AudioCircle
Industry Circles => Spatial Audio => Topic started by: jnschneyer on 9 May 2022, 07:28 pm
-
Yup. Once more, as in yet another "I've got new speakers! (again)" post, and once more, as in "Here's my new speaker review!" post. New gear acquisition announcements are the audio equivalent of gender reveal parties: of paramount importance and excitement to the revealer; to the revealees, an afternoon sadly spent inhaling lung-fulls of unidentified and highly questionable blue or pink powder. Another similarity is the revealers' relentless and remorseless perpetration of said reveal on their loyal soon to be be-powdered friends; there simply is no stopping them. Who am I to break with tradition? Hold your breath and read on, dear friends.
After much researching, hemming, hawing, yawing, and generally being a pest to those in the Spatial (acknowledgements and thanks here to Clayton, Cloud, and Mark) world, I finally got down to business and bought a pair of X5s (in walnut, not pink or blue). I had some real trepidation about buying them, as I genuinely loved the speakers I had, a pair of Dynaudio Heritage Specials, which I had purchased only last July. I had gone from B&W 802 Diamonds, which I also loved (I wonder if all this casting off of things I love worries my wife?), to the Heritage Specials because, for some reason, I wanted a different sound, something that would possibly better suit my at the time medium-sized room. The Dynaudios were brilliant - sweet, smooth, articulate, with surprisingly deep quick bass, imaged like crazy, and just, as we like to say, completely disappeared. But, but, they were more of a lateral move than I expected, really lovely and always a pleasure to listen to, but not really more so than the 802s. And, while the mid-range was a bit sweeter, more mellifluous than the 802's, and the imaging a bit more distinct (possibly down to room issues), they lacked that ineffable quality of scale, heft, weight, of bass that both underpins and helps create that total harmonic structure that seems to move us, literally, in a kind of physical displacement, and figuratively, emotionally, which is also a kind of displacement, as the music moves into us and sets up shop, moving our interior furnishings here and there, governing our feelings. The Dynaudios, while beautiful, lacked, for me, that essential scope and gravitas. It sounds silly as I write it, but I believe that lack is what, despite the pleasure I took in them, kept me searching.
That rather directionless searching led me to Spatial Audio's open baffle speakers. In my casting about, I came across a review of them on New Record Day's YouTube channel. I'd seen the odd open baffle speaker before in my years of looking at pictures, ads, and reviews, but had no idea what they were and assumed they were a mere novelty and, since, as a rule, I'm not much given to novelty, just passed them by. But Ron's NRD review was so genuine and interesting and compelling, I thought I'd do some more research, which led me to discover that Spatial Audio is located about 10 miles from me. I emailed Spatial, and Clayton put me in touch with Cloud, with whom I set up a time to hear the speakers. Here I'd like to give a shoutout to Cloud, whose hospitality and patience were practically preternatural. Over the next couple of months, I plagued him with questions and visits, and he was always pleasant, informative, and generous with his time. My first visit, I listened to a pair of X4s, driven by an LTA amp (I forget which one) and a Benchmark DAC that functioned as the pre as well. That combo was great, but then he hooked up the Don Sachs Valhalla to the X4s and I was, well, in the vernacular, blown away. Like love at first sight in a John Cusack romcom, I was done, smitten. For the first time in all my listening, I had no doubt that that was the sound I wanted: big, bold, clear, detailed, yet liquid, beautiful, moving, compelling. It gripped me in a way no combination of speakers and amp ever had before. The 802s were a revelation to me when I first heard them, but this was different. The X4s had all the impact of the 802s, but on a grander, more open scale, and at the same time rendered the music with whatever dignity, beauty, sweetness, comedy, pathos, or combination of any or all of these was called for. I'm aware this sounds like hyperbole, but there was something hyperbole-inducing in the sound, something intensified in each element of the music. Intensified, but not exaggerated. It sounded genuine, sincere, truthful.
Given all the superlatives I just lavished on the X4/Don Sachs combo, you'd think I'd've thrown my money down on the spot. However, not willing to get married after only a first date, I thought I'd better listen both again and to more, other. I was curious about the amplifier possibilities speakers with an active subwoofer would give, so I next tried the X5s. For this, Clayton put me in touch with a friend of his, Mark, who very generously offered to let me come to his house and listen to his setup. At Mark's, I was able to listen to the X5s driven by an Atma-Sphere S-30 amp and MP-3 preamp. The experience was every bit as revelatory as listening to the X4s had been, but more so. I think, in the world of marketing, it's rare to come across products that so well mimic and reflect their name. For example, much as I loved the Valhalla, and it is every bit as good as the Atma-Sphere gear I listened to, Valhalla is, while a good name, a bit, well, over the top. Valhalla. Olympus. Throne of God. It's a lot to live up to. Atma-Sphere and Spatial (the cleverish reworking of atmosphere notwithstanding) are more descriptive than suggestive, as two of the primary and significant qualities of both products is their ability to create an atmosphere and a feeling of space. I wrote in an earlier post, and it's the image and impression that most stays with me, about how listening to the X5/Atma-Sphere combo was the audio equivalent of sitting in a planetarium, leaning back and looking up, as if floating in the immense blackness of space, and seeing the wash of galaxies and pinpoints of individual stars above and around you. Exaggeration? Maybe on my part, as I find myself unequal to the task of capturing sensorial experiences in words and can only relate the associations and images the experience brought to mind. But one thing was certain - that experience provided the push I needed and I bought a pair of X5s, which leads me to
finally, the gender reveal. I warned you: relentlessly, remorselessly, the new parents foists their joy and excitement on their weary friends. So, my new X5s. I was concerned, after reading all the warnings and admonishments and parables about the Spatial's need for break-in, that, for the first few weeks, I'd be listening to music as if from a trashcan, that the highs would be bright, the mids would be recessed, that bass simply wouldn't be, and that not one element of this cacophony would blend with the other. So, after Clayton and Mark graciously delivered the speakers to my home and set them up, I steeled myself and began listening. I was gobsmacked. The sound was gorgeous right out of the box (yeah, I know, but I'm leaving it). Seriously, they were beautiful, coherent, the soundstage deep and wide behind the speakers, with none of the thinness or brightness or disparity between the drivers I'd been led to expect. We listened for a while to Miles Davis' Kind of Blue, which, though not hard-driving or exceptionally layered in an orchestral sense, is wonderfully recorded, and the X5s produced a wide and distinct and detailed soundstage, with a clear picture of where Davis' trumpet and Cannonball Adderly and John Coltrane's saxes played, with Paul Chambers' bass solidly located but binding all the instruments and musicians together. And all of it large, human, with the weight and scale I'd been missing in the Dynaudios. Once Clayton and Mark left, I put the speakers through their paces. Lauren Daigle singing Rescue; Freya Ridings' Lost Without You, Macklemore's Downtown, Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, Melody Gardot, Frank Sinatra, Ben Webster, Yo-Yo Ma, Bill Evans, Michael Buble, Diana Krall, Florence and the Machine, Bob Marley, Patricia Barber, Holly Cole, Mozart's Jupiter Symphony and Marriage of Figaro, Puccini's La Boheme, Verdi's Rigoletto, the list goes on, all delivered power, beauty, concision, and deep deep feeling. I was amazed and beyond gratified. Don't get me wrong. I realize we're talking about speakers here, not curing cancer or ending the war in Ukraine or stopping inflation, that I woke up this morning essentially the same person I was the day before, and that writing has its own ecstatic momentum that may cause the incautious writer to be carried away. So let me say this, that, were this the best these speakers had to give, I would be satisfied, that the breadth, depth, scale, resolution, and beauty of their sound would easily sustain me and make me feel I'd spent my money well. All this, with no break-in and driven by my current electronics, which are high-quality, but no Don Sachs, no Atma-Sphere. Clayton says this is the worst they will sound and that they will only get better and better. It seems like gilding the lilly, but I'll take it.
So, the reveal is done. All that's left is to wash away the powder or dye or whatever noxious instrument of revelation was employed. I'll be amazed if anyone has actually read all of this. If you have, I congratulate you on your persistence and fortitude. You know what comes after the reveal - baby pictures.
(https://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=240398)
-
Thank you for the read!
I have about 700 hours on my X5's and I am regularly stunned by their performance. I consider them end game speakers.
Enjoy the ride!
Dave
-
I enjoyed reading this, thank you!
Congratulations on the new speakers!
I just got my M4s a few short weeks ago, I cannot stop listening to them.
-
I'll be amazed if anyone has actually read all of this. If you have, I congratulate you on your persistence and fortitude. You know what comes after the reveal - baby pictures.
(https://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=240398)
Great review and just as exciting to read as any review I’ve read in Stereophile! Your review was fun to read because I like to read reviews about a product that I own and if others hear what I’m hearing. I have the X5s, so I can second the enjoyment you’ve found with these speakers. I have them in the black gloss paint finish, but I do like the walnut finish you chose. Thanks for sharing.
-
Great write up! What did you decide to order to pair with the speakers?
-
Excellent writeup! This was definitely the best gender reveal party I've ever been to. :lol:
The Dynaudio's and the B&W's are some of the best speakers around, and the X series is just flat out better. Not a little better, either. A lot better. That says a lot about how good a designer Clayton is, and how good these speakers are.
IME, the X series sounds so good because they have this amazing combo of:
- Controlled Directivity - resulting in less sound splashing around the room and more of that sound directed toward your listening spot
- Open Baffle radiation pattern in the mids/highs - resulting in a massive, deep and wide-open soundstage
- Open Baffle self-powered bass - resulting in ultra clean and punchy lows and midbass
- AMT, best tweeter in the world - resulting in wordl-class detail and transparency
- Exceptional high efficiency midrange driver - resulting in micro-details and micro-dynamics galore, allowing the speakers to trace the emotional contour of the music very closely
- Top flight crossover parts quality and wiring - resulting in tonal accuracy most other speakers simply can't touch. Parts quality matters a lot, especially in a thoroughbred design like this one
I could go on and on but that gets the gist of my experience. Oh, and Clayton was right - the speakers start out excellent and just get better and better over time. That's what I heard with the X3's.
Also thanks mentioning Freya Ridings in your review. I'd never heard her before, listening to her album now (thanks, Qobuz/Roon!), man does she have an incredibly expressive voice.
-
Thanks for taking time to write your review and CONGRATULATIONS!!! I am very impressed with your writing style. Comparisons with other speakers, amps and DACs gave us an in-depth look at your decision process (a process we have all gone through). I own the X3s in a surround sound setup for just about one year now. Do they get better over time? Absolutely! ...and I don't care if it's the speaker or just my getting adapted to them. Either way, my enjoyment improves every day. Lucky you to live so close to the Spatial office.
Marcus
Las Vegas, NV
-
Thanks for the review. I'm a little earlier in the process but its helpful to see some of your decision making process in print.
-
I like my X4s so much that when I have time between meetings I run upstairs and sneak in a song. Still one of the most impressive speakers that I have heard top to bottom and the bass definition is off the hook.
-
…..the bass definition is off the hook.
Bingenito, have you ever heard the X5 bass? If so, how does it compare to the passive bass woofer of the X4? Thanks
-
Thanks for the review. I'm a little earlier in the process but its helpful to see some of your decision making process in print.
You're welcome. Thanks for plodding through it. If I can answer any questions or give you any impressions or information you think might help in your deliberations, don't hesitate to ask.
Josh
-
Thanks for taking time to write your review and CONGRATULATIONS!!! I am very impressed with your writing style. Comparisons with other speakers, amps and DACs gave us an in-depth look at your decision process (a process we have all gone through). I own the X3s in a surround sound setup for just about one year now. Do they get better over time? Absolutely! ...and I don't care if it's the speaker or just my getting adapted to them. Either way, my enjoyment improves every day. Lucky you to live so close to the Spatial office.
Thanks. It is lucky. To me, who has never even won a raffle, it was like winning a prize. I don't know that I could've pulled the trigger on a pair had I not been close enough to give them a listen and dispel my incorrect notion of their being a novelty item. So, lucky indeed. Now I have to decide on an amp. Sigh.
Josh
-
Great write up! What did you decide to order to pair with the speakers?
Thank you. Ugh. That decision is yet to come. Let the waffling begin. I'm waiting for a sign to show me the way. When I make up my mind and pick one, you can be sure I'll tell all. Thanks again.
Josh
-
Excellent writeup! This was definitely the best gender reveal party I've ever been to. :lol:
The Dynaudio's and the B&W's are some of the best speakers around, and the X series is just flat out better. Not a little better, either. A lot better. That says a lot about how good a designer Clayton is, and how good these speakers are.
IME, the X series sounds so good because they have this amazing combo of:
- Controlled Directivity - resulting in less sound splashing around the room and more of that sound directed toward your listening spot
- Open Baffle radiation pattern in the mids/highs - resulting in a massive, deep and wide-open soundstage
- Open Baffle self-powered bass - resulting in ultra clean and punchy lows and midbass
- AMT, best tweeter in the world - resulting in wordl-class detail and transparency
- Exceptional high efficiency midrange driver - resulting in micro-details and micro-dynamics galore, allowing the speakers to trace the emotional contour of the music very closely
- Top flight crossover parts quality and wiring - resulting in tonal accuracy most other speakers simply can't touch. Parts quality matters a lot, especially in a thoroughbred design like this one
I could go on and on but that gets the gist of my experience. Oh, and Clayton was right - the speakers start out excellent and just get better and better over time. That's what I heard with the X3's.
Also thanks mentioning Freya Ridings in your review. I'd never heard her before, listening to her album now (thanks, Qobuz/Roon!), man does she have an incredibly expressive voice.
You’re welcome, and thanks. I find quite a bit of interesting music via reviewers mentioning them in their reviews. It’s sort of a poor man’s Roon. There is a terrific video and recording on YouTube of Freya Ridiings singing Lost Without You live at Hackney Round Chapel. The atmosphere and reverb of the chapel are palpable. Also, it is a great test to see how a rig handles the upper register. Here in day two, my X5s do a great job. I am so impressed with these speakers. I had some concern, my amps being solid state and my room being less than ideal, but the speakers just shine right through the seeming limitations and compromises. I’m so looking forward to them breaking in more and more and to getting them coupled with a good tube setup. I just have to, uh, make up my mind. When it comes to choosing between commensurate audio gear, I’m as bad as Hamlet. Macbeth was a creep, but at least he could make a decision and stick to it. Thanks again for the kind words.
Josh
-
Thank you for the read!
I have about 700 hours on my X5's and I am regularly stunned by their performance. I consider them end game speakers.
Enjoy the ride!
Dave
Hi, Dave,
You’re welcome, and thank you. How did you find your X5s at first listen and did you keep track of the changes in their sound over the ensuing weeks and, I assume, months? Were the changes noticeably incremental, an almost daily thing, or was it more like after X amount of hours, days, weeks, you’d suddenly notice a more prodigious leap in clarity, coherence, resolution, what have you? Also, if you do t mind going into it, what you driving yours with and how did you arrive at your choice? Thanks.
Josh
-
Good Morning Josh;
Previous to my purchase of the X5's I had been listening happily to a pair of Emerald Physics speakers (also designed by Clayton Shaw) for about 12 years. When my travels and the introduction of the X series coincided, I listened to a demo at Spatial. It was obvious that the X series were not merely a step up, but really something special. Having been used to the sound of no box, and as soon as I got done fiddling around with placement, I was especially pleased with the clarity of the X5's at first real listening in my house.
