Pro Gear vs Audiophile Gear

[Phelonious Ponk]

While I am one of those who believe that the best bass requires at least 3 sub-woofers regardless of speaker size, I think your post are over-simplifying the issue. Dispersion characteristics are important in what we ultimately hear in our rooms and the design of a speaker whether it is a 3-way or a 2 ways influence greatly its distortion characteristics...

Yes, dispersion characteristics are important, I just don't think they are inherently better in a passive 3-way. Now, they may be better in stereo, directly under the mid and tweeter (I have my doubts but let's assume...). Then what is the difference between...let's make it very easy without over-simplifying...a Wilson Sophia and a WATT over a forward-firing sub with a driver similar to the woofer in the Sophia? Crossover? With the active subs you can set the crossover point to whatever works. Balance? With the sub you have volume control, you can adjust the balance to the room. To bring the conversation back to where it began, and I apologize for the thread drift, let's make the 2-ways active, and get better driver control and separation up top, too. Do they sound small? That's not what I hear. What I hear is a much better separation of upper bass from lower midrange, of upper mids from treble. I hear the results of faster, more precise driver control and steeper crossovers, resulting greater midrange clarity, faster transient response, better instrument separation, better pinpoint imaging, less bloom and blur. I hear precision instead of what I get when tweeters are reaching too low and woofers are reaching too high and amplifiers are trying to deal with huge impedance variations. There is an explanation for what I hear. There is, thus far, no explanation for why a WATT sitting on top of a 10" passive woofer, crossed over at X would sound "bigger" than a WATT, sitting on top of a 10" active woofer, crossed over at the same point. Maybe we hear the same thing and just perceive it very differently.

Regarding electrostatics - not this conversation, but yes those tall broad panels create an impressive sound stage, and an incredible window into detail. Just don't get a few degrees off axis or it all comes tumbling down. In the end, it's all compromises, and I'm not saying that a couple of 2-ways and a sub or two are the only answer, or even the best answer. I'm just saying that if you objectively examine what some of the most respected audiophile floor-standers are, and what they are actually doing, they are doing the same thing or less than 2-ways and subs, and the only good explanation for the conventional wisdom that they are the bomb and 2-ways/subs are entry level high end at best is that the wisdom is more conventional than it is wise. What does all of that have to do with the pro/audiophile discussion? Unless you're planning on building a pair of mains monitors into the walls of your listening room, the pro market is going to be mostly about 2-way monitors and subs. If the conversation is predicated on the notion that floor-standers are inherently better, it really can't go very far. Best to just go ahead and address that logical fallacy up front, I think.

P

PS: You misunderstood or I miscommunicated. I haven't performed any experiments on any B&Ws.

 

[RUR]

Crossover? With the active subs you can set the crossover point to whatever works.

Tim, how is this accomplished with your ADM9.1's (when used with sub)? Unless there's a crossover - active or otherwise - in the signal chain which controls both sat low-pass and sub high-pass, there's only the subwoofer's adjustable high pass filter.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, how is this accomplished with your ADM9.1's (when used with sub)? Unless there's a crossover - active or otherwise - in the signal chain which controls both sat low-pass and sub high-pass, there's only the subwoofer's adjustable high pass filter.

I don't have the sub, RUR, and I don't know how it is accomplished. I know there is a sub out on the back of the left monitor and the remote allows you to set the volume and the crossover frequency...so perhaps the crossover is in the monitors? I can ask...

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Regarding electrostatics - not this conversation, but yes those tall broad panels create an impressive sound stage, and an incredible window into detail. Just don't get a few degrees off axis or it all comes tumbling down
All speakers have varied off axis response. All speakers have a sweet spot. The CLS has 30 degrees of vertical dispersion. Admittedly it uses a curved panel to achieve it.There really is no reason for you to listen critically that far off axis. For a cursory discussion of off axis response see Roger Sanders discussion on this site and his video on you tube.

Ethan- I had occasion to visit Romy the Cats website. He gives the following advice that he has been unable to follow. Address the issue not issuer. I'll try to follow that advice here. I first encountered the terms macro-dynamics and micro-dynamics in the absolute sound magazine. My memory fades but I beleive HP extrapolated the terms from the economic terms microeconomics and macroeconomics. I beleive he used the terms to describe dynamic range. Macro-dynamics would be large scale dynamic range. Say the difference between a canon shot and dropping a penny on the floor. Micro-dynamics would be the difference between two sounds much closer in decibel level. Say the difference between Sarah Vaughn singing in normal tones and whispering I love you in your ear. Should I have been so lucky.

