or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › What does jim holtz mini statements speakers compare to commercially?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What does jim holtz mini statements speakers compare to commercially? - Page 3

post #61 of 197
oh i see. so the statements are not best fitted for home theater setup?

i thought good speakers are still good, regardless?
post #62 of 197
no i have the full size statement and they are killer in ht and music its no nonsense design the statements will run you about 1500 you cant just add up the cost of drivers and crossovers alot more goes into the cost
post #63 of 197
1,500 now that's costly.
post #64 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by phenosity View Post

the statements will run you about 1500 you cant just add up the cost of drivers and crossovers alot more goes into the cost

Well, that depends on things like DIY experience and equipment. It's a case-by-case situation. Component cost is around $800 so I think $700 for other costs is stretching it.

Quote:


oh i see. so the statements are not best fitted for home theater setup?

i thought good speakers are still good, regardless?

Certainly. But the statements are a full range passive 3-way speaker.

A lot of us here at AVS prefer the pro-sound approach for powerful dynamics. These are normally 2-ways with larger, powerful speakers using with acoustic elegance, B&C, Beyma, JBL, etc drivers and constant directivity crossovers/horns to take away side wall reflections.

Most of those speakers usually only have bass down to 80hz if that. By pairing it actively to multiple subwoofers, we get smooth, deep bass. Above that, many have powerful uncompressed dynamics which shine not only in movies, but in music listening as well presuming good design.

Personally I don't think most 3-way speakers should be passive. I mean power to anyone building something excellent like statements, but even the statements use iron core inductors. Maybe it's me buying into snake oil but I feel passive inductors should be air core - and cost of air cores at these frequencies flies through the roof as guage must be lower to keep resistance negligible with the high values. I mean modern iron cores can handle a ton of power but my perhaps irrational position is that bass crossovers be digitally active.

The statements are likely a great speaker for both home theater and music. I'm sure you'll love them if you choose to build them. But they're a bit redundant to pair with a sub IMHO. In fact if a speaker isn't rolling off 12db/octave below the sub crossover frequency, you need to set it as "large" else you won't have a smooth bass transition with most receiver-based sub THX style crossovers.

The main thing is that many - of course not all - hi-fi oriented people naturally don't want subs, which require additional electronics "messing up the signal" by their view. They want something which can be driven from a 2 channel esoteric pre-amp to magic interconnects to 30 watt tube monoblocks to magic speaker cable.

Here, digitally crossed multiple subs are both accepted and loved. EQ is not an evil - especially not the FIR filters many modern EQs like the SVS unit use.
post #65 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by phenosity View Post

no i have the full size statement and they are killer in ht and music its no nonsense design the statements will run you about 1500 you cant just add up the cost of drivers and crossovers alot more goes into the cost

Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post

1,500 now that's costly.

Not really when you compare them to Ascend Towers and Salk Songtowers that turn out to be $2k or more. Many people use those for dual purpose HT/music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Well, that depends on things like DIY experience and equipment. It's a case-by-case situation. Component cost is around $800 so I think $700 for other costs is stretching it.



Certainly. But the statements are a full range passive 3-way speaker.

A lot of us here at AVS prefer the pro-sound approach for powerful dynamics. These are normally 2-ways with larger, powerful speakers using with acoustic elegance, B&C, Beyma, JBL, etc drivers and constant directivity crossovers/horns to take away side wall reflections.

Most of those speakers usually only have bass down to 80hz if that. By pairing it actively to multiple subwoofers, we get smooth, deep bass. Above that, many have powerful uncompressed dynamics which shine not only in movies, but in music listening as well presuming good design.

Personally I don't think most 3-way speakers should be passive. I mean power to anyone building something excellent like statements, but even the statements use iron core inductors. Maybe it's me buying into snake oil but I feel passive inductors should be air core - and cost of air cores at these frequencies flies through the roof as guage must be lower to keep resistance negligible with the high values. I mean modern iron cores can handle a ton of power but my perhaps irrational position is that bass crossovers be digitally active.

The statements are likely a great speaker for both home theater and music. I'm sure you'll love them if you choose to build them. But they're a bit redundant to pair with a sub IMHO. In fact if a speaker isn't rolling off 12db/octave below the sub crossover frequency, you need to set it as "large" else you won't have a smooth bass transition with most receiver-based sub THX style crossovers.

