High end system to my living room, MOST HELP PLEASE!!!!!

[lsiberian]

I think should to add subwoofer to anysystem and that important to some people.
Also the ribbon tweeters are important to some people also
But i need ask you a quistion.
Mr isiberian can you tell me anything about Philharmonc 3 ? Anything !

Dennis Murphy can tell you far more than I can since he actually designed them. If I were buying speakers they would be on the short list of my consideration. From builders perspective RAALs are pricey, but in a commercial speaker it really doesn't matter that much. I'm definitely not against the RAAL in anyway. Nor am I an anti-ribbon person. I'm using ribbons not RAALs(they didn't exist back when I started the build)

 

[SearchofSub]

For one, the Tektons are very "energetic" speakers. It has excellent dynamics. Its punchy and if your listeing/movie choice are hip hop, metal, and pop and most of your movie viewngs are action then I'd give Tekon a try. If on the other hand, you like jazz, classical music and prefer Drama type movies the I'd go for the Phil 3's.

I'm more of a hip-hop/action then jazz/classical/drama type of movies so I went with the dynamics which are the enzo's. Now, if you get a sub in the mix, Its a different story.

I heard the Phil 3's transperency is excellent... And I am assuming that Phil 3's beat the Tekton's as far as the transperency go.. From what I've read, Tekton are mostly praised for energy and dynamics and a "live" feel vs . the accuracy,transperency and "hifi" feel the Phil 3's have I suppose...

 

[lsiberian]

The cost of the RAAL is irrelevant--it's the cost of the final speaker that counts. Hopefully buyers will be comparing speaker prices, not component costs. Why do you "only get a horizontal reflection" with the RAAL? They are designed to be used with pads that increase vertical dispersion to about the equivalent of a 1" dome. And you can position them closer together to reduce high frequency energy if that is desired. Finally, very broad vertical dispersion is not necessarily a good thing. Ceiling reflections can mess up lateral imaging with no real compensating advantage. You just want sufficient vertical dispersion to avoid a very narrow sweet spot that collapses when you stand up.

I'm not nearly as familiar with the RAALs as you are and I've actually never heard the vertical dispersion issue in any ribbon before, but some people claim it can be an issue. I agree component cost is a terrible measure of any speaker because I've not found a lot of correlation between component cost and quality anyway. Ultimately its not the drivers, but the engineer that makes a great speaker. The Phils definitely demonstrate this. I've not withdrawn my endorsement of them in anyway. Yes RAALs may find their way into my future builds.

 

[lsiberian]

For one, the Tektons are very "energetic" speakers. It has excellent dynamics. Its punchy and if your listeing/movie choice are hip hop, metal, and pop and most of your movie viewngs are action then I'd give Tekon a try. If on the other hand, you like jazz, classical music and prefer Drama type movies the I'd go for the Phil 3's.

I'm more of a hip-hop/action then jazz/classical/drama type of movies so I went with the dynamics which are the enzo's. Now, if you get a sub in the mix, Its a different story.

I heard the Phil 3's transperency is excellent... And I am assuming that Phil 3's beat the Tekton's as far as the transperency go.. From what I've read, Tekton are mostly praised for energy and dynamics and a "live" feel vs . the accuracy,transperency and "hifi" feel the Phil 3's have I suppose...

It may be a port vs damped TL effect. It could also be a level matching issue, but with a great amp you can certainly get plenty out of the Phils

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I'm not nearly as familiar with the RAALs as you are and I've actually never heard the vertical dispersion issue in any ribbon before, but some people claim it can be an issue. I know some companies have upgraded existing designs with the RAALs at a higher cost. I agree component cost is a terrible measure of any speaker. I've not found a lot of correlation between cost and quality in components. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from buying a RAAL containing speaker either.

