You get the Snark-of-the-Day Award. Happy?You are right. Upon profound introspection I came to understand I'm an awful human being for not tiptoeing when a stranger on the internet says I'm lying. I'm willing to be guided towards enlightenment.
You get the Snark-of-the-Day Award. Happy?You are right. Upon profound introspection I came to understand I'm an awful human being for not tiptoeing when a stranger on the internet says I'm lying. I'm willing to be guided towards enlightenment.
Not distributed yet in USA, but will ping the CEO to get you a review pair when ready.
audio2design
I'm activating the ignore feature in your profile, I suggest you do the same.
Ah, we're talking about the difference between squares & rectangles! IOW, all open-baffle speakers are dipoles (unless with rear-wave absorber), but not all dipoles are open-baffle.A dipole radiates equal amounts of sound pressure to the front and back of a listening space, regardless of enclosure design.
And when you're still on the subject. How does the sound change (dipol, full open baffel) regarding how far from the back wall a dipole is placed?Ah, we're talking about the difference between squares & rectangles! IOW, all open-baffle speakers are dipoles (unless with rear-wave absorber), but not all dipoles are open-baffle.
I'll need a bit more caffeine this AM before I can recall a dipole speaker that's not an open-baffle design, but there probably are a few. Something like a Mirage M1 with the rear drivers inverted would qualify.
I had a set of Definitive technology floorstanders that were bipoles. My dumpster salvage MMG were better.I'll need a bit more caffeine this AM before I can recall a dipole speaker that's not an open-baffle design, but there probably are a few. Something like a Mirage M1 with the rear drivers inverted would qualify.
Good idea.audio2design
I'm activating the ignore feature in your profile, I suggest you do the same.
And when you're still on the subject. How does the sound change (dipol, full open baffel) regarding how far from the back wall a dipole is placed?
Had dipoles for quite a while and would certainly agree. Part of the Dipole magic appears to be less total reverberant energy in the room and increased diffusiveness of the room signals that reach the ear.Imo the primary advantage of a good, well set-up dipole speaker is that extra dose of relatively late-onset, spectrally-correct reverberant energy contributed by the backwave. (I dislike using absorption on the backwave energy as then it is no longer spectrally correct). The backwave energy can improve timbre and soundstage depth and even help tip the spatial presentation towards the venue cues (on the recording) being perceptually dominant, as opposed to the small-room cues (of your playback room) being perceptually dominant.
Had dipoles for quite a while and would certainly agree. Part of the Dipole magic appears to be less total reverberant energy in the room and increased diffusiveness of the room signals that reach the ear.
By this, the recorded ambience gets some "additional space to breathe in" but isn't dominated as much by the room as it is with monopoles.
Even Floyd Toole doesn't have much to say on the subject of stereo imaging so not sure there is any answer that can be backed up with hard science.
IME most competently designed speakers will image reasonably well assuming they are set up properly and the listener is sat on axis.
The best I have heard for imaging are the Linkwitz LX521 but they are not a commercial design, you must build them or commission a build. They need a fair bit of space between them and the side wall, although that will help improve the imaging of most speakers too.
Another tip is not to have anything in between the speakers (racks, furniture etc) unless it is sat back from the plane of the drivers.
Would help if we knew the make and model of the speakers currently being used. if they are a disaster of a design then the finger points there. If not it's the way they are being set up. Or possibly the amp cannot drive them properly, which will screw the sound six ways from Sunday.
"Soundstage" can be one of those nebulous audiophool terms unless well-defined and understood by the participants in the conversation.
I missed this post earlier. I'll elaborate because you mention some little-known speakers.I generally agree with much of what you wrote there.
I'm used to auditioning speakers in various rooms and, yeah, there are room interactions but I find the general character of a speaker is discernible and pretty constant. And some just seem to "disappear" and soundstage like bejesus, others struggle somewhat.
I could talk about speakers I've owned or heard in terms of soundstaging prowess, but it sounds like you want some recommendations, and I may not know as many speakers in that specific price bracket.
Off the top of my head: Audio Physic offers quite a range of speakers and they are very reliable for doing that "magic act" of producing impressive soundstaging and imaging. If your pal could ever find a second hand pair of Joseph Audio Pulsar stand mounted speakers, he'd hear one hell of a "disappearing/soundstaging/imaging" act as well as ticking off most of the audiophile goodies (excellent rich, deep bass for their size too).
There are tons and tons of speakers out there that will image well, so that's a drop in the bucket.
(I haven't heard the smaller Revel speakers but I bet they'd be excellent as well).
I missed this post earlier. I'll elaborate because you mention some little-known speakers.
