Which loudspeakers for classical music?
Reinout Dekhuijzen
I am looking for a pair of good loudspeakers, fit for classical music.
But so far most loudspeakers I heard were beter fit for pop music than
for classical music.
I consider buying a set of Magnat Project 4.1 Loudspeakers (3-way, 120
Watt). Are they fit for classical music?
Any recommendations are welcome !
Reinout Dekhuijzen
Reinout Dekhuijzen
rei...@pobox.com
http://pobox.com/~reinout
Salim Butt
>
>Hello,
>
>I am looking for a pair of good loudspeakers, fit for classical music.
>But so far most loudspeakers I heard were beter fit for pop music than
>for classical music.
>
>I consider buying a set of Magnat Project 4.1 Loudspeakers (3-way, 120
>Watt). Are they fit for classical music?
>
>Any recommendations are welcome !
neutrally sounding. In classical music you need a speaker that adds as little
by itself as possible. Go for a clean and transparent sounding speaker like
the ones that LINN is making.
But obviously it all depends very much upon which other equipment you are
using... And forgett about the Watts - they don't tell you anything about the
quality of the product.
If you tell us more about your equipment and the kind of music you listen to
most, I might be able to help you more.
Greetings,
Salim
Dave Powell
necessary for classical reproduction. Also, one of the finest, most
honest sounding speakers (though fairly expensive) have been the Klipsh
variety. I am not up on the latest Klipsh models, numbers, etc. The
reason why I like them is because they are highly efficient, being horn
loaded enclosures. And, they have beautiful cabinets to serve your
decor.
Essentially, what makes classical music difficult to reproduce
(accurately) is the inability for an amplifier to drive a speaker in
proportion from quiet to loud passages. A "horn-loaded" cabinet doesn't
require as much power since it is not an acoustically sealed (acoustic
suspension) cabinet. So then, if you have a 50 watt amplifier that is
producing a typical listening volume during a quiet passage, a horn
enclosure may only be using 3-5 watts during this time, as opposed to
requiring 10-15 watts through the same passage. Therefor, you gain lots
of dynamic headroom by using a Klipsh type enclosure. What you would
need to spend on higher power, you save on efficiency. Stay away from,
as you said, "pop sounding" speakers such as Cerwin-Vega and JBL.
Lastly, I recommend that you go to a non-consumer-oriented stereo store;
one that handles higher end equipment and has a professional staff who
are certified in audio consulting (most large cities have some) and who
can answer your questions. Do the "blind fold test," where you bring
a CD of your choice, preferrably a top notch digital classical CD with
good dynamics (Holst, The Planets is a good example), and compare a few
speakers that way. I did this, and twenty years later still love mine.
Happy hunting,
Dave Powell
Phillip Byrd
very happy. They weren't very expensive when they were new, but they
were wonderful sounding speakers.
Look around at garage sales. The original form of the speaker hasn't
been made since the early 1980's, so anything you find out there will be
fairly old. And that means the foam on the woofers will probably be
shot. A company in North Carolina (Stepp Audio, 800-747-3692) sells a
repair kit for the woofers. It costs $29 for a pair of speakers. And it
is very easy to replace the foam and turn a pair of very old speakers
into beautiful sounding musical instruments.
Good luck
John Heisch
: Hello,
: I am looking for a pair of good loudspeakers, fit for classical music.
: But so far most loudspeakers I heard were beter fit for pop music than
: for classical music.
: I consider buying a set of Magnat Project 4.1 Loudspeakers (3-way, 120
: Watt). Are they fit for classical music?
: Any recommendations are welcome !
: Reinout Dekhuijzen
Robert Cleary
>
>Hello,
>
>I am looking for a pair of good loudspeakers, fit for classical music.
>But so far most loudspeakers I heard were beter fit for pop music than
>for classical music.
I suggest you listen to some B&Ws. From the entry level up to the 801,
they always sound better than comparably priced speakers. That's just my
opinion, ouf course, and since I've been listening to B&Ws for ten years
everything else just doesn't sound right anymore.
Robert Cleary
c58...@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Steven Milne
Oh dear.....just check out speakers made by a company called Wilson.
That will sort you out.
Steve Milne st...@coppull.demon.co.uk
10062...@compuserve.com
"Take life calmly, Cod"
Randy A. Salas
Dave Powell <kpo...@neonramp.com> wrote:
>I agree that the LINN products are excellent for the transparent sound
>necessary for classical reproduction. Also, one of the finest, most
>honest sounding speakers (though fairly expensive) have been the Klipsh
>variety.
