My Journey to find the "perfect" speaker... - Page 198 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #5911 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 09:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CADOBHuK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Which advantages does Tikandi have over ht3a ?
Both use seas excel midrange, both have 10" woofers, tikandi has a ceramic dome, probably one of accutons like this one instead of aurum cantus ribbon. For that price they oughta use this one instead. Both use DEQX. Tikandi costs twice more. What did I miss?
CADOBHuK is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #5912 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 09:41 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Nuance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 11,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 58
John, you do realize I am not arguing the design, but rather your confidence in not needing to hear them, right?

I've read up on DEQX, but thanks. So basically you're telling my I could DEQX anything out there that uses "quality drivers and engineering" and it will sound good. After all, it "can fix large flaws." So I guess your holy grail speakers are WAY overpriced then, because there is a lot out there with quality engineering, build and drivers. I'll just pick up the least expensive version, get my own amps, add DEQX and call it a day, all while coming in way under 18K. Okay, so now I am knocking the design, or rather the ridiculous price. Without having actually listened to it, though, there is no way to tell if one likes it or not, at least the normal people.

Musical does not mean colored; colored means colored. Musical means that the speaker has the ability to accurately represent the live performance, thus allowing the listening to connect emotionally. You know - losing that boxiness so it sounds less like a speaker and more like the real thing. Clearly our definitions differ.

Hey, if that A4 breaks down maybe you could add DEQX to it - that'll fix it right up.

I will be waiting for the measurements.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 

 

No matter what measurements tell us, a loudspeaker isn’t good until it
sounds good. - Dr. Floyd Toole
Nuance is offline  
post #5913 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 09:44 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Nuance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 11,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOBHuK View Post

Which advantages does Tikandi have over ht3a ?
Both use seas excel midrange, both have 10" woofers, tikandi has a ceramic dome, probably one of accutons like this one instead of aurum cantus ribbon. For that price they oughta use this one instead. Both use DEQX. Tikandi costs twice more. What did I miss?

That is a fantastic question. I am sure John will answer it in his usual totally biased (towards his holy grail brands) manner.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 

 

No matter what measurements tell us, a loudspeaker isn’t good until it
sounds good. - Dr. Floyd Toole
Nuance is offline  
post #5914 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 09:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Grandarf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Swerdlow View Post

It is also my opinion that the crossover of the SSI is better than that in the Sierra-1. I should have said this instead of using the word "probably". This is based on my own listening and the various published frequency response curves for these two speakers.

The CAOW1 (a DIY design) and Salk SongSurroundI are not that different. They share the same woofers, tweeters, and cabinet design. Their crossovers are somewhat different. They share a similar crossover frequency, but the CAOW1 has 2nd order acoustic slopes, and the SSI has steeper 4th order slopes. I personally have trouble distinguishing between the sonic signatures of these two crossover slopes. Both crossovers were designed and "voiced" by the same person, and I regard them as sonic siblings.

I certainly don't want to offend any Ascend people or enthusiasts, and I'm sorry if my words may have done that.

Can you really compare the two? The crossover in the SSI is a simple Nth order crossover is it not? So are you not comparing apples and oranges when comparing it to the Sierra crossover?

Quote:


This is based on my own listening and the various published frequency response curves for these two speakers.

I think you're missing the fact that the Sierra crossover isn't a standard Nth order crossover like you see in 99.9% of speakers. Take a look of the measurements of the much cheaper Ascend speakers: 170SE or HTM200 measurements for example. Designing a flat FR isn't hard, I could do it with absolutely no knowledge about how exactly crossovers work just by downloading a free speaker design software and typing the driver parameters. So why isn't the Sierra absolutely flat then?

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/sho...ight=crossover

Quote:


This sophisticated variable slope crossover precisely aligns the acoustic phase response of multiple transducers at the exact point where the response of one transducer crosses over to another, with reference to a specific point in space. This precise alignment allows the transducers to mimic a single point source radiator, allowing for symmetrical dispersion even with an asymmetrical transducer layout while maintaining a linear frequency response and greatly reducing off-axis phase and response anomalies. It also avoids the undesirable frequency response anomalies commonly found with even the best coaxial drivers.
[...]
OPPIX also allows the Sierra to perform exceptionally well as a vertical or horizontal main and a vertical or horizontal center.

So I don't see how you can compare both together... The SSI might have a flatter FR, so does the 170SE or HTM200 FR, but none of these use the same type of crossover as the Sierra. Obviously Dave knows how to make speakers with flat FR responses, but this time looks like the design goals with the Sierra were different.

