Floor-standing under $3k?

[Mtbf]

I don’t know what your personal experiences are, but I personally find speakers that have a certain wow-effect at first listening usually causing me to end up with listening fatigue. The Dynaudio speakers however, I can listen to for days in a row. Something to keep in mind when you go listening.

 

[thefsb]

Salk Sound (the Song 3 is $300 over your budget, but a great full range speaker).

Salk is new to me. I read the web site and love it. Direct sale, made to order, low overheads! I like that more than trading on the value of a brand, no matter how venerable. I'm really interested. I wonder if somehow I can cop a listen.

 

[Snarfie]

Ik have the Vandersteen model1 speakers incombination with roomcorrection (Mathaudio room eq) the staging is incredeble. I expect no less from the model 2.

 

[HammerSandwich]

https://www.stereophile.com/content/focal-aria-936-loudspeaker-measurements

That's a solid set of measurements! They hint that you'd want a high-current amp to handle <100Hz.

Also, note the bump in off-axis response above 3kHz (fig. 5). That's caused by taking a 6.5" up to a 3kHz crossover, so it beams a bit before the tweeter takes over. Because the 936's reflections won't quite match the direct sound, it may not sound quite as natural as a speaker that transitions more smoothly. A smaller mid or lower XO mitigates this problem, so try to compare the 936 with, say, a 5" UniQ, PSB X2T/T2 or Revel F206. This is an issue @Floyd Toole has pointed out repeatedly, and it's good to be aware of it. But don't take me too negatively here - the Focal does measure well. Like everything else, however, it's not perfect; and this is one area that some other speakers handle a bit better.

What I would really want is for somebody else to take care of the gear. But I don't know anyone I can trust to do that for me, I only know people who want to sell me high quality audio components, a hazardous game.

Perhaps a more experienced ASR member in the Boston area would be willing to spend an afternoon auditioning speakers with you. Don't hurt to ask.

 

[Daverz]

I don't think the Vandersteens do well off axis. In his measurements of the 2Ce Sig II, John Atkinson says:

"I haven't shown the 2Ce Signature II's horizontal-dispersion plot because it is very difficult to interpret."

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content...-loudspeaker-measurements#0xfAMmIZQrueVp1s.99

I own Vandersteen Quatros (original cloth version), but prefer the Buchardt S400 in my room.

I suggest looking for speakers that have a reasonably flat frequency response on axis and have smooth off-axis response.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I don't have the language for it. I don't understand audio review language. Herb Reichert is fun to read but is incomprehensible when it comes to how this sounds relative to that. I know when something sounds good, a live music performance, an acoustic space, a person's voice, or an electronic music playback system as we are discussing here, but I can't describe in what way.

Well, I have not reviewed the Revel F206 but I do have a pair that I use for surround L/R. I can say that both the F206 and F208 are remarkably balanced and both can present an excellent semblance of a real musical event with voices and/or instruments in a credible performance space.

 

[thefsb]

I don’t know what your personal experiences are, but I personally find speakers that have a certain wow-effect at first listening usually causing me to end up with listening fatigue. The Dynaudio speakers however, I can listen to for days in a row. Something to keep in mind when you go listening.

That's a very important point. The Pepsi Challenge worked the same way.

 

[CDMC]

Salk is new to me. I read the web site and love it. Direct sale, made to order, low overheads! I like that more than trading on the value of a brand, no matter how venerable. I'm really interested. I wonder if somehow I can cop a listen.

If you go to audiocircle, the Salk forum has a list of owners for demo. Salk also will return them if you don’t like them, but I think you cover the shipping in that case.

Regarding vandersteen. I’ve owned 3 pairs, 2c, 1c, and 3a Signatures. They are wonderful when set up correctly. The downsides I have found are 1) the listening window is very small, and 2) the mids on the 3 ways never fully integrate with the woofer and tweeter. The Salks have neither issue, but don’t have that warm mid bass and lower midrange I traditionally prefer (but they are also flat in the treble, something I have never traditionally liked as I found it bright, but they are open without being bright). Jim Salk is clear that he aims for dead neutral, so it is not a shortcoming, it meets his design goals. I have also had the Revel F36. They don’t have the utter transparency of the Salks, but do have a bit more warmth. Even though Revel sold through traditional retailers, I felt the F36 was a good value at the $2k pricepoint.

