restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Even open baffles!![]()
Have you ever heard a really good sounding pair of full open baffles?
I always wanted a pair of these Jamo R-909s.
Even open baffles!![]()
While we're at it. Three people who worked together with Stig Carlsson, you could say were his disciples, then formed their own loudspeakers. It was John Larsen. By the way, R.I.P. This was written on another forum this summer 2024 by someone who knew him:Larsen and Alison have designs that use the front wall to distribute sound throughout the room with the theory that sum of mean pathways of sound left and right will remain close to equal wherever one listens in the room. So a deliberate mix of direct and indirect sound at the expense of some soundstage.
Ortho Acoustic – Larsen HiFi
www.larsenhifi.com
My uncle made speakers and he used to tell me this. If you line up ten speakers, they will all sound different and at least 9 of them are "wrong" and probably all ten. By wrong, he meant inaccurate in reproducing the signal that is supplied. There is no perfect speaker. He strove to design a speaker that you didn't hear. It would add nothing to the sound and take nothing away. This is all made even more complicated by the quality of associated components and their interaction with each other and the speaker. The speaker interaction with the listening room also has a huge effect on the final sound product.For the sake of this question, let's assume that a conventional speaker has:
Basically all the most well regarded speakers on ASR follow this convention (all executed differently, of course), from manufacturers such as Neumann, Genelec, Revel, KEF, Kii
- a box or box-ish enclosure
- one tweeter
- one or more woofers
- an analogue crossover or DSP
My question is, is there any merit to speakers that stray from this convention? Examples include:
Can any of these other types of speakers seriously contend with the most well engineered designs from a company like KEF?
- Magneplanar (e.g. Magnepan)
- ESL (e.g. Martin Logan)
- Open baffle (e.g. Spatial Audio Labs)
- Linkwitz's designs (e.g. LX521)
My uncle made speakers and he used to tell me this. If you line up ten speakers, they will all sound different and at least 9 of them are "wrong" and probably all ten. By wrong, he meant inaccurate in reproducing the signal that is supplied. There is no perfect speaker. He strove to design a speaker that you didn't hear. It would add nothing to the sound and take nothing away. This is all made even more complicated by the quality of associated components and their interaction with each other and the speaker. The speaker interaction with the listening room also has a huge effect on the final sound product.
There is only the perfect speaker for one's taste. Listening to heavy rock and roll (like me) and feeling the bass in the chest would suggest a quality box speaker. However, I feel the speaker that does the best job of faithful reproduction of the original signal fed to it would be one of the Magnepans properly set up in a room. I have had five different Magnepan models over the years and since I like that thump in my chest, I use a quality subwoofer. The sub changes the sound but being an audiophile is like life, prone to compromise. Just one man's opinion.
There is something special in general with the large dipole planar panel speakers that do what no other speaker type can. Even though my end game speaker quest choice will ultimately not be such a speaker design (mainly due to use case), I have been absolutely smitten with the Diptyque and Clarysis large panel dipoles every time I have experienced them. If I were a wealthy fella and had the listening space, I would absolutely have a pair of Diptyques in addition to the more “standard” soon to materialize full range cardioid design. With that said, the upcoming final “EG” design will have many characteristics of a full range dipole planar, there is good reason for thatI am a Magnepan fan myself, despite running all Meyer Sound gear myself at the moment. I think, there is a selection bias where fans of Magnepan speakers also have the right room and speaker placement for it. We are essentially modifying the on and off axis response, along with the HF beaming and reverse signal from behind the speaker to all conglomerate into perfection at the main listening position…
When I downsized my collection, the speaker that I kept was my restored MG-III.
I think you and your dad nailed it, I would add this controversial statement, if I may. If you quadri-amplify with decent drivers, the right size,(not necessarily expensive), it is difficult to make a bad speaker.My uncle made speakers and he used to tell me this. If you line up ten speakers, they will all sound different and at least 9 of them are "wrong" and probably all ten. By wrong, he meant inaccurate in reproducing the signal that is supplied. There is no perfect speaker. He strove to design a speaker that you didn't hear. It would add nothing to the sound and take nothing away. This is all made even more complicated by the quality of associated components and their interaction with each other and the speaker. The speaker interaction with the listening room also has a huge effect on the final sound product.
