Like

What's wrong with this picture?

 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17192
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-ssi


Speakers jammed into the corners? Equipment plugged straight into the wall outlet? A hotel's wall outlet at that!






AudioNote has less expensive gear and their line of products is definitely worth seeking out for audition. One them quietly, "WOW!", moments possibly.




.
 

Gold Member
Username: Dakulis

Spokane, Washington United States

Post Number: 1319
Registered: May-05
Jan,

Come on, don't you put all your speakers in the corners. I usually do that and I turn them around so I can get more "muted" sound with the reflections coming off the back wall. Moreover, the plugs straight into hotel sockets make perfect sense. This was an "audio" show after all so the hotel was prepared with all of those fancy replacement wall sockets that "condition" the power. Anyone knows that. LOL

Okay, so a picture is worth a thousand words. Thanks for making me laugh, Dave
 

Gold Member
Username: Kbear

Canada

Post Number: 1198
Registered: Dec-06
Most Audio Note speakers are designed for corner placement.
 

Gold Member
Username: Petergalbraith

Canada

Post Number: 2251
Registered: Feb-04
Is hotel electricity different from regular electricity?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17280
Registered: May-04
.


"regular electricity"?!

 

New member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 2
Registered: Dec-12
Hilarious. $9000 for two-ways?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17576
Registered: May-04
.

That's a little like "regular electricty". How many drivers should you get for nine grand?
 

New member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 3
Registered: Dec-12
More than two! For that price, a well-designed three- or four-way will be a better speaker.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17579
Registered: May-04
.


So "more stuff" equals "better stuff"? More stuff usually means more time and phase errors in a loudspeaker. It depends on what you think "sounds good", but more parts are not always the answer. More parts only always means higher cost.

What sort of speakers do you think sound good?




.
 

New member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 4
Registered: Dec-12
By dividing the sound spectrum into smaller segments, each driver has less work to do (specializing). Power handling is better to do. To reproduce low sounds adequately, a wooofer needs to be big, and this makes it slow, too slow to reproduce higher frequencies as well as a smaller one can, all things being equal. Same with tweeters and mid-ranges. I used to own Rogers Studio 1, a two-way with a supertweeter (though it had three drivers, it's really a two-way). The mid-range driver was also the woofer (8 inches in diameter). I eventually tired of the 'slowness' this speaker exhibited through the mid-range. (Many British speakers derived from BBC research follow this overall design, but these combined woofer-midrange units simply cannot move as fast as a well-designed mid-range unit, and don't produce LF sound as well as woofers of 12 or 15 inches diameter either). I owned these Rogers speakers for 20 years, then came across a pair of Yamaha NS-1000M speakers, which are clearly superior in every way, though to the uninitiated the speakers might be hard to tell apart, because their tonal balance is so similar (but once you start to pay attention the transients, the game is over, and the Yamahas win hands down). Other speakers that I like are Kenwood Model Sevens (4 drivers) and the IMF TLS-80 and IMF Studio (4 drivers). These are superb speakers. You simply can't make a two-way sound as good. It's physics. Been there, done that. Won't go back ever again. It's not even a contest.

If I lived in Florida, I would run to get these!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Pair-Of-IMF-TLS-80-Transmission-Line-Speaker-Local-Pick-Up-Only-/281042911830?pt=Vintage_Electronics_R2&hash=item416f768256

I am not saying these $9000 speakers are no good. I'm saying that as two-ways they will inevitably have the same limitations inherent in all two-way designs. Notably, slow transient response in the mid-range.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17580
Registered: May-04
.



OK, this day goes in my diary. I never thought I'd see anyone who liked Yamaha NS1000's and IMF TLS80's. Well, at least you didn't include some Marantz Imperial 9's in that list.

I can hardly agree the Rogers have a tonal balance similar to the NS1000's. Beryllium tweeters don't sound the least bit like plastic or fabric anymore than plastic woofers sound like pulp. More importantly, I've never been driven out of the room by a Rogers' speaker.

But the TLS80 is, IMO, one of those educational speakers you seldom come across. The bottom octaves of the 80 inform you just how bass should be reproduced in a home audio system. They're far from a Klipschorn and they'll eat up a 300 watt amp for brunch but they are a speaker to remember.




I think you're overlooking alot in your statements and assuming values which are not exclusive to a specific design type. "Less work" isn't much of a positive if the work being done is not being done well. Power handling is only important if you're in the habit of pushing the drivers beyond their limits. Better to just buy a speaker with a higher electrical sensivity spec and not push your amplifier either.



"To reproduce low sounds adequately, a wooofer needs to be big, and this makes it slow, too slow to reproduce higher frequencies as well as a smaller one can, all things being equal."



Not at all. To reproduce low frequencies the speaker system has to move lots of air. And it must remain completely stiff across its dimension while doing that. If that is, your goal is high quality bass reproduction. Smaller drivers can move air in the right system either by moving further within their voice coil (Xmas) or by being loaded into an acoustic transformer (such as a horn) or a pipe (such as a transmission line). An infinite baffle has a very gradual second order low frequency roll out which will provide deeper bass extension from a smaller driver diameter. So most anything other than a bass reflex.

And - all things being equal - a smaller driver dimension will always be stiffer across a broader area of the diaphragm than will a larger driver. Size of the driver though makes no difference to its "speed" - all things equal. Mass vs motor is what's important. Reduce the mass and the driver sounds faster. Increase the motor power and you get similar results. Load that all into a horn and no direct radiator system can compare.

A large diameter but light and stiff cone material or a very strong magnet, or both, can make a conventional (non-ESL or planar) driver sound "fast" while not giving up bass extension. These are all innovations created by the BBC based speaker manufacturers who pioneered poly drivers (KEF, Harbeth, Spendor) which could reproduce deep bass while being light enough and stiff enough to play well beyond their upper cut off frequency. The real trick is to have a high quality tweeter which can play down well into the very low midrange frequencies. Then the woofer can be rolled out much sooner and the overall sound will be more coherent, more like the sound of one driver covering the broadest range of octaves. This method takes the issues of the typical low frequency driver more or less out of the equation.

Super light materials such as coated, thin paper cones are completely cohesive when they require no filters while having near full range response. If you want "speed", not much in a direct radiator can touch a mylar panel. I'm not at all opposed to supplementing a superior upper eight or nine octaves with a very good subwoofer for the bottom octave(s). To me that makes far more sense than trying to make one driver do everything. And a sub/sat type system is far easier to set up well for the properties of both systems than is a single, wide bandwidth multi-way system.


Multi-way systems almost all tend to use drivers with two significant flaws. First, they are variously sized (or even shaped) drivers and, second, they are never identical driver materials. (Quad ESL's and a few other electrostatics are the only exception to those facts that I can think of.) This gives any multi-way speaker a sound character that is incapable of having a pulp low frequency driver sound anything like a fabric or poly mid which will not sound identical to a metal tweeter which is not consistent with, say, a ribbon super tweeter. The various diameters in the multi-way system contribute to uneven in room response as each driver narrows its dispersion as it approaches its upper frequency limits. This is then crossed to the next driver up in the frequency band which now contributes a very broad dispersion pattern into the room sound at that driver's lower frequency limit. Sort of like putting Venetian Blinds in front of your TV monitor. No matter how you position the system, you'll always be trading off what's wrong with one driver's output against what's wrong with another driver's output. Correct listening position with a multi-way system is far more complicated than with a simple two way or SDFR system. While problems still exist in a two way system, the audible compromises are less due to the lower parts count in the system. More money can be put into each individual part rather than spreading out the cost over more parts of lower quality. Then there's the parts count in the crossover filters themself and what they do to the signal integrity. A well designed two way can be a fairly benign load on any amplifier while most multi-ways have significant impedance and electrical phase problems which make them more difficult loads. You have to push the amp harder into a more difficult load which then requires higher power handling in the drivers. It's a self fulfilling solution to a self induced problem but not a very elegant one in either case.


I'd say you and I listen for very different values in music. While I appreciate the TLS80's, it's for their lowest octaves only. And metal based drivers have always been aggravating to me. Mostly, though, the time and acoustic phase issues of anything more complicated than a single full range driver draws attention to the all too common problems with multi-way speakers for me. There's just too much information loss in the filters and too much smearing of musical values in the average multi-way system for my taste. A NS1000 certainly sounds like what it is to me - a three way system with time and phase problems. The coherence of a high efficiency single driver is more appealing to me than the power handling of any mutli-way system I can think of. Two ways are simple to execute and time and phase issues are easily resolved by a good designer.

http://www.decware.com/paper49.htm


Have you ever listened through a pair of Audio Note speakers? An Ohm F? Or a Lowther?






.
 

New member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 5
Registered: Dec-12
You're merely repeating myths you have heard. The material from which a driver is made does not cause it to have the sound quality which you attribute to it. The NS-1000's beryllium drivers do not sound 'metallic' at all. The fact is that beryllium has the best properties of any substance for making drivers. It is lighter and stiffer than anything else on earth. The problem is fabricating it, not how it sounds. Blind listening tests will prove that The NS-1000's beryllium drivers do not sound 'metallic'. The 'metallic' sound (heard on other speakers) is caused by other things, such as ringing, and these drivers don't ring (the crossovers roll the mid-range drivers off below their resonance peak, and the tweeter's resonance peak is beyond audibility) I have listened to dozens of high-class speakers over the decades, and the NS-1000s beat them all (except the Kenwood Model Sevens, which are four-way speakers). Two-way speakers can't cut it, no matter what you do. the mass of the woofer-midrange is simply too high. It can't start and stop as quickly as a little midrange. This is not even a contest. I didn't say that the NS-1000 and the IMF big boys sound alike, I said that the Rogers Studio 1 and the NS-1000 have a similar tonal balance, and they do. I owned the Rogers for 20 years, and when I replaced them with the NS-1000s I scarcely could tell them apart in overall tonal balance. the NS-1000s, however, sound so fast and clean that it is scary.

As far as 'smearing' is concerned, the two-ways are guilty of that. It's why I got rid of the Rogers Studio 1s. The NS-1000's tweeter and midrange drivers are made of beryllium.

As the reviewer whose text I quoted below says, NOTHING comes close to them.
 

New member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 6
Registered: Dec-12
Let me quote from another reviewer:

http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/floorstanding-speakers/yamaha/ns-1000/pr d_120821_1594crx.aspx

Date Reviewed: January 2, 2012

Bottom Line:
I used to be a long-term electrostatic enthusiast, have been listening to a Martin Logan Scenario speakers for a few years and recently, after rebuilding my home audio setup I came across these. I actually bought them just after reading many rave reviews and not listening prior to purchase.

The first thing that you notice with these is that they are, in fact, a non-audiophile speaker. Let me briefly explain this: they simply do not color the sound. What comes in, comes out. This can be troublesome for people who do not know how to properly set-up a system as a whole. For example, they like clean sounding amplifiers and they really shine with hi-res chain. This is also a speaker for someone who knows the innate workings of a careful system-matching. The usage of the same dome shape and beryllium for midrange and tweeter results in an unprecedented clarity, cohesion and transient response. For example, typical Mmd of a midrange driver in many hi-end speakers is around 10 grams. In NS-1000M it is... 0.6 grams. Many sound engineers and more advanced DIY'ers know the ATC SM75-150S, which is regarded as best midrange (dome) driver ever. They are used in PMC, ProAc higher-end, and often ridiculously expensive studio monitors. I can't resist the temptation to say that the beryllium dome in Yamahas are better than SM75-150S. But there's more to it - the fact that they also use beryllium tweeter and good paper cone in - what's important - a sealed box results in a sound that you consider as a whole. It's not just a beryllium speakers. It's not a speaker that excels in one, two fields and fails in others. On a scale 1-10 they have all 8-9 and 10 in speed, resolution, accuracy, lack of compression while having 8-9 in others. This is something VERY rare for a speakers costing as much as 10-20k USD.

Yes, they sound harsh. With bad amplification.
Yes, they can sound bass-shy. As above, with bad placement.
Yes, they are not the last word in soundstage. MBL are better. ESL's ale... different, but NOT beeter.

No, they will not make poor recording sound good.
No, they will not color the midrange and add 'magic'. Actually, they as much magic as a loudspeaker can be, just because there's no coloration across the entire frequency spectrum. The interesting fact is that in the THD graph of the beryllium dome there is a spike of 2nd order harmonic around 2KHz (while this spike is still much lower that the monotonic distortion graphs of the vast majority of designs) and this, possibly is the source of the so called "NS-1000M magic". The midrange is startingly clear, precise. The tweeter is on-par with the ones used in JMLab Utopia Be series and I think this speaks for itself. The bass, with proper amplification (clear sounding solid state like Lavardin IT or IS Reference) is clear, uncolored, dynamic.

Image accurancy is out-of this world. These speakers just throw a soundstage around and between the speakers (room treatment is obviously recomended, due to the wide dispersion) - pure silver/teflon insulated cables recommended here. Line conditioning also recommended (because on speakers like these you can easily hear the power supply line quality). Hi-res sources (like good turntables or DPA Reference SX512 DAC/dCS DACs) will be a perfect match.

As for the amps - there are two choices - SET or hi-end (not necessarily expensive) solid-state like above-mentioned Lavardin, digital amps like TACT Millenium will be also a good choice. Steer clear of harsh sounding solid state as well as of some poorer quality valve amps.

As for the power requirements - they are actually efficient speakers. Around 90dB @ 2.83V and 8 Ohms nominal impedance should not cause problems, but beware - they need a clear sounding amp, which does not mean "lots of current". I cannot emphasise how important this is. Even some valve amps can sound harsh with NS-1000M. Technically speaking they need an amplification with low thermal-induced TIM (Transient Induced Intermodulation distiortion), because they "show" the time-domain based change of the THD spectrum (you can't actually hear this, but you more "feel" it - some solid-state amps just sound good, bacause they have no 'thermal distortion', for example Lavardin, YBA, some digital amps, vast majority of tube amps).

They can sound good with SET amps (2A3, 300B, some 6C33S designs too), they will sound stellar with higher-end Audio Research tube power-plants as well as with modest YBA Integre solid-state and even more transparent Lavardin IT/MAP amps. But... there's one amp that will do the justice and this is probalby the ultimate match for Yamahas: Pass Labs Aleph Series. You will get Single-Ended-Triode transparency, with the transformer-less accurancy of the Nelson Pass designs and the visceral bass impact of these Class-A SE transistor designs (btw. Alephs DO NOT sound bass-shy compared to Krell power amps, they are in fact, different, because SE will always sound different to push-pull designs. In P-P you will have less even-orded harmonics, always one - be it even or odd - harmonic less than SE but even orded will always sound better, even if the THD spectrum is higher. Moreover the SE operation entails class A operation as well and in it's better because the power supply sees the almost constant power requirement).

To sum it up...

WEAKNESSES:

1. I need to say this: they are not an audiophile "color-the sound"/"emphasise one frequency spectrum to avoid showing the deficiencies in other" kind of speaker.
2. They WILL relentless show problems in the chain if such problems occur.
3. They WILL NOT correct poor recoring.
4. Yes, MBL 111A soundstaging is better. BUT MBL has a reputation of a best-imaging speaker in the world. Nothing comes close to them. Not even Avalon Eidolons, ML Statements, B&W Nautilius and (many) others.
5. YES, Avangade Acoustics Ion tweeters are better. But, as WITH MBLs, nothing comes close to them.
6. YES, TAD R-1 is probably the NS-1000M squared. But at what cost?
7. YES, they do not have the JMLab or Thiel or other do-me-good honey logo on them.

STRENGHTS:

1. NOTHING comes close to them for a low-level midrange micro/macro dynamics, reverberation, clarity, precision of the beryllium midrange unit. Not even Accuton long-gap/short-coil ceramic midrange unit. Not ATC mid unit. Think of it as a real-world STAX Lambda Pro in a speaker-world equivalent. I personally thing that the STAX Lambda Pro is THE LAST WORLD in what we can accomplish using a non-military technology (everyone who's heard Lamba and compared them to, say, Sennheise HD800, AKG K-1000, Ultrasone Edition 9 etc. will agree here).

2. They are three-way desing, but the midrange/tweeter sounds as it were one unit. Cohesion across midrange and treble.

3. Speed, transient response is alarmingly startling.

4. Clarity, lack of coloration. Un-boxiness. I personally feel that some ESL's can sound colored compared to Yamahas.

5. Bass precision, ability to discern bass between recordings.

6. Soundstage - as one reviewer here mentioned "locked phase response between channes", nothing floats, it simply "hangs" it the air. The image size is... natural and depends on the source material.

7. Once again: MIDRANGE: clarity, accuracy through precision.

Also, last, but not least and all the above virtues can bee seen on the graphs: the measured distrion of there speakers put to shame most, if not almost all, modern designs.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17582
Registered: May-04
.

You found someone else who likes the NS1000's. So? I've noticed over the years it's rare to find someone who dislikes what they own. Until, that is, they are ready to trade for something else. You, yourself, spent twenty years liking an inferior speaker. Until you found the Yamahas. Since what you quote is not a "professional" review, I'll assume the writer owns NS1000's or, at the least, likes the NS1000's character. The review certainly reads as if that were the case and the writer therefore makes many statements which are not borne out by realworld facts. Quoting someone with no actual authority to state realworld facts is a bit like saying Mickey Mouse likes the NS1000's.


I see no need for you to get defensive about your speakers or to say I'm repeating "myths" when what I have posted are verifiable facts. I'm not a member of the hifi police so I won't be coming by your place to check out whether your system has sufficient transparency or air. If you like what you own, join the club. We all do. That's generally why we bought it to begin with.

That does not take away from the fact a low frequency driver still must move lots of air and the best way to do that is for the driver's diaphragm to remain stiff and unbending. That is not a myth, it is a fact. Just as "Xmas" and under hung voice coils are a fact. It's also a fact more complex crossovers make for more difficult loads on amplifiers as energy is converted into heat passing through each component part of the filter. It's a fact capacitors and inductors push Voltage and Amperage components apart which makes the incoming signal less efficient at performing "work" which in turn creates the need for more "work" from the driving source. Electrical phase shift results in acoustic phase shift which means, in a multi-way system, the system's drivers may be wired between each driver pair for transient perfect response, time perfect response or amplitude correct response. One, but not the other two. The more "ways" the system is split, the more difficult it becomes to maintain correct system output which resembles the actual input signal. Not a myth, just a fact. That some listeners do not perceive these difficulties while others do is also not a myth, just a verifiable fact. It doesn't mean I listen "better" than you, just that I listen different than you.


Anyone can logically determine the parts count in a two way crossover is lower than in a four way system with similar filters at each location. If a two way system can work with only a single, first order cap in its filter section, then it only stands to reason a four way system must have more parts than a two way. Therefore, it follows that most three and four way filters are likely to be more difficult loads for any amplifier due to their increased complexity and higher parts count. And that the same budget stretched over twice or four times as many parts will result in lower quality parts being used in the more complex system. "All things being equal" that is. Those aren't myths, they are simply facts any high school freshman can figure out.

As I said, I don't think you and I listen for the same values in music. You seem to listen for those things the hifi does and the beryllium domes don't bother you because you don't hear from them what I hear. Fine. People bought NS1000's, so there's obviously a market niche that Yamaha filled. People bought BIC Venturi Sixes too. I'd gladly wager there have been more Lowther drivers sold over the years than NS1000's.




"The material from which a driver is made does not cause it to have the sound quality which you attribute to it."


Well, of course it does. If it did not, why would the designer select that material in the first place? If someone cannot determine that a pulp driver doesn't "sound like" a plastic driver which doesn't "sound like" a metalic driver, etc., they should spend more time listening and less time defending what has not been stated.

You make the claim I called the NS100's "metalic". I did not. Go check, it's not in my post. It's interesting though that you immediately defend the most common complaint about the speaker even when I've not said I find the speaker to possess that fault. I object to the balance of the speaker - for one thing, but I never said that was due to the "sound of" the beryllium drivers. I do, however, find your claim that beryllium tweeters have no tonal balance differences with plastic dome tweeters (with their much different resonance and break up frequencies and modes) to be fairly preposterous. If beryllium didn't have a "sound" unlike plastic, why would Yamaha have gone to the expense of fabricating a very difficult to handle berryllium driver? If the two materials performed identically - or even "alike", why not use the lower cost "sounds like" item and put your savings to work elsewhere in the product? The answer, of course, is because the two drivers do not perform alike and, therefore, do not have the same tonal balance when used in different systems. As I said, I can't recall ever being chased from the room when a Roger's speaker was in use.

I did say fabric or poly mids do not "sound like" metal tweeters. That's a fact which has been proven both on the test bench and in Yamaha's use of the more expensive, difficult to fabricate material. I also said metal tweeters do not match the sonic values of a ribbon tweeter in most cases. That's not myth, that's simply fact - or "physics" as you put it. The perceived "speed" of the two drivers is dissimilar due to the mass of the systems and how they are driven. As is the dispersion pattern of each, which will affect each driver's in room response and the correct listening height for the system. Plus the impedance is different between the two types of drivers which will result in different amps performing in different ways when driving either unit. That's simply a fact. If you think the NS 1000's need to be defended against criticism of their "metalic" sound, that's your interpretation of what someone other than I have said.




That a filter will create time and phase errors is also not a myth. If you seriously believe it is, then you need to spend more time with a course in basic electronics and less time defending your speakers against unstated criticisms. In fact all of those things you wiped away as "myth" happen to be true. And to me the NS 1000's "sound like" three way speakers with time and phase errors. Posting someone who owns the speakers saying they like the speakers isn't going to change my opinion of the NS1000. It may even be very fine at achieving its design goals, but those are not goals I find to be musically valuable nor interesting. Nor would I have expected anyone who likes the IMF's character to also prefer the NS1000's character. In fact, if the design goal was to blow me away with how the speaker "sounds", that is the very antithesis of what I find valuable in a high end loudspeaker. I'd really rather the speaker itself not "sound" - at all. If that offends you, it would seem to be your problem and not mine.




We now know what speakers you consider to have "good sound". We also see that you are unwilling to accept basic facts as they are. Alot of people have the same problem. "I'm right and you're wrong", is all too pervasive on internet forums. Facts are only useful when they support your side and any other counter-factual statements are simply labelled to be "myths" or, more accurately, falsehoods. Your argument of authority - "I have listened to dozens of high-class speakers over the decades ... " - matters little to me. I sold high end audio for twenty five years and it's a good bet I've heard more speakers in more installations and in more situations than you have. I can't recall an install where I thought the NS1000's "sounded" anything other than how I have described them. So I'll see your specious argument and raise you twenty five years worth of arguments, many of which were spent selling Yamaha products.




Have you ever heard music played through the two way Audio Note speakers? An Ohm F? Or a Lowther based system?



.
 

New member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 7
Registered: Dec-12
It is obviously a waste of time to continue this argument on a technical level, since you are simply unacquainted with the facts of the matter (e.g., you seem not to be aware that the directivity of the sound increases with frequency; the sound from tweeters is narrower no matter how it is shaped, and the lowest frequencies are almost omniderectional, which is why a single sub-woofer is all that is needed). The Yamaha NS-1000s were not unknown to me when I bought the Rogers. I had heard the Yamaha NS-1000s when I bought the Yamaha NS-690s that I owned before the Rogers. The NS-690s' faults became obvious over the years I owned them. They sounded boxy and lacked the airiness that I craved. I bought the Rogers and after a number of years I simply forgot about the NS-1000s for some reason. I happened to see a used pair in a shop about 11 years ago, and bought them at once. They are just about the best speakers ever made. Everything else sounds coloured, shrill, dull, slow, or some combination thereof. Not too long ago I listened to Revel Salon speakers:

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/96/

If you want to be driven from the room, hook up a pair of these!

