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

[FrantzM]

It is a pity that there is no chance that Amir will test "audiophile" audio equipment. Amplifiers, DACs and, most of all, loudspeakers.
It is hard to say ...

No one is holding their breath for audiophiles wares .. when a $9.95 Apple dongle perform similarly (or was it better?) to the $15,000 Total Crap.. And the numerous cables and components whose only function is to relieve the pressure caused by too much money in an audiophile bank accounts...

Peace.

 

[srrxr71]

I wonder about for that kind of space a Bose line array plus a custom sub array. It would be interesting.

 

[GXAlan]

@srrxr71 Well, you just burst my Genelec bubble. I do NOT want a narrow dispersion, that is a deal killer. Multiple people need to enjoy these speakers at the same time. With the 8361 sounds like I could only let one person in the listening room at a time LOL

This is one of the reasons my current speakers are the JBL S/2600 with the asymmetrical horns. You lose a lot by going with the older design and engineering and I know the horn isn’t perfect across the frequency Response or seating area but it sounds the best overall when sitting outside the sweet spot.

It is a pity that there is no chance that Amir will test "audiophile" audio equipment. Amplifiers, DACs and, most of all, loudspeakers.

For electronics and headphones, Amir has gotten review units from the manufacturer. There is no restriction on testing “audiophile” premium gear but people have to ship it in or the manufacturers have to ship it in. I think Anthem sent Amir the AVM70.

It was a reader who sent in the Mola Mola Tambaqui, and readers can also test gear themselves and share the results.

Marantz SACD 30n Measurements (SACD Player, DAC & Streamer)

Marantz SACD 30n Measurements Hi folks, Here is my objective analysis of the Marantz SACD 30n. This sample in particular has been gently loaned to me by Sound United France directly. It is a versatile piece of gear, being not only a SACD/CD player, but also a standalone DAC and a streamer...

www.audiosciencereview.com

3 Generations of Marantz flagship integrated amps measured

Three Generations of Marantz flagship integrated amps measured (updated PM-10 test!) One of the biggest challenges with amplifier testing is shipping the gear without damage. We've already seen how the JBL SA600 from 1965 pretty much has an amplifier section that performs similarly to the JBL...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[srrxr71]

For higher output and dynamics nothing can beat a properly designed horn. There are compromises on either side.

Just the science

 

[D!sco]

@Disco Well understood And helpful, thanks. Note I also have a smaller room I could use, about half the size, the 20x40 not set in stone.

And why do you say cardioid opposite my needs? Just trying to learn.

Thanks

Cardioids are super nice but don’t always fit the use case. Wide vs narrow dispersion is all about use case. Want a relaxed, low volume environment with a lot of suitable listening positions? Go wide. Omni is best. That’s the “live band in your room” feeling. It can cause more room interaction, which depending on taste could be better or worse. The Beolab speakers have adjustable dispersion characteristics for this exact reason. If I were to offset my speakers to one side of the room for “hot” or “cold” listening areas, a cardioid could do that well with its ~90degree beam of sound that ends very abruptly. All anyone would hear outside the listening area would be floor/ceiling/rear wall reflection. It precludes the need for side and rear wall treatments— awesome in most living room home theaters. This space is, I repeat, 20’x40’. If you put the speakers along the 40’ wall, you may be able to count the seconds until it bounces back. That’s an ideal for broad dispersion setups.

If this is confusing I could totally just draw it.

 

[hege]

If you have to go bigger in Genelec you lose point source and you have to Soffit mount it. Real headache.

You don't have to soffit them any more than any other speakers. One of the best demos I've had was freestanding 1235A's.

1234A would fit budget and they are awesome too, but probably not aesthetic enough in this case.. unless you build the room around them..

 

[Holmz]

For higher output and dynamics nothing can beat a properly designed horn. There are compromises on either side.

Just the science

How low do they play down too.
Or what driver goes between where the subwoofer ends and the horn begins?

 

[AudioJester]

For higher output and dynamics nothing can beat a properly designed horn. There are compromises on either side.

