This aroused my curiosity where my collection would fall within the DR category. I found a link to a Dynamic Range database for albums.

As I mentioned in my first book, I have it from good authority (Phil Ramone, being one) that many of the master recordings in the archives are not the studio master tapes, but those created/predistorted for driving the cutter head of a disc mastering machine. I seem to remember that RCA even predistorted the waveform as a compensation for stylus tracing distortion. Mono bass, manipulated dynamics and spectrum to keep the stylus in the groove and minimize playback issues (low groove velocity on inner grooves), were built into these master tapes. Some misguided persons at the time obviously thought that the LP was the ultimate delivery format.

When CDs came along, guess what master tapes got recorded on to a format that needs no such manipulations? The audible differences were inevitable and not favorable to the new format - this in addition to flawed early generation players. One can only presume that this is still the situation for much of the classic (not necessarily classical) music repertoire. Sad.

Under it all is the fact that it is simply not possible to extract from an LP the signal that went in to it. One is not hearing the art (the studio master) that was created, but a modified interpretation of it that contains whole digit distortions of all kinds. That does not mean that it cannot be enjoyed, the human mind is remarkably adaptive and masking is very effective, but it is not the "real thing".

All that said, and has been discussed in this thread, we have much evidence of incompetence and bad taste corrupting the sounds going into and coming out of the potentially transparent CDs and streaming services. In this case the medium is not the problem, people are.

Let the flames begin :-)

One should take into account when reading what follows that I have only had my M126Be's playing for a couple hours. Here are my first impressions.

The electronics are: Mark Levinson No. 536 mono blocs, No. 523 preamp, Bel Canto 2.7 DAC and REFStream.

I'm not experienced in verbalizing impressions of auditory queues, but I will make some effort. Also, it is hard for me not to make comparative comments relative to my Salon2's.

These small speakers do not sound small! The imaging is expansive, with no indication of physical stature. The bass is surprisingly robust, but not so much that it defies the smaller cabinet and driver. Don't take this to mean that bass is missing - it is not. It sounds good, full. The bass is a bit lacking in mass, for lack of a better term. It does not sound like my Ultima Salon2's. Nor should one expect it to.

What I heard impresses me, especially given the price and size of these little guys.

All music was 24bit. I started with CSN's Sweet Judy Blue Eyes but was called to dinner on the intercom (also known as a mobile phone) within the first minute. I quickly added Deep Purple's Machine Head to the queue and headed to the mess hall. When I returned, the last couple minutes of Smoke on the Water were playing. I didn't listen critically but took note that the sound was "excellent".

On the third track "Pictures of Home", there is a brief bass solo that I noted sounded very clean and well resolved. The drivers are typical Revel: distortion free and articulate. This bass riff sounded pleasant, effective. So now I'm grooving and thinking that these speakers rock. Oh yes.

I skipped to "Lazy", and noted that the organ was effortlessly portrayed with full weight and nimble transients of each note. The sound stage continued to be appropriately expansive and not appearing to emanate from the speakers - just like a good pair of speakers should sound.

I then played Mark Knopflers "Our Shangri-La" from his Shangri-LA LP. I use this song a lot when critically listening because, well, I really like it, and more importantly, because it is well recorded and mastered. The intro involves a couple of organ notes, and then a rhythmic kick drum and electric bass guitar. This kick drum is superbly recorded and affords the opportunity to hear how clearly a system plays both the fine, small sounds like the displacement of air by the felt hammer, and of the felt of the hammer striking the drum skin. This is immediately followed by the fullness of the drum sound and the electric bass note. To say I was floored is an understatement, the M126Be's sounded much larger than they are. There was nothing missing in this brief segment of music, nor in the remainder of this song. In other music when the bass gets heavier, you will discover the M126Be's limitations, but up to that point their bass is delightful.

I also use this song to observe spacial depth. Knopfler harmonizes with himself in the chorus, which provides an opportunity to observe the ability of the electronics and speakers to present separation between his voices. In the past, I have noted a marked improvement in this separation when I went from B&W 800D2's to the Revel Ultima Salon2's, from ATI 6007 amp to ML No. 536 amps, and when introducing the No. 523. In each change, the improvement was readily discernible, with the Salon2 and the No. 523 being the most efficacious. I mention all this because these factors are the basis for the majority of my impression of the M126Be's. The M126Be's provided some separation, on par with the 800 D2's, but not close to the Salon2's. Lest you think I am saying the M126Be's are comparable to the B&W 800D2's, let me clearly state they are not, in some meaningful ways.

