Speaker audition

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So he was up selling? I guess I'm a little naive, I thought he was being honest. I can't imagine getting the same sound I heard in the store at my house from my Onkyo AVR though. So there may be some truth to what he's saying.

He was selling up big time like they all do. He'll sell you those fancy cables and power cords too if you let him.

It is a 4 ohm nominal / 3 ohm minimum impedance speaker with a sensitivity of 90dB w/m.

It can play 90dB loud from 1 meter distance with one watt of power.

So most people would say it's pretty safe to use a 200wpc 8ohm/ 300wpc 4 ohm amp.

The speakers won't know if the amp cost $80,000 or $800.

So it's cool you loved the sound of the 802D. It seems to be one of the best you've heard? Compared to what?

 

[GranteedEV]

Does anyone know what exactly was wrong with that FAL mid that the accuton was the hands-down choice? I'm just curious

 

[GranteedEV]

He said there's no hiss. It's the fan on the amp. You guys know from reading my posts that I'm not the very knowledgeable about this stuff, but there was a hiss, a very audible hiss coming through the tweeter.

Maybe he was just deaf

I would ask him "How do you expect me to buy an amp that has fan hiss"?

I ended up listening to a pair of Paradigm S8's. I thought they sounded pretty good. They were being run through some Mark Levinson amps, with a Mark Knopfler cd being played. The S8's were nice, but kind of boring.

How did they compare to PSB?

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Does anyone know what exactly was wrong with that FAL tweeter that the accuton was the hands-down choice?

I'm just curious

Bad memories. The Fal looked like it was going to be a total winner. Extremely wide range response, wonderful dispersion, easy to work with........until Jim played a cut with Saxaphone. Buzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Frequencies around 2.8 Hz caused the voice coil to do weird things. We never quite figured out what the problem was, and the factory couldn't fix it, despite several tries. I still have a pair that cost me $1000. Bad memories.

 

[Nuance AH]

Oops - just realized that's a prototype pic of the SS. You have a sharp eye, Grant.

 

[GranteedEV]

Now the bad. When the song was over I asked if it would take $20,000.00 in electronics to get them to sound that good...The answer was yes.

Hilarious.

I would pick up one of these:

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=245-504&FTR=xls2000

And bring it to the audition store. Ask him if I need $20,000 in components to get them to sound that good. And then tell him to hook it up.

These really are fine speakers and if you have the coin to spend on the electronics it takes to get them to sound good, I say try them.

But their measurements suck =/

In the mean time I'll keep saving for Salks or Philharmonics.

You should be able to audition some Ascends, Philharmonics, and Salks next to some PSBs at the Wisconson get together. Only a 6 hours drive >_>;;;

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Oops - just realized that's a prototype pic of the SS. You have a sharp eye, Grant.

All you saw was the big red.

I noticed the midrange looked different also, but since we were just talking about the cabinets, I didn't say anything.

 

[psbfan9]

So it's cool you loved the sound of the 802D. It seems to be one of the best you've heard? Compared to what?

I wouldn't say I loved the sound of the B&W's, but it was nice. To me, the Monitor Audio Silver's seemed as good and they were being powered by an Integra DTR 40.3 AVR. No other amps. They were especially good considering they were $10-12,000.00 less then the B&W's.
Plus, I just couldn't get past that hiss.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I wouldn't say I loved the sound of the B&W's, but it was nice. To me, the Monitor Audio Silver's seemed as good and they were being powered by an Integra DTR 40.3 AVR. No other amps. They were especially good considering they were $10-12,000.00 less then the B&W's.
Plus, I just couldn't get past that hiss.

Oh, I see.

The Monitor Audio Gold is better than the Silver.

The Silver is as good as the 802 Diamond.

The Gold is a lot less expensive than the Diamond, and Silver is a lot less expensive than the Gold.

So...........then...........the Gold may be better than the Diamond?

