Legacy Audio Signature SE Speaker Review

[Gmoney]

No... I just want to play with other peoples gear and learn how to do legit measurements!

You got really good gear! I wanta Beta test!!

 

[Irvrobinson]

Ouch ... you guys are little rough on an old man explaining why these are the last speakers he will buy. Sometimes it's not about the measurement but the the preference of someone whose spent his life as an audiophile?

Old man? Watch yourself, sonny. 60s is not old. And subjective preference is pretty useless, especially in such a weird set-up. As a supplement to measured data, subjective impressions can be useful, but without measurements there's no point of reference. Even then, IMO, the subjective stuff is secondary.

 

[mazersteven]

Clean Up needed on Aisle Legacy

 

[jeffca]

I've always been fascinated by Bill Dudleston's larger designs. He creates some very compelling speakers and I'm a fan of DSP and active designs.

I do, though, depart from not just his, but everyone's speakers when it comes to the efficacy and necessity of $8K, passive, monkey coffins such as this.

A well designed 2.2 sub/sat system will give you superior performance for the same price or less. The reasons are manifold: true active bi-amping, low bass not polluting the mids by having separate cabinets, the freedom to place the satellites where they image the best while placing the subs where they offer the smoothest in room performance, etc. These are substantial advantages you can't get from any single cabinet loudspeaker.
.
It is a bit more of work to set it up, but the pay off is worth the pain. Anyone who will spend $8K on a pair of speakers should know enough to sort out a sub/sat system in about the same time as these boxes.

 

[VMPS-TIII]

I've always been fascinated by Bill Dudleston's larger designs. He creates some very compelling speakers and I'm a fan of DSP and active designs.

I do, though, depart from not just his, but everyone's speakers when it comes to the efficacy and necessity of $8K, passive, monkey coffins such as this.

A well designed 2.2 sub/sat system will give you superior performance for the same price or less. The reasons are manifold: true active bi-amping, low bass not polluting the mids by having separate cabinets, the freedom to place the satellites where they image the best while placing the subs where they offer the smoothest in room performance, etc. These are substantial advantages you can't get from any single cabinet loudspeaker.
.
It is a bit more of work to set it up, but the pay off is worth the pain. Anyone who will spend $8K on a pair of speakers should know enough to sort out a sub/sat system in about the same time as these boxes.

View attachment 39118

I have both setups in the form of Canton Vento 9.2 Reference Bookshelves matched with HSU subs in one room and VMPS 7' SuperTower III's matched with a VMPS TallBoy sub in another. It's pretty clear the 7' towers kick butt compared to the bookshelf/Sub setup.

My experience is your theory doesn't always pan out. It's possible you can get a good sound with separate bass and tweeter boxes but there are more factors that determine the final power and quality of the setup.

 

[Grandzoltar]

If by kick butt you mean spl in the mids and upper then yeah definitely 7' towers will out play. But 2-4 strategically placed subwoofers of 15" will offer a smoother response its no theory its measurable. All in one boxes are cool its a technological accomplishment. Show us some rew plots to test your theory.

 

[Kvn_Walker]

Some people might value floor space. 2 speakers is 2 speakers. 2 speakers + 4 subs is taking up the square footage of 6 speakers. "technically better" doesn't always translate into "ergonomically feasible."

Then you have power usage. One amp or five?

If it works for some, that's fine. But if someone is happy with 2 speakers and an amp, more power to them.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I've always been fascinated by Bill Dudleston's larger designs. He creates some very compelling speakers and I'm a fan of DSP and active designs.

I do, though, depart from not just his, but everyone's speakers when it comes to the efficacy and necessity of $8K, passive, monkey coffins such as this.

A well designed 2.2 sub/sat system will give you superior performance for the same price or less. The reasons are manifold: true active bi-amping, low bass not polluting the mids by having separate cabinets, the freedom to place the satellites where they image the best while placing the subs where they offer the smoothest in room performance, etc. These are substantial advantages you can't get from any single cabinet loudspeaker.
.
It is a bit more of work to set it up, but the pay off is worth the pain. Anyone who will spend $8K on a pair of speakers should know enough to sort out a sub/sat system in about the same time as these boxes.

View attachment 39118

What crossover frequency do you use for the pictured set-up?

 

[jeffreynoah]

Mr. Feinstein: May you enjoy your speakers for the rest of your life. But no other speakers can match the accuracy of electrostatics. All testers report unequalled clarity. The test data show distortion levels at below 0.1%. No other speakers can equal such clarity. The primary USA label is Martin Logan. Give those or any other electrostatic speakers a try.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Mr. Feinstein: May you enjoy your speakers for the rest of your life. But no other speakers can match the accuracy of electrostatics. All testers report unequalled clarity. The test data show distortion levels at below 0.1%. No other speakers can equal such clarity. The primary USA label is Martin Logan. Give those or any other electrostatic speakers a try.

