[Christopher Carlen]

Hi:

My Realistic Mach 2 speakers are broken. I wish to replace them. I
barely have enough room for them as it is, so size is an important
consideration. I have a budget of about $800.

My interest is simply 2-channel stereo. Mostly classical, but a little
rock, jazz, and foreign pop. I will be feeding a new pair of speakers
with either a new NAD C325BEE or my Kyocera A-710, once I fix it.

My question is: Can a flat response be acheived with a pair of small
2-way monitor/satellites combined with a small subwoofer? Or will a
natural and neutral sound only be acheivable with a large, full-range
tower type of system? If the satellite+sub system can do it that might
be better for my space constraints. Of course, then I will have to
learn about how to equalize them. I don't need ultra deep bass. A
small sub reaching perhaps 32-44Hz would be enough. Perhaps it would be
better to have a smaller sub so it could be crossed over to the
satellites at a higher frequency, to allow them to focus on midrange.

I recently heard several pair of Paradigm speakers. The 90P pair were
the first I heard, and all I can say is that they sounded "perfect."
Exactly as I expected the best possible speakers would sound. The
second pair I heard were Monitor 11 and they were not satisfying at all.
I was actually shocked that it seemed they were weak on midrange. The
salesman called them "bright" which is an adjective that I don't understand.

Later he explained that perhaps the Monitor 11 was designed with home
theater users in mind, and actually de-emphasied midrange to satisfy the
more boomy bass desires of this audience.

Some smaller Bookshelf Paradigm speakers didn't sound good at all
immediately after hearing the towers, but after a few minutes began to
sound not that bad. Weak on lower bass, of course.

I am becoming convinced that I like a solid and natural midrange, and
thus might be best off with 3-way speaker systems. The Mach 2, while
not the tightest bass performers, were quite decent at midrange.

However, a small bookshelf woofer cutting off before the deep bass might
also render midrange well enough to do the job.

If I had the space I'd probably spend $2200 for a pair of Paradigm
Reference Studio 100, but that will have to wait. In the mean time,
something sounding respectable within budget and space constraints will
have to do.

I am presently looking at: Infinity, Revel, PSB, Triad, Klipsch, KLH,
Epos, Polk, and Paradigm (though they are shuffling the models and I
will want to buy something before they finish). I don't like the looks
of exotic cabinets such as Theil, KEF, and Mirage.

Comments and recommendations appreciated!

--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen

SuSE 9.1 Linux 2.6.5

[sd]

In article ,
Christopher Carlen wrote:

My question is: Can a flat response be acheived with a pair of small
2-way monitor/satellites combined with a small subwoofer? Or will a
natural and neutral sound only be acheivable with a large, full-range
tower type of system? If the satellite+sub system can do it that might
be better for my space constraints. Of course, then I will have to
learn about how to equalize them. I don't need ultra deep bass. A
small sub reaching perhaps 32-44Hz would be enough. Perhaps it would be
better to have a smaller sub so it could be crossed over to the
satellites at a higher frequency, to allow them to focus on midrange.

I haven't instrumented my system (Monitor Audio Silver 3is and a
Monitor Audio ASW-110 subwoofer), so I can't say for certain the
response is flat. I _certainly_ can say the speakers sound musical
to me and I have felt no great urge to replace them with something
"better".

The virtue of using a sub with speakers from the same company/model
line is that a serious attempt is made to smooth the transition
before the speakers ever leave the factory. Sure, that leaves
modifying it for listening room anamolies and your sonic
preferences, but it should be a far more seamless experience than
pairing products from different companies.

And I don't know how common this is with other brands of subwoofers,
but on my MAs, I can choose to connect either through speaker cables
(in which case a 100-Hz filter kicks in for the satellites) or
through RCA-jack line inputs (no filter used). I have not tried both
methods to see which I prefer; I'm just as happy with removing the
truly low bass from the satellites, which (I believe) lets them
concentrate on the mid-range and higher.

Good luck!
sd

[Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro]

Christopher Carlen wrote:
Hi:

My Realistic Mach 2 speakers are broken. I wish to replace them. I
barely have enough room for them as it is, so size is an important
consideration. I have a budget of about $800.

My interest is simply 2-channel stereo. Mostly classical, but a little
rock, jazz, and foreign pop. I will be feeding a new pair of speakers
with either a new NAD C325BEE or my Kyocera A-710, once I fix it.

NAD C325BEE around $400

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=NAD%20C325BEE
http://audiovisual.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/.../16716038.html

My question is: Can a flat response be acheived with a pair of small
2-way monitor/satellites combined with a small subwoofer?