If the NS-1000s sound harsh to you, it's the associated components or the recording, not the speakers. They are super-fast and super-clean, revealing everything.

The only thing that sounds better are my Stax Lambda electrostatic earspeakers.

Perhaps you were not dealer for Yamaha products. Sounds like 'sour grapes' to me.

I am 63 years old and have owned audio equipment since the age of 22. I have never been a fan of loud music and my hearing is remarkably acute. Both from experience and from the science of the matter, the NS-1000s are beyond reproach, and I have absolutely zero interest in listening to anything else. It would be a joke, I assure you, just like the Revel salons, perhaps the most wretched speakers I have heard in a dealer's showroom. That these abominations were priced at $15000 is an insult to the human race.

Again, I assure you that the tonal balance of the Rogers Studio 1s and the NS-1000 are quite similar.

The 'balance' of the NS-1000 speakers can be controlled by the mid-range and tweeter level controls. I find it best with these controls are set to the 'minus' side of normal just a little, about -1 or - 0.75.

Never, never again will I listen to two-ways. They are devil speakers!
 

New member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 8
Registered: Dec-12
You may have sold equipment for many years, indeed. The question is what you are capable of hearing. There are many who understand, or claim to understand, the nuts and bolts aspect of things, but whose 'ears' are suspect. The fellow who sold me the Rogers, for instance, is someone whose 'ears' differ distinctly from mine. We get along fine, but I don't hear the same things he does, not at all. I am extremely sensitive to high-frequency nastiness, and that's why I am dumbfounded that any one thinks the NS-1000 is harsh. It is the least harsh speaker I have ever heard.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17584
Registered: May-04
.

Once again, you are seriously mistaken. I have never made the claimed that the NA1000 was "harsh". Many others have made that claim. But I have not. I still find it interesting you are defending the speaker against claims I've not made. You seem well practiced at defending the NS1000's. You, however, seem rather unable to actually follow along with the current conversation.


Why are you insulting me? I've not insulted you or your equipment. My tastes are not for the NS1000's or anything resembling their style of design. That fact should not draw any criticism from another listener. Nor am I concerned about the power handling of a driver since I don't overdrive my systems. And being bad at specialization is no virtue.



So why the ad homninems towards me? Why defend your hearing acuity unless you are keenly aware that it is not as acute as it might have once been? At 63 no one would expect you to have the hearing of a child. Or the disposition. I've not made the claim you are incapable of hearing flaws in the Yamahas. I merely stated you are obviously not aware of what bothers me about the speaker. It's not harshness or that the speakers "sound metalic". So why do you conitnue to return to the same old saws about how the Yamaha has been criticized by others? If you wish to stay in this conversation, please pay attention to what is being posted. If you wish to just spout off about your speakers, you've done that. You can go now. I disagree with how good the NS100 actually is.

If you feel it is "a waste of time to continue this argument on a technical level, since you are simply unacquainted with the facts of the matter", why give back the exact information regarding dispersion characteristics and in room power distribution which I first stated? They are inescapable flaws inherent in multi-way speakers. Flaws which are dictated by the laws of physics and the NS 1000's are multi-way systems. To argue the facts of irregular in room power response is to actually make the very best case against the NS1000. That is a primary cricitism I have of the Yamahas, they are not cohesive in a way in which I desire a speaker to reproduce music. They have noticeable time and phase errors which were common in many three ways systems of the day and which continue on to today's multi-way systems. They sound like speakers to someone who finds such errors to be disruptive. If that's what you desire from your system, I've not criticized your taste. What, though, about my statements are you clearly missing?



Yes, I sold Yamaha products, many of them. From their very first generation of equipment into the US. I gave many early generation Yamaha products away to friends because many of their electronics of that time were very good for the money. I've used Yamaha receivers in ancillary systems of my own. There's no sour grapes on my part regarding Yamaha, I made good commissions selling the line - when it was worth selling.



Once again your age does not impress me. I'm 60 and I am still willing to bet I have heard more speakers, in more systems, in more rooms, in more situations, with more equipment, playing more musical genres than have you. So knock off trying to get one over on me by stating how "educated" you are in audio. The NS1000's fail if for no other reason than their obvious time and phase errors. Since you, with all your smarts about audio, have not addressed those flaws in the 1000's design, I can only assume you have no legitmate answer to that criticism of the speaker. I also assume that's wise since there are no justifications which can negate those errors in the NS1000. It's a fact of how multi-way speakers are typically built and, if you find time and phase errors to be offensive - as I commonly do, there is nothing which can be said which makes the problem not be audible and not be a failing on most multi-way speaker systems. It's not just the Yamahas I am criticizing when I say multi-way speakersare flwawed in ways I find bothersome. You probably don't hear these errors since you seem to prefer multi-way systems, but I do and they are dealbreakers for me.



You, on the otherhand, are free to enjoy the he11 out of your Yamaha speakers.



Is that non-technical enough for you to understand?


Have you ever heard music played through the two way Audio Note speakers? An Ohm F? Or a Lowther based system?


It would only be common courtesy to respond to those questions on my third attempt at asking. I don't give a flip about the NS1000's, you are not going to defend the indefensible to me regarding the problems of the NS 1000's and, if you wish to continue telling anyone willing to listen how wonderful your speaker are in your estimation, please, go somewhere else to do so. Three way systems are bothersome to me and you have not justified your remark that Audio Note is not asking a fair price for their speakers. Audio Note isn't selling a 1970's Rogers system and they are certainly not selling a 1970's Japanese speaker system. They are selling a refinement of the Snell line of speakers which are to this day still considered to be a very fine, almost cult status, design for a high quality loudspeaker system. If you've never heard the AN speakers, how do you feel you are justified in criticizing their product? Or, are you just assuming all two way speaker systems sound like your old Rogers?


Have you ever auditioned any of the three speaker systems I asked about?



Oh! and this, " ... the lowest frequencies are almost omniderectional, which is why a single sub-woofer is all that is needed", isn't true either.




.
 

New member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 9
Registered: Dec-12
No two-way system can match a three-way system, all other things being equal. Period. Asking a big speaker (necessary to handle low frequencies) to handle middle or high frequencies is asking for the impossible. I owned the Rogers Studio 1s for 20 years, and though they had their virtues, they also had severe drawbacks.

The Rogers Studio 1 is perhaps a typical two-way (8-inch woofer-midrange unit, crossing over at 3K to a Celestion tweeter, then to a KEF supertweeter at 13K). The fact is that the woofer-midrange has too high mass to give good transient response in the midrange, and is too small to give really good bass. It is a compromise that simply shows itself. The midrange driver diaphragm of the NS-1000 weighs less than that of many tweeters.

NO two-way can compete with that. NONE. It's not physically possible. The imaging of the NS-1000s is superb, and I have no idea what you are talking about in your criticisms of that aspect of its performance. You do not inspire the slightest credibility.

Have I listened to any of those systems? Of course not! Why should I? I own NS-1000s! Have you listened to the Revel Salons? $15,000 abortions! The company that made them should be prosecuted for criminal fraud!

You must be on mescaline if you think the NS-1000s have severe 'time and phase errors'. Dispersion is related to frequency, dear sir, not diaphragm size or shape. I repeat, $9,000 for a two-way system is criminal fraud. And where did you get the idea that power-handling is related to overdriving? Ever listen to Mahler? I would never own any American-made audio equipment or drive an American car. The engineering simply isn't there. The Yamaha NS-1000s are engineered far beyond anything available today.

Has it occurred to you that a speaker system can be perfectly time and phase corrected at only ONE distance?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 11
Registered: Dec-12
1) Every dynamic two-way has limitations due to the fact that a single driver has to cover a large range of frequencies. It is inherent in the nature of the beast.

Why?
a) On the high side: A large driver (a driver suited for bass has to be at least 8 inches in diameter to do a decent job) will necessarily have greater mass than a smaller one. The Rogers is a typical two-way, with the woofer-midrange crossing over to the tweeter at 3kHz. The Yamaha and most 3-ways cross over much lower, at around 500Hz or thereabouts. This means that in the Rogers a heavy 8-inch driver is carrying the signals from 500Hz to 3kHz, whereas with the Yamaha NS-1000, a very light beryllium driver is carrying those same frequencies. The NS-1000 mid-range driver works from 500Hz to about 6kHz, where the tweeter takes over. It is even lighter and smaller still, and made of beryllium as well, so there is a continuity of sound signature. In the Rogers, the greater mass of the 8-inch woofer-midrange presents a clearly inferior mid-range sound, with a 'slowness' to transients.

b) On the low side: The small woofer-midrange (8 inches in diameter) simply cannot push as much air as a 12-inch or 15-inch woofer, so they designed a port into the box, to allow for greater excursion and to lower the resonance frequency of the system to help augment the lowest frequencies. But the resulting bass sound is sloppy, not crisp like that of the NS-1000, with its large air-suspension design. The bass of the NS-1000 does not go quite as low as that of the Rogers, but the difference is very small, and the bass is much tighter.

2) The fact that the NS-1000 was designed in the 1970s is absolutely irrelevant. It has advanced technologies that many systems today don't have. No matter what you do to a two-way, you can't overcome the physics. Also, there is the Doppler problem, with high frequencies 'riding' on a big woofer that is moving at low frequencies.

No two way can possibly be worth $9,000, and it is a criminal act to try to sell such a monstrosity. I'll say this to the designer's face!

The British are hung up on this design approach, and having owned such a product for 20 years, I am intimately familiar with its limitations. I also did audition the Spendor SP1/2 not long before I bought the NS-1000s. They did not sound much different from the Rogers Studio 1s.

Spendor:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_os3NNzmoDAo/TFAmLNXbqdI/ AAAAAAAAA2U/VXGd_PfWADk/s1600/IMG_6073.JPG

Rogers:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3lRRCSAVSeM/T4sydCAjt8I/ AAAAAAAAEOQ/xuUBtj3JMHY/s1600/birdseye%2Bleft%2B1.jpg

And there is the Stirling LS3/6:
http://www.stoneaudio.co.uk/resources/products/image1/stirling-bbc-ls3-6.jpg

You can see that they use essentially the same approach, a two-way with a supertweeter. I am not claiming that all these speakers would sound identical, but that they would have the same weaknesses.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17586
Registered: May-04
.

"The imaging of the NS-1000s is superb, and I have no idea what you are talking about in your criticisms of that aspect of its performance. You do not inspire the slightest credibility."



What is it about you that makes you irrationally insist on claiming I said things I certainly have never stated? Imaging? Show me where I've discussed the NS1000's imaging? I've discussed time and phase errors along with power response. Do those things affect imaging? Yes, but so do many other factors.


Oh, I get it, you're still interested in telling anyone reading this how great you think your speakers are. You're not at all interested in having a discussion, are you?


So, you think the NS1000 trumps the Roger's? Let's see what a highly qualified reviewer thinks about that ...


"Rogers Studio 1

Please note: This review was written by Martin Colloms and appeared in Hi-Fi Choice in the mid-1980's. Please be aware that I haven't been able to contact the holders of the original copyright. If you are the owner of the original copyright, please contact me, and if necessary, I'll remove it from this site.

Now in its second year, the Studio has undergone a few minor changes which make it worth another look. None of the alterations obsolete the original, and comprise slight modifications to the crossover, a revision of the detail construction of the main bass/mid driver, and a flaring of the reflex port exit. The cabinet tuning has also been shifted to a slightly lower frequency to account for the running-in of the bass driver resonance. Historically this design has evolved from the Rogers Export Monitor, a highly competent if unexceptional speaker, itself a relative of the original BBC LS3/6 which Rogers manufactured for some years.

Representing a classic two-way wide range system, the main driver is Rogers own die-cast frame 200mm unit using a light bextrene cone. It is related in general design to the original BBC unit, but large increases in the mechanical damage limit and the thermal power handling have been made, plus a reduction in distortion. The treble unit comprises the renowned Celestion HF1300, augmented over the final audible half-octave by a version of the KEF T27 (which has a well extended response to 30KHz).

A very high quality complex crossover integrates the drivers, and electrical connection is via a professional XLR connector which may not be too convenient for domestic use. The well-damped cabinet is finely veneered with the carcase made of Medite resin composite board. The 43 litre enclosure is tuned to approximately 40Hz by a large diameter, flared ducted port of high volume velocity. (The flaring served to reduce the odd chuffing noise caused by the 'wind' at the port exit.) It is perhaps almost unnecessary to note that the drivers are mounted vertically in line to give the maximum lateral stereo image symmetry.

Labs performance

Updated by new response measurements for the reference curve, sensitivity, the room characteristic and distortion, the remainder of the data is carried over from the previous issue. The sensitivity shows a 2dB reduction in the latest samples, and is now a little below average at 84B/W. As a result, the bass register has lifted a little in relative terms to make the system more bass heavy than before, the -6dB point extended to a fairly low 42Hz and the overall 1/3-octave response from 46Hz-20KHz at +/-3.0dB.

Incidentally both the Spendor and the Rogers show a characteristic irregularity between 14KHz and 17KHz. This limited effect is due to the awkward transition between the steeply falling rolloff of the HF1300 and the entry of the supertweeter. In practice it can be heard, but it is only a minor factor.

Comparing the new 96dB distortion curves with the previous ones, there has been no significant change at low frequencies, for example, 1.0% of 2nd harmonic distortion at 200Hz is now 1.2%, but below this region 3rd harmonic has been noticeably improved. At 90dB (not plotted) the distortion was particularly good in the mid and treble bands. A wide dynamic range is illustrated by the competent handling of the 100W pulsed inputs, these showing only slight compression and negligible additional distortion.

The forward response at 2m showed fine integration and off-axis control, and the 300W estimated power handling allowed high sound levels of up to 104dBA for a pair. The system has become slightly 'richer' in balance over the years, as the reprinted 1/3-octave 2m response shows when its overall trend is compared with the new reference sinewave response.

Assessed by multiple room response averaging, the Studio shows a reasonably good characteristic from 100Hz to 10KHz, albeit with some emphasis between 600Hz and 800Hz. The treble fell quickly above 12KHz before recovering a little. While good output was present to 40Hz, the 60-80Hz region of the bass was rather prominent, suggesting some bass excess in the room.

Sound quality

Fully re-auditioned, the Studio sounded a little 'richer' and 'sweeter' than before, with an improved tonal balance in the mid register. However the bass was on the full side, and the system would be improved by a 'dryer' 'sharper' balance here.

Surveying the overall results, the Studio has comfortably equalled the exceptional ratings achieved last time, so there can be no doubt concerning its overall sound quality. The bass can be driven to high levels, and although a little ' oppressive', had great power and was free from distortion. When compared with live sounds it appeared very smooth and relaxed, with mild 'chestiness' and slight 'boxiness' on speech. A bit on the 'dim' side, the occasional 'chirp' or 'fizz' could be heard in the extreme treble, though the main treble was considered very good.

On commercial programme it was felt to be subtle, clear, transparent and well-focussed, with a fine stereo image depth. Slight 'heaviness' was noted in the bass but it was not considered too damaging, and in fact there was more praise than criticism - a rare event in listening tests!

Summary

Despite or perhaps because of the minor changes, the Studio has kept the promise shown by the original samples. It is an exceptional performer by Choice standards, and if the bass balance is deemed acceptable, then there is little else to criticise. If offers a wide and smooth response, a high power capacity and dynamic range, plus a level of coloration and neutrality in the genuine monitor class. It was very well finished and engineered, and continues to be confidently recommended, the overall performance meriting Best Buy status.
; http://www.mhennessy3.f9.co.uk/rogers/studio1_review.htm




If you believe yourself the better judge of audio than was Martin Colloms, you, sir, are living in a dream.

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/opinions-on-rogers-studio-1-please



"The Rogers Studio 1 is perhaps a typical two-way (8-inch woofer-midrange unit, crossing over at 3K to a Celestion tweeter, then to a KEF supertweeter at 13K). The fact is that the woofer-midrange has too high mass to give good transient response in the midrange, and is too small to give really good bass"


Apparently, you are the only one holding that opinion. Go back now and read the links. I suspect it is an ideological evangelism on your part which is at the root of your opinion rather than fact as shared by more clear headed listeners.


"The midrange driver diaphragm of the NS-1000 weighs less than that of many tweeters."


And that proves ... ? Any panel speaker has less mass than the NS1000's midrange driver. Mass alone is not the key to any performance value. If you truly feel it is, please look at the moving mass of most full range drivers. Lowthers in particular. It will be lower than the NS1000's midrange driver. So, you're "fact" means what in that context? Answer: nothing.


"You must be on mescaline if you think the NS-1000s have severe 'time and phase errors'."


You must be completely unaware of basic electronic and speaker design theory if you think it is possible to create a multi-way speaker system that is devoid of time and phase errors. Anything short of a purely mechanical filter roll off in a driver will introduce the typical phase action of a passive filter. In fact, as the driver rolls out above its bandwidth, it's internal acoustic phase will be inconsistent with the action of the driver at lower frequencies. When an AC Voltage/current is passed through either an inductor or a capacitor, the electrical phase of the signal is shifted 90 degrees with either Voltage lagging Amperage or vice versa. That is a fact! This shifted electrical phase must be compensated by reversing the polarity between the two drivers - if the design is to remain transient perfect. This results in one driver lagging the other in time when a pulse is sent through the system. Fact. If the design is to be time coherent, acoustic phase is out the window. In a simple two way crossover the result can be considered generally benign over most of the frequency range as time is typically not within the constraints of polarity over most of the shared bandwidth. In a three or four way system though, there is no way to maintain time and phase across all drivers due to the basic electronics of crossover filters. Time and phase can be somewhat compensated by sloping the front baffle backwards to accomodate sufficient compensation over the widest bandwidth - when measured at a specific distance from the speaker's sonic center. Unfortunately, in most cases, due to the interference effects of a multi-way system's multiple drivers, determining where that might be on the front baffle is almost impossible. However, as you say, even in the best cases of a multi-driver system " ... a speaker system can be perfectly time and phase corrected at only ONE distance", this creates time and/or phase errors in any speaker system with a filter. Of course, time and phase alignment can be made to be sonically correct at that one correct distance by using a two way system. (Assuming you are listening in an anechoic chamber, that is, with no reflected sounds arriving out of time and phase at the listener's ears.) In a three way system, time and phase errors are impossible to design completely out of the system since (at least) two drivers out of the three must, by the rules of electronics, be out of electrical phase and acoustic polarity which will result in an acoustic phase and time shift before the signal even leaves the face of the drivers. What occurs at the listening position is anyone's guess. An acoustic phase shift results in a time lag to the signal's upper harmonics. This smears transients and plays he11 with timbre and tone. A four way just makes a mockery of time and phase relationships.



"Dispersion is related to frequency, dear sir, not diaphragm size or shape."


I hate to correct anyone so convinced by their own ignorance. But, in your case, I'll make an exception. Dispersion is ultimately affected by the size of the wavefront vs the diameter of the driver reproducing that frequency. A driver can - depending on type and shape - have broad dispersion as long as the wavelength of the reproduced frequency is larger than the diameter of the driver itself (horn loaded drivers excluded). Once the wave reaches a "smaller than" situation with the driver, dispersion narrows rapidly with rising frequency. Fact.

Therefore, my initial criticisms of mult-way speakers have just been verified by our own words. By crossing a good high frequency driver at a sufficiently low frequency, once again, audbile problems of in room power response can be largely mitigated by a talented two way designer. If the high frequency driver is placed on a baffle which is wider than its lowest frequency is long, the high frequency driver sees a half space situation which; first, increases its efficiency thereby requiring less power to drive and also increasing the driver's power handling, and, second, controls dispersion into the room making the driver sonically appear to be half its diameter. The latter benefit means its dispersion is evenly controlled well below its low frequency cut off. Unless the system has been designed as a true infinite baffle, this cannot be accomplished in the frequency range of the lowest frequency driver which will virtually always see a free space situation at the baffle. This is one reason baffle step compensation has been created for today's speakers. BSC is, unfortunately, not in the NS1000's filter network making it even more sensitive to issues of in room power response anomalies. That is exactly my case against multi-way speaker systems and their failures in controlled in room power response. That is, unless you have a true infinite baffle system in use in your listening room. I'm assuming that is not the case with your 1000's.



"The Yamaha and most 3-ways cross over much lower, at around 500Hz or thereabouts."


Yes, they tend to do just that - right in the fundamental frequency range of vocals and many instruments. Sine the human ear is attuned to be most sensitive to the sound of the human voice, a 500-1kHz crossover will make its presence known by the FACT two drivers of dissimilar diameter, location and material construction will be handling the chopped apart signal. I am guessing you can remember what we just moments ago discussed regarding time and phase errors in multi-way speakers. If so, that which would mean you can grasp the basic issue of two drivers handling the frequency band which is most problematic for speaker designers due to the ear's high sensitivity to problems created in this range. Interference between the two drivers occupying the sonic space required to reproduce these frequnecies will be noticeable in the discontinuity of the vocal range. Sorry to tell you, this is one of the very worst frequency bands in which to create a filter. Sort of like running your subwoofer up to a too high crossover frequency where the audibility of two dissimilar drivers creating the same frequency band will draw attention to the unnatural sound of the two drivers working to create a common signal sound.



"The small woofer-midrange (8 inches in diameter) simply cannot push as much air as a 12-inch or 15-inch woofer, so they designed a port into the box, to allow for greater excursion and to lower the resonance frequency of the system to help augment the lowest frequencies."


A port allows greater excursion? Who told you that? A port allows for uncontrolled excursion but has nothing to do with "greater excursion" unless the system is being overdriven. The motor assembly and spider of the driver (hopefully) controls driver excursion. Fact. Have you never read about one of the great advantages of a sealed box? The encapsulated air is used as a spring to control the motion of the low frequency driver. There is no "encapsulated air" pressure inside a vented system. No, sir, you are completely wrong on this and your statement is not inspiring any confidence that anything else you think you know has any basis in reality.



"But the resulting bass sound is sloppy, not crisp like that of the NS-1000, with its large air-suspension design. The bass of the NS-1000 does not go quite as low as that of the Rogers, but the difference is very small, and the bass is much tighter."



You really don't understand speaker design, do you? "Tight" bass is a function of the system "Q". It has nothing much to do with whether the enclosure is vented - a IMF transmision line is a vented enclosure in theory - or is a sealed system. The designer selects a system "Q" for a sealed system and the parameters of the system adhere to that value. Thiele/Small parameters. You've possibly heard of them? You probably don't even realize the "Q" of the Yamahas could be altered after the fact - something which is rather difficult, if not impossible, in a vented design. You also likey fail to realize speakers with a high system "Q" such as the 1000's are meant (be the marketing department) to sell by "jumping" off the shelf at the listener. This is what you are hearing, the system "Q" and nothing else. And, just so you know, a vented system has a steeper fourth order roll out when compared to a sealed system's shallower second order filter. This gives the sealed system a higher system resonance but a useably lower frequency response beneath Fs.

