[Psychicanimal]

My Modwright Swans have Auricaps ($130 for two), special resistors (something like $3-5 each) and Jena labs cryo'ed speaker wire; the four crossover boards have been cryo treated and each driver has a Bybee soldered to it.  Also, Dan used Deflex panels for the woofers.  The result is a mini monitor that has effective bass to 40-45 Hz (-3 dB) from a 4 3/4" woofer and completely disappears.  They are simply stunning.

My goal was to create a near field system that could successfully play any recording of any musical genre regardless of recording quality.  I have done it and I am very satisfied with the results.  


My next step is to get back my Marchand X-9 Deluxe crossover from Dan Wright and hook up my NHT subs.  I plan to use Ridge Street Audio Midnight Silver Edition ICs except for the subwoofer out (cryo'ed Tice IC3's for that).

[MaxCast]

This is a good thread and I have enjoyed reading it.  I was at the point in figuring stands, cables, crossovers, subs, etc. I may as well look for a good full range speaker and be done with it.  Since I haven't maxed out the potential of my speakers I decieded to stay with them.

What are you guys using for the low end?  One or two subs?  How are you crossing over?  As mentioned, the disadvantage with a monitor is the bass extension and integration.

Curt, are you still planning out a monitor and sub for your product line?

In recent years we have seen tall two ways with a very narrow baffle.  My guess is that this is an attempt to get the lower extension with the bigger cabinet and better imaging of the narrow baffle.  Has anyone tried these in relation to larg vs. small speakers?

We haven't heard much from the big speaker guys     It would be interesting to hear why they chose a full ranger vs. a monitor.

[drphoto]

Maxcast. I'll toss in my 2 cents, as a fan of large speaks. I happen to like the big image of Maggies and line arrays (or the RM-40) Someone mentioned they think big speakers present an image that is too large and too diffuse, but I feel that style is more realistic.

I dunno, maybe my taste is 'unrefined'. Like not knowing the diff between a fine vintage wine, and a common $10 bottle.

But hey, isn't this about fun, not absolutes? And wasn't the one thing we learned from MAF was that there is something for everyone?

Still, I'm pondering the possiblity of MTM Diluco's or 626R's in my system....

Happy Derby,

Doc

[Scott F.]

What are you guys using for the low end?  One or two subs?  How are you crossing over?  As mentioned, the disadvantage with a monitor is the bass extension and integration.

Personally, I have both. My big system uses a pair of subs (essentially since I'm tri-amped). My little system that I am using for the speaker shootout I am using a single sub. No matter what you my read from the "experts", bass is not omni-directional. A pair of subs is required to pick up all of the ambiance in many, many recordings. Loads of modern recordings are mixing stereo bass (below 100 Hz).

Don't get me wrong, a single sub sounds better than no sub at all, but a pair blows away a single, hands down.

Honestly, actively crossing a sub provides way more bass detail plus it's easier to integrate. Pro-sound XO's are a fair sounding, cheap alternative to integrate a sub if you want to build your own cabinets and use an old amp you may have laying around. Be careful using pro-sound XO's. They tend to use cheap opamps and internal components (not to mention the internal circuitry is overly complicated). Cheap opamps sound like...well....cheap opamps. This is easily remidied with a soldering iron and about $40.

Pyramid makes a dirt cheap active XO for about $70. It's made for the DJ market. It's actually rebadged version of somebody elses design. It has very simple circuitry. Trouble is it uses really crappy parts. In turn, it sounds the same way. If you are willing to spend some soldering time and about $50-$75 in parts (maybe a bit more if you get into the power supply), you could rebuild one of these and make it a killer XO. The design is pretty versitle. It can be used as a (stereo) three way or two way XO with differing XO points (dedicated xo points (click type), not a variable dial)(did that make sense?), plus it has active gain circuitry for each frequency band (you could make this passive rather than active). I've got one here but haven't found the time to mod it yet.

Pro-sound amps (on the used market, Crown, Carver, QSC's) are dirt cheap and do a good job as a sub amp. A plate amp could be a good option too. Unfortunately I haven't had a lot of experience with these. I'm really curious to hear Dan Wiggins at Adire.

IMO, When it comes to subs, I feel they need to be forward firing, not down. A simple test for those of you using down firing  subs is to turn yours on it's side then face it towards the listening position. Listen and hear all the detail you have been missing. It completely changes the character of the sub.

[ABEX]

I think you'll have to experiment with different Caps,Resistors and Inductors to find the right combo.
Post your question in this thread.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=2311

That said ,I am in the process of getting a set of Modified NEAR M50's(3-ways) that are floorstanders which go to the 25Hz. range and I have a Modified set of NEAR M15's that are 2-ways which are great.It will be intresting to see how the 2 speakers do against each others.