I continued on with Fleetwood Mac "You Make Loving Fun" from Rumours, because it's a well recorded and fun rocker. The M126Be's delivered an ejoyable experience, easily conveying the melody, rhythm and energy of this song.

I could happily listen to these at length as my main speakers if this is where my means or priorities led me to. But for me, these are meant to be rear surrounds, and that is where I will deploy them, on stands.

They are nice looking speakers, though you can readily find images and decide for yourself what you think. Mine are in gloss black, just like my Ultima2's.

Next I will be connecting them to my ATI 6007 so that I can observe what they sound like with an amp more suited to them financially, though I would never buy the ATI Signature 6000 for a pair of these. I'd likely look at the ATI N-core amps if I were deploying an array of these PerformaBe speakers.

None of this is any surprise really. I'm an early owner of the JBL M2 and have been enjoying them since close to their release. What you wrote - and other examples of compression and distortion in other posts - lines up with what I hear from the M2's. Of course I know you know this . But it took me years to fully trust my speakers and gear due to all the BS that surrounds this hobby.

I recall a forum member that came over to evaluate the M2's and I played some Adele and it was grating at even moderate volumes. The reaction was that I needed room treatments. I didn't know it at the time, but the problem was of course that Adele recordings are compressed beyond comprehension. But blaming the speakers or room is the first reaction. Thanks to the work of Olive and yourself, even dingbats like me not only conceptually understand the circle of confusion, but I can hear it with properly designed gear that was based in large part on your research.

Thank-you sir.

This so called 'circle of confusion' may apply to some artist like Adele, but please don't paint the entire industry professionals as ignorant. Revisit either of these two LP's... and when time permits please note all their shortcomings or imperfections


1977 Grammy Award Aja Best Engineered Recording, Non Classical

Engineers: Roger Nichols, Elliot Scheiner, Al Schmitt, Bill Schnee
Mastering: Bernie Grundman



Gaucho 1981 Grammy Award Best Non-Classical Engineered Recording

Mixing: Elliot Scheiner
Mix down: Elliot Scheiner
Mastering: Bob Ludwig

I loved Aja went it came out. When I was in 8th grade. I'm sure I listened to it off and on over the next decade or two. Can't say I've listened to that album nor to Steely Dan in general much at all in the last couple decades. But I know they're probably still in frequent rotation for the "tasteful" audiophile. At least judging from the semi-regular mentions of them in audio-related places & forums.

In any case, sure, there can be exceptions like these. But it doesn't exactly inspire confidence that your first choice is to go back some 40 years to cite a couple of your best-sounding examples.

Sting 'Brand New Day' (1999)
Steely Dan 'Two Against Nature' (2000)
Donald Fagen 'Morph the Cat' (2006)
Peter Gabriel 'US' (1992)

Not sure of the point in cherry-picking a shortlist of titles. Unless the list of quality is well into the thousands, there's not much point. How many albums get released on average, per year? I would think near 5 figures worth, just from major labels alone.

So citing exemplary titles from decades ago is roughly the equivalent of grasping 20-30 grains of sand between your forefinger and thumb from a mile-long beach, isn't it?

Just pointing out the so called 'circle of confusion' is based on the fallacy that contemporary mixing (speakers) monitors, microphones and the lack of mixing expertise resulted in major compromises.

Not in my book, nor my music library

Nope. It refers to the lack of traceable standards, not to any particular hardware or personnel.

With all due respect to yourself and Dr Toole, the 'circle of confusion' is contrived upon hardware limitations. Most seasoned pro studio engineers well understood electrical interface standards i.e. target unity calibrations.

I spoke with Roger Nichols (Steely Dan engineer, RIP) a few times at Audio Engineering Society conventions. I asked him what monitors he used. He said when he used Meyer HD-1's, mastering engineers never touched his mixes (no processing for "improvement"). When he tried other monitors, they used some EQ. He went back to the Meyers.