There is only the perfect speaker for one's taste. Listening to heavy rock and roll (like me) and feeling the bass in the chest would suggest a quality box speaker. However, I feel the speaker that does the best job of faithful reproduction of the original signal fed to it would be one of the Magnepans properly set up in a room. I have had five different Magnepan models over the years and since I like that thump in my chest, I use a quality subwoofer. The sub changes the sound but being an audiophile is like life, prone to compromise. Just one man's opinion.
Have you ever heard a really good sounding pair of full open baffles?
I always wanted a pair of these Jamo R-909s.
View attachment 404559
Try giving a listen to the Clarysis or Diptyques at some point, I think you will be very impressedI love my Emerald Physics EP2.7's. Very similar design except mine have coaxial mid/tweeter. I have been trying to "upgrade" for years. I cannot find another speaker that conveys the spatial aspects of sound reproduction better than the EP's at anywhere near what I view as reasonable. That happens to be the most important part of stereo reproduction to me. Interestingly when non speaker folk hear my system, that is also the most startling thing to them.
There is something special in general with the large dipole planar panel speakers that do what no other speaker type can. Even though my end game speaker quest choice will ultimately not be such a speaker design (mainly due to use case), I have been absolutely smitten with the Diptyque and Clarysis large panel dipoles every time I have experienced them. If I were a wealthy fella and had the listening space, I would absolutely have a pair of Diptyques in addition to the more “standard” soon to materialize full range cardioid design. With that said, the upcoming final “EG” design will have many characteristics of a full range dipole planar, there is good reason for that![]()
I have listened a lot through coax KEFs and found them to be a little more expansive sounding. My large Kefs with the 107.2 Reference matched tweeters and 104.2 reference midranges sounded pretty large too. I think it really depends on the speakers and how much effort was put into the mids and top end.For me part of that special sound seems to be a sense of more life-like and even scale.
When I listen to live instruments, piano sax, a drum set… the instruments sound large from top to bottom.
But through most typical box, speaker designs, I hear more of a pear-shaped sound:
Instruments in the lower registers can sound bigger and weighty, but as things move up through the mid range, upper range and highs, there is a thinning out of the sound, where high sax notes or high piano become thinner and more reductive, like the instrument is growing smaller. Drum cymbals especially show this problem. In real life, they sound like they large resonating metal discs they are, but through most sound systems they start sounding like smaller spotlights of shiny sound squeezing through small tweeters.
I remember hearing some big Maggies and being struck by the sensation of hearing something more like a life-size piano and life-size drum set.
I've never heard any stereo system reproduce pianos, drums and brass instruments well enough to be indistinguishable from live performances.For me part of that special sound seems to be a sense of more life-like and even scale.
When I listen to live instruments, piano sax, a drum set… the instruments sound large from top to bottom.
But through most typical box, speaker designs, I hear more of a pear-shaped sound:
Instruments in the lower registers can sound bigger and weighty, but as things move up through the mid range, upper range and highs, there is a thinning out of the sound, where high sax notes or high piano become thinner and more reductive, like the instrument is growing smaller. Drum cymbals especially show this problem. In real life, they sound like they large resonating metal discs they are, but through most sound systems they start sounding like smaller spotlights of shiny sound squeezing through small tweeters.
I remember hearing some big Maggies and being struck by the sensation of hearing something more like a life-size piano and life-size drum set.
Infinity made some very cool speakers around that time. I retailed the Kappa line and they where wonderful.I've never heard any stereo system reproduce pianos, drums and brass instruments well enough to be indistinguishable from live performances.
The closest to live sound that I can recall were the Infinity Reference Standards at the 1990 CES. Infinity had a number of violin players (maybe 4-6, but I don't remember) playing in an open space, and they would alternate between them playing live and a recording of them. It was pretty impressive.