The Orangutan

 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 11836
Registered: Feb-05
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue47/ces103.htm

John DeVore's latest. Those who I know who were in that room said that the Orangutan was amazing. A 95db efficient speaker, John DeVore's latest design shows his passion for tubes and analog. This is the prototype...look for the real thing soon.

http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2010/john_devore_and_his_orangutans/

This could be my "stopping point" speaker. Can't wait to hear it!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 14402
Registered: Dec-04
Thanks for the links Art.
The show pics kinda passed over the new ML 1.7's, I think. Supposed to be fab.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 11842
Registered: Feb-05
The Positive Feedback link is actually Part 3, perhaps Parts 1 or 2 showed the new 1.7's. I've heard mixed opinions on them from Maggie lovers. They certainly are handsome.

These Orangutan's really caught the attention of a number of folks, and in good way.

This is just in time as the first review of a DeVore product overseas went very poorly. The 3XL received 3 of 5 stars with HiFi Choice (I think). The knucklehead reviewer chose not to use the stands which were custom designed for the speakers. John designed and built the speakers and stands together. It was like removing one of the drivers and inserting his own (pick the brand) driver and then saying that the speaker didn't perform. He stated that the midrange was great and that highs and lows were not. I have listened to that speaker appropriately driven on their stands and they delivered deep, powerful and tight bass as well as a highly resolved and exciting top end that was smooth and not a bit edgy. The reviewer blew it.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kbear

Canada

Post Number: 474
Registered: Dec-06
The speaker looks a lot bigger in the first picture. What do you guys do in terms of setting up your floorstanders to get the tweeter at ear level? I found with my RS5's that I had to put them on stands (either that or just about sit on the floor). It didn't even occur to me when I got them that they may be too short. Needless to say, the focus of the sound greatly improved when I got them off the ground.

I also notice the shape of the DeVores. I read a comment recently on another forum that praised the dimensions of speakers like this one. Less relative depth, and greater width. This leads to much more realistic bass and a more open sound (supposedly). The Orangutan has similar dimensions to the Tannoy Prestige series and also use a nice big paper driver like Tannoy does. Had a chance to hear a couple of Prestige models recently and they were amazing. I'm sure the DeVore's will sound just as good.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 14404
Registered: Dec-04
Why would a reviewer not use the supplied equipment?
didn't come with fries?

In honesty, Art, the look does nothing for me. It looks a Neopolitan mess, and manufactured in image on the front baffle plates, photocopies.

They may very well be the best out there, but man, the look is for Stevie Wonder.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 11843
Registered: Feb-05
Sorry Nuck, as usual your use of the language escapes me. Stevie Wonder? Anyway, as I stated these are prototypes and are to me very attractive. Certainly more so than Gallo 3.1's, then again, to each his own. They remind me more of the Audio Note speakers than Tannoy's, Dan.

I have the Gibbon 8's on 3 plywood squares and then angled as John suggests, using the supplied spikes and shims.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 14406
Registered: Dec-04
Art, Stevie Wonder is a blind musician. The intent was that he does not mind the look of the speakers, but a person with sight just may object.
I would gladly put the Gallo's up against your speakers at any time, under any circumstance and for any music, in ANY room.

All of your speakers. Pulling the same rope.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 11844
Registered: Feb-05
Oh, I'm sorry, poking fun at the speakers and blind folk simultaneously, no wonder I didn't get it.

Apparently my preference for wood speakers like the Orangutan brought out the chest beating Orangutan in you, Nuck. Simply stated, we all have preferences...no big deal to me.

Keep in mind, Nuck, I have ANY music to play ANY time. When you buy a music collection and apply it to your system, let me know. Perhaps then we'll compare.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 11845
Registered: Feb-05
If we can now get back to the speakers that the thread is about that would be great. You get the last shot, Nuck...it's a freebie.
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Gold CoastAustralia

Post Number: 2823
Registered: Nov-05
Pistols at dawn . . .
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 11847
Registered: Feb-05
Oh no...there will be none of that...we're just funnin'!