As to the burn in; It was incremental in all the areas you mentioned, especially the sound stage development. However, there were many times that I had music playing and was suddenly aware that I was hearing something new in very familiar music. Very much like the first time I really "heard" stereo. Stunning!
I have AGD Audion mono blocks being fed by a Mark Levinson 380s Pre-amp and a Chord DAVE DAC. For vinyl I have a Herron Tube Phono-pre that is wonderful behind my Teres Turntable without regard to the cartridge.
Recently I added Gaia footers under the speakers and the sound stage depth became much more detailed. They were well worth the price of admission!
Please feel free to ask if you have further questions. Happy listening.
Dave
-
Yup. Once more, as in yet another "I've got new speakers! (again)" post, and once more, as in "Here's my new speaker review!" post. New gear acquisition announcements are the audio equivalent of gender reveal parties: of paramount importance and excitement to the revealer; to the revealees, an afternoon sadly spent inhaling lung-fulls of unidentified and highly questionable blue or pink powder. Another similarity is the revealers' relentless and remorseless perpetration of said reveal on their loyal soon to be be-powdered friends; there simply is no stopping them. Who am I to break with tradition? Hold your breath and read on, dear friends.
After much researching, hemming, hawing, yawing, and generally being a pest to those in the Spatial (acknowledgements and thanks here to Clayton, Cloud, and Mark) world, I finally got down to business and bought a pair of X5s (in walnut, not pink or blue). I had some real trepidation about buying them, as I genuinely loved the speakers I had, a pair of Dynaudio Heritage Specials, which I had purchased only last July. I had gone from B&W 802 Diamonds, which I also loved (I wonder if all this casting off of things I love worries my wife?), to the Heritage Specials because, for some reason, I wanted a different sound, something that would possibly better suit my at the time medium-sized room. The Dynaudios were brilliant - sweet, smooth, articulate, with surprisingly deep quick bass, imaged like crazy, and just, as we like to say, completely disappeared. But, but, they were more of a lateral move than I expected, really lovely and always a pleasure to listen to, but not really more so than the 802s. And, while the mid-range was a bit sweeter, more mellifluous than the 802's, and the imaging a bit more distinct (possibly down to room issues), they lacked that ineffable quality of scale, heft, weight, of bass that both underpins and helps create that total harmonic structure that seems to move us, literally, in a kind of physical displacement, and figuratively, emotionally, which is also a kind of displacement, as the music moves into us and sets up shop, moving our interior furnishings here and there, governing our feelings. The Dynaudios, while beautiful, lacked, for me, that essential scope and gravitas. It sounds silly as I write it, but I believe that lack is what, despite the pleasure I took in them, kept me searching.
That rather directionless searching led me to Spatial Audio's open baffle speakers. In my casting about, I came across a review of them on New Record Day's YouTube channel. I'd seen the odd open baffle speaker before in my years of looking at pictures, ads, and reviews, but had no idea what they were and assumed they were a mere novelty and, since, as a rule, I'm not much given to novelty, just passed them by. But Ron's NRD review was so genuine and interesting and compelling, I thought I'd do some more research, which led me to discover that Spatial Audio is located about 10 miles from me. I emailed Spatial, and Clayton put me in touch with Cloud, with whom I set up a time to hear the speakers. Here I'd like to give a shoutout to Cloud, whose hospitality and patience were practically preternatural. Over the next couple of months, I plagued him with questions and visits, and he was always pleasant, informative, and generous with his time. My first visit, I listened to a pair of X4s, driven by an LTA amp (I forget which one) and a Benchmark DAC that functioned as the pre as well. That combo was great, but then he hooked up the Don Sachs Valhalla to the X4s and I was, well, in the vernacular, blown away. Like love at first sight in a John Cusack romcom, I was done, smitten. For the first time in all my listening, I had no doubt that that was the sound I wanted: big, bold, clear, detailed, yet liquid, beautiful, moving, compelling. It gripped me in a way no combination of speakers and amp ever had before. The 802s were a revelation to me when I first heard them, but this was different. The X4s had all the impact of the 802s, but on a grander, more open scale, and at the same time rendered the music with whatever dignity, beauty, sweetness, comedy, pathos, or combination of any or all of these was called for. I'm aware this sounds like hyperbole, but there was something hyperbole-inducing in the sound, something intensified in each element of the music. Intensified, but not exaggerated. It sounded genuine, sincere, truthful.
Given all the superlatives I just lavished on the X4/Don Sachs combo, you'd think I'd've thrown my money down on the spot. However, not willing to get married after only a first date, I thought I'd better listen both again and to more, other. I was curious about the amplifier possibilities speakers with an active subwoofer would give, so I next tried the X5s. For this, Clayton put me in touch with a friend of his, Mark, who very generously offered to let me come to his house and listen to his setup. At Mark's, I was able to listen to the X5s driven by an Atma-Sphere S-30 amp and MP-3 preamp. The experience was every bit as revelatory as listening to the X4s had been, but more so. I think, in the world of marketing, it's rare to come across products that so well mimic and reflect their name. For example, much as I loved the Valhalla, and it is every bit as good as the Atma-Sphere gear I listened to, Valhalla is, while a good name, a bit, well, over the top. Valhalla. Olympus. Throne of God. It's a lot to live up to. Atma-Sphere and Spatial (the cleverish reworking of atmosphere notwithstanding) are more descriptive than suggestive, as two of the primary and significant qualities of both products is their ability to create an atmosphere and a feeling of space. I wrote in an earlier post, and it's the image and impression that most stays with me, about how listening to the X5/Atma-Sphere combo was the audio equivalent of sitting in a planetarium, leaning back and looking up, as if floating in the immense blackness of space, and seeing the wash of galaxies and pinpoints of individual stars above and around you. Exaggeration? Maybe on my part, as I find myself unequal to the task of capturing sensorial experiences in words and can only relate the associations and images the experience brought to mind. But one thing was certain - that experience provided the push I needed and I bought a pair of X5s, which leads me to
finally, the gender reveal. I warned you: relentlessly, remorselessly, the new parents foists their joy and excitement on their weary friends. So, my new X5s. I was concerned, after reading all the warnings and admonishments and parables about the Spatial's need for break-in, that, for the first few weeks, I'd be listening to music as if from a trashcan, that the highs would be bright, the mids would be recessed, that bass simply wouldn't be, and that not one element of this cacophony would blend with the other. So, after Clayton and Mark graciously delivered the speakers to my home and set them up, I steeled myself and began listening. I was gobsmacked. The sound was gorgeous right out of the box (yeah, I know, but I'm leaving it). Seriously, they were beautiful, coherent, the soundstage deep and wide behind the speakers, with none of the thinness or brightness or disparity between the drivers I'd been led to expect. We listened for a while to Miles Davis' Kind of Blue, which, though not hard-driving or exceptionally layered in an orchestral sense, is wonderfully recorded, and the X5s produced a wide and distinct and detailed soundstage, with a clear picture of where Davis' trumpet and Cannonball Adderly and John Coltrane's saxes played, with Paul Chambers' bass solidly located but binding all the instruments and musicians together. And all of it large, human, with the weight and scale I'd been missing in the Dynaudios. Once Clayton and Mark left, I put the speakers through their paces. Lauren Daigle singing Rescue; Freya Ridings' Lost Without You, Macklemore's Downtown, Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, Melody Gardot, Frank Sinatra, Ben Webster, Yo-Yo Ma, Bill Evans, Michael Buble, Diana Krall, Florence and the Machine, Bob Marley, Patricia Barber, Holly Cole, Mozart's Jupiter Symphony and Marriage of Figaro, Puccini's La Boheme, Verdi's Rigoletto, the list goes on, all delivered power, beauty, concision, and deep deep feeling. I was amazed and beyond gratified. Don't get me wrong. I realize we're talking about speakers here, not curing cancer or ending the war in Ukraine or stopping inflation, that I woke up this morning essentially the same person I was the day before, and that writing has its own ecstatic momentum that may cause the incautious writer to be carried away. So let me say this, that, were this the best these speakers had to give, I would be satisfied, that the breadth, depth, scale, resolution, and beauty of their sound would easily sustain me and make me feel I'd spent my money well. All this, with no break-in and driven by my current electronics, which are high-quality, but no Don Sachs, no Atma-Sphere. Clayton says this is the worst they will sound and that they will only get better and better. It seems like gilding the lilly, but I'll take it.
So, the reveal is done. All that's left is to wash away the powder or dye or whatever noxious instrument of revelation was employed. I'll be amazed if anyone has actually read all of this. If you have, I congratulate you on your persistence and fortitude. You know what comes after the reveal - baby pictures.
(https://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=240398)
Excellent and enjoyable review. When you find your system moves you, you hit the jackpot. No need to sit a worry about what if's or only if's, and of course the audio paranoia of only if I change this piece of gear I can improve on what I hear, that is the old going down the rabbit hole...smile! Chasing the old tail around and around. Enjoy the music.
-
I like my X4s so much that when I have time between meetings I run upstairs and sneak in a song. Still one of the most impressive speakers that I have heard top to bottom and the bass definition is off the hook.
I loved the X4s when I heard them with Don Sach's Valhalla integrated amp. As I mentioned in my review/reveal, it was that combination that made my mind up then and there to have a pair of Spatials. I struggled for a time choosing between the X4 and X5, deciding finally in favor of the X5 for its active subwoofer and the amp possibilities it allowed for. Though, as far as that goes, considering how spectacularly the Vahalla, at 30 wpc, drove the X4s, I suspect it's six of one, half a dozen of another. I suppose the ability to vary the volume on the active woofer gives some additional control, but, as I'm not much of a tinkerer, I'm guessing, after the novelty wears off, I'll find my preferred level and pretty much leave it there. Regardless, active or passive, the bass is one of the main qualities of the Spatial's sound that seduced me, which is odd, as one of the primary criticisms I've read of OB speakers is their supposed issues with bass. But, whatever Clayton has done in designing these, the bass is physical, musical, and emotional, something I'd not experienced in the previous speakers I've owned and heard. I look forward to the changes the speakers evince in the coming days, weeks, and months, and to reporting on them to anyone with the courage (and time) to wade through another of my novellas. Thanks.
Josh
-
I purchased, and am loving, X3s. Had much trepidation purchasing because I have 2.3 watt Decware Anniversary Edition SET amp. Cannot comment on any other amp but I fretted over nothing as this amp leaves absolutely nothing to be desired at any volume I wish to listen at. Using Holo MAY DAC and Serene pre and streaming from Roon Nucleus with my CD collection in SD drive plugged in. Already had a duplicate amp on order only for "headroom" and have elected to leave order in the queue. Headroom NEVER hurts! In the process of upgrading power cords, interconnects and speaker cables and I should be done with equipment purchases. Seriously!! Been on this merry go round all my life and feels great to be okay about stepping off and relaxing. Enjoy life!
-
Hi Josh,
Thank you so much for sharing your experience! I’ve enjoyed your writing one more time as I don’t think I can do the same in my native language, let alone in English. We maybe were looking at the x series around the same time and I got my x4 2 weeks ahead as I wasn’t as due diligent:)
I was trying to imagine your listening experience with the x4 and x5 based on your words. And was wondering how much of that difference was from the equipments and how much from the rooms/environment. As you described with the x5 with atma-sphere it’s mainly a new total surrounded by music experience, the room has to meet certain requirements (ie treated, more breathing room behind the listener etc). Any light you can shed on this front would be greatly appreciated.
Like you, I found my x4 to be much better than what I had before right out of the box. It’s certainly very close to my satisfaction sound wise. It’s refined after 2 weeks but I can’t describe the difference fully. I have a very similar situation around and behind the speakers as yours and have no room behind me. So I suspect it would be very difficult to get close to what you have experienced at Mark’s home even if I have the same gears. But I am willing to learn and experiment to see how far I can go. But to be honest that’s just an audiophile journey having much less to do with enjoying music.
Steve
-
Hi Josh,
Thank you so much for sharing your experience! I’ve enjoyed your writing one more time as I don’t think I can do the same in my native language, let alone in English. We maybe were looking at the x series around the same time and I got my x4 2 weeks ahead as I wasn’t as due diligent:)
I was trying to imagine your listening experience with the x4 and x5 based on your words. And was wondering how much of that difference was from the equipments and how much from the rooms/environment. As you described with the x5 with atma-sphere it’s mainly a new total surrounded by music experience, the room has to meet certain requirements (ie treated, more breathing room behind the listener etc). Any light you can shed on this front would be greatly appreciated.
Like you, I found my x4 to be much better than what I had before right out of the box. It’s certainly very close to my satisfaction sound wise. It’s refined after 2 weeks but I can’t describe the difference fully. I have a very similar situation around and behind the speakers as yours and have no room behind me. So I suspect it would be very difficult to get close to what you have experienced at Mark’s home even if I have the same gears. But I am willing to learn and experiment to see how far I can go. But to be honest that’s just an audiophile journey having much less to do with enjoying music.
Steve
Hi, Steve,
Sorry for the late reply. This was the earliest I could sit down and make an honest effort to answer your questions. I meant to address the issue of the rooms in which I listened to the X4s and X5s, as well as the degree of room treatment in them, in the piece I wrote, as it was worth mentioning, but, in my haste to get it done and posted, I inadvertently left it out.
So, regarding the rooms themselves, they were nothing special. The room at Spatial is rather narrow - 10' wide, 11' at the most, and maybe 20' deep, opening up on one side in the back to a larger work space. The speakers were pulled about 3' or so from the wall, with at most 2', possibly less, from the speakers to each side wall. The listening position was between 6' and 8' from the speakers (I moved it back a bit to better emulate my room at home), with the rear wall approximately (I'm guessing here) 10' behind me. The ceiling was typical, between 8' and 9'. The room treatment consisted only of carpeted floor and two probably 2" thick absorptive panels leaned against the wall behind the speakers. That's it. Not a carefully engineered or high-end setup. I actually was glad the room wasn't acoustically dialed in, as so often such fully treated rooms can lead to a sound you have no hope of recreating in your own living space. I understand that dealers want to show the gear at its best, but I think there's something to be said for hearing the gear in less than ideal circumstances. I doubt that is Clayton's intention - it's just very much a working shop and not a showroom. I imagine he'd rather have a polished room in which to show off his speakers, but I, and I may be alone in this, appreciate hearing the speakers when the room is somewhat militating against their best efforts. I suppose the ideal, or my ideal, would be to have one untreated room and one full-on professionally treated room, but then the speakers would cost $20K to pay for all that square footage. I'm all for the sub-par room and more affordable speakers. But I digress.
Mark's room, where I listened to the X5s, was also quite modest. As it was in his home and not a workshop, it was more, well, homey - no cluttered workbenches or drivers and components stacked on shelves or empty baffles leaning on walls - but it was still more a normal living than listening space. It was a bit wider than the room at Spatial, say 12', considerably shallower, with 8' or so to the wall behind the listening position, with the ceiling, again, around 8'. The speakers were situated much like those at Spatial, approximately 3' from the wall behind them and about the same from the side walls. For acoustic treatment, he had, also similarly to Spatial's room, a couple of relatively thin absorptive panels behind the speakers and then a small tapestry at each first reflection point on the side walls. It was very comfortable, but, acoustically, far from overboard or what most treatment-minded people would consider even sufficient.