Also, how can you compare the crossovers from two different speakers using different woofers and tweeters? How do you know that what you're hearing isn't related to the different of tweeters or woofers? I'm not asking you as a accusation or anything, I'm just curious to know how exactly you can attribute anything you hear to the crossover!

I've never heard the SSI, so can't compare it to the Sierra, but again, speaker design is usually about compromises. Design goals, material cost, etc. The SSI and Sierras might be the same price but their goals differed; SSI as a surround probably has more limited bass, they use very different cabinets, finish, drivers, etc..
Grandarf is offline  
post #5915 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 09:50 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Nuance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 11,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by loopguru View Post

Tikandi

They sure are sexy to look at. Even my wife might give the WAF on those. Then she'd see the price and laugh at me. Unless I was rich, of course.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 

 

No matter what measurements tell us, a loudspeaker isn’t good until it
sounds good. - Dr. Floyd Toole
Nuance is offline  
post #5916 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 09:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dennis Murphy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

That is a fantastic question. I am sure John will answer it in his usual totally biased (towards his holy grail brands) manner.

I agree the dude is too confident. But just so the forest doesn't get lost here, there's no question that passive crossover designer relics like me will be out of business in a few years. DEQX-type active optimization circuits are inherently superior in their ability to target transfer functions accurately and adjust for phase shifts. The question now is cost and complexity. But that will get worked out, and I'll go out and buy new speakers (after listening, of course).
Dennis Murphy is offline  
post #5917 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 10:05 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 CADOBHuK View Post

Which advantages does Tikandi have over ht3a ? Both use DEQX. Tikandi costs twice more. What did I miss?

Acoustic suspension bass, dual woofers per speaker w/force cancellation design, pistonic tweeter (for some reason, DEQX seems to do better with this type of driver). The DEQX/amp package that drives these is something like $8K-$10K, so I don't see how they're twice the price of the HT3 package.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #5918 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Tawaun da bomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Lakewood,California
Posts: 2,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

The funny thing is, if you talk to Seas....you know, the guys that "engineered" the rigid tweeter in the NHT Classic series that you loved so much, they consider a soft dome they manufacture a better tweeter.

Short memory John, that certainly isn't how you started all of this.

Thats because the SEAS Exel will smoke the silver off that tin can its a reason why SEAS says that. The SEAS Exel is the only dome tweeter no matter what the material used that I've ever heard sound as good as a good ribbon,no Be tweeter has ever been close to my ears.
Tawaun da bomb is offline  
post #5919 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 10:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Grandarf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Murphy View Post

I agree the dude is too confident. But just so the forest doesn't get lost here, there's no question that passive crossover designer relics like me will be out of business in a few years. DEQX-type active optimization circuits are inherently superior in their ability to target transfer functions accurately and adjust for phase shifts. The question now is cost and complexity. But that will get worked out, and I'll go out and buy new speakers (after listening, of course).

How do current active speakers fit into this DEQX? I know many active speakers are actually cheaper than passive speakers (check out Dynaudios pro vs consumer)... How do these differ from DEQX? Reading a bit on it, http://www.deqx.com/technology.php, seems like DEQX goes a bit farther than just managing speaker (drivers) and gets into room correction and stuff.

Do current mainstream/cheap active monitors go a step farther than passive speakers? Adding a few extra corrections not possible with passive? Or are they just simply powered version of passive speakers?
Grandarf is offline  
post #5920 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 10:07 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Nuance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 11,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Enough already about the differences between the SSI's and the Sierra's. We like what we like and have already explained why. Take the conversation to PM's if you want to discuss the different technology involved. Or, those interested could just order a par of each, compare in their homes and then return the loser. Win win.

Please - I don't want to see this conversation start up again. It's pointless because it's just opinions being wildly thrown around. I am sure they are both wonderful speakers, but they obviously sound different and the choice is up to the listener. Any more discussion- take it to PM, as it's all been said already here.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 

 

No matter what measurements tell us, a loudspeaker isn’t good until it
sounds good. - Dr. Floyd Toole
Nuance is offline  
post #5921 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 10:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Tawaun da bomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Lakewood,California
Posts: 2,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

You are ignorant and foolish. Sorry, I couldn't resist that open invitation. Confidence is a great thing to have, but it won't tell a person what a speaker will sound like in his or her room, even if they can EQ it. One should still hear what they are starting with.

Which A4? If you do some research you find out that the turbo diesel version of the motor (the smallest one I believe) has inherent engine problems. I suspect that is why they released the RS4 in the U.S. It's what the car was suppose to be. So, in the case of your analogy you're paying more money to hide the crapiness of a product. For all you know, the crossover could be highly flawed on your new "holy grail" and the DEQX was added to improve the sound in your room. But just because the DEQX is there doesn't mean the speaker isn't flawed in some way, nor does it mean everyone who listens will find it to be musical, accurate and will connect with it emotionally, even if DEQX is applied. There is no substitue for actually listening, preferably in your own room. Otherwise we might as well not have ears and just stare amusingly at speaker measurements and pretty cabinets saying"Yes sir, I am confident my speaker sounds good, even though I've never heard it."