The main thing is that many - of course not all - hi-fi oriented people naturally don't want subs, which require additional electronics "messing up the signal" by their view. They want something which can be driven from a 2 channel esoteric pre-amp to magic interconnects to 30 watt tube monoblocks to magic speaker cable.

Here, digitally crossed multiple subs are both accepted and loved. EQ is not an evil - especially not the FIR filters many modern EQs like the SVS unit use.

I'm quite sure many people use Statements for HT since a center version exists. 2 channel audiophiles you speak of wouldn't use a center channel nor would they ever design one. I do agree with you on that many people here prefer the pro sound with the constant directivity etc. and whatnot.

I'm not sure what you mean by needing to set the speakers to large. What would happen if these speakers were set to small and coupled with bass bins/subs on my Denon 3311? Would I be better served with the full sized statements + sub(single) or the sealed statements + bass bins (dual subs) or full statements + sub (multiples)?

Maybe it's the fact that I've yet to hear a good sub, but my experience thus far with music is that full range speakers sound much cleaner than speaker + dedicated sub. Maybe if I were to obtain one of these I'd quickly change my mind. Thus far, I'm imagining sealed statements sitting on top of one of those subs, but I'm not sure how'd that work. I'd think the LMS 5400 would rattle the poor statements apart eventually unless I isolate the two somehow.
post #66 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post

wow...those statements look great.

how come no one building them here? is it the price?

from what i've read, a pair of mini statements should be around $600?

There are many people here that I have built them.

I plan to in the future.
post #67 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post
oh i see. so the statements are not best fitted for home theater setup?

i thought good speakers are still good, regardless?
They are great speakers but not the best HT performance choices.

They need room to breath in room too, if someone loves 2 channel listening then the statements would rock but if its a custom HT room I would recommend designs that have directivity and the woofers that actually can play the 115dB peaks cleanly.
post #68 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by needing to set the speakers to large. What would happen if these speakers were set to small and coupled with bass bins/subs on my Denon 3311? Would I be better served with the full sized statements + sub(single) or the sealed statements + bass bins (dual subs) or full statements + sub (multiples)?
most receivers high pass at 12db / octave and low pass at 24 db octave. if the speaker is flat well beyond the crossover point you will likely have too much combined energy around 40-60hz.

Quote:
Maybe it's the fact that I've yet to hear a good sub, but my experience thus far with music is that full range speakers sound much cleaner than speaker + dedicated sub. Maybe if I were to obtain one of these I'd quickly change my mind. Thus far, I'm imagining sealed statements sitting on top of one of those subs, but I'm not sure how'd that work. I'd think the LMS 5400 would rattle the poor statements apart eventually unless I isolate the two somehow.
A sub/monitor combo can mess up certainly. It is apl about integration of the system with itself, the room, and listening position.
post #69 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post
They are great speakers but not the best HT performance choices.

They need room to breath in room too, if someone loves 2 channel listening then the statements would rock but if its a custom HT room I would recommend designs that have directivity and the woofers that actually can play the 115dB peaks cleanly.
I know you're in the pro sound group as you're one of it's biggest advocates. My question is if I only had room for 1 set of speakers right now that needed to do double duty music/ht, out of the non pro speakers, how would the Statements fare, ie. compared to the Salk Songtowers or Ascend Towers?

Also, if I were to go with the pro sound system, what speakers would you recommend? Notnyt's system looks pretty good w/ the JBL 4722, but he's in a much much larger room, roughly 10x the cubic footage. Keep in mind this wouldn't be going into a custom HT room, just a spare bedroom, a fairly tiny one at that with a ~8ft LP distance. You know how those new tract houses are with the "more room than necessary, but all of them too tiny to be any real use." So in a room such as this, would you still recommend pro speakers?
post #70 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post

I know you're in the pro sound group as you're one of it's biggest advocates. My question is if I only had room for 1 set of speakers right now that needed to do double duty music/ht, out of the non pro speakers, how would the Statements fare, ie. compared to the Salk Songtowers or Ascend Towers?

How big is your listening area? If you're doing a system for a single seat, then they might be OK. If you're trying for a more socially-friendly music system, cross out every speaker with a flush-mounted dome tweeter, because you're just not going to be able to get consistently good sound out of a speaker that physics dictates has a serious flaw in the midrange power response. Such speakers are for sweet spot listening only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post

Keep in mind this wouldn't be going into a custom HT room, just a spare bedroom, a fairly tiny one at that with a ~8ft LP distance. You know how those new tract houses are with the "more room than necessary, but all of them too tiny to be any real use." So in a room such as this, would you still recommend pro speakers?

