Horns have poor WAF and that inhibits their marketability in the US. Resale is a big issue outside of AG as well.
Stereophile | January 2017 Issue
- Thread starter NorthStar
- Start date
Horns have poor WAF and that inhibits their marketability in the US. Resale is a big issue outside of AG as well.
I have re-read Kal's review of the Beolab 90. After having been once more impressed the last few days by the incredible imaging capabilities of my monitor/subwoofer system (a system that, to be sure, has shortcomings in other areas), I am starting to wonder how much experience Kal has with such systems.
The "disarming presence and intimacy" of singers' voices, as well as precision of image placement of performers within the soundstage, that Kal describes in his Beolab 90 review is there in spades in my system. And this intimacy can perfectly co-exist with great presentation of hall acoustics, large or small, depending on recording venue. For that I don't need $ 90K speakers, my $ 3K Reference3A MM De Capo BE monitors perfectly suffice -- to be fair though, my tube amps that enable those imaging capabilities to shine cost far more than my speakers (even just their external power supplies cost more). And yes, the imaging capabilities of my system easily exceed what you usually get from large speakers. Not that there are no large speakers that possibly can equal that performance, and given its technology I certainly would not be surprised at all if the Beolab 90 could *) (and potentially would provide better imaging outside the sweetspot).
Again, my speaker system does have shortcomings that other, larger systems do not have. Yet I am in particular asking myself if the imaging capabilities of the Beolab 90 that Kal so emphasizes are really that special, compared to what a good and well set-up monitor/subwoofer system in an acoustically tuned room like mine can deliver.
_____________
*) I assume that complaints by others about mediocre imaging from the Beolab 90 system reflect suboptimal conditions upon auditioning.
The "disarming presence and intimacy" of singers' voices, as well as precision of image placement of performers within the soundstage, that Kal describes in his Beolab 90 review is there in spades in my system. And this intimacy can perfectly co-exist with great presentation of hall acoustics, large or small, depending on recording venue. For that I don't need $ 90K speakers, my $ 3K Reference3A MM De Capo BE monitors perfectly suffice -- to be fair though, my tube amps that enable those imaging capabilities to shine cost far more than my speakers (even just their external power supplies cost more). And yes, the imaging capabilities of my system easily exceed what you usually get from large speakers. Not that there are no large speakers that possibly can equal that performance, and given its technology I certainly would not be surprised at all if the Beolab 90 could *) (and potentially would provide better imaging outside the sweetspot).
Again, my speaker system does have shortcomings that other, larger systems do not have. Yet I am in particular asking myself if the imaging capabilities of the Beolab 90 that Kal so emphasizes are really that special, compared to what a good and well set-up monitor/subwoofer system in an acoustically tuned room like mine can deliver.
_____________
*) I assume that complaints by others about mediocre imaging from the Beolab 90 system reflect suboptimal conditions upon auditioning.
Thank you very much, Steve. I hope everyone at What's Best Forum has a great New Year. - John
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I think hi'if in general has a poor WAF. I find wives to be tolerant of hobbies that keep hus bands at home.
If you go to page two of Kal's review, and read the Listening section, from "..., and paid some attention to the cables and connections. The operational differences among the three options were more significant than the sonic differences. ..." to "... From that point on, I used Wide mode mostly to demonstrate to myself and to others just how remarkable the BeoLab 90s could sound in Narrow mode, in which I did all of my critical listening. (For its part, Omni mode is, well, party mode. I'll say no more about that—but I will note that the BeoLab 90's amplifiers are claimed to output 8200W, and that I very quickly gave up trying to test the speakers' dynamic limits.)", and till the end "... The BeoLab system is designed to permit the buyer or dealer to tune it to the buyer's room and taste, but at the time of this auditioning, the comprehensive control app was not yet available. As a result, that kind of tweaking was not possible. What I heard was the original factory tuning, and an undefined target curve for the EQ.", you might form a valid opinion in writing, but Kal's was from listening in addition to writing.
* Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/bang-olufsen-beolab-90-loudspeaker-page-2#zQL5E1H2C6vCveB2.99
________
When reading Kal's "Listening" section, it is transparently clear that not all pawns were on the checker board. ...Way of speech of course.
This demands a Take 2 with the full deployed canopy from B&O's complete control app. ...In my sincere opinion.
This is a nice preambule (preamble), but incomplete to form a best and objective opinion. I'll be waiting for more reviews with B&O's all set of cards on the table. It's exciting for sure, and it's nice to contemplate the full potential, and the eventual spread towards less expensive designs...for the common audiophile mortals.
Someone (Joshua) mentioned the MartinLogan flagship Neolith earlier: http://www.martinlogan.com/neolith/
And: http://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/martinlogan-neolith-loudspeaker-review
Did Stereophile review it before? I didn't find any review.
And Greg has that speaker as his avatar.
Greg, do you own it? Is it your main sound reproducer @ your home?
______
? We're having a discussion: http://audiophilereview.com/audiophile/the-25-ultimate-audiophile-speakers-of-all-time.html
And speakers are the subject right now. I'm sure some of them (25 ultimate) were reviewed by Strereophile in the past.
