AudioCircle
Other Stuff => Archived Manufacturer Circles => AudioKinesis Loudspeakers => Topic started by: Duke on 13 May 2014, 07:12 am
-
The AudioKinesis Zephrin 46 is now official!
Form follows function here... but it turned out to be a rather interesting form after all:
(http://gallery.AudioAsylum.com/cgi/gi.mpl?u=2112&f=Zephrin46-001.JPG)
You can't really tell from the picture, but that's a milled aluminum "AK" logo at the bottom.
Okay for anyone not familiar with Jim Romeyn's Late Ceiling Splash (LCS) configuration, which is used here with his permission, the idea is to get a lot of spectrally-correct, relatively late-arriving reverberant energy into the room without the room-placement requirements of dipole, bipole, or omni speakers. The extra reverberant energy is fired from the floor up towards the ceiling, which gives us a nice long path-length-induced time delay. This improves timbre, spaciousness, and the sense of envelopment. The long delay preserves the imaging cues from the front-firing array, and then the ambience cues that are on the recording come from more realistic directions instead of primarily from the direction of the speakers (which is probably the worst possible direction). So we get imaging and envelopment. Additional benefits include eliminating the baffle-step and mitigating the floor-bounce notch.
During the R&D path that resulted in the upfiring LCS configuration, Jim tried out variations on the bipolar theme, and found that the best results were from firing the secondary array up at the ceiling. This was counter-intuitive to me; I would have thought that having the reflections arrive from a more theoretically ideal angle would outweigh the longer time delay from the long bounce off the ceiling. So kudos to Jim for beating me at my own game, and my sincere thanks to him for letting me use his technology.
The original Dream Maker LCS system uses two boxes per channel, and correspondingly takes up a lot of real estate. The Zephrin 46 uses a to-the-best-of-my-knowledge unique geometry that shoe-horns the upfiring array into a reasonable-sized footprint. We do trade off some capability relative to the Dream Maker LCS system, but the price is a lot lower too.
What you see on the front there is two prosound 6" woofers that have very good thermal characteristics (high power handling combined with good efficiency), vertically flanking a small-radial-horn-loaded compression driver. That particular horn is a very gentle device, no abrupt discontinuities, so it has very low coloration. its pattern is not quite as uniform as we'd get from a true waveguide, but I haven't found a similarly small waveguide whose radiation pattern and smooth transition at the throat (critical for low coloration) are as good as this little horn. The radiation pattern shapes don't quite match up in the crossover region, but the net pattern coverages do, so there is no power response glitch in the crossover region.
Around back is the LCS array, which consists of four upfiring 1" soft dome tweeters and two upfiring 6" woofers... the total of four 6" woofers is where the number "46" comes from. This is a different 6" woofer, one better suited to its particular role (a bit less efficient, but with parameters better suited to take advantage of strong boundary reinforcement). The crossover for the upfiring array is tailored to its location within the room.
Each of the arrays is configured to present a 16-ohm load, and each has its own set of inputs. So the system can be configured as an 8-ohm load (both arrays in parallel) or as a 32-ohm load (both arrays in series). The impedance curves are smooth enough and similar enough that either configuration works. The 32-ohm configuration is primarily intended for compatibility with OTL amplifiers. I'm a big fan of Ralph Karsten's Atma-Sphere amps, and wanted to offer really good compatibility with his little S-30, which becomes a 50-watt amp into a 32-ohm load, with distortion reduced along the way. Most people will go with the 8-ohm configuration, which is still a benign enough load to work well with tube amps.
The Zephrin 46 is even more room-adaptable than my other designs, as both arrays have independent bass tuning adjustability and tweeter "tilt" adjustability. I haven't figured yet figured out what my recommendations will be for toe-in angle.
The Zephrin 46 will be making its debut in one of the Electra Fidelity rooms, 920, at T.H.E. Show Newport Beach in a little less than three weeks. Tony Chipelo of Electra Fidelity is a dealer for the Zephrin 46, as well as for the larger Dream Maker LCS system.
Finally, here are some preliminary specs:
Type: LCS (Late Ceiling Splash) system
Dimensions: 42" tall, footprint 16" wide by 18.5" deep; 80 pounds
Impedance: 8 or 32 ohms, user-selectable (tube-friendly in either configuration)
Efficiency: 92 dB/1 watt. Voltage sensitivity (relative to 2.83 volts input) is 92 dB in 8-ohm configuration, and 86 dB in 32-ohm configuration.
Power Handling: 400 watts RMS thermal, and estimated 200 watts mechanical (where the woofers start to go into over-excursion; this is of course program-dependent).
Typical in-room bandwidth: Upper 30's to 20 kHz
Price: $4900/pair
Ever since I showed my Jazz Modules in 2006, I've had dealers asking me if they could sell my speakers. Not every dealer that comes in the room of course, but enough (and some of these guys have considerably more experience than I do). I always turned them away, saying that my margins didn't have enough slack in them to begin to accommodate dealer markup. But I always hoped to one day have a design that had a high enough performance-to-build-cost ratio that it would be as competitive with dealer markup as the Jazz and its descendents were without it. Jim Romeyn's LCS technology gives me that opportunity - imo it adds enough enjoyment to the experience that, at $4500, the Zephrin 46 is even more competitive than the Jazz Modules were at that same price when they were introduced eight years ago. I want people to be able to hear these speakers, and that means I need to get them out there, and a time-honored way to do so is through a select dealer network. I don't want a whole bunch of dealers, only a few. I realize that going from direct sale to dealers is the exact opposite of the way the industry is moving these days, but dealers are the hardest-corest audiophiles of all, the most kindred spirits for a speakergeek like me, and I think Jim's LCS concept is too good for me try to keep it all to myself (not that I could... it's Jim's technology, not mine). So I think the time has come. I will continue of offer some of my more conventional models direct, but my best and brightest designs will be sold through dealers.
-
Wow, quite the looker! Looking forward to hearing more about this speaker after T.H.E. Show.
-
Interesting.
My failing memory recalls (don't know which vendor/manufacturer) recommended using two pairs of monitors, one on stands and one on the floor below aimed up. Similar concept, but I'm sure with a lot less thinking, efficiency, and power handling behind it.
-
Look forward to hearing them at RMAF 2014. Do you have any Polar Plots? ;)
-
Duke,
Fascinating, both for the fresh ideas about speaker design and for the beautifully-written presentation that captures your enthusiasm without making you sound like a marketing hack. You truly love this stuff and it shows. I can't wait to hear these speakers at RMAF.
Two questions:
1. There seem to be some sharp edges in the cabinet. Would the design be improved if these sharp edges were rounded, or a felt ring put around the tweeter or something?
2. Have you thought about combining these with a woofer array to improve bass?
-
Interesting.
My failing memory recalls (don't know which vendor/manufacturer) recommended using two pairs of monitors, one on stands and one on the floor below aimed up. Similar concept, but I'm sure with a lot less thinking, efficiency, and power handling behind it.
Howdy,
That was me. I took the pages down where I explained the concept in detail. And you are exactly right re. the refinement items above.
I had virtually no interest in different radiation patterns till I met Duke. I must shamefully admit I became more interested in Duke's "Vertical Offset Bipolar" radiation pattern after Dr. Robert E. Greene awarded Duke's original Dream Maker his Golden Ear Award in 2008 TAS, noting especially its alternative radiation pattern.
Later Duke explained VOB in great detail. I built and employed six matching Dynaudio Esotec monitors for my Trinaural based system. Six matched monitors allowed a lot of experimentation, leading to LCS. (Prior to LCS I preferred Trinaural. LCS provides better spatial effects than Trinaural.)
Duke contributed at least two major LCS advancements beyond the obvious items you listed above, providing about 50% of LCS audible benefits, including the bass mode damping feature we did not employ at RMAF.
Brian Cheney's (RIP) last two speakers were the RM-V60 "Wing" (dipole) and his last, the RM-50 (bipolar). The RM-50 seemed to be Brian's best work. I encouraged Brian to switch to bipolar radiation pattern based on my experiments at that time with Duke's VOB radiation pattern.
-
Wow, quite the looker! Looking forward to hearing more about this speaker after T.H.E. Show.
Thank you! This was the first time the guy who runs the CNC machine at the shop where the cabinets are built said that one of my speakers was "pleasing to the eye". At which point the guy who does the actually assembly said "yes but they're a pain in the butt to assemble". I still haven't gotten the bill for his time yet, but based on the hours he told me, ouch.
My failing memory recalls (don't know which vendor/manufacturer) recommended using two pairs of monitors, one on stands and one on the floor below aimed up. Similar concept, but I'm sure with a lot less thinking, efficiency, and power handling behind it.
That probably would have been "James Romeyn". Yeah, Jim totally ripped off his idea, but don't tell.
Fascinating, both for the fresh ideas about speaker design and for the beautifully-written presentation that captures your enthusiasm without making you sound like a marketing hack. You truly love this stuff and it shows. I can't wait to hear these speakers at RMAF.
Thank you very much. My main contribution was being friends with Jim; he did the experimenting (and continues to do so, passing his findings on to me). I think at one point in his quest I even told him that I didn't think bouncing the sound off the ceiling would work as well as bouncing it off the side wall (which was the front-runner at the time), and he tried it anyway.
Two questions:
1. There seem to be some sharp edges in the cabinet. Would the design be improved if these sharp edges were rounded, or a felt ring put around the tweeter or something?
Roundovers would probably be some improvement, but not as much as you'd think. The tweeter section is directional enough that it just barely "sees" the enclosure edges. That's one of the reasons I like good horns & waveguides. Now down in the woofer section, yeah the woofers see the enclosure edges, but it's not going to screw things up as much because it's in a region where the ear is less sensitive to such things. The ear's sensitivity to diffraction peaks at about 4 kHz.
2. Have you thought about combining these with a woofer array to improve bass?
That should work. With all the ports plugged and speakers pulled out into the room, the -3 dB point probably moves up to 70 Hz ballpark. One of the ideas was a speaker that would wouldn't need subs, but could be adapted to take pretty much full advantage of them if the opportunity arose.
Okay one of the weak points of many conventional satellite/subwoofer setups is the lower midrange region, where the little satellite up on a stand and out away from the walls has serious baffle step going on, so the lower midrange is weak. But the area of weakness extends up higher than the subwoofer can comfortably help out with. Some standmount speakers incorporate baffle step compensation, but they trade off efficiency to get it. And it some cases it's trading one problem for another.
The solution that the Zephrin 46 offers is, the wrap-around from the woofers in the LCS array fills in the baffle step, so the lower midrange has realistic "body" to it, without the reverberant field being unnaturally "thickened" because we're also adding the right amount of mids and highs to it.
Another advantage of the Zephrin 46 with the ports either plugged or low-tuned for use as satellite speakers is, unless you're going for very high SPLs, you don't need to use a protective high-pass filter. If you have one that's sufficiently transparent then go ahead and use it if it's a net benefit, but if not, well that's one less problem you have to solve.
So when used in "satellite mode", the Zephrin 46 may have some significant real-world advantages over more conventional satellite speakers. Adding the Swarm (or subs of your choice) after your piggy bank recovers offers a fairly logical upgrade path.
-
Wow! You've done it again, Duke :lol:
This looks like a completely fresh take on a number of fronts. A pretty brave design, I would say–a speaker for speaker designers! I like the impedance options, too, not to speak of the promise of serious dynamic capabilities.
Any chance pf a peek at the rear? Have you thought of a grill cloth design?
Was the slanted lower front section dictated by function?
-
I drive Dream Maker LCS with three modified Pioneer 912 receivers, one 912 sits in off-center rack and acts as preamp, the other two 912s sit next to each speaker channel and act as stereo power amp (one channel drives the Main Speaker, the other channel drives the Effects Speaker).
It's interesting to note that Zephrin 46 owners could put two stereo amps to good use as above. In this case each amp would see a 16 Ohm load. AFAIK, for every single SS amp, the higher the load impedance the less offensive are distortion components (think more even order/less odd order). The downside is less voltage potential, but depending on the application, 16 Ohm load can be a net gain. Certainly and undeniably (again AFAIK) the higher the load impedance the greater is perceived speaker cable performance (the cable is smaller ratio of total load impedance). IIRC Duke used about 20' of 18 or 20AWG speaker wire to good effect on 16 Ohm MVW at 2013 RMAF.
-
Duke in Newport! That's cool. I look forward to meeting you and hearing this speaker.
Russ
-
Duke in Newport! That's cool. I look forward to meeting you and hearing this speaker.
Russ
Our dear Duke will be in Newport in spirit only. Myself, Tony Chipelo, and Jack Elliano would be honored to meet you.
-
Wow! You've done it again, Duke :lol:
This looks like a completely fresh take on a number of fronts. A pretty brave design, I would say–a speaker for speaker designers! I like the impedance options, too, not to speak of the promise of serious dynamic capabilities.
Any chance pf a peek at the rear? Have you thought of a grill cloth design?
Was the slanted lower front section dictated by function?
Thank you, Russell!
I have some cosmetic work to do on the rear before it's ready for photos. You'll see two woofers and a neat little row of four dome tweets, plus various terminal cups and ports.
I have a grille idea under development, nothing fancy, just trying to make good choices. I hate grilles and am inclined to heavily punish the wallets of anyone who doesn't share my sentiments, but as a practical matter, offering grilles could double my sales, as I see this design potentially making its way into a considerably wider range of living rooms than my previous mancave-rated models.
Here's the evolution of the shape: I wanted to scale down the two-piece Dream Maker LCS and shoehorn it all into one box. The first stage looked like the letter "L". Ugly, and deep footprint. So next I sliced the wedge-shaped notch in the backside, to get adequate "landing pad" area for the upfiring drivers without the footprint being so deep. That looked better. Hmmm. Maybe a complementary notch in front, adding a "chin" just beneath the top section? That looked pretty good. I played around with the proportions and internal volumes of the different sections a bit, until it looked about right, and would do what I wanted. The relatively gentle (22.5 degree) backward-slant of the "Z" section still allows the energy to be upfiring, perhaps not as totally unimpeded as the L-shape, but at least I'll probably sell some of these.
So it's not the only form that would deliver the function, but it's the best-looking one I could come up with.
Duke in Newport! That's cool. I look forward to meeting you and hearing this speaker.
Thank you, but as Jim said, I won't be there. I'll be at RMAF in October though.
-
Please let me encourage visitors to try the following, providing the floor is clear for safe passage: stand with back as close as possible to the front wall, at L/R center. Close your eyes. It should sound like you stand on stage in the middle of the performer(s). Now slowly walk in a straight line toward the sweet spot. Your brief voyage should sound like you walk toward stage front, then off the stage, and among the audience directly in front of the performer(s).
Upon request, if you desire to really do the above with eyes fully closed, I'll lead you safely from the front wall center to stand directly IFO the sweet spot chair. I might bring a stick or a golf club for visitors to hold, just for this purpose.
It's more than a interesting artifact, and relates to the overall listening perspective and spatial effects everywhere in the room. Yes, as ever, the sweet spot is just what the name implies. But stand up and walk to the farthest corners of the room. See if you've heard similar spatial excellence and musical reality in any system regardless of cost or complexity. Notice how small is the magnitude of bass mode effects, even in room corners.
Stand outside the door and notice the system displays superior "density" and live music qualities even at this location.
-
Here's the evolution of the shape: I wanted to scale down the two-piece Dream Maker LCS and shoehorn it all into one box. The first stage looked like the letter "L". Ugly, and deep footprint. So next I sliced the wedge-shaped notch in the backside, to get adequate "landing pad" area for the upfiring drivers without the footprint being so deep. That looked better. Hmmm. Maybe a complementary notch in front, adding a "chin" just beneath the top section? That looked pretty good. I played around with the proportions and internal volumes of the different sections a bit, until it looked about right, and would do what I wanted. The relatively gentle (22.5 degree) backward-slant of the "Z" section still allows the energy to be upfiring, perhaps not as totally unimpeded as the L-shape, but at least I'll probably sell some of these.
So one question on the shape: does the complementary notch in the front serve a purpose to improve sound, or is it solely a cosmetic pairing to accent the backward slant? Just curious.
Ooops, make that two questions: are these designed to go right in the corners of a listening room? Or solely against the back wall?
Thanks, -dB
P.S. Kudos to you for continuing to push the envelope, Duke. I can't think of any speaker designer who works as much to "advance the art" in every subsequent speaker model. I wish there had been more forward-thinking speaker designs at AXPONA this year instead of so many me-too boxes. Perhaps my ears wouldn't have bled quite as much had that been the case. :roll:
-
Howdy dB (hmmm, how appropriate for this forum),
So one question on the shape: does the complementary notch in the front serve a purpose to improve sound, or is it solely a cosmetic pairing to accent the backward slant? Just curious.
Duke never mentioned the former, so I presume till he replies it's the latter.
Ooops, make that two questions: are these designed to go right in the corners of a listening room? Or solely against the back wall?
Placement options should accommodate anything from corners to way out in the room (Cardas spec). Such placement options result from the user's ability to run all eight ports open, closed or any combination thereof. Also, Duke, not I, designed a natural mode cancelling feature that should accommodate corner loading. One of the great features of the natural mode cancelling effect is that users can focus primarily on spatial and mid-treble effects, then fine tune bass performance later by itself where ever the speaker ends up. Speakers lacking this option require users to compromise one performance aspect (bass) vs. the other (mid-treble).
My experience with Dream Maker LCS indicates that LCS works well with simple, classic treatments like Room Tunes at the "usual suspect" locations (first side point, front corners, front center, etc.)
Sorry to repeat this, but visitors should hear not only superb density, but also distinct image layering, huge stage dimensions in three planes, extreme "detached from the box" effect, and also music energy elevated higher than other radiation patterns. This last effect is different from the effect resulting from simply elevating the drivers ala YG Acoustic's Anat and Sophia (which I very much like, BTW).
-
Duke,
Grille could save money (minimal veneer needed) if you do a whole cabinet sock like Vandersteen I or 2. And you wouldn't have to answer all those stupid shape related questions. :roll:
-
Look forward to hearing them at RMAF 2014. Do you have any Polar Plots? ;)
Sorry I overlooked this question!
I ran a suite of off-axis measurements in two planes (vertical and horizontal) following the protocol that I learned from Earl, and used that to generate my target curves, but I don't have polar plots per se. Just families of off-axis curves. And sorry, I don't publish my in-house measurements.
I can tell you that my target curve for the LCS array is not what anyone would call "flat", and neither is the "this sounds right to me" curve that I ended up with after the target curve got me in the ballpark.
So one question on the shape: does the complementary notch in the front serve a purpose to improve sound...
Hmmm... let's listen... ka-ching! ka-ching! That's the sound of future profits! Sounds like an improvement to me!!
Okay seriously, it's just eye candy. But I don't think it does any detectable harm.
I did read something once that recommended head-sized speakers for reproducing the human voice. Well I doubt that even Andre the Giant had a head as big as the top section of the Zephrin 46, but maybe my marketing department can put some such spin on it. I'll have them look into it.
Sorry, I had way too much fun with that question.
Ooops, make that two questions: are these designed to go right in the corners of a listening room? Or solely against the back wall?
The wide range of port tuning adjustability makes corner placement more likely to work than with most speakers. I didn't design with corner placement specifically in mind, but before too long we'll have tried it. Might have to go all the way to both top and bottom sections sealed, but I'm thinking that one port still open (probably on the bottom section) would work.
P.S. Kudos to you for continuing to push the envelope, Duke. I can't think of any speaker designer who works as much to "advance the art" in every subsequent speaker model. I wish there had been more forward-thinking speaker designs at AXPONA this year instead of so many me-too boxes. Perhaps my ears wouldn't have bled quite as much had that been the case. :roll:
Thank you, dB! My listening pleasure is measured in units of you.
I have been EXTREMELY fortunate to have people who are smarter and more creative than me in their respective areas of expertise give me the chance to work with their technology. I can only take credit for recognizing when it was time to play the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em " card.
There are few things I enjoy as much as designing speakers. I do try to push my boundaries a little bit every time even if it's in ways that are obscure, and I've had a lot of "learning experiences" that you don't see. Probably anywhere from five to twenty a year that fail to make it beyond prototype.
Duke,
Grille could save money (minimal veneer needed) if you do a whole cabinet sock like Vandersteen I or 2. And you wouldn't have to answer all those stupid shape related questions. :roll:
I think this is the first time I've had a speaker whose shape was actually a net positive attribute, so I'm going to show it off!!
Regarding the grille, I'm leaning towards a super-Velcro to hold it in place, along with a bit more breathing room underneath the edges of the grille than what you normally see (credit to Brian Walsh for helping me out with this). The grille may or may not happen before the Newport Beach show.
-
I have been following the LCS technology with great interest and have a simple question for Duke. Would drivers mounted on the top plate of the speaker provide similar benefits or is the additional time difference of sound travel from the drivers close to the floor (estimate ~ 3 feet difference) crucial?
Thanks,
Boris
-
I have been following the LCS technology with great interest and have a simple question for Duke. Would drivers mounted on the top plate of the speaker provide similar benefits or is the additional time difference of sound travel from the drivers close to the floor (estimate ~ 3 feet difference) crucial?
Thanks,
Boris
Please excuse me for replying, just to hold us over till Duke chimes in later.
Comparing Zephrin 46's placement of so-called LCS Effects system (drivers firing vertical) vs. your described placement. Zephrin 46 has two features that I would definitely call "crucial." The first is longer time delay. The farther we are from the "10ms" ambiance target (Duke researches the source for this target number), the greater is the benefit for each ms of delay. IOW, the farther we are from the 10ms target (11.3') the more "crucial" is each greater unit of measure (longer delay).
The point with Zephrin 46's one box approach is to save cost and real estate vs. Dream Maker LCS. The one-box approach reduces potential delay time for ambiance effects. Your described system even further reduces delay to the point of it being "crucial" in my experience.
The other issue is Zephrin 46 provides helpful "Shadow" over LCS, thus decreasing off-axis output from the Effects and increasing ratio of Effects vs. on-axis from the Mains. This difference is similarly "crucial" as the delay item mentioned above.
I suspect the two combined differences would approach a night/day deficit.
Richard Shahinian's Obelisk tended in the direction of LCS, as does an up-firing system John Marks reviewed a few years ago (single 8" mid bass firing up IIRC). Neither of these systems offer the same overall package nor performance, by a long margin.
Hope this helps!
-
I'm looking forward to hearing these in Newport.
-
Thank you Jim! I guess I shouldn't install any drivers on top of my Jazz Modules - just kidding.
-
I have been following the LCS technology with great interest and have a simple question for Duke. Would drivers mounted on the top plate of the speaker provide similar benefits or is the additional time difference of sound travel from the drivers close to the floor (estimate ~ 3 feet difference) crucial?
Thanks,
Boris
Jim pretty much covered it. Not saying there would be no benefit from upfiring drivers on top of a regular-height speaker (a la Linn Isobarik DMS from the 80'. or a la one or two non-Walsh Ohms from the same era... and I remember seeing a dual-Lowther speaker with one upfiring at CES about ten years ago).
Jim mentioned the 10 millisecond time delay that has been my target. I don't remember exactly where that came from but I was using that number for SoundLab setups before encountering Toole's book. I will try to retrace my steps. I can remember some of the articles and papers I read which taught me principles if not specifics, and then I may have started using 10 mS as my own rule of thumb. I can remember experimenting with different distances out from the wall for my SoundLabs and that seemed to confirm that 10 mS was a reasonable target.
My first work with building what I then called a "dual array" speaker was back in the late 80's. I even submitted an article to SpeakerBuilder Magazine on the subject, but they rejected it, which in retrospect I'm glad they did because I still had a long ways to go.
Edit: I found this paragraph in an undated paper written by Earl Geddes:
"The earlier and the greater in level the first room reflections are, the worse they are. This aspect of sound perception is controversial. Some believe that all reflections are good because they increase the listeners feeling of space – they increase the spaciousness of the sound. While it is certainly true that all reflections add to spaciousness, the very early ones (< 10 ms.) do so at the sake of imaging and coloration. There is no contention that reflections > 20 ms are positive and perceived as early reverberation and acoustic spaciousness within the space. In small rooms, the first reflections from an arbitrary source, mainly omni-directional, will never occur later than 10-20 ms (basically this is the definition of a small room), hence the first reflections in small rooms must be thought of as a serious problem that causes coloration and image blurring. These reflections must be considered in the design and should be also be considered in the room as well." [emphasis Duke's]
I first contacted Earl back in 2001, so he may have mentioned 10 milliseconds to me way back then. I don't think it's a hard-and-fast threshold; rather, I think it's a point along a continuum. One could draw the line at 6 mS or 12 mS, and in general reflections arriving after are more beneficial than reflections arriving before.
Toole sees early lateral reflections as more beneficial than Earl does. Earl also maintains that early vertical reflections do not degrade the imaging. That might be one of the reasons why Jim's LCS configuration works well.
-
What sort of room requirements do these have? Very interesting stuff!
-
The Mighty Led Zephrin! On we sweep, with threshing oar! 8)
Congrats, Duke. :beer:
Would love to hear some of your more recent creations someday.
~Greg
-
What sort of room requirements do these have? Very interesting stuff!
The Zephrin 46 should be as room-adaptable and placement-friendly as my monopole speakers, which do pretty well in that respect, but we'll know more after I have the crossover parts to finish them up and test them as a stereo pair. That hasn't actually happened yet!
The Mighty Led Zephrin! On we sweep, with threshing oar! 8)
Congrats, Duke. :beer:
Would love to hear some of your more recent creations someday.
Well compared to my former abode in New Orleans, I probably could claim that these come from the land of the ice and snow!
The LCS arrays that form half of the Dream Maker LCS system can of course be added to existing speakers. Or I could do a scaled-down version, that would probably work too. Might have to get a bit creative on how to drive them, but that can be done. Just saying, the LCS concept doesn't render my previous speakers obsolete - they can still form the nucleus.
-
So am I correct in understanding that the Zephrin 46, in order to comply with this 10ms rule, should be more than 5 feet in front of a reflective wall behind the speakers? It looks like there would be a substantial rearward reflection of the output from the the two rear 6s and the four domes, as they reflect from the backward angled midsection. I can see how the reflection from the ceiling to the listener would be well over 10ms.
-
So am I correct in understanding that the Zephrin 46, in order to comply with this 10ms rule, should be more than 5 feet in front of a reflective wall behind the speakers? It looks like there would be a substantial rearward reflection of the output from the the two rear 6s and the four domes, as they reflect from the backward angled midsection. I can see how the reflection from the ceiling to the listener would be well over 10ms.
Excellent question!
Placement close to the wall is okay because the early "backwave" reflection energy ends up being quite weak at the listening position in the midrange and treble regions.
The primary axis of the LCS array is straight up, and yes the patterns aren't real tightly controlled, but in the upper midrange and treble regions the energy travels in rays instead of behaving like waves in a fluid (like at low frequencies), so most of it is still strongly angling up after its first wall bounce. The four little dome tweeters are semi-horn loaded, so they're somewhat directional, which helps minimize the treble energy that bounces off the wall at a shallow angle.
Then the enclosures itself casts a "shadow" that blocks much of the energy that reflects off the wall from reaching the listening area after only the one bounce. Also relatively little (if any) of the energy that misses the "shadow" will be going straight towards the listening position (toe-in angle will play a role here).
At low frequencies, where the energy just wraps around and pretty much doesn't see the enclosure like waves around a piling, we have reflections off the wall from the front woofers and the rear woofers arriving at slightly different times. This helps to de-correlate the bass energy a little bit, resulting in smoother in-room bass than we'd get from just having one bass source. Of course in the bass region the energy is interacting significantly with all the room boundaries, but still having the bass sources spread out a little bit (in all three dimensions too, once the speaker is toed-in) improves things.
So we don't totally avoid early reflections off the wall, but we do significantly minimize what arrives at the listening position after one bounce relative to say a dipole or more conventional bipole in the midrange and treble regions, and we make some improvements in the bass region as well. Perfection (if it exists... yeah right) hasn't yet trickled down to $4500, but we think significant improvement has.
-
Much of the "work" I did leading to LCS (I use this term euphemistically, as this is more of a passion) was experimenting with six identical Dynaudio Esotec monitors. I built six monitors, 2 required per each LCR channel for Trinaural Processor based system. The monitors are much improved clones of some of the best stand mounts I ever heard, the wonderful French ASA Pro Monitors I purchased on John Marks' recommendation. The clones are rear-ported classic mid-size, HWD about 14.5x10.25x11.75.
It was work, but it was also fun experimenting over time with different physical orientations between two matched monitors. Every iteration started with one stand-mounted monitor set up in classic fashion, firing forward, with various toe-in angles. The "Effects Speaker" eventually made it's rounds to every imaginable location, firing in every direction, with polarity same and inverted vs. the Mains.
Duke optimized the Effects radiation for best performance, exceeding that of any regular monitor w/ one tweeter and one mid bass. Even flush against the front wall Zephrin 46 will outperform a mono pole, dipole, or bipole placed in like manner. At the earliest convenience, after Zephrin 46 arrives in my sound room, I will set it up in such fashion and report on the results. At Newport I presume we'll site Zephrin 46 spaced a few feet from the front wall. I'll consider the performance difference, and won't necessarily cross off the idea of short front wall spacing, though Tony Chipelo has last say on everything in Newport.
Ideal spacing, a few feet, provides the best overall listening "stereo" experience ever, by huge margin. I presume, but could be wrong, that flush front wall reduces depth. But who knows, maybe depth is similar or equal.
Based on experience with Dream Maker LCS, I believe even with Zephrin 46 flush against the front wall, front wall acoustic treatment is unnecessary. I will listen with it flush and spaced and report results.
I spent many years listening in a LEDE room, both my own and another room owned by a full time professional speaker designer. After this journey, I am much less a fan of LEDE. I did notice in VMPS' LEDE, with his best and largest towers, and especially systems with separate huge floor to ceiling subs, pretty good spatial effects at times. But not even in the same ball park compared to the overall spatial excellence of LCS with a much smaller speaker.
A moderately live room seems ideal, with select treatments placed at the usual suspect locations. This room has wall to wall carpet. Several years ago I covered the rear 60% of the carpet with plastic and paper tarp, which very much seemed to improve every performance aspect. I moved the tarp forward and backward in 6" intervals, and was amazed at how audible were such changes. Based on that, if I was building from scratch, I'd place heavy pad and carpet over the front 40%, and hard reflective surface on the rear 60%.
-
Our dear Duke will be in Newport in spirit only. Myself, Tony Chipelo, and Jack Elliano would be honored to meet you.
