3.1 Set up for $4000

[jcl]

Bi-amping is nonsense, unless your speakers use an external, active crossover or your speakers have two 3 ohm woofers in parallel or something. You're better off getting more raw wattage IE an XPA-2 than to bi-amp.


http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75795

Bi-Wiring is nonsense, bi-amping probably just foolish. However, the OP is getting a 5 channel amp so in the future he can power surrounds which makes sense to me. For now he's going to biamp the front mains. For the cost of some monoprice 12g wire and banana plugs why not? He can re-use the speaker wire when he buys the surrounds and then it's nothing out of pocket. It's not in the realm of elevating cables or green marker on cd edges.

I agree if he was buying extra amp channels it wouldn't make sense.

 

[GranteedEV]

The weight of each composite on a 6.5" speaker will be lesser compared to 12" counterpart. It is very well known that a smaller speaker with identical composite will retract faster than a bigger one due to savings in weight. That's the physics behind it.

Let's define weight. It's a :force: that results from mass and acceleration.

A larger object, like a 12" cone, will likely (though not necessarily) have more moving mass.

But where you've made a mistaken assumption, is to assume that the motor is not scaled proportionally. A 12" driver is not being driven off the same motor as a 6.5" driver. The acceleration is higher, therefore the force being applied to air, is higher, and the reverse acceleration being applied to stop the driver, is also higher.

You also mentioned earlier that low frequency extension is a function of fs. To an extent, you are correct, because a lower fs will improve efficiency as frequency drops.

Now what has a lower fs? Hint: a "heavier" driver.

Where do large drivers have issues?

-suspension resonances as frequency rises
-inductance from large voice coils reducing efficiency as frequency rises
-cone damping / breakup modes
-narrowing off axis response as frequency rises

but sheer "speed" is not one of them. Something like the acoustic elegance TD15M, with its ridiculously low inductance, cloth surround, treated pulp cone, can reproduce frequencies higher than 4khz on axis cleanly at ridiculous SPLs.

If you put three 6.5" speakers, each one will still respond faster than a single 12" which will result in a better sound.

Now let's define "fast". "Speed" is measured in "per second"

Now let's examine the passband of a driver IE 30hz to 300hz

if 600hz is the highest frequency being asked from the driver to reproduce, that's 600cycles per second. See the correlation with "fast"?

Now if the driver has no issue reproducing 600hz, then who cares if a smaller driver is "faster" (IE the ability to reproduce 20khz or not)? it's INCONSEQUENTIAL.

Now you're confusing "speed" (which functionally is UNDESIRABLE as frequency drops) with "bass tightness". Bass tightness is not about "speed". The factors that presumably contribute to perceived sound quality include decay (room related), group delay (tuning related), distortion (driver motor related, and proportional to excursion), damping (Q related), and raw frequency response (room/tuning related).

There is nothing superior in bass about a 6.5" driver with respect to bass. If anything, it will end up being tuned too high as a subwoofer (high group delay), be equally prone to room mode issues, lack bottom end efficiency (some might perceive this as sounding punchier but it only means an unflat frequency response over the audible range), and require much more excursion to reproduce a given SPL at low frequency as a result of its small effective piston area (higher distortion).

But common sense is to be used here. Don't take it to extremism ofcourse 1" tweeter cannnot be used because they don't respond to lower frequency at all and the reason for that is because their XMax is severely limited to move any reasonable amount of air molecules. Hope that adds to the clarification.

That's not true either. low x-max does not prescribe "not responding" to lower frequencies - a driver can be high x-max and low fs as long as it's designed to work in a larger enclosure - some infinite baffle drivers are like this.

 

[GranteedEV]

Bi-Wiring is nonsense, bi-amping probably just foolish. However, the OP is getting a 5 channel amp so in the future he can power surrounds which makes sense to me. For now he's going to biamp the front mains. For the cost of some monoprice 12g wire and banana plugs why not? He can re-use the speaker wire when he buys the surrounds and then it's nothing out of pocket. It's not in the realm of elevating cables or green marker on cd edges.

I agree if he was buying extra amp channels it wouldn't make sense.

I agree with this. Nothing wrong with getting an XPA-5 if the plan is to drive surrounds with them later (although IMO, double the raw power to the fronts, and even a quarter that power to the surrounds, will give superior results).

