Loudspeakers That Do It All

[andyr]

Are you referring to the LS3/5as? The ones I enjoy Stravinsky, Motorhead, & PiL Metal Box/Second Edition on? Girl & guitar hardly gets a look in here!

Without going into detail, I do agree about amplification.

Thank you, Hb.

Yes, I was referring to spkrs like that - and other stand-mounts.

If you like Bob Marley, Yello or Bach organ music then - to hear all that the recording has to offer, all I have to say is ... you need to add a pair of subs.

 

[Hazelberry]

If you like Bob Marley, Yello or Bach organ music then - to hear all that the recording has to offer, all I have to say is ... you need to add a pair of subs.

I enjoy Yello on my microspeakers too! I’ve not given Bach’s organ work a try yet, hmmm.

 

[Woodface]

Shirley, the issue is ... would other spkrs make those genres sound even better!!??

Although, as HB posted:



And what one listens to - people whose taste runs to female vocals plus guitar are likely to be more easily pleased than those who like to listen to Bach organ music.



And that, to me, is key!

Case in point - a mate of mine recently bought some (s/hand) MBL 101s. The person he bought them from had only had them for a few months - he got rid of them because, as he told Con ... just didn't "float his boat". Which is not surprising since he was driving them with a 100w amp - admittedly, a very expensive one (Vitus maybe?).

Con could see that the MBLs weren't delivering what they were capable of - so he uses:
* a pair of 250w ARC tube monoblocs for the mids & tweeters
* with a pair of 2400w (into 4 ohms) Class D monoblocs for the bass
* plus 2x 18" sealed subs!

The spkrs - in his 11m x 6m acoustically-treated room - sound absolutely amazing. They are the only spkrs I've heard (and before Con bought the MBLs, we went to listen to a few $300K spkrs) that really do "deliver it all" - but they do need subs!

I can’t listen to every speaker, I only have a certain amount of money. It gets to a point where you have to consider whether ‘better’ always equates to enjoyment. I love listening to music, as long as my system enables that then it’s good enough.

 

[camverton]

I can’t listen to every speaker, I only have a certain amount of money. It gets to a point where you have to consider whether ‘better’ always equates to enjoyment. I love listening to music, as long as my system enables that then it’s good enough.

That is a very sensible outlook to have.

I used to think the same with my various electrostatics, my speaker of choice, and then I made the “mistake” of buying a pair of entry level MBLs. I then found the electrostatics slightly less than adequate!

Ah well, perhaps happiness is not realising the limitations of our equipment; oh, and reading hifi forums .

 

[camverton]

This is the trouble with most comments on forums that are supporting most system "up-grades"...

I use speakers that I got second-hand in 1974, and they have remained in essentially the same system that has not changes since the late 1980's. The sound is quite satisfactory for me, and has been since the changes to amplifiers in the 1980's. They will sound inadequate to many here, and they will not suit everyone, and they will not suit every type of music.

Modern fashion has delivered a different voicing to speakers, and for me at least (and bearing in mind my old ears) do not appeal. There is much that can be explored here, and not in this thread perhaps.

Like automobile design, the desire for manufacturers (and salesman) is to get the market place to buy a new model every few years. Ford started this when he had mobilised the masses of America, and he could see his sales declining. Cars could be made to last a lifetime, ask a classic car owner? Do the new models deliver anything more than driving from a to b? Maybe a discussion also for another thread.

My ancient speakers were well designed with clear objectives (that might have stood the test of time but for fashion change) and were extensively and expensively researched (which has lead to some of the fashion developments, spin off designs if you like) and delivered the objective.

If you have not guessed, I have used Rogers BBC Studio Monitors since 1974!

Also I have speakers that are used in a near field situation at my desk in the dining room.

Of course your experience will be quite different...

Indeed, that our experiences are different is what makes these threads interesting. One of the best sound at Scalford 2016 was a pair of Rogers speakers with a reel to reel tape front end. Whilst the sound per se was really all one might wish for, I think the real interest in speakers is the way in which they can interact with the room to give a convincing illusion of the original performance. Of course if one’s set up is near field this becomes a lot less relevant.

 

[marshanp]

...Big omnis might do it for some. IME they give an astonishing impression of a real concert hall when playing classical but they fall to bits on timing when required to play rock music...

That's probably a fairly true description of my Duevel Venus speakers... but I hardly ever play anything that could be called "rock music". My whole system is voiced to sound its best with large-scale classical music in my smallish room, and the omni "window effect" is the only way to get the particular illusion I'm after.

For those who spend some time with omnis and become accustomed to their presentation, there is no longer any other speaker type that need be considered - as omni users on this forum consistently report.

 

[andyr]

I enjoy Yello on my microspeakers too! I’ve not given Bach’s organ work a try yet, hmmm.

I'm sure you do, Hb - and on your car spkrs.

It's not about just 'enjoying' ... it's hearing all that's on the recording!

 

[Hazelberry]

My car system is rubbish, Andy! I’m happy just to get the gist of things.