Just the science

Yes, then gets better with a point source horn

 

[Bugal1998]

Elaborating the M2 upgrading; The M2 is a simple design, a square box with two drivers - easy to replicate for "cheap" since the drivers, box size, drawings and EQ settings are widely available. But it's still a two-way with certain compromises that could be improved upon.
A second woofer close to the floor gives far less upper bass cancellation, improves capacity in the area and allows for a midwoofer better suited for pure mids. The original one is rather heavy in order to play deep bass, making it compromised for higher frequencies.
Going further one could make the mid a 12 or 10" instead, allowing for a higher cross-over making the dispersion more constant. As a bonus the original D2 compression driver would live a way easier life - or any compression driver for that matter.

Obviously every speaker has compromises that could be improved upon; it's a matter of making informed choices on the compromises that are least detrimental in your room/layout/system and based on your habits and preferences. I'm in total agreement that output compression and distortion artifacts when approaching/exceeding the output limits of a speaker are highly objectionable... A real consideration in the OP's large listening room!

Regarding the M2, you seem to be putting forward theoretical design compromises that objective data would suggest are likely not audible within the intended application.

A different arrangement might reduce floor bounce cancelation for the M2, but then you have to figure out where to put the ports and how to make room for a third driver down low, and you introduce either another channel of amplification, crossover components, or possibly other c-t-c issues if the woofers are playing the same content. In other words, you're saying some other speaker with a different design might be superior in some way... Sure, and that's true of some aspect of every speaker. But I'm not sure how that helps the OP. The question is whether the design choices of the existing speaker(s) have fundamentally compromised their audible performance relative to their intended use and the available alternatives. A bit of floor bounce--which I haven't heard or measured to be an issue with the M2--may be a small compromise for the overall output and neutrality provided.

As far as the inappropriateness of the 15" driver for mid-range frequencies, you seem to be under the misconception that the weight of the driver dictates high frequency suitability; it doesn't, it dictates driver sensitivity. The frequency response plot of the 2216nd driver shows controlled on-axis behavior and low distortion until at least an octave above the crossover frequency. If the off-axis behavior is good (it is), distortion levels are below audibility (they are), and breakup modes are out of the functional band of the driver (they are), where's the compromise?

Increasing woofer capacity is nice, but is it really an upgrade if it's unnecessary and inaudible in the intended application?

And there's no evidence that the crossover point of the D2 is compromising it's performance in any audible way (in fact objective compression and distortion data suggests it's not). Is a redesign to raise the D2 crossover point that doesn't audibly improve the performance really an upgrade?

You mentioned improved directivity with a smaller woofer, but the current directivity is outstanding as-is; the least flattering DI curves I've seen are those measured by Erin's Audio Corner, and the Early Reflection DI only deviates from a linear transition between the woofer and compression driver by ~2db over a span of about 250hz. The total sound power DI only deviates from a linear transition by about 1db over a range of ~200hz. I would hardly call that a significant compromise (particularly given the extremely neutral listening window response).

Many of your proposed enhancements to the M2 would likely increase cost and complexity with--at best--minimal audible improvement, which would be yet another compromise.

The PBN speakers are interesting, but may well have worse performance than the M2; I've seen no off-axis frequency response plots and no compression/distortion measurements so we have no idea if their chosen 15" drivers have better or worse off-axis directivity than the 2216nd, and we have no idea if the use of dual woofers is creating vertical lobing issues. We also have no idea how effectively the crossovers are implemented.

With that said, absent additional objective data, PBN speakers would be a very expensive gamble.

None of this means the M2 is the right choice for the OP, but let's not add needless confusion to the process either.

 

[Bugal1998]

@MKR I'm not sure what your intention is with wide dispersion speakers and multiple listeners when ruling out Genelec, but my experience with wide dispersion speakers is that they can provide a similar tonality across multiple positions, (with lots of comb filtering in a stereo setup) for listeners outside of the MLP. However, there is still only one position that has a fully formed stereo image. If you want to maintain a sense of sound placement for multiple listeners, you still need a center channel (and wide enough dispersion to provide even coverage across the listening area).

