[VonHess]

And I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.  Are you saying younger people will like one and older people will like the other??  Sorry if I misunderstood.

[nicoch]

yes compression driver on tech side are tipically in Pa speakers you have heard   on concert for sure , not all like this type of sound and a  15" used ad mid push a lot like live ,but there are trade off as always
Yes are Ob on bass,only to 900hz but then quite difference to me totally difference, fullrange sound smooth delicate can rock but like traditional speakers on trio the two woofer only dedicate to bass support like an astended sub as the xover maybe around 250hz? 

[CSI]

And I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.  Are you saying younger people will like one and older people will like the other??  Sorry if I misunderstood.

I'm older and I have a pair of M4's which I love. Therefore it must be true! Also, I have never heard (or even seen) a Pure Audio Trio and therefore do not consider myself qualified to comment on their sound - in comparison with mine or any other speakers or based on what I think I understand about their technology. I won't even comment on whether I think the sound would be more suitable for young whipper snappers or old dudes like me. Maybe that's an age related characteristic as well.

[nicoch]

CSI that nice , we all have different taste , but I'm sure you know what I mean I used 600w Carver Silver 7T in 1985 now only 8w tube amp.....

[VonHess]

Well you know, those youngsters these days like that crazy Rock n Roll and the older folks like, well, more sensible music.  Why, in my day........

[gregfisk]

Ok then......how about a comparison of the M3 turbo S  and GR Super V ?

I own a pair of Super V and soon the Trio with the TB 1808.....I can compare these two, but
have never heard the Spatial.

I'm sure a few of you have laid ears on the M3/4 and Super V I'd like to know your thoughts.

I also own Super Vs and would like to hear from someone who has heard both. It seems hard to believe that the M3 turbo S could play bass like the duel Servo subs but I've not heard the M3 Turbos so I don't know.

PDR, I will be very interested in your comparison to the Trios, that sounds like a fun listen.

[mresseguie]

Well you know, those youngsters these days like that crazy Rock n Roll and the older folks like, well, more sensible music.  Why, in my day........

 

And so history repeats itself...

[VonHess]

And so history repeats itself...

You kids, get off my yard!!!!

[beowulf]

I have a friend who heard both at one of the recent audio shows and he thought the bass on the M3 was more dynamic and accurate than the Pure Audio Trio 15 Voxativ.

That's funny there is a post on the Decware forums from a guy who heard the Spatial at AXPONA and said the exact opposite.  He mentioned that the Spatial's bass was less focused and not dynamic and he even went back there 3 times in hopes that it was the setup/room, but they just didn't do it for him overall (he is an open baffle guy and builds his own though).  In the same thread there is another post from a guy who heard the Pure Audio Project and said the bass was clean and articulate and overall a breath of fresh air.

[zybar]

That's our hobby!!

George

[beowulf]

In fairness to Nicoch, from my understanding is from a different country with english not his native language so I take that into considering when I read his post. His post can be a bit trickier to understand but so would mine if was on a Chinese forum.

As the most previous posts wrote, it verifies my opinion that both speakers need to be on same system in the same room to be fair to both. I find little credence in a guy who heard both these speakers and found one to have better bass then the other cause both speakers where on different systems, cables, setups, music and rooms. There are so many variables that can effect the sound.

We also talk about technical issues with the waveguide for example which are important, but for myself, how they sound to my ears can't go ignored and is the final importance. I am not sure about Nicoch concern about the waveguide and how much credibility there is to it. I believe there may be to many varibles when building a waveguide to have a final concrete opinion of its performance.

Good post!

There is an obvious language barrier for Nicoch, but I find his posts to be valid in this discussion and (in theory) his assertions concerning the coaxial pairing of the Spatial is something one should ponder ... though I have no comment on their sound as I've never heard them.  I would not discard the Spatial solely because of this, but at the very least I would use this advice as a good indicator of what to listen for if I was to ever demo them.
 
I also don't see how posting that picture would be trolling.  This is a Spatial M3 Turbo S vs Pure Audio Trio 15B comparison thread after all.  You can definitely see the build quality difference in the bass drivers (stamped vs. cast) and though not shown IMO believe that the Voxativ and even the Tang Band drivers are better than a coaxial such as what is used in the Spatial as well.  Not to mention the OB frame is better too. 

To be fair to Spatial ~ the PAP's are quite a bit are more expensive, but at least you can see that the extra money has gone into parts and build quality.  Not knocking the Spatials though as I feel they come in at a fair and very reasonable price point.

find the difference

 

Nice post, IMO there is a big time difference and from comparing pictures like this we can easily see why the PAP's are more expensive as there are obviously better quality parts used in the PAP's.

[beowulf]

That's our hobby!!

George

Agree, otherwise this would be a one size fits all!

[reillyzing]

Language barrier or not, in another topic, it's pretty clear he intentionally belittled the Spatial Holograms by saying they have a 'non serious build with Ikea like appearance', to paraphrase. It was no doubt a snarky comment.

