I spent this weekend listening to bookshelf speakers ($180-1400). Of
course, there were variations among the speakers. However, one speaker
that sounded significantly better was a JM (or was it JL) /Focal floor
standing model. OK, never mind that it retails for $1900. It had a lot
of detail without being "sibilant". One test I was using was whether
you could hear the horns specifically while the rest of the orchestra
was playing loudly, and this speaker did the best on that.

I figure that if you can hear lots of details while the speaker is
otherwise playing loudly, then the speaker must be pretty linear. I
wonder if it is because this speaker has 3 drivers, so that the audio
load is more spread out among the drivers. Thus the drivers have less
excursion and don't distort as much. I don't know how many problems you
take on by having another crossover, though (phase and frequency
response mismatch).

I guess my question is that all other factors being equal (e.g. within a
speaker model line from one company), will the 3 driver model sound
better/more detailed/can play orchestral music better than the 2 driver
version? Or maybe a better question is whether the jump in sound
quality is bigger between the 3 driver and 2 driver model, vs a 2 driver
model and a slightly smaller 2 driver model.
In particular, I'm thinking of Paradigm speakers, in the Monitor line.
They have a mini-monitor (small bookshelf), Monitor 3 (medium bookshelf
with 2 drivers) and monitor 5 (3 drivers). Will the difference in
"goodness" between the Monitor 5 vs 3 be bigger than the difference btw
the 3 and Mini? I have a subwoofer, so I don't care that much about how
low the bass goes.

I also wonder if it is often the case that a cheaper 3 driver speaker
can beat a more expensive 2 driver. (e.g. paradigm monitor 5 vs Studio 20)

In article ,
alan wrote:
I guess my question is that all other factors being equal (e.g. within a
speaker model line from one company), will the 3 driver model sound
better/more detailed/can play orchestral music better than the 2 driver
version?

Assuming you keep the same driver quality (which isn't guaranteed by
buying from the same company) bigger drivers with decreasing frequency reduce
distortion (notably IM distortion) at higher playback levels on full-range
music (symphonic, rock, etc.) Running a sub-woofer with my various two-way
speakers did wonders for the mid-range when bass was also present.

They also let you have more control over directivity for more uniform
power response.

I have a subwoofer, so I don't care that much about how low the bass goes.

In which case a 2-way with sufficiently large mid-bass drivers (to keep
excursion and distortion low) will work wonderfully, especially if you
use a sealed design that doesn't have the mid-bass boosted to give the
illusion of the lat octaves.
--
a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/"Home Page/a
9/11 was a premptive attack

"alan" wrote in message

I spent this weekend listening to bookshelf speakers ($180-1400). Of
course, there were variations among the speakers. However, one
speaker that sounded significantly better was a JM (or was it JL)
/Focal floor standing model. OK, never mind that it retails for
$1900. It had a lot of detail without being "sibilant".

I would say that this is a pretty narrow way to rate speakers - detail
versus sibillance.

One test I
was using was whether you could hear the horns specifically while the
rest of the orchestra was playing loudly, and this speaker did the
best on that.

OK, so maybe it is peaked up in the frequency ranges where the horns are.

I figure that if you can hear lots of details while the speaker is
otherwise playing loudly, then the speaker must be pretty linear.

Not necessarily.

I wonder if it is because this speaker has 3 drivers, so that the audio
load is more spread out among the drivers.

Not necessarily.

Thus the drivers have less
excursion and don't distort as much.

The way you get low distortion bass is primarily by maximizing the product
of cone area and linear stroke. You can do that without resorting to
multiple drivers working in the same range.

I don't know how many problems
you take on by having another crossover, though (phase and frequency
response mismatch).

You don't need to have a separate crossover if two of the speakers are
running in the same frequency range.

I guess my question is that all other factors being equal (e.g.
within a speaker model line from one company), will the 3 driver
model sound better/more detailed/can play orchestral music better
than the 2 driver version?

If you take the larger view of speaker systems, not just those from one
manufactuer, the answer is clearly no.

