Best bookshelf speakers for 3D/Holographic imaging

[theyellowspecial]

That’s awesome and puts them within easy reach for me. They are $2500 everywhere here. I’m basically waiting for my tax refund but imagine the link you posted sells them for that price all day long. They are sold in singles not pairs?? Should be duty free and just pay the ~$20 charge plus GST for Alberta. I don’t see the request invoice option though, I just see a spot to put in a discount code. Maybe I have to checkout and create an account first?

So the inverted tweeter really helps than?
I wonder how they compare to the LS50s just strictly for holographic imaging.

At any rate if I do get them I’m going in blind so I’m trusting you lol. I’m not usually that picky, I find there is something to appreciate in not all but most speakers. Looking at the graph there is not much to not appreciate. The walnut looks absolutely stunning BTW.

The button says "demander le prix confidentiel" on the product page.

The Aria 906 is the most "spacious" speaker I've heard. I've never heard the LS50 or any coaxial design.

Someone else mentioned using surround speakers for presence. That's a good suggestion.

 

[Putter]

I assume you use the Music setting of DPLIIx ? (If not, do...)

The 'cave' vocal effect is typically a function of the Center Width setting in DPLIIx Music mode.

Or, the original recording is bizarre (OOP vocal content in left/right...?)

As for the '5 channel' option....no, just no!

I don't use 5 channel much as it does seem to cause listener fatigue, but I do like it sometimes and make no apologies for that. What setting on DPLIIx for the center reduces the 'cave' effect'? Thanks.

 

[trivium]

The button says "demander le prix confidentiel" on the product page.

The Aria 906 is the most "spacious" speaker I've heard. I've never heard the LS50 or any coaxial design.

Someone else mentioned using surround speakers for presence. That's a good suggestion.

Too late lol I just bought the arias following your instruction, came out to $1060 CDN. That’s a deal that’s far too good to pass up even if I hate them which I seriously doubt, I can resell them at a profit. I somehow convinced the wife to let me buy them, of which I will reimburse myself when my tax refund comes. I think when I mean presence and holographic sound it’s much more nuanced and subtle than what surrounds would provide. It becomes most evident when you reach that meditative state of euphoria through the music. To me it’s like art, it’s simply captivating how sound engineers and artists do it, surround sound channels just don’t have the same magical effect for some reason. Pretty excited, thanks! Now let’s hope the transaction/shipping goes smooth as I used PayPal.

 

[krabapple]

I don't use 5 channel much as it does seem to cause listener fatigue, but I do like it sometimes and make no apologies for that. What setting on DPLIIx for the center reduces the 'cave' effect'? Thanks.

I don't normally get a 'cave' effect' on vocals and I have Center Width at its default...3. I have identical loudspeakers all around.

You could try reducing it from whatever it's set to now...that will focus more content to the center. If you increase, it will sound more and more like stereo; at the maximum, 7, there's nothing sent to center -- you are hearing a phantom image. See what works...

There's two other Music mode settings, (which I also leave at default) , Dimension changes the front vs back balance, and Panorama can produce startling 'side images between the speakers on one side (e.g. left front and left surround). Default settings are '0' (equal balance) and "Off', respectively.

They and other interesting aspects of DPLII are discussed in this article from the stone age...the year 2001 ;>

https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_8_1/dolby-prologic2-3-2001.html

Btw, DPLII basically no longer exists in modern AVRs...it's usually been replaced with the Dolby Surround Upmixer (DSU) which I feel is not quite so good...though I have not done a blind comparison. (Roger Dressler, of Dolby Labs, feels the same, though, so I'm in good company there).

FWIW, Floyd Toole is a fan of upmixing too (though not Dolby's).

 

[theyellowspecial]

Too late lol I just bought the arias following your instruction, came out to $1060 CDN. That’s a deal that’s far too good to pass up even if I hate them which I seriously doubt, I can resell them at a profit. I somehow convinced the wife to let me buy them, of which I will reimburse myself when my tax refund comes. I think when I mean presence and holographic sound it’s much more nuanced and subtle than what surrounds would provide. It becomes most evident when you reach that meditative state of euphoria through the music. To me it’s like art, it’s simply captivating how sound engineers and artists do it, surround sound channels just don’t have the same magical effect for some reason. Pretty excited, thanks! Now let’s hope the transaction/shipping goes smooth as I used PayPal.

The Aria 906 definitely brings the performance into the room, opposed to something with narrow directivity that brings the listener into the recording studio. The sound is large and spacious and probably what you're looking for when you say holographic.

