more drive units or more power equals fuller more 3d sound ?

[unknown]

if upgrading to a speaker with more drive units, does this result in a fuller more solid 3d sound ?

for example if you moved from the 4 drive unit b&w cm9 to the 5 drive unit cm10 which has an extra bass driver, do you simply get more/deeper bass output or do you get a fuller more solid sound as long as your amplifier can control all those drive units ?

alternatively, if upgrading to a more powerful amp, does this usually result in a fuller more solid 3d sound ?

once again if you own the 4 drive unit b&W cm9 matched with the 200w musical fidelity m6i amp and you swapped to the more powerful 500w m6 500i model would this help "fill out" the sound creating a fuller more 3d image ?

thanks in advance for advice.

 

[lindsayt]

It's all a big fat "it depends".

Some higher powered amps sound better than some lower powered amps. And vice versa.

Some multi driver speakers sound better than some single or two driver speakers. And vice versa.

 

[jcbrum]

if upgrading to a speaker with more drive units, does this result in a fuller more solid 3d sound ?

No.

It's possible that the sound would be more distorted.

JC

 

[matt49]

if upgrading to a speaker with more drive units, does this result in a fuller more solid 3d sound ?

for example if you moved from the 4 drive unit b&w cm9 to the 5 drive unit cm10 which has an extra bass driver, do you simply get more/deeper bass output or do you get a fuller more solid sound as long as your amplifier can control all those drive units ?

alternatively, if upgrading to a more powerful amp, does this usually result in a fuller more solid 3d sound ?

once again if you own the 4 drive unit b&W cm9 matched with the 200w musical fidelity m6i amp and you swapped to the more powerful 500w m6 500i model would this help "fill out" the sound creating a fuller more 3d image ?

I'm not sure that "a fuller more solid 3d sound" is a single phenomenon and hence that it can be achieved by changing one element in a system.

"Fuller" is a bit ambiguous: do you mean more bass extension? Or do you mean a larger soundstage?

A "more solid 3D sound" implies that the soundstage is larger in 3 dimensions and that the instruments occupy fixed positions within it. This might have nothing to do with bass extension. For instance, some two-way speakers create superb 3D imaging with relatively high bass roll-off.

But it sounds to me as though the effects you're after have more to do with speaker presentation than with amplification. I mean, you might get better results with a higher-specced amp, but these (theoretical) better results might be in terms of dynamics, not bass response and imaging.

Matt

 

[jcbrum]

Some proper measurements and technical analysis might be useful.

JC

 

[matt49]

Some proper measurements and technical analysis might be useful.

In this case, I very much doubt it.

Matt

 

[steve_1979]

As a very generalised answer to your question a 'fuller' sound is a subjective term often used to describe having more or deeper bass. This is likely to need bigger speakers and a more powerful amplifier.

By a '3D' sound I assume that you are reffering to the stereo image? This is likely to be achieved by having speakers with less phase distortion and using smaller enclosures.

 

[manicm]

if upgrading to a speaker with more drive units, does this result in a fuller more solid 3d sound ?

No.

It's possible that the sound would be more distorted.

JC

According to whose theory? So all high-end loudspeaker makers are wasting their time with 3-way speakers?

 

[Tear Drop]

Does more complexity equal greater fidelity? What do you think?

 

[plastic penguin]

Based on personal opinion, then yes generally speaking, the more drivers means, in theory, a bigger sound. The problem with multi-drive speakers is some have trouble with driver integration. Regards the 3-D sound, the same applies IMHO - good integration should demonstrate better imaging.

This is what Monitor Audio do very well: They may not be everyone's cup of char but integrate beautifully.

At the end of the day it's about finding the sweet spot between amp and speaker. Once that's achieved then depth and imaging should slot into place.

 

[manicm]

Based on personal opinion, then yes generally speaking, the more drivers means, in theory, a bigger sound. The problem with multi-drive speakers is some have trouble with driver integration.

Some have trouble with normal 2-way designs as well. JCBrum's statement was a woeful generalisation.

 

[jcbrum]

if upgrading to a speaker with more drive units, does this result in a fuller more solid 3d sound ?

No.

It's possible that the sound would be more distorted.

