How to Choose a Loudspeaker -- What the Science Shows - Page 171 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 6439Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #5101 of 5367 Old 09-25-2019, 08:09 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 11,821
Mentioned: 67 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1355 Post(s)
Liked: 1605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
IMHO the question is not so much about finding special speaker characteristics to favor ambiance or reverb, but for music producers to realize it is their responsibility to convey the desired effect from conventional speakers in any given configuration. Just as we have seen from the best stereo and 5.1 productions, so too would we hope to see that in immersive productions. It does of course help to have some consistency in the speaker configurations, and by that I do not mean we must all use the same 7.1.4 structure, but that there be commonalities in the nested subsets across the various speaker configurations.

My preference for aiming is to consider not just the MLP as the sole target, but the extents of the listening area when there are multiple seats present. One strategy being to aim the surrounds toward the most distant seat from the given speaker. Within reason.

What creators place in any of the speakers is purely their artistic decision. Listeners ought not rate these productions on the statistical preponderance of directional sounds in the overheads, but rather on whether the overall effect is compelling.
Thanks for the reply and the valuable information. One more question if I may...


For Atmos Music, how important do you think it will be for the overhead speakers to be "timbre-matched" to the mains and surrounds? Will it be more or less important, (or the same level of importance), for Atmos Music as it is for Atmos Movies?

Lombardi said it:
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System
craig john is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #5102 of 5367 Old 09-25-2019, 01:19 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,572
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3014 Post(s)
Liked: 1779
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
For Atmos Music, how important do you think it will be for the overhead speakers to be "timbre-matched" to the mains and surrounds? Will it be more or less important, (or the same level of importance), for Atmos Music as it is for Atmos Movies?
I'd say it is no less important to have timbre matching for the height speakers for music than movies. Generally I find music is more critical of tonal balance and timbre matching, system-wide.

Just as we want to use loudspeakers with smooth off-axis response to ensure reflected sound is not overly colored, we want the ambiances and reflected components (and of course any direct sounds) of surround/immersive music recordings to be uncolored.

To me, timbre matching is the greatest benefit of "room correction" assuming it covers a sufficient bandwidth to achieve the desired result.

Deadwood II Theater (Previous Deadwood Theater HTOM)
Anthem AVM 60 7.4.4; Classé SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4; MiniDSP OpenDRC-AN
Oppo UDP-203; Oppo BDP-93; Win10 media PC w/Roon+Kodi; Roku Ultra; DirecTV Genie
Adam Audio S3V/S3H LCR, KEF Ci200QS 4 srrnd, Tannoy Di6 DC 4 hts, Hsu ULS-15 4 subs
JVC RS520; Stewart Cima Neve screen 125" diag 2.35:1, MLP at 115"
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #5103 of 5367 Old 09-25-2019, 02:42 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 12,412
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3309 Post(s)
Liked: 3415
Might be good to discuss what "timbre matching" really means to folk... Frequency response and dispersion come to mind, but probably over a more limited range, at least as far as frequency response goes. And note I mean the shape of the curve when I say frequency response, not just the high and low -3 dB points. IOW I tend to think having the same response curve across the largest frequency range I can get is important, but chances are no height speaker I can afford and install is going to fully match my Salon2's. OTOH I know from experience taking something like a small Klipsch speaker or say one of the little speakers using a ribbon or AMT tweeter is unlikely to timbre match something like an M16 or M106 let alone a Gem2 used as a height speaker.

When I had Maggies I discovered fairly quickly that mixing planars and conventional speakers did not work out well even though I had initially assumed surrounds and rears were less important. I had fairly mismatched conventional speakers before that (Infinity Alphas and Mirage sats) and the difference was not as jarring, at least to me. All Maggies sounded fine to me (within their limitations), as did the all Revel (Salon2/F206) setup I had before going all Salon2.

I am contemplating adding some height speakers so this is an interesting topic. I am unlikely to go with Gem2's -- too big, too expensive -- so will likely end up with some smaller Revels instead.

FWIWFM - Don

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #5104 of 5367 Old 09-25-2019, 03:17 PM
Oppo Beta Group
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 11,223
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1996 Post(s)
Liked: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post
Might be good to discuss what "timbre matching" really means to folk... Frequency response and dispersion come to mind, but probably over a more limited range, at least as far as frequency response goes. And note I mean the shape of the curve when I say frequency response, not just the high and low -3 dB points. IOW I tend to think having the same response curve across the largest frequency range I can get is important, but chances are no height speaker I can afford and install is going to fully match my Salon2's. OTOH I know from experience taking something like a small Klipsch speaker or say one of the little speakers using a ribbon or AMT tweeter is unlikely to timbre match something like an M16 or M106 let alone a Gem2 used as a height speaker.