I didn't really think you were. And I agree with you about the lack of a consistent correlation between price and quality, or at least between quality differences that come close to justifying the cost difference. But I do think the RAAL is an exception, as are the Scan Speak Revelator series woofers. People often ask why I use a midrange in the Phil 3's that costs 1/3 as much as the tweeter and woofer. It's because that's the best midrange I could find for my purposes. I've never heard the Tektons, but would very much like to. I'm not sure anyone has done a studied comparison of the Tek's and the Phil's. Until someone does, I think we're just guessing about their relative virtues.

 

[SearchofSub]

I have heard them and they are one of the most impressive towers I have ever heard.
As I have stated a few times in other threads, a pair of these {with the regular tweeter, I have heard them both and prefer the std tweeter, although the ribbon is awesome, I think the std tweeter sounds better with the music we were listening to}, with an HSU uls15 dual drive, an Emotiva XLS1, and an Emotiva XPA2 is one of the best bang for your buck systems available, for $6000 I will put it against anything costing much more.. I have heard systems all over the world {OK all over the US and a few in Europe and that arrangement of components did it all, the bass was fast and deep, the mids and highs were as perfect as I have ever heard defined warm with zero fatigue, you can listen to them speakers all day.. Plus the versatility was amazing, from old recordings of Satchmo's what a wonderfull world to Eminem's Lose yourself the setup did everything perfect, we listened to Aerosmith, Bruce, jazz tracks from 80 years ago, and then someone started a track by Timbaland called Apologize and although its not my favorite type of music, the digital sounds and voice was mesmerizing it is now one of my "test your system songs" along with Sinead Oconnors rendition of silent night...

If you want something warm, realistic, strong, defined and a pleasure to listen to for hours, the Ascends are your guys, I hear really good things about the Phil 3s but the looks of the cabinets kill me, and I have heard from 2 people I trust in the audio field that say the sierras sound better {with Ribbon Im not sure if they ever heard them without}....

We all have our preferences, For music I prefer 2.2, I have tried a few other things, but to me if you want something that "does it all" you want a decent speaker crossed around 70-100 high pass and then at least one sub to handle the low end but 2 seems to make the system easier to tune for some reason, seamless....


Interesting... I am aware that 2 subs over 1 makes the bass smoother but to what extent?

Would you rather get two Hsu 2.4 over one VTF 15H?

 

[lsiberian]

I have heard them and they are one of the most impressive towers I have ever heard.
As I have stated a few times in other threads, a pair of these {with the regular tweeter, I have heard them both and prefer the std tweeter, although the ribbon is awesome, I think the std tweeter sounds better with the music we were listening to}, with an HSU uls15 dual drive, an Emotiva XLS1, and an Emotiva XPA2 is one of the best bang for your buck systems available, for $6000 I will put it against anything costing much more.. I have heard systems all over the world {OK all over the US and a few in Europe and that arrangement of components did it all, the bass was fast and deep, the mids and highs were as perfect as I have ever heard defined warm with zero fatigue, you can listen to them speakers all day.. Plus the versatility was amazing, from old recordings of Satchmo's what a wonderfull world to Eminem's Lose yourself the setup did everything perfect, we listened to Aerosmith, Bruce, jazz tracks from 80 years ago, and then someone started a track by Timbaland called Apologize and although its not my favorite type of music, the digital sounds and voice was mesmerizing it is now one of my "test your system songs" along with Sinead Oconnors rendition of silent night...

If you want something warm, realistic, strong, defined and a pleasure to listen to for hours, the Ascends are your guys, I hear really good things about the Phil 3s but the looks of the cabinets kill me, and I have heard from 2 people I trust in the audio field that say the sierras sound better {with Ribbon Im not sure if they ever heard them without}....

We all have our preferences, For music I prefer 2.2, I have tried a few other things, but to me if you want something that "does it all" you want a decent speaker crossed around 70-100 high pass and then at least one sub to handle the low end but 2 seems to make the system easier to tune for some reason, seamless....


Interesting... I am aware that have 2 subs over 1 makes the bass smoother but to what extent?

Would you rather ge Hsu 2.4 over one VTF 15H?