I feel like I'm teaching speaker design 101.



"No matter what you do to a two-way, you can't overcome the physics"



No matter what you do to any speaker system, you cannot truly overcome the laws of physics and electronics. Rogers couldn't do it with the Studio and Yamaha couldn't do it with the NS1000. The basic issues of time and phase errors and poor in room power response which plague all three ways to some extent all exist in congregation in the NS1000's character. You cannot in good faith indict all two way speakers for adhering to the rules of physics and then claim your three way system ignores the laws of physics! The NS1000 is, in this respect, a creature of its time and many of the corrections - Bandaids really - to these issues did not exist at that time. The NS1000 sounds very much like a 1970's three way speaker, time and phase errors included.



"No two way can possibly be worth $9,000, and it is a criminal act to try to sell such a monstrosity. I'll say this to the designer's face!"



First, I doubt they would give a flip about your opinion. Even more so as you explained your "understanding" of how speakers are designed. Second, though you have the right to think whatever you care to about the speaker, you would prove yourself to be a complete @ss should you pretend you have the right to tell anyone how they should spend their own money. Even more so when you tell them you've never even auditioned the speaker because you know "how all two way speakers sound".






.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 13
Registered: Dec-12
Your post contains numerous errors of fact, so many that I do not have time to address them all. I am well aware of this review of the Rogers Studio 1. And unlike you, I actually owned these speakers for 20 years, listening to them almost every day. They are so far inferior to the NS-1000s that it is not even remotely a contest.

If you like S-L-O-W speakers, they're the ones for you! If you like 'boxiness', they're the ones for you. If you like sloppy bass, they're the ones for you! I have owned the Yamahas for 10 years now, and it seems that I like them more and more every day. I did not mind the Rogers' overall sound character so much, it's just that after a while I grew tired of their weaknesses, which became more apparent as time went on. As far as a direct comparison is concerned, they do have similar tonal balance, but the Yamaha NS-1000 is clearly superior in every respect.

Two-way speakers have inherent limitations. So do three-ways. The limitations of two-ways are more invidious. Two-ways are best for small speakers that don't pretend to be full-range speakers capable of high SPL.

And I WILL contact the seller of these abominations and give him a piece of my mind! $9,000 for a two-way? Outrageous!!!!!! he should join the Taliban!

the fact that the Yamahas were designed and manufactured in the 1970s is irrelevant. They used technology that is far more advanced than that of today. The problem is one of cost. These speakers do so many things right it's scary.

You keep mentioning 'time and phase errors' without explaining what you mean. Do you mean 'imaging' issues?

Just what do you mean?

The argument you make about the crossover point ignores the fact that running the woofer up higher means compromising its ability to handle transients (because it is so heavy), and if you try to keep it small and light to offset that, that compromises its ability to produce good deep bass. That is exactly the problem with two-ways: slow midrange, poor bass, or both. Dividing the range up and using two drivers is better.

I grew to hate the Rogers' limitations. I am exquisitely happy with my NS-1000s, which are vastly superior.

I never said that the NS-1000s broke or ignored the laws of physics. The fact of the matter is that two-ways are slow, far slower than the NS-1000, because of the latter's diaphragm size and material. That trumps everything else.

Those BBC designs were developed in the days of much slower transient signals, before MC cartridges and then later CDs became the preferred music sources. They cannot cope with today's signals. Their slowness is all too obvious now. They might sound fine with a BBC announcer reading the news, but they simply cannot cope with fast transient signals.

Don't mistake me: I loved the Rogers when I first got them, but as I upgraded my amps and sources over the years, their weaknesses became more and more obvious. Love grew to hate.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17589
Registered: May-04
.


"Your post contains numerous errors of fact, so many that I do not have time to address them all."


A word of advice, fella, if you're gonna play this game, sharpen your tactics. That move is straight out of high school.



"The argument you make about the crossover point ignores the fact that running the woofer up higher means compromising its ability to handle transients (because it is so heavy) ... "



First, all things equal, speaker design theory 101 suggests the basic difference between a woofer intended for a vented cabinet vs one meant for a sealed system. The vented driver's moving mass will be lower than that of the driver used in the sealed system. You can see this in the acceptable TS parameters for each driver. You are familiar with Thiele/Small parameters, right? The basic reason for this difference in moving mass is the proper driver for a vented enclosure is one that is controlled only by its motor, voice coil length and spider/suspension. It is restricted in its Xmax by the mechanics of a stiff suspension and spider. With no other spring mechanism for the driver, most vented systems have shorter driver excursions than will a sealed system's woofer. Unfortunately, without any spring action beyond the mechanics of the driver's systems, vented woofers are susceptible to over driven excursions beneath system resonance. The vented system itself is far more susceptible to misalingment of the speaker system resulting in poor bass extension and bass quality with large amounts of group delay.

Most importantly, the vented system's ideal low frequency driver is, all things equal, lighter than the driver used in a sealed system. In other words, the driver's free air resonant frequency is higher for the vented system. From "The Loudspeaker Cookbook", "... woofers for vented enclosures tend to have less cone mass, less voice coil outside the gap and lower overall Qts"." The "Qts" of a driver suited for a vented system will fall somewhere between .2-.5 according to TS parameters.


A suitable low frequency driver for a sealed enclosure will have a higher moving mass in the diaphragm (therefore lower free air resonance), and a moderately sized magnet. Group delay is virtually non-existent in a sealed system. A longer throw in the motor is desired since the excursion is likely to cover a wider range by using the internal encapsulated air of the enclosure as the spring mechanism for the woofer. Therefore, a sealed system driver will have a "lossy" suspension. The ideal "Qts" of a sealed system woofer would be greater than .3 in the TS parameters.

Please understand the mass of the woofer is related to the enclosure type and not to the number of filters in the system. Your assertion that two way woofers are "heavy" is simply incorrect. The moving mass of the driver has nothing to do with the number of "ways" the designer has selected and it has even less to do with the upper frequency range/transient response of the driver. TS parameters ("Qts") for a vented system are used to estimate the low frequency cut off or the system resonance frequency (Fc) and, to some extent, the "Qtc" (system "Q") of the bass response. In a sealed system the "Q" is typically what we describe as the "tight bass" or "warm bass" various listeners desire. A "Q" of approximately .8 will provide a rather warm sound while .5 would be overly dry. A sealed system with a "Q" of 1 or higher will sound overly "bassy" or, if the response is well controlled, can provide the perception of deeper bass than the system can actually provide. The classic BBC designed LS3/5a has a "Q' of 1.2 which makes the shoe boxed sized, acoustic suspension speaker sound as if it could play much further down than its 4" woofer and small enclosure would allow. Of course, the BBC designers were well aware of the human ear's perception of louder bass as deeper bass according to the Fletcher Munson curves.

With the commercial success of the 3/5a, many designers have followed suit over the last 35 years and have used the slight blip in the system's "Q" around 80-110Hz to sell their speaker. The NS1000's have been designed to have a fairly low "Q" which gives the impression of tight, "fast", dry bass response at the expense of bass extension for the enclosure volume, which is rather large for its time. In contrast the classic acoustic suspension system of the 1970's, The Large Advent, employed a slightly smaller internal cabinet volume but, by adjusting the system "Q" to provide a somewhat warmer sound, achieved a flat to 32Hz extension. The Advent provided another half octave of bass extension over the NS1000 and did so in a slightly smaller box!


Many vented systems also use this rule of perception though they do not exploit it to the quality found in the 3/5a. Rather than saying a vented system has a "Q" value, vented systems are described according to their "alignments". Since box losses and internal resonances determine the success or failure of any vented alignment, trying to describe the effect of each alignment is well beyond the scope of this forum. I would suggest you invest a few bucks in a textbook such as Dickason's and learn all the things (about speakers, at least) you think you know that are actually incorrect. Vented system alignments, though, are simply ways of describing what we are hearing from a speaker system and vented systems can have very good transient response or they can have very sloppy bass. The latter is fairly common for vented system and provides the typical "one note thump" found in speakers which have traded electrical sensitivity for bass extension. In short, "flat response" vented systems have a "Qts" around .4 while "non-flat response" systems have a "Qts" which is increasingly higher.


Again, none of this has anything to do solely with the moving mass of the driver vs its transient response at it upper limits. In the ideal system the wavelengths, their point of origination on the diaphragm and the excursions required to accomplish these increasingly short lengths are out of the domain of the enclosure type or, by extension, the moving mass of the woofer.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17590
Registered: May-04
.

"
I never said that the NS-1000s broke or ignored the laws of physics. The fact of the matter is that two-ways are slow, far slower than the NS-1000, because of the latter's diaphragm size and material. That trumps everything else."



No, it does not for several reasons which I've already described. However, if you are complaining that two way systems have poor transient response in their upper frequencies, you really cannot logically avoid making the same claim for a three way system. In fact, given the lower crossover frequency of the typical three way system, the midrange driver would normally have a higher mass than the tweeter in a two way system. The mass of the NS100's midrange driver is inconsequential since, if you are really after "speed", no dynamic driver can compete with the planar speakers or a light weight full range driver. As I said earlier, mass alone predicts nothing. What you are typically hearing in the transient attack of any multi-way system is the time/ phase response of the system. In the lower frequencies this is determined by the "Q" of the vented system and the amount of group delay and box losses in the system measurements. By adjusting the filter order the designer can provide a sense of speed in the crossover region (transient perfect design) or a correct time based response or a constant amplitude filter. These are the rules of crossover design and there are many choices a designer can select from. To say a two way filter always creates a "slow" transient response is a complete misunderstanding of how speakers and filters are designed and their operation. Broad, sweeping statements such as your's are merely proofs you have a lot to learn about speakers.

Go back to what I posted earlier and you'll see that electrical phase errors occurring as the AC signal passes through a filter will result in acoustic phase errors and possibly time smearing. This depends on what the designer has selected as their priority and, therefore, whether the system has the two crossed drivers connected in reverse polarity or similar polarity.
Low frequencies lag higher frequencies or tweeters lag woofers in each selection. These are the rules of electronics and the same rules apply to two, three, four and even five way speaker systems. Each filter reacts the same way regardless of how many filters are used in a single speaker. The filter doesn't see a three way system, it only sees two drivers which need to be melded togather. A designer will have many filter types and orders to select from and talented designers mix and match filters to suit their priorities. But, if a filter does "this" in a two way design, it will also do "this" in a three or four way system. It will not do "that". One of the problems of three and four way speakers is what occurs in one filter will largely dictate which filter needs to be used in the next filter. The problems of filters, therefore, compound the effects of filters expotentially as more filters are required. Whether any one listener is sensitive to these problems will inform their decisions regarding which speaker systems come the closest to sounding "right" over other choices. I find the NS 1000 bothersome and not at all transparent due in part to these numerous issues of time and acoustic phase disjunctions. To my preception it screams three way speaker and not "music".

The problems become more complex as the number of filters - the number of "ways" - is increased. With each additional filter the designer must once again make a decision to connect the drivers in reversed polarity or not. If the time value of the system has been compromised in the lower frequencies, it cannot be reconstructed by choosing a time correct filter in the higher frequency ranges. The next connection can either move the system further out of time alignment or further out of acoustic phase alignment. Either way, the system will move further out of proper alignment in one value or both. In a system with time errors due to polarity, sloping the baffle backwards is effective at compensating for this error. This was a development well beyond the time period of the NS1000. Simply tilting the cabinet of the NS100 backwards doesn't accomplish the same effect since it’s impossible to realign the acoustic centers of the drivers. Tilting a non-time aligned cabinet will cause frequency response problems and higher distortion components to be heard as you listen further and further off axis. With more and more speakers being designed with time alignment in mind, listening today to an older speaker such as the NS 1000 simply points out how far speaker design has come in some areas over the last thirty years.

If the system has been designed with phase alignment as a priority, the time values of the numerous drivers will be poor, though just how poor is a function of how the system has been split by filter selection. Again, these are ideas which have been developed well after the time of the NS1000.

A lack of attention to cabinet diffraction effects as found in the NS100 and many other speakers of its time will create ghost images, phase errors and frequency response abberations. Several other talented and forward thinking designers of the day were experimenting with controlling diffraction in their system. But the NS1000 didn't bother, going even to the extent of placing wire cages in front of their drivers. Many years ago Stereophile ran a very good article on cabinet diffraction with a title something like "Cutting Corners". I would suggest you also add that to your new and growing reading list.



" ... if you try to keep it small and light to offset that, that compromises its ability to produce good deep bass. That is exactly the problem with two-ways: slow midrange, poor bass, or both. Dividing the range up and using two drivers is better."



Once again, you have your information wrong and your conclusions convoluted. It is not simply the moving mass or the size of the driver which determines its low frequency extension. I have a 6.5" driver which is placed in a 1 cubic foot vented enclosure. It has a high Xmax and a strong magnet assembly. Its port is tuned to minimize box losses. It is spec'd to be -3dB at 27Hz in that enclosure. Your assumptions are completely wrong. Granted, it’s very difficult to get 15Hz out of a 5" woofer but it can be done. The physics of the system dictate the trade offs between bass extension, box volume and system sensitivity. Decrease sensitivity and increase box volume and that 5" woofer will try very hard to play that 15Hz signal. Place one or more 5" drivers in a line array and you have effectively increased the driver diameter and the system sensitivity. Load the driver into an acoustic transformer and you can, in effect, create bass extension out of thin air.




What you clearly fail to see is everything done in audio is a trade off. If you want this, I'll take that. If this is your priority, then that cannot be your priority. And so it goes. Everything has its trade offs. Whether a speaker is a three way, a two way or a one way, each choice brings with it values which must be given away to achieve a stated end. You cannot make the wide sweeping statements (two way vs three way) you have posted here because many of your assertions are flat out wrong and are poorly informed. They are incorrect because you do not understand sufficient amounts about speaker design. And they are incorrect because a little bit of knowledge is dangerous and you have so little information and so many conclusions that you have clearly talked yourself into wanting a three way system. Any freshman psych student realizes that once you've convinced yourself something is true or good, you're 99% of the way to liking that item. That same student knows that once you've convinced yourself you have the facts on your side, when you are presented with counterfactual information which contradicts your "truths", you will double down on your ideas and beliefs. The more proof is shown that your facts are not facts at all, the more tightly you will cling to what you first believed. And, as you have done here, you will constantly repeat and repeat again the same handful of inaccuracies upon which you hang your belief engine.




"Those BBC designs were developed in the days of much slower transient signals, before MC cartridges and then later CDs became the preferred music sources. They cannot cope with today's signals."


This too is completely wrong and a bit silly to say the least. That you make such a statement suggests you aren't big on researching your information. Moving coil cartridges existed long before the design of the Rogers speaker or its BBC equivalent. Research the design date of the Denon 103 MC cartridge. The idea of a MC was not new to Denon at the time. I assume you are once again mistakenly assigning transient response to moving mass. The function of a loudspeaker and a cartridge make both transducers, a device which converts one form of energy into another form of energy. As such, both systems have similar rules of operation. While "effective moving mass" plays a role in the response of a cartridge and a speaker driver, do not assume that a MC cartridge will always have "faster" response. Moving magnets, and especially moving iron cartridge types, can equal or exceed many MC's in transient response without the trade offs of ringing found in many MC's. Designs such as the Decca London are blazingly fast and they too existed long before the Rogers design.

I'm more concerned though that you think transient information has changed in the last thirty years. Do you seriously believe, as your statement suggests, that the rise time of a cymbal or the attack of a trumpet has somehow increased since the dawn of MC's and CD's? How could that have occurred? Music is music, a piano has remained largely unchanged for the last 150 years, as have most modern instruments. What your grandfather heard as transient attack is what you are hearing as transient attack. At the very least, your statement tells me you believe what you want to believe based on no factual reference what so ever. It's clear you lack a basic knowledge of just how good the 1950's recordings such as Mercury's Living Presence are. I'm certain, after reading your post, you know nothing of the direct to disc style of live recording using minimal microphones and no compression which was common in the first half of the 20th century.

Please, stop while you're at least partially ahead. At the moment I see you only as a poorly informed blowhard. Say more and you will remove all doubt about my other suspicions.

You know nothing about which you speak. You know nothing about the finer "clssic" loudspeakers and drivers of the last 100 years. That you speak so blithely about topics you know nothing about is painful to watch. Add to your reading list two items; Quad ESL57 and Altec 645. I won't even bother talking to you about amplifiers.

I have no interest in discussing CD "speed" with you.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17591
Registered: May-04
.

"You keep mentioning 'time and phase errors' without explaining what you mean. Do you mean 'imaging' issues?

Just what do you mean?"




Really?!!! You haven't recognized any of the explanations I've made of "time and phase errors"?


Uh, ...


You do understand the difference between electrical phase and acoustic phase, don't you? And that if electrical polarity between two drivers is reversed, the time and acoustic phase of the signal will be out of alignment. Right?

Do you understand how electrical phase is affected by a crossover filter? Please answer these questions since I am otherwise talking well over your level of comprehension.




Look, read my last post again. And the one before that. I have a fairly good but brief explanation of time and phase errors in those posts. I admit I made the mistake of thinking you knew more about this than you obviously do. You might also want to do some more reading. I would suggest you try John Atkinson's "How we measure loudspeakers" in Stereophile.


Overall, I'm getting very weary talking about your speakers. More so, I'm getting very tired of correcting your mistakes about your speakers. In addition to not recognizing the fact of trade offs, you have no concept of not all people listening for the same values you prefer. It's your way or the highway and you base that assertion on your incorrect information and dubious assumptions. You are, in effect, a faith based, evangelical religious zealot on an audio forum. Halleluha!


This thread is not about your speakers. Why can't you discuss something else? Are your speakers all you ever jam down someone's throat on a forum? Do you go from forum to forum talking about NS1000's? Until no one will talk to you again?

That would definitely make you a troll.



You're vastly wrong on so many things and you only have one thing to talk incorrectly about. How did you get to 63 like that? Why do you have audio as a hobby if you know so little about it? And, finally, why are you such as @ss?




.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 15
Registered: Dec-12
No, Jan, you are wrong about almost everything. What matters is what you can hear. Listen to oh say, Richard Thompson's Night Comes In from Pour Down Like Silver on these two systems. Hear how his voice sounds darker and boxy on the Rogers. Listen to the guitar, and see how the Yamaha reproduces every little vibration clearly. It's laughable how much better the NS-1000 is because it's a 3-way with a super-light midrange diaphragm.

I said the BBC designed those speakers before MC cartridges became popular. They were designed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Two-ways are suitable ONLY for small systems such as the LS3/5a (and successors) where the best low-frequency performance is not needed, such as in the remote monitoring situations for which that system was designed and intended. The LS3/5a was a brilliant design, for its intended purpose, which was not domestic applications. It lacks the qualities needed for that application (loud SPLs, deep bass, etc...)

When the BBC and its licensees took this design to a bigger scale, with the LS3/6, BC1, Studio 1, etc., the limitations became all too obvious. I bought my pair of Studio 1s in 1982. The NS-1000s were not available in my area at that time. I had bought my first MC system in 1978 or so (Ortofon MC20 and MCA-76). I stayed with MC cartridges thereafter until I got the Stax electret system in about 1985. It was faster and cleaner than any MC I had ever heard. Too bad it's long gone, not that I want to go back to records).

Throughout this period I gradually became more and more aware of the limitations of the Rogers, but I simply was not motivated to do anything about it. I sold my turntable in 1988 and moved to CDs. I was visiting a dealer in 2001 and saw a used pair of NS-1000s and bought them on the spot. I have never been so impressed with any audio product. They come very close to the Stax Lambdas I have owned since about 1984.

I know quite well the limitations of the two-way design. I have lived with such a design for 20 years and have seen how poorly it compares to fast systems such as the Stax electrostatic earspeakers (the Yamahas are not far behind the Stax).

If you merely want to listen to BBC announcers in a phone booth, I suppose 2-ways are fine. But not for any serious listening in a home where you have to fill a large room with sound.

And I repeat: this guy selling a $9000 2-way system in a criminal!
 

Gold Member
Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 1524
Registered: Jul-07
Ornello, what are you trying to accomplish here ? You like your speakers, that's peachy. But, if you don't understand that every speaker design has trade-offs & compromises then it's pointless to have any discussion with you. If you think 2 drivers is inherently better than 1, and 3 better than 2, etc.....then you don't understand the basic fundamentals of speaker design. That being, you design around what your priorities are. Ask any speaker designer.....he/she'll tell you the same thing.

However, your priorities aren't necessarily the same (and certainly not better) than the guy next to you. That's why for every person who agrees with your opinion of your speakers, you'll find 10 that don't. Deal with it dude. Enjoy your speakers and stop selling them. I don't attempt to convince anyone that my speakers are better than anything, because I frankly don't give a toads ar$e if anyone else likes them. I do, and that's good enough for me.

You're not reading Jan's posts, nor are you attempting to make any specific argument. Why do you keep mentioning that $9000 is criminal for a "2-way system" ? Why do you feel the need to defend your speakers to the detriment of other designs ? What are you trying to say ?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17593
Registered: May-04
.


What we have here is a completely illogical position being defended on the basis of evangelical faith and fragile ego.





" ... I gradually became more and more aware of the limitations of the Rogers"


Therefore, all two way systems are the equivalent of a single 1970's Rogers' two way?


Hardly.


"It's laughable how much better the NS-1000 is because it's a 3-way ... "


And the 1970's Yamaha is the equivalent of all three and four way systems. Even though it lacks time and phase coherence. It lacks any diffraction compensation or baffle step compensation. It suffers from uneven in room power response. And it has been tuned to a system "Q" which lacks adequate bass extension for an enclosure of its volume. All of which creates an unbalanced system tone for many listeners. No. It is the most perfect incarnation of three way design for all time since it employed "technology far in advance of today".




"The fact of the matter is that two-ways are slow, far slower than the NS-1000, because of the latter's diaphragm size and material. That trumps everything else."



Of course it does.

Facts be d@mned. Of course it does.


Though, ...


... by extension of the logic which espouses "specialization", we have been told a four way would be even better than this three way since further "speciflization" is what makes a speaker system better. And a five way would be ... ? And a six way?

And that trumps everything else.



Facts are of no value in this discussion because the discussion is not based upon facts. It has become a discussion of politics where one side gets to make up and cling to their own set of truths. Whether those truths are actually true or factually wrong. Or whether anyone else has any truths they can back with facts and proven science. Science is to be ignored in the face of unproven opinion.


That is what trumps everything else. Evangelism.



This "discussion" is based upon one person's faith based acceptance of what is true for them. What then is true is all two ways are the same as that single 1970's Rogers model. Audio reviewers of reknown are to be ingnored when their conclusions do not match the desired opinion. Therefore, any fact which states otherwise is to be ignored while Ornello doubles down on his self made theories - with a little help from the Yamaha marketing department - of two way operation. And he now makes the comparison to electrostatic headphones. And moving coil cartridges, which were not available in 1975. The 1970's Rogers two way was not, in his perception, as good as the Stax electret headphones. Which, of course, proves all two way systems for all time are inferior systems.


Has Ornello even mentioned the sound of real music at any time? I must have missed it.


Apples are not apples and oranges are two way speakers. 1 + 1 does not equal 2. 2 + 2 does not equal 4. Up is down and down is an apple.






