Today a special listening

[Tango]

I never understood why some believe monitors throw a huge sound stage, and not in my experience. In almost every case, monitors require sub(s) and don't match the sound stage size and dynamics of floor standers. Not dinging monitors, it just is what it is, smaller and less transducers, physics...

Some mini monitors can throw big sound stage I have no doubt on that. But I dont think they are nearly as full and filled up as some excellent larger speakers can do (All relative to room size.) Another thing is, when small mini speakers do big singing, they caught people by surprise so the psychological effect is helping. Only when you do the a/b you know who is the ladyboy and who is a real woman...but these days they are so difficult to distinguish though .

Kind regards,
Tang

 

[sbo6]

Some mini monitors can throw big sound stage I have no doubt on that. But I dont think they are nearly as full and filled up as some excellent larger speakers can do (All relative to room size.) Another thing is, when small mini speakers do big singing, they caught people by surprise so the psychological effect is helping. Only when you do the a/b you know who is the ladyboy and who is a real woman...but these days they are so difficult to distinguish though .

Kind regards,
Tang

Completely agree

I have a pair of MTMs (5" 1" 5" drivers) I had built many years back resembling Snell sound. In their day, great sounding. Every now and again I use put them in my system; they still sound great. But when I revert back to my 300+ lb Ushers (2x11" woofers, 5" mid + tweet) there's simply no comparison in presence, dynamics, scale and of course bass grandioseness (if there is such a word). Sometimes if my wife is listening and we're playing at higher volumes, I'll say, now THAT's why you need large speakers! There simply is no replacement.

 

[Al M.]

Completely agree, bigger is almost always better if set up properly (a little DEQ never hurt). I never understood why some believe monitors throw a huge sound stage, and not in my experience. In almost every case, monitors require sub(s) and don't match the sound stage size and dynamics of floor standers. Not dinging monitors, it just is what it is, smaller and less transducers, physics...

Some mini monitors can throw big sound stage I have no doubt on that. But I dont think they are nearly as full and filled up as some excellent larger speakers can do (All relative to room size.) Another thing is, when small mini speakers do big singing, they caught people by surprise so the psychological effect is helping. Only when you do the a/b you know who is the ladyboy and who is a real woman...but these days they are so difficult to distinguish though .

Kind regards,
Tang

It depends. First, barring adverse room acoustics, I would never run a monitor without a sub. I think monitors indeed can throw a soundstage in a mid-sized room (mine is 24 x 12 x 8.5 feet) as large as any floorstander (visitors to my room routinely report on the 'big sound'). When it comes to really large rooms, probably not.

As for full sound in a mid-sized room, with voices no problem. Monitors can project also bass voices convincingly. Big saxophone? My current monitors cannot do that as well as large floorstanders, we'll see how my upgrade to Reference 3A top-of-line Reflector monitors will fare on this point. The ballsy sound of a tuba? My current system can do that very well. Rock? My current monitor/sub combo can do that very well, especially with the more powerful Octave amps that I auditioned last weekend. Left hand of piano, the same. Ensemble of 20 or so players? No problem. Same with drum emsemble. Large orchestra? More problematic, also here I will see how the Reflector monitors will do. But orchestra is also problematic on the majority of floorstanders, unless you get into top quality territory, then they rule.

Dynamics? If you mean the ability to play screamingly loud, at 110 - 120 dB, then no. if you mean the ability to project dynamic range, from subtle changes to large leaps in volume with impact, up to a level of 95-100 dB, monitor/sub combos can be excellent, and mine is as well. In fact, they can be better in that respect than many floorstanders which just don't have that jump factor. Only very high-quality floorstanders powered by not just powerful but, well, dynamic sounding amplification (not easy to achieve), or horns, are as good or better at dynamics.

And no, bigger is not almost always better. Many audiophiles have too large speakers in too small rooms. You can perhaps make it work properly if you carefully trick out the acoustics of the room, with lots of effort.

 

[sbo6]

It depends. First, barring adverse room acoustics, I would never run a monitor without a sub. I think monitors indeed can throw a soundstage in a mid-sized room (mine is 24 x 12 x 8.5 feet) as large as any floorstander (visitors to my room routinely report on the 'big sound'). When it comes to really large rooms, probably not.

