Philharmonic Audio - Dennis Murphy - Page 7

Hi Dennis,

I'm curious if you have tried using the 70-20XR with your Phil design. Curious how it's FR and electrical properties match with the BG Neo8 over the 70-10. Do you have any intentions of signing up for use in future designs? Perhaps a bookshelf monitor?

70-10 xover 4th order L-R 2.8kHz
70-20XR xover 4th order L-R 1.8 kHz

I believe the 70-10 is the longer and move expensive ribbon. 2.8 must be a better xover point than 1.8 with the Neo8 one would think...

I've heard 20XRs horizontal dispersion is better due to the ribbon being closer to the front baffle plane.

Looking at the Phil horizontal off axis plots though it's obvious it needs no help in this department!

I'm buying!

If you are looking at the 2s, don't hesitate too long, the last person I heard purchased a pair is expecting them around the 20th of January....that is telling me they are moving quickly.

They are the same length (70mm) but a different width (10mm vs 20mm) which allows the 70-20 to cross over lower... but being wider it also means its wide angle response narrows earlier in frequency.

So i guess it comes down to

better ~6khz+ performance vs "????better????" 1.8khz - 2.8khz performance.

Hi I don't use the 70-20 because the lower crossover point is of no use to me, and in fact it would be impossible given that I have to cross to the woofer at 650 Hz due to the limited lower reach of the Neo8. That would make for too narrow a range (650 Hz - 1800 Hz) to achieve a decent response in between the two crossover points. My experience has been that the 70-10 has better horizontal dispersion than the 20, although both are more than adequate. I may use the 20 in a bookshelf someday, but things are already a little too complicated.

Just keep up whatever you're doing right now!

BTW, off topic, but overall out of all the speakers you've ever heard, how close do you think it gets to the real thing? My buddy and I were having a conversation and he argued that speakers will never match the real thing. I haven't heard enough ultra high end stuff to be the judge of that but it's had me thinking. Is "truly lifelike" ("close your eyes and forget where you are) something I should expect from true high end speakers like the Phils (not to put you on the spot)

Maggies did it for me. They made music really come to life with a realism and clarity that I hadn't ever heard before. I could even hear the hammer strike the piano string. Instruments sounded very natural. I'm sure there are others out there that can do this as well.

Wow, I can hear the hammer in the higher keys on a very good recording with the CAOW1s. Of course this is with an average 9 o'clock position on the tube amp. Higher volume would be better, just might experiment next week when I am alone.

I feel sure things will greatly improve with the Fountek and RAAL as the CAOW1s are the hiquphon OW2 tweets.

I've never heard a speaker that can match a live, unamplified, performance. That said, I've certainly heard speakers that can "get out of the way" of the music enough to provide a very satisfying, even moving audio experience.

I think part of the issue is speaker technology/design hasn't reached that point yet, plus there's the listening room/speaker interaction that has to be dealt with.

But I'm no expert and I've not heard as many speakers as many here have.

Some get close, but none will ever nail it, and it doesn't only have to do with the speakers. The real problem here gentlemen is the room (which we can fix) and the recordings. There is no industry standardized recording method, thus many of the recordings we have vary (a lot). Until there is a standardized method we'll never get most/all of our recordings to fool us into believing they are the real thing. With that said, there was an experiment some years ago in which a group of test subjects was behind a curtain while a live orchestra was playing, and then while a recording was played. After a few tries, some tinkering and some EQ applied, the test subjects could no longer tell the difference between the live Orchestra and the recordings. So it can be done, guys; it'll just take a great recording and the ability to completely remove the room from the equation.

Knowing all that, without a great pair of speakers you will not come close. Start with that, fix the room and find a "front end" that suits your needs/tastes and you'll be good to go.

Eternal Velocity, the speakers can make or break what you hear, as can the room. Something like Dennis' designs is likely to get you to a place where it actually sounds just like the real thing provided your room acoustics are in order and the recordings is stellar/proper. I've heard a handful of speakers in what I would call great rooms that made me actually feel I was at a real, un-amplified performance; one of them was the Salk SoundScape. What does that have to do with Dennis' speakers? Well, he designed the crossovers for the Salk's and likely helped choose the drivers to use, so it's probably safe to say his speakers have a similar sound to the SoundScapes, which would be completely neutrality; they just allow the music to do the talking. Now that's what I'm talking about!

