Advice on what loudspeakers to buy...

[Wigbert]

Hi!

I have a music only system I use in my bedroom chich consist of:

Arcam FMJ CD 23T cd player
Creek 5350 SE integrated amplifier
B&W 603 S3 speakers

I will move the speakers to my home theater setting and want to find the
best speakers for my Arcam/Creek combo. I could reach the $2k mark, or
maybe a little more if worth it. I am considering Spendor and Thiel among
others. My musical tastes are rock, jazz and some classical.

Should I buy tower speakers again for this system or go with standmounts and
a good subwoofer?

Any thoughs?

Thanks in advance!

Wigbert

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 13 Aug 2003 05:12:26 GMT, Wigbert > wrote:

>I have a music only system I use in my bedroom chich consist of:
>
>Arcam FMJ CD 23T cd player
>Creek 5350 SE integrated amplifier
>B&W 603 S3 speakers
>
>I will move the speakers to my home theater setting and want to find the
>best speakers for my Arcam/Creek combo. I could reach the $2k mark, or
>maybe a little more if worth it. I am considering Spendor and Thiel among
>others. My musical tastes are rock, jazz and some classical.
>
>Should I buy tower speakers again for this system or go with standmounts and
>a good subwoofer?

Why not keep the speakers, and add the matching LCR 600s? You will of
course still need a good sub, and B&W make several of those.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Joseph Oberlander]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2003 05:12:26 GMT, Wigbert > wrote:
>
>
>>I have a music only system I use in my bedroom chich consist of:
>>
>>Arcam FMJ CD 23T cd player
>>Creek 5350 SE integrated amplifier
>>B&W 603 S3 speakers
>>
>>I will move the speakers to my home theater setting and want to find the
>>best speakers for my Arcam/Creek combo. I could reach the $2k mark, or
>>maybe a little more if worth it. I am considering Spendor and Thiel among
>>others. My musical tastes are rock, jazz and some classical.

Look at the new Martin Logan hybrid. They basically took a Clarity
bass module and put two modified planar/ribbon drivers up top.
Like putting a MMG on top of a bass speaker. NIce.

I don't think anything under $2000 is going to match it except for
maybe a bit pair of Magnepans.

www.martinloganowners.com - under news.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:58:54 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 13 Aug 2003 05:12:26 GMT, Wigbert > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have a music only system I use in my bedroom chich consist of:
>>>
>>>Arcam FMJ CD 23T cd player
>>>Creek 5350 SE integrated amplifier
>>>B&W 603 S3 speakers
>>>
>>>I will move the speakers to my home theater setting and want to find the
>>>best speakers for my Arcam/Creek combo. I could reach the $2k mark, or
>>>maybe a little more if worth it. I am considering Spendor and Thiel among
>>>others. My musical tastes are rock, jazz and some classical.
>
>Look at the new Martin Logan hybrid. They basically took a Clarity
>bass module and put two modified planar/ribbon drivers up top.
>Like putting a MMG on top of a bass speaker. NIce.
>
>I don't think anything under $2000 is going to match it except for
>maybe a bit pair of Magnepans.

Um, please do not *ever* confuse a M-L 'stat panel with a Maggie. Much
though I loved my Maggies, the M-L midrange is simply in another class
entirely. The new M-L is absolutely *nothing* like a MMG with a sub.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Helge Johnsen]

"Wigbert" > skrev i melding
...
> Hi!
>
> I have a music only system I use in my bedroom chich consist of:
>
> Arcam FMJ CD 23T cd player
> Creek 5350 SE integrated amplifier
> B&W 603 S3 speakers
>
> I will move the speakers to my home theater setting and want to find the
> best speakers for my Arcam/Creek combo. I could reach the $2k mark, or
> maybe a little more if worth it. I am considering Spendor and Thiel among
> others. My musical tastes are rock, jazz and some classical.
>
> Should I buy tower speakers again for this system or go with standmounts
and
> a good subwoofer?
>
> Any thoughs?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Wigbert
>
Audiovector M1 (standmount) or M3 (tower).
Imo very good allround speakers.
M3 Super and Signature also go quite deep.