Circle of confusion exists because there is no standard for monitors or room acoustics. Some are horribly colored and affect the EQ decisions made by mix and mastering engineers. There are plenty of reasons why it is so difficult to make a recording that will sound good on many playback systems.

Knowledgeable and experienced recording and mastering engineers can make good sounding recordings on crappy speakers in awful rooms because they know how to compensate. They are too many bad sounding recordings because not all the folks doing the work have the knowledge, experience or "golden ears".

In my 32 year career, I trained a lot of people in the art and science of recording, mixing and mastering. Very few were able to make good sounding finished product without input from others. Most professional recording and mixing engineers send their mixes to mastering engineers who do things to make them sound better. It's a collaborative effort. Problem is, the recording, mixing and mastering guys often don't have the final say. Get a tone deaf exec calling the shots and it all goes downhill fast.

I don't think I did that. I have my own playlist of songs and albums that I think are well done, but it's kind of like going through coin jars for valuable coins. It's exciting when you find them but they're far too rare .

The better your playback system and room acoustics are, the more you discover how few really good sounding recordings exist.

an argument for the science...if most recordings sound best with neutral speakers...maybe colored speakers play more music best??? weird idea, I know...but some of my favorite acdc or red hot chili peppers sound best when my system isnt setup for flat. also classical music doesnt sound best when flat...it needs a few ticks on bass/sub. is it possible some colored speakers just play back the recorded music with better sound?

Thus, the circle of confusion. You can try to find speakers that make all recordings sound their best. Dr. Toole and Sean Olive's research says most people favor neutral speakers. Past that point, use EQ to get what you want.

Thank you for taking the time to write up - I would say quite concisely - your experience with the M126Be's. The comparison to other speakers and the background detail of your experience with different amplifiers should help others to understand the nuances of the capabilities and limitations of these speakers.

I look forward to getting mine, and will try to provide a helpful review, too.

Dave

What do you mean by "setup for flat"?

In a Harman thread flat means minimal FR deviations, cabinet resonances, driver distortions, and crossover problems. Not flat as in "level". The "level" FR applies only to anechoic measuremements, not in-room listening where a sloping FR is desirable.

"Colored" speakers have various combinations of cabinet resonances, FR deviations(not a sloping FR, but various peaks and dips on-axis and that affect the power response and directivity indexes), driver distortions and crossover problems.

I just want to make sure we're talking about the same things.

Exactly.

That string of quotes do not follow a contiguous post-n-response correlation.

The short list of mixing engineers I've posted alone represent hundreds of benchmark albums and thousands of individual tracks. There are certainly many more profoundly talented engineers and artist that I'm not going to take the time to list them all here.

Seasoned pro mix engineers (then and now) are very selective about the tools they use for production and reproduction...resulting in extremely robust artwork. Once a given monitor reaches a certain level of transparency the mix will translate... evident by production masterpieces dating back 1975 per my example(s).

Meyer Sound HD-1, JBL LSR28P, Dynaudio BM15A, Genelec 1032B...all excellent relatively low budget active monitors, though they may measure differently, each are indeed reference grade monitors and a given mix will translate.

An example of a really poor monitor would be the obligatory Yamaha NS10...sorry but these are simply utter garbage. The flawed logic was to modify the mix to sound ok on them and this intern would hypothetically sound fine on the majority of consumer systems. This process led to dumbing down what may have possibly been a perfectly fine mix before the intervention.

Part of this conversation deals the concept that excessive compression and digital clipping is leading the resurgence of vinyl. Consumers searching for a better recording, understandably, are turning to a technically inferior medium.

For the purpose of this discussion, the circle of confusion can be treated as a constant or improving. And yet, the quality of popular recordings are not improving. The DR Database provides some good evidence.

The industry is pushing additional bits (HD Audio), folding additional those bits (MQA), which is not dealing with the problem of over-compression and clipping. With digital records, music can be analyzed and quality metrics produced. Dynamic range and frequency response are a couple of metrics, absence of clipping is another.

The luminaries in the industry seem completely immune to this notion. Has dynamic range and digital clipping been discussed by the same folks pushing MQA?
Perhaps, I missed it.