In the more-sound-for-your-money category, in contrast to the pricey
Klipshes, I rather like Boston Acoustics' tower speakers. I have the T830s.
Boston later made a T930 and T1030, with 9- and 10-inch woofers,
respectively, but I've never heard them. I specifically bought the T830s
because of articles (Stereo Review, Consumer Reports) at the time that
praised them for sounding like much more expensive speakers; Klipsh was
mentioned. Aside from providing admirable clarity and dynamic presence
(again, relative to their low price), the three-way speakers are remarkable
because they take up only 1 square foot of floor space each. (They're
about 3 feet high). I paid less than $500 for the pair.
Any other opinions on this brand? I'd love to spring for higher-end
speakers, but I and my checking account have been extremely pleased
with this set. The only knock I've heard against them is that they are not
that efficient. But I can't hear that. ;-)
Randy
--
Randy A. Salas, Editor | "She was a diva of such immense talent
Star Tribune SourceBooks | that, after hearing her perform, there
Minneapolis, Minnesota | was seldom a dry seat in the house."
DAN TALBOT
(Salim Butt) writes:
>
>In article <4db7v3$s...@info.uci.kun.nl>, rei...@pobox.com says...
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I am looking for a pair of good loudspeakers, fit for classical
music.
>>But so far most loudspeakers I heard were beter fit for pop music
than
>>for classical music.
>>
120
>>Watt). Are they fit for classical music?
>>
>>Any recommendations are welcome !
>neutrally sounding. In classical music you need a speaker that adds as
little
>by itself as possible. Go for a clean and transparent sounding speaker
like
>the ones that LINN is making.
>But obviously it all depends very much upon which other equipment you
are
>using... And forgett about the Watts - they don't tell you anything
about the
>quality of the product.
>If you tell us more about your equipment and the kind of music you
listen to
>most, I might be able to help you more.
>Greetings,
>Salim
>
I just happened to notice your post and you and I shared the same
unimpression of available mass-market brands. I couldn't find a
speaker system I liked either. Tweeters that have "buzzes" at their
resonance frequencies, only rolled off at said resonance by a
mild-mannered crossover network, midrange drivers similarly fed by
networks of too much simplicity, and woofers that frantically fluttered
their undersized 12 inch cones in a futile attempt to reproduce pipe
organ pedal sounds. So I designed a system, quite expensive, but
solving my personal objections to what is out there. I recommend that
if you have sufficient funding (and there is no such thing as a
budget-priced speaker system that will overcome the problems I
mentioned) you request brochures from:
T-TECH Corp. / P.O. Box 151 / Hudson, Ma. 01749
Dan Talbot
ttk...@ix.netcom.com
Stanley Goldstein
Stan Goldstein
gol...@u.washington.edu
Donald C. Currie
>A fairly new company that has (pardon!) set the industry on its ear
>is Aerial Acoustics. In almost every price category their speakers
>have been rated higher than the competition. Another company that
>makes great speakers for a reasonable price is 'Alon'.
>- chloe
I own a pair of Aerial Acoustic Model 7s. In a word they're terrific.
Another speaker manufacturer to keep your eyes (ears) open for is
the Hales Design Group. After a brief audition they may give Aerials
(and others) a good run for the money.
Happy Listening!
- DeeCee
--
Donald C. Currie -- Portland Public Schools -- Research & Evaluation Dept.
E-mail Address -- d...@redsun.pps.rain.com
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." Charles H. Duell,
Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
Chloe Carter
c58...@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Robert Cleary) writes:
>In article <4db7v3$s...@info.uci.kun.nl>, rei...@pobox.com wrote:
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I am looking for a pair of good loudspeakers, fit for classical music.
>>But so far most loudspeakers I heard were beter fit for pop music than
>>for classical music.
>
>I suggest you listen to some B&Ws. From the entry level up to the 801,
>they always sound better than comparably priced speakers.
A fairly new company that has (pardon!) set the industry on its ear
W. D. Watts
> Lastly, I recommend that you go to a non-consumer-oriented stereo store;
> one that handles higher end equipment and has a professional staff who
> are certified in audio consulting (most large cities have some) and who
> can answer your questions. Do the "blind fold test," where you bring
> a CD of your choice, preferrably a top notch digital classical CD with
> good dynamics (Holst, The Planets is a good example), and compare a few
> speakers that way. I did this, and twenty years later still love mine.
If the dealer will let you, take along your cd player and amp too (unless
the dealer has the same models in stock). Then you can check what the total
effect is. In the UK some high-end dealers will allow this and others -
the best option of all - will audition a selection of speakers in your
own home. You will not get the cheapest possible price this way but you
should be satisfied with your system.
Bill Watts
Jonathan Cunningham
>Hello,
>I am looking for a pair of good loudspeakers, fit for classical music.
>But so far most loudspeakers I heard were beter fit for pop music than
>for classical music.
The best suggestions that I can make, for the average guy on a budget,
would be to get a Harmon Kardon or Carver amplifier (not a
receiver-amplifier), for starters. These are the "flattest" amps for
the money. As we all know, the accuracy of the amp is at least half
of the battle for getting true frequency response.
Reasonably priced speakers, with very impressive accuracy can be found
from Boston Acoustics (they only make speakers). I gave some to my
brother about three years ago, and whenever I visit him, I am blown
away by the way his system sounds.
Jonathan
"They call it opportunity, but all it really means
is you are being underpaid."
DAN TALBOT
not prevent the soul of Beethoven or Chopin from making a good
impression. What I wish someone would explain to me is how anyone can
stand to listen to obnoxious, frantic, autistically hyper-active music
like rock or rap played back on a 50,000 dollar loudspeaker system!
Dan Talbot
Jonathan Ives
being a big fan of the LS3/5a which I use. Not good for masses of bass (Pipe
Organ Music) but Rogers now produce a compatible subwoofer for it called the
AB1. They have a very good midrange and are IMHO unsurpassed for vocals.
Unusually the speaker is in fact a specification developed for the BBC as a
small monitor , and it has been produced under licence by 6 or so different
manufacturers from time to time.
The LS3/5a are a bookshelf speaker but sound there best on open stands away
from the walls.
My 2p worth
Paul Kubicz
says...
>Oh dear.....just check out speakers made by a company called Wilson.
>That will sort you out.
Or flip you out, if the idea of spending six figures on a set of speakers
sounds repulsive to you (OK, five figures for the "cheaper" models).
Sheldon Marcus
you are interested in. The ones I have found so far that sound like
classical music according to price are:
Low: Polk S4
Medium: DCM Time Window 1A
Medium-High: DCM Time Window 3
High: Reference 3A and Avalon Avatar
Auditioning speakers is tough because they are dependent on what is
feeding them. My judgement of hi-fi equipment is based on attending a
lot of symphony, chamber, choral and opera performances. I am still
looking (listening) and am interested in the speaker preferences of
other avid live music attendees.
Sheldon Marcus
Chloe Carter
>
>Oh dear.....just check out speakers made by a company called Wilson.
>That will sort you out.
>
Hah! If you're not acquainted with the price ranges of audiophile
equipment, checking out the Wilsons will be an education in more
ways than one!
>Steve Milne st...@coppull.demon.co.uk
> 10062...@compuserve.com
- chloe
Steven Milne
>Paul:
>How can ANY piece of stereo equipment be even considered ADEQUATE that
>fails to reproduce part of the frequency spectrum of music?
>
>Further, the reason stereophiles prefer tube sound has nothing to do
>with amplifiers, but with speakers. Some speakers, when they overload,
>sound like electrified trash cans. Thus, if driven from a "whimpy"
>tube amp that soft-limits, this disaster-point cannot be reached,
>deluding the audiophile to conclude that the "tube amp" was somehow a
>magical savior. Ideally, a transistor amp with a kilowatt of headroom
>driving a loudspeaker which overloads above that, will sound better
>than a tube amp driving an inefficient, overload-complaining speaker
>system! By the way, I am a fellow of the Audio Engineering Society,
>and a designer of a loudspeaker system (T-TECH Positiv and Prestant
>series), and an ex-chief-engineer of a well-known hi-fi manufacturer.
>
>Dan Talbot
>
>P.S.: Of course, giving a whimpy loudspeaker, it might sound fantastic
>driven from a transistor amp with "power limiting". I believe McIntosh
>made such an amp afew years back. It would sound better than either a
>tube amp in soft clipping OR a transistor amp in hard clipping when
>driving speakers whose overload level is higher.
I agree with you about the ESLs. I saved for ages to get myself a
pair, went to the shop for a dem and came away not buying them. They
simply don't cover the bass end of the audio spectrum adequately. I
ended up buying Naim SBLs.
