$30K Budget - On the quest for my "end game" speaker

[MKR]

I would buy the cheapest "good enough" I could find. Because the quest for the holy grail will never stop, there's always a new box (like Trinnov), a speaker that does a certain thing better, something more beautiful, some new thing that fixes all the problems you never knew you had etc ad infinitum.

A dipole speaker will give less energy far off-axis by design and will therefore give a higher direct to indirect sound ratio in a normally reflective environment. This will always sound different to a very wide dispersion design in such a scenario, likely experienced as more dynamic and clearer.

Correcting such a speaker like this with Trinnov will (in my experience and opinion) work better than correcting something like the Salon2 because you're correcting much more of the direct sound and less of the room sound.

In my mind I don't see how you can emulate the extremely wide and even dispersion of a Salon 2 in a room if needed because you can't work with something that's not there in the first place, but I do believe you can make the Salon 2 sound more like the Aeris by absorbing specific parts of the room.
I don't believe in magic and am of the opinion that dynamics is all about frequency response, direct/indirect sound ratio and lack of distortion of all kinds.

Considering the price difference I would have absolutely no problem deciding this conundrum in my own head. But I have no feelings attached because I've never heard either alternatives.

My suggestion is to either visit a few people with good systems and check if there's a trend in qualities you enjoy more than others that can help you decide between apples and oranges - or just stick to the budget. There's probably good reasons for the budget in the first place.

You make a lot of great points, thank you for the thoughtful comments.

As I think about it more, indeed I think where I am stuck is the difference between dipole vs monopole radiation. They absolutely sound different (duh). I believe I now also understand why the Aeris sounded more like a live event and more dynamic vs the Salon … it is in fact the dipole exactly as you say. I have always had a soft spot for dipole, going all the way back years ago to owning a pair of the original Linkwitz Orions. Loved those speakers. Also loved the Wisdoms, also running dipole.

But that dispersion of the Salons is flat out addictive and you are fully correct, there is no way I could make the Aeris sound this way. They are simply different designs with different goals in mind.

As to the budget, this was set not related to what I can afford, rather because I strongly believed I was hitting serious diminishing returns going over $30k, and there was simply no need to go higher to achieve the performance I was after. Even over $10k my sense was that you would be getting very small increases in performance for a lot more money. Basically a value calculation. But now with the Aeris plus Trinnov I am not so sure! Even the Aeris plus Wavelet was very very good, just that the Trinnov took things to the next level. Again, I don’t think this was due to the processing difference necessarily (but could have been), but rather the DAC and preamp stages in the Trinnov are I am certain better engineered. Tough to know for certain what was going on there.

 

[benanders]

Ah, got it, makes sense. But why are you skeptical?

As to my support concerns, you make a valid point on Legacy and it being a “one man show”. But I suppose ultimately this could be an issue with any high end audio company. The difference with Revel is the Salon 2 is actually discontinued (or certainly will be very soon), the Aeris is an active design. Further, as Revel is now part of a behemoth corporation, you have to wonder how long Samsung will continue supporting what is to them very, very small potatoes. And I have heard some recent negative stories of Revel support. The Revel dealer I have been working with is outstanding, and he is one of the top Revel dealers in the country, has great relationship with Revel powers that be, and the top engineers there, and I am convinced he would support me to the end of the earth if I had any issues. But, his support to me is only as good as support he gets from Revel!

And this doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy either …

Could Harman be any worse at selling Revel speakers?

After searching for about two years, I finally was able to acquire a pair of Revel F35 speakers here in Hong Kong. Based on my experience, I wonder if Harman actually cares about selling speakers to home users? Perhaps the big money is made elsewhere in car audio or TV sound bars and bluetooth...

www.audiosciencereview.com

FWIW @MKR take that HK-Revel thread you linked with a grain of salt. The only post (as of my reading just now) that has applicability to the environment being discussed is:

Could Harman be any worse at selling Revel speakers?

After searching for about two years, I finally was able to acquire a pair of Revel F35 speakers here in Hong Kong. Based on my experience, I wonder if Harman actually cares about selling speakers to home users? Perhaps the big money is made elsewhere in car audio or TV sound bars and bluetooth...

www.audiosciencereview.com

The internet overflows with accounts of folks who don’t understand how distribution in HK works (or in abundant cases, doesn’t work). I could be mistaken but the OP in that thread reeks of a “How am I so FAMISHED in a first class city!?!?” tone. Rookie green complaint, more often than not.
Some years ago, Revel was no issue to locate in HK. Paradigm of diminishing returns be told now.

