[nicoch]

Hi Dave, hope you're well buddy.  Its clear the room is less important with the M3, because the whole soundstage seems to be self contained inbetween the speakers and slightly higher. While very nice sounding, to me it seems smallish and restricted. This rig is in my second listening room which I consider kind of shallow.  (They are 3.5 feet off the back wall, my ears are roughly 8 feet from them and the room is 12 foot by 18 foot with the rig on the 18 foot wall with a 4 walkthrough opening on both sides of the rig, so its actually a 10 foot wall the rig is on, and a 6 foot walkthrough dead center on one of the 12 foot walls, window dead center of the other 12 foot wall with hardwood floors and 8 foot ceiling. No acoustic treating whatsoever)
Perhaps having them wider apart in a deeper room increases image width but it still will not extend right or left of the baffle which to me is a good part of imaging "magic". If the recording has wide cues from a live stage for instance, the M3 is incapable of reproducing it naturally in my opinion. The Trio, however makes a smallish room sound much larger. Therefore wide cues sound wide. In this case the room interaction is a great thing.  I love Magnepan for this same reason. Soundstage far beyond the room or box constraints.

I think the take away for me on this comparison is that the M3 and the Trio are each a different type of listening and a preference. One is not holistically "better" than the other, but each one has its strengths. I find the M3 to give a clear Signature that is unique unto itself. I find Trio to be less bold in stating itself. Also, interchangeable wood horns are coming for Trio for those that love the Waveguide/compression driver combo. I will have a pair shortly, and be sure to comment.
All the best !MP

great post MP I add that with fr the xover is/can place lower  in a good place and is 8" to 15" ,really a big difference vs xover in the sensitive 1k

[DaveC113]

Yeah, a full range driver is hard to beat in many ways and I prefer them over compression drivers. Needing only a single cap for xo helps a lot. The combination of a full ranger in a horn can be amazing, but I'm biased as that's what my speaker uses. 

[Wind Chaser]

Mods aside, I guess it's safe to say there isn't anyone who has heard both stock versions of these two speakers?

Guess I'll scratch them both off the list and reconsider the DIY route.

[nicoch]

you must do DIY and you can with PureAudio he sell the 15" or the frame or the xover or some Fr like the tb w8-1808...

[ServerAdmin]

VeraStarr, please start a thread in Industry Introductions and read Posting Rules for Industry Members. Thank you

[Don_S]

Getting this thread back on track - maybe? Or at least adding something helpful--maybe? 

PureAudioProject will be exhibiting at:

Montreal show starting 3/24.
Axpona (Chicago) in April
CA Audio Show near Oakland in July

Spatial will be at:
Axpona
LA Audio Show (June).

At this time I only see Axpona as a show where both companies will exhibit.

Currently neither are listed for T.H.E. Show Anaheim in September.

[BrassEar]

Mods aside, I guess it's safe to say there isn't anyone who has heard both stock versions of these two speakers?
Guess I'll scratch them both off the list and reconsider the DIY route.

I have heard both if you are talking about the Pure Audio Trio with the TB driver.

I think it really comes down to whether or not you like the sound of a compression driver. I do not and I admit this bias. I find all compression drivers to lack detail and sound fatiguing over time. I have also owned the DE250 with Geddes 15-inch waveguide and I am not impressed.

You only need the example of the original Emerald Physics speakers. They were all the rage a few years ago. However, most started to hear the honk of the waveguide and the limitations of the compression driver and sold them and moved on.

Now we have Clayton's Spatial line with an improved PAudio compression driver. I think these are better but IMHO they lack detail and are not smooth enough for me. Other than the compression driver, I think the Spatial's are one of the best speakers on the commercial market.

I think you will get a much more relaxed speaker using OB with full range drivers. But that is just my humble and very biased opinion.

[Russell Dawkins]

I think you will get a much more relaxed speaker using OB with full range drivers. But that is just my humble and very biased opinion.

...and a useful one. Thanks.

[DaveC113]

I have heard both if you are talking about the Pure Audio Trio with the TB driver.

I think it really comes down to whether or not you like the sound of a compression driver. I do not and I admit this bias. I find all compression drivers to lack detail and sound fatiguing over time. I have also owned the DE250 with Geddes 15-inch waveguide and I am not impressed.

You only need the example of the original Emerald Physics speakers. They were all the rage a few years ago. However, most started to hear the honk of the waveguide and the limitations of the compression driver and sold them and moved on.

Now we have Clayton's Spatial line with an improved PAudio compression driver. I think these are better but IMHO they lack detail and are not smooth enough for me. Other than the compression driver, I think the Spatial's are one of the best speakers on the commercial market.

I think you will get a much more relaxed speaker using OB with full range drivers. But that is just my humble and very biased opinion.