I’ve heard systems where you can hear “everything”, more or less, but they aren’t necessarily enjoyable to listen to. And they’d be completely impractical both in my room & for my budget.

 

[camverton]

To do it all, a pair of speakers needs to cover the full audio bandwidth and be able to play fairly loud. That rules out small speakers.
Big omnis might do it for some. IME they give an astonishing impression of a real concert hall when playing classical but they fall to bits on timing when required to play rock music.
Big ATCs produce bass that I couldn't live with.
Big panels probably get closest to doing it all, but they need positioning correctly in a sympathetic room.
Dutch and Dutch 8Cs were very competent (in my room), but not top class.
I didn't hear anything at the Munich Show that did it all, most were not very good at anything except loudness and sounding "hi-end".
Never heard Beolab 90s. Maybe they can do it all?

Thankfully there are speakers that are enjoyable to listen to, without doing it all.

I’m not sure what big omnis you have experience of but my Borderlands make a decent job of rock without falling to bits. When it comes to timing, assuming we mean the same thing, some classical such as harpsichord requires that to be even more spot on, again something that sounds excellent, to my ears on my omni system, not quite so good with stats and (relatively) worst of all on a pair of Kef LS50s. I do think that the performance of omnis is very dependant on the room and their positioning within. FWIW I do listen more intently, and more often, to classical than rock.

 

[Colin L]

Shirley, the issue is ... would other spkrs make those genres sound even better!!??

Although, as HB posted:



And what one listens to - people whose taste runs to female vocals plus guitar are likely to be more easily pleased than those who like to listen to Bach organ music.



And that, to me, is key!

Case in point - a mate of mine recently bought some (s/hand) MBL 101s. The person he bought them from had only had them for a few months - he got rid of them because, as he told Con ... just didn't "float his boat". Which is not surprising since he was driving them with a 100w amp - admittedly, a very expensive one (Vitus maybe?).

Con could see that the MBLs weren't delivering what they were capable of - so he uses:
* a pair of 250w ARC tube monoblocs for the mids & tweeters
* with a pair of 2400w (into 4 ohms) Class D monoblocs for the bass
* plus 2x 18" sealed subs!

The spkrs - in his 11m x 6m acoustically-treated room - sound absolutely amazing. They are the only spkrs I've heard (and before Con bought the MBLs, we went to listen to a few $300K spkrs) that really do "deliver it all" - but they do need subs!

Your mate is a lucky boy to benefit from someone’s basic error. 100w is far too small to drive 101’s properly. I use the MBL 9008a reference mono’s which will do a better job than the ARCs alone. I had thought of using more amps on the bass drivers but not tried it yet. I’d be interested to know what he uses.

Im not sure I NEED subs in my much smaller room (approx. 8m x 5.5m) but I hope to try some big RELs on demo at some point, just for S&G.

 

[andyr]

Your mate is a lucky boy to benefit from someone’s basic error.

Indeed he is - but I see so many people using a 'eunuch' amp with their spkrs - when they really need an amp which has balls!

I use the MBL 9008a reference monos which will do a better job than the ARCs alone. I had thought of using more amps on the bass drivers but not tried it yet. I’d be interested to know what he uses.

Very nice!

I think Con uses a pair of "Ncore 1200" monoblocs. (1200w into 8 ohms and 2400 into 4.)

I'm not sure I NEED subs in my much smaller room (approx. 8m x 5.5m) but I hope to try some big RELs on demo at some point, just for S&G.

I wouldn't call 8 x 5.5m exactly small!

I suspect that once you hear what subs can do ... you will be hooked. Certainly, when I added a pair of 15" sealed subs to my big, true-ribbon Maggies in 2016 ... I wished I had done it 20 years before!

But do yourself a favour and try out some non-REL subs. And feed them with a low-level connection.

 

[Colin L]

Andy, I had a pair or Wilson Benesch Torus subs working with B&W 800’s in a previous system in the same room. Nice, but not life changing. My brother has them now so I may get the back some time and give it a go.

 

[andyr]

Andy, I had a pair or Wilson Benesch Torus subs working with B&W 800’s in a previous system in the same room. Nice, but not life changing. My brother has them now so I may get the back some time and give it a go.

Very nice - yes, give them a go!

 

[S-Man]

I’m not sure what big omnis you have experience of but my Borderlands make a decent job of rock without falling to bits. When it comes to timing, assuming we mean the same thing, some classical such as harpsichord requires that to be even more spot on, again something that sounds excellent, to my ears on my omni system, not quite so good with stats and (relatively) worst of all on a pair of Kef LS50s. I do think that the performance of omnis is very dependant on the room and their positioning within. FWIW I do listen more intently, and more often, to classical than rock.

