or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Philharmonic Audio - Dennis Murphy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Philharmonic Audio - Dennis Murphy - Page 78

post #2311 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

I'm looking forward to your impressions.

For reference, the conversation we had yesterday about dynamics, peaks and transients was using 8 Ohms as a reference. That would translate into more like 400-500 watts into 4 Ohms.

Alright, alright, just spill the beans and tell us what you guys were plotting.
post #2312 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

I'm looking forward to your impressions.

For reference, the conversation we had yesterday about dynamics, peaks and transients was using 8 Ohms as a reference. That would translate into more like 400-500 watts into 4 Ohms.

Obviously that is not going to be a problem here?
post #2313 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post

Alright, alright, just spill the beans and tell us what you guys were plotting.

I bet Nuance is trying to get woodsart to buy one of these:

http://www.vtl.com/pages/Amplifiers/Siegfried/

Unfortunately I think they cost about 10 times as much as a philharmonic
post #2314 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Murphy View Post

'cause then it would be an SS8, and I'm not interested in, uh, borrowing other people's designs.

Sorry Dennis,didn't mean to imply you have or would borrow other's designs.
I didn't realize having passive radiators in a speaker cabinet were a Salk
exclusive.My thought was that using passive radiators in a speaker
could reduce the size of the cabinet while at the same time make the bass
more efficient,eliminate the problems that can be present with a ported design
with the potential of less distortion.Also the passive radiators Jim Salk uses from
Creative Sound seem relatively inexpensive.
post #2315 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjmelkon View Post

Sorry Dennis,didn't mean to imply you have or would borrow other's designs.
I didn't realize having passive radiators in a speaker cabinet were a Salk
exclusive.My thought was that using passive radiators in a speaker
could reduce the size of the cabinet while at the same time make the bass
more efficient,eliminate the problems that can be present with a ported design
with the potential of less distortion.Also the passive radiators Jim Salk uses from
Creative Sound seem relatively inexpensive.

No problem I just don't have anything to do with the bass tuning
of Salk products, so I don't want to use anything similar to his approach.
post #2316 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

I bet Nuance is trying to get woodsart to buy one of these:

http://www.vtl.com/pages/Amplifiers/Siegfried/

Unfortunately I think they cost about 10 times as much as a philharmonic

Oh good Lord no!!!!

Actually I asked him some questions about a purchase of a tube/preamp, etc. We go way back with my research in "Finding my perfect speaker". He made an excellent choice with the Songtowers, which is what I almost purchased and would have been happy as well.

In fact I am going to snoop around Dennis' "Museum of Fine Speakers" and take pics of the prototype of them!!!.....in particular, the ST he he!! There are some real winners just lurking around his house just waiting for the moment to tune out a real masterpiece!!
post #2317 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

I understand their benefits, but they are all fundamentally flawed. So i actually am pretty stubborn.

It's like this: speakers have two kinds of response - sound radiated mostly forward(listening window), and sound radiated in all infinity directions (sound power). It's true that the room reflects some of the sound power back at you, but this is a fraction of what we hear. With good speakers like Philharmonics this reradiated sound is normally a positive.

Audyssey et al try to electrically modify the sound power to give a more balanced perceived response. To modify the sound power this way requires modifying the listening window response. The listening window response is still the dominant factor in how we filter/hear/perceive sound.

Any shift away from the designer's intended response is IMO counterproductive. Dennis spent countless hours for example voicing his speakers and getting pretty much +/- 1.5db response out of them.

Now at low enough frequencies IE 300hz, the frequency response alone dominates our hearing, so EQ can tighten up lower midrange and bass at one listening position. Not necessarily bad. This is where the room is a big factor.

But audyssey etc operate much higher as well. Audyssey will often make cuts around 2-8khz and boosts around 16khz - messing up that natural tonality. More harm than good, and not defeatable either without turning the whole thing off.

I do also like audyssey's ability to correct phase response though.

Thank you for this! Very educational.

I bought a Denon 4311 about a month ago. Since my custom Phils are slightly delayed I grew antsy and pulled my old Infinity Interludes (IL60, IL40, IL36C) out of storage to familiarize myself with its capabilities. I've owned only Denon AVR since 1999, never liked Audyssey, but I wanted to give XT32 a try. I first tuned my system they way I wanted, then ran XT32 - the improvement was significant. I was disappointed actually that my ears did such a crappy job until I began diving into just what Audyssey does. Your post has filled in additional blanks.

This is probably the only time I will get away with using "night and day difference" with this critical crowd but I realize Interlude and Philharmonic are just that, and the same will quite probably not apply. There's no way Audyssey will interfere with my music listening, I doubt I even use a subwoofer. I do plan to give it a whirl in HT just for giggles. It is not intended to improve the sound of Dennis' speakers, but previously I thought my large room was going to be friendly and the difference Audyssey made gave me a hint that this may not be the case. If it doesn't work, if Philharmonics don't sound like Philharmonics, I'll drop back and punt and play defense with some investment in room correction.

