[hjsouth]

I've spent the last several months on a hifi update odyssey.   So now, after the process is finally complete, I am taking a few minutes to write down my impressions (promised I would do this) of my new speakers, the Spatial Audio Hologram M1’s (http://www.spatialaudio.us).  These are mated with Red Dragon M500 MKII mono block amplifiers (kudos to Red Dragon for making me a believer in digital amps), a passive stereo preamp from Khozmo Acoustic, speaker cables from Anticable, with source components, a Jolida JD100 CD player and a B&O 8002 turntable.  Room size is about 25’ x 26’.

I believe I was one of the first to purchase a pair of Clayton Shaw's M1’s early this year.   This was solely based on two factors.  First I was a previous owner of Emerald Physics speakers, which he designed and I liked enough to purchase. Second, because Clayton endured a barrage of ridiculous questions by me about the new speakers and upon their arrival even more questions about placement, component synergy, etc.  If there is one other great reason to purchase a new pair of speakers, other than you love what you hear, you should buy from Clayton.  It has been a phenomenal experience.  No hype, honest answers and a wealth of knowledge to draw from. 

I originally set out to just replace speakers because I wanted to simplify my system by eliminating the bi-amping and signal processing I currently employed.  As far as the M1 speakers go, much of what you can read on the web about these speakers is accurate, just wish more of us would post our impressions so there was more end user feedback.  The speakers are the best I have owned.  I can compare them to my previous speakers, Emerald Physics CS2, Vandersteen 2Ce Signatures and my original KEF 103.3’s.   The biggest differences: Compared to the Emerald Physics, the imaging is superior, smoother and with more balanced top to bottom, all with no DSP correction.  Compared to the Vandersteen speakers, the M1’s are much more dynamic, lively and easy to place.  Compared to the KEF, the M1’s are more open, with a much wider sweet spot and depth of soundstage.  None of my previous speakers combined all the characteristics that make the Spatial M1’s stand out.  I admit I have become a fan of open box designs, especially after hearing EP’s several years ago.  There is something about the airiness of open baffle, something very lifelike about the presentation that is hard to duplicate with a box speaker, at least to my ear. Unlike some of my previous speakers, which I preferred with certain types of music over others, the M1’s do a great job with all my music; rock, jazz, folk, classical and acoustic.  They are very balanced top to bottom.  The M1’s were easy to move around.  Placement was a breeze.  The speaker looks wonderful.  Speaker packaging was great.   Can't ask for more than that!

This process wasn't without its hiccups.  Turns out there is something to system synergy…I had originally wanted to just replace my speakers and ended up with new amps, cables and preamp.  I mention this because anyone considering purchasing very efficient speakers and using them with high gain power amps, standard preamp (tube or solid state), standard gain sources, may end up in my situation, with high gain and very little volume adjustment without blowing you ears off.  Moving to a passive preamp has worked the best for me.  Save a buck on high powered amplification, or try a passive preamp like I did and go with the M1’s .  You won't need high power to make the M1’s sing.  I can't recommend them enough and am happy to discuss the process and the gear.

[mick wolfe]

I've had the Spatial M2 Turbos in house for about 3 weeks. I agree with your assessments in regard to the sonic signature of the Spatials.  Although they're quite listenable from the start, there is a break-in period to be noted. Over  this 3 week period, they've definitely become much smoother and more coherent. I've used 3 different amps....all with good to great success. A Classdaudio 254 was used initially to get the ball rolling, but switching to a Latino ST 70 and then on to a Line Magnetic 218IA fleshed things out even further. Despite being a 4 ohm load( 3 ohm min.), the M2 seems very tube friendly as I've sensed no strain on my tube amps even after long listening sessions.  No problems with volume matching coming from the 86 db Ohm 1000's even though the efficiency difference is quite noticeable. The big difference being increased dynamics/headroom and a welcome sense of ease. Also to be noted in my experience is the ability to disappear at close range ( around 7' from the listening position) and an image height that floats nicely above the top of the speaker. A greater tilt back angle helps at closer range. ( use the tall spikes supplied) I will add that moving away from the speaker into the 9' + range enhances openness and leads to a even more relaxed presentation. So far, so good to say the least.