I'm not Penn, but in a small room with short listening distances, I would look at coaxes first (Tannoy, KEF, JTR, Seaton, etc., for DIY drivers by B&C, BMS, and others.), and then maybe smaller speakers with waveguide-loaded domes. Big speakers just take more distance to properly integrate, for the most part. Frankly, in such a room, the 8" Behringer monitors might just be the "sweet spot" in terms of price-performance. For more, look at the JTR Single 8, Tannoy Definition DC8i, or (for more still, but also more functionality) the Seaton Spark or Danley SH100. If you're willing to spend more and want to DIY there are a few designs floating around with the B&C 8" coax, or you could buy a set of Tannoy CMS8 ceiling speakers and build cabinets for them. (Driver is the same as in their i8AW indoor/outdoor speaker and old System 800 studio monitor.)
post #71 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post

wow...those statements look great.

how come no one building them here? is it the price?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpmst3 View Post

There are many people here that I have built them.

I plan to in the future.

I am sure that several people here have built them. In fact, I have built a pair of the Statement Monitors. You probably don't see build threads here because the original build threads are over at HTGuide, so people who create threads for their build would most likely follow suit and post over there.
post #72 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post

I know you're in the pro sound group as you're one of it's biggest advocates. My question is if I only had room for 1 set of speakers right now that needed to do double duty music/ht, out of the non pro speakers, how would the Statements fare, ie. compared to the Salk Songtowers or Ascend Towers?

Not entirely true..Im not a pro sound guy as much as a clean dynamics/directivity as high priorities guy. Of course room size, listening distances dictate real requirements.

I still love my ribbon designs more for critical music listening.


Quote:



Also, if I were to go with the pro sound system, what speakers would you recommend? Notnyt's system looks pretty good w/ the JBL 4722, but he's in a much much larger room, roughly 10x the cubic footage. Keep in mind this wouldn't be going into a custom HT room, just a spare bedroom, a fairly tiny one at that with a ~8ft LP distance. You know how those new tract houses are with the "more room than necessary, but all of them too tiny to be any real use." So in a room such as this, would you still recommend pro speakers?


Nope, athough I love directivity everyone has to choose their priorities. In that space the statement designs are definitely amazing choices.
post #73 of 197
1500 isnt too much of a strech with quality veneer and all my next buils is a second pair of statements this time with duelund crossover parts
directly from mr.holtz himself there have been over 60 builds so far

ive been on both sites avs and hometheaterguide for 2 years and htg seems moreon the high end 2channel side mean while avs is more pro sound ( horns ) side of things meant mainly for HT
post #74 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

How big is your listening area? If you're doing a system for a single seat, then they might be OK. If you're trying for a more socially-friendly music system, cross out every speaker with a flush-mounted dome tweeter, because you're just not going to be able to get consistently good sound out of a speaker that physics dictates has a serious flaw in the midrange power response. Such speakers are for sweet spot listening only.

What flaw are you talking about?

The listening are would probably be an area of about 4x10ft. This system won't be out in the living room or any open space. Just a spare bedroom that's less than 1000 ft^3 with a listening area about 2/3 of that size. I would understand if constant directivity would be a priority in an area with open space where people will be walking around chatting while listening to some music. This won't be anything like that. This will be just a 50/50 ht/music room that wouldn't hold more than 4 people at one time, most often just 2. In essence this would be just a spare room, not the main. I know I'm doing this kind of backwards. The spare room comes before the main for many reasons, one of which is the main room is currently used for storage and needs to be completely cleaned out.

So my question is, disregarding all those pro speakers, how do they compare to more conventional commercial, and especially ID speakers like the Salk Songtowers and Ascend Towers? Those two specifically because the price ends up being almost the same ~$2k. There are many Salk and Ascend owners on this thread and I wonder if any of them would prefer the Statements over them.

With the recent GTG over in WI comparing the Songtowers to the new Ascend Towers, adding the Statements into the comparo would seem rather interesting.
post #75 of 197
I wish ds-21 would stop using overblown generalizations. He's spreading just as much misinformation as he imagines he is correcting. Let me caveat that I generally agree with him when talking about some form of waveguide vs conventional monopole in a conventional room, especially if you value power response over everything else.