About valve amps. I believe that the problem is something to do with
"clipping" which amps suffer from when they reach the limit of their
performance. (something to do with "transients" ?). The valve amps
"clipped" in a less harsh way than transistors. This has led people
into thinking that they have a "warmer" sound. But...you need to keep
replacing the valves. Best bet is to buy an amp with bucketloads of
power (At least 100W per channel but varies depending on the quality
of the manufacturer). This improves the system's ability to handle
these transients. However, I thought this was an amp problem rather
than a speaker problem ?
Paul J. Stamler
natural, although the maximum volume isn't as high as with some others.
In more conventional designs, every Spendor speaker I've ever heard was
stunningly better than most of what was in its price range. I like the
LS3/5a minispeaker--not much bass, but incredibly natural tone everywhere
else. They sound best driven by a good tube amplifier, rather than solid
state. Some of the larger Spendors prefer solid-state.
Peace.
Paul
David M. Cook
Marc Heijligers <ma...@python.es.ele.tue.nl> wrote:
>But how can it be called adequate in a small room, in which the maximum
>wavelength is too small to reproduce low-frquency information?
This is a common misconception. Low frequencies can be reproduced just
fine in a small room.
Dave Cook
Richard Wang
Adam W. Grasso <aw...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>In article <4dsb90$7...@decaxp.harvard.edu>, rw...@course2.harvard.edu
>(Richard Wang) wrote:
>> Most of us--that is, those of us unable to afford audiophile full-range
>> speakers, or even our own Caribbean island--deal with it somehow. Bass
>> extension isn't all there is to a sound system, as I'm sure you're
>> aware. But tell me where to find speakers which sound natural through
>> the midrange, produce bass accurately and crisply down to 20Hz, and cost
>> less than $3000; I'll come running.
>>
> Polk Audio Monitor 10B's can do all of the above, and cost considerably
>less than $3000.
IMHO you're exaggerating. Bass *reproduction* is quite different from
bass *extension*, and the Monitor 10B's are certainly not full-range
speakers if the first (and more important) criterion is applied. I can't
fault the overall sound, though, even if I do prefer Thiel and Linn
speakers.
>All I can say is that one can get some tremendous
>speakers without paying over $1000! The idea of "six figures" mentioned
>earlier in this thread is truly revolting.
Both true. Besides, a music lover should be spending the money on more
CDs, and maybe some form of elegant, unobtrusive, and accessible
storage. Audio equipment is ridiculously priced no matter how you
look at it. The man who installed my father's home stereo system
offered to sell him 20 ft. of speaker wire for $1000!
--
Richard Wang rw...@fas.harvard.edu
"In all my experience, I have never been wrong."--Ted Floyd
Richard L. Kaye
reproduction of sound. It cannot be JUST the loudspeakers;
one has to consider the whole chain of reproductive gear
between the performers and you, the listener. Some things
are immutable; they stay the same over the years; other
aspects change with what is often called "progress," and
still other parts of the puzzle are affected by fads.
Start with music performed in a concert room which is
recorded or transmitted by electrical/electronic means.
You are completely at the mercy of the technicians and
producers who supervise the transformation of sound
energy into electrical energy. If their microphone
placements and techniques are faulty, there is practically
nothing you can do in the rest of the chain of reproduction
that will make the sound "better" than what they transmit.
(Yes, you can improve frequency response, so long as they
transmit a wide enough spectrum and you know what their
frequency response is - but you don't - and very likely
they don't!)
There is a certain amount of blind faith exhibited here:
many of you think that record producers, for instance, are
trying to produce the best, most realistic sound for you.
And that is not to deny the often expressed comment that
one recording sounds "better" than another one; such
judgements can be made, but often they are based on
misconceptions (and maybe not yours). For years RCA records
were produced with the thought in mind that they would be
reproduced on nothing larger than 6" speakers. Most producers
working today have a preconceived notion of what "good" sound
is, and mostly it does not relate at all to what you would
hear at a good seat in a concert hall at a real, live
performance. Some of these producers never attend concerts by
the artists they record; they are too busy, and/or they attend
rehearsals, and/or they go to a performance by their artists
in one locale, but record them in a different place. There
are, for instance, some producers whose ideal is to put a
microphone on every player or group of players. They may use
upward of 20 microphones, and if their microphone placements
cause an overall dead sound, why they add artificial reverb-
eration. Others will restrict themselves to two or three
microphones and won't be terribly concerned that you can't
really hear all of the solo work. And there is everything
else in between.
A typical orchestral recording/broadcast might have 2 or 3
"main" microphones; a solo microphone on the woodwinds;
individual microphones for soloists (vocal or instrumental);
"pin" microphones to give body to the strings; and if there
is a chorus, two or three more microphones, to say nothing
of a couple of reverb. microphones further out in a big hall.
Sometimes there are other microphones; remember that this
matter of fidelity is perceived. If you are in a concert
hall and SEE Ida Haendel performing the Beethoven concerto,
you will have no particular problem in "hearing" her playing.
But if you are listening to an absolutely un-doctored recording
of that same performance without benefit of seeing the playing,
you may not "hear" the solo as well. So the producers take
some liberties with the balance to fool you into pervceiving
something like what you would actually have belived you
heard in the concert hall.
And they go on from there - and who is to say they are either
"right" or "wrong" in this - and they try to emphasize what is
in the printed score, but not necessarily in the performance.
There are producers who will vary the level of microphones
throughout a piece according to the score. E.g.: the oboe
solos in the second and fourth movements of a recording of
Beethoven's "Eroica" have most likely been enhanced in level
by the recording producer. I know that many of you feel that
you can hear this, but I assure you that sometimes you
cannot. You really shouldn't even bother yourself trying to
figure this one out: if it's blatant, you'll know; and if it's
not obvious, why worry?
Then there are playbacks in recording sessions, where the
conductors get their licks in. Understand that in multi-
channel recordings, what they hear during the breaks in the
sessions are "Scratch" mixes down to 2 channels, not the
final planned products. Nevertheless, many conductors make
comments about balances at such times, and adjustments are
made to accomodate their wishes.
There is one conductor, nameless here, who used to be a
bassist. He has a concept - not necessarily wrong - of what
the stringed bass sound should be in a recording. From this
stems a practice of putting yet another "solo" microphone
really close to the principal bass and mixing this pickup
in through a "high-pass" filter to cause all the basses to
appear to have more articulation. This, BTW, is not now
restricted to recordings by this one conductor. Many have
adopted the practice. It is also reasonably customary to
"mike" the harp(s) unless the music for them is strictly
background fill-in. There are too many other special cases
to detail them all here. The point is that right from the
beginning you cannot know what it is that the producer thinks
you should hear.
Let me back track to that word "immutable," that I used above.
There is no way to change nature. Most of us have our greatest
hearing acuity about 1000cycles, and after something like
age 22 our hearing of higher frequencies declines with
increasing age. In the recording/transmitting/reproducing
chain there are difficulties encountered whenever we go from
mechanical to electrical or vice versa. Look at a frequency
response curve for a microphone or loudspeaker; it's full of
peaks and dips; even the very best only approximate a flat
response. The purely electrical parts of the chain can
exhibit more "fidelity." And there is a difference between
measured frequency response and perceived frquency response.
Remember this number: 500,000! We accept as being at least
"good" fidelity anything where the corresponding frequency
limits multiply to 500,000 and do not cut off any frequencies
which contain substantial musical information. 50-10,000 plus
or minus 2 db is marginally OK; 30-16,000 is quite good; and
20-25,000 is about the limit that most of us ever hear at our
age of best hearing. 50-16,000 would be perceived as sharpish,
and 20-10,000 would be considered bass-heavy.
If you believe this - or some such - it should affect your
consideration of loudspeakers - to get back to the subject
of this thread. You do need equipment which will match your
hearing abilities; you do need to have low distortion, and to
meet this criterion you need loudspeakers which will produce
satisfactory normal and peak sound levels, driven by
amplifiers which can cause these sound levels in these
speakers without themselves overloading or otherwise distorting.
Since pushing loudspeakers to their limits always makes
distortion increase, you should look for speakers which can
produce the desired levels in your listening space well
within their ratings, and you probably want an amplifier
capable of about ten times the power to drive these speakers
to the desired levels. It really is of little consequence
whether you use tube or solid state amplifiers if you meet
that specification.
The gist of this is that a particular type or make of
loudspeaker is not consequential so long as they can
reproduce faithfully enough within the criteria above; there
are many satisfactory speakers - and many unsatisfactory.
And what may be satisfactory for me at age 71 may very well
be unsatisfactory for you at 22.