When I had Maggies I discovered fairly quickly that mixing planars and conventional speakers did not work out well even though I had initially assumed surrounds and rears were less important. I had fairly mismatched conventional speakers before that (Infinity Alphas and Mirage sats) and the difference was not as jarring, at least to me. All Maggies sounded fine to me (within their limitations), as did the all Revel (Salon2/F206) setup I had before going all Salon2.

I am contemplating adding some height speakers so this is an interesting topic. I am unlikely to go with Gem2's -- too big, too expensive -- so will likely end up with some smaller Revels instead.

FWIWFM - Don
I am on the same page. I am contemplating adding 4 flush mount height channels. Part of my ceiling is angled and part is flat so they may need to be somewhat adjustable. Part of me thinks that front wide's might be a better for HT.

- Rich

Oppo UPD-205 x 2 | UPD-203 | Sonica DAC | Emotiva XMC-1 (v3) | Revel Salon2s, Voice2, Studio2s | Benchmark AHB2 x 4 | ATI AT522NC | Velodyne HGS-15 | LG 77C9 | Lumagen 2020 | HDFury Vertex x 2
RichB is offline  
post #5105 of 5367 Old 09-25-2019, 03:41 PM
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
I'm curious:


Are there any speakers that are, or might be better than the Salon 2 speakers?


(I doubt that's a good question for KV given his position, but maybe others with suitable knowledge could chime in).


I ask because if I have inferred correctly, given the research cited both on what tends to be audible or not, and what tends to be preferrable to most listeners, at least in the tests we know of the Salon 2 (or maybe the JBL M2) seem to be top of the heap.


But engineering and sales is still about some level of compromise. Revel wasn't looking to make The Most Expensive Speaker In The World, but to create as state of the art performance as possible speakers, at price points where they could actually expect to sell them.


So I'm wondering this question in two parts:




1. If HK threw more money at their design, how could it be improved? Where would the money go? "Better" drivers? Cabinet? Anything else? (DSP is an obvious possibility, but I'd like to leave that out. For now I'm restricting this to passive speakers).

2. Are there any speakers out there that could reasonably be presumed to be competitive with the Salons (or out compete them) .e.g. designs which might fulfill much of what we know to make a speaker sound good, but which perhaps have gone more in to the "throw money at it state of the art" and have maybe used higher quality drivers, cabinets or whatever, where such designs surpass the Revel speakers?
R Harkness is offline  
post #5106 of 5367 Old 09-25-2019, 04:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,681
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1104 Post(s)
Liked: 1288
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
I'm curious:

Are there any speakers that are, or might be better than the Salon 2 speakers?

(I doubt that's a good question for KV given his position, but maybe others with suitable knowledge could chime in).

I ask because if I have inferred correctly, given the research cited both on what tends to be audible or not, and what tends to be preferrable to most listeners, at least in the tests we know of the Salon 2 (or maybe the JBL M2) seem to be top of the heap.

But engineering and sales is still about some level of compromise. Revel wasn't looking to make The Most Expensive Speaker In The World, but to create as state of the art performance as possible speakers, at price points where they could actually expect to sell them.

So I'm wondering this question in two parts:

1. If HK threw more money at their design, how could it be improved? Where would the money go? "Better" drivers? Cabinet? Anything else? (DSP is an obvious possibility, but I'd like to leave that out. For now I'm restricting this to passive speakers).

2. Are there any speakers out there that could reasonably be presumed to be competitive with the Salons (or out compete them) .e.g. designs which might fulfill much of what we know to make a speaker sound good, but which perhaps have gone more in to the "throw money at it state of the art" and have maybe used higher quality drivers, cabinets or whatever, where such designs surpass the Revel speakers?
Dr, Toole and Kevin Voecks have addressed this a few times. Dr. Toole says regarding the Salon2, there is no real benefit in going further with passive speaker designs. Sorry, I can't find his exact words or quote him, but that is the gist of it. Kevin Voecks has said the Salon2 has not been upgraded because it still has not been been beaten in double blind listening tests in the Harman MLL. Speakers costing far more than the Salon2 have not rated higher or won the listening tests.

Here is one post by Dr, Toole: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/710918-revel-owners-thread-523.html#post58522312

And here is an interview with Kevin Voecks: https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_1...ks-4-2004.html

And some more really good info:

https://www.thescreeningroomav.com/revel
vavan likes this.

Last edited by Rex Anderson; 09-25-2019 at 04:47 PM.
Rex Anderson is offline  
post #5107 of 5367 Old 09-25-2019, 04:40 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 11,821
Mentioned: 67 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1355 Post(s)
Liked: 1605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
I'd say it is no less important to have timbre matching for the height speakers for music than movies. Generally I find music is more critical of tonal balance and timbre matching, system-wide.