Put the pistol away, Nuck....
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 14409
Registered: Dec-04
I am not sure what's worse, owning ugly or pining for it?
700 albums on the new hard drive, Art, so the selection should improve shortly

Are those Devore's due for release very soon?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 11851
Registered: Feb-05
Not sure about the release date. Hopefully soon. I won't have them for a couple of years, but indeed I will lust for them. I have some good earwitness accounts of their sound....right up my alley.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 14416
Registered: Dec-04
Very much like the AN-E?
Looks like a corner placement candidate at first blush.
 

Gold Member
Username: Soundgame

Toronto, Ontario Canada

Post Number: 1095
Registered: Jun-08
The comments from John in the blog below the article state that he is hoping for 98db sensitivity in production but the prototype is currently at 95db - really catering for tube gear, eh?
I'm all for speakers with the highest efficiency possible, while not trading off sound. I'm sure that to accomplish that, something has gotta give and I think in this case - price has to go up.
I'm not big on the look Art myself - but I do love the look of your Gibbons.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 11854
Registered: Feb-05
I think the price will go up. His well finished 9's are already in the 8K range. When all is said and done I would expect the Orangutan to come in at around 10K, all in, stands included.

I really love the look of the Orangutan. Then again I prefer that look to the more contemporary Gallo's and MBL's...just a preference. The Orangutan's remind me of the Audio Note speakers, in looks only.

http://www.audionote.co.uk/products/speakers/an-j_01.shtml
 

Silver Member
Username: Kbear

Canada

Post Number: 476
Registered: Dec-06
I agree that in terms of looks they are most similar to AN. Although I think the Orangutans look better than any AN speakers I've ever seen. They look like a speaker that will look nicer in person than in pics. If you can get a choice of finish and maybe do the bottom in another color, it could be a pretty striking speaker. I am not crazy about the way the bottom of the speaker looks in these pics. But aren't we all guys here? I thought we weren't supposed to care about decor.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 14418
Registered: Dec-04
For my 5k$ or Art's 10k$, then yeah, it matters somewhat, I think.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 14419
Registered: Dec-04
Mustn't clash with the chartreuse drapes, you see.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 11856
Registered: Feb-05
The bottom of the Orangutan is an unfinished stand. That part will look nothing like what you see in the pics, when we get to the end product..

I agree with Nuck, yeah it matters what they look like, at least to some extent.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 14382
Registered: May-04
.

"What do you guys do in terms of setting up your floorstanders to get the tweeter at ear level?"


First, you must determine whether the speaker should be off the floor or not. Raising the speaker itself changes multiple values regarding just how it interacts with the room and, as we all should know by now, it is that interaction of sound source and room which strongly affects our preceived sound quality. A handful of listeners strongly prefer a cabinet that is mounted close to the floor in order to minimize or alter the path of reflections which occur when the speaker is raised.

Most who find floor mounting to be preferable list strong, even, and more tuneful bass response as an element in what they find with the woofer positioned closer to the floor. Certainly, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that distance travelled equals delayed, out of synch reflections arriving at your ear which amounts to comb filtering. As in all speaker positioning the trick is to have the long and short reflection paths work to your advantage.

When the comb filtering is done at mid to upper frequencies the effect is upon clarity and soundstaging. Changing the reflection path changes the time and relative strength of the speakers' direct vs. reflected signal when it arrives at you ears and whether - or how much - they interfere/cancel or are perceived instead as predominantly direct signal along with subdued natural reflections which open up the sound to a more ambient, spacious quality.

http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/audioproducts/stands_smallspeakers_hub.php


Try moving your speakers back down to the floor and placing a book or two under the front edge of the cabinet to tilt the enclosure backwards. This will aim the tweeter at your ears without actually raising the woofer. Use a laser pointer or a string if need be to get the angle right on the high frequency driver and don't be afraid to experiment with the angle and toe in since you'll be hearing a different mix of information with this speaker position. When you try this many listeners also prefer to lower their seating position by several inches.




"I read a comment recently on another forum that praised the dimensions of speakers like this one. Less relative depth, and greater width. This leads to much more realistic bass and a more open sound (supposedly)."


