Advice and thoughts sought for room, speaker, system matching...

[Daverz]

The piano is a non-issue.

If you are going to be using a music server, I don't see the need for extra DSP hardware, as you can do the convolution on the server.

Why do floorstanding speakers need a pair of subwoofers?

Gee, I'm cranky this morning...

 

[soundwave76]

I will recommend a set what I have at home and it sounds and works awesome -> Bluesound Node2i streamer, which connects digitally to a pair of Genelec 8340 active studio speakers, with built-in state of the art room correction / bass management. Looking at your pics, you DEFINETLY should invest in room/bass correction! Your budget would also allow a small Genelec sub or their flagship coaxial 8341 speakers.

 

[feynman]

Wow. Thank you all for taking the time to reply to my little thread. I will look over all of this and more.

A few select replies - apologies if I've missed anything important so far:

What speakers have you heard/owned/liked/disliked?

I am reluctant to admit some of it, but I can summarize it to say I've owned/tried everything at some time or another (I'm getting older, and had a real gear problem for most of my life). Contrary to all sound logic, I probably got the most musical enjoyment out of my old Shahinian Obelisks with some clunky Naim gear. The Obelisks just bounced sound all over in a completely inaccurate way, and it was sometimes glorious and sometimes odd. It isn't what I'm going for here though - I'm looking for accuracy, as much as can be obtained in these conditions.

ETA: Best alternative sound I've had was a Watt/Puppy 5 system. For as much as I used to see Wilson slagged online (I don't know if it is deserved or not), they were beautiful performers. I've never had more convincing illusions, and they seemed to handle everything with graceful precision. My least favorite among my better systems was some Martin Logan SL2s, though they looked cool. Honorable mention to the Fried Studio V I used to enjoy.

So you don't have an old receiver that could tide you over?

I've got a spare small Creek integrated amp, but I have other plans for it. It could be used as a stopgap while I find more money, though I think it won't be necessary.

Check Amir's review matrix.

Will do.

...with a Raspberry Pi kit...

I've got a handful of Pis about the house and relish the idea of repurposing some of them for audio duties. I may enjoy this aspect a bit too much if I'm honest. I'm decent with networking, server builds, programming...not great, but competent. I am trying to restrain myself a bit though, as I have some competing priorities for my time that I need to care for. I have two more CCAs that I bought in a panic when they were being discontinued, so they might fit in somewhere too.

...a piano in the same room.

It is a digital piano, so no strings involved, just some electronics.

...You read a lot. You try a lot... Experimentation...

Yes, this, very much this. I am trying to avoid falling into a deep all-consuming obsession (which tends to be my natural behavior on things I care about), but I am aware that this must be done.

Or you can go shrine and power this system with a used Devialet integrated.

I'm not familiar with this use of 'shrine.' What does it mean?

So many choices.

Indeed, and also part of my psychological issues in that I want to know all of them, everywhere, in depth...and I hit that obsessive thing I mentioned a moment ago.

---

I've got some scattered bits here and there in the house that I can piece together, but it is mostly relegated to TV use for the family. The current setup at the TV is a small pair of very good Mach One Acoustics monitors (anyone remember them?) and a lower end Rhythmik sub, driven by a Supernait. TV audio is slaved off of the HDMI, and streaming audio is handled via the optical output of a CCA. It sounds more than decent, but I'm looking for a new and much better dedicated music system for myself in the ugly space pictured.

I will work on adjusting the parameters of the room as much as I can, but there's not too much I can do without disrupting the general look of the area too much. I think the bookshelf should go, to be replaced by an absorbent giant tapestry (something classy like dogs playing poker with Elvis).

I do happen to have the exact microphone that was recommended, a UMIK-1, used in a past life with mathaudio and foobar. I look forward to putting it to use again with some of the modern tools.



Thank you again (and please continue).

-mitch

 

[andreasmaaan]

It isn't what I'm going for here though - I'm looking for accuracy, as much as can be obtained in these conditions.

If you’re going for accurate speakers with well-controlled dispersion for $5K or less, I’d look at Genelecs, probably 8341 on the basis of the measurements I’ve seen.

 

[Sal1950]

Yes, this, very much this. I am trying to avoid falling into a deep all-consuming obsession (which tends to be my natural behavior on things I care about), but I am aware that this must be done.

Indeed, and also part of my psychological issues in that I want to know all of them, everywhere, in depth...and I hit that obsessive thing I mentioned a moment ago.