It follows then that dynamics is the ratio of louder passages to softer passages. I think may many reviewers refer to them as pianissimo and fortissimo and use notations such as ffff or pppp.

Yes we all use terms we don't really understand. Just ask a few people to define epiphany. It does not mean the word does not have a valid meaning.

The question is not that we can't measure. The question is after we have created a component based on all all our ability to measure the end result does not sound like real music. We also hear things we can attribute to our known ability to measure. For the sake of argument I have included room measurements.

 

[RUR]

I don't have the sub, RUR, and I don't know how it is accomplished. I know there is a sub out on the back of the left monitor and the remote allows you to set the volume and the crossover frequency...so perhaps the crossover is in the monitors? I can ask...

Tim

Just curious, but please do ask. Also, is the xover fixed @ 4th order?

It's Ken, BTW.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The word "musical" might mean that to you, but certainly not to me. I use the term "euphonic distortion" to describe distortion that for one reason or another sounds pleasing. And this is exactly the problem with all such terms - they relate a subjective rather than technical assessment of sound quality. Subjective to me implies personal and individual, and thus will not be universally understood. For example:

Every single one of those descriptions can be better stated as the frequency response at various frequency ranges. I'd also like to hear a definition of microdynamics, and how it's different from regular dynamics. (Actually, I'd like to hear a definition of regular dynamics too.) The last time this came up, in another forum, someone kept using the term microdynamics. So I asked him to define it. He was unable to do that, so instead he had the forum mod delete the entire thread. I'm not kidding. And the thread had grown to several dozen pages by then!

I'm sure that won't happen here because this is a much more friendly place! So I'm comfortable asking you to define your terms explicitly and completely, leaving no room for misinterpretation. But if you use the word "palpable" I will never forgive you. Hey, maybe you'll convince me! At the minimum it will be entertaining and enlightening.



Those "damn numbers" can indeed tell us all that's needed to assess everything that affects fidelity. Of course you have to know what to measure.

--Ethan

i have one question; why didn't you respond to my comment "a deaf person could not design a really refined speaker; or rather the odds of it happening would be like winning the lottery."?

that response would be interesting to me. if you truely feel "Those "damn numbers" can indeed tell us all that's needed to assess everything that affects fidelity" then we live in different universes.

do you know any really good speaker designers that don't use listening in their design process?

numbers get us close or help prove things but they cannot define pleasure or music for us.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

We will move back to Pro vs Audiophile in a second ...

P
I am not saying that the best speaker configuration is 3-way ... nor do I advocate that a woofer must be under the mid and the tweeter. I am describing an observation .. Small speakers tend to sound small .. I speculated about dispersion characteristics but I don't know for sure .. I would however remark that smooth dispersion throughout the frequency range is important in the final sound we get from our speakers... It is not an easy thing to achieve and indeed is often not achieved by most designs , including many small monitors. There are other problems with these small monitors .. Power compression being one of these .. it is not limited to monitors ...No amount of subwoofing will compensate for power compression in the mid band and many a mini-monitors suffer from that .. The list of their faults is long , not that 3,4, 5-ways don't have these problems ... I am not alone but you will not mistake a small monitor with subs for the better speakers out there audiophile or otherwise and I repeat it it is not a matter of high SPL.

