Dream Speakers Under $6,000 Retail

[GO-NAD!]

Are you implying that in a double-blinded test, people may like the P362 better than the 800D. Now that's just cruel and hurtful!

I think that what he is implying, is that the P362's better on/off-axis response is the only aspect in which they are superior to the B & W's. That great frequency response should probably be No. 1 on the list of qualities that a great loudspeaker should possess does not mean that build quality, power-handling and output don't matter. That said, I think that for the price, B&W has no excuse for the frequency response deficiency.

I wonder why other manufacturers, who employ talented designers, can't (or don't want to) get the same frequency response from much more expensive speakers.

 

[DenPureSound]

Every room and audio buff is different, and that is why KLIPSCH are most peoples favorite speaker even after over 50 yrs. - but some like Salks, some like KEF, some like PSB, some like .... that is because every humans hearing (PsychoAcoustics) is totally different.

What did PWK know that most other speaker mfg's. still do not understand?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

for the price, B&W has no excuse for the frequency response deficiency.

Exactly.

Dream speakers make no excuses.

 

[DS-21]

They are very well built and designed consumer speakers. Mediocre isn't in the conversation IMO. Certainly they might not sound as good as a Salk, but that by no means makes them bad or mediocre. To say that is audio snobbery.

Only if by "designed" you mean in the industrial design sense. One may say they are well-built, well-designed, but poorly engineered if high-fidelity reproduction is the goal.

the KEFs / Pioneer EXs / Salk Soundscape / Revels / Philharmonics / Geddes / Genelecs should reasonably maintain their sound signature across different rooms.

I doubt the Soundscapes belong in that company. (The Philharmonics maybe, depending on the where the two planars cross.)

I don't see how the Soundscapes could not have a bubble of energy in their pattern at the crossover between the (overrated, IMO) Accuton mid and the ribbon. The mid is going to narrow, and the ribbon's going to just indiscriminately spray at the bottom of its passband. (Horizontally, at least. Obviously the vertical polars will be anything but symmetrical, but that's unimportant to many.

 

[Beatmatcher247]

Every room and audio buff is different, and that is why KLIPSCH are most peoples favorite speaker even after over 50 yrs. - but some like Salks, some like KEF, some like PSB, some like .... that is because every humans hearing (PsychoAcoustics) is totally different.

Hmmm, I think Klipsch are most peoples favorites because that is what the big box stores carry and that is what their sales associates tell them that they need. I don't agree with the statement that they are "most people's favorite speaker" if you have any data to back that up... Klipsch very well maybe a favorite amongst people who don't know there are other thousands of options available aside from shitty Polk, Sony, and Klipsch speakers at best buy and Fry's. I'm not saying everyone who owns Klipsch speakers was misguided, however I thinkt hat a lot of Klipsch owners would have went with something different if they got out there and carefully evaluated more products at their respective price points. Klipsch, Polk, and Sony are in a way brands of convenience because of their wide proliferation in the entry-level speaker manufacturer arena.

 

[GranteedEV]

I don't see how the Soundscapes could not have a bubble of energy in their pattern at the crossover between the (overrated, IMO) Accuton mid and the ribbon.

A 4" mid crossed high order at 1.8khz will not be meaningfully narrow. At some point you gotta drop the dogma and focus on actual performance... which you're not actually focusing on.

But assuming the mid were in fact narrowing, the reduced energy would be compenasated by the manually stuffed open back design and placement.

 

[GranteedEV]

My guess is that it is because you are comparing the speakers within the limits of the Infinities and not the B&W's. The right tool for the right job always works best. For instance blind people in small rooms that only ever want to listen at ~ 80db average need look no further than the Primuses.

... but that doesn't excuse their off axis response. At the same price the Salon2s are the competition, not the Primus'

The fact is the B&Ws throw random sounds in different directions at all SPLs. how does that sum to neutral in multiple rooms? How does it give a perception of 'huge soundstage'?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I doubt the Soundscapes belong in that company. (The Philharmonics maybe, depending on the where the two planars cross.)

I don't see how the Soundscapes could not have a bubble of energy in their pattern at the crossover between the (overrated, IMO) Accuton mid and the ribbon. The mid is going to narrow, and the ribbon's going to just indiscriminately spray at the bottom of its passband. (Horizontally, at least. Obviously the vertical polars will be anything but symmetrical, but that's unimportant to many.

How would you compare the Accuton vs the BG Neo8 midrange?

