Does anyone really like the super-expensive monster speakers

[haraldo]

Hi Guys, I know that references to the Absolute Sound is not very popular in these forums, but I simply could not resist as I saw this ending statement from Robert E. Greene as he was reviewing the $63k Muraudio PX1 Omnidirectional hybrid electrostatic speaker...
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/muraudio-px1-omnidirectional-electrostatic-hybrid-loudspeaker/

Regular readers of mine will know that while I’m often “impressed” by the large super-expensive monster systems that so many audiophiles seem to lust after, I rarely actually like them, and I’ve heard none I would personally give house space to. This is because I find their sonic presentations merely impressive—there’s that irony-laden word again—or, to put it another way, all too typically assaultive rather than beautiful or powerful in the way that live music is beautiful and powerful. In that context, the PX1 is the only speaker system I’ve heard that costs more than my Quad 2805s that I would consider buying if I had the money.

So about these mega-super-systems: There's rave, being impressed... but he would never get the super systems he raves about... I think that's correct interpretation

Well, there are super-expensive speakers that's really really good, like the Status Acoustics 8T, Vandersteen 7, maybe KEF Muon but that's not always the case. Is it not so that many speaker designers goals are to make products that are impressive, rather than provide musical pleasure...

I would rather go with pleasure than impressive...

 

[tyhjaarpa]

Haven't personally heard any of "super" speakers so can't really say anything about them. Would like to hear some just out of curiosity tho, not that I would ever buy them, unless I won lottery.

 

[Speedskater]

The price tags and looks of these speakers influences most reviewers.

 

[Swerd]

Does anyone really like the super-expensive monster speakers?

I don't. They sound unusual, even poor, and they are quite expensive.

Although there are a few of these speakers that actually do sound good, most do not. The designers work hard at making them look and sound impressively different. At audio shows in the US, hotels are full of these super-expensive and unusual looking speakers. To stand out in that crowd they have to look and sound different from all the others. Otherwise they make no impression at all. If you want a monument that shows how much money you can spend, get a bronze statue of yourself. But buying a super-expensive monster speaker seems silly.

 

[TheWarrior]

I appreciate the sales pitch for comparing the cost of sports cars to HT, so in that light, I would prefer an HT to a Porsche. Simply because I will get far more use out of an HT than any car. But to that end, I've had the pleasure of listening to lots of speakers that I never tire of, so what would a single pair of $60k speakers offer over a complete $60k theater (parts only, I'll do the labor) that would ever sway me?

I guess it's a matter of scale, how much excess do you have?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Only billionaires like them.

Difficult to fathom anything better than something like Gene's 8T in terms of treble, midrange and bass.

And only billionaires who don't mind paying people to install these 300+ LBS monsters into their houses.

Unless they're like the Hulk.

 

[TLS Guy]

Hi Guys, I know that references to the Absolute Sound is not very popular in these forums, but I simply could not resist as I saw this ending statement from Robert E. Greene as he was reviewing the $63k Muraudio PX1 Omnidirectional hybrid electrostatic speaker...
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/muraudio-px1-omnidirectional-electrostatic-hybrid-loudspeaker/

Regular readers of mine will know that while I’m often “impressed” by the large super-expensive monster systems that so many audiophiles seem to lust after, I rarely actually like them, and I’ve heard none I would personally give house space to. This is because I find their sonic presentations merely impressive—there’s that irony-laden word again—or, to put it another way, all too typically assaultive rather than beautiful or powerful in the way that live music is beautiful and powerful. In that context, the PX1 is the only speaker system I’ve heard that costs more than my Quad 2805s that I would consider buying if I had the money.

So about these mega-super-systems: There's rave, being impressed... but he would never get the super systems he raves about... I think that's correct interpretation

Well, there are super-expensive speakers that's really really good, like the Status Acoustics 8T, Vandersteen 7, maybe KEF Muon but that's not always the case. Is it not so that many speaker designers goals are to make products that are impressive, rather than provide musical pleasure...

I would rather go with pleasure than impressive...

I don't want the super expensive, but I don't mind building large speakers.

