High sensitivity speaker options

[Newman]

But I imagine the M2 is a significant upgrade in sound quality….

Are you assuming it would be audibly preferable?

 

[Shiva]

I will put out the suggestion of the Klipsch Chorus 2 for the front 3. They are very good, have an efficiency of 101db at 1 watt but can handle 1000 watt peaks.. Also, the Klipsch Epic CF 3 or 4… rated at 100db at 1 watt, 250 watts continuous with 1250 watt peaks,

 

[Doenerkunde]

The Albany by german DIY collective DAU (the acoustic underground) looks promising and drivers and crossover parts only cost around 300€/pc:

Albany

Für unser 15. D.A.U. Treffen hatten wir uns auf die Fahne geschrieben, einen Lautsprecher als ein weiteres Gemeinschaftsprojekt auf den Weg zu bringen. So ging es bereits lange im Vorfeld in die entsprechende Planung. Nach einigen Gesprächen stand fest, dass es ein Standlautsprecher werden...

www.donhighend.de

 

[jcr159]

I don't think the HTM-12 measures nearly as well as the VBS 10.2, the M2 is for sure better but several times the cost. I'm kind of a lower cost DIY guy so I tend to stick around that territory, but if you look around at drivers, CD's+Horns, etc... it's the same as the rest of the industry where cost doesn't always correlate to quality. I run my VBS 10.2 active atm mostly because I don't want to shell out the money to populate the crossover pcb lol.

I use mine as effectively silly loud monitors for mixing and they certainly accomplish that task. If I had one criticism and this kind of goes for all the horns I've heard, the sound stage width feels narrow. Otherwise they sound like really really loud genelecs to me but I still very much prefer the wider dispersion of other speakers I have.

I could see that soundstage width issue using them as monitors... at almost 14' listening distance i'm actually not worried, and due to the side wall configuration, probably benefitting from the narrower dispersion.

I made my earlier comments about price just because I know the DIYSoundGroup crowd significantly impacted the direction of a lot of designs toward lower cost and passive implementations. I've always wondered what could be done without those limitations by raising the budget a good bit, but not to the +$2k per speaker level... JTR's are pretty expensive, and don't really seem like a great speaker though I've never heard them. for the money, i'd probably buy some JBL cinema speakers or something else entirely...

 

[jcr159]

Are you assuming it would be audibly preferable?

You cut out part of my statement... I was comparing the speaker to the M2. Without hearing either, but reading a number of reviews and spin data measurements, you'd have to justify how the M2 isn't clearly better in every way to the VBS 10.2....

I could be wrong, but I think the data is there to support the assumption that the M2 would be audibly preferable in the use case I outlined in my original post...

 

[jcr159]

I will put out the suggestion of the Klipsch Chorus 2 for the front 3. They are very good, have an efficiency of 101db at 1 watt but can handle 1000 watt peaks.. Also, the Klipsch Epic CF 3 or 4… rated at 100db at 1 watt, 250 watts continuous with 1250 watt peaks,

thanks for the recommendation... I generally don't like Klipsch. haven't listened to them in a long while, but still scarred from prior experience.

and I hate to break it, but i don't believe the efficiency even a little bit... unless those numbers come from some spins I haven't seen, Klipsch is notorious for greatly exaggerating their ratings...

 

[Ktacos]

I could see that soundstage width issue using them as monitors...

It's not just monitoring, they sound constrained at all times. Only two waveguide/horn have I heard that expanded outwards in a way that sounded correct to me, the behringer 2030p and the beston rt002a tweeter. Both seem to hover around 70 degrees and maintain that through their passband so I guess that's what I like.

 

[jcr159]

It's not just monitoring, they sound constrained at all times. Only two waveguide/horn have I heard that expanded outwards in a way that sounded correct to me, the behringer 2030p and the beston rt002a tweeter. Both seem to hover around 70 degrees and maintain that through their passband so I guess that's what I like.

Interesting observation, thx!

 

[tmuikku]

If speakers have narrow coverage, so that lateral early reflections do not widen the soundstage beyond speakers as wide coverage speakers might do in same position in same room, then all you need to do is widen the base width of your listening triangle, speakers further apart.

Explanation:
When early reflections are low and late enough so that you auditory system locks in to the direct sound of your stereo, localization of phantom images sharpen quite a lot and you'd perceive better what is on the recording. If you listen narrow sound like dry center panned stuff, it is narrow, or sound with spatical cues that makes it feel wide then it's wide, the local room is not influencing the sound that much anymore. I think this is the sole purpose of near field listening, reduce effect of local room so that it doesn't mingle with spatial cues on the recording. So if you feel stereo image is too narrow listening near field, then your speakers are too close together, or you must mix it better if it's your mix, to work without room early reflections I'm speculating here, as I do not know how your system sounds. My point is, important thing is to understand what you are perceiving and why so you can work with what you have there. Near field and far field in perceptual sense are quite different, local room affecting less or more, and difference is mainly state of auditory system latching to direct sound, or not.