Or maybe a better question is whether the
jump in sound quality is bigger between the 3 driver and 2 driver
model, vs a 2 driver model and a slightly smaller 2 driver model.
In particular, I'm thinking of Paradigm speakers, in the Monitor line.
They have a mini-monitor (small bookshelf), Monitor 3 (medium
bookshelf with 2 drivers) and monitor 5 (3 drivers). Will the
difference in "goodness" between the Monitor 5 vs 3 be bigger than
the difference btw the 3 and Mini? I have a subwoofer, so I don't
care that much about how low the bass goes.

That is a complex question since it seems to include your tastes and your
listening environment.

I also wonder if it is often the case that a cheaper 3 driver speaker
can beat a more expensive 2 driver. (e.g. paradigm monitor 5 vs Studio
20)

Not necessarily.


You've got two reasonable choices - either learn a lot about speaker
technology, or choose speakers purely based on sound quality in your
listening environment. However, learning a lot of speaker technology doesn't
free you from the need to judge sound quaoity in your listening environment.
Learning enough about speakers to avoid the need to evaluate them by
listening to them in your listening enviroment seems to be a tall order.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"alan" wrote in message


I spent this weekend listening to bookshelf speakers ($180-1400). Of
course, there were variations among the speakers. However, one
speaker that sounded significantly better was a JM (or was it JL)
/Focal floor standing model. OK, never mind that it retails for
$1900. It had a lot of detail without being "sibilant".


I would say that this is a pretty narrow way to rate speakers - detail
versus sibillance.

I didn't mean to say that it is an either-or kind of thing. Detail is a
pretty general term, but sibilance is like 2-4ish kHz, overemphasis on
the "s" sound. I think...



One test I
was using was whether you could hear the horns specifically while the
rest of the orchestra was playing loudly, and this speaker did the
best on that.


OK, so maybe it is peaked up in the frequency ranges where the horns are.

possible, but the horns and the rest of the orchestra were playing over
an octave or more. I'm pretty sure there is a lot of frequency overlap.



I figure that if you can hear lots of details while the speaker is
otherwise playing loudly, then the speaker must be pretty linear.


Not necessarily.


I wonder if it is because this speaker has 3 drivers, so that the audio
load is more spread out among the drivers.


Not necessarily.


Thus the drivers have less
excursion and don't distort as much.


The way you get low distortion bass is primarily by maximizing the product
of cone area and linear stroke. You can do that without resorting to
multiple drivers working in the same range.


I didn't mean multiple drivers playing the same thing, I meant the
frequency range more finely split up among more drivers.


I guess my question is that all other factors being equal (e.g.
within a speaker model line from one company), will the 3 driver
model sound better/more detailed/can play orchestral music better
than the 2 driver version?


If you take the larger view of speaker systems, not just those from one
manufactuer, the answer is clearly no.

That's obvious. Maybe a better question is if you are building a
speaker, why would you want to split the region 20kHz-100Hz into 3
drivers vs only two (not counting economics and size constraints).

"alan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"alan" wrote in message


I spent this weekend listening to bookshelf speakers ($180-1400). Of
course, there were variations among the speakers. However, one
speaker that sounded significantly better was a JM (or was it JL)
/Focal floor standing model. OK, never mind that it retails for
$1900. It had a lot of detail without being "sibilant".


I would say that this is a pretty narrow way to rate speakers -
detail versus sibillance.

I didn't mean to say that it is an either-or kind of thing. Detail
is a pretty general term, but sibilance is like 2-4ish kHz,
overemphasis on the "s" sound. I think...

Well yesterday I made a recording that was a tad excessively sibillant. I
corrected it with a bit of equalization - a dip, centered about 8 KHz.

I didn't mean multiple drivers playing the same thing, I meant the
frequency range more finely split up among more drivers.

If done well this can be advantageous. But after a speaker is a 2-way
speaker, additional spits are relatively expensive, all other things being
equal.


That's obvious. Maybe a better question is if you are building a
speaker, why would you want to split the region 20kHz-100Hz into 3
drivers vs only two (not counting economics and size constraints).

One possible advantage - you get better directivity control because the
ratio of the size of the driver to the wavelength of the sound it reproduces
is more consistent.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"alan" wrote in message


I didn't mean to say that it is an either-or kind of thing. Detail
is a pretty general term, but sibilance is like 2-4ish kHz,
overemphasis on the "s" sound. I think...