Everything in audio is a trade off of some sort but what we have traded off with narrow cabinets is generally better sound quality. There are some very good reasons to have a narrow front baffle but the most important for most domestic settings is the spouse acceptance factor. Narrow cabinets gained much of their popularity as speakers came out of the man caves and into the living rooms to serve as home theater units. That is not a reason for good sound so much as it is just getting more speakers into a domestic space.



What a narrow cabinet most often does is provide a strong baffle step component which causes both time and frequency abberations and would normally require the introduction of a more complicated crossover with baffle step compensation components added in to correct for these very issues created by the enclosure. Not all narrow cabinets have this effect - some work very well when the narrow cabinet is dimensioned correctly to suit the (higher frequency) driver(s) - but most will have problems and certainly any speaker sytem with a large front mounted driver and a small high frequency driver will have such compromises. That is one reason a few designers side mount their wooofers. It's also a reason for the felt surrounds you'll sometimes see around tweeters, they serve to act as absorption filters which will, if dimensioned and shaped properly, minimize the baffle step and focus/correct dispersion characteristics.


A wide front baffle with a more shallow cabinet depth provides higher frequencies a "launching pad" so to speak that both smooths the response/time issues and acts as a secondary reinforcement much like wall placement will to a woofer. The upper frequencies see what amounts to a 2 pi configuration with a resulting +3dB increase in virtual sensitivity through the region. This increased sensitivity also means the driver's natural roll off is extended and now the driver can operate downwards in frequency response. A tweeter that can cross to a larger driver at a lower frequency has several benefits not the least of which is a more even dispersion pattern - which itself amounts to in room power response - as two divergent dimensions in driver surface try to sound as if they were one system. It can also mean the difference in which type of filter is employed in the Xo and whether the drivers are conencted in corrected polarity which then affects the phase coherence of the system. Obviously, when you talk about a speaker "system" there is more to the equation that just which drivers are chosen.


Further, as the wide baffle accounts for some dimishing of the driver's output across its distance the signal which leaves the baffle is lower in level when it arrrives at its first reflection point. With a shallow cabinet in corner placement the signal does not travel in time for long before it hits that first reflecting surface and its overall arrival time is then preceived as being more in synch with the direct signal.




I don't know the Devore line well enough to say with any certainty the ideas have been lifted from the Audio Note speakers - themself being direct descendants of the extremely well regarded original Peter Snell designed Snell line - but the wide baffles tend to suggest the speakers might want to operate in an environment very similar to the AN speakers which prefer a corner placement. (Though the North American distributor of AN has shown the speakers at the Lone Star audio show twice now with the speakers positioned well out into the room. A more than likely concession to the crappy rooms used in a show setting.)

Corner positioning obviously has its advantages in the low frequency areas but also can further minimize the time smear caused by mid to high frequencies having long reflection paths from an "in the room" position to a more preferrable immediate bounce which, as noted, provides a mild lift to the perceived levels while making for a less drastic comb filtering efffect due to out of synch reflections vs. direct signal.


.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kbear

Canada

Post Number: 478
Registered: Dec-06
Most who find floor mounting to be preferable list strong, even, and more tuneful bass response as an element in what they find with the woofer positioned closer to the floor. Certainly, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that distance travelled equals delayed, out of synch reflections arriving at your ear which amounts to comb filtering. As in all speaker positioning the trick is to have the long and short reflection paths work to your advantage.

Can you expand on this a little? Does floor mounting alleviate or exaggerate these delayed, out of synch reflections?

Far as I can tell, if a floorstander is lower to the ground then distance travelled is greater. The drivers are further away from your ears.

My speakers sound a heck of a lot better off the ground. But what I have not tried, that you suggest, is putting books under the front end. I did notice in the past that Mapleshade made stands that accomplish this, but also noticed their stands that do this are only designed for bookshelf speakers. I believe the speakers are actually supposed to be positioned on the ground, with the drivers pointing upwards to the listener. Of course, certain speaker companies do the same thing on their own speakers...Neat and Reference 3a make speakers with the front slanted back, so that the tweeter is further away from you than the woofer. As it has been explained to me, this is because high frequencies move faster and reach our ears sooner. Moving the tweeter back helps accomplish proper timing. Tannoy also manages this with their dual concentrics by placing the tweeter deep inside the woofer.