Just as we want to use loudspeakers with smooth off-axis response to ensure reflected sound is not overly colored, we want the ambiances and reflected components (and of course any direct sounds) of surround/immersive music recordings to be uncolored.

To me, timbre matching is the greatest benefit of "room correction" assuming it covers a sufficient bandwidth to achieve the desired result.
Thanks Roger. As I surf the forum, I often see people advising others to skimp on the surrounds and the Atmos speakers. They're told that timbre-matching those speakers is not important and that it's equally unimportant to invest in quality surrounds and overheads because "they don't get much action anyway." I've never understood why someone would make a commitment to surround sound or Atmos, and then be told to trivialize the surround and Atmos speakers. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the end users are then underwhelmed with their surround or Atmos systems.

In my experience it is essential to use quality speakers, and to timbre-match those speakers to the mains as best as possible, in order to get optimal results for surround and Atmos systems. Obviously it's not possible to put huge, honkin' speakers in all the surround positions, and certainly not in the overhead positions. Still an effort should be made to ensure that the surrounds and overheads have a similar sound signature and enough output capability to keep up with the mains.

I agree that room correction can improve a poor timbre-match somewhat, but I think it's unreasonable to think that skimping on the surrounds and overheads, and then depending on RC to "fix" the problems, (as so many posters are recommended to do), is an adequate way to compensate for less than adequate speakers.

Craig
Roger Dressler and bearr48 like this.

Lombardi said it:
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System
craig john is offline  
post #5108 of 5367 Old 09-25-2019, 04:52 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Russia
Posts: 406
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 287 Post(s)
Liked: 77
New genelec 8361 with subs would be interesting to see competing
SDX-LV likes this.
aats is offline  
post #5109 of 5367 Old 09-25-2019, 05:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,001
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1272 Post(s)
Liked: 729
How to Choose a Loudspeaker -- What the Science Shows

Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
Thanks Roger. As I surf the forum, I often see people advising others to skimp on the surrounds and the Atmos speakers. They're told that timbre-matching those speakers is not important and that it's equally unimportant to invest in quality surrounds and overheads because "they don't get much action anyway." I've never understood why someone would make a commitment to surround sound or Atmos, and then be told to trivialize the surround and Atmos speakers.

As someone firmly in the “surrounds don’t matter (unless they really suck*)” camp, because I’ve actually done listening comparisons using multichannel music (movies, due to visual masking stimulus, don’t need much in terms of front speakers, let alone surrounds!), I would not be so quick to say the same about front heights. One of the reasons surrounds don’t matter much is that people don’t hear as well behind them. Front heights are, well, in front. That said, I thought height speakers were a stupid movie affectation until I had a chance to hear what Auromatic could do to increase the size and palpability of grand 2-channel recordings. So I haven’t done such comparisons with heights.

But generally, for surrounds what seems to be most important is a timber match - as in the veneer or other surface finish looks similar enough to the other speakers that one can imagine they are supposed to go together. The “room correction” should be just that, either way, not EQ of the mids and highs from listening zone measurements.

*suck = bad resonances, non-smooth axial response, midrange mushroom cloud horizontal polars, inadequate headroom, etc.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
DS-21 is offline  
post #5110 of 5367 Old 09-26-2019, 10:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bodosom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Niagara Frontier
Posts: 9,730
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2173 Post(s)
Liked: 1709
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
Are there any speakers that are, or might be better than the Salon 2 speakers?
[I think a passive restriction is unnecessary.*]

Absolutely but unless someone is willing to publish data we (the we that can't do our own tests) will never know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by avkv
the reality is that I have never found any speaker that equals the sound quality of the Salon2s
Note the implicit constraint. However I believe the point is that if subjective results conflict with 2034a then that reveals an error in the prediction so finding better numbers might not be the end of the story.

*Floyd Toole.
Quote:
Those professional loudspeakers with dedicated electronics have a huge advantage over passive loudspeakers. Consumers in general, especially high-end audiophiles, have not caught up with the advantages that technology has to offer. Good loudspeakers and amplifiers can deliver good sound, but merging them with dedicated digital crossovers, equalizers and amplifiers designed for those specific loudspeaker components, in that specific enclosure, can yield even better sound.
vavan, Rex Anderson and SouthernCA like this.

I might type 2K for 1080p.
UDP-203/ATV4K(6,2)/X3500H/LG C8
bodosom is offline  
post #5111 of 5367 Old 09-27-2019, 12:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,776
Mentioned: 183 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3776 Post(s)
Liked: 3383
Quote:
Originally Posted by appelz View Post
Patience! And only the short term patience is required.

I spoke at length with an engineer at CEDIA who is currently remixing lots of music in Atmos, and he had a few dozen excellent examples with him. Currently, 1000's of tracks are planned on getting the Atmos treatment.

