Very nice room and setup!
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Properties of speakers that creates a large and precise soundstage
- Thread starter sigbergaudio
- Start date
-
- Tags
- imaging soundstage
Very nice room and setup!
I think the soundstage is definitely a function of radiation pattern and control of the speaker as influenced by the room. Well designed MTM speakers can have excellent off axis response.
Thank you. I am really happy with how it turned out.
Here is a photo of the office portion of the room. This was taken when I first set up the room and had a single Revel subwoofer in the corner. Audio performance was a compromise and under desk leg room was compromised too. Now I have multiple concealed subs which improved performance on all levels.
Would a 2-way coaxial (one-driver, 1x 300 mm) SP covering 26 Hz - 26 kHz (can go down to 20 kHz with reasonable SPL and low distortion, I believe) such as FYNE AUDIO F1-12S fit for your request?
I auditioned it many times (even with my CD on pipe organ recording having 16 Hz and 32 Hz tones), really nice and impressive for any kind of music.
I highly recommend you to try it at nicely prepared and equipped audio showroom or studio, or even at your home listening room if possible.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2022
- Messages
- 1,116
- Likes
- 1,400
That's a two way.
tiago.trindade
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2022
- Messages
- 32
- Likes
- 8
Hello,
I temporarily received a pair of KEF LS50 Metas at home to try out (I currently have a pair of Bowers & Wilkins 805 Nautilus).
The biggest difference I felt was the LS50's clarity and imaging capabilities (voices are clearly defined across the sound stage).
If this made sense to me before applying the EQ, it made me confused to occur after the EQ applied.
The frequency response of both speakers after EQ is almost the same, which does not justify this difference in sound perception.
On the KEF it looks like it is clearly in front of me, while on the the 805 (despite being in front of me) it looks more diffuse in comparison.
The big difference I saw between both in terms of measurements was the distortion. Although the 805 has lower values than the KEF up to 600hz, there is then a huge peak starting at 2khz up to 7khz (the crossover is at 3khz).
WITH EQ (KEF in red; B&W in green)
WITHOUT EQ
DISTORTION (should I change the measurement unit?)
Is this the main reason why I listen to what I described above?
And challenging a little more, will this situation disappear by changing the 805 cross-over?
BTW, i was not expecting the LS50 to go that low in bass after EQ.
Thank you!
I temporarily received a pair of KEF LS50 Metas at home to try out (I currently have a pair of Bowers & Wilkins 805 Nautilus).
The biggest difference I felt was the LS50's clarity and imaging capabilities (voices are clearly defined across the sound stage).
If this made sense to me before applying the EQ, it made me confused to occur after the EQ applied.
The frequency response of both speakers after EQ is almost the same, which does not justify this difference in sound perception.
On the KEF it looks like it is clearly in front of me, while on the the 805 (despite being in front of me) it looks more diffuse in comparison.
The big difference I saw between both in terms of measurements was the distortion. Although the 805 has lower values than the KEF up to 600hz, there is then a huge peak starting at 2khz up to 7khz (the crossover is at 3khz).
WITH EQ (KEF in red; B&W in green)
WITHOUT EQ
DISTORTION (should I change the measurement unit?)
Is this the main reason why I listen to what I described above?
And challenging a little more, will this situation disappear by changing the 805 cross-over?
BTW, i was not expecting the LS50 to go that low in bass after EQ.
Thank you!
Last edited:
HarmonicTHD
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2022
- Messages
- 3,326
- Likes
- 4,837
No.
You measure and EQ on axis. The difference in sound stage you are perceiving show up in off axis measurements and are characterized by the directivity and dispersion of a speaker as shown for example in the Klippel spinorama tests which eg Erin and Armir publish.
tiago.trindade
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2022
- Messages
- 32
- Likes
- 8
Thank you!
Even if I listen and EQ at both the Main Listening Position?
The measurement you are refering too are these one right?
staticV3
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
- Messages
- 8,021
- Likes
- 12,869
That's a different speaker, in both graphs.
That is the normal way. Speakers spew sound in all directions though, so flat on-axis is just a start.
HarmonicTHD
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2022
- Messages
- 3,326
- Likes
- 4,837
Correct.
HarmonicTHD
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2022
- Messages
- 3,326
- Likes
- 4,837
Yes.
Edit: there is a complete discussion also here:
Thread 'Properties of speakers that creates a large and precise soundstage'
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...creates-a-large-and-precise-soundstage.48542/
Last edited:
If, and I say if, one would say a electrostat is a single-driver speaker I have not found ANY electrostat speaker that can give good SPL and low distortion in the bass. It will not happen.