Passive Bi-amping is still pointless though, and some speakers don't have provisions for it, which is perfectly A-OK.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

warpdrv owns Paradigm Signature and Salk speakers, so maybe he can enlighten you with his (subjectiv:e) view.

I believe Subjective is the key.

As I recall, Warpdrv said the Salk sounded better, but the Paradigm could play louder (more dynamic?).

So it appears to me that Warpdrv is changing over from Paradigm to Salk.

I think the final test is always the actual subjective audition.

If my memory serves me correctly, InTheIndustry and Whitey were both not too impressed with the Paradigm S8 either.

When I auditioned the Paradigm Studio 100 towers, I was extremely disappointed.

But then again, I was also extremely disappointed in the B&W 800D & 802D.

So the personal subjective audition counts a lot.

No matter what anyone says, we can't buy a speaker that doesn't sound awesome to us, esecially for $4K or more.

And as long as the speakers sound awesome to us, even after listening to them for hours, then they are the right speakers.

But for the record, I'm of the same opinion as GranteedEV & InTheIndustry regarding Paradigm speakers; I have never been impressed with Paradigm speakers.

I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say anything negative about Salk speakers or Philharmonic speakers.

 

[GranteedEV]

I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say anything negative about Salk speakers or Philharmonic speakers.

You can always find something negative to say about any speaker

A few issues you might name

- Salk's 2-way 2-driver TL speakers are tuned pretty low
- the Phil 3s are rather insensitive and that possibly restricts their dynamic range compared to the Phil 1s and 2s
- the HT3s could be a bit of an amp-killer

But it is truly hard to say anything bad about the SOUND of superior speakers within their limits.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Let's define weight. It's a :force: that results from mass and acceleration.

A larger object, like a 12" cone, will likely (though not necessarily) have more moving mass.

But where you've made a mistaken assumption, is to assume that the motor is not scaled proportionally. A 12" driver is not being driven off the same motor as a 6.5" driver. The acceleration is higher, therefore the force being applied to air, is higher, and the reverse acceleration being applied to stop the driver, is also higher.

You also mentioned earlier that low frequency extension is a function of fs. To an extent, you are correct, because a lower fs will improve efficiency as frequency drops.

Now what has a lower fs? Hint: a "heavier" driver.

Where do large drivers have issues?

-suspension resonances as frequency rises
-inductance from large voice coils reducing efficiency as frequency rises
-cone damping / breakup modes
-narrowing off axis response as frequency rises

but sheer "speed" is not one of them. Something like the acoustic elegance TD15M, with its ridiculously low inductance, cloth surround, treated pulp cone, can reproduce frequencies higher than 4khz on axis cleanly at ridiculous SPLs.



Now let's define "fast". "Speed" is measured in "per second"

Now let's examine the passband of a driver IE 30hz to 300hz

if 600hz is the highest frequency being asked from the driver to reproduce, that's 600cycles per second. See the correlation with "fast"?

Now if the driver has no issue reproducing 600hz, then who cares if a smaller driver is "faster" (IE the ability to reproduce 20khz or not)? it's INCONSEQUENTIAL.

Now you're confusing "speed" (which functionally is UNDESIRABLE as frequency drops) with "bass tightness". Bass tightness is not about "speed". The factors that presumably contribute to perceived sound quality include decay (room related), group delay (tuning related), distortion (driver motor related, and proportional to excursion), damping (Q related), and raw frequency response (room/tuning related).

There is nothing superior in bass about a 6.5" driver with respect to bass. If anything, it will end up being tuned too high as a subwoofer (high group delay), be equally prone to room mode issues, lack bottom end efficiency (some might perceive this as sounding punchier but it only means an unflat frequency response over the audible range), and require much more excursion to reproduce a given SPL at low frequency as a result of its small effective piston area (higher distortion).



That's not true either. low x-max does not prescribe "not responding" to lower frequencies - a driver can be high x-max and low fs as long as it's designed to work in a larger enclosure - some infinite baffle drivers are like this.

Thanks for that excellent post. It's great to see so many audio urban myths knocked down. Doubling up on a 6.5" driver just moves the response of a single 6.5" driver up several dB. The overall bass profile won't change, although distortion will drop, which helps. I've worked with some of the highest X-max 6.5" drivers out there individually and doubled up--you get fairly high sensitivity and very clean response in the 45-50 Hz range, but nothing that will shake a room. The smallest driver I've used that is capable of bass reach below 30 Hz is the ScanSpeak Revelator 8". And it's over $300 a pop.