I will wholeheartedly agree that the recordings are a major factor. I have recently been trying to find recordings reminiscent of the vinyl my dad had when I was a kid. With some of these records, if I closed my eyes, I could really believe I was hearing a live performance and I could have sworn I could not only point out where each instrument and singer was, but that I could hit each one of them by lofting a marble at them.

Yes, the room and the playback system played a huge role in this, but without the source, it doesn't matter how good the system is. The right material on the right system though... Wow...

Does anyone else here have Art Lande's SACD 'While She Sleeps:Piano Lullabies' from Blue Coast Recordings? To date, it is one of the best recordings of a Grand Piano I've ever heard.

I've heard many recordings of pianos and although I love the music, none of them could really make me believe I was hearing someone playing a real piano in the room. This recording though, the Steinway just sounds amazing.


Max

When you attend a symphony or concerto, do you sit on stage next to the instruments?

Or do you sit with the audience where you can here some coughing, sneezing, whispers, etc.?

When they record the concert, are the microphones in the audience or right next to those instruments on stage?

So it will never be the same exact experience, but just close to it.

So yes, audiophile speakers will be able to faithfully recreate a live concert experience close to the real thing, but never exactly like it.

Thanks to Ed's converters and DSD workflow and SACD medium/transport!!!

Once you get this first line rolling, and I'm most certain it will ROCK N' ROLL in terms of #s, you guys will have production down to a science and then you'll find time

I can imagine the Phils are going to be a huge success!

Thanks for sharing your experience with the Raal as well Dennis.

Personally I'm most certain my next mains will be Phil 2s as I've heard Neo8 on vocals and it's truly an amazing transducer for this purpose. Only slight concern I have is the "dynamics" from 640-100 with that transmission line. That's a lot of midbass for the transmission line to fill...

This is my first post to this forum. I have posted only once or twice to other audio forums but I have read about Dennis Murphy's designs for many years, noting the Ellis 1801 and his designs for Salk audio. When I learned about his launching of the Philharmonics, the combination of Dennis' reputation and plus very favorable pricing, I made the bold decision to order a pair without auditioning them.

The Philharmonic 2 speakers arrived 5 weeks ago. Dennis Murphy had customized his design for us with custom cabinets (walnut veneer boxes with black lacquer fronts), and with upgraded components, including Sonicap, Jantzen Superior caps and some Mundorf silver/oil caps for tweeter bypass.

First, I will describe our set-up and listening habits. Our listening room has a 10' ceiling height and is roughly 13' by 21'. The speakers are roughly 7' apart on a long wall. I don't often listen to audiophile recordings. Much of what I listen to may not be perfectly recorded.

I had never before owned full range speakers. Instead, I had been using monitors, initially ProAc 1SC and most recently, Usher BE718 (original model, not the one marketed in the US with updated crossover). After about a year, I replaced the Be tweeters with Usher's Diamond tweeters.

The ProAc 1sc is extremely engaging but has limitations. As with most mini monitors, the upper octaves are slightly exaggerated and the mid-base is boosted to compensate for the lack of deep base. In all, they are very musical with the right equipment and when playing the right music. However, the treble can be a bit bright and may lack desired sheen for brass. The Ushers, on the other hand, have a somewhat warm midrange, an occasional hard upper midrange, and a Be tweeter that, at times, sounds a bit aggressive.

Currently, I use a Buffalo DAC with Arduino Volume control and a Pass F5 (my Buffalo DAC is built for higher output to compensate for its lack of gain). As you may know, the Pass F5 delivers only 25 watts, 8 ohms, 40 watts, 4 ohms. I chose the Philharmonic 2 rather than the 3 because of its higher efficiency. You may wonder how the low power output of the Pass F5 can drive the Philharmonics; for my listening habits they perform beautifully.

Impressions of the Philharmonic 2:
The Philharmonics deliver sound that is very even across all spectrums, without perceivable emphasis in any frequency. They are extremely smooth without rounding things off and produce a sound that is clean, free of grain, and without harsh edges. , They are also extremely transparent and rich with detail.

Prior to the Philharmonics, some of my favorite violin recordings were hard to listen to. Renaud Capucon's Brahms Violin Sonata (Virgin) sounded thin and hard. The same was true of his rather bright Mozart concertos. With the Philharmonics, the violin loses it's etch, gains detail and airiness, and projects its woody resonance.