I heard Temporal Coherence Diamants at length at the designers home. I've never heard orchestral music reproduced as well as this system, however I was shocked at how wrong Blondie's Platinum Blonde sounded. This is even more surprising given that the designers have put huge effort into the "temporal conherence" of the design:
https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/Presentation2014.pdf

I've heard LS50s at KEF's factory auditioning room - with my bass extenders and ports blocked -they sounded pretty good. However this room is/was extremely heavily treated and nothing like a domestic situation. When I owned LS50s, I could never get them to sound sweet and tuneful in the upper midrange, I don't do harsichord but can imagine it would be (even more ) dire through LS50s. I've never listened to LS50s with the port open and not crossed over to my bass extenders though. LS50s Metas are rather better, but still have a touch of steeliness that distracts me for the music.

 

[camverton]

I heard Temporal Coherence Diamants at length at the designers home. I've never heard orchestral music reproduced as well as this system, however I was shocked at how wrong Blondie's Platinum Blonde sounded. This is even more surprising given that the designers have put huge effort into the "temporal conherence" of the design:
https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/Presentation2014.pdf

I've heard LS50s at KEF's factory auditioning room - with my bass extenders and ports blocked -they sounded pretty good. However this room is/was extremely heavily treated and nothing like a domestic situation. When I owned LS50s, I could never get them to sound sweet and tuneful in the upper midrange, I don't do harsichord but can imagine it would be (even more ) dire through LS50s. I've never listened to LS50s with the port open and not crossed over to my bass extenders though. LS50s Metas are rather better, but still have a touch of steeliness that distracts me for the music.

How interesting, thanks. I’ve never heard of Temporal Coherence but would be interested in giving them a listen. Quite a different design to both MBL and German Physiks which use relatively small omni driver(s) (down to about 600 Hz via two drivers on all MBLs, lower on dearer models, and 200 Hz from one driver on GPs) rather than reflections from more conventional drivers, so I can only speculate on how different they might sound. For years I dismissed the German Physiks on the basis that a single, quite small, driver could cover such a wide range only to be proved very wrong when I heard them!

 

[John Phillips]

I heard Temporal Coherence Diamants at length at the designers home. I've never heard orchestral music reproduced as well as this system, however I was shocked at how wrong Blondie's Platinum Blonde sounded. ...

Is this where the general concept of "loudspeakers that do it all" flounders to some extent? The following may over generalize too but ...

I think Platinum Blonde is a popular studio recording so AFAICS heaven knows what the production processes did to the sound. I suggest that what sounds right is primarily a function of the listener's acquired preference and that varies rather a lot.

For a classical/jazz music studio recording I think it's probably a better bet that the production processes will attempt to reproduce the sort of sound that could have been heard in a real venue but that's not for sure. Even so, what sounds right can probably be based more on experience than acquired preference.

Then there is a live broadcast of clasical music. That's my reference, especially from the BBC from concert halls I know. There will have been some production processing so it won't sound the same (often it sounds better in fact). I choose to believe without evidence that this source has the best chance of relating to my live music experience and it's the source I use to choose "loudspeakers that do it all". That works for me. There's no proof of what I believe but I have to have some reference and this is it. And the result is that I accept that other sources just are what they are. That works for me too.

BTW I do like Blondie as well. It's as per Duke Ellington's re-quote of earlier commentators: "There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind ... "

 

[Tony L]

I've never listened to LS50s with the port open and not crossed over to my bass extenders though.

Surely that would totally destroy the mid-band and upper-bass-region?! Every decent ported two-way I’ve heard (and I’d certainly class the LS50 as such) is clearly designed with the loading in mind and sounds horribly shut-in and constrained when the intended port-loading is tampered with. Basically you have to put them where they work or buy another speaker. They are what they are. The only exception I’ve ever heard is the Epos ES14, but that was designed with a very specific foam bung in mind, which I guess have all turned to dust by now. I’d certainly expect the LS50 to sound terrible with a blocked port, as does every ProAc, Harbeth etc.

 

[S-Man]

If that’s the case, what is the cause?

a) Blocking the port changes the midrange output?
b) Blocking the port reduces the bass which unbalances the sound?
c) Something else?

 

[Tony L]

If that’s the case, what is the cause?

a) Blocking the port changes the midrange output?
b) Blocking the port reduces the bass which unbalances the sound?
c) Something else?

All the above. You are changing the suspension and therefore the damping criteria of the driver. The same effect conceptually as replacing perished foam surrounds with ones that are far too stiff. The rear air load is all part of a loudspeaker design. This especially the case in designs such as the LS50 where the whole design is modelled from scratch, e.g. that driver was designed for that specific cabinet including exactly that air resistance.

 

[Fatmarley]

If that’s the case, what is the cause?

a) Blocking the port changes the midrange output?
b) Blocking the port reduces the bass which unbalances the sound?
c) Something else?

It's easy to model in software. In a lot of speakers, the lower midrange is complimented by the port, so when you block it, you lose lower mids. There's no magic, it's all explained in the measurements. The higher the port tuning frequency, the more it's going to cause problems in the midrange when you block it.

If you take a ported speaker and put a port bungs in (that's usually made of open cell foam), it kills the midrange because the whole of the port output is reduced. Take the same speaker and stuff straws in the port, and it reduces the output only at the tuning frequency, so lower mids aren't affected.