[Rocket]

Hi,

This is all very interesting. Before we bought our Ht3's I was concerned because of the 29hz F3, since our then current speakers of 15 years were probably "+" at 20hz.(slopy and muddy for sure, but part of the dynamics, the tonal balance, the foundation.....) Talked to Pete in Denver, there was a thread dedicated to my concerns. Many expressed their opinions; "nothing there", "don't need response below 40", etc, but one guy did use subs with his HT3's, and Dennis Murphy validated the " part of the dynamics, the tonal balance, the foundation" piece. It's all pretty funny.

Now we have the "G2 sizzle".............

I'm not knocking the HT3's. They do most everything pretty darn good, just go in a store and take a listen (and look). Or look at what the cost can be taking things to the next level, the HT4.

It is really difficult to describe in written form what a person hears when they audition speakers.  In regard to the g2 sizzle I really can't comment whether they sizzle or not.  I have pair salk sound ht2's that use a lcy tweeter and it does not sizzle at all.  My previous speaker used raven 1 ribbon tweeter and I would say that the ht2 is a better designed speaker because it seems so seemless from top to bottom.

My ht2's go low enough for my needs. but if I had the cash I'd upgrade to ht3's or the new speaker but I don't  .

Best wishes

Rod

[funkmonkey]

I think it's safe to say that we are all hurting a bit these days, and I doubt that I will ever be able to own the beasts, but still I wouldn't mind hearing them and dreaming a little. 

[Nuance]

^ Unfortunately I might have to join you there, sedah.  I'll never be able to afford them, so maybe I shouldn't tempt myself.

That is not constructive.  You never know how things might change. And sometimes they do for good.

That's true.  I've been low on optimism lately, but I will try to stay positive. 

[Rocket]

Hi,

I think in life you have to be realistic in what you can afford and what you can't.  No point dreaming about round the world trips when you don't earn a fortune.

I was fortunate that I was able to afford the ht2's.  Perhaps in the future I might be able to buy ht3 but I would need to buy a more powerful amplifier.  It has taken me a long time to find an amplifier that I really like.

Regards

Rod

[zybar]

It's not a bad sizzle.  The HT3's are probably more in your face as compared to the HT4.  So the highs are there but they don't jump from the driver, but hang in space where they are struck on the stage.

That sounds about right.

I wouldn't say the G2 has "sizzle" but it definitely has presence and somewhat draws attention to itself (but not in a bad or unbalanced way).

I enjoyed the G2 (and all the drivers in the HT3's) and think it was a great fit in the HT3's.

George

[Brucemck]

Dennis / Jim ... two questions ...

You've commented on the bass and the Raal's ... but how "different" are the midranges from the HT3s/HT2s?

Would you expect significant gains from using an active crossover (a-la DEQX), or are the passives so close to what an active would deliver that it's a non-issue?

[Big Red Machine]

I play Jim on TV.

The mids are smooooother.  Just as detailed, but eerily "silent" in that the sounds are layered and presented in great soundstage and you don't notice the driver actually doing any real work.

I'd vernture to guess based on what I saw on the laptop that Dennis has the xover nailed right now.

But I haven't slept at enough Holiday Inn Expresses to emulate Dennis.

[DMurphy]

Dennis / Jim ... two questions ...

You've commented on the bass and the Raal's ... but how "different" are the midranges from the HT3s/HT2s?

Would you expect significant gains from using an active crossover (a-la DEQX), or are the passives so close to what an active would deliver that it's a non-issue?

Pete is certainly as qualified to comment on the sound of the midrange vis a vis the HT3, since he lived with HT3's for so long, and my impressions track his.  But the cause of the difference is harder to pin down.  The mid is different, but it's also open to the rear.  To be perfectly honest, I don't fully understand the FAL's operation.  The company provides few technical details, or descriptions that survive whatever Japanese-English conversion program they're using.  If you just go by the traditional on-axis frequency response and distortion measurements, there's nothing to indicate a breakthrough of any kind. But dispersion is better than any other mid I've measured, and borders on impossible.  And the flat diaphram material, which is some kind of air-injected foam, is exceptionally light and rigid, and controlled by a very large and powerful magnet.  I usually require more complete documentation and substantiation for a driver, but in this case the sound superiority was so evident to me that I was willing to take some of the design details on faith. 

As for a DEQX version, I doubt the basic sound would change much except for more even room bass response using the EQ capabilities.  The drivers do not require an elaborate crossover, and the passive version is silly optimal, IMHO.   

[Kris]

In my experience, flat diaphragm drivers are very smooth with greater dispersion, but they lack the dynamics and punch of a good cone. My IRS Sigma uses neodynium magnet flat EMIMs for mids, and they are great for classical and jazz. But with electronica and rock my SS Revelator and Seas Excel mids you feel the punch and power at any volume. I' m not saying one is better than the other. But think why professional studio monitors use only coned mid range drivers.

[Brucemck]

In my experience, flat diaphragm drivers are very smooth with greater dispersion, but they lack the dynamics and punch of a good cone.

Has anyone really "pushed" the Beasts so that they comment on this in this particular implementation?  Do they handle high volume high dynamic slam/punch as well as they handle soundstaging, etc?

[jsalk]

The EMIM is a planar driver.  The FAL is not.  The FAL is a more conventional driver design but uses a flat cone.

The first thing we noticed when listening to the raw drivers, is that the sound of the FAL was very coherent compared to all the high-end, more traditional cone drivers we sampled.  While on axis a number of these other drivers rivaled the sound of the FAL, as soon as you moved off-axis, the coherency was diminished.  With the FAL, the sound was very coherent no matter where you were in the room.

We had a large room when we played the prototypes at AKFest this year and drove them very hard to fill the room.  They seemed to handle it quite well.  As for dynamics, they are a very efficient driver and I didn't notice any problem there.

- Jim

[AlexG]

My first posting in this forum. And also late (sorry Jim)!

I had the great opportunity to hear the HT4's prototypes at length at the past AKFEST. Jim was gracious enough and let me in Friday night before the show opening while they were setting up. I won't go into detail, but just add a couple things to what has been already said from my view.

First and outmost, the HT4's are just unbelievable sounding speakers with ultra precision quality build craftsmanship to match -  read high-end all the way. The room (ballroom) had to be near 2,000 square feet or more in size. The sound coming out of these drivers was full presenting superb timbre, they provided great imaging, a huge soundstage, and overall very dynamic in nature. The looks were stunning and jaw dropping, not only myself but also show attendants as they were coming in the room.   

Regarding the comment on the "bass not being quite as loud", I believe it was there very precise to my ears perhaps just a little thin but mostly due to room placement and dependant on source material.  Bass is difficult to describe and very personal as people have a wide range of opinion on how they perceived or "feel" bass frequencies and how it should sound. Those FAL drivers are something special... I fully agree with Jim's observation regarding more traditional quality drivers not being as coherent once you start moving off-axis. I could move way out of center in either direction and the FAL's were all there, very coherent at any extreme.  Another thing I was very impressed was how hard (I mean loud) Jim was driving those speakers at times and they showed no sign of stress or distortion.

The HT4's are very serious high quality speakers. I can only imagine at how the "slightly adjusted version" is sounding now. And yes, the HT4's are the REAL DEAL! It was great to see Jim and Frank again and meet Dennis for the first time and the rest of the team. Great pleasure...

As for now, I am enjoying very much Jim's (ex) personal HT3's finished in Ambrosia Maple that I brought back with me to Indy!  aa

Alex