[Rclark]

True, but planars are more realistic than reasonably-priced dynamics.

Years ago, I had a pair of Tympani 1-D's, and they were amazing home theater speakers. The realism really does add to the experience, in that rain sounds like rain, etc. It transports you into the film.

And realism is so so much better than slam. I would say that if your priority is thunder and slam then you don't care about sound quality that much anyway and would be wasting money on Sound Labs.

The presentation and speed of large panels, I'll take that every day of the week over party speakers.

[roscoeiii]

And realism is so so much better than slam. I would say that if your priority is thunder and slam then you don't care about sound quality that much anyway and would be wasting money on Sound Labs.

The presentation and speed of large panels, I'll take that every day of the week over party speakers.

Can we please avoid putting down others' preferences?

Some folks are fans of slam and impact, which will involve some trade offs. Others like single driver magic, some need their floorstanders to go to 20hz. Others are fine to give up the lowest octaves to get what monitors do well.

This hobby is about what works best FOR YOU. Not putting down the preferences of others.

[ajzepp]

And realism is so so much better than slam. I would say that if your priority is thunder and slam then you don't care about sound quality that much anyway and would be wasting money on Sound Labs.

The presentation and speed of large panels, I'll take that every day of the week over party speakers.

Exactly. There have been some very simple effects in movies over the years that were just so mesmerizing to me that I remember them very well to this day. In a previous theater room, I had only a pair of MMGs in front and a pair of MMG-Ws in back. The room was about 16' wide and nearly 30' long, so the front left MMG was a LONG way away from the rear left MMG-W. That being said, there was a scene in an action film where a helicopter was coming in from the left side of the screen, and the Maggies did such an amazing job that it sounded as if it was flying in right over the middle of the side wall. Somehow these Maggies not only threw a ridiculous image right in the middle of a long side wall, but the realism was so spot on that it honestly sounded as if it was really going down. Everything from dialogue to the sound of lake water lapping up against the side of a boat, to helicopters coming in from the side wall...you just can't get that from boxes, IMO.

[Rclark]

Exactly. There have been some very simple effects in movies over the years that were just so mesmerizing to me that I remember them very well to this day. In a previous theater room, I had only a pair of MMGs in front and a pair of MMG-Ws in back. The room was about 16' wide and nearly 30' long, so the front left MMG was a LONG way away from the rear left MMG-W. That being said, there was a scene in an action film where a helicopter was coming in from the left side of the screen, and the Maggies did such an amazing job that it sounded as if it was flying in right over the middle of the side wall. Somehow these Maggies not only threw a ridiculous image right in the middle of a long side wall, but the realism was so spot on that it honestly sounded as if it was really going down. Everything from dialogue to the sound of lake water lapping up against the side of a boat, to helicopters coming in from the side wall...you just can't get that from boxes, IMO.

Yep, speed, resolution, spatial cues, 3D depth, huge soundstage, and that large, coherent image size. And that bass... It might not drop to 5HZ or tear the nails out of your frame, but it will be the best bass you've heard, and plenty strong and balanced with the rest of the sound. Gooey good.

[josh358]

Yep. I'm not going to judge the needs of others and if someone wants to feel their gut ripped apart by explosions, I'm cool with that. But most of what's in a soundtrack isn't explosions, and for me, the naturalism of a planar does exactly what you say -- it transports me into the film, makes the experience more real and palpable, and so it has more emotional impact. And I don't think many people have had an opportunity to hear that, and get a sense of what it adds to the experience.

[SteveFord]

The real question is has capwkidd placed his order yet?
If not, when is he going to do the right thing and make us all green with envy?

[capwkidd]

The real question is has capwkidd placed his order yet?
If not, when is he going to do the right thing and make us all green with envy?

I talked to the local Soundlab dealer.... I'll go take a listen with my amp when I get a chance.... But, I was thinking about starting another threat titled "What is the difference between the sound of Magnepan's and Soundlab's?". Has anyone here heard Soundlabs and Maggies anywhere near each other is space or time to get some sort of idea of the sound of the 2? I have heard the new Magnepan super mmg.... but that is a very different speaker from the SL A1PX.... What would, say, a SL M3PX sound like compared to a 20.7? Or 3.7 might be closer is specs..... Hmm????

[James Romeyn]

James..... Where does one get a Trinaural processor from theses days?

Interesting setup you have at home... Isn't there frequency response issues with the floor mounted, ceiling facing speakers?

Look for PM.

Absolutely no FR issues.  Sorry no test data yet.  Besides, it's highly likely that test data won't look so sexy with the Effect Speaker connected.  Test data would likely rather comprise the Main Speaker only.   

We recently moved the "Effects Speaker" (fires toward ceiling) back 15" behind the Main Speaker.  Center ES could go no further because it hit the front wall.  Output from the Effect Speaker now arrives an estimated full 10ms after Main Speaker direct output, even in my low 91" ceiling.  10ms is Dr. Toole's ideal target (difficult to achieve but my Late Ceiling Splash does it).  Per Toole's writings on this subject (the world's premier authority on ambiance and spatial qualities) even if FR issues appeared in in-room tests, the predominance of perceived output depends on the first arriving signal from the Main Speakers.