I do think DEQX is something that can add to the listening experience, as fine tuning a speaker to your needs is a great thing to have. However, listening is still necessary because even DEQX can't fix large flaws. Have you seen measurements to prove this "holy grail" is without these flaws? If so, share them with the rest of us dude. Still, measurements alone to not a good speaker make.

Finally, buying the RS4 because you liked how the A4 drove is foolish. The suspension is different, the power is different, the handling is different and the weight has changed. The car will certainly not drive the same way the A4 did.

I can build a A4 with the 1.8T that will blow the doors off of any RS4,and not have a car payment to boot,a GT35R will take care of that light work real fast literaly.
Tawaun da bomb is offline  
post #5922 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 10:18 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 Grandarf View Post

How do current active speakers fit into this DEQX? I know many active speakers are actually cheaper than passive speakers (check out Dynaudios pro vs consumer)... How do these differ from DEQX? Reading a bit on it, http://www.deqx.com/technology.php, seems like DEQX goes a bit farther than just managing speaker (drivers) and gets into room correction and stuff.

Do current mainstream/cheap active monitors go a step farther than passive speakers? Adding a few extra corrections not possible with passive? Or are they just simply powered version of passive speakers?

Digital active on the cheap:

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/Genera...px?FId=7&MId=5

And as you mentioned, Dynaudio:

http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/Def...510&AjrNwsPg=1

Neither goes as far as DEQX in terms of room correction etc., but then they do cost less.
syswei is offline  
post #5923 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 10:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Grandarf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by syswei View Post

Digital active on the cheap:

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/Genera...px?FId=7&MId=5

And as you mentioned, Dynaudio:

http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/Def...510&AjrNwsPg=1

Yeah there's a lot... Mackie, Genelec, K&H, etc. But are those usually just active 'passive' speakers, or do they feature extra corrections/benefits vs passive? (steeper FR slopes, time domain correction, phase, or I don't know what else... Maybe driver sensitivity corrections, FR corrections, etc..)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Enough already about the differences between the SSI's and the Sierra's. We like what we like and have already explained why. Take the conversation to PM's if you want to discuss the different technology involved.

The problem is that it hasn't been answered cschang inquired about some aspects but most hasn't been answered... I think you're making an issue with your self designated thread policing where there really is none. (no offense!!! PM me for comments plz not to derail this anymore)
Grandarf is offline  
post #5924 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 10:33 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Nuance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 11,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

Yeah there's a lot... Mackie, Genelec, K&H, etc. But are those usually just active 'passive' speakers, or do they feature extra corrections/benefits vs passive? (steeper FR slopes, time domain correction, phase, or I don't know what else... Maybe driver sensitivity corrections, FR corrections, etc..)




The problem is that it hasn't been answered cschang inquired about some aspects but most hasn't been answered... I think you're making an issue with your self designated thread policing where there really is none. (no offense!!! PM me for comments plz not to derail this anymore)

I am designating thread policy because I've received PM's about that very conversation from both parties and others. Both of those guys took it to PM, so please do the same. Thanks dude. You could, of course, post in the Salk or Sierra thread too, as it would be more appropriate. Heck, even start your own thread. Honestly, I wouldn't mind the conversation back here, but as long as it was kept civil. Still, the other two guys have wrapped things up via PM, so there really is no point.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 

 

No matter what measurements tell us, a loudspeaker isn’t good until it
sounds good. - Dr. Floyd Toole
Nuance is offline  
post #5925 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 10:37 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 Grandarf View Post

Yeah there's a lot... Mackie, Genelec, K&H, etc. But are those usually just active 'passive' speakers, or do they feature extra corrections/benefits vs passive? (steeper FR slopes, time domain correction, phase, or I don't know what else... Maybe driver sensitivity corrections, FR corrections, etc..)


Some of the JBL and Dynaudio models, such as those posted, allow digital input and also have some room correction capabilities.

There are some other brands that have some digital-input models, but I think without room correction. Focal Pro offers particularly good value vs its consumer line, if one is interested in Be tweeters.
syswei is offline  
post #5926 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 10:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dennis Murphy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

Yeah there's a lot... Mackie, Genelec, K&H, etc. But are those usually just active 'passive' speakers, or do they feature extra corrections/benefits vs passive? (steeper FR slopes, time domain correction, phase, or I don't know what else... Maybe driver sensitivity corrections, FR corrections, etc..)

