Speaker Shootout - two of the most accurate and well reviewed speakers ever made - Page 53 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1881Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1561 of 1751 Old 10-07-2017, 09:39 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 12,392
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3298 Post(s)
Liked: 3393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Actually, nothing on earth or even the moon as I posted this one in the wrong thread.
Ah, brain farts, hate it when that happens! Much as I loathe doing things like that, I really do agree with you that it is an interesting article. A debate/topic for another thread.

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1562 of 1751 Old 10-07-2017, 09:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
12B4A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: CR Iowa
Posts: 1,107
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 633 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
As well as a link posted in the comments.

Life is Lambertian
12B4A is offline  
post #1563 of 1751 Old 10-07-2017, 09:46 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
>> Voecks stated it's preferable to use stand-mount speakers with subs vs a full-size speaker

There sure are a lot of aesthetic and WAF reasons to do this, but the usual sonic problems with subsat (not insurmountable, but entailing luck and savvy both to overcome) are getting the crossover stitching right and, more important, getting the octaves centered on and below middle C smooth. Speakers on stands notoriously are prone to suckouts and ripple in the 100-200Hz octave, sometimes above or below a little, as some of the above curves imply. This, unlike resonances, is something EQ can deal with, however.

On partial solution I employ is to take the sub up as high as it will go, like ~150Hz, but if you let anyone know you did that (it's not detectable) you will be laughed out of audiophiledom.
davidrmoran is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1564 of 1751 Old 10-07-2017, 09:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,266
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4020 Post(s)
Liked: 2485
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post
Ah, brain farts, hate it when that happens! Much as I loathe doing things like that, I really do agree with you that it is an interesting article. A debate/topic for another thread.

Has absolutely nothing to with me staying up until 4:00am last night listening to the MQA decoding Dragonfly Red with my new subscription to Tidal. I'm a first time steamer.

So, glad you alerted me so I could post in the correct thread, which I have done.

Still though, there's plenty in that link that could be of interest here as well as we all use a source(s) of some type.

Last edited by Scotth3886; 10-07-2017 at 10:01 AM.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1565 of 1751 Old 10-07-2017, 09:56 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 12,392
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3298 Post(s)
Liked: 3393
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
>> Voecks stated it's preferable to use stand-mount speakers with subs vs a full-size speaker

There sure are a lot of aesthetic and WAF reasons to do this, but the usual sonic problems with subsat (not insurmountable, but entailing luck and savvy both to overcome) are getting the crossover stitching right and, more important, getting the octaves centered on and below middle C smooth. Speakers on stands notoriously are prone to suckouts and ripple in the 100-200Hz octave, sometimes above or below a little, as some of the above curves imply. This, unlike resonances, is something EQ can deal with, however.

On partial solution I employ is to take the sub up as high as it will go, like ~150Hz, but if you let anyone know you did that (it's not detectable) you will be laughed out of audiophiledom.
Yah, aligning the crossover and dealing with the bloody floor bounce is always an issue. In the past I have tried raising the crossover, and it did help, but only when the sub was centered between the satellites or I used a pair of subs right below or under the satellites. The (one) problem with a high crossover is that there is still significant energy an octave above, especially way back then when the slopes were usually 6-12 dB/octave instead of 24 dB or more with DSP. My custom servo subs incorporated a third-order (18 dB/octave analog) crossover, consider high at that time.

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley

Last edited by DonH50; 10-07-2017 at 10:09 AM.
DonH50 is online now  
post #1566 of 1751 Old 10-07-2017, 11:42 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
My sub is 12' off in a corner and goes up to 135Hz, and is not heard as a source and does not pull or even nudge the stereo images. As I say, don't ever admit that to anyone.

Btw, it's not really 'floor bounce'. Gravity plays no part . In most domestic situations there are six other equally influential reflections (some of which are also image sources 'within' the floor).

