The Official $2,500 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event - Page 84 - Home Theater Forum and Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #831 of 1075 Old 11-17-13, 09:37 AM
Elite Shackster
 
Savjac's Avatar
Jack
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Evansville, Indiana
Posts: 1,693
My System
Quote:
kevin360 wrote: View Post
Yep, I suppose it's somewhat heretical (I sense a trend) to run centers as surrounds, but I already had one MMGC when I transitioned to a dedicated space. IMO, they are far better surrounds than centers. At some point, I may add a CCR with the CC stand/woofer. Other changes keep cutting in line. You're right; Magnepan's website does refer to the 1.7 as a 3-way. I suppose that's easier than explaining what a 2.5-way is, but they simply culled one 'loop' from the QR tweeter and fed it a filtered signal from the high section of the series XO. The remainder of the QR tweeter behaves normally. The result is the addition of a 'super'tweeter that parallels the top of the tweeter's response range. Being narrower, it does so with better dispersion characteristics – remember the inverse proportion rule of driver element size to reproduced frequency. The effect is a reduction in the head-in-a-vise imaging that plagues its non true ribbon brethren. Neither my somewhat modified 3.7s, nor my highly modified MMGs have jumpers, resistors or fuses. Fully braced stands benefit Maggies in a number of ways – my 3.7s are on Mye Stands and the panels from my MMGs are in DIY braced hardwood frames. Again, I'll stress the counter-indicated demands of HT and planars – Maggies, at least. The room treatments that benefit multichannel reproduction over damp the Maggies. This forces a compromise – a common theme in life. It's impossible to optimize both simultaneously. It's highly unusual to encounter reports of stock Maggies, except for some older models like SMGs, as being too laid back. It's far more common for them to be faulted as being overly bright, hence the resistors. The fact that it was a unanimous complaint makes the fact of the matter rather apparent. In my experience, once 'the spots' are discovered, the sound stage is deep, wide and reasonably well defined, with a solid center image (that largely happens between the ears, in any case). The interaction of the speaker with the room in this regard also forces us back into that HT vs Maggie compromise. Maggie is a demanding mistress, but she does bring some delights to the tryst. I should think it best to enter the evaluation of the MLs with a minimum of expectation. By that, I mean that any comparative analysis I could tender might serve to influence your experience – such is an inescapable fact of being human. I shall only reply that I think they are excellent speakers with a different set of compromises and solutions - a different mix of strengths and weaknesses. I think the engineering concepts ML applies are both sound and effective. They have some products that I'd be extremely delighted to own. There are lots of speakers that please me. My daughter's Def Tech Mythos STS speakers aren't even dipoles and I dig 'em. I still have a pair of AR91s that I bought 33 years ago that I enjoy (yeah, I've had to do some work to keep them going). Sorry for the ramble.
Excellent post this, quite a good read. I tend to agree in that the Maggie's in my room were never dull but then again they were never bright really. I believe there were one of the first speakers to let me into the snap of a stick on the snare and the proper sound of a picked steel string flat top acoustic guitar. I can remember how stunning it was to first hear the Tri panel Maggie's as they had it going full range no punches pulled, however, the smaller speakers have had to compromise to fit a price point. My room was quite liv though, so it would appear these speakers work well with less damping rather than more.

Good Listening

Jack

"For those who believe no proof is needed for those who don't believe no proof is possible"
Savjac is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #832 of 1075 Old 11-17-13, 10:53 AM
Elite Shackster
Quenten
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Posts: 2,309
My System
Re: The Official $2,500 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event

Sonnie wrote (SVS Ultra's):

Quote:
There is no doubt they were indeed bright and I even privately made a statement about it to Tonto (he can confirm).
I thought that was supposed to be a secret!! Just kidding, but that observation in confirmed. Boy, I've been away from this thread for a few days & wow, it has taken off now that result are coming in!

You guys have done an even better job this time. Feeling like we are right there with you guys & feeling the love. And I'm really enjoying the feedback.