Helge

[Joseph Oberlander]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> Um, please do not *ever* confuse a M-L 'stat panel with a Maggie. Much
> though I loved my Maggies, the M-L midrange is simply in another class
> entirely. The new M-L is absolutely *nothing* like a MMG with a sub.

Um - re-read the specs on it again. It is a planar/ribbon midrange
and tweeter and NOT an electrostatic design. This is a major departure
from their electrostatic designs and if you look at the technology
behind the new drivers(half an hour with their rep explaining the
technology in detail in my case), it is basically a Magnepan type
planar driver, but they use a push/pull design instead of the
Magnepan's pull only design.

It sounds better - like a second/new generation planar driver.
Much faster and cleaner than the Magnepan tweeters.

No - it's no electrostatic, but it does sound better than the
Magnepans. Kind of inbetween - and priced fairly well, IMO.

Oh - the impedance is 5 ohms - easier to drive than the
Magnepans. More goodness. Oh - it's also very kid-proof
compared to even a MMG.

Their new Subwoofer seems like it is going to also cause some
waves. $995 MSRP(figure $900-950 or so street price) makes
it the least expensive servo-sub out there at a few hundred
less than Velodyne's models. It should give the HSU competition
as well, with a 250W output(350W peak).

They put the info on it up a day or two ago on the corporate
site, so it's easier to find.

[Nousaine]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:



>
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 13 Aug 2003 05:12:26 GMT, Wigbert > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have a music only system I use in my bedroom chich consist of:
>>>
>>>Arcam FMJ CD 23T cd player
>>>Creek 5350 SE integrated amplifier
>>>B&W 603 S3 speakers
>>>
>>>I will move the speakers to my home theater setting and want to find the
>>>best speakers for my Arcam/Creek combo. I could reach the $2k mark, or
>>>maybe a little more if worth it. I am considering Spendor and Thiel among
>>>others. My musical tastes are rock, jazz and some classical.
>
>Look at the new Martin Logan hybrid. They basically took a Clarity
>bass module and put two modified planar/ribbon drivers up top.
>Like putting a MMG on top of a bass speaker. NIce.
>
>I don't think anything under $2000 is going to match it except for
>maybe a bit pair of Magnepans.
>
>www.martinloganowners.com - under news.

Hoping not to be a wet-rug but I've had the opportunity to measure and listen
to several ML hybrid systems over the years and Icannot find one which I would
recommend to anyone for which there aren't much better performing systems at
1/10th the cost.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Nousaine wrote:

> Hoping not to be a wet-rug but I've had the opportunity to measure and listen
> to several ML hybrid systems over the years and Icannot find one which I would
> recommend to anyone for which there aren't much better performing systems at
> 1/10th the cost.

Over the years. This is a new piece of technology that is specifically
aimed at being driven with a typical home receiver to decently loud levels.
(90db efficiency). The rep I talked to (back in April) said that they
actually tested and designed it with a Denon 3802 in mind.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> Sorry, I'm not finding it. Which model do you mean?

http://www.martinloganowners.com/news.html

It's called the Mosaic. MLs main site is lagging a few days behind,
though they did get the Grotto up on the website yesterday.

The Fresco also looks interesting. A purpose-built electrostatic
surround speaker. The different colored covers is also a nice
touch.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 14 Aug 2003 14:28:33 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

>Hoping not to be a wet-rug but I've had the opportunity to measure and listen
>to several ML hybrid systems over the years and Icannot find one which I would
>recommend to anyone for which there aren't much better performing systems at
>1/10th the cost.

I recommend the Ascent to anyone interested in superbly natural sound.