Also, while not asked by you, set up and some room treatment as needed are very important. The room has a huge effect on the sound as does the proper setup of the speakers and listening position. GIK Acoustics has some great information on their site i suggest reading/watching, have reasonable prices, and will make suggestions if you send them information about your room. The $800 of so I spent treating my main room made massive improvements.

 

[Davelemi]

Does the Evoke line replace the Excite line?

There's a retailer in state (Safe And Sound 2 hour drive) with those brands (and Excite X38 for $2600) and a number of other interesting products. I'll call and try to arrange listening to them.

I was interested in the X44s at Safeandsound which weren't on display at the store (along with any Excites) and ended up with the Forte IIIs. I'm sure they'd pull the 38s from the warehouse for you. Ask for Aaron.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't think the Vandersteens do well off axis. In his measurements of the 2Ce Sig II, John Atkinson says:

"I haven't shown the 2Ce Signature II's horizontal-dispersion plot because it is very difficult to interpret."

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content...-loudspeaker-measurements#0xfAMmIZQrueVp1s.99

I own Vandersteen Quatros (original cloth version), but prefer the Buchardt S400 in my room.

I suggest looking for speakers that have a reasonably flat frequency response on axis and have smooth off-axis response.

This is endemic to the design using 1st order crossovers. You'll have lobing off axis. Which makes the speaker and listening position touchy. They certainly can sound quite good, but you can make your task easier with other designs.

 

[thefsb]

Well, I have not reviewed the Revel F206 but I do have a pair that I use for surround L/R. I can say that both the F206 and F208 are remarkably balanced and both can present an excellent semblance of a real musical event with voices and/or instruments in a credible performance space.

That's a meaningful statement for me and I believe it describes a quality that I would enjoy and value. Thank you.

But I suspect only some of the records I listen to are produced in a way that could possibly allow it. The rest, probably the majority, are, iiuc, two-channel mixes from multi-track recordings in which there was no simple musical event to be reproduced. They are the assembled product of the combined artistry and artifice of sound engineers, producers, composers, performers, performance equipment, recording equipment, and computers. I like listening these records as much as I like listening to the faithful acoustic recordings.

And a lot of real live musical events that one could be faithfully recorded with a purist two-channel technique are totally inappropriate for accurate reproduction at home. A guitar, bass, drums trio could comfortably fit our living room (where the speakers I'm planning to buy will go) but they couldn't play properly without causing a civic disturbance.

So I'm really confused about the relevance of fidelity. It seems in many cases irrelevant (e.g. [1] [2]) and in others undesirable (e.g. [3] [4]). Only rather small, intimate live performances of modest loudness would I want to sound on my stereo as they did when they were recorded.

That said, I suspect that a loudspeaker that can perform as you describe will do a better job (in some personal but important subjective sense that I unfortunately cannot elaborate) with the overall body of programming I care about than one that cannot. I have the same sort of faith in this proposition as I have in the idea that a loudspeaker that measures nicely flat will do a good job.

What an infuriatingly difficult topic this is.

 

[Blumlein 88]

That's a meaningful statement for me and I believe it describes a quality that I would enjoy and value. Thank you.

But I suspect only some of the records I listen to are produced in a way that could possibly allow it. The rest, probably the majority, are, iiuc, two-channel mixes from multi-track recordings in which there was no simple musical event to be reproduced. They are the assembled product of the combined artistry and artifice of sound engineers, producers, composers, performers, performance equipment, recording equipment, and computers. I like listening these records as much as I like listening to the faithful acoustic recordings.

And a lot of real live musical events that one could be faithfully recorded with a purist two-channel technique are totally inappropriate for accurate reproduction at home. A guitar, bass, drums trio could comfortably fit our living room (where the speakers I'm planning to buy will go) but they couldn't play properly without causing a civic disturbance.