@Ethan

I think we listen first then we correlate our impressions to the numbers. I have no problems with numbers but listening has a role to play in the final products.. There have been instances in which reliance on sheer numbers do not produce a correct results .. Not because the numbers are wrong in themselves but because they were misapplied and other parameters were needed,more numbers if you will, IOW , we din't know any better... The most cited example is that of TIM (Transient InterModualation distortion).. when several people, audiophiles found SS amplifiers of the 70's inferior to their tubed brothers .. The derision was cast on these poor guys for a while until serious studies discovered that indeed the SS amplifiers of the time to achieve great looking numbers used a boatload of negative feedback ... The observation must at times be acknowledged .. You don't solve a problem by thoroughly ignoring it ... Had we accept , "Perfect Sound, forever" we would not have had the current slew of high performance DACs and ADCs ...
There is truly the problem of not being able to put the observations intoword .. I am reminiscent of trying to describe what turmeric bring to an Indian food recipe... and the only word that keeps on coming to my mind is "square" .. "Square" taste ? Yet that is the only word I have found for the edge turmeric gives to some food .. Same with Audio , I have heard some systems being good a playing from low to high SPL .. not a problem for these they can play low and very high with no problem .. What they seem not to do well is to reproduce the gradations between Low, very low and very, very low or from hight to very, to very, very , very high; thus the use of "Macro"-dynamics and "micro"-dynamics .. It is imprecise but it is the best we can do with read words when the sensation is aural ... the very efficient speakers for example tend to reproduce the , yes, micro dynamics AND Macro-dynamics exceedingly well. Electrostatic do the micros well not so much the Macro .. Most horns sound ..well... horny and one person I know ( there may be others) has identified the source of these "horny" colorations , one Earl Geddes.. That is what to me is missing ... correlating , reliable observations to science, to measurements...

But first they have to be described .. We know it is imprecise but it is a way of describing it so that those who know more search and find a solution ... Most audiophiles would not care if the person use numbers of quantum physics or magic as long as their (perceived) problems are solved .. Of course moderation and assuring oneself that the perception is reliable, are key .. yet one should open one's mind to understand what the listener has to say about a given reproduction. As an engineer I dig numbers and would like to see them more often in Audiophile discussions .. I remain puzzled by speakers that for interesting reasons , worth looking into IMO, don't measure that great on many parameters but "sound" more accurate to my and other people ears than some measuring better ... A case in point is the MG 20.1 compared to a Thiel CS 5 ..

In the word of Forrest Gump and that was all I had to say about thhhaaaat..
I am with numbers but there is a thing about sometimes just listening

back on topics .. Audiophiles should look into the gems of the DACs Pro Audio World is a mine of goodies .. The Antelope Zodiac, by all accounts a giant killer, is $1495 ... and yes looks very good ...

 

[Gregadd]

We all know what mini monitors do well.They are point sources. For some reason they image like hell. It's almost spooky.

 

[FrantzM]

We all know what mini monitors do well.They are point sources. For some reason they image like hell. It's almost spooky.

Some big speakers do as well and to me better the Wilson X-2 is scary in that regard so is the Dynaudio Evidence Master ... There are others these two jumped to mind ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Regarding electrostatics - not this conversation, but yes those tall broad panels create an impressive sound stage, and an incredible window into detail. Just don't get a few degrees off axis or it all comes tumbling down
All speakers have varied off axis response. All speakers have a sweet spot. The CLS has 30 degrees of vertical dispersion. Admittedly it uses a curved panel to achieve it.There really is no reason for you to listen critically that far off axis. For a cursory discussion of off axis response see Roger Sanders discussion on this site and his video on you tube.

Gregg, I agree. I was using this relative weakness of electrostatics only to say that all designs, even those that can work very well, have their inherent compromises.

P

 

[terryj]

The question is not that we can't measure. The question is after we have created a component based on all all our ability to measure the end result does not sound like real music. We also hear things we can attribute to our known ability to measure. For the sake of argument I have included room measurements.

do you know any really good speaker designers that don't use listening in their design process?

numbers get us close or help prove things but they cannot define pleasure or music for us.

I hope this does not get taken the wrong way! A genuine question/point.

I always hear, from the audiophiles, that 'science does not know all', or that 'numbers don't tell the whole story'. That may or may not be the case, not my query.

It seems to me, that the only way someone could make the statement 'there is something missing in the measurements' is that they *know*, they have first hand complete practical experience in the matter. They have been up and down the measurement road, know everything to know about how to take measurements, when to take them, which ones to use where.

THEN they have to have been up and down the road applying all that gained data to designing, building and marketing speakers, what works and does not work, what the market wants or rejects.

ONLY then, I feel, could they based on that broad hard won knowledge be able to say 'from all my years of work in this field I think there IS some missing X factor measurement that we simply do not know about'.