Would you say, for a bookshelf speaker then, that a Mapleshade stand will probably yield better results than would a typical stand that only serves to elevate a speaker? Could one take a conventional speaker stand and maybe add a piece of wood or something to the front of it, which would achieve the same thing? Or perhaps, attach a small pair of Isonodes to the back of the stand, and a large pair to the front. The speaker would thus lean back slightly as the front is resting on the higher Isonode.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 14423
Registered: Dec-04
Posted on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 02:05 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

"What do you guys do in terms of setting up your floorstanders to get the tweeter at ear level?"


First, you must determine whether the speaker should be off the floor or not. Raising the speaker itself changes multiple values regarding just how it interacts with the room and, as we all should know by now, it is that interaction of sound source and room which strongly affects our preceived sound quality. A handful of listeners strongly prefer a cabinet that is mounted close to the floor in order to minimize or alter the path of reflections which occur when the speaker is raised.

Most who find floor mounting to be preferable list strong, even, and more tuneful bass response as an element in what they find with the woofer positioned closer to the floor. Certainly, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that distance travelled equals delayed, out of synch reflections arriving at your ear which amounts to comb filtering. As in all speaker positioning the trick is to have the long and short reflection paths work to your advantage.

When the comb filtering is done at mid to upper frequencies the effect is upon clarity and soundstaging. Changing the reflection path changes the time and relative strength of the speakers' direct vs. reflected signal when it arrives at you ears and whether - or how much - they interfere/cancel or are perceived instead as predominantly direct signal along with subdued natural reflections which open up the sound to a more ambient, spacious quality.

http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/audioproducts/stands_smallspeakers_hub.php


Try moving your speakers back down to the floor and placing a book or two under the front edge of the cabinet to tilt the enclosure backwards. This will aim the tweeter at your ears without actually raising the woofer. Use a laser pointer or a string if need be to get the angle right on the high frequency driver and don't be afraid to experiment with the angle and toe in since you'll be hearing a different mix of information with this speaker position. When you try this many listeners also prefer to lower their seating position by several inches.




"I read a comment recently on another forum that praised the dimensions of speakers like this one. Less relative depth, and greater width. This leads to much more realistic bass and a more open sound (supposedly)."


Everything in audio is a trade off of some sort but what we have traded off with narrow cabinets is generally better sound quality. There are some very good reasons to have a narrow front baffle but the most important for most domestic settings is the spouse acceptance factor. Narrow cabinets gained much of their popularity as speakers came out of the man caves and into the living rooms to serve as home theater units. That is not a reason for good sound so much as it is just getting more speakers into a domestic space.



What a narrow cabinet most often does is provide a strong baffle step component which causes both time and frequency abberations and would normally require the introduction of a more complicated crossover with baffle step compensation components added in to correct for these very issues created by the enclosure. Not all narrow cabinets have this effect - some work very well when the narrow cabinet is dimensioned correctly to suit the (higher frequency) driver(s) - but most will have problems and certainly any speaker sytem with a large front mounted driver and a small high frequency driver will have such compromises. That is one reason a few designers side mount their wooofers. It's also a reason for the felt surrounds you'll sometimes see around tweeters, they serve to act as absorption filters which will, if dimensioned and shaped properly, minimize the baffle step and focus/correct dispersion characteristics.


A wide front baffle with a more shallow cabinet depth provides higher frequencies a "launching pad" so to speak that both smooths the response/time issues and acts as a secondary reinforcement much like wall placement will to a woofer. The upper frequencies see what amounts to a 2 pi configuration with a resulting +3dB increase in virtual sensitivity through the region. This increased sensitivity also means the driver's natural roll off is extended and now the driver can operate downwards in frequency response. A tweeter that can cross to a larger driver at a lower frequency has several benefits not the least of which is a more even dispersion pattern - which itself amounts to in room power response - as two divergent dimensions in driver surface try to sound as if they were one system. It can also mean the difference in which type of filter is employed in the Xo and whether the drivers are conencted in corrected polarity which then affects the phase coherence of the system. Obviously, when you talk about a speaker "system" there is more to the equation that just which drivers are chosen.


Further, as the wide baffle accounts for some dimishing of the driver's output across its distance the signal which leaves the baffle is lower in level when it arrrives at its first reflection point. With a shallow cabinet in corner placement the signal does not travel in time for long before it hits that first reflecting surface and its overall arrival time is then preceived as being more in synch with the direct signal.




I don't know the Devore line well enough to say with any certainty the ideas have been lifted from the Audio Note speakers - themself being direct descendants of the extremely well regarded original Peter Snell designed Snell line - but the wide baffles tend to suggest the speakers might want to operate in an environment very similar to the AN speakers which prefer a corner placement. (Though the North American distributor of AN has shown the speakers at the Lone Star audio show twice now with the speakers positioned well out into the room. A more than likely concession to the crappy rooms used in a show setting.)

Corner positioning obviously has its advantages in the low frequency areas but also can further minimize the time smear caused by mid to high frequencies having long reflection paths from an "in the room" position to a more preferrable immediate bounce which, as noted, provides a mild lift to the perceived levels while making for a less drastic comb filtering efffect due to out of synch reflections vs. direct signal JV

This where the AN-E takes off from the original Snell, I think, JV.
This placement removes the smear from the tweeters by adding a reflection point that extends beyond the baffle border(cab front edge), but is somewhat controlled.

Very effective treatment.
 

Gold Member
Username: My_rantz

Gold CoastAustralia

Post Number: 2824
Registered: Nov-05
I must admit I'm not big on the looks of the Orangutans either, but I suppose we have become too used to narrow and deep - which at least suit smaller rooms spacewise. The wide baffle speakers remind me of the BBC1's which had many, many fans.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 14389
Registered: May-04
.

"Can you expand on this a little? Does floor mounting alleviate or exaggerate these delayed, out of synch reflections?"


Floor placement puts the drivers closer to the first constant reflection surface, Dan, the floor - obviously. In almost all systems the floor is the nearest reflecting surface for any speaker and the one most unlikely to be treated effectively with proper materials. Placing the drivers closer to that reflecting surface would make the timing difference between direct signal and reflected signal far less.




"Far as I can tell, if a floorstander is lower to the ground then distance travelled is greater. The drivers are further away from your ears."


You're moving the speakers in the same plane just downward. The difference in distant to your ears would be minimal and, if you find it to be not quite right, you can move your chair. Or lower the seating position along with moving the speakers downward. Or move the speakers closer to you.

Etc.

What you are trying to affect with this placement is not the distance to your ears which is virtually inconsequential but the distance between the drivers and the nearest reflective surface which can be quite consequential.



"As it has been explained to me, this is because high frequencies move faster and reach our ears sooner. Moving the tweeter back helps accomplish proper timing."



Ahhhh, another hifi salesperson who just regurgitates what they've been told by a rep.


Time aligned speaker systems are controversial. Yes, different frequencies travel at different rates but the actual rate at which they travel is affected by various factors which are out of the control of the speaker designer. These differences would make this sort of reasoning somewhat supicious as there is no constant where you could say, "Ahhh, I have a perfectly time aligned system now." Much like phase aligned speakers the differences between the two drivers are constant while the distance the signal travels to the listener's ears is not a defined length. Therefore, in one location you might be hearing a time aligned signal while not hearing a phase aligned signal. Certainly at one point along the continuum of length between you and the drivers the phase alingment will be correct and at all other locations down to miniscule amounts of difference the phase will be somewhat not in alignment to absolutely out of alingment once again. There will be only one location where the specified frequency bands are in proper phase and time alignment. In other words, since different frequencies are travelling at different rates of speed and phase is relative not absolute, not all frequencies will be time and phase aligned at any one location. Particularly, if the speaker system is more than a two way design, the chances the entire system can be time and phase aligned at the seating position are just about the same as you being struck by a low flying penguin.