As for full sound in a mid-sized room, with voices no problem. Monitors can project also bass voices convincingly. Big saxophone? My current monitors cannot do that as well as large floorstanders, we'll see how my upgrade to Reference 3A top-of-line Reflector monitors will fare on this point. The ballsy sound of a tuba? My current system can do that very well. Rock? My current monitor/sub combo can do that very well, especially with the more powerful Octave amps that I auditioned last weekend. Left hand of piano, the same. Ensemble of 20 or so players? No problem. Same with drum emsemble. Large orchestra? More problematic, also here I will see how the Reflector monitors will do. But orchestra is also problematic on the majority of floorstanders, unless you get into top quality territory, then they rule.

Dynamics? If you mean the ability to play screamingly loud, at 110 - 120 dB, then no. if you mean the ability to project dynamic range, from subtle changes to large leaps in volume with impact, up to a level of 95-100 dB, monitor/sub combos can be excellent, and mine is as well. In fact, they can be better in that respect than many floorstanders which just don't have that jump factor. Only very high-quality floorstanders powered by not just powerful but, well, dynamic sounding amplification (not easy to achieve), or horns, are as good or better at dynamics.

And no, bigger is not almost always better. Many audiophiles have too large speakers in too small rooms. You can perhaps make it work properly if you carefully trick out the acoustics of the room, with lots of effort.

Take your choice brand monitor and move up to their floor stander. The floor stander will match or surpass the monitor in sound stage width and height; how could the monitor do better, unless there are driver to driver phase issues. As for dynamics, most monitors cannot reproduce mid - bass and true bass vs. a floor stander (play cello on a monitor, most fail). Again, talking apples to apples monitor vs floor stander. Then there's the fact that 2 drivers are handling all frequencies reducing the ability to play effortlessly at reasonable levels. YMMV depending if you have uber expensive monitors like Magico, TAD, etc. Net - If monitors = full range no one would buy XLFs, line sources, horns, etc...

 

[Al M.]

Take your choice brand monitor and move up to their floor stander. The floor stander will match or surpass the monitor in sound stage width and height; how could the monitor do better, unless there are driver to driver phase issues. As for dynamics, most monitors cannot reproduce mid - bass and true bass vs. a floor stander (play cello on a monitor, most fail). Again, talking apples to apples monitor vs floor stander. Then there's the fact that 2 drivers are handling all frequencies reducing the ability to play effortlessly at reasonable levels. YMMV depending if you have uber expensive monitors like Magico, TAD, etc. Net - If monitors = full range no one would buy XLFs, line sources, horns, etc...

Big words. I invite you to listen to my system once you are in my area. You may be surprised. I also invite you to read this post from an owner of an incredible floorstander (best orchestra I have ever heard from a system) who has listened to my system:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...bwoofer-system&p=451751&viewfull=1#post451751

 

[sbo6]

Big words. I invite you to listen to my system once you are in my area. You may be surprised. I also invite you to read this post from an owner of an incredible floorstander (best orchestra I have ever heard from a system) who has listened to my system:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...bwoofer-system&p=451751&viewfull=1#post451751

Just the truth, see it as big or whatever you like. Also, you missed my earlier comment: "In almost every case, monitors require sub(s) and don't match the sound stage size and dynamics of floor standers."

I owned your sub, it is very good. Turn the sub off and watch the sound stage and low end extension disappear. That's why you have it, right?

 

[Al M.]

Just the truth, see it as big or whatever you like. Also, you missed my earlier comment: "In almost every case, monitors require sub(s) and don't match the sound stage size and dynamics of floor standers."

I owned your sub, it is very good. Turn the sub off and watch the sound stage and low end extension disappear. That's why you have it, right?

You must have missed my earlier comment:

"It depends. First, barring adverse room acoustics, I would never run a monitor without a sub."

And yes, you are dead wrong about soundstage size and dynamics of a good monitor/sub combo, as I outlined above. Again, you are invited to listen to my system once you're in my area. It will change your mind.

 

[Al M.]

BTW, barring adverse room acoustics, I would never run a full-range floorstander without a sub either.

