Quality speakers for classical music with high output/volume

[Sokel]

I'm assuming you're using it with UMIK-1 or something similar. Presumably I can get similar sort of graphs with the MA-1 from Neumann, which would be cool to see. But I'm not sure if it's so automated that maybe it doesn't display the graphs like that.

REW is a valuable multitool,the logger you see is just one of it's many features.
I would suggest everyone should use it,even as a way to evaluate what other tools do.

 

[excelsius]

Here is measured maximum SPL of KH 150 with maximum 3% THD (red line):

https://www.soundandrecording.de/equipment/neumann-kh-150-2-wege-nearfield-monitor-im-test/

Maximum SPL from 800 Hz to 7 kHz is above 110 dB with less than 3% THD, which is impressive for such a small loudspeaker. At 100 Hz it is about SPLmax=103 dB (< 3% THD) and at 50 Hz is about 97 dB (also < 3% THD). With any good sub you will get at least 110 dB (< 3% THD) at and below 100 Hz, but the max SPL above 100 Hz will be the same, because sub has no output above 200 Hz. Overall you will get over 110 dB with less then 3% THD, which is very clean sound.

I had seen the version of that graph with 1% and 3% direct from Neumann. A bit surprising that even at 10% THD the SPL isn't much higher than for 3%.

There is also a strange, ~10dB dip between 1 and 2 kHz for 1% THD.

So if I understand correctly, adding a sub will increase SPL by 13 dB (from 97 to 110), but under 100 Hz only. But if that's the case, then I think adding a sub will not necessarily improve average SPL if the music I'm listening to has very little bass. My understanding from the earlier discussion was that crossing over the lower frequencies to a sub would enable the speaker to drive the higher frequencies with more power, thus adding more SPL at higher freqs. But if that's not the case, then it seems mostly music with perceptible levels of bass would benefit from a sub. Let me know if I'm misinterpreting anything.

 

[Sokel]

Are you sure? I ask because until very recently the BMR's were my leading choices, that is until I read from various sources, they lose there composure at high volume. And I mean quite a few folk said that. I decided on Elac Debut Reference because everyone comments on how loud these play without distress. For 950. one can buy 2 pair, get a used AVR for a couple hundred, stands and still have $$ left over.

Just wondering, are there BlueTooth remote amps for satellites one can broadcast to so as to avoid wires all over?

To tell the truth I wouldn't use such a small speaker,but combined with subs as stereo (stacked together,loosing the other benefits) and crossed high would relief them I believe.
Fair compromise?I don't know.

 

[excelsius]

If it goes 100 dB full range when cut with subwoofer's at let's say 100 Hz it will be able to go 6~7 dB more keeping distortion under control. Usually there is not much energy in highs in music reproduction (far less than in a white noise signal) so tweeter's won't have to work that hard but it's still a main concern. At least Neumann's have a limiter for it so it will be hard to fry them.

I think you're saying that lower frequencies don't contribute as much sound pressure as high frequencies. But even if so, for average SPL to go up, even higher frequencies would need to be pushed harder, correct (larger wave amplitude)? Based on also what Vladimir said above, I just wanted to confirm that adding a sub will only increase SPL of lets say <100Hz frequencies, meaning that if the music has very little bass, it would not increase the average SPL.

Maybe another way to look at it: let's say instead of adding a sub, I just cut off any frequencies below 100Hz so a given speaker doesn't have to drive to produce them anymore. Will this increase the SPL of the speaker for those 100Hz+ frequencies because now it can focus power on these truncated frequencies only?

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

I had seen the version of that graph with 1% and 3% direct from Neumann. A bit surprising that even at 10% THD the SPL isn't much higher than for 3%.

Normal behavior at the limits of amp/driver possibilities.

There is also a strange, ~10dB dip between 1 and 2 kHz for 1% THD.

Only 1% THD at SPL=105 dB is possible only with very high quality drivers! Majority of the "high-end" hi-fi towers break down at <100 dB SPL.

So if I understand correctly, adding a sub will increase SPL by 13 dB (from 97 to 110), but under 100 Hz only. But if that's the case, then I think adding a sub will not necessarily improve average SPL if the music I'm listening to has very little bass.

Correct.

My understanding from the earlier discussion was that crossing over the lower frequencies to a sub would enable the speaker to drive the higher frequencies with more power, thus adding more SPL at higher freqs.

Short story: Wrong.
Long story: Low frequencies drain much of the (main speaker) amplifier/power supply wattage. If you cut off low frequencies below 100 Hz, you can get a little more available amp power for dynamic peaks.

But if that's not the case, then it seems mostly music with perceptible levels of bass would benefit from a sub.

Yes, of course.