 

[thewas]

Couldn't possibly disagree more .

It's actually the opposite of this. The wider the dispersion, the worse the imaging will be. If you want super tight imaging, the last thing you want is a super wide dispersion speaker. It will certainly be more stable and throw a wider soundstage, but will be less clear and more diffuse sounding due to a lower percentage of direct sound at the ears. If you want a super good center image, you want a very narrow dispersion speaker. The LRS is actually a pretty good suggestion for imaging alone, though it has some pretty horrible flaws outside of that.

That said, wider dispersion speakers are easier to get a center image with, so may be contributing to what you're hearing with your LS50. Narrow dispersion speakers can be difficult to get a center image with, but when properly dialed in they'll image much better than a wider dispersion speaker ever will. Of course, the narrow dispersion speaker will never envelop as well as the wider dispersion speaker, nor will it throw as wide a soundstage. As with all things, there are pros and cons to both styles. My Revels are my worst imaging speakers by far, but they're also my most enveloping speakers. Overall they're excellent.

Also, your Revels and BMRs measure better on and off axis, so not exactly a fair comparison. To truly compare, you need a narrow dispersion speaker that measures as well as your wide dispersion speakers. Of course, the BMRs are actually kinda unique, in that they have very wide horizontal dispersion but very narrow vertical dispersion, which may actually be a good thing(more research needed imo).

I posted this before, but generally speaking, and all other factors held constant(they never are ):

Narrower dispersion will image tighter and more clearly
Wider dispersion will throw a wider soundstage
Wider dispersion will be easier to get center image
Wider dispersion will have a more stable center image(unless extreme toe-in is used with the narrow dispersion speaker)
Speakers with smoother off axis response will image more clearly, especially in more reflective rooms
Speakers with a tighter driver grouping(like the Q150) will throw a tighter image than big towers who's drivers are far apart
Speakers with symmetrical driver layouts will throw a tighter image

The best imaging I've ever heard by far (and it was under blind conditions) was the Danley SH50, a very narrow (50 x 50) point source loudspeaker.

My experience till now has been also very similar to yours and guess depends also on the room acoustics, listening distance and personal preferences, as I have written in other threads, in my current acoustically quite reflective room wide dispersion designs don't give me a satisfying result.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Couldn't possibly disagree more .

It's actually the opposite of this. The wider the dispersion, the worse the imaging will be. If you want super tight imaging, the last thing you want is a super wide dispersion speaker. It will certainly be more stable and throw a wider soundstage, but will be less clear and more diffuse sounding due to a lower percentage of direct sound at the ears. If you want a super good center image, you want a very narrow dispersion speaker. The LRS is actually a pretty good suggestion for imaging alone, though it has some pretty horrible flaws outside of that.

That said, wider dispersion speakers are easier to get a center image with, so may be contributing to what you're hearing with your LS50. Narrow dispersion speakers can be difficult to get a center image with, but when properly dialed in they'll image much better than a wider dispersion speaker ever will. Of course, the narrow dispersion speaker will never envelop as well as the wider dispersion speaker, nor will it throw as wide a soundstage. As with all things, there are pros and cons to both styles. My Revels are my worst imaging speakers by far, but they're also my most enveloping speakers. Overall they're excellent.

Also, your Revels and BMRs measure better on and off axis, so not exactly a fair comparison. To truly compare, you need a narrow dispersion speaker that measures as well as your wide dispersion speakers. Of course, the BMRs are actually kinda unique, in that they have very wide horizontal dispersion but very narrow vertical dispersion, which may actually be a good thing(more research needed imo).

I posted this before, but generally speaking, and all other factors held constant(they never are ):

Narrower dispersion will image tighter and more clearly
Wider dispersion will throw a wider soundstage
Wider dispersion will be easier to get center image
Wider dispersion will have a more stable center image(unless extreme toe-in is used with the narrow dispersion speaker)
Speakers with smoother off axis response will image more clearly, especially in more reflective rooms
Speakers with a tighter driver grouping(like the Q150) will throw a tighter image than big towers who's drivers are far apart
Speakers with symmetrical driver layouts will throw a tighter image

The best imaging I've ever heard by far (and it was under blind conditions) was the Danley SH50, a very narrow (50 x 50) point source loudspeaker.

Points taken, but... I'm not sure we have agreed on what the OP's idea of "holographic imaging" is. I have been trying to read between meandering lines in this thread.

1. Rock solid center image with head in vise?
2. Same without head in vise?
3. More or less accurate depiction of the soundstage in terms of width, depth, and height, with instruments located correctly and stable center image?