Last edited:
Mostly agree, except that saying panels in a generic way is like saying horns in a generic way. A lot of the panels you grew up with would be compromised. I know a lot of people with panels who investigated horns and will never have them. That said, the only panel I consider better than any horn I have heard is the big restored apogee, while I like some horns better than all other panels.
The reason many panel guys move on is that the panels they enter into are low cost, and when they get a bigger budget they might buy a costlier dynamic speaker. Many of the expensive boxes do the open sound plus more, and in some cases higher price can be perceived as better value.
Plus there are the benefits of service, resellability, and long term company existence that all come into play.
Yet, you will find many restored apogee owners not bother moving from their speakers, find all hifi shows a joke, and not bother with forums either. You can see how many apogee owners on the Apogee threads ever bother posting on the rest of the forum. All I am saying is, horns are not as slam dunk as you make them sound
Last edited:
Restored Apogees, while very competent, are a very small representation of panel owners in the grand scheme of things hence the generalization. You are getting what i would call a maxed out version of the planar transducer with bass that can be equally great or terrible depending on the implementation and crossover design. This is why I was very excited to hear the Neolith hoping for a true to form application of such a feat. Sadly it was not of the Apogee caliber, not so great room withstanding.
If you can get one, have the patience and the resources to restore it as well as a top notch crossover design I would say it is top shelf except for the fact that it will not be SET friendly. This is where if you prefer horns or panelsm you can use the best (or any) electronics with a horn. You are limited with choices on an Apogee restored or not.
Hence, horns win slam dunk
Restored Apogees, while very competent, are a very small representation of panel owners in the grand scheme of things hence the generalization. You are getting what i would call a maxed out version of the planar transducer with bass that can be equally great or terrible depending on the implementation and crossover design. This is why I was very excited to hear the Neolith hoping for a true to form application of such a feat. Sadly it was not of the Apogee caliber, not so great room withstanding.
If you can get one, have the patience and the resources to restore it as well as a top notch crossover design I would say it is top shelf except for the fact that it will not be SET friendly. This is where if you prefer horns or panelsm you can use the best (or any) electronics with a horn. You are limited with choices on an Apogee restored or not.
Hence, horns win slam dunk
There is no patience and resources required. There are restorers available. Likewise, if I get horns, it will a DIY sort of horn, one that has already been made, I like the sound of, so it is a simple matter of delivery against payment.
Flagship speaker designs are a huge undertaking.
They require a substantial commitment to room, hardware, software and of course finances. It would be nice to make the commitment of Steve and Mike. Steves' Wilson are no longer Wilsons' flagship.
So no, I am not the owner of a Neolith. I do hope someone here would make that choice. Or that someone who has made the choice would join the forum.
So far the more well heeled members, for the most part fascinated with cones in a box,and their constant reincarnations
No offense intended.
They require a substantial commitment to room, hardware, software and of course finances. It would be nice to make the commitment of Steve and Mike. Steves' Wilson are no longer Wilsons' flagship.
So no, I am not the owner of a Neolith. I do hope someone here would make that choice. Or that someone who has made the choice would join the forum.
So far the more well heeled members, for the most part fascinated with cones in a box,and their constant reincarnations
No offense intended.
How do you define well heeled? There is a person on the ML forum who is putting up a Neolith 16 channel Atmos system in a 42 feet long room in Vegas. CLX for the sides, renaissance 15a for the rear, 8 subs, etc etc. Trinnov processor.
well......when they make a horn or panel that are truly full range and seamless top to bottom (and I mean really frikken seamless at warp 9) then we can consider those approaches. but so far you have to listen 'around' the compromises (dsp?) to consider them.
or 'settle' for where they are really good.
no offense intended.
It would help if the marketing dept would demo them properly. I drove from Austin to Dallas to hear the CLX when they came out. The placed pair almost against the wall with the cheapest Bryston amp. This was part of their tour and even the cuts of music they demo's it with were either bad recordings or just way out there odd.
Cones in the box has the fewest compromises wrt rooms, load, waf, etc and a-typical loads with a healthy choice of reputable manufacturers to choose from. Who wants to take the risk when you dont really have to?
They do. Its just that the price point is north of 100k for meeting the requirements. Japan loves horns and their rooms and gear are some of the most crazy I have seen (in a good way)
Hi Mike,
I think we all end up ‘settling’ one way or another. I’ve yet to hear a speaker type that’s not compromised relative to its brethren. That’s not to say that a dynamic/stat/planar/horn can’t be one of the best of its type but I’ve yet to hear one that combines the best of all approaches into a single entity without compromise (room, power, current, listening distance, etc). You can push a topology to its zenith, but that only makes it the best at what it does relative to its compromises, hence why many SOTA contenders tend to limit the combination of topology to one type.
Neolith mains, CLX sides and Ren 15's for the rear- plus 8 subs! As we say over here in down unda, "far out mate! must be a loose roo on the rafters!"