The truth is that there are more design possibilities using conventional tweeters than just conventional monopoles. You don't have to cross them low (certainly not as low as geddes stuff) and you aren't constrained to monopoles, or even constrained to working with speakers only in absence of speaker/room as a system. Waveguides/horns are not the only way to approach the directivity issue, despite his insistance of using "every" gross generalization possible. And beyond that simple truth is the obvious reality that power response isn't the ONLY thing to consider in loudspeaker design; if you optomize only that at the expense of everything else you will still end up with quite a shatty sounding speaker.

Just stating the obvious. For every "serious flaw" you accept, perhaps you avoid an equally "serious flaw" in horn designs that is more critical to you.

Speakers are about compromises and personal priorities and while there are good and bad ways to tackle problems, and good and bad designs as a results, there is no one perfect design.
post #76 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post

What flaw are you talking about?

At the bottom of the tweeter's passband, horizontal directivity is basically 180deg. At the top of the dual's midrange's, it will be considerably less unless the ribbon comes in much lower than I think it does. That means the response has off-axis errors in the midrange that are audible.

Another thing to consider is that the Statements, by design, have a very tight vertical listening window. Just the physics of an MTM and a rectangular tweeter. [edit: the Mini Statements only have one woofer, not an MTM. But they will still have a tight vertical listening window, because of the length of the tweeter compared to the size of the wavelengths of treble sounds.] For some (most?) people, that either doesn't matter or might be a good thing. If you want it to sound similar when standing as when seated, it is an issue. Not a deal-breaker, depending on one's listening habits, but something about which to be aware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post

The listening are would probably be an area of about 4x10ft.

Well...then it depends how much you care about the audio fidelity at the ends of that seating area. If you're the only one who really cares, and you always sit in a particular spot, a design like the Statements can work very well. If you move around, or have multiple picky listeners, then it matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post

In essence this would be just a spare room, not the main. I know I'm doing this kind of backwards.

I think you're doing it exactly the right way: defining the space and the listening area, and fitting speakers accordingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post

So my question is, disregarding all those pro speakers, how do they compare to more conventional commercial, and especially ID speakers like the Salk Songtowers and Ascend Towers?

I have no idea. All those speakers will have a midrange presentation that's too flawed for my tastes outside of a very small listening area. (Single-seat.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

especially if you value power response over everything else.

Why wouldn't you "value power response over everything else."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

You don't have to cross them low (certainly not as low as geddes stuff)

How low one has to cross the tweeters for a high-fidelity system depends entirely on the piston diameter of the next driver down. If it's a 3" driver, the waveguide can be quite small and the crossover rather higher. If it's a 15" driver, then obviously the WG's have to be larger and the crossover has to be lower. (I'm ignoring center-to-center issues, admittedly. But one can always use a small coincident coax.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

and you aren't constrained to monopoles,

?

Besides, if you read the OP's constraints dipoles aren't an option anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

or even constrained to working with speakers only in absence of speaker/room as a system.

Excuse me? One chooses a coverage pattern based on the room and the intended listening area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Waveguides/horns are not the only way to approach the directivity issue, despite his insistance of using "every" gross generalization possible.

OK, what other approaches are there?

Dipoles don't really work very well at handling real room problems (and I've heard a bunch, ranging from MLs to SL's Audio Artistry designs) though some people like the colorations they impart.

Line arrays? Well, conventional ones have their own problems, and they also don't generally offer great horizontal control.

Augmented widebanders? Actually, in a room like the OP's, that could work pretty well. You just trade off HF performance off-axis for midrange fidelity.

CBTs...well, that's an interesting approach. I'd like to hear some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

And beyond that simple truth is the obvious reality that power response isn't the ONLY thing to consider in loudspeaker design;

A speaker with a good power response (in an appropriate coverage pattern for the room) and enough cone area to reproduce the dynamics in the source material with minimal compression will be the highest fidelity solution for that room. Might someone prefer an objectively lower fidelity solution? Sure, why not? It's not like we're talking about wires or amps, where there are no actual differences. Whenever there is a real sonic difference, preference comes into play.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Just stating the obvious. For every "serious flaw" you accept, perhaps you avoid an equally "serious flaw" in horn designs that is more critical to you.

I've mentioned concrete, measurable flaws. You're waving your hands about "serious flaws" without actually identifying any such ones. I wonder why.
post #77 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by phenosity View Post

1500 isnt too much of a strech with quality veneer and all my next buils is a second pair of statements this time with duelund crossover parts
directly from mr.holtz himself there have been over 60 builds so far

ive been on both sites avs and hometheaterguide for 2 years and htg seems moreon the high end 2channel side mean while avs is more pro sound ( horns ) side of things meant mainly for HT

How much of a difference is there with the crossovers? Do you have a link for more info? I'm fairly intrigued.