EQ aside (which is always a good idea when properly done), good distances for the satellites from the three boundaries of the near corner are staggered ones: 2'/3'/4' and 2'/3'/5', if you can do it and it suits you. 'Good' meaning producing the most solid sound the octave and a half below middle C (260Hz).
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1567 of 1751 Old 10-08-2017, 10:02 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,183
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2814 Post(s)
Liked: 2731
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post
On bigger speakers: Coming from large-area'ish planar speakers, I like having the extra height and sound stage the Salon2's offer.

I agree. This is one of the traits that has me preferring floor standing speakers over stand-mounted speakers. The sense that the soundstage, and instrument sizes, are more believably large and tall. For instance, with a recording of a stand up bass played on a stand mounted monitor, I get the sense/imaging impression that the bass is a sort of fore-shortened object, sort of like the Bass player has been cut off at the knees, the bass floating above the ground and compressed. Even IF it has good lower frequency weight. Whereas with a big floor stander, there is quite an impression of the bass "going all the way down," anchored to the floor as it were, like a real stand up bass playing in the room. I don't know if it's perhaps psychological or not, but as I'm often going between my big floor standing speakers and various stand mounted speakers, it's a very consistent impression (even when I listen with my eyes closed which is often).
Scotth3886 likes this.
R Harkness is offline  
post #1568 of 1751 Old 10-08-2017, 10:25 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,183
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2814 Post(s)
Liked: 2731
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
Floyd/David,

Thanks for the replies!

BTW, though not speaker related, the issue of blind tests has become pertinent for me again due to a change I made in my 2 channel music system. Until recently I have streamed my ripped CD files (Lossless or uncompressed) from an external drive hooked to my iMac, using the iTunes interface to my Apple TV, to me Benchmark DAC, to my system.

In an effort to escape some of the hassles of iTunes, I recently moved to the Logitech Media Server platform, using a small Raspberry Pi (hand sized) computer. Now using the iPeng remote app to control my music.

Now, this is, as far as I can tell, simply streaming bits to my DAC from a different computer. There is no reason I'm aware of that would suggest any difference in sound, and I did not expect any.

And yet, my system now sounds slightly different. In a way that's actually driving me a bit nuts. There is a decidedly more thin, peaky quality to the treble, a thinner sounding midrange, just a generally brighter, "harder" edge to the sound. This is bizarre, as it is exactly those areas in which my system has always struck me as NOT sounding like that.

I kept figuring "all in my head, no reason for it." But when I finally took the hard drive and streamed again from the iMac/iTunes...suddenly my system sounded like itself again - not peaky, richer, less edge, more organic etc. Damn...this I did not expect or want, as I really need to be rid of iTunes and on to the other platform.

So, understanding, as far as I do, that there shouldn't be a sonic difference and my this could be some form of bias, I'm going to blind test between them with the help of a pal.
Just to follow up on the above...

I did manage a modest blind test with the help of my friend.

The two different digital servers - iTunes and the Raspberry Pi - were in a room down the hall from my listening room. So my friend was in a separate room out of sight, switching between the two sources. We did the testing in pairs of 2. I'd listen to a bit of the selected song, then I'd yell "switch. " Then I would yell to him which one I preferred - if any, and he'd write down the result for each pair trial.

My friend had use coin flips to determine the switching. Hence switching was random, unknown to me, and sometimes the source was actually switched, sometimes it was just played again.

Results: Random guessing pattern. Sometimes I "preferred" the sound of one, sometimes the other. Sometimes I said "there was no change" when there was no change. Other times I "preferred" one over the other, even though the source had not been changed.

I have to say that the switching scenario was not optimal - I didn't have the right connection to set up instant switching using my DAC's input, so my pal had to switch the cable manually, which created a sort of frustrating delay (maybe 30 seconds or so). And since I was tired it made trying to remember the previous sound a bit more of a struggle. However, I think the results are most likely accurate in terms of there being no audible difference between the two set ups.
After all, audiophiles will switch a DAC or amplifier or cables or any other component and report they easily "hear" the difference - and the time gaps between switching components like that is much greater than the time gap I was dealing with. If there were a distinct audible difference, I'd think it would be obvious enough in this switching process and not a struggle to discern.

