Which speakers do you like better - why?

Good4it

Good4it

Audioholic Chief
Sierra 2 or Philarmontior? Or? Bookshelves under $1200 total. Can't listen to either one.
 
Last edited:
its phillip

its phillip

Audioholic Ninja
I've never heard either speaker before but I would love to own either. Tough choice. I'd probably choose the Phils because Dennis is more active on our forums :D
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
That's the kind of choice you'd have to listen to the two yourself. I do own a pair of Dennis's speakers and I love them.
 
Last edited:
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
The revelator woofer on the Phil's is arguably the best in its class and can take a boat load of power. John Krutke uses it on his reference speaker and speaks very highly of it also. It would work well in any system.
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
How would the Philharmonitor compare to say the KEF LS50? I know they're very different, but what is each one's strong and weak points? I'm genuinely interested to know. If I get enough back out of the Thiel PCS I recently purchased I might buy something new. It's hard to know what to buy when I cannot actually go and listen to anything before buying it.
 
tyhjaarpa

tyhjaarpa

Audioholic Field Marshall
Haven't heard either but if I had to choose one based on what I have read I would get Phils.
 
D

Dennis Murphy

Audioholic General
Sierra 2 or Philarmontior? Or? Bookshelves under $1200 total. Can't moisten to either one.
Hi--is Ascend running a B-stock sale on the Sierra's? I believe the regular cost is closer to $1500. And unfortunately, Parts Express lost their supplier for the prefabricated cabinets I was using in my $1,150 version. The version with Jim Salk cabinets is also close to $1500, and the wait time would be very lengthy because Jim is jammed up with BMR orders, not to mention his popular new 3-way. Parts Express has lined up a new manufacturer for their cabinets, and when stock becomes available in 1-2 months, I may change directions on the Philharmonitor. I hate to say it, but this probably isn't the time to buy one.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I don't think you'd go wrong with either but love Dennis' honesty!
 
TheWarrior

TheWarrior

Audioholic Ninja
How would the Philharmonitor compare to say the KEF LS50? I know they're very different, but what is each one's strong and weak points? I'm genuinely interested to know. If I get enough back out of the Thiel PCS I recently purchased I might buy something new. It's hard to know what to buy when I cannot actually go and listen to anything before buying it.
Did a brief comparison of the LS50s to Dennis' AA monitors: the KEFs went back to the store!

Saw an anechoic measurement (on my phone right now, no link) where the LS50 had a big resonance right around 2khz. A very pretty, well made cabinet, but sound that is not worthy of $1k (yes, they cost more)
 
D

Dennis Murphy

Audioholic General
Did a brief comparison of the LS50s to Dennis' AA monitors: the KEFs went back to the store!

Saw an anechoic measurement (on my phone right now, no link) where the LS50 had a big resonance right around 2khz. A very pretty, well made cabinet, but sound that is not worthy of $1k (yes, they cost more)
Interesting. Nothing like that shows up on the Stereophile measurements:
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
How would the Philharmonitor compare to say the KEF LS50? I know they're very different, but what is each one's strong and weak points? I'm genuinely interested to know. If I get enough back out of the Thiel PCS I recently purchased I might buy something new. It's hard to know what to buy when I cannot actually go and listen to anything before buying it.
You can read some of my comments in post #5 of this thread:
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/elac-uni-fi-bookshelf-speakers.104594/
 
D

Dennis Murphy

Audioholic General
It might be a stretch to call it a "big" resonance, but you can see it in the off-axis (45, 60, 75 degrees) plots here:

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=941:nrc-measurements-kef-ls50-loudspeakers&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153
The response that far off axis doesn't correlate very well with what you hear in the room, and in any event those measurements are better than for most speakers. The most relevant curve is probably the 30-degree listening window. It doesn't show any resonance at 2 kHz, but the response between 2k and 5k does stand out somewhat, and that may be what is being heard. You can also see that to a lesser degree in the Stereophile on-axis measurement. That said, I would have to see how my own speakers measure under the same conditions before I reached any firm conclusions.
 
TheWarrior

TheWarrior

Audioholic Ninja
The response that far off axis doesn't correlate very well with what you hear in the room, and in any event those measurements are better than for most speakers. The most relevant curve is probably the 30-degree listening window. It doesn't show any resonance at 2 kHz, but the response between 2k and 5k does stand out somewhat, and that may be what is being heard. You can also see that to a lesser degree in the Stereophile on-axis measurement. That said, I would have to see how my own speakers measure under the same conditions before I reached any firm conclusions.
Dennis, I'd like to recommend you read 'Sound Reproduction' (Toole). The data proves that there is a direct correlation between anechoic measurements, to listener preference. Sound power is the sum of all energy radiated from the loudspeaker, so the off axis performance is just as important as the direct sound!



After that resonance at 2 kHz (no the resonance itself is not 'big' but at 2 kHz, the impact, is!), the LS50 becomes quite directional. For me, that puts to rest the notion that these concentric drivers are somehow more 'cohesive'... sure, for one person!

The problem remains, this is 2016. A +/- 3dB scale is too generous, in this day and age, when we are more than capable of designing loudspeakers that can operate within a +/- 1dB spec. Dennis started out in DIY projects, and from his measurements, his loudspeakers can (mostly) pull that off, what the heck is wrong with the big names!?
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I sold my KEF Reference 201/2 for like $1800-1900/pair. Might consider those as well. More than $1200, but still... :)
 
Last edited:
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
Did a brief comparison of the LS50s to Dennis' AA monitors: the KEFs went back to the store!