When a salesperson or rep tells you the system is time or phase aligned because different frequencies travel at different rates of speed or because the crosover throws the drivers out of absolute phase, ask the person just at what distance you should sit for all of these things to be 100% perfect.



Since it is generally regarded that the human ear cannot differentiate between two signals which fall less than 50msec apart and therefore the ear perceives the two as one signal the short distance between most consumer speaker systems and the actual listening position - what? 8-10' average - is unlikely to make a significant difference when you tilt the enclosure's front baffle back by two inches.



Now, granted there are people who will argue this point and they will have their own proofs these details matter. But that is what makes the speaker industry so interesting, isn't it? Everyone and their mother has a story to tell.



"Tannoy also manages this with their dual concentrics by placing the tweeter deep inside the woofer."


A point source such as the Tannoy is not the same as a time or phase aligned system. The purist will say the two drivers still have significant differences to deal with but a point source is IMO a far more important step toward cohesive, "cut from the same cloth" sound than either time or phase alingment alone or together can produce from two different drivers. This is particularly the case when you consider what other principles are followed by the adherents of all the various ideologies in speaker building.



"Would you say, for a bookshelf speaker then, that a Mapleshade stand will probably yield better results than would a typical stand that only serves to elevate a speaker?"


You should know I never try to define what is "better" than the next. I will explain the reasoning and sometimes unreasoning that goes with most of the trends but I seldom try to say I guess which is better to your ears.



"Could one take a conventional speaker stand and maybe add a piece of wood or something to the front of it, which would achieve the same thing?"


How does leaving the speaker on the stand but raising it with a chunk of wood become the same thing as placing it on the floor? The piece of wood will change things but not the way it does when the piece of wood is at floor level.



Why don't you just try a few of these things, Dan, instead of asking me whether I think they would be better than anything else?


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 14390
Registered: May-04
.

"This placement removes the smear from the tweeters by adding a reflection point that extends beyond the baffle border(cab front edge), but is somewhat controlled."


I read it five times, Nuck, and it still doesn't make sense to me. AN hasn't added a reflection point, the reflection point exists whenever the speakers or anyone's speakers are used in a room. "Reflection points" are by definition beyond the baffle border as any signal travelling across the baffle is not a reflection but a simple wave transmission.

But, yes, the "controlled" reflection is hoping to reduce the effects of your ear/brain's tendency to smear information which arrives at the listening position when long time delays exist between direct and reflected signals. The more cohesive time alignment of the direct and reflected signals achieved with corner placement also minimizes the comb filtering which is common with most other conventional room placements which is equally important to the design. When you look at the AN link provided you'll notice a mention of "the Allison effect" which describes just this sort of comb filter frequency imbalance. Roy Allison's speakers were corner placement only designs which relied on many of the same rules of operation described here for the AN's. A few years back Allison was honored with a position as one of the 50 most significant design awards in HiFi News for his work on speaker design and room effects.

The AN speakers use the front and side walls almost as virtual infinite baffles which present images lacking in that razor sharp focus of individual instruments which is exactly what most other speakers try to achieve. Some what of a contradiction IMO that the speaker which makes the most efficient use of reflective surfaces is also the speaker that eschews the hifi aspects of imaging and soundstaging. The differences between an Audio Note and, say, a Wilson are most striking.


At the time Snell first designed his speaker line speaker stands and the concepts of in room placement were not fully realized. What we now call "standmounted" speakers were then called bookshelf speakers and many of the type found their way to being mounted on a real bookshelf. My first set of speaker "stands" were actually very much like what Mapleshade now sells. They were floor mounted and tilted the speakers back slightly for correct axially alignment of the high frequency driver. There was no sense of time alignment at that point. I used a pair of "bookshelf" Large Advents on those stands until I added the second set for Double Advents and the angle became too precarious. Then I switched to a welded "U" shaped stand with the open end pointing into the room and about 90 lbs of speakers sitting on each stand. It was a stand that had no provisions for filling or for spiking, it had all the rigidity of al dente pasta.


.
« Previous Thread Next Thread »



Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us