I'm not sure where Tom is getting his measure of 'better performing',
but I'm not at all convinced that it relates entirely to the listening
experience (deep bass aside). And I defy *anyone* to find a superior
speaker (in any respect) for less than $400, which is Tom's claim.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Nousaine]

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:


>On 14 Aug 2003 14:28:33 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
>>Hoping not to be a wet-rug but I've had the opportunity to measure and
>listen
>>to several ML hybrid systems over the years and Icannot find one which I
>would
>>recommend to anyone for which there aren't much better performing systems at
>>1/10th the cost.
>
>I recommend the Ascent to anyone interested in superbly natural sound.
>
>I'm not sure where Tom is getting his measure of 'better performing',
>but I'm not at all convinced that it relates entirely to the listening
>experience (deep bass aside). And I defy *anyone* to find a superior
>speaker (in any respect) for less than $400, which is Tom's claim.
>--
>
>Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I've not had access to the Ascent but I'ver tested several ML models over the
years and ALL of them had fairly severe frequency response abberations compared
to lower priced moving coil models.

Further their hybrid center channel speakers are grossly deficient in measured
performance and listening evaluation. And for bad sound you get to pay premium
prices. What a deal.

You want more? Just ask me :)

[Daniel]

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 03:49:01 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> > wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> >> Um, please do not *ever* confuse a M-L 'stat panel with a Maggie. Much
> >> though I loved my Maggies, the M-L midrange is simply in another class
> >> entirely. The new M-L is absolutely *nothing* like a MMG with a sub.
> >
> >Um - re-read the specs on it again. It is a planar/ribbon midrange
> >and tweeter and NOT an electrostatic design. This is a major departure
> >from their electrostatic designs and if you look at the technology
> >behind the new drivers(half an hour with their rep explaining the
> >technology in detail in my case), it is basically a Magnepan type
> >planar driver, but they use a push/pull design instead of the
> >Magnepan's pull only design.
>
> We are obviously not talking about the same speaker. I was referring
> to the Clarity, which is the newest model available in the UK.
>
> As an Apogee owner, I am not going to argue about the quality of
> ribbon drivers! :-)
>
> >It sounds better - like a second/new generation planar driver.
> >Much faster and cleaner than the Magnepan tweeters.
>
> Er no, the Maggie *ribbon* tweeter remains one of the best ever built.
> The panel section on the cheaper models isn't the same thing at all.
>
> >No - it's no electrostatic, but it does sound better than the
> >Magnepans. Kind of inbetween - and priced fairly well, IMO.
> >
> >Oh - the impedance is 5 ohms - easier to drive than the
> >Magnepans. More goodness. Oh - it's also very kid-proof
> >compared to even a MMG.
> >
> >Their new Subwoofer seems like it is going to also cause some
> >waves. $995 MSRP(figure $900-950 or so street price) makes
> >it the least expensive servo-sub out there at a few hundred
> >less than Velodyne's models. It should give the HSU competition
> >as well, with a 250W output(350W peak).
> >
> >They put the info on it up a day or two ago on the corporate
> >site, so it's easier to find.
>
> Sorry, I'm not finding it. Which model do you mean?

Is this the speaker?

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/newsflash/martin-logan-fresco-speakers-8-2003.html

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:43:37 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>On 15 Aug 2003 01:45:59 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

>>>I've not had access to the Ascent but I'ver tested several ML models over the
>>>years and ALL of them had fairly severe frequency response abberations compared
>>>to lower priced moving coil models.
>>
>>Ah, you mean some of them *measure* rather oddly, rather than they
>>sound bad.......
>
>They basically sounded like they measured. Lifeless and lacking in dynamics at
>all frequencies.

That's absolute garbage. They have *exceptional* dynamics, in terms of
their ability to sound clean and clear at low levels, and pray tell
what is the measure of 'lifelessness'?

>>I reiterate my comments regarding the Ascent, and I add my distaste
>>for the dull and lifeless sound of the old bextrene-coned KEF models
>>such as the 104aB - which *measured* excellently!
>
>I'm not commenting on the Ascent because I've not used it.

Clearly, you're not commenting on the KEFs either............

>>>Further their hybrid center channel speakers are grossly deficient in measured
>>>performance and listening evaluation. And for bad sound you get to pay premium
>>>prices. What a deal.
>>
>>I wouldn't argue with regard to the centre channel - always going to
>>be a problem for planar dipoles, without a perf screen.

>There's more to it that that. It's a case of bad basic design and a poor
>sounding speaker at ANY listening angle when radiating into free space.