Well yesterday I made a recording that was a tad excessively sibillant. I
corrected it with a bit of equalization - a dip, centered about 8 KHz.

ok


That's obvious. Maybe a better question is if you are building a
speaker, why would you want to split the region 20kHz-100Hz into 3
drivers vs only two (not counting economics and size constraints).


One possible advantage - you get better directivity control because the
ratio of the size of the driver to the wavelength of the sound it reproduces
is more consistent.



What are the benefits of good "directivity control"?

So do you think my explanation of each individual driver in a 3-way
having to do less work isn't really an advantage at low and intermediate
volumes?

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:51:13 -0800, alan
wrote:

I spent this weekend listening to bookshelf speakers ($180-1400). Of
course, there were variations among the speakers. However, one speaker
that sounded significantly better was a JM (or was it JL) /Focal floor
standing model. OK, never mind that it retails for $1900. It had a lot
of detail without being "sibilant". One test I was using was whether
you could hear the horns specifically while the rest of the orchestra
was playing loudly, and this speaker did the best on that.

I figure that if you can hear lots of details while the speaker is
otherwise playing loudly, then the speaker must be pretty linear. I
wonder if it is because this speaker has 3 drivers, so that the audio
load is more spread out among the drivers. Thus the drivers have less
excursion and don't distort as much. I don't know how many problems you
take on by having another crossover, though (phase and frequency
response mismatch).

Oh dear, you have just resurrected one of the *major* debates of
serious audiophiles over the last twenty five years or so! There are
good theoretical reasons why a three or four way speaker will give the
best results, but there are other theoretical reasons why a two-way
may give the best results. There are even a few who argue for single
full-range drivers, although that is a rather extreme argument which
is not given much mainstream credence.

I guess my question is that all other factors being equal (e.g. within a
speaker model line from one company), will the 3 driver model sound
better/more detailed/can play orchestral music better than the 2 driver
version? Or maybe a better question is whether the jump in sound
quality is bigger between the 3 driver and 2 driver model, vs a 2 driver
model and a slightly smaller 2 driver model.
In particular, I'm thinking of Paradigm speakers, in the Monitor line.
They have a mini-monitor (small bookshelf), Monitor 3 (medium bookshelf
with 2 drivers) and monitor 5 (3 drivers). Will the difference in
"goodness" between the Monitor 5 vs 3 be bigger than the difference btw
the 3 and Mini? I have a subwoofer, so I don't care that much about how
low the bass goes.

I also wonder if it is often the case that a cheaper 3 driver speaker
can beat a more expensive 2 driver. (e.g. paradigm monitor 5 vs Studio 20)

No, that has IME never happened. However, many good two-ways have
beaten much more expensive three-ways. The BBC LS3/5a, first edition
Spendor BC1 and *original* Mission 770 have legendary status.

OTOH, there is a large body of evidence which suggests that the very
best results, regardless of cost, may come from top-class two-way
'minimonitors' combined with a truly capable (i.e. homebuilt)
subwoofer.

Consider a pair of JMLab Mini Utopias combined with an 'infinite
baffle' sub using a pair of Adire Tempest drivers mounted in a roof or
basement cavity, and driven by a 500 watt 'plate' amplifier. Total sub
cost around $1,000, and *way* more powerful than any commercial sub.

This can provide in excess of 110dB in-room within +/-3dB all the way
from 20Hz to 20kHz, has arguably state-of-the-art sound quality from
top to bottom, yet costs less than $10,000 all in, and has a very
compact and elegant appearance, since the sub will be firing through a
1 square foot hole in the ceiling or floor in one corner of the
listening room. More bass power than Wilson Grand Slamms or JMLab
Grande Utopias, the mains can be driven by any good 100 watt/channel
amplifier, and almost total freedom from the box resonances which
plague much larger conventional 'full range' speakers.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"alan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"alan" wrote in message


I didn't mean to say that it is an either-or kind of thing. Detail
is a pretty general term, but sibilance is like 2-4ish kHz,
overemphasis on the "s" sound. I think...


Well yesterday I made a recording that was a tad excessively
sibillant. I corrected it with a bit of equalization - a dip,
centered about 8 KHz.

ok


That's obvious. Maybe a better question is if you are building a
speaker, why would you want to split the region 20kHz-100Hz into 3
drivers vs only two (not counting economics and size constraints).