I think so, since good bookshelf speakers and good subwoofers will
have a flat* response for the frequencies that they can reproduce
and their ranges will overlap, so the rest is a matter of setup.

* flat as they can be for speakers, of course.

It will be easier with a amplifier/receiver which has a subwoofer output
and can be setup to send only the frequencies above a certain point
to the bookshelf speakers and the ones below to the subwoofer.

Recent models even have a test microphone and setup themselves
automatically, according to the capabilities of the speakers and the
characteristics of the room. Models like the Yamaha RX-V659, which is
in the same price range as the NAD:

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/p...6&CTID=5000300
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=...59&btnG=Search

If you use a classic amplifier you can make adjustments in the
subwoofer. It will have two controls: a crossover setting and
a volume setting. The problem with this is that you can't prevent
the bass from getting to the bookshelf speakers, so the overlap
might be a bit more complicated to setup.

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

[Doug McCall]

"Christopher Carlen" wrote in message
...
Hi:

My Realistic Mach 2 speakers are broken. I wish to replace them. I
barely have enough room for them as it is, so size is an important
consideration. I have a budget of about $800.

My interest is simply 2-channel stereo. Mostly classical, but a little
rock, jazz, and foreign pop. I will be feeding a new pair of speakers
with either a new NAD C325BEE or my Kyocera A-710, once I fix it.

My question is: Can a flat response be acheived with a pair of small
2-way monitor/satellites combined with a small subwoofer? Or will a
natural and neutral sound only be acheivable with a large, full-range
tower type of system? If the satellite+sub system can do it that might be
better for my space constraints. Of course, then I will have to learn
about how to equalize them. I don't need ultra deep bass. A small sub
reaching perhaps 32-44Hz would be enough. Perhaps it would be better to
have a smaller sub so it could be crossed over to the satellites at a
higher frequency, to allow them to focus on midrange.

I recently heard several pair of Paradigm speakers. The 90P pair were the
first I heard, and all I can say is that they sounded "perfect." Exactly
as I expected the best possible speakers would sound. The second pair I
heard were Monitor 11 and they were not satisfying at all. I was actually
shocked that it seemed they were weak on midrange. The salesman called
them "bright" which is an adjective that I don't understand.

Later he explained that perhaps the Monitor 11 was designed with home
theater users in mind, and actually de-emphasied midrange to satisfy the
more boomy bass desires of this audience.

Some smaller Bookshelf Paradigm speakers didn't sound good at all
immediately after hearing the towers, but after a few minutes began to
sound not that bad. Weak on lower bass, of course.

I am becoming convinced that I like a solid and natural midrange, and thus
might be best off with 3-way speaker systems. The Mach 2, while not the
tightest bass performers, were quite decent at midrange.

However, a small bookshelf woofer cutting off before the deep bass might
also render midrange well enough to do the job.

If I had the space I'd probably spend $2200 for a pair of Paradigm
Reference Studio 100, but that will have to wait. In the mean time,
something sounding respectable within budget and space constraints will
have to do.

I am presently looking at: Infinity, Revel, PSB, Triad, Klipsch, KLH,
Epos, Polk, and Paradigm (though they are shuffling the models and I will
want to buy something before they finish). I don't like the looks of
exotic cabinets such as Theil, KEF, and Mirage.

Comments and recommendations appreciated!

--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen

SuSE 9.1 Linux 2.6.5

I think you can get good results either way you go. Personally, after trying
various sub/sat systems lately, I miss the simplicity of just a pair of nice
floor-standers. For what you want though, a Dayton Titanic III 10"/250W
powered sub, for $288 (on sale) delivered in kit form from Parts Express,
might be a good sub for you. It will go down to about 30Hz and play clean up
around 105dB. I have two and they are solid little subs with a stout, heavy
(but compact) cabinet and a heavy driver.

[Harry Lavo]

"Christopher Carlen" wrote in message
...
Hi:

My Realistic Mach 2 speakers are broken. I wish to replace them. I
barely have enough room for them as it is, so size is an important
consideration. I have a budget of about $800.

My interest is simply 2-channel stereo. Mostly classical, but a little
rock, jazz, and foreign pop. I will be feeding a new pair of speakers
with either a new NAD C325BEE or my Kyocera A-710, once I fix it.

