Up to 5k speakers - Page 2

Have you posted an audition request in both manufacturer's respective forums? You may have a local owner nearby and not even know it.

Best wishes to you and your search.

I completely disagree also. I can say that there is never been a klispch speaker I have heard that sounds as good as my dynaudios with music. And yes, my Dyns sound as good as klipsch in HT. And IMO, better, cause i don't have some megaphone screaming at me.

Not to get into music vs ht speaker argument(because we may steer the thread off track) but regarding your klipsch's, if they sound that bad then they're probably not a good design to begin with and don't meet the threshold of what FOH(or myself) would call "good ht speakers." I was never terribly impressed with the klipsch models I've heard, but I've never had the chance to hear the heritage line or something like jubilee's. I've not heard salks either(almost had a chance when a friend of mine purchased a pair of ht3's but UPS destroyed them) but each time they come up I get curious as they seem to have quite the following.

Personally, I think the whole ht speaker vs music speaker preference probably hinges most on what you value in music playback and probably the genres of music one enjoys. That said, I still enjoy the little bit of orchestral music I have on my jtr's, but maybe I'm just weird.

edit: actually "maybe" should be omitted from that last sentence.

Aren't the places where Klipsch shine in larger rooms with proper anti-reflective treatments? Klipsch's higher efficiency allows them to project sound further into large rooms. High efficiency speaker don't typically sound "better" (ie, smooth, controlled, pleasant) than lower efficiency speakers, however, in larger rooms the lower efficiency speakers tend to "strain/saturate" while high efficiency speakers keep the sound much more clean at a distance.

I think you are comparing the quality of speakers in a way that is a bit unfair. Put that Klipsch speaker in a larger room and it will sound much better than those lower efficiency speakers that are being compared. Different designs with different target applications.

Well, the basis for the whole "Home Theater Speaker vs Music Speaker" is a design difference. It's my (and most other listener's) opinion that the best 2-channel music speakers include vertical dispersion to impress on the listener that "3-D" sound field. Home Theater speaker designs intend for that "surround" info to be delivered by the surround speakers, not the front L/C/R. That's why THX certification includes limited vertical dispersion in the front L/C/R design.

Also, the R/L speakers in home theater are meant to be anchored closely to the sides of the screen (in very large, wall-to-wall screens this is not an issue). In typical home theater setups, this is counter to the placement encouraged by typical 2-channel music setups to get the best stereo image possible.

So in short, you have a clash of speaker design applications. One is centered around presenting surround sound in a very specific manner while the other design is attempting to present a full-on experience using only 2 speakers.

pm sent

I think we may be starting to derail the op's thread.

This is so true - good post.

I posted;






Respectfully

Again, and upon re-examining my post, I still believe it's entirely true. Not opinion, I think it's factual,...and here's why; I didn't name or identify brands, models, or any specifics. I'm merely saying loudspeakers. As I said, speakers for music, may not be best for HT. This is true, in every way I can imagine. Take speaker M, for music, call it ideal in every performance characteristic important for music in room X. Precise imaging and depth, perfectly transparent and entirely inert, ideal in both time and frequency from top to bottom, with high linearity/low distortion.

This is the statement I believe individuals take exception to; however good HT speakers are good for both music and HT. Now, how can it be an incorrect statement? Good HT loudspeakers, would be good for music or HT. It's entirely true. Take loudspeaker H, for HT, call it ideal in every performance characteristic important for HT in room X. Precise imaging and depth, perfectly transparent and entirely inert, ideal in both time and frequency from top to bottom, with high linearity/low distortion. And capable to reproduce all these characteristics at reference levels at typical home theater distances.

-----------
Callas, I appreciate your good points. I'm looking forward to more contributions, as I'm not that familiar with your viewpoints.

Nuance, I too appreciate your points. As you know, I've got a great deal of respect for your contributions especially in the realm of loudspeakers. Your stuff is solid. I had some speakers in mind when posting this, but I was more theoretical in my point that I was attempting to make.
-----------


I've certainly been wrong on many occasions before, where am I wrong? I changed one word to bold, in my post at the top of this page,....does this help get my point accross?


Thanks

THX speaker design calls for limited vertical dispersion to limit the reflections off the floor and ceiling, which can smear the sound. It also calls for wide horizontal dispersion to provide broad coverage over multiple seats. It has nothing to do with surround info not being delivered by the front speakers.


A good speaker is a good speaker. It will work equally well reproducing music sound or movie sound. In fact, it doesn't know or care whether it is reproducing music or movies, or whether the voice it is reproducing is someone singing or talking, or whether the cannon shots it is reproducing are on Master and Commander or The 1812 Overture.