You're missing the point - the centre is *not* a large planar dipole,
so it has to make severe sonic compromises to get that required low
and wide shape. I guess they felt that they had to get into that
market *somehow*, but I suspect that the new 'Infinity-style' drivers
as used in the Mosaic will replace the HT series pretty quickly.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[randyb]

(Nousaine) wrote in message >...
> (Stewart Pinkerton)
> wrote:
>
>
> >On 14 Aug 2003 14:28:33 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
> >
> >>Hoping not to be a wet-rug but I've had the opportunity to measure and
> listen
> >>to several ML hybrid systems over the years and Icannot find one which I
> would
> >>recommend to anyone for which there aren't much better performing systems at
> >>1/10th the cost.
> >
> >I recommend the Ascent to anyone interested in superbly natural sound.
> >
> >I'm not sure where Tom is getting his measure of 'better performing',
> >but I'm not at all convinced that it relates entirely to the listening
> >experience (deep bass aside). And I defy *anyone* to find a superior
> >speaker (in any respect) for less than $400, which is Tom's claim.
> >--
> >
> >Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>
> I've not had access to the Ascent but I'ver tested several ML models over the
> years and ALL of them had fairly severe frequency response abberations compared
> to lower priced moving coil models.
>
> Further their hybrid center channel speakers are grossly deficient in measured
> performance and listening evaluation. And for bad sound you get to pay premium
> prices. What a deal.
>
> You want more? Just ask me :)

I had Martin Logan Sequals and have to agree with the above.
Although, they seemed very low in distortion, I felt that they were
not a truely accurate loudspeaker. Whether this was the interaction
of the room or just the nature of the speaker, I cannot say. I ended
up going back to the old cones and tweeters (Snells). The Martin
Logan's did have a very interesting and beguiling midrange. By the
way, I am in KC and they make the speakers in Lawrence Kansas, just a
few miles away.

[Nousaine]

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:43:37 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>>On 15 Aug 2003 01:45:59 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
>>>>I've not had access to the Ascent but I'ver tested several ML models over
>the
>>>>years and ALL of them had fairly severe frequency response abberations
>compared
>>>>to lower priced moving coil models.
>>>
>>>Ah, you mean some of them *measure* rather oddly, rather than they
>>>sound bad.......
>>
>>They basically sounded like they measured. Lifeless and lacking in dynamics
>at
>>all frequencies.
>
>That's absolute garbage. They have *exceptional* dynamics, in terms of
>their ability to sound clean and clear at low levels, and pray tell
>what is the measure of 'lifelessness'?

The Clarity floorstanders have had a fairly severe depression in the 500 Hz
range with a hump centered at 5 kHz on axis and often radically variant
directivity even over a +/- 30-degree listening window.

IOW they just don't perform very well and the sound varies considerably
dependent on listener position.

They don't go particularly low and surely don't play loudly and cleanly enough
for full orchestra.

The Script was somewhat better below 1 kHz but also suffered from the hump and
output nosedives above 1000 Hz beginning at 15 degrees off axis.

The center, of which I've tested more than once over the past few years is just
a disaster with a huge swayback at 500 Hz, the upper hump and radically severe
off-axis lobing patterns.

>>>I reiterate my comments regarding the Ascent, and I add my distaste
>>>for the dull and lifeless sound of the old bextrene-coned KEF models
>>>such as the 104aB - which *measured* excellently!
>>
>>I'm not commenting on the Ascent because I've not used it.
>
>Clearly, you're not commenting on the KEFs either............

Can't remember that far back. But I seem to recall being impressed with the 104
series. That was the first real bandpass speaker I ever saw.

>
>>>>Further their hybrid center channel speakers are grossly deficient in
>measured
>>>>performance and listening evaluation. And for bad sound you get to pay
>premium
>>>>prices. What a deal.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't argue with regard to the centre channel - always going to
>>>be a problem for planar dipoles, without a perf screen.
>
>>There's more to it that that. It's a case of bad basic design and a poor
>>sounding speaker at ANY listening angle when radiating into free space.
>
>You're missing the point - the centre is *not* a large planar dipole,
>so it has to make severe sonic compromises to get that required low
>and wide shape.