Sonnie again posted:

Quote:
Back to our regular scheduled thread now?
Personally I like the discussion as long as it stays polite & on track. Jons' remarks about high current amps/AVR's & snake oil were, while a bit off track, still relavent & of interest I suspect, to a lot of readers. I don't expect anyones opinions to get a "get by free card." I think we can all apprecitate Jon's take on engineering given the preformance of the A5's. That said, it merrits a certian amount of discussion. I certianly value it.
Tonto is offline  
post #833 of 1075 Old 11-17-13, 12:35 PM
HTS Moderator
Reviewer
 
AudiocRaver's Avatar
Wayne Myers
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 4,565
Re: The Official $2,500 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event

Quote:
english210 wrote: View Post
Interesting about the Paradigms. I heard a pair of those a year or so ago, and wasn't impressed. They weren't bad, don't get me wrong, just didn't do anything for me. Could have been the setup, though. My 25 year old Infinitys keep showing me new life every time I put more effort into placement, like following your advise today. Highs are still not my favorite. They get a bit harsh at high volumes. My amp upgrade tamed a lot of that, but it's still there somewhat. L/R imaging could be better. The bass will be hard to improve on though.

I'm really enjoying the comments/advice/ideas this thread is generating!!
Here is a bold generalization: There are two kinds of speaker lovers. Some like 'em flat. Some like 'em with some specific character, a mild amount of coloring that appeals to their personal listening tastes. No right or wrong, just two ways of looking at it.
AudiocRaver is offline  
post #834 of 1075 Old 11-17-13, 12:57 PM
HTS Moderator
Reviewer
 
AudiocRaver's Avatar
Wayne Myers
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 4,565
Re: The Official $2,500 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event

Quote:
K1LL3M wrote: View Post
It is very interesting to follow this thread and one thing that continues to gain mention is comparison to the A5 from the $1000 round.

What I wonder is, is audio memory playing a factor in just how good the A5s were here?

The general impression being recieved is that the A5s are all one needs and more expense does not equate to better sound, just a better finish.

While not directly in reference to this, the comment about tapering praise (I think "comments" was the actual wording) on the A5s less the price increase was what highlighted this impression. Just a perspective from reading along I thought I'd share
Sonnie still has his A5's. We listened to them before starting the other evaluations.

===============================

This bears repeating, and I thought about it a lot while completing my SVS comments (the others have been waiting on me, sorry):

We are not treating these speakers the way most users would. Getting the soundstage we like requires some amount of off-axis aiming, even with the dipoles a little, some speakers do that gracefully, for some it is a strain. That does not make them bad speakers, just speakers that do not fit our listening requirements.
AudiocRaver is offline  
post #835 of 1075 Old 11-17-13, 01:01 PM
HTS Moderator
Reviewer
 
AudiocRaver's Avatar
Wayne Myers
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 4,565
Re: The Official $2,500 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event

Quote:
Jon Lane wrote: View Post
The principle of optimizing each speaker in the space ties to the importance of the space. While I've hear some amazing sound in some amazingly bad spaces, which I mentioned, naturally that combination isn't sought. It just happens.

But if optimizing each system in its space is as key as it's assumed, we could intuit that we should treat the dickens out of that space.

Which is to say, to nullify it. Thinking a little further we see that this sets up another principle: Reflected sound is bad.

That then evolves into or revolves around another whole set of principles - especially in uncritical consumer and some home theater circles - which is that list I mentioned upthread. The common end result may be a fairly uninvolving, amusical sound.

This is where balance comes into play: We know spaces are important (and this event just proved it). But spaces absolutely do not need to be nullified. In fact, they must not be. Experience has taught that it's actually easier to over-treat a room than it is to get a stereo system to sound good in a typical space.

Previously an A5 pair fared less well in a heavily treated theater room with narrow side walls. Read: Little or no flexibility to orient the system for good sound. What fared well, naturally, were very high energy, directional, 80Hz monitors that, presumably, didn't "see" the space, didn't in themselves have to be balanced one octave deeper in response, and that had substantially higher levels on tap to re-compensate and re-drive this densely damped environment.

***

Someone once posited that just as some of us hear dynamically into electronics and sources, some of us hear primarily differences in the scale and static responses in the system that lend themselves to those differences: The speakers.

If you hear dynamically you'll hear electronic texture (grain, grit, distortions), image focus, transient behaviors, "jump factor", "slam", dynamics, and all the words sometimes disallowed by audio objectivists that describe the flavors every system has - that "connectedness" and "immediacy" you hear from what are considered fringe audiophiles also refer here - while static listeners hear the differences in frequency response, speaker size, loudness, dispersion, the effects of the room on the system, and so forth.

Naturally, this latter camp also relies more on classical theory and measurement. They cite amplitude more than just about anything and seem to feel that any deviation from amplitude linearity may just be an incompetent design, sometimes knowingly or even intentionally.

The former group tend to just listen, which accounts for how they describe what they're hearing: Subjectively and with lexicons borrowed from sight, flavor, and even touch. Transparent. Rich. Palpable.