So I'm really confused about the relevance of fidelity. It seems in many cases irrelevant (e.g. [1] [2]) and in others undesirable (e.g. [3] [4]). Only rather small, intimate live performances of modest loudness would I want to sound on my stereo as they did when they were recorded.

That said, I suspect that a loudspeaker that can perform as you describe will do a better job (in some personal but important subjective sense that I unfortunately cannot elaborate) with the overall body of programming I care about than one that cannot. I have the same sort of faith in this proposition as I have in the idea that a loudspeaker that measures nicely flat will do a good job.

What an infuriatingly difficult topic this is.

You might want to consider what the circle of confusion is. You seem to be stuck in it.

EDIT: My apologies this comes off too harsh, impolite and condescending. Not my intent. I do mean it just not the way it might read as ill mannered.

If you have speakers of good fidelity and well behaved, you have a reference point from which to work. Even recordings that might sound worse over a speaker of high fidelity can be shaped with DSP as needed. If your speakers are badly colored you start in a hole, and with some issues that can't successfully be adjusted to work well.

Its true recordings are what they are, and usually a studio creation. A high fidelity speaker is no handicap for those recordings. Lesser speakers will be handicapped to show how good great recordings are. They aren't much of a benefit for lesser recordings.

 

[MarcT]

My original post, few months back:

No doubt: The Aria 948s are definitely the bigger of the line.
These ones are very probably my next floorstandings purchase. In France, the pair became incredibly cheap these last months. The cheapest offering was 1398€/pair during Summer Sales... Far away from the $4999 retail price I saw in US.


Sure, the 906 are definitely bookshelf. 948 are also quite big towers.

Yeah, the 948 are big. I heard them at a shop in Dallas. The room had little, if any, room treatments and the 948s seemed to be overwhelming the room and it was a good sized room. The mids were really just too much, like an aural assault. According to the Focal site, the 948 is recommend for "rooms measuring from 320ft2 (30m2) and from a recommended listening distance of 12ft (3.5m)." That is a pretty big room. For my room, I think I would go with the 936 if I went with Focal Aria.

My impression is that Focal designs their speakers to sound best in a well treated audio room. I also suspect that one should pay attention to their room size suggestions, as I understand that they customize the drivers for each speaker model. My thought is that something like Revel or Dynaudio might work better in a more traditional room that may not be able to have room treatments due to WAF and other factors. YMMV.

 

[thefsb]

If you go to audiocircle, the Salk forum has a list of owners for demo. Salk also will return them if you don’t like them, but I think you cover the shipping in that case.

Regarding vandersteen. I’ve owned 3 pairs, 2c, 1c, and 3a Signatures. They are wonderful when set up correctly. The downsides I have found are 1) the listening window is very small, and 2) the mids on the 3 ways never fully integrate with the woofer and tweeter. The Salks have neither issue, but don’t have that warm mid bass and lower midrange I traditionally prefer (but they are also flat in the treble, something I have never traditionally liked as I found it bright, but they are open without being bright). Jim Salk is clear that he aims for dead neutral, so it is not a shortcoming, it meets his design goals. I have also had the Revel F36. They don’t have the utter transparency of the Salks, but do have a bit more warmth. Even though Revel sold through traditional retailers, I felt the F36 was a good value at the $2k pricepoint.

Also, while not asked by you, set up and some room treatment as needed are very important. The room has a huge effect on the sound as does the proper setup of the speakers and listening position. GIK Acoustics has some great information on their site i suggest reading/watching, have reasonable prices, and will make suggestions if you send them information about your room. The $800 of so I spent treating my main room made massive improvements.

I'm usually off-axis when I listen to music. More likely to be in correct position when watching tv, or a movie, when I care much less about the quality of the sound although good quality is certainly welcome. So it seems Vandersteen may not be an ideal choice for me.