Was your first pair the full sized statements?



Also thank you DS-21 for the clear explanation. The ribbons are crossed higher than normal and was why those particular mids were used. I think somewhere around 4kHz. When you speak of off-axis errors, are you talking specifically for the statements with the open back quasi-TL design or you just saying in general that most MTM designs would suffer from this? Many of the concerns you stated were addressed in the Statements thread at HTG. In a nutshell, the Statements are not a conventional WMTMW design, which makes them so amazing. I remember reading the horizontal off-axis turned out to be rather spectacular IIRC. I'll have to do some more reading, but thank you for bringing up these concerns.

Edit to include these:
Crossover design explained
Note the mids are wired out of phase.

post #78 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post

Also thank you DS-21 for the clear explanation. The ribbons are crossed higher than normal and was why those particular mids were used. I think somewhere around 4kHz. When you speak of off-axis errors, are you talking specifically for the statements with the open back quasi-TL design or you just saying in general that most MTM designs would suffer from this?

Any design that doesn't constrain the directivity of the tweeter will suffer from the errors I'm discussing. The midrange cabinet doesn't really matter.

A polar graph from 1-8kHz (3 octaves) will really show the issue. It will appear as a narrowing of energy up to the crossover region, followed by a wide burst.

But you seem to be sold on the design.
post #79 of 197
Not sure about the minis, but everyone that has heard the full size version has raved about them.
post #80 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Speakers are about compromises and personal priorities and while there are good and bad ways to tackle problems, and good and bad designs as a results, there is no one perfect design.

I think I have posted that a couple of times, Very well said!!
post #81 of 197
Ds,

If one wants to address horizontal power response, then there are several broad categories to be explored. Horns or wg, dipoles, omnipoles. Most are variations on one of these. And if you approach the room/speaker as a system and have complete control over the design of both, you can absorb all or part of the backwave of many different designs and further open up your options.

Your insistence that horns are technically superior in all ways serves no one. I don't think you really believe they are. If I am mistaken, a more detailed post can follow.
post #82 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post

How much of a difference is there with the crossovers? Do you have a link for more info? I'm fairly intrigued.

Was your first pair the full sized statements?

yes the first pair was the full sized statements hopefully i get the money together soon once i get started ill make sure to directly give you the link to my build thread
post #83 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Ds,

If one wants to address horizontal power response, then there are several broad categories to be explored. Horns or wg, dipoles, omnipoles. Most are variations on one of these. And if you approach the room/speaker as a system and have complete control over the design of both, you can absorb all or part of the backwave ofany different designs and further open up your options.

Your insistance that horns are technically superior in all ways serves no one. I don't think you really believe they are. If I am mistaken, a more detailed post can follow.

ds-21 i have a pair i am listening to as i write this if your concerns are off axis which one? in the vertical there's a perfect smallish sweet spot but the sound is still mesmerizing i lay on the floor while listening and they are very enjoyable and its a cool feeling having the instruments and singers linger above you horizontally the sweet spot is small once you get out about 5 feet horizontally then you can just hear the channel your closest to but the sound man is it special some vocal passages give me goosebumps literally no joke thats why i plan on speding alot for duelund

and horns have their share of problems ,

BTW sound treatment would be a great help to ''grow '' the sweet spot and overall make the system sound its best also my listening room sucks the right channel is 3 feet from the side wall while the left is 10feet
post #84 of 197
Quote:


Why wouldn't you "value power response over everything else."

Because 90% of people are not as sensitive to shifts in response and timbre that "audiophiles" claiim are. I know plenty of people that can't hear these things. What most people are sensitive to are things like low distortion, stored energy, SPL, speech intelligibility and subjective bass slam. In fact most people couldn't give a crap about things like imaging, timbre, consistent coverage, etc. Whether that's relevant to designing the ideal speaker or not, it reflects what people care about.

When it comes to polars, nothing has better polars to our ears than a cheap pair of headphones. Yet why is it that we wish to listen to speakers with disasterous measurements? Because other things do invariably "matter".

Quote:


A polar graph from 1-8kHz (3 octaves) will really show the issue. It will appear as a narrowing of energy up to the crossover region, followed by a wide burst.

