[Guy 13]

 

[zybar]

Clayton here. For all the negative vibes Nicoch is spraying out, his assertion is generally correct - but it does not apply to my designs. His complaint was that the little horn lens that are used in many coax drivers are not large enough to enable a low enough cutoff point to mate with a large woofer. He is correct. However, we don't use that type of coax driver.

Here is his wording: (The waveguides are always too small and this causes unrecoverable problems at the crossover Lynn with a horn loaded co-axial you would be correct that you would create some strange diffraction patterns. If the cone was used as the horn as Radian does then you could do something that conceivably would work but I don't see that done much.)

There are two categories of how the coax is horn lens is designed, which address different applications in the pro market. The type with the small lens is shown below next to the second type, like the Tannoy design, where the woofer cone serves as the waveguide. See images. The Tannoy type takes advantage of the large cone waveguide to provide the horn loading support down to the cone's diameter / wavelength where 15 in diameter = roughly 800Hz support and pattern control bandwidth. We employ this approach in the Hologram series models such as the M4. And we use the same approach in the Lumina 12Be speaker with the Radian designed X32 open-baffle coax driver.

Nicoch wrongly assumed that we use the other type with a small waveguide and hence questioned its efficacy.

     



Clayton Shaw
SPATIAL AUDIO
www.spatialaudio.us

Thanks for posting Clayton.

I plan on giving you a quick call later this week or next week so I can place my order.

I can't wait to hear how this model has improved on your older design that I enjoyed so much.

George

[jtwrace]

Thanks for posting Clayton.

I plan on giving you a quick call later this week or next week so I can place my order.

I can't wait to hear how this model has improved on your older design that I enjoyed so much.

George

I don't think you will be disappointed!   

[rebbi]

 I had the opportunity last night to listen to the Beatles "Love" album – the one remixed by George Martin and his son that the Cirque du Soleil used. I love that CD, and listening to it on the M4 was just an amazing experience.  Again, my reaction is much more "what fantastic music" then "what fantastic speakers." Quite wonderful.

[md92468]

I had the opportunity last night to listen to the Beatles "Love" album – the one remixed by George Martin and his son that the Cirque du Soleil used. I love that CD, and listening to it on the M4 was just an amazing experience.  Again, my reaction is much more "what fantastic music" then "what fantastic speakers." Quite wonderful.

Right on, Rebbi. I had mentioned somewhere (perhaps in another forum) that listening to "Because" on that album through the M4s was an otherworldly experience. Since then I have listened to a remastering of Sound of Silence (S&G) with a similar effect...as though they're in the room, body & soul. The M4s are musical instruments, for sure...

[kbuzz3]

Anyone tried the spatial in a home theater type setting.  Thinking about a pair for double duty stereo/3.1 in the basement.....

[mick wolfe]

Anyone tried the spatial in a home theater type setting.  Thinking about a pair for double duty stereo/3.1 in the basement.....

 I use Spatial M2 Turbo's in a HT/casual great room set-up. These are supplemented with HSU VTF-1 MkII subs. Excellent system for movies, concert DVD's and raw blues or rock CD's that I find don't come across as well in my SET based system. Highly recommended on all genres actually.

[rebbi]

Right on, Rebbi. I had mentioned somewhere (perhaps in another forum) that listening to "Because" on that album through the M4s was an otherworldly experience. Since then I have listened to a remastering of Sound of Silence (S&G) with a similar effect...as though they're in the room, body & soul. The M4s are musical instruments, for sure...

 

 And here's another mind-blower. Try listening to Peter Gabriel's album, "So." Talk about your "otherworldly experiences!"

[md92468]

 And here's another mind-blower. Try listening to Peter Gabriel's album, "So." Talk about your "otherworldly experiences!"

Yup, as is the Last Temptation of Christ soundtrack (also by Gabriel). But this is the one to check out...seriously mind blowing:

http://www.amazon.com/Old-Friends-Simon-Garfunkel/dp/B000002ABF/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1457664032&sr=8-4&keywords=simon+and+garfunkel+box

[rebbi]

Yup, as is the Last Temptation of Christ soundtrack (also by Gabriel). But this is the one to check out...seriously mind blowing:

http://www.amazon.com/Old-Friends-Simon-Garfunkel/dp/B000002ABF/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1457664032&sr=8-4&keywords=simon+and+garfunkel+box

Cool, not aware of that one. I'll have to grab it. 

[DavidS]

Enjoyed reading this review and then most of the discussion.  Rebbi - I have enjoyed you talking about your speaker journey over the years.  Have long lusted after Ref 3a speakers (both old before Canada and new), and currently run the top of the line a few years ago Merlin TSM's.  My speaker journey is equally long - Thiel concentrics, Zu Druids, Audio Note E's, Ellis Audio (still have these), Harbeth, Penaudio, Maggies, GMA, and I am sure more that I am not recalling. 

My problem over the last 10 years or so is my small room (12 by 13).  I know several have said they are running these in a small room - any more experience with the M4's in a small room vs something like the Ohm 1000's.  Nice thing about the M3 and M4's is they are reasonable affordable enough to give a whirl - I want the easy open live you are there sound in my small listening room that you describe.

Thanks for the great read.