 

[zieglj01]

I wouldn't say I loved the sound of the B&W's, but it was nice. To me, the Monitor Audio Silver's seemed as good and they were being powered by an Integra DTR 40.3 AVR. No other amps. They were especially good considering they were $10-12,000.00 less then the B&W's.
Plus, I just couldn't get past that hiss.

The Monitor Audio Silver will hold its own, against a lot of the so called
Big name speakers - And they are happy with strong AVR receivers. Now
hook them up with some expensive McIntosh amps, and you will still be
amazed, how well the Silvers do with the AVR. The McIntosh amps, did
not transfigure or transform the sound, and move the earth for me. There
is nothing wrong with amps for power handling and impedance control,
for less distortion at higher volumes - however, no need for one to spend
the major dollars, on the expensive ones.

 

[mazersteven]

IMO Those 802's need to be in a perfect room, w/ acoustic panels, and positioned right to make them worth their cost. But then again I feel that way with every high end speaker costing as much.

 

[DS-21]

IMO Those 802's need to be in a perfect room, w/ acoustic panels, and positioned right to make them worth their cost. But then again I feel that way with every high end speaker costing as much.

Placement is very important, though modern room correction systems are very good at eliminating some placement-caused problems, such as boomy upper bass from speakers "too close" to room boundaries.

But as for "acoustic panels" and the like...only speakers with poor design (that is to say, midrange directivity that narrows as the woofer reaches the top of its passband and then widens as the tweeter comes in at the bottom of its passband; basically anything with a tweeter that doesn't employ some sort of directivity control) require that stuff.

A good speaker with a pattern in the midrange and treble appropriate to the room (narrower for rooms with features such as glass walls, large furniture along the sides, etc, wider for more absorptive room) doesn't need "acoustic panels" and such. The only effect they are likely to have, in fact, is to reduce spaciousness.

Audiophiles usually get speaker selection exactly backwards. The intelligent approach is to first consider the properties of the room one intends to place speakers in, and pick speakers that are designed to perform well under those conditions. The loudspeaker is, after all, just a means to reach the goal of good-sounding reproduction of music in the room.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Placement is very important...boomy upper bass from speakers "too close" to room boundaries.

A good speaker with a pattern in the midrange and treble appropriate to the room...doesn't need "acoustic panels"...

I can see that.

When I move the Orion close to the side walls and play full range, I hear the boomy bass, but the midrange & treble sound just fine.

I recently tried $500 worth of Auralex panels from Amazon (free shipping returns). Placed them along side walls and front wall. Could not even notice any differrence whatsoever with any of my speakers. So I returned them to Amazon and got my money back.

 

[Nuance AH]

Placement is very important, though modern room correction systems are very good at eliminating some placement-caused problems, such as boomy upper bass from speakers "too close" to room boundaries.

But as for "acoustic panels" and the like...only speakers with poor design (that is to say, midrange directivity that narrows as the woofer reaches the top of its passband and then widens as the tweeter comes in at the bottom of its passband; basically anything with a tweeter that doesn't employ some sort of directivity control) require that stuff.

A good speaker with a pattern in the midrange and treble appropriate to the room (narrower for rooms with features such as glass walls, large furniture along the sides, etc, wider for more absorptive room) doesn't need "acoustic panels" and such. The only effect they are likely to have, in fact, is to reduce spaciousness.

This completely goes against Dr. Floyd Toole's book. His findings did show that the lateral reflections are perceived as preferable over all (wider apparent source width), but not the rest of the reflections. You're incorrect.

Audiophiles usually get speaker selection exactly backwards. The intelligent approach is to first consider the properties of the room one intends to place speakers in, and pick speakers that are designed to perform well under those conditions. The loudspeaker is, after all, just a means to reach the goal of good-sounding reproduction of music in the room.

