As we try to address the Torus based cinema rooms I have been looking for a more well rounded super high end cinema and surround offering than Dynaudio for several reasons, mainly the lack of a dedicated Confidence or Evidence Surround Speaker, the confidence 1 is ridiculously deep for side channel applications, and for years I have been asking them to build an Esotar based.

This system seems to have EVERYTHING I am looking for...

http://www.kharma.com/_images/reviews/exquisite/exquisite_home_studio_2005/homestudio_02_back.jpg

http://www.kharma.com/_images/reviews/exquisite/exquisite_home_studio_2005/homestudio_02_back.jpg

D'appolito monoliths to flank the Torus without obnoxious side firing woofers that would excite the screen (read Arakis),this proven Torus friendly configuration can be driven with normal amplifiers, instead of the array systems that require a dedicated 7.4 channel processor probably inferior to the new TACT; D'appolito side channels that are also outfitted by my favorite type of tweeter the Diamond Tweeter (as evidenced in the top B&W's) (THE DIAMOND TWEETER REHABILITATED B&W from many years of being a Crack Whore on the street).

The sides are gorgeous and priced suitable for it's inclusion in a Moon Of Saturn. They are self powered like the center channel but only 9 inches deep, this is the form factor that is needed for on wall side surrounds.

So has anyone ever heard this system? Cause I'd like it for a 12 channel system.

From: http://www.avguide.com/blog/kharma-grand-exquisite-loudspeaker

"The other two Grand Exquisite systems in Istanbul (pictured below) belong to two of Adnan's friends and clients:
All three sounded genuinely superb, with perhaps the best stage depth and imaging I've yet heard from a large cone loudspeaker and some of the most lifelike timbre and dynamics I've heard period. The Grand Exquisites give up nothing to their dynamic competition in resolution, frequency extension, soundstaging, dynamics, and naturalness of timbre. They are undoubtedly world-class transducers--the best that Kharma has to offer.

At Kharma's offices in Breda, I got to hear the Grand Exquisites for a fourth time, sounding just as extraordinary as they did in Istanbul:

It is rare (but highly preferable) to be able to audition the same loudspeaker in four different venues. The experience gives you a much surer sense of how the speaker will perform in different rooms. In this case, I can honestly say, that the room was never much of a factor. The Grand Exquisites strutted their extraordinary stuff with equal impressiveness in all four venues, which speaks to the fundamental neutrality of this transducer's drivers and the inertness of its cabinet.

Speaking of Kharma's cabinets, I got to see several of them being made at a high-end furniture factory outside of Breda. Van Oosterum uses unusually dense high-tech materials (formed from compressed paper and laminates to give it just the right stiffness and flexibility) for the cabinet walls of his Exquisite Series speakers. In the near future I'll post some pictures of Kharma speakers under construction.

For the nonce, rest assured that the Grand Exquisite has joined my little pantheon of truly world-class loudspeakers, alongside the likes of MBL 101 X-Tremes, Symposium Acoustics Panoramas, Magico Mini IIs, Martin Logan CLXes, and Rockport Hyperions. That's how good I think they are."

I haven't listened to their cinema package but heard the Grand Exquisites in super high end 2 channel system. (http://www.avguide.com/forums/kharma-grand-exquisite-loudspeaker?page=1)
I think they are one of the best speakers in the world. Much better than Wilsons, Rockports, etc.

I'm sure they will sound great in a HT but I think it's a bit overkill to have these giants as surround speakers :eek:

Thank you very much Murat, that gives me the green light... [THE DESCRIPTION AND CURRENT PRICE COMES COURTESY OF THE AUDIO FEDERATIONS WEBSITE<THANKS]

http://www.kharma.com/_images/products/exquisite/grand_exquisite_right.jpg

I would only use these for left and Right of course, the center channel would be this one...

http://www.kharma.com/_images/products/exquisite/exquisite_center_right.jpg The center channel to use for that exquisite home theater setup.

"The centre-speaker has a very important role in a home-cinema system, because most of the speech is mixed down to this speaker. By using two of the three ceramic units for the sub-low and the remaining for the mid range the frequency-area of speech will be brought alive in a way that has never been done before.

The multiple-layer cabinet is pressed in between two HPL plates, leaving no room for resonance of the body. Available as passive and active speaker and include[s] a beautiful stand."

Passive version: $46,000.00
Active version: $55,800.00

and for the surround several pairs of these...
http://www.kharma.com/_images/products/exquisite/surround.jpg The surround channel to use for that exquisite home theater setup.

"Developed for the ultimate Home Theater system use this speaker can be used on-wall or partly in-wall. The inside of the cabinet uses patented Exquisite technology minimizing air born resonance. The powered version uses the state of the art Kharma amplifiers. Standard are enigma technology and 25mm diamond" tweeter.

Passive version: $24,500.00
Active version: $32,800.00

Even the subwoofer looks very well built.

http://www.kharma.com/_images/products/exquisite/sub.jpg

The subwoofer to use with the Mini Exquisite speaker or home theater setup for that extra oomph.

"Huge active subwoofer with 2 Horsepower firing into an 18 inch extreme long throw sub. The huge HPL-cabinet is finished with wood and aluminum. Kharma is not responsible for environmental damage due to construction fatigue of the building construction."

$32,800.00

BTW, I have just bought the Exquisite Center to replace my Wilson Audio center. It's way better than Wilson. A day and night diffrence... you won't regret it.

Did you get the passive or the active? I get great support from ML here in Florida so i thought a 52.

While I don't doubt they sound great I wonder if they're powerful enough for your clients. iirc you were looking for 130+ db output.

I'll settle for 125, maybe I'll use three centers ... lc,c,rc ;)

No really these speakers should play 125+ easily with 500 watts.

BTW, I have just bought the Exquisite Center to replace my Wilson Audio center. It's way better than Wilson. A day and night diffrence... you won't regret it.


$55K for a center channel that gives only dialog IMHO is (even for me) absurd. When you say night and day difference b/n the Wilson Center and the Kharma, does it talk in different languages for $55K ;) ?

To use $300K speakers for left and right channel in a HT is likewise absurd unless of course they are also used for music.

Did you get the passive or the active? I get great support from ML here in Florida so i thought a 52.

I have bought the passive version which is fed by a Mark Levinson 433 mono amp.

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/4479/kharma32wsubsystemfrontcy1.jpg

A couple of years ago these very small Kharma 3.2's (with Kharma sub) replaced a pair of Dynaudio Temptations in my audio system and were easily in another league pretty much across the board. I'm not sure I would use Accuton driver based Kharmas in a theater unless the program was reasonable (105db) sound levels and below no matter what they're spec'd at. The ceramic drivers don't move as much air in the midrange or provide the same level of dynamics as the Wilsons in the mids and when pushed, especially with non musical signal will explode into a pile of dust (think broken ceramic dishes) but other than that I would recommend them without reservation. The 3.2' FE's were one of the best speakers I've owned if not the best within the limits listed above. Sweet, delicate, detailed, 3D soundstage, great tone etc.

Owl1
I see you were driving those Kharmas with ML 2.1's.

$55K for a center channel that gives only dialog IMHO is (even for me) absurd. When you say night and day difference b/n the Wilson Center and the Kharma, does it talk in different languages for $55K ;) ?

To use $300K speakers for left and right channel in a HT is likewise absurd unless of course they are also used for music.


OB you have my great respect and admiration in all matters of audiophilia but I have a special circumstance with the Torus screen situation and the type of rooms I get to work in. I am tied to Large floorstanding D'appolito configs for Left Right, in the past the Temptaions were used, the c4's are great but do not have the dynamics past 105db. Yet Dynaudio does not offer a side surround speaker of substantial quality to match the temptations, and I am partial to diamond tweeters.

The room will be used for music and cinema both (but in Multichannel) probably using an Esoteric sacd too.

Here is a montage of what could be possible...

http://www.miamibadc.com/Images/Kharmacinema.jpg

The room dimensions I have in mind are similar to that on the bottom right...

obgyn

Best colored amp on the planet :p

Cineramax

Be prepared for potential audio issues as a result of that Torus screen when your client is playing music

$55K for a center channel that gives only dialog IMHO is (even for me) absurd. When you say night and day difference b/n the Wilson Center and the Kharma, does it talk in different languages for $55K ;) ?

To use $300K speakers for left and right channel in a HT is likewise absurd unless of course they are also used for music.

I guess the Kharma prices in US is much higher than EU. Plus I haven't bought the active version and I also bought it with Ti tweeter instead of the very expensive Diamond tweeter. On top of that I've got a good deal from the dealer who's a good friend of mine. So I've paid very much less than the figure you mentioned.

As for the sound quality difference between Kharma and Wilson, there is no point for me to tell you how much better they are, you should just listen them yourself in a good environment. I have been a Wilson Audio admirer for a very long time like yourself but then switched to other speakers (Gryphon) as they were sounding much better to me.

I strongly suggest that you should give a try to Kharma speakers if there is a dealer close to you.

obgyn

Best colored amp on the planet :p

:D

as an aside as we are all whiling away the time til kickoff...."Go Cardinals!!!"

Cineramax

Be prepared for potential audio issues as a result of that Torus screen when your client is playing music


I am aware of some low level reflections that may be audible in soft passages but if you see Steve Haas critique of my Torus countermeasures all those potential problems have been widely tamed. (http://www.vimeo.com/2831155)

In any event we are talking about 300k speakers sitting nest to a $5M 3D image experience so the trade off is warranted and fully controllable.;)

:D

as an aside as we are all whiling away the time til kickoff...."Go Cardinals!!!"

I got my 3d glasses at Target.

I guess the Kharma prices in US is much higher than EU. Plus I haven't bought the active version and I also bought it with Ti tweeter instead of the very expensive Diamond tweeter. On top of that I've got a good deal fromthe dealer who's a good friend of me. So I've paid very much less that the figure you mentioned.

As for the sound quality difference between Kharma and Wilson, there is no point for me to tell you how much better they are, you should just listen them yourself in a good environment. I have been a Wilson Audio admirer for a very long time like yourself but then switched to other speakers (Gryphon) as they were sounding much better to me.

I strongly suggest that you should give a try to Kharma speakers if there is a dealer close to you.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. I have a lot of money (as you ) in my system but I would never pay $55K for a center channel whose only purpose is dialog. If you feel you get better dialog with the Kharma rather than the Wilson, that's OK ..just not my cup of tea.

BTW, I do like Kharma speakers for music.

I guess the Kharma prices in US is much higher than EU. Plus I haven't bought the active version and I also bought it with Ti tweeter instead of the very expensive Diamond tweeter. On top of that I've got a good deal from the dealer who's a good friend of mine. So I've paid very much less than the figure you mentioned.

As for the sound quality difference between Kharma and Wilson, there is no point for me to tell you how much better they are, you should just listen them yourself in a good environment. I have been a Wilson Audio admirer for a very long time like yourself but then switched to other speakers (Gryphon) as they were sounding much better to me.

I strongly suggest that you should give a try to Kharma speakers if there is a dealer close to you.

There are none, in this country the high end audio industry generally eschews European vendors.

I am aware of some low level reflections that may be audible in soft passages but if you see Steve Haas critique of my Torus countermeasures all those potential problems have been widely tamed. (http://www.vimeo.com/2831155)

In any event we are talking about 300k speakers sitting nest to a $5M 3D image experience so the trade off is warranted and fully controllable.;)

I am not so sure that it is fully controllable as you suggest.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. I have a lot of money (as you ) in my system but I would never pay $55K for a center channel whose only purpose is dialog. If you feel you get better dialog with the Kharma rather than the Wilson, that's OK ..just not my cup of tea.

OB, as I watch more movies than listening music lately, I can definetely say that Center speaker is very very important. You don't just get dialog from the center but you also get many other sounds, like effects, music, sounds during passing by objects (cars, planes, etc) from side to side. I think Wilson center is very good center and if you don't care much about movies it's more than enough. But as I said you don't have to pay the most expensive version of the Kharma center, buy it with less the amp, stand, diamond tweeter, get a good deal and you'll pay half the figure you mention.

OB, as I watch more movies than listening music lately, I can definetely say that Center speaker is very very important. You don't just get dialog from the center but you also get many other sounds, like effects, music, sounds during passing by objects (cars, planes, etc) from side to side. I think Wilson center is very good center and if you don't care much about movies it's more than enough. But as I said you don't have to pay the most expensive version of the Kharma center, buy it with less the amp, stand, diamond tweeter, get a good deal and you'll pay half the figure you mention.


well as I said different strokes....I just would never spend that kind of coin on a center channel. I must say we are all waiting for the much rumored Wilson Polaris center channel that is supposedly a better match for the larger Wilson speakers BUT if it comes in at $55K, I say count me out.

any event we are talking about 300k speakers sitting nest to a $5M 3D image experience so the trade off is warranted and fully controllable

BTW, maybe I'm getting old but I just don't get all the fuss about 3D. Also not my cup of tea.

well as I said different strokes....I just would never spend that kind of coin on a center channel. I must say we are all waiting for the much rumored Wilson Polaris center channel that is supposedly a better match for the larger Wilson speakers BUT if it comes in at $55K, I say count me out.

I'm sure that the Polaris will be much better than the current center speaker and will not cost $55K. But when will it come out, it's been ages since they mentioned it

Only DW knows for sure. It has been in the rumor mill for 3-4 years.

I find it both strange and hilarious with high-end companys that have outrageous prices for their stuff and still don't understand the most basic physics laws. Why on earth do they have spikes?

There are none, in this country the high end audio industry generally eschews European vendors.

Of course there is. GTT Audio Video (http://www.gttgroup.com) as clearly indicated on Kharma's website (http://www.kharma.com/sales/distributor_info.php?c=25)

BTW, maybe I'm getting old but I just don't get all the fuss about 3D. Also not my cup of tea.

Agreed but OB ... what about Jenna Jameson in 3D on a 14' screen? :eek: :D



P.S. About the Kharma speakers mentioned in this thread, I find them to be ugly, unattractive and over-priced for starters! On the performance side they might be the dog's bollocks for all I care but when spending that amount, no stone should be left unturned be it aesthetics, performance, components, engineering, technology and what not etc. These are a bunch of ugly mugs even if they will be hidden at the end of the day.

Only DW knows for sure. It has been in the rumor mill for 3-4 years.

The newest Watch2 is a big improvement over the original. I don't know what DW did, but it's a much better match for the mains now than the original version. With the stand around $10k. I have to say I could never listen to the original at all and Watch2 is night and day difference. I would see very little need for a Polaris, IMO.

50-75% of the cost of any tower speaker is in bass. Therefore, the cost of a compact center channel should be between 12.5%-25% of the cost of a pair of towers and a full range center should be approximately 50%.

50-75% of the cost of any tower speaker is in bass. Therefore, the cost of a compact center channel should be between 12.5%-25% of the cost of a pair of towers and a full range center should be approximately 50%.

I beg to differ

$55K for a center channel is simply mind numbing....

I beg to differ

Differ in what way?

$55K for a center channel is simply mind numbing....

I think it is a matter of perception. I would say $220K for a pair of speakers is equally mind numbing, but I would expect to pay $55K for a compact center channel to match or even $110K if it were a driver for driver match.

I think we have become desensitized to the ridiculous cost of flagship speakers. But we have not become desensitized to the ridiculous cost, or even less than ridiculous cost of a [quasi?] matched center. So, I would suggest that spending $55K on a center makes sense in context *or* that our mind is trying to tell us that the main speakers that match it should be causing our mind to become numbed as well.

The Revel Voice2 is the same cost as a Studio2 because it is essentially the same speaker. Same with the big B&W center. To me, it makes sense and should scale as the price goes up. As I said, when the center becomes too expensive to us, maybe we should more carefully evaluate the speakers that the center is designed to match.

I think it is a matter of perception. I would say $220K for a pair of speakers is equally mind numbing, but I would expect to pay $55K for a compact center channel to match or even $110K if it were a driver for driver match.

I think we have become desensitized to the ridiculous cost of flagship speakers. But we have not become desensitized to the ridiculous cost, or even less than ridiculous cost of a [quasi?] matched center. So, I would suggest that spending $55K on a center makes sense in context *or* that our mind is trying to tell us that the main speakers that match it should be causing our mind to become numbed as well.
Your assumption that the center channel can only do its job well if a in the same ball park of money as the more important L and R speakers is problematic. This center is limited freq range and would do mainly dialog. Doing dialog well for the less than pristine movie soundtracks is not that costly. But as a 'cost no object' system, it is what it is.. I just think it is a gluttonous proposition.

Your assumption that the center channel can only do its job well if a in the same ball park of money as the more important L and R speakers is problematic. This center is limited freq range and would do mainly dialog. Doing dialog well for the less than pristine movie soundtracks is not that costly.

Well, DD/DTS are all full bandwidth systems and the center is not limited to just dialog. In fact, it is said that ~80% of all the sound in movie comes from it. As I said, even if you factor out the bass reproduction, the center, if all this is simply based on cost to produce, should cost ~12.5%-25% of the cost of the tower speakers. So, if you have $100K speakers, expect to pay $12,500 to $25K for a bass-deprived center and $50K for a full range center. Now, some towers probably have extreme profit margins and the center has a lower profit margin and/or parts quality and maybe you could end up with a $5K-$10K center. I don't differentiate between music and movies as far as what deserves more money. Some people love movies and will do anything to improve the experience.


But as a 'cost no object' system, it is what it is.. I just think it is a gluttonous proposition.

Most of high-end is a gluttonous proposition. I like great sound and video, but at the point where the quality is all about splitting hairs, I'd rather take the less expensive option and donate some of the savings to charity. I don't need expensive stuff to enjoy music and movies. I'm just saying that a $55K center shouldn't just get your spidey-sense tingling over the center speaker, but over everything connected with it.

Which makes me wonder why the government isn't bailing out the high-end industry.......

I think we can agree to disagree on this one...:)

I think we can agree to disagree on this one...:)

I think we agree, maybe, I just think you are thinking in absolute terms and I'm thinking in relative terms. Unless you're simply expressing the idea that center speakers are relatively unimportant in terms of quality and matching and I assume you're not since you have a dedicated theater.

Besides, what price being able to say "Ah, but I own the Kharma Graou Exkeeeeeseeeet" ;)

I think we can agree to disagree on this one...:)

Jeff.... I agree with you that we both disagree with him.

My views on High End Audio pricing are known, suffice to say I am more and more dissatisfied...
To come back to 'Max point I am not certain the Kharma are the last word when it comes to play very loud.. Loud, they are fine, very loud? They weren't designed for this purpose. You would do well to look in the better Pro "monitor" such as ATC, Genelec, Meyer and Yes, Dynaudio .. They all offer active speakers capable of those SPL with a level of quality approaching or in some cases surpassing several High End Audio offerings...
On the subject of subwoofer.. Why don't you try an Infinite Baffle with something like eight (8) 18 inch Aura subwoofers. (about $1K or less each ). The Infinite Baffle itself would support both the Aura woofers , say from 10 to 80 Hz flat at 130 dB with amplifier-like THD (<1%, something NO, really NO boxed commercial subwoofer is capable of, at ANY price!) and add to that a fan woofer for lower than that... You may have to reinforce the house structure but hey! that is a small price to pay for perfection

Jeff.... I agree with you that we both disagree with him.