Socioeconomic factors are more than enough reason for any given overseas speaker company to lack presence in a city that has among the most constrained and costliest retail space available.
As a company, whether Harman, Samsung or otherwise, you really have to want to MARKET your speaker, for HK to be a worthy showcase venue. It’s not [usually] due to cluelessness in marketing, especially for such an esoteric, space-ravenous, high end product, to be MIA in HK these days.

That said, Legacy is available here.

Edit: the link’s link I sent takes you right to Post #10. That’s the correct answer.

 

[gnarly]

But now with the Aeris plus Trinnov I am not so sure! Even the Aeris plus Wavelet was very very good, just that the Trinnov took things to the next level. Again, I don’t think this was due to the processing difference necessarily (but could have been), but rather the DAC and preamp stages in the Trinnov are I am certain better engineered. Tough to know for certain what was going on there.

Hi, I have no experience with either of the those, but I do a lot of work with powerful DSP processors and DIY multi-way speakers.
My super strong belief from building thousands of processing files / filter sets, is that the nuances of the processing, be it IIR or FIR or typically both, dominates by far any difference in hardware specs. Iow, I'd take a cheap DAC with superbly measured and applied processing anyday, over the reverse situation.

And must admit, haven't read much of this thread since i'm into DIY speakers.
But when I clicked on the thread and saw @Absolute's comment "I would buy the cheapest "good enough" I could find. Because the quest for the holy grail will never stop..."
I'm like hell yes, that's the way i think, too...

For me, selecting a speaker comes down to three basic decisions:
What kind of radiation pattern do I want?
How loud without distortion or compression, in what size room, am I planning?
And how low do I want bass to go, and stay linear?

Then I get the cheapest speaker that satisfies that decision set,
and then the most capable, reasonably affordable, processor in terms of what filters it can implement, and the quality of the algorithms if interested in automation.

When I outgrow that...it's always been pretty clear what i want from the next quest

 

[FrantzM]

You make a lot of great points, thank you for the thoughtful comments.

As I think about it more, indeed I think where I am stuck is the difference between dipole vs monopole radiation. They absolutely sound different (duh). I believe I now also understand why the Aeris sounded more like a live event and more dynamic vs the Salon … it is in fact the dipole exactly as you say. I have always had a soft spot for dipole, going all the way back years ago to owning a pair of the original Linkwitz Orions. Loved those speakers. Also loved the Wisdoms, also running dipole.

But that dispersion of the Salons is flat out addictive and you are fully correct, there is no way I could make the Aeris sound this way. They are simply different designs with different goals in mind.

As to the budget, this was set not related to what I can afford, rather because I strongly believed I was hitting serious diminishing returns going over $30k, and there was simply no need to go higher to achieve the performance I was after. Even over $10k my sense was that you would be getting very small increases in performance for a lot more money. Basically a value calculation. But now with the Aeris plus Trinnov I am not so sure! Even the Aeris plus Wavelet was very very good, just that the Trinnov took things to the next level. Again, I don’t think this was due to the processing difference necessarily (but could have been), but rather the DAC and preamp stages in the Trinnov are I am certain better engineered. Tough to know for certain what was going on there.

Hi

Back in the days I was staunchly in the dipole camp... Quad, Magnepan, Martin-Logan.. heck! I had a Quad ESl63 with Magnepan Panels as "subwoofer", this after a TAS article .. It didn't work well but .. I spend countless of hours trying to.
The dipole presentation is seductive; when properly configured, sound comes from your listening space, not from speakers per se... and there is that soundstage. At the end, what I came not to like about dipoles was the sameness: Everything came with that soundstage, that presentation, everything,
I haven't heard the Aegis or any Legacy for that matter...but ..

Digital Room Processing can make a singular difference in audio reproduction. OTOH, Preamp, DAC, and amplifier stages are mature, commodity-level systems. IOW they are for the most part competent, unless botched on purpose. So the differences IMO, would be those brought in by the DRC algorithms. It is known and proven that Trinnov processing is one of the best plus, their support is legendary.

Food for thoughts: Used Salon 2 + a Trinnov Altitude 16 is within your $30K budget. I know where I would go.

Waiting for the conclusion of this most interesting saga.


Peace.

 

[MattHooper]

Hi

Back in the days I was staunchly in the dipole camp... Quad, Magnepan, Martin-Logan.. heck! I had a Quad ESl63 with Magnepan Panels as "subwoofer", this after a TAS article .. It didn't work well but .. I spend countless of hours trying to.
The dipole presentation is seductive; when properly configured, sound comes from your listening space, not from speakers per se... and there is that soundstage. At the end, what I came not to like about dipoles was the sameness: Everything came with that soundstage, that presentation, everything,
I haven't heard the Aegis or any Legacy for that matter...but ..