Again, incorrect. The room can affect the sound more than the speakers, but the room can be fixed; flawed speakers cannot (room correction can sometimes do more harm than good, so that isn't a definitive fix). Chosing a speaker that performs well based on the listening room is a flawed approach. Instead one should start with a great pair of speakers and place them in a good room or one that has been fixed with proper treatment placement (bass traps, adsorption, diffusion, etc); where to place said treatments will depend on many factors, including the room characteristics and size and the speakers.

Take a look at the Harman Reference Listening Room:

There are no lateral reflection absorption panels, but there are others in various locations, not to mention diffusion panels and traps. These all fall under the "treatment" or "acoustic panels" category. In most cases the front and back wall reflections should be absorbed and/or diffused.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

IMO Those 802's need to be in a perfect room, w/ acoustic panels, and positioned right to make them worth their cost. But then again I feel that way with every high end speaker costing as much.

One of the writers from the 2012 Axpona show said that he thought the 802D sounded "very good".

But I can't recall anyone ever saying the B&W sounded "the best" or even "one of the best".

I think B&W needs new management and change their mentality. Their new goal: make speakers that will have people saying "the best SQ" or "one of the best".

Now all they have is some people saying "very good".

 

[Nuance AH]

One of the writers from the 2012 Axpona show said that he thought the 802D sounded "very good".

But I can't recall anyone ever saying the B&W sounded "the best" or even "one of the best".

I think B&W needs new management and change their mentality. Their new goal: make speakers that will have people saying "the best SQ" or "one of the best".

Now all they have is some people saying "very good".

It doesn't seem to be affecting their sales, though, so I don't see them changing anything anytime soon. The magazines praise them, they have lots of advertising and they must generate enough revenue to stay in business while making a profit, so... But yeah - I wish they would try harder too. They kind of remind me of the Hi-Fi Bose, as their marketing is very good, plus they use flashy materials (diamonds and Kevlar) to help aid in that department.

 

[DS-21]

This completely goes against Dr. Floyd Toole's book. His findings did show that the lateral reflections are perceived as preferable over all (wider apparent source width), but not the rest of the reflections. You're incorrect.

Wrong on both counts.

First, you're making the assumption about the relative importance of ASW that are unjustified.

Second, let's assume arguendo that one desires lateral reflections. One can get the desired lateral reflections with narrower-directivity speakers by "overtoeing" them. (Aiming them such that their axes cross in front of the listening position.) That does not contradict anything Dr. Toole has written or studied. Fact of the matter is, his (published) ASW tests simply didn't use any such speakers in that configuration.

(And point of fact, doing so also attenuates late reflections relative to the direct sound even as it promotes early (contralateral) reflections, simply because the sound has to travel farther - and has already hit one boundary - than in other sets.) Simple geometry that any 6th grader should understand, there...

Again, incorrect.

Your interpretation of what I wrote, found below, is indeed incorrect, as it's not even fancifully based on the text I put in front of you.

The room can affect the sound more than the speakers, but the room can be fixed; flawed speakers***

Who wrote anything about "flawed" speakers?

It's takes some really odd logical leaps to go from my formulation

"***pick speakers that are designed to perform well under [the properties of the room one intends to place speakers in]"

to your botched remix:

"flawed speakers."

What kind of twisted logic did you employ to go from "speakers designed to perform well under specific conditions" to "flawed speakers"? I'm genuinely curious to see you spell it out.

For instance, is the Snell XA "flawed" because it offers options to tailor its output the room (and listener preference)?

And point of fact, the room cannot "always be fixed." Some of us have aesthetic sensibilities, or partners with aesthetic sensibilities, that preclude turning rooms in our homes into an audiophool's padded cell paradise.

(room correction can sometimes do more harm than good, so that isn't a definitive fix).

While that's obviously true, it's obvious not a cogent reply to the text I actually put in front of you:

"modern room correction systems are very good at eliminating some placement-caused problems, such as boomy upper bass from speakers "too close" to room boundaries." [emph. added]

Chosing a speaker that performs well based on the listening room is a flawed approach. Instead one should start with a great pair of speakers and place them in a good room or one that has been fixed with proper treatment placement

My approach will result in both better sound and greater domestic tranquility than yours. But if you think you need to live in a padded cell (with glass sidewalls?)...I'm not your housemate, so what do I care?

