Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
So, I've had Mr. Singh's speakers now for over a week now and I'm
prepared to pass along my impressions of the speakers. First of all, some background. The room is 16 X 14 X 9.5 feet. It's carpeted. One side wall (the right) has a permanent opening about 6 feet wide by 8.5 feet tall. the wall behind the speakers has a permanent opening of about 3.5 feet wide by 7 feet tall in the dead center of the wall. The walls are cheap "fake wood" paneling and there's a single sized window on the left side wall with horizontal louvers. On the back wall behind the TV is the record rack, which covers the wall from the corner to the previously mentioned opening in the back wall. On the right side is an equipment table. Directly in front of the TV is the turntable, on a low spiked amp stand and to its right is a subwoofer with the receiver, Dish network receiver, and DVD player on top. The subwoofer has been disconnected for the term of the testing. There is a sofa on the opposite wall to the system and two 7 foot tall bookcases between the window and the record albums. Distance from the sofa to the TV is about 9 feet. The room is a bit crowded and, while not dead, certainly isn't a lively room. There's very little overhang if you perform the clap test. Even considering the unusual placement of openings, this is a pretty good sounding room, although it would obviously be considered only an average sized room. I happen to think that coupling the room directly to two other rooms via the openings smooths out the FR a little. That's just my own opinion though. As to my musical orientation, I listen to a pretty wide variety of music and I tried to choose good examples of different things to test the range of the speakers. I used both CD and LP. I also tried some things that I knew had certain deficiencies as well just to see how they were handled by the speakers, including music that you wouldn't normally think would be well-served by them. I decided not to evaluate movies and I've stuck only to music. Here's the basic system: Denon 2802 receiver. ProJect One Turntable/Grado Black. Panasonic DVD RV31 DVD/CD player. Sony 200 disc player. Theta ProGen 3/EAD T-7000 transport. Micromega Stage 5 CD player. I used various interconnects but I really don't want to get into that ball of wax. This wasn't a test of CD players, so I tended to use what was convenient, although I tried to use the various CD players at different times. I also used the Fisher X202 tube integrated amp and I will mention it specifically when applicable. I also had available a pair of Klipsch Cornwalls, which are the speakers normally in this system and a pair of Allison CD8s from the bedroom. The Cornwalls are a 3 way large horn driven system with compression horn drivers for the midrange and tweeters and a 15 in. woofer in a large cabinet. Specs and graphs for the speakers can be found he http://www.belgaudio.com/kcmap.htm They are rated at plus or minus 5 dB 38 to 17,000 Hz with 3% max total modulation distortion. They are tested as being pretty smooth from about 25 hz to 20,000 kz however. The CD8s are rated down to about 39 hz - 3dB and 33 hz -6dB. They, like the Europas have an 8 inch woofer, but they also have a 3 1/2 inch midrange. The CD8s are 4 ohm speakers. Here are the specs for the Europas: http://www.jupiter-audio.com/pages/europa.html Trotsky supplied me with a set of stands, since I don't have any need for stands in house. These stands are just that, stands. They have no particular worth from an audio standpoint as they are just made of pressboard or the like, although they *do* have spikes and they *do* get the speakers at the height that they need to be at. They seem to be the stands in the photos on the web site. I started by just putting them in front of the Cornwalls for the first couple of days and playing various things through them, mainly just to get an initial *very* general impression of their "sound". I did this because I was waiting for the stands to arrive and I didn't want to move the Cornwalls out until I was ready to go. As it turned out, the position that they ended up in for the remainder of the test wasn't that far from where I set them up initially. However, of course, there was a pretty big difference since the Cornwalls *are* bulky and kept the speakers from having a lot of depth and air. Once the stands got here, out went the Cornwalls. I started the process of placing the speakers. I started out only about 2 feet from the rear wall (or, more precisely, the records and equipment stands). They sounded OK but not particularly tight and focused. I was expecting this as they were almost parallel to the rear plane of the TV. As I moved them in, I noted an improvement in both imaging and balance. I was not willing to move the TV out of the room for the tests. I think this is fair, since these speakers will be used by many in just such a HT type situation. Due to the position of the TV and the "subwoofer stand", by necessity the speakers are *not* placed equidistant from the side walls. I can't quite bring the right speaker in as much as I'd like. I can only bring it in about 13" from the side wall (and there's an opening in that wall anyway). The left speaker has to be in about 25" from the bookshelves on the left side (and they are 13 inches deep as well). I tried having the left speaker about the same distance from the bookshelves as the right speaker is from the wall, but they didn't image well spread that far apart. So I brought the left speaker in closer to the center of the room and the image "locked" into place. what this does however is shift a center-positioned vocalist a little to the left. This happens with the Cornwalls as well due to the displacement caused by the bookshelves. I've long ago acclimated myself to it and adjust my perception accordingly. But enough of all of that. Let's get to the character of the sound, speaking non-specifically at first (I'll be talking about specific pieces of music later). First of all, I value a deep bass, but it has to be round without being flabby, taut without being drawn and pinched and powerful with a sense of slam but not overbearing. Maybe these descriptors sound contradictory, but I think that most music lovers know what I'm trying to impart. The problem with the Europas is what you'd expect from just about any relatively small bookshelf ported speaker with an 8 inch woofer. It just doesn't go as deep as you need to be really "realistic". In this respect, I have to quibble with Greg's statement that they are "neutral". I think he's confusing "neutral" with "lean". I understand what he's trying to say, since many speakers tend to go overboard with the bass, trying to hit deep notes with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. The Europas offer a very nice bass response up to a point. What bass is there is everything that I treasure in a speaker. However, it falls short when it comes to the foundation necessary to create a "lifelike" image. The bass approaches the Quad standard more than it does the Cerwin-Vega standard (to give an example of an egregious offender). But this isn't Quad bass. Sorry. It just doesn't