I'll agree with your observation on Audio Physic. Listening in a semi-treated room (corner bass traps, some front and side wall panels, can't remember if any rear wall treatment) and with some tweaking of speaker placement, I preferred their soundstage and imaging compared to similar size Focal and B&W in the same room, especially for electronic and r&b-adjacent genres. I preferred the big Focals for some higher-SPL rock-adjacent genres, however. Subjectively, the Focal were more wall-of-sound while the Audio Physic were more pinpoint imaging and 'holographic' (for want of a better term: think sounds distributed in 3D space quite apart from the speakers). Sighted A/B/C so make of it what you will. Consistent with theory for wide vs less-wide directivity and wide vs narrow baffle, etc so—while the visuals of each speaker no doubt played a part—maybe meaningful.
In the end I chose somewhat on price, the trade-in Focal Scala Utopia that my budget would stretch to were snapped up while I was deciding and they were roughly 2x price for similar sizes at retail (comparing to AP Avanti and Codex, this was a bit before Focal Sopra and Kanta ranges appeared). Anyway, the image and soundstage impressions carried over to my own space. Extended soundstage and precise imaging are often mutually exclusive, but not so much in this case. My listening space has floor and ceiling treatment but not walls (I can open the side walls to eliminate first reflection however). Slightly wide speaker spacing with toe-in to listening position per the manual. Toe-in significantly beyond that does narrow the soundstage so there is some side wall interaction going on.
My experience is generally consistent with @audio2design's post #73 except for the scare-quotes (no offence intended, soundstage is just what stereo does, I don't get confused about it, but I don't always know what others mean by it). I also use and prefer software-based room EQ based on spatial averaging of measurements, partly for bass (room mode boost ~50 Hz is a big one) but full-range EQ also improves imaging enough to notice (not everyone experiences this, probably too many variables to generalise) and allows a house curve (pretty straightforward, flat frequency response in-room usually sounds too bright).
I've had dipoles (Quad ESL) but unfortunately too long ago to make any meaningful comparison. I've never had omnis. I'd love to hear MBL for example but haven't even seen any in the metal. You have some eclectic speaker experience, your current Theil look interesting [edit: referring to @MattHooper's post now].
For the OP, I would say follow up on some of the suggestions in this thread and see what you think. The scenario of choosing/recommending for a friend seems problematic. Sighted bias and narrative-driven perceptions will always be issues, but opportunities to blind-test speakers are pretty limited so you just have to go with whatever measurements and subjective impressions you can garner.
Interesting. I knew about their bipoles but hadn't realized they did the other. And there have been many dipole-in-a-box surround speakers over the years from various brands. I knew that, and it still didn't click last night.I had a set of Definitive technology floorstanders that were dipoles. My dumpster salvage MMG were better.
Interesting. I knew about their bipoles but hadn't realized they did the other. And there have been many dipole-in-a-box surround speakers over the years from various brands. I knew that, and it still didn't click last night.
Of course, a clever company could provide a flexible model with dual binding posts & jumpers.
Interesting!In my opinion (as a longtime dipole owner & dealer and bipole loudspeaker manufacturer) if the backwave arrives too soon, clarity is degraded. Imo you typically want dipole speakers to be at least three feet out from the wall, and preferably five feet or more. If that's not possible then you may need to aggressively treat the backwave with diffusion or angled reflectors or (imo as a last resort) absorption. Aggressive toe-in can also help as that correspondingly toes-out the backwave energy thereby increasing the effective reflection path length, but not all dipole speakers work well with aggressive toe-in.
Imo the primary advantage of a good, well set-up dipole speaker is that extra dose of relatively late-onset, spectrally-correct reverberant energy contributed by the backwave. (I dislike using absorption on the backwave energy as then it is no longer spectrally correct). The backwave energy can improve timbre and soundstage depth and even help tip the spatial presentation towards the venue cues (on the recording) being perceptually dominant, as opposed to the small-room cues (of your playback room) being perceptually dominant.
The purpose of the thread is to narrow down the search. He'll likely buy used locally and audition first. Maybe I'll go with him. No way he'll buy 100% based on what I'll tell him and I explicitly told told him not to fall in love with some model. It's easy to go down that rabbit hole.For the OP, I would say follow up on some of the suggestions in this thread and see what you think. The scenario of choosing/recommending for a friend seems problematic. Sighted bias and narrative-driven perceptions will always be issues, but opportunities to blind-test speakers are pretty limited so you just have to go with whatever measurements and subjective impressions you can garner. There's no specific imaging or soundstage metric for obvious reasons but I'd look for things like low distortion in the midrange/treble and flat group delay once you've worked out your directivity preference.