 

[Nuance AH]

Wrong on both counts.

First, you're making the assumption about the relative importance of ASW that are unjustified.

Second, let's assume arguendo that one desires lateral reflections. One can get the desired lateral reflections with narrower-directivity speakers by "overtoeing" them. (Aiming them such that their axes cross in front of the listening position.) That does not contradict anything Dr. Toole has written or studied. Fact of the matter is, his (published) ASW tests simply didn't use any such speakers in that configuration.

You're right, and there is a reason he doesn't. Many of the speakers available to the public aren't narrow directivity speakers. Your logic only applies to those, and even then isn't full proof. There are too many dependents.

(And point of fact, doing so also attenuates late reflections relative to the direct sound even as it promotes early (contralateral) reflections, simply because the sound has to travel farther - and has already hit one boundary - than in other sets.) Simple geometry that any 6th grader should understand, there...

There you go again belittling people. And you called Brian a flake... As I mentioned, there are too many variables so your logic is flawed. Perhaps this all works in your room, but that's moot. No one cares about a solution that is highly subjective (enjoying controlled directivity speakers), nor about what works in one man's room. Room treatments are objectively proven to help in the majority of rooms, while what you're recommending is based on subjectivity, chance and circumstance.

Your interpretation of what I wrote, found below, is indeed incorrect, as it's not even fancifully based on the text I put in front of you.

Who wrote anything about "flawed" speakers?

It's takes some really odd logical leaps to go from my formulation

"***pick speakers that are designed to perform well under [the properties of the room one intends to place speakers in]"

to your botched remix:

"flawed speakers."

What kind of twisted logic did you employ to go from "speakers designed to perform well under specific conditions" to "flawed speakers"? I'm genuinely curious to see you spell it out.

You wrote:

The intelligent approach is to first consider the properties of the room one intends to place speakers in, and pick speakers that are designed to perform well under those conditions. The loudspeaker is, after all, just a means to reach the goal of good-sounding reproduction of music in the room.

The bolded part is incorrect. You're not suppose to pick speakers that will sound good based on the room (in your case, a not-treated room). You're suppose to pick a speaker that objectively measures good and subjectively sounds good and then get the room acoustics in order. You're own quote implies otherwise and leaves only you to blame for such poor wording.

And point of fact, the room cannot "always be fixed." Some of us have aesthetic sensibilities, or partners with aesthetic sensibilities, that preclude turning rooms in our homes into an audiophool's padded cell paradise.

That doesn't mean the room cannot physically be fixed; it simply means you're not willing to do it...big difference.

While that's obviously true, it's obvious not a cogent reply to the text I actually put in front of you:

::yawn::

My approach will result in both better sound and greater domestic tranquility than yours. But if you think you need to live in a padded cell (with glass sidewalls?)...I'm not your housemate, so what do I care?

It certainly will not, but think whatever you'd like. I guess we should all stop listening to Toole and Olive and instead listen to you. Fact is, it's not as simple as you imply. Once again you're pushing your opinions as facts. Pathetic...

 

[Josuah]

One of the most important things is to add room treatments to improve room acoustics. Stating that speakers should be picked to match the room or that well designed speakers don't need a well treated room is illogical.

If your room acoustics are like a tiled bathroom shower there is absolutely nothing you can do with speakers or room correction to make things sound accurate. (It may sound good, though, if that's what you're aiming for.)

If you cannot treat a room with poor acoustics for whatever reason, then so be it, but you should not then expect optimal sound and instead acknowledge you are making a compromise.

 

[GranteedEV]

If your room acoustics are like a tiled bathroom shower there is absolutely nothing you can do with speakers or room correction to make things sound accurate. (It may sound good, though, if that's what you're aiming for.)

Everyone who listenes in a bathroom shower say AYE





........