfect balance between live ness and detail. 11 years in the making. then 7 more years since that point i've enjoyed every day with it. the show system was pretty good, but a work in process, starting from scratch Thursday afternoon, the speakers in 14 pieces, the system did not make music until Friday morning early. the room was not terrible, but it was basically a curtained-in area inside a very large room. so the degree of immersion from a seamless presentation was lacking. i would say there was nothing wrong, but it did not really gel completely, except here and there. and some of those were fantastic.

so applying what i did hear from the SYSTEM 7 to my MM7's to compare i have to digest the pieces of what i heard and connect the dots.

the good news is the tech of the system is basically the same for the MM7's and the SYSTEM 7. the bass tower adjustments are the same approach, slightly different extensions on the bass towers and main towers between the 2 designs. much more the same than not. the SYSTEM 9 would be close to plug and play in my current room.

i also have to factor the new Durand Tosca LE tonearm and darTZeel cartridges, as well as the dart digital, so both pluses and minuses.

i did hear fantastic dynamics and bass articulation from the SYSTEM 7 in spots, when the power grid was not holding it back. i heard very high levels of detail and tonal rightness. and the top to bottom balance was typically great Evolution Acoustics. my gut is that the SYSTEM 7 does surpass the MM7's in degrees in most things. and likely the SYSTEM 9 will be even better by more degrees.

the SYSTEM 7 was fast, fast, fast....when the stars aligned. it was very solid, again, when it was right, and could command the music with authority and sexiness. i heard zero weaknesses. nothing that my room and a little time could not harness. no limitations.

the question is whether the move would be worth it for me, since i'm not actively seeking a different speaker system. what i have is the best thing i have ever heard. so there would be a measure of faith involved in spending the money and effort to go through the process of changing. at this point i would stop short of saying it's inevitable that i will do it. i just retired, so i am learning about that and i want to see if my 'life' priorities adjust.

bottom line is that there is a fair chance i will end up with the Evolution Acoustics SYSTEM 9.

 

[LL21]

returning to my room, it struck me the degree of immersion, seamlessness, and flow i experience in my system. the musical connection checks all my boxes as it ought to. which makes it so hard to compare. in my room i sit in the nearfield, in a room with my own definition of a perfect balance between live ness and detail. 11 years in the making. then 7 more years since that point i've enjoyed every day with it. the show system was pretty good, but a work in process, starting from scratch Thursday afternoon, the speakers in 14 pieces, the system did not make music until Friday morning early. the room was not terrible, but it was basically a curtained-in area inside a very large room. so the degree of immersion from a seamless presentation was lacking. i would say there was nothing wrong, but it did not really gel completely, except here and there. and some of those were fantastic.

so applying what i did hear from the SYSTEM 7 to my MM7's to compare i have to digest the pieces of what i heard and connect the dots.

the good news is the tech of the system is basically the same for the MM7's and the SYSTEM 7. the bass tower adjustments are the same approach, slightly different extensions on the bass towers and main towers between the 2 designs. much more the same than not. the SYSTEM 9 would be close to plug and play in my current room.

i also have to factor the new Durand Tosca LE tonearm and darTZeel cartridges, as well as the dart digital, so both pluses and minuses.

i did hear fantastic dynamics and bass articulation from the SYSTEM 7 in spots, when the power grid was not holding it back. i heard very high levels of detail and tonal rightness. and the top to bottom balance was typically great Evolution Acoustics. my gut is that the SYSTEM 7 does surpass the MM7's in degrees in most things. and likely the SYSTEM 9 will be even better by more degrees.

the SYSTEM 7 was fast, fast, fast....when the stars aligned. it was very solid, again, when it was right, and could command the music with authority and sexiness. i heard zero weaknesses. nothing that my room and a little time could not harness. no limitations.

the question is whether the move would be worth it for me, since i'm not actively seeking a different speaker system. what i have is the best thing i have ever heard. so there would be a measure of faith involved in spending the money and effort to go through the process of changing. at this point i would stop short of saying it's inevitable that i will do it. i just retired, so i am learning about that and i want to see if my 'life' priorities adjust.

bottom line is that there is a fair chance i will end up with the Evolution Acoustics SYSTEM 9.

Thank you. Very clear...and to be honest, very fun! I do think the System 9 sounds like a pretty sensational option. I have long been a fan of the 4-tower concept barring the space requirement...but had never appreciated the very specific technical view that 6-tower was definitively superior. Will do some more reading and measuring of the towers and our space just to keep it in the back of my mind.

 

[Ron Resnick]

bottom line is that there is a fair chance i will end up with the Evolution Acoustics SYSTEM 9.

I, for one, but I suspect that many of us, will be fascinated to learn your decision. To me your decision is where the "rubber will meet the road."

 

[LL21]

I, for one, but I suspect that many of us, will be fascinated to learn your decision. To me your decision is where the "rubber will meet the road."

Yes, this will surely be a most watched space, Mike. The decision about whether Mike goes for it is surely a telling sign, but even if he does not, if his intuition/experience tells him its a superior design (and he does not buy it for his own personal reasons)...that is a big vote of confidence for me...and certainly enough for me to put this speaker near the top of the list for auditioning.

 

[sbo6]

the question is whether the move would be worth it for me, since i'm not actively seeking a different speaker system. what i have is the best thing i have ever heard. so there would be a measure of faith involved in spending the money and effort to go through the process of changing. at this point i would stop short of saying it's inevitable that i will do it. i just retired, so i am learning about that and i want to see if my 'life' priorities adjust.

bottom line is that there is a fair chance i will end up with the Evolution Acoustics SYSTEM 9.

Catching up with this thread, now I understand the possible sale.

Congrats on your retirement, the journey accelerates!