 

[GXAlan]

@MKR I'm not sure what your intention is with wide dispersion speakers and multiple listeners when ruling out Genelec, but my experience with wide dispersion speakers is that they can provide a similar tonality across multiple positions, (with lots of comb filtering in a stereo setup) for listeners outside of the MLP. However, there is still only one position that has a fully formed stereo image. If you want to maintain a sense of sound placement for multiple listeners, you still need a center channel (and wide enough dispersion to provide even coverage across the listening area).

The asymmetrical horns of the DD55000/S2600/S3100 work pretty well. It wouldn’t be a fully formed stereo image since the horn only represents a portion of the audio spectrum and the trade off is the MLP is not as good as other speakers. But if you are listening as a group, you still get good stereo imaging off axis. The idea is that the further you get from a speaker the louder it gets provided that you are in the geometry that has been defined in the manual.

At MLP, the sound is not as clean as traditional speakers due to advances in transducers and waveguides, but there is no doubt that if I am sitting off axis, I like the stereo presentation more with the S2600 than I do with other speakers.

https://support.jbl.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-masterCatalog_Harman/default/dw99ad9f67/pdfs/S2600,S3100%5EJBL%5Eom%5E%5E%5E%5E.pdf

 

[mglobe]

I know this wasn’t on your short list, and don’t remember if there’s been any mentions. Since you are expecting to have some HT use how about:

KEF Reference 3 or 5 Meta
KEF Reference 4c Meta
A pair of Subs
DSP

These comments are purely based on data. I’ve no experience with these speakers and the only reference I have (no pun intended) is comparing the test data to the R3 tests and my personal experience with the R3’s.

Oh and I like how the KEF’s look.

 

[Duke]

There is an alternative technique for getting an enjoyable soundstage across an unusually wide listening area. It involves controlled-pattern loudspeakers and a lot of toe-in. Imo it would work well in @MKR's big room, particularly with speakers on the short wall. It's called "time/intensity trading".

The ear/brain system localizes sound by two mechanisms: Arrival time, and intensity. For listeners along the centerline, arrival time and intensity are the same for each loudspeaker. With conventional speakers which are not toed-in very much, when the listener moves off to one side, the near speaker "wins" BOTH arrival time and intensity, so images (in particular the center vocalist) shift towards the near speaker. And usually the shift of the center vocalist is greater than the shift of the listener. So if the listener shifts two feet to the left, the center vocalist may shift three or more feet to the left.

With a very wide-pattern, omni, or quasi-omni speaker the intensity change will be quite small as the listener moves to one side, so it is primarily the arrival time that changes, resulting in a less dramatic image shift.

Time-intensity trading uses speakers with very well controlled radiation patterns and aggressive toe-in, such that their axes criss-cross in front of the listening area. Here's an example of what this looks like:

In this example the speakers have a horizontal radiation pattern width of 90 degrees (-6 dB at 45 degrees off-axis), and the built-in toe-in is 45 degrees.

So from the location where the photo was taken, the near speaker "wins" arrival time but the FAR speaker "wins" intensity! This is because the listener is well off-axis of the near speaker but is almost directly on-axis of the far speaker. The two image localization mechanisms approximately offset one another, so sound images remain between the loudspeakers rather than collapsing to the near loudspeaker.

The KEY to this configuration working well is, the output of the near speaker must fall off SMOOTHLY and RAPIDLY as we move off-axis. Results are likely to be disappointing with conventional speakers.

For viewers who have normal hearing in both ears, no center channel is needed in order for the dialogue to be anchored on-screen in phantom center mode (that's "Phantom of the Opera" on screen, showcasing Phantom center mode.) I have multiple customers who have sold their expensive center channel speakers after trying this. But if you have viewers with a significant hearing imbalance, then a dedicated center channel speaker will probably be needed.

There is an additional benefit from this configuration: The early same-side-wall reflection is minimal. The first significant sidewall reflection for the left speaker is the long across-the-room bounce off the right-side wall, and vice versa. This not only pushes the first significant lateral reflections back in time, it also de-correlates them, such that the first significant lateral reflection of the left-hand speaker arrives in the right ear, and vice versa, which is generally good for spatial quality. The one arguable downside is that a strong early same-side-wall reflection tends to broaden the apparent source width and widen the soundstage, albeit at the expense of image precision, and this configuration foregoes that strong early same-side-wall reflection. So there is that tradeoff.

