Have Slim Floorstanding Speakers "Had Their Day?"

[bec143]

I take this to mean that though you prefer your ATCs overall, the Virgos were still 'dramatically different' (more impressive?) in terms of their imaging capabilities? Is that correct?

Yes- the ATCs are just more satisfying in many ways. Unless I am plonking myself into the Virgo listening zone, and even then the Virgos were often not relaxed. I always was paying too much attention to what they did- and that was after 20 years. But they could be totally killer. I listened to both for another week before making the final decision and sending off the APs- I was very attached to them.
My one concern was low SPL listening, never a Virgo strongpoint and a common SCM40 criticism. However, they are better in every way at low volume than the Virgos, and I also have a new octave to listen to.

 

[dlaloum]

B&O Penta (Beovox passive version) - Column speakers (far more literally column speakers than most!)

Keeping in mind this is not measured using particular care... this is the AVR puck mic, measured using the Dirac software...

Decent bass response down to around 35Hz with a reasonably flat F/R

My 100W AVR is completely unstressed driving them (8ohm 92db/wm)

Thunderous SPL levels are easily achieved - but my typical average listening level is around 72db

They sound very nice.... but I am not being overly critical (and have not tried to back to back them up against my Gallo Ref3.2 mains) - the intent is to use them as surround speakers in my 5.1.4 setup.... and for this they sound great!

Is this overkill - yes absolutely - but they easily meet WAF requirements, my own sound quality requirements, take minimal space, and have bass response which will enable them to contribute when I deploy ART (late this year? maybe next year?)

Pics borrowed from web...

When I have the time and inclination, I may do my own back to back critical listening comparison - but given they reside in our multi purpose lounge room - getting the free time for that exercise.... I was lucky to get enough time to install them, and re-run the Dirac RoomEQ calibration/tuning.

(and P.S. -late edit: they cost me AU$600 ... circa US$400 - I will need to spend a little on some cosmetic touch ups, and getting the bits may be difficult... given their 35 year age, they may also need the crossover "refreshed" - but right now they sound fine)

 

[Gorgonzola]

What speaker is that?

My "slim" speakers are Zaph Audio ZRT's which I assembled with components from Madisound and Parts Express.

I got the cabinets as "flat packs" for Parts Express; the bases I fabricated myself. ZRT cabinets work-in-progress ...

 

[DSJR]

B&O Penta (Beovox passive version) - Column speakers (far more literally column speakers than most!)

View attachment 360998

Keeping in mind this is not measured using particular care... this is the AVR puck mic, measured using the Dirac software...

Decent bass response down to around 35Hz with a reasonably flat F/R

My 100W AVR is completely unstressed driving them (8ohm 92db/wm)

Thunderous SPL levels are easily achieved - but my typical average listening level is around 72db

They sound very nice.... but I am not being overly critical (and have not tried to back to back them up against my Gallo Ref3.2 mains) - the intent is to use them as surround speakers in my 5.1.4 setup.... and for this they sound great!

Is this overkill - yes absolutely - but they easily meet WAF requirements, my own sound quality requirements, take minimal space, and have bass response which will enable them to contribute when I deploy ART (late this year? maybe next year?)


View attachment 360999

View attachment 361002

Pics borrowed from web...

When I have the time and inclination, I may do my own back to back critical listening comparison - but given they reside in our multi purpose lounge room - getting the free time for that exercise.... I was lucky to get enough time to install them, and re-run the Dirac RoomEQ calibration/tuning.

(and P.S. -late edit: they cost me AU$600 ... circa US$400 - I will need to spend a little on some cosmetic touch ups, and getting the bits may be difficult... given their 35 year age, they may also need the crossover "refreshed" - but right now they sound fine)

B&O speakers of this era, always sounded really good in clients homes at moderate volume. Now I don't listen like an Audiophile, these slim and elegant models (always well presented when new) really do appeal and if not played loudly (I have a bass-resonant property which can entertain the equally retired next door neighbour when playing rock music at anything beyond a moderate level...