I describe the acoustic aspects of these rooms in some detail in response to your concern that you couldn't possibly achieve in your room the same level of sound quality I heard at Mark's. Neither of these rooms was anywhere close to treated in such a way as to, theoretically, get the most out of the speakers, nor were the the dimensions of either room, according to the severe strictures I've heard laid out for the best room size relative to speaker size, close to ideal. Yet, against all odds, the sound. was. glorious. Would it have been better in better rooms? Possibly. Even likely. But you needn't despair of getting truly wonderful sound just because your room doesn't match up to a theoretical ideal. I understand that sound propagation is a matter of physics, not opinion, but, while the best room may give you the best sound, there is a vast quantity of good, and very very good, between bad and best. My own room is roughly 15'w x 30'l x 9'h. Good sized, but with a lot of unfortunate nooks and angles and all hard surfaces. The cabinet with all my gear in it sits in the unholy place between my speakers, though behind them by about 4', and has glass doors, and there's a large window behind that. On one wall, too damned close to the first reflection point, is a massive flat-screen tv. You can see from the photo I posted the short false-wall behind one speaker and the stairway leading to an opening leading up the stairs and out of the room. All of these things are anathema, according to room aficionados, to good sound, and, in an absolute sense, I don't disagree with them. But I'm here to tell you that, despite these egregious shortcomings, my previous speakers, the Dynaudio Heritage Specials, sounded beautiful, imaged with clarity and substance, and disappeared to the point that it was impossible to listen to and look at them and imagine any of the sound coming from them. And my new X5s, with virtually no break-in (if you believe in such things) are repeating this performance in spades, with everything the Dyns did in terms of beauty, clarity, resolution, and disappearing act, but all on a larger, fuller, grander, more (yes) spacious, scale, and still with heartbreaking sweetness and delicacy when called for. All this, in my highly compromised, entirely untreated room.
Now, all of that said, does that mean I don't believe in room treatment or that it can help? No. I absolutely do believe it can make a huge difference. In my last home, I had a pair of B&W 802 Diamonds. Despite some snobby poo-pooing you might hear from the odd anti-big-name audiophile or two, these are tremendous speakers, at least according to my possibly somewhat dim lights. But I was never able to get the most out of them in my room, which was 12' x 18'. Not a small room, but not big enough to accommodate such large speakers. Then a friend of mine bought a massive collection of room treatment - acoustic panels of various sizes and thicknesses and several corner bass traps. We stacked the corner bass traps floor to ceiling in the corners behind my speakers, put two 2" panels on the wall directly behind the speakers, two of the same at the first reflection points, and a 4" thick panel in the rear corners of the room. Voila! A sonic miracle. What had been a jumble of instruments and voices piled on top of each other in a heap between the speakers, suddenly spread out and became a stage with instruments and voices in their proper places, with, on some recordings, the stage seeming to extend beyond the boundaries of the room. It was amazing and made me a believer in the efficacy of room treatment. And this was a practically random, entirely uneducated disposition of the treatment. But, again, all of that said, in my current room, with no treatment whatsoever and all sorts of acoustic bugaboos, I'm getting wonderful sound, a wide, deep soundstage, tremendous separation and resolution, and, most importantly, the music is alive and full of feeling. Could it be improved with treatment? I have no doubt. But, man, it is, as it is, pretty damned good.
I hope that answers your questions. Your own experience may never coincide exactly with my description, as my description comes out of the fund of images and associations peculiar to my imagination, but, my own descriptions notwithstanding, I think you can easily achieve the same level of sound quality. From your description of your room, the main issue (in my very inexpert opinion) will most likely be from your listening seat being so close to your rear wall, which can result in exaggerated bass. I suspect you can alleviate some of that by putting some kind of absorptive panels on the wall. My guess is, even a little bit will help. If you're up for the experiment, you could also put traps in the corners behind the speakers and a panel at each first reflection point. I've no doubt it will make a difference. Beyond that, you work with what you've got, and I'm betting what you've got will be plenty.
Josh
-
Hi, Steve,
(after installing room treatment) ...Voila! A sonic miracle. What had been a jumble of instruments and voices piled on top of each other in a heap between the speakers, suddenly spread out and became a stage with instruments and voices in their proper places, with, on some recordings, the stage seeming to extend beyond the boundaries of the room. It was amazing and made me a believer in the efficacy of room treatment. ...
Josh
Good to hear your success with room treatment. I spent a fair amount on GIK panels. I could use way more panels and bass traps. But, the WAF was hard enough to convince with the panels I did purchase. As it is, I am very pleased with the sound from my X3s. I'm sure the panels helped a lot.
The listening portion of my room, part of a great room, is about 15 feet wide and 30 feet long. Ceiling is vaulted 11 feet up to 14 feet. So, a huge space to fill. I have 6 inch alpha panels behind my speakers plus a couple bass traps and a couple 2 inch absorption panels flanking the speakers. More alpha panels on the rear wall.
Thanks again for continuing to answer questions.
Marcus
-
Good to hear your success with room treatment. I spent a fair amount on GIK panels. I could use way more panels and bass traps. But, the WAF was hard enough to convince with the panels I did purchase. As it is, I am very pleased with the sound from my X3s. I'm sure the panels helped a lot.
The listening portion of my room, part of a great room, is about 15 feet wide and 30 feet long. Ceiling is vaulted 11 feet up to 14 feet. So, a huge space to fill. I have 6 inch alpha panels behind my speakers plus a couple bass traps and a couple 2 inch absorption panels flanking the speakers. More alpha panels on the rear wall.
Thanks again for continuing to answer questions.
Marcus
Hi, Marcus,
I'm sure it's clear by now that I enjoy answering questions, posing questions, and just generally propounding where possible, but you're welcome. Regarding room treatment, while it's true that, with those speakers in that room, even such slapdash treatment as I applied there did make an enormous improvement, it's equally true that I've needed no treatment whatsoever to get an equivalent level of sound quality with these speakers in this room. When I first moved into this space, I was fully prepared to fairly well blanket half the room in acoustic panels when, lo and behold, just more or less plopping my speakers down (at that time the Dynaudios) resulted in every bit, and in some ways more, the sonic success I had with my previous treated room with the B&Ws. And that success has now been repeated and again improved on (with pretty much equal inexactness in regard to speaker placement) with the X5s. I'm sure the size of the room has something to do with it, and probably the design of the speakers. I'm also sure that some modest treatment would improve the sound quality (breadth and depth of soundstage, imaging, clarity, resolution, etc) even more. But, for now, sans treatment, I can't say I feel I'm missing anything. Of course, it could be a classic case of ignorance being bliss. We'll find out when I finally do install some treatment. My point to Steve was just that I believed his system was probably capable of sound quality equal to that which I heard at Spatial and at Mark's and in my own home, that such quality was not dependent, as he thought it might be, on an extensive amount of treatment. My own next investment will not be on treatment but on either an outboard DAC or a tube amp or integrated amp. I really want to have the sound I heard from the Don Sachs Valhalla or Atma-Sphere S-30 / MP-3 combo. Right now I'm on the fence, which is, like all fence sitting, uncomfortable. My consolation is, whichever way I fall, it's likely to be a soft landing. Thanks for your comment. I'm sure we'll cross keyboards again.
Josh
-
For full range sound, box speakers are actually quite fussy. They almost always need a great room and room treatment to really sound good. Smaller, bookshelf sized speakers are less fussy about the room so we often end up with small speakers in imperfect rooms.
Well designed OB speakers however are not fussy at all about the room. You can easily get much better performance out of them in an average room than just about any other speaker type, especially if you are running full range (ie, with deep bass).
-
Hi, Steve,
Sorry for the late reply. This was the earliest I could sit down and make an honest effort to answer your questions. I meant to address the issue of the rooms in which I listened to the X4s and X5s, as well as the degree of room treatment in them, in the piece I wrote, as it was worth mentioning, but, in my haste to get it done and posted, I inadvertently left it out.
So, regarding the rooms themselves, they were nothing special. The room at Spatial is rather narrow - 10' wide, 11' at the most, and maybe 20' deep, opening up on one side in the back to a larger work space. The speakers were pulled about 3' or so from the wall, with at most 2', possibly less, from the speakers to each side wall. The listening position was between 6' and 8' from the speakers (I moved it back a bit to better emulate my room at home), with the rear wall approximately (I'm guessing here) 10' behind me. The ceiling was typical, between 8' and 9'. The room treatment consisted only of carpeted floor and two probably 2" thick absorptive panels leaned against the wall behind the speakers. That's it. Not a carefully engineered or high-end setup. I actually was glad the room wasn't acoustically dialed in, as so often such fully treated rooms can lead to a sound you have no hope of recreating in your own living space. I understand that dealers want to show the gear at its best, but I think there's something to be said for hearing the gear in less than ideal circumstances. I doubt that is Clayton's intention - it's just very much a working shop and not a showroom. I imagine he'd rather have a polished room in which to show off his speakers, but I, and I may be alone in this, appreciate hearing the speakers when the room is somewhat militating against their best efforts. I suppose the ideal, or my ideal, would be to have one untreated room and one full-on professionally treated room, but then the speakers would cost $20K to pay for all that square footage. I'm all for the sub-par room and more affordable speakers. But I digress.
Josh
Josh,
Again appreciate your long thoughtful post with much logical info than I could ask. I had to read several times to fully grasp everything, but time was much worthwhile spent.
I am trying to come to the conclusions from your experience. Here it goes,
1. Since neither of the spatial or Mark’s room was heavily treated, the difference between the two combos your heard was big enough for you to go with the X5 route with something at least close to the performance of Alma-sphere.
I wasn’t sure this was the case from your original impression post and I am glad I asked.
2. Spatial X5 was able to outperform right out of the box with most if not all the audiophile attributes you care about. And it could only get better from there.
This coincides with my experience. I felt I could be very happy with the sound right out of the box. I’ve lived with a pair of Paradigm signature S4 in my last home for almost 20 years. With this new home, everything started from scratch. Before stumbling on to Spatial, I was waiting with frustration for a Magnepan 1.7i for 10 months(long story), during which I also tried a few others. I didn’t have as much of a gear experience but after Spatial I give up the idea of looking for more performance with less cost.
3. Not only sound wise, it’s capable of great imaging and disappearance, with less than idea room.
I don’t have an ideal room, but based on what I can hear now I am fortunate to say my room is pretty good. I don’t crave for more bass. And the vocal which is the most of what I care is up to my standard which is capable of moving me.
I can make a conclusion that the less than ideal imaging and disappearance issue must be the less than ideal room I have, with a 77” TV and cabinet behind and everything else.
Your suggestion and experience with the treatment difference gave me confidence to try the front and back panels you suggested. I’d like to also get other owners’ input on what sort of treatments are most common and effective with the x series. I will open another thread for that after first getting input from Spatial.
Back to enjoying music!
Steve
-
Josh,
Again appreciate your long thoughtful post with much logical info than I could ask. I had to read several times to fully grasp everything, but time was much worthwhile spent.
I am trying to come to the conclusions from your experience. Here it goes,
1. Since neither of the spatial or Mark’s room was heavily treated, the difference between the two combos your heard was big enough for you to go with the X5 route with something at least close to the performance of Alma-sphere.
I wasn’t sure this was the case from your original impression post and I am glad I asked.
2. Spatial X5 was able to outperform right out of the box with most if not all the audiophile attributes you care about. And it could only get better from there.
This coincides with my experience. I felt I could be very happy with the sound right out of the box. I’ve lived with a pair of Paradigm signature S4 in my last home for almost 20 years. With this new home, everything started from scratch. Before stumbling on to Spatial, I was waiting with frustration for a Magnepan 1.7i for 10 months(long story), during which I also tried a few others. I didn’t have as much of a gear experience but after Spatial I give up the idea of looking for more performance with less cost.
3. Not only sound wise, it’s capable of great imaging and disappearance, with less than idea room.
I don’t have an ideal room, but based on what I can hear now I am fortunate to say my room is pretty good. I don’t crave for more bass. And the vocal which is the most of what I care is up to my standard which is capable of moving me.
I can make a conclusion that the less than ideal imaging and disappearance issue must be the less than ideal room I have, with a 77” TV and cabinet behind and everything else.
Your suggestion and experience with the treatment difference gave me confidence to try the front and back panels you suggested. I’d like to also get other owners’ input on what sort of treatments are most common and effective with the x series. I will open another thread for that after first getting input from Spatial.
Back to enjoying music!
Steve
Hi, Steve,
Just to be clear, while hearing Mark's combination of the X5s with the Atma-Sphere gear was the final push that sent me over the edge, my decision to go with the X5s wasn't due to Mark's system sounding better than the X4/Valhalla combination I heard at Spatial. I went with the X5 more because its 8 ohm impedance, higher sensitivity, and active subwoofer appealed to me. I've never owned particularly sensitive speakers or one with a powered sub, and I liked the idea of the amplification range those two aspects of the X5s made possible. Though, for that matter, at 4 ohm impedance and 93 db sensitivity, the X4s were driven by the 30 wpc Valhalla every bit as well as the Atma-Sphere rig drove the X5s. In my, I'm quite sure unreliable, aural memory, the sound presentation was somewhat different, with (though I hate these hopelessly inadequate generalizations) the X4/Valhalla combo being (maybe) slightly more forward, more of a presentation, while the X5/Atma-Sphere combo was (maybe) a bit darker and laid back. I don't know. The differences I'm describing could be down to the room, my mood, the volume I was listening at, or they could be wholly fabricated out of some strange psychological need to make distinctions. What I can say with confidence was, that both systems produced music that was compelling enough for me to buy the speakers, covet the amps, and write reams of seemingly interminable gushing prose on their virtues. What I don't want (again) is to leave you, or anyone who might read this, with the impression that I purchased the X5s driven by the S-30 because they sounded better than the X4s driven by the Valhalla. I just liked the idea of being able to avail myself of the, at least in theory, varied amplification possibilities the X5 afforded. And I liked, for no readily apparent reason, that the X5s were 97 db sensitivity. I don't know why. Maybe to compensate for my own lack of sensitivity. I'm not going to pretend my decisions around hifi are entirely rational. At best, I glue a veneer of logical argument over the over the irrational fiberboard of impulses underneath. It's a funny hobby/obsession and, as with all obsessions, has all its own quirks and demands and psychological imperatives, but, as obsessions go, it is (except perhaps financially) harmless and provides hours of immersion and joy in searching and comparing and finally manifesting satisfaction-inducing gear and beautiful music. Speaking of which, as you say, back to enjoying music! Good luck with your room.
Josh
-
I went with the X5 more because its 8 ohm impedance, higher sensitivity, and active subwoofer appealed to me.