I didn't see any prices on those, but someone did send be one of the JBL's to test. I liked it better than other passives he sent me--it still didn't quite have as high a level of driver integration as I like, but that wasn't inherent in the active approach. In any event, these designs don't have the bells and whistles of a DEQX. No bass EQ or overall EQ, no phase and time correction. Driver sensitivity adjust is no problem with a passive, assuming the mids and tweets are more sensitive than the woofer.
Dennis Murphy is offline  
post #5927 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 11:02 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 Nuance View Post

John, you do realize I am not arguing the design, but rather your confidence in not needing to hear them, right?

If you lived with DEQX as I have and the Xd system as I have, you would understand my confidence. And this isn't some DIY guy turned speaker designer doing this speaker, he's a serious engineer with a PhD and he's using all the right design and has all the right facilities to make the speaker work as it should.
Quote:



I've read up on DEQX, but thanks.

Maybe, but it's clear you don't understand what it does or how well it does it
Quote:



So basically you're telling my I could DEQX anything out there that uses "quality drivers and engineering" and it will sound good.

After all, it "can fix large flaws." [/quote]

Well, let me put it this way - it can side step about half the flaws in a speaker and put a helluva bandaid on the other half.
Quote:



So I guess your holy grail speakers are WAY overpriced then, because there is a lot out there with quality engineering, build and drivers. I'll just pick up the least expensive version, get my own amps, add DEQX and call it a day, all while coming in way under 18K.

Actually, I'd argue that there is *not* a lot out there with quality engineering, build and drivers. And even fewer that are fully optimized for DEQX - rigid drivers, proportional drivers, 3-way design, acoustic suspension, etc, etc. But, yes, if you have the time and energy, you could go out, buy the drivers, build the cabinets, rent an acoustic chamber and do all the measurement and have yourself a heckuva a speaker. But it wouldn't save you *that* much if you try to do it on this kind of level.
Quote:



Okay, so now I am knocking the design, or rather the ridiculous price.

Let's be honest, the price is only ridiculous because you can't afford it.
Quote:



Without having actually listened to it, though, there is no way to tell if one likes it or not, at least the normal people.

Having had the benefit of selling and installing DEQX and using it with a variety of speaker designs and technologies and having the experience of selling and owning Xd, I am not exactly 'normal'.
Quote:



Musical does not mean colored; colored means colored. Musical means that the speaker has the ability to accurately represent the live performance, thus allowing the listening to connect emotionally. You know - losing that boxiness so it sounds less like a speaker and more like the real thing. Clearly our definitions differ.

Well, at least you think you know what musical means. There are few recorded live performances unless you listen to classical all the time, for one thing. For another, if the speaker has to sound a particular way for you to connect to music emotionally, I'd take a self-examination. All speakers have coloration. Some are enjoyable on some music, some are just plain objectionable. Musical simply means you like the colorations you bought. I prefer to think in terms of levels of increasing transparency. In reality, there is no such thing as a 'good sounding' speaker, there are just less destructive ones and more destructive ones. Digital active design is really the next way of getting to the next level of transparency. Eventually, all serious high-end speakers will use it. And the speakers today that use it will be a whole lot closer in transparency to those speakers than those that don't.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #5928 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 11:08 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 Tawaun da bomb View Post

Thats because the SEAS Exel will smoke the silver off that tin can its a reason why SEAS says that. The SEAS Exel is the only dome tweeter no matter what the material used that I've ever heard sound as good as a good ribbon,no Be tweeter has ever been close to my ears.

Do you even know what a cymbal sounds like in real life? Have you ever taken a marketing or business course? Companies say a lot of things and a lot of people believe them. Though, I may agree with out about Be. I don't seem to truly love it in the iterations I've heard and I don't know why. There is more resolution it seems, but I don't think anyone's properly integrated one yet. I'm very happy with the current state of aluminum tweeters and companies downplay their capabilities because they are so cheap to make and sell. But make ring radiators or other versions of soft domes, say they're the best and you can charge $hundreds for them. SEAS can't make money selling excellent, well engineered aluminum domes *because* they are so easy to make and perform so well.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #5929 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 11:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Grandarf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Nuance: ok np

Dennis: Yeah I guess going active doesn't automatically mean it's better... http://www.klein-hummel.com/klein-hu...onitors_O110D# $899.00 The O300 is about 2200$. Heard the 300 briefly it's definitely is not a bad speaker. (Not commenting directly on its price/performance vs others just not bad overall, which you should expect for >2000$). Still again, for 900$ looks decent, should be interesting to compare to similarly price speakers. A Mackie was positively compared to Sierra, and they used to be similarly priced.