There's no rule saying that regular tweeters must be crossed where they are omni sources and the woofer is beaming. It's entirely possible to have a multi way speaker with smooth polar response without using a large horn.


Quote:
Originally Posted by phenosity View Post

ds-21 i have a pair i am listening to as i write this if your concerns are off axis which one? in the vertical there's a perfect smallish sweet spot but the sound is still mesmerizing i lay on the floor while listening and they are very enjoyable and its a cool feeling having the instruments and singers linger above you horizontally the sweet spot is small once you get out about 5 feet horizontally then you can just hear the channel your closest to but the sound man is it special vocal passages give me goosebumps literally no joke thats why i plan on speding alot for duelund

...wh..at?

Sorry that read like a 6moons review.

Quote:


and horns have their share of problems , one being that its a love or hate thing

Not if it's done right.

Quote:


BTW sound treatment would be a great help to ''grow '' the sweet spot and overall make the system sound its best also my listening room sucks the right channel is 3 feet from the side wall while the left is 10feet

With properly controlled directivity, sound treatment is unnessary. Undesirable side reflections are removed, while desirable reflections add scope to the imaginary environment we are listening into.

Quote:


OK, what other approaches are there?

Dipoles don't really work very well at handling real room problems (and I've heard a bunch, ranging from MLs to SL's Audio Artistry designs) though some people like the colorations they impart.

Actually, they do. If anything, they are the only speaker with the potential for controlled directivity in their entire passband. Whether such a dipole exists or not, the reality is that your typical horn loaded monopole will still have omni behavior as you get low in frequency. Geddes might claim that 1khz - 8khz is the "relevant" region but 200hz-1khz is very much a part of what we perceive as the lower midrange and upper bass - frequencies we are very sensitive to. As long as 200hz to 1khz is not controlled, you will still have the traditional "box" sound.

There will also be an increase in power response when you factor in baffle step compensation, leading to an unbalanced bottom heavy presentation that is otherwise necessary. A dipole or true omnipole does not suffer from this.
Your limited experience with dipoles is just that - limited. Your assumptions are based on specific designs, most of which are over a decade old in concept.
post #85 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

If one wants to address horizontal power response, then there are several broad categories to be explored. Horns or wg, dipoles, omnipoles. Most are variations on one of these.

Not really. Only 1.5 of those things (horn/WG - I've been, perhaps sloppily, using the terms interchangeably on this thread, and a special case of "omnis") actually addresses horizontal power response.

A dipole will give you some measure of pattern control down low, but not up high. And will color the sound with backwave reflections. (If you damp the backwave reflections, what's the point of dipole in the first place? Why not just put the speakers in the wall?) And will also stick out into the room.

An omni...to be truly omni, a speaker needs with some kind of wide-band pulsating driver (e.g. Walsh/DDD, whatever mbl calls the drivers on their awful-sounding but pretty and expensive speakers), or....a waveguide! See, e.g. Bang & Olufsen; see also Duevel, Mirage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

And if you approach the room/speaker as a system and have complete control over the design of both, you can absorb all or part of the backwave ofany different designs and further open up your options.

Of course, in the real world it rarely happens that one has complete control over the design of the room. Or, even if one does, audio fidelity is but one of several competing interests. So, it follows that the solution that gives the highest fidelity within the basic constraint of reasonable use of space. And what's that? Fairly narrow-pattern constant directivity. One needn't muck up walls with acoustic treatments if reflections from them are non-issues, for instance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Your insistance that horns are technically superior in all ways serves no one. I don't think you really believe they are. If I am mistaken, a more detailed post can follow.

I never said horns were. Is constant and narrow directivity (at least from the lower mids up) technically a superior solution?

In terms of fidelity to the source material over a region of the room, unambiguously yes.

In terms of personal preference? That will naturally vary from person to person, based on innate preferences and prior experiences. Some people, for instance, don't feel a system is good unless it sounds like crap everywhere, because that highlights the fact that it "locks in" in one "sweet spot" position. They need that contrast to think they have something special. (See supra. And that's fair enough. But for listeners outside that one position, it ain't high fidelity.
post #86 of 197
Quote:


A dipole will give you some measure of pattern control down low, but not up high. And will color the sound with backwave reflections. (If you damp the backwave reflections, what's the point of dipole in the first place? Why not just put the speakers in the wall?) And will also stick out into the room.

This is wrong.

A dipole CAN give you pattern control up high. There's nothing that suggests it cannot. Look at this:



what does that look like to you? And please don't harp on the generally irrelevant top octave.