- Rich

On another forum there was a recent discussion of dynamic range compression and several members provided links and their own data showing how the dynamics on some original LPs (which is typically much less than on the tape) is "squashed" on the remastered CDs of the same albums. And how compression trashes the overall sound. The take-away was that the mix and not the medium was responsible for poorer sound. Google loudness compression wars for a myriad of discussions.

I'll leave others to carry on the circle of confusion pissing contest...

Preferably in another thread in the audio theory forum.

@Karl Maga or anyone who has heard the M126Be's: I am in the process of replacing a small system used mainly for light music and TV listening. It is in a bedroom and the center is really superfluous (speakers very close, no critical listening) so I was going to pick up a pair of F35, F36, or F206 speakers (replacing an old FEF setup, Q70's and whatever the matching center was for them, going to my son for his first apartment out of school). I can get a great deal on a new pair of M126Be's so, though above my initial price point, am considering them for this little system. That way they could move to surrounds in another system later (if and when). From your review it sounds like they would be fine for this application; decent sound but mostly light and/or "background" music, true? Worth it over the M106's, enough bass for light listening (no sub)?

Dynamic range compression is a powerful esthetic tool when implemented correctly. Any well done production, be it music or theatrical, will have some level of DR compression. Bob Katz K-metering system is contrived upon sliding monitor calibration targets and managing dynamic range to great effect.

For example, calibrating -20 dBFS or 0 VU for 79 dBSPL results in a mildly compressed mix... where the mix engineer is now in a (monitoring) feed back loop where he/she can very effectively make precise DR adjustments. Before crossing paths with Mr Katz, I simply did not understand why I would alter my calibration target...ever.

Fine example being many a 5.1 surround remix from the original theatrical stems. Almost all resulted in too much dynamic range where the action scenes are extremely (painfully) loud and the average dialogue is unfortunately barely perceptible.

Don, everything is relative based on budget. I have not heard the M126Be's, but know they are an improvement on the M106 as far as sound quality due to the drivers and crossovers. Same cabinet and basically the same FR as the M106's. I wouldn't spend the extra money for the Be's if you can get an equally great deal on M106's which will cost considerably less than the Be's.

I'm in the process of adding surrounds and center to my F208's. I considered the M106's but decided to spend more and get the F206's for more bass and power handling. I didn't like the idea of spending extra money for stands for the M106's when I can get F206's for a bit more than M106's plus stands.

I'm sure the new Be speakers are better than the non Be Performa 3 line, I just can't justify the price difference. If I had an unlimited budget, I'd have Salon2's. If I was still working as an audio pro, I'd spend as much as I could and get the best I could afford. For me, the F208's, a C208 and F206's will be good enough for my budget and listening pleasure.

Bottom line, if I were you, I'd get the F206's over the M106's or M126Be's.

I recently watched Jumanji Back to the Jungle and this film makes great use of the surrounds. There is some serious bass delivered to all channels. I was running the Voice2 without bass management and it got terribly upset. I now have it crossed at 80 as recommended by Revel. If you have Be tweeter then I would be tempted by the M126Be's.

I also prefer floor standing rear speakers because they are more stable than stand mounted (unless you bolt them to the floor) or wall mount them.
Wall mounting is a good option but requires some Rube Goldberg style engineering.

- Rich

Agree about poor stability of monitors on stands. Floor standing speakers take up the same physical space and you get a whole lot more speaker and cabinet.

Don, I am not the best to respond because I have heard only the M126Be's, and none of the others you referenced. I think the M126Be's are good enough for critical listening and have enough bass to satisfy. Even my Salon2's don't output bass like a subwoofer does. I've found speaker preferences to be very subjective, and heavily affected by room interactions. Let me experience another listening session with the M126Be's and give you my final observation.

Sorry for the non-answer, but I endeavor to be thoroughly transparent and agenda free.

The database, of course, requires manual lookups. That's great for new source material acquisitions but kind of slow if you already have a bunch of ripped or downloaded hi-rez content. To evaluate what's on a drive, I have found foobar2000 + the Dynamic Range plug to be a relatively quick way to get the average DR on an album.