One possible advantage - you get better directivity control because
the ratio of the size of the driver to the wavelength of the sound
it reproduces is more consistent.



What are the benefits of good "directivity control"?

The sound in the room is more consistent as you move away from the
loudspeaker.

So do you think my explanation of each individual driver in a 3-way
having to do less work isn't really an advantage at low and
intermediate volumes?

Sound level really doesn't have that much to do with it. Some very
high-intensity speakers have been made that are only 2-ways.

In article ,
alan wrote:
What are the benefits of good "directivity control"?

For a dynamic driver system: more uniform power response. At any reasonable
listening distance in a real room you're picking up more sound from the
reverberant field than directly from the speakers. What the total power
output into the room has a _huge_ effect on what you hear.

For controlled directivity system (horn, dipole, cardioid, etc.): a higher
ratio of direct to reflected sound, less room interaction, higher sensitivity,
and maybe less thermal compression.

So do you think my explanation of each individual driver in a 3-way
having to do less work isn't really an advantage at low and intermediate
volumes?

It depends on you define those volumes, the frequencies involved, and the
specific drivers used.

Distortion (harmonic and otherwise) is a function of excursion. Excursion
doubles for each 6dB increase in volume. At low enough volumes excursion
and therefore distortion are low. With good drivers, "low" is beneath the
threshold of hearing.

--
a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/"Home Page/a
9/11 was a premptive attack

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 16:00:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Well yesterday I made a recording that was a tad excessively sibillant. I
corrected it with a bit of equalization - a dip, centered about 8 KHz.


If done well this can be advantageous. But after a speaker is a 2-way
speaker, additional spits are relatively expensive, all other things being
equal.

Not quite the record for use of hedge words, but close :-)

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 16:00:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Well yesterday I made a recording that was a tad excessively
sibillant. I corrected it with a bit of equalization - a dip,
centered about 8 KHz.


If done well this can be advantageous. But after a speaker is a 2-way
speaker, additional spits are relatively expensive, all other things
being equal.

Not quite the record for use of hedge words, but close :-)

'tis the nature of this topic. The world is full of highly competent 2-way
speakers. The most common implementation of 3-way arguably involves one or
more subwoofer(s).

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news

OTOH, there is a large body of evidence which suggests that the very
best results, regardless of cost, may come from top-class two-way
'minimonitors' combined with a truly capable (i.e. homebuilt)
subwoofer.

In other words, a 3 way speaker!

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:51:13 -0800, alan
wrote:


I also wonder if it is often the case that a cheaper 3 driver speaker
can beat a more expensive 2 driver. (e.g. paradigm monitor 5 vs Studio 20)


No, that has IME never happened. However, many good two-ways have
beaten much more expensive three-ways. The BBC LS3/5a, first edition
Spendor BC1 and *original* Mission 770 have legendary status.

OTOH, there is a large body of evidence which suggests that the very
best results, regardless of cost, may come from top-class two-way
'minimonitors' combined with a truly capable (i.e. homebuilt)
subwoofer.

So you would recommend a smaller bookshelf? This contrasts with what
Drew mentioned, which is that you want a large midrange driver to reduce
excursion and distortion. A typical midrange driver in a bookshelf is
asked to reproduce 1.5 octaves. Is that stretching it?


Consider a pair of JMLab Mini Utopias combined with an 'infinite
baffle' sub using a pair of Adire Tempest drivers mounted in a roof or
basement cavity, and driven by a 500 watt 'plate' amplifier. Total sub
cost around $1,000, and *way* more powerful than any commercial sub.

This can provide in excess of 110dB in-room within +/-3dB all the way
from 20Hz to 20kHz, has arguably state-of-the-art sound quality from
top to bottom, yet costs less than $10,000 all in, and has a very
compact and elegant appearance, since the sub will be firing through a
1 square foot hole in the ceiling or floor in one corner of the
listening room. More bass power than Wilson Grand Slamms or JMLab
Grande Utopias, the mains can be driven by any good 100 watt/channel
amplifier, and almost total freedom from the box resonances which
plague much larger conventional 'full range' speakers.


umm, this is like 20x over my budget... I'm looking for speakers approx
700 or less, but they have to be significantly better than my current
Paradigm Atoms.