quite approach the richness and "palpability", to use a well-worn catchword, that I remember from Quads. Another problem with the speakers is one that you would expect with a two-way design. The upper bass/lower midrange gets blunted or a bit "congested" somehow. You don't notice it as much with combo jazz or classical but with rock and roll or things with substantial energy in that region, the impact is lessened and things start sounding cluttered. Another negative isn't really a negative of the speaker. If the source material tends toward the sibilant, this speaker will exacerbate that tendency slightly. Note the word *slightly*. It's not nearly objectionable as other speakers I've heard in the past. This might be considered an indicator of the basic "accuracy" of the speaker as it certainly doesn't cover up that flaw. Nor does it blow it out of proportion. The final negative is the somewhat unregulated nature of the woofer. It is *very* prone to subsonics. Frankly, I don't have my Denon manual handy and I've been unable to find the subsonics filter on the thing (I assume it's buried in a damn on-screen menu somewhere). When I play LPs, there are some wild woofer excursions at higher volumes, but I haven't been able to pick out any particular degradation in the bass at those levels once the music starts. I have no such bad excursions with the Klipsches (the Belgian web site explains this as a function of the "self dumping" nature of the woofer below 20 hz - I assume they're referring to damping), or at least none that I've noticed. Associated with this was a funny phenomenon. I put on The Grateful Dead's Wake of the Flood, which I didn't know had a warp (not super bad but bad enough to drive these woofers crazy) This wouldn't have bothered the Klipsches because I've played it through the Klipsches and didn't notice the warp. Well, the excursions literally knocked a portion of the stuffings through the port! It was like the speaker was sticking its tongue out at me. But have no fear, I tucked it back in and all returned to normal. Now that we've got the negative stuff out of the way, let's talk about what the speaker does right. The speaker, despite what I've previously written *is* well-balanced in general. There are no glaring problems with the sound as you find in some speakers. It's neither "thin-sounding" nor "boomy". I think that it certainly approaches a lean, agile sound (unless you're playing loud rock and roll, and still, certain types of rock and roll are well served - I'll get into that later). The speakers are especially pleasing with brass and cymbals/bells/chimes. The tweeters have bite without being biting or harsh. The speakers image well. There's a coherence to the sound that was pleasing to me. Voices and instruments were placed where I expected them to be (within the room limitations that I've previously mentioned). With the exception of the lack of deep bass, the speakers portray a reasonable sense of "slam". Make no mistake though, these speakers WILL NOT reproduce a rock concert realistically. I like the sense of air that the speaker imparts to the music, especially acoustic music. The soundstage seems about what I would expect considering the limitations of my room. Once the speakers are positioned optimally, the image does tend to fall into place. In part 2, I'll be talking about specific music and how I perceive the speaker when playing those specific pieces. This has gone on too long already. Hopefully I'll get this part sent by Tuesday at the latest. I wanted to get this out fairly quickly and I'm actually writing this before I get the chance to compare with the Cornwalls and the Allisons. That will come in part 3 later in the week. Who knows, I might modify some of my impressions when I get the chance to do that. The problem has been one of time for me. I've been working sort of day on day off in the last week and I haven't been able to string a couple of days off together until now. Finally, to close out this part of the commentary, my thoughts on Greg's prose on the web site: "So what's the bottom line? "The sound quality is tremendous". I would say that the sound quality is impressive for a first effort. "The Europa has a zippy, dynamic quality that speakers costing ten times as much often can't equal". I disagree. Of course, you can probably find some speakers costing ten times as much that don't match the "zippy, dynamic quality". But you might be able to say that with any number of "inexpensive" speakers in the price class of the Europas as well as finding similarly priced speakers that will hold their own with the Europas. Quads for example are quite a bit better, to my mind (talking about more expensive speakers of course). However, I'm not above saying that the Europas, while not necessarily giving them a run for their money, would *not* fare badly in a direct comparison. "It also has a neutrality from top to bottom that is exceptional". I think that I've already addressed this. " Bass guitar notes sound like bass guitar notes". I don't disagree. I just think it's a "smaller" version of them. The Europas *do* maintain a measure of the richness of a good bass guitar though. If this sounds contradictory, I apologize. They need to go lower or be augmented by a subwoofer to really offer the bass response that I think is necessary for reasonably loud material, or even to portray acoustic bass instruments like tubas or string basses with the requisite realism that they deserve. "Runs on a piano don't hit "sour spots" in the frequency response. The tweeter response is crisp and articulate", I would absolutely agree with this verbiage regarding the tweeter. "with a wide open sound that is very fun to listen to". Once again, agreed EXCEPT for the tendency to thicken in the upper bass/lower midrange that I mention in the body of my evaluation. "The woofer, while being very accurate, also has a robust quality to it that produces bass that is very tight and authoritative". Only to a point. The nice thing about the bass is the fact that it's never "woolly" or "soggy". And watch those dastardly subsonics. " And these speakers don't have the typical "goose" in the high frequency response that is often equated with high end sound, thus lending themselves to extended listening sessions". I would agree that the high FR is quite "lively" without being overblown. Brass has the bite that you expect from brass without being "spitty" or "brittle". " Lastly, they are an easy load to drive, with above average efficiency, thus allowing for a wide range of electronics. But make no mistake: the better the electronics the better the Europas will sound". No quarrels here. I'm looking forward to seeing how they sound with the Fisher tube amp. I'd love to hear them with some truly high end gear. Sorry for the length. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:19:07 -0500, dave weil
wrote: One correction: The room is 16 X 14 X 9.5 feet. This was an estimate and I decided to get out the ole 25 ft tape measure and I found that it's actually 15 ft. long by 12.5 feet wide. The height remains the same. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ok dave it sounds like a good serious job.