And now I stand, forever branded.
post #2318 of 4614
You are right , 2312 is not rated for 4 ohm...I playedwith my settings a little bit and i am pretty good for music around -14db, nice n crisp loud enough for me . But for 'some' movies i haveto crank all the way up around -4dB to get the dialogues , i noticed that especially with all the amazon instant videos for some reason ...

I spoke with Denon and the tech wanted me to try bi-amping ...now i have no idea how and if that will help. Dennis didnt seem to think it helps that much, any ideas...!?
I am listening to a lot of floyd , metallica, Pearl Jam and AIC (flac streaming from my laptop) and it sounds amazing at around -15db levels without sub....the woofers are impressive
post #2319 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

I grew antsy and pulled my old Infinity Interludes (IL60, IL40, IL36C) out of storage to familiarize myself with its capabilities. I've owned only Denon AVR since 1999, never liked Audyssey, but I wanted to give XT32 a try. I first tuned my system they way I wanted, then ran XT32

Maybe XT32 is less intrusive than the other audyssey stuff. I haven't judged it just yet. My ""opinion"" is just a regurgitation of what Sean Olive said in his blog

http://seanolive.blogspot.ca/2009/11...uation-of.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by azb120 View Post

I spoke with Denon and the tech wanted me to try bi-amping ...now i have no idea how and if that will help. Dennis didnt seem to think it helps that much, any ideas...!?

The problem with passive bi-amping, is that the power supply used is the same. The only pro I see is that it might reduce the total current passing through the output stages of the denon, but I don't think it's worth the effort.
post #2320 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post


Maybe XT32 is less intrusive than the other audyssey stuff. I haven't judged it just yet. My ""opinion"" is just a regurgitation of what Sean Olive said in his blog

http://seanolive.blogspot.ca/2009/11...uation-of.html

The problem with passive bi-amping, is that the power supply used is the same. The only pro I see is that it might reduce the total current passing through the output stages of the denon, but I don't think it's worth the effort.

Yea I think its just the lack of adequate power with 2312... But will have to work for now. I think adding a sub and eventually a center will help
post #2321 of 4614
EV, another interesting read, but in comparison with most I pick up from his blog it's just 'meh'. I don't quite get that it dismisses the validity of room correction techniques applied by AV manufacturers. Further, what is the point of testing Audyssey and its equivalents in an acoustically correct room? What would the results have been if applied in the average Joe's living room?

I'm willing to learn both the science and what my ears tell me, both objectively. This article didn't contribute a great deal to the former, sorry.
post #2322 of 4614
Picking up the smiley face Sunday......
LL
post #2323 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodsart View Post

Picking up the smiley face Sunday......


What is it?
post #2324 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodsart View Post

Picking up the smiley face Sunday......

Nice!!

I have made an executive decision, it is no longer happy face, but super stoned face. :P
post #2325 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodsart View Post

Picking up the smiley face Sunday......

Congrats to you sir! Nice score

Buki, it's a center channel speaker.
post #2326 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by bukiwhitey View Post

What is it?

It is the last or next to last or the next, to the next to the last Philhacenter Dennis will be making.....well that was the last I heard anyway!! He said there wasn't enough time to make them anymore as he spends 24hrs a day on the Phils!

Yeah and it will be stone cold on the top of my cabinet sunday night!!! And....of course, I will upload a pick!!!

I feel very fortunate to have gotten one, now when the Marantz comes, which is tomorrow while I am gone....Shesh!!, we shall see how things sound if I have the audioknowledge to get it all working.

Anyway thanks, guys
post #2327 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodsart View Post

Obviously that is not going to be a problem here?

I meant 200 into 4 ohms might not be enough, but you have that Emotiva amp (300 into 4 ohms), so you should be set.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

I bet Nuance is trying to get woodsart to buy one of these:

http://www.vtl.com/pages/Amplifiers/Siegfried/

Unfortunately I think they cost about 10 times as much as a philharmonic

Yeah, ah - that would ROCK!

Quote:
Originally Posted by woodsart View Post

Picking up the smiley face Sunday......

Oh yeah!!
post #2328 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

I meant 200 into 4 ohms might not be enough, but you have that Emotiva amp (300 into 4 ohms), so you should be set.

300wpc 4ohm would be enough for sure.

Of course, the Harman Crown XLS2500 DriveCore 775wpc 4ohm stereo amp for $550 would also be a great option.
post #2329 of 4614
I'm on my phone so sorry for not finding the answer, but I don't believe the amp Dennis uses goes much above 200w. I think I'd be perfectly happy with that number (but even more so with 300w).
post #2330 of 4614
I woke up this morning in a classical mood, so with coffee (double espresso) and my latest copy of Men's Journal magazine I hopped down to the basement and listened to Scheherazade by some orchestra dudes in Chicago (without Audyssey I might add). This SACD is just begging for those Philharmonics. I'm excited once again.
post #2331 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post


300wpc 4ohm would be enough for sure.

Of course, the Harman Crown XLS2500 DriveCore 775wpc 4ohm stereo amp for $550 would also be a great option.