Digital Room Processing can make a singular difference in audio reproduction. OTOH, Preamp, DAC, and amplifier stages are mature, commodity-level systems. IOW they are for the most part competent, unless botched on purpose. So the differences IMO, would be those brought in by the DRC algorithms. It is known and proven that Trinnov processing is one of the best plus, their support is legendary.

Food for thoughts: Used Salon 2 + a Trinnov Altitude 16 is within your $30K budget. I know where I would go.

Waiting for the conclusion of this most interesting saga.


Peace.

I've owned ESL 63s with dipole subs. I've also heard countless panel speakers and some dipoles using dynamic drivers. (Though it's been quite a while since I last heard some). I do also find there is a "dipole sound." It's that open, airy, boxless presentation that is very seductive as you say. But at least in the ones I have heard, they seem to have a different room feel, where the music feels a bit less impactful. The sonic presence seems less dynamic and impactful, less dense. It's one reason I moved on from my Quads to dynamic speakers, but I've heard it ever since in such designs.

I'm not saying it can't be overcome. I haven't heard the Legacy speakers. But...that's just been my impression over the years.

 

[Lsc]

Looks like I’ll be visiting the Legacy booth at Axpona. I was there several years ago before I got the salons and never seriously considered them. Hmm..shame I didn’t.

 

[Matt Bell]

I've owned ESL 63s with dipole subs. I've also heard countless panel speakers and some dipoles using dynamic drivers. (Though it's been quite a while since I last heard some). I do also find there is a "dipole sound." It's that open, airy, boxless presentation that is very seductive as you say. But at least in the ones I have heard, they seem to have a different room feel, where the music feels a bit less impactful. The sonic presence seems less dynamic and impactful, less dense. It's one reason I moved on from my Quads to dynamic speakers, but I've heard it ever since in such designs.

I'm not saying it can't be overcome. I haven't heard the Legacy speakers. But...that's just been my impression over the years.

Interesting. I also had that feeling of the presentation being "less dynamic and impactful, less dense" when I owned Martin Logans. I assumed it was a feature of panel speakers: very large driver area and very limited driver excursion.

But you're suggesting this is true of all dipoles, including those like the Legacy Aeris that use electrodynamic cone drivers.

 

[fieldcar]

Looks like I’ll be visiting the Legacy booth at Axpona.

I was thinking of checking it out this year, but I didn't see KEF or Perlisten on the exhibitors list.

 

[MattHooper]

Interesting. I also had that feeling of the presentation being "less dynamic and impactful, less dense" when I owned Martin Logans. I assumed it was a feature of panel speakers: very large driver area and very limited driver excursion.

But you're suggesting this is true of all dipoles, including those like the Legacy Aeris that use electrodynamic cone drivers.

When I had the Quad 63s only, I also had a small pair of Thiel 02s, a little two way box speaker. I'd occasionally listen on the Thiels too. I remember it really sinking in when I'd listen to really dynamic soundtracks, like Enter The Dragon, which can have a kaleidoscope of energetic percussion instruments. I noticed I just enjoyed it on the Thiels more - it got the juices moving. On the Quads the sound was more clear, detailed and clean and boxless, but it felt a bit more weightless, like the instruments were behind the panels in another room from me. On the Thiels when bongos and percussion was hit there was this palpable air-moving density to the sound, more like I would "feel" from an instrument sharing the same space as me.

I ended up buying the Gradient subwoofers that were specially designed to work with the Quads - the Gradients being dipole as well. But it didn't fix the "problem." While there was a bit more oomph to the bass, it still had a bit of the same "lack of sock and presence/density" character - which made it one of the most seamless matches of dynamic drivers to panel I've ever heard. Nonetheless, that lack of dynamic presence became a feature that bothered me more and more. So...on to dynamic speakers which brought back that room feel.

I've heard the same thing in every Martin Logan design as well. In fact until recently my friend had one of the Martin Logan hybrids in his living room - tall panel mated to woofer below (I forget which model). This has NEVER gelled for me. The ML are not using dipole mounted woofers so regular box woofers. So when I hear the MLs I hear this weird discontinuity - not so much tonally but in presence. Any instrument, e.g. bass, part of kick drum, that is being played by the dynamic woofers has some of that recognizable oomph and density, but once the panels mostly take over instruments in that range take on that weightless, spectral quality. And whether this bothers someone, I think, depends on what they cue in on. If you put on some rock or funk you could feel the bass of those dynamic woofers and feel "hey, no problem here, these rock!" But if you are more attuned to what is missing dynamically up top, then it can sound unconvincing.