Craig

PS. I second Mike Garrett's suggestion of Triad Gold LCR's. They're "good" speakers.

x2

[Also, the R/L speakers in home theater are meant to be anchored closely to the sides of the screen (in very large, wall-to-wall screens this is not an issue). In typical home theater setups, this is counter to the placement encouraged by typical 2-channel music setups to get the best stereo image possible.

Huh?? This statement is not making any sense. And if you used say a Klipschhorn for HT it might not work as well as it would be suited for music? You will love the Paradigms, but it's your ears. Good luck with your choice!

Jeff

I never said you were "wrong," just that your statement was an opinion, which I still believe it is. Unfortunately some of the highly toted "HT speakers" on this forum and others are not designed with some of the features you mentioned above (ultimate clarity, superb sound stage depth and width (after all, controlled directivity hinders this), pinpoint imaging, extreme linearity, timbre accuracy, etc). HT relies on multi-channel (five or more speakers) to image and expand the sound stage, while in something like a 2-channel system you need all of those qualities to be found in one set of speakers. I too had specific brands in mind, and I'm not knocking any one specifically; I'm just saying that for ultimate music transparency I've never heard a speaker designed with horns or for controlled directivity provide an accurate portrayal of music (such as un-amplified symphonies). Said speakers really struggle with the timbre accuracy of musical instruments, especially metal ones like flute or horns. Dynamics are necessary for HT, but what about the other dynamics, such as micro and macro dynamics? Again, in my experience some speakers geared more toward HT struggle in this department. The relation of design and the drivers and crossover quality used also play a big role in what we hear. Some drivers simply sound better, and some crossover designs are just much better than others. There is a LOT that goes into a great speaker, and in my experience a low sensitivity speakers can't cut in dynamics wise for HT, and a "HT based" speaker can't cut it for accurate music portrayal. YMMV, and this is just my opinion based on my experience; nothing more, nothing less.

As I mentioned earlier, there is no perfect speaker, as they all have design trade-offs. If there was, there would be no Rocky Mountain Audio Fest or DIY forum for HT speakers, as everyone would simply buy the perfect speaker and be done with it; said speaker would excel at both music, movies and anything else you can throw at it. It would work in ALL types of rooms, no matter how different they were. There's a reason we have HT enthusiasts, 2-channel audio, various audio shows (which focus primarily on either one or the other) and publications dedicated to one or the other; it's because HT speakers and music speakers sound different, and neither excels at everything.

I too respect your opinion to the utmost, so please don't take this as an attack. I simply think the words "in my opinion" are appropriate, as there are many sides to this debate; neither side of which can be proven wrong.

I don't know but Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon SACD sure sounded great last night on my Klipsch.

Have to agree with you 100% Nuance.... we have been down a long journey with many many different speakers, auditions and shootouts..

Many great choices - there are good balances for both HT and Music, but I would narrow my choices based on your pref.

All's good

Tell me, what characteristics in a flawed HT loudspeaker would be at the top on your list of issues associated with HT mains that make them un-acceptable for music?



----
Believe me, I'm fundamentally aware of limitations of superb loudspeakers. My first goose-bump eliciting high end moment, came crashing down around me with one sentence. ...Brief anecdote; My local high end/mid fi dealer thirty some years ago sat me down in front of these Acoustats. Linn turntable feeding an Audio Research front end, subsequently feeding the amps, which I believe were some Audio Research monos. Superbly set up, nice room, overall a nice middle of the road high end experience for the time. Oh my goodness, the realistic imaging was phenomenal. Depth all the way back, as if the artist was in front of me. The material I'd never pick myself, however it was classical guitar,...and the player was talented. I'd never heard speakers truly disappear until then. I was transfixed,...until the sliding glass door re-opened to the listening room (love the late 70's), and he interrupted me. I asked him to turn it up, 'cause this was extraordinary. He, chuckling, said "that's it, that's all there is",...I stood up really abruptly and disappointed. I'd found the holy grail, however compromise bit me in the ass.

From that day forward, I've sought out dynamic realism and all the other fine attributes that separate the good from the great. In my opinion, you can have it all.
---------

Thoughts?

Seriously? Please do a search on HTRF. If you don't know what that is, we are done talking until you actually do some research. Reflections within the room can appear to sound like they are all around you and when a speaker is designed with a narrow vertical dispersion, these spacial cues are lost. There is a reason a speaker is designed a specific way for a specific purpose. In home theater it's MEANT to be a point source up front and it's MEANT to be as close to an omni-directional dispersion as possible for the side surrounds. (I actually did enough research that I'm recommending Mirage's omni-polar design for surround speakers as they are a rare design and the least expensive, yet still quality omni-directional speaker I could find.)