There is nothing more to be said when all Ornello can do is restate, and restate, and once again restate his opinion of the NS1000's midrange driver. That trumps everything else! Any other opinion or fact is unnecessary and his own truth is, in the end, all he needs to maintain his ego.




"Out D@mn Facts!"




Any freshman psych student realizes that once you've convinced yourself something is true or good, you're 99% of the way to liking that item. That same student knows that once you've convinced yourself you have the facts on your side, when you are presented with counterfactual information which contradicts your "truths", you will double down on your ideas and beliefs. The more proof is shown that your facts are not facts at all, the more tightly you will cling to what you first believed. And, as you have done here, you will constantly repeat and repeat again the same handful of inaccuracies upon which you hang your belief engine.





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17594
Registered: May-04
.

"What are you trying to say?"


Clearly, what he's saying - repeatedly - is, "It's laughable how much better the NS-1000 is because it's a 3-way with a super-light midrange diaphragm."



What else could possibly matter?



.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 16
Registered: Dec-12
The Kenwood Model Seven is a 4-way, and it is better than the Yamaha NS-1000. Only a small number were made, but it is a spectacular speaker. I had the good fortune to have heard it in about 1978.

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s3/pblake61/P1030568.jpg

The Yamaha NS-1000 was designed as a monitor, for medium-size rooms such as are encountered in recording studios.

The KEF 105/107 are suited for the large presentation, as are the various models of the B&W 801s:

http://www.magnatmuseum.nl/Cliparts/MyHifi%20&%20Vintage%20Audio/ Vintage%20luidsprekers/KEF%20105%20ref.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/Lee_Vuong/Kef%20speakers/Kef105-2.jpg

http://www.soundsgoodtomehouston.com/bw801/801_pairopen.jpg

(You'll note the similarity of design of these speakers, with separate cabinets for the three drivers.)

Both the KEF and the B&W speakers mentioned above have some properties that make them even better than the NS-1000s, notably better bass.

All things being equal (which they are not always) the more drivers that are used, the better the sound can be. The Rogers Studio 1 used three drivers but was essentially a 2-way; two tweeters were used in the original design, and these are still used by Spendor in their SP1/2 and by Stirling in their LS3/6. The Rogers Studio 1a used a single tweeter to cover the same range. They would have been better off to make it a true 3-way, with separate mid-range and woofer.

I am not saying the Yamaha NS-1000 is the best speaker ever. I am saying that 2-ways are inherently limited in ways that make all such designs unacceptable for large-scale music presentation. It's fine for the small room, small-scale presentation; a design such as the BBC LS3/5a monitor, designed to be used in a mobile van, is just fine. But the LS3/5a is simply too small to be used in a large room. Scaling the LS3/5a up by using a larger woofer-midrange causes problems with slowness in the midrange, because the driver is big and heavy. That's the situation here, with the speakers mentioned in the opening post.

So, 2-way designs can be serviceable in small installations where space is at a premium and full-range, high-SPL performance is neither needed nor expected.

What part of any of this is unclear?

How is it possible, if what you say is true about the psychology of liking something, that I went from adoring the Rogers to hating them?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 17
Registered: Dec-12
"Ornello, what are you trying to accomplish here ? You like your speakers, that's peachy. But, if you don't understand that every speaker design has trade-offs & compromises then it's pointless to have any discussion with you. If you think 2 drivers is inherently better than 1, and 3 better than 2, etc.....then you don't understand the basic fundamentals of speaker design. That being, you design around what your priorities are. Ask any speaker designer.....he/she'll tell you the same thing.

However, your priorities aren't necessarily the same (and certainly not better) than the guy next to you. That's why for every person who agrees with your opinion of your speakers, you'll find 10 that don't. Deal with it dude. Enjoy your speakers and stop selling them. I don't attempt to convince anyone that my speakers are better than anything, because I frankly don't give a toads ar$e if anyone else likes them. I do, and that's good enough for me.

You're not reading Jan's posts, nor are you attempting to make any specific argument. Why do you keep mentioning that $9000 is criminal for a "2-way system" ? Why do you feel the need to defend your speakers to the detriment of other designs? What are you trying to say?"

Chris:

I am trying to say that $9000 for a 2-way, passing off a 2-way design as suitable for a large environment is criminal, that's what.


Here's the story on the LS3/5a:
http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/361

Note this:

"A Followup appeared in December 1977 (Vol.4 No.1):

Subsequent experience with these remarkable little speakers has strengthened our feeling that that they should not be used with solid-state power amplifiers. The speakers need a slight high-end softening, and are more likely to overload (the woofers bottom, making an alarmingly loud bang) from the average solid-state amp. An Audio Research Dual 51A is ideal (with a solid-state amplifier for the woofers if you choose to bi-amp), while an upgraded Dynaco Stereo 70 does very well. The Audio Research D76A is fine but has more power (and a higher price) than is necessary.

Output level is limited to around 85dB with a high-powered, wideband solidstate amp, 95dB with tubed electronics and no subwoofer. With a subwoofer and the Rogers rolled off below 70 or 100Hz, listening levels of over 100dB can be obtained without stress.

If you missed our full report on these in the last issue, a summation: Superbly balanced sound overall; very subtly nasal in some rooms; slightly rising (above 5kHz) but very smooth and extended high end; no deep bass but deficiency not noticeable on most program material; very good detail; extremely large apparent soundsource; very good stereo imaging; limited output level. J. Gordon Holt"

Here is a far better speaker than the $9000 2-way mentioned at the top of this thread:

http://www.spendoraudio.com/HTML/SP100R2_main.html

Description

3-way stand mounting loudspeaker
Enclosure type

Reflex
HF drive unit

22mm wide-surround dome with fluid cooling
MF drive unit

Spendor 180mm polymer cone
LF drive unit

Spendor 300mm bextrene cone
Sensitivity

89dB for 1 watt at 1 metre
Crossover point

500 Hz, 5 kHz
Frequency response

45 Hz to 20 kHz ± 3dB anechoic
Typical in-room response

-6dB at 35 Hz
Impedance

8 ohms nominal
Impedance minimum

5.5 ohms
Power handling

200 watts unclipped programme
Terminals

Gold 2/3 way binding posts bi-wired
Cabinet (HxWxD)

700 x 370 x 430mm
Finish

cherry (black ash and dark walnut to special order)
Weight

36 kg each
Stand height

350-500mm (not supplied)
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 18
Registered: Dec-12
These babies seems more sensible, if you like the British sound, and are willing to spend that kind of money:

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/690spendor

http://www.avguide.com/review/spendor-sp100r-loudspeakers

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1008har
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17595
Registered: May-04
.

"With a subwoofer and the Rogers rolled off below 70 or 100Hz, listening levels of over 100dB can be obtained without stress."



100dB is not enough for you? From a 4" woofer in a 12" H by 7.5" W by 6.25" D enclosure.

OK, since you wish to stay in the 1970's for your information, let's look at Holt's original review of the mighty mite 3/5a ...

"Maximum safe output level is around 95dB SPL (sound pressure level) at a listening distance of up to 15', which is about as loud as a symphonic crescendo from 10' behind the conductor. This is with full-range program material; the limiting factor on power input is the "woofer" (because of its bass boost), so when the speakers are used with a subwoofer (crossing at 60 to 80Hz), they are capable of a clean 100 to 105dB, which is enough to give any masochist a most gratifying case of permanent ear damage.

It is because these speakers are so well-balanced when they are out in the room
that they may well produce too much bass when placed against a wall ...

Another advantage of a small sound source is that it tends to radiate sound waves as expanding spheres rather than as a planar wave (as from large screens). Human ears react in a seemingly paradoxical manner to a spherical sound field: The reproduced sound seems, much bigger than its source, yet the angular localization of sounds across the "stage" between the speakers (ie, the imaging) is dramatically improved. In fact, the apparent audible size of these tiny speakers is almost laughable; we had the feeling that it just could not possibly be.

Adding to the illusion of a large speaker system, is the remarkable low-end performance, which is not really all that deep (subjectively flat to a bit below 57Hz in our rooms) but sounds deeper than it is because the response is actually pretty flat down to there (rather than drooping), and the bass detail is astonishing from 5" woofers. The speakers gave such a startling account of themselves at the low end that we were not acutely aware of the lack of deep bottom until deeper notes (as from bass drum or the bottom range of the string bass) that we knew were on the recording failed to come through.

High-end performance is quite remark able. The speakers have a very slightly rising response above about 5kHz (fig.1), but because there is no audible peak at the top, the rise does not cause any sizzling or spitting, but tends rather to exaggerate slightly the extreme high-end energy in the program, adding a bit more sibilance to voices, a bit more shimmer to cymbals, and a bit more overall airiness to the sound than is actually in the program material.



And so on and so on. This two way system is an absolutely marvelous speaker. Period! I speak from many years of personal experience with this two way. The 3/5a's magic is in its balanced sound. A virtue sadly lacking in the NS1000.




Here's a bit on the new 2012 - not a 1970's speaker - from KEF (who supplied both drive units for the original BBC design) the LS50 ...

"From KEF's white paper on the design of the LS50: 'The LS50 is a two-way loudspeaker system, inspired by the LS3/5A. . . . Like the LS3/5A, the LS50 has been developed with the extensive application of the latest engineering techniques, along with meticulous attention to detail. Extensive listening tests were performed to ensure the right engineering choices were made to achieve the best possible balance. Both systems could be described as 'Engineers loudspeakers,' [sic] where the design has been determined by engineering parameters and sonic performance, rather than marketing requirements'."


And from the latest Stereophile review with a comment on one aspect of preformance where the NS1000 fails ...

Despite its intended use as a nearfield monitor close to a boundary (the studio mixing console), the LS3/5a proved equally effective used as a conventional stand-mounted speaker in free space. Not only did the rise in its upper-bass response give the impression that there was more bass than there actually was, it also provided a degree of baffle-step compensation that resulted in a neutral in-room midrange balance. (The "baffle step" rise in a speaker's on-axis freefield response is due to the size of the speaker's front baffle, which is much smaller than the wavelength of the sound the speaker emits at low frequencies, becoming equal to or less than the wavelength in the midrange. Although the speaker puts out the same energy in the midrange as it does in the bass, the restriction of that energy to a narrower window in the midrange results in a rise in response above the baffle-step frequency.) ...

This white paper is worth studying as a casebook for modern loudspeaker design, in which designers have full control over all aspects of both the drive-units and system. (The references listed at the end of the paper comprise a history of modern loudspeaker design.) In the LS50's design, considerable use was made of numerical techniques, such as Finite Element Analysis (FEA), Boundary Element Analysis (BEA), and Computational Fluid Dynamics."



None of which existed at the time of the NS1000's design. Additionally, what these tools measure were values not even considered by the typical speaker designer of the 1970's. Is it truly any wonder that, not matter how "advanced" the materials and technology of a speaker such as the 1000's might have been in 1977, they are far behind the evenly modestly priced two ways systems of today? I think not.



"Which speaker you will prefer will depend very much on your tastes in sound and music. Classical orchestral, solo piano, and vocal recordings were better suited to the more neutrally balanced KEF, and rock to the B&W, with its more laid-back low treble and more extended low frequencies. On balance, I preferred the LS50.

Summing Up
It is rare to find a loudspeaker that offers this combination of clarity and neutrality. For KEF's LS50 Anniversary Model to do so for a penny under $1500/pair makes it even more remarkable. This thoroughbred both shows a clean pair of heels to the venerable LS3/5a and, within its limits of dynamic range and bass extension, will provide Class A sound for those with small rooms. Recommended. Highly.

The LS50's horizontal and vertical dispersion, referenced to the tweeter-axis response, are shown in figs. 4 and 5, respectively. The radiation pattern in both planes is very uniform, with the usual but well-controlled narrowing of the pattern in the top octaves, though the vertical dispersion is wider than I had expected from my auditioning.

Turning to the time domain, the LS50's step response on its tweeter axis (fig.8) indicates that the tweeter is connected in positive acoustic polarity, the woofer in negative polarity. However, the smooth integration of the decay of the tweeter step into the start of the woofer step implies optimal crossover design and correlates with the excellent integration of their outputs in the frequency domain seen in fig.3. The cumulative spectral-decay plot on the tweeter axis (fig.9) shows an astonishingly clean decay at all frequencies.

The KEF LS50 may be relatively affordable, but it offers superb measured performance.â€"John Atkinson"




Let's see; "rare", "remarkable", "thoroughbred", "Class A", "recommended", "excellent integration", "astonishingly clean", "superb measured performance".


From a two way system. Not a three way or a four way. A two way system.



.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 20
Registered: Dec-12
You omitted an important qualification:

With a subwoofer, and the LS3/5a NOT handling much of the low end at all. Essentially...making it a 3-way!



The full quote is:

"Subsequent experience with these remarkable little speakers has strengthened our feeling that that they should not be used with solid-state power amplifiers. The speakers need a slight high-end softening, and are more likely to overload (the woofers bottom, making an alarmingly loud bang) from the average solid-state amp. An Audio Research Dual 51A is ideal (with a solid-state amplifier for the woofers if you choose to bi-amp), while an upgraded Dynaco Stereo 70 does very well. The Audio Research D76A is fine but has more power (and a higher price) than is necessary.

Output level is limited to around 85dB with a high-powered, wideband solidstate amp, 95dB with tubed electronics and no subwoofer."

The LS3/5a is a wonderful speaker within its rather severe limitations and for its intended application. But for large-scale orchestral works or loud rock-type music, it's a no-go. Like the NS-1000, it was designed as a a monitor, but for installations with restricted space and little need for full-throttle monitoring.

The BBC and Rogers designed other speakers that can play louder (LS3/6, Studio 1, etc) but they are also slower. You pays your money and you takes your choice. In the price range of $10,000 or so per pair, the Spendor SP100R/2 or the Harbeth M40.1 (which seem remarkably similar) are a far better choice that the Audio Note 2-way piece of garbage. Read the reviews.

You're making my point for me:

A two-way is a compromise between the needs of bass and mid-range reproduction.

Look here:

http://www.thevintageknob.org/tvk_talk/viewtopic.php?f=1483&t=350

and here:

http://akdatabase.org/AKview/displayimage.php?album=3&pos=176
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17596
Registered: May-04
.

There's far too much to reprint here but let's just take a look at several review comments on a few speakers; a three way sealed box system, an $18k two way and a $8,995 single driver full range system which is capable of achieving 100dB SPL with a high quality five watt SET amplifier ...

http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-119

Of the two way AD writes, "I think this is a wonderful speaker that asks prospective owners to take a few chances, and richly rewards them with real-sounding music."

Which speaker do you suppose garnered these comments, "As with certain other very good loudspeakers, this is a case where the levels of overall musical involvement and excitement were so high that my attention tended not to wander to individual aspects of sound."


Hint: not the three way.



Since Ornello feels he can predict how a loudspeaker performs without ever hearing it perform (an absolutely amazing feat typically reserved only for those who also absolutely know how much money another person should spend for their own musical satisfaction), here's AD's comments on a two way Audio Note speaker similar to the unit shown in the op (the one in the hotel room) ...

"Listening
The first notes I wrote about the AN-E Lexus Signaturesâ€"which their distributor had already broken in during various shows and demonstrationsâ€"centered around the fact that they sounded 'immediate, tactile, emotive, and above all, musically right [I underlined the last word so forcefully that the ink came out on the page below], all without being in-your-face, overbearing, or anything even approaching bright or brittle.' A month and a half later, my enthusiasm has only increased.

Listening to 'Time Has Told Me,' from Nick Drake's Five Leaves Left (CD, Island 422 842 915-2), through the Audio Notes was an absolutely wonderful experience. The realistic sibilance of Drake's voice in the middle eight was pleasantly startling, and every note in Richard Thompson's electric guitar part was a joy. And on good recordings of more straightforward rockâ€"try almost any song from Classic Records' great LP reissue of Neil Young's Greatest Hits (Reprise 48935-1)â€"the sound of the electric bass was deep, full, and strong, with believable timbre and excellent clarity of attack. The Es were also excellent in their sense of sheer impact, as in the percussion on that album's 'Heart of Gold': That sound was more forceful and dramatic through the Audio Notes than either my Quad ESL-989s or my comparatively bass-shy Lowther horns.

Throughout their time here I was consistently impressed by how loudly the Audio Notes could play, and by how utterly big they could sound when doing so with orchestral music. There was something of a disconnect, seeing those not-terribly-large speakers with their 1" tweeters in front of me, yet hearing them make flutes sound like real instruments moving reasonable amounts of air, and not like precise little images in some audio nerd's fantasy-@ss 'soundstage.' The crescendo at the end of János Starker and Antal Dorati's recording of Dvorák's Cello Concerto (a recent and brilliant Speakers Corner LP reissue of Mercury SR90303) showed that off especially wellâ€"as did Ruggiero Ricci and Ølvin Fjelstadt's wonderful recording of the Sibelius Violin Concerto, also on a Speakers Corner LP (Decca SXL 2077).

Also on orchestral music, the overall spatial quality of the Audio Note AN-E Lexus Signatures was closer than usual to the way I hear things in the concert hallâ€"although it must also be said that a great many speakers are 'better' at stereo imaging, in the accepted sense, than these (not the least of which being my own Quad ESL-989s). With Cecile Ousset's early-1980s recording of Poulenc's Piano Concerto (LP, EMI ASD 1077851), the Audio Note speakers suggested that the piano was clearly in front of the woodwinds, the woodwinds were more or less in the center of things, the violins were off to the left somewhere (the whole section seemed to be at an angle relative to the rest of the orchestra), and the brass instruments, which Poulenc used to such wonderful, colorful effect in this piece, were off on the other side and a little ways back. And that's about all. But I found the experience to be satisfying because it was completely real and no more; on the other hand, if you're the sort of listener who uses a hi-fi as a homing device for the sounds of loose cufflinks and bows hitting music stands, these might not be for you.

If that sounds glib, I assure you that I haven't been glib enough: The AN-E told me more about the changes in Mlle. Ousset's intensityâ€"having met her and heard her live, I know how powerful a performer she can beâ€"than the vast majority of speakers I've auditioned, the only exceptions being my Lowthers and a few other horns. I'll take emotion over location any old day.

All the above applies to the AN-E Lexus Signatures' performance in my regular listening room, which measures 12' by 18' with an 8' ceiling. I also tried them in my significantly larger living room (20' by 27'), where I did wind up placing the speakers very close to the long wall behind them (though not in the corners), toed-in rather drastically and separated from one another by a little more than 14'. If they sounded big in my smaller room, they were positively huge in the larger oneâ€"yet their spatial abilities, such as they were, didn't suffer at all. As a matter of fact, given the opportunity to spread the sound of a drum kit over several feet, certain good pop and jazz recordings revealed imaging details I'd never before noticed. And fine old mono recordingsâ€"including a fun Italian CD of Birgit Nilsson and Hans Hotter performing Wagner's Die Walküre at Bayreuth under Joseph Keilberth (Melodram MEL 36102)â€"emanated from the exact center of the space between the speakers, good physical scale notwithstanding: This wasn't the amorphous sonic blob that certain other speakers present in that space.

Piano recordings were also immensely enjoyable through the Audio Notes in the big room, where the instrument was allowed a greater-than-average sense of physical presence, while at the same time avoiding an exaggeration of its size. The only drawback: With the sound spread out like that, it was easier to pick up on the kinds of small frequency-response glitches that gave some notes in the left hand a bit more or less prominence than others. I don't think the average listener would consider the Lexus Signature to be severely colored, and it's surely more neutral than, say, the Hørning Perikles ('Listening,' February 2006), a fine speaker in its own right. But people who are sensitive to departures from perfectly flat frequency response should consider themselves forewarned.

Conclusion
On one of their last nights here, back in my smaller listening room, I used the Audio Note AAN-E Lexus Signatures to play David Grier's I've Got the House to Myself (CD, Dreadnought 0201), and skipped to the Civil Warâ€"era fiddle tune 'The Girl I Left Behind Me.' Eight or so bars in, my attention was completely captured by how real the performance soundedâ€"not in the Quad sense of heightened neutrality, transparency, and spatial precision (fine though those things are!), but real in the sense that the notes started, flowed, and stopped in a manner that was eerily convincing, for hi-fi. It was also dynamic as all get-out.

Then, at almost the same moment, my wife walked into the hi-fi room from where she was scouring pans or some such thing, and asked, 'What's this?' I told her it was the most recent David Grier CD. She paused for a moment, then saidâ€"and I swear this is trueâ€""For a minute I thought it was you playing." ('The Girl I Left Behind Me' is in my own humble picking repertoire, although I know that my efforts and Grier's are about as far apart as you can get and still be on the same planet. In fact, now that I think about it, I heard something else in my wife's voice that night: an implied question, wondering how my playing had got so much better all of a sudden.)

I don't mean to suggest that the Lexus Signature is the sort of product that impresses every time out; there are lots of things like that in the audio world, some of which are charming or truthful or soulful enough that their appeal lasts longer than a few months, though the majority of which are not. The Audio Notes are on a different plane altogether: easy, adaptable, and, in the best sense, mostly invisible. That they manage all that while being compatible with the very-low-power amps that some of us love is a heck of a thing.

Who would've thought? Who would've guessed that a speaker so unassuming, and so steeped in quiet tradition, might be the one that a whole subset of our hobby has been looking for all this time?

Anyone with this kind of money who's looking for a very musical and exceptionally efficient loudspeaker simply must try the Audio Note AN-E Lexus Signature: It's joined the Lowther horns and Quad electrostats as one of the very few speakers I know I could live with and love, indefinitely. (Interesting how the youngest of the three basic designs is already a quarter-century oldâ€"and the oldest is close to three times that!) Similarly, it seems at least reasonable to ask if other, less expensive models in the same E lineâ€"which range in price down to $4300/pair, for the 94dB-sensitive AN-E LXâ€"might also deserve the attention of single-ended-triode enthusiasts.

I used to wonder if there'd ever come a day when I could write about a SET amplifier without framing it as an oddity: an electric car, a green cocktail, an American who doesn't have a credit card. The answer is yesâ€"but only when speakers like this are more common."
}



.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 21
Registered: Dec-12
Howls of derisive laughter....

Orchestral music is frequently less revealing of certain aspects of speaker sound, by the way. Transients are less prominent.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17597
Registered: May-04
.

Clearly, speakers with various flavors are capable of satifying various listener's tastes. What any one listener finds pleasing is another listener's reject. That is the nature of the audio industry and always has been. Even more certainly, each design decision brings with it trade offs which a listener might find objectionable - or beautifully balanced and enlightening.

Without a doubt, no speaker - let me repeat this since it seems to be so repeatable - NO SPEAKER!} can be said to be superior to any other speaker simply because one owner suggests, "It's laughable how much better the NS-1000 is because it's a 3-way with a super-light midrange diaphragm."


As these review cooments suggest, no single speaker is "better" only because of a single mid range driver. Certainly not a 30 year old design which lacks the many benefits of modern technology and insight. It is only the most foolish listener who feels, "All things being equal (which they are not always) the more drivers that are used, the better the sound can be."


It is only the most utterly foolish listener who posts such nonsense. }





.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 22
Registered: Dec-12
But it's true, whether you like it or not.

and I didn't say 'only because'. Where did you get that from?

