Top end monitors "box sound" vs OB

[Sokel]

Out of curiosity I stuck my mic 5 cm from the port to see (I have no idea how to measure it in some special way).
Seems tuned to 28-30Hz(?).

 

[MattHooper]

First, let me preference this by saying how, historically, what we now call 'image' was never a thing. That is, in the sense that it was something the consumer ever wanted in his listening space. In the heyday of hi-fi, I'm talking the '50s through perhaps the late '60s, most folks used hi-fi simply to 'fill a room' with music. Also, we recall how this was the era of transition from mono to stereo. Mono was simple. Paul Klipsch (or Jim Lansing, or any of the others) could put a horn in your corner, and fill your room with sound.

Stereo in its own way 'messed things up', horribly. Before stereo, the recording was less of an issue, because everything was coming from one point. With stereo, you had (in the words of ZZ Top's Jesus Just left Chicago) not only the Windy City and New Orleans, but 'all points in between'. It was the all points in between that became the problem: often a gaping hole in the middle, or ping ponging instruments, and all the other goofy artifacts. Only then, with stereo, did audio cognoscenti discover 'imaging'.

[Historical aside: three channels (left, right, and a center) would have been best, but how could you have fit that on a record? You couldn't, that's how.]

Stereo dispersion between two points now became a big problem. It remains a problem. It is why we still discuss it. Take, for instance, electrostatics, which represent the best and the worst. Nice sound, wonderful sound, but specific beaming. Quad 57 was arguably (within its SPL and FR limitations) one of the best loudspeakers, to this day. It was designed for mono (because that's all there was). With stereo, if you moved to one side, everything was lost.

Harold Beveridge attempted to 'solve' the 'beaming' issue with his tall line source and clever acoustic lens. It more or less overcame beaming, and created a pretty unique soundfield--one where you could walk around the room and not lose a stereo (two channel) perspective; but did it sound 'natural'? I'll leave that answer for those who heard it. My impression was, "No, it sounded weird, but was certainly unique and interesting, in a weird way!"

It's almost as if we are back to the future. Like LP records. And tubes. After all these years, still going around and round. Just like the forward firing box is still around, awaiting the next big 'breakthrough' in its development. However, we understand that the forward firing box is all most people know. For sure it is the cheapest design to implement, and no doubt the most money has been spent in R/D on overcoming its limitations.

Nevertheless, given its limitations, you can get a pretty good illusion of music out of it. So it's got that going for it.

But it's not a design others might appreciate, and if we realize or admit that we'll never have anything like 'live' music in our living rooms, then, at the end of the day, the forward firing box is simply one out of many competing for our aural sensibility.

Get what you like and be happy.

I think a fair amount of what I seek out of an audio system is sort of fighting the failings of stereo.

I love great soundstaging and imaging, a speaker "disappearing" as an apparent sound source. But stereo tends to be a sort of gossamer illusion, sort of like R2D2's projection of Princess Lia: the sonic "images" have a non-corporeal see-through quality that you know you can wave your hands through the image. They lack density.
And this is probably one reason why I seek "more density" in the sound of a speaker. It's not that of course the acoustic presence of a real instrument or voice is likely to be reproduced by the stereo phantom image, but one can get further from or closer to that density. And the ones that get closer I find are more satisfying to me. It's not simply focused on reproducing an illusion of live acoustic instruments; it's a feature that I find more satisfying no matter what music is playing. If for instance all the synth flourishes and drum machines in my favorite electronica tracks seem more palpable, that too is more exciting.

I notice that throwing more speakers at the problem can help. So when I listen to music on my home theater surround system, the addition of the center channel can add some more sense of density to what are pure phantom images in only stereo. On the other hand, I have yet to hear from either my surround system, or any other, the utter sense of freedom-from-a-speaker sound, dimensionality, layering etc I get from my two channel speakers. So I tend to be focused on pushing my two channel sound in the direction I crave.

 

[anmpr1]

I think a fair amount of what I seek out of an audio system is sort of fighting the failings of stereo.

I'm sometimes at the point of just going back to monophonic. I really like a nice stereo image, but it's few and far in between, and room dependent. If I was younger, I'd buy one of the ASR recommended items and live with that for a while. But I'm not, so I won't.

FWIW, I notice a German company is now selling Siegfried's LX speakers as a total package. Supposed to be plug and play. Outside of Euro zone you have to pay for shipping, which will not be inexpensive. Otherwise, price is about twenty thousand dollars. Not cheap, but in the scheme of high-end, not expensive. Plus, you get all the electronics, include the hypex amp modules.

If I was younger I'd have them ship it over. But as above, I'm not, so I won't.

 

[Adi777]

AudioSense. For me really, really good sound.
Specific? I don't know, but very nice experience.