I have the X5s and I’d like to know what your opinion is on the difference in bass between the X4 and X5? Was the bass about the same or did the active subwoofer provide more bass over the X4s? Thanks
-
Hi, Steve,
Just to be clear, while hearing Mark's combination of the X5s with the Atma-Sphere gear was the final push that sent me over the edge, my decision to go with the X5s wasn't due to Mark's system sounding better than the X4/Valhalla combination I heard at Spatial. I went with the X5 more because its 8 ohm impedance, higher sensitivity, and active subwoofer appealed to me. I've never owned particularly sensitive speakers or one with a powered sub, and I liked the idea of the amplification range those two aspects of the X5s made possible. Though, for that matter, at 4 ohm impedance and 93 db sensitivity, the X4s were driven by the 30 wpc Valhalla every bit as well as the Atma-Sphere rig drove the X5s. In my, I'm quite sure unreliable, aural memory, the sound presentation was somewhat different, with (though I hate these hopelessly inadequate generalizations) the X4/Valhalla combo being (maybe) slightly more forward, more of a presentation, while the X5/Atma-Sphere combo was (maybe) a bit darker and laid back. I don't know. The differences I'm describing could be down to the room, my mood, the volume I was listening at, or they could be wholly fabricated out of some strange psychological need to make distinctions. What I can say with confidence was, that both systems produced music that was compelling enough for me to buy the speakers, covet the amps, and write reams of seemingly interminable gushing prose on their virtues. What I don't want (again) is to leave you, or anyone who might read this, with the impression that I purchased the X5s driven by the S-30 because they sounded better than the X4s driven by the Valhalla. I just liked the idea of being able to avail myself of the, at least in theory, varied amplification possibilities the X5 afforded. And I liked, for no readily apparent reason, that the X5s were 97 db sensitivity. I don't know why. Maybe to compensate for my own lack of sensitivity. I'm not going to pretend my decisions around hifi are entirely rational. At best, I glue a veneer of logical argument over the over the irrational fiberboard of impulses underneath. It's a funny hobby/obsession and, as with all obsessions, has all its own quirks and demands and psychological imperatives, but, as obsessions go, it is (except perhaps financially) harmless and provides hours of immersion and joy in searching and comparing and finally manifesting satisfaction-inducing gear and beautiful music. Speaking of which, as you say, back to enjoying music! Good luck with your room.
Josh
Josh,
Thanks for the clarification! I did get the impression that the x5 combo left you with something you didn’t experience before. But even with that, I won’t dump my x4 for x5. With the x5 you do get vast more amp choices higher sensitivity, but the deciding factor for me is the worry free without the onboard amp for as long as I own it. I know I am worrying too much about the future as opposed to enjoying the moment but that’s just me.
My Holo May dac is 3 weeks young and my Hegel H390 amp is less than a year old. I did place an order with Don for his Valhalla. I am expecting it to be more to my taste than the Hegel when I do get it this fall. So I believe I am done with major components. The next step will be room treatment, power treatment and cables. I won’t go overboard on these and hopefully it’s something that won’t take me several tries to get it right. Then I will probably get on Audio Circle just for “the music circle” section from then on to make it truly an end game setup.
Steve
-
For full range sound, box speakers are actually quite fussy. They almost always need a great room and room treatment to really sound good. Smaller, bookshelf sized speakers are less fussy about the room so we often end up with small speakers in imperfect rooms.
Well designed OB speakers however are not fussy at all about the room. You can easily get much better performance out of them in an average room than just about any other speaker type, especially if you are running full range (ie, with deep bass).
This makes a lot of sense and corresponds pretty much exactly with my experience. It’s interesting. Obviously, the design of the open baffle speaker, or at least Clayton’s design of his, does something to compensate for the driver size which allows it, in terms of room reaction, to perform as forgivingly as smaller stand-mount box speakers. I’d be curious to know what Dennis Foley, who makes the strictest pronouncements I’ve read or heard on the necessity of a room’s acoustics, treatment, and speaker size relative to room dimensions, following the laws of sound propagation physics for just tolerable, let alone the best, sound. I don’t know if his strictures are correct - I haven’t the knowledge of physics to judge - but I do know that he pronounced a veritable acoustic death sentence on my previous room, for various reasons, not the least of them being the size of my room relative to the size of my 802s. I was, with a modest amount of inexpertly placed treatment, able to make a quite substantial improvement in the 802s’ performance in that room, though I’m sure they’d’ve sounded better still in a better treated or more appropriate room. The X5s have even larger drivers than did the 802s, and I heard them in rooms smaller and less treated than the one that housed my 802s and that Foley consigned to the realm of the acoustically hopeless, and they sounded marvelous. So marvelous that I ponied up over $8k for them. That’s why I’d be curious, just for curiosity’s sake, to hear his response to and explanation for, he being the severest and least flexible of room acoustics and treatment proponents, the open baffle performance relative to room size. In the end, it’s academic, as my speakers sound great. But I’d be interested to know, from a physics perspective, why open baffle speakers, or at least Clayton’s, are, as you say, less fussy. Maybe it’s a simple explanation. Maybe you know? Thanks.
Josh
-
This makes a lot of sense and corresponds pretty much exactly with my experience. It’s interesting. Obviously, the design of the open baffle speaker, or at least Clayton’s design of his, does something to compensate for the driver size which allows it, in terms of room reaction, to perform as forgivingly as smaller stand-mount box speakers. I’d be curious to know what Dennis Foley, who makes the strictest pronouncements I’ve read or heard on the necessity of a room’s acoustics, treatment, and speaker size relative to room dimensions, following the laws of sound propagation physics for just tolerable, let alone the best, sound. I don’t know if his strictures are correct - I haven’t the knowledge of physics to judge - but I do know that he pronounced a veritable acoustic death sentence on my previous room, for various reasons, not the least of them being the size of my room relative to the size of my 802s. I was, with a modest amount of inexpertly placed treatment, able to make a quite substantial improvement in the 802s’ performance in that room, though I’m sure they’d’ve sounded better still in a better treated or more appropriate room. The X5s have even larger drivers than did the 802s, and I heard them in rooms smaller and less treated than the one that housed my 802s and that Foley consigned to the realm of the acoustically hopeless, and they sounded marvelous. So marvelous that I ponied up over $8k for them. That’s why I’d be curious, just for curiosity’s sake, to hear his response to and explanation for, he being the severest and least flexible of room acoustics and treatment proponents, the open baffle performance relative to room size. In the end, it’s academic, as my speakers sound great. But I’d be interested to know, from a physics perspective, why open baffle speakers, or at least Clayton’s, are, as you say, less fussy. Maybe it’s a simple explanation. Maybe you know? Thanks.
Josh
I do know, actually :) - the reason well designed OB speakers do better in difficult rooms is that they radiate in figure 8 patterns, thus minimizing room interaction. On the other hand, box speakers act like pulsing spheres, causing havoc with the room in all directions. OB speakers also don't pressurize a room the way box speakers do and that causes them to sound faster and cleaner in difficult rooms.
-
Don't forget that Foley, seems to be a purist and that it is his business (literally) to push room acoustics. I like his no nonsense observations and the fact that he designs his own treatments that are complex.
For him to endorse an open baffle speaker, may be a possibility, but it could lose him business. Just conjecture on my part! :roll:
-
Don't forget that Foley, seems to be a purist and that it is his business (literally) to push room acoustics. I like his no nonsense observations and the fact that he designs his own treatments that are complex.
For him to endorse an open baffle speaker, may be a possibility, but it could lose him business. Just conjecture on my part! :roll:
Don't get the impression I'm knocking Foley. I really like his videos as well, though I think his emphatic and unbending pronouncements can be despair-inducing in those, like the majority of us, with typically compromised living/listening environments. The amount and cost of the treatment he recommends are nigh on impossible for many if not most, both logistically and economically, and he's borderline Mephistophelian in his ability to persuade you that, without such treatment to mitigate the failings of your acoustically benighted room, you are doomed to a sonic hell of blunted leading edges, smeared time signatures, and abbreviated decay. Or maybe he's more like the Pardoner in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, who, in conjoining a long list of venal sins to a couple of mortal ones when reviling his audience with their faults, everyone in the audience is tainted, as no one has avoided every sin, and ends convinced they're in danger of eternal damnation and therefor must buy one of his pardons. I know I believe him (Foley, that is, not the Pardoner). To be fair, I also believe that this comparison does Foley an injustice, that, unlike either of these two unsavory characters, Foley is sincere. Fortunately, having never heard a setup that would constitute Foley's notion of acoustical heaven, my ignorance is truly an instance of being my bliss, and whatever anxiety I have of my system not sounding as it should due to inferior room acoustics is only a tiny theoretical mote in the eye of my listening pleasure. Yet, even at the risk of disturbing my complacency regarding my current system, I'd still like to hear his analysis of open baffle vs box speakers. You'd think I'd've learned from Eve and the cat curiosity killed.
-
I do know, actually :) - the reason well designed OB speakers do better in difficult rooms is that they radiate in figure 8 patterns, thus minimizing room interaction. On the other hand, box speakers act like pulsing spheres, causing havoc with the room in all directions. OB speakers also don't pressurize a room the way box speakers do and that causes them to sound faster and cleaner in difficult rooms.
I had read this and seen stick-figure-type drawings illustrating it. I'm perfectly willing to believe it, but, due to my being the person who has to resist the urge to bow down in front of my television at the miracle of all those people being contained in that tiny box, I'll have to take it on faith. Though, it does make me wonder something. If open baffle speakers are so much more room friendly, why then have they seemingly been, commercially speaking, relegated to the realm of novelty or curiosity? Why haven't more manufacturers embraced them or magazines extolled their virtues to the audio public? I'm not questioning their virtues - as I said, their virtues so impressed themselves on me upon first hearing them that I knew immediately that I had to have a pair - but I do genuinely wonder why they haven't caught on more. Is it because they require a certain amount of space? But practically all speakers require space, and, at least in my room, my X5s don't require more space than did my 802's or Heritage Specials. They actually require less space than did the 802s. So, to me, it's odd that the open baffle technology isn't more widely known or appreciated. Yes, the open baffle speakers sound different than conventional box speakers, but so do many box speakers sound different from each other, just as I suspect different open baffle speakers sound different from each other, and even then, the difference between open baffle and box sound isn't like comparing an anteater to an ostrich, so it can't be just that they sound different that accounts for their relative lack of popularity. Is it just marketing? The inherent difficulty in overcoming years of widespread convention? You had an answer to why OB speakers are better in difficult rooms, so maybe you have some thoughts on this as well.
-
... you are doomed to a sonic hell ...
Hahaha. Truly, Foley will leave you with that impression. But, to his credit, he does give viewers an excellent education in room acoustics.
-
... If open baffle speakers are so much more room friendly, why then have they seemingly been, commercially speaking, relegated to the realm of novelty or curiosity? Why haven't more manufacturers embraced them or magazines extolled their virtues to the audio public?
Just my opinion.
-- Recently, Steve Guttenberg "Audiophiliac" reviewed the Spatial M4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EqRo9qbWpQ&t=7s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EqRo9qbWpQ&t=7s) He was very impressed with them. I think you will see more mainstream reviews of OB speakers.
-- Mass appeal will likely never happen. The average consumer is more likely to buy a sound bar than fill up their room with speakers.
-- Among audiophiles, well, old habits die hard. One revolution has already taken place. SVS, outlaw audio, among others dominate with internet sales. I looked at GR Research and concluded, I do not have the skill or patience to build one of Danny's excellent speakers (but, boy did I look at them hard). Spatial became my choice for excellent pre-built and affordable speakers. I have never regretted my decision.
Bottom line, a consumer has to weigh all the variables. Choosing a "new" technology (OB) over tried and true (and heavily marketed) traditional speakers is a very difficult decision process.
My 2 cents
Marcus
-
Thanks for the clarification! I did get the impression that the x5 combo left you with something you didn’t experience before. But even with that, I won’t dump my x4 for x5. With the x5 you do get vast more amp choices higher sensitivity, but the deciding factor for me is the worry free without the onboard amp for as long as I own it. I know I am worrying too much about the future as opposed to enjoying the moment but that’s just me.
My Holo May dac is 3 weeks young and my Hegel H390 amp is less than a year old. I did place an order with Don for his Valhalla. I am expecting it to be more to my taste than the Hegel when I do get it this fall. So I believe I am done with major components. The next step will be room treatment, power treatment and cables. I won’t go overboard on these and hopefully it’s something that won’t take me several tries to get it right. Then I will probably get on Audio Circle just for “the music circle” section from then on to make it truly an end game setup.
Hi, Steve,
I'd read others voicing that concern over the plate amp of the X5s failing and leaving you with a giant doorstop or paperweight. I, with my customary disregard for the future, dismissed that concern by rationalizing that, really, any component in a system is at risk of failing, and, should it fail, as with any other component, you get it fixed. Don't get the idea I'm so blithe about these things when they actually occur - my wife can bear witness to my, uh, displeasure - but the possibility of a speaker's amp failing doesn't discommode me more than does the idea of a power or preamp failing. I suppose one difference is, should a power amp fail, it's a relatively simple proposition to substitute another while the first is being repaired, while, if a speaker's amp fails, it's tougher to get a substitute pair of speakers to tide you over. Hmmm...now I'm nervous.
I think you've got the right idea of putting your system together, then jumping off the gear-chase merry-go-round to relax and enjoy your music. At least you've got a right idea. For me, while I like to flatter myself that appreciation of the music is my highest and noblest aim, I know in my acquisitive heart that I also very much love the gear itself, the stuff. Apart from the music, I love the researching, the acquiring, the pleasure of looking at the gear. Maybe it isn't truly, or at least entirely, apart from the music, as it isn't as if I'd buy the stuff if it didn't make music, but it does seem a particular pursuit and pleasure in itself. If I, like Prospero, could conjure the music without benefit of amp and speakers, etc, I don't know that I would. I find the physical objects, both how they look and the fact that they can produce such wonderful music, so delightful and perplexing that I'd hate to eliminate them from the equation. And, though the purist in me finds it somewhat ignoble, I just like getting and having stuff.
Speaking of stuff, how do you like the Holo May DAC? I'm in the infant stages of a merry-go-round search for a DAC, and the May seems to be well-liked. Are you using it as a preamp as well? I'm thinking I'd like to go with a tube DAC, but I'm not counting anything out at this point. Thanks, Steve.
Josh
-
Just my opinion.
-- Recently, Steve Guttenberg "Audiophiliac" reviewed the Spatial M4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EqRo9qbWpQ&t=7s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EqRo9qbWpQ&t=7s) He was very impressed with them. I think you will see more mainstream reviews of OB speakers.
-- Mass appeal will likely never happen. The average consumer is more likely to buy a sound bar than fill up their room with speakers.
-- Among audiophiles, well, old habits die hard. One revolution has already taken place. SVS, outlaw audio, among others dominate with internet sales. I looked at GR Research and concluded, I do not have the skill or patience to build one of Danny's excellent speakers (but, boy did I look at them hard). Spatial became my choice for excellent pre-built and affordable speakers. I have never regretted my decision.
Bottom line, a consumer has to weigh all the variables. Choosing a "new" technology (OB) over tried and true (and heavily marketed) traditional speakers is a very difficult decision process.
My 2 cents
Marcus
Hi, Marcus,
Your 2 cents make a lot of sense and are largely along the lines on which I was thinking. The power of custom compels us. Funny you should mention soundbars, as the search for a soundbar is what got me into this mess in the first place. I had just bought a Pioneer Kuro Elite plasma tv, one of the best tvs available at the time, and by far the best tv I'd ever owned. I decided such a tv deserved better sound than its meager speakers could provide, so, off in search of improvement I went. I ended up in a local, sadly now defunct, hifi shop, where, not surprisingly, they had no soundbars. The owner did persuade me that, for just a little bit more money (which became the signature rationale for nearly every subsequent hifi purchase since), I could have a decent receiver and pair of stand-mount speakers and have far better sounding tv and music than I would ever get with any soundbar. He then, and this was my undoing, just for fun, sat me down in front of a pair of B&W 802s. I had never before heard speakers image like that, and to hear the singer's voice hanging in the empty space between the speakers was a revelation, a revelation that then and there caused a revolution in my audio thinking and needs. I ended up buying a pair of B&W 804s, two Rotel mono blocks, a Rotel preamp, cd, player, and tuner. My system has gone through several iterations since then, and, while I've spent, say, oh, let's leave it at far more than I should have, it has also brought me hours and days and weeks and months and years of largely unalloyed pleasure, all for not having gone first to Best Buy and purchased a soundbar. Such are the vicissitudes by which our fates are determined.
