Turk 182

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

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, tuga said:

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

I'm not a native speaker, so I know my usage of sensitivity and efficiency, is incorrect 50% of the time. I don't see sensitivity as an acoustic issue though. The solution is clear, and easy to apply: moar amplification will do the trick.

Dispersion/baffle-step: can you explain how is this a specific problem for small speakers? I don't know enough about the subject to be honest.

Maximum SPL... this is where the subs would come in.

The advantages of small speakers are:

- less fuzzy about placement in real rooms.

- smaller boxes are far more rigid.

- much better value/money.

- in most real world applications you need a sub anyway to convincingly deliver 16Hz.

- often a much higher WAF; small speakers never look like Dr. Who adversaries.

As most people have to make compromises in their setups, and as you can spend each money only once, to me it seems unwise to have to pay lots of those monies for the area of 35 to 60Hz, which is where with most standmounts and floorstanders the performance difference is. I have to admit that my amps are probably more expensive than they would be with speakers that would be easier to drive. But if I look at the price differences of my speakers and their larger brethern, and compensate for the amps and subs, it allowed me to spend more of my monies on other components.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tin said:

I'm not a native speaker, so I know my usage of sensitivity and efficiency, is incorrect 50% of the time.

No worries. I'm not a native speaker either.

1 hour ago, Tin said:

I don't see sensitivity as an acoustic issue though. The solution is clear, and easy to apply: moar amplification will do the trick.

If I'm not mistaken they are less sensitive because the designer is asking too much from the mid-woofer driver. You can't expect a small cone to reproduce low frequencies without trade-offs (with excursion comes distortion). It's not just a matter of more power, not in this case.

1 hour ago, Tin said:

Dispersion/baffle-step: can you explain how is this a specific problem for small speakers? I don't know enough about the subject to be honest.

It has to do with baffle width. It can be minimised through the use of waveguides and/or increased crossover complexity (compensation circuit):

https://trueaudio.com/st_diff1.htm

Small speaker usually have wide dispersion (unless waveguided). Wide dispesion means more room interference from 300Hz upwards.

1 hour ago, Tin said:

Maximum SPL... this is where the subs would come in.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but if you use, as most people do, the subs to complement the response of the mains then small mains are still struggling to reproduce the end of their passband. High-passing the mains would solve that problem but hardly anyone does that.

Many people are adding subs to ported mains. These ports will probably operate quite high in the range and will still have a negative impact after you've added the subs.

1 hour ago, Tin said:

The advantages of small speakers are:

- less fuzzy about placement in real rooms.

Yes and no.

Yes, because of their crippled low frequency response.

No because of the wide dispersion ( room interference from 300Hz upwards).

1 hour ago, Tin said:

- smaller boxes are far more rigid.

Rigidity is a good thing but it brings box resonance frequency higher, to where the ear is more sensitive. This requires more attention to dampening.

1 hour ago, Tin said:

- much better value/money.

You get what you pay for.

1 hour ago, Tin said:

- in most real world applications you need a sub anyway to convincingly deliver 16Hz.

This is the response of the LS50. Look at the how distortion increases brutally below 200Hz:

thd_90db.gif

These speakers should be prpbably be high-passed at 150Hz or above.

The sub would be working up to those frequencies.

1 hour ago, Tin said:

- often a much higher WAF; small speakers never look like Dr. Who adversaries.

WAF is an enemy of performance. Narrow baffles mean dispersion problems and tiny woofers and ports... "state of the art" and WAF don't mix.

On the other hand, "bling" does sometimes appeal to both WAF and HAF.

1 hour ago, Tin said:

As most people have to make compromises in their setups, and as you can spend each money only once, to me it seems unwise to have to pay lots of those monies for the area of 35 to 60Hz, which is where with most standmounts and floorstanders the performance difference is. I have to admit that my amps are probably more expensive than they would be with speakers that would be easier to drive. But if I look at the price differences of my speakers and their larger brethern, and compensate for the amps and subs, it allowed me to spend more of my monies on other components.

I agree. I am also on a lowish budget and have had to make compromises.

But we're discussing "state of the art" and that's why I've commented the way that I did.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

If I'm not mistaken they are less sensitive because the designer is asking too much from the mid-woofer driver. You can't expect a small cone to reproduce low frequencies without trade-offs (with excursion comes distortion). It's not just a matter of more power, not in this case.

As I had cunningly diverted the discussion into floorstanders-plus-subs versus standmount-plus-subs, does the same still go? I have to admit that this is beyond my knowledge.

Quote

It has to do with baffle width. It can be minimised through the use of waveguides and/or increased crossover complexity (compensation circuit):

https://trueaudio.com/st_diff1.htm

Small speaker usually have wide dispersion (unless wave guided). Wide dispesion means more room interference from 300Hz upwards.

My own standmounts have the smaller drivers outside of the cabinet, which is probably for this reason. So there solutions for this specific problem.

Also, there are quite a few floorstanders where the top part is quite similar for both the standmounts as the floorstanders in the same range. So those would share 75% of the issue.