I mentioned fads; they are always with us. Currently "monster"
cable, but I remember cactus needles.
RLK
Richard Wang
DAN TALBOT <ttk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>How can ANY piece of stereo equipment be even considered ADEQUATE that
>fails to reproduce part of the frequency spectrum of music?
Most of us--that is, those of us unable to afford audiophile full-range
speakers, or even our own Caribbean island--deal with it somehow. Bass
extension isn't all there is to a sound system, as I'm sure you're
aware. But tell me where to find speakers which sound natural through
the midrange, produce bass accurately and crisply down to 20Hz, and cost
less than $3000; I'll come running.
--
Marc Heijligers
| How can ANY piece of stereo equipment be even considered ADEQUATE that
| fails to reproduce part of the frequency spectrum of music?
But how can it be called adequate in a small room, in which the maximum
wavelength is too small to reproduce low-frquency information?
| Further, the reason stereophiles prefer tube sound has nothing to do
| with amplifiers, but with speakers.
The discussion mainly seems to emphasize the overload characteristics of
amplifiers. Nevertheless I feel that in 'general' tube amps also tend to sound
different from solid-state amps at low volume levels, and also over a very
wide range of loudspeakers.
Some tube amps from Audio Research can easily produce 150W continuous, and
might reach 'the overlaod point of a speaker' (what is that anyway?) very
easily, but still have different characteristics from most solid state
equivalents.
| Ideally, a transistor amp with a kilowatt of headroom
| driving a loudspeaker which overloads above that, will sound better
| than a tube amp driving an inefficient, overload-complaining speaker
| system!
Which is where it is all about, finding a good combination. My own preference
is towards a single ended triode tube amp with efficient speakers.
| By the way, I am a fellow of the Audio Engineering Society,
| and a designer of a loudspeaker system (T-TECH Positiv and Prestant
| series), and an ex-chief-engineer of a well-known hi-fi manufacturer.
And what does this add to this discussion?
Marc
Adam W. Grasso
> In article <4dr252$9...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
> DAN TALBOT <ttk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >How can ANY piece of stereo equipment be even considered ADEQUATE that
> >fails to reproduce part of the frequency spectrum of music?
>
> Most of us--that is, those of us unable to afford audiophile full-range
> speakers, or even our own Caribbean island--deal with it somehow. Bass
> extension isn't all there is to a sound system, as I'm sure you're
> aware. But tell me where to find speakers which sound natural through
> the midrange, produce bass accurately and crisply down to 20Hz, and cost
> less than $3000; I'll come running.
>
Polk Audio Monitor 10B's can do all of the above, and cost considerably
less than $3000. However, there's one small problem...they aren't made
anymore. Polk replaced the Monitor series with an inferior line (can't
remember the name) and only now are making amends with some new products
in that price range. All I can say is that one can get some tremendous
speakers without paying over $1000! The idea of "six figures" mentioned
earlier in this thread is truly revolting.
Adam
--
Adam W. Grasso Dept. of Molecular Biology/Microbiology
aw...@po.cwru.edu Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH USA School of Medicine
Marc Heijligers
| This is a common misconception. Low frequencies can be reproduced just
| fine in a small room.
It may sound nice, but low frequencies cannot be reproduced accurately in
small rooms. Put some speakers which have a response down to 20Hz into your
toilet, then you know what I mean.
Marc
S. LaBonne
Listen to a good pair of headphones, and then admit you're confused- 20
Hz can be reproduced in a _very_ small volume.. BTW I don't think
speakers need reproduction down to 20Hz in order to sound awful in the
bathroom!
--
Opinions are mine alone; I never met a university with opinions!
Steve LaBonne ********************* (labo...@cnsunix.albany.edu)
"It can never be satisfied, the mind, never." - Wallace Stevens
alan...@argonet.co.uk
writes:
> By the way, I am a fellow of the Audio Engineering Society,
> and a designer of a loudspeaker system (T-TECH Positiv and Prestant
> series), and an ex-chief-engineer of a well-known hi-fi manufacturer.
>
... and therefore has *no* axe to grind in re. this particular thread!
my 2p (UK) worth. If you can afford, a pair of ATC SCM50a, tri-amped is
well nigh unbeatable (at four and a half grand, UK price, they *&%" well
ought to be).