 

[dlaloum]

B&O speakers of this era, always sounded really good in clients homes at moderate volume. Now I don't listen like an Audiophile, these slim and elegant models (always well presented when new) really do appeal and if not played loudly (I have a bass-resonant property which can entertain the equally retired next door neighbour when playing rock music at anything beyond a moderate level...

That seems to be the case for the standard models, but less so for the flagships...

Most reviews of the Penta, talk about its ability to play loud (reviews of the 6000, 8000 etc.. don't make the same comment!) - not that it matters for my intended use!

 

[MaxBuck]

My R11s are pretty slim, and the objective and subjective folks all seem to like them.

Not sure what this is all about, actually.

 

[DSJR]

That seems to be the case for the standard models, but less so for the flagships...

Most reviews of the Penta, talk about its ability to play loud (reviews of the 6000, 8000 etc.. don't make the same comment!) - not that it matters for my intended use!

My time with my ATC active 100A 'fridges' was almost half my life ago now and back then, I liked to sometimes play LOUD, especially with a favourite tipple to hand..... Those days have long gone and I doubt I play much over 75dB (I haven't checked to confirm though), so that need no longer exists for me. Main issue with the pentas was the vertical dispersion. Stand too high for casual listening and they sound nasal and dull. On axis, I seem to recall they kind of reminded me of the original Quad 57 electrostatics - don't laugh and it IS an old memory...

 

[dlaloum]

My time with my ATC active 100A 'fridges' was almost half my life ago now and back then, I liked to sometimes play LOUD, especially with a favourite tipple to hand..... Those days have long gone and I doubt I play much over 75dB (I haven't checked to confirm though), so that need no longer exists for me. Main issue with the pentas was the vertical dispersion. Stand too high for casual listening and they sound nasal and dull. On axis, I seem to recall they kind of reminded me of the original Quad 57 electrostatics - don't laugh and it IS an old memory...

I have a pair of 57's in storage - they can do absolute magic with the midrange... at some point I will give the pentas a critical listen....

 

[DSJR]

I have a pair of 57's in storage - they can do absolute magic with the midrange... at some point I will give the pentas a critical listen....

The Pentas won't have that 'magic' I remember so fondly, but the slightly nasal tonal balance (wondrous on massed strings) may be slightly similar, hence my comment which I freely admit is of well over twenty six to forty year old memories now. One of the US audio sites had someone bodging up a pair of the replacement Beosound One's which were twin bass drivers with mid dome and tweeter in between. re-capping the amp module (okay), removing the protective mesh dome over the mid dome and spraying the latter black (a la KEF T25 tweeter). The ribbed main baffle has it's 'ribs' filled in and at the end, magic fuses (put me off immediately) and then tweaking the level settings of the drivers, the bass and top being increased (I only heard them once, but in stock form they never sounded mid-forward in standard ex-works tune). Lord knows what they sound like after his ministrations but in 'HiFi' terms he loves them now...

Back to topic - my better half really would prefer some nice slim discrete speakers in as near a 'teak' finish as possible (My cherrywood Harbeths were light when new, golden when I received them at nine years old and are now aged to orange as cherry does and they're just too imposing looking even to me these days). So many slim speakers out there, but the nearest I can think of which are smooth enough (not a 'HiFi balance) are the Spendor S6e and S8e, both tweaked for a leaner balance for closer to wall siting. No idea if they'd be judged good enough as the Harbeths do have a delightful midrange to them whatever their character elsewhere. I also have my precious (to me) Spendor BC2's which I could use as an alternative if I can get their trolley stands back (push 'em out of the way when not in use which is most of the time these days)... (Oh how the once mighty audiophool has fallen ).

I was given a set of TDL Studio 1M's in walnut which are a superb small-room-discrete model, but they sounded rough compared to the Spendors above, so were sold eight years or so ago...

 

[MattHooper]

I've been intrigued by this speaker design for a while, which started showing up at shows a few years ago, from Korea I believe: Orchestalls loudspeakers.