It seems to me that it shares the same problems that the other ML speakers I've
used.

I guess they felt that they had to get into that
>market *somehow*, but I suspect that the new 'Infinity-style' drivers
>as used in the Mosaic will replace the HT series pretty quickly.
>--
>
>Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Seems likely and that it might be a good idea.

[Nousaine]

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:


>It's the Mosaic with the 'Infinity-style' drivers which was being
>referenced.
>--

Forgot to mention the Depth subwoofer was an outstanding performer unlike the
common woofer modules we sometimes see.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Daniel wrote:

> Is this the speaker?
>
> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/newsflash/martin-logan-fresco-speakers-8-2003.html

No. Though, that also was introduced last week.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 20:17:05 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:43:37 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 15 Aug 2003 01:45:59 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>
>>>>>I've not had access to the Ascent but I'ver tested several ML models over
>>the
>>>>>years and ALL of them had fairly severe frequency response abberations
>>compared
>>>>>to lower priced moving coil models.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, you mean some of them *measure* rather oddly, rather than they
>>>>sound bad.......
>>>
>>>They basically sounded like they measured. Lifeless and lacking in dynamics at
>>>all frequencies.
>>
>>That's absolute garbage. They have *exceptional* dynamics, in terms of
>>their ability to sound clean and clear at low levels, and pray tell
>>what is the measure of 'lifelessness'?
>
>The Clarity floorstanders have had a fairly severe depression in the 500 Hz
>range with a hump centered at 5 kHz on axis and often radically variant
>directivity even over a +/- 30-degree listening window.
>
>IOW they just don't perform very well and the sound varies considerably
>dependent on listener position.

None of the above of course has *anything* to do with your comments of
'lifeless and lacking in dynamics'. A flat axial response is about as
useful for encompassing speaker sound, as THD is for amps.

>They don't go particularly low and surely don't play loudly and cleanly enough
>for full orchestra.
>
>The Script was somewhat better below 1 kHz but also suffered from the hump and
>output nosedives above 1000 Hz beginning at 15 degrees off axis.
>
>The center, of which I've tested more than once over the past few years is just
>a disaster with a huge swayback at 500 Hz, the upper hump and radically severe
>off-axis lobing patterns.

I never said the centre was any good.......

>>>>I reiterate my comments regarding the Ascent, and I add my distaste
>>>>for the dull and lifeless sound of the old bextrene-coned KEF models
>>>>such as the 104aB - which *measured* excellently!
>>>
>>>I'm not commenting on the Ascent because I've not used it.
>>
>>Clearly, you're not commenting on the KEFs either............
>
>Can't remember that far back. But I seem to recall being impressed with the 104
>series. That was the first real bandpass speaker I ever saw.

That's the 104 mkII, a totally different speaker with
polypropylene-coned drivers. KEF stopped using Bextrene precisely
because it *measured* well but sounded flat and lifeless, likely due
to internal losses smothering very low-level inputs. The succeeding
polypropylene-coned models measured pretty much the same, but had
noticeably better clarity - albeit with a slight midrange 'squawk'
which became the trademark of polyprop cones.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Wigbert]

Thanks for all your good answers and opinions on this topic. I really
appreciate it.