Regards: Alan
--
* 'Curiouser * *
* and * alan...@argonet.co.uk *
* Curiouser' * *
Tony Movshon
lot like the drivel that fills rec.audio.*), to make two points:
1. Richard Kaye is absolutely right that when you listen to recorded
music, you are at the mercy of the rest of your audio chain, right
back to the engineers and producers. I derive far more pleasure from a
well-engineered recording on a modest system than from a poor
recording on a good system (which might, by the way, be the latest DDD
wonder from a major label).
2. Given a good recording and other components in the chain, the "best"
speakers, in the long run, are probably the ones you "notice" the
least, the ones that don't impose a personality of their own on the
sound. For my taste, electrostatics have this desirable neutrality, and
I am quite happy with my Quad 63s (aided, I confess, by a Mirage
subwoofer for the 5% of material for which the Quads' clean but
slightly shy bass doesn't have quite enough oomph). YMMV; indeed, I am
sure that your mileage *will* vary.
Tony Movshon
Center for Neural Science
New York University
Marc Heijligers
| >This is a common misconception. Low frequencies can be reproduced
| just
| >fine in a small room.
| >
| >Dave Cook
|
| Indeed they can, in fact they can even be reproduced fine in an
| anechoic chamber!
Which might all be true, but in reality a living room isn't actually
anechoic. In ordinary living rooms all kind of reflections will take place,
which for long wavelengths will cause interference. This will make some
frequencies to be loud at some places in the living room, and soft at other
places. While such a configuration might sound very acceptable, it is not what
I would call accurate, which was what has been claimed in earlier postings,
and denied in several succesive postings.
| Myths abound which do not begin as such; they begin as truths but the
| context gets forgotten !
Which is exactly what I hoped to make clear with my original postings.
Marc
DAN TALBOT
>
>| This is a common misconception. Low frequencies can be reproduced
just
>| fine in a small room.
>
in
>small rooms. Put some speakers which have a response down to 20Hz into
your
>toilet, then you know what I mean.
>
That all depends on whether you stick your head in too !
DAN TALBOT
Wang) writes:
>
>In article <awg3-21019...@awg3-ra.s-remote.cwru.edu>,
>Adam W. Grasso <aw...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>>(Richard Wang) wrote:
>
>>> Most of us--that is, those of us unable to afford audiophile
full-range
>>> speakers, or even our own Caribbean island--deal with it somehow.
Bass
>>> extension isn't all there is to a sound system, as I'm sure you're
>>> aware. But tell me where to find speakers which sound natural
through
>>> the midrange, produce bass accurately and crisply down to 20Hz, and
cost
>>> less than $3000; I'll come running.
>>>
>> Polk Audio Monitor 10B's can do all of the above, and cost
considerably
>>less than $3000.
>
>bass *extension*, and the Monitor 10B's are certainly not full-range
>speakers if the first (and more important) criterion is applied. I
can't
>fault the overall sound, though, even if I do prefer Thiel and Linn
>speakers.
>
>>All I can say is that one can get some tremendous
>>speakers without paying over $1000! The idea of "six figures"
mentioned
>>earlier in this thread is truly revolting.
>
>Both true. Besides, a music lover should be spending the money on
more
>CDs, and maybe some form of elegant, unobtrusive, and accessible
>storage. Audio equipment is ridiculously priced no matter how you
>look at it. The man who installed my father's home stereo system
>offered to sell him 20 ft. of speaker wire for $1000!
>
>--
>Richard Wang rw...@fas.harvard.edu
>"In all my experience, I have never been wrong."--Ted Floyd
At VERY low frequencies, bass reflex (ported) cabinets may actually
HURT rather than re-inforce bass output. Further, flat frequency
response is not necessary; equalization can be applied, but what cannot
be corrected is DEFICIENT output sound pressure before the speaker
overloads. THIS is a function of DISPLACEMENT, and nothing more! Ie.,
the speaker has to be LARGE. There is no free lunch at 16 Hz. A
single 12 inch cone with only 1 inch linear excursion CANNOT displace
enough air to cause the sound pressure of a live 16 Hz organ pipe
experience. This is true no matter how many baffle modifications one
makes!
Dan Talbot
P.S.: this is the motive for the loudspeaker system I designed and
market. It is NOT 6 or even 5 figures expensive, but it's not cheap,
and can't be done cheaply.
DAN TALBOT
M. Cook) writes:
>
>In article <MARC.96Ja...@python.es.ele.tue.nl>,
>Marc Heijligers <ma...@python.es.ele.tue.nl> wrote:
>
maximum
>>wavelength is too small to reproduce low-frquency information?