 

[GranteedEV]

The smallest driver I've used that is capable of bass reach below 30 Hz is the ScanSpeak Revelator 8". And it's over $300 a pop.

Here's one you ought to check out, dennis. It can supposedly play very high, and very low. I don't know :just: how high, but the inductance at least is very low and the alpine guys have used it at least up to 250hz as a midbass.

http://www.amazon.com/SWR-823D-Alpine-Type-R-2-Ohm-Subwoofer/dp/B0056VZ6YI

Sensitivity could be a bit higher, but it models surprisingly nicely IMO. I won't be fooled by its car audio roots !!

 

[ican]

i agree speaker sound is very subjective so no need to bash around people. for example i personally like the gradual bass rolloff below 55 Hz. 20 Hz is not even audible at that point but its just what i like. But some mates i know do want 20 Hz at reference level - but I dont like that frequency at reference levels.

 

[3db]

You have been given a list of three excellent performing speakers. I would audition them and take some serious notes during the audition to see what you like/dislike about each one. Pick the one with the most pros from audition point of view and those will be the speakers for you regardless of all that techno mumbo/jumbo about driver sizes, f3, etc. Specs are important to eliminate the chaff from the kernel but eventually, you will have to sit and listen and specs don't give you this information that your ears are telling you.

What I would do is to take a pad of paper with you, write down the make and
model of each speaker you audition and what you liked and disliked about the
speakers you were auditioning. Was the bass tight and deep or was it boomy and loose sounding? Were the mids life like or were they hollow or just too pronounced? Was the treble irritating and harsh or were they dark and not revealing or were they smooththat made you want to listen for more? How was the imaging?

Bring music with you that you are very familiar with and know quite well. To
make it easier to audition HT speaker systems, listen to the main speakers in 2
channel mode with music. Music is much harder to reproduce accurately then a movie soundtrack so if the speakers do well with music, then they will do well with HT. Speakers that do HT well may not do well with music. When auditioning the center channel of the same brand and series as the main speakers, pick a difficult source like an announcer that mumbles alot. If you can understand what the mumbling announcer is saying, then you have a good center channel.

Keep track of what amp or receiver is powering the speakers you're auditioning. Try to get a receiver/amp that closest resembles what you have or want to get. It just reduces another variable when audtioning speakers.


One thing to keep note off. When auditioning speakers, make sure the volume
levels are matched between the diiferent speaker pairs because the louder
speaker pair will always sound better. Listen to levels that you think you
would listen to most of the time because thats how you are going to be using
them most of the time.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You can always find something negative to say about any speaker

A few issues you might name

- Salk's 2-way 2-driver TL speakers are tuned pretty low
- the Phil 3s are rather insensitive and that possibly restricts their dynamic range compared to the Phil 1s and 2s
- the HT3s could be a bit of an amp-killer

But it is truly hard to say anything bad about the SOUND of superior speakers within their limits.

I can understand what it means for speakers to not be so efficient (sensitive), requiring a lot more power (amp killer), and not being able to play as loud as some speakers & keeping distortion as low as possible at the same time.

But what is "tuned pretty low" in terms of sound quality? Does that increase distortion because it's asking the drivers to do more than it should?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

$4K - $5K is a kind of a big decision to make on speakers.

You have to be completely happy with the sound quality as well as the aesthetics. There are always compromises.

For example, I may like the Philharmonic 2 since it has better sensitivity and possibly more dynamic range than the PH3. But I prefer the aesthetics of the PH3 over the PH2. Compromises.

If you are happy with the Paradigm or any other speakers, that is cool.

But it's also interesting to see other people's perspective on what they like and dislike and all that. We understand it's personal preference, not personal attack or bashing.

We are just sharing our experiences.

 

[Ironman129]

Bi-Wiring is nonsense, bi-amping probably just foolish. However, the OP is getting a 5 channel amp so in the future he can power surrounds which makes sense to me. For now he's going to biamp the front mains. For the cost of some monoprice 12g wire and banana plugs why not? He can re-use the speaker wire when he buys the surrounds and then it's nothing out of pocket. It's not in the realm of elevating cables or green marker on cd edges.

I agree if he was buying extra amp channels it wouldn't make sense.