Josh
-
I had read this and seen stick-figure-type drawings illustrating it. I'm perfectly willing to believe it, but, due to my being the person who has to resist the urge to bow down in front of my television at the miracle of all those people being contained in that tiny box, I'll have to take it on faith. Though, it does make me wonder something. If open baffle speakers are so much more room friendly, why then have they seemingly been, commercially speaking, relegated to the realm of novelty or curiosity? Why haven't more manufacturers embraced them or magazines extolled their virtues to the audio public? I'm not questioning their virtues - as I said, their virtues so impressed themselves on me upon first hearing them that I knew immediately that I had to have a pair - but I do genuinely wonder why they haven't caught on more. Is it because they require a certain amount of space? But practically all speakers require space, and, at least in my room, my X5s don't require more space than did my 802's or Heritage Specials. They actually require less space than did the 802s. So, to me, it's odd that the open baffle technology isn't more widely known or appreciated. Yes, the open baffle speakers sound different than conventional box speakers, but so do many box speakers sound different from each other, just as I suspect different open baffle speakers sound different from each other, and even then, the difference between open baffle and box sound isn't like comparing an anteater to an ostrich, so it can't be just that they sound different that accounts for their relative lack of popularity. Is it just marketing? The inherent difficulty in overcoming years of widespread convention? You had an answer to why OB speakers are better in difficult rooms, so maybe you have some thoughts on this as well.
There's a few reasons I think that OB speakers aren't more popular.
- They look weird - especially with their big-ass midrange drivers, most people assume they just won't sound good.
- Most OB speakers suck at bass. Not Spatial, they actually kick butt in the bass. But that's the exception.
- Many people really prefer the sound of boxes over OB's. I've had a lot of people over to check out my systems and only about 40% are impressed, the others find the OB sound underwhelming.
- A lot of people have built a DIY OB speaker. Those speakers are usually mediocre. These mediocre DIY speakers are what other audiophiles hear and thus assume OB is a bad design.
- People are risk averse - when you're spending multi-thousands of dollars, going with a non-traditional design is a bit scary.
- Not enough hype. If there were more reviews from big magazines with sexy pictures, more people would take a chance on them.
-
There's a few reasons I think that OB speakers aren't more popular.
- They look weird - especially with their big-ass midrange drivers, most people assume they just won't sound good.
- Most OB speakers suck at bass. Not Spatial, they actually kick butt in the bass. But that's the exception.
- Many people really prefer the sound of boxes over OB's. I've had a lot of people over to check out my systems and only about 40% are impressed, the others find the OB sound underwhelming.
- A lot of people have built a DIY OB speaker. Those speakers are usually mediocre. These mediocre DIY speakers are what other audiophiles hear and thus assume OB is a bad design.
- People are risk averse - when you're spending multi-thousands of dollars, going with a non-traditional design is a bit scary.
- Not enough hype. If there were more reviews from big magazines with sexy pictures, more people would take a chance on them.
I agree with you 💯%. I’m willing to bet if Wilson Audio, Magico or any of the other well respected speaker manufacturers decided to build OB speakers and really marketed the product as they do with their current models, you’d have more people pursuing them. As you mentioned, the OB speakers tend to be very popular in the DIY community and many don’t use woofers designed for OB and they are not as well designed as what you see Clayton and his team has done. Also, if Stereophile did a nice review of the Spatials and had them on the front cover, they would probably be taken seriously by the Hifi community. It might be scary for the big name speaker manufacturers to admit that a reasonably priced, well designed, OB speaker can possibly outperform or equally perform on par with their high tiered box speakers. How would they continue to justify the cost of their box speakers after concluding that an OB meets the Hifi standard for much less? Notice how Josh mentioned he owned the B&W 802D speakers and seems to love his new X5s as if they are just as good as his 802Ds. The current B&W 802D4 cost $25k! The Spatial Audio X Series will give them a run for their money!
Lastly, the high priced speaker manufacturers probably couldn’t justify the ridiculous prices they charge for their traditional box speakers because the OB speaker doesn’t require all the dampening materials required by a box speaker and a lot of the costs may go into the fancy wood work and paint finishes on the box speakers. No need for all of that with an OB speaker.
-
DBT Audio;
But, they are pretty and the Wife expects them to look like a box.
-
DBT Audio;
But, they are pretty and the Wife expects them to look like a box.
Lol…. I concur!
-
I agree with you 💯%. I’m willing to bet if Wilson Audio, Magico or any of the other well respected speaker manufacturers decided to build OB speakers and really marketed the product as they do with their current models, you’d have more people pursuing them. As you mentioned, the OB speakers tend to be very popular in the DIY community and many don’t use woofers designed for OB and they are not as well designed as what you see Clayton and his team has done. Also, if Stereophile did a nice review of the Spatials and had them on the front cover, they would probably be taken seriously by the Hifi community. It might be scary for the big name speaker manufacturers to admit that a reasonably priced, well designed, OB speaker can possibly outperform or equally perform on par with their high tiered box speakers. How would they continue to justify the cost of their box speakers after concluding that an OB meets the Hifi standard for much less? Notice how Josh mentioned he owned the B&W 802D speakers and seems to love his new X5s as if they are just as good as his 802Ds. The current B&W 802D4 cost $25k! The Spatial Audio X Series will give them a run for their money!
Lastly, the high priced speaker manufacturers probably couldn’t justify the ridiculous prices they charge for their traditional box speakers because the OB speaker doesn’t require all the dampening materials required by a box speaker and a lot of the costs may go into the fancy wood work and paint finishes on the box speakers. No need for all of that with an OB speaker.
Josh actually prefers his X5s to his 802Ds. But, in fairness to the 802Ds, the room he used them in, while modestly and inexpertly treated, was not as large as the room he is now listening to his X5s in, and probably put them at a disadvantage. Put the 802s in his current larger room and, good as they were, they may have proved to be a still better speaker than they seemed. Still, comparing the performance of the 802Ds there and the X5s here, Josh absolutely and unquestionably prefers the X5s. And the 802Ds, back when he bought them, 10 years ago, cost $15K! Granted, they were spectacularly crafted cherry-wood, with that crazy glossy porcelain housing for the mid-range driver, and the sleek minnow-like tweeter sitting separate but recessed into the top of the porcelain. Gorgeous. Hard to part with. Yet, part he did, and, as one hopes after a difficult parting, has found a better union in the X5s. Seriously, the X5 is an f-ing great speaker, and Josh couldn't be happier. I say so with full authority as his representative. Also, he promises, no more third person posts.
-
Josh actually prefers his X5s to his 802D. Also, he promises, no more third person.
DBT Audio concluded Josh preferred the X5s over the 802Ds. Lol…. Ok, no more 3rd person. I may not have worded it that way, but that’s what I got from you’re review. I’m very familiar with the B&W 800 series. I have two family members that owned the Matrix 802 versions in the 90’s. They both have Wilson Audio Sasha Daw and Sabrina X now. They sound great, but I prefer the sound of my X5s. I will say that I prefer a fully passive speaker, so some changes may take place, while remaining in the OB family, in the future. To be continued….
-
A neophyte forum poster question. If I want to continue indulging myself and regaling you all with reports of the changing sound during the break-in of my X5s, is it best to begin a new thread or press ahead with this one? Or should I put a sock in it? I’m not sure what the custom is, and I don’t want wear out my welcome. Thanks.
-
I think you've got the right idea of putting your system together, then jumping off the gear-chase merry-go-round to relax and enjoy your music. At least you've got a right idea. For me, while I like to flatter myself that appreciation of the music is my highest and noblest aim, I know in my acquisitive heart that I also very much love the gear itself, the stuff. Apart from the music, I love the researching, the acquiring, the pleasure of looking at the gear. Maybe it isn't truly, or at least entirely, apart from the music, as it isn't as if I'd buy the stuff if it didn't make music, but it does seem a particular pursuit and pleasure in itself. If I, like Prospero, could conjure the music without benefit of amp and speakers, etc, I don't know that I would. I find the physical objects, both how they look and the fact that they can produce such wonderful music, so delightful and perplexing that I'd hate to eliminate them from the equation. And, though the purist in me finds it somewhat ignoble, I just like getting and having stuff.
Speaking of stuff, how do you like the Holo May DAC? I'm in the infant stages of a merry-go-round search for a DAC, and the May seems to be well-liked. Are you using it as a preamp as well? I'm thinking I'd like to go with a tube DAC, but I'm not counting anything out at this point. Thanks, Steve.
Josh
Like you, I love doing research. I used to sit all day just doing all kinds of stuff I thought productive before a computer. But as I am getting older, I realize the benefits of being more active physically. Since I am already spending too much time listening, what’s left for sitting and researching should be cut even more. One other reason I am starting to doubt how productive the time spent on researching is that I am not sure how much conclusive decisions I can get just by others’ posts, which can be facts, illusions, or even agendas. Plus I don’t know how their tastes applies to mine in most cases.
I am starting to wonder our audiophiles must have some common traits such as attention to finer details, always looking for improvements, etc. I think I fit that profile as well. As I am looking at what I have accomplished vs the time spent and limited funds I am willing to allocate, I question myself. I only love the gear when they give me pleasure. That’s why I am hesitant to introduce one more gadget into the chain such as fancy network switches, network cables, galvanic isolation bla.
And that’s one of the main reason I picked May as the online test I saw has superior clock and digital isolation so I can just plug usb from my mac mini without worrying about digital side pollution. My dac research spanned the past few years as I went thru pretty much most if not all interesting players including , Audio Note, Lampizator, Chord, SW1X, Audio Mirror, Danafrips to name a few. I have the Danafrips Pontus and I am not impressed. It’s a little bright. I will dismiss most chip based design unless it’s one of the old time chips such as what Audio Note, SW1X, Lampizator uses. Of course I would love to get all dacs and compare myself but I am just not crazy enough to do that. So with the limitation of online “research” and limited experience I settled on May just to be on the safe side. It has 2 chassis one of being the power handling. I think I can introduce tube at the amp stage rather than the after conversion in dac. So far I don’t have complaints. It performs better on all front. But I have to admit dacs are in ways very similar. You can tell subconsciously if it’s the right one rather than consciously, at least for me. Yesterday I just got a Chord Mojo 2 for my headphone setup. It’s pretty good, better than my ifi dsd signature. Sound wise I am not sure it’s a 8 times difference to the May. Let me know if you want to talk more. Oh it doesn’t have volume control so no preamp.
Forgot to add that one of the reasons I should stop chasing gear is I don’t believe we can ever get to the stage of replay real performance with the processing they do at recording. So the question becomes what are we chasing? For what cost? when to stop? To me it’s when it can deliver music satisfaction to most but not possibly all degrees.
-
I am starting to wonder our audiophiles must have some common traits such as attention to finer details, always looking for improvements, etc. I think I fit that profile as well. As I am looking at what I have accomplished vs the time spent and limited funds I am willing to allocate, I question myself. I only love the gear when they give me pleasure. That’s why I am hesitant to introduce one more gadget into the chain such as fancy network switches, cables, galvanic isolation bla.
One way to look at it.
Another way is obsessive.
I do think that you have to draw lines somewhere on it. Hopefully, the lines I've drawn will hold. I also get the feeling that sometimes adding something new sometimes makes the sound different which gets conflated with better. Then after you get used to the different, you need another change.
-
A neophyte forum poster question. If I want to continue indulging myself and regaling you all with reports of the changing sound during the break-in of my X5s, is it best to begin a new thread or press ahead with this one? Or should I put a sock in it? I’m not sure what the custom is, and I don’t want wear out my welcome. Thanks.
Hi Josh,
Your thread (and excellent review) has certainly inspired a huge discussion. No need to "put a sock in it".
I don't think anyone really cares if you continue this thread or begin a new one. Since this thread is mostly about your purchase decision process, I think a new thread on "living" with your new speakers would be appropriate.
Yes, keep regaling us.
Marcus
-
A neophyte forum poster question. If I want to continue indulging myself and regaling you all with reports of the changing sound during the break-in of my X5s, is it best to begin a new thread or press ahead with this one? Or should I put a sock in it? I’m not sure what the custom is, and I don’t want wear out my welcome. Thanks.
You are the original poster so go where you want it to go. We are all grown so if we don't want to continue to hear about your experiences, we will just not open the thread.
My experience in this forum is that a lot of posters like to hear experiences of others to potentially learn new things and/or to validate their own subjective experiences. Plus, as I previously said, there are a lot of experienced hands who are willing to offer their sage advice.
Just from me, I love to hear the experiences of someone new to either this level of music listening or these speakers.
-
Like you, I love doing research. I used to sit all day just doing all kinds of stuff I thought productive before a computer. But as I am getting older, I realize the benefits of being more active physically. Since I am already spending too much time listening, what’s left for sitting and researching should be cut even more. One other reason I am starting to doubt how productive the time spent on researching is that I am not sure how much conclusive decisions I can get just by others’ posts, which can be facts, illusions, or even agendas. Plus I don’t know how their tastes applies to mine in most cases.
I am starting to wonder our audiophiles must have some common traits such as attention to finer details, always looking for improvements, etc. I think I fit that profile as well. As I am looking at what I have accomplished vs the time spent and limited funds I am willing to allocate, I question myself. I only love the gear when they give me pleasure. That’s why I am hesitant to introduce one more gadget into the chain such as fancy network switches, network cables, galvanic isolation bla.
And that’s one of the main reason I picked May as the online test I saw has superior clock and digital isolation so I can just plug usb from my mac mini without worrying about digital side pollution. My dac research spanned the past few years as I went thru pretty much most if not all interesting players including , Audio Note, Lampizator, Chord, SW1X, Audio Mirror, Danafrips to name a few. I have the Danafrips Pontus and I am not impressed. It’s a little bright. I will dismiss most chip based design unless it’s one of the old time chips such as what Audio Note, SW1X, Lampizator uses. Of course I would love to get all dacs and compare myself but I am just not crazy enough to do that. So with the limitation of online “research” and limited experience I settled on May just to be on the safe side. It has 2 chassis one of being the power handling. I think I can introduce tube at the amp stage rather than the after conversion in dac. So far I don’t have complaints. It performs better on all front. But I have to admit dacs are in ways very similar. You can tell subconsciously if it’s the right one rather than consciously, at least for me. Yesterday I just got a Chord Mojo 2 for my headphone setup. It’s pretty good, better than my ifi dsd signature. Sound wise I am not sure it’s a 8 times difference to the May. Let me know if you want to talk more. Oh it doesn’t have volume control so no preamp.
Forgot to add that one of the reasons I should stop chasing gear is I don’t believe we can ever get to the stage of replay real performance with the processing they do at recording. So the question becomes what are we chasing? For what cost? when to stop? To me it’s when it can deliver music satisfaction to most but not possibly all degrees.