On 8/16/03 10:50 AM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" > wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 20:17:05 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
>> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:43:37 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>>
>>>> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15 Aug 2003 01:45:59 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I've not had access to the Ascent but I'ver tested several ML models over
>>> the
>>>>>> years and ALL of them had fairly severe frequency response abberations
>>> compared
>>>>>> to lower priced moving coil models.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, you mean some of them *measure* rather oddly, rather than they
>>>>> sound bad.......
>>>>
>>>> They basically sounded like they measured. Lifeless and lacking in dynamics
>>>> at
>>>> all frequencies.
>>>
>>> That's absolute garbage. They have *exceptional* dynamics, in terms of
>>> their ability to sound clean and clear at low levels, and pray tell
>>> what is the measure of 'lifelessness'?
>>
>> The Clarity floorstanders have had a fairly severe depression in the 500 Hz
>> range with a hump centered at 5 kHz on axis and often radically variant
>> directivity even over a +/- 30-degree listening window.
>>
>> IOW they just don't perform very well and the sound varies considerably
>> dependent on listener position.
>
> None of the above of course has *anything* to do with your comments of
> 'lifeless and lacking in dynamics'. A flat axial response is about as
> useful for encompassing speaker sound, as THD is for amps.
>
>> They don't go particularly low and surely don't play loudly and cleanly
>> enough
>> for full orchestra.
>>
>> The Script was somewhat better below 1 kHz but also suffered from the hump
>> and
>> output nosedives above 1000 Hz beginning at 15 degrees off axis.
>>
>> The center, of which I've tested more than once over the past few years is
>> just
>> a disaster with a huge swayback at 500 Hz, the upper hump and radically
>> severe
>> off-axis lobing patterns.
>
> I never said the centre was any good.......
>
>>>>> I reiterate my comments regarding the Ascent, and I add my distaste
>>>>> for the dull and lifeless sound of the old bextrene-coned KEF models
>>>>> such as the 104aB - which *measured* excellently!
>>>>
>>>> I'm not commenting on the Ascent because I've not used it.
>>>
>>> Clearly, you're not commenting on the KEFs either............
>>
>> Can't remember that far back. But I seem to recall being impressed with the
>> 104
>> series. That was the first real bandpass speaker I ever saw.
>
> That's the 104 mkII, a totally different speaker with
> polypropylene-coned drivers. KEF stopped using Bextrene precisely
> because it *measured* well but sounded flat and lifeless, likely due
> to internal losses smothering very low-level inputs. The succeeding
> polypropylene-coned models measured pretty much the same, but had
> noticeably better clarity - albeit with a slight midrange 'squawk'
> which became the trademark of polyprop cones.

[Steven Sullivan]

Stewart Pinkerton > wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:43:37 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

> (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
> >
> >>On 15 Aug 2003 01:45:59 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

> >>>I've not had access to the Ascent but I'ver tested several ML models over the
> >>>years and ALL of them had fairly severe frequency response abberations compared
> >>>to lower priced moving coil models.
> >>
> >>Ah, you mean some of them *measure* rather oddly, rather than they
> >>sound bad.......
> >
> >They basically sounded like they measured. Lifeless and lacking in dynamics at
> >all frequencies.

> That's absolute garbage. They have *exceptional* dynamics, in terms of
> their ability to sound clean and clear at low levels, and pray tell
> what is the measure of 'lifelessness'?

> >>I reiterate my comments regarding the Ascent, and I add my distaste
> >>for the dull and lifeless sound of the old bextrene-coned KEF models
> >>such as the 104aB - which *measured* excellently!
> >
> >I'm not commenting on the Ascent because I've not used it.

> Clearly, you're not commenting on the KEFs either............

Clearly you found the ML to be great-sounding and Tom didn't.
Absent a reference point -- blind comparison with
a live performance? -- I don't see
how you could argue for either view being *objectively* right.

You can certainly argue the specs and measurements.

--
-S.

[Steven Sullivan]

Stewart Pinkerton > wrote:
> On 14 Aug 2003 14:28:33 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

> >Hoping not to be a wet-rug but I've had the opportunity to measure and listen
> >to several ML hybrid systems over the years and Icannot find one which I would
> >recommend to anyone for which there aren't much better performing systems at
> >1/10th the cost.

> I recommend the Ascent to anyone interested in superbly natural sound.

> I'm not sure where Tom is getting his measure of 'better performing',
> but I'm not at all convinced that it relates entirely to the listening
> experience (deep bass aside). And I defy *anyone* to find a superior
> speaker (in any respect) for less than $400, which is Tom's claim.

As you imply in another thread, objectively inferior measurements could
still result in a *purely subjective* rating of 'better sound' in
a speaker, so I think it would be quite easy to find someone who
could rate those cheaper speakers superior *in a blind comparison*.


--
-S.