Anyhow, says for the 110D of "Active 24 dB/oct. slope crossover", seems to me that going active could add some extra corrections not possible with passive, doesn't seem like many cheap monitors do so (time domain, phase, just throwing these 2 out there but I have no concrete idea how much effect/necessity there would be). But again, just active has its advantages... Maybe they inherently don't require phase/time domain corrections with active crossovers...
Grandarf is offline  
post #5930 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 11:28 AM
Senior Member
 
jd_cincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Unfortunately due to short notice, I was unable to head up to Michigan to the GTG today. I did, however, take the advice of some forum members and audition some loudspeakers at a local retailer.

They carry Paradigm and Klipsch (not a Klipsch fan personally, but I do understand the attraction they have to some). I took my own demo material, have been using mostly the same selection for 10 years.

I went in specifically looking for a booksehlf (Studio 40 or 20) to pair with my SVS PB13U, but also wanted to audition floorstanders.

First up were the Studio 60's. Decent bass response and clear high end, but found the midrange to be muddy. We went to another room to check out the Studio 100's, the difference in the midrange was incredible. All Studio line loudspeakers contain identical drivers, the differences are apparently the cabinet size, # of bass drivers and (I didn't know this going in there) the crossover. After listening to a single track, I asked the salesman if the crossovers were different and he confirmed the suspicion. The midrange vocals and sax in Pink Floyd - Money were head and shoulders clearer and more refined than the 60's. They made the choice of using 500hz as the crossover point on their 2-way design. Isn't that well into the human voice range? The crossover on the 100 is at 300.

Next I asked the salesman to try out the 20's and Sig S2's along with a subwoofer to see if I could create a similar sound to the 100's. This was not the case... Even the S2's, while an improvement over the 20's in terms of mid and high range clarity, were not a match for the 100's. If you were very limited on space, I would consider the S2's, but if that is of no concern (pricewise very similar), I would always go with the 100's.

Biggest complaint I have regarding the Paradigms is gigantic monstrous center channels...
jd_cincy is offline  
post #5931 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 12:03 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Nuance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 11,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 58
John, if you are going to be rude take it somewhere else. There is no need for that. And stop with the wild assumptions. I agree with you on many points, but I still think it's unwise to purchase, especially one of that caliber, without having listened first.

To prove there is no hard feelings, tell me more about DEQX. I already know what the technology does, but you say I don't understand (which I do), so please enlighten me. One thing I actually don't know is if it can be applied to any speaker in existence or only certain ones. Also, what's the price?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 

 

No matter what measurements tell us, a loudspeaker isn’t good until it
sounds good. - Dr. Floyd Toole
Nuance is offline  
post #5932 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 12:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cschang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 14,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_cincy View Post

I went in specifically looking for a booksehlf (Studio 40 or 20) to pair with my SVS PB13U, but also wanted to audition floorstanders.

First up were the Studio 60's. Decent bass response and clear high end, but found the midrange to be muddy. We went to another room to check out the Studio 100's, the difference in the midrange was incredible. All Studio line loudspeakers contain identical drivers, the differences are apparently the cabinet size, # of bass drivers and (I didn't know this going in there) the crossover. After listening to a single track, I asked the salesman if the crossovers were different and he confirmed the suspicion. The midrange vocals and sax in Pink Floyd - Money were head and shoulders clearer and more refined than the 60's. They made the choice of using 500hz as the crossover point on their 2-way design. Isn't that well into the human voice range? The crossover on the 100 is at 300.

Next I asked the salesman to try out the 20's and Sig S2's along with a subwoofer to see if I could create a similar sound to the 100's. This was not the case... Even the S2's, while an improvement over the 20's in terms of mid and high range clarity, were not a match for the 100's. If you were very limited on space, I would consider the S2's, but if that is of no concern (pricewise very similar), I would always go with the 100's.

Be careful when comparing different speakers in different rooms and equipment even in a shop. Do you know if the material you listen to in the rooms was level matched, and equipment set up the same?

Here is what Paradigm lists as the crossover points for various products:

Studio 20
2nd-order electro-acoustic at 2.0 kHz

Studio 60
2nd-order electro-acoustic at 2.0 kHz, 2nd-order electro-acoustic at 500 Hz (lower bass driver)

Studio 100
3rd-order electro-acoustic at 2.0 kHz, 3rd-order electro-acoustic at 300 Hz (bass drivers)

S2
3rd-order electro-acoustic at 1.9 kHz

-curtis

Owner of
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Volunteer Mod at the
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Like all things on the Internet, do your research, as forums have a good amount of misinformation.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

cschang is offline  
post #5933 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 12:16 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Nuance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 11,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_cincy View Post

Unfortunately due to short notice, I was unable to head up to Michigan to the GTG today. I did, however, take the advice of some forum members and audition some loudspeakers at a local retailer.