The problem is that most large speakers are full of bloat. They must also play as delicately as the most accurate bookshelf.

I remember when I first powered up my monster speakers and played a delicate piano recording. Immediately I had hope. I remember Art the gas man came through the studio door to connect some of the gas appliances. He stopped dead in his tracks, turned his head and looked startled. He said, "I thought that was a real piano playing. I did not know that was possible!" I had only balanced the electronic crossovers by ear at that stage and not by instrument.

Anyhow I knew I was fine, and have been since. That will be 10 years ago in about 2 months.

I think a big reason for the justified dislike of the sound of large speakers is lack of active crossovers. You absolutely can not make an accurate large speaker with large woofers without active crossovers. Passive one in these type of speakers are not acceptable no matter how much they cost.

 

[haraldo]

I think Andrew Jones is making quite a statement these days; According to cnet.com... at CES setting his $500 Elac Uni-Fi UB5 next to the $24,000 TAD-CE1 Compact Evolution One.

He's working for Elac now so his goal is to sell the $500 speakers and not the $24k ones
Seems like Mr. Jones decided to kill his previous super-hi end products

When will he make more upscale Elac speakers that he will set against his $80k TAD's ?

 

[TLS Guy]

Interesting that Greene mentioned the Quad 2805s, for two reasons. First, they cost $10K per pair last I looked, which is not chump change. Second, they're electrostatics, which means they have that special combination of measuring awesomely (they will pass a reasonable facsimile of a square wave) and horrendously (they don't stop and start as well as moving coil speakers, so their behavior in the time domain sucks), and they need a sub for anything below about 50Hz. I've got a weakness for electrostatics myself, but unfortunately not for the Quads. I prefer the Sound Labs 945PX, which at $41K per pair are both huge and quite costly. I'll probably never own them, but if I had the space and the money the Salon2s would be relegated to the HT system right quick.

Their behavior in the time domain does not suck. These Quads are among the most time coherent on the planet, as you can tell by the impulse response and its ability to reproduce a square wave.

Now all panel speakers other then the Quads beam like crazy. Peter Walker reasoned that if you place a tight polythene membrane across a room and produce sounds one side, it is perfectly reproduce on the other.

Now the membrane does not move as a whole. It moves like ripples on a pond, with time delays as you move from the center.

This is the genius of these speakers, he reproduced this effect by the "archery target" delays built into the speaker.

The signals are progressively delayed, but the resulting wave form is not! It is highly coherent!

The only deviation in the time domains is related to stored energy in the membrane in the upper frequencies. You can see that in John Atkinson's measurements.

Your statement comes from individuals who do not understand the principle of operation of these speakers. If what you stated was correct, then they would not stand a prayer of reproducing that square wave if free air.

That is why a speaker with fourth order filters turns a square wave into a pretty perfect sine wave. That is time distortion with a vengeance.

The THD of the Quads is 0.1% THD. This is better than most tube amps, and equal to the best of them.

A lot of us including myself have spent a life time trying to get the quality and transparency of Perter Walker's Quad speakers. In fact I think it is fair to say that his throwing down of this benchmark, has contributed more to the improvement of moving coil loudspeakers than anything else.

I know that is what I aim for and do not play fast and loose with phase and time, as you can see from the impulse response of my speakers. I'm glad to say they sound an awful lot like Quad ESLs with more dynamic range and bass extension. For small intimate recordings I want my speakers to sound as close to the Quad's as possible.

I have to give great credit to Peter Walker for giving us the distant lofty target to aim for.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Their behavior in the time domain does not suck. These Quads are among the most time coherent on the planet, as you can tell by the impulse response and its ability to reproduce a square wave.

Now all panel speakers other then the Quads beam like crazy. Peter Walker reasoned that if you place a tight polythene membrane across a room and produce sounds one side, it is perfectly reproduce on the other.

Now the membrane does not move as a whole. It moves like ripples on a pond, with time delays as you move from the center.

This is the genius of these speakers, he reproduced this effect by the "archery target" delays built into the speaker.

The signals are progressively delayed, but the resulting wave form is not! It is highly coherent!