My question is: Can a flat response be acheived with a pair of small
2-way monitor/satellites combined with a small subwoofer? Or will a
natural and neutral sound only be acheivable with a large, full-range
tower type of system? If the satellite+sub system can do it that might be
better for my space constraints. Of course, then I will have to learn
about how to equalize them. I don't need ultra deep bass. A small sub
reaching perhaps 32-44Hz would be enough. Perhaps it would be better to
have a smaller sub so it could be crossed over to the satellites at a
higher frequency, to allow them to focus on midrange.

I recently heard several pair of Paradigm speakers. The 90P pair were the
first I heard, and all I can say is that they sounded "perfect." Exactly
as I expected the best possible speakers would sound. The second pair I
heard were Monitor 11 and they were not satisfying at all. I was actually
shocked that it seemed they were weak on midrange. The salesman called
them "bright" which is an adjective that I don't understand.

Later he explained that perhaps the Monitor 11 was designed with home
theater users in mind, and actually de-emphasied midrange to satisfy the
more boomy bass desires of this audience.

Some smaller Bookshelf Paradigm speakers didn't sound good at all
immediately after hearing the towers, but after a few minutes began to
sound not that bad. Weak on lower bass, of course.

I am becoming convinced that I like a solid and natural midrange, and thus
might be best off with 3-way speaker systems. The Mach 2, while not the
tightest bass performers, were quite decent at midrange.

However, a small bookshelf woofer cutting off before the deep bass might
also render midrange well enough to do the job.

If I had the space I'd probably spend $2200 for a pair of Paradigm
Reference Studio 100, but that will have to wait. In the mean time,
something sounding respectable within budget and space constraints will
have to do.

I am presently looking at: Infinity, Revel, PSB, Triad, Klipsch, KLH,
Epos, Polk, and Paradigm (though they are shuffling the models and I will
want to buy something before they finish). I don't like the looks of
exotic cabinets such as Theil, KEF, and Mirage.

Comments and recommendations appreciated!

I'd focus on Revel, PSB, Epos, and Paradigm in your price range, along with
a suitable subwoofer. They all have small bookshelves with good midrange,
and all have a small sub-woofer to match. You should be able to squeeze out
a system at or close to your price range.
A larger three way bookshelf is also available from them, but you said space
is at a premium and you should be able to find a system you like.

[record hunter]

Christopher Carlen wrote:

I recently heard several pair of Paradigm speakers. The 90P pair were
the first I heard, and all I can say is that they sounded "perfect."
Exactly as I expected the best possible speakers would sound. The
second pair I heard were Monitor 11 and they were not satisfying at all.
I was actually shocked that it seemed they were weak on midrange. The
salesman called them "bright" which is an adjective that I don't understand.

Later he explained that perhaps the Monitor 11 was designed with home
theater users in mind, and actually de-emphasied midrange to satisfy the
more boomy bass desires of this audience.

Some smaller Bookshelf Paradigm speakers didn't sound good at all
immediately after hearing the towers, but after a few minutes began to
sound not that bad. Weak on lower bass, of course.

I am becoming convinced that I like a solid and natural midrange, and
thus might be best off with 3-way speaker systems. The Mach 2, while
not the tightest bass performers, were quite decent at midrange.

However, a small bookshelf woofer cutting off before the deep bass might
also render midrange well enough to do the job.

If I had the space I'd probably spend $2200 for a pair of Paradigm
Reference Studio 100, but that will have to wait. In the mean time,
something sounding respectable within budget and space constraints will
have to do.

I am presently looking at: Infinity, Revel, PSB, Triad, Klipsch, KLH,
Epos, Polk, and Paradigm (though they are shuffling the models and I
will want to buy something before they finish). I don't like the looks
of exotic cabinets such as Theil, KEF, and Mirage.

Comments and recommendations appreciated!


How close to a wall are you planning to put your speakers? If you buy
monitors, will they be placed on stands? On bookshelves?

I have the Paradigm Atoms and the Reference Studio 20s v.2 in two
different systems. The Atoms do better close to (but not right next to)
a wall than the 20s. I replaced the Atoms in my BR system with the 20s,
just to get a bit of that 'changing one element' comparison, and they
were very boomy, but they're rear ported.

Don't think because it's a monitor, that it's going to want to be
against a wall. AFAIK, the 20s take up the same footprint as the rest
of the line, or close to it.

I hope this helps.

[Walt]

Christopher Carlen wrote:
grossly edited

My Realistic Mach 2 speakers are broken. I wish to replace them.
My interest is simply 2-channel stereo. Mostly classical, but a little
rock, jazz, and foreign pop.

I am becoming convinced that I like a solid and natural midrange, and
thus might be best off with 3-way speaker systems.