 

[Ellebob]

SPL is not linear with reference to our hearing. A 10db change is subjectively twice as loud. So that is quite significant. 1 db is barely noticeable if at all, 3db you can notice but not a big difference. Between 5-10db is quite noticeable. I don't think you will get quite 10db more but even 5 or 6 is significant.
I would wait until the speakers come in and see if they meet your desires. A sub would be the next logical step if they don't. Then you would need larger speakers and probably still with a sub.

 

[excelsius]

SPL is not linear with reference to our hearing. A 10db change is subjectively twice as loud. So that is quite significant. 1 db is barely noticeable if at all, 3db you can notice but not a big difference. Between 5-10db is quite noticeable. I don't think you will get quite 10db more but even 5 or 6 is significant.
I would wait until the speakers come in and see if they meet your desires. A sub would be the next logical step if they don't. Then you would need larger speakers and probably still with a sub.

Based on the logarithmic scale, a difference of 10 dB = 10 times higher volume, 20 dB = 100 times higher, and so on. Don't know if perception scales the same way.

Still, I'd think that a 3 dB would be considered a big change since it's equivalent to doubling the number of (identical) speakers.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

3 dB is double more, but only to the measurement instruments. Ear reacts differently - "double" is more like 7 - 10 dB, depending on frequency.
3 dB more for ear is easily perceptible, but it is not "double more". Two violins are not double more loud than one violin.

 

[excelsius]

Normal behavior at the limits of amp/driver possibilities.


Only 1% THD at SPL=105 dB is possible only with very high quality drivers! Majority of the "high-end" hi-fi towers break down at <100 dB SPL.


Correct.


Short story: Wrong.
Long story: Low frequencies drain much of the (main speaker) amplifier/power supply wattage. If you cut off low frequencies below 100 Hz, you can get a little more available amp power for dynamic peaks.


Yes, of course.

If you used a specific calculation to arrive at +13 dB, would be great to get more details on that.

My guess is that you're just saying that a "good" sub will already have a 110 dB SPL, thus it takes over (no calculations needed). But essentially, there is nothing "additive." I.e., if a speaker is producing 97 dB in that lower frequency range, adding 110 dB would only result in a 110.2 dB (extra 0.2 dB), thus the sub simply replaces the SPL in that range, but the speaker adds nothing perceptible (0.2 dB could be ignored altogether). In fact, even that +0.2 dB would not be produced because we're crossing over and preventing the speaker from producing any frequencies under 100 Hz. That is, it's equivalent to either having a sub or not having it and nothing more. If that's correct, there might be a misconception among some audiophiles here based on the comments about how much of an effect a sub really has on the total SPL of the system. I think adding a sub for classical music could make some difference only for certain works, but almost no difference for many of them. This probably also explains why I heard very little difference between the tower and bookshelf versions of the B&W at the store when I tested three classical pieces (one was piano solo, two orchestral).

A sub could make more of a difference for certain instruments, such as an organ (some go below 20Hz it seems). But unless it's a solo instrument, or an orchestral composition with heavy emphasis on the lowest notes, these would not make up much of the music both in terms of duration and the ratio of their presence in the music compared to other instruments at any one time. Contrabassoon, double bass, and even the harp can reach under 50Hz, but that's only for the lowest notes. A sub can add an extra enjoyment perhaps for the right piece (maybe Bach's cello suites or the organ works), but it doesn't seem like much of the SPL would be affected on average. Therefore, SPL should not be a reason for adding a sub. In some cases, like for solo violin works, seems like the sub will make no difference at all since the lowest note on the violin starts at 196 Hz.

Now for rock or heavy metal, a sub could perhaps make a big difference. But at the same time, for these types of music, a low distortion system might not be as critical since it's much harder to hear any distortion in that music.

 

[fineMen]

Dude, you think Toole ...

We don't agree, obviously. Please don't call me "dude" in such a disrespectful way. You not only ignore the 'finer details' in terms of the current topic, but also my standing in science. As promsed, I don't argue 'on topic' further.

 

[sejarzo]

If you used a specific calculation to arrive at +13 dB, would be great to get more details on that.

My guess is that you're just saying that a "good" sub will already have a 110 dB SPL, thus it takes over (no calculations needed). But essentially, there is nothing "additive." I.e., if a speaker is producing 97 dB in that lower frequency range, adding 110 dB would only result in a 110.2 dB (extra 0.2 dB), thus the sub simply replaces the SPL in that range, but the speaker adds nothing perceptible (0.2 dB could be ignored altogether). In fact, even that +0.2 dB would not be produced because we're crossing over and preventing the speaker from producing any frequencies under 100 Hz. That is, it's equivalent to either having a sub or not having it and nothing more. If that's correct, there might be a misconception among some audiophiles here based on the comments about how much of an effect a sub really has on the total SPL of the system. I think adding a sub for classical music could make some difference only for certain works, but almost no difference for many of them. This probably also explains why I heard very little difference between the tower and bookshelf versions of the B&W at the store when I tested three classical pieces (one was piano solo, two orchestral).