Simply having played around with various upmixing on my home theater system, sometimes throwing more drivers at the sound seems to reap some cool benefits. So the idea of throwing even MORE drivers has me intrigued. Apparently these are made with orchestral music in mind, and some have mentioned they sound surprisingly excellent at the shows:

 

[dlaloum]

I've been intrigued by this speaker design for a while, which started showing up at shows a few years ago, from Korea I believe: Orchestalls loudspeakers.

Simply having played around with various upmixing on my home theater system, sometimes throwing more drivers at the sound seems to reap some cool benefits. So the idea of throwing even MORE drivers has me intrigued. Apparently these are made with orchestral music in mind, and some have mentioned they sound surprisingly excellent at the shows:

Couldn't get much further from Slim floorstanding columns than that!!

 

[bec143]

So after some time without the Virgos and listening in a few stores to new speakers ...

My impression is that the narrow baffle is keyto the disappearing trick. I prefer the scm40s but they can't cast an image like the Virgo hologram. And neither do other conventional speakers. Heard some Devores that did it well.

So I think - no experiments whatsoever to backup this up- is that the slim speaker is the reason they work.

 

[dlaloum]

So after some time without the Virgos and listening in a few stores to new speakers ...

My impression is that the narrow baffle is keyto the disappearing trick. I prefer the scm40s but they can't cast an image like the Virgo hologram. And neither do other conventional speakers. Heard some Devores that did it well.

So I think - no experiments whatsoever to backup this up- is that the slim speaker is the reason they work.

I've heard speakers that did the "disappearing act" which had wide baffles - the Boston Acoustics A400's come to mind (mid 1980's...)

One of the things that always contributed to that, was an absence of "box" resonances - I always found I could "hear the box" - which is why I fell in love with electrostatics, and later the Gallo Nucleus designs - but also quite a few narrow column speakers... a narrow speaker has less vibrating surface area, and is much easier to brace and damp... so often (this is my theory) the thing that causes us to identify the speaker, is resonances - a form of distortion.

This is also one of the reasons (IMO) - that smaller "bookshelf" speakers came to dominate so much of audiophilia - not only were they compact - but the smaller box, often meant it didn't suffer from those resonances... so the speaker more easily "disappeared" leaving just the music.
As we all moved to sub+satelite configurations, and as EQ&Crossovers (two sides of the same coin!) went digital, bookshelves and compact designs in general, become less of a compromise...

Now with Dirac ART - we may see another shift - where columns can take advantage of their resonant (lack of) advantage, while providing deeper bass than bookshelves/satelites - still SPL limited, but working cooperatively with the other speakers, a set of full range surrounds can add up to quite a substantial bass boost... even if its bass is limited to say 90db... each additional speaker adds 3db... so a pair of Full range surrounds, provides 6db of additional bass SPL... and a pair of rears would be another 6db... just replacing the satellite surround/rears in a 7 channel base setup, provides 12db of additional bass SPL's.... so they can afford to be SPL limited while still contributing substantially to the overall system. (they need some extension, but not so much SPL) - and once you do that, the question will then arise as to whether a sub is needed... or whether fewer subs are needed.

 

[Head_Unit]

Did you ever like any slim floor standing speakers?

Monitor Audio Silver 300! Focal 936! And now 948, if that is still considered "slim"?

 

[MarkS]

Personally I wouldn't call anything over 8" slim ... but I suppose slimness is in the eye of the beholder!

 

[olegtern]

Regarding the "disappearing act", are we talking about sound only or a mix of audio-visual experiences? In the sense that very often what we see affects what (how?) we hear, and this can apply to thin speakers — it's easier for them to get visually lost in a room.

For the last few years, I had speakers that hardly anyone would call small. But anyone of visitors said that they are localized in any way, I certainly don't hear it.

As for the trend for big retro speakers, I doubt they'll sell very many of them. However, it certainly doesn't affect my choices in any way

 

[MattHooper]

Regarding the "disappearing act", are we talking about sound only or a mix of audio-visual experiences? In the sense that very often what we see affects what (how?) we hear, and this can apply to thin speakers — it's easier for them to get visually lost in a room.

For the last few years, I had speakers that hardly anyone would call small. But anyone of visitors said that they are localized in any way, I certainly don't hear it.

