Who has auditioned the Kharma Grand Exquisite 7.1 Cinema Package? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 313 Old 02-05-2009, 09:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NIN74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Skoghall, va, Sweden
Posts: 3,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

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

Sound and video is not magic, it is pure physics. Physics that can be magical
NIN74 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 313 Old 02-05-2009, 02:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FrantzM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southeast FL, USA
Posts: 2,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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, let alone the formidable looking (and sounding) Evidence Center...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...

Frantz
FrantzM is offline  
post #93 of 313 Old 02-05-2009, 05:56 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: From Coconut Grove FL to the rest of the globe with TLC.
Posts: 12,683
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 209 Post(s)
Liked: 69
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.



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.



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.


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


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CINERAMAX is online now  
post #94 of 313 Old 02-05-2009, 06:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
syswei's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 1,100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

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/Default.asp?Id=281
syswei is offline  
post #95 of 313 Old 02-05-2009, 06:37 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: From Coconut Grove FL to the rest of the globe with TLC.
Posts: 12,683
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 209 Post(s)
Liked: 69
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?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CINERAMAX is online now  
post #96 of 313 Old 02-05-2009, 08:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #97 of 313 Old 02-05-2009, 08:37 PM
Member
 
AndrewChen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

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.
AndrewChen is offline  
post #98 of 313 Old 02-05-2009, 08:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It's not nonsense, it's basic physics and my considerable experience with digital active versus passive.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #99 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 12:21 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: From Coconut Grove FL to the rest of the globe with TLC.
Posts: 12,683
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 209 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

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.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CINERAMAX is online now  
post #100 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 03:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
syswei's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 1,100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

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/Def...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).
syswei is offline  
post #101 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 04:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
DulcetTones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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
DulcetTones is offline  
post #102 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 05:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coldmachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Waiting in the weeds
Posts: 5,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

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.

--------------------------------------------
"Wow, do you think you are Adonis"...... "Baby, I'm not A-donis, I'm THE-donis"
coldmachine is offline  
post #103 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 05:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
owl1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Boston Area
Posts: 842
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
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.
owl1 is offline  
post #104 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 05:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
DulcetTones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

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
DulcetTones is offline  
post #105 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 06:18 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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/produc...udspeaker.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/...tive-ds-a4.pdf

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #106 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 06:27 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: From Coconut Grove FL to the rest of the globe with TLC.
Posts: 12,683
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 209 Post(s)
Liked: 69
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.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CINERAMAX is online now  
post #107 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 06:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coldmachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Waiting in the weeds
Posts: 5,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

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.

--------------------------------------------
"Wow, do you think you are Adonis"...... "Baby, I'm not A-donis, I'm THE-donis"
coldmachine is offline  
post #108 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 06:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coldmachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Waiting in the weeds
Posts: 5,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

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.

--------------------------------------------
"Wow, do you think you are Adonis"...... "Baby, I'm not A-donis, I'm THE-donis"
coldmachine is offline  
post #109 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 06:46 AM
Advanced Member
 
Andreas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: HH, Germany
Posts: 902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
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.

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas is offline  
post #110 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 06:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
syswei's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 1,100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

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.
syswei is offline  
post #111 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 07:16 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: From Coconut Grove FL to the rest of the globe with TLC.
Posts: 12,683
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 209 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas View Post

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?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CINERAMAX is online now  
post #112 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 08:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

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

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #113 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 11:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
Andreas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: HH, Germany
Posts: 902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
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

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas is offline  
post #114 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 12:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NIN74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Skoghall, va, Sweden
Posts: 3,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by owl1 View Post

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.

Sound and video is not magic, it is pure physics. Physics that can be magical
NIN74 is offline  
post #115 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 12:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NIN74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Skoghall, va, Sweden
Posts: 3,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Peter, let me know if you are in Sweden sometime, I could show you some nice speakers then

Sound and video is not magic, it is pure physics. Physics that can be magical
NIN74 is offline  
post #116 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 03:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post

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.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #117 of 313 Old 02-06-2009, 06:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NIN74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Skoghall, va, Sweden
Posts: 3,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

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.

Sound and video is not magic, it is pure physics. Physics that can be magical
NIN74 is offline  
post #118 of 313 Old 02-07-2009, 02:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
Andreas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: HH, Germany
Posts: 902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
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 . 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 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.

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas is offline  
post #119 of 313 Old 02-07-2009, 07:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
Andreas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: HH, Germany
Posts: 902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11

LL

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas is offline  
post #120 of 313 Old 02-07-2009, 07:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.

John
Alimentall is offline  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off