If you like a solid and natural midrange, I would counsel you the other
direction: Keep the crossover points out of the midrange.

Three way speakers typically cross over in the 200 to 300 range, meaning
that there are phase anomalies and tonality differences between the
drivers at this critical midrange region. A two way system where one
driver goes all the way down to 70 hz or so is less likely to exhibit
the "hole" or the "bloat" or the "floofy indistict sound" around the
crossover point.

That's my experience, anyway. Virtually every three way speaker I've
ever listened to has underperformed a similarly priced 2-way from the
same manufacturer in this regard. (the 2 1/2 way specimens are worse,
BTW - avoid avoid avoid).

If you want that bottom octave and a half, add a sub. My ears are less
sensitive to 40 hz anomalies then they are to problems at 250. YMMV.

//Walt

[Christopher Carlen]

Harry Lavo wrote:
I'd focus on Revel, PSB, Epos, and Paradigm in your price range, along with
a suitable subwoofer. They all have small bookshelves with good midrange,
and all have a small sub-woofer to match. You should be able to squeeze out
a system at or close to your price range.
A larger three way bookshelf is also available from them, but you said space
is at a premium and you should be able to find a system you like.

I've noticed that bookshelfs these days have deep cabinets, instead of
wide. I can deal with wide (up to the size of the Mach 2), but not deep.

Anything wrong with Klipsch, Triad, KLH, Polk, or Pinnacle?

Thanks for the input.

Good day!

--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen

SuSE 9.1 Linux 2.6.5

[Christopher Carlen]

record hunter wrote:
How close to a wall are you planning to put your speakers? If you buy
monitors, will they be placed on stands? On bookshelves?

I have the Paradigm Atoms and the Reference Studio 20s v.2 in two
different systems. The Atoms do better close to (but not right next to)
a wall than the 20s. I replaced the Atoms in my BR system with the 20s,
just to get a bit of that 'changing one element' comparison, and they
were very boomy, but they're rear ported.

Don't think because it's a monitor, that it's going to want to be
against a wall. AFAIK, the 20s take up the same footprint as the rest
of the line, or close to it.

Thanks for the response.

It might be difficult for me to attain a symmetric placement. One will
be close to a side wall, but 2 ft. from the rear wall, the other will be
difficult to place not against the rear, but will be 2 ft. from the side.

I might be able to conjure a way to get a pair of monitors fairly evenly
about 1-2 ft. from the corners.

Good day!

--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen

SuSE 9.1 Linux 2.6.5

[Christopher Carlen]

Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:
Christopher Carlen wrote:
My question is: Can a flat response be acheived with a pair of small
2-way monitor/satellites combined with a small subwoofer?

I think so, since good bookshelf speakers and good subwoofers will
have a flat* response for the frequencies that they can reproduce
and their ranges will overlap, so the rest is a matter of setup.

* flat as they can be for speakers, of course.

It will be easier with a amplifier/receiver which has a subwoofer output
and can be setup to send only the frequencies above a certain point
to the bookshelf speakers and the ones below to the subwoofer.

That is definitely desirable, and I don't think the NAD can do this.

Recent models even have a test microphone and setup themselves
automatically, according to the capabilities of the speakers and the
characteristics of the room. Models like the Yamaha RX-V659, which is
in the same price range as the NAD:

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/p...6&CTID=5000300
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=...59&btnG=Search

Yeah, that's very interesting. Too bad there are so many features I
don't want and don't understand. I'm an electrical circuit and
electro-optics designer by profession. But this surround stuff is just
not something I've paid any attention to. I don't like the idea of
paying for 5 or more channels of amplification when I really only want
2. But the auto-eq is cool.

I'm tempted to just build a gadget to buffer and sum a signal to the
subwoofer, then high-pass the original two channels before feeding into
the main amp. Could interpose this between the pre-out/main-in jacks.
Trouble is I don't want to spend time on that. Have a list of projects
already being neglected.

It wouldn't save me money either, over the difference between a $400 NAD
amp and a Yamaha receiver, or something similar. But it would be
simple. Hmm.

If you use a classic amplifier you can make adjustments in the
subwoofer. It will have two controls: a crossover setting and
a volume setting. The problem with this is that you can't prevent
the bass from getting to the bookshelf speakers, so the overlap
might be a bit more complicated to setup.

Yeah, I'm attracted to a low-end PSB sub that can be set to cross about
150Hz, where a review shows their Alpha B monitors begin to have a rise
in distortion.