This is a false statement. This is not correct. For multiple reasons and you only have to go back to my previous post to find the answer. Point-source dispersion & non-ideal room placement make speakers specifically designed for home theater POOR choices for pure 2-channel music duty.


No, the speaker doesn't know, but the person mixing the soundtrack knows when he can hear an anchored dialog and sounds up front to the movie screen and spacial sounds coming from the multi-speaker surrounds in the mixing room.

I've gone over this in a previous thread and it's pretty obvious that the design of home theater speakers are producing sound with a specific "role" in combination with the other speakers.

I think most people would agree that you can take a nice pair of electro-static/dipole speakers which give off a "grand aura" soundstage and put it up against an THX certified L/C/R speaker in a standard living room driven to produce 2-channel music, and the pair of wide-stage speakers will sound MUCH better than the L/C/R HT speakers.

Reverse the roles and you'll find the wide-stage 2-channel speakers when placed up front in a home theater setup won't give off the intended "anchored/point-source" sound and instead compete/cross with the surround channels when it comes to the intended spacial ambience. Hence, one speaker design CORRECTLY reproduces the front channel sound as INTENDED and one does NOT.

I actually prefer a well designed, wide-stage speaker in 2-channel music and I believe in double-blind testing, most people will as well.

Wow, such animus.



Again, wow.

Gives significant context to other elements in your post. Spatial cues are certainly not lost with limited vertical components to the sound-field. I'm in the middle of a multi-month long experimentation of a variety of LCR acoustic interactions. I would disagree with your contentions.

Ok, I have evaluated different speaker designs over the years and there are ZERO THX/theater speaker designs which outperform good/conventional music speakers, let alone high quality sets. But, hey, if you think limiting vertical dispersion and that "point source" speakers sound no different in apparent "imaging" to most listeners, that's your opinion, but certainly not the opinion to anyone who has normal hearing and walk into just about any retail store and do the demo with a salesman. I would challenge you to put normal listeners in a double-blind comparison with a real-world living room using 2-channel music with an L/C/R theater speaker vs even a standard 2-channel music pair, then show me the results. I guarantee you that the speakers designed with the narrow disperson (theater speakers) will rate poorly and there is an obvious reason for that. Anyone reading this thread can understand that this is basic/obvious reasoning.

I however agree with you in some of your other observations that dynamics are crucial for a system to be truly 'high end'. Most expensive 2-channel audio systems have dissapointing dynamic range. I think those are not truly hi-fidelity. I designed my car audio system around both delicate fidelity and rock concert level dynamics. Took me a year and a half to piece the drivers together, figure out how to install them and then have custom fiberglass doors and kick panels put in based on my design. It sounds really nice. I don't think I compromised on anything except that the car sometimes has a pesky vibration when things are loud.

Reference levels are when "peak" dynamic output hits 105db SPL on the satellite speakers or 115db on the bass. Most people mistake "peak" with "average". If you are listening to even "clean" average levels of 105db SPL, it's going to DEFINITELY hurt your ears, or you have damaged ears. "Peak" dynamic output is different. If anyone doubts me. Play a CLEAN 300Hz tone while holding an SPL meter and turn up the volume until the meter reads 105db. Hold for even 10 seconds (but not too long, you can damage your speakers), and you will have ringing in your ears after cutting out the sound. If your ears are ringing, that means they are hurting and it would be NORMAL to say the sound hurt their ears. And this is with a CLEANLY produced 300Hz tone. I have done this myself and most I could stand was 108db and I was in pain from the loudness.

I have no idea what "HTRF" is. However, if you're talking about "HRTF", then that means Head Related Transfer Function. Can I still have a conversation with you now?

Nevermind, I'm not interested.

Craig

Sorry, HRTF. Head Related Transfer Functions. If you know what that is, then you know that my points are correct. Home Theater audio is meant to be reproduced by a specific setup intended to mimic how a real professional movie theater sounds. Deviation from this design will give you less accurate playback results. That's just the way it is. There is no "best compromise" or "best of both worlds". There are speakers designed properly for home theater and there are speakers which (to most people) sound better when used for 2-channel music. I'm just pointing out the obvious. I'm not trying to upset you.

My JTR speakers were designed to play music. But most people agree they are excellent for home theater.

Which JTR speakers were designed with music first?


As I mentioned earlier, timbre accuracy and the tonality of instruments really seems to suffer. If a flute doesn't sound like a flute, what's the point?