My preferences is for the latter, obviously, and wider directivity speakers get me there. I also like them, because you can always control dispersion in a room with absorption and diffusion--especially where the speakers are smooth on and far off axis. You can't improve dispersion of narrow directivity speakers very easily.

I would put KEF R3s in my 2nd category in that list. Incredible image that is more stable than many others. But they are currently sitting in their boxes.

My main point in that previous post was meant to be that the LS50 is an improvement over the Q150 in many ways, but not in the imaging department. Also, if the OP is upgrading speakers, why not upgrade the bass as well? The LS50 does not really achieve that. If the OP thinks he/she likes "holographic imaging," what until he/she experiences "holographic imaging" with deep BASS!

 

[trivium]

Points taken, but... I'm not sure we have agreed on what the OP's idea of "holographic imaging" is. I have been trying to read between meandering lines in this thread.

1. Rock solid center image with head in vise?
2. Same without head in vise?
3. More or less accurate depiction of the soundstage in terms of width, depth, and height, with instruments located correctly and stable center image?

My preferences is for the latter, obviously, and wider directivity speakers get me there. I also like them, because you can always control dispersion in a room with absorption and diffusion--especially where the speakers are smooth on and far off axis. You can't improve dispersion of narrow directivity speakers very easily.

I would put KEF R3s in my 2nd category in that list. Incredible image that is more stable than many others. But they are currently sitting in their boxes.

My main point in that previous post was meant to be that the LS50 is an improvement over the Q150 in many ways, but not in the imaging department. Also, if the OP is upgrading speakers, why not upgrade the bass as well? The LS50 does not really achieve that. If the OP thinks he/she likes "holographic imaging," what until he/she experiences "holographic imaging" with deep BASS!

Im running a klipsch sub-100 right now. Before anyone judges it im actually impressed by the sound quality compared to how bad people bash klipch...at least when its far away from corners, pulled 3FT from the rear wall placed right in the center of the speakers in front of me and the addition of bass traps. That said i have upgrade plans but dollar to dollar moving up from a sub i have now to a better sub brings me less joy than the speakers themselves, which is why its at the bottom of my list.

Its interesting because "soundstage" in general is is not something i really experienced coming from the headphone world. Looking back now i laugh at how people talk about soundstage in headphones when in reality it doesn't exist. Once you listen to a well executed 2 channel setup the difference was clear. By holographic im referring to the spatial queues allowing your mind to assign direction, distance, even altitude. Yes pretty much all speakers worth listening to have a phantom center speaker or image to some degree but its more than that. The speakers should disappear into a wall of sound and moreover instead of a linear sound wall there are multiple layers to the depth of that wall. Not all recordings have this but occasionally sounds will jump right out of the left and right flanks or wisp across the soundstage. A large, spacious soundstage with good depth i think are some key elements that make this possible

I have heard the Kef r3's and compared them to the Q150's and they sound spectacular with a huge soundstage, definitely holographic but they are $2800 here. If the LS50s are not an improvement in imaging or soundstage than it would be a waste of money for me.

 

[richard12511]

My experience till now has been also very similar to yours and guess depends also on the room acoustics, listening distance and personal preferences, as I have written in other threads, in my current acoustically quite reflective room wide dispersion designs don't give me a satisfying result.

Yeah it definitely depends on room acoustics to a large degree. I can actually get a somewhat similar effect my absorbing the 1st reflection points of my M105s in my office. Absorbing the first reflection points definitely increases clarity and tightens the center image, but it comes at the expense of spaciousness and envelopment. I think Toole's research found that people generally prefer the extra spaciousness more than they enjoy the extra clarity, but it seems that personal preference plays a large role here.

Personally, I like to leave the reflections intact for my Revels, as if I want that tighter/more clear imaging, I can just listen to one of my other more narrow dispersion speakers. The inverse is not true for me. I haven't found a way to make my narrow dispersion speakers envelop the same way the Revels do. I like having both options, as I think certain content is more enjoyable on each type of speaker. A good example of a song I think that does well with more wider dispersion is Enya's "Only Time". For that song, there's not really a strong center image to highlight the advantages of narrow dispersion, but there is a lot of euphonic envelopment. In fact, in the last blind test I did (with my parents), that was one of the few songs where the M105 beat the 8030c. My office(where the blind was done) is actually a pretty good for highlighting the differences between narrower and wider dispersion. You can kinda see in this quick video, the room is a rectangle with very even untreated side wall reflections. There is diffusion on the front wall that you can see in the video, as well as absorption on the ceiling that you can't see. Much better than my main room, which doesn't really have side wall "first reflection points".