A quick Google search came up with this also :

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-t...how-to-get-it/
Quote:
Originally Posted by aats View Post
I think you are thinking from a point of person who already has Atmos theater in his house.

Think from a point of view of person that don't:

much more expensive than 2 or 3 channels.
You can't play without special decoder.
Format is closed and most likely is a DRM hell.
Place required is quite larger and requires a lot more wiring around.


It certainly will be successful in its small niche, but successful as in "wide-spread format that everyone uses instead of trusty FLAC files", very doubtful.
Stereo has lots of flaws, but it has also a great strength - it is relatively cheap, very easily placed format.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post
Yes and no. Practicality is certainly a factor but the lack of penetration of multichannel music over the past 2 decades corresponds with the flowering of home theater. Whether ATMOS (and similar) will achieve similar home acceptance and will that change anything about general interest in music over such systems is unknown. I see the mass market for HT as quite distinct from the mass market for music.
I think developments like this, so early in the Atmos music lifecycle, point to a different dynamic than past formats.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-t...azon-music-hd/
Gooddoc is offline  
post #5112 of 5367 Old 09-27-2019, 01:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,681
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1104 Post(s)
Liked: 1288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
I think developments like this, so early in the Atmos music lifecycle, point to a different dynamic than past formats.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-t...azon-music-hd/

I agree, there is a lot of momentum, this time is different for sure. The new developments with Atmos and immersive audio are very exciting for HT enthusiasts. Not everyone will have big full blown systems, but I see a lot of people doing affordable systems and putting speakers in their walls and ceilings, especially new construction.
Rex Anderson is offline  
post #5113 of 5367 Old 09-27-2019, 01:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,776
Mentioned: 183 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3776 Post(s)
Liked: 3383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Anderson View Post
I agree, there is a lot of momentum, this time is different for sure. The new developments with Atmos and immersive audio are very exciting for HT enthusiasts. Not everyone will have big full blown systems, but I see a lot of people doing affordable systems and putting speakers in their walls and ceilings, especially new construction.
The biggest difference is that Atmos will play on headphones, soundbars, mobile phones, and many upcoming "smart" devices. Atmos is not limited to dedicated HT/music spaces like prior formats.
Rex Anderson likes this.
Gooddoc is offline  
post #5114 of 5367 Old 09-27-2019, 03:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
BP1Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Columbus, Oh
Posts: 700
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 246 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Thumbs up

Exactly! I have DA on all my laptops, phone, and AVR.
Gooddoc likes this.

Sony XBR65x900e / STR-DN1080 / original PS4 / WOW! Ultra TV / Quantum Access Mini PC Stick w/Windows 10 / 8 x Rockville SPG88 8“ DJ PA Speakers / Dayton Audio SA1000 / Kicker 08S15L74 in a Tapped-Tapered Quarter Wave Tube (negative flare tapped horn).
BP1Fanatic is offline  
post #5115 of 5367 Old 09-27-2019, 04:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,776
Mentioned: 183 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3776 Post(s)
Liked: 3383
Quote:
Originally Posted by BP1Fanatic View Post
Exactly! I have DA on all my laptops, phone, and AVR.
I don't think most understand the implication of that. You will only need one file to play on all devices. Earbuds, phone, soundbar, 2, 5 or 24 channel high end system.

Gooddoc is offline  
post #5116 of 5367 Old 09-27-2019, 08:03 PM
Member
 
spkr_diy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
2. Are there any speakers out there that could reasonably be presumed to be competitive with the Salons (or out compete them) .e.g. designs which might fulfill much of what we know to make a speaker sound good, but which perhaps have gone more in to the "throw money at it state of the art" and have maybe used higher quality drivers, cabinets or whatever, where such designs surpass the Revel speakers?
Honestly, there's a few things that the salon's do sub-optimally, and I think even Toole may agree with this list.

First, they have a lot of woofers in them that require a lot of physical volume. The problem is that multiple well-placed subwoofers will create a better, more even bass response at the listening position than all those woofers locked into place by the requirements of stereo sound reproduction. Of course, there's nothing preventing you from using Salon2 speakers with multiple subwoofers. But if you aren't really utilizing the bass, then is that Salon2 really your preferred form factor?

In his book, Toole mentions that with the number of flat screen TVs and projection screens people are using, a better form factor would be a low-profile speaker that is designed specifically for on-wall placement. Put the salon2 directly on a wall, and you'll distort the frequency balance, and cause interference between the direct sound and the sound that reflects off the wall. Of course, small, cheap speakers designed for on-wall placement that fail to properly integrate with the wall are worse than floor-standing speakers, but Toole knew there was potential there that has mostly gone untapped.