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:24:07 -0800, alan
wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

One possible advantage - you get better directivity control because the
ratio of the size of the driver to the wavelength of the sound it reproduces
is more consistent.

What are the benefits of good "directivity control"?

Flat far-field response. OTOH, the use of the bass-mid driver in
bending mode rather than fully pistonic, so that the radiating area
decreases with increasing frequency, can get around this problem in a
two-way system if you have a good enough designer. Mordaunt-Short and
Tannoy have both used this technique to maintain good directivity over
a wide frequency range.

So do you think my explanation of each individual driver in a 3-way
having to do less work isn't really an advantage at low and intermediate
volumes?

It's never even been shown to be an advantage at high volumes.
So-called Doppler distortion raises its head in this forum from time
to time, but there's been no agreement that it actually exists.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:16:08 -0800, alan
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

OTOH, there is a large body of evidence which suggests that the very
best results, regardless of cost, may come from top-class two-way
'minimonitors' combined with a truly capable (i.e. homebuilt)
subwoofer.

So you would recommend a smaller bookshelf? This contrasts with what
Drew mentioned, which is that you want a large midrange driver to reduce
excursion and distortion. A typical midrange driver in a bookshelf is
asked to reproduce 1.5 octaves. Is that stretching it?

A six-inch bass/mid driver, as you'll find in many 'minimonitors', is
larger than most dedicated midrange drivers. It's perfectly capable of
handling the four octaves from 100Hz to 1600Hz at high level, and with
good design can deal smoothly with the next octave through the
crossover region. I don't know of *any* midrange driver which only
covers 1.5 octaves.

Consider a pair of JMLab Mini Utopias combined with an 'infinite
baffle' sub using a pair of Adire Tempest drivers mounted in a roof or
basement cavity, and driven by a 500 watt 'plate' amplifier. Total sub
cost around $1,000, and *way* more powerful than any commercial sub.

This can provide in excess of 110dB in-room within +/-3dB all the way
from 20Hz to 20kHz, has arguably state-of-the-art sound quality from
top to bottom, yet costs less than $10,000 all in, and has a very
compact and elegant appearance, since the sub will be firing through a
1 square foot hole in the ceiling or floor in one corner of the
listening room. More bass power than Wilson Grand Slamms or JMLab
Grande Utopias, the mains can be driven by any good 100 watt/channel
amplifier, and almost total freedom from the box resonances which
plague much larger conventional 'full range' speakers.

umm, this is like 20x over my budget... I'm looking for speakers approx
700 or less, but they have to be significantly better than my current
Paradigm Atoms.

Get a subwoofer.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:16:08 -0800, alan
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



OTOH, there is a large body of evidence which suggests that the very
best results, regardless of cost, may come from top-class two-way
'minimonitors' combined with a truly capable (i.e. homebuilt)
subwoofer.

So you would recommend a smaller bookshelf? This contrasts with what
Drew mentioned, which is that you want a large midrange driver to reduce
excursion and distortion. A typical midrange driver in a bookshelf is
asked to reproduce 1.5 octaves. Is that stretching it?


A six-inch bass/mid driver, as you'll find in many 'minimonitors', is
larger than most dedicated midrange drivers. It's perfectly capable of
handling the four octaves from 100Hz to 1600Hz at high level, and with
good design can deal smoothly with the next octave through the
crossover region. I don't know of *any* midrange driver which only
covers 1.5 octaves.

uhh, I meant decades.



Consider a pair of JMLab Mini Utopias combined with an 'infinite
baffle' sub using a pair of Adire Tempest drivers mounted in a roof or
basement cavity, and driven by a 500 watt 'plate' amplifier. Total sub
cost around $1,000, and *way* more powerful than any commercial sub.

This can provide in excess of 110dB in-room within +/-3dB all the way
from 20Hz to 20kHz, has arguably state-of-the-art sound quality from
top to bottom, yet costs less than $10,000 all in, and has a very
compact and elegant appearance, since the sub will be firing through a
1 square foot hole in the ceiling or floor in one corner of the
listening room. More bass power than Wilson Grand Slamms or JMLab
Grande Utopias, the mains can be driven by any good 100 watt/channel
amplifier, and almost total freedom from the box resonances which
plague much larger conventional 'full range' speakers.


umm, this is like 20x over my budget... I'm looking for speakers approx
700 or less, but they have to be significantly better than my current
Paradigm Atoms.