Can you explain anything about how 2-channel audio is dealt with on a
5.1 or higher receiver, such as the Yamaha RX-V659 ?

Thanks for the input.

Good day!

--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen

SuSE 9.1 Linux 2.6.5

[Christopher Carlen]

Doug McCall wrote:
I think you can get good results either way you go. Personally, after trying
various sub/sat systems lately, I miss the simplicity of just a pair of nice
floor-standers. For what you want though, a Dayton Titanic III 10"/250W
powered sub, for $288 (on sale) delivered in kit form from Parts Express,
might be a good sub for you. It will go down to about 30Hz and play clean up
around 105dB. I have two and they are solid little subs with a stout, heavy
(but compact) cabinet and a heavy driver.

Thanks for the tip! I'll keep that in mind, as I don't mind building stuff.

Good day!

--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen

SuSE 9.1 Linux 2.6.5

[Christopher Carlen]

Walt wrote:
Christopher Carlen wrote:
grossly edited

My Realistic Mach 2 speakers are broken. I wish to replace them. My
interest is simply 2-channel stereo. Mostly classical, but a little
rock, jazz, and foreign pop.
I am becoming convinced that I like a solid and natural midrange, and
thus might be best off with 3-way speaker systems.

If you like a solid and natural midrange, I would counsel you the other
direction: Keep the crossover points out of the midrange.

Three way speakers typically cross over in the 200 to 300 range, meaning
that there are phase anomalies and tonality differences between the
drivers at this critical midrange region. A two way system where one
driver goes all the way down to 70 hz or so is less likely to exhibit
the "hole" or the "bloat" or the "floofy indistict sound" around the
crossover point.

Interesting perspective. Do you think 150 Hz is safely out of the way
of critical midrange? I wonder at what point bass becomes effectively
omnidirectional?

That's my experience, anyway. Virtually every three way speaker I've
ever listened to has underperformed a similarly priced 2-way from the
same manufacturer in this regard. (the 2 1/2 way specimens are worse,
BTW - avoid avoid avoid).[edit]

Thanks for the input!

--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen

SuSE 9.1 Linux 2.6.5

[Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro]

Christopher Carlen wrote:
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:
Christopher Carlen wrote:
My question is: Can a flat response be acheived with a pair of small
2-way monitor/satellites combined with a small subwoofer?

I think so, since good bookshelf speakers and good subwoofers will
have a flat* response for the frequencies that they can reproduce
and their ranges will overlap, so the rest is a matter of setup.

BTW, take a look at the white papers at:
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt1.pdf
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt2.pdf
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt3.pdf

(I am not sure if these are still available. When I tried just now,
the link worked once and then didn't work. Might be a temporary problem
or a big coincidence of having been removed at almost exactly the same
time I tried.)

If you can't get them, mail me.

* flat as they can be for speakers, of course.

It will be easier with a amplifier/receiver which has a subwoofer output
and can be setup to send only the frequencies above a certain point
to the bookshelf speakers and the ones below to the subwoofer.

That is definitely desirable, and I don't think the NAD can do this.

I have not checked its manual but probably not. With classical amplifiers
what you do is to connect the subwoofer between the amplifier and the
speakers and it gets the signal from there, via a low-pass filter.

Recent models even have a test microphone and setup themselves
automatically, according to the capabilities of the speakers and the
characteristics of the room. Models like the Yamaha RX-V659, which is
in the same price range as the NAD:

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/p...6&CTID=5000300
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=...59&btnG=Search

Yeah, that's very interesting. Too bad there are so many features I
don't want and don't understand. I'm an electrical circuit and
electro-optics designer by profession. But this surround stuff is just
not something I've paid any attention to. I don't like the idea of
paying for 5 or more channels of amplification when I really only want
2.

You are not paying for that. 2-channel amplifiers are now niche products
while multi-channels are somewhat mass market and so have economies of
scale that make them about the same price.

But the auto-eq is cool.

Yeah, I'm attracted to a low-end PSB sub that can be set to cross about
150Hz, where a review shows their Alpha B monitors begin to have a rise
in distortion.

Hmm, bass is directional above about 80-90 Hz (IIRC), so you probably
should get monitors capable of some more bass than that and setup the
crossover lower.

Can you explain anything about how 2-channel audio is dealt with on a
5.1 or higher receiver, such as the Yamaha RX-V659 ?

Trivially: I think with autosetup you just connect the speakers you want
to use and the amplifier automatically detects how many they are and what
capabilities they have.