Another advantage to properly designing a speaker for on-wall use is the elimination of the delayed front-wall reflection. Geddes goes through great lengths to absorb the front-wall reflection, even using his directional speakers that reduce the energy reflected there. Greater coherence is achievable without those reflections. Having personally switched from tower speakers to on-wall line array speakers, I understand that the front-wall reflection can add a sense of depth, and that some people would miss it (at least initially). However, in my experience, those reflections rob the listener of the chance to hear the depth that was actually captured by (or created for) the recording. Without those reflections, each recording is reproduced more authentically, and greater variation in recording/mixing styles and technologies becomes apparent.

Personally, I think my Radicals (Reflection And Diffraction Controlling Loudspeakers) come a lot closer to reaching the pinnacle of what a stereo speaker should be: Shallow profile, no delayed front-wall reflection, reduced floor and ceiling reflections (across a wide bandwidth), no comb filtering (prevalent with straight line arrays), wide horizontal dispersion (since lateral reflections improve the listening experience), paired with multiple well-placed subwoofers, and they only need one amp per channel (no active or DSP crossovers).

Having said that, I still wouldn't make statements that there's no further to push passive speaker design. We don't know what technologies are waiting around the corner. Someday I hope to hear a speaker that sounds better than mine (whether I design that speaker or not), and I have every reason to suspect that will in-fact happen. Technology progresses and makes the impossible possible.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...er-design.html

I'm willing to provide auditions to anyone who's interested in the speaker, or anyone who suspects I'm exaggerating and wants to knock me down a peg. Few people are close enough for that to make sense, but I honestly feel that consumers should be looking for (demanding?) speakers with some of the attributes mine have, and producers should be evaluating similar speakers (whether at my house, or in their own labs).
Soulburner likes this.
spkr_diy is offline  
post #5117 of 5367 Old 09-27-2019, 08:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bodosom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Niagara Frontier
Posts: 9,730
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2173 Post(s)
Liked: 1709
Quote:
Originally Posted by spkr_diy View Post
Honestly, there's a few things that the salon's do sub-optimally...
First, they have a lot of woofers in them that require a lot of physical volume. The problem is that multiple well-placed subwoofers will create a better, more even bass response at the listening position than all those woofers locked into place by the requirements of stereo sound reproduction. Of course, there's nothing preventing you from using Salon2 speakers with multiple subwoofers. .... Put the salon2 directly on a wall, and you'll distort the frequency balance, and cause interference between the direct sound and the sound that reflects off the wall...
Perhaps you haven't seen this: https://www.thescreeningroomav.com/s...Listening-Room

I might type 2K for 1080p.
UDP-203/ATV4K(6,2)/X3500H/LG C8
bodosom is offline  
post #5118 of 5367 Old 09-27-2019, 08:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,299
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4032 Post(s)
Liked: 2512
Quote:
Originally Posted by spkr_diy View Post
Honestly, there's a few things that the salon's do sub-optimally, and I think even Toole may agree with this list.

First, they have a lot of woofers in them that require a lot of physical volume. The problem is that multiple well-placed subwoofers will create a better, more even bass response at the listening position than all those woofers locked into place by the requirements of stereo sound reproduction. Of course, there's nothing preventing you from using Salon2 speakers with multiple subwoofers. But if you aren't really utilizing the bass, then is that Salon2 really your preferred form factor?

In his book, Toole mentions that with the number of flat screen TVs and projection screens people are using, a better form factor would be a low-profile speaker that is designed specifically for on-wall placement. Put the salon2 directly on a wall, and you'll distort the frequency balance, and cause interference between the direct sound and the sound that reflects off the wall. Of course, small, cheap speakers designed for on-wall placement that fail to properly integrate with the wall are worse than floor-standing speakers, but Toole knew there was potential there that has mostly gone untapped.

Another advantage to properly designing a speaker for on-wall use is the elimination of the delayed front-wall reflection. Geddes goes through great lengths to absorb the front-wall reflection, even using his directional speakers that reduce the energy reflected there. Greater coherence is achievable without those reflections. Having personally switched from tower speakers to on-wall line array speakers, I understand that the front-wall reflection can add a sense of depth, and that some people would miss it (at least initially). However, in my experience, those reflections rob the listener of the chance to hear the depth that was actually captured by (or created for) the recording. Without those reflections, each recording is reproduced more authentically, and greater variation in recording/mixing styles and technologies becomes apparent.

Personally, I think my Radicals (Reflection And Diffraction Controlling Loudspeakers) come a lot closer to reaching the pinnacle of what a stereo speaker should be: Shallow profile, no delayed front-wall reflection, reduced floor and ceiling reflections (across a wide bandwidth), no comb filtering (prevalent with straight line arrays), wide horizontal dispersion (since lateral reflections improve the listening experience), paired with multiple well-placed subwoofers, and they only need one amp per channel (no active or DSP crossovers).