D
Deleted member 48726
Guest
Sometimes I really think a "best answer" should be picked among the posts and linked to at the thread top. There are so much gold to be found on ASR but often it's buried in a mine labyrinth..
tiago.trindade
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2022
- Messages
- 32
- Likes
- 8
Thank you all!
Hi everyone, it has been a minute.
I am getting rid of my Genelecs 8341 to free up some cash, and I am thinking of replacing these either with a non-coaxial design such as Genelecs 8040b, or another coaxial design such as Kef's R3s.
I enjoy a lot the 3d sound staging that the 8341 can depict, which I remember also experiencing with my LS50s in the past. So I have been assuming that this is an attribute in which coaxial design inherently excels, but is this true?
I listen from a distance of about 2m.
Thanks!
I am getting rid of my Genelecs 8341 to free up some cash, and I am thinking of replacing these either with a non-coaxial design such as Genelecs 8040b, or another coaxial design such as Kef's R3s.
I enjoy a lot the 3d sound staging that the 8341 can depict, which I remember also experiencing with my LS50s in the past. So I have been assuming that this is an attribute in which coaxial design inherently excels, but is this true?
I listen from a distance of about 2m.
Thanks!
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 6,904
- Likes
- 16,937
There was recently a very similar thread about it:
www.audiosciencereview.com
Properties of speakers that creates a large and precise soundstage
There are some similar threads about what imaging and soundstaging even is, and some threads about how to measure it (we're not great at that). In this thread I thought it would be interesting to have a look what properties is likely to enable a speaker to be good at this. My (!) definition of...
www.audiosciencereview.com
The thing that coaxial designs are better at than any other type of speaker is even dispersion, this is especially visible when you look at the vertical off-axis measurements. This means that reflected sound will tend to have a smooth frequency response, which in turn may help perception of stereo imaging / width. It can also make them a bit more room-friendly since all angles from the speaker are equally good (or bad).
Coax speakers are better at this because by putting the speakers "on top of each other" you avoid some of the difficulty of matching horizontal directivity at the crossover by using the woofer cone as a waveguide, and you avoid the vertical spacing problem altogether.
You can also get better phase coherence between the tweeter and woofer because the sound is all originating from the same place, although that's not necessarily inherent, the xover also needs to be designed for that, or you need DSP.
At 2M the 8040 should still work well for you, though. These are advantages of coax designs, but well-designed traditional 2-ways can achieve most of what coaxial speakers can with proper driver selection and crossover design. The imaging might not be as convincing, but they're definitely not low-end speakers.
Coax speakers are better at this because by putting the speakers "on top of each other" you avoid some of the difficulty of matching horizontal directivity at the crossover by using the woofer cone as a waveguide, and you avoid the vertical spacing problem altogether.
You can also get better phase coherence between the tweeter and woofer because the sound is all originating from the same place, although that's not necessarily inherent, the xover also needs to be designed for that, or you need DSP.
At 2M the 8040 should still work well for you, though. These are advantages of coax designs, but well-designed traditional 2-ways can achieve most of what coaxial speakers can with proper driver selection and crossover design. The imaging might not be as convincing, but they're definitely not low-end speakers.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,337
- Likes
- 12,303
I don’t know how much to attribute to the coaxial midrange/tweeter design, but my Thiel 2.7 speakers image with a precision I’ve rarely heard before (except for the larger flagship 3.7s that I owned previously).
When I compare other speakers, even ones that on their own seem to image like mad, they sound slightly more vague or “swimmy” in imaging of directly compared to the Thiels.
Further, it is the most seamless sound I’ve heard from the tweeter on down from a box speaker. No matter how I try I can not “hear out” the drivers, especially the tweeter which seems perfectly integrated. Plus the sound remains really constant tonally over a fairly wide seating area. I think Jim Thiel really knew what he was doing.
Here’s an old video of Jim showing the new coaxial design at the beginning. I wonder how much the clever attempt to flatten (corrugated) the midrange driver (so as not to cause typical conical reflections for the tweeter) aids this excellent presentation.
When I compare other speakers, even ones that on their own seem to image like mad, they sound slightly more vague or “swimmy” in imaging of directly compared to the Thiels.
Further, it is the most seamless sound I’ve heard from the tweeter on down from a box speaker. No matter how I try I can not “hear out” the drivers, especially the tweeter which seems perfectly integrated. Plus the sound remains really constant tonally over a fairly wide seating area. I think Jim Thiel really knew what he was doing.
Here’s an old video of Jim showing the new coaxial design at the beginning. I wonder how much the clever attempt to flatten (corrugated) the midrange driver (so as not to cause typical conical reflections for the tweeter) aids this excellent presentation.
The co-axial deigns I have used here, KEF, Genelec and Sigberg do have extremely pin point imaging.
Keith
Keith