A sub could make more of a difference for certain instruments, such as an organ (some go below 20Hz it seems). But unless it's a solo instrument, or an orchestral composition with heavy emphasis on the lowest notes, these would not make up much of the music both in terms of duration and the ratio of their presence in the music compared to other instruments at any one time. Contrabassoon, double bass, and even the harp can reach under 50Hz, but that's only for the lowest notes. A sub can add an extra enjoyment perhaps for the right piece (maybe Bach's cello suites or the organ works), but it doesn't seem like much of the SPL would be affected on average. Therefore, SPL should not be a reason for adding a sub. In some cases, like for solo violin works, seems like the sub will make no difference at all since the lowest note on the violin starts at 196 Hz.

Now for rock or heavy metal, a sub could perhaps make a big difference. But at the same time, for these types of music, a low distortion system might not be as critical since it's much harder to hear any distortion in that music.

Most systems will not play that loud, that low. I can guarantee that adding a single sub to any typical 6-6.5" 2 or 2.5 way speaker in a medium-size home listening room makes a huge difference in the realism of orchestral music even at moderate volume.

 

[fineMen]

I think you're saying that lower frequencies don't contribute as much sound pressure as high frequencies. But even if so, for average SPL to go up, even higher frequencies would need to be pushed harder, correct (larger wave amplitude)? Based on also what Vladimir said above, I just wanted to confirm that adding a sub will only increase SPL of lets say <100Hz frequencies, meaning that if the music has very little bass, it would not increase the average SPL.

Maybe another way to look at it: let's say instead of adding a sub, I just cut off any frequencies below 100Hz so a given speaker doesn't have to drive to produce them anymore. Will this increase the SPL of the speaker for those 100Hz+ frequencies because now it can focus power on these truncated frequencies only?

Didn't you say you've ordered the 150s already? If you also ordered a measurement microphone, all power to you! I'll be happy to serve you with advice for the first validating measurements. If not, welcome to the high-end dome! In that case, well chosen landing strip. You'll be a scientist of sorts! Enjoy the psychoacoustics.

 

[Avp1]

If you used a specific calculation to arrive at +13 dB, would be great to get more details on that.

My guess is that you're just saying that a "good" sub will already have a 110 dB SPL, thus it takes over (no calculations needed). But essentially, there is nothing "additive." I.e., if a speaker is producing 97 dB in that lower frequency range, adding 110 dB would only result in a 110.2 dB (extra 0.2 dB), thus the sub simply replaces the SPL in that range, but the speaker adds nothing perceptible (0.2 dB could be ignored altogether). In fact, even that +0.2 dB would not be produced because we're crossing over and preventing the speaker from producing any frequencies under 100 Hz. That is, it's equivalent to either having a sub or not having it and nothing more. If that's correct, there might be a misconception among some audiophiles here based on the comments about how much of an effect a sub really has on the total SPL of the system. I think adding a sub for classical music could make some difference only for certain works, but almost no difference for many of them. This probably also explains why I heard very little difference between the tower and bookshelf versions of the B&W at the store when I tested three classical pieces (one was piano solo, two orchestral).

A sub could make more of a difference for certain instruments, such as an organ (some go below 20Hz it seems). But unless it's a solo instrument, or an orchestral composition with heavy emphasis on the lowest notes, these would not make up much of the music both in terms of duration and the ratio of their presence in the music compared to other instruments at any one time. Contrabassoon, double bass, and even the harp can reach under 50Hz, but that's only for the lowest notes. A sub can add an extra enjoyment perhaps for the right piece (maybe Bach's cello suites or the organ works), but it doesn't seem like much of the SPL would be affected on average. Therefore, SPL should not be a reason for adding a sub. In some cases, like for solo violin works, seems like the sub will make no difference at all since the lowest note on the violin starts at 196 Hz.

Now for rock or heavy metal, a sub could perhaps make a big difference. But at the same time, for these types of music, a low distortion system might not be as critical since it's much harder to hear any distortion in that music.

The idea is to have crossover between speaker and sub high enough to limit speaker output only to frequencies when distortion is still reasonable. But with small speakers it men's that crossover will be at least at 200Hz and then sub needs to be located right next to speaker. What would be advantage of that setup vs. using full range speakers to begin with.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

Most systems will not play that loud, that low. I can guarantee that adding a single sub to any typical 6-6.5" 2 or 2.5 way speaker in a medium-size home listening room makes a huge difference in the realism of orchestral music even at moderate volume.