I mean, how does the person know that imaging is not tied to a very close matched FR between both speakers?? (making it up as I type) Why is there a missing 'imaging measurement' in science? You'd only be able to conclude there was a missing 'imaging measurement' if, in all your years of building speakers, you have found existing measurements to be a complete failure?? That every measurement we currently have bear no relationship at all to this phenomenon we call imaging.

But WE are not speaker designers/builders are we, we are just hi fi enthusiasts, digging ditches during the day. HOW the hell do WE know that measurements are genuinely incomplete?? Armchair reading? Sounds pithy in some hugely subjectivist audio review??

Dunno, I mean, hi fi can be bloody magic can't it!! So on some basic human level, there IS a mystery to it, a wonderment. There she is, right in front of me, disembodied and not tied to those two big boxes over there, she is here!

And there is an emotional component, so naturally we must ask ourselves 'what measurement shows that??'

Ahh, that measurement is NOT within the speakers haha.

Anyway, just some random musings on the subject, often in life the most 'expert' in the field can know the least... (hope it was clear this was a general question, not directed towards anyone at all)

To justify my presence in the thread haha, I use pro drivers in my system, fully active run by two deqx units (well, the pro company I am using-PHL-don't make tweeters so use morel there) There is nothing coarse or unrefined about them so lose nothing on that front. But, they have a speed and dynamics about them which I find completely absent in the 'bog standard' typical audiophile system (tho most I have heard would not be of the caliber of many systems here, so ATM I'm not making far reaching conclusions).

But the SLAM!, the WOW!, the punch. Never heard anything approaching it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

you will not mistake a small monitor with subs for the better speakers out there

I think you've missed a big part of the thread, Frantz. I've not mistaken two-way monitors with subs for the better speakers out there, I've shown that a couple of what are widely regarded as the better speakers out there are two-way monitors with subs, or big passive woofers, at least. What differentiates these floor-standers -- (often) lesser bass extension, less driver control for bass, passive crossovers to the woofers, inability to adjust phase, volume and crossover point, fixed room position of the woofers -- are all disadvantages. At least in theory. I understand that they sound different. I'm not at all convinced they sound better. With that said, and at the risk of scaring Gregg with another round of subjectivity, it's pretty subjective. There are audiophiles out there who think old horn-loaded speakers like legacy Klipsch and Altecs and Tannoys are the bomb. I've owned two out of three and I'll not be going back. Different strokes and all that. But if there is an explanation for why a WATT/Puppy should sound better than a WATT and a good sub, I haven't heard it yet. And with that said, I'm not trying to convince anyone that 2-ways and subs are the answer. I'm just saying they are a valid choice for a "high-end" system that, when done properly, deserves at least as much respect as floor-standers like the WATT/Puppy, that are based on them. Yes, based on them -- David Wilson started with a small 2-way monitor. He later added a woofer.

Where's the difference; where's the magic?

P

 

[DonH50]

Somewhat OT: A goodly amount of room treatment will greatly broaden the sweet spot for bipolar panels of any flavor.

More OT: I suspect most imaging issues stem from room acoustics, not the speakers...

OT: Pro drivers tend to use longer excursions and heavier magnet assemblies, giving them the ability to play loudly in a concert hall. In a home system, they should be more linear due to the smaller excursion required (and lower self-heating). Of course, "more linear" is relative, and a lot of monitors are designed for near-field work and so are not optimized for the higher output and wider sound stage of a home environment.

All imo, fwiwfm, my 0.000001 cents, blah blah blah - Don

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Just curious, but please do ask. Also, is the xover fixed @ 4th order?

It's Ken, BTW.

No low pass filter in the monitors. They roll off rather neatly and the sub takes over where you set the crossover. Evidently at about 60hz in good rooms, 40hz in rooms that add bass.

P

 

[RUR]

So, no crossover between sub and sats at all. Not an ideal solution. Wonder if one could use an external active Xover à la DEQX or some such. Feed digital to the xover, which then feeds both sub(s) and sats. Does the AVi have proprietary connections?

Thanks, Tim.

 

[terryj]

OT: Pro drivers tend to use longer excursions and heavier magnet assemblies, giving them the ability to play loudly in a concert hall. In a home system, they should be more linear due to the smaller excursion required (and lower self-heating). Of course, "more linear" is relative, and a lot of monitors are designed for near-field work and so are not optimized for the higher output and wider sound stage of a home environment.
Don

Really?? You probably know more about it than I do, but honestly I would have thought it the opposite??