It also accounts why they tend to find arcane factors in the engineering only after hearing them. Consider Marsh and Jung testing capacitors all the way back in 1980(?) and finding substantial differences. Work like this peppers the audio arts but since it does not lend itself to amplitude research, gets dismissed.

Getting back to your question: Notice that the Cardas method, which pulls the speakers well out into the space and sets them at calculated intervals in the space, does not call for treating the space. This does not mean spaces should be un-treated, but it also does not allow for spaces to be over-treated.

Balance is essential. It's just been my experience that "dynamical" hearers get much more from the first arrival than from the entire static response of the entire venue, system included. They hear the original system and do not let either plain theory or the space advise either their preconceptions or their sensory input.

Why do listeners favor the models they do in the HTS tests? I'd guess it may be that those designs are rooted in classic static and acoustical power theory but have a strong element of dynamic empiricism to advise their final tuning. They probably break no classical rules but are not mainly contingent on them either.

And reading the HTS analysis of various series of speakers, it's becoming clear that as far as balance goes, dynamic hearing is not an uncommon base of perception. I think that's fun.

(Static and dynamic listening theory attributes to Ingvar Ohman.)
Thanks, Jon. Your posts never fail to get me thinking about something in a new way.

Cheers!
AudiocRaver is offline  
post #836 of 1075 Old 11-17-13, 01:03 PM
Shackster
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 74
Re: The Official $2,500 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event

Reading the review of the Paradigms, I am quite intrigued by their placement flexibility - I will undoubtedly be the listening type who doesn't bother pulling the speakers out, because I will be too lazy or it will be too awkward (as mentioned elsewhere, my HT/music room is quite stuffed with related things).

A speaker that gives some depth of soundstage even up near the front wall will be something to consider.

Looking forward to the final set of review postings and summary findings!

shinksma
shinksma is offline  
post #837 of 1075 Old 11-17-13, 01:16 PM
Senior Shackster
Steve
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 122
Re: The Official $2,500 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event

when i was really looking to upgrade from my old energy speakers paradigm was high up on the list because of their reputation, i first heard the monitor audio rx speakers, then dali, dynaudio, totem, amphion, the dali, dyns and totems were at the top of my list, but i had this notion that i had to listen to paradigm cause of all i knew of their reputation. I ended up listening to the studio 20s and 60s. One of the reviewers wrote that the paradigms had a veiled sound at times. I auditioned with mcintosh, rotel and anthem gear, i could not shake the veiled, hands cupped around your mouth sound that i was getting from them. the dealer was awesome, he let me move them anywhere i wanted, i got good soundstage/imaging/bass/depth but i just couldnt shake that cupped hands sound. Its interesting that no one else made the same veiled comment that the one reviewer made. I hope Im not over playing his comment. just an experience i had.

im gonna have to take a little bit of time and go back to that dealer or another dealer and give them a good long listen again. not that it will mean ill change speakers cause i just cant afford to, but at least it will/might change my perception of them and what i felt i heard back then.

Dynaudio Focus 260, Focus 210C, DM2/6
Marantz SR7007, NaimUniti2, Pro-ject 2xperience, Naim Stageline N
Oppo BDP-103, Hsu VTF2.4 subwoofer
callas01 is offline  
post #838 of 1075 Old 11-17-13, 01:33 PM
Shackster
Doug
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 13
Re: The Official $2,500 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event

I think your taste in speakers is such a subjective thing it's hard to know what you'll like or not like by reading reviews. I had Monitor 11's for 10 years and really liked them but recently changed to Aperions. I just wanted a change. While I like the Verus Grands I'm setting up a 2.1 channel room and I'm just about ready to pull the trigger on a pair of 60's for that room. I guess I'm just partial to the Paradigm sound. Music to some, noise to others, yes?
DougReim is offline  
post #839 of 1075 Old 11-17-13, 01:59 PM Thread Starter
HTS Hillbilly
HTS Administrator
 
Sonnie's Avatar
I'm a redneck!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: L.A. (Lower Alabama)
Posts: 22,554
My System
Re: The Official $2,500 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event

Quote:
kevin360 wrote: View Post
There are lots of speakers that please me.
Yep... same here. I like a lot of these speakers we have evaluated and for the most part, just about (not all) any of them I could live with and be perfectly happy.