Yes, playing full orchestra with sub can bring noticeable difference. Not so with smaller ensembles or solo instruments (excluding organ).

 

[JRS]

I think you're saying that lower frequencies don't contribute as much sound pressure as high frequencies. But even if so, for average SPL to go up, even higher frequencies would need to be pushed harder, correct (larger wave amplitude)? Based on also what Vladimir said above, I just wanted to confirm that adding a sub will only increase SPL of lets say <100Hz frequencies, meaning that if the music has very little bass, it would not increase the average SPL.

Maybe another way to look at it: let's say instead of adding a sub, I just cut off any frequencies below 100Hz so a given speaker doesn't have to drive to produce them anymore. Will this increase the SPL of the speaker for those 100Hz+ frequencies because now it can focus power on these truncated frequencies only?

I would say yes, to an extent. The energy spent reproducing low frequencies (which is considerable) is now available for the 100+ Hz frequencies. This would only hold as one approached the limits of the amplifier (clipping)--so yes peak loudness on material carrying significant bass content.

 

[Avp1]

I would say yes, to an extent. The energy spent reproducing low frequencies (which is considerable) is now available for the 100+ Hz frequencies. This would only hold as one approached the limits of the amplifier (clipping)--so yes peak loudness on material carrying significant bass content.

The problem is NOT with amplifier not having enough power, but with speaker not capable to move enough air and having too high distortion at low frequencies. Adding high pass filter for speaker solves that problem. But now subwoofer looses the "sub" prefix and becomes woofer.

 

[Chaconne]

This thread (or what I have read of it) has been quite interesting to me. I've been listening to classical music, including symphonic music, for about 50 years—both live and recorded. And never once has it occurred to me to try to replicate, dB for dB, the dynamic peaks of an orchestra. It never even occurred to me that some audiophiles have this as a goal. More power to you, I say. But I'll remain blissfully happy with a comparatively less-realistic, though reasonable, facsimile of the real thing.

 

[sejarzo]

Yes, playing full orchestra with sub can bring noticeable difference. Not so with smaller ensembles or solo instruments (excluding organ).

OP's opinion re the relative value of extended low end capability appears to be due, at least in part, by his finding little difference between the B&W 603 tower versus the 606 bookshelf when he demo'ed them in the store.

B&W rates the -3 dB LF extension of the 603 at 48 Hz, and the 606 at 52 Hz.

Of course there was little difference.

That's basically just one semi-tone, and the tower is rated at 88.5 dB sensitivity versus 88 for the bookshelf. Pfft.

 

[NTK]

Therefore, SPL should not be a reason for adding a sub.

This is taken from the "Example Reporting for a Passive Loudspeaker System" section of ANSI/CTA-2034 (which defines the Spinorama test and others). The speaker is fictitious, but you can get the idea -- a typical 10 dB increase in SPL with sub(s).

 

[excelsius]

Didn't you say you've ordered the 150s already? If you also ordered a measurement microphone, all power to you! I'll be happy to serve you with advice for the first validating measurements. If not, welcome to the high-end dome! In that case, well chosen landing strip. You'll be a scientist of sorts! Enjoy the psychoacoustics.

Yes, ordered it with the microphone. However, initially I'm going to just listen before trying to tune it. Thanks for the offer, I might just take you up on it.

The idea is to have crossover between speaker and sub high enough to limit speaker output only to frequencies when distortion is still reasonable. But with small speakers it men's that crossover will be at least at 200Hz and then sub needs to be located right next to speaker. What would be advantage of that setup vs. using full range speakers to begin with.

That makes sense. Since KH-150 has a low distortion, the graphs indicate that crossover doesn't need to be higher than 100 Hz though, correct (80, 95 dB graphs below)? But isn't it also the case that one would not want to do the crossover at too high of a frequency since the speakers would be able to produce a cleaner sound and it would make sense to keep as much of the range as possible within the speakers?

Maybe the second deciding factor for the crossover would be the low SPL for those given frequencies? For KH-150, that also coincides with 100 Hz for 3% THD (graph in previous post). That's why it seems to me like a crossover of 100 Hz (or even maybe even 50Hz), is what should be used for KH-150. In fact, the distortion is still under 3% even below 50Hz, so most of the gain there is going to be in SPL only by tranferring that to the sub, likely at the loss of SQ. In fact, even judging by SPL, KH-150 performs pretty well at 30 Hz+. This means the likelyhood of needing a sub at all, especially for classical music, should be very low. Even for organ music, only few of the notes actually reach below 30 Hz. At this point this could be more feeling the pressure rather than hearing it, but still could be nice with the sub perhaps. I will definitely test Bach's Passacaglia once the speakers arrive.