So if someone on the internet says that his Bose has a ”distortion level below 0.09%”, it means his Bose sound better than anything else?

But I’m glad you mentioned that 0.1% distortion is the best in the world for speakers because everyone on ASR talks like distortion greater than 0.003% is worse than their $40 dongle, so they’re aiming for distortion of 0.0003%.

 

[shadyJ]

Electrostats are not the last word in accuracy, far from it. In fact, nearly every single measurement of an electrostatic speaker I have ever seen was "eccentric" to say the least. I have heard some electrostats that I thought sounded good, but I doubt very much that it was an accurate sound, at least by the standards of a decent studio monitor.

 

[KEW]

With a crossover at 180 Hz, that crossover at least should have been active. Inductors that big in series with bass drivers in never a good plan, no exceptions.

Everyone thinks they know best.

I KNOW I will never want to cram any amps inside a body of a speaker or subwoofer, just like how you will never want to cram some amps inside the body of a pre-pro. NO EXCEPTIONS. No double-standards and no excuses.

If you think TLSGuy has amps inside his speaker cabinets, you would be wrong!

 

[TLS Guy]

Electrostats are not the last word in accuracy, far from it. In fact, nearly every single measurement of an electrostatic speaker I have ever seen was "eccentric" to say the least. I have heard some electrostats that I thought sounded good, but I doubt very much that it was an accurate sound, at least by the standards of a decent studio monitor.

The Quad ESL 63 is a very accurate speaker. It is different from the rest as it does no beam because of the delay lines. The problem with electrostatics is that they are limited in the bass, and also dynamically limited. They need protection to activate beyond a precise limit or you get a spark and hole in the membrane. The main reason Peter Walker invented and developed the electrostatic speaker was very largely as a reference as they truly lack coloration, and they have great detail, transparency and lightness of touch. I have always kept that sound as a yardstick. I design my speakers to sound like Quad electrostatics without the dynamic and LF limitations. I have often had visitors ask me if my speakers use electrostatic panels. I regard that as a great compliment.

I have to say though that other electrostatics I have heard, have only impressed me in a largely negative sense.

Peter Walker also personally demonstrated the square wave test to me. The Quad ESL 63 can actually generate an accurate square wave as detected by a mic connected to an o-scope. Two can still produce this wave at a distance. When the phase of one speakers is reversed the square wave is converted to a null. So that claim was true and I saw it with my own eyes. I am not aware of any other speaker capable of doing that.

 

[TLS Guy]

If you think TLSGuy has amps inside his speaker cabinets, you would be wrong!

They are all here.

With 650 ft of speaker cable transmitting 18 channels of audio to 11 speakers.

 

[D Murphy]

Mr. Feinstein: May you enjoy your speakers for the rest of your life. But no other speakers can match the accuracy of electrostatics. All testers report unequalled clarity. The test data show distortion levels at below 0.1%. No other speakers can equal such clarity. The primary USA label is Martin Logan. Give those or any other electrostatic speakers a try.

The term "distortion" just means some difference between the input signal and the output from the speaker. A deviation in frequency response is distortion, and probably far greater than the results of typical THD tests performed on speakers. What difference does it make if a speaker is largely free of spurious overtones when fed a 1 kHz test signal if the speaker then clocks in with a 5 dB peak at 5 kHz? That's distortion.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

If you think TLSGuy has amps inside his speaker cabinets, you would be wrong!

He advocates for active speakers with amps INSIDE them, unless I am mistaken all along.

So my point is that I would NEVER personally want amps inside my 200 LBS speakers.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Electrostats are not the last word in accuracy, far from it. In fact, nearly every single measurement of an electrostatic speaker I have ever seen was "eccentric" to say the least. I have heard some electrostats that I thought sounded good, but I doubt very much that it was an accurate sound, at least by the standards of a decent studio monitor.

If you measure at a sufficiently far listening seat (in my experience >10 feet) you get a pretty decent result from electrostatics. On the other hand, only big electrostatics (like the Soundlabs) satisfy me, and they are a huge expense and dominate even a very large room. Little ones (ha!) like the Quads have intrigued me in the past, especially when I heard my first set in 1970s, but for solo piano I've always found the Quads I've heard unacceptable. Admittedly it's been quite a while, so perhaps the newest models are better. It's also a myth IMO that you need super-amplifiers to power them.

 

[mazersteven]

They are all here.

With 650 ft of speaker cable transmitting 18 channels of audio to 11 speakers.

What amps are they?

 

[Irvrobinson]

What amps are they?

Old Quads. The only amps that exist for Mark.

 

[KEW]

He advocates for active speakers with amps INSIDE them, unless I am mistaken all along.

Pretty sure you are mistaken on that count.
I cannot remember him ever saying they needed to have amps inside, only that active crossovers are a superior design.
It is true that most active speakers systems have the amps inside (just as do most subs); however, that is absolutely not a requirement!