Blind testing like this long ago saved me from spending silly money on high priced audiophile cables (AC and otherwise), and it's a nice tool to have in settling a case of audiophile nervosa :-)

(I'd also mention: via the same type of blind-test set up, years ago I'd also blind tested an old Meridian CD player I had, against a cheaper Sony CD player and a Mietner DAC. Used a volt meter etc to ensure the same signal strength etc. I easily got perfect scores identifying the units).

BTW, as I am still on the hunt for a possible smaller replacement for my speakers, I've been spending time auditioning in high end stores. Yesterday I listened to systems, with excellent speakers, hooked up to extremely expensive amplifiers, power conditioning, boutique AC cables etc. And, as usual, I wasn't hearing anything that my system wasn't doing at least as well at home, with "off the shelf" cabling. I'm very glad not to be stuck thinking I have to spend lots of money on cables.
leecreek and SouthernCA like this.

Last edited by R Harkness; 10-08-2017 at 10:29 AM.
R Harkness is offline  
post #1569 of 1751 Old 10-11-2017, 01:51 PM
Senior Member
 
dmikester1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 22
You should add a link or at least say what page the results of the shootout are on in the first post. I'm not going to sift through 53 pages searching for the results!
dmikester1 is offline  
post #1570 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 08:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
avdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 611
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Thumbs up Totally agree soundstage better with large speakers

Having gone back-and-forth between sub/bookshelves and large planar speakers, there's no comparison regarding soundstage. The bookshelves image everything in miniature, the large planars make everything life size. There's no comparison between the two, but many don't have room for 6 foot tall 2 foot wide speakers that have to be kept away from the back wall. I've never had large conventional floor standing speakers, but I assume they are similar in soundstage size.
Scotth3886 likes this.

Pioneer Elite SC-LX901 Receiver, Magnepan MG2.5/R x4 and CC3 center channel speakers with Sound Anchor stands, Power Sound Audio S3000i subwoofer, Sony UBP-X800 4K Blu-ray player, Sony XBR-75X940E TV, Monoprice Premium HDMI and DH Labs Silver Sonic T-14 speaker cables
avdoc is offline  
post #1571 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 10:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,679
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1104 Post(s)
Liked: 1288
Quote:
Originally Posted by avdoc View Post
Having gone back-and-forth between sub/bookshelves and large planar speakers, there's no comparison regarding soundstage. The bookshelves image everything in miniature, the large planars make everything life size. There's no comparison between the two, but many don't have room for 6 foot tall 2 foot wide speakers that have to be kept away from the back wall. I've never had large conventional floor standing speakers, but I assume they are similar in soundstage size.
I worked as a recording engineer for over 30 years in small control rooms and used high quality professional bookshelf sized monitors (Meyer HD-1, Genelec, Tannoy, Lipinski etc). When the speakers are smaller and the distance to the listening position is under 8 feet to keep the equilateral triangle correct, you don't get the same sense of size and space you get with larger speakers in bigger rooms and listening positions further back.

I had a dedicated room at home for many years (17' wide x 23' long x 10' ceiling height) and had Dunlavy SC-V's (7' tall, 330 lbs each). I have not heard many better systems for creating a huge realistic soundstage with impact and slam.

Now I have a smaller living room and use Revel F208's that sound great but are a compromise due to their size. Not bad mind you, but if you have a big room and can afford big speakers, there is nothing quite like it.