You haven't stated how you disagree with me. Yes, $55K is outrageous for a center by most any mortal's standards, but in context with speakers that cost, what, $300K, it at least makes sense and is a drop in the bucket for people with that much money. If you make $5M/year, it's like spending $500 for a center. A lot of bailed out banking officials could buy the Exquisite system without even batting an eyelid. It doesn't make it sane, but what is sane right now? I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone. I'm pretty sure Jeff and I agree on the porkulus bill and everything surrounding it.

I thought Cmax did the Dynaudios because they would play so loud. I do recall mentioning that this would not be the last word in dynamics because of the first order crossovers though ;) Too bad NHT's professional digital active system was aborted. 120dB output and effortless, with dual 12" woofers per speaker. I heard it once at CES and it was amazing. But it was ugly and needed to be hidden. Steep crossovers do wonders for high output.

You haven't stated how you disagree with me. Yes, $55K is outrageous for a center by most any mortal's standards, but in context with speakers that cost, what, $300K, it at least makes sense and is a drop in the bucket for people with that much money. If you make $5M/year, it's like spending $500 for a center.

I think you missed mine (and OB's point). He doesn't need me to speak for him, but yes it is a large amount of money, but to use a different kind of analogy, what if the valet at my favorite restaurants started charging $100 to park my car (10X the typical price). Yes, I could certainly afford to pay it each week and it wouldn't change my life..... But would I pay it?? Absolutely not.. I'd park it myself (or find a different restaurant). Any service (or piece of mechandise) has an ultimate monetary 'value' that is relative to what it ultimately does. To pay $100 to park a car a few feet from the door is ludicrous. To pay $55K for a center channel is right there with the valet analogy... A $55K center channel is simply out of whack in terms of the price charged for its designed task.


...and yes, spending $1 trillion the way it is slated to be spent to help 'stimulate' our economy is another ludicrous fallacy.

I think you missed mine (and OB's point). He doesn't need me to speak for him, but yes it is a large amount of money, but to use a different kind of analogy, what if the valet at my favorite restaurants started charging $100 to park my car (10X the typical price). Yes, I could certainly afford to pay it each week and it wouldn't change my life..... But would I pay it?? Absolutely not.. I'd park it myself (or find a different restaurant). Any service (or piece of mechandise) has an ultimate monetary 'value' that is relative to what it ultimately does. To pay $100 to park a car a few feet from the door is ludicrous. To pay $55K for a center channel is right there with the valet analogy... A $55K center channel is simply out of whack in terms of the price charged for its designed task.

I agree, but someone will pay it, so it's not entirely out of whack. My only point was that it makes sense to have a $55K center with speakers that cost $150K each. Well, you know, kinda ;) I mean, to me, $300K for a pair of speakers is equally absurd. I guess that's the difference, maybe, that you're okay with ridiculously overpriced speakers, just not ridiculously (but equally) overpriced centers. To me, the center makes you realize how overpriced the mains are.

Well, let me put it this way, as I have in the past. Take a $150K speaker. About $50K is the 'monitor' part and $100K is the 'subwoofer' part. No one in their right mind would spend $50K for monitor speakers and a $100K for passive subs if it had the exact same performance of a $150K/pr speaker. But if you build it into a tower form factor, suddenly it is sellable. Why? Because people have become desensitized to that kind of expense. But when you look at it as a sub/sat speaker, you realize quickly how absurd it is, just as, if you take out the woofers and make a center channel for the same basic price as the top half of the speaker, it shines a spotlight on the absurdity.

So, I didn't miss the point as much as I don't understand what seems to be a total contradiction between the value of a L/R speaker versus the value of a center which is designed to match and keep up with the other two speakers. I believe in equal quality/matching across the front. Just not at that extreme of a price. You could argue that having $150K/pr or $300k/pr tower speakers in 5.1 system is really absurd, especially when you have subs, especially when you can't get matched center/rears inexpensively or at all. Best to put them in another room and have a more affordable, but perfectly matched multi-channel system.


...and yes, spending $1 trillion the way it is slated to be spent to help 'stimulate' our economy is another ludicrous fallacy.

Amen. A 4-6 month SS/Income tax holiday would have been 10 times as effective, 10 times more quickly, but wouldn't have grown government. Well, maybe I mean 'effective' versus 'disastrously stupid'

As an aside, the marketing purpose for building a flagship product that is 2-3 times the next product down is two fold - one, some people will buy it for the exclusivity and high price and two, it desensitizes people to the otherwise ridiculous price of the next product down in the food chain. Well, it also gets a lot of press when you have that kind of balls :)

100$ for valet would be ridiculous at your average 5 star la de dah restaurant.

however at french laundry... maybe not so much.

Down on Central Ave, they have a type of valet parking that costs ~$100. Or so I've heard ;)

Down on Central Ave, they have a type of valet parking that costs ~$100. Or so I've heard ;)


.... and there is an audio company that charges $55,000 for a center channel.....Or so I've heard;).

however we all have our BS line that we cannot easily cross.

we may be willing to pay loads of money on something... but there is a line where we look at it and say... "that is too much %^$*#*( money. not gonna do it.

for some that line is higher than others and it is not directly tied to net worth. and even some areas we can spend stupid but some other be incredibly cheap.

I had a guy pull up in a Jaguar and dressed like he was a CEO and he asked me how much an entry level stereo system for his living room would cost. I said "about $1000" figuring he'd want far better than that and he said 'that's ridiculous, I'm not paying that much for a stereo' and he stormed out. I've got dozens and dozens of stories like that. I think people need to have balance in their lives. I'm a beer budget/champagne taste guy and apply that to all areas of my life. Cars, clothes, stereo gear, etc.

But hey, this is the $20K forum, so only one of us is making sense right now in context and is especially ironic that I'm the one rationalizing the $55K center ;) But I'm rationalizing it this way - IF it truly costs $300K to build and sell speakers of this caliber (or if people are just willing to pay it), THEN it stands to reason that the center would cost $55K simply because of how the numbers break out (or because those customers might expect to pay it). I never expected anyone to accept it as a sane *purchase* :) It would be like me trying to buy a space shuttle as a commuter vehicle.

Me I would love to here it to see is it Worth the $$$$.

however we all have our BS line that we cannot easily cross.

we may be willing to pay loads of money on something... but there is a line where we look at it and say... "that is too much %^$*#*( money. not gonna do it.

for some that line is higher than others and it is not directly tied to net worth. and even some areas we can spend stupid but some other be incredibly cheap.

Agreed! 100%.. Alimentall point however is worth considering... if the center channel in a multichannel anyway, has to reproduce close to 80% of the total sonic content then it should occupy a similar or proportional percentage of the total budget allocated to speakers, since the L+R are not even by their two-some doing half as much work... Look at it this way in regular 2-channel each speakers work half the load so a 200 K speaker runs about 100 per side, well adding the most important speaker in a LCR.... 50 K for 80% of the work is a relative bargain... but current price of several High End Audio items have already exceeded my BS threshold so...

I think we can agree to disagree on this one...:)

I must say that I actually agree with John on this one (don't know if I'll ever get to say that again :)). The centre channel is responsible for the lion's share of the sound - some say 80%. I went with a "full-range" centre-channel with essentially the same driver complement as the mains and it did cost nearly the same as 1 speaker.

I found this in another blog...

$200,000 or more (13 speakers)
$100,000 or more (32 speakers)
$50,000 or more (83 speakers)
$25,000 or more (157 speakers)
$10,000 or more (275 speakers)

If anybody thinks you've spent too much money on your audio system just show them this list.

I wonder who'll be the first to cross the $2 million dollar barrier? Any bets on how long it'll take?

MEGABUCK LIST*

California Audio Tech Yosemite-Sequoia $1,275,000
Wisdom Audio nfinite Wisdom Grande $700,000
Gamut LOpera $450,000
German Physics Gaudi MK2C $360,000
Magico Ultimate $329,000
Wisdom Audio Infinite Wisdom $300,000
German Physiks Emperor C $279,000
Acapella Audio Arts Spharon Excalibur $361,000
Perfect8 Force $277,000
Marten Design Coltrane Supreme $250,000
Wisdom Audio Infinite Rush $250,000
German Physiks Lorrley C $226,000
German Physiks Loreley Mk II $200,000
Avantgarde Trio Classico w/2 Basshorns $189,000
Rockport Arrakis $165,000
Genesis Adv Tech G1.1 $165,000
Peak-Consult Emperor MK2 $160,000
Von Schweikert VR11 SE $150,000
Lyngdorf-Steinway Model D system $150,000
Cabasse Le Sphere $150,000
Westlake Tower SM-1 $146,000
Nola Grand Reference IV.1 $145,000
KEF Muon $140,000
Wilson Audio Alexandria $139,000
California Audio Tech Trinity Sequoia $130,000
German Physics PSQ 420C $130,000
Tenner & Friedl Duke $125,000
Magico Model 6 $120,000
Westlake SM-1VF $120,000
Avalon Acoustics Sentinel $115,000
Siltech Pantheon XL $110,000
Eggleston Works Ivy $100,000
MBL 101E $97,000
Audio Acoustics Sapphire TI-C SE $96,000
Wisdom Audio Rush $95,000
Rockport Hyperion $92,000
YG Acoustics Anat Reference Pro $92,000
Dynaudio Evidence Master $90,000
Symposium Acoustics Panorama $90,000
Focal Grand Utopia BE $90,000
McIntosh XRT2K $90,000
Acapella Audio Arts High Campanile $89,000
Sunny Cable H3W18 Majestic $88,000
PBN Audio Master Reference $85,000
Montana KAS2 $85,000
Von Schweikert VR10 Mk2 $85,000
Verity Lohengren II $80,000
Gamut L9 $77,000
Rockport Altair $75,000
Peak Consult El Diablo $75,000
Von Schweikert VR9 SE $75,000
Avantgarde Trio Compact w/Basshorn $72,000
Calix Signature Phoenix Grand $70,000
Burmester B-100 $70,000
Goldmund Epilogue $66,000
Audio Physic Kronos $65,000
Von Schweikert VR-7 SE $65,000
Avalon Acoustics Isis $62,000
B&W Nautilus $60,000
Marten Design Coltrane $60,000
Meridian DSP8000 $60,000
Loiminchay Mandarin Supreme $60,000
Nola Pegasus Reference Extreme $60,000
Peak Consult Emperor Mk2 $60,000
JBL DD66000 $60,000
YG Acoustics Anat Reference Studio $60,000
Montana WAS $60,000
Westlake Tower HR7 $59,000
ClaraVox Dogma $59,000
Genesis Adv Tech G201 $57,000
Sunny Cable H3W155 $56,000
Venture Excellence $56,000
Wisdom Audio M75 $55,000
Hansen Audio King $55,000
Krell LAT1000 $55,000
Siltech Pantheon X $55,000
MBL 111E $52,000
Marten Design Coltrane $50,000
Dali Megaline 3 $50,000
MBL 101E $50,000
Adam Tenor Alpha $50,000
Evolution Acoustics MM2 $50,000
California Audio Tech Malibu-Pacific $49,000
Wilson Audio MAXX 2 $45,000
Cabasse Karissma $48,000
Opera Caruso $48,000
Linn Komri $47,000
Pass Rushmore $45,000
Ascendo M-S Mk 2 $45,000
Kharma Mini Exquisite $45,000
Sonus Faber Stradivari Homage $45,000
Kinetic Audio Priority $45,000
Swans 2.2 $44,000
Legacy Audio Helix $44,000
Scaena Model 3.2 $44,000
A.R.T. Emotion Silver Signature $44,000
Linn Artikulat 350A $43,000
MBL 116 $40,000
Burmester B-80 $40,000
Dynaudio Evidence Temptation $40,000
Focal Nova Utopia Be $40,000
ESP Concert Grand SI $40,000
Peak Consult Zoltan $40,000
Nova Evolution 2 $39,000
Eggelston Works Savoy $39,000
Piega C-40 $39,000
Verity Audio Sarastro 2 $39,000
Focal Nove Utopia Be $38,000
YG Acoustics Kipod Studio $38,000
Montana EPX $37,000
Triangle Magellen $36,000
Acoustic Zen Maestro $36,000
Wisdom Audio M50 $35,000
Talon Firebird $35,000
Loiminchay Patrick.3 $35,000
Kinetic Audio Nonparaeil $35,000
Sound Lab U1PX $35,000
Snell Acoustics Illusion A7 $35,000
Avalon Acoustics Eidolon Diamond $34,000
Kharma Mini-Grand Ceramique $34,000
Von schweikert VR-7 SE $34,000
Gersham Acoustics Black Swan $33,000
Tannoy Westminster Royal $33,000
Wilson Benesch Chimera $33,000
Tetra 606 $33,000
Calix Academy Phoenix Grand $33,000
Silverline Audio Grande La Folia $32,000
Tenner & Friedl Gordon $32,000
Verastarr Epic $32,000
Wilson Audio Watt/Puppy 8 $31,000
Focus Audio Master 2 $31,000
Kinetic Audio Inclusive $30,000
Kinetic Audio Standard $30,000
JBL K2 S9800SE-DG $30,000
Peak Consult Empress $30,000
Proac Response D100 $30,000
Adam Tensor Beta $30,000
Sonus Faber Amati Anniversario $30,000
Meridiean DSP-7000 $30,000
Canton Vento Reference 1DC $30,000
Aurum Acoustics Integris Active 300B $30,000
Rockport Mira Grand $30,000
Audio Physic Caldera 30,000
Magico Mini II $30,000
ATC SCM 150 ALS $29,000
Montana XPS Signature $29,000
PBN Audio KAS $28,000
Wilson Audio Watt/Puppy 8 $28,000
Piega CL90 $28,000
YG Acoustics Anat Ref Main Module $28,000
Kharma 3.2FE Reference $28,000
MBL 111e $27,000
Sound Organization Chimera $26,000
JAS Plato $26,000
Proclaim DMT-100 $26,000
Sound Lab A1-PX $26,000
Linn Artikulat 320A $25,000
Kinetic Audio Ethereal $25,000
Burmester B-50 $25,000
Siltech Pantheon M $25,000
Magico V3 $25,000
Focus Audio Master 3 $25,000
Von Schweikert VR-5 $25,000
Fried Reference $25,000
ATC SCM 100 ALS $25,000
Kinetic Audio Trapezium $25,000
Polymer Audio Logic $25,000
Joseph Audio Pearl $24,000
Arial Acoustics 20T $24,000
NEAT Ultimatum MF9 $23,000
Meridiean DSP6000 $23,000
Sound Lab M1 $23,000
Vivid K1 $23,000
Revel Salon II $22,000
Coincident Total Reference $22,000
Sonus Faber Amati Homage $22,000
MBL 116 $22,000
Nova Rendition 2 $22,000
Usher D2 $22,000
Focus Audio Master 3 $22,000
Sonus Faber Cremona Elipsa $21,000
Kharma Ceramique Ref 3.2 $21,000
Opera Tebaldi $21,000
Inetic Audio Refined $21,000
Triangle Magellen Concerto $20,000
Peak-Consult INcognitoX $20,000
Focus Audio Master 2.5 $20,000
Loiminchay Patrick.2 $20,000
B&W 800D $20,000
Verity Audio Parsifal Ovation $20,000
Innersound Kaya Reference $20,000
Meridian DSP-5000 $20,000
KEF 207/2 $20,000
Avantgarde Uno 3.0 $19,000
Lyngdorf 2+2 active system $19,000
McIntosh XRT28 $19,000
Sound Lab A3-PX $19,000
Shahinian Acoustics Diapason $19,000
A.R.T. Emotion Signature $19,000
Escalante Designs Fremont $19,000
Focal Alto Utopia Be $19,000
Eggleston Andra II $19,000
Eben X-3 $19,000
Wilson Benesch ACT $19,000
Ayon Falcon S $18,000
B&W Signature Diamond $18,000
Avalon Acoustics Eidolon Vision $18,000
NEAT Ultimatum MF7 $18,000
Proac Response D80 $18,000
PBN Montana $18,000
Dynaudio Confidence C4 $18,000
Green Mt. Audio Continuum 3 $17,000
Vandersteen 5A $17,000
Gamut L7 $17,000
Linn Artikulat 340A $17,000
O'hEocha D2-XCT $17,000
Verity Parsifal $17,000
Silverline Audio Grandeur Mk 3 $16,000
Studio Electric Type Two $16,000
Sound Lab M2 $16,000
Auditorium 23 Rondo $16,000
Revel Ultima Studio 2 $16,000
B&W 801D $16,000
B&O BeoLab5 $16,000
Revel Ultima Studio 2 $16,000
Legacy Audio Whisper $16,000
Snell XA 2900 15,000
Audio Physic Avanti 5 $15,000
Meridian DSP-5500 $15,000
Montana XP $15,000
Sonus Faber Guarneri Memento $15,000
Jamo R909 $15,000
Talon Thunder $15,000
RBH T-30LSE $15,000
Burmester 961 $15,000
Avantgarde Nano Horn $15,000
Devore Fidelity Silverback Reference $15,000
Wilson Audio Sophia 2 $14,000
Vivid B1 $14,000
Calix Venus Phoenix Grand $14,000
Art of Sound Line Array Tower $14,000
Krell LAT2000 $14,000
Rockport Mira $14,000
Magnepan MG 20.1 $13,000
Gersham Acoustic GAP 828 $13,000
Burmester B-30 $13,000
AAD 7001 $13,000
Focal Diva Utopia Be $12,000
B&W 802D $12,000
MBL 121 $12,000
Peak-Consult Princess $12,000
Quad ESL2805 $12,000
Shahinian Acoustics Hawk $12,000
Alon Circe $12,000
Dynaudio Confidence C2 $12,000
Meadowlark Blue Heron 2 $12,000
Nola Viper Reference $12,000
Totem Shaman $12,000
Revox 3.6 Digital $12,000
Gamut L5 $2,000
Usher Dancer CP-8871 Mk1 $12,000
Vandersteen Quatro Wood $12,000
Linn Akurate $11,000
Naim SL2 $11,000
Vienna Acoustic Mahler $11,000
Arial Acoustics Model 9 $11,000
KEF Reference 205/2 $11,000
Cabasse Baltic $11,000
Harbeth Monitor 40 $11,000
Merlin VSM mx $11,000
Focal Electra 1037 Be $11,000
Meridian DSP-5200 $11,000
Martin Logan Summit $11,000
Zu Audio Definition Mk 2 $11,000
Green Mt. Audio Calypso $10,000
Montana EPX $10,000
Tannoy Kesington-Prestige $10,000
Revel Ultima Gem 2 $10,000
Final 1000i ST $10,000
Thiel CS3.7 $10,000
Opera Callas Divina $10,000
Eggleston Works Rosa $10,000
Sonus Faber Cremona $10,000
Wilson Benesch Trinity $10,000
Lyngdorf DP-1/BW-1 $9,400
Quad ESL-2805 $9,000
Quad ESL-989 $9,000

MEGABUCK LIST*

California Audio Tech Yosemite-Sequoia $1,275,000
Wisdom Audio Infinite Wisdom Grande $700,000


Oh dear! :rolleyes:

These use the old $3,500 hand built Esotar from the Confidence three IN EVERY SPEAKER.


http://www.egglestonworks.com/Images/Ivy_lg.jpg$100,000

http://www.egglestonworks.com/Kodak_Photo_CD/centerlarge.JPG$9 000.00

But for more beefier centre I would use the nine
http://www.egglestonworks.com/images/Bro_cover55_000.jpg $30,000

Or an Andra II

http://www.egglestonworks.com/Images/andra2_pair.jpg

Then for surrounds the katherine II's are 4" deep $9,300pr.
http://www.egglestonworks.com/images/IMG_0249_000.JPG

For an Esotar Lover like me, who needs D'appolito mains this would work, unless tha Ivy's have a backfiring tweeter?