IOW, you might not like the way test data looks with both the Main Speaker and Effects Speaker.  But if you A-B the Main Speaker alone vs. with the Effects Speaker, it takes of all of three seconds to decide you won't live without the Effects Speaker.

Play the early Chesky test/music CD with system diagnostics.  Playing the "arc test" with percussion instrument on this system, you can trace a perfect arch, no flat section in the middle.  The depth tests are uncanny.  On one live CD audience members sound like they are 75' beyond the front and side walls.       

Late Ceiling Splash delay time exceeds that of any other radiation pattern.  Ambiance reflects off the ceiling and this has so many good effects I won't list them all here, plus the ceiling is closer in proximity to the listener than any other boundary and this proximity increases intensity, etc, etc, etc.   I just happened to accidentally discover the best loudspeaker radiation pattern, exceeding by significant margin Toole's 65-degree side-firing method (of which I might be the only person on earth who actually experimented with at length...I don't know if Toole ever built a system he describes in theory...Toole's theory appears to require two boxes per channel...I happened to have six matching Dynaudio Esotec stand mount monitors built to a high standard). 

After moving the ES back, we tossed the MS upper and lower "shadows"....now each Effects Speaker has "shadow" (Room Tunes) attached directly to it...looks much cleaner from the front, like three regular stand mounts with Room Tunes 15" behind them.   

With the four Distributed Subs it sounds like no stand mount on earth.  Well, actually, it's the best playback I've heard except for possibly Ray Kimber IsoMike DSD 4.0 proprietary system/proprietary recordings with eight Sound Lab stats, four per corner, oodles of Pass Class A.

I could best describe the performance here as density and stage size like the best MBL show demo, but sharp accurate image outlines like the worlds best point source, and individual atmosphere for each image.  It's like Ray's best IsoMike but I can't get the image out as far into the room as Ray's. 

If you want to improve stereo spatial effects don't use stereo as a reference because at best its performance is major fail in that quality. 

I know some members hate all pro reviewers.  Pro reviewer Kal Rubinson has of late recommended Trinaural at AudioAsylum.   


   

[josh358]

Thanks, interesting post.

Kal has in my view been a lonely voice in the fight for audio sanity now that Gordon Holt is gone. Holt of course was a strong advocate of surround, and I just learned from something John Atkinson said that he left Stereophile because he wanted the magazine to shift its focus to multichannel, something that would naturally have led to a lot of resistance from many audiophiles but also might have led audio in a different and IMO better direction. And Toole's work and advocacy has been invaluable -- so much of what I have to say on the subject is based on his studies, or his excellent summaries of existing evidence. I can't recommend his book enough to those who haven't read it. This illustration alone says more about spatial reproduction and coloration than most books I've read:

[PDR]

So wouldnt a nice big pair (trio) of arrays with ribbon/planers paired with cones for the "Slam"
be a proper compromise to the cones vrs planer debate......best of both worlds......no?

[SteveFord]

If you can get them to integrate properly I would think so.
Just from fooling around with subwoofers there's a fine line between filling out the bottom end and this is driving me crazy.

[josh358]

Sub integration is one area where I think measurements are worth their weight in gold-pressed latinum. Seriously, now that I've established my geek credentials (as if there was any doubt) -- even a Radio Shack meter will let you achieve a good blend in a fraction of the time it takes to do it with recordings.

[SteveFord]

I just had to look up gold-pressed latinum.
Josh, we need to buy you a really fast motorcycle...

You're probably right about measuring, though.

Are the Bryston group still pursuing the Tri Center project? 
Not Sound Labs but I'm sure it could be adapted easily enough for those lucky enough to own them.

[josh358]

I just had to look up gold-pressed latinum.
Josh, we need to buy you a really fast motorcycle...

You're probably right about measuring, though.

Are the Bryston group still pursuing the Tri Center project? 
Not Sound Labs but I'm sure it could be adapted easily enough for those lucky enough to own them.

I don't know. I haven't heard anything about it for quite some time. As to motorcycles, I think the only kind I could use at this point are the ones with three wheels on them . . .

[Duke]

I was thinking about starting another threat titled "What is the difference between the sound of Magnepan's and Soundlab's?". Has anyone here heard Soundlabs and Maggies anywhere near each other is space or time to get some sort of idea of the sound of the 2?

About ten years ago I had a then-current pair of SoundLab Millinium 1's side-by-side with a pair of Maggie 3.6's.  I bought the Maggies specifically so that I could learn how the two technologies compared (recognizing of course the far greater size and higher cost of the SoundLabs).  I was a Maggie fan before that, and remain one to this day, but I am also a SoundLab dealer, so I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me to make the comparison you're asking for on a public forum.   So shoot me an e-mail or private message if you'd like to hear my take. 

[Jonathon Janusz]

On mentioning pairing big planars with cones to get the "best of both worlds":

At LSAF, I got a chance to listen to (and tinker a little with) the Serenity Acoustics Super 7 - planars up top with cone (sub) woofers below.  Next door, I got to listen to Soundfield 1812s (coaxial cone dipole), and down the hall I got to listen to the GR LS9 (planar/cone line array).  At home, I currently am listening to a pair of OB cone coaxials.

