• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Realistic Sounding Speakers

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,230
Likes
665
#61
Omnis and dipoles would be at the very bottom on my 'most wanted' speaker list, they might have to fight single driver 'full-range' for very last place however.
Although the Beolab 90's 'omni' mode would be good for parties .
Keith
There is no point arguing about preferences. I just want to point out that the polar plot of the Beolab 90 in omni mode is rather hideous, and far from being a true omni. There are also very few omni designs out there which are truly omnidirectional. While I enjoy listening to MBLs, Duevels and German Physiks, their dispersion pattern is far from being that of a point source omni, and this gives them a somewhat "smeared" presentation. The best omni designs in my opinion are the Plutos from Linkwitz (which is/was point source omni up to 4 kHz), and the Morrison Audio speakers.
 

A.wayne

Active Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
169
Likes
13
#62
Martin Logan has greatly improved woofer integration the past few years. Sanders also makes good ESLs, and of course there's SoundLab and Janszen is still around. Somehow I've never been much of a Quad fan. Different strokes... Ditto omni's; impressive at first but gets old quickly (note I damp the back wave of my dipoles). Of course, I've switched over the Revel and really like them. Quite a change.

Never was a fan before , but have to say , IMO the new ML line of Speakers are their best ever ..


Regards
 
Last edited:

A.wayne

Active Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
169
Likes
13
#63
Very, very few speakers can produce the low frequencies with low distortion that a good subwoofer can IME/IMO. That said, my Rythmiks are sealed, and working together in my small'ish room are -3 dB around 7 Hz. While it is true output falls off faster below tune with ported, they generally offer more output and thus lower distortion for the same output as sealed above the tuning frequency. My subs also use a servo control to help extend their response and keep their distortion low.

Don,
Thanks for addressing the sealed bass is everything myth, Magico tackles sealed bass lack of dynamics by increasing the number of woofers necessary to match reflex gain with lower distortion..


Regards
 

DonH56

Technical Expert
Technical Expert
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
2,991
Likes
3,566
Location
Monument, CO
#64
My biggest concern with ML is their higher crossover that can lead to a rather jarring change in image as you transition from panel to conventional woofer. I have very little listening time but what I have plus measurements I have seen (especially RayDunzl's -- how does he get such great results?) tell me integration is much, much better than say ten years ago. I will note Roger Sanders' designs cross over much lower but I have not listened to a pair in years.

I think vented/ported subs have come a long way. Better design tools, or just better designers, and better drivers solves a lot of the problems ported designs exhibited years ago. Primarily overdriving them and high tuning that led to a lot of chuffing (port noise). Now you can get a long-throw driver with a big honkin' amplifier in a well-designed box and get a whole lot more. The main trade now is size; sealed is almost always smaller for the same frequency response. On distortion many (correctly) argue ported actually does better since they don't have to work as hard for the same SPL. And of course for HT many go for max output and that leads them to ported designs. I have a soft spot in my heart for a good sealed sub, but the engineering doesn't really support my bias.

IME/IMO - Don
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
2,968
Likes
1,800
Location
UK
#66
I am glad that people like the sound of their wheezing wind boxes. I very much enjoy the sound of my beautiful sealed bass speakers - active of course - using the daringly modern concept of electronic equalisation realised with software.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,426
Likes
523
#68
My biggest concern with ML is their higher crossover that can lead to a rather jarring change in image as you transition from panel to conventional woofer. I have very little listening time but what I have plus measurements I have seen (especially RayDunzl's -- how does he get such great results?) tell me integration is much, much better than say ten years ago. I will note Roger Sanders' designs cross over much lower but I have not listened to a pair in years.

I think vented/ported subs have come a long way. Better design tools, or just better designers, and better drivers solves a lot of the problems ported designs exhibited years ago. Primarily overdriving them and high tuning that led to a lot of chuffing (port noise). Now you can get a long-throw driver with a big honkin' amplifier in a well-designed box and get a whole lot more. The main trade now is size; sealed is almost always smaller for the same frequency response. On distortion many (correctly) argue ported actually does better since they don't have to work as hard for the same SPL. And of course for HT many go for max output and that leads them to ported designs. I have a soft spot in my heart for a good sealed sub, but the engineering doesn't really support my bias.

IME/IMO - Don
The bigger ML 'stat hybrids like Ray's and mine always had fairly low xover frequencies since the bigger panels could play lower. Also, I am pretty much an imaging freak, and I have never noticed an issue with any sort of imaging discontinuity near the xover, usually in the neighborhood of 200 Hz +-, an octave or more lower than their smallest hybrids.

But, now you made me nervous, Don. I hope I don't start hearing that all the time now. Seriously, I do not think so.

