The Path to Paradise . . . or the Road to Ruin?

Why would someone have very large loudspeakers in a small room. Oh wait, what's the room size the liszt are in?

Again, we assume basic common sense. Not planning to her apogee full range, analysis amphi, or trios with bass horns in my current room
The size of the room for the most part doesn't really matter , in the case of the Liszt one has to sit a few metres away so that the drivers have a chance to integrate , all rooms will have their issues with standing waves/reinforcement /cancellation, and will need to be treated.
Keith.
 
That's an assertion, not data. You need to show just like the research that I reference that this is true. That actual listeners are able to better characterize loudspeakers this way as opposed to what was found to be true. Here is the list of tracks in one study:

· Tracy Chapman, "Fast Car", Tracy Chapman
· Jennifer Warnes, "Bird on a Wire", Famous Blue Rain Coat
· James Taylor "That's Why I'm Here", “That’s Why I’m Here”
· Steely Dan “Cousin Dupree”, “ Two Against Nature”
· Paula Cole, “Tiger”,” This Fire”
· “Toy Soldier March”, Reference Recording
· Pink Noise (uncorrelated)

Do you or Peter have any study that shows listeners are better able to evaluate loudspeakers using 50 instrument classical music?

Can you show that the above tracks are less complex than your 50 instrument orchestra as far as your system is concerned?

I'll answer that: No, Amir, I have no data. What I do have is listening to my system with music like that in your list and listening to large scale symphonic music. My system sounds pretty convincing, believable, natural and enjoyable with the music (not the pink noise) on your list. It does not sound as convincing, believable, natural or enjoyable with Beethoven's Ninth or Mahler's Second. It may have to do with my speakers and the number of drivers.

As to your second question: I can't show it with data, but I can assert that those tracks sound less complex than does a 50 instrument orchestra recording on my system to my ears. I have no need to prove it to you. My speakers are better able to reproduce your listed tracks on my system than they are large scale orchestral music.
 
Ron, I'm fascinated by this thread and your other one, "introduction and Listening Biases". I've read through both, and perhaps I missed the information that would answer this, but I am curious about something regarding your tastes in music and the speakers which you are considering. Given your tastes for more contemporary music and what I consider less complex music focused around vocals and a few instruments, are you basing your speaker selections on those that are best suited for reproducing this kind of music?

These super speaker systems would seem to excel at reproducing the most complex type of music which I've always considered to be full orchestra at realistic volumes and scale. That involves extreme resolution, accurate timbre, ultra clean, fast dynamics, great frequency extension and very large scale with dimensional depth, and believable soundstaging.

Your tastes would imply to me that you are interested in mid range magic, a more intimate presentation with palpable presence. The singer in your room kind of experience. Your analog front end, tube electronics and cables seem to support that, yet the speakers under discussion here seem to be the type that excel at reproducing everything extremely well, hence the "super speaker" description. I wonder if you need full bass towers, for instance. Do you need the scale and extension of some of these choices? Perhaps large panels for a transparent, seamless presentation would suffice. One that excels at mid frequencies and Tone, Dynamics and Presence, but not the last word in soundstaging, extension and scale.

Could you clarify what it is that you are looking for in this SOTA pair of speakers? Do you want them to do everything well, or do you want them to have particular strengths which suite your specific tastes in music? It's early, and perhaps this is an inelegantly phrased series of questions, but at this level of speaker, do you want them to do everything well or do can they perform better in some areas than in others?

That is a very appropriate question! How can I search for my speaker if I do not know what musical "equation" I'm trying to solve?

As you correctly write, my main musical interest is female vocals with minimal acoustic instrument accompaniment. I like a little bit of jazz and I like a little bit of classical. I enjoy a lot of perfectly ordinary rock and pop songs.

Since I love vocals you are right that I am most interested in midrange magic. You put it very well: "an intimate presentation was palpable presence. The singer in your room kind of experience."

In my current quest it would be nice to find a speaker which excels at reproducing everything extremely well. My ideal speaker would do a fantastic job of reproducing the singer in the room, but also excel at jazz and orchestral symphonic music, too. At the prices and sizes of SOTA speakers it should be able to excel at everything!

Alas, we know this is not, in practice and reality, the case. Even with super speakers compromises must be made, and not one speaker will excel at every kind of music.

My personal musical preferences drive me to focus on the MartinLogan Neolith and full-length ribbon systems. (I understand that the Neolith (indeed, MartinLogan in general) is somewhat derided by the audiophile cognoscenti, but for someone like me who wants midrange magic and some cone excursion impact I think the Neolith is a good answer.) But as long as I'm doing this last, ultimate speaker system search installation, I also would like my system to able to compete with the state-of-the-art in scale. And for that you need height.

I believe that there is important ambient acoustic space information in the lowest frequencies. I think that vertical arrays of dynamic drivers are the theoretically ideal way to reproduce those lowest frequencies with scale and spaciousness and realism.

In summary your implication is quite correct: for the music I like the Neolith will do the trick and the full range ribbon speakers will do the trick. But I would like to see if I can find a SOTA system which is as good on solo vocals as the Neolith/Analysis Audio/Apogee derivatives but which can also reproduce the scale and grandeur of a full symphony orchestra. Even though I prefer the one-designer solution adding tall subwoofer towers to a Neolith/Analysis Audio/Apogee derivative could also do the trick. But, with that design brief, why reinvent the wheel when we already have the Genesis Dragon and the Gryphon Pendragon and EA MM7 (and maybe the Soulsonic Impulse)? (I know I am going in circles.)

Have I answered your question, Peter?
 
because transparency is more than the physics of the membrane. it's also the crossover and amplifier and whole signal path. how does the whole chain affect that first watt? and....some dynamic 'cones' (ceramic as an example) are very very lightweight and combined with ribbon tweeters. even tubes compared to solid state comes into play. the right solid state has that lower noise and superior transparency which adds to transparency equation. and the room and tweaking make a difference. if you judge a dynamic speaker system in an untreated room with lots of reflectivity and then hear that same dynamic speaker system in a treated, purpose built room, transparency can be quite radically different. whereas a dipole might be much more consistent based on it's dispersion pattern.

generalities about transparency have to be filtered by how rooms affect that perception. you can improve that issue with a dynamic speaker whereas to a large degree a dipole is what you hear is what you get.

and linearity in the mid-bass and deep bass allow for more accurate overtones which very much affect percieved transparency. what good is transparency with bass discontinuity? that just reminding you it's a reproduction chain you are hearing.

it's what you hear not what you see. there are no absolutes.

I should have written it explicitly, but there I had in mind the transparency of the loudspeakers themselves when I wrote that post about transparency. I agree completely that the crossover design and the crossover components are also critically important.

I agree that the lower noise and superior transparency of solid-state over tubes would contribute to greater transparency of the system overall. (In my personal and idiosyncratic calculus I prefer to retain, to my ears, the bloom and "liquidity" of tubes, and forgo the greater transparency of solid-state electronics.)

I agree with the importance of the room (which may reasonably be considered to be the single most important component), and the impact of the room on perceived transparency.
 
We once hired an independent testing company to compare our 64 kbps codec to the CD. They set up double blind tests and recruited some 100 testers. For content they picked "audiophile recordings" which automatically translated into classical music. The results? Exactly what we wanted: some 90% of listeners thought 64 kbps was indistinguishable from the CD! Marketing press release went out with those test results and everyone was happy. Had they picked any of the MPEG test clips such as Suzanne Vega and the results would have been completely the opposite. We used long transform windows that are enemy of transients and non-harmonic content like voices.

It is not wise to confuse what is good music to listen to what is revealing of the system being tested.

I use to listen often with a local Chamber Orchestra Conductor/Music director who also composes classical music. and in the last few years I've listened often with a Professor of Music composition and classical composer/conductor (who also builds tone arms). very complex music can also be used, even be preferred to be used, to judge speakers and systems. it does require more experience to be able to perceive subtle changes in large scale music with systems that aspire to accomplish that. I've learned a lot being around those guys and it's helped me to move forward and now to have that music as a staple of what I listen to.

it all depends on your expectations. if you are looking for broad based perceptions of digital formats then a democratic (not in the political sense), simple music approach makes sense. I can see that. but not sure it's relevance for ultimate high fidelity playback.
 
The size of the room for the most part doesn't really matter . . .

I don't know Keith. This has not been my experience.

I think large speakers can be shoehorned into a too-small room with a lot of elaborate room treatment and careful speaker placement, and a lot of expense and brain damage. But even then the outcome may be less ideal than if smaller, more room appropriate speakers were selected in the first place.

A certain, immutable distance between the listener and the speaker is required for the multiple drivers of tall loudspeakers to integrate, I think.
 
You may want to also look at Scaena and Perfect 8. The former is the successor to the "Pipedream" speaker system.

Despite opinions to the contrary, I think it is naive to say that room size doesn't matter. The goal of any SOTA system is to fill / energize the room. That's why you. I, and others like panels and planars. That's why MBL's can sound so incredible. That's why listening to live, orchestral music is so emotionally enveloping.

The larger the space, the greater the possibility that you can recreate the power and dimensionality of the "acoustical space" of the recording environment, especially with large scale orchestral recordings. And at the other extreme, the magic of a very simple recording such as Muddy Waters / Folk Singer.
 
As you correctly write, my main musical interest is female vocals with minimal acoustic instrument accompaniment.

Feastrex full range drivers are the best for this kind of music imo, but are obviously limited in other areas. If this is really your favorite genre I'd definitely consider two systems. Or maybe consider the Lotus Audio Grenadas.
 
Dave, Ron is shortly about to hear a system utilising full range drivers very effectively - my Zu Definitions 4s. I have ZERO idea whether he'll like them, but they'll give him yet ANOTHER perspective on things (as if he doesn't have enough already LOL).
Anyhow, said full range drivers, Nano Tec impregnated paper cones, 40Hz-11kHz w/no x'over (just single Duelund Cast caps in the high- and low-pass filters), Lundahl transformers in the on-board Hypex sub bass amps, a fully maxxed-out pair.
I will be fascinated to get this take. Let's hope confusion desists, and he buys a pair. Well, I do believe in Father Christmas :p!
 
Feastrex full range drivers are the best for this kind of music imo, but are obviously limited in other areas. If this is really your favorite genre I'd definitely consider two systems. Or maybe consider the Lotus Audio Grenadas.

Thank you for your suggestions! The Lotus is only 54 inches tall. That is just not going to generate the height/scale that I want.

And for conventional full range driver speakers there is Marc's and Keith's beloved Zu.

I am a little puzzled that people seem to want to steer me away from MartinLogan, which I think is an obvious choice for solo vocals with acoustic accompaniment. (And ML offers height with an almost full-range driver.)
 
Ron, nothing truly conventional about the Zus. X'overless full range, 101dB/1W eff, truly SET-friendly from as little as 9W. About as far from Wilson and Magico as you can get w/out switching to horns/panels.
A bit Marmite, those who don't "get it" are legion, those who love it are permanently smitten.
Ron, have you got space for a bit more love in your life? Prepare for two 4'x1'x1' boxes of joy!
 
Ron Resnick said:
My ideal speaker would do a fantastic job of reproducing the singer in the room, but also excel at jazz and orchestral symphonic music, too.
Hmmm. Ron, is there anything else in your quest for your speaker of choice or has this pretty much narrowed it down to your utmost preferred preference(s)?

Tom
 
Can you show that the above tracks are less complex than your 50 instrument orchestra as far as your system is concerned?

Amir, what is more complex or difficult for a speaker to reproduce accurately: a recording of one female singer playing one guitar or a recording of the same singer playing the same guitar plus a piano being played slightly behind and to the right of the singer with guitar?

I am not interested in which example makes it easier for a listening panel to hear differences between speakers. I am interested in which example is more difficult for the speaker to reproduce accurately what is on the recording? I think there is a difference and it is the latter that I discussed in my post to Ron.
 
Hmmm. Ron, is there anything else in your quest for your speaker of choice or has this pretty much narrowed it down to your utmost preferred preference(s)?

Tom

As of today I am focused on:

Neolith with dual Wilson Thors driven by VTLs (i.e., matching amps to make DDK happy)

Gryphon Pendragon

Soulsonic Impulse SE

I am thinking that for me the Genesis Dragon is too expensive.
 
Last edited:
Ron Resnick said:
My ideal speaker would do a fantastic job of reproducing the singer in the room, but also excel at jazz and orchestral symphonic music, too.
Hello Ron. I believe you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking about your decisions on a speaker(s). I was inquiring on your preference of sound and what matters to you most on a reproductive effort.

Tom
 
Thank you for your suggestions! The Lotus is only 54 inches tall. That is just not going to generate the height/scale that I want.

And for conventional full range driver speakers there is Marc's and Keith's beloved Zu.

I am a little puzzled that people seem to want to steer me away from MartinLogan, which I think is an obvious choice for solo vocals with acoustic accompaniment. (And ML offers height with an almost full-range driver.)

I wouldn't discount the Grenadas, for the type of music you prioritize the Feastrex field coils are absolutely amazing and with the two 15" woofers they can do big music too.

I'd also consider the TAD Ref 1s, the concentric drivers will do especially well with the coherency required for the music you like, they are like perfected single driver speakers.

One thing to consider... speakers that can do simple female vocals well and also excel at more complex music will mostly be speakers that closely approximate a point source but can also play very loud. The Granadas, TADs and Zus might work out really well. IMO... bigger multi way speakers or panels that need space for the drivers to integrate will never do small music like you prefer to the level of a speaker that more closely approximate a point source. A smaller horn setup like the AG Duo Mezzo could also work well.
 
I may be wrong but Pendragons are around $300k..... without a suitable amp. Heard em a few times at our local dealer. tell me what you think when you hear them..
 
Last edited:
Hello Ron. I believe you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking about your decisions on a speaker(s). I was inquiring on your preference of sound and what matters to you most on a reproductive effort.

Tom

I listen for the believability of a solo vocalist with acoustic instrument accompaniment being present in my listening room and singing to me. I value most highly transparency, no artificial brightness, true-to-life corporeal and instrumental "body," true-to-life dynamics and true-to-life harmonic richness. I listen for a "natural" sound.

By transparency I mean that with respect to having the sense that a live person is singing to me in my listening room there is nothing "between" me and the singer. I conceive of the recreation of a vocal performance which makes as easy as possible the suspension of disbelief. I want to feel that I hear no electronic adulteration, no artificial or unbelievable "carrier" riding on the signal. Transparency to me means listening to a vocal performance with no electronic neutral density filter of any kind between me and the singer.

PS: Between electrostatic and ribbon, I think the electrostatic is one shade more transparent than the ribbon, and the ribbon is two shades more "corporeal" and manifests greater "body" than the electrostatic. (No, I have no way to quantify how big is one "shade." : )

I think the electrostatic and the ribbon are close enough in transparency that, if I went with a ribbon, I would stop thinking about it after a while. So far the electrostatic to ribbon is the only driver switch I would consider at this point (other than, possibly, the Arrakis, which somehow is just wonderfully "complete").
 
Last edited:

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu