[Don_S]

That is exactly the problem I am having in my search for the "perfect" speaker.  At least in show demos large planars and stats seem to lack the intimacy I like in female vocals. It is a realistic size issue.

Josh,

Are you characterizing the "sacrifice of sense of height" of smaller speakers a bad thing?  I actually think that's a good thing.  Magnepan's accenuate the sense of height unnaturally...IMHO.  (One of their few drawbacks actually.)

Cheers,

Dave.

[josh358]

People flock to planars because of what they do well, not because they love large (typically) tall slabs dominating the room.  The real question is can those properties be realized with a box?  I would put accurate soundstage, 3D imaging, cohesion, and realism as the list of properties to target.  Panel size and cost are variable and only trigger the degree of commitment one is capable or willing to aim for. 

I have strayed away from Dipole planars to a monopole planar hybrid (in a box), the Janszen zA2.1s.  The Janszen electrostatic panels are indeed dipole by design but installed in a box with the rear wave defeated.  I have found that the box design used presents amazing soundstage with depth without having to use a backwave.  Being a monopole the speakers only need to be out into the room a little bit to sound best.  Fully against the wall actually works as well but is not optimal. 

Full dipoles of course need plenty of back wave space to generate the magic.  My Maggie 1.7s also generated some degree of false? echo on all recordings even if that was not intended, at least in my room.  I never minded that phenomonon, but the Janszens reveal hall accoustics very accurately if it is on the recording, but not if its not.  I find this more truthful to the recording.  The stat panel's clarity, realism, and transparency are top tier and what one expects from that type of driver.  The midrange bloom is heavenly and as good as it gets as far as what I have heard.  The dual bass woofers in each cabinet form a line source for the bass and contribute to a high degree of cohesion.  With solo piano that travels above and below the crossover I haven't been able to pinpoint when that happens at all.  Well done and with no tonal shift.  Oh, and the cone woofers do that punch and slam thing better than full range planars.

Using a box is not a bad thing if the drivers used and the box design doesn't limit the quality goals stated above.  Point Source boxes implemented without regard to defeating the things we hate would drive me back to planars in a heartbeat.  If not a planar, some other approach that did what was important.

Boxes actually radiate more energy into the room than dipoles for a given on-axis amplitude. IIRC, the figure is 4.2 dB. What this means is you're getting even *more* fake reverb, which is why you need more room treatment than with dipoles.

There are two wrinkles to this. One is that most boxes are omnidirectional lower down, cardioid higher up where the frequencies can't diffract around the enclosure. The problem with this is that it interferes with the sense of perspective, if the spectral balance of the reflected sound differs too much from that of the direct sound, the ear won't interpret it as spatial ambiance. There's a lot about this on Linkwitz's site, including on the page for his new speakers.

The other is that omnis radiate more sound to the sides than do dipoles. This, if the distances are right, increases apparent source width and is a false reverb phenomenon like the backwave of dipoles. Not really a bad thing any more than the rear wave radiation of dipoles is. Two channel stereo just doesn't sound good without room reverberation. In an anechoic chamber, stereo sounds like a slit between the two speakers, often with confused front-back localization.

There really is no one-size-fits-all solution here. I've spent many hours listening in the studio, where acoustics are deader than they are at home, and it doesn't sound real at all on larger ensembles. It's too dry. So you need some room reverb. The problem is that a recording made in a small space needs entirely different reverb from a recording made in a large space. There's just no way to accomplish this without doing it electronically. And if you do it electronically, you run into new wrinkles, from the shortage of program material (no one wants to set it up for every recording) to problems with room acoustics and wave launch. You can do a pretty spectacular job with current technology but what with all the speakers and treatment, what you end up with is more like a laboratory than a practical living room. I do think that existing multichannel formats can take you part of the way there -- I'm looking forward to 11- and 22-channel. Just getting the front left and right wide channels in there would be a big help, since without crosstalk cancellation you're stuck with an image that's too narrow for the lateral ambiance or too wide for the spread of the instruments.

[josh358]

That is exactly the problem I am having in my search for the "perfect" speaker.  At least in show demos large planars and stats seem to lack the intimacy I like in female vocals. It is a realistic size issue.

I've often heard that complaint about female vocals one line sources (why not male ones as well?).

I think that if intimacy is your goal, or you listen mostly to small scale stuff like chamber music, conventional boxes can be a better choice -- they give you more of an "in the room" effect, while dipoles give you a "melt the walls into a big space" effect. But you can achieve much the same thing with dipoles by putting absorption behind the speaker. Someone on the Asylum told me once that he prefers absorption to diffusion behind his planars for just that reason, he listens mostly to chamber music. Someone who was ambitious could make some kind of arrangement to change the front wall from diffusive to absorptive. I know of a studio that has hinged panels that can be opened to reveal absorptive material.

[Davey]

I've often heard that complaint about female vocals one line sources (why not male ones as well?).

Probably a personal problem regarding females with big mouths.    I can relate.

I think the image height issue can be somewhat alleviated if the recording has much depth information encoded.  This is the case with many classical recordings, etc.
However, contemporary, studio recordings that are close-miked and pan-potted extensively can sound horrible on large planar speakers.  As an example, I kind of like Norah Jones voice, but find the recordings are not great and the image irregularity is distracting when listening on my MMG's.

Cheers,

Dave.

[josh358]

Probably a personal problem regarding females with big mouths.    I can relate.

I think the image height issue can be somewhat alleviated if the recording has much depth information encoded.  This is the case with many classical recordings, etc.
However, contemporary, studio recordings that are close-miked and potted extensively can sound horrible on large planar speakers.  As an example, I kind of like Norah Jones voice, but find the recordings are not great and the image irregularity is distracting when listening on my MMG's.

Cheers,

Dave.

That's been my experience too. You could really hear problems with close-miked recordings on my 1-D's -- giant mouths and such. But properly miked recordings sounded as they should. But I didn't hear that on my MMG's, which were at best aspirational line sources.

[jsm71]

I think that if intimacy is your goal, or you listen mostly to small scale stuff like chamber music, conventional boxes can be a better choice -- they give you more of an "in the room" effect, while dipoles give you a "melt the walls into a big space" effect. But you can achieve much the same thing with dipoles by putting absorption behind the speaker. Someone on the Asylum told me once that he prefers absorption to diffusion behind his planars for just that reason, he listens mostly to chamber music. Someone who was ambitious could make some kind of arrangement to change the front wall from diffusive to absorptive. I know of a studio that has hinged panels that can be opened to reveal absorptive material.

I do enjoy listening to small jazz, chamber music, and club recordings particularly live.  When I was using the 1.7s I hung a quilt on the back wall.  That not only took some of the edge off the high frequencies it also tamed the echo generation to a more pleasing level.  When I first started listening to the JansZens I had to remove the quilt to open the room back up.  This was of course an interesting set of observations on room control in conjunction with the nature of the specific speaker delivery methods.

[josh358]

Curtains over diffusors would be good for that, you could draw them back when you wanted diffusion. Tonal balance would change, though, since curtains are absorptive only at higher frequencies.

[berni]

You can affect the absorption ratio with different distances between the wall and curtain, lenght of the curtain( 1 or 2 times lenght of the wall) and different curtains.
Here a special product Absorber CS, with specs and different distances....
http://files.gerriets.com/downloads/produktblaetter/1-2-5-4-Akustikgewebe-Akustikvorhang_10255.pdf
I have a rather normal curtain called Molton with very good results.

[jimdgoulding]

I've often heard that complaint about female vocals one line sources (why not male ones as well?).

I think that if intimacy is your goal, or you listen mostly to small scale stuff like chamber music, conventional boxes can be a better choice -- they give you more of an "in the room" effect, while dipoles give you a "melt the walls into a big space" effect. But you can achieve much the same thing with dipoles by putting absorption behind the speaker. Someone on the Asylum told me once that he prefers absorption to diffusion behind his planars for just that reason, he listens mostly to chamber music. Someone who was ambitious could make some kind of arrangement to change the front wall from diffusive to absorptive. I know of a studio that has hinged panels that can be opened to reveal absorptive material.

I like your analogy in your first sentance, Josh.  It makes think that dipoles are excellent on orchestral recordings.  I listen to opera and coming from my boxes are vocalists precicely placed three dimensionally on stage and an orchestra semi-wrapped around at the rear.  Depth, width and detail of an orchestra in a hall on my best recordings seem very positive to me.  What might the difference be in the overall  presentation with dipoles?  I presume the presentation would be more expansive except for width outside of the speakers?  Would that be correct?  Thanks for your reply.   

[josh358]

You can affect the absortion ratio with different distances between the wall and curtain, lenght of the curtain( 1 or 2 times lenght of the wall) and different curtains.
Here a special product Absorber CS, with specs and different distances....
http://files.gerriets.com/downloads/produktblaetter/1-2-5-4-Akustikgewebe-Akustikvorhang_10255.pdf
I have a rather normal curtain called Molton with very good results.

True, although the plots I've seen in acoustics texts suggest that you're still going to preferentially attenuate the highs, even with heavy fabric and folds. This of course is a problem even with fiberglass panels, but they go significantly deeper if thick enough.

That absorbent material looks interesting . . .

[josh358]

I like your analogy in your first sentance, Josh.  It makes think that dipoles are excellent on orchestral recordings.  I listen to opera and coming from my boxes are vocalists precicely placed three dimensionally on stage and an orchestra semi-wrapped around at the rear.  Depth, width and detail of an orchestra in a hall on my best recordings seem very positive to me.  What might the difference be in the overall  presentation with dipoles?  I presume the presentation would be more expansive except for width outside of the speakers?  Would that be correct?  Thanks for your reply.

Yes, depending on speaker placement and room acoustics (which affect boxes too) you'll get more depth and, in the case of line sources, a sense of height.

[jimdgoulding]

Yes, depending on speaker placement and room acoustics (which affect boxes too) you'll get more depth and, in the case of line sources, a sense of height.