This was exactly my plan. Have the 5 channel amp for when I have my 5.1/5.2 setup and in the meantime use it to help drive the front. I'm getting a lot of different information here than I am from the shop I've been going to. For exampl the sales guy seemed to think that bi-amping would be ideal rather than something that could be done if the extra channels were available.

Some of the other advice I was given from the store that I'm finding out may not be true from the forum:

Spend at least $1000 for cables and wiring for the front speakers and components.

Spend at least $500 on a good line conditioner/cleaner. Another $200-$300 on a surger protector.

I was advised to get $5000 reciever that appearently isn't rated any better than a $500 yamaha reciever.

Now I'm realizing that I want the most spent on the speakers, and a good amp. processor/receiver gonna get upgraded every few years anyway so no need to spend that much, and cable wire that is a couple of bucks a foot is just fine!

$4K - $5K is a kind of a big decision to make on speakers.

You have to be completely happy with the sound quality as well as the aesthetics. There are always compromises.

That is it exactly. I want these speakers to last me 10 years or more. I want them to look beautiful but disappear when i am listening to music or movies. I've only had the chance to audition the S6s, and compare them to B&W and Thiel. I liked the S6s the best of those 3 (of course they were on different components and in different rooms).

But it's also interesting to see other people's perspective on what they like and dislike and all that. We understand it's personal preference, not personal attack or bashing.

We are just sharing our experiences.

I don't think it's been bashing and I greatly appreciate the personal experience that you guys have had. It's already saved me $1000s, and know it will let me get a setup that I am more happy with and will last longer. I am still trying to understand a lot about this hobby and get lost with some of the technical aspects of it. If a speaker is of better design, uses better components, and has been shown to reproduce a more natural sound, then it makes since to purchase that speaker rather than one that is inferior. It's seems almost unanimous that the Philharmonics are a "better" speaker, plus they cost less.

I have only heard the Paradigms, and am more used to the design on the Synchrony and paradigm, but sound is my main priority. As has been said, the main thing now is to listen to them and see which one I like best.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Some of the other advice I was given from the store that I'm finding out may not be true from the forum:

Spend at least $1000 for cables and wiring for the front speakers and components.

Spend at least $500 on a good line conditioner/cleaner. Another $200-$300 on a surger protector.

I was advised to get $5000 reciever that appearently isn't rated any better than a $500 yamaha reciever.

Some of these people are so hilarious.

Yeah, put most of your budget on speakers that sound great and look great while doing it.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It's seems almost unanimous that the Philharmonics are a "better" speaker, plus they cost less.

Intriguing, isn't it?

I see the resemblance of the Veracity & Philharmonic speakers.

I wonder what's the big difference?

It looks like the Veracity has the high-gloss finish. If only I could get those PH3 speakers in high-gloss cherry.

What are some other differences, besides the HUGE price difference?

Salk Veracity $6,000:

Philharmonic 3 $2,800:

 

[Ironman129]

It's not in the realm of elevating cables or green marker on cd edges.

Funny, I was advised to do just that with the $100/ft speaker cable I was told to get!

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Intriguing, isn't it?

IIt looks like the Veracity has the high-gloss finish. If only I could get those PH3 speakers in high-gloss cherry.

]

Well, have Jim Salk build you a pair of Phil3 cabinets in high gloss cherry. I'm sure he would be glad to do it. And that would close the price gap so you wouldn't lose any sleep wondering what the difference was.

 

[GranteedEV]

I think the sexiest finish is glossy vinyl red burl wrap. Yes it's considered cheap but i've yet to see many finishes I prefer decisively over my made in China $800 EMPTeks ;P

For some reason its big brother the RBH SX-8300/R is only offered with your choice of 30 real wood veneers =(

I don't get companies that charge 8k+ for high end stuff... and yet they somehow have worse aesthetics than their own sub 1k budget speakers. To me, the vinyl wrap just looks better.

 

[its phillip]

Yeah, that vinyl wrap looks great.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Agree. That high gloss vinyl red burl looks really great.

 

[jcl]

Funny, I was advised to do just that with the $100/ft speaker cable I was told to get!

Run away!

12g stranded copper from Monoprice, parts-express or others will work even better, even if you don't elevate it off the floor! I'd suggest elevating it on stacks of $1 coins to remind you of the money you saved! Imagine how good it will sound then

Just know inwall is a little harder to work with and isn't as pliable.