JC

According to whose theory? So all high-end loudspeaker makers are wasting their time with 3-way speakers?

I think it's highly probable that many of them are. They end up with very compromised designs, in which the crossovers intrude heavily into the critical response areas, and at best produce varying degrees of distortion, which some people claim to prefer.

Good headphones generally produce better fidelity than multi-driver loudspeakers.

Headphones are not as pleasant to use in a domestic sitting room for recreational purposes, ime, however, many younger people use them a great deal.

Ideally a perfect loudspeaker would comprise a single full-range transducer, which acts as a point source. This is not acheivable with current technology, so transducers (drivers) have to be limited to their acceptable performance ranges.

The crossovers are the critical devices employed to do that, and are usually not very good at it. IMO, active crossovers do the job better, but it would be best if no crossovers were needed, or at least the number employed be kept to a minimum.

One way to do that would be to make the best two-way loudspeaker possible, and employ a separate sub-woofer, with a tailored response, so as to achieve the 'crossover' acoustically. i.e. no electronic crossover for the bass region.

JC

 

[plastic penguin]

Based on personal opinion, then yes generally speaking, the more drivers means, in theory, a bigger sound. The problem with multi-drive speakers is some have trouble with driver integration.

Some have trouble with normal 2-way designs as well.

Indeed that's right. But you know that if integration is wayward then that has a knock-on effect with imaging, and overall cohesion.

Remember hearing, many moons ago, Wharfedale's E70s, which had more cones than an ice cream seller. The bass and treble was beautiful but the integration and imaging was woeful. As a consequence I puchased the babies of the range: E20. They were the polar opposite, although the compromise was a little less grunt.

 

[jcbrum]

Six Nations Rugby has just started on the telly. I'll be back later

 

[unknown]

thanks for all input/replies.

has anybody actually upgraded to a more powerful amp from the same company (like the m6i to the m6 500i) ?

if so which, model of component changed plus sound quality results ?

same with speakers, have you upgraded to the model above (with more drive units) ?

once again, which make/model of speaker changed from/to plus sound quality differences.

thanks again.

 

[matt49]

I haven't upgraded from fewer drive units to more within the same range, but I have done a few demos of this kind. For instance, comparing the 2-way Sonus faber Cremona Auditor Ms against the 3-way SF Cremona Ms (I preferred the 2-ways and bought them). I also compared the 2-way SF Olympica Is with the 3-way Olympica IIs: I preferred the 3-ways.

Which just goes to show how important implementation is and how in many cases experience trumps theory.

Talking of theory, and going back to jcbrum's post:

The crossovers are the critical devices employed to do that, and are usually not very good at it. IMO, active crossovers do the job better, but it would be best if no crossovers were needed, or at least the number employed be kept to a minimum.

One way to do that would be to make the best two-way loudspeaker possible, and employ a separate sub-woofer, with a tailored response, so as to achieve the 'crossover' acoustically. i.e. no electronic crossover for the bass region.

You can pretty much forget all of that when you move from dynamic speakers to electrostatics, as the amount of distortion created by a good electrostatic is a couple of orders of magnitude lower than for dynamic speakers. In theory a decent passive electrostatic will beat a decent active dynamic speaker hands down.

Matt

 

[manicm]

if upgrading to a speaker with more drive units, does this result in a fuller more solid 3d sound ?

No.

It's possible that the sound would be more distorted.

JC

According to whose theory? So all high-end loudspeaker makers are wasting their time with 3-way speakers?

I think it's highly probable that many of them are. They end up with very compromised designs, in which the crossovers intrude heavily into the critical response areas, and at best produce varying degrees of distortion, which some people claim to prefer.

Good headphones generally produce better fidelity than multi-driver loudspeakers.

Headphones are not as pleasant to use in a domestic sitting room for recreational purposes, ime, however, many younger people use them a great deal.

Ideally a perfect loudspeaker would comprise a single full-range transducer, which acts as a point source. This is not acheivable with current technology, so transducers (drivers) have to be limited to their acceptable performance ranges.

The crossovers are the critical devices employed to do that, and are usually not very good at it. IMO, active crossovers do the job better, but it would be best if no crossovers were needed, or at least the number employed be kept to a minimum.