[hjsouth]

Never heard the M2's but they have received more press than the newer M1, all favorable.  I wanted a bit more bass so went with the larger speaker.  Agree the speakers did take some time to break in.  I played mine nonstop for a week while I was travelling.  15" woofers and compression drivers in the M1 probably loosen up over time.  I'm sure Clayton would agree with that.  I have a hybrid tube preamp and full tube preamp I tried.  Sounded great, but gain was too high.  The full tube preamp is going to be modded to cut gain in half, with a switch to go to just a tube buffer.

[mick wolfe]

Clayton said 100 hrs.of break-in before hearing the full potential. He seems to be pretty accurate with that estimate. Sounds like you're there. I'm still lacking probably 20-30 hours. Yeah, the M2 was my pick because I don't have a room big enough to do the M1 justice.

[mcgsxr]

Those look quite nice, and glad you are enjoying them.

Hard to tell from the pics - how far off the front wall is the baffle?

[Bemopti123]

Those look quite nice, and glad you are enjoying them.

Hard to tell from the pics - how far off the front wall is the baffle?

From the depth of the equipment rack.... 25" is my guess.

[hjsouth]

Okay all, the speakers inside edge from wall, 27-1/2 and outside edge  from wall are 34-1/2.  My room setup precludes me from what may be a perfect setup but I did try them  as far out as 36", which could be done, but could hear no significant changes in bass or midbass, maybe lost a little in soundstage depth. Listening position is about 12ft.  Speaker separation is about 9 ft.  Sorry about the poor room photo.  Hope to hear from others that have the M1's.  Nice to share here because there's just no brick and mortar outside of the west coast where you can hear open baffle.

[mamba315]

Any new thoughts on the sound of these speakers, how they are breaking in, set up, etc?  New pics?

Am considering trying the M1's out.  Had actually placed an order for the M2's when they were first released, but had to cancel due to unrelated factors.  Maybe for the best, as the M1's weren't available yet, and they are probably a better bet for me.

[Horizons]

I applaud Clayton's continued commercial OB offerings as there are just too few non-DIY OB options for consumers. However, I have heard nearly all of his speakers and although they are good, I would never say they are true high end sound. With the original CS2, the horn/compression driver was severely lacking. Now, he seems to be migrating to coax designs with again, compression drivers. I tried the best compression drivers and the best horns (Geddes 15") and these just don't approach the sound of a good ribbon, heil, etc. Clayton's OB bass and midbass is truly outstanding but he will have to ditch compression drivers to achieve truly high end sound. Constant Directivity or Controlled Directivity (CD) can only take you so far when your drivers are less than SOTA.

All IMHO.

[mamba315]

Really appreciate your honesty.  I have no experience with ribbons or AMT's, although I hope this changes.  Just LOTS of domes and a few compression drivers (including the latest Geddes NA12 with DE500 compression driver).  Imaging and sound stage are key to me enjoying music, hence my interest in coaxial and single driver designs at the moment.  I find them to be very low in listening fatigue and forgiving with setup, which means I listen to more music.  Hence my interest in the M1, and in the Omega Alnico monitors as well.

Have you heard any of the latest beryllium compression drivers?  The M1 doesn't use one, but some of Spatials more expensive designs do.  Quite expensive; I think Clayton said it would double the cost of the M1 if he were to put in in there.

In the end, we all have different priorities.  Ultimate treble transparency IS nice, but imaging is more important to me.  I think you need a point source design for that, and I don't know of any using ribbons or AMT's.  All of these thoughts subject to change as I gain experience, obviously.  I don't really have any strong beliefs in audio; just ideas that I'm exploring at the moment.

[matevana]

Might you be confusing imaging with coherency? Single driver FR systems and radial mounted tweeters are said to be very coherent... in the case of coaxials when they are matched and crossed properly. This is largely the benefit of a single point source, especially in the near field.  Regarding imaging, the width and depth of the sound stage, it's my opinion that the system (DAC, amplifier, source) play as much of a role (if not more) than the speakers themselves. I have witnessed tremendous imaging with a high-end kit and a cheap pair of bookshleves, but almost never the other way around.   

[mamba315]

This coherency is the cause of the astounding imaging and sound staging.  You say that these types of speakers "are said to be very coherent", which makes me think you haven't heard the effect for yourself.  The more coherant the sound, the better the imaging and soundstaging IMO.