Last edited by Rex Anderson; 10-16-2017 at 12:54 PM.
Rex Anderson is online now  
post #1572 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 12:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 4,283
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2009 Post(s)
Liked: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Anderson View Post
I worked as a recording engineer for over 30 years in small control rooms and used high quality professional bookshelf sized monitors (Meyer HD-1, Genelec, Tannoy, Lipinski etc). When the speakers are smaller and the distance to the listening position is under 8 feet to keep the equilateral triangle correct, you do not get the same sense of size and space that you get with larger speakers in bigger rooms and listening positions that are further back.

I had a dedicated room at home for many years (17' wide x 23' long x 10' ceiling height) and had Dunlavy SC-V's (7' tall, 330 lbs each). I have not heard many better systems for creating a huge realistic soundstage with impact and slam.

Now I have a smaller living room and use Revel F208's that sound great but are a compromise due to their size. Not bad mind you, but if you have a big room and can afford big speakers, there is nothing quite like it.
Not to stray from the original topic, but what were/are your impressions of the Meyer Sound HD-1?
Kain is offline  
post #1573 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 12:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,679
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1104 Post(s)
Liked: 1288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain View Post
Not to stray from the original topic, but what were/are your impressions of the Meyer Sound HD-1?
They were quite good, especially early on when they first came out. Not many other options were as good. Long in the tooth now. They certainly worked for Roger Nichols (Steely Dan) who told me mastering engineers never touched his mixes when he worked on them. He tried other monitors and came back to the Meyers.

Something about them seemed to suck out ambience/reverb. Could have been the room they were in, but I tried them in another control room too. I always added too much of the hall mics or artificial reverb when I mixed on them. When I listened on other monitors, my mixes sounded too wet. Can't explain that.

These days, I'd go with JBL LSR 708P.
Rex Anderson is online now  
post #1574 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 03:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 4,283
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2009 Post(s)
Liked: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Anderson View Post
They were quite good, especially early on when they first came out. Not many other options were as good. Long in the tooth now. They certainly worked for Roger Nichols (Steely Dan) who told me mastering engineers never touched his mixes when he worked on them. He tried other monitors and came back to the Meyers.

Something about them seemed to suck out ambience/reverb. Could have been the room they were in, but I tried them in another control room too. I always added too much of the hall mics or artificial reverb when I mixed on them. When I listened on other monitors, my mixes sounded too wet. Can't explain that.

These days, I'd go with JBL LSR 708P.
Thanks.

In your opinion, which of the following two setups would you prefer for movies and music? Room size is roughly 15 ft long x 12 ft wide x 9.5 ft high. Note that I have selected the 600 watt amps for the JBLs instead of the usual 300 watt amps for more output (JBL states 114 dB continuous/119 dB peak with the 600 watt amps for the 708i)

Option 1

11 x JBL 708i + 1 x Crown DCi 4|600N (for LCR) + 1 x Crown DCi 8|600N (for side, back, and ceiling speakers) + 1 x Seaton Sound SubMersive (will add more later on).

Option 2

3 x JTR Noesis 228HTR + 4 x JTR Slanted 8HT (for side and back surrounds) + 4 x JBL SCS 8 (for ceiling speakers) + 1 x ATI AT523NC (for LCR) + ATI AT528NC (for side, back, and ceiling speakers) + 1 x Seaton Sound SubMersive (will add more later on).

Both setups are pretty much the same price.
Kain is offline  
post #1575 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 03:10 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by avdoc View Post
Having gone back-and-forth between sub/bookshelves and large planar speakers, there's no comparison regarding soundstage. The bookshelves image everything in miniature, the large planars make everything life size. There's no comparison between the two, but many don't have room for 6 foot tall 2 foot wide speakers that have to be kept away from the back wall. I've never had large conventional floor standing speakers, but I assume they are similar in soundstage size.
I don't think so, and I don't think you would think so either. Large planars' source size and radiation pattern are not like anything else, and while I don't know about the 'lifesize' part necessarily, the presentation will not be equaled by any tower cone/dome (or indeed other) system.
Scotth3886 likes this.
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1576 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 03:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,758
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 1092
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
I don't think so, and I don't think you would think so either. Large planars' source size and radiation pattern are not like anything else, and while I don't know about the 'lifesize' part necessarily, the presentation will not be equaled by any tower cone/dome (or indeed other) system.
We know that line and plane radiators operate at fundamentally different levels of SPL density with distance. A line is roughly defined as a source sufficiently long enough to radiate a given wavelength as a cylinder and a plane is a source where both length and width are directed out in a plane without a spherical shape. Neither radiate as points - arguably as nature - and neither exhibit the same SPL at distance as a point. That directivity and significant extra loudness at distance probably accounts for their popularity in very large venues.