 

[lsiberian]

... but that doesn't excuse their off axis response. At the same price the Salon2s are the competition, not the Primus'

The fact is the B&Ws throw random sounds in different directions at all SPLs. how does that sum to neutral in multiple rooms?

There off-axis response isn't as bad as everyone seems to be making it out. The ones I've seen got a little issues in the tweeter but are find elsewhere. The cabinet construction and driver quality is superb.

 

[GranteedEV]

There off-axis response isn't as bad as everyone seems to be making it out.

you would call this a good off axis response...?

I'd rather audition speakers with SMOOTH off axis response;

 

[DenPureSound]

Hmmm, I think Klipsch are most peoples favorites because that is what the big box stores carry and that is what their sales associates tell them that they need. I don't agree with the statement that they are "most people's favorite speaker" if you have any data to back that up... Klipsch very well maybe a favorite amongst people who don't know there are other thousands of options available aside from shitty Polk, Sony, and Klipsch speakers at best buy and Fry's. I'm not saying everyone who owns Klipsch speakers was misguided, however I thinkt hat a lot of Klipsch owners would have went with something different if they got out there and carefully evaluated more products at their respective price points. Klipsch, Polk, and Sony are in a way brands of convenience because of their wide proliferation in the entry-level speaker manufacturer arena.

JFWIW -- Klipsch is far from the entry level point at $31.5K for this:

Palladium P - 39F Home Theater System | Klipsch

and those are NOT at BB or John Fry's Store either!

But per OP this thread is < $6K MSRP [Retail] FL/FR

 

[DenPureSound]

What do you like/dislike about these? Purple traces are Front Towers.

$2K per Pair

or...

$1.5K per Pair

 

[lsiberian]

you would call this a good off axis response...?

I'd rather audition speakers with SMOOTH off axis response;

I've not seen Stereophile's measurement, but I have seen another set that didn't show the 802D's to be anything like that. Mind you that was an in room measurement. It's been a while since I saw it, but I thought it was on this forum.

 

[lsiberian]

What do you like/dislike about these? Purple traces are Front Towers.

$2K per Pair

or...

$1.5K per Pair

There is a pronounced dip at 1k is that a measurement artifact?

 

[Alex2507]

... how does that sum to neutral in multiple rooms? How does it give a perception of 'huge soundstage'?

Magic of course.

All I've ever heard from B&W is an 804 and very briefly at that. I liked it a lot. I of course would be happy to compare Salon/2's and higher end B&W's. I'm not defending speakers that I have not heard (800/802). I already voiced my concerns about non linear hearing being matched against linear frequency response at varying levels and what might happen to off axis frequency response at elevated levels. Those tests aren't being conducted. For that all any of us have is ears. You did bring yours, didn't you?

 

[DS-21]

A 4" mid crossed high order at 1.8khz will not be meaningfully narrow. At some point you gotta drop the dogma and focus on actual performance... which you're not actually focusing on.

The Accuton C90 is bigger than you think it is. Sd is ~80cm^2.

A 4" driver (e.g. the ScanSpeak Disco 10F or Audax HM100Z0) will be less than half of that.

Though I did think the crossover was higher than it is (I'll assume you're right), there will still not be what I'd consider an acceptable directivity match under those constraints. Certainly not one like to a concident/Dual Concentric driver with proper crossover, or a tweeter firing through a waveguide the same size as or slightly larger than the driver below it.

So despite Jim Salk's obvious woodworking chops and Dr. Murphy's crossover design skills and voicing talent, I still say that such a speaker is not of a kind with consistent-directivity narrow pattern speakers (GedLee, Tannoy, Genelec, JBL Synthesis, KEF*, Pioneer Elite/TAD*) or consistent-directivity wider pattern speakers (Revel, JBL LSR32/LSR6332).

*The KEF Uni-Q and progeny (Pioneer/TAD) tend to converge on a 90deg pattern, but lose pattern control higher in frequency than speakers with larger mids. Except for the smaller ones, which seem to have wider patterns.

How would you compare the Accuton vs the BG Neo8 midrange?

I wouldn't, because I haven't heard the Neo8. The only small planar mids I've heard are the Eminent Technology panels they sold (maybe still do) for car audio, the old Monsoon computer speaker panels that were essentially mass-produced variants of the ET panels, and the ~15 year old BG "Acculine" series (also marketed primarily to car-fi). Honestly, that kind of driver doesn't interest me much. If I wanted to deal with the placement restrictions of a directional dipole planar, I'd just buy Quad ESL-63s on the second-hand market and set them on DIY'ed dipole bass-bin stands.