Just a question please what about comparative test high/low power ? |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
dave weil wrote:
So, I've had Mr. Singh's speakers now for over a week now and I'm prepared to pass along my impressions of the speakers. First of all, some background. snip dave, great review pt. 1! There are a couple of points I'd like to provide some rebuttal on, but I'll wait till you're done with part 2. For the most part I'd say your review is very even-handed--God knows I'd complain if I had reason to. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lionel wrote:
Ok dave it sounds like a good serious job. Just a question please what about comparative test high/low power ? Ooops forget that... Im waiting for part II. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:46:59 +0200, Lionel
wrote: Ok dave it sounds like a good serious job. Just a question please what about comparative test high/low power ? Do you mean from amplifier power or volume? |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:40:53 GMT, trotsky wrote:
dave weil wrote: So, I've had Mr. Singh's speakers now for over a week now and I'm prepared to pass along my impressions of the speakers. First of all, some background. snip dave, great review pt. 1! There are a couple of points I'd like to provide some rebuttal on, but I'll wait till you're done with part 2. For the most part I'd say your review is very even-handed--God knows I'd complain if I had reason to. I assumed some rebuttal. The biggest problem with a non-techie like me doing a review like this is finding the language to describe the qualities that he or she is hearing (the ole problem with language). Sometimes it causes one to write things that seem contradictory. Hopefully it didn't sound like doubletalk. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:40:53 GMT, trotsky wrote: dave weil wrote: So, I've had Mr. Singh's speakers now for over a week now and I'm prepared to pass along my impressions of the speakers. First of all, some background. dave, great review pt. 1! There are a couple of points I'd like to provide some rebuttal on, but I'll wait till you're done with part 2. For the most part I'd say your review is very even-handed--God knows I'd complain if I had reason to. I assumed some rebuttal. The biggest problem with a non-techie like me doing a review like this is finding the language to describe the qualities that he or she is hearing (the ole problem with language). Sometimes it causes one to write things that seem contradictory. Hopefully it didn't sound like doubletalk. What I found is that it's far easier to recognize and categorize sonic differences in your own mind than it is to verbalize them. I dislike the job done by most audio reviewers, but you still have to give them credit for trying to put these things into words. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:19:07 -0500, dave weil
wrote: I also used the Fisher X202 tube integrated amp and I will mention it specifically when applicable. I also had available a pair of Klipsch Cornwalls, which are the speakers normally in this system and a pair of Allison CD8s from the bedroom. The Cornwalls are a 3 way large horn driven system with compression horn drivers for the midrange and tweeters and a 15 in. woofer in a large cabinet. Specs and graphs for the speakers can be found he Just to make things clear, this should probably be future tense. At the time I started the review, I was going to write it as a single review. It quickly became clear that a. my natural wordiness was inflating the review to mammoth proportions (no editor you know) and b. it was going to be a few more days before I could complete the proceedings. So I've split the sessions up. I didn't bother to go back and chage the tense of these verbs. None of this has actually happened yet. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:46:59 +0200, Lionel wrote: Ok dave it sounds like a good serious job. Just a question please what about comparative test high/low power ? Do you mean from amplifier power or volume? Volume. Is it a stupid question ? |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:21:24 +0200, Lionel
wrote: dave weil wrote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:46:59 +0200, Lionel wrote: Ok dave it sounds like a good serious job. Just a question please what about comparative test high/low power ? Do you mean from amplifier power or volume? Volume. Is it a stupid question ? No, I just wasn't sure what you meant when you used the word "power". That's what I *thought* you meant, but I wasn't sure. To answer your question, I went to the other room and listened to several quick selections at levels averaging around 100 dB (with peaks to about 108 dB) at about 2.5 meters. This seemed about the practical limit to the speakers (equates to peaks approaching 108 dB at 1 meter). At these levels, the speaker got hard-edged and going even a little more made me nervous as I started to detect the start of breakup. I don't know if this was the amp approaching clipping or not, but I ascribe it to the speaker. Since the speaker is relatively efficient, I would expect that those dB levels, the amp wouldn't be struggling. These observations are based on a couple of rock discs, Lucinda Williams Car Wheels on a Gravel Road, Neil Finn's One Nil and Son volt's Trace. The most comfortable "loud" level (basically the level I listen to when I want loud) was low 90s with peaks at 100 or so. This was plenty loud for "rocking out" but I can imagine wanting to go higher on the rare occasion (I do every once in a while). Rough averages of 100 dB at 2.5 meters with rock music was VERY loud in this room. However, it was different with chamber classical. A "realistic" level was low to mid 80s average, with peaks around 92 or so. I used my beloved Bach's Overture No.1 from Pinnock and the English concert. I decided to see what would happen if I set it at a most unrealistic level of 100 dB/108 dB peaks. Needless to say, the speaker didn't exhibit the same "approaching breakup" edginess as before. It *did* harden up a bit but not to the degree as before either. I couldn't bring myself to take it any higher with that music. I just wasn't in the mood to destroy it. The music that is. Hope this answers your question. PS, I did most of my evaluation listening between an average of 80 and 95 dB. If you'd like, I can listen at lower levels as well. And finally, I should mention that *all* of my commentary is with the Denon tone controls defeated and in stereo mode. |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