Get a subwoofer.

I already have one.

"alan" wrote in message

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

OTOH, there is a large body of evidence which suggests that the very
best results, regardless of cost, may come from top-class two-way
'minimonitors' combined with a truly capable (i.e. homebuilt)
subwoofer.

This seems to be the modern trend.

So you would recommend a smaller bookshelf?

I look around my collection of speakers, and that's a lot of what I see. KEF
Q15s, NHTPro A10s, NHT S1s, even NHT 2.5i which amount to being minispeakers
in a tower with a built-in subwoofer in the bottom.

This contrasts with what
Drew mentioned, which is that you want a large midrange driver to
reduce excursion and distortion.

Kinda-sorta. The other advantage of a large midrange is more appropriate
directivity control in the midrange.

A typical midrange driver in a
bookshelf is asked to reproduce 1.5 octaves. Is that stretching it?

You're looking at the wrong end of the stick. The range of audio is about 10
octaves. If there are two speakers, then each might be obliged to carry half
or more of them, which is 5 octaves or more. The problem isn't building a
midrange that can handle 1.5 octaves. There might be a problem building
woofers and/or tweeters that carry 5 octaves or more.

umm, this is like 20x over my budget... I'm looking for speakers
approx 700 or less, but they have to be significantly better than my
current Paradigm Atoms.

Atoms are nice for the size and price, but they are tiny and relatively
cheap. They are not that hard to beat, particulaly in the bass. If you
simply matched them up with a good subwoofer, you would be adding response
to your system in a range that is pretty obviously deficit, being the deep
bass. You might want to check out Hsu's web site for some high-value
high-performance subwoofers in your price range.

"alan" wrote in message

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Get a subwoofer.

I already have one.

Which one?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"alan" wrote in message


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


Get a subwoofer.


I already have one.


Which one?



paradigm pdr-8. I have a small room at the moment, so I don't really
need to go lower in frequency. So given that I already have the bass
taken care of, is there some advantage with going for a smaller
bookshelf speaker like the Atoms, or a slightly larger one, like the
Titans, Monitor 3's, etc?

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:04:52 -0800, alan
wrote:

paradigm pdr-8. I have a small room at the moment, so I don't really
need to go lower in frequency.

Do you by that express the opnion that low frequency bass cannot be
reproduced in small rooms? If that is the case, think again. The
classic counter-example is headphones, which is a small room by any
standards and yet can give you good low frequency bass.

Per.

Per Stromgren wrote:
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:04:52 -0800, alan
wrote:


paradigm pdr-8. I have a small room at the moment, so I don't really
need to go lower in frequency.


Do you by that express the opnion that low frequency bass cannot be
reproduced in small rooms? If that is the case, think again. The
classic counter-example is headphones, which is a small room by any
standards and yet can give you good low frequency bass.

Per.


no, I meant that a small room starts amplifying bass starting at higher
frequencies

"alan" wrote in message


(I have a) paradigm pdr-8 (subwoofer)

I have a small room at the moment, so I don't really
need to go lower in frequency.

Why might that be? It is true that smaller rooms provide better support for
low frequencies, is that what you mean?

So given that I already have the bass
taken care of, is there some advantage with going for a smaller
bookshelf speaker like the Atoms, or a slightly larger one, like the
Titans, Monitor 3's, etc?

A larger speaker will handle more power more cleanly, and have better
control over the directivity of the lower midrange; all other things being
equal.

I had Paradigm Mini-Monitors awhile back. They were very good. Gave
the set to my son-in-law. I'm now going to try SDAT SB-E5s for center
and rear surrounds. Weighing in at 25 lbs. each, they must have some
decent drivers. For the price I can at least try them. The width of
the cabinet suggests that the woofer is a 6.5", not a 10" as
advertised. I'm going to try the SB-880s for mains. The horizontal
and vertical D'appolito array looks interesting.

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:51:13 -0800, alan
wrote:

I spent this weekend listening to bookshelf speakers ($180-1400). Of
course, there were variations among the speakers. However, one speaker
that sounded significantly better was a JM (or was it JL) /Focal floor
standing model. OK, never mind that it retails for $1900. It had a lot
of detail without being "sibilant". One test I was using was whether
you could hear the horns specifically while the rest of the orchestra
was playing loudly, and this speaker did the best on that.