[KLH007]

David, What Green Mountain Audio speakers did you own? I had Diamantes and loved them in Black,  wife not so much, didn't like the metal grilles.

[DavidS]

I had the Pico executives which were like a smaller version of the Continuums - big thumbs down from my wife and just about everyone else who saw them.  Great sounding speakers though.

[KLH007]

My experience exactly, great sounding speakers, Roy knows his stuff, but the aesthetics suffer as the design is for music reproduction first, cosmetics last.

[mick wolfe]

Enjoyed reading this review and then most of the discussion.  Rebbi - I have enjoyed you talking about your speaker journey over the years.  Have long lusted after Ref 3a speakers (both old before Canada and new), and currently run the top of the line a few years ago Merlin TSM's.  My speaker journey is equally long - Thiel concentrics, Zu Druids, Audio Note E's, Ellis Audio (still have these), Harbeth, Penaudio, Maggies, GMA, and I am sure more that I am not recalling. 

My problem over the last 10 years or so is my small room (12 by 13).  I know several have said they are running these in a small room - any more experience with the M4's in a small room vs something like the Ohm 1000's.  Nice thing about the M3 and M4's is they are reasonable affordable enough to give a whirl - I want the easy open live you are there sound in my small listening room that you describe.

Thanks for the great read.

FWIW, in an even smaller room than yours,( 10 x 11) nothing has worked as well as an Ohm 1000. In this same room, the Spatial M2 Turbo's worked, but the presentation was very upfront or "front row". Basically in a room this size, you're going to be in a nearfield listening situation and this is where the Ohm's excel. However, in my HT/casual set-up in a larger room, the Spatial's take on more of the open baffle personality. That would be more open with greater soundstage depth/instrument separation, etc. In other words, a more convincing disappearing act. Your room has 50% more volume( assuming an 8' ceiling) than my small room, so I can only assume the Spatial's would have a better shot, but if you listen in the nearfield, the Ohm's are tough to beat.

[DavidS]

Mick - this is good feedback.  May have to check out some of the Ohm reviews (recall there is a massive discussion about them on Audiogon).  Do you get some of same OB characteristics out of your Ohms in a small room?  I think my small monitors work well in the small room (the Merlins have been best I have heard) so not sure always looking at new speakers is the best idea but have always loved the sound from OB, just not always the aesthetics.  Speakers like the Spatials and Pure Audio and even the OB Omegas seem to combine both unboxed sound with good looks.

[mick wolfe]

David....as I've said before, the Ohm's do a disappearing act in a small room like no other speaker I've tried.  This includes GMA Europas, Soundfield Monitor 1's, Wavetouch Grand Teton Gen. 2's, Spatial M2 Turbo's and a pair of Von Schweikert center channels of some ilk. (and a few more unmentionable failures as well) The closest I've found to a disappearing act in a more conventional design were Omega Super 3i's. With this all said, the Ohm's still win the day as they seem to "blow" the room boundaries away plus simply disappear.....but then again, the 1000 was designed and optimized for a room 800-1600 cu. ft. in volume. Yes, they do mimic many of the characteristics of open baffle and panel designs even in this small venue. Despite critics who insist on lack of "pin point " imaging being their flaw, I can only state that they can sound more real and lifelike than most of the imaging champs. After all, who has ever left a live concert raving about the "pin point imaging" of the performance?  FWIW, however, I'll take my Spatial M2 Turbo's and a pair of decent subs when it comes to filling a somewhat larger room.

[Manolo]

David: My pair of M4's are in a relatvely small room, 12'x11', 12' being the depth. The speaker's back is at 4'-9" from the front wall and their separation is 6'-4" c.c., a fairly near field set up. And btw, it is almost the same setup I had for my Reference 3a de Capo's and close to the one I use for my Quad 988's. The  soundfield is very wide and deep, it seems to come from behind the speakers, as it was for the de Capo's and it is for the Quads. The sweet spot is not too wide however. A very open and musical sound.

[md92468]

I own both the Ohms (2/2000) and the Spatial M4s (full disclosure: the Ohms are for sale). They are both great speakers. Both are wonderfully coherent and holographic; the difference, in my book, is one of perspective: the M4s place the music in front of you; the Ohms around you. The simplest way to explain the difference: with the Spatials, the speakers are the instrument; with the Ohms, the room is.

Other differences come down to amplifier matching and room variables – the Spatials are significantly easier to drive (5db difference between the two models); the Ohms really like to be manhandled (lots of current). Placement-wise, tThe Spatials need a lot (36"+) of space behind them to really sing; the Ohms are more forgiving in that regard.

In case you're wondering, I'm selling the Ohms because down-firing speakers aren't particularly apartment friendly...if I was still living in the house where I lived when I bought the Ohms, I'd probably keep them. Open baffles don't transfer energy in the same way, which means I get to keep good relations with the folks downstairs...
 

[mick wolfe]

Good point in regard to efficiency I'd forgotten to mention.(Ohm vs. Spatial) The Spatial's have a significant advantage here. I'm guessing roughly  7 or 8 db. I've gotten by with the Ohm's in my small room using a 22 watt SET or 40 watt P-P amp, but this room is probably less than 900 cu. ft. in volume.