Is this more reasonable to you Doctor?

These use the old $3,500 hand built Esotar from the Confidence three IN EVERY SPEAKER.


http://www.egglestonworks.com/Images/Ivy_lg.jpg$100,000

http://www.egglestonworks.com/Kodak_Photo_CD/centerlarge.JPG$9 000.00

But for more beefier centre I would use the nine
http://www.egglestonworks.com/images/Bro_cover55_000.jpg $30,000

Or an Andra II

http://www.egglestonworks.com/Images/andra2_pair.jpg

Then for surrounds the katherine II's are 4" deep $9,300pr.
http://www.egglestonworks.com/images/IMG_0249_000.JPG

For an Esotar Lover like me, who needs D'appolito mains this would work, unless tha Ivy's have a backfiring tweeter?

Is this more reasonable to you Doctor? Of course they do not look that great but I would hide them behind speaker FABRIC.

Like so. http://cineramax.com/CES_2008/Prometheus1.jpg

Peter,
Why are you searching for ugly speakers? :D I'm sure you can find some graceful speakers fulfilling all your requirements and at the same time complement your fantastic HTs.

Ther is nothing uglier than a Dynaudio confidence 4, yet they sound terrific up to 107 db, where they start to break up in a dignified manner; ven on corners without EQ, and behind walls of speaker fabric. You may say that is a non non but even the largest Genelec rep in the country said that is the best center channel he has heard. The c4. Also see Steve Haas critique.

The Eggleston need a curtain in front of them. That is for sure. But they have a very flexible semi expensive high performance on/inwall solution that I could modularize in Goldmund Fashion with a metal frame:

http://www.goldmund.com/u_room/var/custom/Image/GMR_opening%20page.jpg


Remember that I have 12 channels to play with.

C4 is a good looking speaker IMO. ;) Much much better looking than the Kharma GE IMHO.

To me one looks like a cello the other one is post modern crap.

Ther is nothing uglier than a Dynaudio confidence 4, yet they sound terrific up to 107 db, where they start to break up. Even on corners without EQ, and behind walls of speaker fabric. You may say that is a non non but even the largest Genelec rep in the country said that is the best center channel he has heard. The c4.

The Eggleston need a curtain in front of them. That is for sure.

http://www.miamibadc.com/Images/toruswall2.jpg

http://www.miamibadc.com/Images/toruswall3.jpg

http://www.miamibadc.com/Images/EggleTorus.jpg

Is this more reasonable to you Doctor?

first off a perusal of your huge list indicates that these are mostly old MSRP's as the price has gone up on most of the listed speakers.

Second Peter I am sure you know that it is easier to spend your client's money rather than your own.

I still strongly disagree that you need spend $55K on a center channel.

Seems your clients either have more money than you can shake a stick at and/or they have no knowledge about high end systems and have given you carte blanche on the project.

Well, there's a third option - they have more money than you can shake a stick at and they expect to get 5 SOTA speakers, rather than just two, in a dedicated theater system.

Tell me OB you haven't wondered about what that would be like, even once... :D

Tell me OB you haven't wondered about what that would be like, even once... :D


PLUS A D-BOX. I have thought about it, but the Alexandria has a rear firing tweeter. No?

The advice I have received is that the left, center & right channels should, where possible, be the same exact speaker in an HT.

The advice I have received is that the left, center & right channels should, where possible, be the same exact speaker in an HT.

Why stop with that? Last year I played around with the same speakers on the same plane in a 7.2 channel setup and the difference to even closely matched speakers in the same line is significant. The achieve the virtual hologram possibility we all thought surround could be I think you need the same speaker all the way around, in the same plane, and that means the center too, as much as I don't like AT screens, it is increasingly apparent that this is the way to go especially if you're trying to effect SOTA.

The X2 has rear firing supertweeters. Cineramax, do you see this as an issue for some reason? C'mon, these have Miami Beach written all over them...:D

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/3548/alexsetfinallargert9.jpg

As much as I love them and esteem Peter McGrath, ANYTHING rear firing will create a TORUS anomalie, and after having what I ve got with the Torus THERE IS NO GOING BACK (http://www.vimeo.com/3069423)!.

A TORUS room can be audiophile grade ONLY when executed by yours truly (http://www.vimeo.com/2831155).:D:D:D

Tell me OB you haven't wondered about what that would be like, even once... :D

not even once

As much as I love them and esteem Peter McGrath, ANYTHING rear firing will create a TORUS anomalie, and after having what I ve got with the Torus THERE IS NO GOING BACK (http://www.vimeo.com/3069423)!.

A TORUS room can be audiophile grade ONLY when executed by yours truly (http://www.vimeo.com/2831155).:D:D:D


the human ear cannot hear the Ultra Tweeter

Perhaps you are referring to the fact that the X-2 is rear ported

Why stop with that? Last year I played around with the same speakers on the same plane in a 7.2 channel setup and the difference to even closely matched speakers in the same line is significant. The achieve the virtual hologram possibility we all thought surround could be I think you need the same speaker all the way around, in the same plane, and that means the center too, as much as I don't like AT screens, it is increasingly apparent that this is the way to go especially if you're trying to effect SOTA.

The X2 has rear firing supertweeters. Cineramax, do you see this as an issue for some reason? C'mon, these have Miami Beach written all over them...:D

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/3548/alexsetfinallargert9.jpg


There is a gentleman here in Silicone Valley who has a MC setup with 5 X-2 driven by 10 bridged Halcro amps

Why stop with that? Last year I played around with the same speakers on the same plane in a 7.2 channel setup and the difference to even closely matched speakers in the same line is significant. The achieve the virtual hologram possibility we all thought surround could be I think you need the same speaker all the way around, in the same plane, and that means the center too, as much as I don't like AT screens, it is increasingly apparent that this is the way to go especially if you're trying to effect SOTA.


Do you say that one need the same surroundspeakers as front speakers? :confused:

Do you say that one need the same surroundspeakers as front speakers? :confused:

Yes, NIN exactly. Preferably 7 of them. Creates a truly holographic surround field, it's breathtaking. I've found with changes from the vertical plane, differences in room effect, comb filtering, tonality differences in satellites and localization really take me out of the illusion of being immersed in a movie's soundscape and have me thinking about speakers unless they are all the same. IMO only way to do it and certainly the way these surround mixes are optimized to be decoded in room.

I don't agree. I do agree that the front and center should be the same but not the surroundspeaker, they have another task and should be different.

Most recording studios I've seen to use identical rear speakers, so if you want to hear what they hear as they're mixing, that's what you do. Doesn't mean they have to be expensive, just using equal drivers to the fronts.

I don't agree. I do agree that the front and center should be the same but not the surroundspeaker, they have another task and should be different.
Why is their task different and how should a surround speaker differ from the front and center speakers?

For one the fronts are far field and the surrounds near field , unless you have lots of back and side room to spare.

The movie I like to use for seamless soundfield test is I Am Legend. There are many good TOTALLY immersive test scenes in the surround mix for this Dolby True HD BD like the cricket sounds in times square, the lion leaping out from behind the back left seat and the real test: the Ford Shelby GT500 spinning out and hitting traffic markers as it pulls a nice circular spin out pattern. If you are getting an absolutely seamless soundfield, you will feel as though you are in the car with each marker being hit making a completely consistent circular pattern around your room. This is a very difficult thing for a system to do correctly and on the TrueHD track very very impressive. This scene must be awesome in D-Box!

I would go with some Revel Salon2s Peter, all the way around... Oh, wait, I already did! :D

In all seriousness, why not Salon2s in the front and Gem2/Voice2s (if you must use monitors...) for all the surrounds? It doesn't get much more SOTA than the top of the line Revel speakers, and you don't have to spend a ton of money either...

I actually was listening to them in a surround system yesterday with Krell amps.

Very nice, a sweet speaker and the krells gave it a little sizzle and plenty of snap, still I prefer Dynaudio with ML.

Why is their task different and how should a surround speaker differ from the front and center speakers?


Because they have different task. The front and center do 46 degree at front and the surround (5.1 or 7.1) have the another 314 degree. To do that with same speakers, like in the front, you will get a very bad sense of surroundsound IMO. That's why THX recommend dipole speakers, but I prefer another kind of speakers and use more (6 or 8 surroundspeakers for 5.1-7.1).

Yah, ok but I like the way QueueCumber's done it. He's in a good position to comment on going full range all the way around from satellites. Apologies for pilfering your pics Jeff but the truth must emerge... :rolleyes:
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/4974/86761110qj2.jpg
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/3900/46137734lp2.jpg

Cool room but I would think the speaker right beside the sofa would be too much "here I am" for me. I absolutely hate it when I can locate the surroundspeaker.

The one I will get is somewhat odd. It looks like this (but I will have another color)
http://user.faktiskt.se/Wolfie/H%f6gtalarbyggen/a2/IMG_0182.JPG

Then you place them something like this

http://user.faktiskt.se/Wolfie/Lyssningsrum/Lyssningsrum%20byggbilder/070214/IMG_0030.jpg

That give a superb surroundfield that both sound in focus and clear but also "diffuse" in the sense that you cannot hear that the sound come from "that" speaker.

What a thread...

I few comments. I thought that 80% of the dialouge came from the center not 80% of all audio content. If I'm wrong at least I've learned something today.

Peter, what about PHC or PMC? Those big boys from PMC I bet could hit 120+dB. If you can hide the stuff what about JBL or KLIPSCH pro cinema line?

$55K for a center channel is like paying $40K for a watch. If you are Steve Wynn it's all about prestige not performance!

I was out at church for band practice (Baptist rock) and I can tell we use SPL (Sound Pressure Labs ?) arrays and SPL "runts" for stage monitor and the sound is pretty dang good. Will a $55K center sound better? Yeah but not 18 times better. Most of the cost in high end speakers is labor and the cabinet. There is no economy of scale due to limited production. Look at the PC power supply for example. Early on (early - mid 80's) they were $400today they are $15 ($12 if you buy 5 or more).

BTW I know it sounds odd that I go to church for those of you that know me and have listened to some of my off color rants about this or that. Hey without church I'd be an ass all the time now its just some of the time.

Will a $55K center sound better? Yeah but not 18 times better.

But this applies to ALL things audio and most things in general. I'm not sure why it is accepted with some product categories and not others.

I think that given the recommended best practice of matching your LCR speakers for an HT, you will be looking at paying roughly half the cost of the L&R pair for the single center channel. Whether one considers this worthwhile for a center is a different issue, IMHO.

Of course using the same speaker for the LCR assumes you are going AT (or having a very high screen! :D) If you are going for dedicated HT you are more likely to be going AT than someone who is primarily two channel, with an occasional movie sound requirement.

Sean

......
Peter, what about PHC or PMC? Those big boys from PMC I bet could hit 120+dB. If you can hide the stuff what about JBL or KLIPSCH pro cinema line?
.......

I have to agree, PMC do great professional and home speakers, and I am a fan of their ATL.
The largest home version (BB5 XBD) has 124db spl at 1m with amp rating up to 1kw.
http://www.pmc-speakers.com/product.php?mode=view&pid=44

Cheers
DT

With the caveat that the prices for these speakers sound insane, even to an audiophile fool like myself....let's be careful about the rationalizations we use.

Dismissing the price of, for instance, the Kharma center channel, shouldn't be done on the basis that "all the center channel does is produce the dialogue." (I'm speaking as someone who works in film sound, here). The center channel is at least as important as the L/Rs because a significant amount of sound effects are produced via the center channel! From the film mixing stage standpoint, tweaks to frequency of individual sounds here and there aside, there is typically no global attenuation of the frequencies going to the center channel (e.g. no one is removing bass from the center of of the movie sound-stage in the center channel). Of course most people use a sub to reproduce the deepest bass frequencies, not only for their center channel but often to help out the L/R etc. But the point is that center channel information is as rich as the L/R info frequency-wise.

FWIW, how the center channel is mixed often depends on the mixer (and often the dialogue mixer at that - they tend to be the "king" at the mixing console). Dialogue mixers are usually looking for dialogue intelligibility and they'll deal with center channel issues in different ways. For instance if you've got a mono clock tick in a scene some dialogue mixers will tell the FX mixer to get it out if the center channel and pan it to a side channel. Others will be fine with it in the center channel but just ask it be lowered in volume, others may not mind the original volume etc. But a lot of effects end up in the center channel (as well as background tracks that spread through L/C/R).

So the center channel tends to have an even harder job to do than the L/Rs insofar as it must simultaneously produce sound effects AND produce most of the dialogue. To ensure the richness of the effects AND the dialogue is reproduced both articulately and naturally - simultaneously from a single mono speaker - is no small task of that mono speaker.

That is of course talking strictly about movie sound track reproduction.

Cheers,

With the caveat that the prices for these speakers sound insane, even to an audiophile fool like myself....let's be careful about the rationalizations we use.


I agree. Too many think that price is statment about the soundquality but I would say that the price and soundquality have VERY little to do with each other. The price is only what the producer think he can get and wants for the product. It has almost nothing to do with soundquality, something we can often see in Stereophiles measurements.

Interesting post, thanks

Excellent post R.H.

I have no way of validating this except to say that in my experience as an audiophile.. The reproduction of the size of an audio event is not a matter of volume or simply frequency response... "small" speakers even when aided by a sub and even when able to play very loud sound well like small speakers... I am not sure I have ever heard ANY small satellite/sub combo sound as authoritative as say a Dunleavy big box or a Magnepan or a MAXX3.. It seems thus that for the ultimate in Multichannel reproduction one needs a full range set... We can dance all around the fact but I am sure the best results are brought by FULL RANGE radiators all around... if you need more bass dynamic bring on subs but the idea of "mains" and lesser, "center" and "surrounds" is a convenience not the best way to enjoy MC.
We should not take a manufacturer lack of a serious center channel offering for the center channel lack of importance in the surround reproduction... for example Wilson line up is lacking in this sense and I am sure they know it... The Watch ( is that their top-of-the line? center) is a stopgap. That someone uses it and is satisfied with it does deter from the fact that it is sorely lacking compared to something like the Dynaudio Confidence Center (http://www.dynaudio.com/eng/systems/lines/confidence/confidence_center.php), let alone the formidable looking (and sounding) Evidence Center (http://www.dynaudio.com/eng/systems/lines/evidence/center.php#)...this, a quick audition whether you like Dynaudio sound or not will tell you... which bring us back to the price of the center it is actually does more than the "mains" ... how would you price the speakers that does ...more? if not ...more? Current practices and attitudes preclude centers that are more expensive than half of the mains, it shouldn't be...
'MAX sorry about the Kharma.. You have not yet replied to the suggestion of going PRO Dynaudio ? or PRO ATC or PRO Genelec? I think they would better fit your SPL requirements with low THD...

YES EXCELLENT POSTS, GUYS.
Frantz/Mike and others who suggested going pro,

What bothers me of all the pro stuff is that it comes with it's own electonics and dsp.

In addition Horn based systems and the JBL synthesis does something very wrong in a TORUS room,a torture chamber (no need for Extraordinary Rendition there;)).

Quite frankly heretofore I have had a great comfort level with Dynaudio.

http://www.miamibadc.com/Images/CENTERUP.jpg

Just yesterday that comfort level went up by quite a bit, and it is very timely that you mentioned the confidence center because a 40% improvement in the overall front sound stage at Prometheus was effected by a small change. As part of a new plan to fill all cavities with acoustical cotton I installed a new platform to elevate the cc center channel some 3 inches yesterday. We noticed that one of the speaker termination pins had been fatigued, after a long drive to Straghtwire and back once the pins were replaced, and the speaker was lifted we were able to positin it in the highestmost and forwardmost position. A small dip switch in the back of the speaker was set to UNDER TV setting. LO AND BEHOLD not just the center imaged better the whole sound stage clicked , more musical, more dynamic, more transparent, louder? It is amazing what this particular center did when properly positioned.

BTW setting that switch from over to under Elevated the image (much like the old tilt thing at meridian) some 18 inches inside the screen area, just a bout were the screen lip zone is.

To be honest thus far I had been reticent to recommend ANY speaker under a Torus screen and my initial results with the improperly mounted cc had only confirmed my fears. Here I go again >ABOUT FACE<. Let the under the torus multichannel extravaganza begin. :)

By the way the eggelstonworks were unsuitable due to rear firing, so the Kharma are out for ceramic driver inefficiency, the wilson supertweeter would get collected by the torus and redirected so intensely where it could affect other audible frequencies (yes?NO?) the ports are low frequency but I do not think they would affect the TORUS. It looks like it is back to the old Dynaudios for this design.

http://www.miamibadc.com/Images/bbcinema20cs.jpg

In this conceptual I am toying with the idea of quasi SDDS which adds left and right center fill channels... Logic dictates that SPL's will also go up by adding this nifty trick which I have heard in experiments and it worked phenomenally well.

Miles to quote Diane Keaton in Love and Death let's just say that you are just : Half saint half whore.:D


But I agree, if I could get great sound with some custom speakers tri amping with the boz digital amps I would do it.

YES EXCELLENT POSTS, GUYS.
Frantz/Mike and others who suggested going pro,

What bothers me of all the pro stuff is that it comes with it's own electonics and dsp.

Not so....some of the Dynaudio pro monitors come in passive versions, and sans DSP:

http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/Files/Graphics/Product_gfx/m3P_dim.jpg

http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/Default.asp?Id=281

And those are a greatly respected ESOTAR workhorse. Can I stack 3 or 4 of those to create an array on the side of the screen? Without comb filtering Galore?

I can tell you that any system I've heard that uses DEQX with the proper filter frequencies and slopes will play stupidly loud *without* fatigue. Many speakers play loud without going completely crazy, but most are still fatiguing because of cone resonances. Lots of multi-channel amps and at 3 or 4 outboard DSP units, but far better than an expensive passive system because they can do low level resolution and high level resolution without the typical compression. A 7.7 Tikandi system would be about $80K. A 7-channel Maestro system might be $150K and I guarantee each will trounce the Kharmas when it comes to dynamic capability, both micro and macro.

A 7.7 Tikandi system would be about $80K. A 7-channel Maestro system might be $150K and I guarantee each will trounce the Kharmas when it comes to dynamic capability, both micro and macro.

Spouting nonsense about speakers you've never heard as usual.

It's not nonsense, it's basic physics and my considerable experience with digital active versus passive.