Don't go there, completely unnecessary.
Pick a speaker from one of the recommended, I'd highly push for something from the Revel line in your price range. YMMV
The rest really doesn't matter, a large number of the guys here, myself included, will tell you as long as the amp can supply enough power (200 or more) the rest is a toss-up. Modern electronics for the last few decades have been fully transparent and will all pretty much sound the same. A digital front end whether CD or streaming based and you'll be all set for SOTA music reproduction. A laptop or desktop rig can do it all.
Think about the add-ons you might require or desire like digital room correction or a pair of subwoofers, things that can be purchased going in or at a later time.

It's when you get obsesive that you get suckered in by the BS and snake oil peddlers, throwing large amounts of money down the drain chasing imaginary claims and ghosts. It's down that road lies the madness.

 

[RayDunzl]

A few select replies - apologies if I've missed anything important so far

Then I'll throw in a curve.

If that became my room the first thing I'd unpack would be my panels for some tunes while unpacking the rest.

They'd look real nice with the backlighting.

Moving day, into this house 9 years ago...

Good deals around on the second hand market. I haven't been able to harm them with exuberant playback in the 21 years I've had them.

 

[MattHooper]

I like Dunlavy speakers because they are very accurate and work well near the front wall. They also tolerate a very wide listening angle without compromising center image.

I'm surprised at this comment.

Dunlavy speakers went with the narrow/controlled dispersion approach and summed their output to a very precise spot for the listener. They were notoriously finicky in terms of listener sweet spots. (Which is one reason why, though I liked their sound quite a bit back in the day, I did not buy that brand).

 

[andreasmaaan]

I'm surprised at this comment.

Dunlavy speakers went with the narrow/controlled dispersion approach and summed their output to a very precise spot for the listener. They were notoriously finicky in terms of listener sweet spots. (Which is one reason why, though I liked their sound quite a bit back in the day, I did not buy that brand).

I never owned Dunlavys, but spent a bit of time mixing on a pair of SC-IVs at one point because a musician I worked with had them in his studio. TBH, knowing how they worked, I was pretty surprised by how good they sounded: according to JA's measurements, you were facing peaks and dips of around 6dB as soon as you moved 5° vertically off-axis.

 

[Eurasian]

I'm surprised at this comment.

Dunlavy speakers went with the narrow/controlled dispersion approach and summed their output to a very precise spot for the listener. They were notoriously finicky in terms of listener sweet spots. (Which is one reason why, though I liked their sound quite a bit back in the day, I did not buy that brand).

I am referring to the included angle between the speakers and the listener's position. The listener must be exactly equidistant to get the full magic, but there is a pretty generous amount of fore and aft tolerance.

 

[Sal1950]

Moving day, into this house 9 years ago...

It sure doesn't look like that any more. LOL

 

[neph]

John Dunlavy design philosophy was very much inline with this forum's ethos, in the regard that he was always driven to achieve perfect frequency and phase response accuracy. Even today, there are few passive or active speakers of the equivalent price, that can match the measurements of the SCI-SCVI models.

His flagship model was measured by stereophile @±1 db with perfect step response, while even the base model was also measured @~ ±1.5 db
https://www.stereophile.com/content/dunlavy-audio-labs-signature-sc-vi-loudspeaker-measurements

He also began experimenting since the 90s with class-D and DSP actives to by-pass the inevitable drawbacks of his 1st order crossovers, way before the trend began.

I am very curious how would a well maintained Dunlavy speaker would fair against today's passive favourites such as the Revels, in both subjective and objective terms.

 

[Ron Texas]

My observation is the OP has a better than average room. The seating position should be closer to the speakers for an equilateral triangle setup. Small stand mounts and a sub will work, but integrating the sub is a chore if you havn't done it before. Remember, around here most folks have done it before. I am somewhat leery of using powered studio monitors, designed for recording studio use at very close listening distances, in the home. My advice is to look around for a pair of floor standing speakers you can afford. Revel, GoldenEar Technology and Monitor Audio come to mind. See what you can find locally. If you really like the powered monitor route, try the LS50W. It has a sub out and can high pass the mains.

By the way, is the Feynman handle about the physicist Richard Feynman?

 

[andreasmaaan]

John Dunlavy design philosophy was very much inline with this forum's ethos, in the regard that he was always driven to achieve perfect frequency and phase response accuracy. Even today, there are few passive or active speakers of the equivalent price, that can match the measurements of the SCI-SCVI models.

His flagship model was measured by stereophile @±1 db with perfect step response, while even the base model was also measured @~ ±1.5 db
https://www.stereophile.com/content/dunlavy-audio-labs-signature-sc-vi-loudspeaker-measurements

He also began experimenting since the 90s with class-D and DSP actives to by-pass the inevitable drawbacks of his 1st order crossovers, way before the trend began.