I figure that if you can hear lots of details while the speaker is
otherwise playing loudly, then the speaker must be pretty linear. I
wonder if it is because this speaker has 3 drivers, so that the audio
load is more spread out among the drivers. Thus the drivers have less
excursion and don't distort as much. I don't know how many problems you
take on by having another crossover, though (phase and frequency
response mismatch).

I guess my question is that all other factors being equal (e.g. within a
speaker model line from one company), will the 3 driver model sound
better/more detailed/can play orchestral music better than the 2 driver
version? Or maybe a better question is whether the jump in sound
quality is bigger between the 3 driver and 2 driver model, vs a 2 driver
model and a slightly smaller 2 driver model.
In particular, I'm thinking of Paradigm speakers, in the Monitor line.
They have a mini-monitor (small bookshelf), Monitor 3 (medium bookshelf
with 2 drivers) and monitor 5 (3 drivers). Will the difference in
"goodness" between the Monitor 5 vs 3 be bigger than the difference btw
the 3 and Mini? I have a subwoofer, so I don't care that much about how
low the bass goes.

I also wonder if it is often the case that a cheaper 3 driver speaker
can beat a more expensive 2 driver. (e.g. paradigm monitor 5 vs Studio 20)

In , on 12/06/04
at 08:51 AM, alan said:

[ ... ]
However, one speaker
that sounded significantly better was a JM (or was it JL) /Focal floor
standing model. OK, never mind that it retails for $1900.
[ ... ]

While not perfect, cost is one of the more reliable quality predictors
I've found. There are some truly fine 2-way speakers and really awful 3
add 3+way speakers out there.

While "too big", "wrong color", "too expensive", are valid reasons to
reject a speaker, don't make your choice by insisting on any single
design characteristic. I've encountered countless designs that seemed
to narrowly focus all of their attention on parameter "A" apparently
forgetting or not knowing that "B" through "Z" also apply. It's usually
a trade-off. Optimizing "ABC" will diminish "DEF".

Unless you've found a reviewer who shares your tastes, you'll have to
listen and form your own opinions. There are good guides out there. A
"guide" is a neutral person who, after you give them a list of speakers
you liked and disliked, can suggest some others that you should listen
to or avoid. After working with you, the guide can point out speaker
characteristics that are more and less important to you. (for example,
all the speakers you like might emphasize [or not] bass) Long ago, I
got used to the fact that two people can listen to the same speaker in
the same room -- one thinks it is great, the other thinks it is awful.
Neither will accept the idea that, perhaps, both opinions are correct.

In your price range, don't reject a speaker simply because it is a
2-way or 3-way.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

I'd say yes. I bought new BA CR85s (for better bass) and re-foamed my
old A60s and use them together. Relatively cheap and sounds good.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:51:13 -0800, alan
wrote:

I spent this weekend listening to bookshelf speakers ($180-1400). Of
course, there were variations among the speakers. However, one speaker
that sounded significantly better was a JM (or was it JL) /Focal floor
standing model. OK, never mind that it retails for $1900. It had a lot
of detail without being "sibilant". One test I was using was whether
you could hear the horns specifically while the rest of the orchestra
was playing loudly, and this speaker did the best on that.

I figure that if you can hear lots of details while the speaker is
otherwise playing loudly, then the speaker must be pretty linear. I
wonder if it is because this speaker has 3 drivers, so that the audio
load is more spread out among the drivers. Thus the drivers have less
excursion and don't distort as much. I don't know how many problems you
take on by having another crossover, though (phase and frequency
response mismatch).

Oh dear, you have just resurrected one of the *major* debates of
serious audiophiles over the last twenty five years or so! There are
good theoretical reasons why a three or four way speaker will give the
best results, but there are other theoretical reasons why a two-way
may give the best results. There are even a few who argue for single
full-range drivers, although that is a rather extreme argument which
is not given much mainstream credence.