Anyway, this thread kind of went sour since I last posted, so I recommend moving all un-related discussion to PM or another thread. Happy hunting to the OP!

Pretty much all of them. Their roots are in the Live music arena. Because of their high efficiency they are very well suited for HT as well. I realize Live Music is a little different from what is being discussed here, but the bottom line is JTR speakers came into being for music, and from what I understand are still being used in Live venues today. Thus the Pro line they offer. The HT line came afterwards....,
The only difference I believe between the Pro and the HT versions is finish I think. The components used and the specs are the same I am pretty sure.

Best Regards,
Patrick

While I agree this thread was a 'tad' side tracked, this discussion can be helpful to the original poster still. It's not completely unrelated. I do as well wish the original poster to find a way to get the best experience possible if he's spending this much on his passion. I don't think a discussion about picking 5k speakers should be limited in any way. The more information the OP can get, the better. This is no small decision in my opinion.

Ok, what are we to conclude because of what you've determined?




Again, such animus.

Don't twist things around, individuals don't appreciate it. I'm only continuing because I believe you know the difference. I never said anything like that.

I said; "Spatial cues are certainly not lost with limited vertical components to the sound-field". Twisting that all around to suit whatever point you're attempting to make isn't necessary. I wasn't just referring to loudspeakers, that's why I said "vertical components", ....ie, either the rooms characteristics attenuated the vertical elements, or the speaker's design approach limited vertical components. Either way, the vertical energy is limited for whatever reason. Now, the reason I posted that was in response to your comment that I feel was entirely incorrect;


This is right smack dab in my wheelhouse. As I posted, I'm currently in the middle of determining/discovering the multitude of acoustic needs in my room. Several months ago, Ethan Winer, Dennis Erskine and myself entered into the normal AVS tete-a-tete´ with one another regarding listening room characteristics. Our focus was the surfaces (sidewalls, ceiling, floor) immediately between the listener and the mains. Regardless, we discussed many aspects and we went at it both in the forums and privately. This, subsequently led me to begin more experiments. Ever since that time (several months) I've been establishing exactly what characteristics are involved with each boundary's contribution.

Additionally, and more to our current conversation, I'm determining the significance and audible benefits of energy in both the horizontal, and vertical axis. That said, and consistent with many other pros and enthusiasts, the vertical elements of of little importance when compared to the lateral elements of the sound-field. As you likely know, our hearing mechanism uses HRTF, differences in time and magnitude. Since the ears are in the same plane horizontally, our localizing acuity is superior laterally, as are the lateral acoustic properties of a reproduced sound-field more significant.

Again, I said; "Spatial cues are certainly not lost with limited vertical components to the sound-field".

You twisted it into this;
"you think limiting vertical dispersion and that "point source" speakers sound no different in apparent "imaging" to most listeners, that's your opinion"






I'm not even sure what you're getting at, but if you can, read Toole's most recent work. It's phenomenal. I say that because you saying "place listeners in a room" etc., etc.,..that's the entire book. Study after study, graph after graph, all psychoacoustic interpretation of what actually matters at the listening position. That is king,..what impacts the listener at the LP.




I assume you're now referring to horizontal pattern control? Narrow,...as in horizontal? It's more of a function of the loudspeaker/room interface. The throw is entirely dependent on the proximity, and physical properties of the boundary surfaces. Regardless what the pattern of a loudspeaker is, none of that matters without a boundary to interact with.

It all depends on what one wants, increasing ASW, or apparent source width, with wide dispersion speakers and lively sidewalls, that fine. If one wants to hear into the recorded space, and hear the details of the hall, details of the recording, perhaps limiting the lateral elements would serve that purpose better. Either way, the inclusion of lateral elements are very much preferred by listeners, regardless if they're an accurate rendering of the performance or not. That said, a tightly controlled horizontal pattern and constant directivity allow the lateral components to have the highest quality/spectrally balanced product, and that's most preferred.


Regardless of your posting etiquette, you certainly brought up some important aspects in audio. Craig didn't deserve the tone you dished out.


Thanks

Especially since Craig is one of the most level headed and knowledgeable people on this site.

Not cool.

I just performed your experiment,....using my NCH Tone generator, and my modest Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 rig,...even up to 107-108, no ringing etc. The cleaner the sound, the less offensive. My Klipsch rig isn't too clean. Now, obviously, a 300hz tone isn't that sweet of a frequency. Perhaps some manner of metering standardization, weighting, response, etc, is in order. Also, perhaps certain freqs can elicit pain in individuals that have had damaged hairs in that region.

Thanks