[mcgsxr]

The thread is interesting and has the potential to help inform.

Feel free to post your impressions of your own listening to either or both.

Leave the comments about each other elsewhere.

I don't think what any of you THINK about an implementation informs anyone of anything.

[Jonathon Janusz]

nicoch, I understand your meaning now.  Thank you.

I don't remember reading in a review or interview to confirm the OEM for the Spatial M25 tweeter, but I do remember Spatial specifically noting that their woofers were in fact made by Eminence, but were made exclusively to Spatial's design specifications, meaning I would conclude they are not (or are no longer) off the shelf parts (either the beta12cx or otherwise).  Based on Clayton Shaw's discussions online and the interviews he has done, I believe these differences to be key in how and why his designs work the way they do.

As Danny from GR was brought up here, I think I remember his V2 design used the Eminence beta12cx drivers successfully, and I know the p-audio drivers he used sounded very good; I had the bm12cx38 coaxials and used them both in a sealed cabinet and in an open baffle with the open-back modified tweeters.

Slightly aside, for anyone interested, I did a little experiment with Dave at P.I. Audio when I scrapped out my damaged paudio coaxials.  Dave has a pair of Danny's Super-V, and I sent Dave the tweeters from my damaged coaxes to have him cryo them.  His report back after swapping in the cryoed drivers into his speakers was that the end result was noticeably better with the cryoed parts.  I can't be sure without trying, but this might also be a worthwhile low cost performance mod for the Spatials if someone were willing to try it out.

[glynnw]

Based upon listening, my favorite speakers at 2013 RMAF were by Emerald Physics - a concentric tweeter design.  Based upon listening I had 2 favorite speakers at 2014 RMAF - Emerald Physics and Spatial Audio - both concentric tweeter designs.  I finally purchased a pair of Spatial Audios to replace my 8" full range speakers.   Based upon listening, not theory.  Didn't someone once claim that based upon theory bumble bees couldn't fly?

[nicoch]

it is nice that you like the beta 12cx and the Selenium D220TI
 http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/emerald/1.htmldriver
http://www.parts-express.com/selenium-d220ti-1-titanium-horn-driver-8-ohm-1-3-8-18--264-270

[Russell Dawkins]

1st link should be:
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/emerald/1.html

[CSI]

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.

When I managed a stand alone audio store back in the day there was a certain type of audiophile who would look askance at almost any new offering, particularly if it sounded really good, and declare that only a fool would spend that kind of money for that speaker when you could build it yourself for a fraction of the cost. They'd even give you a list of the parts if you asked. My answer then (and now) was always the same, "Go ahead. Build one. Knock yourself out".

[glynnw]

To be clear, nicoch, you are saying that the tweeter in the Spatial Audio M3 Turbo S is a Selenium D220Ti 1" Titanium Horn Driver and the Clayton Shaw is not being truthful when he says the tweeter is one he designed? 

[Ric Schultz]

Clayton used the Selenium driver in his very early designs.  It is not a very good driver (harsh sounding to me).  He uses way better compression drivers now.  The latest M25 being his latest best one inch exit driver. 

[mirekti]

Well, Spatials are something that every OB fan could have wanted. An entry point OB (although only till 800Hz), yet controlled directivity above. A pretty, nice looking package which delivers for many. Yes the drivers used are not top class, but neither PAPs are. After all, it should be important how they sound, not what's on the paper.
Regarding the PAP Trio, if I went this route (money wise) I would rather go with LX521.

[nicoch]

PAP are quite good driver derived from 2515 eminence , Hawthorne audio serve well a diy's from 15 year 

[Wind Chaser]

So, to get back to the whole point of this thread... is there anyone who has heard both the Pure Audio Trio 15B NEO and the Spatial's?

[schw06]

In a few days the answer will be yes. Mike Powell of Verastarr audio has the PAP Voxativ's and he will be coming by to take my M3 Turbo S's home with him for a week while I'm on vacation. Stay tuned.
David

[WC]

They will both be displaying at Axpona in April. Hope to hear them then.