I look forward to it James. I may even pop in on Thursday just to say hi and introduce myself. Thursday participation is one of the perk of being a board member of the sponsoring audio society.
Russ
-
Regarding the grille, I'm leaning towards a super-Velcro to hold it in place, along with a bit more breathing room underneath the edges of the grille than what you normally see (credit to Brian Walsh for helping me out with this). The grille may or may not happen before the Newport Beach show.
Although grilles often affect performance, I'm on a mission to help Duke come up with some that do so minimally and at the same time greatly improve the appearance. So if the speakers at the Newport show don't have grilles, just picture them with them, along with some other niceties. Wish I could be there but have other commitments.
-
Duke dropped off the Zephrin 46 this afternoon around 6pm MDT. Zephrin 46 had been played for only about an hour. They sound magnificent. We listened to an old Telarc SACD, large, swinging, powerful big band music. First on Dream Maker LCS (two boxes per channel, $8800/stereo set/four boxes), then we switched to Zephrin 46 in the exact same location as DM LCS. The sound was remarkably similar, especially the spatial effects.
For all lovers of the original Jazz Module, now a cult classic BTW, I would say, well, this is very much worth a listen. As already mentioned, you can't and won't get this type of spatial sweetness and lush presentation with any mono pole, no matter how exotic and costly.
I'll play them continuously till they pack for the trip Tuesday.
-
Duke delivered Zephrin 46 with only one hour playing time on them. Since he left I continuously played a Telarc Sampler SACD at low-moderate level, and I must say, these sound absolutely mahvulus! Bass cutoff is adequate, and down to cutoff, the eight user-tunable ports (open or plugged) and natural mode-cancelling feature provide smoother bass than any system lacking such features.
Spatial performance wise, no system I know of regardless of cost matches Zephrin 46's mesmerizing performance capabilities. In this regard it is remarkably close to it's much larger and twice-as-costly 2-box sibling, Dream Maker LCS.
-
post deleted
-
Thank you Jim for running these tests. I didn't really expect the 32 ohm configuration to be practical with solid state amps, but I guess what you end up with, in effect, is a 25 watt amp with a monster power supply. Sort of like turning your 100 watt receiver into a 25 watt Accuphase... well not really, but at least it seems to be a step in that direction. Certainly bodes well for use with amps that start out 32-ohm friendly, like Ralph Karsten's S-30 and M-60. The little S-30 puts out 50 watts into a 32 ohm load, with naturally lower distortion, and longer tube life. Might even be feasible to pull tubes and run it at reduced power.
The limitedup-against-the-wall testing I did before taking the speakers to Jim's house gave positive results as well. That's good news for the home team too.
The only bad news so far is how much labor is involved. So the $4500 price is the introductory price, and the day will come when it goes up to $5000.
-
...The only bad news so far is how much labor is involved. So the $4500 price is the introductory price, and the day will come when it goes up to $5000.
In effect, Zephrin 46 is two related but quite different loudspeaker systems per channel, or four total loudspeaker systems per stereo pair. Each of the two systems is uniquely designed to tackle their different purpose. Even though there are "only" two total enclosures, one can see the enclosure is remarkably more exotic and costly to make vs. the ubiquitous rectangular box.
One of the fruits of the labor and materials list is the previously unknown ability to wire the system for either 8 Ohm or 32 Ohm (see my comment above for a real-life benefit of this feature). If you think a 32 Ohm load is a joke, an anomaly, or of no good use, please let us know your experience (http://experience) in this area.
Taking a look around at whatever is available for $4500/pr MSRP, it's not a big surprise to hear that that price is not long for this world. I honestly don't know what compares performance wise to Zephrin 46 even up to $10k/pr. In fact, I'd be happy for a direct comparison.
After taking Zephrin 46 down to pack for Newport, I just re-installed Jazz Module 2.0 (Main Speaker of Dream Maker LCS system). Call me if you're interested in my impressions of comparing these two spectacular loudspeaker systems.
"Get 'em while they're hot...and before the price jumps!"
-
http://www.stereophile.com/content/show-2014-day-2-afternoon#comment-538946 (http://www.stereophile.com/content/show-2014-day-2-afternoon#comment-538946)
"...The way the speakers' LCS Late Ceiling Splash radiation pattern, which was invented by James Romeyn and Duke LeJeune (implementing reverberant field theories by Dr. Floyd Toole and Dr. Earl Geddes), threw images way high, as well as their amazing three-dimensionality, was quite impressive..."
Jason mentioned the Patricia Barber cut was a "too rich," likely referring to its hot treble presentation, endemic to the software.
-
Side wall spacing is the same but baffle to front wall reduced from 76.5" to 19", no toe-in, wall and speaker parallel. There's only 5" between the front wall and Zephrin 46 rear panel.
If anything, bass and PRAT improved. Bass quality and timing improved, apparently from less bass mode effects. Definitely stage depth decreased, but not flat. Certainly overall spatial performance beats any non-LCS speaker placed similarly. It seems like vertical spatial dimension increased but this might be an illusion resulting from less depth perspective (hypothesis: all other things being equal sensitivity to stage and image height increases by magnitude similar to actual loss of stage depth).
Increased hash in upper mid-range but tolerable, likely easily fixed with toe-in similar to before and side wall first reflection treatment as before.
Happily surprised similar overall joy and pleasure, likely resulting from increased bounce and dynamics via more precise bass timing/less modal effects.
I'll take a photograph before increasing toe-in and increasing front wall spacing.
This is highly encouraging for space-challenged audiophiles!
After Newport Show and now working with Zephrin 46 in my 3300cf sound room, I unequivocally recommend tube power from 10-15W up or SS as low as 20-30W.
-
Just read a nice write up on "The Absolute Sound" by Robert E. Greene
-
Just read a nice write up on "The Absolute Sound" by Robert E. Greene
Thank you.... and welcome!!
Here's the link:
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/2014-newport-beach-show-report-speakers-under-15k/
Apparently we made REG's "Top five under $15K" list. Sweet!
-
Congratulations!
I need to check these out. They look awesome too.
-
I can't add anything to this show comment, just posted minutes ago:
http://parttimeaudiophile.com/2014/06/25/newport-2014-audiokinesis-and-electra-fidelity/
-
Very nice James and Duke!
-
In a momentary lapse of sanity today this inspiration for an ad came to me. I hope you all like it and will come for a listen once they have arrived here in August.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=101625)
-
Brian, it is great knowing there will be a pair in the Chicagoland area. Great meeting you at the Headfi event last week.
-
Brian, it is great knowing there will be a pair in the Chicagoland area. Great meeting you at the Headfi event last week.
Thanks, roscoe! And as I said toward the end of my little blurb about the iFi stuff when the iPurifiers were given away, you're invited to my cookout party on Saturday, August 23rd. Lots of food and fun, and the Zephrins ought to be singing nicely inside!
-
Thanks, roscoe! And as I said toward the end of my little blurb about the iFi stuff when the iPurifiers were given away, you're invited to my cookout party on Saturday, August 23rd. Lots of food and fun, and the Zephrins ought to be singing nicely inside!
Oh it is on the calendar!
-
Love the poster/flyer Brian! Thanks for the laugh.
-
Thought I'd post images of my sound room adorned with Zephrin 46.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/5310_10204437272634410_444500407348875225_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10351600_10204437272674411_8558779572359315131_n.jpg)
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10577134_10204709296434835_2196730208076827018_n.jpg?oh=29029470511b9c39a939d9bd8e183a95&oe=546E1A06&__gda__=1415360528_85825e71aea4a589ba85fb8f5d32b6ea)
The paint is not low in cost, but it's pretty! The unique shape seems to take well to paint. The longer I saw these cabinets the more I liked the color and appearance. Of all the images I took I think this one best approximates the live appearance.