>
just
>fine in a small room.
>
Indeed they can, in fact they can even be reproduced fine in an
anechoic chamber! The problem with frequencies under 30 Hz is in fact
not limited to air transport. At 16 Hz, for example, sit and listen to
a church organ with your SKELETON via your chair ! Also a common
misconception is that floor coupling is undesirable at low frequencies.
We must be careful to define what is meant by LOW ! At 8 Hz,
conduction coupling is a critical component of the overal effect !
Myths abound which do not begin as such; they begin as truths but the
context gets forgotten !
Dan Talbot
DAN TALBOT
Heijligers) writes:
>
>In article <4e1iu6$8...@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> ttk...@ix.netcom.com(DAN
TALBOT ) writes:
>
>| just
>| >fine in a small room.
>| >
>| >Dave Cook
>|
>| Indeed they can, in fact they can even be reproduced fine in an
>| anechoic chamber!
>
>anechoic. In ordinary living rooms all kind of reflections will take
place,
>which for long wavelengths will cause interference. This will make
some
>frequencies to be loud at some places in the living room, and soft at
other
>places. While such a configuration might sound very acceptable, it is
not what
>I would call accurate, which was what has been claimed in earlier
postings,
>and denied in several succesive postings.
>
the
>| context gets forgotten !
>
>
>Marc
You are quite correct. However, if one assumes that the nearest
boundary is much farther away from the speaker's near field than you
are, the size of room isn't too critical; it can certainly be
equalized. In order for EQ to work, however, overload capability must
be considered in amp and speaker.
Now that we agree that a small room is fine, (but not too small) let's
enjoy the music.
Dan Talbot
Craig Mirate
can handle low frequencies quite well. The catch is to have
an acoustic ceiling or a non parallel wall. Just some way to
avoid a standing wave. Then you just need a set of speakers
that make it for you. Everyone hears differently, so you'll
just have to find a set you like. See if your store has an
exchange policy so that if they don't sound good in your home
you can exchange them within a day or two in their original
containers.
Craig
DAN TALBOT
I own a pair of OHM Walsh-4's which sounded GREAT in a room with
vaulted ceiling, and seem to have no bass at all in a boxy room to
which I have moved them! (of course, they are not known for bass
output, but the differences at 30 to 70 Hz in room placement is
amazing).
However, 16 Hz bass from a speaker really capable of it sounds fine in
any room. So does a Strad violin, for that matter, when played in
various halls or even small rooms; it has no EQ knobs, either!
Dan Talbot
Nehringk
> But how can it be called adequate in a small room, in which the
> maximum wavelength is too small to reproduce low-frquency
> information?
This is a fallacy that seems to get repeated over and over. When the room
gets small, the bass actually goes up, as the air is pressurized. The
transfer function of a room actually loads -- increases -- bass. Think
about it -- if a small room did not allow bass to be reproduced,
headphones would have no bass. Nor would cars. That would put rap music
out of business :-)
-- Karl Nehring
alexander kaloian
alexander kaloian
chairman
alexander kaloian edition
Eric Walker
TALBOT ) writes:
|
|In <MARC.96Ja...@python.es.ele.tue.nl> ma...@python.es.ele.tue.nl
|(Marc Heijligers) writes:
|>
|>In article <4du2st$c...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
|dc...@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu (David M. Cook) writes:
|>
|>| This is a common misconception. Low frequencies can be reproduced
|just
|>| fine in a small room.
|>
|in
|>small rooms. Put some speakers which have a response down to 20Hz into
|your
|>toilet, then you know what I mean.
|>
|>Marc
|
|That all depends on whether you stick your head in too !
For pity's sake, folks, this is not opinuion, it's physics. You can validly
have an opinion on whether or not there's a God in Heaven, but you cannot
validly have an _opinion_ on the height of Mt. Everest. Wake up and smell
the coffee.
-------------------
Eric Walker
High Boskage House
Marc Heijligers
| This is a fallacy that seems to get repeated over and over.
And this is repeated over and over again too. I was talking about reproducing
low frequency information ACCURATELY.
Because of reflections severe interference will occur, resulting in nodes and
loops. Changing your position is a small room will result in a change of the
loudness perceived of certain frequencies. I guess everybody knows the effect
of an E-bass, of which some tones sound much stronger in some places of the
room than in other places. These differences in loudness can easily be in the
order of 20dB. This, I wouldn't call accurate.
Marc