The Salks have more traditional cabinets, but I think you underrate just how good a finishing job the Phils have. I know Alex loved the finish on his Salks in person. I think a unique looking speaker adds to the character of a system. 2 subs are easier to smooth, but I always say get the best sub you can then add another one down the line rather than compromising now.

 

[SearchofSub]

Phil 3's in piano black gloss finish would look pretty good. I dont know how much the custom job is but if I did get the Phil 3's I'd definately get that color. I definately dont think there is anything wrong with the looks of the Phil 3's, the Wilson MAXX III's look similar to the Phil's, and some love the way it looks.

 

[SearchofSub]

The Salks have more traditional cabinets, but I think you underrate just how good a finishing job the Phils have. I know Alex loved the finish on his Salks in person. I think a unique looking speaker adds to the character of a system. 2 subs are easier to smooth, but I always say get the best sub you can then add another one down the line rather than compromising now.

I already purchased a Tekton 12' sub that hits 18 hz. I don't think anyone has a 12' Tekton sub that hits 18hz yet. I will be the first one and when I get it I plan to do measurement and post it on this forum since rocky asked to leave a review.

The reason why I ask this is because I'm not sure spending another $500 for another Tekton sub (same model) would be worth it. I am in a 13 x 13 x 10 hardwood room.

 

[A330-200]

I didn't really think you were. And I agree with you about the lack of a consistent correlation between price and quality, or at least between quality differences that come close to justifying the cost difference. But I do think the RAAL is an exception, as are the Scan Speak Revelator series woofers. People often ask why I use a midrange in the Phil 3's that costs 1/3 as much as the tweeter and woofer. It's because that's the best midrange I could find for my purposes. I've never heard the Tektons, but would very much like to. I'm not sure anyone has done a studied comparison of the Tek's and the Phil's. Until someone does, I think we're just guessing about their relative virtues.

Because some people says philharmonic 3 is a speaker of classical music.
Mr dennis, yours philharmonic 3 made to listen and interesting all kind of music ? Or not, also your speaker made to movies or listen to music (i think the ribbon is more more musical use ) or both? (Very important question to me). Excuse me .

 

[A330-200]

Dennis Murphy can tell you far more than I can since he actually designed them. If I were buying speakers they would be on the short list of my consideration. From builders perspective RAALs are pricey, but in a commercial speaker it really doesn't matter that much. I'm definitely not against the RAAL in anyway. Nor am I an anti-ribbon person. I'm using ribbons not RAALs(they didn't exist back when I started the build)

I know dennis have the best answer but i am now ask you mr isiberian : tell me anything on philharmonic 3 ?

 

[A330-200]

Because some people says philharmonic 3 is a speaker of classical music.
Mr dennis, yours philharmonic 3 made to listen and interesting all kind of music ? Or not, also your speaker made to movies or listen to music or both? (Very important question to me). Excuse me .

Also mr dennis we all know you can make a speakers that are different in shapes than the shapes of two phils 2,3, what's the sense in choosing this shape of speaker (cabinet if the meaning is true).
I feel the shape selected to your speakers to specific kind of music.

 

[lsiberian]

Also mr dennis we all know you can make a speakers that are different in shapes than the shapes of two phils 2,3, what's the sense in choosing this shape of speaker (cabinet if the meaning is true).
I feel the shape selected to your speakers to specific kind of music.

The goal of every good speaker engineer is to make the most accurate, loudest playing speaker they can given a budget. Good speakers can play anything.

Some companies do offer different shapes, but IMO the drivers and crossover circuits are far more important than the shape assuming you have something reasonable. You never know until you actually listen to a speaker how good it is. I suggest you find a Phil owner and pay a visit or buy them and try them in your room. I would recommend the 3s if you can swing it. You will want an external amp for them. I recommend the Yamaha P Series amps or Emotiva XPA-3. You might also find a good external amp on the used market.

 

[A330-200]

The goal of every good speaker engineer is to make the most accurate, loudest playing speaker they can given a budget. Good speakers can play anything.