 

[PeterA]

Take your choice brand monitor and move up to their floor stander. The floor stander will match or surpass the monitor in sound stage width and height; how could the monitor do better, unless there are driver to driver phase issues. As for dynamics, most monitors cannot reproduce mid - bass and true bass vs. a floor stander (play cello on a monitor, most fail). Again, talking apples to apples monitor vs floor stander. Then there's the fact that 2 drivers are handling all frequencies reducing the ability to play effortlessly at reasonable levels. YMMV depending if you have uber expensive monitors like Magico, TAD, etc. Net - If monitors = full range no one would buy XLFs, line sources, horns, etc...

I agree, and I have suggest to Al that he consider the next Ref3A floor stander instead of their top two-way monitor. However, he may be thinking the experience would be similar to what I found comparing the Magico Mini II to the then available 3-way floor standing Magico V3. No contest, the Mini II was better in every area. But then comparing the Mini II to the M5 was again not surprising. The M5 was a bigger sounding, fuller range version of the Mini with the same incredible resolution, just more complete sounding.

I have not had luck integrating a sub with my Minis and have tried on two separate occasions. There were trade offs. More extension but less clarity. For the music I like, the subs had to go. And in two friends's systems, one with monitors , one with large full range floor standers, I prefer the sub level turned much lower or completely off, because I almost always here integration issues. It is a tough challenge. I have heard the Magico S subs with the S7 at a dealer, and that was a surprisingly good example of proper integration. One was only aware of the sub when it was turned off. That was incredible. I rarely hear that level of success.

 

[Al M.]

I agree, and I have suggest to Al that he consider the next Ref3A floor stander instead of their top two-way monitor.

Really, Peter? A vibrating thing that simply cannot have the accuracy of the Reference 3A top-of-line monitor where every precaution has been taken to make the cabinet inert? Reference 3A themselves say that monitor is their pinnacle of technical development, and not one of their floorstanders (which nonetheless have gotten rave reviews).

And yes, a floorstander can be better, see the very expensive Magico M Project with its inert cabinet, but most floorstanders just aren't in my view, and don't impress me that much.

However, he may be thinking the experience would be similar to what I found comparing the Magico Mini II to the then available 3-way floor standing Magico V3. No contest, the Mini II was better in every area.

No surprise here.

 

[PeterA]

BTW, barring adverse room acoustics, I would never run a full-range floorstander without a sub either.

I think that depends. I've heard the Magico M Pro with a sub and preferred it without. I'm not suggesting that a different sub, or one that is better integrated would not improve the sound of the M Pro, but that experience just confirmed what I heard in my own system trying to integrate subs with a monitor. It is a real challenge, and unless perfectly implemented, there are trade offs, and I usually have preferred removing the sub and living with less extension if the sub robs the system of overall clarity. Are you saying that adverse room acoustics was the reason that these subs detracted from the overall sound of the system? Does the room have to be perfect for integration to work? You have a very good room, and still, I usually hear the sub. Perhaps it comes down to personal preference.

Magico also has a take on this. Their position is to never use a sub with monitors. They only recommend subs with three way or bigger speakers because of the integration issue. There is just too much of a gap between the mid/woofer and a deep sub.

I have heard good examples of many kinds of implementations, but I strongly believe that it is hard to generalize about this stuff. The one time I had larger three-way floor standing speakers in my small room, it was better sounding than the two times I had subs with my monitors. I think it also depends on the type of music one likes and certain priorities. If you really want the system to disappear, it is usually easier to do it with monitors, although I have heard great disappearing acts with larger systems in big rooms if they are properly set up.

 

[PeterA]

Really, Peter? A vibrating thing that simply cannot have the accuracy of the Reference 3A top-of-line monitor where every precaution has been taken to make the cabinet inert? Reference 3A themselves say that monitor is their pinnacle of technical development, and not one of their floorstanders (which nonetheless have gotten rave reviews).

And yes, a floorstander can be better, see the very expensive Magico M Project with its inert cabinet, but most floorstanders just aren't in my view, and don't impress me that much.



No surprise here.

Al, Have I not suggested that to you? I have not heard either of the speakers, so I have no direct experience, but I suggested it to you because it is not clear to me which would be better better, and I thought you might want to consider the option before committing to a third monitor in your system. You might be surprised by the sound from a good floor stander plus your subs. Obviously you have already made up your mind.