More images at my FB page (wanted to save space here): https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204709296434835&set=pcb.10204709346996099&type=1&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204709296434835&set=pcb.10204709346996099&type=1&theater)
Late 70s Porsche Sienna Brown Metallic, #436:
(http://sloancars.com/wp-content/uploads/inventory/thumbs/3427_1978_930_copper_metallic_web.jpg)
-
These are due to arrive here later next week, and everyone is invited to check them out.
-
I'm very curious if I shall like them better with grills (black knit cloth) or naked...presume the latter, but we'll see.
-
Duke, have you or your "marketing department" come up with any similarly functional but alternate shapes for this speaker?
I can't help but think the shape/appearance and size will keep it out of many a living room.
Could it be that some sort of molding process could be used here to advantage to create a more curvaceous shape and reduce diffraction as a by-product?
I understand that generous internal volume is an essential part of this formula but perhaps the bulk could be disguised a little through clever design. Could you run it through the design department and see what they say?
I guess they are simply too big to try the black sock treatment on, like the early Vandersteens, but I always thought that was a clever minimalist way to make a speaker look finished with just the top and bottom plate actually finished wood - and the bottom having only the edges done, I think.
I think I would find the appearance too distracting as they are with naked drivers. A grill down the middle third of the front would work, I think.
(edited Aug 15 for spelling of "Vandersteen")
-
I think I would find the appearance too distracting as they are with naked drivers. A grill down the middle third of the front would work, I think.
Hold that thought, Russell. In a few days or a week you'll see photos of the finished speakers with grilles on them.
-
The speakers are on the way here, but meanwhile here's a parting shot of them Duke took before putting them in the crates:
(http://www.essentialaudio.com/graphics/BriansZephrins25.jpg)
Actually this is 25% of the size of the image he sent, so if anyone wants the full size one, email me, brian (at) essentialaudio (dot) com
-
The Zephrins have landed! Lousy snapshots from phone; much better photos coming. Just ridiculously sexy!
(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10613132_952186031474648_4989392726875800344_n.jpg?oh=34436a3c5e30d8373799ab337998d01b&oe=54683AE9)
(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t1.0-9/10616374_952186251474626_2317031600473240811_n.jpg)
-
Thanks for posting those, Brian!
Duke, have you or your "marketing department" come up with any similarly functional but alternate shapes for this speaker?
There is another shape that I was thinking about but discarded in favor if the Z. It might still happen, but it's not high on the list at the moment.
Could it be that some sort of molding process could be used here to advantage to create a more curvaceous shape and reduce diffraction as a by-product?
That would be nice, but the cost of such a mold is well beyond my means.
The pattern control of the horns greatly reduces the audible consequence of those sharp cabinet edges, particularly in the frequency region where the ear is most sensitive to diffraction effects (ballpark 4 kHz, where the ear's sensitivity to a lot of things peaks). Down in the woofer's range, where the cabinet edges are more in play, it would take a large round-over (1/4 wavelength in radius is the rule of thumb) to be effective. Also, one net effect of the upfiring array is that it helps to disguise the fact that the speakers are the sound source.
-
I was anxious to hook up Zephrin 46 after Newport THE Show, and replace Dream Maker LCS.
Smaller LCS speakers soon replace the first edition/larger LCS...we also work on a "Power Amp/Controller" to sell with separate LCS speakers, to allow owners of any pre-existing speakers to add the LCS speakers and the Power Amp Controller. The 150Wpc Power Amp/Controller includes volume, speaker level inputs, a "Decorrelator" switch (on/bypass) and 3-D Bass Mode Cancelling switch that inverts polarity of L or R ch LCS (or bypass). The LCS delay is so long relative to on-axis output that inverting LCS polarity is inaudible in the mid/treble. But inverting its polarity damps bass modes because of its different geographic location relative to the other three bass sources. No other speaker in the world offers such feature except a Distributed Bass Array. It's very cool, and works as advertised very well.
Back to Zephrin 46 vs. Dream Maker LCS. I can't say for sure, but presume DM LCS is more refined simply because of its more costly drivers. But I'm positive I prefer Zephrin 46 over the front half of DM LCS, also known as Jazz Module 2.0.
Since I set up Z 46 after Newport, I still notice absolutely no negative artifact or signature. I do enjoy the lower cutoff of my Distributed Bass Reflex Array, but could and would live without the subs if I had to.
IMO the two speakers priced around $5k/pr most likely to compete directly with Z 46 are Revel's $5k/pr Performa3 F208 and Sandy Gross' $5k/pr Goldenear Triton One Tower. I plan to hear both of these models at the first opportunity.
I would imagine F208 has slightly deeper bass cutoff, and Triton lower still. Both might have ever so slightly more resolution and/or refinement of fine detail. But till I hear differently, based on my sum total listening experience, I presume Z 46's image and spatial effects outperform both F208 and Triton One.
Over the past couple years, I'm only more and more convinced LCS radiation pattern provides the best image and stage performance, especially vs. regular mono pole pattern in a speaker in the same price range.
Another LCS advantage is that no other stereo speaker system provides this level of phantom center ch performance. As a HT Front array, two Zephrin 46 outperform any known Front LCR array of speakers, because LCS front depth of field and stage size and image height is so much more compelling. HT speaker systems, especially the front array, are generally engineered for almost no reverberant field, relying on side and rear surrounds for depth of field. But think about surround speaker locations. They can increase the front depth of field in front of the Front LCR, but not behind them.
This is the first stereo set to make you actually forget about LCR array for HT.
Even if Triton One has digital bass EQ, I presume Z 46's 3-D bass damping results in smoothest bass throughout the entire listening room, not just at mic locations.
Plus, as a package, adding amplifier cost to the mix, Z 46 comes out ahead vs. both models. Even though Triton One requires amp for only it's mid/treble, I'd bet lunch money it's impedance curve and phase angle requires more current and voltage vs. Z 46.
-
The Zephrins have landed! Lousy snapshots from phone; much better photos coming. Just ridiculously sexy!
Look forward to seeing (and hearing!) these in person.
Brian, sent you a PM about time and address for the BBQ today.
-
Look forward to seeing (and hearing!) these in person.
Brian, sent you a PM about time and address for the BBQ today.
Replied (late - sorry) to your PM letting you know of an open house I'm planning for next Saturday, August 30th which will focus on the Zephrins.
Anyone else interested in attending, please email me (brian at essentialaudio dot com) or call me at 773-809-4434. Please don't PM me here because there's a high chance I won't catch it in time, as happened with Roscoe.
The feedback on the painted finish so far has been very, very positive. The same goes for the grilles.
-
So sweat Brian. A Headfi buddy sent me the details, but I ended up having other things come up and couldn't make it.
-
Not yet dialed in but sounding so sweet nonetheless!
Open house here at Essential Audio this coming Saturday, August 30th, all afternoon. Other times by appointment.
Call me (773-809-4434) or email me (brian at essentialaudio dot com) for info.
Top to bottom: Kuzma Stabi S/Stogi S, Atma-Sphere UltraViolet preamp and iFi Micro iDSD DAC, AMR CD-777 CD player, and Aurender X100L music server. Atma-Sphere M-60 OTL amps, AudioKinesis Zephrin 46 speakers.
(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/10629658_955018111191440_4781676917160512925_n.jpg)
-
Hi,
I find the Zephrin design very interesting, I must admit I have not read through all the technical explanations/details of this speakers configuration. On face value it has a lot of merits and sound stage could have come from the rear speakers as well, making the sound stage even bigger.
By accident I came across this design, these speakers come from Linn, see attachment, the speakers configuration is very similar to the Zephrin. I think the detail design and implementation are very different. I thought some of you may be interested in this design can go to this site:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/192988-linn-isobarik-pms-clone-21st-century.html
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=105245)
-
I wanted to let readers know that Duke and I agree that cloudbaseracer's non-symmetrical ceiling height (L vs. R channels) would likely improve performance because it would tend to increase decorrelation between LCS and on-axis signals.