NEARs give me the transparency that Maggies use to ,but are Box and small footprint speakers.I was in search for finding small footprint speakers that do the job of big 3-ways and the NEARs do it for me.

I'll post a follow-up when I test the speakers along with the LeAmpII's I should be getting this month.

 

[Curt]

What are you guys using for the low end?  One or two subs?  How are you crossing over?  As mentioned, the disadvantage with a monitor is the bass extension and integration.

Curt, are you still planning out a monitor and sub for your product line?

Hi Max,

First, My vote is for 2 subs, non powered if possible. Use the same amps as used in the rest of the system if practical and you can get the SPLs to match the other drivers. Front firing is my preference.

Second, we would like to do loudspeakers but, too busy to get to it anytime soon. Were burried in electronic components...

Got the prototype sub built now (115Lbs each) nice flat measured response. They can be powered to 111dB with 124W, an MB-100 works.

Got the drivers picked and the "paper" box & crossover design finished for the monitors but, no prototype.

We design but don't make the boxes, we don't have the room. It's a dusty job. We need to hunt down a Thai woodworking company to partner with or get more room to do it ourselves before this project can fly.

Were thinking about it, it's on the back burner.

[Sa-dono]

My Modwright Swans have Auricaps ($130 for two), special resistors (something like $3-5 each) and Jena labs cryo'ed speaker wire; the four crossover boards have been cryo treated and each driver has a Bybee soldered to it.  Also, Dan used Deflex panels for the woofers.  The result is a mini monitor that has effective bass to 40-45 Hz (-3 dB) from a 4 3/4" woofer and completely disappears.  They are simply stunning.

Which Swans model is this? I do not recall any mini monitor with a 4 3/4" woofer. The M1 is the closest I can think of with a 5.25" woofer..unless you're using the little multimedia M200 speaker?

My goal was to create a near field system that could successfully play any recording of any musical genre regardless of recording quality.  I have done it and I am very satisfied with the results.  

This seems counterproductive to me..unless you like to hear average recordings, or you do not want to hear great recordings at their best.

[Sa-dono]

What are you guys using for the low end?  One or two subs?  How are you crossing over?  As mentioned, the disadvantage with a monitor is the bass extension and integration.

I'm switching things around currently...but my main dedicated 2-channel system will be using one sub. Speakers will be either run full-range or use passive high-pass filters at 65 Hz. Sub will be crossed somewhere around 45-65 Hz.

Personally, I have both. My big system uses a pair of subs (essentially since I'm tri-amped). My little system that I am using for the speaker shootout I am using a single sub. No matter what you my read from the "experts", bass is not omni-directional. A pair of subs is required to pick up all of the ambiance in many, many recordings. Loads of modern recordings are mixing stereo bass (below 100 Hz).

IMO, When it comes to subs, I feel they need to be forward firing, not down. A simple test for those of you using down firing  subs is to turn yours on it's side then face it towards the listening position. Listen and hear all the detail you have been missing. It completely changes the character of the sub.

I agree and disagree to some of these points. I do agree that not all bass is omni-directional, but do feel from ~65Hz and lower it is with a properly implemented sub. So depending on how capable your mains are will determine the importance of stereo subs. And I completely agree about your preference for forward firing subs.

[mgalusha]

We haven't heard much from the big speaker guys     It would be interesting to hear why they chose a full ranger vs. a monitor.

Well my speakers (Vandersteen 3A sigs) are certainly bigger than a small monitor although not big in the sense of speakers like the RM40's or Dunlavy's. The 3A's tend to behave more like a small speaker than a large one due to the very minimal baffle area. Imaging with these speakers is superb and they are quite good a disappearing from the room (acoustically that is, they will never disappear visually, not exactly fine furniture..).

The midrange runs from 600Hz to 5kHz and since they use first order crossovers is really active from about 300Hz, so the midrange covers quite a bit of the music without having the crossover get in the way very much.

I cast another vote for the use of stereo subs. Even though these speakers are close to full range (-3db @ 26Hz) they benefit greatly from a pair of subs and high pass filters. One of the downsides to a first order crossover is that the woofer is still pretty active an octave above the XO point, and contributes quite a bit to the midrange. Using a high pass filter really cleans up the upper bass and lower midrange since the woofers aren't moving as far and this of course lowers IM distortion.