dave weil wrote:
Nice - though the three CD players are kind of overkill. For this level of speaker, it probably won't make a bit of difference. I also had available a pair of Klipsch Cornwalls, which are the speakers normally in this system and a pair of Allison CD8s from the bedroom. The Cornwalls are a 3 way large horn driven system with compression horn drivers for the midrange and tweeters and a 15 in. woofer in a large cabinet. Specs and graphs for the speakers can be found he Ack. They are rated at plus or minus 5 dB 38 to 17,000 Hz with 3% max total modulation distortion. Exactly. I'd not use these as a comparison myself, but if that's all you've got, I understand. Most of aren't overflowing with money like Arny apparently is. (sic for the impared) Shoot - my old JBLs are approaching ten years. Yikes, time flies. Here are the specs for the Europas: http://www.jupiter-audio.com/pages/europa.html But enough of all of that. Let's get to the character of the sound, speaking non-specifically at first (I'll be talking about specific pieces of music later). First of all, I value a deep bass, but it has to be round without being flabby, taut without being drawn and pinched and powerful with a sense of slam but not overbearing. Maybe these descriptors sound contradictory, but I think that most music lovers know what I'm trying to impart. The problem with the Europas is what you'd expect from just about any relatively small bookshelf ported speaker with an 8 inch woofer. It just doesn't go as deep as you need to be really "realistic". In this respect, I have to quibble with Greg's statement that they are "neutral". I think he's confusing "neutral" with "lean". I did some cabinet volume calculations myself and came up with a simple problem. He needs more volume for an 8-inch driver. He's hamstringing the poor thing to 6 incher results. Either get larger volume or go for a faster, tighter 6-7 inch speaker. My recommendation would be a deeper cabinet with a trapezoidal or simmilar design - as they not only look different(selling point), but also halp with standing waves. Why most makers still make a rectangular box is beyond me. We all know this hurts the sound. There's no reason for his speakers to be that shallow unless he's making them to be wall-wounted. I understand what he's trying to say, since many speakers tend to go overboard with the bass, trying to hit deep notes with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. The Europas offer a very nice bass response up to a point. What bass is there is everything that I treasure in a speaker. However, it falls short when it comes to the foundation necessary to create a "lifelike" image. The bass approaches the Quad standard more than it does the Cerwin-Vega standard (to give an example of an egregious offender). But this isn't Quad bass. Sorry. It just doesn't quite approach the richness and "palpability", to use a well-worn catchword, that I remember from Quads. Not surprizing. It's too big for the box and has no breathing room. A simple set of calculations in any software out there(or even on a napkin) would have told him that. Me? I'd personally love to see a bookshelf with a 35hz low end so that a sub is optional. This would be a large speaker, but his driver could probably go down to 35hz without much problem. Another problem with the speakers is one that you would expect with a two-way design. The upper bass/lower midrange gets blunted or a bit "congested" somehow. You don't notice it as much with combo jazz or classical but with rock and roll or things with substantial energy in that region, the impact is lessened and things start sounding cluttered. Tough to build a 3-way, but worth it. He should really listen to the Athena S3s - they are small 3-ways that are very good sounding. The 8-incher is there for bass only and the midrange is clean. Cleaner than a Tannoy MX-2 or several others I tried. Sounds identical in quality to the Mirage smaller towers, but in a bookshelf sized package. Either that, or since he shipped stands - um - why NOT go for the real deal and make a tower speaker? Plenty of room there, and no stands required. Since his speakers require a stand, why not make an integrated stand and use the volume to help the bass response? Nothing huge, mind you- just the same dimmensions as his speaker is now, but 3 ft or so tall. Another negative isn't really a negative of the speaker. If the source material tends toward the sibilant, this speaker will exacerbate that tendency slightly. Note the word *slightly*. It's not nearly objectionable as other speakers I've heard in the past. Probably the ribbon tweeter. These are really picky and hard to tame beasts. Quality control at the low-end is such that he'd probably have to hand-pick 2-3 out of every dozen to actually use. The final negative is the somewhat unregulated nature of the woofer. It is *very* prone to subsonics. Frankly, I don't have my Denon manual handy and I've been unable to find the subsonics filter on the thing (I assume it's buried in a damn on-screen menu somewhere). When I play LPs, there are some wild woofer excursions at higher volumes, but I haven't been able to pick out any particular degradation in the bass at those levels once the music starts. My guess would be the woofer isn't getting enough air/volume and gets into a bandpass-type cascade. Note that most of my comments have been about the poor cabinet volume and design. That's fixable, btw. Spend $25-$50 more on the cabinets and make a small tower instead. Keep the price the same. |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:31:02 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote: Either that, or since he shipped stands - um - why NOT go for the real deal and make a tower speaker? Plenty of room there, and no stands required. Since his speakers require a stand, why not make an integrated stand and use the volume to help the bass response? Nothing huge, mind you- just the same dimmensions as his speaker is now, but 3 ft or so tall. IOW, he should just make NHT clones, right? I don't think this is going to go over real well... I'm not going to comment further at the moment except to say that the next speaker that I will be comparing it with is the three way 8 incher Allison CD8. Draw your own conclusions - I'll wait until I actually do the comparison. |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:31:02 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote: Another negative isn't really a negative of the speaker. If the source material tends toward the sibilant, this speaker will exacerbate that tendency slightly. Note the word *slightly*. It's not nearly objectionable as other speakers I've heard in the past. Probably the ribbon tweeter. These are really picky and hard to tame beasts. Quality control at the low-end is such that he'd probably have to hand-pick 2-3 out of every dozen to actually use. And you know this exactly how? Especially regarding this particular tweeter. Yes, I think that my comments are related to the fact that he used a ribbon tweeter. Both the positive (which you ignored) *and* the negative. |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Obie Wanna Avant-Garde Design said: Why most makers still make a rectangular box is beyond me. I know why. It's pretty obvious. Did you ask Scottieborg? We all know this hurts the sound. Who's "We"? |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
dave weil wrote:
PS, I did most of my evaluation listening between an average of 80 and 95 dB. If you'd like, I can listen at lower levels as well. And finally, I should mention that *all* of my commentary is with the Denon tone controls defeated and in stereo mode. I just want to suggest you that it could be interesting to get your point concerning speakers "behaviour" at low and high volume levels. Anyway thanks for the above commentaries. |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
George M. Middius wrote:
Obie Wanna Avant-Garde Design said: Why most makers still make a rectangular box is beyond me. I know why. It's pretty obvious. Did you ask Scottieborg? We all know this hurts the sound. Who's "We"? Middius, I'm still waiting for a clear answer concerning .ein domain names ! |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Lionella la Salope slurped: Obie Wanna Avant-Garde Design said: Why most makers still make a rectangular box is beyond me. I know why. It's pretty obvious. Did you ask Scottieborg? We all know this hurts the sound. Who's "We"? Middius, I'm still waiting for a clear answer concerning .ein domain names ! Did you ask Scottieborg? You should also fix your newsreader. It's making a mess of my nice clean posts. |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:31:02 GMT, Joseph Oberlander wrote: Either that, or since he shipped stands - um - why NOT go for the real deal and make a tower speaker? Plenty of room there, and no stands required. Since his speakers require a stand, why not make an integrated stand and use the volume to help the bass response? Nothing huge, mind you- just the same dimmensions as his speaker is now, but 3 ft or so tall. IOW, he should just make NHT clones, right? Heh. Why not? As opposed to a too small to do music without a sub 2-way bookshelf like every other maker on the planet? What's wrong with a NHT with a more reasonable shape like sound dynamics? Ie - not ugly - flat in the front, but curved/angled evenly and attractively in the back - kind of like NORH does(well, not LIKE NORH does - lol - but a simmilar asthetic goal) Add a nice ribbon tweeter - and suddenly, it's like no other speaker marketed. Different geometry, ribbon tweeter, and a small package that needs no stands. OTOH, I see few 3-way bookshelf speakers. None with a non-rectangular design and a ribbon tweeter. I smell niche. ![]() Wood-grained, of course. All these light colors suck. People want teak and mahogony colored as well. I don't think this is going to go over real well... Why not? It always seemed a bit silly to make a bookshelf with overly large drivers and then all but require stands instead of making a smaller, slimmer package that has its own built-in stand. Take a look a the Tannoy MXm-3 towers. They aren't the best mini-towers by a long shot, but they do have much better bass than the bookshelves. I mentioned this as his speakers are very slim front-to-back and that lends itself to a small tower design. The Tannoy R2 is a perfect example. Small, attractive, and decent bass. Also, if he wants to go the HT route, people will want larger main front speakers. Oh - his tweeter will be less glaring astheticaly in a larger cabinet. The bigger cabinet will also improve the bass and likely the midrange as well as it gives him lots of space to fine-tweak and work with fillings, baffles, ports, and the like. Lastly, the increased mass/wood veneer will make the price more justifiable in people's minds - especially if it isn't a square box. I'm not going to comment further at the moment except to say that the next speaker that I will be comparing it with is the three way 8 incher Allison CD8. Draw your own conclusions - I'll wait until I actually do the comparison. okay ![]() |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:31:02 GMT, Joseph Oberlander wrote: Another negative isn't really a negative of the speaker. If the source material tends toward the sibilant, this speaker will exacerbate that tendency slightly. Note the word *slightly*. It's not nearly objectionable as other speakers I've heard in the past. Probably the ribbon tweeter. These are really picky and hard to tame beasts. Quality control at the low-end is such that he'd probably have to hand-pick 2-3 out of every dozen to actually use. And you know this exactly how? Especially regarding this particular tweeter. Because others who are familiar with this exact tweeter he uses have posted prety much the same thing. It's a finicky design and not very well made from a construction standpoint. Yes, I think that my comments are related to the fact that he used a ribbon tweeter. Both the positive (which you ignored) *and* the negative. No - I didn't. 90% of my comments were on the (as expected) poor bass results. That's fixable, though, with a larger cabinet. |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:37:03 +0200, Lionel