I guess my question is that all other factors being equal (e.g. within a
speaker model line from one company), will the 3 driver model sound
better/more detailed/can play orchestral music better than the 2 driver
version? Or maybe a better question is whether the jump in sound
quality is bigger between the 3 driver and 2 driver model, vs a 2 driver
model and a slightly smaller 2 driver model.
In particular, I'm thinking of Paradigm speakers, in the Monitor line.
They have a mini-monitor (small bookshelf), Monitor 3 (medium bookshelf
with 2 drivers) and monitor 5 (3 drivers). Will the difference in
"goodness" between the Monitor 5 vs 3 be bigger than the difference btw
the 3 and Mini? I have a subwoofer, so I don't care that much about how
low the bass goes.

I also wonder if it is often the case that a cheaper 3 driver speaker
can beat a more expensive 2 driver. (e.g. paradigm monitor 5 vs Studio
20)

No, that has IME never happened. However, many good two-ways have
beaten much more expensive three-ways. The BBC LS3/5a, first edition
Spendor BC1 and *original* Mission 770 have legendary status.

OTOH, there is a large body of evidence which suggests that the very
best results, regardless of cost, may come from top-class two-way
'minimonitors' combined with a truly capable (i.e. homebuilt)
subwoofer.

I doubt that Tom would agree with you on that part about the minimonitors.
For the average room, I tend to agree with you. Some of the best speakers
I've heard were 2 way systems, most especially the Merlin VSM.

Consider a pair of JMLab Mini Utopias combined with an 'infinite
baffle' sub using a pair of Adire Tempest drivers mounted in a roof or
basement cavity, and driven by a 500 watt 'plate' amplifier. Total sub
cost around $1,000, and *way* more powerful than any commercial sub.

This can provide in excess of 110dB in-room within +/-3dB all the way
from 20Hz to 20kHz, has arguably state-of-the-art sound quality from
top to bottom, yet costs less than $10,000 all in, and has a very
compact and elegant appearance, since the sub will be firing through a
1 square foot hole in the ceiling or floor in one corner of the
listening room. More bass power than Wilson Grand Slamms or JMLab
Grande Utopias, the mains can be driven by any good 100 watt/channel
amplifier, and almost total freedom from the box resonances which
plague much larger conventional 'full range' speakers.

I'll have to go hear the JM labs, how would you compare them with the VSM's?
I'm guessing the JM's play a bit louder.

"alan" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:51:13 -0800, alan
wrote:


I also wonder if it is often the case that a cheaper 3 driver speaker can
beat a more expensive 2 driver. (e.g. paradigm monitor 5 vs Studio 20)


No, that has IME never happened. However, many good two-ways have
beaten much more expensive three-ways. The BBC LS3/5a, first edition
Spendor BC1 and *original* Mission 770 have legendary status.

OTOH, there is a large body of evidence which suggests that the very
best results, regardless of cost, may come from top-class two-way
'minimonitors' combined with a truly capable (i.e. homebuilt)
subwoofer.

So you would recommend a smaller bookshelf? This contrasts with what Drew
mentioned, which is that you want a large midrange driver to reduce

An M-T-M is still a 2 way.

excursion and distortion. A typical midrange driver in a bookshelf is
asked to reproduce 1.5 octaves. Is that stretching it?

A good 6.5 to 8" woofer can handle from 50 Hz to 2.5kHz easily.


Consider a pair of JMLab Mini Utopias combined with an 'infinite
baffle' sub using a pair of Adire Tempest drivers mounted in a roof or
basement cavity, and driven by a 500 watt 'plate' amplifier. Total sub
cost around $1,000, and *way* more powerful than any commercial sub.

This can provide in excess of 110dB in-room within +/-3dB all the way
from 20Hz to 20kHz, has arguably state-of-the-art sound quality from
top to bottom, yet costs less than $10,000 all in, and has a very
compact and elegant appearance, since the sub will be firing through a
1 square foot hole in the ceiling or floor in one corner of the
listening room. More bass power than Wilson Grand Slamms or JMLab
Grande Utopias, the mains can be driven by any good 100 watt/channel
amplifier, and almost total freedom from the box resonances which
plague much larger conventional 'full range' speakers.


umm, this is like 20x over my budget... I'm looking for speakers approx
700 or less, but they have to be significantly better than my current
Paradigm Atoms.

Add a sub woofer and you will improve the sound of the Atoms, that can
easily be done with something from Adire for under $700.00. The alternative
is a better pair of the Paradigm's, PSB's, Boston Acoustic, Polk, or
whatever your ear likes.