With the models of a couple of years ago, when you setup the receiver
the first time, you tell it that the number and type of the speakers you
connected connected and it just works. The type used to be small or big
(small meaning bookshelf and so, not much bass, big meaning full range),
later the crossover point could be entered explicitily (80Hz or whatever).

If you have 5.1 speakers and you are listening to a 2 channel source,
the amplifier can (if you want) put sound in all of them using a variety
of programs (for instance simulating the acustics of some famous concert
rooms).

Check the manual:
http://www.yamaha-service.de/service...9/RXV659UK.pdf

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

[Harry Lavo]

"Christopher Carlen" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
I'd focus on Revel, PSB, Epos, and Paradigm in your price range, along
with a suitable subwoofer. They all have small bookshelves with good
midrange, and all have a small sub-woofer to match. You should be able
to squeeze out a system at or close to your price range.
A larger three way bookshelf is also available from them, but you said
space is at a premium and you should be able to find a system you like.

I've noticed that bookshelfs these days have deep cabinets, instead of
wide. I can deal with wide (up to the size of the Mach 2), but not deep.

Anything wrong with Klipsch, Triad, KLH, Polk, or Pinnacle?

Thanks for the input.

Good day!

Their offerings are generally not quite of the same quality level or vary
greatly from model to model. The four I mentioned are considered pretty
damn near impeccable across their entire line by a wide range of
audiophiles. The others aren't "bad", the first four are "safer".

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 7 Dec 2006 04:28:16 GMT, Christopher Carlen
wrote:

Interesting perspective. Do you think 150 Hz is safely out of the way
of critical midrange?

No.

I wonder at what point bass becomes effectively
omnidirectional?

It is generally stated as somewhere around 80Hz but the lower, the
better. Most HT systems default to 80Hz.

Kal

[Walt]

Christopher Carlen wrote:
Walt wrote:
Christopher Carlen wrote:
grossly edited

I am becoming convinced that I like a
solid and natural midrange, and thus might be best off with 3-way
speaker systems.


If you like a solid and natural midrange, I would counsel you the
other direction: Keep the crossover points out of the midrange.

Three way speakers typically cross over in the 200 to 300 range,
meaning that there are phase anomalies and tonality differences
between the drivers at this critical midrange region. A two way
system where one driver goes all the way down to 70 hz or so is less
likely to exhibit the "hole" or the "bloat" or the "floofy indistict
sound" around the crossover point.

Interesting perspective. Do you think 150 Hz is safely out of the way
of critical midrange?

No. Not at all. That's still solidly in the range of human vocals. An
operatic Bass hits fundamentals down to about 80 hz, so you've got a
full octave of vocal range below that crossover point.

My pet theory is that since we are most attuned to anomalies when
reproducing human voice, we should keep crossover points out of the
range of the human voice. (The fundamental frequencies, that is -
Overtones and undertones are another story. ) Since an operatic Bass
hits fundamentals down to about 80 hz, and a soprano hits fundamentals
up to about 1.2 khz that means avoiding crossovers in that range.

I've found that the most "natural" sounding speakers are designed this
way. Now, maybe they just sound most natural to me, but everytime I
audition a speaker with a crossover point in the low mids, I hear a
hole, bloat, or some kind of phasiness. YMMV.

I wonder at what point bass becomes effectively omnidirectional?

Depends on the size and design of the speaker. In principle, one can
design a system that has high directivity at long wavelengths, but it
needs to be sized approximately as large as the wavelength. That means
about 50 feet at 20 hz.

A conventional front loaded speaker will become directonal above the
wavelength equal to the diamater of the driver, and omnidirectional
below that. But the transition is gradual occuring over a few octaves.
Figure for most home speakers that they're omni-directional below
about 200hz or so. Horns are different. Larger drivers are directional
to lower frequencies.

Note that the meaning of "omnidirectional" above is that the speaker
emits sound equally in all directions. It does *not* mean that you
can't locate which direction the sound is coming from. Sometimes people
use omnidirectional in that sense, but that's not what the word means.

//Walt

"Christopher Carlen" wrote in message
...

I recently heard several pair of Paradigm speakers. The 90P pair were the
first I heard, and all I can say is that they sounded "perfect." Exactly
as I expected the best possible speakers would sound. The second pair I
heard were Monitor 11 and they were not satisfying at all. I was actually
shocked that it seemed they were weak on midrange. The salesman called
them "bright" which is an adjective that I don't understand.

Buy the 90P's. Do whatever is necessary to accommodate your circumstances
to this purchase. Very few people are lucky enough to hear speakers that
they regard as "perfect." I certainly haven't. Buy them and enjoy.