wrote: dave weil wrote: PS, I did most of my evaluation listening between an average of 80 and 95 dB. If you'd like, I can listen at lower levels as well. And finally, I should mention that *all* of my commentary is with the Denon tone controls defeated and in stereo mode. I just want to suggest you that it could be interesting to get your point concerning speakers "behaviour" at low and high volume levels. Anyway thanks for the above commentaries. I'll be sure to listen at low levels in the next day or two and give you my opinion. |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:50:24 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote: What's wrong with a NHT with a more reasonable shape like sound dynamics? Nothing's wrong with it. In fact, NHT was just copying designs that I saw in Germany back in the late 80s. That side-firing woofer was all the rage back then. Just a variation of the Allison, if you ask me. |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:52:16 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote: And you know this exactly how? Especially regarding this particular tweeter. Because others who are familiar with this exact tweeter he uses have posted prety much the same thing. It's a finicky design and not very well made from a construction standpoint. Prove it. |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
No - I didn't. 90% of my comments were on the (as expected) poor bass results. That's fixable, though, with a larger cabinet. No, that's not correct. That would just result in an underdamped woofer that would sound terrible. |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:52:16 GMT, Joseph Oberlander wrote: And you know this exactly how? Especially regarding this particular tweeter. Because others who are familiar with this exact tweeter he uses have posted prety much the same thing. It's a finicky design and not very well made from a construction standpoint. Prove it. Oh come on. Stop being such a schill for him. It's a very inexpensive and poorly constructed ribbon and you know it. It's like trying to refine a Kia into an Accord. Not going to happen because what you have to work with is too unrefined to begin with. |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
trotsky wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote: No - I didn't. 90% of my comments were on the (as expected) poor bass results. That's fixable, though, with a larger cabinet. No, that's not correct. That would just result in an underdamped woofer that would sound terrible. You need to learn how to properly dampen, then, so that you can have good bass response in a larger cabinet. |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
trotsky wrote: Joseph Oberlander wrote: No - I didn't. 90% of my comments were on the (as expected) poor bass results. That's fixable, though, with a larger cabinet. No, that's not correct. That would just result in an underdamped woofer that would sound terrible. You need to learn how to properly dampen, then, so that you can have good bass response in a larger cabinet. Joe, your head is full of feces. You seem to have no understanding of speaker design whatsoever. |
#28
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
George M. Middius wrote:
Lionella la Salope slurped: Obie Wanna Avant-Garde Design said: Why most makers still make a rectangular box is beyond me. I know why. It's pretty obvious. Did you ask Scottieborg? We all know this hurts the sound. Who's "We"? Middius, I'm still waiting for a clear answer concerning .ein domain names ! Did you ask Scottieborg? You should also fix your newsreader. It's making a mess of my nice clean posts. You should also fix your because is still answering the same old garbage. Check for a kind of PC's Halzeimer, why not ? This could explain this kind of senile babbling. ![]() An other investigation field : perhaps you should stop amphetamines or you keyboard will never resist to your stammering typing. I progress, you regress... Do you remember Darwin's sentence ? ;-) |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
trotsky wrote: Joseph Oberlander wrote: No - I didn't. 90% of my comments were on the (as expected) poor bass results. That's fixable, though, with a larger cabinet. No, that's not correct. That would just result in an underdamped woofer that would sound terrible. You need to learn how to properly dampen, then, so that you can have good bass response in a larger cabinet. Perhaps this prblem come from the driver itself ? |
#30
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:09:54 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote: dave weil wrote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:52:16 GMT, Joseph Oberlander wrote: And you know this exactly how? Especially regarding this particular tweeter. Because others who are familiar with this exact tweeter he uses have posted prety much the same thing. It's a finicky design and not very well made from a construction standpoint. Prove it. Oh come on. Stop being such a schill for him. Sorry, I'm not being a shill for him. It's a very inexpensive and poorly constructed ribbon and you know it. No i don't. I only know how it sounds. It's like trying to refine a Kia into an Accord. Now 8that's an underwhelming analogy. But just what I would expect from someone like you. Not going to happen because what you have to work with is too unrefined to begin with. You haen't heard it so you should just keep your mouth shut, Mr. Telescope. |
#31
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
trotsky wrote:
No, that's not correct. That would just result in an underdamped woofer that would sound terrible. You need to learn how to properly dampen, then, so that you can have good bass response in a larger cabinet. Joe, your head is full of feces. You seem to have no understanding of speaker design whatsoever. So Tannoy and Paradigm and a slew of others can make a decent tower speaker and you cannot? Look at the Saturn 6 LR bookshelf speakers. Nice, decent designs. They took the same drivers and $50 more in materials(since the MSRP is only $300 more) and the low-end dropped to 31hz. That's almost a full octave lower than the bookshelf design, and close enough to full-range to not matter(since the last 4 keys or so on a keyboard are rarely played). They did it - yet you say it is "impossible" and would sound terrible? $1500 MSRP. $1250-1350 or so street price. .... Honestly, if you could make a tower out of the design and add some features like maybe an area at the bottom to put sand/wieght or a second woofer or something... Most people won't pay over $1000 in any case for a bookshelf speaker, but will buy a small tower as they get full-range in a small package. |
#32
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lionel wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote: trotsky wrote: Joseph Oberlander wrote: No - I didn't. 90% of my comments were on the (as expected) poor bass results. That's fixable, though, with a larger cabinet. No, that's not correct. That would just result in an underdamped woofer that would sound terrible. You need to learn how to properly dampen, then, so that you can have good bass response in a larger cabinet. Perhaps this prblem come from the driver itself ? I honestly have a hard time believeing that as the woofer's specs go much lower than what he claims his speakers do. This leads to a simple conclusion - the box itself is too small or the driver is inadequate at lower frequencies and he's artifically cut off the low-end response to get the results of a proper 6-inch speaker. Solution ![]() - bigger properly designed cabinet with the same 8 inch driver. - same cabinet with a proper 6 inch driver. - better 8 inch driver in the same cabinet. |
#33
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
trotsky wrote: No, that's not correct. That would just result in an underdamped woofer that would sound terrible. You need to learn how to properly dampen, then, so that you can have good bass response in a larger cabinet. Joe, your head is full of feces. You seem to have no understanding of speaker design whatsoever. So Tannoy and Paradigm and a slew of others can make a decent tower speaker and you cannot? Cheesy build quality might be acceptable to you, but it isn't to me. Look at the Saturn 6 LR bookshelf speakers. Nice, decent designs. They took the same drivers and $50 more in materials(since the MSRP is only $300 more) and the low-end dropped to 31hz. Joe, you're thinking is completely wrong. If you want stuff that is obviously built to a price point, just so you can own it and think "Oh, I'll buy something better when I can afford it," then bully for you. But you are a liar, because you can't even make this first step. As near as I can tell, you can't really do anything. If you want a DIY speaker, build one. If you wan't one full of compromises from a large company like Tannoy, then buy it. Do something for Christ's sake and quite whining. That's almost a full octave lower than the bookshelf design, and close enough to full-range to not matter(since the last 4 keys or so on a keyboard are rarely played). They did it - yet you say it is "impossible" and would sound terrible? With a Silver Flute woofer? It is impossible. Are you looking for incredible tonal accuracy or just bass extension? I can't even believe you are trying to describe a speaker's sound quality by its frequency response. That's just stupid. $1500 MSRP. $1250-1350 or so street price. ... Honestly, if you could make a tower out of the design and add some features like maybe an area at the bottom to put sand/wieght or a second woofer or something... Most people won't pay over $1000 in any case for a bookshelf speaker, but will buy a small tower as they get full-range in a small package. Right, "Joe Oberlander" would get my vote for speaking for "most people". |
#34
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Lionel wrote: Joseph Oberlander wrote: trotsky wrote: Joseph Oberlander wrote: No - I didn't. 90% of my comments were on the (as expected) poor bass results. That's fixable, though, with a larger cabinet. No, that's not correct. That would just result in an underdamped woofer that would sound terrible. You need to learn how to properly dampen, then, so that you can have good bass response in a larger cabinet. Perhaps this prblem come from the driver itself ? I honestly have a hard time believeing that as the woofer's specs go much lower than what he claims his speakers do. It's sad to see that you have to resort to out and out lying this way. Can you show us what these "specs" are, Joe? Welcome to the realm of Krueger. |
#35
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Most people won't pay over $1000 in any case for a bookshelf speaker, but will buy a small tower as they get full-range in a small package. You are right : 1. Dynaudio "Audience 52" http://www.dynaudiousa.com/products/...e/52/aud52.htm 2. JM Lab Cobalt 806s http://www.focal.tm.fr/fr/home/cobaltS/c806s.htm 3. Etc............................ 4. Etc............................ "Exceptionnaly" 1546. JM Lab have a "bookshelf" Micro Utopia BE for about $5500.00 without stands. http://www.focal.tm.fr/gb/home/utopiabe/microbe.htm |
#36
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 02:10:50 +0200, Lionel
wrote: Joseph Oberlander wrote: Most people won't pay over $1000 in any case for a bookshelf speaker, but will buy a small tower as they get full-range in a small package. You are right : 1. Dynaudio "Audience 52" http://www.dynaudiousa.com/products/...e/52/aud52.htm Yeah, this is like a 3/4 tang knife, that's for sure. That's the vinyl clad analogy that popped into my mind... 2. JM Lab Cobalt 806s http://www.focal.tm.fr/fr/home/cobaltS/c806s.htm 3. Etc............................ 4. Etc............................ "Exceptionnaly" 1546. JM Lab have a "bookshelf" Micro Utopia BE for about $5500.00 without stands. http://www.focal.tm.fr/gb/home/utopiabe/microbe.htm Cute speaker. |