But, I think the thing that attracted me to ML's was really the seeming coherence through the rest of the frequency range, due in substantial part to the lack of a crossover at higher frequencies. It is utterly amazing how many conventional dynamic 2-, 3-way or more speakers have an xover to the tweeter in the 2.5-3k Hz range, right about where the ear is most sensitive. Occasionally, they have clean measurements there, but it seems to take a really heroic efforts to achieve that.
 

DonH56

Technical Expert
Technical Expert
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
2,991
Likes
3,566
Location
Monument, CO
#69
Don't be nervous, be happy! :) Yes, with bigger panels the crossover can be lower, and as I said IME/IMO (former is limited, latter is not ;) ) ML's integration has greatly improved the past few years compared to what I remember from the 80's and 90's when last I spent a lot of time with them. Really, in the early 2000 period is when I last listened and felt they had issues; I do not recall noticing anything when I listened briefly maybe 5 years ago. If you are an imaging freak you would definitely notice the problem so don't worry.

ML ESL 11A/13A/15A all cross over at 300 Hz, ESL 9A at 380 Hz, ESL X at 400 Hz, ESL at 500 Hz. Sanders crosses over at 172 Hz. My preference is to get it below 300 Hz and certainly no higher that as IMO the lower vocals tend to "slide around" and "lose focus" if the crossover is too high. I know male vocals can go below that, but the old Bell Labs voice range for intelligibility (300 Hz - 3 kHz) still seems to hold sway for me in terms of the most critical region. And yes big ESLs nicely solve that problem (crossovers in the vocal band).

I think one of the reasons Revel is working so well for me is because they spent an enormous amount of time and effort on getting the crossovers and time coherence right. A few other speakers also include significant time-domain effort in their design and it shows IMO. And some very pricey designs left me not really liking them; you can tell the transition from driver-to-driver, sort of a little sonic "burp" or "gurgle" in the image on glissandos and intervals sung or played, and the Revels (like my Maggies) seem to have less of that. ESL's were always my dream speakers but I never actually owned pair (though a few rolled through my system over the years and I heard many more in others' systems). If I had not fallen into a great deal on the Revels, I probably would have ended up with a pair of Roger Sanders ESLs.
 

A.wayne

Active Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
169
Likes
13
#70
There is no point arguing about preferences. I just want to point out that the polar plot of the Beolab 90 in omni mode is rather hideous, and far from being a true omni. There are also very few omni designs out there which are truly omnidirectional. While I enjoy listening to MBLs, Duevels and German Physiks, their dispersion pattern is far from being that of a point source omni, and this gives them a somewhat "smeared" presentation. The best omni designs in my opinion are the Plutos from Linkwitz (which is/was point source omni up to 4 kHz), and the Morrison Audio speakers.
I have not heard the linkwitz , but it's baffle design would indicate an issue with Timbre ...
 
Last edited:

A.wayne

Active Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
169
Likes
13
#71
I am glad that people like the sound of their wheezing wind boxes. I very much enjoy the sound of my beautiful sealed bass speakers - active of course - using the daringly modern concept of electronic equalisation realised with software.
Never had one that wheezed nor heard a puff tart seal box best a vented ..

Sealed bass because vented is more work .... :)
 

RayDunzl

Major Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
7,067
Likes
3,390
Location
Riverview, FL
#72
My biggest concern with ML is their higher crossover that can lead to a rather jarring change in image as you transition from panel to conventional woofer. I have very little listening time but what I have plus measurements I have seen (especially RayDunzl's -- how does he get such great results?) tell me integration is much, much better than say ten years ago. I will note Roger Sanders' designs cross over much lower but I have not listened to a pair in years.
Mine are a 21-year old design bought in 1998. List $4500, paid $3600. Cross to sealed woofer is 180 Hz (verified by measurement). I can't say I notice any discontinuity in that range, especially now that the boom is DSP'd away.

I haven't heard any of the new ones (or anything else, really), but also wonder why the crossover has been raised.

The Renaissance ESL 15A is about the same size ($25,000) with powered DSP'd twin woofers and a 300hz cross. If they were $9,995 I might be tempted. But they aren't and I'm not.

My recent experience with lesser cones and domes, Infinity P-363 and the JBL LSR 308, both say they're fine casually, but when I'm in the driver's seat and press the horsepower to get the air moving they don't work as well (for me). It tempers my enthusiasm for seeking a replacement. It might be the sidewall/ceiling reflections. I notice you have absorption all around your room.

I keep thinking about this (fig. 1) and pondering the significance of the short-hair behavior:

(JBL LSR 308 (red) vs ML reQuest (black), no smoothing, both DRC'd)

upload_2017-6-21_14-27-14.png


The 40-50Hz dip is a room-caused phase problem. The L/R traces don't have such a deep dip.
 
Top Bottom