And the backwave reflections do not color the sound, because they are consistent in amplitude with the forward wave. Backwave reflections color the sound with monopoles because monopoles have poor off axis response on the "backwave". The backwave reflection of a dipole addes spaciousness without adversely affecting timbre, because it sounds the same but is sufficiently delayed to our ears.

It also cancels out the parts of the speaker with the worst off axis response by nature of these parts being out of phase. That's why people make dipoles in the first place. The fact that you fail to comprehend this just shows that you don't know a thing about dipoles, and are in NO position to speak, so please don't.

And all speakers must stick out into the room. Else they will have poor imaging from diffraction effects. A dipole needs its baffle to be about 4 feet from the wall. A monopole usually needs the same amount to sound half decent, although most monopoles are made with inadequate baffle step compensation and end up sounding shouty away from walls. Monopoles are far more placement sensitive than dipoles for this reason. A dipole just need some space to breath, and people forget that since there is no box, the imaginary box is only really 2 feet or so away from the wall. A monopole needs to be placed as its design indicates, usually at the cost of something.

Quote:


[An omni...to be truly omni, a speaker needs with some kind of wide-band pulsating driver (e.g. Walsh/DDD, whatever mbl calls the drivers on their awful-sounding but pretty and expensive speakers), or....a waveguide! See, e.g. Bang & Olufsen; see also Duevel, Mirage.

Assuming that the vertical response is not of concern, an omni merely requires requires ribbon drivers like the HI-Vi RT3C and Infinity MRS in a bipole arrangement and a 100db+/octave linear phase crossover and an appropriate box. A true omni like this also doesn't need BSC except maybe for the top octave, where we are least sensitive, rather than smack dab in the midrange.
post #87 of 197
[quote=...wh..at?

Sorry that read like a 6moons review.



Not if it's done right.[/QUOTE]

sorry i am using an on screen keyboard and the less chracters i use the better for me

i was arguing that if he needed a bigger sweetspot with the statements then roomtreatment is the way to go
post #88 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

There's no rule saying that regular tweeters must be crossed where they are omni sources and the woofer is beaming. It's entirely possible to have a multi way speaker with smooth polar response without using a large horn.

True. Assuming one doesn't, for whatever reason, want constant directivity. One can use a smaller waveguide and a multiway speaker to get consistently narrowing directivity with frequency. The best "conventional" speaker I've heard at any price, JBL's LSR32 (or whatever it's currently called - and yes, I think it's better than the big Revels and other five-figure speakers out there) uses that approach, as does Revel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Actually, they do. If anything, they are the only speaker with the potential for controlled directivity in their entire passband. Whether such a dipole exists or not,

"Whether such a dipole exists or not" is a pretty important caveat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

As long as 200hz to 1khz is not controlled, you will still have the traditional "box" sound.

I would be much more sympathetic to that argument were there a single controlled listening test showing this alleged "'box' sound" to even exist, let alone to be subjectively deleterious. The only serious listening tests comparing dipoles to monopoles (the Toole one, and the recent Clark/SMWTMS one) did not show any such thing. You can fairly argue that the tests were flawed, but the other side of that is that if dipoles require such heroics to integrate into a normal room, well, few people if any will be able to bother even if they want to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

There will also be an increase in power response when you factor in baffle step compensation, leading to an unbalanced bottom heavy presentation that is otherwise necessary.

Or just put controlled directivity speakers against the front wall. That kills two birds (the need for BSC, and aesthetics, because the speakers can be more easily concealed from view) with one proverbial stone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Your limited experience with dipoles is just that - limited. Your assumptions are based on specific designs, most of which are over a decade old in concept.

Actually, my "assumptions" are not. I've heard other dipoles, basically the entire gamut of real existing dipole designs. In fact, the best sound at one DIY speaker gathering I attended (to my ears, at least) was a "CD" dipole through the bass and lower mids (BMS 12" coax, 18" woofer), though it was also the only speaker there that attempted to control midband directivity. (My own mains didn't go, because I couldn't squeeze them into my Miata.) But besides being impractical for most real-world rooms, dipoles don't seem to offer any sonic advantages.

Besides, current speakers are over a decade old in concept. Even Danley's Unity/Synergy horn dates from the 1990s in concept!
post #89 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

"Whether such a dipole exists or not" is a pretty important caveat.