 

[Lsc]

I was thinking of checking it out this year, but I didn't see KEF or Perlisten on the exhibitors list.

That’s a bummer. KEF blades were a staple hold at Axpona. Legacy usually has a large room on the main floor. I’d like to check out what the fuss is all about now with MKR’s findings.

About 2 months away now.

 

[fieldcar]

That’s a bummer. KEF blades were a staple hold at Axpona. Legacy usually has a large room on the main floor. I’d like to check out what the fuss is all about now with MKR’s findings.

About 2 months away now.

Even though KEF isn't there officially, I'm sure another booth will have them. I saw that Hegel has shown off their stuff with the blades in previous years. I really want to see the blades and the LS60's.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Legacy usually has a large room on the main floor. I’d like to check out what the fuss is all about now with MKR’s findings.

I'm curious too. I have only heard their ~$15K Focus XD speakers and thought they were competent, but a bit mid bass heavy and didn't quite do it for me.

 

[MarkS]

But why are you skeptical?

Designing a good controlled-directivity speaker is no picnic, and I don't think Legacy has the chops to do it in the way that, say, B&O can. Those side-by-side midranges on the Legacy V and sideways ribbons with no waveguide are pretty simplistic, and don't inspire a lot of confidence that they got it right.

Also, this is what Legacy says about their design capabilities:

In our lab, we have LoudSoft, Clio, LMS, several Audio Control spectrum analyzers, Audio Tools and REW. All mics are calibrated against a single Earthworks for consistency. While we have used anechoic chambers to calibrate mics and speakers kept for references, we prefer to use a combination of other methods which are more useful in the real world.

https://legacyaudio.com/design/building-a-legacy

Yeah, OK, not good enough in my book, not in 2023.

 

[benanders]

Interesting. I also had that feeling of the presentation being "less dynamic and impactful, less dense" when I owned Martin Logans. I assumed it was a feature of panel speakers: very large driver area and very limited driver excursion.

But you're suggesting this is true of all dipoles, including those like the Legacy Aeris that use electrodynamic cone drivers.

That’s a purely hypothetical suggestion by @MattHooper and, as you in turn suggested @Matt Bell , Legacy uses a different driver approach than other dipoles in the “listening corrals” described so far.

Gotta hear something to have an opinion. No exposure = no experience, = no input, plain and simple, and that’s regardless of how much theory or indirect comparisons one might espouse.

It’s surely got me more curious now.

 

[MattHooper]

That’s a purely hypothetical suggestion by @MattHooper and, as you in turn suggested @Matt Bell , Legacy uses a different driver approach than other dipoles in the “listening corrals” described so far.

Gotta hear something to have an opinion. No exposure = no experience, = no input, plain and simple, and that’s regardless of how much theory or indirect comparisons one might espouse.

Yes Legacy may be doing something different that would change my impression, at least of their dipole approach. I certainly don't rule that out.

On the other hand, this is just not true, if you think it a general rule:

"Gotta hear something to have an opinion. No exposure = no experience, = no input, plain and simple, and that’s regardless of how much theory or indirect comparisons one might espouse."

Actually, one certainly can gain predictive knowledge from past experience of similar designs. That's what inductive reasoning is all about. Some experience can allow broad predictions, some can allow very precise predictions. So can experience combined with technical knowledge. I don't "have to hear" for instance a $4,000 Ethernet cable to reasonably conclude it's not going to change the sound in any normal set up from another cheap, properly functioning Ethernet cable.

Likewise, when it comes to speakers there's all sorts of things you can predict from being knowledgeable about measurements, even before hearing the speaker.

 

[benanders]

...
As I think about it more, indeed I think where I am stuck is the difference between dipole vs monopole radiation.

Yep.

They absolutely sound different (duh). I believe I now also understand why the Aeris sounded more like a live event and more dynamic vs the Salon … it is in fact the dipole exactly as you say. I have always had a soft spot for dipole...

Yep x2.

But that dispersion of the Salons is flat out addictive and you are fully correct, there is no way I could make the Aeris sound this way. They are simply different designs with different goals in mind.

Yep. Nope. Yep.

…
Even the Aeris plus Wavelet was very very good, just that the Trinnov took things to the next level. Again, I don’t think this was due to the processing difference necessarily (but could have been), but rather the DAC and preamp stages in the Trinnov are I am certain better engineered. Tough to know for certain what was going on there.

Objectively, the takeaway is you’re bargaining between two different speaker technologies that are essentially exclusive of one another, and a sophisticated DSP that makes one sing and (by virtue of aforementioned difference between speaker models) offers relatively little to the other. Perhaps of less consequence whether it’s the DAC vs software approach, perhaps.