Having said that, I still wouldn't make statements that there's no further to push passive speaker design. We don't know what technologies are waiting around the corner. Someday I hope to hear a speaker that sounds better than mine (whether I design that speaker or not), and I have every reason to suspect that will in-fact happen. Technology progresses and makes the impossible possible.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...er-design.html

I'm willing to provide auditions to anyone who's interested in the speaker, or anyone who suspects I'm exaggerating and wants to knock me down a peg. Few people are close enough for that to make sense, but I honestly feel that consumers should be looking for (demanding?) speakers with some of the attributes mine have, and producers should be evaluating similar speakers (whether at my house, or in their own labs).
Interesting. I'm going to be over there, not 'there', but close from 10-9 to 10-13
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #5119 of 5367 Old 09-27-2019, 11:00 PM
Member
 
spkr_diy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodosom View Post
Thanks! I saw that a while ago and forgot about it until you posted it. It looks like Toole knows first hand the difficulty of trying to make the Salon2 do something it wasn't designed for: work on a wall.

Quote:
The front wall was deliberately constructed as a low-mid frequency sound scattering surface using display niches and other depth variations (including spaces behind the fabric covered doors) to alleviate the boundary effect for that wall.
Wouldn't it be easier to just place a speaker on a flat wall, if it was actually designed to be there? Done right, the boundary effect is a positive, not a negative to be mitigated. Also, where are the measurements? How well did that scattering work? I have measurements in my thread that incorporate the front wall, floor, and ceiling for comparison.

Quote:
All loudspeakers are bass managed; high-pass filtered at 80 Hz. This was a challenge for the Salon2s, which are truly full range, requiring additional high-pass filter slope to be added in the SDP-75 processor.
Extension down to 23 Hz, but high-passed to 80... if the speakers were designed for 80 Hz in the first place, they could be smaller, lighter, shallower, and thus have less "visual dominance" to worry about.

I find it somewhat telling that despite the difficulty in utilizing the Salon2 on the wall, high passed to multiple subwoofers, Toole decided to do it anyway. It shouldn't be that hard, and unless you're looking for vertical directivity like I was, the speakers don't have to be that big, or expensive.
SDX-LV likes this.

Last edited by spkr_diy; 09-27-2019 at 11:03 PM.
spkr_diy is offline  
post #5120 of 5367 Old 09-28-2019, 01:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,299
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4032 Post(s)
Liked: 2512
Quote:
Originally Posted by spkr_diy View Post
Thanks! I saw that a while ago and forgot about it until you posted it. It looks like Toole knows first hand the difficulty of trying to make the Salon2 do something it wasn't designed for: work on a wall.

Wouldn't it be easier to just place a speaker on a flat wall, if it was actually designed to be there? Done right, the boundary effect is a positive, not a negative to be mitigated. Also, where are the measurements? How well did that scattering work? I have measurements in my thread that incorporate the front wall, floor, and ceiling for comparison.

Extension down to 23 Hz, but high-passed to 80... if the speakers were designed for 80 Hz in the first place, they could be smaller, lighter, shallower, and thus have less "visual dominance" to worry about.

I find it somewhat telling that despite the difficulty in utilizing the Salon2 on the wall, high passed to multiple subwoofers, Toole decided to do it anyway. It shouldn't be that hard, and unless you're looking for vertical directivity like I was, the speakers don't have to be that big, or expensive.
I've heard this work exactly once with respect to the type of soundstage I expect, and that was with the radically different Larsen speakers. I'd be interested to hear someone else do it!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	20180414_161230.jpg
Views:	42
Size:	1.35 MB
ID:	2620928  

Last edited by Scotth3886; 09-28-2019 at 01:17 AM.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #5121 of 5367 Old 09-28-2019, 09:11 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 12,412
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3309 Post(s)
Liked: 3415
Quote:
Originally Posted by spkr_diy View Post
Extension down to 23 Hz, but high-passed to 80... if the speakers were designed for 80 Hz in the first place, they could be smaller, lighter, shallower, and thus have less "visual dominance" to worry about.
Couple of comments...

One of the problems is that crossovers are not brick walls that drop power instantaneously to 0 on either side of the crossover frequency. The rule of thumb I learned decades ago was to provide response an octave below for the mains and octave above for the subs. That provides a smoother transition region around the crossover frequency and helps keep distortion lower given there can still be significant energy well above and below the crossover frequency. In particular, most speakers distort heavily when driven hard, and deep bass is where most of the power goes. There is also the issue of port tuning that can lead to higher distortion as you approach the port frequency and below.