FWIW, if I had to use a 5" midrange, the Accuton wouldn't be in the running. I'd probably be looking for a properly-stored NOS stash of Audax HM130Z0's, but assuming those weren't to be found, my first calls would be to B&C and BMS. Or, I'd comb Florida for speaker reconing shops that carry a recent-model 5" Uni-Q.

It occurs to me that another speaker you'd probably like quite a bit is a the Gradient Revolution. While its Seas coax isn't on the same level as modern Uni-Q's (Seas licenses IP from KEF, but IMO their coincidents are still at about the 4th gen Uni-Q level), the crossover is extraordinarily well-designed and the mid-to-upper bass is among the best I've heard in a commercial loudspeaker. Dunno how available they are here, or if they'd work as well in a typical U.S. cardboard-n-spit room as they do in a European masonry room.

 

[DS-21]

What do you like/dislike about these? Purple traces are Front Towers.

They look really good, at least over the (IMO too) small listening window in which HTMag measures. If the pattern is narrow, though, they'll sound quite dull. If it's wider, they'll probably be excellent in many rooms.

Also excellent measurements, at least over the (IMO too) small set of angles HTMag uses. If they are similar in pattern to the speakers above, they'll sound considerably brighter, though if they have a fairly narrow pattern that's pretty much textbook response on top. Conversely, if the pattern is narrow, they could sound a bit warm, but depending on the consistency of the pattern they may be very amenable to EQ if one does not like that warmth.

There is a pronounced dip at 1k is that a measurement artifact?

I'm going to guess it's diffraction effect from a horizontal center. It's not a big enough dip for the speaker to be toppled-MTM, the worst possible configuration for a center. But hopefully nobody's going think those speakers are a "matched set" with the speakers represented by the top traces, either.

 

[DenPureSound]

There is a pronounced dip at 1k is that a measurement artifact?

I think your looking at the Center channel trace [Green], and yes there is a Suck Out at 1khz. for it, but not the front left/right towers which are the purple traces.

 

[DenPureSound]

They look really good, at least over the (IMO too) small listening window in which HTMag measures.

Also excellent measurements, at least over the (IMO too) small set of angles HTMag uses. Could sound a bit warm, but depending on the consistency of the pattern they may be very amenable to EQ if one does not like that warmth.

Top plot -- listening-window response (a five-point average of axial and +/–15-degree horizontal and vertical responses) measures +0.75/–2.67 decibels from 200 hertz to 10 kilohertz. The –3-dB point is at 42 Hz, and the –6-dB point is at 35 Hz. Impedance reaches a minimum of 5.24 ohms at 145 Hz and a phase angle of –69.50 degrees at 61 Hz.

Bottom plot -- listening-window response (a five-point average of axial and +/–15-degree horizontal and vertical responses) measures +2.25/–0.65 decibels from 200 hertz to 10 kilohertz. The –3-dB point is at 44 Hz, and the –6-dB point is at 39 Hz. Impedance reaches a minimum of 4.02 ohms at 145 Hz and a phase angle of –38.32 degrees at 3.5 kHz.

Top Plot is the NHT Classic FOUR.

Bottom Plot is the KEF Q900, for less money than the Four.

Of these two, with that little info. shown which one would you be leaning toward?

 

[DenPureSound]

FWIW, if I had to use a 5" midrange, the Accuton wouldn't be in the running. I'd probably be looking for a properly-stored NOS stash of Audax HM130Z0's, but assuming those weren't to be found, my first calls would be to B&C and BMS. Or, I'd comb Florida for speaker reconing shops that carry a recent-model 5" Uni-Q.

Interesting, because the KEF R900 Uni-Q driver array is:

HF: 25mm (1in.) vented aluminium dome
MF: 125mm (5in.) aluminium

while the KEF Q900 is:

MF: 200mm (8in.) aluminium Uni-Q
HF: 38mm (1.5in.) vented aluminium dome

KEF went down to the 5" for MF in the UniQ for the R900 vs. the Q900.

Also, the R900 adds more refinement over the Q900, in particular the bass is faster and better controlled and, because of the more expensive cabinet construction and the three way design with a slightly more complex crossover there is more transparency through the midrange and top end with the R900. But all of this comes at a cost delta of approx. $2200 per pair.

The Real question is if spending that $2200 on top of the Q900 really worth it, so it seems to me the proof will be in listening to both of them.