[texasphile]

Hello all,

I had the opportunity to "help" Danny Richie with the LS-6 prototype speaker when he assembled them on Saturday the 11th.  Basically, I just helped to move and turn them so that Danny could access the various orifices to run wiring, add stuffing, etcetera.  Once he was finished he fired them up and we listened, and listened, and listened.  Considering that all of the drivers had not been run in, I was surprised at how great they sounded without a break-in time.  After I left, Danny kept on listening for a while. 

I really liked the extremely expansive soundstage.  It seemed strange that such a pair of impressively sized loudspeakers could "disappear" when they were reproducing music.  The sound was about 4 feet to the outside of each speaker.  That's what I mean by expansive.  The imaging was excellent as well, with every person taking their own space and not blurring into one another. 

One of the greatest features of the LS-6 is the discovery that 16 bit CDs do actually reproduce the sound of cymbals in an incredibly lifelike manner.  With a soft dome style tweeter, I had always heard a splashy/buzzy type of sound coming from the reproduction of a crash cymbal which didn't sound remotely like a cymbal should.  I had always blamed it on the CD format.  That is not the case.  The LS-6 prototypes proved to me that it is the loudspeaker, not the format, which is causing the poor reproduction of cymbals.  For you who listen to no more than a brushed cymbal, this may not be as important as it is to me.  I listen to hard rock and folk music along with a tiny sprinkling of classical music.  The Who's, "Who Are You," begins with a loud cymbal crash and Keith Moon keeps hitting (and pounding) the cymbals often during the song.  It is so much easier to listen through the LS-6s than any other speaker that I have heard.

The LS-6s had a wonderful and very wide dynamic range of sound reproduction.  Although most rock albums have a (sometimes severely) compressed dynamic range (think Stone Temple Pilots), even they are shown to have a much wider range than I have ever heard.  I personally own a pair of Soliloquy 8.2 loudspeakers which were $5000 in the special order Rosewood finish.  They could not touch the sound quality of the LS-6s.  So, guess what I'm going to have to save up money to purchase?  I was going to post this on the AV123 forum, but I have not posted in so long, I am blocked from adding my two cents to any thread.  Hopefully, an administrator will fix this soon.

That is all for now and if you have further questions that I might be able to address, just place a post and I'll try to answer it. 

Have a great Thanksgiving,

Chris

[NoDiggity]

How much are they (LS-6 and LS-9) ?

[Daygloworange]

One of the greatest features of the LS-6 is the discovery that 16 bit CDs do actually reproduce the sound of cymbals in an incredibly lifelike manner.  With a soft dome style tweeter, I had always heard a splashy/buzzy type sound coming from the reproduction of a crash cymbal which didn't sound remotely like a cymbal should.  I had always blamed it on the CD format.  That is not the case.  The LS-6 prototypes proved to me that it is the loudspeaker, not the format, which is causing the poor reproduction of cymbals.

Digital is most certainly capable of high resolution. Even 16 bit digital. Too many people have a misguided dislike. The word digital comes off as sounding derogatory. It doesn't sound organic enough. It's a shame. It was never the 16 bit sample rate that was a problem. It was inferior A/D, D/A conversion.

Analog tape does the same thing as tubes. It affects the sound. Don't get me wrong, I like it, for certain things. I moved up to 24 bit digital in my studio, but still have my reel to reel multitrack. It fattens things up and compresses and distorts things in a way that I miss in the digital format. Analog oversaturation is seductive. There are way to simulate this in the digital domain, but sometimes in the interest of productivity and predictability, you just record on analog and then after fattening ,transfer to digital. The practicality of editing and random access in the digital domain are a benefit to the creative process and enable you to move on and forward, to bigger and better things, more efficiently.

Ok, I'm sold!

Cheers

[95bcwh]

What? Do you plan to will buy one of these?

Ok, I'm sold!

Cheers

[Daygloworange]

I have GR Research AV/3's, PR sub, and now being finished, OB 5's. I'm already sold on Danny's stuff.

I was referring to being sold on digital.

Cheers

[texasphile]

Q = how much are they (LS-6 and LS-9) ?


A = The LS-6 = $2995, The LS-9 = $3995 and I believe that the front baffles may end up being veneered as compared to the prototype.

Regards,

Chris

[mpauly]

I forget, are these going to be available in kit form?  If so, were prices ever posted?

[texasphile]

Daygloworange said:  

Digital is most certainly capable of high resolution. Even 16 bit digital. Too many people have a misguided dislike. The word digital comes off as sounding derogatory. It doesn't sound organic enough. It's a shame. It was never the 16 bit sample rate that was a problem. It was inferior A/D, D/A conversion.

Analog tape does the same thing as tubes. It affects the sound. Don't get me wrong, I like it, for certain things. I moved up to 24 bit digital in my studio, but still have my reel to reel multitrack. It fattens things up and compresses and distorts things in a way that I miss in the digital format. Analog oversaturation is seductive. There are way to simulate this in the digital domain, but sometimes in the interest of productivity and predictability, you just record on analog and then after fattening ,transfer to digital. The practicality of editing and random access in the digital domain are a benefit to the creative process and enable you to move on and forward, to bigger and better things, more efficiently.

Texasphile replies:

I have been rather curious as to why SACD and DVD-A sounds about the same compared to CD playback, at least unless you have mega-dollar components.  I send my DVD-A feed to my 20 bit Modified LiteOn DAC 72, which uses Burr-Brown PCM-1702s (a multi-bit 20/96 DAC, which I personally prefer over the single bit DACs, a more full-bodied sound, although a bit "slower" sounding than a single bit DAC), and it really makes a small difference.  

I was expecting the "going from Black and White" televisions and migrating to Color TVs, only in an audio sense.  Sadly, it didn't happen.  Since I have never heard an expensive DVD-A/SACD universal player, I cannot comment on how much better they sound than Red Book CD.  I have read the reviews, but I don't get the perquisites that the Audio Media does in reviewing equipment that they themselves could not afford to purchase.

Regards,

Chris

[texasphile]

mpauly asked about the cost of kits. 

If I remember correctly, Danny said that he (his company, www.gr-research.com) would only offer the LS series in kit form.  Mark Shifter (www.av123.com) will be selling the finished speakers.  I don't know the cost, I'll call Danny and ask him to fill us in on that.

Cheers,

Chris

[DTB300]

I have been rather curious as to why SACD and DVD-A sounds about the same compared to CD playback, at least unless you have mega-dollar components.

It is not the format, but how the original recordings were done.   The multi-track, multi-mix recordings common in "most" (not all) mainstream music usually sounds bad on Redbook and on SACD.  But listen to some of the late 50's recordings (Art Pepper for instance) and you will hear music recorded in the minimalists way, resulting in a much better recording.  To me this is where you can get the "extra" out of a SACD, which can easily be heard.  And good CD/SACD playback does not have to cost Mega-Dollar (but it depends on what you consider "mega").

Another great demonstation of how good a CD or SACD can sound with proper recording techniques is with the Ray Kimber ISO-Mike recordings.

Dan

[Daygloworange]

I have been rather curious as to why SACD and DVD-A sounds about the same compared to CD playback, at least unless you have mega-dollar components.

I can't comment on it, as I've never heard either format (SACD or DVD-A) I read about the new formats and the claims of this and that, but pro audio guys whose opinions I trust were not sold on it after it came about so I never got into it.

It is not the format, but how the original recordings were done.   The multi-track, multi-mix recordings common in "most" (not all) mainstream music usually sounds bad on Redbook and on SACD.  But listen to some of the late 50's recordings (Art Pepper for instance) and you will hear music recorded in the minimalists way, resulting in a much better recording.  To me this is where you can get the "extra" out of a SACD, which can easily be heard.  And good CD/SACD playback does not have to cost Mega-Dollar (but it depends on what you consider "mega").

From what I understand, and what I've read, It appears that neither DVD-A or SACD will go for the long haul. The extra could be embellishments to the original 2 track masters that were added in the transfer to SACD or DVD-A in order to convince people that it was a superior format. To give it the credibility. We'll never know. That's what fuels the controversy and speculation as to what is the ultimate format.

Cheers

[texasphile]

One thing about the DVD-A format and SACD that seems to be true is that there is a slim possibility that each will be able to go beyond the niche market that each seems to possess.  I am under the impression that each format will again be championed by Blu-Ray (SACD Sony Consortium Sharp, Mitsubishi, Pioneer, Samsung, et al) or HD-DVD (DVD-A Toshiba, HP, Intel, and Micro$oft, and others).  So, the battle may have been "lost" as far as mass market success goes, but they are still probably going to plug their particular supported format in hopes that it will keep people buying music (if the consumers are not using peer to peer networking...).  Heck, when the double sided Blu-Ray discs are released; HD DVD already has a DVD and HD DVD hybrid disc out for a few of their releases,  maybe the very nice folks behind the two formats will even put an album of musical material...such as a portion or all of the soundtrack to the movie on one of the layers or on the opposite side of the disc.

As an aside, if you do own either player, www.deepdiscountdvd.com has all of their DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-Ray discs on sale for 20% off through 18 November.  Just enter the coupon code "supersale" in the coupon box and your order will have the discount subtracted from each disc.  I purchased $900+ of DVDs for work.  I'm the Media Librarian for Midwestern State University in Texas.  I saved the taxpayers quite a bit of money, since I was going to purchase the titles after school ended in December.