To answer Max's question as to why I chose a full range vs a monitor. Mostly because I like the idea of each driver reproducing the frequency range it's best suited for. Too many monitors, IMO, ask the woofer to produce sound well up into the midrange. No question that monitor systems can sound excellent but many of them sound even better when high passed and used with subs. Same principal, keeping the driver producing the midrange from having long excursions.

Just my .02 and worth exactly what you paid for it.

Mike

[MaxCast]

We haven't heard much from the big speaker guys     It would be interesting to hear why they chose a full ranger vs. a monitor.

Blah blah blah, blah, blah burp, blah

Just my .02 and worth exactly what you paid for it.

Mike

Holly Shit, I didn't know I had to pay for it
Thanks for your reply, Mike.   I would love to  hear some V's some time.  I haven't read much bad about RV and his speakers.   How do you high pass your Sigs?  
Wayne sure had a good blend at the MAF with the 626's.  I forgot where he crossed them at, but remember he had a tweeked ART unit and QSC with the little gizmo on the back.

[Psychicanimal]

Which Swans model is this? I do not recall any mini monitor with a 4 3/4" woofer. The M1 is the closest I can think of with a 5.25" woofer..unless you're using the little multimedia M200 speaker?

My Swans M1 woofers' are 3" in diameter (actual Kevlar/paper cone measurement), with a 4 1/2" diameter at the suspension.

My goal was to create a near field system that could successfully play any recording of any musical genre regardless of recording quality.  I have done it and I am very satisfied with the results.  

This seems counterproductive to me..unless you like to hear average recordings, or you do not want to hear great recordings at their best.

Counterproductive?  Quite the contrary.  My system is designed to serve me, not the other way around.  It has an extremely high degree of *fun factor*.  Its power delivery,stabilization and filtration scheme is top notch; the DAC is a Channel Islands (designed to successfully play early 80s CDs ); my turntable is a modded Technics SL-1200MKII fitted with a modded Stanton Groovemaster II.

My approach is radical--definitely.

Tell me, what percentage of recordings are great recordings?

[Sa-dono]

Tell me, what percentage of recordings are great recordings?

Enough where I stay happy  

[Psychicanimal]

Tell me, what percentage of recordings are great recordings?

Enough where I stay happy  

And of those great recordings, what percentage of them is good music?

I've been around, dude.  Helped pay for college working at a couple audio/video stores.   There's a lot of shit music that's extremely well recorded.  If my system were recording limited I would be listening to gear, not music.  My system has been designed to play *music*.  That's why I have nearly 300lbs of power delivery, stabilization & filtration gear--several thousands of dollars' worth ( retail over $8K ).  My Modwright Swans are filtered with Bybees and are up there with $5-6K speakers easy...

What I have achieved takes a lot of skill--not for the average high end enthusiast by any standard.

[Sa-dono]

Tell me, what percentage of recordings are great recordings?

Enough where I stay happy  

And of those great recordings, what percentage of them is good music?

My response stays the same  

I've been around, dude.  Helped pay for college working at a couple audio/video stores.   There's a lot of shit music that's extremely well recorded.  If my system were recording limited I would be listening to gear, not music.  My system has been designed to play *music*.  That's why I have nearly 300lbs of power delivery, stabilization & filtration gear--several thousands of dollars' worth ( retail over $8K ).  My Modwright Swans are filtered with Bybees and are up there with $5-6K speakers easy...

What I have achieved takes a lot of skill--not for the average high end enthusiast by any standard.

What..making average discs sound acceptable and/or better than they really do? I can do that with less than $500 J/K...I'd still be interesting to hear your system if I had the chance... It's always fun to audition

[doug s.]

well, i had full-range floor-standers - thiel 3.5's which were -2db at 20hz.  they could definitely do bass.  still, they were improved markedly when i got a pair of vmps larger subs, & actively crossed 'em over to the thiels w/a marchand x-over.  not only did the bass improve, but the lower midrange as well...

presently i am using smaller stand-mount "monitors" w/my vmps...  but that doesn't mean i prefer smaller speakers.  i yust prefer *better* speakers!     in this case, it's generally less expensive to get better sound from 60hz on up in a one-box speaker, then trying to get a full-range speaker that does it all.  having subs allows me to do this.  i'd like to be able to afford someting like the rm-40's or the alpha-ls's, but you can be sure i would still be using my subs!  

re: subs themselves, i definitely believe that a pair of pasive forward-firing subs is the way to go...  active crossover & separate amplification.  while one sub will work if centered, & crossed over low, the soundstage *will* deteriorate a bit over not using any subs, & it will improve a *lot* if using a stereo pair, imo...

question for audiojerry:  re: the proac 1sc's, i know these are fantastic - it took me over a year to talk a relative into getting a pair to replace his 1.5's in his second system - it took him about 15 minutes to decide the 1.5's had to go!     (and for all those interested in the monitor vs floor-standing debate, the 1.5 is the floorstanding iteration of the 1sc, using the exact same drivers).  but, dint ya say how fantastic the criterions were?  still like the 1sc's better?

doug s.

