If I remember right, you used to sell SoundLabs. Can you describe your new speakers compared to the Sound Labs, as well as your other two speaker designs? I am also interested how they portray a believable soundstage including floor to ceiling realism...
Ronny
A year ago heard Jazz Modules at Duke’s; during the summer heard JMs in SF at home of an AC member w/ insane Jolida Music Envoy monoblocs w/ B52 (yes, THAT B52) radio transmitter output tube (tubes as big as my head; no nothing is that big). A couple days after RMAF Duke delivered two Alpha’s at my place (my sub system is custom, 4x 1cf sealed 10s driven by the same amp Duke employs). A few days ago I visited Duke’s & heard the seven-piece Beta system.
I’ve auditioned the larger Sound Labs several times including at Duke's, the best sounding of which was Crump’s setup at THE Show Las Vegas shortly before Bob passed away. Speakers were placed about mid-point in the room leaving little space for seating. Bob used the Blowtorch pre & a pair of Curl’s Parasound JC-1s (ran hot as a mutha). Played my great-sounding jazz/blues piano by Ray Bryant, Somewhere In France. Image was maybe a little too large but this was not a distraction; in every other way list all your positive listening adjectives.
I prefer the image density on the AK systems more than the stats. The stat image is more transparent, but I personally view this as a negative whereas obviously some have the inverse response. One may prefer the floor to ceiling image/stage of the stat or AK depending on the room & the program IMO. Smaller scale program probably favors AK, larger scale the stats, but we’re getting awfully picky now. In every way I can imagine the AK bass w/ the $2500 STORM v2.0 is preferred. Details concerning the bass:
I’m 54, musician, assitant engineered & programmed synthesizer at the Sausalito Record Plant, been doing this since a teenager. Have auditioned the following among other speakers known for great bass: Infinity IRS III ($65k late-‘80s dollars, four 7’ tall rosewood towers) properly setup in the Tiburon home of the owner of Landmark Cards & Calendars. CES setup by the designers of many cost-no-object sub systems including humoungous stereo towers w/ four to eight drivers per side. Linkwitz’ $15-20k commercial dipole systems. VMPS discontinued SuperTower III SRE w/ stereo sub towers, each tower 400 lbs, 5x 12s w/ staggered resonance points. Owned the best 2006 Sunfire Signature sub w/ automated digital EQ & owned several VMPS subs & the VMPS SuperTower/R SE (dual 15s, 10 midbass). My last room had the equivalent of about $6k worth of acoustic soffit installed to tame bass modes. Also heard the superb $100k YG Acoustics Anat Reference system (Yoav is a great guy, very down-to-earth, worth hearing if setup correctly).
Duke’s latest SWARM v2.0 equals or exceeds the best sub performance I know of. You name the quality, it’s there in spades. Slam, low bass cutoff, power, etc. In pure musicality, pitch definition, transparency, realism, portraying differences in recording venues, this system probably sets the world standard. I’ve played electric bass; the acoustic guitar I sold last winter was a Martin HD-28LSV (purchased from Dave “The Ghost” Caspar of the Oakland Raiders at his home in his trophy room). There's a nice Chang grand upstairs. The capability of v2.0 to flatten the room’s bass modes blows away the above described soffit of my last room. I had to leave that soffit behind. I could pickup & carry the sum total five pieces of Duke’s v2.0 in two trips in my hands from Duke’s room to my car (wish I thought of that when he wasn’t looking!) Each of Duke’s subs is only about 1cf. The amp is of moderate size/weight.
Duke’s subwoofer philosophy may seem strange to the uninitiated, who might view four subs as about three too many. To them I reply: “Oh, really?” Take a little peak over at the circle for room acoustic modifications & read the pages about people trying to control bass modes. Duke’s philosophy, IMO, completely eliminates the need for any other contraption to flatten your modes. The automated digital EQ of my Sunfire Signature sub was almost completely worthless (in performance) compared to Duke’s, which costs less.
One of the problems w/ acoustic absorption to flatten bass modes is that reflectivity in the bass range is a necessary ingredient for maximum realism. To the extent acoustic absorption is employed to flatten a bass mode realism is minimized. In other words, fixing the mode in this way replaces one problem w/ another. Note the sense of “surround”, “elasticity” & "liquid" effect in the bass range the next time you visit a large room like a theater; w/ a good reproduction system the bass is transparently integrated into the soundfield w/ the rest of the music. Compare the above qualities immediately on your home system upon your return. The difference you will properly notice is that of signals below 200 Hz being reproduced in a small room (unnatural, unmusical, modal problems) vs. the natural quality of a large room. Once you tune in to this phenomena you can not go back; this lack of realism in the bass range will become intolerable (you've been warned).
IMO one brief listen to Duke’s mono v2.0 completely obliterates the myth of stereo subwoofer's advantage. Listeners would immediately notice the greater power, presence & lower cutoff of the v2.0 (4x 8" drivers) vs. the earlier 6.5" drivers.
The only thing I’ve heard previously that may rival the v2.0 is the largest stereo tower subs w/ multiple drivers, extending from the floor close to the ceiling. Such a multiple driver array minimizes what is often the single worst mode, being the floor to ceiling (v2.0 mimics this effect but in a different way). Such subs create their own physical acoustic, their own multiple modes, & are far more costly, heavy, physically obtrusive, & in no way desirable except for the visible “size” impact, for those needing that.
Cost no object subs & fullrange speakers are priced in the stratosphere. Check the mass of the bass drivers employed in cost no object single-subs & fullrange speakers. IMHO the v2.0 is preferable to any system w/ a smaller number of close-spaced woofers, sub or fullrange, regardless of cost, mass, size or type of driver loading. The $100k YG Acoustics Anat Reference sounded great, & the v2.0 was far better. (Yoav mentioned they had modal problems to work around in his CES room, something the SWARM is designed to easily solve).
The only unknown to me is maximum output, as I didn't test that in a (large) domestic room. Duke would almost certainly underestimate this spec if one inquired; meaning he'd be the last one to overestimate the output if a customer had specific SPL needs. Without having discussed this w/ Duke I'd estimate one could simply add more subs & check w/ Duke for proper wiring to maintain an adequate load for the amp. Remember the subs are only 1cf each & take up little space.
...how do these speakers work for classical -- especially piano. Also, what kind of an amp would you recommend? I'm currently using a Jolida 1701 integrated tube amp.
-Tim
Tim
I don’t think AK favor one music format over another. They are especially amenable to tubes because of the flat impedance curve. Further, they couple superbly to OTL because of high-sensitivity & again, the flat impedance curve. Both Planetarium systems are especially good for tubes because they rolloff around 80 Hz, below which tubes are generally at their weakest because they make less current to control woofers.