They carry Paradigm and Klipsch (not a Klipsch fan personally, but I do understand the attraction they have to some). I took my own demo material, have been using mostly the same selection for 10 years.

I went in specifically looking for a booksehlf (Studio 40 or 20) to pair with my SVS PB13U, but also wanted to audition floorstanders.

First up were the Studio 60's. Decent bass response and clear high end, but found the midrange to be muddy. We went to another room to check out the Studio 100's, the difference in the midrange was incredible. All Studio line loudspeakers contain identical drivers, the differences are apparently the cabinet size, # of bass drivers and (I didn't know this going in there) the crossover. After listening to a single track, I asked the salesman if the crossovers were different and he confirmed the suspicion. The midrange vocals and sax in Pink Floyd - Money were head and shoulders clearer and more refined than the 60's. They made the choice of using 500hz as the crossover point on their 2-way design. Isn't that well into the human voice range? The crossover on the 100 is at 300.

Next I asked the salesman to try out the 20's and Sig S2's along with a subwoofer to see if I could create a similar sound to the 100's. This was not the case... Even the S2's, while an improvement over the 20's in terms of mid and high range clarity, were not a match for the 100's. If you were very limited on space, I would consider the S2's, but if that is of no concern (pricewise very similar), I would always go with the 100's.

Biggest complaint I have regarding the Paradigms is gigantic monstrous center channels...

Thanks for sharing your impressions, as this is what this thread is suppose to be about. So the Studio 100 is your front runner, eh? It was also my front runner early in my journey. Very cool!

Do you plan to audition anything else, or did the Studio 100's "do it" for you?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 

 

No matter what measurements tell us, a loudspeaker isn’t good until it
sounds good. - Dr. Floyd Toole
Nuance is offline  
post #5934 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 12:57 PM
Senior Member
 
jd_cincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Thanks for sharing your impressions, as this is what this thread is suppose to be about. So the Studio 100 is your front runner, eh? It was also my front runner early in my journey. Very cool!

Do you plan to audition anything else, or did the Studio 100's "do it" for you?

After a quick check on the Paradigm forum, I saw that the Studio line is soon to be refreshed. I really do like the speakers, but hate to buy something on the way out (unless of course the run some type of clearance pricing that just couldn't be passed up).

To cschang's point, the hardware was not identical, next time I'm back in the store, I'll ask to move the 100's into the other room for an apples to apples check.

As far as auditioning other speakers, that's going to take some road trips. Pretty limited selection here in Columbus at my price point.
jd_cincy is offline  
post #5935 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 01:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cschang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 14,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 77
also need to make sure the subwoofer is integrated properly, as well as level match the speaker sets.....ie. when you are comparing, you are listening to material at the same volume levels.

-curtis

Owner of
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Volunteer Mod at the
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Like all things on the Internet, do your research, as forums have a good amount of misinformation.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

cschang is offline  
post #5936 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 02:35 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 Nuance View Post

John, if you are going to be rude take it somewhere else. There is no need for that. And stop with the wild assumptions. I agree with you on many points, but I still think it's unwise to purchase, especially one of that caliber, without having listened first.

Well, all I'm saying is that if you understand a design enough and trust the source, it's not always so dangerous. I've done a lot of educated blind purchases in my life and have rarely been disappointed. Just brought in PSB's new $2000 Imagine speaker sound unheard and was pleasantly surprised.
Quote:

To prove there is no hard feelings, tell me more about DEQX. I already know what the technology does, but you say I don't understand (which I do), so please enlighten me. One thing I actually don't know is if it can be applied to any speaker in existence or only certain ones. Also, what's the price?

Okay, I'll try to keep it brief (ish) and apologies if I came to believe you didn't understand DEQX, but you did imply that it was simply a FR correction device used in conjunction with the speaker's own crossover. DEQX *can* be used as a simple FR corrector but that's not what makes it special. It's main purpose is to optimize the signal going to each driver and then use its crossover functions to blend them together after the drivers are behaving as close to idea as they can.

Crossover - 3-way 24dB-300dB/octave digital - this means you don't have to run a big signal though a bunch of capacitors, inductors and resistors. There's no heat/efficiency loss, each driver is hooked directly to an amp. There's no impedance based crossover modulation. No compression from heat build up in the crossovers.