One way to do that would be to make the best two-way loudspeaker possible, and employ a separate sub-woofer, with a tailored response, so as to achieve the 'crossover' acoustically. i.e. no electronic crossover for the bass region.

JC

It's all rather academic if the makers are competent enough, and I would hazard they are. And subwoofers are actually not the solution for everybody - I had a 2.1 speaker system for about 6 months - and if you can't place a sub in a corner then forget it. Well the one I had anyway. And a 2.1 system has its own potential pitfalls as well - such as sub/satellite integration, phase adjustment etc etc. And again it's down to the manufacturer as to how well it will perform.

There's no real design paradigm that says a 3-way design is necessarily bad to my knowledge. More complex yes, but again if you have good engineers....

Complexity should not be a hindrance to anything.

 

[lindsayt]

I have 75, 150 and 300 watt amplifiers from the same manufacturer. Not had the 75 watt one long enough to properly compare against the others. Initial impressions are that with my speakers there's not much difference between them.

I also have an amp from a manufacturer that quite openly admits that their less expensive 8 watt amp sounds better than their more expensive 16 watt amp. The 16 watter is there for people that need the power.

Generally speaking, the larger the speaker the lower the power you require from your amplifier.

Using multiple drivers to cover the same frequency range can make a lot of sense from a sound quality point of view. Trouble is, far too often, you have two or three 8 ohm drivers wired in parallel resulting in an amp unfriendly low impedance. Four 8 ohm drivers wired in series and in parallel results in an amp friendly 8 ohm load. Arrange them in a vertical array and you have good in-room dispersion characteristics at the expense of comb effects in the nearfield.

And as for 2 way active speakers with a subwoofer offering some sort of optimum compromise when it comes to sound quality in speaker design. Well I'd be happy to put that to the test by chucking an amp and some passive 3 or 4 way speakers into my car and coming to compare them against anyone's 2 way actives plus sub.

 

[jcbrum]

Already done it, but thanks for the offer.

JC

 

[lindsayt]

JC would you care to share with us, exactly which speakers you have compared directly to your 2 way actives plus sub set-up? Directly as in same room at the same volume playing the same recording one after the other. And to tell us in which ways these other speakers sounded better and in which ways they were worse?

 

[jcbrum]

It would take a long time to compose such a post, in detail, and I have lots to do today, but I don't mind briefly outlining what I did.

I have evaluated a lot of speakers, over an extended period of time, basically, in three different rooms. Basically I used a comparison system. The speakers which were used as 'controls' were ESL57, Spendor LS3/5a and BC1s, and AVI pro nine+. Amplification was always AVI, mostly Lab series Integrated. Sources were variously Revox B77, AVI cdp, Mac and WinPC, an RME Fireface, an Apogee Mini-Dac, a portable flash card recorder, Sony mini-disc, or an iPod running Wavs. I never used vinyl, or compressed lossy files, for these tests, but I did check out lossy compression, and records for other reasons. Most of the time I used Revox RR, Apogee Dac, or RME Fireface, with Macbook Pro laptop.

I became very familiar with the sound of the 'control' systems. Evaluation tracks which I used constantly were Diana Krall Night in Paris, Katie Melua Stardust, Eastman Wind Band Liberty Bell, and a live recording made locally with my own equipment in the Adrian Boult Concert Hall of an ensemble consisting of Piano, Cello, and Clarinet. I also used my own live recordings made at the Imperial College Concert Hall, where my son was lead Oboe.

I used to visit my local HiFi dealer every day, and gave him the instruction that I wanted to listen to every speaker, new or second-hand, which passed through his shop. I did this for a period of more than 10 years. When I first started these test, Ashley James worked for ATC, and that's how I got to meet him, since he visited that dealer on behalf of ATC. Later, when he joined AVI, he and Martin Grindrod visited to listen to some of my tests, since they were becoming interested in 'computer music', and I like to think it played some part in the creation and development of their active speakers with digital inputs.

Similarly, although not every day, I very frequently used to visit Digital Village, which is a local dealer of professional sound equipment, with massive stocks of 'pro-grade' loudspeakers, and a very good 'dem' room. Their engineer Nick was very helpful to me, and I installed my own loudspeakers in their dem room for direct comparison with their stock.