In Christian Tetzlaff and Leif Ove Andsnes' recording of Bartok's violin sonata, the Philharmonics deliver the voice of Tetzlaff's violin from soft whisper, without blurring any detail, to intense attack, without a hint of harshness or glare. They also reveal Andsnes' extremely dynamic, sometimes ferocious piano playing with great articulation and clarity, without overshadowing the violin. Listening to this piece on the Philharmonics is truly thrilling.

I often listen to solo piano recordings. The philharmonics appear capable of delivering the instrument's full spectrum. (I had been previously been accustomed to listening on monitors.) With the Philharmonics, I am able to hear more detail and better articulation from the left hand, plus an incredible but natural sounding shimmer from the RAAL tweeters.

In Leif Ove Andsnes' recording of Grieg's lyric pieces, recorded in Grieg's drawing room on his own Steinway model B, the Philharmonics were able to produce the piano's bell-like treble and rich mid-register. This is especially evident in Homesickness (op57), and The Brook (op62).

In Jean-Efflam Bavouzet's recording of Ravel's Jeux d'eaux on a 1901 Steinway D, the Philharmonics produce breathtakingly shimmering highs. In Bavouzet's Haydn sonatas (Chandos), I was able to hear the bright and vivid Yamaha CFIIIS with the superbly fast and nimble action for which it is known.

In Sviatoslav Richter's incomparable 1971 recording of Schumann's Symphonic Etudes, the Philharmonics deliver a lower range with detail, richness and clarity that I had never known was there. In my first listening it drew me in, immersed me completely, and left me with an incredible high.

I recently acquired a recording of Janacek's Sinfonietta, by Rafael Kubelik and the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra, (Orfeo). (I am interested in this piece because it is referenced repeatedly in Haruki Murakami's novel IQ84.) In its final movement, in its climax, 12 trumpets in unison play across the broad sound stage. The Philharmonics deliver the trumpet's metallic shine and the full sonic splendor of this live performance

The Philharmonics are no less remarkable with vocal performances. In Christian Gerhaher's recording of Mahler's Lieder, his baritone voice comes through with, richness, clarity and conviction. In Um Mitternacht, the emotion in Gerhaher's voice comes across with breathtaking and piercing anguish.

In Alban Berg's Seven Early Songs, performed by Barbara Bonney, (Nacht, Die Nachtgail), her warm and crystalline voice soars before you with incredible grace and ease. The Philharmonics deliver this performance with an intimacy and immediacy, as if you were there, able to hear and see the shape of her mouth.

Last but not least, in Billy Holiday's Lady in Satin, the Philharmonics reveal clarity and definition in the bass that I had not heard before in this recording. They also reveal a fragility in her husky voice that magnifies the impact of this deeply moving performance.

With these speakers, I find myself listening to music from beginning to end. I become so fully drawn in that I forget about the equipment entirely, as it no longer seems to stand between me and the performance. For this, I would like to thank Dennis Murphy, for this wonderful pair of speakers and for his willingness to work with us so generously throughout the process.

This really is a much more complicated issue than it may at first appear. Even an individual instrument's sound is different when heard acoustically as opposed to being miked, processed, mixed, amplified and finally reproduced through speakers.

Considering the convoluted regime most recorded music must undertake, is it really any wonder that what ends up on a shiny disc often times fails to sound "natural"?

Obviously, even the vocalist is singing into a mike. After that point it's anyone's guess as to how the audio engineer will integrate those vocals into the mix.

I think the really amazing thing is how good carefully recorded live events can sound when done well! There are so many links in the chain, and as always the end result can only be as strong as the weakest link.

Thanks to folks like Dennis, we can be assured the playback speakers are not the weak link.

Jay

Thanks for the excellent review metro gnome... though I couldn't help but eye-roll regarding the esoteric component "upgrades".


The transmission line isn't really contributing meaningfully at those frequencies... that's all the driver. it's probably the fact that the large, well damped transmission line doesn't affect the midrange, that makes it arguably "cleaner sounding" than the conventional speaker... addition by subtraction. The question then becomes whether an 8" woofer can handle the frequency range and I'd say that ultimately depends on the application. I think they'll do fine

I do realize those frequencies will be coming from the woofer cone and not the line... I just meant the entire cab section with ML-TL because it needs to reach 650Hz.

Yeah I agree they'll do fine

I can imagine the ScanSpeak based 3s would be a bit "faster" in this regard. I like the 2s due to smaller ML-TL cabinet and if used for HT as is in my instance I don't need to extra low FR of the 3s.

BTW great review metro gnome!

=( I suppose my imagination is lacking.