By the way, I'm interested in both the Spatial and Pure Audio speakers. How are the Pure Audio in bad rooms?

[Freemand]

Language barrier or not, in another topic, it's pretty clear he intentionally belittled the Spatial Holograms by saying they have a 'non serious build with Ikea like appearance', to paraphrase. It was no doubt a snarky comment.

By the way, I'm interested in both the Spatial and Pure Audio speakers. How are the Pure Audio in bad rooms?

In my opinion I would not call that belittling but to call that a persons opinion of a product. If I called a specific car model ugly looking that would not be belittling but opinion. Personally I think Clayton did a nice job on the Spatial and give him big kudos for the cloth behind the woofers as I think the look of big woofers on a speaker looks ugly! The fabric cleans the look.

To lighten things up here I have a curiosity. What design would create a larger (wider) center sweet spot? A coaxial design by Spatial or a full range design by Pure Audio Project.

I personally use my two channel setup to watch Blu rays on a new 55 inch 4k curved and struggle with the tiny sweet spot. I do believe a great two channel will have a better center image then a home theater set up with a dedicated center channel speaker. Problem however with the two channel setup is the little center sweet spot. Two people can not enjoy unless I put a office chair put high and place the office chair behind the main seat.

[rajacat]

If the speaker has a waveguide, it'll probably have a larger sweet spot. All things equal,the larger the waveguide, the better.

http://aespeakers.com/oz-by-ozone-design-with-acoustic-elegance-lo15s/

[Freemand]

If the speaker has a waveguide, it'll probably have a larger sweet spot. All things equal,the larger the waveguide, the better.

http://aespeakers.com/oz-by-ozone-design-with-acoustic-elegance-lo15s/

Did you build those? They look like some nice OB!

How about if a speaker does not have a wave guide as in the Spatial and PAP offering?

[PDR]

I think what they're getting at is that the co-ax works as a wave guide on the Spatials.
I've seen that mentioned on my Super Vs as well....but I really dont have
the "know" to know....

[poseidonsvoice]

I think what they're getting at is that the co-ax works as a wave guide on the Spatials.
I've seen that mentioned on my Super Vs as well....but I really dont have
the "know" to know....

PDR,

With all due respect, no, not exactly and the devil is in the details.

Watch this video: https://vimeo.com/162323536

And I asked Clayton directly and this is what he said:

There is a machined aluminum transition lens at the base of the cone to couple the compression driver wavefront to the cone.

This detail is terribly important. This is what gives the design the unique narrow horizontal directivity of 80 degrees. Other open baffle coaxial designs cannot claim this.

To answer the question regarding which speaker would be better for a wider spread audience the answer would be the Spatials but oriented in such a way so that they are not toed in as much. You will lose a little of the 'exacting' imaging but more listeners can enjoy the result (wider sweet spot). When you want to listen alone then switch it back to the more toed in position. This feature is entirely because it is a narrow controlled directivity design.

Whether toed in heavily or not as much I have found with my own Geddes NA12 that the imaging in CD designs and soundstaging can be downright amazing.

Best,
Anand.

[Russell Dawkins]

To answer the question regarding which speaker would be better for a wider spread audience the answer would be the Spatials but oriented in such a way so that they are not toed in as much. You will lose a little of the 'exacting' imaging but more listeners can enjoy the result (wider sweet spot). When you want to listen alone then switch it back to the more toed in position. This feature is entirely because it is a narrow controlled directivity design.

Whether toed in heavily or not as much I have found with my own Geddes NA12 that the imaging in CD designs and soundstaging can be downright amazing.

Best,
Anand.

It is my understanding that to cover the widest seating area with reasonable imaging quality, you need to toe speakers in more, not less. More so the axes cross in front of the central listener and allows some flexibility in lateral listener positioning. This also produces the least wall bounce when walls are to either side of the listening space.
The only reason to orient the speakers so you as a solo listener are on the frontal axes is if that's necessary to produce the flattest or most pleasant tonal response, otherwise there's no reason not to leave the speakers that way all the time.

I never cease to be disturbed seeing big-buck systems (you know—the statement systems with the 1" machined faceplate pre amps and amps, the turntables with 50lb platters all on massive footers and carbon fiber equipment racks and $50,000 speakers looking like Darth Vader or some gigantic snail) with the speakers facing squarely out into the room—even near side walls. This is so wrong, and so easily proven to be. You don't need scientific proof—although that is plain and simple—you simply need to listen.

A mono signal tells the tale. If you are not getting a coherent, tight, narrow phantom image in the centre with a mono signal, something is amiss and you are not hearing what the engineer intended when listening in stereo. If your speakers are close to side walls and pointing straight out from the back wall you don't need to ask 'what's wrong'. That is what's wrong.

[Guy 13]

I like the way you describe the statement system. 
So many audiophiles think it's the (ONLY) way to go. 

'' You know—the statement systems with the 1" machined faceplate pre amps and amps, the turntables with 50lb platters all on massive footers and carbon fiber equipment racks and $50,000 speakers looking like Darth Vader or some gigantic snail. ''

Guy 13