Bless your heart

I’m in touch with the local Legacy dealer, and growing increasingly curious of this approach.

 

[benanders]

Yes Legacy may be doing something different that would change my impression, at least of their dipole approach. I certainly don't rule that out.

On the other hand, this is just not true, if you think it a general rule:

"Gotta hear something to have an opinion. No exposure = no experience, = no input, plain and simple, and that’s regardless of how much theory or indirect comparisons one might espouse."

Actually, one certainly can gain predictive knowledge from past experience of similar designs. That's what inductive reasoning is all about. Some experience can allow broad predictions, some can allow very precise predictions. So can experience combined with technical knowledge. I don't "have to hear" for instance a $4,000 Ethernet cable to reasonably conclude it's not going to change the sound in any normal set up from another cheap, properly functioning Ethernet cable.

Likewise, when it comes to speakers there's all sorts of things you can predict from being knowledgeable about measurements, even before hearing the speaker.

I don’t argue any of that, @MattHooper .

What I mean is, to make predictions or have assumptions / expectations about how a speaker (or any kit) operates or sounds, without actually listening to it, is fine. Many folks here do it with significantly less experience than you, so I was not trying to cast an individual focus (in case I came off that way).

To frame those predictions, assumptions or expectations in a tone or with grammar that implies firsthand experience with the actual kit when it’s lacking is, however, badly misleading.
I do not think you did that in this case, so again, do apologize if I came off otherwise.
Rather I saw an opening to make that point, which I think is pretty relevant in such an opinionated thread.

 

[Holmz]

I would buy the cheapest "good enough" I could find. Because the quest for the holy grail will never stop, there's always a new box (like Trinnov), a speaker that does a certain thing better, something more beautiful, some new thing that fixes all the problems you never knew you had etc ad infinitum.

Sometimes a bit better of speaker can result in something that lasts decades,

A dipole speaker will give less energy far off-axis by design and will therefore give a higher direct to indirect sound ratio in a normally reflective environment. This will always sound different to a very wide dispersion design in such a scenario, likely experienced as more dynamic and clearer.

Correcting such a speaker like this with Trinnov will (in my experience and opinion) work better than correcting something like the Salon2 because you're correcting much more of the direct sound and less of the room sound.

In my mind I don't see how you can emulate the extremely wide and even dispersion of a Salon 2 in a room if needed because you can't work with something that's not there in the first place, but I do believe you can make the Salon 2 sound more like the Aeris by absorbing specific parts of the room.
I don't believe in magic and am of the opinion that dynamics is all about frequency response, direct/indirect sound ratio and lack of distortion of all kinds.

I am not sure I agree. It seems like what many view as dynamic is things that are loud, and more distortion makes them louder sounding.
And less distortion makes them somewhat quiet sounding.

Considering the price difference I would have absolutely no problem deciding this conundrum in my own head. But I have no feelings attached because I've never heard either alternatives.

My suggestion is to either visit a few people with good systems and check if there's a trend in qualities you enjoy more than others that can help you decide between apples and oranges - or just stick to the budget. There's probably good reasons for the budget in the first place.

There seems like there shoudl be a few people out in the wilds of Montana that would have something to listen to.

 

[Adi777]

When I had the Quad 63s only, I also had a small pair of Thiel 02s, a little two way box speaker. I'd occasionally listen on the Thiels too. I remember it really sinking in when I'd listen to really dynamic soundtracks, like Enter The Dragon, which can have a kaleidoscope of energetic percussion instruments. I noticed I just enjoyed it on the Thiels more - it got the juices moving. On the Quads the sound was more clear, detailed and clean and boxless, but it felt a bit more weightless, like the instruments were behind the panels in another room from me. On the Thiels when bongos and percussion was hit there was this palpable air-moving density to the sound, more like I would "feel" from an instrument sharing the same space as me.

I ended up buying the Gradient subwoofers that were specially designed to work with the Quads - the Gradients being dipole as well. But it didn't fix the "problem." While there was a bit more oomph to the bass, it still had a bit of the same "lack of sock and presence/density" character - which made it one of the most seamless matches of dynamic drivers to panel I've ever heard. Nonetheless, that lack of dynamic presence became a feature that bothered me more and more. So...on to dynamic speakers which brought back that room feel.

So, the best idea is have minimum three totally different speakers in house

 

[olegtern]

It seems like what many view as dynamic is things that are loud, and more distortion makes them louder sounding.

And according to this logic, tiny bookshelf 86db-noise-generators should be named the most dynamic? By whom?