Some companies do offer different shapes, but IMO the drivers and crossover circuits are far more important than the shape assuming you have something reasonable. You never know until you actually listen to a speaker how good it is. I suggest you find a Phil owner and pay a visit or buy them and try them in your room. I would recommend the 3s if you can swing it. You will want an external amp for them. I recommend the Yamaha P Series amps or Emotiva XPA-3. You might also find a good external amp on the used market.

Ok, but i need to know what is the maximum recommended power to drive them (Phil 3).
I need to know the power (RMS) of philharmonic 3 which not explain anything of it in thier website.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Ok, but i need to know what is the maximum recommended power to drive them (Phil 3).
I need to know the power (RMS) of philharmonic 3 which not explain anything of it in thier website.

I am powering my piano gloss red mahogany Phil3 w/ just a Denon 3312 AVR in a 18' x 20' living room. I can play them to very loud volume - as loud as I am willing to tolerate, which is a total max of 105dBC, but average of about 85dBC.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Ok, but i need to know what is the maximum recommended power to drive them (Phil 3).
I need to know the power (RMS) of philharmonic 3 which not explain anything of it in thier website.

I would think the minimum power is more meaningful than the maximum. And for the Phil's that would be about 100 wpc. I've run the 3's in a very large conference room with a carpeted floor, thick curtains, and acoustic ceiling tile to deafening levels using a 400 wpc amp, with no audible or visible signs of strain. In any event, an underpowered amp that's into clipping probably poses more of a danger to a speaker than a very high horsepower amp with lots of headroom. So I would recommend at least 100 clean watts, and probably a bit more. As for cabinet shape, the 3 is strictly a form-follows-function approach that was not intended to achieve a high SAF score. The bass cabinet is as deep as it is because it's a folded transmission line. The speaker would practically have hit the ceiling if I had used an unfolded tower. The upper cabinet slopes the way it does to minimize parallel surfaces and to reduce the baffle area around the tweeter. What you end up with looks like a truncated church steeple, but there are acoustic reasons behind the shape. The new tower trades off a little on these design principles to achieve a smaller footprint and greater acceptance by the final decision-maker in a lot of my sales.

 

[SearchofSub]

Also mr dennis we all know you can make a speakers that are different in shapes than the shapes of two phils 2,3, what's the sense in choosing this shape of speaker (cabinet if the meaning is true).
I feel the shape selected to your speakers to specific kind of music.

I read on a review article that speaker designers select specific cabinets for the drivers. Cabinet size and shapes make a difference in sound to an extent. Its not for aesthetic purposes only, but has to do more with adding or getting the best performance for the drivers the designer choose to go with.

 

[SearchofSub]

I would think the minimum power is more meaningful than the maximum. And for the Phil's that would be about 100 wpc. I've run the 3's in a very large conference room with a carpeted floor, thick curtains, and acoustic ceiling tile to deafening levels using a 400 wpc amp, with no audible or visible signs of strain. In any event, an underpowered amp that's into clipping probably poses more of a danger to a speaker than a very high horsepower amp with lots of headroom. So I would recommend at least 100 clean watts, and probably a bit more. As for cabinet shape, the 3 is strictly a form-follows-function approach that was not intended to achieve a high SAF score. The bass cabinet is as deep as it is because it's a folded transmission line. The speaker would practically have hit the ceiling if I had used an unfolded tower. The upper cabinet slopes the way it does to minimize parallel surfaces and to reduce the baffle area around the tweeter. What you end up with looks like a truncated church steeple, but there are acoustic reasons behind the shape. The new tower trades off a little on these design principles to achieve a smaller footprint and greater acceptance by the final decision-maker in a lot of my sales.

Oops.. as explained by the designer himself.

 

[lsiberian]

I read on a review article that speaker designers select specific cabinets for the drivers. Cabinet size and shapes make a difference in sound to an extent. Its not for aesthetic purposes only, but has to do more with adding or getting the best performance for the drivers the designer choose to go with.

That is certainly true, but most speakers are prism shaped. They are much easier to construct that way.

 

[A330-200]

If i take the Phil'3 i will drive them by something 200 or 250w from Brystol or McIntosch amps.