Most people cannot localize frequencies around 80 Hz (actually a little higher) so, whatever the mains can do, using 80 Hz allows placement of subs to minimize the impact of room modes that are often in the 20 - 60 Hz range for typical room sizes. Rolling off the mains above the fundamental room modes allows you to place subs to "drive them away".

On a personal note, I have gone back and forth between "small" and "large" speakers over the years and have always preferred larger speakers that provide deeper bass -- even with a crossover an octave or more above their -3 dB LF corner. Bass is cleaner to my ears and my analyzer and in-room frequency response can be much better when I can move the sub(s) around. Depending upon the amplifier and speaker the upper frequencies are almost better without having to handle deep bass. I like panels and the latter is especially important with them since they tend to have low sensitivity and limited excursion (made up for with panel area) leading to very high distortion for bass signals. Since the panels cover a wide frequency range, using up excursion for deep bass penalizes the sound octaves above (much higher distortion without a sub or with a lower crossover).

FWIWFM, YMMV, etc. - Don

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
post #5122 of 5367 Old 09-28-2019, 11:19 AM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 841
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 883 Post(s)
Liked: 3103
Quote:
Originally Posted by spkr_diy View Post
Extension down to 23 Hz, but high-passed to 80... if the speakers were designed for 80 Hz in the first place, they could be smaller, lighter, shallower, and thus have less "visual dominance" to worry about.

I find it somewhat telling that despite the difficulty in utilizing the Salon2 on the wall, high passed to multiple subwoofers, Toole decided to do it anyway. It shouldn't be that hard, and unless you're looking for vertical directivity like I was, the speakers don't have to be that big, or expensive.
Answer: they exactly fitted the space available, they sound as good as speakers get these days, I could afford them, they look good, and high, inverted, against the wall they are not visually intrusive, and, finally, when high passed they can play dangerously loud. Full bandwidth floor standers may reach very low frequencies but not at the bass sound levels required of movies - subwoofers are needed, placed in the optimum locations. Multiple subwoofers in my Sound Field Managed system essentially eliminate room resonances. Finally, the Salon2s have an optimally sized midrange driver to share the load at high sound levels. Still waiting for upgrades to the SDP-75 that deal more appropriately with EQ issues, but at present it sounds very good indeed - warts and all.

All that said, an 80 Hz limited version has been discussed, and would be useful (with the midrange) but the market may not justify the engineering and inventory. At that price people expect full bandwidth performance, whether it is needed or not. An equivalently powerful and good boundary-friendly design would be justifiable, but one must ask if it would sell. People who spend a lot of money on speakers tend to have a belief system that runs counter to well designed in- or on-wall/ceiling speakers. Roy Allison tried that. With world-dominating flat video displays the time might be right Or not . . .
SDX-LV, vavan and Rex Anderson like this.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #5123 of 5367 Old 09-28-2019, 11:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
torii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 7,289
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3626 Post(s)
Liked: 2061
Doc Floyd, have you considered sharing any of your room measurement progression with a few explanations on what you were aiming for? I bet the way I do measurements is totally different than you did...so maybe could learn a few things if you have the time.

Power: Marantz sr7008, NAD C 275Bee x 2, Video: Oppo 103, Samsung 75un6300
Speakers: Focal aria 948, Focal cc900, Klipsch synergy KSF 10.5, Magnepan LRS
Subs: Rythmik FV25HP, Rythmik FV15HP
torii is offline  
post #5124 of 5367 Old 09-28-2019, 11:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,442
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 986 Post(s)
Liked: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post

All that said, an 80 Hz limited version has been discussed, and would be useful (with the midrange) but the market may not justify the engineering and inventory. At that price people expect full bandwidth performance, whether it is needed or not. An equivalently powerful and good boundary-friendly design would be justifiable, but one must ask if it would sell. People who spend a lot of money on speakers tend to have a belief system that runs counter to well designed in- or on-wall/ceiling speakers. Roy Allison tried that. With world-dominating flat video displays the time might be right Or not . . .
I thought the Gem 2 was pretty much the 80Hz limited version, a nice 3 way speaker with the same midrange and tweeter as the Salon 2 but only 1 8" woofer in a sealed cabinet. Perfect to mount on a wall or with the stands made for them. It would actually be a pretty interesting blind listening test to compare the Gem 2 with subs vs the Salon 2, I bet it would be very close.
aarons915 is offline  
post #5125 of 5367 Old 09-28-2019, 12:21 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 11,821
Mentioned: 67 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1355 Post(s)
Liked: 1605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
Answer: they exactly fitted the space available, they sound as good as speakers get these days, I could afford them, they look good, and high, inverted, against the wall they are not visually intrusive, and, finally, when high passed they can play dangerously loud. Full bandwidth floor standers may reach very low frequencies but not at the bass sound levels required of movies - subwoofers are needed, placed in the optimum locations. Multiple subwoofers in my Sound Field Managed system essentially eliminate room resonances. Finally, the Salon2s have an optimally sized midrange driver to share the load at high sound levels. Still waiting for upgrades to the SDP-75 that deal more appropriately with EQ issues, but at present it sounds very good indeed - warts and all.