Exactly my thoughts. CDs are getting better, the dual diaphragm models are much better for a speaker with a single horn, i.e JTR, JBL, etc... I have heard amazing CDs though, but they cost as much as a nice car... http://www.goto-unit.com/ 

There aren't a ton of really good sounding full range drivers either, but they do exist at more reasonable prices vs Goto! 

[poseidonsvoice]

I have heard both if you are talking about the Pure Audio Trio with the TB driver.

I think it really comes down to whether or not you like the sound of a compression driver. I do not and I admit this bias. I find all compression drivers to lack detail and sound fatiguing over time. I have also owned the DE250 with Geddes 15-inch waveguide and I am not impressed.

You only need the example of the original Emerald Physics speakers. They were all the rage a few years ago. However, most started to hear the honk of the waveguide and the limitations of the compression driver and sold them and moved on.

Now we have Clayton's Spatial line with an improved PAudio compression driver. I think these are better but IMHO they lack detail and are not smooth enough for me. Other than the compression driver, I think the Spatial's are one of the best speakers on the commercial market.

I think you will get a much more relaxed speaker using OB with full range drivers. But that is just my humble and very biased opinion.

Lots of opinions so I'll inject mine. And of course my biases.

I don't think one can compare a Geddes waveguide with anything in the Emerald Physics line of way back when. The Geddes waveguide is a completely different league. I do understand the importance of better detailed compression drivers and I do not find the one I have to be less detailed compared to what I had with the Abbeys (the Abbey was less detailed, but the NA12 is not at all). That being said, Clayton's designs have definitely matured and I'm pretty confident the X1's are even better, although how much better they are compared to the waveguide I have right now, an 18 inch Geddes waveguide with vastly improved driver integration, we will have to see.

Every single dome and ribbon  tweeter (including the higher priced spread like RAAL) I have heard unfortunately do have loads of detail but they sound uncontrolled at higher volumes. Spitty, splashy, call it what you want, and to me I believe that ultimately, a lack of power compression at higher SPL levels is enormously important. The voice coil cannot be allowed to heat up, as you, the listener, will be able to hear it.  And yes, at much lower SPL levels (~ 65 dB), I hear all the detail I want with my compressions tweeter/waveguide combination. In addition, if you audition a Geddes speaker without the multisub implementation, it's a whole different can of worms. Setup is everything. Although I'm on the waitlist for the X1 build, I will most definitely be implementing them with multisubs. It's a win, win situation if you can absorb the cost and real estate encumbrances.

Most open baffle designs that I have heard, including those with full range drivers and other multidriver designs like Linkwitz LX521, MusicandDesign, and Pure Audio do have good imaging but they do not have the level of 'image lock' I want. I'm not trying to emulate LIVE music where there is no image lock and a vast diffuse soundstage. I want both image lock and soundstaging if the recording allows for it. I think a lot of this has to do with preservation of the on axis response and minimizing the detrimental effects of 1st reflections/early reflections. Too much early reflections tends to make that image diffuse and also changes the tonality. In the system I have today, I can freely change that with toe in, because of the design of my main speaker.  This also seems to be the case with the finest CD designs.

Best,
Anand.

[Russell Dawkins]

Exactly my thoughts. CDs are getting better, the dual diaphragm models are much better for a speaker with a single horn, i.e JTR, JBL, etc... I have heard amazing CDs though, but they cost as much as a nice car... http://www.goto-unit.com/ 

There aren't a ton of really good sounding full range drivers either, but they do exist at more reasonable prices vs Goto! 

Interesting and unnerving to see the "acoustic treatment" in the room where those GOTO units are set up (see "pictures" in the link). A few acoustic squares on the ceiling over the speakers would not disguise the acoustic signature of that nasty looking room that the GOTOs are playing in. So, multiple tens of thousands for the system and multiple tens of dollars for acoustic treatment?

[poseidonsvoice]

Interesting and unnerving to see the "acoustic treatment" in the room where those GOTO units are set up (see "pictures" in the link). A few acoustic squares on the ceiling over the speakers would not disguise the acoustic signature of that nasty looking room that the GOTOs are playing in. So, multiple tens of thousands for the system and multiple tens of dollars for acoustic treatment?

Very good point Russell.

Best,
Anand.

[DaveC113]

Interesting and unnerving to see the "acoustic treatment" in the room where those GOTO units are set up (see "pictures" in the link). A few acoustic squares on the ceiling over the speakers would not disguise the acoustic signature of that nasty looking room that the GOTOs are playing in. So, multiple tens of thousands for the system and multiple tens of dollars for acoustic treatment?

I'm sure the room isn't ideal but you gotta work with what you have and large rooms aren't typical in Japan. Horns are much better in compromised acoustic spaces vs direct radiators though. I can say the Japanese CDs are amazing though, not at all in the same league vs typical CDs... they are based on ole WE designs afaik.