You say so many good and smart things here that I want to reply to them all. I began a reply on the nature of activities, of how we choose the things we do to fill our lives with, but it began to run far afield of hifi, and, while I won't flatter it by calling it philosophical, it spoke more to general tendencies than to hifi involvement in particular, so I put it aside for another day. I do think you're asking for a misshapen refection if you look at the time spent in researching your gear vs what's been accomplished in the eventual possessing of it. That's a bit like a small business owner comparing his annual income to the amount of hours spent running his business (this is something of which I know). There's an unavoidable imbalance there, the calculation of which doesn't take into account the gratification in both the work and the result. Of course, when one part or the other of it stops being gratifying, there's the rub. Perhaps that's what's happened in your case, that you've simply lost some of your interest and enthusiasm for the research part. Clearly not all, as, well, here you are.
I share your unwillingness to add "gadgets." Though I know some people swear by the particular gadgets you mention, and I do not doubt that they derive some benefit from them, there is a limit to how much tweaking I'm willing to indulge in. Amps, speakers, acoustic treatment, even, to a degree, cables, I find substantial enough to warrant changing from time to time, be it for improvement or just for something different. But some of the minutia that people employ and claim widened their soundstage, extended the highs, or ever so slightly tightened the bass, are just a bridge too far for me. Then again, to be fair, is someone brought to my house a set of cable risers or a pet rock that magically reduced my noise floor or holographed my soundstage, damned if I wouldn't use it. I guess the difference is, someone would have to bring it to my house. I'm not going out of my way for a pet rock, no matter its supposed audio capabilities.
As for what it is exactly that we pursue, I suppose that's different for different people. Put generally, the best sound we can get for our money? Of course, what constitutes the "best" is going to be largely subjective. I've never believed in recreating the sound of a live performance. I was involved in performing music for much of my life, singing traditional or what is generally called folk music when young, choral music and opera as an adult, and I've yet to hear a hifi system that sounds truly like a single live performer in my room, let alone a symphony. I would never expect it. I guess what I look for is a sound that's pleasing to me, and the more I listen, the more and better systems I listen to, the more my idea of what is most pleasing changes. As with anything, with experience comes greater discernment. I've seen sommeliers do blind tastings and guess, no, not guess, know, the wine, the region, and the year it was produced. Someone with little experience would have trouble telling a cab from a merlot. Granted, hearing and taste are not equivalent senses, but the parallel of experience leading, usually, to greater discernment holds. So, for me at least, the pursuit is not so much for a particular ideal, but one of continually satisfying the ever developing ability to tell one thing from another, the bad from the good from the better. Some of this, as I said, is subjective. I think, within each level or certain span of bad, good, etc, there is a subjective element, one of taste: one likes a brighter treble, one heavier bass, and so on, but I doubt very much that anyone would prefer a Sonos Move to a pair of X5s powered by a Don Sachs Valhalla. They might not care enough about it to spend the, to them, seemingly insane sum of money to have the high-end audio, but, unless they're mostly deaf or completely disingenuous, they will admit that the sound of the X5s and Vahalla is vastly superior to the Move. You may prefer the Rolling Stones to a symphony, but anyone being honest will never say Mick Jagger is a superior musician to Mozart. That, I think, is not subjective. Who knows why some of us decide we need the high-end musical experience and why some are perfectly happy with the tinny warbling of the Move. For some, the need to regularly replace gear may be fueled by the dopamine rush of the new - it's not a force to be dismissed - but, for me, while I'm sure the thrill of the new is a part of it, it's largely down to satisfying the ever more educated and discerning aural pallet. If you become accustomed to drinking Paul Lato, while you may drink wines that are different, you're not going to be happy drinking wines that are worse, less refined, complex, and flavorful. In the end, income may be the final determiner of just how far the pursuit can go. If I had unlimited funds, I'd pursue it to the point I could no longer discern the most diminished return. Financially, once I have my tube amps and a new DAC, I think I'll have hit my limit, or close to it, so any changes from that point will be in the service of a dopamine fix. But, for now, I still serve my senses.
On a more tangible level, when you say you "went thru" the various DACs you mentioned, did you mean you thoroughly researched them or that you actually owned or had a chance to hear them all? If you owned them and abandoned them, I assume it was because there was a shortcoming in each of them that left you searching for a better sound. I'm curious which you felt were the best (I understand that what you hear as best may differ from what I hear) and what the qualities were that both appealed to and disappointed you. I'm especially interested in which Lampizat0r and what you thought of it, and if you've tried any other tube DACs. I've been emailing a bit with Don Sachs, who is a strong tube proponent, to put it mildly, and he believes that (and I quote) "you put a transistor into the circuit, and it flattens the sound," so I now live in mortal dread of flattened sound. I only partly jest. I believe Don to be a case of the aforementioned audio sommelier who can discern far finer distinctions in sound reproduction than most mortals as a result of years upon years of devoting himself to listening for those distinctions. It's possible that someone may prefer what Don calls flattened sound, but I can readily believe that, quantitatively, the difference exists. In any case, I'd love to know your experience of the Lampizat0r and any other tube DAC you've heard.
All right. This has gone on for far longer than I intended. Once I get rolling, one thought leads to the next and before I know it I've written an essay. Speaking of compulsive. Thanks.
-
I have the X5s and I’d like to know what your opinion is on the difference in bass between the X4 and X5? Was the bass about the same or did the active subwoofer provide more bass over the X4s? Thanks
Hi. I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this. The short answer is, yes, in my experience, the X5 is capable of, in absolute terms, more bass than the X4. Whether that more is necessarily desirable is something else. I think that depends on the room and the music you're listening to. Sorry, I know how annoying these equivocal audio answers to straight questions are. As I mentioned, I heard the X4s at Spatial paired with the Don Sachs Valhalla, which is a comparatively low-wattage amp (30wpc, I believe) for a 4 ohm speaker, so I suppose it's possible they weren't getting all they could've used to maximize their bass output, but, if so, you could've fooled me. The bass was powerful and fast and musical, not at all bloated or oversaturated. When I listened to the X5s at Mark's, it was with a different amp and preamp (Atma-Sphere S-30 and MP-3 respectively) and I didn't listen as loudly or to quite as bass-heavy music as I did with the X4s (Macklemore and Tyler the Creator, for example), but what I can say is, for what music we did listen to, the bass was spot-on appropriate. Actually, I take some of that back. We did listen to Nenad Vasilic's Bass Drops, in which he whacks the hell out of the strings of his upright bass, and the sound was incredible, visceral, with startling attack and tremulous decay. Really, it was a bit shocking. Did it sound real? That's a tough one. It sounded convincing and powerful and truthful. That's a lot. I later got a chance to hear the X5s again at the Spatial shop, this time with the Vahalla, and they were tremendous. But here is where I question the need for the more bass the X5s can give, or at least see the need for the right conditions to really make use of that more. For the more bass-dependent music, hip-hop especially, the bass, turned way up on the woofers' amps, while almost comically impressive, overloaded a bit that room, at least by my standards. It was actually better, more musical, though less earth shaking, turned down a bit. But that's a very narrow, not particularly well-treated room, so I'd venture the fault was with the room, not with the speakers. I have to say, while not typically a tinkerer - I like to get things set up and leave them - it was nice to be able to adjust the bass to the music. Though, for the most part, the speakers seem to do a good job of giving you as much bass as the music has. For example, with the woofers' volume set the same, the bass in both Bill Evans' Waltz for Debbie and Macklemore's Downtown seemed appropriate to each song. The only issue I found, as I said, was, when I wanted more bass, in that room, it overloaded the room a bit. Bigger room, especially with a couple of bass traps, and I'm betting you could really take advantage of that extra bass without any sense of it being too much. In the end, I think the main advantages to the X5's bass over the X4's are the ability to adjust the volume and the flexibility it gives you in amp type. I hope after all that I answered your question.
-
On a more tangible level, when you say you "went thru" the various DACs you mentioned, did you mean you thoroughly researched them or that you actually owned or had a chance to hear them all? If you owned them and abandoned them, I assume it was because there was a shortcoming in each of them that left you searching for a better sound. I'm curious which you felt were the best (I understand that what you hear as best may differ from what I hear) and what the qualities were that both appealed to and disappointed you. I'm especially interested in which Lampizat0r and what you thought of it, and if you've tried any other tube DACs. I've been emailing a bit with Don Sachs, who is a strong tube proponent, to put it mildly, and he believes that (and I quote) "you put a transistor into the circuit, and it flattens the sound," so I now live in mortal dread of flattened sound. I only partly jest. I believe Don to be a case of the aforementioned audio sommelier who can discern far finer distinctions in sound reproduction than most mortals as a result of years upon years of devoting himself to listening for those distinctions. It's possible that someone may prefer what Don calls flattened sound, but I can readily believe that, quantitatively, the difference exists. In any case, I'd love to know your experience of the Lampizat0r and any other tube DAC you've heard.
All right. This has gone on for far longer than I intended. Once I get rolling, one thought leads to the next and before I know it I've written an essay. Speaking of compulsive. Thanks.
I meant I just researched them as best as I could. It really doesn’t equate to actually bringing to my home and compare. With the Lampizator you are interested in, I just don’t like the idea of tube rolling, that’s to me sort of like playing one distortion with another. Although I heard someone really think it’s close to vinyl but the following on this site put a little doubt on that claim. On the difference between tube vs transistor, what Don claims maybe true. But there is also little difference between good solid state and good tube. I would love to bring some of those dacs home and see the effects for myself. If you get a chance to do that do let us know. I put more weight on feedbacks here than from the dac section of the board.
As with anything, with experience comes greater discernment.
My wife told me that she got way more joy from a thousand dollar ring when we got married than another one that costs 10 times later when money wasn’t much of an issue any more. Same holds true that I am rarely impressed as much now by the taste of fine dinings than before I had chances to try all kinds of restaurants. Not sure how relevant the above is, it’s just something that came to mind.
-
Why not more OB designs. You have mainstream speaker companies that have built and rebuilt box speakers, new parts, and new drives that is all they do and it is what their buyers expect, so to go to open baffle they would lose a lot of customers who like their "sound" of their designs and the myth still spread around that OB designs cannot do bass.
I look at it this way. Would Clayton go to box speakers? I doubt it, he loses customers, plus OB is his design and truly what he believes is better than a box speaker design.
Electrostatic speakers are also a nitch speaker in themselves. The Quad speakers 57's & 63"s I absolutely love. Yet I enjoy my sapphires M3's in some ways, even more, do I hear such trade-offs, yes Quads project the performance and size and depth of the recordings, tone-wise each instrument is one unto itself, it's hard to put it into words what they do so well, yet my M3's sapphires can give me 80% of the best the Quads can do but now with unlimited dynamics and deeper bottom with dynamics, though the Quads can hit low 30's in a well-treated room you have to watch the volume levels so you don't arc the speakers. I owned the Quads for 10 years, before that Dynaudio Confidence 5's, Legacy Audio Focus, ProAc, Dalquist DQ10 (open baffle design) woofers was a boxed design. All of these speakers I enjoyed, all sounded different, all good, and over that time I heard, many other main brands pushed over, and over in magazines that sounded like crap, unlike those listed above. That the Spatial designs can be so good at such high-end values and affordable to many in this hobby says a lot about the design of them, and Clayton at least is making products that many can afford and a speaker that any good amp can drive well.
What is best to use with them is only the gear we/I think sounds right, I could buy 10 preamps, amps, DAC whatever, and insert them in and out and go nuts in the process because, in the end, it is not that one is better its the one my ear says I like and like tube rolling a big chance I like something of each design and miss that be then gain something in another design or tube switch.
I have made changes for change sakes over the many years and what I did learn after a while is good, nothing is jaw-dropping better, and what impressed me right out of the box usually I will be returning within a week, they fatigued me, the old hi-fi sound not music sound. With the way music is recorded today, the major labels not looking to audiophiles as their buyers but the 99% of the consumers many of the speakers I owned would never show how good they are with such over-processed music which sounds great over a Phone, pair of beat earbuds, or stream which is the #1 trend today. If you want to hear how good the Spatial then feed them recordings that were recorded well with care given to sound quality as close they could sound natural in color, tone, depth, weight, and presence, as the producer could, from the masters back in the day. A friend brought over a current Jazz recording, It sounds OK, but flat, no feel to it, just perfect little sound of instruments playing, compressed like most music today so they sound good on earbuds, etc. I played a mono 50's Jazz recording for him, and he sat there and after a few minutes said wow does that sound real like they are in the room, I can see now why you like these speakers, I never would have to know how good these are paying my music on them. Nuff said how important the recordings are to what we say sounds real vs. sound.
So be it Vinyl CDs or streaming, what you feed your gear and speakers can make or break your system and gear and chasing your tail on hoping the next DAC, tonearm, cartridge, or CD/DAC players will make inferior recordings sound better just is not going to happen, in this day in time, when music can now be recorded at home, on a PC and mixed, where musicians can lay their track down from their part of the world and then digitally send to the producer to mix them as he sees fit, is what you are going to hear on our systems and the better the speakers and gear the more you will hear how really far they are from sounding like real instruments, vocals and the in your room presence with air and depth if it's not there, to begin with, no room correction DSP correction will change that.
It is not what the producers ever intended nor what the buying public needs, if it sounds great on my kids' buds, radio, or streaming radio that is all that matters, and where the compression works its wonders, it makes music sound great on those devices, we philes are not on their radar, we are not even a thought. Back in the early 60's they made stereo recordings that were horrible, I called them special effects cause they were made to impress buyers of the 2-channel stereo sound, so they made it extreme with no thought of imaging and naturalness at all, of course, you had a lot of good stereo recordings also, RCA Living Stereo set the standard, DECCA, AudioPhon, Gramaphone, Columbia, Reprise, and of course the Mercury Living Presence and Capital records in the '50s
Classical is the last form that they have to record in a concert hall or studio together, and those sales are at an all-time low. In my own experience, I could never judge a speaker's value with such recordings, and yes, my kid's music does sound great on his buds from his cell phone, just a perfect match for low quality mastered music the compression sounds great on these portable listening devices, my kid loves it and that is all that matters to him, so he is one happy camper, we could learn from him enjoy the music, know that nothing is perfect and it is all a different with some trade-offs from gear to gear, speaker to speaker, and power cords used.
This is my 47th year in this hobby, and I am still enjoying it, but my tail has stopped chasing itself for the most part, though my one weakness is how power cords can make such an impact on one's system as a change of gear can and its a lot cheaper to boot..smile! I find their impact fascinating more so than interconnects, speaker cables can make a good impact also from top to bottom of the speaker range.
Enjoy your systems for what they are, but it is the music that should be the focus and worrying if something can always be better, different, yes, but better is only to our own tastes and what our ears like. I just heard a PS Audio DirectStream DAC and it was as good as any I heard, not even sure what the PS Audio DAC rates online word of mouth, but in one way better, it made streaming and discs sound more musical, toe-tapping, enjoyable, and while keeping body and weight to the music, If I was buying a DAC and I am not, that be a good choice with my speakers because it made music emotional not just clean, dynamics in your face and wow factor, no it failed there, but it sounded like real music, natural ebb, and flow, not in your face impressive until you get what the PS DAC was doing so right if you are used to natural well-recorded music.