Quote:
K1LL3M wrote: View Post
What I wonder is, is audio memory playing a factor in just how good the A5s were here?
They were the first speakers we listened to so that we could get an idea of what it was that we liked so much about them. Even so, it is still sometimes difficult to even get the memory right between nothing more than swapping out speakers, which is one reason we take a lot of notes while listening. Things we can pinpoint and things that notes can help us remember. I can make a note about something I heard and during the next speaker listening session, it will stick out to me because I noted it on the previous session. Yet there are times where I say to myself... I wish I could pull those back out and listen to them one more time.


Quote:
K1LL3M wrote: View Post
The general impression being recieved is that the A5s are all one needs and more expense does not equate to better sound, just a better finish.

While not directly in reference to this, the comment about tapering praise (I think "comments" was the actual wording) on the A5s less the price increase was what highlighted this impression. Just a perspective from reading along I thought I'd share
We have tried to be careful in how we word things, simply because it seems so many people have different ways of interpreting things, granted in most cases they hear it the way they want to interpret it rather than how it should be or was intended to be interpreted. I think some things we say get exaggerated a bit too much. However, we slip up and help cause that in some cases... as we are human.

What you have to remember is this is what we think about the speakers in the setup we are faced with ... and some folks like some characteristics more than others. You may very well not like what we like... and especially if the speakers are setup under completely different circumstances.

I really like the A5's, but I also really like the MartinLogan Motion 12's (although no longer available)... remember they were VERY close. I like the Paradigm 60's too, but they were not leaps and bounds ahead of any other speaker, I still liked several others too. What I would really like is the A5's with a little more low end and a nicer finish. Do the 60's do that for me? It is a hard call... they do add that little more bass that I am looking for, but do they have that top end clarity of the A5's... they are close. The question might then be do I want to spend another $1,250 to get that little extra bass, and maybe a little nicer finish, though not by much, cause I still don't like a black woodgrain finish. I can get past the finish, so now the question is do I want to spend the extra for a little better bass... or can I simply be happy with the A5's? I could think about that a hundred times and possibly answer it either way 50% of the time. The answer could be different for a LOT of people.


Quote:
Tonto wrote: View Post
Personally I like the discussion as long as it stays polite & on track. Jons' remarks about high current amps/AVR's & snake oil were, while a bit off track, still relavent & of interest to a lot of readers. I don't expect anyones opinions to get a "get by free card." I think we can all apprecitate Jon's take on engineering given the preformance of the A5's. That said, it merrits a certian amount of discussion. I certianly value it.
I like it too, but it is more about amps and their design than about speakers and this evaluation. That discussion can get very deep and could send the thread WAY off. I am not saying anyone gets a free pass on anything they want to say, but it can be quoted to a different thread where it can be better discussed at great length and not get this one so far off of its purpose.

Cedar Creek Cinema

PremierHomeAudio: Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Yamaha, Sony, Pioneer, Def Tech and more. Shoot me a PM!
Sonnie is offline  
post #840 of 1075 Old 11-17-13, 02:10 PM
Senior Shackster
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 489
Re: The Official $2,500 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event

Quote:
AudiocRaver wrote: View Post
Here is a bold generalization: There are two kinds of speaker lovers. Some like 'em flat. Some like 'em with some specific character, a mild amount of coloring that appeals to their personal listening tastes. No right or wrong, just two ways of looking at it.
Worth checking out some of the research from Harman. When Floyd Toole and Sean Olive did large scale blind testing, they found that listeners almost universally preferred speakers with flat on-axis response and wide dispersion with consistent off-axis response. Speakers that were coloured or had been voiced to deviate from flat (on-axis) scored poorly during those blind preference tests.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
$2 , 500 , audition , evaluation , event , home , official , speaker

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now




PLEASE COMPLETE ALL REQUIRED FIELDS BELOW... THANKS!

REQUIRED FIELDS ON THIS PAGE
YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL OF THESE

Username
Password
Confirm Password
Email Address
Confirm Email Address
Random Question
Random Question #2




User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
PLEASE READ BELOW PRIOR TO ENTERING AN EMAIL ADDRESS!

ATTENTION!

YOU MUST ACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT!

Activation requires you reply to an email we will send you after you register... if you do not reply to this email, you will not be able to view certain areas of the forum or certain images... nor will you be able download software.

AN INVALID EMAIL ADDRESS WILL CAUSE YOUR ACCOUNT TO BE DELETED!

See our banned email list here: Banned Email List

We DO NOT respond to spamcop, boxtrapper and spamblocker emails... please add @hometheatershack DOT com to your whitelist prior to registering or you will get nowhere on your registration.


Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML is not allowed!
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 


For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome