HELP: Legacy OR Monitor Audio 5.1 set-up? Huge $ decison that I do not want to regret

[AcuDefTechGuy]

What exactly does it mean when you all state that a speaker measures well? What does all of the plus and minus a certain number of decibels mean? On Axis response stands for the response of the field that the speaker is aimed at and off axis is the field surrounding the speaker, but not directly on its path? Some explanations of these terminologies would be beneficial.

You'll have to look at graphs and compare.

On-axis: measuring microphone placed usually perpendicular to tweeter of speaker from usually 1 or 2m distance. Test tones are generated from the speakers that sweeps the freq from usually 20Hz-20kHz. A measuring device like a computer measures the speakers. On the SPL vs Freq graph, you see the plot fluctautes + (above) & - (below) the speaker sensitivity level. Imagine the Flat line is drawn at 90dB across the graph if the sensitivity is 90dB/2.83V/m.

Most of us don't want the on-axis to be more than +3dB/-3dB from the "flat" line from 200Hz-10kHz.

Off-axis is degrees away from the perpendicular line of the speaker. 60 degrees horizontal off-axis is 60 degrees away from perpendicular horizontally. Vertical off-axis is degrees above and below the plane of the tweeter. Most of us want the off-axis to be smooth as possible.

A speaker that measures well usually means the on-axis is less than +/-3dB from 200Hz-10kHz, some say +/-2dB. My B&W 802D2 is +/-2.8dB from 200Hz-10kHz. So I say it measures well. ***hee****hee

Also, many want the off-axis to look smooth from 0 degrees to 60 degrees horizontal and 0-30 degrees vertical or better.

We want good spectral decay (very little cabinet resonance like my 802D2).

Soundstage/NRC also gives us speaker distortion graphs at 90dB-95dB volume from 20Hz-20kHz. Of course, we want low distortion (like KEF 201/2).

I'm sure others will give much better definitions.

 

[addictaudio]

^^^ Thanks.

 

[monkish54]

BTW, why isn't Linkwitz on your list?

I haven't actually read much about his stuff. Even the Orion.

John K's NaO Note looks very well designed.

 

[monkish54]

Nothing against Dennis or his products, but this is very weak reasoning. Nor am I advocating Legacy Audio. Even though I'm a former owner of Legacy products, I tend not to agree with their design philosophy. You might have mentioned that some purchasers with a high degree of credibility here were happy with the Phils (like ADTG and GranteedEV).

My point is that if you limit yourself to speakers that have been tested by organizations like Stereophile or Audioholics, or with designers that have a high degree of internet popularity, you're going to find yourself with very limited choices. I also think you have to actually listen to speakers and make some choices. For example, the KEF 207/2 measured awesomely well in Stereophile, but I heard it twice in excellent dealer listening rooms and I didn't like it as much as I did the Salon 2 or the Orion. If I just looked at the measurements and ordered I would have been disappointed.

I was just explaining why he purchased it without needing 3rd party measurements, not why one should purchase a speaker based on measurement alone.

 

[ridikas]

So you basically love 2 speakers - Epos and Goldmund - that probably have mediocre measurements.

Then wouldn't you say that measurements aren't everything?

Just come clean and admit it.

Sure, I'll go with that...

 

[ridikas]

That is very poor advice. Measurements are easy to manipulate and misinterpret.

It's extremely easy to use junk parts and a simplistic crossover in a two-way speaker system to produce a flat on-axis response curve at low power levels.

It's very difficult to equate loudspeaker measurements to audible preference and large speakers with multiple drivers, sometimes on multiple cabinet faces are very challenging to properly measure.

That's very unfair though Gene. Just looking for flat SPL in measurements is very primitive. I would hope that most people who are seeking measurements are smart enough to understand that there are many variables: Off-axis, distortion, phase and time alignment, diffraction, output, bandwidth, q parameters, port noise, excursion, cabinet resonances, group delay, cone/dome break-up, and much more.

You can't achieve that with simplistic crossovers and junk parts.

And what size speakers are we talking about here? Everything discussed here will sum perfectly at 1-2 meters max.

 

[gene]

That's very unfair though Gene. Just looking for flat SPL in measurements is very primitive. I would hope that most people who are seeking measurements are smart enough to understand that there are many variables: Off-axis, distortion, phase and time alignment, diffraction, output, bandwidth, q parameters, port noise, excursion, cabinet resonances, group delay, and much more.

You can't achieve that with simplistic crossovers and junk parts.

And what size speakers are we talking about here? Everything discussed here will sum perfectly at 1-2 meters max.

Nobody suggested looking just at flat SPL measurements. However most loudspeaker measurements are incomplete, especially involving simplistic distortion sweeps which never show intermodulation products. The distortion tests done at the NRC is a prime example of this.

Loudspeaker measurements are useful at determining general design flaws but you can't just look at a few graphs and declare speaker A will sound "better" than Speaker B.

I wish it were that simple but its not.

 

[ridikas]

Nobody suggested looking just at flat SPL measurements. However most loudspeaker measurements are incomplete, especially involving simplistic distortion sweeps which never show intermodulation products. The distortion tests done at the NRC is a prime example of this.

Loudspeaker measurements are useful at determining general design flaws but you can't just look at a few graphs and declare speaker A will sound "better" than Speaker B.

I wish it were that simple but its not.

Well with that, I agree 100%.

 

[monkish54]

I have a very skewed take on measurements. While many people agree that measurements are great, few feel that way for the reason I do.

I would never buy a loudspeaker without first seeing it measured. Not necessarily by Blowophile, but, my own measurements (or those I trust such as Dennis Murphy). Stereophile, HTM, all of them have weak measurements. I use stereophile for off-axis and cabinet resonance and that's about it. Most of their other graphs are sub par.

I'm not a "listen and measure" kinda guy, I'm the extreme. I have no faith in my human perception, and I look for machine to tell me what's happening. I use my moderate (and growing..thanks, in part, to you Gene!) knowledge of speaker design and my knowledge of perceptual research to decide if speaker A is worth owning.

Why all this emphasis on measurements...and NO listening? ( I do listen..but only to enjoy myself. Not to choose speakers.)

This is where I'm in the minority. I don't look for speakers that are pleasing. Not one bit. A pleasing speaker does nothing for me. Truth be told, I enjoyed my B&W 800 demo. All of you know I don't like it and often "bash" it. This is because it's not neutral. The B&W 800 is like a beautiful instrument. (SOO beautiful.) It has a tonal quality of its own. Some people (myself included) enjoy that, but that's not what I want from my speakers. I want a speaker with ZERO tonal quality of it's own. True hi-fi (not meaning I'm better than anyone, just the true definition.) I can't achieve that without measurement.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I have a very skewed take on measurements. While many people agree that measurements are great, few feel that way for the reason I do.

I would never buy a loudspeaker without first seeing it measured. Not necessarily by Blowophile, but, my own measurements (or those I trust such as Dennis Murphy). Stereophile, HTM, all of them have weak measurements. I use stereophile for off-axis and cabinet resonance and that's about it. Most of their other graphs are sub par.

I'm not a "listen and measure" kinda guy, I'm the extreme. I have no faith in my human perception, and I look for machine to tell me what's happening. I use my moderate (and growing..thanks, in part, to you Gene!) knowledge of speaker design and my knowledge of perceptual research to decide if speaker A is worth owning.

Why all this emphasis on measurements...and NO listening? ( I do listen..but only to enjoy myself. Not to choose speakers.)

This is where I'm in the minority. I don't look for speakers that are pleasing. Not one bit. A pleasing speaker does nothing for me. Truth be told, I enjoyed my B&W 800 demo. All of you know I don't like it and often "bash" it. This is because it's not neutral. The B&W 800 is like a beautiful instrument. (SOO beautiful.) It has a tonal quality of its own. Some people (myself included) enjoy that, but that's not what I want from my speakers. I want a speaker with ZERO tonal quality of it's own. True hi-fi (not meaning I'm better than anyone, just the true definition.) I can't achieve that without measurement.

Maybe Revel can do a DBT between the Studio2 vs 802D2 and settle this once and for all.

 

[monkish54]

Maybe Revel can do a DBT between the Studio2 vs 802D2 and settle this once and for all.

Is this full-range or crossed to 3,000 subwoofers? xD

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Is this full-range or crossed to 3,000 subwoofers? xD

Harman style full range.

Harman's $16,000 Studio2 vs B&W's $15,000 802D2 in full range.

The reason is because the 802D2 (+/-2.8dB HTM) may have better measurements than the 800D2 (+/-5.0dB Stereophile).

 

[addictaudio]

Seems like the opinions and input here have reached a plateau. So much information, that it raised more questions than answers. It would be great if manufacturers posted measurements of all of their speakers online, but very few do that. I believe that the only one that I have seen is Philarmonic from Dennis Murphy, but that is about it. Even so, Gene mentioned that there are different ways to take measurements, and that even a mediocre speaker with inferior components can be made to have accurate measurements. In essence, even when measurements are available, they should be taken with a grain of salt, as the accuracy of the measurements is not for certain. Without any information, I guess that the best decision can only be reached by auditioning and research of materials, crossovers, speakers, etc... But even some speakers with the best components available do not always sound as great as the components used would dictate.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Seems like the opinions and input here have reached a plateau. So much information, that it raised more questions than answers. It would be great if manufacturers posted measurements of all of their speakers online, but very few do that. I believe that the only one that I have seen is Philarmonic from Dennis Murphy, but that is about it. Even so, Gene mentioned that there are different ways to take measurements, and that even a mediocre speaker with inferior components can be made to have accurate measurements. In essence, even when measurements are available, they should be taken with a grain of salt, as the accuracy of the measurements is not for certain. Without any information, I guess that the best decision can only be reached by auditioning and research of materials, crossovers, speakers, etc... But even some speakers with the best components available do not always sound as great as the components used would dictate.

We all have different opinions. You have auditioned both the Legacy and MA. So you're not just comparing measurements alone.

I believe you said you preferred the sound of the MA overall?

1) you Subjectively preferred the SQ of the MA
2) historically the MA Objectively measured better than the Legacy

So both the measurement (objective) and the audition (subjective) seem to favor the Monitor Audio.

Yes, the Legacy weigh more. Yes, they are assembled in the USA (although parts may be China?). Is this important?

 

[Irvrobinson]

2) historically the MA Objectively measured better than the Legacy

So both the measurement (objective) and the audition (subjective) seem to favor the Monitor Audio.

Measurements of past products are irrelevant, and there are no measurements available of the most recent Legacy products. They might be even worse than your historical reference, or they could be a complete turn-around. It is odd that on the one hand you are obsessed with measurements in the search for objectivity, yet you are willing to quote irrelevant data, which is much worse than subjectivity. And, even the irrelevant data you've quoted is from a completely different and unrelated design than the one being discussed. Impressive!

 

[zieglj01]

Without any information, I guess that the best decision can only be reached by auditioning and research of materials, crossovers, speakers, etc... But even some speakers with the best components available do not always sound as great as the components used would dictate.

Listening and enjoying the source, coming through the speakers
is the most important thing. >> The key thing is, are you really
enjoying, or are you distracted by the speakers. > If you are not
distracted by the sound quality coming from the speakers - then
forget about all the other objective and subjective stuff.

Life is short - do not let all this A to Z stuff, drive you around in
a circle.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Measurements of past products are irrelevant, and there are no measurements available of the most recent Legacy products. They might be even worse than your historical reference, or they could be a complete turn-around. It is odd that on the one hand you are obsessed with measurements in the search for objectivity, yet you are willing to quote irrelevant data, which is much worse than subjectivity. And, even the irrelevant data you've quoted is from a completely different and unrelated design than the one being discussed. Impressive!

It could be very different. We may know in a few months. Best thing is to wait it out.

But has the company's philosophy changed? Are they going from "ear-tuned" to now super flat +/-1dB philosophy?

If their philosophy has not changed (still owned by the same guy, still ear-tuned, etc), then history is not as irrelevant as subjective opinions. Just because the drivers are different does not change their philosophy.

They could have changed. There are a lot of unknowns and variables. But as of today, that's all the facts we have.

 

[zieglj01]

We all have different opinions. You have auditioned both the Legacy and MA. So you're not just comparing measurements alone.

I believe you said you preferred the sound of the MA overall?

1) you Subjectively preferred the SQ of the MA

That is the way it looked to me also - I would be more concerned about
how it sounded to me, and not allow the subjective/objective curve balls
to distract me.

 

[addictaudio]

AcuDefTechGuy, out of curiosity, have you even been able to personally audition any of the Legacy Audio speakers?

Unfortunately, the auditioning was less than ideal for both MA and Legacy Audio. For the MA set-up, it was powered by a Marantz receiver (lower end version with only 100 watts per channel as far as receivers go), two GX 300 towers, the RX Sliver Center, and Broze surrounds. So this was a total sonic mismatch, as each series has different tweeters and frequency response (especially with the GX having ribbons and the rest in the set-up not having any). This was also via a Blue Ray with a subwoofer in the mix as well. For the Legacy Auditioning, it was via CD's in two channel mode only (no subwoofer), as they did not have a center channel or surround sound speakers. Additionally, the Signature SE did not have the new dual air motion tweeter, which is an improvement over the set-up that they had.

 

[addictaudio]

irvrobinson, it appears like you do like Legacy. Do you currently have or had any of their speakers?