[Nousaine]

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 20:17:05 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:43:37 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>>
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 15 Aug 2003 01:45:59 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>I've not had access to the Ascent but I'ver tested several ML models
>over
>>>the
>>>>>>years and ALL of them had fairly severe frequency response abberations
>>>compared
>>>>>>to lower priced moving coil models.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah, you mean some of them *measure* rather oddly, rather than they
>>>>>sound bad.......
>>>>
>>>>They basically sounded like they measured. Lifeless and lacking in
>dynamics at
>>>>all frequencies.
>>>
>>>That's absolute garbage. They have *exceptional* dynamics, in terms of
>>>their ability to sound clean and clear at low levels, and pray tell
>>>what is the measure of 'lifelessness'?
>>
>>The Clarity floorstanders have had a fairly severe depression in the 500 Hz
>>range with a hump centered at 5 kHz on axis and often radically variant
>>directivity even over a +/- 30-degree listening window.
>>
>>IOW they just don't perform very well and the sound varies considerably
>>dependent on listener position.
>
>None of the above of course has *anything* to do with your comments of
>'lifeless and lacking in dynamics'.

Their capability of delivering reasonably low distortion SPL at low frequencies
is rather limited. And you're right to question the use of non-precise terms
such as "lifeless."

A flat axial response is about as
>useful for encompassing speaker sound, as THD is for amps.

Well you're wrong here. Flat axial response is a prerequisite but not
sufficient by itself to good sound. It is true that flatness and smoothness of
directivity is important too. And the ML models I've used are, in general,
quite deficient here as well.

Without reasonably flat axial response a speaker has little chance of having
smooth off-axial response in any direction. It is true that there are speakers
with good axial response but poor directivity. The MLs seem to share neither
quality in comparison with their competition.


>
>>They don't go particularly low and surely don't play loudly and cleanly
>enough
>>for full orchestra.
>>
>>The Script was somewhat better below 1 kHz but also suffered from the hump
>and
>>output nosedives above 1000 Hz beginning at 15 degrees off axis.
>>
>>The center, of which I've tested more than once over the past few years is
>just
>>a disaster with a huge swayback at 500 Hz, the upper hump and radically
>severe
>>off-axis lobing patterns.
>
>I never said the centre was any good.......
>

Agreed. It sucks; even more than half the time.

>>>>>I reiterate my comments regarding the Ascent, and I add my distaste
>>>>>for the dull and lifeless sound of the old bextrene-coned KEF models
>>>>>such as the 104aB - which *measured* excellently!
>>>>
>>>>I'm not commenting on the Ascent because I've not used it.
>>>
>>>Clearly, you're not commenting on the KEFs either............
>>
>>Can't remember that far back. But I seem to recall being impressed with the
>104
>>series. That was the first real bandpass speaker I ever saw.
>
>That's the 104 mkII, a totally different speaker with
>polypropylene-coned drivers. KEF stopped using Bextrene precisely
>because it *measured* well but sounded flat and lifeless, likely due
>to internal losses smothering very low-level inputs.

You are making assertions that may be true but seem, on their face, to be
lacking in support. How do you know they "measured well"? In what regard? And
exactly how do we metric "flat and lifeless"?

The succeeding
>polypropylene-coned models measured pretty much the same, but had
>noticeably better clarity - albeit with a slight midrange 'squawk'
>which became the trademark of polyprop cones.
>--
>
>Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

It's time to end this squabble. Or turn it into another direction. Toole's
work, while being much more commerically oriented in later years, has shown
that flat frequency response with smooth directivity is the single most
important factor in positive response to loudspeaker sound.

And there has, to the extent of my knowlegde and experience, never been any
research that shows standard electrical measurement techniques have no
relationship to sound quality. It's only the threshold that makes a difference,
just because electrical devices that far under-exceed the threshold of
audibility
it does not mean that they have no relevance.

For example,. give me an amplifier that has flat response into its load, clips
less than 1% of the time, has no audible hum or hiss and no other operating
quirks that has a sound of its own......and you have just made history.