The only deviation in the time domains is related to stored energy in the membrane in the upper frequencies. You can see that in John Atkinson's measurements.

Your statement comes from individuals who do not understand the principle of operation of these speakers. If what you stated was correct, then they would not stand a prayer of reproducing that square wave if free air.

That is why a speaker with fourth order filters turns a square wave into a pretty perfect sine wave. That is time distortion with a vengeance.

The THD of the Quads is 0.1% THD. This is better than most tube amps, and equal to the best of them.

A lot of us including myself have spent a life time trying to get the quality and transparency of Perter Walker's Quad speakers. In fact I think it is fair to say that his throwing down of this benchmark, has contributed more to the improvement of moving coil loudspeakers than anything else.

I know that is what I aim for and do not play fast and loose with phase and time, as you can see from the impulse response of my speakers. I'm glad to say they sound an awful lot like Quad ESLs with more dynamic range and bass extension. For small intimate recordings I want my speakers to sound as close to the Quad's as possible.

I have to give great credit to Peter Walker for giving us the distant lofty target to aim for.

I edited and then deleted that post, because I didn't like my wording, but you caught it before I deleted it. We're talking about two different aspects of time domain behavior. I was clumsily trying to talk about the stored energy you mentioned in the membrane, which is what's responsible for the hash everyone measures in waterfall graphs at high frequencies. Sucks is also the wrong word, but I'm in a surly mood today, and it came out wrong. Anyway, I deleted the post, and I have a hankering for electrostatics regardless of how they measure. Not the Quads, only because of their lack of reasonable bass response, and for a piano lover, they just don't do the trick.

 

[TLS Guy]

I edited and then deleted that post, because I didn't like my wording, but you caught it before I deleted it. We're talking about two different aspects of time domain behavior. I was clumsily trying to talk about the stored energy you mentioned in the Youmembrane, which is what's responsible for the hash everyone measures in waterfall graphs at high frequencies. Sucks is also the wrong word, but I'm in a surly mood today, and it came out wrong. Anyway, I deleted the post, and I have a hankering for electrostatics regardless of how they measure. Not the Quads, only because of their lack of reasonable bass response, and for a piano lover, they just don't do the trick.

If you are going to get bass out of a panel speaker it has to be large. SME in their listening room have four a side in a massive metal gantry.

All panel speakers have retained energy in the HF. I think you can hear it, especially in the Magnepans.

You really can get that airy light footedness in moving coil loudspeaker. It does take a lot of trouble to get there.

Many have commented on how my speakers sound like electrostatics, and have thought the mid line is an electrostatic panel.

 

[herbu]

"Does anyone really like the super-expensive monster speakers"

I'd be willing to bet everyone who spent $50k+ on their speakers will tell you they LOVE them!

 

[slipperybidness]

I do like the ML Neoliths!

 

[tyhjaarpa]

"Does anyone really like the super-expensive monster speakers"

I'd be willing to bet everyone who spent $50k+ on their speakers will tell you they LOVE them!

True. But you don't need to pay tens of thousands to love your speakers.

 

[haraldo]

"Does anyone really like the super-expensive monster speakers"

I'd be willing to bet everyone who spent $50k+ on their speakers will tell you they LOVE them!

If you love the speakes I'd suggest you're on the wrong path....

I'd say the idea is to love what comes out of the speakers

 

[herbu]

haraldo,
You asked the question. I answered it.

 

[haraldo]

haraldo,
You asked the question. I answered it.

Haha, you got me there

 

[DXProSound]

I gotta say. There is something about the way some of those speakers fill a room. I think a lot of them spend more money on the cosmetics than hey should. But, a set of Krells with the right power will take you to where ever that music wants.
You can drive 60mph in a nice Lexus but you know when your driving a Cadi. It ugly and inefficient but at 6-mph it is just effortless and smooth. Make you want a big fat cigar.
With that said, I don't know what kind of salary I'd have to bring home to justify to the wife that we need these.

 

[herbu]

You can drive 60mph in a nice Lexus but you know when your driving a Cadi. It ugly and inefficient but at 6-mph it is just effortless and smooth.

Got to win the prize for auto-analogy-of-the-day.