Norm Strong

[Yannick Tremblay]

In article ,
Christopher Carlen wrote:
Hi:

consideration. I have a budget of about $800.

My interest is simply 2-channel stereo. Mostly classical, but a little
rock, jazz, and foreign pop. I will be feeding a new pair of speakers
with either a new NAD C325BEE or my Kyocera A-710, once I fix it.

Some smaller Bookshelf Paradigm speakers didn't sound good at all
immediately after hearing the towers, but after a few minutes began to
sound not that bad. Weak on lower bass, of course.

Be careful, sometimes overblown bass or very bright treble might sound
good at first hearing but result in listening fatigue.

Comments and recommendations appreciated!

--

First and foremost recommendation: go and listen to some speakers in a
audio dealer. You might get cheapers speakers at
insert-big-electronic-wharehouse-name-here or they might be
displaying a 50% reduction from their inflated mythical list price but
you'll end up buying blind and be ultimately unsatisfied or at best
buying from recommendation of peoples who have different taste,
different equipment and different hearing than yours.

So grab a few of your favourite recordings, a bit of diversity might
be a good thing, go to a real audio dealer and listen. If you are
planning to spend $800, and unless $800 is not significant for you, it
is worth the effort. (actually, I think it's more than worth the
effort cause I rather enjoy listening to gear and what stop me is not
wanting to waste the dealer time when I know that I am not planning to
buy) Feel free to buy blind if you are spending $40 and care more
about the look of the units than the sound.

In your listening sessions, try different range. You generally get
what you pay for in audio but the curve of sound quality / price is
logarithmic, not linear. Depending of your hearing and the amount of
available money you have, you will find a point where doubling the
price of the speakers is definitely worth it for you because you can
clearly hear the different and clearly enjoy the music much more. At
some other higher point, you will find that increases in price are not
worth it for you. Where is that point depends on you. Some peoples
pay $10000 for a pair of speakers, some peoples pay $50. In both
group, some are happy with what they have and think the others are
silly. (Personally, I am somewhere between these extremes). So given
that your current plan are $800. Start by trying some $400, $800 and
maybe something a bit more expensive. If you can't hear a difference
with the $400 one, don't spend $800 it's not worth it for you. Be
careful on trying something above your budget 'though. Once you
determine that $800 is the price you are set on, then try a few
different speakers in that price range. Try bookshelves,
floorstanders and bookshelves with subwoofer. Gradually figure out
what you prefer. Also if possible, try to listen in a similar system
than the one you own. A good dealer will let you bring in your own
NAD.

A bit on the specifics: (note that all below should be qualified with
your own ears, if your ears disagree with me, listen to your ears)

- Changing your $400 stereo amp for a $400 multichannel AV amps:
Don't do it unless you want multichannel. You don't get something for
nothing. In the first case, you have $200 to spend per channel and
very little software and features that cost money to make (one treble
and bass control and input selector?). In the other case, you have
$80 per channel and this is spread even thinner with all the useless
gadgets and gimmick. I'd also never recommend a Yamaha AV amps for
musicality. They are first and foremost movie amps.

- 3-way floorstanders for $300: I personally wouldn't touch those.
IMO (from listening experience), the price point at which a 3-way
floorstander can be properly implemented is well above $300. I far
prefer 2-way bookshelves to 3-ways floorstanders until well above
$1000. YMMV if you attach higher value to booming bass than clean and
precise mid-range and highs.

- Floorstanders vs bookshelf: generally at the same price point, the
floorstanders will give you more bass but the bookshelf will give you
better mids/highs with less box coloration. Correct imaging is easier
to achieve with smaller boxes.

- Subwoofer: Good integration of a subwoofer is not easy. That said:
With my Dynaudio Audience 42 (quality small bookshelves I'd guess
they go down to some 40-odd Hz), I used to be happy with the bass
without subwoofer for most thing . Subwoofer was improving things
mainly for: (in order) organ music, movies, pop music.
If you are considering bookshelves + sub, think about only buying
a good set of bookshelves for now with your budget and wait a year
or two to add a subwoofer.

- Satellites + mid-woofer: I have never been impressed by them for
music. For AV, they are fine but most are not musical enough for my
taste. That said, I quite rate the Acoustic Energy Aego sets.

Unfortunately, I am in the UK so I am not sure if my precise
recommendation would be useful to you. Anyway, this message is now
far too long :-) Oh, let's plug a few anyway: Dynaudio, PMC, Totem
(made in Montreal so available where you live), ProAc, Triangle,
Monitor Audio, and last but certainly not least: Wilson&Benesch.