Read this:

http://akdatabase.org/AKview/albums/userpics/10004/Yamaha%20NS-1000M%20Brochure.pdf

It explains the highlights of the design.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17598
Registered: May-04
.

"A two-way is a compromise between the needs of bass and mid-range reproduction.

Look here:

http://www.thevintageknob.org/tvk_talk/viewtopic.php?f=1483&t=350

and here:

http://akdatabase.org/AKview/displayimage.php?album=3&pos=176"




No, Ornello, you cannot reprint the Yamaha marketing BS for the NS1000 and tell me this is "proof". You certainly cannot post a reprint of the marketing materials and then post a link to the marketing materials to suggest you have "extra information" to offer.




Drink the Koolaid if you want, you've obviously become evenagelical about what you read and not about what you should also consider. But what the marketing department insists the engineering department must include in their design is not proof of anything. Shall I reprint an advertisement from the cigarette industry which claims smoking tobacco is actually good for your health? The claims from the chemical herbicide manufacturers which claim their products are a boon to mankind? Or, shall I simply suggest you listen to the disclaimers for all the drugs advertised which might cause death?



"You omitted an important qualification:

With a subwoofer, and the LS3/5a NOT handling much of the low end at all. Essentially...making it a 3-way!"




No, making it a satellite/subwoofer system. Go back and read my comments regarding where a typical three way system has its crossover from the low frequency to the mid frequency drivers and the numerous problems such a crossover brings with it. A dedicated powered subwoofer does not a three way system make. The sub can be positioned for its best performance relative to its frequency band while the satellite can be equally well positioned. A subwoofer does not cross over to the smaller driver at 500Hz. Assuming the bass extension of even the 4" woofer in the 3/5a, a sub can be crossed at 40Hz. That is well beneath the range of the human voice. A subwoofer requires no baffle step compensaton as would a three way system with extension down to 40Hz. Unless very poorly positioned, there should be no driver to driver interference causing comb filtering as specific frequency bands are being cancelled by the other driver's output. There are no inherent electrical time and phase problems with a well set up sat/sub system A sat/sub system can be comprised of two systems - the sat and the sub - which are chosen for their specific qualities. You are not tied down to what some marketing department has said must be in the enclosure for good sales.

Shall I continue?

You would not call a two door, convertible automobile a sedan just because it has four wheels. There are too many differnces between a sat/sub system and a three way speaker to say they are identical.



Here's what you've posted, word for word, "No two-way system can match a three-way system, all other things being equal. Period. Asking a big speaker (necessary to handle low frequencies) to handle middle or high frequencies is asking for the impossible."


Certainly, if you read AD's reviews of the various one way and two way systems he has immensely enjoyed and appreciated, you see the absolute folly of such words as you have posted, Ornello.


Please read the review comments of a speaker such as the Wilson Watt. They remain proof positive everything you've stated in this thread is absolute, unmitigated, link headed bull hockey.


"The BBC and Rogers designed other speakers that can play louder (LS3/6, Studio 1, etc) but they are also slower."


Your words, not the opinion of a qualified audio reviewer, eh? How many times must it be repeated that a single 1970's Rogers speaker model cannot be help up as the equivalent for all two way speakers? This thread is becoming excessively tedious due to your simple, single minded intransigence in this matter.


"How is it possible, if what you say is true about the psychology of liking something, that I went from adoring the Rogers to hating them?"


I don't know. How many times have you been married? How many times have you changed jobs? How many times have you had a new car? What I do know and have said on more than one occasion on this forum is that I've never met anyne who doesn't think what they own is wonderful until the time comes when they want something new. Then all they can hear are the problems in what they already own. Nothing you have posted is of such outstanding integrity that I would consider you to be in any way above average in this respect.




Just how many times and how many ways must I prove how wrong your thinking is? If you feel you are superior to both Martin Colloms and Art Dudley is your ability to assess what is good and what is less than good about a music reproduction system, you are living in a fool's paradise.


Accept life as it actually exists, Ornello. Stop repeating the same three phrases over and over again. All three are completely wrong, as has been proven time and time again.





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17599
Registered: May-04
.

"Howls of derisive laughter....

Orchestral music is frequently less revealing of certain aspects of speaker sound, by the way. Transients are less prominent."




I'm done! You are an idiot of the very first order!!!

Please find someone else, some place else to bother.


I have no need to communicate with someone who argues just for the sake of argument and who relies on such stupidity as that statement as an argument.


Goodbye, Ornello. It has not been pleasant.





.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 23
Registered: Dec-12
Closely miked pop music with lots of percussion does contain more transients than most classical music.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 24
Registered: Dec-12
"You omitted an important qualification:

With a subwoofer, and the LS3/5a NOT handling much of the low end at all. Essentially...making it a 3-way!"



No, making it a satellite/subwoofer system.

Which is a three-way. QED
 

Gold Member
Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 1525
Registered: Jul-07
Not that I suspect you care in the least Ornello, but I would wholehearted disagree with any statement that a speaker is better than another simply by counting the drivers it has. You do not seem to realize that 3-way systems have compromises just as 2-way systems do, and just as SDFR speakers do. If you don't understand that basic tenent, it's pointless to discuss anything with you.

The only thing certain about adding more drivers is that you speaker will have more parts.

If I like speaker A and you like speaker B, who's right and who's wrong ? (hint: the correct answer is, nobody).
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 27
Registered: Dec-12
No, I don't mean to imply that "a speaker is better than another simply by counting the drivers it has". I would never say such a thing, and I have been exceedingly careful to outline the physics. If you would read the thread, actually read it, you will see that I have said:

1) A two-way MUST compromise the mid-range or the bass, SPL, distortion, or something COMPARED TO a speakers having separate drivers for the midrange and bass, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. This is because bass demands a bigger driver than a midrange to move a lot of air: the lower the frequency, the larger the drivers required. You CAN run a larger driver up to higher frequencies, but it doesn't sound as good.

2) I owned what is essentially a two-way speaker for 20 years, and became gradually more and more aware of these limitations. The Rogers Studio 1 is essentially a 'scaled-up' version of the LS3/5a, which is a small two-way designed for monitoring in cramped conditions. The LS3/5a serves well IN THAT APPLICATION, but it lacks the ability to play loud and deep BECAUSE it is a SMALL 2-way. Large 2-ways such as the Rogers Studio 1s can play loud and deep, but are slow.

So, you have the inevitable compromise that a large driver is necessary for good deep powerful bass, and a smaller driver is necessary for speed. EVERY speaker has to obey the laws of physics: there is no getting around it.

The Rogers Studio 1 does sound good for non-critical listening, but once you compare it to a first-rate 3-way, its weaknesses become all too apparent. The LS3/5a is faster, but then again it is smaller. You can't have everything.

The Studio 1s

http://forum.audiofil.ro/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1762.0;attach=4235;image

They are nothing short of excrement.

Yes, cheap 3-ways will not sound as good as expensive 2-ways (I learned that).

My point is that I don't care what these British Audio Note 2-ways cost, for about the same money a British 3-way can beat it easily (speakers such as the Harbeth M40.1 and the Spendor SP100R).
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 28
Registered: Dec-12
When I was listening to the Revel Salons I noticed that they seemed to be straining the amp. The dealer had them hooked up to an amp that was insufficiently powerful. After they switched amps, the system as a whole sounded better, but the speakers still sounded like excrement.
 

Gold Member
Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 1526
Registered: Jul-07
"You can't have everything."

You should stop right there. That sentence I agree with.

Just because you prefer a given 3-way over another given 2-way doesn't make it "better". Just better for you. Express opinions as such, rather than absolutes, and perhaps you'll find more people willing to engage in a discussion.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 29
Registered: Dec-12
My comment is directed against a $9,000 2-way. Nothing can justify such a price for a 2-way. In that same price range, from British producers, the Spendor SP100R and the Harbeth M40.1 would be vastly superior, and many, many 3-ways will be better for a lot less money.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17607
Registered: May-04
.

"No, I don't mean to imply that "a speaker is better than another simply by counting the drivers it has". I would never say such a thing, and I have been exceedingly careful to outline the physics. If you would read the thread, actually read it, you will see that I have said"



OK, here's what you have said, word for word...

"No two-way system can match a three-way system, all other things being equal. Period. Asking a big speaker (necessary to handle low frequencies) to handle middle or high frequencies is asking for the impossible."

And ... "All things being equal (which they are not always) the more drivers that are used, the better the sound can be."


And ... The Kenwood Model Seven is a 4-way, and it is better than the Yamaha NS-1000."


Being polite, Ornello, you are inconsistent. Being truthful, you are a bald faced liar who can't keep track of the lies they have told.


Later you said, "Yes, cheap 3-ways will not sound as good as expensive 2-ways"


Wait a minute! What happened to the laws of physics you keep pointing to? If your "out" is "all things being equal", then you have wasted a lot of time since no two speakers will ever be "equal".




You have also stated, "A two-way MUST compromise the mid-range or the bass, SPL, distortion, or something COMPARED TO a speakers having separate drivers for the midrange and bass, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. This is because bass demands a bigger driver than a midrange to move a lot of air: the lower the frequency, the larger the drivers required. You CAN run a larger driver up to higher frequencies, but it doesn't sound as good."


Unfortunately, you refuse to recognize the fact many single driver systems and even more two ways systems have been praised for their coherence and musicality. You demand everyone accept your description of what will "sound as good" when no one will due to personal preferences. SPL restrictions? Many SDFR's are capable of 99dB @ 1 watt sensitivity. A 25 watt amp paired to such a speaker system can create SPL's of 113dB from one speaker. Make that a stereo pair and you have 119dB! That's not loud enough?

Your point is invalid!

Distortion? A speaker which creates 99dB @ 1 watt is certainly going to have lower distortion components than a speaker which can only eek out 85dB @ 1 watt.

Your point is invalid!

Due to the spring action of a sealed enclosure vs a vented cabinet, the sealed system will have lower measured disortion across its bandwidth. It will also have virtually no group delay, which is another form of distortion.

Your point is invalid!

Adding any crossover to the system will introduce time and phase errors which could simple be called "distortions" since the incomming signal no longer resembles the out going signal.

Your point is invalid!


Midrange? Read the reviews I've posted. Those seasoned listeners would not agree with you any more than I or Chris will.


Your point is invalid!


"bass demands a bigger driver than a midrange to move a lot of air"


No, the motor of the driver must be capable of moving the air. And the enclosure type must allow the driver to create deep bass. Vented cabinets will have larger group delay and canellation created by the rear wave of the driver wrapping around to meet the front wave. This will create a fourth order roll out. There is no such constant as you state regarding driver size. A sealed cabinet will have minimal group delay and no rear wave cancellations which provide its characteristic second order roll out. Deeper bass from the same size driver.

Your point is invalid!


A "bigger driver" with a weaker motor will not, by itself, create deeper bass than a smaller driver with a stronger motor. A driver/enclosure system tuned to a system "Q" such as we find in the NS100 will favor "tight bass" over "deep bass extension". That is a FACT!

It is the driver's motor which will determine the ability of the system to move air. A motor system with a large" Xmax" will be capable of moving more air with a smaller, more linear, lower distortion diaphragm than will a simple "bigger driver". That is a FACT.

Not one anyone stuck in the 1970's might notice. But times change and some people move forward while others do not. If you'd like to look back in time, a single 8" Lowther driver placed in a back loaded horn is capable of response down into the 30Hz range with a Xmax of 1mm. With SPL's in the triple digits. And people have loved the Lowther system for over 70 years. It is still in production after 70 years.

As is the $35k, 15" dual concentric Tannoy Westminster. It has been in continuous production since 1952 when it was ordered for installation in the Deccas recording studios.

"I quite literally could go on and on telling you how wonderful and powerfully emotive vocals are through the Westminsters, or how they make huge classical performances as intimate and involving as small group jazz, or how you're transported to Seattle's Tractor Tavern when listening to bluegrass with the Westminsters, or how they can play rock & roll at live levels, levels that make you want to get up out of your seat and dance to the music (as more than one visitor to my listening room has done), but I won't, because I want to finish up my writing now so I can get back to listening to music for fun, and believe me, the Westminsters are unparalleled in the fun department.

In wrapping up, I am reminded of a question posed to me by one of Positive Feedback Online's readers, who e-mailed me asking me to discuss my experiences with three loudspeakers I have owned that he was interested in, to help give him ideas about what to do next. Those three loudspeakers are the Avantgarde Duos, the Harbeth Monitor 40.1s, and the Tannoy Westminster Royal Special Edition loudspeakers. After thinking about it, I decided a distillation of that conversation would also be useful to readers of this review.

First of all, I should point out that these are three very good and very different loudspeakers, and I think they will appeal to different listeners based on their needs and tastes. For example, room size is an important consideration for any of these speakers to perform at their best: for the Westminster Royal SEs to perform optimally I think your room should be at least as long as a 18Hz half-wave (the West's bass extension), or about 30 feet. For the Harbeth Monitor 40.1s, I think they are at their best in a fairly small room, reasonably close to a size of 3x4 meters or thereabout (which is the size of room they were optimized in during Alan Shaw's design process), or their bass tends to become unbalanced and boomy. The Avantgarde Duo is more flexible due to its tunable bass module, so it can be optimized for a larger variety of rooms size-wise, but still it prefers a larger room to a smaller one like the Harbeth is happiest in.

Then there is loudspeaker sensitivity and amplifier choice: The Avantgarde has > 100dB sensitivity, which means you can use any of the low power single ended triode (SET) amplifiers of 1 watt or more and get adequate sound pressure levels. The Westminster Royal SE has 99dB sensitivity, which I have found to work best with amplifiers of 5 watts or more, which excludes some of the smallest SETs like those based on 45 and 2A3 tubes. The Harbeth Monitor 40.1 has 85dB sensitivity, and that means more powerful amps must be used with them to get adequate sound pressure levels. Even though the Harbeth is rated as having a rather low 85dB sensitivity, the rating is a little misleading, as it is easier to drive than its low sensitivity rating would suggest, but still, for most listeners that means amps in the 30 - 40 watt range or bigger.

Then there is the voicing of the loudspeaker, and which one is preferential will be largely a matter of a given listener's taste: the Harbeth sounds like a classic monitor, and when used as intended in a small room for near field listening it is evenly balanced, detailed, and tonally neutral but not fatiguing, assuming your associated electronics are not.

The Avantgarde is a bit tricky to integrate completely for a coherent sound because it uses two different technologies: two horn loaded drivers that are very fast and a powered bass module that isn't quite as fast. When optimized it can sound quite good, kind of like a highly sensitive Harbeth Monitor 40.1 perhaps, with a detailed, neutral, and very dynamic sound. Tonal balance will largely be dependent up associated equipment, which can range from warm & lush to cool & detailed depending on the equipment.

Then there's the Westminster Royal SE, which uses a Dual Concentricâ„¢ driver that behaves essentially as a point source, making it by far the most coherent and balanced top to bottom of these three speakers. It is quite a different listening experience because of the Dual Concentricâ„¢ driver than the other two loudspeakers, which effectively allows music to take on a level of naturalness of presentation that is remarkable by any measure. The Westminster sounds big, and more like live music than the other two speakers, and it provides a visceral experience that is unparalleled in my experienceâ€"it can quite literally rattle your ribs in your chest with certain music. The Westminster Royal SE is unique in that you not only hear it, but you can also feel the musical waveform over your entire body, even at moderate listening levels, which is one of its rather endearing traits.

Which one of the three do I prefer when they are optimized in a way that brings out the best of their performance? I prefer the Westminster Royal SE by far. As listener after listener that has visited my listening room have said, the Westminsters are really something special, and are a couple of levels above either the Avantgarde or Harbeth in performance (or as my friend Chad puts it, the Westminsters are in a totally different league). But they should be considering the price differential: the Harbeth is around $12K, the Avantgarde Duo is double that, and the Westminster is triple that. In the case of the Westminster Royal SE, you really do get what you pay for though, and using the Stereophile rating system that places the Avantgarde and Harbeths in Class A, the Westminsters are simply off the rating scale above Class A somewhere up there around the North Star.

Conclusion

As my friend Ron said after hearing the Westminsters, "Where do you go from here!" Well, for me, nowhere. I'm finally done searching for loudspeakers that I can live with and love for the long haul. For me, the Westminster Royal SE represents the end of long a journey through many different loudspeakers, all of them good, but in the Tannoy Westminster Royal SE I've finally found 'my' perfect loudspeaker. I like everything about them, and I can't imagine living without them. I hope I never have to.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/tannoy.htm

Your points are all invalid!!!


"or something"


Well, I have to admit, you have me there. I don't know what "something" is to someone who is completely irrational.



.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 30
Registered: Dec-12
I said "all things being equal", and obviously they are not always equal. The Rogers Studio 1 2-way was better than the Yamaha NS-690 3-way, but at 4 times the cost. But at about the same cost, the Yamaha NS-1000 blows away the Rogers Studio 1.

Read and understand, again, what I wrote.

My 'reference' is my Stax Lambda 'earspeakers'. The Yamaha NS-1000 comes very close to the speed and low colouration of these fantastic devices.

I would not even consider listening to these 'Westminster' speakers. People who think these sorts of speakers sound good obviously don't listen to music with a lot of transients.

And Jan, you don't know the first thing about audio. And no, I don't like tubes either.

The fact is that a diaphragm large enough to give decent bass (say 6 or 8 inches) is simply going to be less good at reproducing the midrange, at least in transient response, than a smaller dedicated midrange unit.

The Rogers Studio 1 (and its brethren from Spendor and Harbeth and Stirling) require too many compromises: Muddy bass, slow transients through the midrange, 'boxiness', etc.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17608
Registered: May-04
.

"Read and understand, again, what I wrote."


I've tried but since you are ... uh? ... "inconsistent" in what you have posted in this thread, it is impossible to determine just what it is you have said. Let's look at this ...




"So, 2-way designs can be serviceable in small installations where space is at a premium and full-range, high-SPL performance is neither needed nor expected."


Which has been proven untrue by numerous links to two ways and one way systems which are easily capable of performing in large spaces with high SPL's.

So your argument then shifts to cost. You no longer are concerned about the size of the space, or the SPL, simply the cost factor ... "The Rogers Studio 1 2-way was better than the Yamaha NS-690 3-way, but at 4 times the cost."

Taking that statement and compariing it to your earlier statements ...



"Asking a big speaker (necessary to handle low frequencies) to handle middle or high frequencies is asking for the impossible."

"All things being equal (which they are not always) the more drivers that are used, the better the sound can be."

"I'm saying that as two-ways they will inevitably have the same limitations inherent in all two-way designs."

"More than two! For that price, a well-designed three- or four-way will be a better speaker"

"but these combined woofer-midrange units simply cannot move as fast as a well-designed mid-range unit"

You simply can't make a two-way sound as good. It's physics"

"Two-way speakers can't cut it, no matter what you do. the mass of the woofer-midrange is simply too high. It can't start and stop as quickly as a little midrange. This is not even a contest."

"Never, never again will I listen to two-ways. They are devil speakers"

"no two-way system can match a three-way system, all other things being equal. Period. Asking a big speaker (necessary to handle low frequencies) to handle middle or high frequencies is asking for the impossible"

"The Rogers Studio 1 is perhaps a typical two-way (8-inch woofer-midrange unit, crossing over at 3K to a Celestion tweeter, then to a KEF supertweeter at 13K). The fact is that the woofer-midrange has too high mass to give good transient response in the midrange, and is too small to give really good bass."

"NO two-way can compete with that. NONE. It's not physically possible."

"Every dynamic two-way has limitations due to the fact that a single driver has to cover a large range of frequencies. It is inherent in the nature of the beast."

"Why?
a) On the high side: A large driver (a driver suited for bass has to be at least 8 inches in diameter to do a decent job) will necessarily have greater mass than a smaller one."

"b) On the low side: The small woofer-midrange (8 inches in diameter) simply cannot push as much air as a 12-inch or 15-inch woofer, so they designed a port into the box, to allow for greater excursion and to lower the resonance frequency of the system to help augment the lowest frequencies."



I have to admit to still finding it hillarious when you tell me I know nothing about speaker design after you have plainly stated a port was created "to allow for greater (driver) excursion". That's a knee slapper, it is indeed! And factually incorrect to boot! But, hey! Any "port" in a storm, eh?


Back to your inconsistencies ...



"No matter what you do to a two-way, you can't overcome the physics. Also, there is the Doppler problem, with high frequencies 'riding' on a big woofer that is moving at low frequencies."

"Two-way speakers have inherent limitations. So do three-ways. The limitations of two-ways are more invidious. Two-ways are best for small speakers that don't pretend to be full-range speakers capable of high SPL"

"The argument you make about the crossover point ignores the fact that running the woofer up higher means compromising its ability to handle transients (because it is so heavy), and if you try to keep it small and light to offset that, that compromises its ability to produce good deep bass. That is exactly the problem with two-ways: slow midrange, poor bass, or both. Dividing the range up and using two drivers is better."

"The fact of the matter is that two-ways are slow"

"Those BBC designs were developed in the days of much slower transient signals, before MC cartridges and then later CDs became the preferred music sources. They cannot cope with today's signals."


That's another one that makes me spit coffee all over my computer screen!




"It's laughable how much better the NS-1000 is because it's a 3-way with a super-light midrange diaphragm."

"Two-ways are suitable ONLY for small systems such as the LS3/5a (and successors) where the best low-frequency performance is not needed"

"The LS3/5a was a brilliant design, for its intended purpose, which was not domestic applications. It lacks the qualities needed for that application (loud SPLs, deep bass, etc...")


It is amazing then the 3/5a sold so well to domestic users, even the rockers bought it! Coherence trumps all else!




"I know quite well the limitations of the two-way design"






"If you merely want to listen to BBC announcers in a phone booth, I suppose 2-ways are fine. But not for any serious listening in a home where you have to fill a large room with sound."

Two words; "Tannoy Westminster".



"The Yamaha NS-1000 was designed as a monitor, for medium-size rooms such as are encountered in recording studios."

Same two words: "Tannoy Westminster" as used in the Decca recording studios.



"All things being equal (which they are not always) the more drivers that are used, the better the sound can be."

"I am saying that 2-ways are inherently limited in ways that make all such designs unacceptable for large-scale music presentation."



"Tannoy Westminster" as used in the Decca recording studios.




"So, 2-way designs can be serviceable in small installations where space is at a premium and full-range, high-SPL performance is neither needed nor expected."

"What part of any of this is unclear?



All of it.




"In the price range of $10,000 or so per pair, the Spendor SP100R/2 or the Harbeth M40.1 (which seem remarkably similar) are a far better choice that the Audio Note 2-way piece of garbage. Read the reviews."

I have. You, on the other hand, prefer to ignore them when they are incovenient to your distortions of the facts. You cannot say one set of reviews are good while another set of reviews are bad simply because you do not care for the facts and learned opinions pointed out in the latter reviews. That would be you being ... uh? ... "inconsistent"?

How polite of me.




"A two-way is a compromise between the needs of bass and mid-range reproduction."

"Orchestral music is frequently less revealing of certain aspects of speaker sound, by the way. Transients are less prominent."

"Closely miked pop music with lots of percussion does contain more transients than most classical music."