Thanks for mentioning the good ole Linn Isobarik speaker! Heard them years ago at the home of then-first cellist of the San Francisco Ballet, Thalia Moore, a very sweet lady.
Differences in reverberant field qualities, LCS vs. Linn Isobarik DMS loudspeaker:
LCS is full range while DMS is mid/treble only (Toole specifies ideal is full range)
DMS delay with 8' ceiling about half Geddes' specified 10ms minimum (LCS delay >10ms)
DMS has significant off-axis energy delayed only 1ms which the ear perceives as distortion (almost no off-axis direct energy from LCS to listener)
DMS lacks decorrelation (LCS energy is largely decorrelated from on-axis signal)
Separate from reverberant field differences:
LCS maximizes boundary effects for bass power and cutoff
DMS lacks 3D bass mode damping feature
DMS sensitivity is moderately low, and I can only presume it has difficult phase angle. A 10-12W amp never clipped at Newport THE Show driving Zephrin 46.
-
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-xLO3m2zDVwH/brands/dolby-atmos.aspx
Dolby announced Atmos for commercial theaters about the same time we settled on LCS architecture, Spring 2012. ETA for Atmos-encoded BD is late Fall 2014. I presume "Atmos" is short for and derived from "atmosphere."
Atmos uses ceiling reflections or ceiling source energy to replicate spatial qualities associated with LCS. The primary difference is Atmos' raison d'etre is to improve HT effects, with no regard for music. Atmos requires huge quantity DSP and 11 speakers or more, each speaker with separate power amp channel and attendant wiring.
Atmos is only available with a consumer receiver, strictly non-audiophile speakers, and apparent primary concern is properly locating a jet (see image in the link) or other object overhead of the HT viewer. Improving musical performance seems to be the last thing on Dolby's mind.
All LCS speakers are designed by Duke, a world class audiophile speaker designer, and music is the sole focus. LCS is pure analog and employs only 3-D space and boundaries to their best possible effect. Its not an accident that LCS' musical excellence makes it exceed the HT performance of every HT Front LCR array I've heard. LCS provides 3-D Bass Mode Cancelling feature available nowhere else except for Distributed Subwoofer Array. Conversely, Atmos' performance for music would appear to be an afterthought if it is any concern at all. Let me know if you find music quality mentioned in the same breath as Atmos.
LCS encourages users to follow any audiophile craving from pure analog magnetic tape to a music server driving ModWright's Elyse DAC...from a 1970s Sansui SS integrated amp to Atma-Sphere separates, and everything in between. If you run into Art Dudley tell him he's never heard a mono signal played on two speakers till he hears it through an LCS system.
Still, it's cool to see a company as big as Dolby demonstrate with computer graphics some of the benefits available to audiophiles via LCS.
-
Atmos is only available with a consumer receiver,
Patently wrong on fact. Several so-called "high end" firms have recently announced pre-pros with Atmos decoding.
But even if not, who cares? Audio electronics (room correction and other DSP programs aside) are commodity parts at this point. An AVR with good room correction (Anthem ARC, Trinnov, Dirac, etc.) competently used is going to reproduce music with higher fidelity in a room than any 2-channel DSP-less separates.
strictly non-audiophile speakers,
Again, reckless disregard for the facts. Andrew Jones designed some new speakers around a new concentric driver he designed for it. KEF has created an Atmos height module as part of their excellent R-Series.
Though I suppose "audiophile" could mean "deaf twit who imagines there are sonic differences in wires, binding posts, power outlets, etc." which case I'll defer. In that case, I suppose anything goes because the only things important to that sort of folk are hype and price.
and little to no concern for musical quality***
That remains to be seen. Nobody knows, as you obviously haven't played with Atmos (if only because nothing with the Dolby Surround upmixer is out yet) and I doubt the Dolby folks have auditioned your system. FWIW, Dolby folks tout the Dolby Surround upmixer as being very good at extracting ambience in 2-channel recordings. We'll see. DSP-based ambience retrieval is certainly a "smarter" approach than LCS, but "smarter" doesn't necessarily mean "better sounding." I'd like to hear both approaches.
Regardless, your ignorant speculation just puts you in a bad light.
-
Really?
I'm sure Dolby's new system will be great for movies. I don't foresee recording artists taking an interest in it; unless you mean like another Flaming Lips multi-CD-who-cares venture.
I've heard two channel setups without LCS, make it sound like things were above me, to the sides of me, everywhere but behind me. Two channel at audiophile grade can do a lot more than typical HT setups are meant to convey short of using a lot of speakers. It's not that they use bad speakers, but their intent is different even if both can "play" the other.
Till now I've just been reading along with curiosity, and now I'm slightly confused as to why you James even care about the Dolby thing at all. In no way would I expect it to be competition for the market of audiophiles; not even close. SO much so that I neither predict or expect you to know all the details of the Dolby product, and hence don't think DS-21's comments are worth much. It's like opening a can of worms you don't need, then playing with them... it just doesn't matter.
-
I'm sure Dolby's new system will be great for movies. I don't foresee recording artists taking an interest in it; unless you mean like another Flaming Lips multi-CD-who-cares venture.
I agree, but that doesn't matter. Dolby Surround, the Atmos-spec replacement for Dolby Pro Logic II, is a DSP based upmixer that steers sounds to the different channels in order to enhance perceived ambience. LCS is basically a fixed (well, level-adjustable) upmixer that splashes a signal (perhaps with some spectral manipulation) on the ceiling to enhance perceived ambience.
DPL2 often works quite well, at least in a competently designed multichannel system. (If you're talking about some train-wreck with a toppled-MTM center and haphazardly placed surrounds, not so much.) So my interest in Atmos is basically limited to Dolby Surround. Likewise, I'd like to hear LCS.
-
I don't personally care much for DSP stuff when it comes to music. It works, maybe well, but not well enough that I care. Generally the fatique is at a level I don't mind for a movie. I'll often listen to music for longer periods than I watch movies, and without the visual stimuli more fatigue, lack of timbre, etc, pulls me away.
The LCS doesn't violate anything I prefer for music. In fact I'm a little more interested in room use, as opposed to disappearance (not a windowless cave guy seeking purest refinement).
Two channel HT is fine by me, and only really has an issue with poor mixing that makes "center channel" material a little quiet when runnning 2 channel. But if I had a theater I'd probably go full on.
-
Atmos uses ceiling reflections or ceiling source energy to replicate spatial qualities associated with LCS.
With regard to reflections, I thought that was just a workaround because of anticipated consumer resistance to installing ceiling speakers. I wouldn't have thought Atmos was originally intended to be used that way (no?)
-
I stand corrected about speakers and components designed for audiophile purpose for Atmos applications. Very sorry for the error, but I'm glad it caused some static!
I would welcome a direct A-B comparison, Dream Maker LCS vs. any cost no object Atmos setup playing non-Atmos encoded, regular 2-ch program. If it's within distance, I'd consider appearing. My preference would be ModWright Elyse DAC direct to a killer tube amp or possibly Benchmark's AHB2. Estimate $20k vs. (I presume) $100k-$200k Atmos system? That would be interesting.
How might Atmos system decode regular 2-ch? Do they even care about this or do they address only Atmos encoded program?
Up to now, does anyone prefer any multi-channel decoding over their most favorite 2-ch system? In the 90s and early 00s I preferred Meridian's multi channel processing for music over 2-ch. But that was pre-HR music and 2-ch DAC performance is hugely improved since that time. Plus that was pre-LCS. From 2007 till 2012 I largely considered 2-ch irrelevant, preferring Bongiorno's Trinaural Processing, an analog derivative of Meridian's multi-channel DSP. LCS center image outperforms any Front LCR array I've heard.