To expand, what does a human "hear." Level, pitch (partial level differences)
and arrival time. IOW loudness, frequency response and arrival time. Yes that
includes bone and tissue conduction. That's it; and all the conventional
measurements aim at detecting small deltas in all this.

While it's true that THD and IMD and AMD are usually far below the threshold of
audibility electrically in electronic devices they are significant factors in
loudspeakers and loudspeaker playback systems over and above the other factors;
BUT flat axial response is number One; Smooth Directivity is a close second and
arguably even number one BUT it never comes without No 1, at least in any
speaker I've used or tested.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 18 Aug 2003 05:25:41 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton)
>wrote:

> A flat axial response is about as
>>useful for encompassing speaker sound, as THD is for amps.
>
>Well you're wrong here. Flat axial response is a prerequisite but not
>sufficient by itself to good sound. It is true that flatness and smoothness of
>directivity is important too. And the ML models I've used are, in general,
>quite deficient here as well.
>
>Without reasonably flat axial response a speaker has little chance of having
>smooth off-axial response in any direction. It is true that there are speakers
>with good axial response but poor directivity.

Note that all the above comments can exactly be attributed to low THD
for an amplifier, which is a necessary *but insufficient* prerequisite
for good sound.

As far too many amps have in the past concentrated on low THD to the
detriment of other measures, so many bad-sounding speakers have been
designed for flat axial response, but with power response all over
the shop! At least we agree on this point... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Jerry C.]

Wigbert wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I have a music only system I use in my bedroom chich consist of:
>
> Arcam FMJ CD 23T cd player
> Creek 5350 SE integrated amplifier
> B&W 603 S3 speakers
>
> I will move the speakers to my home theater setting and want to find the
> best speakers for my Arcam/Creek combo. I could reach the $2k mark, or
> maybe a little more if worth it. I am considering Spendor and Thiel among
> others. My musical tastes are rock, jazz and some classical.
>
> Should I buy tower speakers again for this system or go with standmounts and
> a good subwoofer?
>
> Any thoughs?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Wigbert
>

Wigbert,

For around $1800-$2000, I would go with Sam Tellig's recommendation in
Stereophile .... Triangle Celius. I compared them with the $2000+
Thiel, the Maggies for around $1600, various Dynaudio's, Paradigm's,
and many others. My preference for classical, jazz, and pop music with
either solid state or tube amps would be the Celius. I even compared
them with the $5000 B&W Nautilus and found them comparable. That
coincided with Tellig's opinion that you couldn't find a better sounding
speaker for under $5k.

Jerry Cipriano

[Jerry C.]

>>On 14 Aug 2003 14:28:33 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>
>>>Hoping not to be a wet-rug but I've had the opportunity to measure and listen
>>>to several ML hybrid systems over the years and Icannot find one which I would
>>>recommend to anyone for which there aren't much better performing systems at
>>>1/10th the cost.

>> Stewart Pinkerton > wrote:
>>I recommend the Ascent to anyone interested in superbly natural sound.
>>
>>I'm not sure where Tom is getting his measure of 'better performing',
>>but I'm not at all convinced that it relates entirely to the listening
>>experience (deep bass aside). And I defy *anyone* to find a superior
>>speaker (in any respect) for less than $400, which is Tom's claim.

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> As you imply in another thread, objectively inferior measurements could
> still result in a *purely subjective* rating of 'better sound' in
> a speaker, so I think it would be quite easy to find someone who
> could rate those cheaper speakers superior *in a blind comparison*.
>
>
===============================================
Mr. Pinkerton,

Please, I value recommendations and opinions of products. That, in
fact, is what the original question asked for. Challenging Mr. Nousaine
to prove his recommendation/opinion ("where Tom is getting his measure
...") is, of course, another invitation to detour this thread which Mr.
Sullivan gladly follows up on. Are you two secretly twins? :-)

Mr. Sullivan,

Stop trying to change every thread into a discussion of "blind
comparison" or dbt. The original question asked for "advice" on
loudspeakers. Please give your recommendations, but constantly
challenging other peoples advice is tedious rather than constructive.

Jerry Cipriano