What speaker gets the bass most right?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Disregarding extreme cases - such as an all glass or completely empty room - I would not be so assertive. If you choose the proper equipment and speaker placement to complement typical living room characteristics you can get very satisfying musical reproduction.
I accept that for optimum performance you need a suitable room, but I have listened to systems sounding very satisfying in what I would consider terrible rooms. May be the next question should start another thread, but how do we establish the frontier between a good and a bad room?
It is theoretically possible if it meets the "more than adequate/suitable" criterion, so your question and my answer are equally irrelevant.
Kal: It was not to criticize you but people here think a $300 receiver could do handle the lower octaves of a Wilson, Kharma, Infinity, VS, etc. I would love to hear a $300 Sony receiver produce low bass in Steve's system, wouldn't you? I suppose so would Steve since he could sell his $40K Lamms and put that $37,900 towards a turntable
If we're talking full-range speakers I like the "tightness" of full-range planers like my Magnepans, Apogee, etc. For dynamic speakers I liked the B&W 801's (have barely heard the 800's) and Infinity IRS -- deeper but arguably not as clean as the planers. I did have a pair of Infinity QLS-II's at one time that were pretty sweet. I am currently using a pair of Rythmik subwoofers with my old Maggies and it's good enough for me...
I heard a protype system that targeted distortion by using a multiplicity (21 comes to mind) of smaller (4" - 5") cones. NOT BOSE! The system made good use of all those drivers to provide a deep, tight low end. Smaller cones, long-throw drivers, and lots of them so they stayed in their linear('ish) region.
I heard a protype system that targeted distortion by using a multiplicity (21 comes to mind) of smaller (4" - 5") cones. NOT BOSE! The system made good use of all those drivers to provide a deep, tight low end. Smaller cones, long-throw drivers, and lots of them so they stayed in their linear('ish) region.
Going back in my memories, the best bass I ever heard was at a friend HQD system - Hartley_Quad_Decca.
The bass subwoofers used Hartley 24" woofers in 500 liter double eucalyptus plywood boxes and the gap between the double boxes was filled with sand. The system used active ML2 Mark Levinson crossovers and the bass amplifier was an ML9.
The bass had no hangover, was very deep and extremely dynamic - it had the characteristics of real bass you feel at a life event. Even the "tightness" of full-range planars that Don was referring was present!
The bass subwoofers used Hartley 24" woofers in 500 liter double eucalyptus plywood boxes and the gap between the double boxes was filled with sand. The system used active ML2 Mark Levinson crossovers and the bass amplifier was an ML9.
The bass had no hangover, was very deep and extremely dynamic - it had the characteristics of real bass you feel at a life event. Even the "tightness" of full-range planars that Don was referring was present!
^+1 -- Forgot about the HQD system I heard in KC back in the late 70's or early 80's. Also with Levinson electronics plus lots of other goodies. In a special-purpose stereo "room" (outbuilding) all owned by a Shure VP.
I have heard different speakers produce different parts of the bass spectrum better than others. The Alexandra's mid bass slam is amazing; the bass articulation of my old Apogee Divas was incredible but the overall bass presentation of my old Dunlavy SC VI's was as good as I've ever heard.
Don:
That's what I was trying to get at! Speakers tend to fall into two, somewhat mutually exclusive clubs. There are those speakers using traditional dynamic drivers like the Infinities, NOLAs, Wilson, Evolution, VS, etc. that can move a prodigous amount of air and produce outstanding dynamics, given the amp or dedicated bass amp, has the power supply. The second group of speakers, including planars like the Maggies, have a sense of snap, transient attack and detail them, that eludes the dynamic drivers, esp in the mid and upper bass. But the Maggies just never seem to move that air or have the dynamics of a Wilson. Then again, not too many speakers have the ribbon tweeter of the Maggies either
No different than other parts of the audio spectrum
Estats can be frightening in the mid and upper bass regions also, on drums and standup bass
Do you think you'd have the same feeling about the HQD system if you heard it today? Sometimes we look at things with rose colored glasses and if we heard it today, me thinks that it might sound horribly colored and non-linear
I was always partial to the Infinity Vs, RS1bs (both with modded xovers that bring their performance to another level) and the big Genesis. Say what you want, one thing Arnie loved was bass
+1.
Of the big speakers that I have heard, those with at least 12" woofers, I must put the Genesis 1 system on top of my list. I've heard WAMM in Hifi Show conditions, Duntech Sovereigns in a smallish showroom, Wilson Alexandria MKI in a friend's set-up, IRS II's in another friend's place, and my vote still goes to the Genesis 1 servo system with JA 500s on the mid-hi panels and ML digital source. It did not need loud volumes to get deep bass. And the best quality bass I've heard by far.
Isn't that tangential to the topic?Kal: It was not to criticize you but people here think a $300 receiver could do handle the lower octaves of a Wilson, Kharma, Infinity, VS, etc. I would love to hear a $300 Sony receiver produce low bass in Steve's system, wouldn't you? I suppose so would Steve since he could sell his $40K Lamms and put that $37,900 towards a turntable
Do you think you'd have the same feeling about the HQD system if you heard it today? Sometimes we look at things with rose colored glasses and if we heard it today, me thinks that it might sound horribly colored and non-linear
Yup. There should be some indexing equivalent to that used for inflation and the value of the dollar. I think the bass from my huge home-built transmission lines was the best I have ever heard but I know that I was listening to them with 1980 ears.
Well the original post was to point out that things rarely exist in a vacuum. Take for instance my friend with the RS1bs. He tried numerous bass amps (Perraux 2150 -that served him well for some time, and a few from co's that are long gone and long gone from my memory) until he ended up with the Krell300s that sound wonderful as bass amplifiers. Had you heard his speakers with the Bryston, you would have thought the RS1bs were bass shy.
Kal-I second the love of transmission line subwoofers. I have built many pairs over the years and I still think the bass is second to none. However, the problem is always getting them to integrate with the main speakers you are using.
It was for a long time a labor of love but, eventually, it was transformed into an obsession. I would tweak them incessantly and listen only to a restricted selection of test records. Soon, it was clear to me that I was running in circles, repeating and undoing tweaks and adjustments. In the interest of my own sanity, I gave them away to a friend who had always admired them and began a year-long quest to replace them with store-bought speakers.
Kal
It is a valid point but, I think, it also points out why making a summary judgement about a speaker cannot be made reliably without understanding the context.