I can tell you that any system I've heard that uses DEQX with the proper filter frequencies and slopes will play stupidly loud *without* fatigue. Many speakers play loud without going completely crazy, but most are still fatiguing because of cone resonances. Lots of multi-channel amps and at 3 or 4 outboard DSP units, but far better than an expensive passive system because they can do low level resolution and high level resolution without the typical compression. A 7.7 Tikandi system would be about $80K. A 7-channel Maestro system might be $150K and I guarantee each will trounce the Kharmas when it comes to dynamic capability, both micro and macro.

I am not qoing to DEQX as I use tact. The idea I have no problem with, but before I go into tri-amping with tact I am going to go multichannel 12. I need some sort of consistent reference point as I move forward so it will be analogue x-over until I accomplish 12 channels.

And those are a greatly respected ESOTAR workhorse. Can I stack 3 or 4 of those to create an array on the side of the screen? Without comb filtering Galore?

Well, if it's about SPL, maybe take this puppy instead:

http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/Files/Graphics/Product_gfx/AIR-new_15jan02/m4plusxx.jpg

http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/Default.asp?Id=284&AjrNws=193&AjrNwsPg=1

Their website says: These speakers are normally supplied as an active four-way with a choice of digital crossovers and power amplifiers
...So it sounds like you might be able to order it with a passive crossover and without amps if desired.

Specs claim Typical peak SPL 133dB @ 2m, 2 cabinets driven ...which I think works out to 136dB @ 1m with one cabinet...I assume that might be including room reinforcement from soffit-mounting. Tweeter described as a custom high powered version of the ESOTAR T330 designed to reproduce stunning distortion-free transients of up to 1000 watts. The Kharma in contrast claims maximum SPL 120dB (peak program).

Is there any reason not to consider PMC?
Their top line speakers (both MB2 and BB5) are sold either as a pro or home consumer, and they are well respected in the pro industry (look at key clients), and also consumer.
Also they are over 20k if that helps :)

Just curious if there is a reason they are omitted.
Cheers
DT

Is there any reason not to consider PMC?
Their top line speakers (both MB2 and BB5) are sold either as a pro or home consumer, and they are well respected in the pro industry (look at key clients), and also consumer.

PMC make good monitors for sure. Their subs, however, are dog turds.

I think part of the issue is that they may not be as well known in N.America in the domestic sector.

Another part is that there are a number of better performers at the top end of the "large" monitor market.

Peter

The Kharmas are just in a different playing field from what is being considered here. Have you heard any of them? You could visit the importer Bill Parrish in NJ to see what they're all about. He has a number of them set up to demo there and I would guarantee you they are worth investigating. Unless your client is interested in losing hearing and listening at only damaging Spl's I think it would be real world a very very refined and unique system, price be damned.

PMC make good monitors for sure. Their subs, however, are dog turds.

I think part of the issue is that they may not be as well known in N.America in the domestic sector.

Another part is that there are a number of better performers at the top end of the "large" monitor market.

Yeah their subs are definitely not their strengths compared to the ATL floorstanders, which do go down to 20hz in these upper models.
Still surprised you feel their reference ones are not that good considering studios do use the MB2 and BB5.
Maybe as you say they are more respected over here in Europe, still should do a search and see who recently has been using these speakers in their studios.
That aside the MB2 looks to be installed at Dolby Laboratories in their reference suite (assumption is on permanent basis).
However I appreciate some may had heard the BB5 at AES in October and have a better idea how they sound than me.

But then I am only suggesting these if forced to consider reaching the really high SPLs, which may not be a factor and like a few of the latter suggestions including Dyns probably are not what the OP is looking for.

Cheers
DT

What about Meridian if cost is no object? We just installed an 800/861 w/DSP7200s and those speaker pack a wallop. All digital, steep crossovers, forward firing. The center is 'only' 18K. Their subs are really amazing subs, actually. 200lbs, dual 12", move tons of air effortlessly. So it's 'only' about a $125K-$200K system and it plays extremely loud and sounds good doing it. I know people will quibble about Meridian for stereo music (heck, I even do), but for multi-channel sound, they do rock if the price doesn't make you faint. All the advantages of a DSP system (dynamics/accuracy/low distortion, mainly), but with the amps all included and integrated. http://www.meridian-audio.com/product-model/loudspeaker-systems/dsp7200-digital-active-loudspeaker.aspx

Actually, for what you're doing, I'd consider doing Meridian's active inwalls. Very high-end drivers, custom install form factor. Expensive, but not by the standards of this forum. http://www.meridian-audio.com/media/98012/mils-remote_active-ds-a4.pdf

Dulcet, Hi the REQUIRED Bryston racks are a deal breaker and the BB5 sound does roar quite a bit.

The Dyn Acoustics M4+ sans electronics may be the ticket for fronts, but then a surround channel needs to materialise.

The Meridian are front firing but i suspect like B&W 801 the sound sweeps up and backwards a bit, their tweeters (DSP5500)are notoriously fryiable (Like I did 13 times) besides the Dynaudios are a notch above. A D'appolito is proven that it works well shoved in corners, with excellent far field range all the way to the backseats.

Yeah their subs are definitely not their strengths compared to the ATL floorstanders, which do go down to 20hz in these upper models.
Still surprised you feel their reference ones are not that good considering studios do use the MB2 and BB5.
Maybe as you say they are more respected over here in Europe, still should do a search and see who recently has been using these speakers in their studios.
That aside the MB2 looks to be installed at Dolby Laboratories in their reference suite (assumption is on permanent basis).
However I appreciate some may had heard the BB5 at AES in October and have a better idea how they sound than me.

At no point did I say, or even imply, they "are not that good". Please quote me properly or not at all. :)They are better than the vast majority of speakers on the market, but that's not what were discussing here.

I have auditioned the BB5 XBD-A, fully and properly. They are a good piece, but there is better available from a number of manufacturers. I had the good fortune to test a number of these recently for my own HT. Units from Dynaudio, Quested, Genelec, Munro, ATC and Adam were, in my experience, sonically superior to PMC.

The Dyn Acoustics M4+ sans electronics may be the ticket for fronts, but then a surround channel needs to materialise.

The Meridian are front firing but i suspect like B&W 801 the sound sweeps up and backwards a bit, their tweeters (DSP5500)are notoriously fryiable (Like I did 13 times) besides the Dynaudios are a notch above. A D'appolito is proven that it works well shoved in corners, with excellent far field range all the way to the backseats.

Im having a look at M4s and Genelec 1036s at the weekend.

I'm also trying out a friends 7.1 arrangement using Dynaudio near fields, in a smaller room. I've listened before and been really impressed.

I'll drop you a line.

Pro Gear is tricky.

Usually these no compromise mid to far field mashines are optimized for up to 10 to 13 feet listening distances, or 3 to 4 meters max, via their so called frequency power response (often aided by waveguides), that is on/off axis behavior of a speaker. Of course you can use them further away, but their manufacturers usually do not recommend this, as they want to avoid a "sounded and diffuse" representation like we find in the high end audio stuff shown in this thread.

The even more complicated nature is the analytic treble timbre of most "main studio monitors". They dissect the input signal and add no character themselves. They only reproduce the input signal as faithful and true as possible. The untrained ear will be most often overloaded with rock solid phantom imaged treble details, that many perceive as stress or harshness of the sound. This has to do with the brain/ear function refered to psycho-accoustics. That is most often enhanced by listening spaces without proper treatment.

The Dyn Acoustics M4+ sans electronics may be the ticket for fronts, but then a surround channel needs to materialise.

If you're referring to the depth of the box, their website offers "Custom cabinet designs for existing soffits"...presumably you could get them to make a shallower cabinet, subject to the limits of the 12" woofers.

Pro Gear is tricky.

Usually these no compromise mid to far field mashines are optimized for up to 10 to 13 feet listening distances, or 3 to 4 meters max, via their so called frequency power response (often aided by waveguides), that is on/off axis behavior of a speaker. Of course you can use them further away, but their manufacturers usually do not recommend this, as they want to avoid a "sounded and diffuse" representation like we find in the high end audio stuff shown in this thread.

The even more complicated nature is the analytic treble timbre of most "main studio monitors". They dissect the input signal and add no character themselves. They only reproduce the input signal as faithful and true as possible. The untrained ear will be most often overloaded with rock solid phantom imaged treble details, that many perceive as stress or harshness of the sound. This has to do with the brain/ear function refered to psycho-accoustics. That is most often enhanced by listening spaces without proper treatment.

Do the Geithain 800k/901K project the sound forward far field like a Dappolito?

The Meridian are front firing but i suspect like B&W 801 the sound sweeps up and backwards a bit, their tweeters (DSP5500)are notoriously fryiable (Like I did 13 times) besides the Dynaudios are a notch above. A D'appolito is proven that it works well shoved in corners, with excellent far field range all the way to the backseats.

While I'm not a D'Appolito, let alone put speakers in a corner, fan, the DSP350 inwalls are D'Appolito with ribbon tweeter and SEAS Excel midranges in a tall single stud bay enclosure. Haven't heard of anyone blowing a Meridian tweeter, but I suspect anything is possible. Was the treble or tonal balance jacked up? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing bad to say about the Kharmas if someone is willing to pony up for them ;)

D-Ap is one way to control the (vertical) directivity of a speaker by exploiting the art of distructive interference creation. In fact the ability to "channelize sound" starts first with the driver/cone size itself vs. the to be reproduced wavelength by that driver.

It all ends at the baffle and filter design, or even a horn or waveguide, then vs. pro and cons of that design (micro reflections in horns as well as high THD of a regular high end speaker at high SPL, like with Dyns driven like creazy to maximum level). I'm sure alot of speaker designers on this forum can advice much better and more in detail on the art of directivity than I can. I'm still reading the 620 pages thick masterbook of accoustics. I acknowledge, my english was once better :)

See, I seek something totally different than you do, let's call it a "studio approach" towards home cinema. I like small screens up to 10 feet, well, rather 7 feet wide, and sit very close to them, sort of create a studio "near to mid field" sound application. Saves horsepower on the projector needed as well. I wish the picture would be so good that I could sit as far away as the picture is in width, like a 1:1 ratio that "almost" perfectly fits the stereo triangle, without screen door of LCOS plus the fidelity of DLP. So 7 feet away for a 7 feet wide picture, I'm at 10 feet for a close to 80 inch wide picture. I like to hear/dissect all the very finest subtle details and I want the smallest, sharpest and most precise phantom image reproduction between any two speakers. Only that way I know I hear as much as possible of the direct sound on the recording. I hear the room in the recording, not the room I'm sitting in. That does not exclude the room to be properly treated to RT60 specs. It ends at unparalleled cleaness of sound, high clean SPL, but ends as well at a total disassembly of the soundtracks reels.....a heavy load on the brain....that can be annoying and distracting to the untrained ear, especially when you listen to syncronized soundtracks. You hear almost how big the damn room was the sync guys were sitting in when they created that artifical language reel. You start to hate the truthness of your speakers and prefer the original much better mastered english soundtrack. However, to listen to good music and to the best soundtracks will be an unparalled pleasure. So my rig would be a single chip calibrated to D65, having 7 Genelec DSP8250 around me all fed by digital AES/EBU cords, or a bunch of RL901K, and a nice sub and a well treated room with two or 3 seats only. Unfortunately, I do not have that money for HT anymore, and there is too much WAF in all that I'm doing.

Comming back to your needs Peter. To get such high quality near to mid field reproduction in a 10 to 20 seat home theater for ! every seat ! is by nature almost imposssible, no matter what high end stuff you throw in that room. The price tags simply won't change that, and high end speaker most often not anyway.

Most people in the US listen at distances far greater than conventional speakers will be able to channelize the direct sound. You want that all 10 people get a good soundfield, not just two of them, so you even do not have a problem when they cannot channelize that. And there your problem starts. Goldmund seeks so many channels to get a more satisfying coverage and it also takes the load of the speakers as more speakers share the SPL burden put on them. A big compromise, as artifical channels will blurr the original mix from 5. channels, but indeed maybe for 10 to 20 people a much better and satisfying approach than seeking the chance to transform that ultra sweet spot performance into the impossible.

For sweet spot listening, the 901K is good for up to 3 meters, the 800K maybe 4 to 5 meters, then you will loose phantom image or get artifical phantom imaging, but still better than most other conventional passiv high end audio stuff. The later I have not heard, as the 38K Euro 800K is clearly not my wallet anymore. And it depends on the room, that will eventually decide the outcome. The secret of such fine speakers are within their pretty stable and balanced off axis behavior even around the cross over range. I would not buy any speaker anymore from a manufacturer not willing to share on his homepage the frequency response or frequency power response of their products (ideally they reveal it all). It's still much better to use the best studio gear, as they at least try to get a decent sound to your multi seats at specified listening distances, but also your clients need to like that sound. But with DSPs today you can pretty much tame and tailor the flavor to your needs.

I'd say as well, for those big HTs that you tend to like and build and the amount of people, give professional gear a try. In reality with your needs for "lying center channels", look for "main monitors", like the K+H O500C or Genelec 1034BC upwards. Those speakers have center parts that can be rotated to fit your desire of lying speakers nicely.

I'm sure you will find something nice in the pro world with danish drivers in them. Pro Dyn is a good start....

Geithain is in my heart Peter, my money is spent on Genelecs ;)

Unless your client is interested in losing hearing and listening at only damaging Spl's I think it would be real world a very very refined and unique system, price be damned.


There is a big reason why one wants a system that can do very high SPL with low distortion. The reason is that even much lower the spec SPL you can still hear when the speaker sound a little strained and compress a little. So if you can make the spec SPL higher you will also get the level when you can hear some strain higher too.

To many high priced speakers are not really worth the money, distort like hell when you just look at the volymcontroll.

Peter, let me know if you are in Sweden sometime, I could show you some nice speakers then ;)

There is a big reason why one wants a system that can do very high SPL with low distortion. The reason is that even much lower the spec SPL you can still hear when the speaker sound a little strained and compress a little. So if you can make the spec SPL higher you will also get the level when you can hear some strain higher too..

That's true under some circumstances, but there are speakers that may have high distortion under 1000hz that sounds completely benign, whereas a very powerful speaker that has an upper midrange distortion at 3kHz could sound unbearable. I feel this way when I hear many pro speakers. I often find the sound fatiguing, even oppressive even though they can play louder. Lack of midrange/treble resonances and lack of acoustic interference (caused by high diffraction cabinets and/or multiple drivers playing the same frequencies) are more important, IMO, than simply low measured distortion (which is usually caused by the motor going nonlinear). The PSB T6/T8, for instance, have extremely low measured distortion, but I found them to be edgy and fatiguing because of the cone materials. This did not show up in the measured distortion at SoundStage. The PSB Synchrony cones were redesigned to fix this. Xd was an example of a speaker that can maybe do 105-110dB depending on configuration, but was simply non-fatiguing at those extremes (ask any Xd owner and they'll tell you they listen at much higher volumes than they ever have).

So, just because a speaker can play louder does NOT mean that it will be more enjoyable at the volumes most people use and in the rooms most people have. It's not how loud you play, but how well you play loud that counts.

So, just because a speaker can play louder does NOT mean that it will be more enjoyable at the volumes most people use and in the rooms most people have. It's not how loud you play, but how well you play loud that counts.


Off course it is not the only thing but I feel that too many high priced speakers do not deliever low distortion when one play a little louder.

John,
most of what you said is not correct, especially technically. That a studio speaker sounds fatiguing is correct, but only under certain circumstances and technically for different reasons than you described above.

First, such speakers are build, as said in my posts above, to have a very controlled on/off axis directivity, alot do by using waveguides or via d'ap design for vertical controll, wave guides also to match the treble and upper mid range towards the midrange/bass driver directivity/bundelig of the sound, e.g. like in a two way speaker. That way the off axis frequency response is controlled and balanced over the frequency response and x-over point, which some consider far more important than some linear or non linear distortions. The ear is very sensible to off axis colorations in the treble and mid range, where in the bass range smaller distortions are often not noticed. So via their controlled directivity of sound, much more direct sound will hit your ears. This ultimative effect cannot be met to any listening distance or any seat, as then the physical design of that speaker would bring it's own negative side effects (huge horns = colorations or micro reflections). Also in studios far field most often ends at 3 to 5 meters (9 to 15'). And usual listening distances of smaller monitors then "main monitors" are much shorter, like 1,5 to 1,8 meters (1 feet = 0,33 meters). When you listen for example to a Genelec 8050 within spec, one of the most sophisticated and engineered two channel speakers, speced for a listening distance up to 2,3 meters or 7 feet only, the sound picture becomes immidiately bright. That is because you get alot of direct sound, not becaue of cone material :D. If you would sit further away more reflected sound kicks in, which will darken and overlay the sound picture. The quality of the room will be decisive. You loose sonic resolution of the input signal.

High end speakers are known for their bad directivity and at very high listening distances, it is no wonder why they sound so "round" (plus point two described below).......that has nothing to with precision or real resolution of the input signal anymore. We talk here more about the art of flavor, not about he faithful reproduction of the input signal.

But secondly, there is one more point, that is frequency response as such. Some of these monitors will almost draw a straight line when measured anachoic or free field. That is not true at all for high end audio gear, so it should be clear now why such measurements are missing on the websides of such high end brands. It's also clear why you miss midrange in studio gear (talking best two way or main monitors), because there is no enhanced spectrum at all. There is no sounding taken place. These speakers do not try to impress you. The imput signal should ;)

Third the room. How many that claim the fatiguing have listened to pro gear in optimized rooms ? Pros do only, because there is a (philosophy and direct) relationship between the two, and I bet alot of prejudism comes from taking a pair of 2 way Genelecs into a living room and then wondering at 10 or 11 feet why it sounds the way it sounds :rolleyes: The best pro speakers will have such controlled drivers via a 3 way or 4 way full active tri or quad amped designs, that by increasing volume, the full spectrum is increased in loudness respectively, until you get a clean plop noise of the bass or mid range driver hitting controlled the displacement limit of the driver (often the limiter will prevent such an event). You will reach a point where in a poor room the treble will become unpleasent, although just plain increased linear, where a poor passive speaker will show non linear behaviors or compression. The pro monitor is not guilty at all, it just did it's job linear at any given volume. So the room must follow, then the picture turns around.

I think this discussion cannot be won from any side. In the end the client will decide, and the request for brand name as well. Who wants to spend more money than necessary should. It's a free world for budget and taste.

However, and that is the only remark I actually tried to make. With such sophisticated installations Peter is planning, is does not matter what high end brand he is hiding in the corner closet, it will not make the main difference and it can never be the best, maybe only the world's best compromise for 10 to 20 seats.

One more remark on pro gear and treble. If we say pro gear will not try to add a character to the sound, just play back the input signal, then it implies they all pro monitors sound the same. That is of course not true. Using different filter slopes, different driver layouts, some with d'ap, some with waveguides, some with dsp correction, they will do sound differently. Overall, the goal is the same, and the best of them get in sound closer to each other, the approaches just differ, hence the results differ.

:cool:

I get some of your points, but I'm not 'wrong', even if you have a different POV or experience. Acoustic problems such as lobing, attempting to control dispersion, cabinet issues, driver resonances are far more important than most measured distortions. I'm actually thinking you tried to say that yourself in a way (maybe you didn't understand my point). A tweeter that is distorting can certainly cause fatigue, but most serious measurable distortions are below 500Hz where it is relatively benign. This is why I dislike D'Appolito - distortion is lowered in the under 500Hz range, but more audible acoustic distortion increases above.