My point is that even the best monitors have compromises when it comes to extension and fullness. This is clear to me every time I compare my system to MadFloyd's full range M Pro. I know that from my own speakers and as was mentioned, the sound of a cello is better on a good full range speaker if it is coherent. I think your integration with the sub would be better if the main speakers were fuller range, but it is hard to know if the overall sound would be better without comparing the two. I guess your mind is made up, but I am still curious about the two alternatives. That is fine, it is your system after all and it was only a suggestion made for your consideration.

 

[Al M.]

I think that depends. I've heard the Magico M Pro with a sub and preferred it without.

I prefer it with.

Al, Have I not suggested that to you? I have not heard either of the speakers, so I have no direct experience, but I suggested it to you because it is not clear to me which would be better better, and I thought you might want to consider the option before committing to a third monitor in your system. You might be surprised by the sound from a good floor stander plus your subs. Obviously you have already made up your mind.

Peter, I have heard enough floor standers in order not to expect miracles. And I can't afford a Magico M3 or M6 (the successor of the stellar M Project).

I think your integration with the sub would be better if the main speakers were fuller range, but it is hard to know if the overall sound would be better without comparing the two. I guess your mind is made up, but I am still curious about the two alternatives. That is fine, it is your system after all and it was only a suggestion made for your consideration.

As we have discussed many times, you are the only one who hears sub integration problems in my system. Others have praised the integration. And as long as our friend the drummer is as mightily impressed as he was with Art Blakey's famous drum solo "Freedom Ride" on my system I think I have little to complain about.

 

[bonzo75]

I don't think anyone is saying a monitor can compete with a FR for scale, bass, weight. The point is in many small or imperfect rooms the big speakers overload

 

[Rodney Gold]

The reason to use distributed bass and multiple subs with full range floorstanders is to smooth out the room and give a kick to the lower registers at the same time ... you normally dont cross over the full rangers and play their bass in parallel to the multiple subs.
The same arrangement works for monitors , but you set the subs crossovers higher so they do node busting and fill in

At any rate you can integrate subs much easier these days with bass management DSP whilst allowing your monitors/floorstanders signal to be pure.
Pros and cons to both floorstanders and monitor/subs ..I like floor standers , give the sound a bit of weight, authority , majesty and grandeur

 

[sbo6]

You must have missed my earlier comment:

"It depends. First, barring adverse room acoustics, I would never run a monitor without a sub."

And yes, you are dead wrong about soundstage size and dynamics of a good monitor/sub combo, as I outlined above. Again, you are invited to listen to my system once you're in my area. It will change your mind.

Looking forward to it!

 

[sbo6]

I don't think anyone is saying a monitor can compete with a FR for scale, bass, weight. The point is in many small or imperfect rooms the big speakers overload

X2 agree. Many systems with FR speakers I hear have some degree of bass bloat, mine certainly did. Until you hear well integrated sub(s) with a sprinkle of DSP (no room is perfect) you haven't heard very good bass IMO.

 

[Al M.]

Looking forward to it!

Great! If I am ever in Texas I'd be delighted if I'd get the chance to listen to your system as well.

 

[bonzo75]

I agree with subs and DSP

 

[morricab]

Big words. I invite you to listen to my system once you are in my area. You may be surprised. I also invite you to read this post from an owner of an incredible floorstander (best orchestra I have ever heard from a system) who has listened to my system:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...bwoofer-system&p=451751&viewfull=1#post451751

Well Al, I have had essentially your speakers in both monitor and floorstanding models (Master Control MMC with Be upgrade, L'Integrale with Seas tweeter upgrade and La Veritas) and the L'Integrales, even with the exact same bass/mid driver went a half octave deeper (30 vs. 40 Hz) and it was immediately obvious the extra weight and foundation that had an impressive impact on soundstaging etc. With the Master Control MMCs (an early Reflector if you will) there was a definite improvement when I integrated a sub (in this case a Mirage BP2210) in terms of the scale of the sound. It ended up a necessity. I liked what hte monitors did in terms of clarity and imaging so I kept them but they needed the sub for full effect. Then it is no longer really a 2-way speaker anymore...

Going to big Odeon horns (still a 2-way but with horn loading on both drivers it is really a different animal) there is no comparison on scale, impact and dynamics...it trumps the Ref 3As all around. The transparency of the Ref 3as is still and area they were competitive but that is about it. With the horn loading the Odeon acts like a BIG speaker (it is not that small though a 2-way).

I know exactly the kind of sound you have as I have had similar before and I don't agree that it scales like a good large speaker.