A caveat which has nothing to do with whether such a dipole could exist. The fact is that dipoles by nature control directivity, depending on how you build

Quote:


I would be much more sympathetic to that argument were there a single controlled listening test showing this alleged "'box' sound" to even exist, let alone to be subjectively deleterious. The only serious listening tests comparing dipoles to monopoles (the Toole one, and the recent Clark/SMWTMS one) did not show any such thing. You can fairly argue that the tests were flawed, but the other side of that is that if dipoles require such heroics to integrate into a normal room, well, few people if any will be able to bother even if they want to do so.

Double Blind Listening tests are unecessary when the measurements show it clearly in a way that can be correlated to other listening tests. This can be seen in the CSD of a given dipole and a given monopole in-room. The dipole will have smooth consistent decay and the monopole will have unbalanced bottom heavy lag. Monopoles store too much energy in rooms. They also excite room modes the most. If you want a speaker that will work in an untreated room, it should have a shift from cardioid bass to dipole upper bass with control over directivity, polar and power response over the audible spectrum via speaker design. Waveguides are a good way of making dipoles better actually. But a dipole does not inherently need a large waveguide for controlled directivity over a wide passband the way a monopole would.

If you want a monopole to work, you need to treat the room at least at bass frequencies above where multiple subs could do anything, without treating it for mid and upper frequencies. It's nearly an impossible task without a custom room.

The only "heroics" necessary for a dipole to sound good in a room is to have the baffle about 4 feet from the wall. Just like a monopole should be if you want it to sound decent.

Quote:


Or just put controlled directivity speakers against the front wall. That kills two birds (the need for BSC, and aesthetics, because the speakers can be more easily concealed from view) with one proverbial stone.

Of course that totally ruins the sound with all the diffraction. Even a 15" waveguide wants space around it

Quote:


Actually, my "assumptions" are not. I've heard other dipoles, basically the entire gamut of real existing dipole designs.

which gives you the right to generalize about the concept. Implementation is relevant. Your arguments revolve around your experience with no scientific backing.

Quote:


But besides being impractical for most real-world rooms, dipoles don't seem to offer any sonic advantages.

Far from it, dipoles are the most practical. It's monopoles which are impractical without room treatment. The fact that people are willing to shove monopoles against or in walls and live with it does not make it practical. Nor is a giant 15" waveguide atop a 15" woofer in a 200lb box "practical. Or bass trapping to deal with monopole bass coupling. None of that is anywhere near practical.

Quote:


Besides, current speakers are over a decade old in concept. Even Danley's Unity/Synergy horn dates from the 1990s in concept!

Go ask Danley if his most recent synergy horn measures or sounds like his 1990s implementation. Engineering is about advancement, and you're judging dipoles not by what they naturally are, but by their implemenations.

Dipoles are not as easy to design as monopoles in the first place. Neither are constant directivity speakers. You need the right tools and the right knowledge. We're not at a point where everything is tried and verified. Certainly not your position.
post #90 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

But you seem to be sold on the design.

I'm not sold on the design, just restating what I read.

So according to you speakers like the Salk Songtowers and Ascend Towers wouldn't sound good at all? I'm just looking for some relativity of what you stated. They would all sound equally bad, or some better than others?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

I'm not Penn, but in a small room with short listening distances, I would look at coaxes first (Tannoy, KEF, JTR, Seaton, etc., for DIY drivers by B&C, BMS, and others.), and then maybe smaller speakers with waveguide-loaded domes. Big speakers just take more distance to properly integrate, for the most part. Frankly, in such a room, the 8" Behringer monitors might just be the "sweet spot" in terms of price-performance. For more, look at the JTR Single 8, Tannoy Definition DC8i, or (for more still, but also more functionality) the Seaton Spark or Danley SH100. If you're willing to spend more and want to DIY there are a few designs floating around with the B&C 8" coax, or you could buy a set of Tannoy CMS8 ceiling speakers and build cabinets for them. (Driver is the same as in their i8AW indoor/outdoor speaker and old System 800 studio monitor.)

You mentioned the JTR Single 8, Tannoy Definitino DC8i, and Seaton Spark. How do those compare to the JBL 4722 that Notnyt is currently using? My budget is actually roughly $2k/pr and the Seaton Sparks cost roughly the same as the JBL and both are a bit more than the JTR Triple 8. I ask because if I were to purchase them, they'd eventually end up in the main room once it's been cleaned out.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › What does jim holtz mini statements speakers compare to commercially?