BTW, you might remember how I heard some $18K Genelecs at the local recording studio and they sounded very poor and inaccurate to me (like an inaccurate $1000 speaker). I ran into a customer/friend of mine and he went off on the same subject after hearing the same speakers as he does some recording over there. I didn't even bring it up, he just started talking about how he couldn't use them to mix and had tp bring some good bookshelf speakers with him. I just don't think studio monitors have risen to the level of high-end, kind of like the difference between a pickup and a sports car.

PS - I do agree that jamming speakers in the corners or near the floor is going to seriously compromise whatever goes in there, so why bother spending the money.

...So it sounds like you might be able to order it with a passive crossover and without amps if desired.

You can order it as a "passive monitor" without amps. I don't think you can get a passive crossover though. They need to be bi- or tri-amped with an active crossover. Should be a great speaker for the Boz amps...

Andreas thank you for thoroughly dissecting the matter.:D

John , I have had nothing but great linear performance by shoving c4's against the walls and corners up to 3" is all that is needed of clearance (as correctly predicted by M. Manouselis of Dyn.).Nothing but spectacular performance.

syswei and Peter You are correct and since I am so closely involved with Tact on the development of the Bel Air mastering Processor it may be the next logical step.

Andreas wunderbar but in th past those genelecs have sounded somewhat boxy and not as transparent as other esotar based systems.:D Maybe I need to re-audition...

John , I have had nothing but great linear performance by shoving c4's against the walls and corners up to 3" is all that is needed of clearance (as correctly predicted by M. Manouselis of Dyn.).Nothing but spectacular performance.

I think we have very different definitions of 'spectacular'.

The Genelecs I have listen to have not been good at all. Just because many studios have the speaker don't make them good, a la Yamaha NS10

I'm not here to recommend Genelec as the best brand. There are alot of good pro brands. I never said a linear presentation is desirebale for everybody, as not everybody owns the necessary requirements, that is understanding, listening skills and room. The picture was just a fun thing for Peter. Also, as long as we do not have any sound engineer around to commend directly via real world measurements on any flaws inherent in Genelec speakers, we can put any "personal story" into the myth box. And as long as we find these monitors properly set up in some of the finest mixing studios, we can believe that they are worthy, and probably belong among some of the most accurate speakers out there, especially the DSP AES/EBU versions. Of course, the pro world is not free of marketing and relationships between companies. Same criticism mentioned would have to stand against all pro brands, like Klein and Hummel, JBL, ME-Geithain, Dyn Pro, or similar brands.

NS10 serves for a different purpose than a reference 3 way "main monitor" does. Pls read in the pro forums and you understand yourselve what they are ment for ;)

John, let's leave your impressions on D'ap designs as is. I forgot you ears beat any MLSSA.... ;)

I think we have very different definitions of 'spectacular'.

I am not going to get into that one with you. My mistake for responding to your post.

How about the #1 Genelec audio rep in the country commenting that the Dynaudio C4 was the best center channel he had heard at Helene (http://cineramax.com/CES_2008/h-speaker-array.jpg).

Peter, I know this is your favorite one, and one can only speculate how that dude ment what he said.....maybe he was refering to consumer grade gear as no professional speakers were in the room ? Also tell him that you spread his worlds so nicely, let's see how he sticks to it vs. what he sales. Maybe he just tried to be polite ;)

'MAX

If you are so pleased with the Dynaudio COnfidence and I can understand it , I am using their little brothers in my HT... why don't you simply use them... 130 dB is VERY loud and frankly at these levels the ear is trying to lower its sensitivity not picking up what amount of THD is in the signal... 120 dB is LOUD and dangerously so... If the Dyn can hit 120 you are already there with ears cooking or irremediably fried

I'm not here to recommend Genelec as the best brand. There are alot of good pro brands. I never said a linear presentation is desirebale for everybody, as not everybody owns the necessary requirements, that is understanding, listening skills and room.

See, this is my problem. You're implying that if you don't like pro gear that you don't like an accurate, transparent presentation. My problem with pro gear is that it is not sufficiently accurate and transparent and explains a lot of the very poor recordings we have.

John, let's leave your impressions on D'ap designs as is. I forgot you ears beat any MLSSA.... ;)

MLSSA, as I understand it, doesn't measure room contribution from speakers that have poor off axis response and lots of vertical lobing problems, though you could clearly see it by measuring a few inches up or down.

I am not going to get into that one with you. My mistake for responding to your post.

How about the #1 Genelec audio rep in the country commenting that the Dynaudio C4 was the best center channel he had heard at Helene (http://cineramax.com/CES_2008/h-speaker-array.jpg).

No speaker is immune to early reflections, none. There are times when you say things that make me feel sorry for your customers, at least if they are expecting more than good video. As Frantz implied, if someone told you that the Dynaudio C4 is the best (and you are prone to believe them), why are you looking for something 'better'?

I assume that the rooms Peter is talking about are quite large. If that's the case then the speaker that can do 120db at 1 metre may "only" do 110db at the listening position. In that case some headroom would be needed by way of even higher output capability in order to produce the required spl at the listening position. Either that or his clients are deaf.
:)
'MAX

If you are so pleased with the Dynaudio COnfidence and I can understand it , I am using their little brothers in my HT... why don't you simply use them... 130 dB is VERY loud and frankly at these levels the ear is trying to lower its sensitivity not picking up what amount of THD is in the signal... 120 dB is LOUD and dangerously so... If the Dyn can hit 120 you are already there with ears cooking or irremediably fried

Well, if you look at the Soundstage measurements, the C4 doesn't play anywhere as loud as Peter thinks it does. By 95dB, the vaunted Esostar tweeters are beginning to audibly distort (yet a $5K/pr PSB Synchrony One tweeter is not even working up a sweat) and you can predict it will become painful to listen to by 100dB, 105dB max.

John, I do not dislike some of your arguments, but some I cannot get along with. D'app approach as an example you mentioned to my poor understanding is only a concept to optimize the vertical directivity by creating acoustical interference between two equal midrange/bass drivers, that is by chosing the "distance between their cone center" towards the x-over frequency, which should be 2/3rd of that wavelength. There are just so many fine speakers out there applying this concept, even in the pro world, that I would never ever dare to put them all in the bin, because you say you hear that concept creates some acoustic distortion. If it does the overall outcome including the room is decisive. The pure benefit by bringing more direct sound to alot of listener in the horizontal plane probably outweighs the cons 10 times, especially in poor rooms.

Also to say the pro gear is non transparent, that it is the reason for poor recordings, is by far the most rediculous statement I have ever heard. It is so wrong and poor, I actually should not even comment on it. Pro gear is by far the most transparent and true hardware out there, that is frequency linearity, and phantom imaging, that is a true 2 or 3 way fully active main monitor in a dedicated room (I'not talking about the cheapest KRK for under 500 bucks). You will be shocked what a 3 way main monitor, like a O500, a 901K or a say a big Pro Focal will reveal in optimized rooms, from the buzzing of the players in a Jazz band to coughing in the audience. That recordings are poor has nothing to do with the speakers chosen. It can including in a poor room, but it seldomly does. Also in some fields of music making everything equally lound or to mask vocals is a stylistic device and pure intention.

@ the Blogg : well said, I never beleaved the 130db Dyn fairy tale.

What about the Combination of The Snell Acoustics Illusion Speakers for L/R and The excellent XA2900 for the SDDS Centers? and Surrounds for that matter.

I know you cannot get 120.

2 Temptation masters driven by ml53 coupled with 3 temptation SDDS centers driven by a ML 432 should cause quite a raucous at 5-7 meter, id say definitely 115dc clean.

The room been used for this conceptual exercise is 35'L x 19'W x 15'H (10.68ml x 5.79mw x 4.572Mh) but the very tall stadium seating platforms thankfully reduce the air volume required.

What about the Combination of The Snell Acoustics Illusion Speakers for L/R and The excellent XA2900 for the SDDS Centers? and Surrounds for that matter.

Good idea, unfortunately the Illusion Speaker seems to be a primadonna and probably wont play nice in the corners.

The big Snells required more than the usual amount of fine-tuning to sound its best. I began this process just after Snell's Wally Kilgore and a friend had carried each 178-lb speaker up the short flight of stairs to my listening room and deposited it in one of the spots where my Quad ESL-989s sound best: 3' from the sidewalls and 5' from the front wall, facing the full length of the room. Stereophile

all i can say is that it costs a lot of money to look good these days, i still cant get over the price of that damn Lamborghini i'm trying to save up for.

I'm not here to recommend Genelec as the best brand. There are alot of good pro brands. I never said a linear presentation is desirebale for everybody, as not everybody owns the necessary requirements, that is understanding, listening skills and room.



Well, I want as uncolored and correct sound as I can get, and those Genelec I have heard are fare from that. But I agree that could look on the pro market, many times we have really good stuff that are not sold in the typical audiophile manner (adding 5-20 times the price).

I can imagine it being desirable to have the headroom for short term high sound levels of 130db for movies. Depending on the mix, appropriate sounds should sound offensively loud. The bank robbery scree in "Heat" for example. Those assault rifles are supposed to really loud and in reality there is no sound system I have heard of that could actually reproduce the dB level of the average gunshot.

I am sure Peter is not talking about having the whole movie running at 130dB.

Sean :)

The bank robbery scree in "Heat" for example. Those assault rifles are supposed to really loud and in reality there is no sound system I have heard of that could actually reproduce the dB level of the average gunshot.



This is very poignant because I had an all meridian system set to dolby MIX mode when this laserdisc came out.

You could smell the DSP5500 tweeters frying, sometimes the center, sometimes the left and center, a total of 13 tweeters in 10 demos of that scene.

John, I do not dislike some of your arguments, but some I cannot get along with. D'app approach as an example you mentioned to my poor understanding is only a concept to optimize the vertical directivity by creating acoustical interference between two equal midrange/bass drivers, that is by chosing the "distance between their cone center" towards the x-over frequency, which should be 2/3rd of that wavelength. There are just so many fine speakers out there applying this concept, even in the pro world, that I would never ever dare to put them all in the bin, because you say you hear that concept creates some acoustic distortion. If it does the overall outcome including the room is decisive. The pure benefit by bringing more direct sound to alot of listener in the horizontal plane probably outweighs the cons 10 times, especially in poor rooms.

My experience simply says otherwise. Any attempt at shaping the dispersion using acoustical tricks has negatives and they're irrecoverable. You can't EQ out of them, nor can you salvage with room treatments. IF you have a large room and IF you need to 'push' the midrange further into a large room, you may help the sound in that room, but it won't sound as good as an equally well done speaker with a single midrange. I have sold many brands that do or have done D'Appolito and in each case, the single midrange speakers from the same brand sound notably better than the D'Appolitos and, so far, the environment hasn't changed this.

Also to say the pro gear is non transparent, that it is the reason for poor recordings, is by far the most rediculous statement I have ever heard. It is so wrong and poor, I actually should not even comment on it. Pro gear is by far the most transparent and true hardware out there, that is frequency linearity, and phantom imaging, that is a true 2 or 3 way fully active main monitor in a dedicated room (I'not talking about the cheapest KRK for under 500 bucks). You will be shocked what a 3 way main monitor, like a O500, a 901K or a say a big Pro Focal will reveal in optimized rooms, from the buzzing of the players in a Jazz band to coughing in the audience. That recordings are poor has nothing to do with the speakers chosen. It can including in a poor room, but it seldomly does. Also in some fields of music making everything equally lound or to mask vocals is a stylistic device and pure intention.

There may be some active pro monitors that equal a well done high-end speaker (and most are not well done), but I haven't heard it yet. My customer base is 'littered' with musicians and studio people who come to me because they can't get past the poor sound of studio monitors and want something more transparent for mixing use. They regularly lament the poor state of the pro world compared to high-end or even 'hi-fi' and many musicians would come in with a preliminary CD to check on my Xds (or sometimes their own) and would often say something to the effect of 'crap, now I have to go back and fix some things'. It is very common to find high-end audio in studios as an augmentation to or replacement for pro studio gear.

I just haven't had *any* experience that backs up your assertion that pro studio monitors are more accurate, let alone transparent than the best high-end gear, even some very affordable high-end gear. And every one I've seen seems to be geared towards being jammed in a wall and have limited dispersion, two things that are sound killers. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

John

I am curious as to how you espouse the virtues of a D'Appolito speaker (to wit the Arakkis) in Jeff Fritz thread on TWBAS yet in this thread you trash the design.
Now let me see......which way is the wind blowing today? ;)

This is very poignant because I had an all meridian system set to dolby MIX mode when this laserdisc came out.



Peter,

Please do me a favor. Please send Michael Mann one of your brochures and ask him to get on with seeing that "Heat" and "Manhunter" are released on blu-ray this year. :)

Sean

I am curious as to how you espouse the virtues of a D'Appolito speaker (to wit the Arakkis) in Jeff Fritz thread on TWBAS yet in this thread you trash the design.
Now let me see......which way is the wind blowing today? ;)

I've never espoused the 'virtues' of a D'Appolito speaker. In the thread mentioned, I believe I said something to the effect that the Arrakis is probably one of the best *passive* speakers on the market *despite* being a D'Appolito design and having other issues because *at least* Rockport speakers manage to measure pretty well for behemoth speakers. I believe I also said that if the goal was to have the "world's best" sound, rather than an expensive, conventional system, I would have used Revel Salons, about 8 stacked B15a or equivalent subwoofers with dual DEQX HDP3s as it has multiple advantages over the Arrakis and other passive speakers regardless of price.

IOW, I never said anything positive about the D'Appolito design and I wouldn't use the Arrakis in my own 'world's best' system, I just understand why Jeff selected it.

OT :

John

You would be surprised that I share some of your views, especially on PRO speakers some of the these are to say the least not that great while being quite dear...but it begs the question .. Have you already heard the Arakis? How do you know it would not suit you you just fine? D'appollito config et all... by the way just to be clear about does the D'appollito configuration refers to the physical arrangement or does it involve some particular crossover slopes?

Coming back to Cineramaxx... I have not done the maths, it seems however that a 10-channel Dynaudio Confidence C4 contraption is bound to be very loud >110db at the seating positions, the room is big but not excessively so... on the subject on reproducing a gun shot at real level... This a clear recipe to irreversible ear damage.. a high price to pay for getting out of this hobby...

I just haven't had *any* experience that backs up your assertion that pro studio monitors are more accurate, let alone transparent

John, besides the limits of your experience, I thought you understood the foundamental terms describing the accuracy of a loudspeaker ? As Peter did not yell yet that we came a tad to much off course on his request to who has auditioned the K. speakers, I will remind you.

One of the most important factors is the on-axis frequency response. Most "main studio monitors", like a Klein and Hummel O500c with a dsp x-over and tri-amped internal layout try to draw a straight line on the graph from close to 20 to 20, that is Hertz to Kilohertz, so something that looks like like this (same hold true for a near fielder, like a Genelec 8250 minus low bass due to smaller drivers) :

http://www.klein-hummel.com/klein-hummel/globals.nsf/resources/o500c_freq_response_510.gif/$File/o500c_freq_response_510.gif

Any deviation from this ideal situation, plus or minus, so both directions, is called a "coloration", or a failure in accuracy. I have more than doubts that any speaker you carry will reach that ideal situation, on axis and anachoic. Of course we said the room needs to follow and to sustain this ideal situation.

Secondly, as sound is reflected by the room, it is of utmost importance to have a good frequency power response in the vertical and horizontal plane to avoid off axis colorations the ear brain modell is pretty sensitive to. Something that looks like this :

http://www.klein-hummel.com/klein-hummel/globals.nsf/resources/o500c_horizontal_dir_510.gif/$File/o500c_horizontal_dir_510.gif

If the speakers you carry cannot match, and here I have more than doubts, they do carry a problem that one needs to cope with, hence the chances increase for a non accurate playback situation.

Main studio monitors use the most sophisticated drivers available. Focal even uses their own Beryllium tweeters on there bigger studio monitors, which some consider to be among the best. These alluminum, titanium and Beryllium tweeters will reveal the most subtle detail. Of course this is true for their mid range and bass drivers as well, some engineered over 3 decades. Only the best, either self made or purchased from companies like Vifa and Seas are used. There is no loss of transparency either by waterfall or impuls, nothing that is not much worse in usual passive high end speakers.

The main issue, and let's be open to each other, is to most people the bright timbre these excellent sound mashines will bring forward in mid field application to 9 feet. People expect that silky laid back mud usual high end stuff throws at them. As these main monitors are linear (also here some a bit better than others) and that at pretty hefty SP levels, extreme room treatments are needed, many people will not have. And there the dead rat is burried. If you cannot stand full linear playback, than for God's sake use a dsp or eq and shelve the treble a bit down, that is an easy task, but pls don't come with myth or personal taste on something that is technical fact and only questioned by your taste.

Why don't you call Klein und Himmel and ask for an audition in a studio that they recommend and have certified. Speak to their main engineers and learn. Then we have sometting to talk about, anything else is just a nice gathering of fairy tales.

You want fairy tales. I have been today to the Hamburg High End days and just listened to B+W active quad-amped Nautilus again and Burmesters biggest speaker setup, the B100.....oh boy.....let's say the rooms were the reasons and let's stop right here....But BTW: the Nautilus is one of my personal favorites, I would daily xxxk off just looking at it. Sound....who cares, this baby simply rocks designwise....

So yes, let's disagree, you stick with taste and I to real world facts.

Peter, the mc-fry of tweeters ;)

You would be surprised that I share some of your views, especially on PRO speakers some of the these are to say the least not that great while being quite dear...but it begs the question .. Have you already heard the Arakis? How do you know it would not suit you you just fine? D'appollito config et all... by the way just to be clear about does the D'appollito configuration refers to the physical arrangement or does it involve some particular crossover slopes?

Oh, I'm sure I'd like them just fine, D'Appolito and all *but* I don't typically love very large speakers as they can't seem to get out of the way of the sound. Plus, I obviously think passive crossovers are far too limited and cloud the sound too much. Even the Meridian DSP7200s, while they don't use the most advanced drivers available, do things that most 'high-end' speakers don't do.

One of the most important factors is the on-axis frequency response. Most "main studio monitors", like a Klein and Hummel O500c with a dsp x-over and tri-amped internal layout try to draw a straight line on the graph from close to 20 to 20, that is Hertz to Kilohertz, so something that looks like like this (same hold true for a near fielder, like a Genelec 8250 minus low bass due to smaller drivers) :

There is FAR more to speaker design than the 1-dimensional on-axis FR. Even if you talk about 'accuracy' as 'frequency response accuracy', you have to consider the off axis response and this is where I come to dislike studio monitors. They are typically a one or two-trick pony.

The main issue, and let's be open to each other, is to most people the bright timbre these excellent sound mashines will bring forward in mid field application to 9 feet. People expect that silky laid back mud usual high end stuff throws at them. As these main monitors are linear (also here some a bit better than others) and that at pretty hefty SP levels, extreme room treatments are needed, many people will not have. And there the dead rat is burried. If you cannot stand full linear playback, than for God's sake use a dsp or eq and shelve the treble a bit down, that is an easy task, but pls don't come with myth or personal taste on something that is technical fact and only questioned by your taste.

