[stevenr_66@yahoo.com]

Hello all,
  I'm failing to be a modern Thoreau:  I can't make a living far enough outside of a city to avoid commuting:  Which would contribute to sprawl and destruction of what I love.    So, I go to as many classical concerts as I can, and wish I could have a perfect stereo in a small apartment --- and landlords who believed in soundproofing.   
   Here are two questions for the communities:  Other than visual esthetics, amplifier power, and two feet from the nearest wall, is there any reason why smaller speakers are better in a small space?   For example:  B&W 805's sound divine, but need a subwoofer (I think).   Would say, 803's sound worse, or just take up more space?
    Also -- I see a pair of B&W 803N for a wonderful price, but I have to post twice before I can interact with the seller.  Why haven't you all bid on those wonderful speakers, and what is the reason to make me wait?   
   Kind regards from within the mental trees.       

[FullRangeMan]

Welcome Steve
Small speakers usually lack spl and power handling for a large room. Full range drivers(no xover) also are recommended for a small room, headphones also are a real world option and amps are inexpensive

[Phil A]

Welcome!

[JLM]

Welcome.

The three post rule weeds out bots and other nuisances.  The simple solution is to just keep posting.

Yes headphones are ideal for your situation.  I used them while living in a dorm.

When I worked for the Department of Natural Resources we struggled with preservation while allowing enjoyment and use of nature.  Kinda like conducting (hopefully) controlled burns to renew the forest.  Another example we faced was river water quality - too clean and there's no food for fish so fishing gets worse.

It's not 'big speakers' that's the worry, it's the bass response.  Deep bass can 'overload' a small room.  This overload is due primarily to the increased energy involved in bass versus midrange or treble frequencies.  The extra energy can cause objects in the room, walls, ceilings, and floors to vibrate plus upset neighbors. 

Another factor can be poor room dimensional ratios.  An ideal room/speaker shape is in the ratio of 5:8 which minimizes repeated echo from multiple directions.  (If room is twice as long as tall, the same wavelengths will echo up/down and lengthwise in the room).  Any simple ratios of room dimensions (like 1:2, 1:3, 2:3) are bad.  One ideal smallest room size for 8 foot ceilings is 8 feet x 13 feet x 21 feet.  Any longer and you have an acoustic tunnel (the inside of a giant pipe).

Advantages for having a sub with monitors versus larger speakers are: 1.) You can dial in the amount of bass you want for the given circumstances; 2.) You can locate the sub where bass is best produced in the given space (almost never the same place as needed for best midrange/treble frequencies). 

You'll not find a lot of support around here for B&W speakers as most audiophiles consider them mid-fi.  If you provide us with your system, room characteristics, budget, and musical desires we can make better suggestions.  In the meantime take a variety of your favorite music and audition speakers.  Limit yourself to 4 speakers per day (listener fatigue) and take notes (forces you to really listen and avoid aural memory loss).

[ArthurDent]

Greetings & Welcome to AC stevenr   

[stevenr_66@yahoo.com]

Thanks for your replies and welcomes!
   Wow, B&W 803's are now mid-fi!  I remember the first time I heard them -- the Nautilus series was brand new, and introduced the idea of the curlinear shape.   But my favorite thing about that day was when the sales/tech pointed at a set of 801's, and told me they cost $12k.   I said, "Wow."   He turned around, looked me straight in the eye, and said,
   "Think of it, some people spend that on a car."    I was stunned.   With a about a 2sec delay, I had to agree putting music first.   

   I've got follow-up questions, but I'm going to throw them up on some of the other boards where they might be of use to others.   
Cheers!

[stevenr_66@yahoo.com]

Well, one (or two?) more questions.   Thanks in advance.

   For posting my tastes and asking for suggestions, what forum would you say is best for that?   

    And, if B&W 801 or 802 are considered mid-fi, then is it fair to say the others that I've always considered to be the standards by which to judge all others (Wilson-Watt (Puppies and above), Revel Ultima Studios and above, Thiels...etc. are also mid-fi?   Or has something really fallen off about B&W itself?    I'm finding it hard to even audition speakers of that ilk.   In Boston, I've found two audio stores that have similar equipment, but not any of those.   I actually took a trip to Portland Maine to try to hear Vandersteen speakers, but was told the store hadn't actually carried them for years.   "Because it was like trying to sell Bentley cars."
    What brands would you characterize as the new standards, and do you have to actually go to the shop to hear them?

Thanks again!

[FullRangeMan]

The regular hi-fi speaker solution (woofer, mid, Tweeter + 4 xovers) will always be the ''expensive best speaker of the moment'' until a next ''best'' and more expensive came in the next year.

Dealer profit margin is about 40% retail price + audio shows and magazines advert costs will let few margin to use quality components.

If you want to get out of this planned absolecenci carousel use a direct FR driver for a purist sound, its not perfect or suited to hi SPL but will offer a honest decent pure SQ at a realistic price level.

The huge and famous Thiel CS5 had a Xover with 104 components, what kind of fidelity is this!

[roscoe65]

I’m close in to NYC, and share your pain with small spaces.  I’ve found the biggest challenge is to get the sense of scale and dynamics I find satisfying without overloading the room or excessively disturbing the neighbors.  My approach has been with sensitive, high-efficiency speakers that maintain dynamics at low levels.  For me, that has meant Omega in a number of iterations.  I also own Altec’s of even higher efficiency, but they like to be a bit louder to get going.

Aside from my choice of speakers, I can offer these suggestions based on my own small-space journey:

1.  Listen Nearfield.  This will decrease the volume you need as well as increasing the ratio of direct to reflected sound.

2.  Arrange on the diagonal if possible.  This not only removes the first reflection point from your speakers, it increases the apparent length of the room, allowing you a better chance of sitting in the front 1/3 of the room (actually front 0.38 of the room).

3.  Be prepared to treat the room.  GIK has a lot of great advice, great prices, and top notch products.  Their design advice is free with any purchase.  Heck, its been free for me even without a purchase.  100% recommended.

4.  Decouple your speakers from your bass solution.  The best place for bass in your room will likely not the the best place for your speakers.  Decoupling the two - using one or more subwoofers - allows you to treat your bass challenge on its own, preferably with a...

5.  “Swarm” suboowfer array.  Duke LeJeune has championed the approach of multiple subs distributed around the room to deal with problem room modes.  Four decent 8” subs can work well in a small to medium size room without being too imposing.  I would bet two 8” subs would work in most small rooms.

[JLM]

When I stated that B&W = mid-fi, what I meant is that the character of speakers aren't for serious listeners of pure (unamplified) music.    They sound artificial and strive to be "good hifi" not reproducers of actual voice or acoustical instruments.  Not picking on B&W in particular as many brands have house sounds that different folks don't care for.  And frankly B&W is just one of many brands that isn't brought up much on Audio Circle.

[stevenr_66@yahoo.com]

JLM
   I'm sure there's quite a long list of brands not favored.   What I find amazing is that there are so very many, very good brands.  Some I woudn't ever buy, myself.   I seem to have a somewhat unusual ear.   For example, I don't like the Martin Logan electrostatic blended designs at all -- the bass always sounds like it is coming from a completely different system.   Yet I do like their new, comparatively low budget Motion speakers.   They aren't absolutely hi-fi.   I can hear their faults.   But there is a particular character to the sound like I like.   I got some confirmation of my hearing when I found out that some of their components came from the same factory as a line of Paradigm speakers I liked -- another company who's products I feel a bit unevenly about.
    But I found the B&W's to be one of the most colorless speakers I'd heard, when I auditioned them back in the 90's  -- but only for specific instruments.   I thought I'd never heard anything that reproduced a wood-block so well, or a cello.   But Jaco's fretless electric bass, say, was nice, but not really like what it would have sounded like out of his speaker (I'm a bass player, haha). 

Roscoe
   Wow.   That's a really interesting perspective.   I've shied away from the idea of using subs at all, because I haven't heard them sound well-integrated with the fronts, to date.   Would you have any suggestions as to a brand/line, or two brands/lines the interact synergistically?    Do you use separate amps, or have powered subs risen to the standards of say Classe/Bryson/etc.

FullRange
     Interesting.  I honestly haven't ever investigated this, or been exposed to it at a store.   No wonder you've got a frustrated icon photo!   I'll read up on the subject. I'm honestly not sure where to even start.

   BTW, what i have now in amplification is:   Classe DR-15 (175W@8ohm, 350W@4ohm).        The speakers are going to be replaced, and they don't really matter too much.   But the last time I auditioned speakers I much favored B&W 803's, Thiel 3.5's and 3.6's, Revel Performa  and Ultima Studio (1st generation) and Magnepan 3.6 ribbon speakers.     I didn't like Ohm, NHT, or Martin Logan, each for very different reasons.

Cheers and thanks!

[FullRangeMan]

OK you may start here this site have lots of info or any other FR manufacturer site or forums as MarkAudio, Omega, Phy-HP or even AER etc:
http://www.commonsenseaudio.com/nirvana.html
If you have a small room they may suit you.

[timind]

I'm not sure where JLM is coming from calling B&W speakers mid-fi. Yes, they make mid-fi speakers, but the 800 series aren't among them. I also remember hearing a pair of B&W 805s at a dealer back in the 90s and was awed by the effortless sound coming out of them. Never owned them though.

The recommendations on this site tend to run toward the cottage industry products, especially speakers. I've tried a few of them and sold them pretty quick as they weren't what I like. Or I should say, they didn't better my Revel monitors. If you're looking for recommendations for speakers for a small room, I suggest you listen to a pair of KEF LS50s.

And welcome to AudioCircle.

[FullRangeMan]

I'm not sure where JLM is coming from calling B&W speakers mid-fi. Yes, they make mid-fi speakers, but the 800 series aren't among them. I also remember hearing a pair of B&W 805s at a dealer back in the 90s and was awed by the effortless sound coming out of them. Never owned them though.

The recommendations on this site tend to run toward the cottage industry products, especially speakers. I've tried a few of them and sold them pretty quick as they weren't what I like. Or I should say, they didn't better my Revel monitors. If you're looking for recommendations for speakers for a small room, I suggest you listen to a pair of KEF LS50s.

And welcome to AudioCircle.

I suspect he has referring to the sound quality not the price, to me any monopole loudspeaker that use xover is mid-fi, the lack of the paper cone sound and the harmonics absent bore me in minutes.

[dB Cooper]

We're all kidding ourselves to a certain extent, and if our speakers were the glorious windows onto the original sound we like to think they are, it wouldn't matter what music we happen to be feeding them.

BTW here's a video showing where 'paper cone sound' and its lovely 'harmonics' come from- and it isn't from the original music. Note the cone breakup as low as 1.4kHz, very close to the ear's most sensitive point.

stevenr, the contenders you list are all credible performers. Buy what you like. "Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one, and they all stink." That goes for me too.

[Tyson]

We're all kidding ourselves to a certain extent, and if our speakers were the glorious windows onto the original sound we like to think they are, it wouldn't matter what music we happen to be feeding them.

That's pretty much what I learned after 10 years of doing show coverage at RMAF - there's an upper limit to how good our current basic speaker technology gets us and even the very best speakers fall short of reproducing large (or even medium) sized acoustic based performances, like a symphony or a concerto, or even a string quartet.  We are inching closer, but are still a ways off.

stevenr,
Oh, and for good quality box speakers, you should check out Selah Audio on this site, they have phenomenally good speakers for the $$ especially if you value utra-clarity and excellent dynamic punch.  Which it seems like you do, based on the speakers that you listed that you've liked in the past. 

[FullRangeMan]

We're all kidding ourselves to a certain extent, and if our speakers were the glorious windows onto the original sound we like to think they are, it wouldn't matter what music we happen to be feeding them.

BTW here's a video showing where 'paper cone sound' and its lovely 'harmonics' come from- and it isn't from the original music. Note the cone breakup as low as 1.4kHz, very close to the ear's most sensitive point.

stevenr, the contenders you list are all credible performers. Buy what you like. "Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one, and they all stink." That goes for me too.

This link you posted worth just as one more personal opinion, it dont show a real time analysis on a driver or two drivers, it is just a few seconds of a CGI video labeled Balsa wood and Paper where both cones are breaking, it dont mention what kind of paper is the right driver, as there is many types of paper (100% paper or hybrid) it dont proof anything.

Fostex used banana pulp cones, coconut cones, SB acoustics use Papyrus paper cone(whatever it is), Omega and Tone Tubby used Hemp cones and many FR manufacturers use hybrid paper cones but dont mention details to keep secret.

[dB Cooper]

The video actually is a real time test of two midranges of similar dimensions, not a CGI video as alleged (which is essentially an accusation of fraud on the part of Von Schweikert, on whose website this appears). Laser interferometer technology has been around for quite awhile now. Cone breakup has in fact been known since the earliest days of dynamic drivers, but until these tools were developed it wasn't possible to understand exactly what was actually happening. These 'opinions' have been used by many speaker makers to improve the audio performance of their transducers. Ironically, B&W- the subject of the original post- was among the first to employ this technology. The 'competition' driver is nameless probably due to legal reasons.

Here is more information on the technology on which this 'opinion' is based:

https://www.klippel.de/products/rd-system.html

Perhaps someone from von Schweikert (they have a circle here) would be willing to comment on the provenance of this video.

My main point though is that despite 90+ years of technological advances, the dynamic drivers of today would be instantly recognizable to Kellogg & Rice; the improvements have been in manufacturing precision and materials technology- cone materials, magnet materials, and structural materials.

Sorry to ruin your thread, stevenr

[FullRangeMan]

The video actually is a real time test of two midranges of similar dimensions, not a CGI video as alleged. Laser interferometer technology has been around for quite awhile now, as has cone breakup. Cone breakup has in fact been known since the earliest days of dynamic drivers, but until these tools were developed it wasn't possible to know exactly what was actually happening. Ironically, B&W- the subject of the original post- was among the first to employ this technology. The 'competition' driver is nameless probably due to legal reasons.

Here is more information on the technology on which this 'opinion' is based:

https://www.klippel.de/products/rd-system.html

My main point though is that despite 90+ years of technological advances, the dynamic drivers of today would be instantly recognizable to Kellogg & Rice; the improvements have been in manufacturing precision and materials technology- cone materials, magnet materials, and structural materials.

I failed to see any alleged drivers, I see just an image on the screen, both sides looks the same, the cone shapes also looks the same.
Sorry.

[dB Cooper]

Like I said, perhaps someone from von Schweikert would be able to shed some light on this, If both drivers are the same size, which they are according to von Schweikert, they could certainly look similar if they have similar cone profiles.

No audio technology is perfect. The goal seems to recede at the same pace as the technological advancements. That's one of the reasons I can't fathom spending, say, $80-90K on an audio system. Hell, these days you can spend $50K on headphones. That (to me) seems to be more about conspicuous consumption than musical enjoyment.

I apologize again to stevenr for diverting his thread.