 

[Pearljam5000]

Yeah it definitely depends on room acoustics to a large degree. I can actually get a somewhat similar effect my absorbing the 1st reflection points of my M105s in my office. Absorbing the first reflection points definitely increases clarity and tightens the center image, but it comes at the expense of spaciousness and envelopment. I think Toole's research found that people generally prefer the extra spaciousness more than they enjoy the extra clarity, but it seems that personal preference plays a large role here.

Personally, I like to leave the reflections intact for my Revels, as if I want that tighter/more clear imaging, I can just listen to one of my other more narrow dispersion speakers. The inverse is not true for me. I haven't found a way to make my narrow dispersion speakers envelop the same way the Revels do. I like having both options, as I think certain content is more enjoyable on each type of speaker. A good example of a song I think that does well with more wider dispersion is Enya's "Only Time". For that song, there's not really a strong center image to highlight the advantages of narrow dispersion, but there is a lot of euphonic envelopment. In fact, in the last blind test I did (with my parents), that was one of the few songs where the M105 beat the 8030c. My office(where the blind was done) is actually a pretty good for highlighting the differences between narrower and wider dispersion. You can kinda see in this quick video, the room is a rectangle with very even untreated side wall reflections. There is diffusion on the front wall that you can see in the video, as well as absorption on the ceiling that you can't see. Much better than my main room, which doesn't really have side wall "first reflection points".

Saying that another speaker beats Genelec is blasphemy

 

[trivium]

Yeah it definitely depends on room acoustics to a large degree. I can actually get a somewhat similar effect my absorbing the 1st reflection points of my M105s in my office. Absorbing the first reflection points definitely increases clarity and tightens the center image, but it comes at the expense of spaciousness and envelopment. I think Toole's research found that people generally prefer the extra spaciousness more than they enjoy the extra clarity, but it seems that personal preference plays a large role here.

Personally, I like to leave the reflections intact for my Revels, as if I want that tighter/more clear imaging, I can just listen to one of my other more narrow dispersion speakers. The inverse is not true for me. I haven't found a way to make my narrow dispersion speakers envelop the same way the Revels do. I like having both options, as I think certain content is more enjoyable on each type of speaker. A good example of a song I think that does well with more wider dispersion is Enya's "Only Time". For that song, there's not really a strong center image to highlight the advantages of narrow dispersion, but there is a lot of euphonic envelopment. In fact, in the last blind test I did (with my parents), that was one of the few songs where the M105 beat the 8030c. My office(where the blind was done) is actually a pretty good for highlighting the differences between narrower and wider dispersion. You can kinda see in this quick video, the room is a rectangle with very even untreated side wall reflections. There is diffusion on the front wall that you can see in the video, as well as absorption on the ceiling that you can't see. Much better than my main room, which doesn't really have side wall "first reflection points".

I might have to switch up some of acoustic panels than. I might hang a few of those 20x20 slotted wood panels directly over the acoustic panels on the front wall so i get the best of both worlds. I did build some massive and heavy diffusers at the rear of the theatre using 30 day trial of an engineering software. Not a night a day difference but when you turn up the action, there is a definite improvement. How important is it though that they need to be mathematically correct? Would a full bookshelf not give a similar result?

 

[trivium]

@theyellowspecial
Thankyou so much for your recommendation for the aria 906 and the suggestion to order directly from France. I’m absolutely in love with these speakers, they definitely provide that holographic sound. The only downside is I would have to spend substantially more to upgrade if I ever wanted berliyium inverted tweeters. I’m definitely drinking the koolaid for the inverted tweeters.
They barely arrived in one price though. The box was water logged and the speakers had frost on the sides. The box was basically destroyed and the speakers were exposed to the elements. It probably didn’t help that it’s been -40f for the past two weeks in Canada here. Coldest period of the year.

 

[theyellowspecial]

Glad they're working out for you. The inverted tweeter definitely lights up the room with sound.

I'm in Canada as well and one of my 906 speakers came with a small indentation. The box was in perfect shape so I didn't assume to inspect the speakers while the courier was present. Unfortunately the speaker dislodged from the foam packaging during transit. Hopefully your damage was limited to the box!