Much research has shown that frequency response should be 'accurate' at the speaker, but that we are NOT supposed to hear an 'accurate' FR balance at the listening position or it will sound *inaccurate* and *unnatural*. Audyssey's misquided attempt at equalizing to 'accuracy' at the listening position showed this in no uncertain terms.

You want fairy tales. I have been today to the Hamburg High End days and just listened to B+W active quad-amped Nautilus again and Burmesters biggest speaker setup, the B100.....oh boy.....let's say the rooms were the reasons and let's stop right here....But BTW: the Nautilus is one of my personal favorites, I would daily xxxk off just looking at it. Sound....who cares, this baby simply rocks designwise....

So yes, let's disagree, you stick with taste and I to real world facts.

Your facts conveniently ignore all the psychoacoustic research.

The Nautilus driven by DEQX would be one of the best speakers made, for studio use or home use. Good design, now personified by Vivid Audio.

FWIW, while we may disagree, I genuinely like you so don't take our disagreement personally! Maybe some of the German studio speakers are getting close to a sound that I can enjoy, like ADAM or one of the other fine brands that exist there, but are extremely hard to find here.

Some ADAMs, just for your info, are considered fairly inaccurate, by those that have far greater knowledge than I do in frequent discussions in our forums on studio monitors (smaller near fields I have to admit). What you consider studio monitors' weekness (one or two trick) is their acknowledged strength, the appropriate use und specification. It's just that you cannot use near fields for far field listening and visa versa (group delay in multi way). The manufacturers know the direct relationship best and where the reverb radius takes the lead (although influenced by the room) over the direct sound, and will never specify their speakers to be used for any situation, as the law of physics cannot be overcome. However, by expecting and wrongly using these monitors outside their specification and in non proper environments alot of miscredit und misunderstanding was created and is still evident.

Pls don't tell me frequency response is only a one dimensional issue. I have been talking about vertical and horizontal power response for 5 or so posts already. Pls do not play yourselve into my hands. Although I said as well that a linear response may not be desirebale, accurate still is accurate and that was the topic, right !

And something four your view on "Your facts conveniently ignore all the psychoacoustic research".....facts that I actually got from the pro world and that I live by.

Quote from ME-Geithain : "

Active and Coaxial
Active multi-way technique with internal crossovers, power amplifier, and our special coaxial arranged transducers are the basis of all professional monitors of our RL series. As a result of this technology our speaker reveal a great depth and precise focus and low harmonic distortion. We used physiological effects of hearing to optimize the power concentration and directivity of sound. This degree of accuracy of sound is unmatched by any other.

Made from one piece
All RL-loudspeaker from the compact RL 906 to the RL 900 A are tonal compatible with each other. Therefore it is your choice where you prefer to work; even within the same production you are independent from the studio environment. No matter if you work in a broadcast van or in a studio - the loudspeaker will not differ in sound, but only in their low-frequency cutoff and the maximum acoustic output.

RL Series
From a compact two-way monitor up to large loudspeaker-systems - we provide you with the best solutions for all kinds of professional use. The RL series' studio-monitors are the result of consequent development that needed many years and pursued only one aim: the highest degree of precise sound without any coloration regardless of genres. Hearing and measuring are the basis of our work. We build on profound musical comprehension and the knowledge of unalterable physical laws - not on magic tricks, new fashioned ideas nor marketing-strategies

You have to do it you yourself !
We produce loudspeaker in accordance to our conviction. That is why we develop and construct all monitors ourselves - from A to Z, from the electronics of the amplifier to the voice coil of the transducer....."

Lots of companies say lots of things, but few can prove that it works in the real world. I mean, I'm happy you're happy, but I don't think I'd be happy with what makes you happy.

If inaccuracy makes you happy, so be it.

Much research has shown that frequency response should be 'accurate' at the speaker, but that we are NOT supposed to hear an 'accurate' FR balance at the listening position or it will sound *inaccurate* and *unnatural*. Audyssey's misquided attempt at equalizing to 'accuracy' at the listening position showed this in no uncertain terms.

Well, IME, the "flat" Audyssey curve sounds more realistic than the normal Audyssey curve (the one that has characteristics very similar to the Athena curves you have mentioned in the past). I would love to see the statistical data that you are garnering your opinions from. More specifically, I would like to see what relevant "real" and "live" acoustic music experiences the population of the statistical analysis have. If it is the case that they weren't drawing from a pool of people with actual "real" and "live" acoustical musical experience, and instead drew their population from people whose breadth of experience is largely from boom boxes, car stereos and untreated home listening setups and/or home setups without a flat response, then I don't see the relevance to anyone who actually knows what music really sounds like... In that kind of test setup, they would only be confirming that people who don't know what music should sound like, like their music to sound unnatural, not natural.

If inaccuracy makes you happy, so be it.

My speakers measure extremely flat, they just sound better because they take into account other important properties of a speaker. I would say I just have a more complete definition of the word 'accuracy' and part of that involves setup, the room interface and other factors such as driver resolution, lack of resonance, dispersion, etc.

Well, IME, the "flat" Audyssey curve sounds more realistic than the normal Audyssey curve (the one that has characteristics very similar to the Athena curves you have mentioned in the past). I would love to see the statistical data that you are garnering your opinions from. More specifically, I would like to see what relevant "real" and "live" acoustic music experiences the population of the statistical analysis have. If it is the case that they weren't drawing from a pool of people with actual "real" and "live" acoustical musical experience, and instead drew their population from people whose breadth of experience is largely from boom boxes, car stereos and untreated home listening setups and/or home setups without a flat response, then I don't see the relevance to anyone who actually knows what music really sounds like... In that kind of test setup, they would only be confirming that people who don't know what music should sound like, like their music to sound unnatural, not natural.

I've never heard a classical performance that sounded bright or harsh like it does with 'flat' Audyssey. In fact, by comparison with most 'hi-fi', live classical music sounds much more relaxed and less strident. I'm not sure if many papers from the Athena Project were published, but you can look it up, as well as referencing Floyd Toole's research, Sean Olive, I believe and others.

I've never heard a classical performance that sounded bright or harsh like it does with 'flat' Audyssey. In fact, by comparison with most 'hi-fi', live classical music sounds much more relaxed and less strident. I'm not sure if many papers from the Athena Project were published, but you can look it up, as well as referencing Floyd Toole's research, Sean Olive, I believe and others.

Toole's research states that in general people prefer an inaccurate response IIRC. More specifically, they like some additional boost in the low end. Sean Olive just recently indirectly mentioned in another thread that companies are interested in what people "prefer" more than accuracy, since the bottom line is important to companies. In fact, most of the tests done for Harman that you are eluding to were done to find what people generally prefer.

I have a feeling you are misusing the studies you are mentioning, considering all of these folks are interrelated in their research origins and methods. I would guess that the studies tell us what a wide audience prefers, not what is "natural" and "organic," but rather what is preferable, often to people whose reference is more inline with a wide consumer base. This doesn't make their results accurate nor natural, just preferable. We are discussing research done for companies that want to sell more equipment than competitors, and if that means a little inaccuracy will have that effect, then so be it.

I don't have the same experience with my Audyssey setup in my room as you seem to be having in yours. All I can say is, sorry to hear it isn't working for you. For me it sounds closer to the real thing than I have heard on any other system... But I have a lot of live, acoustical experience with music, including playing instruments for 20+ years and a very well treated (acoustically) room.

I think the difference here is whether you are speaking of in-room or anechoic response. The goal of every legitimate speaker manufacturer is flat frequency response and smooth off-axis dispersion. The "high-end" industry standard of +/-3dB from 20Hz to 20kHz is considered broken by good engineers. The Rockports I chose for TWBAS 2009 are +/-1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz based on a quasi-anechoic measurement. I've seen the graphs, and they are flat.

However, in-room is a different story. You guys are familiar with equal-loudness contours (Fletcher-Munson curves) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contours). You're also no doubt aware of how a "flat" loudspeaker measured in a typical small-room environment will differ from the same loudspeaker measured anechoically. There will be gradual high-frequency roll-off due to absorption and bass lift due to boundary reinforcement. This creates an FR that will be slightly downward sloping from left to right. This is what should be produced from a "flat" loudspeaker in a real room.

The only other comment I'd like to make regards the need for high SPL in home theaters. I understand all the arguments about headroom and low distortion, etc. However, there are other arguments as well. For instance, what is sacrificed by the requirement of high SPL, in terms of music reproduction? I'm not going to play armchair engineer here, but I can tell you that speakers are always a balance of tradeoffs and to get really high SPL there may be other things that are sacrificed. I'll give one for instance: If you look at the surrounds on some of the super subwoofers out there, they look like truck tires. They are built for massive excursion. But how do they handle low-level detail? There is a reason for the super-compliant surrounds that some of the best driver manufacturers produce. Just food for thought.

However, in-room is a different story. You guys are familiar with equal-loudness contours (Fletcher-Munson curves) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contours). You're also no doubt aware of how a "flat" loudspeaker measured in a typical small-room environment will differ from the same loudspeaker measured anechoically. There will be gradual high-frequency roll-off due to absorption and bass lift due to boundary reinforcement. This creates an FR that will be slightly downward sloping from left to right. This is what should be produced from a "flat" loudspeaker in a real room.

What do the Fletcher-Munson curves have to do with this particular issue?

I've tried the "non-flat" Audyssey curve, that slopes to -2B at 10 kHz and -6dB at 20 kHz, which is generally inline with the Athena slopes Alimentall has mentioned previously. To me it sounds excessively rolled off... Perhaps the room treatments I'm using are having an exceptional synthesis with the Audyssey "flat" curve.

What do the Fletcher-Munson curves have to do with this particular issue?

I've tried the "non-flat" Audyssey curve, that slopes to -2B at 10 kHz and -6dB at 20 kHz, which is generally inline with the Athena slopes Alimentall has mentioned previously. To me it sounds excessively rolled off... Perhaps the room treatments I'm using are having an exceptional synthesis with the Audyssey "flat" curve.

Specifically, that a slight rise in the bass is pervceived as "flat" to most due to our ears' lack of sensitivity to bass frequencies versus midband frequencies.

To most listeners, perfectly flat high frequencies in-room sound bright. To get flat highs in most rooms you would need a speaker that is significantly elevated in the highs anechoically.

You guys might also find this study interesting: http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_274-hoeg.pdf

Specifically, that a slight rise in the bass is pervceived as "flat" to most due to our ears' lack of sensitivity to bass frequencies versus midband frequencies.

Wouldn't we have the same issues with our hearing when listening to acoustic music outside our room as we do listening to music inside our room? Why wouldn't there be an equal translation? Does our Fletcher-Munson curve change when we go listen to "live" music outside our listening room?

I don't see how someone's absolute (absolute at one general age period in time) hearing curve can translate into a relative in-room experience. If a person needs a light rise in bass to perceive a signal as "flat" inside the room, then he should need it to hear bass as "flat" outside the room as well, since his hearing curve isn't changing from one space to the next. In which case, if you don't raise both bass signals up, one signal won't sound natural in comparison to the other. A person is hearing the effect of his Fletcher-Munson curve wherever he goes. Why would that change his perception of what sounds "natural" between different environments?

Wouldn't we have the same issues with our hearing when listening to acoustic music outside our room as we do listening to music inside our room? Why wouldn't there be an equal translation? Does our Fletcher-Munson curve change when we go listen to "live" music outside our listening room?

I don't see how someone's absolute (absolute at one general age period in time) hearing curve can translate into a relative in-room experience. If a person needs a light rise in bass to perceive a signal as "flat" inside the room, then they should need it to hear bass as "flat" outside the room as well, since their hearing curves aren't changing from one space to the next. In which case, if you don't raise both bass signals up, one won't sound natural in comparison to the other. A person is hearing the effect of his Fletcher-Munson curve wherever he goes. Why would that change his perception of what sounds "natural" between different environments?

Generally speaking, I listen at home at lower levels than I would hear at a concert -- this is surely music-genre dependant. So at lower levels I would "need" that increased bass to perceive it as flat -- something that would happen naturally at a concert because of the higher levels. The other factor is how small-room acoustics differ from venues most of us frequent to hear live music. I would defer to someone like Terry Montlick for a detailed answer on this (I just ain't that smart:)).

Perhaps the room treatments I'm using are having an exceptional synthesis with the Audyssey "flat" curve.

I suspect you've really hit on something here. Also, I'd like to see some measurements taken with another mic in another program and see how they correlate with what Audyssey is telling you.

I suspect you've really hit on something here. Also, I'd like to see some measurements taken with another mic in another program and see how they correlate with what Audyssey is telling you.

I've been trying to get a chance to measure with ETF, but I've been so swamped with school work. I haven't seen a terrible amount of high frequency correction going on in the Audyssey curves, but I do see Audyssey correcting the lower frequency room modes that I've had to hand program filters for in previous preprocessors; preprocessors whose room correction algorithms were inadequate for my needs.

I'll see if I can find a way to do it next week. This week is insane for me. I have a PhD program interview and a major test, then I have another major test again next week. I won't ever be able to sleep with my wife again if I don't spend some significant time with her and the kids as well. :o

I just bought and downloaded the iPhone SignalScope, so taking measurements might be easier than getting ETF all hooked up again. I'll just have to locate some white noise and burn it to a disc. At least I can get some rough measurements that way. Supposedly the program has decent accuracy.

Hi

I do not have any qualms about accuracy.. A speaker should reproduce what is fed to it period. The problem I do have however is equating accuracy with Frequency Response only. Alimentall alluded to that by one dimension or something to that effect to which ANdreas retorted that his FR showed both Horizontal AND vertical plane. It remains FR and this has to do with measuring the response of a system across a spectrum. I will not discuss at length the merits or methods of FR measurements but if anyone really knows how a FR is measured then most speakers would show a very ugly peaks and valleys picture not the nice curve you usually see.. FR only and more and more these days SPL capabilities do not take into account the transient response of the radiator. One can have a perfectly flat FR and an Horrible sounding speaker. ... . FR IS important however Flat FR only is NOT guarantee of good and accurate response.. Indeed several PRO monitors measure flat like a pancake can play louder than anyone can listen to and sound horrible... I do not mean to say by that that PRO monitors all sound horrible... No! I am simply saying that their purported superiority to ALL High Speakers because they measure flat and High End speakers do NOT is a fallacy... Several High End speakers measure extremely well and do sound like it too..I will stop at that 'MAX thread is sufficiently derailed .. If you want to open a thread on the merits of FR then I will post in it

Eh, I just wasted 30 minutes trying to figure out and get this iPhone SignalScope program to take a stable reading. I should have just hooked up ETF... I didn't get a stable reading, and couldn't find in depth instructions on the SignalScope program anywhere. Next time, I'll waste the time unburying my ETF mic and audio devices from the office and get some useful readings.

Franz, have you understood at all what I have written ? I have my doubts, but would like to help you understand. Pls tell me which professional speaker did disappoint you that you heard in a RT60 dialed in room ? I said already that for a flat professional speaker to work properly the room needs to follow stringend standards.

@ QC : well said.

Will check some of the links after work....

Well, IME, the "flat" Audyssey curve sounds more realistic than the normal Audyssey curve (the one that has characteristics very similar to the Athena curves you have mentioned in the past).

I know very little about how audyssey works, but do you mean in your case you measure from the LP and it sets it to flat (equal spl at all frequencies)??

Of course it is all personal taste, but I feel it would sound bright to my ears. then again, you do have a well treated room, perhaps you are right and that has something to do with it's percieved correctness?

My speakers are flat (quasi anechoic type measurements) but when measured from the LP it displays the 'characteristic' slope described by Jeff


There will be gradual high-frequency roll-off due to absorption and bass lift due to boundary reinforcement. This creates an FR that will be slightly downward sloping from left to right. This is what should be produced from a "flat" loudspeaker in a real room.


It is easy with my system to make it flat at the LP, it is very bright (and all who have experienced the experiment have agreed).

Interesting. But altho my room is very large, it has virtually no treatments so wonder if this is significant?

Toole's research states that in general people prefer an inaccurate response IIRC. More specifically, they like some additional boost in the low end.


I could be very wrong indeed, but to be honest I seem to recall that what his tests revealed was quite the reverse, the more accurate the speaker the higher it ranked. I always had the idea that it required an very accurate on axis FR with a smooth off axis power response.

You could very well be right about the bass, but I would simply ascribe that 'bass boost' as a natural consequence of putting flat accurate speakers in a normal room, much like jeff described?

Must go and dig up some of the toole studies and check my memory....

Alimentall,

Your POV about the importance of off-axis dispersion/reflection/room response characteristics sounds alot like the Toole/Harman approach. So you may be interested in the graphs here:

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=569

Or, right up your alley...a digital active monitor:
http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=570

Oops, these are pro products, maybe you shouldn't look at the links!

I do wish Harman would publish similar data for Revel, etc....not just the dispersion/reflection/room response but impulse response, power compression, distortion, etc.

I know very little about how audyssey works, but do you mean in your case you measure from the LP and it sets it to flat (equal spl at all frequencies)??

Of course it is all personal taste, but I feel it would sound bright to my ears. then again, you do have a well treated room, perhaps you are right and that has something to do with it's percieved correctness?

My speakers are flat (quasi anechoic type measurements) but when measured from the LP it displays the 'characteristic' slope described by Jeff



It is easy with my system to make it flat at the LP, it is very bright (and all who have experienced the experiment have agreed).

Interesting. But altho my room is very large, it has virtually no treatments so wonder if this is significant?



I could be very wrong indeed, but to be honest I seem to recall that what his tests revealed was quite the reverse, the more accurate the speaker the higher it ranked. I always had the idea that it required an very accurate on axis FR with a smooth off axis power response.

You could very well be right about the bass, but I would simply ascribe that 'bass boost' as a natural consequence of putting flat accurate speakers in a normal room, much like jeff described?

Must go and dig up some of the toole studies and check my memory....

I will try to post some FR measurements early next week.

My point in mentioning inaccurate responses in regard to Toole was to bring up his findings that people prefer inaccuracy in the bass region in the form of a bass boost, as per my "more specifically" sentence. I wasn't stating that people pefer wild inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies in their signal... I figured that people were familiar enough with the material to know what I meant. I apologize if it came across wrong.

Preference vs accuracy.
The underlying premise is a speaker *must* be accurate where "accurate" is defined as the speaker's ability to reproduce exactly the signal it was given. If provided a "flat" input, it should then produce a "flat" output.

Given that individuals have preferences which may depart from "flat" or the long list of various standards and recommendations (just ask Bose about user preferences), one must map the input to the preferred output. If the speaker is not accurate, then one could not accurately produce the preferred output.

"Accurate" must also be defined within the context of the speaker's original intended use. A large free standing speaker will no longer be "accurate" when stuffed into a corner if the design of that speaker was based upon some other placement. Conversely, a speaker specifically designed to be mounted flush to a boundary (like a wall), will not be "accurate" when free standing and not mounted flush to said boundary.