I like Meridian gear in general. Meridian would appear to be the leader in ultra high end DSP digital speaker tech for HT and music. I have nothing against anyone who loves their gear, but frankly the $300k HT system I heard a few years ago at CES (closed room) sounded pretty mediocre. Everything is just too dry and wears out the ears quickly. LCS disappears the front and side walls. That doesn't happen with pre-Atmos HT. Maybe Atmos fixes that.
I agree 100% with Lynn Olson: for pre Atmos HT, music is pure fail on HT systems because they lack depth and density perspective in front of the listener, with all ambiance sourced only to the side and behind, the exact opposite of music in a natural setting. Listen to music on a reference quality HT and see what it does for you. Maybe Atmos completely changes this. For what cost? I presume several tens of thousands for audiophile quality and considerable real estate in the room.
I placed Zephrin 46 only 5" from the front wall. Yes, stage depth shortened, but less than you'd expect, and the rest of the goodness was largely intact.
Would love to see links to check prices for audiophile Atmos items mentioned above.
What looks promising for Atmos for music is that it might provide density and depth of image in front of the listener, something impossible without Atmos.
-
With regard to reflections, I thought that was just a workaround because of anticipated consumer resistance to installing ceiling speakers. I wouldn't have thought Atmos was originally intended to be used that way (no?)
Don't know. I like Atmos. It seems to have much promise based on my LCS experience. A secondary full range source per each channel promises good things. LCS is just doing it with old fashioned analog technology, and doesn't care about the program, even mono works.
AFAIK, certain qualities inherent only in LCS improve pitch sensitivity and detail while also decreasing fatigue (results from the listener getting a properly delayed "second look" to the earlier on-axis signal). For non-LCS speakers this is a dichotomy: past a certain point increased detail accompanies fatigue.
I wonder if Atmos offers the same advantage as LCS in pitch sensitivity and detail.
-
I don't personally care much for DSP stuff when it comes to music.***
Lots of people have dumb, unfounded prejudices about all manner of things.
Estimate $20k vs. (I presume) $100k-$200k Atmos system? That would be interesting.
It seems like the top dog Atmos system with upfiring speakers available today would use KEF R700s across the front*, their new R50 Atmos module on top, and perhaps their R100 stand mount or R800ds bidirectional out-of-phase surround in back. Drive those speakers with sensible electronics - smart people know they don't need to list off exotic brand names; with rare exceptions that incorporate cutting-edge room correction - the Datasat, Trinnov, Anthem Statement, etc. boxes - none of the exotic electronics out today are even as good as a modern AVR, let alone better - and prices will likely be competitive with an LCS setup.
How might Atmos system decode regular 2-ch? Do they even care about this or do they address only Atmos encoded program?
See supra. They have a new upmixer, called Dolby Surround, that works with 2.0 - 7.1 channel source material.
Up to now, does anyone prefer any multi-channel decoding over their most favorite 2-ch system?
I usually do. Not always but usually. Most of my 2-channel listening is expanded via Dolby Pro Logic II.
I presume several tens of thousands for audiophile quality and considerable real estate in the room.
Depends on how intelligent one is about setting up the system in the room. If one is a renter, or an uncreative and cheap homeowner, options are admittedly more limited. For the multichannel music system in our general-purpose living room, I designed and commissioned a bespoke mantel over the fireplace for that integrates the center channel. It houses a a Pioneer EX, i.e. baby TAD, in-wall unit. Left and right mains (also Pio EX, with Aurasound woofers in the flanking subs) are freestanding. Side-surrounds (Pio EX again, but with a single 8" TAD woofer above the concentric driver instead of the twin 7" woofers flanking the concentric driver the LCR mains) are in the front walls, slightly ahead of the listening position. Rear-surrounds (KEF R800ds) are on the rear wall, above some leaning bookcases. Two subs are "flanking subs" under the mains, a third is in a corner, and a fourth is along the opposite side-wall. While my room isn't equipped with height speakers, it is prewired for a "7.multisubs.4" setup, for height modules atop the front mains and rear surrounds. Total system outlay was well under $25k, including all of the bespoke work and the non-audio stuff (TV mounting, HDbaseT hardware for TV, etc.). True, it would be higher if I insisted on stupid "audiophile" electronics instead of being smart enough to use commodity parts that work well. But I'm under no delusion that anything "audiophile" is of any value at all. In fact, "audiophile" is generally a code-word for "scam" today.
So basically a well-integrated multichannel system takes up no more room floor-space than a competently-executed 2-channel system. (Multisubs are required for high fidelity upper bass either way, so I'm not counting those as a distinction.) Less, perhaps, considering I'm not a deaf buffoon who wastes space on pointless things like "cable risers."
-
It's a subjective hobby, you can't "found" an interest in something I don't enjoy.
-
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/1683954-avs-exclusive-dolby-atmos-demo-cedia-2014-a.html
From the AVS article above: "...Overall, everyone seemed very pleased with the Atmos versions of everything. Many of those I spoke with after the demo preferred the upfiring speakers over the ceiling-mounted ones, especially if they were sitting directly beneath one of the ceiling speakers. Switching between the two types of height speakers during the helicopter demo, the upfiring speakers enlarged the circular path compared with the ceiling speakers, and it was impossible to hear the sound move from one speaker to the next, unlike the overheads, which were probably too close to the listeners for optimum performance...."
If you never cared one whit about Atmos, you might well care after reading this article.
Dolby allowed the 20 or so AVS members a more thorough A-B comparison than regular show attendees (after hours). Atmos does "upmix" (author's word, not mine) 2-ch to Atmos 7.1.4 (the last digit indicates separate discreet processing, amplifier channel, and speakers for the vertical dimension).
I am more than a little interested now to hear high end audio implementations of Atmos.
-
James - have you ever experimented with a 2D diffuser array (like a RPG Skyline Ceiling Diffuser or equiv) mounted on the ceiling directly above the ES drivers? Or is a "flat" ceiling with no diffusers the preference for best performance? This may have been previously discussed but I missed it if it was. Thanks
gab
-
gab,
I just recently started plugging screw holes above the LCS where I experimented with 2" OC703 18" x 18". (Whenever I use OC703 I always cover the face with something to act as HF diffuser...so in effect the panel damps low mid range through mid-mid range while diffusing/dispersing HF...I am intimately familiar with the negative over damped sound effect of copious OC703 minus dispersion film in vain attempt to damp bass modes).
Several months ago I finally and firmly decided it's best with nothing above the LCS speakers. Also, as mentioned earlier, Duke and I rented a space with a 16' ceiling. I noticed, and I think Duke agrees, no diminution of positive benefits even with a 16' tall ceiling. Turning the ES on/off had more or less the same effect as here at home with a 7.6' ceiling. The taller the ceiling the wider the spray pattern, but volume of energy remains constant in the room. (If you spray a water nozzle up toward the ceiling, the room receives the same volume of water regardless the ceiling height.)
Frankly, I predicted worse results with the 16' ceiling.
I moved the three above described ceiling tiles to the first reflection point of the ceiling (for the on-axis Main Speaker section) and can not recommend this more highly.
This room has only four damping tiles fastened semi permanently with screws. The rest is free standing and could be removed in 60 seconds. There may be rooms with better acoustics, but not better sound without an LCS speaker system in it!
Looking forward to 2014 RMAF more than last year. We have a year under our belt, two shows, we added the "3-D Bass Mode" damping feature (it works), and a lot of public approval of the architecture.
Not yet heard ModWright's Elyse DAC, but considering the pedigree and architecture it's got to be stellar. No guarantee, but email me if you want to A-B with another high end DAC off-hours. Ditto the Ultra Violet preamp. Not many superlatives to add to Ralph's OTL amp. Bring a thesaurus for that!