Steep filter usage - If you increase the filter slopes, which isn't always necessary, you can get lower motor distortion from the midrange and tweeter as they work less hard at higher outputs. It also helps filter cone resonances from the woofer and midrange, giving them more resolution, less fuzz, less fatigue. But even better, it removes most of the audible acoustic interference between two adjacent drivers. The sound gets much clearer, upper midrange dispersion can actually be increased/smoothed and you can get a much wider soundstage and sweetspot at the same time.

Impulse response correction - This does FR/time/phase correction on each driver before it gets handed off to the crossover. This means that you can correct FR problems not easily or transparently correctable with passive crossovers and make sure that each driver is time/phase aligned so that it does not cause peaks and dips at the listening position from driver overlap, even without physically time aligning the drivers.

Here's a perfect example of an engineering problem from the $22K B&W 800D speakers. They want wide dispersion from a big driver, so they do the FST design which allows high frequencies to come from the center of the cone. I don't agree with that solution, but it is what it is. But then, FST can't move much air down low, so the woofers have to go high in frequency, well above the ~400Hz crossover. This means they have to use well behaved, low resonance drivers, rather than metal which was their stated preference. The FST also has a lot of color to the sound from resonance, so they either have to cut it off, going into the tweeter sharply, which creates a discontinuous sound, or let alot of that flavor in, but blend it over a longer range with the pistonic, low coloration diamond tweeter. They chose the latter, with a 1st order crossover - this means a high 4kHZ crossover to maintain dynamic range (or blow expensive tweeters). They go into great detail about the challenges of getting all this right, even in a $22K speaker.

Now look at the Tikandi. The W15 midrange has very great dispersion up into the early to mid 2000s, but gets a bit crazy near 5kHz absolutely berserk around 10kHZ. No problem, simply cut off the FR in the 2kHz-2.5kHz range at 96dB/octave and nothing about about 4kHz or so gets to the driver to cause it to misbehave. Now you have wide dispersion, wider and smoother than the B&W solution, but with far more resolution as it is very pistonic in the range it is handling, meaning very little resonance, just music. But now the tweeter has to go lower. But that's okay, because while the tweeter goes lower, it is much more protected from sub-2kHz frequencies because the filter is 16 times as good at removing frequencies - kind of like the Veyron which can beat a Ferrari even if the Ferrari has a head start. And the Tikandi's midrange can go much lower in frequencies because of the sharper crossover, which allows for the side mounted force cancellation subs.

So, the normal 3-way speaker gives up a lot - to get upper midrange dispersion, you give up low midrange quality or vice versa. In order to get dynamic range up high, you allow midrange resonances to creep in and dispersion to narrow, or to avoid that, you give up some dynamics and run the tweeter lower. You want resolution, but you often give that up to lower fatigue factor by using lossier, well behaved midrange and bass driver. Even if you keep up the dispersion, you still have dispersion problems in the vertical domain and lobing that makes the vertical sweetspot narrow and the reflected sound completely unnatural sounding. You want a driver that has flat FR but getting that, plus dynamic range and low resonance and other good behaviors is tough, so you have to compromise. And other stuff.

With a DEQXed 3-way, you can stop worrying about reasonable FR errors because they can be EQed before even hitting the crossover, perhaps a wonderful tweeter with an annoying bulge in the middle of its response. So now you can focus on low distortion, dynamic range and other important issues in a driver. You can take a high resolution driver that would be fatiguing in a low order system and get the resolution while chopping off the fatigue. You can run the tweeter low for wide dispersion and good integration, while still maintaining high output and low distortion. You can simply side step vertical domain lobing issues. You can use a very quick, very precise acoustic suspension driver that is higher or lower efficiency without having to padding down it or the other drivers to match and EQ it to flat down low. The drivers behave in a more linear fashion because there's no interactivity with the crossover. You can use very rigid drivers because you can ditch the resonance, which means that the sonic signatures of all the drivers are all lower and also more alike, which means a better blend even with sharper crossovers - there's little to no coloration to blend out - all while maintaining smoother dispersion in the horizontal and vertical domains.

In effect, you can have less compressed/more dynamic sound, higher resolution, lower fatigue, bigger sweetspot, bigger soundstage, better driver integration, higher SPL all simultaneously because you have more 'degrees of freedom' in the design process, some of which offer cascading benefits.