Better electronics will always matter, and I have faith in mine, but I disagree that they are the more important factor.  I have kept my  electronics nearly untouched over the past year as I have auditioned speakers in my house.  Some couldn't image to save their life, while others were very good in this respect (like those cheap Pioneers by Mr. Jones, or the KEF LS50's).  But these $150 CEntrance coaxials I have at the moment are among the best here.  Ok, they are being fed by ~$10k in gear, and it does help.  But if a speaker doesn't have it, no amount of upgrading the electronics will fix that.

[OzarkTom]

My buddy Rex is using a NAD 3020D with Dennis Murphey modded Jones Pioneers and gets an incredible soundstage. He is also using a pair of the KEF LS50's.

[matevana]

Well designed single point source coaxials are Coherent because each cone in close proximity approaches constant relative phase. Imaging concerns the perceived spatial queues in the recording source, and has much more to do with proper miking of the recording, the digital conversion, and the ability of the amplified signal to reproduce these queues in their proper space within the recording.

[mamba315]

Well designed single point source coaxials are Coherent because each cone in close proximity approaches constant relative phase. Imaging concerns the perceived spatial queues in the recording source, and has much more to do with proper miking of the recording, the digital conversion, and the ability of the amplified signal to reproduce these queues in their proper space within the recording.

I'm trying to understand exactly what you mean here, but I'm pulling up empty.  Maybe you can explain it another way.  A highly coherant system implies great imaging to me, but you don't agree apparently?

To me, imaging is the ability to "see" all elements of a song laid out in the sound stage.  In a good system, this is effortless and doesn't fatigue over long periods.  Even crappy recordings can be "seen" quite clearly, although they will lack the grand scale and ultimate believability of better recordings.

[matevana]

Coherency is a term used in speaker design describing the time/phase relationship of the signal. Many speakers get the loudness right from bass to treble. Most get the timing wrong. Typically, most all speakers send out treble tones much sooner than the bass tones, with each speaker varying in how much time difference. These delays create many sonic problems.  Single point source systems do a better job in addressing this problem, typically.

To say that coherency is the cause of good imaging is like saying it's raining on Monday, therefore Monday causes rain. Apples and oranges my friend.

[jimdgoulding]

I dunno the first thing about open back speakers.  I have used forward and backward radiating electrostats once upon a time, tho.  The low height of the speakers in the picture above concerns me.  Should it?  Maybe the blending in of backward firing waveforms overcomes the low height somehow?  I currently get a pretty sensational 3D soundscape with what I'm using with tactile imagery.  Is that something I would have to accept less of?   

If you will click on my "Systems" link you can see my set-up.  I can give the speakers up to 54" off the rear wall.  Would that be too little or too much?  Why open back speakers?  I realize that you lose the box, of course, but what would the advantages be to the listening experience?   

How many drivers compose the M1's and how big or small are they? 

Thanks for helping me out here, please.  I've used my current speakers for 15 or more years.  Think I'm ready for an adventure.  Thing is, I can't afford any mistakes.

[Tyson]

I heard them at RMAF this year, they are a clear step up over previous iterations - much smoother overall sound and the treble was not "hot" like in prior iterations.  The outstanding imaging and world class dynamics and bass were as good as they always are.  Very nice overall.  I did think the soundstage was a bit low, because the speakers were pretty short.

[mick wolfe]

I'm in agreement with Tyson. We must have had similar impressions from RMAF. As I've stated earlier in the thread, I ended up buying the M2's. A friend of mine who also attended RMAF, just took delivery of the M1's. No speaker is prefect, especially at the $2500 and $4000 price points, but the Spatials check more of the right boxes for me. They're truly efficient, tube friendly and can play fairly loud with a sense of ease/openness that eludes many of the boxes. I too was concerned with image height, especially with the M2. This has turned out to be somewhat of a non issue.... especially with a bit of tweaking to the tilt back angle. As far as an earlier comment about "true high end speakers"... I've heard a boatload of "true high end speakers" through the years and most recently at RMAF. IMHO the Spatial M1 and M2 easily qualify as high end speakers. More so than many I heard and especially at their respective price points.

[jimdgoulding]

What do you guys think about some custom made stands to raise the speakers height somewhat? 

Tyson, I get to RMAF ever I'd like to buy you a drink and shoot the breeze.