Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 45550 times.

PDR

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 820
  • May the best man win
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #60 on: 18 Aug 2016, 02:17 pm »
Thanks for the video Anand.

Ok I've learned a few things from it.
I thought it was a true dipole but now I see its only from 800 down.
I realize that the two 15" drivers are identical making this a two way, not a 3 way as I thought.
So I guess this is an OB from 800 down and a point source from from there up in a wave guide......got it.

I have pair of Selah Symmetrica, that image like no other speaker I've ever heard,
they dont need much toe in and cover a large sweet spot....but they're arrays.... :wink:
My pair of Super Vs and the former V1s,  and now the TB 1808 all seem
to react the way Russel explained....but I'm in a dedicated treated room,
that might be the difference.

I have a buddy thats been through a lot of gear in the last 30 yrs,
Hes getting a pair of M3 next week.....can hardly wait for his impressions.

My Trios are still a month or so before completion...

DaveC113

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 4344
  • ZenWaveAudio.com
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #61 on: 18 Aug 2016, 02:54 pm »
There's more than one way to skin a cat... I do prefer a lot of toe-in with my horn speakers though.

On the OP, I think the Pure Audio speaker is very dependent on the quality of the full range driver. If you like it it'll be a great speaker, if not it will suck. Most full range drivers aren't that great, but there are some out there that are amazing. Voxativ has always sounded ok but not amazing to me. Not on the level of AER, Feastrex or Omega imo...  And after listening to a lot of coax designs they have their pros and cons too. Personally, I like the Ozone designs speaker better than either but I'd never own an OB speaker anyways.






poseidonsvoice

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4016
  • Science is not a democracy - Earl Geddes
    • 2 channel/7 channel setup
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #62 on: 18 Aug 2016, 03:05 pm »
It is my understanding that to cover the widest seating area with reasonable imaging quality, you need to toe speakers in more, not less. More so the axes cross in front of the central listener and allows some flexibility in lateral listener positioning. This also produces the least wall bounce when walls are to either side of the listening space.
The only reason to orient the speakers so you as a solo listener are on the frontal axes is if that's necessary to produce the flattest or most pleasant tonal response, otherwise there's no reason not to leave the speakers that way all the time.

I never cease to be disturbed seeing big-buck systems (you know—the statement systems with the 1" machined faceplate pre amps and amps, the turntables with 50lb platters all on massive footers and carbon fiber equipment racks and $50,000 speakers looking like Darth Vader or some gigantic snail) with the speakers facing squarely out into the room—even near side walls. This is so wrong, and so easily proven to be. You don't need scientific proof—although that is plain and simple—you simply need to listen.

A mono signal tells the tale. If you are not getting a coherent, tight, narrow phantom image in the centre with a mono signal, something is amiss and you are not hearing what the engineer intended when listening in stereo. If your speakers are close to side walls and pointing straight out from the back wall you don't need to ask 'what's wrong'. That is what's wrong.

Actually Russell, I agree with you! I was just relating to my subjective experience for me personally with a speaker that has a large and very dedicated waveguide (it's 18 inches!). I've discussed this extensively with Nyal Mellor as he is in the business of treating rooms based on the radiation pattern of the loudspeaker in question. For my own room, I have my NA12's heavily toed in, and the imaging is exacting especially for the individual sitting in the center sweet spot. It also gives the flattest frequency response as you correctly state. Sometimes, when I sit on the side seats, I feel as though the treble can be slightly dull. So when I adjust for less toe in, the treble brightens up ( a little ) and sound stage becomes a bit broader, but the imaging is less exacting. For me that feels like a wider sweet spot.

These are subtle changes, and I am most likely making more out of it than needs to be.

But...if I was given a choice, I would still choose the controlled directivity design, which ALLOWS for the heavy toe in. Other speakers do not sound good this way. I don't see the Pure Audio unit using a dedicated waveguide and there are no measurements to prove what the off axis response looks like which in my opinion is terribly important. And to be clear,  I have appreciated wider dispersion designs but still with controlled directivity, such as those designed by Andrew Jones, Don Keele, etc...

http://www.libinst.com/PublicArticles/Setup%20of%20WG%20Speakers.pdf

Sorry for the digression fellas. To be honest, Russell is right, I was just relating to my own personal subjective experience and so it is very easy to misspeak.

Best,
Anand.

shahed

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 307
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #63 on: 18 Aug 2016, 05:08 pm »
There's more than one way to skin a cat... I do prefer a lot of toe-in with my horn speakers though.

On the OP, I think the Pure Audio speaker is very dependent on the quality of the full range driver. If you like it it'll be a great speaker, if not it will suck. Most full range drivers aren't that great, but there are some out there that are amazing. Voxativ has always sounded ok but not amazing to me. Not on the level of AER, Feastrex or Omega imo...  And after listening to a lot of coax designs they have their pros and cons too. Personally, I like the Ozone designs speaker better than either but I'd never own an OB speaker anyways.

Hi Dave, Would love to hear your reasoning of not wanting to own an OB speaker.

beowulf

Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #64 on: 18 Aug 2016, 08:18 pm »
There's more than one way to skin a cat... I do prefer a lot of toe-in with my horn speakers though.

On the OP, I think the Pure Audio speaker is very dependent on the quality of the full range driver. If you like it it'll be a great speaker, if not it will suck. Most full range drivers aren't that great, but there are some out there that are amazing. Voxativ has always sounded ok but not amazing to me. Not on the level of AER, Feastrex or Omega imo...  And after listening to a lot of coax designs they have their pros and cons too. Personally, I like the Ozone designs speaker better than either but I'd never own an OB speaker anyways.

