Audioexcels,
Now I understand where you were coming from
I think the brevity in your first post led to my misunderstanding.
I totally agree with what you mentioned regarding some side by side comparisons. Unfortunately I don't have any commercially available OB speakers that I could have used. I'm not sure the the other conventional speakers I own would have been a worthy comparison since they are a typical box speakers. Though I guess I could have made the comparison to my Lowther open baffle. Mine are a bit unconventional but I could have made those comparisons.
You are right about the Maggies. I really can't use those as a direct comparison, they really are a different animal, much like my Lowther OB's. As a side note, The Maggie's I referred to in the article (Steve K's) really aren't Maggie's any more. Steve bi-amps with VTL's and he has completely rebuilt the XO's. They are stunning to listen to. They barely resemble the sound of stock IIIA's at this point. I probably should have expanded on that point to make it clearer. When it comes to our individual preferences in the quality of bass that Maggie's provide, I think it may be just that, personal preference. I really enjoy the sound of Steve's. It's clean, tight and articulate. In Steve's room (though I haven't measured it), it is pretty even and extends down into the 30's without much effort.
Staying with the Maggie's for a minute, it's sort strange, I've heard several people that have tried to mate subs with them and it's extremely difficult. The character of a paper sub mating to a ribbon panel is difficult if not near impossible. Every time I've heard one, the sub always seemed to stand out.
When it comes to using the JoLida, I think the point I wanted to get across in the article was that if you were the type of listener that doesn't listen overly loud and either wanted to experiment with a tube amp or preferred the sound of tubes, something as small as the 102B would actually work extremely well with the Sentinel's. And yes, the modified 102B does have that EL84 'sound' to it. The great part about it is that even though you get the EL84 flavor, it is still very clean and detailed. The tone of the amp and the sound of the Sentinel's were
very complimentary of each other. Then again, I have a huge bias towards the sound of EL84 amps as I grew up listening to them. Their sound is right in my sweet spot.
When it comes to the bass the Sentinel's provided in my room, I could have done a better job of describing it. Know what though, I wonder if I glazed over that aspect because in the Redrum the bass was so satisfying? Hang with me for a minute....In nearly every speaker I've written about, I've always made comments about the quality of the bass compared to a big 12" or 15" sub. For some reason I didn't do it this time. In this next statement, I am really not trying to suck up to Paul, honest, but I wonder if the reason was, because subconsciously I felt the bass that the Sentinel's produced in my medium sized room was equivalent to using a sub? I know that sounds incredulous but I did go to the extent to measure their frequency response in the Redrum. One thing I don't do is publish the graphs of speakers I write about (with one exception). What I do is make mention of the bass extension as I measure it in my room. In the case of the Sentinel's, I wrote in the article that they extended well into the 20's (and actually below (-3db point)). As every room will experience, I had some humps and dips at nodes and nulls. All in all not too bad considering I use moderate room treatments, not wanting to turn it into an anechoic chamber.
When I measured the Sentinel's, I had about a 3db hump around 35Hz and it rose to about 4.5 or 5db at 25Hz, then fell off to a -3db point just below 20hz. I wonder if this room gain I experienced with the Sentinel's satisfied that little voice that is in my head that normally tells me that a speaker has inadequate deep bass? Granted the Sentinel only uses an 8" bass driver but subconsciously I must have felt my craving for deep bass had been satisfied. Hmmm...interesting. I'll have to give these a listen again after the mini-tour of the Sentinel's is over.
When it comes to room equalization, I'm sort of indifferent towards it. I know it's positive aspects. On the other hand I prefer not to use any. When I audition speakers or any other piece of gear, the EQ doesn't let me hear the gear in its pure form. The EQ allows me to compensate for a gears weakness. Plus, it is one more piece of electronics in the signal chain (the exception being software based when using a USB DAC or the like). Don't get me wrong, I really think it is a huge mistake that audiophilia has shunned tone controls. In doing so, certain recordings that were poorly mixed for systems like ours can no longer be played without sounding like crap. In particular, some classic Rock can sound really bad without boosting the bass. Trouble is, I'm a huge classic Rock fan. When you want to listen for the pure enjoyment of the music (read=non-critical listening), we can't because when you crank it, it literally hurts your ears...well it does mine anyway. I cheat. In my main rig I actively crossover the 15" woofers with a vintage active crossover. It has the ability to switch the XO point on the fly plus I can change the gain for the bass. When I listen to rock for pure enjoyment, I can reach down, notch up the XO point to about 250hz and boost the bass a few DB. In turn when I've had my fill of rock, I can reset the speakers to the flat position. I really wish preamp manufacturers would give us the option of defeatable and selectable tone controls, especially on the bass. As audiophiles, I think we know the difference between flat and boosted settings.
In the end, those of us that write don't normally own or have access to all the gear we would like. As much as I would have enjoyed having another pair or two of really good OB speakers, many of the manufacturers likely wouldn't have let me do a direct comparison. They typically prefer to have their product reviewed on a stand alone basis (that wasn't the case with Paul). I ran into this a number of years ago when I did comparisons of six or eight mini-monitors. Though some didn't mind, many didn't want their product compared against the competition. I actually had one manufacturer refuse unless he came down to my house and listened to my system and room. This also brings up another issue that has plagued the reviewing industry, writers having 'loaner' gear for extended periods. If a writer has loaner gear, he usually gets crucified on the boards by the audio extremists. If he buys it at a 'standard industry discount' he gets crucified by the same crowd. It is a Catch 22. Then there is the issue of storage. If you are lucky enough to have a lot of spare gear that can be used for comparisons, it can eat up all your personal storage space. Not to mention, a spare stock of premium quality gear can cost a bloody fortune. Thankfully my wife (God love her) is
extremely tolerant of my habits .
Paul may have been better served picking a writer that had gear which aligned itself with the Sentinel's offering. I felt since I have a
fair amount of experience with OB's and some gear that would mate fairly well, I could do them justice. Overall I think I did, though admittedly, I did fall short in a couple of areas, mainly direct comparisons. On the other hand, Paul knew I was impressed with his designs so he entrusted me with the review. As a manufacturer, you have to be careful who writes about your gear. The last thing he would want is someone who doesn't enjoy the sound of an OB design writing negative things about his 'babies'. As experienced writers, most of us tend to seek out gear that we can relate to. None of us want to write a purely negative article, it serves no one. We
do try to impart exactly how a piece of gear sounds in our systems, both the good and the adequate.
Audioexcels, no worries mate. No harm, no foul
You do bring up a really good point about the bass. I'm definitely going to give the Sentinel's a listen again when they come back around. You've got
me wondering now
....oh, I edited my statements above to in order to correct a my misconceptions about your first post