We can extend this phenomenon to large lines to see how it becomes unnatural. When heard at thirty or forty feet a 12' line can project a single vocalist that sounds 15 or 18 feet tall. On the other hand, listen to a line at 6" and notice how the apparent source sounds about an inch tall. Naturally planes approximately double this radiation phenomenon because they do it in both forward dimensions and not just one.

The question then is if any line or plane is making a correctly life-sized image at X distance.

(As I recall years ago Kinergetics made a box to correct what was purported to be the line's lack of a correct transient launch or envelope. I took that to mean that as a 2D radiator, a line could not project all aspects of the point's spherical pulse...)

Chane Music & Cinema
Need advice? Avoid speculation; for solid referrals seek out real users.
Jon Lane is offline  
post #1577 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 04:18 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post
We know that line and plane radiators operate at fundamentally different levels of SPL density with distance. A line is roughly defined as a source sufficiently long enough to radiate a given wavelength as a cylinder and a plane is a source where both length and width are directed out in a plane without a spherical shape. Neither radiate as points - arguably as nature - and neither exhibit the same SPL at distance as a point. That directivity and significant extra loudness at distance probably accounts for their popularity in very large venues.

We can extend this phenomenon to large lines to see how it becomes unnatural. When heard at thirty or forty feet a 12' line can project a single vocalist that sounds 15 or 18 feet tall. On the other hand, listen to a line at 6" and notice how the apparent source sounds about an inch tall. Naturally planes approximately double this radiation phenomenon because they do it in both forward dimensions and not just one.

The question then is if any line or plane is making a correctly life-sized image at X distance.

(As I recall years ago Kinergetics made a box to correct what was purported to be the line's lack of a correct transient launch or envelope. I took that to mean that as a 2D radiator, a line could not project all aspects of the point's spherical pulse...)
Not really following, but that's okay. I was speaking only of in-room apparent source size, nothing outdoors or large venues. Don't really know what spl density, launch, envelope, pulse or even transient, the catchall fallback, means. And finally I am not sure perceived source size is predictable from the physical driver --- practically all that we listen to is recorded via comparatively small-diam diaphragms and delivered to the brain by our small-diam eardrum.

Phased arrays of cone / dome drivers done really well can deliver extremely well-integrated and bundled and 'listen-into' playback at a pleasing scale. I was just agreeing that tall planars don't present like anything else.
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1578 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 04:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jon Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,758
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 1092
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
Not really following, but that's okay. I was speaking only of in-room apparent source size, nothing outdoors or large venues. [...]

Phased arrays of cone / dome drivers done really well can deliver extremely well-integrated and bundled and 'listen-into' playback at a pleasing scale. I was just agreeing that tall planars don't present like anything else.
No they do not (and I was emphasizing your first remark). The line's sound pressure over distance attenuates at half the rate of a point, and the plane at half that again. They're fundamentally different over distance than points, a characteristic that seems to extend to the apparent physical size of the recorded source too.

The rest relates to how they emit a recorded source from those elongated dimensions. Not as correct step or pulse transients - that word again - because they do not possess the geometry of an emerging spherical point (as I took it).