It is easy with my system to make it flat at the LP, it is very bright (and all who have experienced the experiment have agreed).

Interesting. But altho my room is very large, it has virtually no treatments so wonder if this is significant?


Yes, it is significant. Depending on the so called "reverb radius" the room will eventually offer (treated or non treated), the listening distance must be chosen (many pro beginners wrongly beleave of this marketed fact, sitting close to near fields will rule out any room anomalies, hence why you see them mix in normal rooms next to their PCs, which is not true by nature in relation to the wavelength, as it increases). A linear speaker, linear at the listening spot is only linear in it's frequency on axis response, which is only the start for a violine to sound like a violine at the spot. The perceived sound (to be harsh) is a clear combination of both on axis and off axis, so speakers and room, they both need to work towards each other or without the one or the other, final accuracy is impossible. Sitting close to near field monitors will show this easily. Up-close they are bright and relatively linear, further away they darken in sound color, as more reflected sound kicks in. That is why listening distances are so clearly speced, on top of requested room treatments in the pro world. The main point for non treated rooms for pro monitors, the better ones at least, is that they at least try to focus the sound in such a way, that the on axis sound and off axis reverb will have a smoth and balanced timbre character to each other. However, leaving the reverb radius, especially in non treated rooms, will blurr the image at some point eventually, the reverb takes over, precision and accuracy is lost ouside the specified listening distances for that room.

"Accurate" must also be defined within the context of the speaker's original intended use. A large free standing speaker will no longer be "accurate" when stuffed into a corner if the design of that speaker was based upon some other placement.

You putative proclamations not applicable to the c4 results in Helene and Prometheus. So clearly there are exceptions although the factory perscribed minimum of the speaker to rear wall 0f 3" WAS NEVER REACHED.

The main point for non treated rooms for pro monitors, the better ones at least, is that they at least try to focus the sound in such a way, that the on axis sound and off axis reverb will have a smoth and balanced timbre character to each other.

This is true and why we publish a "Listening Window" in our SoundStage! Network measuremets -- a combination of on- and off-axis response which the brain perceives as one sound. As long as the direct and reflected sound arrives within about 40ms, humans perceive it as one sound. Haas Effect (or Precedent Effect).

Dennis' post regarding accurate speakers: a speaker that measures "flat"in a chamber will not measure flat in an average room. So is it it still an accurate speaker? YES!

I seem to recall that what his tests revealed was quite the reverse, the more accurate the speaker the higher it ranked. I always had the idea that it required an very accurate on axis FR with a smooth off axis power response.Are you thinking of the Harman white paper by Sean Olive?

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20090209/12206.pdf

"There were clear correlations between listeners' loudspeaker preferences and a set of acoustic anechoic measurements. The most preferred loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended frequency responses maintained uniformly off axis."

"There were clear correlations between listeners' loudspeaker preferences and a set of acoustic anechoic measurements. The most preferred loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended frequency responses maintained uniformly off axis."

Reads very nice :)

Are you thinking of the Harman white paper by Sean Olive?

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20090209/12206.pdf

"There were clear correlations between listeners' loudspeaker preferences and a set of acoustic anechoic measurements. The most preferred loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended frequency responses maintained uniformly off axis."

Yeah, most probably. There is a whole bunch of them from the HK site, but that does sum up my recollection (if it's repeated in more than one paper that is).

Often there is the 'reaction' noted when the person ''''realises'''' they have picked the wrong speaker and overlooked the famous well reviewed ones!:)

However, I don't recall particularly any mention of preference for 'boosted' bass' response, tho I could have missed it. It is clear however from the quote that bass response is required ( most extended frequency response....most speakers can go high, it's the bass that sorts the men from the boys)



I will try to post some FR measurements early next week.

My point in mentioning inaccurate responses in regard to Toole was to bring up his findings that people prefer inaccuracy in the bass region in the form of a bass boost, as per my "more specifically" sentence. I wasn't stating that people pefer wild inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies in their signal... I figured that people were familiar enough with the material to know what I meant. I apologize if it came across wrong.

No I probably misread what you meant, sorry for that.

tho I am beginning to wonder if we are talking about the same thing after all, just coming at it from different angles?

If for example we take jeffs shot of the arrakis in his room. I must admit I usually see more of a high end roll off than shown, but still in regard to the high frequencies we can see that the bass is 'boosted'.

That may not be 'boosted' in the sense of someone deliberately upping the gain of the bass, but is naturally higher than the treble due to room gain etc. there is a group of people who like to have a 'house curve' in their measurements, ie actually raise the bass via eq or whatnot.

I don't think that is what's happening with jeffs, but nonetheless the bass is higher than the treble.

And I would bet that it sounds 'right' (tho I think it may be a tad too 'toppy' for me....but maybe not in a well treated room???)

So (if I understand how you use the audyssey) if your system has the same spl at the LP from 20 gz to 20 khz, ie a totally flat line, then perhaps your bass would sound 'thin' in comparison?

That's all theoretical, I don't want to suggest it's wrong or anything, just making sure you understand that :) It all comes down to personal taste in the end of course, but as I say maybe that is what (based on your own set up) you mean by 'boosted bass'??

I guess it would be of interest to take a speaker that has been 'set flat at the lp', and measure it in an anechoic chamber a la sounstage.

My guess is, that if in most situations a speaker that measures flat in a chamber 'droops' in a room, then conversely a speaker that measures flat in the room would be rising in the chamber.

Then we are back to the question of 'what do we want from our transducers'?

As Dennis Erskine pointed out

Preference vs accuracy.
The underlying premise is a speaker *must* be accurate where "accurate" is defined as the speaker's ability to reproduce exactly the signal it was given. If provided a "flat" input, it should then produce a "flat" output.

I guess the flaw in that reasoning is that as most manufacturers have little or no control on how their speakers are used, it would be folly to make a pair of speakers that measure flat to 20 hz anechoically, as boy! then it would be reaaally bass heavy in the room?

Did I start this ^? Cool! :)

"My guess is, that if in most situations a speaker that measures flat in a chamber 'droops' in a room, then conversely a speaker that measures flat in the room would be rising in the chamber.
Then we are back to the question of 'what do we want from our transducers'?"

What you imply is very misleading and irritating, but I do not want to sound rude and maybe I just misunderstand what you mean. If one reads the above without knowledge, it almost implies there could be certain speakers that are "bend" in such a away that their inroom FR becomes linear. That does not exist, also as all rooms are different. That is why one is forced to treat the listening room. Placement in the room is also different from user to user, influencing the picked up room gain in relation to wavelength.

That is why active designs are so neat, as they offer in some form most often on axis FR compensations in their designs, via dip switches room gain on bass can be shelved or cut off. This will not help off axis power response and other room problems (the time domain, which is reverb as well as room modes/resonances/waterfall).

BTW, Syswei, I won't stop listening to studio monitors and will eventually find one that I really like, but pro gear is a smaller audience and sells for a lot more - no bargains. And they focus on different things - self powered, heavy, often metal boxes, controlled dispersion (which I do not like) for a single listener in a typically heavily damed room, wall/soffit mounting etc, etc, etc. The goals are just different, aside from basic accuracy. In fact, sometimes I think they focus so much on getting a straight line that nothing else matters to them. I'm sure there are exceptions, still waiting to find it though. I don't want to mix a recording, I want to enjoy it.

Back to the OP, don't know if this has been posted but Valin made the effort to travel the world to hear 4 different rooms with the Grand Exquisite Kharmas installed: http://www.avguide.com/blog/kharma-grand-exquisite-loudspeaker

There is a whole bunch of them from the HK site, but that does sum up my recollection (if it's repeated in more than one paper that is).I took a look at the Harman site and you're right: the same conclusion is repeated in more than one paper. While there, I found the Toole papers you were thinking of. If anyone wants to peruse them for reference:

"Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences: Part 1" (http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20090209/5276.pdf)

"Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences: Part 2" (http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20090209/5270.pdf)

BTW, Syswei, I won't stop listening to studio monitors and will eventually find one that I really like, but pro gear is a smaller audience and sells for a lot more - no bargains. And they focus on different things - self powered, heavy, often metal boxes, controlled dispersion (which I do not like) for a single listener in a typically heavily damed room, wall/soffit mounting etc, etc, etc. The goals are just different, aside from basic accuracy. In fact, sometimes I think they focus so much on getting a straight line that nothing else matters to them. I'm sure there are exceptions, still waiting to find it though. I don't want to mix a recording, I want to enjoy it.

Relax John, between your lines I sence some frustration. You are not alone...You are not the only dealer that has not fully understood the science or the first to struggle in the attempt of linear and distortion free audio reproduction. I do feel with you and be asured, whenever you need aid, at least I'm here to help you out.

One point I do however take seriously of what you have written above, and that is that most often we are mixing ultimate sweet spot listening with big audiences home cinema (which also should have room treatment), with listening distances beyond comprehension by regular means. There professional speaker still have their strong points. However, to throw any high end stuff into the corner seldomly is a good basis for that multi seat experience many are looking for.

We actually should shift the discussion back into this direction, if the K. speakers are the ones Peter should install, to achive his ultimate audio 10 seater....I have more than doubts.

BTW, Syswei, I won't stop listening to studio monitors and will eventually find one that I really like, but pro gear is a smaller audience and sells for a lot more - no bargains. And they focus on different things - self powered, heavy, often metal boxes, controlled dispersion (which I do not like) for a single listener in a typically heavily damed room, wall/soffit mounting etc, etc, etc. The goals are just different, aside from basic accuracy. In fact, sometimes I think they focus so much on getting a straight line that nothing else matters to them. I'm sure there are exceptions, still waiting to find it though. I don't want to mix a recording, I want to enjoy it.


I haven't auditioned speakers yet for an HT, but actually I'm more likely to go passive consumer than active pro. However, you are just plain wrong when out say that pro speakers offer "no bargains". In some cases a company's pro line may be priced priced in-line with their consumer line. But more often, pro gear is priced lower. Take the (pro) Focal Solo 6 Be, msrp $2400/pr. EXACT same drivers as the (consumer) Focal Electra 1007 Be, msrp $4000/pr (or maybe higher now, the price is from 2007). And with the pro version, amplification is thrown in for free, despite the 40% lower price! It is because pro gear on average presents better value that I like to bring up the subject on these forums, so that the unaware can consider pro alternatives and save themselves some money.

Well, okay, but that's a pretty rare example and probably has a lot more to do with the regular Focals being so overpriced.

JBL makes great pro speakers, don't they? Same research used in other top of the line Harman speakers, IIRC.

I had the pair I bought in highschool for almost 10 years!

Well, okay, but that's a pretty rare example and probably has a lot more to do with the regular Focals being so overpriced.

Audiophile consumer gear is OFTEN overpriced, and imo that includes the Revel Ultima2 line you carry. You can look at Dynaudio, Adam, and others, and find pro speakers priced less than consumer speakers from the same company. I challenge you to find just ONE counter-example, where a company's pro piece of equipment is pricier than a comparable consumer piece.

JBL makes great pro speakers, don't they? Same research used in other top of the line Harman speakers, IIRC.

I had the pair I bought in highschool for almost 10 years!

Interesting

I have an audiophile friend who has made a lifelong hobby of collecting JBL speakers. He has at last count over 500 fully working pairs (all different). He has been offered a huge sum to sell them. He has also been contacted by the Smithsonian Institute. His house is beyond belief. The estimated value of this collection is in the stratosphere

Interesting

I have an audiophile friend who has made a lifelong hobby of collecting JBL speakers. He has at last count over 500 fully working pairs (all different). He has been offered a huge sum to sell them. He has also been contacted by the Smithsonian Institute. His house is beyond belief. The estimated value of this collection is in the stratosphere

Ob,

Does your friend have a website showing his collection? Would love to see pictures.

Sean

Interesting

I have an audiophile friend who has made a lifelong hobby of collecting JBL speakers. He has at last count over 500 fully working pairs (all different). He has been offered a huge sum to sell them. He has also been contacted by the Smithsonian Institute. His house is beyond belief. The estimated value of this collection is in the stratosphere

Have you ever thought of spending a few bucks to get the guy some "company". Sounds like he needs it.:D

Interesting

I have an audiophile friend who has made a lifelong hobby of collecting JBL speakers. He has at last count over 500 fully working pairs (all different). He has been offered a huge sum to sell them. He has also been contacted by the Smithsonian Institute. His house is beyond belief. The estimated value of this collection is in the stratosphere

I absolutely loved the ones I had in high school. They brought me years of great sound for the price... :)

Yes, JBL pros are very nice. The pro monitors are widely used, strong brand recognition as does Genelec e.g. When you see that JBL's best bass drivers are still made of paper cones, you know exactly what you can think about some of those wierd cone material discussions and their significance in the total end result....

Audiophile consumer gear is OFTEN overpriced, and imo that includes the Revel Ultima2 line you carry.

It's all relative. The Revels measure better and use a more scientific design than most $100k speaker I've seen and the parts quality (and cost) is just as good or better. But sure, get rid of the fancy cabinet and you could probably build and sell them for $10K.

You can look at Dynaudio, Adam, and others, and find pro speakers priced less than consumer speakers from the same company. I challenge you to find just ONE counter-example, where a company's pro piece of equipment is pricier than a comparable consumer piece.

Here you go - the NHT M-00 retails for $500 (down from $600) and is basically a powered NHT SuperZero ($250/pr and a 15 year old design) YET it still gets very high marks from musicians and recording engineers compared to other products in that range. But we could sell musicians the much newer, better PSB Alpha B1 and a Sherbourn amp for the same price and do even better for them. The local pro acoustics/studio guru here specifically recommends the Alpha and NHT SuperOne (and later iterations) over all the powered pro monitors for budget recording/mixdown purposes.

I'm not talking about audiophile lunacy here, I'm talking about what happens when you compare pro audio speakers to highly regarded speakers in the $250-$5000/pr range.

OTOH, if I were doing what Peter does - jamming speakers in corners and/or a few inches off the floor, I would probably do some of the better pro active speakers that have the more directed dispersion and sound contours for those kind of positions and then add Audyssey processing. But we do the free-standing speaker thing and so the accuracy of these speakers works plenty well without contours, controlled dispersion or extra processing (from Soundstage) -

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/psb_synchrony_one/frequency_listeningwindow.gif

It's all relative. The Revels measure better and use a more scientific design than most $100k speaker I've seen and the parts quality (and cost) is just as good or better.

Still overpriced relative to the consumer KEF Reference series, for instance the 205/2 vs Studio2; most people would consider the 2 lines to be in the same class of performance and cosmetics. Comparing the Ultima2 line to a pro offering isn't that easy, since there aren't any direct comparables in the Harman family. But it would be an interesting experiment to take the JBL pro products I referenced earlier, find comparably-priced products in the Revel lineup (Performa or Concerta or whatever you could get for the same dollars), and then do some listening tests.

Here you go - the NHT M-00 retails for $500 (down from $600) and is basically a powered NHT SuperZero ($250/pr and a 15 year old design)

Rather lame, John, are you using a circa 1994 price for the NHT (forgetting inflation?), or a price for used product off ebay? And then forgetting to add in the price of an amp? I stand by the original point...on average, pro offers better value, though there are some cases where pro and consumer are priced comparably.

Still overpriced relative to the consumer KEF Reference series, for instance the 205/2 vs Studio2; most people would consider the 2 lines to be in the same class of performance and cosmetics.


Are there a big difference between 205/2 and 203/2? The 203/2 ahve no bass at all and don't sound that hot according to me. The Studio2 sound much better IMO.

Still overpriced relative to the consumer KEF Reference series, for instance the 205/2 vs Studio2; most people would consider the 2 lines to be in the same class of performance and cosmetics.

We'd have to disagree. The 205/2 is almost as expensive and doesn't have the much more exotic drivers of the Studio, regardless of which you prefer. By that standard, I'd say the PSB Synchrony makes the 205/2 overpriced and we could go from there.

Comparing the Ultima2 line to a pro offering isn't that easy, since there aren't any direct comparables in the Harman family. But it would be an interesting experiment to take the JBL pro products I referenced earlier, find comparably-priced products in the Revel lineup (Performa or Concerta or whatever you could get for the same dollars), and then do some listening tests.

Yes, but I'm talking about the performance of stuff like Genelec or PMC or whatever ("the leaders") to the better consumer stuff in the same range.

Rather lame, John, are you using a circa 1994 price for the NHT (forgetting inflation?), or a price for used product off ebay? And then forgetting to add in the price of an amp?

They were $220/pr in 1994, $250/pr when they were discontinued. Amps are cheap and easy.

I stand by the original point...on average, pro offers better value, though there are some cases where pro and consumer are priced comparably.

Better value *until* you consider the sound quality and then the value ratio drops notably. I've had a dozen people come in over the last couple of years to pick up PSB Alphas because they 'can't find anything as good for less than twice the price' and even when you add the amp, they're still less. YMMV.

The 203/2 ahve no bass at all and don't sound that hot according to me. The Studio2 sound much better IMO.

The Studio2 also costs 2.7 times the 203/2. I know that some people who have auditioned the comparables, the 205/2 vs Studio2, have come away owners of the 205/2. I imagine there are others who have audtioned both and bought the Studio2. Hence my suggestion that they are in the same class of product, performance and cosmetics-wise; yet the Studio2 still costs I think 33-45% more than the 205/2.

What you imply is very misleading and irritating, but I do not want to sound rude and maybe I just misunderstand what you mean. If one reads the above without knowledge, it almost implies there could be certain speakers that are "bend" in such a away that their inroom FR becomes linear. That does not exist, also as all rooms are different. That is why one is forced to treat the listening room. Placement in the room is also different from user to user, influencing the picked up room gain in relation to wavelength.

That is why active designs are so neat, as they offer in some form most often on axis FR compensations in their designs, via dip switches room gain on bass can be shelved or cut off. This will not help off axis power response and other room problems (the time domain, which is reverb as well as room modes/resonances/waterfall).

hey, I'm all for active!! I have a tri amped deqx active system..using pro drivers no less :)

I don't want to imply that the room can 'bend' the response to a flat curve, the room usually 'destroys' the 'perfect' curve of the speaker.

What I was saying is that once (for example) we use something like audyssey that will give us a measured flat response at the lp after taking into account the room, ie 'counteract' the usual thing we see in room of the bass being generally higher than the treble to some degree, and we then measure the resulting speaker response in a chamber (just like every speaker to date has been measured to see what it's response is) that I think we would NOT see the desirable 'flat response', but rather a rising response in the treble (else how could it measure flat in the room?)

Such a response, if guaged by the standards of all speaker measurements to date, would probably not be regarded as accurate.

It's just a theory, and a starting point for discussion, that's all.

Not meant to raise the hackles of anyone at all.

The Studio2 also costs 2.7 times the 203/2. I know that some people who have auditioned the comparables, the 205/2 vs Studio2, have come away owners of the 205/2. I imagine there are others who have audtioned both and bought the Studio2. Hence my suggestion that they are in the same class of product, performance and cosmetics-wise; yet the Studio2 still costs I think 33-45% more than the 205/2.

Do you have any significant data that would backup the proposition that the purchases were based on equal performance rather than just simply affordability?