All that said, an 80 Hz limited version has been discussed, and would be useful (with the midrange) but the market may not justify the engineering and inventory. At that price people expect full bandwidth performance, whether it is needed or not. An equivalently powerful and good boundary-friendly design would be justifiable, but one must ask if it would sell. People who spend a lot of money on speakers tend to have a belief system that runs counter to well designed in- or on-wall/ceiling speakers. Roy Allison tried that. With world-dominating flat video displays the time might be right Or not . . .

A lot of people have "...tried that." They're called LCR speakers. Revel doesn't make any, (with the possible exception of the above mentioned bookshelf), but JBL does.

https://www.jblsynthesis.com/product...GLOBAL-Support


They have a specified F3 of 60 Hz. No wasted LF extension. Higher sensitivity. More compact form factor. Lower price. Spinorama looks pretty good:


Lots of companies make LCR's. Yet don't seem to put much credence into the whole concept of LCR's. Personally, I think they make a ton of sense. Rather than paying for and then wasting LF extension that won't be used in a system with subwoofers and Bass Management, why not optimize the speakers for output above the crossover frequency and then use the subs for for the frequencies below the crossover? Seems like a much more efficient approach.



Just sayin'


Craig

Lombardi said it:
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System
craig john is offline  
post #5126 of 5367 Old 09-28-2019, 12:42 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 841
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 883 Post(s)
Liked: 3103
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
A lot of people have "...tried that." They're called LCR speakers. Revel doesn't make any, (with the possible exception of the above mentioned bookshelf), but JBL does.

https://www.jblsynthesis.com/product...GLOBAL-Support


They have a specified F3 of 60 Hz. No wasted LF extension. Higher sensitivity. More compact form factor. Lower price. Spinorama looks pretty good:


Lots of companies make LCR's. Yet don't seem to put much credence into the whole concept of LCR's. Personally, I think they make a ton of sense. Rather than paying for and then wasting LF extension that won't be used in a system with subwoofers and Bass Management, why not optimize the speakers for output above the crossover frequency and then use the subs for for the frequencies below the crossover? Seems like a much more efficient approach.



Just sayin'


Craig
Of course I know JBL Synthesis makes such speakers, but that brand is dedicated to expensive, mainly custom, home theaters - a limited market, not frequented by "audiophiles" - for the wrong reasons I may add. So, perhaps, we are both right

The absolute "refinement" of some of the JBL Synthesis products in the past has been lacking - more than loud enough and good enough for movies, and perfectly adequate for music, but if push comes to shove, there could be improvements. The future may be different with Kevin Voecks (Revel) now taking responsibility for the brand.
DS-21 likes this.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #5127 of 5367 Old 09-28-2019, 12:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 621
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 312 Post(s)
Liked: 473
Guys, let's not kid ourselves here. If Floyd Toole chose the Salon2, that's his choice and without a doubt for all the right reasons, whatever they may be.
gwthacker likes this.
TimVG is offline  
post #5128 of 5367 Old 09-28-2019, 12:45 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 841
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 883 Post(s)
Liked: 3103
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
I thought the Gem 2 was pretty much the 80Hz limited version, a nice 3 way speaker with the same midrange and tweeter as the Salon 2 but only 1 8" woofer in a sealed cabinet. Perfect to mount on a wall or with the stands made for them. It would actually be a pretty interesting blind listening test to compare the Gem 2 with subs vs the Salon 2, I bet it would be very close.
I have six Gem2s as base surrounds in my system for an excellent timbral match to the Salon2s and Voice2 up front. It is impressive.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #5129 of 5367 Old 09-28-2019, 01:00 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Russia
Posts: 406
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 287 Post(s)
Liked: 77
You probably can mount Gem2 "wall plate" on another wall mount instead of a wall allowing toe in and another movement. But hole pattern like on 7 series would've been better, obviously.
aats is offline  
post #5130 of 5367 Old 09-28-2019, 01:39 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 11,821
Mentioned: 67 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1355 Post(s)
Liked: 1605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
I have six Gem2s as base surrounds in my system for an excellent timbral match to the Salon2s and Voice2 up front. It is impressive.
Then wouldn't Gem2's work equally well up front in the *LCR* positions? Why bother with the expense and size of the Salon2's when Gem2's could work equally well? What is the benefit of the 2 extra octaves of unused extension?

Lombardi said it:
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System
craig john is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Tags
cea 2034 , double-blind , listening tests , loudspeaker measurements , spinorama

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