---

As long as we're sharing opinions I can't understand the appeal of OB. I've experimented with it and imo the system sound better and better the more the backwave is attenuated and best when it's eliminated. IMO, OB serves as a stand-in for spatial information in the recording that has been smoothed out by poor electronics and cables or is buried in a high noise floor. When you have a system that is capable of recreating spatial information and fine detail all OB does is obscure this information and degrade the overall sound.

[poseidonsvoice]

As long as we're sharing opinions I can't understand the appeal of OB. I've experimented with it and imo the system sound better and better the more the backwave is attenuated and best when it's eliminated. IMO, OB serves as a stand-in for spatial information in the recording that has been smoothed out by poor electronics and cables or is buried in a high noise floor. When you have a system that is capable of recreating spatial information and fine detail all OB does is obscure this information and degrade the overall sound.

Very interesting. I think we might be in agreement  There is a fine point at which too much backwave response ends up clouding the direct and early off axis response (the power response) which degrades the fine detail, imaging precision, and details that you hear far back in that soundstage. The late reflections help with envelopment where your room, especially the rear side wall and rear wall can be of enormous importance. This is where diffusors come into play.

Best,
Anand.

[Early B.]

As long as we're sharing opinions I can't understand the appeal of OB. I've experimented with it and imo the system sound better and better the more the backwave is attenuated and best when it's eliminated. IMO, OB serves as a stand-in for spatial information in the recording that has been smoothed out by poor electronics and cables or is buried in a high noise floor. When you have a system that is capable of recreating spatial information and fine detail all OB does is obscure this information and degrade the overall sound.

I'm not proficient on the technical aspects of OB designs regarding back wave, late reflections, early axis or off axis response, etc. But here's what makes sense to me -- when listening to live music, most of us don't use the same technical criteria to critique the sound as our systems at home. We don't say, "Geez, the band would have sounded better if they did a better job at controlling the back wave response."

When I first heard OB speakers in my room, I immediately realized the limitations of box speakers. Live music is typically played in a venue large enough that there's no "box" to constrain the sound, so I'm sure there's tons of incredibly bad early and late reflections, etc. In fact, the sound can get really "muddy" from an audiophile's perspective. We still like it, though. So OB strikes me as sounding much more natural, especially if one has sufficient space to get them away from the walls.  It seems to me that OB designs are quite capable of recreating spatial information and fine detail, but like any other speaker, it requires a good design, premium parts, and separate subwoofers. 

[PDR]

It seems to me that OB designs are quite capable of recreating spatial information and fine detail, but like any other speaker, it requires a good design, premium parts, and separate subwoofers.

Up until my recent clones of Pure Audio Project Trio I would of been right there with the separate subs.
Not now....I am truly amazed at these reworked 15"
This coming from a guy that owns the best, Dannys OB Servo subs.

[Wind Chaser]

When I first heard OB speakers in my room, I immediately realized the limitations of box speakers.

Yeah, I can't quite put my finger on it but most boxed speakers have boxed signiture; and even if they are generally free of tonal colorations, they still exhibit what I would term synthetic attributes. IMO, OBs sound less constrained and more natural.

[Russell Dawkins]

Another example of a severe disconnect between speaker quality and (lack of) room treatment:
http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/spiritland/1.html

[rajacat]

Yeah, I can't quite put my finger on it but most boxed speakers have boxed signiture; and even if they are generally free of tonal colorations, they still exhibit what I would term synthetic attributes. IMO, OBs sound less constrained and more natural.

Yeah, but the backward output of OBs add reflection coloration that isn't on the recording therefore loses accuracy. It may sound pleasant but  it adds an artificial coloration therefore adding a synthetic attribute too.

[Russell Dawkins]

Consider, for simplicity, a sealed ("acoustic suspension") speaker box. The cone of a driver in a box puts out as much acoustic energy to the rear as to the front, at least from the upper mid range on down. The energy off the front dissipates freely into the room. The energy off the back goes into a box vastly smaller than the room where it is totally absorbed by whatever absorptive material the designer has put there. Not. We wish. If it did, then the speaker wouldn't sound boxy.

In fact, of course, only a percentage of that sound energy to the rear is absorbed—the rest sets the small air mass into powerful and more or less chaotic vibration, the energy of which is very tightly coupled (this is key) to the backside of the cone and, perforce, transmitted right through the cone. The cone doesn't 'know' whether the motive force is the voice coil or the vibrating air mass in the box.

rajacat, you talk about reflection off the back wall adding an artificial colouration and a synthetic attribute, but I say that ain't nothing on the mud that is added by the average box in the manner I just described.

Don't forget— the same amount of energy is going into the box as into the room.