I'm not so sure how you equate the Kefs with the Studio2s dollar for dollar. The Studio2s have Beryllium tweeters and titanium midrange/bass drivers rather than cheaply and easily made plastic and/or paper. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not going to be the last word in resolution with drivers like that, not to mention the tweeter having a moving horn slapped around it. I'm not sure how the comparison is even relevant to the discussion of studio monitors versus high-end speakers.

don't want to imply that the room can 'bend' the response to a flat curve,

I thought you wanted to imply the speaker needs to be pre-bend to fit the room, as a flat speaker is not flat in the room, which would never work for all rooms. Sorry, for any misunderstanding.

Well I havent heard the Kharmas but I have just heard one hell of a system comprising of Coldmachines favourite Genelecs. The System was in a room 28x22x12 and had 3x HT324A Fronts, 4x AOW312 Surrounds and 1 HTS6 Subwoofer. Holy S***! did it sound good. I have heard big setups before and have a fairly good one myself but these were brilliant. It has made me seriously consider throwing out my existing system and bringing the Genelecs in. Easily the most impressive Home Theater I have heard.

Do you have any significant data that would backup the proposition that the purchases were based on equal performance rather than just simply affordability?

Hard data survey data or something?...of course not. I did ask rydenfan his reasons for his choice of the 205/2, and his answer didn't include price; but then, if one were to ask the same question of everyone who had made the same choice, maybe not all the answers would be complete and ingenuous. I do view the Stereophile review and measurements of the 207/2 to be overall about as good as those for the Salon2, fwiw; on the measurement side, I think neither is perfect and each has different plusses and minuses that for me, put them at about the same level of goodness. I haven't auditioned either yet myself.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the KEFs if you auditioned them before going with the Salon2s.

I'm not so sure how you equate the Kefs with the Studio2s dollar for dollar. The Studio2s have Beryllium tweeters and titanium midrange/bass drivers rather than cheaply and easily made plastic and/or paper. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not going to be the last word in resolution with drivers like that, not to mention the tweeter having a moving horn slapped around it. I'm not sure how the comparison is even relevant to the discussion of studio monitors versus high-end speakers.

We digressed into a discussion of whether the Ultima2 line represented good value. But I'll drop it as I'm re-learning that you'll never let go of a point, whether you're right or wrong, and I'm getting weary of it. Maybe you should switch to trying to convince iampaddy that he's wrong and that what he heard can't represent good sound, since pro gear can't sound good (according to you), especially Genelec since you heard a setup once in one particular room, and didn't like it.

Yes, JBL pros are very nice. The pro monitors are widely used, strong brand recognition as does Genelec e.g. When you see that JBL's best bass drivers are still made of paper cones, you know exactly what you can think about some of those wierd cone material discussions and their significance in the total end result....

SO IT'S SETTLED THEN.....

Behold the torture Chambre.

http://www.miamibadc.com/Images/IMG_0620.jpg

I never said that the Ultimas were a good value except in relation to even more expensive speakers.

All this from 'MAX asking if anyone has AUDITIONED THE Kharma System:rolleyes:

All this from 'MAX asking if anyone has AUDITIONED THE Kharma System:rolleyes:

We are all one trick ponies FrantzM... :D

Do you have any significant data that would backup the proposition that the purchases were based on equal performance rather than just simply affordability?

Que, I dont know if I qualify for significant data but my final three audition speakers were the Dynaudio Sapphires, Revel Studio2's, and the KEF 205/2's. My ultimate choice was the KEFs and it had absolutely nothing to do with price. FWIW, the Studio2's are 16K and the 205/2's in high gloss are 14K so I dont imagine there is too much price factor going on between these two speakers.

I also have a friend searching for a speaker in this price class and came away with the KEFs as well. Although I am sure it is equally easy to find people who chose another speaker...

Que, I dont know if I qualify for significant data but my final three audition speakers were the Dynaudio Sapphires, Revel Studio2's, and the KEF 205/2's. My ultimate choice was the KEFs and it had absolutely nothing to do with price. FWIW, the Studio2's are 16K and the 205/2's in high gloss are 14K so I dont imagine there is too much price factor going on between these two speakers.

I also have a friend searching for a speaker in this price class and came away with the KEFs as well. Although I am sure it is equally easy to find people who chose another speaker...

Indeed, that was not the data I was looking for.

All this from 'MAX asking if anyone has AUDITIONED THE Kharma System:rolleyes:

And of course the usual suspect eventually tries to force fit his very square-peg into every round hole.... ;)

Que, I dont know if I qualify for significant data but my final three audition speakers were the Dynaudio Sapphires, Revel Studio2's, and the KEF 205/2's. My ultimate choice was the KEFs and it had absolutely nothing to do with price. FWIW, the Studio2's are 16K and the 205/2's in high gloss are 14K so I dont imagine there is too much price factor going on between these two speakers.


How did you think the Sapphires was? Ok?
I listen to them last year and I was not so impressed.

http://www.miamibadc.com/Images/IMG_0620.jpg


Looks like one can get some good SPL from that one ;)
Have you listen to it?

I heard the Kef 207 at HE2007, it wasn't a memorable experience; I didn't even comment on it on the Stereophile HE2007 show report, though I do remember visiting the room. The C1 was more memorable IME. I didn't find the newest Tannoy flagship memorable either. Keep in mind though, not being memorable is better than being memorable for the wrong reasons, like the Zu Cable horn loudspeakers (what a horrible experience that was...)! Though, not being memorable still isn't as good as being memorable for the right reasons... :D

Nothing really matters until you get a direct comparison in your own home system with good equalization; making any outside comparison without proper treatment and stringent correction (natural and electrical) is completely pointless as far as I am concerned. So, very often people make their decisions based on bad listening information anyway... Not that two very similar speakers can't be made to sound almost exactly alike with the right corrective measures (room placement, electrical correction, room treatments, etc) anyway. I guess, all things being equal, I would go with the better technology, and likewise, a tweeter that doesn't ring at close to my hearing frequency limits.

Well I havent heard the Kharmas but I have just heard one hell of a system comprising of Coldmachines favourite Genelecs. The System was in a room 28x22x12 and had 3x HT324A Fronts, 4x AOW312 Surrounds and 1 HTS6 Subwoofer. Holy S***! did it sound good. I have heard big setups before and have a fairly good one myself but these were brilliant. It has made me seriously consider throwing out my existing system and bringing the Genelecs in. Easily the most impressive Home Theater I have heard.

As you name checked me, I feel obliged to respond.

My last room was a straight around arrangement of 7x324As and 2xHTS6 subs. They were properly mounted, bolted and sand bagged, into solid walls.

The sound was simply amazing. It could be as light as a feather or brutally violent, as the source required. Listening at reference, or above, has some tangible advantages. A part of a movie that was intended to make you jump had the spot effects do their job properly. Talk about leap out of your seat. Pschoacoustics has been mentioned here many, times and its also relevant to SPL. There is a level above which people experience fear. Short term exposure certainly helps with the movie experience

"Audiophile" is such a tarnished word these days, its almost become Latin for "gullible douchebag". Im unsure what term to use for the genuinely discerning listener, so I'll use "audiophile" in that context. I had a number of audiophiles visit who were totally blown away by the quality of the sound. These included musicians, mastering engineers (music and audio for video) and general domestic 2 channel asswipes. I never heard a single negative comment, other than the speakers were butt-ugly. The fronts were hidden, so that's not an issue. Personally I like the look. Its kinda " Sit down, STFU, and enjoy the ride, and incidentally, you will be violated when appropriate. ". Thats part od the ethos of HT.

I was privileged enough to have 2 guys from Deutsche Grammophon spend a day with my system just after it had been installed, one was actually a Tonmeister. After watching my demos, they asked to listen to thier own SACDs. The Tonmeister actually shook my hand and congratulated me on having such an incredible system. That meant more to me than all the combined platitudes I ever received. I really hope I can replicate the performance and synergy in my new place

Some of that may sound a bit hyperbolic, but its simply a statement of fact. I believe Dennis Erskine is a Genelec fan.

I would certainly urge anyone who is looking to equip a large room to have a look at what can be achieved with the large actives from the heavy hitters in the field....Genelec, Dynaudio, ATC, ADAM, Quested etc. Going by reputation, I would also have to give a nod to AVS member Mark Seaton. His products certainly seem able to swim in the same waters, and deliver the sonic goods.

I'm not so sure how you equate the Kefs with the Studio2s dollar for dollar. The Studio2s have Beryllium tweeters and titanium midrange/bass drivers rather than cheaply and easily made plastic and/or paper. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not going to be the last word in resolution with drivers like that, not to mention the tweeter having a moving horn slapped around it. I'm not sure how the comparison is even relevant to the discussion of studio monitors versus high-end speakers.

Try listening to the "plastic" type material of the Wilson Benesch Tactic midrange on the Discovery or Chimera, not all are equal or cheap or easily made ;)
This can or may (depending upon your view) also apply to the Kefs, so nothing can be taken for granted.

Cheers
DT

As you name checked me, I feel obliged to respond.

My last room was a straight around arrangement of 7x324As and 2xHTS6 subs. They were properly mounted, bolted and sand bagged, into solid walls.

The sound was simply amazing. It could be as light as a feather or brutally violent, as the source required. Listening at reference, or above, has some tangible advantages. A part of a movie that was intended to make you jump had the spot effects do their job properly. Talk about leap out of your seat. Pschoacoustics has been mentioned here many, times and its also relevant to SPL. There is a level above which people experience fear. Short term exposure certainly helps with the movie experience

Audiophile is such a tarnished word these days, its almost become Latin for gullible douchebag. Im unsure what term to use for the genuinely discerning listener, so I'll use audiophile in that context. I had a number of audiophiles visit who were totally blown away by the quality of the sound. These included musicians, mastering engineers (music and audio for video) and general domestic 2 channel asswipes. I never heard a single negative comment, other than the speakers were butt-ugly. The fronts were hidden, so that's not an issue. Personally I like the look. Its kinda " Sit down, STFU, and enjoy the ride, and incidentally, you will be violated when appropriate. ". Thats part od the ethos of HT.

I was privileged enough to have 2 guys from Deutsche Grammophon spend a day with my system just after it had been installed, one was actually a Tonmeister. After watching my demos, they asked to listen to thier own SACDs. The Tonmeister actually shook my hand and congratulated me on having such an incredible system. That meant more to me than all the combined platitudes I ever received

Some of that may sound a bit hyperbolic, but its simply a statement of fact. I believe Dennis Erskine is a Genelec fan.

I would certainly urge anyone who is looking to equip a large room to have a look at what can be achieved with the large actives from the heavy hitters in the field....Genelec, Dynaudio, ATC, ADAM, Quested etc. Going by reputation, I would also have to give a nod to AVS member Mark Seaton. His products certainly seem able to swim in the same waters, and deliver the sonic goods.

Good reading, thanks for relating your experience...the annecdote about the Tonmeister was very interesting.

FWIW, the Studio2's are 16K and the 205/2's in high gloss are 14K so I dont imagine there is too much price factor going on between these two speakers.

Thanks for jumping in...I missed the price increase, it had been I think 11k/12k for satin/gloss. I'm kind of wondering what will happen with KEF, Genelec, B&W, etc. pricing now that the pound has come in by 25% vs USD.

I guess, all things being equal, I would go with the better technology, and likewise, a tweeter that doesn't ring at close to my hearing frequency limits.

Unfortunately, I can only hear up to about 13.5khz, so I can be less discerning about speaker issues in the higher ranges. Too much loud music in my college days.

Unfortunately, I can only hear up to about 13.5khz, so I can be less discerning about speaker issues in the higher ranges. Too much loud music in my college days.

You would still hear it most likely. When the mode gets excited the entire tweeter resonates. You wouldn't notice it most likely unless you had a reference comparison with other speakers that don't ring, and even if you did notice it, you might prefer it... I don't know if this is an issue with the KEF (I haven't seen the graphs), but I got to play around with it on the WP8s I had.

@coldmachine : a post out of my heart ! Tonmeister approved...way to go. You got pictures of that setup ?

I too had a tonmeister visit Prometheus.

Here is his pic,;)

I think I've had a meisterbrau visit my HT. Err, wait, or was it a heinekin?

I too had a tonmeister visit Prometheus.

Here is his pic,;)

I didn't know Gandalf could jam?!

I too had a tonmeister visit Prometheus.

Here is his pic,;)

HOLY CRAP.........Its the same frickin' guy.:eek:

Now I know why Peter feels so right in what he does. With the backup advice of that dude, it must be a real cool system.... ;)

Andreas,

Have you by chance ever auditioned the K+H o410?

No, K+H are harder to find these days in some bigger shops, last audition I had of K+H was years ago and that was before the O300D, and not of any quality relevance that I would dare to make a statement how they compare against other monitors. As I cannot use such big speakers, there was also no real push. I would be more drawn towards AES/EBU digital pros, like O300D or better the Genelec 8250 with DCW for mid field (I listen in ca. 9 to 10 feet which actually requires a O400) + corresponding Sub to hide, or eventually then O500c, if I could place such big stuff. Peters TACT appears to have not only interesting digital inputs, but much more interesting digital AES/EBU outputs... :D The unit screams for pro XLR digital connection...

Something for Peter for the fronts. 3x O500c on top of O900 via AES/EBU out from Tact....

http://www.klein-hummel.com/klein-hummel/globals.nsf/resources/kleinundhummel_o900_o500.gif/$File/kleinundhummel_o900_o500.gif

Since the thread is deteriorated beyond repair...

What are the MSRP on these babies?

Since the thread is deteriorated beyond repair...

What are the MSRP on these babies?

O500C is $18k each. O900 passive sub is $4k each.

The O410 I asked Andreas about is $7k each; active but not digital. There is supposed to be a digital option forthcoming.

http://www.klein-hummel.com/klein-hummel/icm_en.nsf/root/prof-monitoring_studio-monitors

As you name checked me, I feel obliged to respond.

My last room was a straight around arrangement of 7x324As and 2xHTS6 subs. They were properly mounted, bolted and sand bagged, into solid walls.

The sound was simply amazing. It could be as light as a feather or brutally violent, as the source required. Listening at reference, or above, has some tangible advantages. A part of a movie that was intended to make you jump had the spot effects do their job properly. Talk about leap out of your seat. Pschoacoustics has been mentioned here many, times and its also relevant to SPL. There is a level above which people experience fear. Short term exposure certainly helps with the movie experience

"Audiophile" is such a tarnished word these days, its almost become Latin for "gullible douchebag". Im unsure what term to use for the genuinely discerning listener, so I'll use "audiophile" in that context. I had a number of audiophiles visit who were totally blown away by the quality of the sound. These included musicians, mastering engineers (music and audio for video) and general domestic 2 channel asswipes. I never heard a single negative comment, other than the speakers were butt-ugly. The fronts were hidden, so that's not an issue. Personally I like the look. Its kinda " Sit down, STFU, and enjoy the ride, and incidentally, you will be violated when appropriate. ". Thats part od the ethos of HT.

I was privileged enough to have 2 guys from Deutsche Grammophon spend a day with my system just after it had been installed, one was actually a Tonmeister. After watching my demos, they asked to listen to thier own SACDs. The Tonmeister actually shook my hand and congratulated me on having such an incredible system. That meant more to me than all the combined platitudes I ever received. I really hope I can replicate the performance and synergy in my new place

Some of that may sound a bit hyperbolic, but its simply a statement of fact. I believe Dennis Erskine is a Genelec fan.

I would certainly urge anyone who is looking to equip a large room to have a look at what can be achieved with the large actives from the heavy hitters in the field....Genelec, Dynaudio, ATC, ADAM, Quested etc. Going by reputation, I would also have to give a nod to AVS member Mark Seaton. His products certainly seem able to swim in the same waters, and deliver the sonic goods.

Great anecdote.

Great anecdote.

especially this comment...... "general domestic 2 channel asswipes";)

especially this comment...... "general domestic 2 channel asswipes";)

That's an editorial.
The anecdote concerns the Tonmeister.

That's an editorial.
The anecdote concerns the Tonmeister.

Hmm I thought he was referring to gastroenterologists who fancied themselves as audiophiles ;)

Hmm I thought he was referring to gastroenterologists who fancied themselves as audiophiles ;)

...and get paid well to do so.

What is it with the number of doctors we get in here.

All we need is a Proctologist and thats us covered from mouth to sphincter.

Judging by half the shite that gets spewed on this forum, it may be hard to tell the difference with some people anyway.;)

Coldmachine, you have a brilliant way with words...

What is it with the number of doctors we get in here.

All we need is a Proctologist and thats us covered from mouth to sphincter.

Judging by half the shite that gets spewed on this forum, it may be hard to tell the difference with some people anyway.;)


I thought you were a doctor. Thanks for sharing;)

Coldmachine, you have a brilliant way with words...

Trash talking is a very undervalued art form.

Fortunately there are still some avenues where it has the standing it deserves.

I thought you were a doctor. Thanks for sharing;)

Looks like somebody farted and woke up the pussy plumber.:D

What is it with the number of doctors we get in here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lge2_H_8IQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lge2_H_8IQ


Tim...that is too funny. I remember that movie well

Looks like somebody farted and woke up the pussy plumber.:D

Hey, that's five minutes for unnecessary roughness
:D

I don't want to take this thread off-track, but I thought I'd mention that the Genelec guys stopped by our shop today and chatted with the boss and I for a bit.
We're going to head up to their HQ in Natick, MA in a couple of weeks for a demo. Should be fun!

Genelec is in MA? What models do they have on display there?

FYI, was just forwarded the new Kharma newsletter today. Apparently there is a new Grand GRAND Exquisite that appears to have been weaponized for home theater. Apparently it uses DIAMOND midranges if I'm reading it correctly, the largest diamond drivers on the planet and can handle 2x the power of the Accuton ceramic drivers:

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3594/image005eq7.jpg

Grand Grand Exquisite


______________________________________



Big, Bigger, Grand Grand

______________________________________



Some people are not easily satisfied. That's the people we like most.



For these few the Grand Grand Exquisite has been designed. This utmost top of the bill loudspeaker will give you the possibility to listen to and enjoy sound as nowhere, never before.



This ultra-ultra high-end speaker system will have the double power capacity of the Grand Exquisite and will be equipped with the largest Diamond cone units ever made for a loud*speaker.



As there is no substitute for the clarity and resolution and dynamics of a Diamond based system, this means, this speaker will be best speaker system in the World.



The internal wiring will be on a level never used before. The cross-over will be on a level never used before



The speakers can be highly individualised in terms of finish of cabinet, colours, wood,

Back into consideration...

Price... a cool £266,500!

Price... a cool £266,500!

That is not too much :D. Given this fact "the largest diamond drivers on the planet and can handle 2x the power of the Accuton ceramic drivers" people like Peter will fry these on a regular basis on warranty...

Shine on you crazy diamond...

That is not too much :D. Given this fact "the largest diamond drivers on the planet and can handle 2x the power of the Accuton ceramic drivers" people like Peter will fry these on a regular basis on warranty...

Well 2x the power would only mean another 3db of output, right?

The "ultra high-end" has become too crowded so they had to invent the "Ultra ultra high-end". :D