Holo I heard, Denafrips, Tandor, and I take the PS for the money over any of them to my ear and how I feel music should sound from my 47 years of listening in all formats over that time frame, and recordings over that time and how they have changed as technology that could be used in the studio to present music in there own way. If you like it, that is #1 for me and it's personal, as it is for you I am sure. Our individual systems please us. Enjoy the music!
-
Hi. I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this. The short answer is, yes, in my experience, the X5 is capable of, in absolute terms, more bass than the X4.
Thanks for the detailed comparison of the X4 and X5 bass!
-
Thanks for the detailed comparison of the X4 and X5 bass!
My pleasure. I hope it was helpful.
-
Re: OB bass
My sense is that there are 3 things that need to be discussed when trying to describe or compare open baffle bass:
1. quantity of bass
2. tone of the bass
3. visceral impact (slam) of the bass
These three aspects apply whether describing a bass drum in an orchestra, a stand up bass in a club or the "bass" notes of a piano. All three go together in making up our perceived quality of the bass.
For some, OB bass doesn't have enough slam, so they use a sub and cross it low so that it doesn't impact the tone. For others, their sense is that there isn't enough bass...again, the sub helps out. And for many, all three conditions are satisfied and they can run their OB's without a sub.
In my case, with the M3 Saphires, in a very large room..plenty of quantity...outstanding tone...not enough slam...so for my own requirements, I run the Sapphires full range and easily blend a 15" sealed sub in at 50hz giving what I need for the correct sounding/feeling low end.
-
Re: OB bass
My sense is that there are 3 things that need to be discussed when trying to describe or compare open baffle bass:
1. quantity of bass
2. tone of the bass
3. visceral impact (slam) of the bass
These three aspects apply whether describing a bass drum in an orchestra, a stand up bass in a club or the "bass" notes of a piano. All three go together in making up our perceived quality of the bass.
For some, OB bass doesn't have enough slam, so they use a sub and cross it low so that it doesn't impact the tone. For others, their sense is that there isn't enough bass...again, the sub helps out. And for many, all three conditions are satisfied and they can run their OB's without a sub.
In my case, with the M3 Saphires, in a very large room..plenty of quantity...outstanding tone...not enough slam...so for my own requirements, I run the Sapphires full range and easily blend a 15" sealed sub in at 50hz giving what I need for the correct sounding/feeling low end.
That's the route I'm taking. As much as I love the OB speakers, they do need a bit of a box bass/sub contribution. Piano seems to be missing just a tad low-end.
-
Not sure open back subs should be discounted. Danny at GR Research uses and sells kits for them and apparently they have the same things going for them as the Spatial open back full range speakers. My X3s are breaking in nicely and, so far, I do not think I will ever wish I had subs.
-
Why not more OB designs. You have mainstream speaker companies that have built and rebuilt box speakers, new parts, and new drives that is all they do and it is what their buyers expect, so to go to open baffle they would lose a lot of customers who like their "sound" of their designs and the myth still spread around that OB designs cannot do bass.
I look at it this way. Would Clayton go to box speakers? I doubt it, he loses customers, plus OB is his design and truly what he believes is better than a box speaker design.
Electrostatic speakers are also a nitch speaker in themselves. The Quad speakers 57's & 63"s I absolutely love. Yet I enjoy my sapphires M3's in some ways, even more, do I hear such trade-offs, yes Quads project the performance and size and depth of the recordings, tone-wise each instrument is one unto itself, it's hard to put it into words what they do so well, yet my M3's sapphires can give me 80% of the best the Quads can do but now with unlimited dynamics and deeper bottom with dynamics, though the Quads can hit low 30's in a well-treated room you have to watch the volume levels so you don't arc the speakers. I owned the Quads for 10 years, before that Dynaudio Confidence 5's, Legacy Audio Focus, ProAc, Dalquist DQ10 (open baffle design) woofers was a boxed design. All of these speakers I enjoyed, all sounded different, all good, and over that time I heard, many other main brands pushed over, and over in magazines that sounded like crap, unlike those listed above. That the Spatial designs can be so good at such high-end values and affordable to many in this hobby says a lot about the design of them, and Clayton at least is making products that many can afford and a speaker that any good amp can drive well.
What is best to use with them is only the gear we/I think sounds right, I could buy 10 preamps, amps, DAC whatever, and insert them in and out and go nuts in the process because, in the end, it is not that one is better its the one my ear says I like and like tube rolling a big chance I like something of each design and miss that be then gain something in another design or tube switch.
I have made changes for change sakes over the many years and what I did learn after a while is good, nothing is jaw-dropping better, and what impressed me right out of the box usually I will be returning within a week, they fatigued me, the old hi-fi sound not music sound. With the way music is recorded today, the major labels not looking to audiophiles as their buyers but the 99% of the consumers many of the speakers I owned would never show how good they are with such over-processed music which sounds great over a Phone, pair of beat earbuds, or stream which is the #1 trend today. If you want to hear how good the Spatial then feed them recordings that were recorded well with care given to sound quality as close they could sound natural in color, tone, depth, weight, and presence, as the producer could, from the masters back in the day. A friend brought over a current Jazz recording, It sounds OK, but flat, no feel to it, just perfect little sound of instruments playing, compressed like most music today so they sound good on earbuds, etc. I played a mono 50's Jazz recording for him, and he sat there and after a few minutes said wow does that sound real like they are in the room, I can see now why you like these speakers, I never would have to know how good these are paying my music on them. Nuff said how important the recordings are to what we say sounds real vs. sound.
So be it Vinyl CDs or streaming, what you feed your gear and speakers can make or break your system and gear and chasing your tail on hoping the next DAC, tonearm, cartridge, or CD/DAC players will make inferior recordings sound better just is not going to happen, in this day in time, when music can now be recorded at home, on a PC and mixed, where musicians can lay their track down from their part of the world and then digitally send to the producer to mix them as he sees fit, is what you are going to hear on our systems and the better the speakers and gear the more you will hear how really far they are from sounding like real instruments, vocals and the in your room presence with air and depth if it's not there, to begin with, no room correction DSP correction will change that.
It is not what the producers ever intended nor what the buying public needs, if it sounds great on my kids' buds, radio, or streaming radio that is all that matters, and where the compression works its wonders, it makes music sound great on those devices, we philes are not on their radar, we are not even a thought. Back in the early 60's they made stereo recordings that were horrible, I called them special effects cause they were made to impress buyers of the 2-channel stereo sound, so they made it extreme with no thought of imaging and naturalness at all, of course, you had a lot of good stereo recordings also, RCA Living Stereo set the standard, DECCA, AudioPhon, Gramaphone, Columbia, Reprise, and of course the Mercury Living Presence and Capital records in the '50s
Classical is the last form that they have to record in a concert hall or studio together, and those sales are at an all-time low. In my own experience, I could never judge a speaker's value with such recordings, and yes, my kid's music does sound great on his buds from his cell phone, just a perfect match for low quality mastered music the compression sounds great on these portable listening devices, my kid loves it and that is all that matters to him, so he is one happy camper, we could learn from him enjoy the music, know that nothing is perfect and it is all a different with some trade-offs from gear to gear, speaker to speaker, and power cords used.
This is my 47th year in this hobby, and I am still enjoying it, but my tail has stopped chasing itself for the most part, though my one weakness is how power cords can make such an impact on one's system as a change of gear can and its a lot cheaper to boot..smile! I find their impact fascinating more so than interconnects, speaker cables can make a good impact also from top to bottom of the speaker range.
Enjoy your systems for what they are, but it is the music that should be the focus and worrying if something can always be better, different, yes, but better is only to our own tastes and what our ears like. I just heard a PS Audio DirectStream DAC and it was as good as any I heard, not even sure what the PS Audio DAC rates online word of mouth, but in one way better, it made streaming and discs sound more musical, toe-tapping, enjoyable, and while keeping body and weight to the music, If I was buying a DAC and I am not, that be a good choice with my speakers because it made music emotional not just clean, dynamics in your face and wow factor, no it failed there, but it sounded like real music, natural ebb, and flow, not in your face impressive until you get what the PS DAC was doing so right if you are used to natural well-recorded music.
Holo I heard, Denafrips, Tandor, and I take the PS for the money over any of them to my ear and how I feel music should sound from my 47 years of listening in all formats over that time frame, and recordings over that time and how they have changed as technology that could be used in the studio to present music in there own way. If you like it, that is #1 for me and it's personal, as it is for you I am sure. Our individual systems please us. Enjoy the music!
Man, I love a long post. There is so much here to respond to, but, sadly, I don’t have time to get to all of it right now, but I don’t want your efforts to just hang there unacknowledged in forum limbo.
I’ve of course heard of, seen pictures of, read of electrostatic speakers, but I’ve never actually heard them. I understand they have a great ability to stage and image and do so on a larger scale than box speakers, but reputedly suffer when it comes to bass. Different speaker designs having different capabilities makes perfect sense but isn’t something I’d given much thought to. Only now, having moved from box to open baffle, have I really begun to seriously take into account the pluses and minuses of speaker designs and how those differences relate to the room they’re in, they music played on them, and at what volume that music is played. When I first put my toe in the hifi water, my criteria for wether or not the water was acceptable were very limited. All I really knew to ask was, is the water warm? is this a good speaker? is this a good amp? etc, and even then I relied entirely on the salesman (who in this instance became a good friend) to tell me what was good. Of course, he had me listen to various combinations within my budget, but such considerations as room size, room treatments, system synergy, listening habits, appropriateness of gear relative to those habits, how the gear might sound in my room vs the showroom, were all nowhere to be found in my assessment. My toe told me the water was warm, but I had no consideration as to its depth or currents or if there might be piranha waiting for me. So I bought of bunch of stuff, which in fact turned out to be decent mid-level stuff, brought it home, set it up, listened to it, with its edgy highs, recessed, mids, and bloated bass, and loved it, none the wiser at that time that any of the things I just listed even existed.
Then, apparently having learned nothing from Eve, the apple, the dangers of knowledge, etc, rather than simply be content with my decent though compromised system and room, I had to taste the apple and be thrown from the garden of audio contentment to begin hacking and hewing and sowing and reaping my way in the pursuit of audio, what? perfection? Nah. Even I’m not that gullible. Let’s call it the heavily weeded wilderness of perpetual improvement. As I educated myself about speaker size, room size, room nodes, sound propagation, solid state, A, A/B, and class D amplification, I began to realize there was a vast world of sonic possibility and musical satisfaction (and dissatisfaction) of which I’d only just scratched the surface. Thus began the dual hunt, or the single hunt for the two-headed monster, for the best gear and the best sound. At least the best I could afford.
I found, like so many before me have found, I liked both the hunt and what I was hunting (lotta overworked metaphors in this post). I know many, most, say it’s all in the service of the best sound, that the Holy Grail of a system that produces lifelike, moving music is the aim, and that all the searching and the physical vehicles that produce the sound are a distant second from that ultimate aim, a mere means to an end. But, I confess, I like the hunt, I like the chase, and I like listening to and comparing and talking about the gear. I like looking at it. I like seeing it in stores and in pictures and, especially, in my home. I like its objective physicality, its beveled and sharp and rounded edges, its knobs and switches and blank industrial faces. I like its in and outputs. I like its wood finishes and steel or polished cases. I like looking at it and knowing that it does what it does. Would I intentionally buy gear that looked good but produced inferior sound? No. Absolutely not. But I take tremendous pleasure in these aspects of the hobby that, while connected to the eventual production of music, are not strictly in the service of sound, and are definitely not the sound itself.
I often feel somewhat rebuked (not that anyone’s rebuking me but my conscience) when people say they’re finally getting off the merry-go-round, no longer chasing their tails or diving down the rabbit hole, as if they’ve seen the error of their ways or at last arrived at their destination and can lay down their burden and just enjoy the music. And, if that’s what they want, I congratulate them. For them, I suppose, could they have the sound without the gear, that would suffice. For me, at this point, sound alone would be sufficient unto itself, but it would not give as much pleasure as does sound wedded to gear. I’ve said elsewhere that, could I, like Prospero, summon music from the incorporeal air, I would still summon beautiful speakers and amps and cables to go along with it. There’s something to be said for the pursuit, of knowledge and even of things, and, while I may eventually say, as did Prospero, with those of you have been doing this for a quite literal lifetime, enough! gear search, get thee behind me! for now, the pursuit, or the reaping and sowing (if you prefer agricultural metaphor to the predatory) holds, perhaps not as much reward as the listening, but enough to relish and look forward to it. So, having spent some time in the realm of Box and Solid State, it’s off to the land of Tubes and Open Baffle. Open Baffle. Talk about your metaphors.
-
Yes, that's why I wrote this:
Once upon a time, there was an audiophile, although some would call him an audiophoole. One day, as he (it's almost always a he) was out shopping for new audio equipment (something he thought about a lot) he came across a unique audio product known as the money onion. Now this money onion could only be purchased with said purchase tied to his bank account. The money onion worked like this, any time you wanted to hear an improvement (something the audiophile wanted badly) in sound, all he would do is peel back some of the money onion, and as layers of money were shed off from his bank account, the sound got better and better!
Finally, the audiophile realized he never had to buy another audio product ever again! All he had to do was take layers off the money onion and voila, sound improvement! But sadly, there was a flaw in using the money onion--it's center could never be reached!
The audiophile stripped layer after layer, and as he did, his bank account got smaller and smaller, but somehow it didn't matter to him that he would never get to the center of the money onion, even though in his heart of hearts he longed for what reaching the center would sound like. Audiophiles would even call this the "phantom center", for obvious reasons.
In the mean time, there was that thrill every time a layer was removed. Each improvement in sound was so fulfilling, he wanted to tell all his non audiophile friends, did you hear that! Wow! Fantastic! But they didn't hear what he was hearing and scoffed at his waning bank account. Only his audiophile friends knew what he was talking about, but they had their own money onions and seemed immersed in their own layers being removed.
It was in this way that the money onion brought a tear to the audiophile's eye. There was something about the sound, THE SOUND, THE IMPROVEMENT OF SOUND! LAYERS!
Yes, the money onion was considered by many to be the greatest single audiophile product ever made--until they came out with the money onion II.
But that's another story.
-
Yes, that's why I wrote this:
Once upon a time, there was an audiophile, although some would call him an audiophoole. One day, as he (it's almost always a he) was out shopping for new audio equipment (something he thought about a lot) he came across a unique audio product known as the money onion. Now this money onion could only be purchased with said purchase tied to his bank account. The money onion worked like this, any time you wanted to hear an improvement (something the audiophile wanted badly) in sound, all he would do is peel back some of the money onion, and as layers of money were shed off from his bank account, the sound got better and better!
Finally, the audiophile realized he never had to buy another audio product ever again! All he had to do was take layers off the money onion and voila, sound improvement! But sadly, there was a flaw in using the money onion--it's center could never be reached!
The audiophile stripped layer after layer, and as he did, his bank account got smaller and smaller, but somehow it didn't matter to him that he would never get to the center of the money onion, even though in his heart of hearts he longed for what reaching the center would sound like. Audiophiles would even call this the "phantom center", for obvious reasons.
In the mean time, there was that thrill every time a layer was removed. Each improvement in sound was so fulfilling, he wanted to tell all his non audiophile friends, did you hear that! Wow! Fantastic! But they didn't hear what he was hearing and scoffed at his waning bank account. Only his audiophile friends knew what he was talking about, but they had their own money onions and seemed immersed in their own layers being removed.