My PHL 18's have an xmax of 8mm I think. My PHL 10's, gee I'd suspect 2mm?? (foam surrounds, not pleated or roll-yeah of course you can get pleated)

It seems to me it is in the home audio world you get the 'insane' 40mm excursion, 25mm not uncommon and 12.5 everyday.

I'm not questioning you, just very surprised.

Earle recommends with is distributed subs thing that the mains roll off naturally, you may high pass the subs (don't recall exactly what he says) but AFAIR he does say to let the mains do their natural thing.

I use four subs also in the room, controlled by the second deqx. It can be a real bitch to get them to integrate properly, for a very strange reason...and it may be some part of the answer to PP's questions?? (I think, what I suspect, yada yada)

I can easily get the subs to integrate if I do nothing to them except in the FR domain. Ie, eq any bumps out.

that is simple. BUT, when you use the deqx as I do (correct the in room response of the subs FROM THE LP), it additionally corrects in the time domain, all the frequencies arrive at the same time (whereas uncorrected, they come whenever they come, like Brown's cows)

So the timing (not the FR) is all critical, it has to be matched to within a fraction of a second, else it stands out like the dogs.

Soo, long winded way of saying perhaps the main attraction of a 'two way with in built subs' a la the speakers that have been discussed, is that a) not only are they usually passive, but also b) co-located in physical space and hence less of a timing issue???

Most audiophiles (ok, a generality) are pretty much 'install and forget' I'd say. For sure, move the speaker back and forth, in and out, sideways a little, adjust toe in and bobs your uncle.

Maybe few have the skills or desire to do the hard yards to properly integrate subs?? (or hire some bloke to do it for them, but thankfully that is changing, witness the articles on this forum starting to appear, 'how to measure rooms' etc. The audiophiles that are comfortable with measuring gear and know how to use it would be a vanishingly small percentage).

 

[DonH50]

Hmmm... I do not know I know more than you, and my knowledge could well be out of date since I have not looked recently. The large JBL, EV, etc. systems I have worked on all had woofer excursions of an inch (25 mm) or so with some going to 50 mm (2"); mids (which often reach into the upper bass) were 5 - 15 mm IIRC (a danger, that recollecting part). The tweeters were often horns so pretty small displacement (not needed for volume!) Bottom line is that you may be right. Hopefully somebody can jump in and update me, please!

I do recall one of the audiophile systems way back then with the longest-displacement drivers, and worst sound (imo), were those little abused Bose 901 midrange drivers forced to do full-range duty...

There were a number of articles touting the benefits of more cones with smaller (more linear) displacement to reduce e.g. FM modulation (distortion). I use planar speakers so large displacement is not practical, nor needed with larger panels, at least in the home. There are some curvilinear arrays in the sound-reinforcement arena (our church was going to use a pair), but by and large I am not aware of any pro PA systems using bipolar planar panels, for a lot of good reasons (volume, area, and back-wave control among them).

Thinking I am always right is a complete and utter fallacy; just ask my wife and kids! - Don

p.s. I suspect but have not completely verified that a large part of the problem with sub integration is phase matching through the crossover region to ensure a proper blend and even wavefront with the mains. I am not sure timing alignment of the sub to the mains is as important (which is not saying it is unimportant) significantly below the crossover region.

 

[cjfrbw]

I'm sure that won't happen here because this is a much more friendly place! So I'm comfortable asking you to define your terms explicitly and completely, leaving no room for misinterpretation. But if you use the word "palpable" I will never forgive you. Hey, maybe you'll convince me! At the minimum it will be entertaining and enlightening.




--Ethan

How about: The (component X) had no euphonic distortions, yet the slew rate, frequency response, and square wave were palpable?

EEEEkkk!

 

[JackD201]

How about: The (component X) had no euphonic distortions, yet the slew rate, frequency response, and square wave were palpable?

EEEEkkk!

I'll jump on Ethan's bandwagon the day he can predict how a speaker sounds just by looking at his numbers.

 

[terryj]

I'll jump on Ethan's bandwagon the day he can predict how a speaker sounds just by looking at his numbers.

ask earle, he's a member here. He reckons he can tell *enough* from the measurements how a speaker will sound..

The right measurements I'd add.