I'm familiar with the room where that photo was taken, and from the camera position with eyes closed the soundstage fills the area in between the speakers, and the center vocalist seems to be roughly in the center. The overall spatial quality is not as good nor the imaging as precise as up and down the centerline, but it is arguably competitive with omni and quasi-omni speakers (and a bit better in my opinion, but then I cannot begin to claim that opinion is unbiased).

I think the JBL M2 and 4367, as well as the PBN M2!5, would work well in a time/intensity trading configuration.

Credit to Earl Geddes for teaching me this technique.

 

[hex168]

Given the choice, I'd stick with the larger room. I used to have a 20 x 55 x 12 (approximate, it's been a long time) listening room and I think it sounds great to have the walls far away from the speakers and the listening position. I miss it. I would, however, defer to the opinion of a real acoustician, if you hire one.

 

[Bugal1998]

There is an alternative technique for getting an enjoyable soundstage across an unusually wide listening area. It involves controlled-pattern loudspeakers and a lot of toe-in. Imo it would work well in @MKR's big room, particularly with speakers on the short wall. It's called "time/intensity trading".

The asymmetrical horns of the DD55000/S2600/S3100 work pretty well. It wouldn’t be a fully formed stereo image since the horn only represents a portion of the audio spectrum and the trade off is the MLP is not as good as other speakers. But if you are listening as a group, you still get good stereo imaging off axis. The idea is that the further you get from a speaker the louder it gets provided that you are in the geometry that has been defined in the manual.

I've played around with the toe-in technique with pair of 90 degree horn speakers I used to have (I also learned about it from Earl Geddes) ... It certainly helped, but the non-mlp locations still didn't have a fully formed stereo image due to the wonky arrival times between the left and right ears compared to the MLP.

It's possible I had too high of an expectation for what I considered to be a good off-axis stereo image; but it did help.

 

[diddley]

with 30k to burn i would have bought the speakers already instead of elaborating so much.

 

[GXAlan]

This Snell Type B review including the follow up is really helpful in understanding the room.

Snell Type B loudspeaker

The Snell Type B is the culmination of three years' research and development effort by designer Kevin Voecks. Along the way, various iterations of the B have been shown at Consumer Electronics Shows. Like other Snell models, the facilities of Canada's National Research Council were used...

www.stereophile.com

If you don’t want to read the whole thing, skip to this part.

Snell Type B loudspeaker February 1992 Follow-Up

Larry Greenhill wrote about the Snell Type B in a February 1992 Follow-Up (Vol.15 No.2):

www.stereophile.com

with 30k to burn i would have bought the speakers already instead of elaborating so much.

Part of the fun in this hobby is the deliberation

 

[diddley]

Part of the fun in this hobby is the deliberation

Sometimes i got this feeling that we are debating with persons who dont got that money to spend.
but that might be my problem.

 

[Chromatischism]

I've played around with the toe-in technique with pair of 90 degree horn speakers I used to have (I also learned about it from Earl Geddes) ... It certainly helped, but the non-mlp locations still didn't have a fully formed stereo image due to the wonky arrival times between the left and right ears compared to the MLP.

It's possible I had too high of an expectation for what I considered to be a good off-axis stereo image; but it did help.

I have also tried it and it did help with the off-axis imaging. However, the quality of sound in the center seat suffered, because the speakers sound best not toed in to 0°. Many speakers these days are actually best firing past your shoulders.

 

[Absolute]

@Absolute … That’s exactly what I meant by elaborate, thank you.

Is there a speaker that exists that corrects all of the existing gaps you mentioned with the M2?

As a full-range high-capacity two-way, not to my knowledge. The chosen trade-offs with the M2 is extremely well-considered in order to meet the intended goal.
My point was that when you design an end-game system for your own room you have the liberty to avoid having to take the same trade-offs.

A two-way speaker gives you problems with dispersion up high and capacity down low. Going three or four-way makes the challenge far easier and allows for drivers perfected for a single purpose instead of compromised ones in all areas. Sure, you'll get more crossovers and more chances to screw it up, but with the benefit of modern simulation tools, knowledge and room treatment those are more manageable than the inherent assholeness of physics.