Should be cool. While the open back midrange is great, for HT you might prefer to take the lid and close the midrange tube. Either way you owe us pictures

I haven't found a meaningful difference between the SB Acoustics woofer and the Scan Revelator above 32 Hz or so. The SB was designed by former Scan engineers, and they both use pulp cones that don't have serious breakup issues. They're both very comfortable operating to 650 Hz. I would never try that with an aluminum cone woofer. But even there, the issue wouldn't be dynamics. It would be a possible edginess at any power level. For home theater with a sub, I really can't see any point spending money on the Scan Woofer. For music without a sub, the Scan is da Man.

Thanks for clarifying the differences between the 2s and 3s and also info about the MT-TL reaching to 650Hz.

I'm rather shocked people are into spending the extra $$$ on the Revelator as I bet you are Dennis!

Sometimes consumer logic... defies logic...

A lot of it seriously has to do with the looks right...

I can see from comments a lot of the potential customer base seems interested in that Revelator. Considering most are ignorant as to what the drivers even are performance wise I can only make the assumption it's the look of the split paper on it because there is no other logical reason why they'd be more interested in the 3s. I can only imagine when you ordered cabs you thought the 2s would sell more than 3s...

LOL let that be a lesson in consumer purchasing logic friend!

It never ceases to amaze me Dennis!

PS it sure would be intresting to see a picture of the 2s and 3s next to each other so people could get an idea of how much larger the ML-TL section is for the 3s

Metro Gnome,

Excellent review, thanks for sharing your thoughts....can't wait til the first of the year as I will be picking mine up. Very excited.

Yes, we would love some pics with the pair in place and performing!!

Thanks for the suggestion about showing the 2 and 3 next to each other. I'll do that in the New Year. I'm off for Germany in a couple of days, not returning for a week. So Philharmonic Audio will be on hold for awhile. I think you're being too hard on buyers of the 3. First, the 8" Revelator doesn't have a split cone. And the SB actually looks more impressive because of its larger frame. Second, most of my customers have bought the
3's for music without a sub, and the Scans do have a definite advantage there. And most also wanted custom cabinets rather than the standard black satin for the 1's and
2's.

You already did a photo of the Phil 1 and 3 next to each other. The Phil 2 cabinet is the same as the 1, right? That and other photos can be found here.

ahh... that explains the Phil 3s sales over the 2s.

Have a safe trip over to .eu Dennis and also have a merry holiday season!

I very much look forward to purchasing Phil 2s from you in the near year!

And thanks for taking the personal time outta your work to answer questions regarding this fabulous new speaker line.

I'm most certain 2012 will be a good year for Philharmonic Audio!

All the best Dennis!

Great stuff!!! I was hopping for a side shot though to help give customers an idea of the different size of the ML-TL cabinet between the 2s and 3s. I don't want to answer for Dennis but no the ML-TL cabinet is different between the 2s and 3s with the 3s being somewhat larger. The 1s and 2s have the same ML-TL I believe so this picture is perfect but we need a side shot.

PS what's with the Phil 1s Neo8 copper colouring on the transducer frame? I've never seen a Neo8 coloured like that... and the mounting/baffle frame that's not standard either. Did you get that frame made up for you Dennis? It's a great solution compared to the 4 screw factory mounting on the Neo8 I bet !

Excellent. I love not having to take pictures. Good catch (and the 1&2 are identical in size). Ideally, though, I need some kind of reference--like a large Golden Retiever--for people to gauge how big the speakers are in general. I'll do that in the new year. Sit. Stay.

metro gnome,

That review was awesome - thank you! Oh, and congrats on your new speakers; sounds like you're one happy guy!

I'm afraid that's just some kind of reflection. You can see it on the top of the woofer cabinet as well. My Neo's are stock. I won't have a chance to take a side pic before leaving the country, but for the record, the depth of the Phil 1 and 2 is 21", and it's 24" for the Phil 3.

metro gnome, thanks for that review!

Add this info to the photos:

Philharmonic 1 (on right)
41.5" tall x 11.5" wide x 21" deep

Philharmonic 3 (on left)
43" tall x 12" wide x 24" deep

The Phi 3 is 1½" taller, ½" wider, and 3" deeper. It is also heavier .

Yeah the 3 is just way "TOO BIG"...... the 2 is perfect..... LOL!!!

He's bound to be getting "crossover finger syndrome" as it is!!! (;

I don't want one of those big o' speakers!!!

Dennis' back needs rest from 'scooting' those 3s around anyway!!