Saw an anechoic measurement (on my phone right now, no link) where the LS50 had a big resonance right around 2khz. A very pretty, well made cabinet, but sound that is not worthy of $1k (yes, they cost more)
Maybe I should look at trying the AA monitors out. It's not a lot of money all things considered.

AcuDefTechGuy said:
I old my KEF Reference 201/2 for like $1800-1900/pair. Might consider those as well. More than $1200, but still... :)
Those are interesting, but I'll be honest I don't like the aesthetic. Were those in your main system or something subsidiary?
 
Last edited:
D

Dennis Murphy

Audioholic General
I've read the Toole material, and I think it's misinterpreted. Off-axis response is obviously important, but the farther off-axis you go, the less important it gets. My little AA monitor that you (and I) like does much more poorly at 45+ degrees off axis than the KEF, although it does reasonably well up to about 30 degrees. You can see what the ear hears in plots with a wide sampling window that show all of the later, reflected sound arrivals in addition to the more immediate arrivals. The Omnimic measuring system has this feature, and I've used it on a number of speakers. What you see is that the reflected sound fills in and averages out to roughly mimic the on-axis response. And I've listened very carefully to speakers with controlled directivity and speakers with off-axis flares, and it's the on-axis response and early arrival reflected sound that dominates. That is opinion is shared by Jeff Bagby, who I think is one of the brightest speaker designers out there. All this said, I haven't heard this particular KEF. I have worked with the much cheaper Q100, which appears to use a similar driver, and I didn't detect any resonance. The minimalist crossover wasn't really optimized all that well, but the speaker was generally well behaved.
 
Last edited:
TheWarrior

TheWarrior

Audioholic Ninja
I've read the Toole material, and I think it's misinterpreted. Off-axis response is obviously important, but the farther off-axis you go, the less important it gets. My little AA monitor that you (and I) like does much more poorly at 45+ degrees off axis than the KEF, although it does reasonably well up to about 30 degrees. You can see what the ear hears in plots with a wide sampling window that show all of the later, reflected sound arrivals in addition to the more immediate arrivals. The Omnimic measuring system has this feature, and I've used it on a number of speakers. What you see is that the reflected sound fills in and averages out to roughly mimic the on-axis response. And I've listened very carefully to speakers with controlled directivity and speakers with off-axis flares, and it's the on-axis response and early arrival reflected sound that dominates. That is opinion is shared by Jeff Bagby, who I think is one of the brightest speaker designers out there. All this said, I haven't heard this particular KEF. I have worked with the much cheaper Q100, which appears to use a similar driver, and I didn't detect any resonance. The minimalist crossover wasn't really optimized all that well, but the speaker was generally well behaved.
You're measuring in-room, yes? I think the misinterpretation is stemming from my failure to point out the need for an anechoic chamber. Sound Power is the sum of all sounds radiated from the loudspeaker, so you must measure all angles. Combined with a directivity index, direct sound, and listening window, one can pretty well surmise how well a loudspeaker will perform, and be preferred, in-room, assuming one has absorbed 550 pages of Floyd's work. :)

@Floyd Toole would absolutely agree that for domestic listening purposes, the direct sound and early reflections are important ("dominates" as you put it). However I would say that it is a terrible assumption that "the reflected sound fills in and averages out to roughly mimic the on-axis response". That is the goal, yes, but so rarely is that accomplished!

Interaural Cross Correlation is the reason a linear omni mic is not an accurate representation of what we hear. However, Toole and Olive were able to establish an algorithm with a .86 (86%) coefficient for listener preference, based on the aforementioned measurements and double blind testing. Only those with something to hide (NOT Philharmonic Audio) would shy away from this kind of testing!

Back to the KEF's, I heard the later hissss but not the initial snap of cymbals, but also harshness of some female vocals. They are very pretty speakers, until you have something to A/B compare with! When your AA's, or even Sony Core's were put on, the wonderful experience of the KEF's disappeared.
 
D

Dennis Murphy

Audioholic General
You're measuring in-room, yes? I think the misinterpretation is stemming from my failure to point out the need for an anechoic chamber. Sound Power is the sum of all sounds radiated from the loudspeaker, so you must measure all angles. Combined with a directivity index, direct sound, and listening window, one can pretty well surmise how well a loudspeaker will perform, and be preferred, in-room, assuming one has absorbed 550 pages of Floyd's work. :)

@Floyd Toole would absolutely agree that for domestic listening purposes, the direct sound and early reflections are important ("dominates" as you put it). However I would say that it is a terrible assumption that "the reflected sound fills in and averages out to roughly mimic the on-axis response". That is the goal, yes, but so rarely is that accomplished!

Interaural Cross Correlation is the reason a linear omni mic is not an accurate representation of what we hear. However, Toole and Olive were able to establish an algorithm with a .86 (86%) coefficient for listener preference, based on the aforementioned measurements and double blind testing. Only those with something to hide (NOT Philharmonic Audio) would shy away from this kind of testing!

Back to the KEF's, I heard the later hissss but not the initial snap of cymbals, but also harshness of some female vocals. They are very pretty speakers, until you have something to A/B compare with! When your AA's, or even Sony Core's were put on, the wonderful experience of the KEF's disappeared.
I'll have to check his algorithm, but I'm sticking to my experience and observations. We don't listen in an anechoic room, so I don't know why a room measurement that shows the frequency and amplitude of the delayed arrivals wouldn't be relevant to what we hear. The anechoic measurements can't weight the relative importance of on and off-axis responses. Are you sure he's giving much weight to off-axis angles of 45 degrees and higher? That just doesn't make any sense to me.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top