It was in this way that the money onion brought a tear to the audiophile's eye. There was something about the sound, THE SOUND, THE IMPROVEMENT OF SOUND! LAYERS!
Yes, the money onion was considered by many to be the greatest single audiophile product ever made--until they came out with the money onion II.
But that's another story.
Most an excellent and enjoyable read. I guess after 42 years in this wonderful hobby and at age 71 I come to my own conclusion based on experience and a long, long list of gear, cables, and power cords. That when good is good, then like ice cream, you can try a different flavor and that is the fun of it and truly I enjoyed it but now with my hearing still great, having a very good set of speakers the Sapphires M3's. I sit and relax and enjoy the music, I play with toe-in and power cords still, which I have many in storage and it is amazing I can change them and in doing so change the whole character of my system. Just as the artist always intended...smile! Absolute Sound never but enjoying the music is my goal. Will I buy more gear at some point most likely but it will no longer be a system overhaul. I think a Luxman X10 SACD player will be on my hit list at some point and that will be it till the put me in the ground and hopefully no soon...smile.
-
Good stuff.
-
Very creative. Good stuff.
-
Yes, I too have more or less (hint, hint) reached a point where the desire to improve has waned, and as long as I am still getting surprised by my system in a good way, no recent upgrades.
But--once I decided on these speakers (Spatial), and was happy with cables, amp, dac, TT, sub, I set about putting IsoAcoustics under everything (literally) and tweeked with Synergistic, Bybee, Quantum Science (tweek geek) and in the midst, never let go of my DIY Hallographs--still a critical part.
In a way it's a relief not to be consumed with the money onion and sit and listen with a critical ear, made moot by the system at hand.
-
Fantastic intro post btw; you came out swinging! I have the X5s and I've happily been using it with the LTA Z10. I just went for the Ultralinear (to get the 5% bump? 0%?; TBD!) so I just posted my Z10 for sale if you're interested.
https://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649860828-linear-tube-audio-lta-z10-integrated-upgraded-input-tubes/
-
Fantastic intro post btw; you came out swinging! I have the X5s and I've happily been using it with the LTA Z10. I just went for the Ultralinear (to get the 5% bump? 0%?; TBD!) so I just posted my Z10 for sale if you're interested.
https://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649860828-linear-tube-audio-lta-z10-integrated-upgraded-input-tubes/
Thanks for the kind words and the offer, but I think I'm holding out for either a Don Sachs Vahalla or Atma-Sphere S-30, both of which are what I originally heard driving the X5s and which combos compelled me to lay out for the X5s. I know, or I'm pretty sure, that Clayton has used the Z10 to show the X5s at shows, so I have no doubt it's a good amp for the job. I've just got it stuck in my head to go with the Valhalla or S-30, partly, I guess, because I've heard them both and loved them both, so I have at least some sense of surety I'll be happy with what I get, which, as we all know, is not always, or even typically, possible in this pursuit. But many thanks for the offer. Best of luck with the sale - I'm sure you'll have no trouble selling it - and with the new amp. Regardless of the percentage of improvement (and I doubt seriously it won't be clearly noticeable), new gear is always a blast. Thanks again.
Josh
-
I think this thread is getting too big for its breaches.
-
Yes, that's why I wrote this:
Once upon a time, there was an audiophile, although some would call him an audiophoole. One day, as he (it's almost always a he) was out shopping for new audio equipment (something he thought about a lot) he came across a unique audio product known as the money onion. Now this money onion could only be purchased with said purchase tied to his bank account. The money onion worked like this, any time you wanted to hear an improvement (something the audiophile wanted badly) in sound, all he would do is peel back some of the money onion, and as layers of money were shed off from his bank account, the sound got better and better!
Finally, the audiophile realized he never had to buy another audio product ever again! All he had to do was take layers off the money onion and voila, sound improvement! But sadly, there was a flaw in using the money onion--it's center could never be reached!
The audiophile stripped layer after layer, and as he did, his bank account got smaller and smaller, but somehow it didn't matter to him that he would never get to the center of the money onion, even though in his heart of hearts he longed for what reaching the center would sound like. Audiophiles would even call this the "phantom center", for obvious reasons.
In the mean time, there was that thrill every time a layer was removed. Each improvement in sound was so fulfilling, he wanted to tell all his non audiophile friends, did you hear that! Wow! Fantastic! But they didn't hear what he was hearing and scoffed at his waning bank account. Only his audiophile friends knew what he was talking about, but they had their own money onions and seemed immersed in their own layers being removed.
It was in this way that the money onion brought a tear to the audiophile's eye. There was something about the sound, THE SOUND, THE IMPROVEMENT OF SOUND! LAYERS!
Yes, the money onion was considered by many to be the greatest single audiophile product ever made--until they came out with the money onion II.
But that's another story.
This parable is well-done and clever and funny (phantom center - ho!), and I know it's both a constant lament and regular joke shared among audiophiles at their own, yes, expense. But, at the risk of curmudgeonly side-stepping the joke, I think its moral disregards or mischaracterizes the study and pursuit of gear as an endeavor unto itself. I know I'm repeating myself, but few I've met seem willing to acknowledge or admit to this seemingly less noble, less, call it spiritual, more materialistic side of the hifi hobby. Take these forums for example. While they're a pragmatic source of information, they're also rewarding just to read and participate in (for some), and that is a pastime separate from, though clearly connected to, listening to music. This coincides with study or research in general. It's fun and instructive to learn about gear, even gear you may never own. And there's a very real gratification in learning how something works, how ultra-linear vs triode vs SET works (none of which I pretend to grasp, though I still enjoy reading about them). Again, this is connected to, but separate from the enjoyment of music. I also think, for the sake of the joke, it renders audiophiles in a more compulsive light than they truly deserve. Do we spend more money on hifi than people not interested in such things? Of course. But people spend money on all sorts of things that others would consider extravagant to the point of, at the very least, idiocy: golf clubs, cars, motorcycles, art, shoes, Hummel figurines. And, while I know we love to make much of our profligacy, all the audiophiles I've met and talked with can either well-afford the hobby or, full of regret, spend within their means. I've yet to meet an audiophile compulsive in the same sense of a compulsive gambler, spending his wages, savings, life insurance policy, children's college fund to support his habit. I suspect more audiophiles shed tears for what's beyond their reach than at having reduced themselves to penury. Lastly, the gear. The stuff. The material goods. The pleasure taken in the objects themselves, even when they're sitting silent. The pleasure and satisfaction in ownership. The Money Onion presupposes none of those things matter or are viable, fully rewarding concerns and pursuits in themselves. I, for one, and maybe I'm the only one, had I the chance to improve my music via the Money Onion (or even the Money Onion II), I'd turn it down. The Money Onion robs one of searching through, looking at, buying, bringing home or having delivered, and, finally, owning all that lovely gear.
I fully realize I'm the guy spoiling the joke by needlessly explaining it or questioning its logic - you can imagine how fun I am at parties - but I do wonder at all the protestations that these pursuits are finally an audiofool's errand, and of the need to get off the merry-go-round or to stop chasing one's tail, and to simply sit and enjoy the music. I do! I listen! I swear it! That doesn't mean all the other parts of the hobby can't be, if not an equal (though there's no reason why not an equal) than a tremendous, legitimate source of satisfaction and gratification. Of course, if those aspects of the hobby no longer bring you any pleasure, then it makes perfect sense not to do them. But the characterization of those aspects other than the listening - the reading about, the gear searching, the forums, the tube rolling, the cable swapping, the gear changing - to describe these things as tail chasing and merry-go-rounding seems to me to do them an injustice and to obviate their legitimate pursuit and rewards. I suppose someone who's grown up and put away such childish things might say I protest too much. It's an impossible charge to defend. I've only been at this for 12 years or so. Check back with me in 20 years and maybe I'll have changed my tune.
Josh
-
I think this thread is getting too big for its breaches.
Mea culpa.
-
Mea culpa.
Just a joke I couldn't resist.
-
Just a joke I couldn't resist.
I don’t blame you. Some things just beg to be spoofed. I’m a big believer in taking a little air out of the balloon sometimes, being completely cognizant of my own tendency toward over-inflation.
-
Yes, me thinks you (might) protest too much, BUT, I think we may be comparing apples and oranges, mine more on the macro side, and yours more on the micro. Part of my parable protest, is not to put down the listener or what happens internally for him (or her), but I am really taking a swing at the commercial side of this hobby, in particular the magazines where practically every new piece of equipment is awesome, improved, better than before and of course more expensive.
Listening to and appreciating music in and of itself whether on cheap headphones or multi buck platforms, is an end unto itself. Then came the audiophile and gleaming fetishistic pieces of audiophile gear. To separate the two, is the rub.
There are people that buy expensive pieces of equipment that (I assume) care less about the sound, and more about the look and cost, and technology of the product, perhaps as more of status symbol than us (sensitive listeners).
It is more in this vein that the money onion--the self perpetuating continual sound improvement and money sink, is dedicated to, which has less to do with the listener and more with the capitalistic marketing that we are all subject to.
And of course having this type of forum to debate the money onion is great fun, thanks for engaging!
-
It is more in this vein that the money onion--the self perpetuating continual sound improvement and money sink, is dedicated to, which has less to do with the listener and more with the capitalistic marketing that we are all subject to.
Bingo!
-
Yes, me thinks you (might) protest too much, BUT, I think we may be comparing apples and oranges, mine more on the macro side, and yours more on the micro. Part of my parable protest, is not to put down the listener or what happens internally for him (or her), but I am really taking a swing at the commercial side of this hobby, in particular the magazines where practically every new piece of equipment is awesome, improved, better than before and of course more expensive.
Listening to and appreciating music in and of itself whether on cheap headphones or multi buck platforms, is an end unto itself. Then came the audiophile and gleaming fetishistic pieces of audiophile gear. To separate the two, is the rub.
There are people that buy expensive pieces of equipment that (I assume) care less about the sound, and more about the look and cost, and technology of the product, perhaps as more of status symbol than us (sensitive listeners).
It is more in this vein that the money onion--the self-perpetuating continual sound improvement and money sink, is dedicated to, which has less to do with the listener and more with the capitalistic marketing that we are all subject to.
And of course, having this type of forum to debate the money onion is great fun, thanks for engaging!
A lot of gear is marketed towards the very well-off, and yes it is status and looks they are paying for, they want the look when people come into their rooms, got zip to do with just the music. I heard great systems 30 years ago that sounded like real musicians in your room than I do today and many audio store systems in the 100K+ range I have heard, they do look more impressive though.
I make good money and I have been priced out for the gear magazines rave about monthly. The reality is my whole family including in-laws and their kids' number 125 or more now, ages now between 30-88 not counting their kids and grandkids, and not one as a music system of the cost of my one power cord, not even close, this always gives me a perspective of what I been able to build over 42 years in this hobby, and all the gear I went through from tubes to solid-state, vinyl to CD's and tube amps to solid-state amps and preamps. So I am blessed, I also will no longer subscribe to any of the audio magazines after they run out, I thumb through them, they hold no interest and really are an arm of the manufacturers to promote sales of gear I would not be willing to pay for with more responsibilities where to spend my money, older and wiser today.
-
Yes, me thinks you (might) protest too much, BUT, I think we may be comparing apples and oranges, mine more on the macro side, and yours more on the micro. Part of my parable protest, is not to put down the listener or what happens internally for him (or her), but I am really taking a swing at the commercial side of this hobby, in particular the magazines where practically every new piece of equipment is awesome, improved, better than before and of course more expensive.
Listening to and appreciating music in and of itself whether on cheap headphones or multi buck platforms, is an end unto itself. Then came the audiophile and gleaming fetishistic pieces of audiophile gear. To separate the two, is the rub.
There are people that buy expensive pieces of equipment that (I assume) care less about the sound, and more about the look and cost, and technology of the product, perhaps as more of status symbol than us (sensitive listeners).
It is more in this vein that the money onion--the self perpetuating continual sound improvement and money sink, is dedicated to, which has less to do with the listener and more with the capitalistic marketing that we are all subject to.
And of course having this type of forum to debate the money onion is great fun, thanks for engaging!
First, thanks for not taking my response amiss. As you clearly understood, I was not so much attacking your parable’s argument and moral so much as defending a position I felt it failed to take into account.
Now, while I may (only may, as I’m not quite willing to concede the point) protest a bit too much, I still think your parable, while clearly buttonholing the audio business and all its attendant and often ethically questionable machinery (magazines, forum plants, advertising-driven reviews, advertising generally), I think its implication is that the onus falls on the practically willfully gullible and dupe-worthy audiophools. After all, were the buying public not label-mongering status-seekers, or simply too lazy to do their own research, where would the audio hucksters and gougers be? But this is true of any product in any market, from Ginsu knives to Gaia isoacoustic footers. Hucksterism and the born-every-minute fools hoodwinked by them are endemic to commercial enterprise everywhere. So that, while hifi may be something of an outlier in the insanity of what it can cost (though no more so than cars, jewelry, art, and many other things), it is a commonplace in a world of products to sell and profits to be made. Caveat emptor, no? I agree that the practice that engenders the need for such a warning is regrettable, deplorable, nefarious even, but it is also universal and not at all unique to hifi.
My point (he said, repeating himself), is that it is possible, I believe, to love the perusing and acquiring and owning and appreciating of gear as object (or objet, if that makes it seem more legit) without it being a consequence and manifestation of gullibility meeting rank hucksterism. One can research, acquire, and love the gear for itself without it being a fetish or badge of status, and also sincerely love the music the gear produces. One doesn’t necessarily obviate the other. And I think no one, or few, would deny there are very real, legitimate improvements to be had as one learns and moves up the ladder of gear quality. I think you’re right, that we’re in part talking apples and oranges. You’re militating against the more unscrupulous aspects of the commercial industry writ large, while I’m lobbying for the legitimizing of the pursuit and love of the gear as both an activity unto itself while still being connected to the genuine love of music, apart from any blinding property of the shiny bauble, and most certainly having nothing to do with any status the gear may reflect upon its owner. I know it’s true for me; I love the gear and I love the music, and each one enhances my love of the other. My guess is, we don’t even need to agree to disagree, as I suspect we’re pretty much entirely in agreement.
In any case, I very much appreciate the discussion and the spirit of the discussion. Many discussions on many forums seem to degenerate almost instantly into squabbling, vituperation, and ad hominem attacks. It’s a real pleasure to be able to sort through ideas about a hobby that, for whatever our reasons, adds so significantly to all our lives.
Josh
-
Yes Josh, agreed!
It reminds me, many years ago of a musician roommate, who described his drummer friend as spending multiple hours at his drumset, not playing, but looking at it and minutely adjusting everything just so. He was a very good drummer, but also obviously loved his kit.
-
Yes Josh, agreed!
It reminds me, many years ago of a musician roommate, who described his drummer friend as spending multiple hours at his drumset, not playing, but looking at it and minutely adjusting everything just so. He was a very good drummer, but also obviously loved his kit.
Ha! Yes, that’s it, in a nutshell. I confess, I used to rub my hand lovingly over the top of my beautifully walnut-finished Heritage Specials every time I walked past them. That is, until I ruthlessly sold them off to pay for my X5s. Ain’t love grand?