#37
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
trotsky wrote:
So Tannoy and Paradigm and a slew of others can make a decent tower speaker and you cannot? Cheesy build quality might be acceptable to you, but it isn't to me. OMG I almost lost my soda on that one. What a rube. Check out his construction. He's not even in the same league as the major players. At BEST he's equal. But you keep dodging the prime issue... Look at the Saturn 6 LR bookshelf speakers. Nice, decent designs. They took the same drivers and $50 more in materials(since the MSRP is only $300 more) and the low-end dropped to 31hz. Joe, you're thinking is completely wrong. If you want stuff that is obviously built to a price point, just so you can own it and think "Oh, I'll buy something better when I can afford it," then bully for you. I am a consumer. I see a speaker advertized. It has worse specs and less bass response for the same money. It absolutely DOES matter that he's pricing it too high to survive real-world exposure. That's almost a full octave lower than the bookshelf design, and close enough to full-range to not matter(since the last 4 keys or so on a keyboard are rarely played). They did it - yet you say it is "impossible" and would sound terrible? With a Silver Flute woofer? It is impossible. Are you looking for incredible tonal accuracy or just bass extension? Most consumers do exactly this, believe it or not. Adding a second woofer would be very easy in fact if he had a larger cabinet. |
#38
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lionel wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote: Most people won't pay over $1000 in any case for a bookshelf speaker, but will buy a small tower as they get full-range in a small package. You are right : 1. Dynaudio "Audience 52" http://www.dynaudiousa.com/products/...e/52/aud52.htm 2. JM Lab Cobalt 806s http://www.focal.tm.fr/fr/home/cobaltS/c806s.htm 3. Etc............................ 4. Etc............................ "Exceptionnaly" 1546. JM Lab have a "bookshelf" Micro Utopia BE for about $5500.00 without stands. http://www.focal.tm.fr/gb/home/utopiabe/microbe.htm These speakers will roast his for lunch on low heat. I mean - why isn't he spending $500 a pair on supplies and making a $3000 audiophile-marketed speaker? $1000-$1500 is dangerous territory and his speaker has serious design flaws to begin with. |
#39
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Langis wrote:
egregious offender). But this isn't Quad bass. Sorry. It just doesn't quite approach the richness and "palpability", to use a well-worn catchword, that I remember from Quads. Are you saying the speakers are lean within the frequency range they cover, or that in your opinion they are lean simply because they lack bass extension? I read it as saying that the bass was clean, but thin as far as impact/dynamics. objectionable as other speakers I've heard in the past. This might be considered an indicator of the basic "accuracy" of the speaker as it certainly doesn't cover up that flaw. Nor does it blow it out of proportion. Again, this isn't clear. Is this a reflection of the source material, or a characteristic the speaker imparts on the sound. My speakers exhibit none of this. OTOH, they don't have a ribbon tweeter. Go figure. Is "the sense of air" is a characteristic the speaker imparts to the music, or is it that the speaker reproduces upper frequencies with revealing accurately. In other words, is this "sense of air" reproduced across the board, or only when it's present in the source material. And this is why I hate reading audio reviews. Give me a graph or two and speak english. ![]() |
#40
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
trotsky wrote: So Tannoy and Paradigm and a slew of others can make a decent tower speaker and you cannot? Cheesy build quality might be acceptable to you, but it isn't to me. OMG I almost lost my soda on that one. What a rube. Check out his construction. He's not even in the same league as the major players. At BEST he's equal. But you keep dodging the prime issue... Look at the Saturn 6 LR bookshelf speakers. Nice, decent designs. They took the same drivers and $50 more in materials(since the MSRP is only $300 more) and the low-end dropped to 31hz. Joe, you're thinking is completely wrong. If you want stuff that is obviously built to a price point, just so you can own it and think "Oh, I'll buy something better when I can afford it," then bully for you. I am a consumer. You are a liar. If you were a consumer, you'd be buying a pair of speakers instead of mentally masturbating about them. You are a troll. I see a speaker advertized. It has worse specs and less bass response for the same money. It absolutely DOES matter that he's pricing it too high to survive real-world exposure. Hell, even Krueger wouldn't buy a speaker on specs alone. Congrats, you are now more of an idiot than the densest guy on Usent. That's almost a full octave lower than the bookshelf design, and close enough to full-range to not matter(since the last 4 keys or so on a keyboard are rarely played). They did it - yet you say it is "impossible" and would sound terrible? With a Silver Flute woofer? It is impossible. Are you looking for incredible tonal accuracy or just bass extension? Most consumers do exactly this, believe it or not. Adding a second woofer would be very easy in fact if he had a larger cabinet. Who are you talking to, Joe? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
car audio: installing bass speakers and amp question | Car Audio | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 4/5) | Car Audio | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) | Car Audio | |||
Alpine PXA-H700 - Rear speakers & 2Ch audio | Car Audio | |||
Answer for Roadkill, a.k.a., "Jupiter Audio" | Audio Opinions |