Even should that last statement be true - which it is not - you would be guilty of once again not understanding, and not being sensitive to, the innumerable time and phase errors as introduced by all close mic'd pop recordings. "Transient Behavior" and "Time and Phase Errors" can only exist in the same sentence when the errors are pointing out that proper transient response is impossible under such conditions. That is a fact of physics - remember physics?




"No, I don't mean to imply that "a speaker is better than another simply by counting the drivers it has". I would never say such a thing, and I have been exceedingly careful to outline the physics. If you would read the thread, actually read it, you will see that I have said: "

Oh! I see! You remember "physics" when you want to, but forget physics when its facts are not in your favor. Unfortunately, even when you remember "physics", you do not understand "physics". Xmax?




"1) A two-way MUST compromise the mid-range or the bass, SPL, distortion, or something COMPARED TO a speakers having separate drivers for the midrange and bass, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL."

"This is because bass demands a bigger driver than a midrange to move a lot of air: the lower the frequency, the larger the drivers required. You CAN run a larger driver up to higher frequencies, but it doesn't sound as good."



"Tannoy Westminster".




"So, you have the inevitable compromise that a large driver is necessary for good deep powerful bass, and a smaller driver is necessary for speed. EVERY speaker has to obey the laws of physics: there is no getting around it."

Indeed! And every crossover filter must also obey the laws of physics which dictate they will introduce time and phase errors into the signal. Every additional driver in a speaker system must add cancellations due to overlapping dispersion characteristics. In room response will be compromised, when more than one driver is used in a single speaker system, by the various driver's individual dispersion characteristics not melding into a cohesive whole. Every sealed system's woofer will have inherently higher mass and longer throw than will a similarly sized driver for a vented enclosure. A sealed system will produce deeper bass extension, with better transient response, than will a vented system. Group delay in a vented system will have a negative effect on the transient response of the system extending from the system resonance up through the crossover region. A single driver, full range driver will not display the time and phase errors of a multi-way system and will, therefore, be more musically coherent. A properly horn loaded driver will exhibit higher SPL, lower distortions and deeper bass extension than will a similarly sized bass reflex or sealed enclosure. A panel type speaker system will have no box sounds and much lower mass than a comparably priced dynamic system of multi-driver type. Etc., etc., etc. Those are all facts of physics which each speaker system must obey. Those are all laws of physics which anyone who is being honest must acknowledge lest they be called ... uh ... "inconsistent".




"The fact is that a diaphragm large enough to give decent bass (say 6 or 8 inches) is simply going to be less good at reproducing the midrange, at least in transient response, than a smaller dedicated midrange unit."







Those are your words, Ornello, taken verbatum from your posts in this thread. You state a two way simply cannot be as good as a three way. A three way will never be as good as a four way. Size matters. Mass matters, Physics matter. Reviews matter. Headphones are to be used as a "reference". (Whatever happened to using live music as a reference? Oh, yes,orchestral music is less revealing. ) A two way is only good for small rooms. A two way is only good when you are not seeking high SPL's. A two way is not a good choice if you prefer low distortion. Cost matters. Marketing brochures matter. And last, but far from least, "I would not even consider listening to these 'Westminster' speakers. People who think these sorts of speakers sound good obviously don't listen to music with a lot of transients."



Ornello, you are a liar and a fool. Those are the facts.





.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 31
Registered: Dec-12
"All things being equal" means at comparable cost. Is this what you accuse me of? Please don't bother replying to my posts, as the issues are beyond your comprehension. Of course a cheap 3-way may be inferior to an expensive 2-way, but then of course in such a case all things are not equal. And even if in this case the cheap 3-way is overall inferior, it still may excel in midrange transient response. This was the case with the Yamaha NS-690 and the Rogers Studio 1. The NS-690 was only 1/4 the cost of the Studio 1, but the primary flaws it had were a 'boxiness' to the sound and a bit of dullness. Others, however, love the sound of these speakers and they are still highly sought after today.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17609
Registered: May-04
.

"My comment is directed against a $9,000 2-way. Nothing can justify such a price for a 2-way."


So it's not size, mass, SPL, distortion, space or anything else you've used as a some make believe, off topic "proof" for the superiority of three and four way designs? It is now that you have the God given right to tell me how much I should spend for a speaker? And that I should only pay attention to transients? I should ignore time and phase errors even though they exist and are audibly disturbing to me? You have the right to tell me how many "ways" a speaker should be before I spend my own hard earned cash for a speaker you will never be invited to audition?


That's your "comment"?!!!


Then why drag in all the other things? Why? If they mean nothing, why mention them?





"In that same price range, from British producers, the Spendor SP100R and the Harbeth M40.1 would be vastly superior, and many, many 3-ways will be better for a lot less money."


Read the Westminster review. It compares the Harbeth Monitor 40.1 to the Tannoy. Go ahead, read the review.





Ornello, you are a liar and a fool. Those are the facts.







.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 32
Registered: Dec-12
So, tell me about these 'time and phase errors' you keep yapping about. If they have no effect on the perceived sound, what do they matter?

If somebody gave me a brand-new set of the Westmonstrosities I would throw them in the trash.

If anyone wants to spend $9000 on a 2-way I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to him.

You can make a 2-way that's small and fast, or one that's big and loud, but you can't make one that's big and fast. Physics won't allow it.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17610
Registered: May-04
.

"With a subwoofer, and the LS3/5a NOT handling much of the low end at all. Essentially...making it a 3-way!"

"You're making my point for me:

A two-way is a compromise between the needs of bass and mid-range reproduction."





I really feel as though I need to address this before I leave this thread for the sake of my sanity.


From what you have clearly stated, Ornello, look above at what you've said - you feel a two way system is inferior to a three way system. And, that is your reasoning behind the above statement that a two way system with a subwoofer is therefore a "three way system". And not a sub/sat system? Correct? Yes, that's correct from everything you've said - if we ignore those times when you said something completely different or the obvious fact that you are, first, a troll of the worst type and, second, that you are completely looney tunes. Oh, and a liar.

So in your estimation the point you are making here is that the newly created "three way system" is superior to the original two way system when we add the subwoofer. Right? That's how I am making "your point"? Yes? Yes, that's right since you have wandered all over the place with your arguments, we'll settle on that one. He11! that's a good a one to settle on as any of the twenty or so others you've posted here.

Yet nothing has changed about the two way system. How then does it become better when it has remianed the same? It doesn't change but, in your mind, somehow it does? That's called a hallucination, Ornello. There are medications you can take to minimze their effects on your reasoning and your very shakey grasp of reality.




The satellite's low frequency driver still has the same mass and the same size, the motor assembly still has the same flux density and throw. And the crossover frequency to the tweeter is still at the same point in the bandwidth. The enclosure type remains the same as before we added the subwoofer. Everything is identical in the original two way system other than we have supplemented the lowest octave of bass extension with a self powered, self contained subwoofer. But "your point" would be this now three way system is superior to the original two way system simply because we've added more drivers to the mix. Which, of course, given the fact nothing has changed about the two way system, is utter bullsh*t! But you have depended heavily on utter bullsh*t for the entirety of your posts, haven't you? That and lots of dodging and weaving. Please refer to your quoted ... uh, ... "comments" above.



The satellite is run full range - as, say, Rogers designed with their AB1 sub system for the 3/5a. Or as is done with thousands of modern day satellite/subwoofer systems. We don't have to stay in the 1970's, though I know that's where you feel most comfortable. Knowing nothing that you hadn't stuck cockeyed in your head by 1975. Ignoring all that has come since 1975. Thinking one Roger two way doesn't sound as good as a pair of headphones and ignoring the fact we want to listen to music - not transients!

Brilliant, just brilliant.




Nothing about the satellite speaker has changed other than we can now set up the satellites for the best performance they are capable of producing. And we can do likewise for the powered subwoofer. Or, preferably, two subwoofers to minimize room nodes. You see, Ornello, today we understand that two subwoofers will perform better in any room than will just one. We have learned that since 1975.



Your arguments - pick any one, I'm sure you'll have some reason why you and you alone (with a little help from Yamaha's marketing department) are right and all others, everyone, all audio reviewers who disagree with you, all those forum members who finally refuse to have anything to do with you and your lunacies are wrong - are, therefore, logically invalid!}








.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17611
Registered: May-04
.

"So, tell me about these 'time and phase errors' you keep yapping about. If they have no effect on the perceived sound, what do they matter?




Oh, for chrissake! Now! you think you might have missed something? For 35 years, you now think you might have maybe missed something?!




They do matter you idiot! They certainly do matter! And the more filters you use in a single speaker system, the more time and phase errors you will have. It is inevitable. Do some research for once! I'm not about to spoon feed you information that you, the great Ornello who knows all about everything regarding speaker design, certainly should have known twenty five years ago - at the very least. It's basic electrical theory. Physics! I've explained it in earlier posts. That you didn't bother to read my earlier posts is not a fact I need to compensate for.




"You can make a 2-way that's small and fast, or one that's big and loud, but you can't make one that's big and fast."



Two words, you fool: "Tannoy Westminster". Read the f'ing review!





.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 33
Registered: Dec-12
A small 2-way has a smaller woofer-midrange, which makes it lighter and faster. Such speakers (LS3/5a) though, lack deep bass. If you add a subwoofer and take away part of the responsibility that the LS3/5a has for reproducing the deeper bass, you are essentially making the woofer-midrange a midrange only and turning the whole thing into a 3-way. My complaint is that you have TWO choices with a 2-way, neither entirely satisfactory:

1) A small speaker like the LS3/5a which will have limited bass and SPL, but a decent midrange

or

2) A larger speaker such as the Rogers Studio 1 (or Harbeth Super HL5, Spendor SP1/2, or Stirling LS3/6) which has a larger woofer-midrange, but still fairly small (200mm vs 300mm in many 3-ways). Such larger woofer-midrange systems are often ported to help with the low bass, but even so their large size makes them slow at the top of their range compared to a dedicated smaller midrange.

That's all there is to it.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17612
Registered: May-04
.



Now, before I finally leave this God forsaken thread, I'd like to quote back to you, Ornellooney, a few words you directed at me in another thread ...



1) Everything you know is wrong.

2) Everything you think is wrong.

3) Before you were even conceived, you were wrong

So, do us all a favour and get off this forum. You have nothing to contribute ...


https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/713635.html#POST2008191



Goodbye, and good riddance.





.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 34
Registered: Dec-12
If you understood 1/1000 of what you think you do, maybe we could have a nice conversation.

You simply cannot make as good a 2-way speaker as a 3-way or 4-way, all things being equal, if the LF unit goes much above 500Hz.

Look at the IMF TLS-80 or Monitor.

http://www.soundup.ru/images/stories/archive/Classic/Columns/imf-tls-80-ii-speakers-matched-pair-british-1970s-vgc/imf-tls-80-ii-speakers-10.jpg

Why does B&W use diamond tweeters? For speed!

http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Speakers/Home_Audio/800_Series_Diamond
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17613
Registered: May-04
.

https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/706244.html#POST2008141
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 35
Registered: Dec-12
Is it not significant that as speakers increase in size and loudness potential they generally tend to employ more driers? Why do you think that is?

http://www.stereophile.com/content/spendor-classic-sp100rsup2sup-loudspeaker
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2964
Registered: Oct-07
Magnepan MG1.6qr.
2-way design with crossover at 600hz. Loudness potential? Limited by mylar excursion limits (X-max?) and magnet/motor strength. Design in continuous production for over a decade.

Any 2 drivers vibrating at the same frequency will have the same speed....except that the driver with the greater excursion will actually have to cover more distance to have the same cyclic rate....move faster.....
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 36
Registered: Dec-12
Obviously, we are talking about cone speakers, not planar types.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17614
Registered: May-04
.

"Any 2 drivers vibrating at the same frequency will have the same speed....except that the driver with the greater excursion will actually have to cover more distance to have the same cyclic rate....move faster....."




leo, I believe you are discussing basic physics. No?

Useful thing, that physics.


More poeple should have some idea of how things work before they open their big yaps. That's the only relevance I can see here, how big their mouth is determines how much noise they want to make.


.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 37
Registered: Dec-12
Although you may be able to run a big heavy speaker up fairly high, it simply won't work as well. You run into colouration and breakup modes, which thicken and colour the sound.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17615
Registered: May-04
.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlV3oQ3pLA0
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 38
Registered: Dec-12
I trust my ears, not your words.

These Audio Note speakers are garbage.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17616
Registered: May-04
.


He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.

Groucho Marx
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 39
Registered: Dec-12
You'll note that I have not uttered a single inflammatory word to you. Why do you?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17618
Registered: May-04
.

I'd like to quote back to you, Ornellooney, a few words you directed at me in another thread ...



1) Everything you know is wrong.

2) Everything you think is wrong.

3) Before you were even conceived, you were wrong

So, do us all a favour and get off this forum. You have nothing to contribute ...


https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/713635.html#POST2008191




Ornello, you are a liar and a fool. Those are the facts.




.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 40
Registered: Dec-12
Well, it so happens that I do have ears and an understanding of the physics of speakers, which apparently you lack.

$9000 for 2-way speakers is an outrage.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17620
Registered: May-04
.

"You'll note that I have not uttered a single inflammatory word to you. Why do you?"


"Well, it so happens that I do have ears and an understanding of the physics of speakers, which apparently you lack."




Ornello, you are a liar and a fool. Those are the facts.



.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 41
Registered: Dec-12
2-ways are ok for little speakers, but not for big ones, and nobody can or will convince me otherwise. Unlike you, I owned a pair for 20 years, so I am intimately acquainted with their flaws. There is an enormous difference in transient response between the Rogers Studio 1 and the Yamaha NS-1000.

I did audition a pair of Spendor SP1/2 speakers, and found that they are very similar to the Rogers Studio 1s. I can assume that the Harbeth and Stirling are going to be similar as well. All these British companies are all inbred with the BBC and have stale 1960s ideas, unlike the Japanese, who have pioneered radical and rational choices in materials. You can fool me once, but not twice. I used to brag about those Rogers Studio 1s. Now, I vilify them every chance I get.

All these British companies, except for KEF and B&W, (and the old OMF) use the same approach. They are all founded by BBC engineers.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2965
Registered: Oct-07
I've owned 2-way Magnepan for 25 years and am intimately acquainted with the plusses and minuses of these large panels.

My current MG1.6s cross over at a forbidden high of 600hz. This particular model was so flawed it was made with few changes for over a decade.

My previous MG1s were from the late 70s and were factory supported until after I had them rebuilt around 2005 or 2006. That is REAL value.

I think that Jan has a very good point. The diameter of the driver is related to the crossover point AND the beaminess / dispersion therefrom. For some people....myself included, the tradeoffs in 'ways' vs drivers working more easily together is easily resolved in favor of simpler/ better. Even my panels make this idea work. The LowPass filter is 2nd order and the HighPass is first order. This puts them 90 degree out of phase. At the same time, they are electrically connected 180 out of phase. This makes the dispersion lobing favor one direction.....and so they are setup sensitive AND terrific when you take the time to make it right......

A drivers 'speed' is related to motor strength and amp strength. You can get a huge driver with large excursion to work....if you have the horsepower to make it so. The upper limit will get very beamy and will have issues to work out with the next driver 'up' in range....which will almost automatically have greater dispersion at the crossover...
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 42
Registered: Dec-12
We are not talking about planar speakers, whose characteristics are entirely different. Why do you even mention them? And the crossover of 600Hz is about the same as the typical 3-way (the NS-1000s cross over to the tweeter at 500Hz). The typical large British 2-way in the class we are discussing crosses over at about 3-4 KHz, and that is the problem with them. It's too high for an 8-inch driver! They sound thick and dull in the mid-range.

It's the mass of the driver that matters. A heavy driver cannot work well at high frequencies. And the mass is directly related to its size, all things being equal.

Read this:

http://akdatabase.org/AKview/albums/userpics/10004/Yamaha%20NS-1000M%20Brochure.pdf

Jan does not understand what makes these NS-1000 speakers so great. I do. But hearing is believing!

Thee ideal driver is perfectly stiff and weightless.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17621
Registered: May-04
.

"Read this:

http://akdatabase.org/AKview/albums/userpics/10004/Yamaha%20NS-1000M%20Brochure. pdf "




Not more with the Yamaha sales brochure?! Am I really suppose to think Yamaha would say anything bad about their speakers?


Did you know Yamaha actually said good things about their two way speakers? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Yamaha-NS-5-Speaker-Brochures-/310317550265



Doubling down on falsehoods is bad enough. It says there is a closed mind which is not open to change or even to acccepting the fact their facts are wrong.

Repeating and repeating and repeating the same three falsehoods is an indication you have nothing really to say.

Relying on a marketing brochure to provide "proof" is delusional! Doing so twice is beyond irrational. It does, however, indicate a troll who moves from forum to forum making life miserable for others. A sad, mean spirited 63 year old troll who has no life and no knowledge of anything beyond a single point in time some 35 years ago.




However, if matching brochures is the game ...


The two way Large Advent was the single most popular speaker in the US from 1967 to 1975. I don't believe any speaker since has sold more units than the Original Large Advent Loudspeaker.

It happened to be based on Henry Kloss' earlier design with KLH, the KLH 6, which was also the most popular speaker of its time. It too was a simple 10" two way system.

The two way Yamaha NS5 speaker system mentioned above was modelled after the Large Advent's design and its sonic balance and was, IMO, one of the best sounding Yamaha speakers of all their many, many, many designs ...




The Two-Way System

We began the design of the Advent Loudspeaker
with the knowledge that the two-way system had basic
advantages, both theoretical and practical, over any other
way of designing a full range speaker system for the home.


They include:

> Less interference between drivers than any other
practical system, Yielding more uniform characteristics
over the listening area. A single speaker would be better
here as an ideal, but lacks either the range or power-handling
required in the "best" category, or both.

> A better transition between drivers than the
three-way system, because there is no need to sharply cut
off the operating range of any driver. Whether such a cutoff
is made for good reasons or simply to satisfy the arbitrary
parameters of three-way design, its ill effects are
audible.

> One simple crossover network instead of the two
more complex networks needed in a three-way system.

> A cost significantly lower for excellent sound
than that of an equivalent system of three-way - or any
other - design.


Those advantages are important enough in themselves,
but there is an overall advantage that seems even
more important to us. It is that simplest feasible approach
to an objective produces the best kind of engineering - a
concept not too far from the notion that the shortest distance
between two points is either a straight line or the one
that is straightest under the circumstances. "Over-engineering"
is a common problem in audio equipment, and one for
which the customer often pays heavily in many ways.

Good design to us is represented by the simplest approach
that permits reaching an objective without compromise,
not by an over-elaboration that makes the buyer pay for
our painting the lily.

If the two-way system has effective limitations,
they apply to the tremendous power-handling required for
use in a theater auditorium or in some laboratory applications.
An extra driver provides (all other things being
equal) both greater power-handling for these purposes, and
the extra radiating area helpful both for radiating power
and dispersing sound over a large public area.


But those
are the only significant limitations of two-way design.

They have no importance in the design of the best possible
speaker system for use in a home
.



Stereophile's JG Holt on the Large Advent ...

"After several weeks of listening, we still hadn't found anything to complain about. We couldn't even find any sonic characteristics to hang adjectives on, in order to try to describe their sound. They were, in fact, the least-colored loudspeakers we have ever heard, and this includes the highest-priced systems currently available.

Probably for just that reason, the Advents proved eminently easy to live with, and sounded equally comfortable and natural at low or room-filling listening levels. Dispersion was excellent and so, as a consequence, was the stereo imaging. Driver blending, too, was excellent, and the speakers did an outstanding job of reproducing the front-to-back perspective in stereo and mono program material ...





One of the virtues of the Advent line was the designer, Henry Kloss. This was a speaker that was voiced by one person and reflected that one individual's perspective on music. (The story of exactly how Kloss voiced the Large Advent is a legend in good audio design.)

This was in stark contrast to the 1970's Japanese speakers from Marantz, Pioneer, Kenwood, Sansui and Yamaha which were designed by a committee of workers to satisfy a marketing department's sales requirements.

Ask anyone familiar with mid-century audio who designed the Advent speaker line and they will likely know Henry Kloss's name.

Can anyone tell me who designed the NS1000?


I thought not.




Let's not bother to play any more sad, mean spirited trolly games by pretending the Yamaha marketing brochure is a piece of scientific literature while the Advent brochure is anything less than a simple statement of facts as seen by a real world audio legend.






.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17623
Registered: May-04
.

"We are not talking about planar speakers, whose characteristics are entirely different."



As you say, Ornellooney, "read the thread". Nowhere in this thread have you stated your comments refer only to non-planar designs. Go back to the post where I listed your many statements and reversals of previous statements and obsfucations of previous statements to check. Nothing at all about planar speakers in your posts. You have been making up stuff about "three way speakers". Period!

I've mentioned planar speakers as an example of a strikingly "fast" driver type with excellent transient behavior when executed well. You didn't complain then. Why complain now? There is not a single comment, or fact, or law of physics/electronics which is exclusive to any specific "type" of speaker system as stated in this thread.


Why complain now?


You do understand the many similarities between "conventional" drivers and a magne-planar driver such as leo's speakers contain. Don't you? You understand they both use the same type of analog, passive filter crossovers. Right? And they therefore have identical issues of time and phase along with driver cancellation issues. The only they they do not have are the box sounds. But box sounds are not exclusive to either a two or a three way conventional speaker system. Are they? Or, are they? You tell me. I just might be surprised by what silliness you come up with here.

You have compared your Roger's speakers to your Stax "electret" heaphones. You've said your Stax phones are your "reference". Right? Yet the Stax are, in effect, a "planar" driver. So why does that comparison work for you, but not for leo?


Why don't you spend a little time telling us why, in your opinon, planar speakers are "entirely different" when it comes to how many drivers and how many filters are in the system? This should be interesting.


.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 43
Registered: Dec-12
We were talking about the Audio Note speakers at the top of this thread, which are 2-way cone speakers. Other driver types have different characteristics. The question is, whether one can do better with about $10K than these. I say, certainly. The price being asked for these is an outrage. Other British speakers in the same price range, such as the Harbeth M40.1 and the Spendor SP100R are better speakers, I assure you, because they are 3-ways and these are 2-ways.

I don't care who designed the Yamaha NS-1000 speakers. They have characteristics that no other speaker has, characteristics that bring it close to electrostatic performance. I use the Stax Lamdas for reference. Why shouldn't I? they have no box resonances to colour the sound, and they have stupendous speed, so they make an excellent reference. No speaker can match them, for obvious reasons, but they do show what is possible in a transducer.

Those old Advent and KLH speakers sounded like mush. They were cheap and nasty. The Yamaha line of speakers really brought new standards of quality for the price. Bigger, better speakers at a great price. Still sought after today.

The large size of companies like Sony, Canon, and Yamaha enables them to develop and manufacture products that small companies simply cannot do. V-FETs, for instance, were developed by Sony and Yamaha and were quite an advance. The process used to produce the beryllium drivers came from that same research. Companies like Advent and KLH are history now because of these kinds of developments. They belong to the dustbin of history.

The Yamaha NS-1000 was intended to challenge the JBL L100 'Century' and 4310 monitors in their respective markets. They were wildly successful.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 45
Registered: Dec-12
Regarding planar speakers: I don't care for the size or the fact that they are dipole radiators. The discussion was started on a 2-way cone speaker system, which I felt was ridiculously overpriced.