Chane Music & Cinema
Need advice? Avoid speculation; for solid referrals seek out real users.
Jon Lane is offline  
post #1579 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 07:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 1541
It’s official, I’m the first time traveler ....
I came from the future, 2018, to share this book on acoustics



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
John Schuermann likes this.
mtbdudex is online now  
post #1580 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 08:20 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
>> The line's sound pressure over distance attenuates at half the rate of a point, and the plane at half that again. They're fundamentally different over distance than points, a characteristic that seems to extend to the apparent physical size of the recorded source too.

?? Half and then half?

Please do some proper (orderly) broadband SPL measurements within a domestic listening room starting close and then at typical listening distances.

Also, to doublecheck apparent source size, see if you can do some blind testing of that (black-dark room, screens, whatever).
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1581 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 09:03 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 12,392
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3298 Post(s)
Liked: 3393
My Revel Salon 2's present a different sound field than my Magnepan MG-IIIa's did but both are very nice to my ears. One of my concerns was the loss of that planar image and I do not really find that to be an issue. No, they are not the same, but both are good, just different. My room, my ears... I have had nice bookshelf speakers and with the right room and setup they can do quite well, but I have always preferred larger speakers for various reasons. As for my current system, if I stand of course I move out of the direct tweeter plane more than with my Maggies, but arguably the Salon 2's have a more realistic image in some ways even if not as "big".

One thing the Revels do well is integrate the drivers through the crossover region. That has long been one of my issues with conventional drivers; the image and soundfield shift as the sound moves up and down the scale was distracting. Full-range panels, or close enough, usually did much better but my Revels are very smooth. Note my room is heavily treated so reflections play less an issue in their sound and that probably helps in providing similar sound. I expect the result would be different, not bad just different, in a live room.

FWIWFM - Don
John Schuermann and klh007 like this.

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is online now  
post #1582 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 09:32 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Very nicely and generously put.

Twice in my life I have been just knocked out by presentation scale. In 1968 I carefully heard brand-new Bose 901s playing the Cleveland Orchestra (Brahms PC 1, RSerkin under Szell) and as a new speaker auditioner found it just amazingly lifelike, floating in Severance Hall. Dealer, hard front wall.

30y later, maybe a bit less, I listened to a pair of Acoustats in someone's listening room (hard front wall) playing Chopin piano (MFrager or PFrankel, a test cut that had recently been hot in audiophile circles). Again, hovering in space over the piano, where the mikes were.

In each case, over time, it became quite clear to me, or would've become quite clear, that this presentation was unsuitable in a number of ways for ongoing, sustained listening and playback. It's not quite right to say it all depends, but an awful lot of it depends.
DonH50 likes this.
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1583 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 09:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bigguyca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: East Turkestan
Posts: 1,832
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1149 Post(s)
Liked: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmikester1 View Post
You should add a link or at least say what page the results of the shootout are on in the first post. I'm not going to sift through 53 pages searching for the results!
You're kidding right?
bigguyca is online now  
post #1584 of 1751 Old 10-16-2017, 11:00 PM
Senior Member
 
dmikester1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguyca View Post
You're kidding right?
Well, I wasn't. I was legitimately asking. But would you mind filling me in on what I'm not understanding?
dmikester1 is offline  
post #1585 of 1751 Old 10-17-2017, 07:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,404
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 958 Post(s)
Liked: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmikester1 View Post
Well, I wasn't. I was legitimately asking. But would you mind filling me in on what I'm not understanding?
Me too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
SouthernCA is offline  
post #1586 of 1751 Old 10-17-2017, 09:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
12B4A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: CR Iowa
Posts: 1,107
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 633 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Just start here.
dmikester1 likes this.

