[R Swerdlow]

Would it help to call the "boxy sound" the sound of a monopole speaker, and the "boxless sound" such as a Martin Logan the sound of a dipole speaker?

On a different note, the SongTower photo in your review, is excellent.  Is that clear coated walnut?

[zybar]

Would it help to call the "boxy sound" the sound of a monopole speaker, and the "boxless sound" such as a Martin Logan the sound of a dipole speaker?

On a different note, the SongTower photo in your review, is excellent.  Is that clear coated walnut?

They are the "standard" curly walnut that Jim offers.

They are quite stunning in person (I bought this exact pair) and well worth their asking price.

George

[DMurphy]

First--before I start disagreeing and sounding like a Grinch--thanks very much for the thorough review, and the polished prose.  You pretty much described the speaker I intended to design (with Paul Kittinger's help), which is very gratifying.  But I'm not going to let  the 2-inch-thick acoustic guitar analogy go unanswered, or the corresponding theory that the ST would somehow sound more realistic if the cabinet walls were thinner.  I'm only taking you to task because this goes to the whole (and critical) distinction between music reproducers (speakers) and music producers (instruments).  String instruments sound the way they do because the wood panels, and subsections, are vibrating in particular modes, producing a unique pattern of overtones.  If you play a guitar or cello back through a speaker that is adding its own vibrations to the sound, it won't sound more realistic.  It might sound "warmer," or less distinct, but not more realistic.  Not "more in the room."  

At the same time, I'm not taking issue with your observation that the ST's fall down a bit in the "disappearing act" test.  This may be in part due to the crossover topology, which is a very straight-forward 4th order Linkwitz-Riley acoustic slope.  Although I think the crossover is carefully optimized to place the tweeter and woofer in phase at the crossover frequency, they are a full cycle apart.  That's just a feature of this crossover type.  Further, this is an MTM design, with it's unique radiation patter.  It can produce a very focused sound, but not in my experience one that seems to be "floating in air."   There aren't a lot of crossover choices in an MTM implementation.  If you try and achieve true 1st order slopes and time-align the drivers, there will be massive interference effects even slightly off axis.  Finally, the ST doesn't harness the midrange rear wave using a rear opening to increase ambiance.  It can't, because that would ruin the bass response.  

I suspect you would find Jeff Bagy's open-back speaker (can't seem to recall the name of that thing) much superior in the "floating-in-air" department.  And Jim and I are working very hard to come up with a truly full range speaker (down to 20 Hz or below) that will also pull off this trick.  It won't ge a 2-way, and it won't be cheap.  But it will have really solid cabinet panels. Anyhow, thanks again for the great review.  

[Zero]

Art - Thanks.  You know, I'm considering linking the thread as an addendum.  

R Swerdlow -  Thanks! Unfortunately I found that its not as cut and dry as monopole versus dipole. I feel it's more about philosophy and the execution of its design.  That said, thanks for the compliment regarding the photo. This pair is in curly walnut. Now, a lot of the credit goes to Josh Ray, the publisher of SonicFlare. He took the time to spruce up the photo en' photoshop.  Here is the original photo I took:

[Zero]

Dennis,

Thanks for the response! You designed a fantastic speaker that many people will enjoy for many years!  A big tip of the hat goes out to you and Jim for offering such a solid value, especially in a time when its prudent to keep a closer check on the wallet. Of course, you have every right to take me the task on my guitar analogy. It sucked!    Hence why I put a subtle disclaimer prior to the attempt! The worst part is that I'm well aware of the distinction between instruments that make music, versus those that recreate it. My angle was to essentially describe resonances, and how some designs allow them to bloom, while others seek to keep them contained. I should stop now before I dig a deeper hole.   

[DMurphy]

Many thanks, and we at least agree that there are many dimensions to speaker sound, and it's hard to nail one without missing a little in a different area. 

[Nuance]

Thanks for the response, Zero.  That makes more sense now.

Just curious - do you think the SongTower design does a good job of removing resonances, or would you say they just have a friendly flavor of resonance?  I am trying to train myself to easily pick out resonance and other unwanted additions to the signal.  It's no easy task in my experience, and one would probably have to have extensive time spent with live, un-amplified instruments to do so, but I am at least trying.     One day I hope to get to the point where I can pick it out immediately...

[Crackinjahcs]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the current topic but one of the first things I noticed with my SongTowers (standard tweeter) was when listening to brass instruments I could hear not just the note played but more of the subtle tones and vibrations from the instrument itself.  A whole new level of detail was revealed and reproduced accurately that just wasn't present with my old system (or my friend's for that matter). I noticed this detail almost immediately while listening to a well played trumpet solo.  I was hearing all the music and not coloration introduced by the box the speaker was mounted in.

I'll expand on my impressions a bit more when I get the gumption (and good light for some pics) to do a review of my ST's.

[Zero]

Hello Naunce,

In all honesty, I should have taken some time to gather my thoughts before responding to your initial query regarding 'boxiness'. I don't think my explanation came out the way I wanted it to, which is a shame as its delicate subject matter which needs to be handled more precisely. Oh well, tis' what happens when I brazenly jump into the water!! If I come up with a better way to explain the differences in more definitive terms, I'll let you know. For now, I'll be vague and state that once you hear a properly set-up pair of Magnepans, SoundLabs, Martin Logans, or even Apogee's (among other electrostatic, planar, or full-range ribbon designs) - it will suddenly all make sense!

For what its worth, I feel that the SongTower has a very inert enclosure that succeeds in keeping odd cabinet resonances at bay. In that regard, it's very effective and uncolored. Anything less, and the speaker simply wouldn't be as linear as it is. As for training, a big part of me wants to tell you that you've already found your huckleberry, and to simply be content with what you have. If you wish to train the ears, make an effort to hear more live music and then set out to hear different types of audio gear. Really and truly though, I feel its better to train the ears for the sake of better appreciating musicianship, versus getting caught up in audiophile mumbo jumbo.

[DMurphy]

Just to keep as much constant as possible, aren't all the speakers you mention rear radiators?  (I'm not sure about the Apogee).  If so, that's kind of mixing things up.  I don't think anyone expects the same kind of sound from front and rear radiating speakers as monopoles.  But I would agree that the monopole will, other things equal, tend to sound more like it's coming from a box. 

[Zero]

Dennis,

I encouraged Naunce to check out the aforementioned radiating loudspeakers (to include Apogee) so that he could better understand the ‘boxless’ sound, thus establishing a solid reference point which he could rely upon when listening to other types of loudspeakers.  Is it fair to expect a traditional monopole to pull off the same sound signature? Of course not. For a more apples to apples comparison, I would instead encourage someone to check out stuff from Totem Acoustic and Audio Physic - two manufacturers whose products are well known for mimicing the boxless style of sound. 

[DMurphy]

Dennis,

I encouraged Naunce to check out the aforementioned radiating loudspeakers (to include Apogee) so that he could better understand the ‘boxless’ sound, thus establishing a solid reference point which he could rely upon when listening to other types of loudspeakers.  Is it fair to expect a traditional monopole to pull off the same sound signature? Of course not. For a more apples to apples comparison, I would instead encourage someone to check out stuff from Totem Acoustic and Audio Physic - two manufacturers whose products are well known for mimicing the boxless style of sound. 

Well, I've obviously got to check out your Totems.  I assume you live in the Washington D.C. area?  I'll be expecting you this weekend.  Black Jetta in the driveway, barking dog.  You a beer or wine guy?

[Zero]

Dennis,

I love dogs. Beer's good. There's just one problem, I'm about 3 hours south of DC (or 2.5 hours if you hit no traffic). Hell, if you really wanna get technical, I'm only 2 hours away from DC if you drive really fast - something that's certainly a risk on the stretch of I-95 between Richmond and DC.    That said, if I find my way up to the Bethesda section of MD, I'll be sure to drop by with some brew and a few dog treats. If you ever find yourself visiting the historical triangle this year (Williamsburg / Yorktown / Jamestown), give me a yell. Just bring along your favorite music and let me know the brew that ya dig!
 

[DMurphy]

Who knew?  I was thinking you were actually about 1000 miles away minimum.  I would love for you to hear what I'm working on now, but I would need a container rail car to get it down Jamestown-way.  Still--I'lll turn it up to about 110 dB on Saturday around 4:00 if you want to step outside and point your ears North.  cheers. 

[Nuance]

Again, thank you for the response, Zero.

I also should have been clearer in my statement and questions.  I do have a good grasp of what coloration and resonance sounds like, as I do use live music as my reference (Madison Symphony Orchestra).  I just feel its a difficult thing to train yourself to hear and was curious as to how others (you) do it.  I have also heard all of the planar/rear radiators you mentioned except the Apogees.  To my best memory, they were all set up in properly in treated rooms too.  While I agree that they achieve a box-less sound, some things sounded artificial to my ears, especially the midange.  This varied from model to model, of course, but I was never wowed by the timbre accuracy.  Along with that, the sweet spot was tiny and room placement was finicky, so I scrubbed them off my list (A couple years back I embarked on a journey to find the perfect speaker, some of which I documented on AVS forum.  Planars certainly had my interest and I was sure to audition as many as I could).  Now this is just what my ears told me, so I am not trying to force my opinions on anyone or anything. YMMV, of course. 

I also should have been more in clear in that my questions were simply asked to get a better understanding how your opinion and why you formulated it as such; that's all.  I certainly have found my "huckleberry," at least in it's respective price range (and thousands above IMO), so I am not interested in searching for another speaker (unless it's another Salk product).  Like I said, I was just attempting to get a more in depth response from you so I could better understand your opinion/where you were coming from.  You did a great job of explaining your opinion, which is just what I was looking for.  Thank you.

[fsimms]

I have also heard all of the planar/rear radiators you mentioned except the Apogees.  To my best memory, they were all set up in properly in treated rooms too.  While I agree that they achieve a box-less sound, some things sounded artificial to my ears, especially the midrange.  This varied from model to model, of course, but I was never wowed by the timbre accuracy.  Along with that, the sweet spot was tiny and room placement was finicky, so I scrubbed them off my list (A couple years back I embarked on a journey to find the perfect speaker

Different people listen for different things.  My father listened to a lot of club bands as a young audio engineer.  He always wanted a 'live' sound to remind him of his experience in clubs.  My best friend used to go to his next door neighbor and listen to records and he wants a sound that will remind him of those fond memories.  Some people like lots of bass and some people like natural voice.  Some people even prefer a compressed 'full' sound.

We all pay attention to our biases and have a tendency to ignore the aspects that we are not listening for.  I guess I like excitement of music.  That is why I love my HT1's.

Bob

[Nuance]

We all pay attention to our biases and have a tendency to ignore the aspects that we are not listening for.  I guess I like excitement of music.  That is why I love my HT1's.

Bob

This is true.  However, I'd like to think the only bias I have is accurate sound in comparison to live music and how it sounds to my ears.  I'm a little more anal than most and don't generally "pay attention" to just one aspect of a speakers performance.  Although, I suppose if I had to chose which trait was most important to me it would be accurate/natural midrange reproduction.  I can't stand a colored, recessed midrange.  Quite off for someone who listens to mostly rock, don't you think? 

To each their own, no?