Until Yamaha, Kenwood, and Sony showed up in the early 1970s with some rather innovative products, the US speaker market was indeed dominated by companies such as KLH, Advent, JBL, etc. By the early 1980s, those companies had almost faded away. Today, most of the American and British products still on offer are primarily very expensive ones. The lower-priced stuff is all Japanese. The market is almost exactly the opposite of what it was in 1977. Then, the Japanese were producing some fairly expensive speakers (Kenwood Model Seven, for instance, in addition to the Yamaha NS-1000) that were far beyond anything American companies were offering. There were some big JBL speakers with titanium tweeters, but nobody took this stuff seriously. Polk introduced some modest-priced speakers, but they really were nothing much to talk about. The American companies that succeeded were the ones that moved into higher price points, companies like Thiel, for instance.

I am not fond of Japanese camera equipment, with its 'design by committee' approach (I own and use Leica camera equipment) but companies such as Pioneer, Yamaha and Sony have been hard to beat at what they do.

Today, the better salon shops show some Canadian speaker lines and some American lines, and I suppose a little of the rest, including some British and Japanese lines.

The comment from the Advent advert about the 'simplest approach' is charmingly naive. There is no one way to achieve a given objective, and the objectives sometime require conflicting approaches. You can't have everything. Beryllium is hideously difficult to work with, and a toxic material, I believe. The costs vs the benefits have to be weighed. This is why it is not widely used nowadays, with more stringent environmental regulations and higher costs for everything. But there are still many copies of the NS-1000s out there to buy.

The market has changed, too. People nowadays invest in home theatre systems with big-screen TVs. The market for audio-only high-end speakers is much reduced.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17625
Registered: May-04
.

How... quaint.


Ill informed, entirely inaccurate ... but quaint, in a court jester-ish sort of way.





You did not address why you get to compare your speakers to electrostatic headhones but you don't want leo to discuss panel speakers. Whether you dislike the size or the polar response of a panel speaker doesn't much matter. While you admit "no speaker can match them", you want to complain about the Rogers because ... wait for it ... they can't compare to them!!!

Which shows just how poorly thought out your reasoning is. You are either to be politely called "inconsistent" in your thinking or you are a very practiced liar who believes their own waste deep BS.


Your reasoning for why KHL, Advent and JBL are no longer dominant speaker companies is sadly lacking in a basic knowledge of the audio industry and its history. Brushing off a man such as Kloss is ... well, stupid and arrogant. But then, you mistakenly think you are better at getting this audio thing than anyone else. So, what else should I have expected from you?



Once again you've proven you are a liar and a monstrously large fool. Those are the facts as displayed in this thread. You further live up to your image with each successive post.






.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 48
Registered: Dec-12
American electronic products are laughable and almost always have been, Kloss's designs included. Remember tubed TVs? The Japanese wiped them off the face of the earth with transistorized sets. Remember RCA ads for their service techs? Who wants service techs? People want reliable TVs that don't need service techs! Remember what an advance the Sony Trinitron was? Where were RCA and Westinghouse? Sitting on their loathsome, spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, talking about cabinets and remote controls!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKqntuJvWEE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuRXt0hizHQ

The history of American consumer electronics is one of contemptible failure. Almost every record made in the USA came out of the press defective. I know, because I had to deal with them constantly before I got rid of the damned turntable and bought a Sony CD player (Sony is a Japanese company, in case you missed it). The CD was invented by Philips and Sony by foreigners, not in the US.

I mentioned before my audition of the (American-made) $15,000 Revel Salon speakers, which were abominations. So are Klipsch speakers. So are JBL speakers.

What do you expect from a nation that thinks Ansel Adams is a good photographer, that Meryl Streep can act, that drinks California Merlot and thinks it's wine, and that eats its salad first?

The Japs wiped the American products off the shelves with frightening speed because of American corporate incompetence and stupidity (another story in itself). You want to hold up Kloss as an example of an engineering giant? Hilarious! The KLH and Advent speakers were cheap crap and sounded like it.

You haven't a clue what a good speaker sounds like. The Stax earpseakers (Japanese-made) show what near-perfection sounds like. They can thus be used to evaluate speakers. The Yamaha NS-1000s sound more like the electrostatics than the Rogers Studio 1s do.

I'm not dismissing panel speakers, but we are discussing cone speakers in this thread. The fact that the NS-1000 sounds so much like the Stax Lambdas is a tribute to Yamaha's engineering prowess.

Here we see an American engineering team arriving for work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjLFnrG1l0E

The only devent American consumer hi-fi products were some Shure cartridges and Koss Pro 4AA headphones.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17632
Registered: May-04
.


ROTFLMAO!!!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 49
Registered: Dec-12
Yes, everything you 'know' is wrong!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_You_Know_Is_Wrong
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2968
Registered: Oct-07
A couple weeks ago I was left unimpressed by a pair of Sony speakers. Yep.....all of 25,000$ list. I'm not saying they rose to the level of insult, but a pair of Magnepan 20.7s and a Pass amp/pre for the same coin would fix me up for life. Even 2 pair of the 'lesser' 3.7s and 2 of the Pass INT-150 integrateds would only go a grand or so more than the Sony speakers....alone.
Sorry, I can't get behind boxes. In fact, I left boxes behind when I sold my RSL (Rogers Sound Labs) 3600 studio monitors which were VERY decent copies of JBL 4311s and in no way inferior. My brother owned the 4311s and even he was suitably impressed, especially for the coin. I've owned panels ever since. (call it '76 or so)

And yes, Ornel, Sony and the other Japanese have blown the world away with flat panel TVs. Sony? withdrawn from the RPTV market after a succession of FAILURES with projection LCD than a Sony priatary version of LCOS......called SXRD. Both the Sony RPTV versions suffered from early failures due to PLASTIC filters in the light engine which resulted in discolored images as early as 5000 to 6000 hours into the set. My SXRD survived into the 2nd lamp. Sony LOST several class action law suits which certainly proves how superior the sets were. The ONLY Japanese set to buy? One of the old Pioneer Kuro or new Panasonic Plasma....These are the ONLY sets which don't have hundreds of posts devoted to troubleshooting and other issues. Some recent Sony sets have caught on fire. The showrooms are full of sets set to 'flame thrower' mode and difficult to adjust to a perfect picture. I was selling them recently and spent time trying to improve the picture on a few. You need to go several levels of menu into the set and than can even be confronted with black level, white level and other adjustments only an ISF guy would be comfortable fiddling with.
Don't even get me started on single chip DLP.....which has more problems then you'd think possible. A local retailer still sells the occassional Mitsubishi DLP in some huge size for an amazingly low cost per inch. At least movie theaters are using 3 chip versions since I don't see any motion artifacts when moving my head during action sequences. I'm hoping the Sony light engined projectors are using heat-proof glass in the light path. They should last thru a dozen lamps......as long as the fan is good and doesn't dust-clog.
The remainder of the new crop of flat panel stuff is NO BETTER. When you buy your new flat panel TV, don't forget the Sound Bar so you can hear something better than clock-radio sound and extended warranty and a brace of VASTLY overpriced Monster Cables to go with it.

The 'large Advent' still has a following. I wanted some real bad when they first came owned some Japanese speakers which came to the US as Fisher....and sounded better after I jumpered out the midrange!

I'm glad you are the reference standard for what is good American Hi-Fi. I can throw out my Grado headphones and cartridge now that I know. I'm sure the boys up in San Marcos....at Audience, will be glad to know they no longer have to strive to make they big line source speakers which so impressed at THE Newport in years past.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17637
Registered: May-04
.

What's up, leo? You didn't get the message that Ornello is THE ONLY person you need to consult for advice on what to buy? Cars, cameras, speakers, amps, TV's, kitchen mixers, garage door openers, rat traps? Just ask, Ornello knows all and tells all.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2970
Registered: Oct-07
I will be more careful to read ALL incoming memos.

I'm waiting for the book.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17638
Registered: May-04
.

Say, Ornello, what's your favorite hamster wheel? You must have one since reading your posts is getting no one anywhere any time soon.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 50
Registered: Dec-12
I don't recall saying anything about flat-panel TVs, so why do you bring any of that stuff up? I don't even watch TV.

If it's American, don't buy it. It's designed by the same people who brought you...........................C I N E M A S C O P E.

Yes W I D E screen, ideal for movies about submarines, snakes, torpedoes...so why do they then use it for TALL monster movies!? Or close-ups of the air next to heads!

http://youtu.be/t7EksvnO9hI

You can't handle the truth! And note how well-composed the Cinemascope image is, with all that air on the sides, with the top of Nicholson's head cut off! WHY?????!!!!!

There is NOTHING in American industry but incompetence, greed, and stupidity, and the demise of the American audio industry is a splendid example thereof.

Kloss's accomplishment was that of designing and making the cheapest possible speaker that didn't blow up or fall apart during the demo.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2971
Registered: Oct-07
Orn,
You need to learn to distinguish between Manufacturing and Engineering.
American Manufacturing is indeed in trouble. American engineering is still tops.
Don't forget that among the competing HD standards, the AMERICAN standard was the one adopted. Asian and European standards are mere footnotes.
Jan and I may differ on this....but IMO many of the problems with American Manufacturing are political in nature. The pressure of short term profitability work against long term investment in better practices....which take time to impliment and perfect. Continuous Process Improvement is not called continuous because you can get thru the program is a couple months.

The Japanese are famous and good adopters.
The industrial theories of Deming who pioneered SPC (Statistical Process Control) are what helped put Japan 'on the map' as other than cheap stuff. American industry were late adopters, though I held manufacturing positions which were in no small part controlled by such means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

Today? Manufacturing is more international. ISO audits are a way of life. Quality is emphasized. You haven't lived until you've been thru a 3 or 4 day ISO audit covering ALL aspects of your operation from Quality activities to waste disposal.

Are you aware or have you worked in a Just In Time environment? Or perhaps used or participated in a 6S program?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 52
Registered: Dec-12
No, all I know is that I want nothing to do with American products of any kind. Except some food.

Are you talking about Six Sigma? Another brain-dead idea.

Holding up Henry Kloss as an example of some kind of genius is an insult to my intelligence.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17639
Registered: May-04
.

"Holding up Henry Kloss as an example of some kind of genius is an insult to my intelligence."




In that case, it's a very small and insignificant infraction.


What were we talking about?



http://www.soundstage.com/maxdb/maxdb061999.htm


Obviously, Ornelooney will disagree since he knows more about audio than anyone who actually works in audio and studies those things which affect audio. Or perception. And this article would once again disprove all of his idiotic ideas regarding two ways, mass, size, cost, etc. Not to mention his comprehensive knowledge of phase and time errors ... Oh! wait, he knows nothing about time and phase errors. Or speaker system "Q". Or group delay. Or crossovers. Or how to properly set up a speaker for best performance. Or room nodes. Or subwoofers and satellites. Or electronics. Or physics.


Etc., etc., etc. ...



No wonder he'the expert and everyone else is wrong about everything.



What a joke!



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17641
Registered: May-04
.

Why the Advents and KHL's (and virtually any BBC designed speakers) were emminently "balanced" and why the NS 1000's (and most three way systems) are not; http://www.soundstage.com/maxdb/maxdb051999.htm
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 56
Registered: Dec-12
Jan, you crack me up. The NS-1000 is perhaps the greatest single achievement in speaker design. They are so far beyond everything else I have heard (except some gigantic systems, and they were superior only in sheer scale).

The secret is transient response. Actually, every signal is a transient. Some are just more obvious than others.

Yesterday I listened to the remastered version of A Walk Across the Rooftops by The Blue Nile. If you are unacquainted with this recording, it was made by Linn as a demo record. It is full of transients in a wide range of frequencies. The NS-1000s provided a stunning presentation of all of these aspects of the recording. The only failing of these speakers is the lack of extremely deep bass. 'Subtractive' errors such as this are always to be preferred in a speaker system to 'additive' ones.

The article you provided a link to is all wet. The bass of the NS-1000 (a sealed system) is much 'quicker' than that of the ported Rogers Studio 1. The bass in the latter speaker is woooly and boomy.

Again, everything you know is wrong.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17646
Registered: May-04
.

"Jan, you crack me up."


You'll never know how much I wish I could say the same about you. But, then, there are sooooo maaaaaaany things you'll never know.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 57
Registered: Dec-12
The article on 'balance' is a hoot. It just so happens that some properties are more important than others, and contribute more to the enjoyment than others. For me, and for many people, the presentation of transients is supremely important.

The author's tables are nonsense. The whole idea is nonsense.

I remember listening to several speakers at Swallen's back in 1975 or so, before I made my choice of the Yamaha NS-690s. At that time I was only 25 and could not afford the NS-1000s. I used a male vocal track with piano accompaniment and listened carefully to several speakers. I have no idea what they were now. What was popular then?

Here is the track:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH7bJhFK584

(a recent live recording):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RR_iRdCtuk
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 59
Registered: Dec-12
Awe-inspiring products!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pair-Vintage-KLH-Model-6-Loudspeakers-Henry-Kloss-Design -Acoustic-Research-Stand-/181057111191?pt=Speakers_Subwoofers&hash=item2a27d8449 7

 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2972
Registered: Oct-07
Orn,
Here is a link to an article by Nelson Pass. Now, I know you KNOW better than Pass, but please humor him. He is a multiple patent holder and quite the designer. His designs go back to Threshold / Nakamichi Stasis and on to some Adcom and later to his own company(s) Pass Labs and First Watt. Of course the guy is just a know nothing hack and since he manufacturers in America, NOT to be trusted or respected.

http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/phasecrx.pdf

Orn, What other names do you Troll under?
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 61
Registered: Dec-12
The Yamaha NS-1000 speakers show extraordinarily precise and stable images. Whatever you are trying to say by showing this link, it doesn't apply to these speakers.

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/yamaha_ns-1000_loudspeaker

"Stereo imaging was phenomenal - as good as from any system we have heard. We could stand to the left of the left-hand speaker and still hear the full stereo spread between the two speakers. They are also remarkable in that they reproduce depth and perspective about as well as any speakers we have heard. Only the IMFs and the Magneplanars are better in these respects, and not by much. Contributing to the broad stereo spread and outstanding imaging of the NS-1000s is the mirror-image configuratiqn of their drivers."

So, I don't want to hear one more word about 'phase and time errors', OK?
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2973
Registered: Oct-07
So, Orn, the Yammies are MAGIC? And not subject to the rules which otherwise govern the universe?

The point being that the problems encountered in the design and execution of a 2-way speaker are increased for 3-way and 4-way designs. I'd say the problems go up much faster than the number of 'ways'.

Did Yamaha do their homework? Sure. Did they come up with a way to handle an otherwise difficult material? Yes again. Did they repeal the laws of physics in any way shape or form? Not a chance.

In general, however, your lack of ability to absorb new information and integrate it with what you already think you know is disquieting. Rejecting an entire countries industrial output on some wacky basis is not rational. Rejecting SPC and 6S, both of which I'm intimiately familiar with is sheer ignorance. I'm sure that your beloved speakers were manufacured in a fully compliant factory with all parts and sub assemblies made in conformance to rational, statistical rules and practices.

Last post on the subject: Enjoy
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17648
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/yamaha_ns-1000_loudspeaker

Another case of this writer "good" when he agrees with you know who and the exact same writer "bad" when he says anything which would contradict the sad, old blowhard. You have to admit, leo, since we're all about the same age, it's rather remarkabke to see someone 'loonie's age be able to move so quickly from one position to the complete opposite while spinning on his head.


(My guess is he simply doesn't remember any of this and sits tied into his wheelchair dribbling spittle and Ensure on his gown while muttering "transients good" to all the passing nurses and staff.)




.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 63
Registered: Dec-12
Sigma Six is about manufacturing tolerances, and has nothing to do with innovation or creativity. Nor is it universally applicable.

The Yamaha NS1000s are not magic, but the properties of beryllium are unique and spectacularly well suited for this application.

I quoted the review to rebut the notion that these speakers have 'time and phase issues', because they image spectacularly well.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2976
Registered: Oct-07
Orn,
Your understanding of 6S is beyond superficial. Anything which is manufactured by 'process' is amenible to such analysis.
The process includes everything from workplace organization and safety to maintenance of equipment and supply chain management.

And while the term 6S does pertain to process variability, the program is both far reaching and good for industry.

'Lean' is the future of manufacturing so get used to it.

Beryllium IS cool stuff. And wacky difficult to work with. You don't want to be around the filings / shavings from the machining process. Evaporation or sputtering a coating on to a mold for the formation of the diaphragm is a good application.....though I don't want to be around when the tooling is serviced. It's gonna be a royal mess. And potentially toxic, as has been noted.

Russian Aerospace guys started manufacture of a beryllium BICYCLE FRAME some years ago. They were expensive and after the first couple prototypes, I never heard more. I am not familiar with the mechanical properties of Be.

http://www.ibiscycles.com/support/technical_articles/metallurgy_for_cyclists/the _final_chapter/

I don't want anything to do with this stuff.........
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 64
Registered: Dec-12
Yes, beryllium is difficult stuff, but it is spectacularly good for speaker domes. That's the main reason that the Yamaha NS-1000 is such a good speaker,

And no, six sigma is stupidity itself. Why is American industry so spectacularly inept, if it is so good? Wanna hear a joke? Kodak
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17653
Registered: May-04
.

"I quoted the review to rebut the notion that these speakers have 'time and phase issues', because they image spectacularly well"




Of course they have time and phase issues, all crossovers introduce time and phase issues. That is a fact no crossover designer has learned to avoid.

The larger the number and the higher the order of the filters used, the more time and phase suffers due to those filters. That is basic electronics, basic physics. These are the facts. Your make believe BS is not! Because that is all you have, make believe crap culled from a marketing brochure which you have come to think is true against any and all facts which ultimately prove you are wrong.

Since you do not know the type of filters used or the order of the filters used in the NS100, whether they are connected in series or in parallel, cascaded or not, or whether the drivers are wired in phase or out of phase, you simply spout your BS that everyone else is wrong whenver you need them to be wrong. Though you know nothing about the matter, you believe you are correct simply because you - and a marketing brochure - say so. Since the front baffle of the NS1000 is not stepped or sloped, the individual drivers are not and cannot be acoustically aligned for any crude attempt at time and phase coherence. This is not suprising since time and phase coherence was not a concern at the time the NS100 was designed. That the NS1000 must then suffer from diffraction effects which make time and phase errors even more noticeable is simply a fact. That the diffraction effects plus time and phase errors - along with the dispersion issues of three drivers sharing no acoustic center to emulate either a point source or a line source - makes the Yamaha NS1000 appear to far too many listeners like a very typical 1970's three way system with a poor balance to its ... uh, ... "virtues". Just as a JBL L100 or a Pioneer HPM100 sounds very much like a 1970's three way speaker system.

That Holt was still to learn to recognize time and phase errors is not surprising either. "Imaging" and "soundstage" were still very new concepts in consumer audio. He was reviewing what he knew, errors and all, not what was still to become obvious. Soon after this time loudspeaker manufacturers pushed the boundaries of design and introduced a wave of new and much improved time and phase coherent loudspeakers. Unfortunately, the NS100 did not benefit from these innovations and it remains a very old fashioned sounding three way loudspeaker system.

Those are simply the facts. Two way systems of the time suffer less in comparison to today's best products if for no other reason than their single networks, their very simple - at times just a single capacitor - crossover networks gave a talented and astute designer a much better chance at being "right" than did a three way system.

To say transient response is "supremely important" yet to not prefer boxless, panel type speakers is a contradiction in thinking. IF transient response is supremely important to a listener, there is no speaker - other than the truly exotic and truly limited varieties - which can be more supremely superior in transient response other than a good panel type system. The lightest weight single driver full range systems follow closely behind in transient capability and excel at over all coherence. That is merely a fact of physics at work. If you care to argue mass is what holds a larger woofer back, which is false, then you cannot logically claim a cone type speaker has less mass than a panel type and you cannot ignore the lightweight SDFR's. If you refuse to comprehend the value of the motor system to a driver's performance, then you completely fail to understand how loudspeakers actually operate in favor of some make believe fantasy. These are all facts which you have either denied. Or you have claimed them as your own only when they suit your purpose and tossed them aside when they have proven you are wrong.

That you have been "inconsistent" is, as I have said, the most polite way to describe your continuous stream of BS. To say you are a flat out, bald faced liar is simply a fact proven more true with each post where you once again repeat and repeat and repeat the same make believe crap while lacking any facts what so ever which would give credence to anything you have said. Those of us not living in lala land understand Yamaha made wonderful claims for all of their speakers. Those of us not limited to what we "learned" in 1977 understand what is true in one brochure is equaly true in another. In one review, equally true in another.


That you know nothing about, do not care to learn anything about, time and phase errors in crossover filters, in basic electronics or physics or in live music is not reason enough to say the problems they introduce do not exist.


If you choose to live by Holt's review, you must also die by Holt's review of the Advent. There's no picking and choosing which words from the same writer regarding the exact same topic are "good" and which are not.

"Probably for just that reason, the Advents proved eminently easy to live with, and sounded equally comfortable and natural at low or room-filling listening levels. Dispersion was excellent and so, as a consequence, was the stereo imaging. Driver blending, too, was excellent, and the speakers did an outstanding job of reproducing the front-to-back perspective in stereo and mono program material ... "



The Advents were simple well designed two way system with a "Q" which provided a substantially lower frequency extension than did the NS100 which had more than half an octave less reach. They cost less than half the asking price of the NS1000. And anyone familiar with live music and reproduced music undertands the Advent - and the KHL 6 - had a musical "balance" which is the preeminent value predicting the successful translation of recorded sound into a believable presence.


Anyone who says anything less is being purposely antagonistic for the sake of disagreement only. Or for the purpose of not disturbing their misguided belief engines. Being obtuse, rude, insulting and arrogant to the extent you ignore all facts and words which disprove your fancies is not to be rewarded with further attention. In a more than a dozen cases it has been shown you are not well informed and that the NS1000 has time and phase errors which are non-existent in other, moe competent designs. You saying otherwise does not make anything you say a reality. You relying on Holt's words here but not there makes you a liar and a fool.




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17654
Registered: May-04
.

Want to hear a bigger joke?





















Ornellooney.










.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 65
Registered: Dec-12
1) You can't hear.

2) You are not to be believed.

3) You know nothing

4) The NS-1000 is one of the best box speakers ever designed, and it was very popular.

So, you are saying that Holt was not to be trusted in this review?
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2977
Registered: Oct-07
Crossover for NS-1000 is ALL 2nd order...for stock speaker.

http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Yamaha-NS1000.htm#The%20New%20Crossover

The new crossover kit has 6 (count 'em) non-optimally placed inductors of what would appear to be so-so design....inductor coils should be square in cross section. Tall bobbins are a no-no in good inductor design.
Of course, some liberty was taken in order to match the original coil's DCR.

Why aren't the NS-1000s still being made if they were the be-all, end-all of design and execution?

Magnepan has been refining the same design paradigm for about 40 years with the addition of only a world class ribbon. Refinement is the idea there.....flat ribbon has replaced wire and the mylar is now thinner than the originals while the ribbon tweeter is still considered one of the best of its type.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 66
Registered: Dec-12
I don't know, perhaps because of cost and environmental regulations. The NS-2000, an improved version, was available until quite recently.
 