I decided on going full DIY with my audio system. From that perspective I like the PAP speaker better, but I have not heard either. I like the concept of being able switch out the high frequency driver. I am planning to start with a full range driver  then try a Compression driver in a waveguide. I will also most likely go with active crossovers.

[ebag4]

PDR,

With all due respect, no, not exactly and the devil is in the details.

Watch this video: https://vimeo.com/162323536

And I asked Clayton directly and this is what he said:

There is a machined aluminum transition lens at the base of the cone to couple the compression driver wavefront to the cone.

This detail is terribly important. This is what gives the design the unique narrow horizontal directivity of 80 degrees. Other open baffle coaxial designs cannot claim this.

Thanks for this Anand, I found this interesting and decided to take a look at my V1.  I noted in the video Clayton mentioned that pro drivers have used coaxial for years due to the space savings, there are apparently other similarities.  I tried to take a pic of what I found behind the dust screen of the V1 (sorry for the poor pic), what I found was a machined aluminum transition lens, it is not a stretch to assume that the Super V P-audio driver has this as well.

It looks like the V series has some level of wave guide response as well.  It is difficult to tell in the pic, but the aluminum transition lens is larger and deeper than it looks in the pic.





Best,
Ed

[undertowogt1]

Yes, of course, many people would be interested in this upgrade as well. However since that is a different subject from the whole point of this thread, can't we agree that it would be better to start a new thread dedicated to that subject, which is an entirely different matter than the subject of this thread?

Sounds good to me, thanks

[Don_S]

Yes, of course, many people would be interested in this upgrade as well. However since that is a different subject from the whole point of this thread, can't we agree that it would be better to start a new thread dedicated to that subject, which is an entirely different matter than the subject of this thread?

Wind Chaser,  Threads morph.  I don't think discussing how modding each speaker necessarily violates the spirit of the thread.  The speakers are still compared and the modded Spatial is compared to PAP.  Honestly, how many people have access to both and comment on the original question?

But your point on starting a new thread (or adding to an existing thread on modding OBs) is spot on. It would eliminate controversy (or create new opportunities  ) and allow for further exploration into modding. Thanks for linking the mod thread to this one.

[nicoch]

  By comparison the Trio 15 has instrument placement on a vast, open stage that is deep and wide and airy 

as the back of full range is  full open baffle to 7k made a great difference on stage ...

[DaveC113]

So, imo... full range/ob can sound excellent but the "open stage" created is the effect of room reflections. While this can sound pleasing the side effect is greater perception of the listening room acoustics vs the acoustics and spatial cues in the recording. I have found full range/ob sounds much better to me when the back wave is attenuated quite a bit... or eliminated entirely.    Even if the back wave is eliminated you still have a speaker that has much wider dispersion pattern throughout the midrange vs a waveguide speaker, which makes room acoustics more important and lets the room potentially get in the way to a larger degree.

Waveguides/horns eliminate most first reflection issues and take the room out of the equation to a greater degree. This makes the electronics, cables and AC power even more critical because if it doesn't have very high resolution the spatial cues in the recording will get buried in the noise floor or smoothed out by warm-sounding distortion. TBH, most systems are not up to this task, even big $ systems. OTOH, if you do have a system that can reproduce fine detail it makes it easier to achieve a 3-D, immersive soundstage without room acoustics getting in the way. This is assuming a recording with this information present of course.

I'm not saying you can't achieve a 3-D immersive soundstage to some degree with a fullrange/ob speaker, just that it's more difficult as the room is a much larger factor vs waveguide speakers and a great majority of the time you won't be able to achieve as good of a soundstage vs a waveguide speaker.