I don't for a fact but I suspect strict accuracy/transparency may not be what I will be happy with. A lot of the recordings I listen to aren't very well made. I have never sought to buy recordings on the basis of their audiophile cred. Benchmark's web site has a rather unfortunate analogy with cars in which their equipment's "transparent" performance is likened to that of sports car capable of wining on a track and a "euphonic" performance is likened to a luxury car. I live in New England where roads will destroy a Porsche 911 if it is not driven slowly and very carefully and it will be an uncomfortable and worrying experience no matter what.

Set-up in the room and treatments is something I need to learn about. I want to take some photos and present them with measurements in another thread. I think the size, complicated geometry and furnishings may be to my advantage. I hope so.

 

[thefsb]

You might want to consider what the circle of confusion is. You seem to be stuck in it.

I know the term in photography. Circle of confusion is a specification of acceptable defocus blur.

But I'm sure that's not what you mean. How I feel is like this. Deranged.

EDIT: My apologies this comes off too harsh, impolite and condescending. Not my intent. I do mean it just not the way it might read as ill mannered.

If you have speakers of good fidelity and well behaved, you have a reference point from which to work. Even recordings that might sound worse over a speaker of high fidelity can be shaped with DSP as needed. If your speakers are badly colored you start in a hole, and with some issues that can't successfully be adjusted to work well.

Its true recordings are what they are, and usually a studio creation. A high fidelity speaker is no handicap for those recordings. Lesser speakers will be handicapped to show how good great recordings are. They aren't much of a benefit for lesser recordings.

That's actually a really useful perspective.

And similarly it helps with this question of personal preference for "transparent" or "accurate" vs. "euphonic" that I mentioned above. A hypothetical perfect fidelity system can be shaped to one's preference, the colored system less easily.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I know the term in photography. Circle of confusion is a specification of acceptable defocus blur.

But I'm sure that's not what you mean. How I feel is like this. Deranged.



That's actually a really useful perspective.

And similarly it helps with this question of personal preference for "transparent" or "accurate" vs. "euphonic" that I mentioned above. A hypothetical perfect fidelity system can be shaped to one's preference, the colored system less easily.

This is the circle of confusion I had in mind. It is why you end up on the lost highway.

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

 

[Rja4000]

I know the term in photography. Circle of confusion is a specification of acceptable defocus blur.

As a photographer myself, this was also confusing to me when I first read about it...

 

[thefsb]

This is the circle of confusion I had in mind. It is why you end up on the lost highway.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

True. Although there are other factors contributing to my derangement.

When you mentioned shaping with DSP you set me off on another line of thinking and redaing altogether. I learned about the MiniDSP SHD and realized that the Musical Fidelity MS3i that I recently bought was a mistake. With something like the SHD driving either active speakers or power amps and passive boxes then I can, using its presents, listen off-axis in the positions I am often in and with room adjustments appropriate for the overall loudness of my different listening situations. Now I'm seriously considering ditching the MS3i and getting the SHD and Hypex NC400 mono kits. With that I should be able to get even something like Magnepans working for me with a sub.

I'm Deranged.

Anyway. I now have photos and a diagram of the listening space and when I have a little more time I will explain the application in a new thread. Requirements before solutions can't harm. Quiet week for business coming up so I should be able to find some time.

 

[CDMC]

That's a very important point. The Pepsi Challenge worked the same way.

Taste also change. I preferred Pepsi for years. Now if I have a Cola, Mexican Coke, but first choice is a Ginger Beer.

 

[Rja4000]

My impression is that Focal designs their speakers to sound best in a well treated audio room.

That's not my experience.

I listen to Aria 948 in a room which is far from ideally treated. My previous place was even worse (but bigher).
I use a miniDSP Dirac to correct low frequency anomalies. And you don't want them too close from rear wall.

The Aria 906 are in our kitchen/dining room.

And the medium is just fine to my ears.
That's probably the reason why I like them, to begin with: most other speakers had unnatural medium. (And, should I say, they were all different on that sensitive topic)
All subjective "impressions" of course.
But you started first