I am very curious how would a well maintained Dunlavy speaker would fair against today's passive favourites such as the Revels, in both subjective and objective terms.

Although I can’t help but be impressed by Dunlavy’s designs, I have to disagree with the idea that his approach was scientific.

Even a decade or more prior to Dunlavy, investigations of audibility threshold for phase distortion had been undertaken. These had consistently failed to demonstrate that distortions of the magnitude introduced by 2nd to 4th order passive filters were audible.

Dunlavy nevertheless placed the avoidance of phase distortion ahead of other design criteria (most notably, polar response smoothness and low nonlinear distortion).

To have designed the speakers he did despite being hamstrung by his insistence on using 6dB/octave filters makes him a remarkable engineer - but not much of a scientist.

EDIT: on re-reading that came out pretty harsh! Just wanna make clear I’m a big admirer of Dunlavy. And it’s worth noting that his decision to use modestly priced, well-measuring drivers is very much in line with the ethos of this forum.

 

[Daverz]

I am very curious how would a well maintained Dunlavy speaker would fair against today's passive favourites such as the Revels, in both subjective and objective terms.

I suspect the better drivers in the Revels would make a big difference. I've been listening to my SC-IIIs, and the tweeter does not sound very "refined". They used Vifa silk dome tweeters, I believe. (The speakers are about 20 years old, so I also worry about how the capacitors in the crossover are holding up.)

 

[Daverz]

Dunlavy nevertheless placed the avoidance of phase distortion ahead of other design criteria (most notably, polar response smoothness and low nonlinear distortion)

Vandersteen had some interesting comments on this in this Stereophile interview:

Basically, time alignment is not the most important design factor (I think he means generally in the industry), but, being analytical, it's important to him. Unfortunately, John Atkinson does not pick up on this and probe deeper.

 

[feynman]

My observation is the OP has a better than average room. The seating position should be closer to the speakers for an equilateral triangle setup. Small stand mounts and a sub will work, but integrating the sub is a chore if you havn't done it before. Remember, around here most folks have done it before. I am somewhat leery of using powered studio monitors, designed for recording studio use at very close listening distances, in the home. My advice is to look around for a pair of floor standing speakers you can afford. Revel, GoldenEar Technology and Monitor Audio come to mind. See what you can find locally. If you really like the powered monitor route, try the LS50W. It has a sub out and can high pass the mains.

Thank you for this, and thanks again to everyone for offering their thoughts. I appreciate all of the input. I am still a bit undecided on my approach, but I'm having fun thinking about it.

By the way, is the Feynman handle about the physicist Richard Feynman?

Indeed it is. He's one of my biggest idols (as is Chopin in the avatar), and a forum handle I've used in the past (so easy for me to remember).

 

[andreasmaaan]

Basically, time alignment is not the most important design factor (I think he means generally in the industry), but, being analytical, it's important to him. Unfortunately, John Atkinson does not pick up on this and probe deeper.

I'm aware of the assertions in favour of 1st order linear phase passive crossovers, just not any actual evidence (despite many attempts) supporting them

 

[andreasmaaan]

I've been listening to my SC-IIIs, and the tweeter does not sound very "refined". They used Vifa silk dome tweeters, I believe.

It's equally likely that any distortion you may be hearing is a result of the 1st-order crossover asking the tweeter to reproduce lower frequencies at higher amplitudes than it can comfortably reproduce them, as opposed to any inherent deficiencies in the tweeter itself.

 

[Ron Texas]

Feynman's textbook, The Feynman Lectures remains a classic. Since no good deed goes unpunished, I was placed in an "elite" physics class. This was at a highly selective university. They decided to use this textbook. It was their first time and the book was new then. I think the profs has no idea of how to teach it.

 

[Daverz]

It's equally likely that any distortion you may be hearing is a result of the 1st-order crossover asking the tweeter to reproduce lower frequencies at higher amplitudes than it can comfortably reproduce them, as opposed to any inherent deficiencies in the tweeter itself.

Sounds right. If you can tune out this bit of "grain" in the low treble/upper midrange, the speakers image easily and throw a big, tall, immersive soundstage, and even though they only go down to 50 Hz or so, the slow 6 dB/octave roll-off and sealed design makes what bass there is fast and satisfying. If I had the electronics skills, it would be an interesting project to update the drivers and construct an active digital crossover.

EDIT: I should add that my Vandersteen Quatros have no (audible) upper midrange/low treble grain. Yeah, I was really into having that textbook triangular step response in the speaker measurements. My speakers in between the Dunlavys and the Vandersteens were the NHT Xd with the external digital crossover/amp, which were way before their time.