Turk 182

ignoring the "bling" how much for state of the art ?

Recommended Posts

Nope.
They is the very definition of Fugly. 


To be fair, they make more visual sense in the flesh (it’s possible to work out which side is the front for a start!).

Also, whilst it’s true they’re not exactly small, they don’t look ungainly in a domestic setting if you have a decent size room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daleks, I'm sure.


Nope, the Beolab 5s were the Daleks! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
35 minutes ago, Beobloke said:


Nope, the Beolab 5s were the Daleks! ;)

Tsk, you mean Chumblies

Chumblie.gif.0f0a4d819f65c3d170c20ef6181113b0.gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PuritéAudio said:

These are currently  amongst  ‘state of the art’.

46-A73-F23-8-A86-4-BF7-9-CED-58179-DA6-E

Keith

I presume that will be your living room undergoing additional measurements and acoustic treatments Keith 😋

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tin said:

My standmounts certainly need assistence to become 'state of the art', if 2007 would be your point of reference that is. 😁

But I gave owned floorstanders that started dropping near 50Hz as well, which is why I bought my first REL in the first place.

My point would be that most floorstanders miss out on the lowest octaves as well, so how 'state of the art' would they be?

I also know of someone owning B&W 800s, with a pair of subs, and a guy owning Linn Komris also having a pair of subs. Even within 'state of the art' one can achieve both more state and art.

With that in mind, I prefer standmounts over floorstanders as they are less intruisive, and the subs can take care of the lower end.

PS Don't underestimate your BK compared to large floorstanders. They can match and surpass speakers well above their price range.

"State of the art", in my view, implies fullrange (or quasi-fullrange) and unrestricted dynamics. This rules out all but the largest standmounts.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tin said:

I haven't heard the BK Monolith, nor that £75k system, but I have heard a tiny REL Stampede improve on a €40k system with standmounts to the point that the owner didn't want me to take it back home again.

My own pair of REL Strata Vs are also a very, very nice additions to my own setup, of which the stereo part would be well over €30k, excluding the RELs.

I agree that those numbers are only halfway to £75k, but still, it takes a lot of effort to make floorstanders rigid. Deconstructing them into a pair of boxes is a lot easier and cheaper.

There is no sudden magic involved when large drivers appear in the same box with the tiny ones. ;)

My 2 cents.

PS I obviously didn't pay €30k for my system, it's all 2nd, or 3rd hand. I just added the list price to be able to make the comparison.

I don't see how adding a pair of subs which weren't designed specifically to partner a particular pair of speakers will produce the same results as full-range speakers that were well designed as such from the ground up.

I agree about the part that "deconstructing them into a pair of boxes is a lot easier and cheaper" but in audio there are no free lunches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to hi-fi, there is so little correlation between price (to buy today) and sound quality that it might as well not exist.

There's more correlation between weight and sound quality. And that's a tenuous one at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tuga said:

I don't see how adding a pair of subs which weren't designed specifically to partner a particular pair of speakers will produce the same results as full-range speakers that were well designed as such from the ground up.

I agree about the part that "deconstructing them into a pair of boxes is a lot easier and cheaper" but in audio there are no free lunches.

The very large wavelengths and the fact that our ears are small and very close together makes it a lot easier to integrate a subwoofer compared to having to integrate a tweeter. If you're trying to match a sub to a closed box standmount and the sub is able to match the slope, it isn't -that- hard. Obviously the sub itself needs to be well designed, but well designed subs aren't rocket science.

I'm not saying btw that there isn't an advantage in having a speaker being designed to be completely full range. 

Most people however can't afford buying huge Gauder Akoustics or Focal Grand Utopias and are stuck with more decent sized floorstanders where reflex ports or transmission lines are being used to reproduce the lowest regions. Compared with the drawbacks of -those- designs having small closed box standmount and half decent closed box subs, suddenly become a very, very good alternative.

In the non-ideal make-do scenario where most of us live in, subs could well be the best lunches people can actually afford and fit in their rooms.

Still my 2 cents obviously. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand there is arguably an advantage to a separate subwoofer in that it can be positioned where it is optimal for bass response which is likely very different to where we'd like the tweeters to be. Multiple subwoofers offer further potential benefits.

As I said above, it is not clear-cut to me one way or the other which approach may be optimal (in the context of a proper crossover and time alignment between the main speakers and sub, not merely using the controls on a sub).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Tin said:

The very large wavelengths and the fact that our ears are small and very close together makes it a lot easier to integrate a subwoofer compared to having to integrate a tweeter. If you're trying to match a sub to a closed box standmount and the sub is able to match the slope, it isn't -that- hard. Obviously the sub itself needs to be well designed, but well designed subs aren't rocket science.

I'm not saying btw that there isn't an advantage in having a speaker being designed to be completely full range. 

Most people however can't afford buying huge Gauder Akoustics or Focal Grand Utopias and are stuck with more decent sized floorstanders where reflex ports or transmission lines are being used to reproduce the lowest regions. Compared with the drawbacks of -those- designs having small closed box standmount and half decent closed box subs, suddenly become a very, very good alternative.

In the non-ideal make-do scenario where most of us live in, subs could well be the best lunches people can actually afford and fit in their rooms.

Still my 2 cents obviously. :)

Stereophile has a "restricted low frequency extension" category (it probably means no bottom octave). But small speakers have other limitations that may not be overcome by adding a pair of subs.

Edited by tuga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, lindsayt said:

When it comes to hi-fi, there is so little correlation between price (to buy today) and sound quality that it might as well not exist.

There's more correlation between weight and sound quality. And that's a tenuous one at best.

i understand the magico m6, m3 and the smaller m2's are heavy speakers - may i ask what are your views on them ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tuga said:

Stereophile has a "restricted low frequency extension" category (it probably means no bottom octave). But small speakers have other limitations that may not be overcome by adding a pair of subs.

Can you describe what these limitations are and how they would affect sonic quality? The only limitation I can think of is that most small speakers often have a lower efficiency, but that can easily be countered with more powerful amplifiers and as such isn't a real concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Turk 182 said:

i understand the magico m6, m3 and the smaller m2's are heavy speakers - may i ask what are your views on them ?

My views are that at retail prices of £68,000 upwards, they are too expensive for me brand new. And likely to be too expensive for me on the used market for quite a few years to come.

I also tend to prefer a minumum of 12" for my bass drivers. And for anything costing me over £500, I'd have a preference for 18" or bigger bass drivers.

I also prefer sensitive, easy to drive speakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tin said:

Can you describe what these limitations are and how they would affect sonic quality? The only limitation I can think of is that most small speakers often have a lower efficiency, but that can easily be countered with more powerful amplifiers and as such isn't a real concern.

Sensitivity, dispersion/baffle-step issues and limited maximum SPL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.