Help CA Find New Speakers

[barrows]

Hey @The Computer Audiophile!  Some things to consider:

 

I would not allow the "full range" idea to stop you from considering speakers which are nearly full range.  The problem is, it is almost impossible (especially without a dedicated "perfect" room build) to get both true full range (flat to 20 Hz) performance AND good imaging from a single pair of speakers.  Generally, one can place the speakers for best imaging and tonality, OR, for best bass performance, but rarely will both things be accomplished.  I know that many folks have "issues" regarding sub woofers, but really, the addition of a sub allows for best performance.  I would suggest considering speakers which are nearly full range (with good output to 35 Hz or so) and then adding a single sub for the very lowest frequencies.  With a nearly full range pair of speakers it becomes relatively easy to integrate a single sub, because the the crossover to the sub can be set low enough that the output of the sub will not localize to its position (and the sub will not be playing anywhere near the critical mid range frequencies)-this approach gives a lot of flexibility in where one can place the sub.  I prefer JL audio for subs, but of course there are other good ones...  It amazes me how much a single, good sub, well set up, contributes to soundstage depth and ambience retrieval.

 

For the speakers, are even the Kaya series from Vivid out due to appearance?  Vivid speakers sound so good...

 

I am assuming that you want speakers which are good on all types of music, and on less than perfect recordings.  In my experience this leaves out speakers like Magico, and top level models from, Focal-which tend to sound absolutely fantastic on "perfect" recordings, but tend to be a bit hard sounding on anything but the best recordings, and much Rock or Pop music.  My suggestions are for high resolution speakers, which are still just forgiving enough to be good with less than perfect recordings, and should also match well with Constellation amplifiers.

 

Rockport, Avalon, Vivid, Wilson, KEF... 

[barrows]

Go Chris go!  I must admit I have a bit of speaker envy right now, as I know whatever you decide, you are gong to get something awesome.

[barrows]

5 minutes ago, RickyV said:

Yeah, I love me some Raidhos!  But Chris would need more than these ones, as one goes up to the bigger models one gets a more full sound...  And they get very, very expensive very fast as they get bigger. 

[barrows]

Not enough for me.  Those are very small drivers (like 5").  Without the capability to move a bit more air, this model can be a bit weak in terms of body, and at higher volumes, good with string quartets, not as much with Pearl Jam.

There is no substitute for horsepower!  Love Raidhos though, for sure...  They need to be matched to the room volume in terms of their ability to move air, hence why Raidho has models with more drivers...  These are the TD 2.1s maybe?  Probably fantastic in a small room where one is not expecting super deep extension.

[barrows]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

That's one of the things about audio - for every two audiophiles, there are three opinions from non-journalists who are just know-nothing blowhards...

I do not think that is IT.  The fact is, all loudspeakers are very compromised.  An audiophile is forced to choose which qualities in sound reproduction are most important to them, and (hopefully) they choose their loudspeakers appropriate to their preferences.

One who values dynamic expression over other qualities, might choose a horn based speaker.  One who values transparency, might alternatively choose a 'stat or planar magnetic, etc.  Unfortunately, there is no one speaker technology which solves all the problems of transforming the electrical signal to moving air.

[barrows]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

of course

 

my objection was to horn evangelism - preferences for the least bad quality should not be passed off as a religion

 

for example, I like Maggies, Quads, etc. things of that ilk - yet I will readily acknowledge Vandersteen, Wilson, and so forth

Yeah, agreed.  I was not meaning to say your comments were in error, my bad really.  Anyone stating a preference for certain type of loudspeaker is fine with me, as to my mind that person is just revealing what qualities in playback matter to them most.  But when the audiophile makes statements such as "only (insert favorite type of loudspeaker here) designs make for realistic sounding playback, I get really annoyed.

I know my preference is for, overall, traditional, drivers in a box style loudspeakers, because for me, well designed versions of this type of loudspeaker tend to have the fewest faults, no they are not as dynamic as the best horns, and they are not (at least not often) as transparent as the best planars (be it 'stats or planar magnetics), and box type loudspeakers are also the most expensive type of speaker to produce (at least in you want a good one with a non-resonant enclosure)-but their combination of virtues is hard to beat for my listening preferences.  Understand that I really do not tolerate the lack of body inherent in planars, or the often weird tonal qualities of horns; but I would never suggest that drivers in a box type speakers are the only ones which folks should consider to produce realistic music playback.

[barrows]

@fas42, I do not disagree, but my main point was that loudspeakers, have much more compromise involved with their performance than any other component in the playback chain.  I suspect the reason is that the engineering challenge of converting electrical signals accurately into moving air is an order of magnitude greater than the of electronic-electronic interfacing.

[barrows]

Ahh yes.  Nice choice Chris, I suspect you will be very very happy with those speakers!