Cheers,

Chris

[Daygloworange]

I personally own a pair of Soliloquy 8.2 loudspeakers which were $5000 in the special order Rosewood finish.  They could not touch the sound quality of the LS-6s.

So when are they going to appear on Audiogon?

Cheers

[texasphile]

As you perhaps remember, the Soliloquy 8.2s were made for about a year and were  then discontinued due to high costs.  They were designed by Dennis Hall of Cary (North Carolina) Audio fame while he still owned the company.  He sold it to concentrate on the tube/valve business of Cary Audio.  After the first run of products had completed their sales life, the newer models were released, which Stereophile gave a class B rating to one of those models some years back (it may have been the 6.3s).  I never thought that any of the new models could get very close to the sound of the original Soliloquy lineup (5.1, 6.2, 8.2).  I had the big transmission line 8.2s and I also had a pair of the original 5.1s monitors.  The 8.2s are at my brother's house, currently doing yeoman's duty as a home theater speaker (!!!).  My 5.1s are at one of my uncles' house.  I have to sell off most of my spare electronics and believe me I have a bunch, so that I can purchase a pair when they are released upon an unsuspecting public.

I wonder how many people would agree to pay shipping for 4 boxes of loudspeaker, since the crossover is located in an outside biwire box.  Those folks at Audiogon might choke on the costs, 2 boxes at 68 pounds and the other two boxes at 15 pounds each.  That was pretty smart since each box slides under the 70 pound weight limit for UPS (OOPS!).

Regards,

Chris

[Sean Parque]

Chris, could you please email me at sean@av123.com with your av123 forum handle?  I've never banned anyone by the name of Chris that I can recall

Sean

[Rocket_Ronny]

Hi Chris:

Do you know what drivers are used in the LS line?

Are they using the Neo 3 planer ribbon, or the M130-16 ohm. Those are the drivers used in the OB 5's I am building.

Did you listen to the OB's as well, and if so, how do they compare?

Thanks.

Rocket_Ronny

[texasphile]

Hello Ronny,

In answer to your questions:

Do you know what drivers are used in the LS line?

Danny can correct this, but if I recall properly, the planar tweeter panel is a Neo 8 designed specifically for this application.  The low frequency driver is an M165, also a new design.

Are they using the Neo 3 planer ribbon, or the M130-16 ohm? Those are the drivers used in the OB 5's I am building.

Did you listen to the OB's as well, and if so, how do they compare?

I did hear on very disparate occasions the OB 7 and some time later the OB 5.  They are similar sounding, with the OB 5 being lighter on the bass end of the frequency spectrum.  The OB 5 would be great for a smaller room since both OBs (is that Officer Obie?) have a really open midrange compared to regular box speakers.  The OB 7 is more versatile since you can adjust the built in subwoofer, although I have a feeling that you could easily overload a small room.  They both sounded airy and light and had very good dynamics.  I would have said "great " dynamics, but the LS-6 is The King in that area (thank you, thank you very much).  Both speakers are very easy to listen to and are not fatiguing at all.  They both reproduce high frequency notes extremely well thanks to the Neo 3 PDR.  I would say that if you don't have a large listening room, the OB 5 is a very good choice.  Due to a fewer number of drivers, I would think that the OB 5 would require a little more from your amplifier than the OB 7, but I doubt it would be a large difference between the two.  So, in total, the OB 5 gives up a little bit of dynamics, but it has the same airy sound as the OB 7.  Of course, if you really wanted to, you could add a stand alone subwoofer to bolster the bottom end of the OB 5.

I hoped that helped,

Chris

[3beanlimit]

I've been sold on line source for a long time.  Getting to meet Danny and talking to him a bit at the last AV123 get together in Colorado, I knew that his next endeavor would be something special. 

I've downloaded his PDF files for the LS-6 for a quick peek on how hard I think they might be to make.  They look easy enough.  Now I'm just anxiously  waiting to see what the cost of the kit will be. 

One other decision.  Cutting MDF leaves a huge mess in my garage.  Do I wait for warmer weather and do it outside or suck it up and start making sawdust right now?  Developing.......

[texasphile]

You have to careful about the weather.  After all, you are living in your own private Idaho.

   Chris

[Rocket_Ronny]

Thanks for the reply.

I am not worried about the bass on the OB 5 as I have a couple of good subs to work with. The OB 5 has a better WAF, even though she does not like the looks compared to my Hornshoppe Wannabees.

I take it the LS series are not open baffle. I would expect them to sound quite simular to the OB line. Just, like you said, more macro dynamic.

For me and my situation the OB 5 should be just right. Almost got them built. Will post later on GR's forum how it worked out.

Rocket_Ronny