Gold Member
Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 1527
Registered: Jul-07
"So, you are saying that Holt was not to be trusted in this review?"

Soooo, you ignore all of the relevant information from Jan, but question that one tidbit ? Wow. Just wow.

It ain't about trusting Holt. It's about looking at the success of other designs, and not excluding them (like you are) because you seem to think you have THE ONE AND ONLY speaker worth listening to. Holt also praised MANY other speaker designs.....but you only think the NS-whatevers are worth paying attention to ? I think YOU are the one not trusting Holt.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 73
Registered: Dec-12
The NS-1000 is more or less unique: it is a dynamic speaker with most of the 'good' characteristics of an electrostatic type. Only by listening to it can you appreciate how fast it is, how clean, how low in distortion.

There were a couple of others that used some of the same drivers (NS-890, NS-500, NS-500M) and some later ones that used improved, revised drivers and crossovers (NS-2000, NS-1000X, etc).

The point I was trying to make by quoting Holt was that it is one of the finest speakers ever made (in the top 5, for sure), and to refute the negative things Jan said about it.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2066
Registered: Oct-10
Well Ornello, I used to have a pair of Yamaha NS-A642s. They were 3 way floor speakers with 12" woofers. I thought they sounded great until I bought a pair of Mirage Omnisat OS(3)s for a quarter of what the Yamahas cost. The Omnisats are 2 way bookshelf speakers that certainly DO sound better than the Yamahas to my ears. So, the number of ways that the signal is devided doesn't necessarily indicate the level of sound quality. I've heard some single driver speakers that sound quite nice. Just saying...
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 158
Registered: Dec-12
It depends on many factors, but two-ways have inherent limitations.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2069
Registered: Oct-10
ALL speaker designs have their limitations. Even 4 ways or if there were 100 way speakers, they'd have limits and the more ways the signal is divided, the more signal loss and other issues the crossover introduces.

You have to select speakers that sound good to you and are not too difficult for your amp to drive. I don't concern myself with whether they're single driver, 2, 3 or 4 ways, except that fewer divisions of the signal will get first dibs on my attention.

I would encourage you to listen to as many speaker designs as you can, especially ones that you can audition in your home with your amp.
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 160
Registered: Dec-12
Superjazzyjames:

I have heard many, many speakers in my day.

The 2-driver approach is simply not one that offers the best sound in a full-range speaker. These designs are suited for small installations and low volumes, where their limitations are not important. I don't think that 4-ways are inherently better than a really good 3-way, but I can say that the IMF TLS-80 (& pro monitor) and the Kenwood Model 7, both of which are 4-ways, are among the best speakers I have ever heard.

I will never own 2-ways again for any serious listening.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2074
Registered: Oct-10
Well Ornello, if you feel that you must have 3 or 4 way speakers, that's your call. I would however, encourage you to give some current 2 way and single driver speakers a listen. One member of this forum, I forget who, has a pair of single driver speakers. I got to hear a pair that look like the same ones. They sounded really nice, covered the full 20 Hz to 20 KHz spectrum and were only $500 each! Not bad for the price, if you ask me.

"The importance of phase response in the audio chain has been
brought to greater focus recently by equipment claims of phase
coherency, (the output signal has the same phase relationships
as the input signal). It is not particularly obvious that two different
frequency components of a signal can go into a device at
precisely the same time and emerge at different times, but it is
extremely common. All audio components distort the phase of
the signal to some degree-even air alters the time alignment of a
signal, but the biggest offenders are loudspeakers and their
crossover networks. Phase shifts in the audio signal destroy the
wave shape of the important attack characteristics of many
instruments and hamper our ability to perceive the localization of
the image,smearing the apparent source. They can change the
steady state waveforms of vocal sounds so that the singer
seems to be ten feet wide."
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16726
Registered: Jan-08
HI!

I have a pair of IMF TSL-80 Reference Professionnal Monitor MarkIV which sound great now after few modifications like the tweeters and few resonants problem from the back and the cavernous sound of the lower event.

Unfortunatly many 2-ways speakers of today beat this speaker(not in the sub) but for what price?


Ornello

You can try to discuss with Jan Vigne but he will always win in his head... and finaly fall in injure against you!

Good luck!
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 161
Registered: Dec-12
The 3-way speakers that I own, the Yamaha NS-1000Ms, do not suffer from these problems.

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/yamaha_ns-1000_loudspeaker

"Stereo imaging was phenomenal, as good as from any system we have heard. We could stand to the left of the left-hand speaker and still hear the full stereo spread between the two speakers. They are also remarkable in that they reproduce depth and perspective about as well as any speakers we have heard. Only the IMFs and the Magneplanars are better in these respects, and not by much. Contributing to the broad stereo spread and outstanding imaging of the NS-1000s is the mirror-image configuratiqn of their drivers. "
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16727
Registered: Jan-08
"Stereo imaging was phenomenal"

This is because of the large front wood plate giving a directional image, today they tend to minimise the reflecting surface to have a good depth.


I like my IMF but I like also my home theater system much cheeper than my stereo system!

 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2076
Registered: Oct-10
"The 3-way speakers that I own, the Yamaha NS-1000Ms, do not suffer from these problems."

Not to your ears perhaps. For that matter, my system in the room it's in with the speakers and sub placed where they are, sub tuned like it is, sounds great to me. However, there is guarentee that you or anyone else who hasn't heard it already will like it. Every source player, every amp, every speaker, every room and every ear/ brain combo are different. There is also no guarentee that you will never hear a pair of 2 ways that sound better to you than your 3 way Yamahas. The Yamahas I had were floor standing with 12" woofers and their bass performance was well below par for 3 way floor speakers. The mids and high were great mid and upper bass depended on the amp, but below 80 Hz? Not good. These were the only floor speakers I've ever heard that absolutely demanded an outboard subwoofer. My omnisats with 3" bass/mid drivers handle the sub bass region better than those Yaamahas and according to the spec sheet, the omnis roll off at 70 Hz!

One thing you have to remember is that speakers started out as single driver units. Expanding to 2 and later 3 way designs was a matter of over coming the short comings of the single driver design OF THAT TIME. In more recent years, computer aided driver design has helped to diminish the short comings of earlier drivers. As advancements progress, there is a good chance that a lot of audiophiles will have a pair of single driver speakers with a subwoofer or 2.

Basically, there are very few absolutes in audio. The best thing you can do when shopping for audio gear is listen to different gear in your price range and buy what sounds good to your ears, listen to it at home and either keep it if it sounds good at home or exchange it if not. Don't worry about whether an amp it tube or solid state or whether the speakers are single driver or 2, 3 or 4 ways. Just listen and enjoy.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2077
Registered: Oct-10
Hey Plymouth! How ya doin' bro?
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 162
Registered: Dec-12
What all of you fail to realize is that I did own two-ways for 20 years, the Rogers Studio 1s (they are actually two and a half-ways: there are two tweeters). The Yamahas took their place; I even kept the same stands. The Rogers imaged very well. The Yamahas image very well too, in the same location, on the same stands, using the same amp.

What is different is the faster speed and lower distortion.

The BBC approach (using a combined woofer-midrange driver) simply does not work as well with large-scale speakers. The approach works well for small-scale speakers such as the LS3/5a and its descendants, but it simply fails when you try to stretch it to bigger dimensions. Combining the woofer and mid-range function into one driver compromises both: the bass is flabby (these designs are ported) and the mid-range (the upper part of the driver's range) is slow, thick, and coloured.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16728
Registered: Jan-08
Hi Super!

I'm fine thanks and you?


Your last comment is very well!

My IMF was tuned for my other house then when I was moved to my new house the sound was not the same at all, we, each of us have our proper definition of what is the best sound for us then we can't even with some experience talking for the other according to their experience of sound!

Listen direct music without amplication help to form our listening experience then the search of true sound is not the criteria of the majority of listener!

Have a good day men!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16729
Registered: Jan-08
Hi Ornello!

The Rogers studio 1/S was good in the pass but without reinforcement in the enclosure creating a resonance wich is fixed by the crossover, by this way unfortunatly you lose something in the process of sound and 84dB/W and Approximate maximum sound level (pair at 2m)...104dBA is very low in performance for 300 watts speakers.

I'm sorry for you but again your conception of what is good is from the pass, if you like this sound it's good for you but don't try to impose us what you like and never I heard a Yamaha speaker sounding very good even if my home theater home amp is from this company but I confess that I've not heard your speakers!

I was amazed by the Bose 901 in 1975 but today those speakers sound ugly for me with my own experience of what sound must be!

A+
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 163
Registered: Dec-12
Speakers very similar to the Studio 1 are still being sold, by Sterling and Spendor and Harbeth. In fact they are almost identical.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2079
Registered: Oct-10
I'm doing well Plym thanks for asking.

Ornello, I get that you had 2 ways (they weren't 2 1/2 way btw) and that you like your Yamaha 3 ways better, but if you listen some CURRENT 2 ways you just might be surprised. Will it really hurt anything to give some a listen? For that matter, some of the guys at AK gave me some ideas that I didn't think would work, but you never know. So I tried the ideas. Some worked, some didn't. Either way, nothing lost, eh? So, if you happen to in an audio store anyway, why not check 'em out?
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 164
Registered: Dec-12
I pointed out that the Studio 1s are all but identical to CURRENT 2-ways + supertweeter sold by Sterling, Spendor, and Harbeth.

The older Spendor BC-1 was inferior, with low power handling capabilities and fuzzier sound. The Rogers Studio 1 is an evolved design from the BC-1 and the LS3/6.

Here is the Sterling, CURRENT model LS3/6:

http://www.stirlingbroadcast.net/

Here is the Spendor SP1/2, CURRENT model:

http://www.spendoraudio.com/HTML/SP12R2_main.html

Here is the Harbeth Super HL5, CURRENT model:

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/uk/index.php?section=products&page=superhl5&model=Super %20HL5

All of these products are based on the same 2-way plus supertweeter design derived from the BBC LS3/6.

This gives you the background story:

http://app.audiogon.com/listings/monitors-bbc-ls3-6-monitor-speakers-new-ls3-6-s tirling-broadcast-ls3-6-2013-02-10-speakers-uk

Don't get me wrong: these speakers sound very good, but not as good as the Yamaha NS-1000.

Their weaknesses are due precisely to the use of a single driver to cover the bass and mid-range. I can hear these weaknesses. I cannot hear any weaknesses in the Yamaha NS-1000.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2080
Registered: Oct-10
There are other 2 designs on the market.

All I'm saying is that I hate to see you close yourself off to 2 way and single driver speakers when there just might be something you'd like better than your Yamahas out there. That's it.
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 165
Registered: Dec-12
There may be other 2-way designs on the market, but the BBC-derived designs are probably the best (almost certainly the best), and they are inferior to these Yamahas in the characteristics that are important to me.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2117
Registered: Oct-10
"There may be other 2-way designs on the market, but the BBC-derived designs are probably the best (almost certainly the best), and they are inferior to these Yamahas in the characteristics that are important to me."

I'll stick with my 2 ways. 3 way speakers suck and you should dump yours Ornello!
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 197
Registered: Dec-12
The loss is yours, sir.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2120
Registered: Oct-10
"The loss is yours, sir."

Loss? There is no loss, only GAIN, HUGE GAIN!

You should dump your 3 ways Ornello, they suck!

3 way speakers suck Ornello! You should dump them and get some REAL speakers as in 2 ways or single drivers! Btw, Yamaha sucks!
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 205
Registered: Dec-12
Unless you have lived with a product for a long time, you don't really get to know its weaknesses. I owned the Studio 1s for 20 years, and have owned the NS-1000Ms for 10 years. The latter are vastly superior in the midrange and bass. They 'image' at least as well, have tremendous transient response, and have far less distortion.

The flaws in the Studio 1 are precisely the result of its two-way design. I did listen to other two-way speakers that were newer (including the Spendor SP1/2) but they didn't sound much, if any, different. There are inherent weakness is the design approach that three-ways do not have. The British firms that make these two-way designs also make three-way designs, but they are much more expensive.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2132
Registered: Oct-10
Hey Ornello! Your speakers are crap! 3 way speakers are crap! Yamaha and Sony are crap! The NS-1000M is an out of date design. Get REAL speakers as 2ways and dump those 3 way pieces of crap because they suck! As a forum member and as a human being, YOU SUCK ORNELLO! Get a life and a clue and quit trolling around forums bashing other people's things when you have speakers that suck!
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 207
Registered: Dec-12
How charming you are!
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2996
Registered: Oct-07
No BEST.
my brother likes pro monitors. He's leaning toward the 3-way JBL with built in amps to the tune of 500x3. No convincing him these are generally for outdoor and sound reinforcement use. He wants 'em for his HOUSE where the 130db+ capability will hopefully be wasted, not to mention just how DO they sound at say......90db to 95db peaks?

No rule on 'best', either. Just design considerations, compromises and cost constraints.

My panels? 2-way on a single diaphragm. Good at some things. Very good at a few. Poor at others. They won't play extrememly loud, for example, regardless of power applied.
The top-line Maggies are push pull drivers and toss in one heck of a premium ribbon tweeter. Some people simply don't like line source speakers, though, even though the dipole characteristics help mello that out. The big panel helps with the bass, too.

Sorry.

Like what you like. Hate what you hate. Just don't think it's the be-all, end-all of speaker design, 'cause it isn't. Could I be induced to change to some other style or design? Maybe. Vandies? Paradigm? Klipsch? Focal? Dynaudio?
I'm not in the market so I'm not going to worry about the compromises I've made or the reasons for it.

I've not heard the old Yammies...of the 1000 series, though I HAVE heard the 25,000$ Sony speakers and was not hugely impressed.
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 208
Registered: Dec-12
My point was that $2000 for two-way speakers like these (as opposed to little ones that don't attempt to be full-range speakers, e.g., the BBC LS3/5a) are a rip-off. For that kind of money one can do much better in a 3-way.

It is simply the case that the engineering obstacles in the way of making a full-range 2-way speaker that can play loud are far greater than doing it as a 3-way or 4-way.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2134
Registered: Oct-10
"No BEST.
my brother likes pro monitors. He's leaning toward the 3-way JBL with built in amps to the tune of 500x3. No convincing him these are generally for outdoor and sound reinforcement use. He wants 'em for his HOUSE where the 130db+ capability will hopefully be wasted, not to mention just how DO they sound at say......90db to 95db peaks?

No rule on 'best', either. Just design considerations, compromises and cost constraints.

My panels? 2-way on a single diaphragm. Good at some things. Very good at a few. Poor at others. They won't play extrememly loud, for example, regardless of power applied.
The top-line Maggies are push pull drivers and toss in one heck of a premium ribbon tweeter. Some people simply don't like line source speakers, though, even though the dipole characteristics help mello that out. The big panel helps with the bass, too.

Sorry.

Like what you like. Hate what you hate. Just don't think it's the be-all, end-all of speaker design, 'cause it isn't. Could I be induced to change to some other style or design? Maybe. Vandies? Paradigm? Klipsch? Focal? Dynaudio?
I'm not in the market so I'm not going to worry about the compromises I've made or the reasons for it.

I've not heard the old Yammies...of the 1000 series, though I HAVE heard the 25,000$ Sony speakers and was not hugely impressed."


On one hand Leo, I agree with you. OTOH however, I was trying to get Ornello to stop bashing 2 way speakers here just as I tried to get him to stop bashing records in another thread. As Chris H. and Jan both pointed out though, it's better to just ignore him. All he wants to do is beat everyone over the head with his opinions insisting that his opinions are facts. So, I'm done with him.

When it comes to 3 ways in my price range, there haven't been any I've heard that impressed me in about 15 years. Sure B&W 801 and 802 impress me, but those are WAY out of reach. I'm sure that the speakers in Jan's op in this thread would sound great if properly placed. They'd better for $9K. They certainly look nice!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17726
Registered: May-04
.


Hawkbilly posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 10:07 GMT




Ignore Ornello, folks.






Stop allowing him to come up for air. Period!




.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2135
Registered: Oct-10
You see what I mean Leo? No acknowledgement of the FACT that speaker design whether single driver, 2 way, 3 way or more all involve compromise. No acknowledgement that there may very well be 2 way and single driver speakers he likes better than what he has, etc. Just lots and lots of insisting that what he likes is the best thing and everything else should be avoided because "Ornello the wise" said so.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2136
Registered: Oct-10
"Stop allowing him to come up for air. Period!"

Absolutely right Jan, just passing it on to Leo, that's all.
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 209
Registered: Dec-12
Well all I can say is to try to find a set of NS-1000s and compare them with any 2-way, blind.

You will be flabbergasted by the NS-1000s.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16738
Registered: Jan-08
Ornello

I will not fall in the play of insult but>>>>

What kind of music are you listening?
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2144
Registered: Oct-10
Seriously Plym, I wouldn't even waist your time. Not worth it.
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 210
Registered: Dec-12
Oh, all kinds. A small sample: Over the Rhine, October Project, Prefab Sprout, Blue Nile, Mummers, Pentangle, David Sylvian, Banco del Mutuo Soccorso, Delerium, Nick Drake, Sandy Denny, Dire Straits, drum 'n' bass, 'chill', Goldfrapp, ECM records of all kinds (Dino Saluzzi, Steve Tibbetts, Jan Garbarek, Charles Lloyd, Bill Connors, et al....) Deutsche Grammophon (Maurizio Pollini, von Karajan, Brahms, Mahler, etc.)

Italian pop (Mango, Pino Daniele, Mina, Anna Oxa....)

I have perhaps 1500 CDs.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16739
Registered: Jan-08
Ornello


I don't know what is wrong with you but Sony and Yamaha are not classified as Hi-fi composants even their products over 10 000$, even Klipsch beat Yamaha with their speakers, I doubt that you are able of see the difference between a good enclosure then the simple cheap enclosure of your NS-1000Ms, for sure a Sony CD player is a poor cheap composant, I have a Adcom Cd player with a 60 volts power supply in Class A then your Sony run under 5 to 12 volts, sony and Yamaha they produce noise then lack of details, Tube amps sound great but I assume that a Solid state amp can sound as good if well designed.

So your sound room is too much damped or you can't hear as high frequencies as we can, with a frequencies generator please do a test to know what is the higher frequency you can hear then tell me the answer as well that in what kind of sound room your system is installed.

The problem with you is:
even the enemies are unanimus against your ideal of what can be a Hi-fi composant!

A+
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 211
Registered: Dec-12
Current Yamaha and Sony products may not rank with the very best, but for a while in the 1970s and 1980s, through the 1990s, their top products were among the very best.

There are and always will be gullible people, who succumb to snake-oil pitches, who spend thousands of dollars on spikes, cables, etc., and even buy little supports for them. I can hear high frequencies just fine, thank you very much. My hearing is quite acute. I have spent a lot of time listening to super high-end products such as Mark Levinson and others. I know what the very best (or at least the very expensive stuff) sounds like. I own Stax electrostatic headphones, and have owned the Sony MDR-CD1000 headphones with bio-cellulose diaphragms.

Klipsch? You cannot be serious. Loud, yes, but refined? No.

Sony ES series components are astonishingly good for the price. Sony and Yamaha have research and manufacturing capabilities that smaller companies simply don't. If you compare a JBL L100 to the Yamaha NS-1000, it is no contest. The former were among the most respected American-made speakers in the early 1970s. The Yamahas trounce them.

You should listen to a Sony XA-20ES before you say anything more about Sony CD players.

In the past I owned some very fine phono gear (Ortofon moving coil cartridges, Magnepan tone-arm, Thorens turntable, later the Stax cartridge, etc.)

Check this out:

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/k2.htm

"This was in deference to the sonic preferences of the Japanese market. In general, the Japanese market places priority on fast transient response over deep bass extension."
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16740
Registered: Jan-08
Ornello


You send me a link of sono system which has nothing to do with hi-fi!

I know very well Altec JBL and those king of stuff because I was a sound technician, I worked with Altec Eliminator 1, some JBL's, bose and many other brands then yes it was good speakers but still not Hi-fi in my book!

Then for Sony forget it even if the price is higher!

Your Cd player is not a Hi-fi composant as well that your amp and speakers, for sure your system cannot give a good depth in back on your speaker but a front 2D image like all those speakers that you displayed!

You are mule then can't admit your mistake and I remain polite with you then I understand that what is your standard since so long cannot be changed today here.


Have a good day my friend!
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2145
Registered: Oct-10
Again Plym, just leave this one alone.
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 212
Registered: Dec-12
Plymouth:

You have no idea what you are talking about.

That's as politely as I can put it.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16741
Registered: Jan-08
Ornello

OK!
We all here don't know sh1t what we are talking about!

Do me a favor, buy a sound generator and a DBmeter!

Ho! Learn how electronic things work also as well that resonance, it will help you!

 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2999
Registered: Oct-07
Let's see here.

Side "A"
5 or 6 people all of whom probably would not survive together in a hotel room over nite. A reasonable MiniBar would just make things worse!

Side "B"
Orn

hmmmmmmm
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2149
Registered: Oct-10
"



Plymouth posted on Friday, February 15, 2013 - 18:48 GMT

Ornello

OK!
We all here don't know sh1t what we are talking about!

Do me a favor, buy a sound generator and a DBmeter!

Ho! Learn how electronic things work also as well that resonance, it will help you!"


See Plym, I told you you're just waisting your time.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2150
Registered: Oct-10
You may be right Leo, but at this point, I'd be willing to bet that the 5 or 6 of us would be on one side of the room having a good old time while Ornello sat on the other side complaining about records, tubes and 2 way speakers completely unaware that no one was even paying him the slightest bit of attention.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16742
Registered: Jan-08
leo stierer
Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2999
Registered: Oct-07

Magfan posted on Friday, February 15, 2013 - 20:04 GMT
Let's see here.

Side "A"
5 or 6 people all of whom probably would not survive together in a hotel room over nite. A reasonable MiniBar would just make things worse!

Side "B"
Orn

hmmmmmmm

This is the realty Leo!

This is the first time that we camp together, Ornello is the only point where we are in the same boat!




Very good comments!
 

Silver Member
Username: Ornello

Post Number: 214
Registered: Dec-12
Yes, just like Zarathustra...
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 2156
Registered: Oct-10
"Plymouth posted on Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 08:02 GMT

I use 3 sub's in my home theater, one 12" cubic box, one 8" cubic box then a side 8" bass reflex then my 4 satellites and central speakers are 2 ways, the sound was hard to calibrate but the result is amazing for the price with 120 easy db without distortion on the 60 watts by channels of the 7.1 HT Yamaha amp!

Sh1t I have 5 ways speaker system!"


 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 3011
Registered: Oct-07
Orn,
How DID you find out I was a Zoroastrian?
Was it the Tower Of Silence in my back yard? And BOY was that a pain getting permitted.

http://socks-studio.com/2012/02/09/towers-of-silence-zoroastrian-architectures-f or-the-ritual-of-death/
 

Bronze Member
Username: Turnerdaniel770

Post Number: 18
Registered: Jan-14
I think there nothing wrong in speaker just change speaker place.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Add Your Message Here

Bold text Italics Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image Add a YouTube Video
Need to Register?
Forgot Password?
Enable HTML code in message
   

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us