[VeraStarr]

So, imo... full range/ob can sound excellent but the "open stage" created is the effect of room reflections. While this can sound pleasing the side effect is greater perception of the listening room acoustics vs the acoustics and spatial cues in the recording. I have found full range/ob sounds much better to me when the back wave is attenuated quite a bit... or eliminated entirely.    Even if the back wave is eliminated you still have a speaker that has much wider dispersion pattern throughout the midrange vs a waveguide speaker, which makes room acoustics more important and lets the room potentially get in the way to a larger degree.

Waveguides/horns eliminate most first reflection issues and take the room out of the equation to a greater degree. This makes the electronics, cables and AC power even more critical because if it doesn't have very high resolution the spatial cues in the recording will get buried in the noise floor or smoothed out by warm-sounding distortion. TBH, most systems are not up to this task, even big $ systems. OTOH, if you do have a system that can reproduce fine detail it makes it easier to achieve a 3-D, immersive soundstage without room acoustics getting in the way. This is assuming a recording with this information present of course.

I'm not saying you can't achieve a 3-D immersive soundstage to some degree with a fullrange/ob speaker, just that it's more difficult as the room is a much larger factor vs waveguide speakers and a great majority of the time you won't be able to achieve as good of a soundstage vs a waveguide speaker.

Hi Dave, hope you're well buddy.  Its clear the room is less important with the M3, because the soundstage seems to be self contained inbetween the speakers and slightly higher. While very nice sounding, to my taste it seems smallish and restricted. This rig is in my second listening room which I consider kind of shallow.  (They are 3.5 feet off the back wall, my ears are roughly 8 feet from them and the room is 12 foot by 18 foot with the rig on the 18 foot wall with a 4 walkthrough opening on both sides of the rig, so its actually a 10 foot wall the rig is on, and a 6 foot walkthrough dead center on one of the 12 foot walls, window dead center of the other 12 foot wall with hardwood floors and 8 foot ceiling. No acoustic treating whatsoever)
Perhaps having them wider apart in a deeper room increases image width but it still will not extend right or left of the baffle which to me is a good part of imaging "magic". If the recording has wide cues from a live stage for instance, the M3 will still localize the image and disregard the room. The Trio, however makes a smallish room sound much larger. Therefore wide cues sound wide. In this case the room interaction is a great thing.  I love Magnepan for this same reason. Soundstage far beyond the room or box constraints.

I think the take away for me on this comparison is that the M3 and the Trio are each a different type of listening and a preference. One is not holistically "better" than the other, but each one has its strengths. I find the M3 to give a clear Signature that is unique unto itself. I find Trio to be less bold in stating itself. Spatial has more character and has a clear purpose of what is is there to do. Make sure to know if that is what you desire. You may want to use M3 in situations where you do not want room interaction or where you want a close, warm, intimate experience, rather than spacious, open and almost eerie sense of realism.


All the best !

MP   

[DaveC113]

Hi Mike, you too! 

To me, the description of the M3 soundstage does not seem ideal. I think the reason why is it's not reproducing spatial details in the recording. I've found that waveguides can sound kinda dry and closed-in like you describe if this information isn't present, either due to the recording or the information being masked and not getting through. Once enough resolution is achieved the soundstage should blossom and expand, ultimately having more potential vs an ob speaker, it's just harder to get there in some ways as every part of the system is critical in maintaining that resolution and keeping noise down.

I think the reason why low-level detail is masked is a very complex subject and not suited to this thread, but I do think the M3 has more to offer. This might require upgrades to the speaker though... it's possible that the compression driver isn't capable enough, the crossover isn't clear enough or the wiring is holding it back. I don't know... but I do think achieving very high resolution is especially important for a waveguide speaker as the room adds less to the mix vs ob. OB can sound open and spacious as a result of room reflections without requiring high resolution, but the room always has the same character, it's the difference in hearing the performance in your listening room vs being transported to the venue the recording was made in.

It is an interesting comparison though in many ways I see these speakers as being VERY different from one another.