[Jay S]

The 1SC is one of my favorite speakers.  I auditioned it several times and nearly bought it.  I much preferred it to the 1.5.

[JLM]

Good thread.

Smaller speakers do have many advantages over larger designs including lower cost, less cabinet resonance, and better imaging.  

I wonder why a speaker manufacturer can't build a floor standing version of the same smaller speaker (while keeping the same internal volume of the smaller speaker) for less than quality stands cost.

Sounds like most here agree in the need/benefit from having one or two subwoofers.  So again, why pay twice to reproduce bass from a large floorstander and a sub?

Jerry, for my $0.02 you could have stayed with full range and still had smaller cabinets.  Just look at Omega Speakers here at the circle.  Their TS-3's are positively tiny (14.75 inches high x 6.5 inches wide x 11 inches deep) and are rated down to 62 Hz using a single 5 inch Fostex driver (without a nasty whizzer cone).  For $529 Louis will sell you a pair of the hot rodded version.  (Didn't want to insult you with the $399/pair standard version.)  He offers several cabinet finishes and will build in any special tweaks you want.  (He's a cabinet builder so they are very nice cabinets.)These speakers are 93 dB/w/m efficient and will handle 60 wpc, so they'll work with solid state or SET's (they do sound better on tubes).  So they will play loud, are coherent, and follow the simple is better philosophy so well as anything out there.  Just add stands with a sub or two to suit your room/taste.

[Tyson]

Some (not all) floorstanders can have a dramatic advantage over monitors in a couple of areas that are very important, one being transparency and the other being dynamics.  Take the VMPS RM40's vs. the VMPS 626R's.  Having 4x the drivers covering the midrange, a larger mid bass woofer, a low bass woofer, and 2x the tweeters gives an improvement in these areas precisely because you have so much more radiating area, specifically in the critical range between upper bass and  lower treble (ie, the midrange).  More radiating area means subtle details are more easily produced (assuming a great crossover), and of course dynamics (macro and micro) are much more easily tracked, since each panel is not even breaking a sweat, even with large dynamic swings.

One other area that the 40's have an advantage is in image size.  To my ears, the bigger speaker creates an image more in line with a life sized person.  The 626R's are extremely good at imaging, but the images are smaller, almost like you are sitting a little further away from the stage, watching from a little furter back.

One disadvantage to big speakers is that you usually need a "big" amp to control them, and getting a "big" and also superb "quality" amp in one package is both rare and generally expensive.

[Sotantar]

Hi Audiojerry.  I have to say that the Druid 2's are amazing.  They sound VERY intimate.  They have a minimalist crossover, (None?) and that concentric driver.  The small box makes them easy to deal with in the room.  Not much deep bass also helps them in this regard.  

I find them perfect.  If I need more deep bass, ill just get the new sub.

But, you know these speakers as you had an original pair.

[randytsuch]

When I was auditioning monitors, I listened to B&W Nautilus 805, Joseph Audio RM7 Sigs, Paradigm active 20’s and Studio 40’s, Sonus Faber Concerto’s, Speakercity DIY MTM 18, Revel M20’s, Anstrom Legato, Dunleavy SC1’s, Dynaudio Contour 1.3’s, Monitor Audio Golds, Proac Tab 2000’s, Reference 3 MM De Capo’s, Soliloquy 5.0, Spendor 3/5, Tannoy S8, and Westlake Audio not sure model number.

After all that, I picked my Taylos, for price (they were used, but in very good condition) and sound.

The other ones I liked for the N805's, the RM7's and the De Capos.  The N805 and De Capos were more money (but that was for new ones, so kind of not fair comparison), and I liked the sound of the Taylos over the RM7.  Also, given what I know now, all that auditioning was probably somewhat a waste of time.  There are too many variables when you go to different stores to listen to equipment.  I thought since I could do it with speakers, since they are at the end, but they are only as good as what you feed them.  Also, rooms make a big difference.  But, in the end, I was happy with what I picked.

Wanted to comment on crossovers and the De Capos.  The De Capos do not have a crossover on the woofer, only on the tweeter.  They use the natural rolloff on the woofer to determine the crossover point.  Axioms do the same thing.  Never heard the Axioms, but I did think the De Capos were really sweet.

Randy