The reason I bring this up, is that when listening to the Super 7, something just sounded "off" to me in the lower midrange; call it the "character" of the sound if you will.  Sorry that I can't be more articulate, but I am still trying to put my finger on exactly what it was.  In retrospect thinking about it, I remembered a similar thought I had when listening to a pair of ET LFT8 (planar/cone) and Onix Strata Mini (planar/cone).  I also heard it a bit with the LS9, but not with the 1812s, and not at home now. 

On the planar hybrids, it was almost like something was. . . missing. . . in the middle.  Danny was generous enough to adjust his room treatments and the settings on the cone drivers on the Super 7, and concluded in thinking that it might be some box coloration I was used to hearing that was obviously not present in the OB speakers.  What has been gnawing at me is that would make sense. . . if I hadn't heard the same thing in the OB planar speakers as well - box or no box, didn't seem to matter.

Maybe this just boils down to a personal preference or choice of music thing, but I think there may be more to it than just getting a good blend between the planars and cones.  I think the exact range the cones cover (in the case of my preference, maybe the higher the better?  Cones firmly into the midrange with just a "helper" planar tweeter up top?), and how they deliver what they do (I'm really thinking "no replacement for displacement" is key here - especially with bigger planars) is in equal measure to getting the tone, detail, and speed to match?

An interesting question for me, on my "to do" list to explore when I get time with a larger sample set of different speakers next show I go to.

[josh358]

Dipoles can suffer from suckouts in the range of about 100-250 Hz, depending on distance from the front wall. Perhaps that's what you were hearing? That region is critical since it provides a foundation for the music, and it's problematic for all speakers, because of boundary interactions. But dipoles are somewhat more susceptible because of their radiation pattern -- the same characteristic that makes the bass smoother (most of the sound radiated on axis) means that the front wall has more of an effect, whereas an omnidirectional box woofer radiates equally in all three axes meaning that if you stagger the distances from the sides, front, and ceiling you can minimize the response aberrations and avoid complete suckouts (the something that was missing?). Bass trapping can minimize the effect, particularly in conjunction with EQ.

[Jonathon Janusz]

I thought we isolated that (100-250Hz dip) pretty well tinkering with the room at LSAF, and I've heard this same phenomenon with varying speakers, in varying rooms, with various room treatments/placement.  Different degrees, but all the same basic result.  Maybe it sits a little higher up in the frequency range (I know the Super 7 cross about 200Hz between the planars and cones).  Also, boxes or OB doesn't seem to matter.

Maybe I just like a little more meat on the bone in that particular frequency range than some people.  Personal preference and all that.

Other than the 1812s, I don't believe any of the other systems I've heard this on use any sort of EQ, for what that's worth.

Thanks for the insight!

[josh358]

I thought we isolated that (100-250Hz dip) pretty well tinkering with the room at LSAF, and I've heard this same phenomenon with varying speakers, in varying rooms, with various room treatments/placement.  Different degrees, but all the same basic result.  Maybe it sits a little higher up in the frequency range (I know the Super 7 cross about 200Hz between the planars and cones).  Also, boxes or OB doesn't seem to matter.

Maybe I just like a little more meat on the bone in that particular frequency range than some people.  Personal preference and all that.

Other than the 1812s, I don't believe any of the other systems I've heard this on use any sort of EQ, for what that's worth.

Thanks for the insight!

The thing about this problem is that it's pretty independent of technology and the nature of the room. Moving the speakers towards and away from the front wall will change the frequencies at which the cancellation and reinforcement occur, and the magnitude will also be affected by toe-in and to the extent the speaker is toed in, the distance to the side wall. To some extent, a speaker designer can attempt to mitigate it by boosting the midbass region and increasing average levels there.

I don't think you're alone in your preference, by the way, IIRC research shows that most people want more energy in that region -- and as I said, it's a weakness of most or all speakers, owing to where the frequencies sit, at the point at which the path length difference from the reflections is half a wavelength (omnis) or a full wavelength (dipoles, which invert the polarity of the backwave).

[Duke]

The thing about this problem is that it's pretty independent of technology and the nature of the room. Moving the speakers towards and away from the front wall will change the frequencies at which the cancellation and reinforcement occur, and the magnitude will also be affected by toe-in and to the extent the speaker is toed in, the distance to the side wall. To some extent, a speaker designer can attempt to mitigate it by boosting the midbass region and increasing average levels there.

An alternative approach to smoothing the interaction with the rear wall (without screwing up the power response) while simultaneously addressing the baffle step and floor-bounce notch is the offset bipole.   Regarding the bounce off the rear wall, the front woofer and rear woofer will have different path lengths to the wall, and therefore the one will tend to fill in the other's notch frequency, and vice versa.  Not a perfect solution, but arguably an improvement at least,   Subjectively, the upper bass/lower midrange region has more power than an equivalent monopole system, something that shows up on cello for instance.