As for the trend for big retro speakers, I doubt they'll sell very many of them. However, it certainly doesn't affect my choices in any way

I certainly don't claim to have figured it out. Hard to disentangle visual bias as a factor.

But purely anecdotally: My Thiel 3.7s were very large speakers, and in my relatively small room took up a fair amount of visual space (one reason I sold them). Here's a photo from the room entrance, showing what I mean:

However the Thiel 3.7s seemed to almost fully "disappear" with incredible cabinet-independent imaging. And yet my smaller slimmer Joseph speakers seem to do that must a little better.

On the same note, I spent a number of visits listening to the big Dali Epicore 11 speakers at my friend's place and one thing that stuck out is they did not seem to image and "disappear" to a degree I'm used to. Especially when it came to imaging panned near the speakers, it seemed to be more "coming from the speakers themselves," sort of "piled up closer" at that location. I wondered if this was mere visual bias because they were really big speakers in a smallish room. But when I closed my eyes I had the same impression.

Dali Epicore (not at my friend's place, taken from another site):

When I got home and played the same tracks on my system the sound really did seem to just be more independent of the speakers but also seemed to expand in depth and spatial quality as well: so instead of the familiar instruments "piling up on one another to the sides" they expanded so there seemed to be more space between them. Again, lending to the "not coming from the speakers" sensation (and which seemed to be the case when I closed my eyes too).

 

[olegtern]

When I got home and played the same tracks on my system

I've noticed that it takes extra time to adjust in other people's rooms. Even if they have the same or very similar speakers. Which I think makes it difficult to evaluate the experience at shows where you have to move through so many rooms with so many different systems.

But of course, if the sound is "sticking" to the speakers, it's not a very pleasant experience, whether it's in your room or someone else's.

 

[Salt]

Certainly there are multiple factors to make the speaker vanish, not only 1 or 2.
Had chance to listen to the same speaker under three different conditions (source/amp/room), and range was from 'can listen to, but need not' up to 'need to have, now! no wait'.
The second best and the best presentations were standing free (2-3 m distance to any wall), so the spacial impression could'nt be superposed by wall-reflections, but mainly form speakers outlet.
The cabinet of the speaker is not slim (25 or 27 cm IRC), and no highlyspecialholydamping was in use.
My conclusion: Take a well designed driver, use it in a proper frequency-range, enclose it in a low or non resonating cabinet and drive it by a well designed amp.
The remaining 5% to immortal Fidelity is up to Quantum-Research .

footnote: in late 80's, early 90's Audio Physics did change something how to listen to music. Until then there was 'wall of music' popular and well accepted. AP was one of those few companies at that time that made stereophonic and 2-3 dimensional listening broadly available.

 

[Axo1989]

Personally I wouldn't call anything over 8" slim ... but I suppose slimness is in the eye of the beholder!

Regarding the "disappearing act", are we talking about sound only or a mix of audio-visual experiences? In the sense that very often what we see affects what (how?) we hear, and this can apply to thin speakers — it's easier for them to get visually lost in a room.

My current speakers (Audio Physic as it happens) are slim (200mm aka 8") and moderately tall (1200mm aka 4') and anthracite (dark grey) against a mostly white front wall, so the don't really disappear visually, especially as the listening seat is low.

They do the disappearing act, by which I mean they (re)produce a somewhat wide+deep holographic stereo image with sonic components located fairly specifically depending on their recorded/mixed characteristics etc and not subjectively emanating from the loudspeaker/driver locations. I can 'test' via the highly scientific pointing-at-sounds-with-eyes-closed method when in the mood to do that.

I've noticed that it takes extra time to adjust in other people's rooms. Even if they have the same or very similar speakers. Which I think makes it difficult to evaluate the experience at shows where you have to move through so many rooms with so many different systems.

Yes, I agree. I haven't owned a wide selection of loudspeakers like @MattHooper but I've listened to more than a few in demo rooms at a couple of Hi-Fi dealers I like. I find I don't perceive soundstage in those rooms in a way that's easy to compare to mine. I've only heard my current speakers in one of those rooms on one occasion (albeit for an hour or three, before deciding to buy them) so too many variables, usually.