Yan

[Christopher Carlen]

Yannick Tremblay wrote:
In article ,
Christopher Carlen wrote:
consideration. I have a budget of about $800.
My interest is simply 2-channel stereo. Mostly classical, but a little
rock, jazz, and foreign pop.

Be careful, sometimes overblown bass or very bright treble might sound
good at first hearing but result in listening fatigue.

Yes. First off, thanks a whole lot for your detailed response!

I will post a new thread about today's speaker shopping experiences.

[edit]
- Changing your $400 stereo amp for a $400 multichannel AV amps:
Don't do it unless you want multichannel. You don't get something for
nothing. In the first case, you have $200 to spend per channel and
very little software and features that cost money to make (one treble
and bass control and input selector?). In the other case, you have
$80 per channel and this is spread even thinner with all the useless
gadgets and gimmick. I'd also never recommend a Yamaha AV amps for
musicality. They are first and foremost movie amps.

Yeah, I don't like the idea much, and after hearing some very satisfying
mini-towers, think I will avoid a subwoofer system altogether and stick
with fairly full-ranged main speakers.

- 3-way floorstanders for $300: I personally wouldn't touch those.
IMO (from listening experience), the price point at which a 3-way
floorstander can be properly implemented is well above $300. I far
prefer 2-way bookshelves to 3-ways floorstanders until well above
$1000. YMMV if you attach higher value to booming bass than clean and
precise mid-range and highs.

Well then you would love my Mach 2s! ACtually at the time I just bought
them without much thought. I did have some frustrations with their
bass, with some notes playing well, some simply missing, and others
muddied. A hardwood floored almost square room didn't help, so I
forgave the speakers. With non-vocal midrange intensive stuff they
always seemed satisfying. However, after todays difficulties with
finding a speaker that can reproduce a piano, I really wonder what I
would hear if I listened closely to them again. But unfortunately, they
are toast so I cannot compare.

- Floorstanders vs bookshelf: generally at the same price point, the
floorstanders will give you more bass but the bookshelf will give you
better mids/highs with less box coloration. Correct imaging is easier
to achieve with smaller boxes.

Yeah, box coloration. I will talk about that in my next post.

[edit more good discussion]

Good day!

--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen

SuSE 9.1 Linux 2.6.5

[Christopher Carlen]

wrote:
"Christopher Carlen" wrote in message
...

I recently heard several pair of Paradigm speakers. The 90P pair were the
first I heard, and all I can say is that they sounded "perfect." Exactly
as I expected the best possible speakers would sound. The second pair I
heard were Monitor 11 and they were not satisfying at all. I was actually
shocked that it seemed they were weak on midrange. The salesman called
them "bright" which is an adjective that I don't understand.

Buy the 90P's. Do whatever is necessary to accommodate your circumstances
to this purchase. Very few people are lucky enough to hear speakers that
they regard as "perfect." I certainly haven't. Buy them and enjoy.

Norm Strong

Thanks for the input.

I will create a new post about the speakers I heard today. I will need
to check the 90Ps against a wider variety of music, now that I have
discovered some of the troubles that can arise.

But your point is well taken.

Good day!

--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen

SuSE 9.1 Linux 2.6.5

[Christopher Carlen]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Christopher Carlen" wrote
Anything wrong with Klipsch, Triad, KLH, Polk, or Pinnacle?

Their offerings are generally not quite of the same quality level or vary
greatly from model to model. The four I mentioned are considered pretty
damn near impeccable across their entire line by a wide range of
audiophiles. The others aren't "bad", the first four are "safer".

Ok. While I am biased toward liking Paradigm, I am troubled by the
strong difference in sound between their 90P and Monitor 11. I have
figured that there shouldn't be dramatic differences in sound between
similar models of a given brand, and in fact between brands if they are
coming close to doing what I want the speaker to do. That is to play
the sound of the music, not the speaker.

Today I heard B&W 704, 603, and 602. Only subtle differences going down
the line. Then Dali 5005 and Suite 1.7. Again, subtle differences
between them all.

I will post in detail about today's listening experiences.

Good day!

--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen

SuSE 9.1 Linux 2.6.5

[NoDownTime]

Get on ebay and find a pair of small, old Klipsch Heresys. You can get
them for less than $500 in almost-new condition.

Take the balance and buy a decent subwoofer.

http://cgi.ebay.com/KLIPSCH-HERESY-S...QQcmdZViewItem