Hi Dave, is Ozone actually a brand or design philosophy?  Have you ever heard the Omega in an OB?  That's something that I've haven't heard yet, but since I think Louis's designs are excellent I have no doubt they would sound as good as the Voxativ.

poseidonsvoice

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4016
  • Science is not a democracy - Earl Geddes
    • 2 channel/7 channel setup
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #65 on: 18 Aug 2016, 08:40 pm »
Hi Dave, is Ozone actually a brand or design philosophy?  Have you ever heard the Omega in an OB?  That's something that I've haven't heard yet, but since I think Louis's designs are excellent I have no doubt they would sound as good as the Voxativ.

Ozone is a speaker company: http://www.ozonedesign.net/oz/index.htm

The speaker he mentioned is the "OZ" which is a DSP fully active speaker composed of (2) Acoustic Elegance TD15 LO drivers and (1) Radian R475PB compression loaded on a SEOS15 waveguide. Their DSP is a fully modified Behringer DCX2496.

Best,
Anand.

jseymour

Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #66 on: 18 Aug 2016, 09:33 pm »
Poseidonsvoice, thanks for the link to the Setup Speakers pdf.  That is inspiration to experiment with more toe in with my M3 Turbo S.  Right now I have them aimed right at my listening position, but the pdf encourages more toe in than that.

rajacat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3239
  • Washington State
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #67 on: 18 Aug 2016, 09:36 pm »
Did you build those? They look like some nice OB!

How about if a speaker does not have a wave guide as in the Spatial and PAP offering?

No, I didn't build them but I did build a pair of these. This is an old photo, I've since finished the top of the upper cabinet. I can adjust the position of the waveguides by sliding the box outward to compensate for phase issues. It would be interesting to hear how these would measure up to open baffle designs. The AE TD15M woofers are in 3.5 cu. ft. heavily constructed sealed cabinets. The 18" waveguide uses a 10 lb. 1" compression driver which will go down to 650-700hz. before rolling off. Point source to ~650hz. with very low distortion.
The modular design would me it easy to substitute in a couple of 15" OB woofers and hear how they compare to the sealed 15" woofs.

« Last Edit: 20 Aug 2016, 05:20 pm by rajacat »

zybar

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 12071
  • Dutch and Dutch 8C's…yes they are that good!
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #68 on: 18 Aug 2016, 09:49 pm »
Poseidonsvoice, thanks for the link to the Setup Speakers pdf.  That is inspiration to experiment with more toe in with my M3 Turbo S.  Right now I have them aimed right at my listening position, but the pdf encourages more toe in than that.

Also try toeing them out a little bit.

They can sound very good with them crossing just behind the listening position.

George

VonHess

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 43
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #69 on: 19 Aug 2016, 04:59 pm »
I'm wondering, since I use a subwoofer, if I could get by with the less expensive M4? 

As an aside, looks like the prices for the Spatials went up a bit.  Better get 'em while they are cheap!!

jaywills

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 330
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #70 on: 19 Aug 2016, 05:28 pm »
I have a pair of Spatial M2 Turbo's (same size speaker as the M4, IIRC, different parts, I think) that I use with a pair of 12" Velodyne servo subs crossed over digitally (via TacT 2.2x) at 50hz, 10th order.  Works just fine in my smallish room, nearfield (~7').  Good luck.  Cordially,

glynnw

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 991
  • I have tin ears.
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #71 on: 19 Aug 2016, 05:53 pm »
I have a pair of M3 Turbo S with a pair of GR Research dual 12" servo OB subs.  I am pretty sure the M4 would sound about the same with these subs.  That is to say, very good.

nicoch

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 177
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #72 on: 19 Aug 2016, 09:00 pm »

Ok I've learned a few things from it.
I thought it was a true dipole but now I see its only from 800 down.
I realize that the two 15" drivers are identical making this a two way, not a 3 way as I thought.
So I guess this is an OB from 800 down and a point source from from there up in a wave guide......got it.
nice that you got it a real OB  sound ie to 7k is a lot difference than a CD at 800hz

TomS

Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #73 on: 19 Aug 2016, 09:09 pm »
I have a pair of M3 Turbo S with a pair of GR Research dual 12" servo OB subs.  I am pretty sure the M4 would sound about the same with these subs.  That is to say, very good.
Can you elaborate more on that setup, xo's, what improvements, etc?

nicoch

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 177
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #74 on: 19 Aug 2016, 09:11 pm »
I'm wondering, since I use a subwoofer, if I could get by with the less expensive M4? 

As an aside, looks like the prices for the Spatials went up a bit.  Better get 'em while they are cheap!!
you can build for cheap as the beta12cx are 50$ each the compressor driver P.audio BM 65$

Jonathon Janusz

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 908
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #75 on: 20 Aug 2016, 01:48 am »
you can build for cheap as the beta12cx are 50$ each the compressor driver P.audio BM 65$

nicoch, I'm not sure what you mean with this?  Unless I am mistaken, the spatial m4 uses neither the eminence beta 12cx nor a p-audio compression driver.  Are you describing another similar do it yourself design?  Do you have any more information (box or baffle plans, crossover schematics) if an alternate design is what you mean?  Thanks!

nicoch

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 177
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #76 on: 20 Aug 2016, 07:32 am »



glynnw

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 991
  • I have tin ears.
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #77 on: 20 Aug 2016, 01:01 pm »
I'm beginning to think you are a bit loopy in your campaign against Spatial Audio.  Paudio was used by Danny Richie in his Super V etc models.  That has nothing to do with Spatial Audio.  I have yet to hear you say you have listened to the Spatials.

nicoch

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 177
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #78 on: 20 Aug 2016, 03:51 pm »
paudio is a decent driver for the record... want you play "find the difference" game ?

nicoch

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 177
Re: Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B
« Reply #79 on: 20 Aug 2016, 03:54 pm »
or want you find from where came from this pic ?