Now, taking any old speaker and DEQXing it (yes, any 2-way or 3-way will do), you can get better FR, generally +/-.5dB-1dB, improved dispersion, improved integration. Like my 20-year old Thiel project. The woofer just didn't blend with midrange and the sound was forward and tubby down low. Very easily, DEQX allowed me to lower the crossover region for the woofer/midrange, run it 10 times steeper with no added time/phase problems and get a seamless blend. Treble sounded better, but not that good, so I dropped some Morel tweeters in, soft dome unfortunately, but the only ones that would fit. Big improvement and easy blend. Ooops, I just ran my screwdriver through the woofer (yep, I did that), so I grab very inefficient NHT 10" woofers and drop them in. Crossover comes down a bit, the woofers get jacked up about 4 or 5dB to make the proper blend, but another huge difference, now we actually have a lot more wallop down low. This 20 year old Thiel now would devastate a brand new Thiel, certainly in terms of resolution, sweetspot, low fatigue, enjoyability. I did a B&W 602, a speaker I've never much liked. Now suddenly it's better than every other 2-way I sell. Smoother, more integrated, more resolving, decent bass for a change and actual imaging/soundstaging. Even B&W fans are blown away by the difference. Etc, etc, etc.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #5937 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 02:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
mziegler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
John: It would be nice to actually know enough to say anything about your post.

AVS: Where everything you write will be used against you.
mziegler is offline  
post #5938 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 05:00 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
Yeah, sorry, I was trying to be as straight as possible but it just gets harder and harder.

Let me put it this way. Designing a speaker is the art of compromise, where you're juggling 20 or 30 (more, really) parameters and goals and each attempt to fix one problem has consequences in other areas, occasionally good, but usually bad. So you tweak and tweak and tweak until you give up, bring it to market, then start working on it again. With digital and DEQX specifically, you can actually solve some of these problems without impacting other areas except in maybe very minor ways, making it actually easier to address the remaining ones. So, if you can remove 10 out of 30 problems completely and better address another 10 than you could with passive crossovers, then you can focus on the remaining 10 issues without having to screw up the other 20. It just makes it easier to take it to the next level. I mean, Dennis obviously understand this all too well, more than I do and manages to work and work until he gets everything working right. DEQX makes that job faster, easier, better. At this point, it's really just the added price because it if cost the same as a passive crossover, passive crossovers wouldn't exist. OTOH, time to market can be significantly shortened AND you can tweak the speaker after you've sold it with a simple software upgrade. DEQX supposedly just finalized new licensing agreements that will allow more companies to use DEQX for less money to produce active speakers that normal people can actually afford. There's no reason why a DEQX processor/amp combo couldn't eventually be made for the same price as a typical surround receiver, say $1000 or $2000 at most. Add that to a $3000 tower speaker and you're almost in that 'best it can be' category. There is no doubt that the $5000/pr digital speakers of tomorrow will just flat out bloody the $100K+ speakers of today (heck, I'd say they already do in most ways).

FWIW, I'd buy a pair of DEQXed HT3s sound unheard as well. No hesitation. I don't know if I'd do the passive version sound unheard because I don't know just how good Dennis is or if his goals are the same as mine, but if he can get close to the DEQXed versions, heck, maybe I'd buy them the same way. Don't a lot of people buy Salk speakers sound unheard?

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #5939 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 05:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dennis Murphy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 145
[quote=Alimentall;FWIW, I'd buy a pair of DEQXed HT3s sound unheard as well. No hesitation. I don't know if I'd do the passive version sound unheard because I don't know just how good Dennis is or if his goals are the same as mine, but if he can get close to the DEQXed versions, heck, maybe I'd buy them the same way. Don't a lot of people buy Salk speakers sound unheard?[/QUOTE]

Again, I don't really disagree with you about the superior flexibility possible with DEQX-type machines. But I do know that if you start with high quality drivers that don't have weird peaks that can't be deat with using a simple trap circuit, it's possible to match the sound of the DEQX, or at least come close enough that most listeners could not pass a blind test. Actually, that's wrong--the DEQX can fix room bass peaks (and so can much cheaper devices). Aside from room effects, Jim and I strained to hear a difference between the HT3 and the HT3A. We finally decided that there was a bit more presence in the DEQX in the upper midbass. I switched the bass-mid cross to second order acoustic, and that fixed that (this was a long time ago). We could hear no advantage to whatever phase correction DEQX was implementing, and this has been my experience in other demonstrations. There is a theoretical advantage, but the real world advantage just hasn't been substantiated yet. Still--if the price were much lower, and I thought people would put up with the added complexity, I would recommend that Jim switch out of passive Dennis to Active DEQX.
Dennis Murphy is offline  
post #5940 of 6914 Old 01-10-2009, 05:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
theelviscerator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Elkhart,IN
Posts: 647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Do people looking for the perfect speaker first make sure they have a perfect ear?

I am no longer able to watch a movie. I am monitoring a video display with regards to chroma, brightness, contrast and correct pulldown.
theelviscerator is offline  
Reply Speakers

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