Thanks, Josh.  Can you comment on width.  I'm wondering if I would have to separate dipoles further apart than me boxes to get the same sense of panorama.  Depending on a recording, the width of a stage and sometimes instruments themselves will appear outside of where my speakers are placed.  Wait a minute before you reply and give me a chance to attach a link . . 

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?action=gallery;area=browse;album=1965

[mrlittlejeans]

I had Magnepans (1's, 2's and then some 3.6's) for 10 years straight up until around 6 years ago when I moved into a smaller place and started my box speaker journey.  I had multiple models of Revels, some JBL's, JTR's and a few other random speakers.  I moved three times in that six years and at one point bought a pair of 1.6's hoping the room was big enough but I couldn't make them work.  In my last house, I had some Philharmonic 2's that have a ribbon tweeter, open back planar midrange and a cone woofer.  I liked these so much, I sold them and bought a pair of 3.7's because I realized how much I missed the planar sound.  Alas, that room was a bit small and I couldn't get the 3.7's set up right. 

I'm now in the process of moving again and this time I'm moving from my 1,100sf + basement bungalow to a 4,000sf + basement house in Colorado and will have heaps of room to set up the 3.7's.  I'm going to be putting them in a room that is around 18' wide and, since I'm building it in the basement, I'm not sure how deep but probably 20' at least.  I also bought a pair of Philharmonic 3's which have the same tweet and mid as the 2's but an 8" Revelator woofer instead of the SB Acoustics woofer in the 2's.  I'll compare the Mags and the Phils in the same room and either sell the Mags or (more likely) move the Phils upstairs into the family room for the 2nd system.  I will say that of all the speakers I had, the Philharmonics had the most detail in the midrange and highs.  It is really addicting and when I got the 3.7's, I was a bit disappointed they weren't as crisp as the Phils.  It could have been the room though.

[SteveFord]

Mrlittlejeans,
I wondered what happened with those 3.7s.
When you move into that big room I bet you'll be thinking about adding two DMW or (better yet) 20.7s.

[josh358]

Thanks, Josh.  Can you comment on width.  I'm wondering if I would have to separate dipoles further apart than me boxes to get the same sense of panorama.  Depending on a recording, the width of a stage and sometimes instruments themselves will appear outside of where my speakers are placed.  Wait a minute before you reply and give me a chance to attach a link . . 

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?action=gallery;area=browse;album=1965

That really depends on the specifics of your room and layout. Jim Smith, the setup guru, has found that most people actually prefer to set Maggies up closer together than boxes. But there's an element of personal preference here. My own preference is for the tweeters at the standard stereo angle -- where they make an equilateral triangle with the listener. But most seem to prefer them closer together and some prefer them further apart.

I find that the image tends to follow the shape of the walls -- somewhere behind them. So you want a pretty flat wall, for example, I can't get them to image with my fireplace mangle in back of them, the sound seems to bunch up and come from the mantle. Also, the image will tend to wrap around at the room corners. Some day, I want to try experimenting with diffusors to see if they can prevent that.

One thing about dipoles -- they're less sensitive to room acoustics than boxes, but more sensitive to placement. So the sound you get is very heavily dependent on position, toe in, etc. You can begin with the recommendations in the manual as a starting point, then put on some music and move them until you find the place where they "click." Make sure you put some tape on the floor -- a grid helps while you're experimenting, and then you can mark the position you find so you'll be able to get back to it easily if the speakers get moved.

[mrlittlejeans]

Mrlittlejeans,
I wondered what happened with those 3.7s.
When you move into that big room I bet you'll be thinking about adding two DMW or (better yet) 20.7s.

I'm thinking about it.

I want to see how the bass is in the new room first.  I didn't use a sub with my 3.6's for two channel as the 3.6's had enough bass for me then.

I've been living in a furnished studio aparment here since Thanksgiving while my wife has been packing up the house in Toronto.  We move into the new house in two weeks so I'll get to play with my stereo again soon. 

[jimdgoulding]

Thanks for the info, Josh.  My room is 15'Lx12'Wx8'H.  I suppose I would start where my speakers are now: 54" from the wall behind them to the mid/front point of their cabinets; 42" from the same point to my side walls and 60" apart with my seat the apex of an equidistant triangle.  There is about 58" behind my chair the majority of which is covered with open backed record cabinets courtesy of IKEA.  The walls are flat*.  Any thoughts?  Anyone?

Someone told me that Maggie's will not image outside of the speaker itself and I took that to be cause they are more directional than box spealers.  That about right?

*however, an open legged sofa table is serving as a rack centered on the back wall behind them:  http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?action=systems;area=browse;system=1448

[SteveFord]

Au contraire, mon ami.
Put on Atom Heart Mother by Pink Floyd and tell me just where the sounds are coming from. 

[Rclark]

You get whatever imaging is encoded on the album, same as every other speaker. Cones don't have a magic ability to make sounds "outside" any more than a planar. The only thing is, a box speaker will excite the room in many more ways, and so it can seem more like big "soundstage" when in reality it's just reflections.

[SteveFord]

I've heard things coming from WAY outside of the speakers. 
Like outside of the house which is impossible.  Strange but true.