 

[Pearljam5000]

Wow wait
Are Focal becoming popular around here? Lol
I always liked their sound by the way

 

[richard12511]

Wow wait
Are Focal becoming popular around here? Lol
I always liked their sound by the way

Focal seem to go a little underrated here. They generally seem to offer fairly neutral on axis response. Maybe not quite as neutral as Revel/KEF, but 95%, while also offering a different dispersion pattern. Compared to Revel, they generally seem a little more narrow through much of the range, but then wider from 5 to 10kHz. No idea how that changes the soundstage/imaging, but @napilopez seems to really like it, and he's heard much of the stuff from Revel/KEF.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Focal seem to go a little underrated here. They generally seem to offer fairly neutral on axis response. Maybe not quite as neutral as Revel/KEF, but 95%, while also offering a different dispersion pattern. Compared to Revel, they generally seem a little more narrow through much of the range, but then wider from 5 to 10kHz. No idea how that changes the soundstage/imaging, but @napilopez seems to really like it, and he's heard much of the stuff from Revel/KEF.

Even though I've been told tweeter material has 0 impact on sound, I tend to disagree... Focal's berillyum tweeter sounds different than any other I've heard.

 

[GDK]

Wow wait
Are Focal becoming popular around here? Lol
I always liked their sound by the way

Just think of the possibilities for new threads!

 

[richard12511]

Even though I've been told tweeter material has 0 impact on sound, I tend to disagree... Focal's berillyum tweeter sounds different than any other I've heard.

I think you may be misunderstanding a bit(or it's possible I've misunderstood). I've seen those conversations, and what I took them to mean is that if different tweeters sound different, they will measure different. If a Be tweeter measures the same as an Al tweeter, it should sound the same. There were likely measurable differences between the tweeters you heard, which isn't surprising.

 

[napilopez]

Focal seem to go a little underrated here. They generally seem to offer fairly neutral on axis response. Maybe not quite as neutral as Revel/KEF, but 95%, while also offering a different dispersion pattern. Compared to Revel, they generally seem a little more narrow through much of the range, but then wider from 5 to 10kHz. No idea how that changes the soundstage/imaging, but @napilopez seems to really like it, and he's heard much of the stuff from Revel/KEF.

Correction: I've heard some KEF and JBL. I've actually never heard a Revel speaker

With regards to focal, I think their directivity pattern is what sets them apart, (whether one likes the sound or not is another matter). Big waveguided speakers with average-to-narrow directivity are a dime a dozen, as are non-waveguide speakers with 1-inch tweeters that start to to narrow after 5-6kHz. Focal speakers keep the wide directivity to 9-kHz or so, and that last bit of extra horizontal dispersion is something I find I quite like.

But yeah, Focal's current lineup generally seems to be "flat enough" on axis, and with a unique wide directivity pattern from 2-10kHz, which is roughly the region that defines soundstage performance for me.

Regarding the Revel and KEF comparison, I think most waveguided speakers have a directivity that gently tilts downward as you move off axis, while focals are actually almost constant directivity above 1khz. This leads to similarly wide performance around 1-2kHz, or sometimes the focals are a bit narrower because the transition from woofer to tweeter isn't quite as smooth without a good waveguide. But once you hit 3-4kHz or so, the focal become obviously wider.

For example, here's the Revel M16:

Similar story for KEF. Here's the R3, which is narrower.

And here's the Focal Aria 906:

Nearly constant directivity behavior from 1kHz to 9kHz. (The Focal Chora 806 is nearly identical in this regard, while the Sopra 1 is even wider I believe).

Meanwhile here's what a typical unwaveguided tweeter looks like, the GR Research X-LS Encore:

Similarly wide up to 4kHz, but then drops off steeply. There are some 1-inch dome speakers that keep things wide to maybe 6-7kHz, but few that get that last bit like focal, and I do find it is a very audible characteristic.

I also find I consistently find myself preferring speakers that tend towards a constant directivity behavior. Part of the reason I like the D&D 8C so much, despite it being narrower than these.

Even though I've been told tweeter material has 0 impact on sound, I tend to disagree... Focal's berillyum tweeter sounds different than any other I've heard.

Hopefully the above will show how Focals beryllium tweeters sound unique because the m shaped tweeters have a directivity pattern like few speakers. Mind you, the above is an aluminum tweeter, but the berylliums behave similarly. In my opinion, focals aluminum and berylliums tweeters sound more alike with each other than aluminum or beryllium tweeters from other brands.

 

[trivium]

Glad they're working out for you. The inverted tweeter definitely lights up the room with sound.

I'm in Canada as well and one of my 906 speakers came with a small indentation. The box was in perfect shape so I didn't assume to inspect the speakers while the courier was present. Unfortunately the speaker dislodged from the foam packaging during transit. Hopefully your damage was limited to the box!

Yes, fortunately for me it was limited to the box, however if I did it again I would ask for shrink wrap around the box.