I'd think so, but it depends on how loud he's listening, how big his room is, the impedance and sensitivity of the speaker. etc. The RMS peaks can hit well over 250 watts @8 ohms when listening at typical volume (85dBish), even though the average rating would likely be somewhere around 5-8 watts. Transient peaks such as drums hits will spike much higher than many people think, sending a clipped signal all the way through to the speakers. Crossing to a subwoofer(s) helps alleviate this issue, as many of the peaks are in the nether regions, but having as much clean, low distortion power is best.

I personally wouldn't use a pro amp for my hi-fi speakers, but to each their own.

Dennis and Jim uses Frank's AVA amps, which are built like a tank and are probably very conservatively rated. That alone is an endorsement in a way, and I'd have no reservations using one in my own system.
post #2332 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post


I personally wouldn't use a pro amp for my hi-fi speakers, but to each their own.

Not even a $2500 Lexicon dressed up version of a Crown DriveCore pro-amp?

post #2333 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

I personally wouldn't use a pro amp for my hi-fi speakers, but to each their own.

Why?
post #2334 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

I meant 200 into 4 ohms might not be enough, but you have that Emotiva amp (300 into 4 ohms), so you should be set.



Oh yeah!!

My Bryston does that (300 into 4ohms) and the Phils sound spectacular. I haven't heard them run out of gas yet. I haven't tried my Emotivas with them.
post #2335 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post


Not even a $2500 Lexicon dressed up version of a Crown DriveCore pro-amp?

Nope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by d_m1010 View Post


My Bryston does that (300 into 4ohms) and the Phils sound spectacular. I haven't heard them run out of gas yet. I haven't tried my Emotivas with them.

Brystons are super well built! Build quality goes a long way. . A receiver's amp section won't compare to something like a Bryston or AVA in my opinion.

Transients are usually short bursts and sometimes can go unnoticed, but they do occur and that should be taken into consideration depending on how big the room is and how loud you listen. With that said I had no issues driving Dennis' Phil 2's with 200 watts into 4 ohms, but I was crossed to dual subs.
post #2336 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Nope.



Brystons are super well built! Build quality goes a long way. . A receiver's amp section won't compare to something like a Bryston or AVA in my opinion.

Transients are usually short bursts and sometimes can go unnoticed, but they do occur and that should be taken into consideration depending on how big the room is and how loud you listen. With that said I had no issues driving Dennis' Phil 2's with 200 watts into 4 ohms, but I was crossed to dual subs.

+1. My Phils run full range with my subs (at 60hz) so the extra juice may come in handy.
post #2337 of 4614
Here's the post I was looking for. AVA does not specify output at 4 ohms, I suspect it's somewhere just north of 200w:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Murphy View Post

Hi I'm not really an amp guy. Their basic voicing sounds pretty much the same to me. What I'm concerned about is the ability to drive 4-ohm loads to realistic levels when all the orchestral stops are pulled out. I'm currently using a Van Alstine Inight amp and preamp. It think the amp is rated at 120 watts/channel--higher into 4 ohms--and it takes everything I can throw at it, including the Salk SounScapes. In comparison, my Marsh amp rated at 200 watts shuts down on the Salks just when I'm starting to enjoy things. And I know you're not talking about shere volume. But Wagner should sound like Wagner, and that takes a really well-engineered amplifier.
post #2338 of 4614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

Here's the post I was looking for. AVA does not specify output at 4 ohms, I suspect it's somewhere just north of 200w:

Its usually another 80-100% power, so its likely around 200-240 into 4 ohms (Dennis' amp). Thanks for finding that post. It's a good example of build quailty, as it seems the more powerful Marsh couldn't match the AVA even though the latter is rated for less power. I'm in the market for a more powerful amp myself, if nothing else to ensure I have the extra headroom for transients. AVA, Parasound's A21, Bryston, Wyred4Sound and Odyssey Audio are all on my short list.

Pro amps are ugly, loud, usually have more distortion and just don't sound all that great. I realize many think all amps sound the same, and while I think differences between well designed amps are minor, I don't believe they all sound the same. Pro amps for DIY subwoofers is a great way to go, though.
post #2339 of 4614
I totally agree, I heard a 100 wpc (may have been class A) Krell stereo amp do things 200 watt Adcom monoblocks failed to do, same Kef 105/3 speakers in the same room just a couple weeks later. I don't subscribe that all amps sound the same thread.
post #2340 of 4614
I asked over at Audio Circle what the AVA Synergy amp's power output into 4ohms was here and his response was: "Synergy amplifiers will effective produce double 8 ohm power into 4 ohms, up to the limits of the recommended maximum speaker fuses built into the back panel of the ampliifiers."

I've been wondering how one of his amps would compare to my Parasound A21. I guess the only way to find out is to buy one and compare. I'm also unsure of how the speaker fuses work - whether they are custom to individual speakers or not. I bought one of his DAC's and a tube preamp from him and I've got them in the system right now and am putting some hours on the tubes to get them broken in.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Philharmonic Audio - Dennis Murphy