I cannot or don't want to even image the phase anomalies, nor the multiple adjustments for room interaction, and 42 ft long, I'd rather call in the boys for a game of cricket mate!
cheers, RJ
BTW, you mentioned Vegas uh? wonder what else happens in that 42 ft long room, what happens in vegas, stays in vegas!
There is a chap here who happens to have the MG20.7 driven with a CJ Premier 350 and ARC Ref pre. He has ordered the ML Ren15, was completely knocked over when he heard them overseas. He was originally planning on ordering the smaller Expression and Impression series (although not small...) well capable of superb dynamics but went in for the Ren15 once and for all, as he believes this will be his final speaker.
I actually had the Premier 350 in for a while, just to see how it drives and opens up the panels of the Ethos- wow wee mate! she can sing!
Too loud for me though and extremely powerful with superb dynamics like no other, of course there is the Pass XA series which I do also like very much and is still in production. Unfortunately the CJ prem 350 is no longer made, bloody huge amplifier though, can't really tell from the photos, and feels like a Ferrari fitted with a rocket engine. The Ethos was also able to handle the dynamic peaks and swings effortlessly, I never knew they were that great!
I can only image what the new Ren15 would sound like, and yes I will be there at his place for the obvious listen, although he doesn't like many people arriving at his place, nor talking about his system for that matter, so I better shut up.
Will report late when invited for a demo, must be patient with such personalities...
I strongly feel the new Ren 15 from ML is going to be very hard to beat regardless of price.
Cheers and big woof, RJ
I actually had the Premier 350 in for a while, just to see how it drives and opens up the panels of the Ethos- wow wee mate! she can sing!
Too loud for me though and extremely powerful with superb dynamics like no other, of course there is the Pass XA series which I do also like very much and is still in production. Unfortunately the CJ prem 350 is no longer made, bloody huge amplifier though, can't really tell from the photos, and feels like a Ferrari fitted with a rocket engine. The Ethos was also able to handle the dynamic peaks and swings effortlessly, I never knew they were that great!
I can only image what the new Ren15 would sound like, and yes I will be there at his place for the obvious listen, although he doesn't like many people arriving at his place, nor talking about his system for that matter, so I better shut up.
Will report late when invited for a demo, must be patient with such personalities...
I strongly feel the new Ren 15 from ML is going to be very hard to beat regardless of price.
Cheers and big woof, RJ
A definite woof to that!
After having the Ethos now for a few months, I still do miss that extra fine detail of Quads imaging. That extra layer of depth and immediacy cannot be beaten when positioned correctly and given the exact space behind the panels is just superb. Everything else, of course to me the ML's do better, which is a LOT better, plus their renewed technology on their X-stat panel is way above compared to Quad's, even though Quad claims to have made the ESL-29 series more rugged... Hell no! coming out of China no good mate.
BTW, the new owner of my 2905's is absolutely loving them! Driving them with a pair of HK monoblocks, and Quad tube pre, claims it is the best he has ever had! I would agree since I did listen to them and nice to see them still working perfectly. He also has an older pair of 63's and 989's that are bust, waiting to fix up and would probably sell off since he now has the 2905's. Great room and well treated, plenty of depth and imaging. Very relaxing to listen to, especially those late night sessions with that cigar and scotch!
I guess this is the hall mark of Quads, and therefore would never change. If at all they were to alter their panels they would probably lose that imaging factor. Reliability is another huge issue, would be interesting to see whet they intend doing within the next year, if at all.
Also agreed on Divialet with ML's, they do sound quite remarkable. Very fast and open, my first audition with the Ethos was infact with a Divialet integrated 200. I was mesmerised how an amplifier the size of a notebook with the thinness of a laptop could drive such a speaker with powerful dynamics, very impressive indeed!
I just prefer the musicality with either Pass or CJ tubes for that matter, being a personal enthusiast of CJ and Pass gear. I think these two combinations are within realistic budgets, and delivers the best from stats regardless of price, of course with a host of other well reputed gear such as ARC & VTL.
Obviously the "well heeled" as mentioned before on this thread, with truck loads of dollars would think otherwise, and would want to spend at least a minimum of 100k to justify that the component sounds the best - but does it? is the question...
Some of the best sounding systems I have heard to date are the most simplest and direct approach. To me these systems sounded far more natural and musical compared to some of the ultra-complex systems I have heard over the decades. I cannot even fathom how that multiple ML set up with Neoliths, CLX's and Ren15's would even begin to sound like... certainly a learning curve. Sounds like nearly a million or more has been spent just to sound right- and therefore it "must" be the best eh?
I also wonder where the "imaging factor" is going to be... is it 360 degrees? probably the images would run right through you like those omni-directional movies at WB, when I first experienced Jurassic Park in London. Wow! that was cool when T'Rex ran right over us!
I have learned one thing though, which is a good thing- if your system is delivering the most from your favourite recordings and gives you close to 100% musical satisfaction- then just keep it! I sincerely think good enough is "good enough!"
Cheers to that ultimate sound for 2017! RJ