Quote

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but if you use, as most people do, the subs to complement the response of the mains then small mains are still struggling to reproduce the end of their passband. High-passing the mains would solve that problem but hardly anyone does that.

Many people are adding subs to ported mains. These ports will probably operate quite high in the range and will still have a negative impact after you've added the subs.

I have bunged up the ports in my speakers, to make it easier to integrate the subs.

My mains are small, but not tiny, so they  might be large enough to not suffer from this. Again, I am promoting standmounts that can achieve around 65Hz vs floorstanders that struggle below 35Hz. The added real estate and cost of the larger speakers, where both still 'need' a sub to get to 16Hz. 

Quote

Rigidity is a good thing but it brings box resonance frequency higher, to where the ear is more sensitive. This requires more attention to dampening.

Sure, but that can be arranged. This shouldn't be an issue with state of the art standmounts. Placing a huge front facing woofer in a large floorstander, it will always be challenging to achieve rigidness.

Quote

This is the response of the LS50. Look at the how distortion increases brutally below 200Hz:

I don't think LS50s are state of the art, although I like they way they look.

Quote

WAF is an enemy of performance. Narrow baffles mean dispersion problems and tiny woofers and ports... "state of the art" and WAF don't mix.

On the other hand, "bling" does sometimes appeal to both WAF and HAF.

I don't agree. I do agree that tiny baffles can create issues, but floorstanders may suffer from the same issue in 3 of the 4 directions. I'm not a fan of ports either, but you'll find those in quite a lot floorstanders too. I'm not a fan of bling, I just like state of the art standmounts, paired with subs. 😁

Quote

I agree . I am also on a lowish budget and have had to make compromises.

My budget wasn't that small, but it was still limited, so I chose to buy standmounts for practical reasons, I don't have a ballroom sized living room, because the competing floorstanders would still require assistence with the lowest octave and because the price difference was quite large, considering that I'd still have to have the subs.

Istill think my standmounts are state of the art, if 2007 is your year of reference, and they're not blingy.

Edited by Tin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

The best active speakers I've heard are the Avantgarde Zero 1.  They have a 12" bass driver in a 19" wide baffle.

avamtarde-par-1.jpg

They look a bit lifestyle in white, but they genuinely sound high-end.  Never heard a standmount that did.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Tin said:

I also wonder... the very, very, very expensive and very very very huge Dalek like floorstanders, if I'm not mistaken, quite a few of them are passive, aren't they?

The Beolab 90s are active. A total of 8200 W per speaker according to a quick Google.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, meninblack said:

The best active speakers I've heard are the Avantgarde Zero 1.  They have a 12" bass driver in a 19" wide baffle.

avamtarde-par-1.jpg

They look a bit lifestyle in white, but they genuinely sound high-end.  Never heard a standmount that did.

You're welcome to confirm or readjust your opinion at my place.

Two potential drawbacks: I don't live in the UK and I do have the Mr. Blobby single. 😁

Share this post


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

I have bunged up the ports in my speakers, to make it easier to integrate the subs.

I can see that could help but have you considered using a dedicated crossover to integrate things better? Ideally one that also allows for time delay adjustment as well. You may be interested in this post of mine if you haven't seen it:

2 hours ago, Tin said:

Istill think my standmounts are state of the art, if 2007 is your year of reference, and they're not blingy.

I feel you're still misinterpreting my original post, and probably the views of at least some others. It was standmounts without a sub that I referred to as not being up to the level to be considered as state of the art in my opinion. This was what the OP suggested.

Edited by MartinC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

So what are these amazing standmounts, Tin?  My experience of standmout+sub has always been boom'n'tizz, but then again some people think that is a high-end sound...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MartinC said:

I can see that could help but have you considered using a dedicated crossover to integrate things better? Ideally one that also allows for time delay adjustment as well. You may be interested in this post of mine if you haven't seen it:

I feel you're still misinterpreting my original post, and probably the views of at least some others. It was standmounts without a sub that I referred to as not being up to the level to be considered as state of the art in my opinion (and I believe the people who agreed with my post). This was what the OP suggested.

We don't disagree, but that is allowed on the internet these days. I just wanted to explain that most floorstanders suffer from the same issue as standmounts; limited low bass performance.

As for the mini-DSP; I have been considering them, but for a slightly different use. The chief engineer of my speakers suggested that I would bung up the ports, to get a 12dB slope and to avoid having to try to match the woofer, the port and the sub in a very narrow frequency band. He also suggested that I would reverse the phase of the woofer, because in normal operation the port pushes with drum kicks, and now the driver does.

The reason I decided against the mini-DSP is that it would add a delay in the bass response, so it would be a win some/lose some. Of course I could decide to delay all drivers, but that would render my streamers DAC useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, meninblack said:

So what are these amazing standmounts, Tin?  My experience of standmout+sub has always been boom'n'tizz, but then again some people think that is a high-end sound...

There are plenty of amazing standmounts I think, but mine are these.

I have them in an analogue active configuration.

I have no idea what boom'n'tizz means btw,being not a native speaker and all, but I don't think my setup fits in that category.

PS I try not to make assumptions on what other people think or how they experience music. It serves no purpose.

Edited by Tin

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.