Life is Lambertian
12B4A is offline  
post #1587 of 1751 Old 10-17-2017, 11:26 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 11,778
Mentioned: 187 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5651 Post(s)
Liked: 2696
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
From the four participants who did numerical values:

Bird on a Wire - Jennifer Warnes: M2 - 7 average score, Salon2 - 8.5 average score
Battlestar Galactica - Stu Phillips: M2 - 6.75 average score, Salon2 - 8.5 average score
World in My Eyes - Depeche Mode: M2 - 6.75 average score, Salon2 - 8.25 average score
The Enterprise - Jerry Goldsmith: M2 - 7.25 average score, Salon2 - 8.25 average score
Rimsky-Korsakov: Scheherazade (thanks, @awediophile ) : M2 - 7.75 average score, Salon2 8.5 average score
Parade of the Wooden Soldiers - Dallas Wind Symphony: M2 - 6.5 average score, 8.5 average score
Vocalise - Rachmaninoff (Mischa Maisky) Cello, Piano: M2 - 7.375 average score, Salon2 8.5 average score
Someone Like You - Adele: M2 - 7.75 average score, Salon2 - 8.625 average score
Spanish Harlem - Rebecca Pidgeon: M2 - 8.25 average score, Salon2 - 8.875 average score
Take Five - Dave Brubeck: M2 - 7 average score, Salon2 - 8.25 average score
Thriller - Michael Jackson: M2 - 7 average score, Salon2 - 7.75 average score
I Will Remember - Toto: M2 - 7.25 average score, Salon2 - 8.25 average score
Fat Cry - Yello: M2 - 6.75 average score, Salon2 - 8.5 average score

TOTAL AVERAGE SCORE FOR THE M2: 7.18
TOTAL AVERAGE SCORE FOR THE SALON2: 8.40


There you have it for the numbered scores. Next up - check boxes
Just to play the devil's advocate: So the speaker with an increased spacious presentation won? Just like the louder speaker would always win?

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #1588 of 1751 Old 10-17-2017, 02:59 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
Just to play the devil's advocate: So the speaker with an increased spacious presentation won? Just like the louder speaker would always win?
Not "just like"
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1589 of 1751 Old 10-17-2017, 03:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,679
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1104 Post(s)
Liked: 1288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain View Post
Thanks.

In your opinion, which of the following two setups would you prefer for movies and music? Room size is roughly 15 ft long x 12 ft wide x 9.5 ft high. Note that I have selected the 600 watt amps for the JBLs instead of the usual 300 watt amps for more output (JBL states 114 dB continuous/119 dB peak with the 600 watt amps for the 708i)

Option 1

11 x JBL 708i + 1 x Crown DCi 4|600N (for LCR) + 1 x Crown DCi 8|600N (for side, back, and ceiling speakers) + 1 x Seaton Sound SubMersive (will add more later on).

Option 2

3 x JTR Noesis 228HTR + 4 x JTR Slanted 8HT (for side and back surrounds) + 4 x JBL SCS 8 (for ceiling speakers) + 1 x ATI AT523NC (for LCR) + ATI AT528NC (for side, back, and ceiling speakers) + 1 x Seaton Sound SubMersive (will add more later on).

Both setups are pretty much the same price.
I do not know anything about JTR speakers other than what I have read on AVS.

I had MTM studio monitors (Lipinski L-707) that had significant off-axis irregularities in the vertical plane.

The JBL 708's are well documented (spin-o-rama data) and look very good on paper.

Last edited by Rex Anderson; 10-17-2017 at 03:45 PM.
Rex Anderson is online now  
post #1590 of 1751 Old 10-17-2017, 03:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 4,283
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2009 Post(s)
Liked: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Anderson View Post
I do not know anything about JTR speakers other than what I have read on AVS.

I had MTM studio monitors (Lipinski L-707) that had significant off-axis irregularities in the vertical plane.

The JBL 708's are well documented (spin-o-rama data) and look very good on paper.
Thanks.

This post has me worried about the quality control on the JBL 7 Series speakers: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-spe...l#post54964584

I haven't heard any owners of the 708i here complain about a lack of quality control so I wonder if it more of a issue on the 708P (which is what the post is referring to)?
Kain is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off