At home, I had my own studio, equipped with Studer Revox equipment, and more latterly AVI. Originally (in the '70s), I started with Quad II systems, and ESLs, and moved through 33 / 34 / 44 / 303 / 405 / 306 etc. Initially I was interested in making my own recordings, but more latterly I was interested in transcribing records and tapes to digital files, particularly 78s. I used to borrow the most preferred loudspeakers to check them out, there.

Consequently, I was always interested in using 'monitor' loudspeakers with a very high degree of fidelity and transparency. I was very un-interested in anything which provided a 'coloured' sound, and strongly disagree that hifi systems should be chosen on the basis of 'an unusually characterful sound'. A replay system should be ruthlessly accurate and transparent, otherwise how can one appreciate what the recording is supposed to represent.

For years I did my monitoring on LS3/5a, but I agree they fell short of the range of a BC1, or a better 3-way system. The problem was always that the best 2-ways (I liked ATC 10s, a lot) were so good on voice and mid-range, and 3-ways, whilst more extended in the bass region, were always muddied in the mid range. This affected voice and female opera very noticeably.

Eventually I came to the conclusion that deficiences in drivers, and crossovers, were the main inadequacies, rather than cabinet design or cost. Many expensive loudspeakers were just not worth the money, and seem to be produced as 'a mugs eyeful' to sell to gullible consumers.

So, the answer, for me, seemed to be use the best drivers available, with active crossovers to preserve tight control, and keep the number to a minimum, and preserve the purity and transparency of a 2-way. This meant the lowest octave (say 30-60Hz) had to be supplemented with a separate loudspeaker. These days some people call them 'subs'. I tried various subs ranging in size from 18" drivers in cabs the size of a dining table, to small 8" units. They varied greatly in sound quality and were usually awful. However there is not much content below 50Hz in most music, and the human ear is not very discriminating in that region either. Modern movie sound effects, and throbbing Citroen Saxos playing rap, might be considered by some to be an exception. AVI designed and produced a sub-woofer, which is exceptionally good, although a bit expensive, and uses an 'acoustic crossover' technique which perfectly matches their loudspeakers, and can be adjusted for room response. That completed the puzzle for me.

JC

 

[jcbrum]

So, I suppose you could say I do use a 3-way system, since I use a sub, but it's active and tightly controlled, and is an 'acoustic' match to the system. There is only one electronic crossover, which is the one that controls the tweeter, and it's active, not passive, so doesn't splash over into the mids and upset the mid driver. My solution does however need five or six amplifiers to drive it, but they are contained within the loudspeaker enclosures, and specifically designed to exactly match the needs of the individual driver transducer, to which they are individually direct connected.

It gets rid of all the problems of 'mix and match' separates, which have only one amp being asked to service multiple drive units through passive crossovers, and all the distortions and compromises which that method brings.

JC

 

[jcbrum]

p.s. I don't believe in 'super-tweeters' either. - JC

 

[Frank Harvey]

Whether one type of design is superior to another is partly dependent on how well each of these designs have been executed. Let's assume that we're talking about well executed designs.

A three way speaker is certainly better quality than a two way. In a two way design, a bass driver has to reproduce low bass notes with high excursion as well as trying to reproduce smaller excursions at the same time to produce midrange frequencies. Add in a dedicated mid driver, and the bass driver is then free to do what it is supposed to do, and the load on the HF unit is heavily reduced as well as it no longer has to produce high (albeit very small) excursions to reproduce higher midrange frequencies. The result is very easily demonstrated.

The difference between the CM9 and CM10 is pretty big in the high frequency range. Removing the HF unit from any effects of the mid and bass drivers as well as the cabinet gives the higher frequencies much more delicacy, so it is able to reproduce the finer nuances much more clearly. The treble is much more like that of the PM1s, which is one of the best sounding speakers for detail and openness in it's price range.

Whilst speakers usually become more efficient as you move up the range (more and larger drivers), I do find that even though they don't need as much power to drive them, they do require better quality amplification to control them and the (usually) deeper bass they produce. A tight, punchy, solid bass really underpins the rest of the speaker and can help it to sound much more realistic, giving some instruments the illusion of being 'life size', sometimes even bigger in some cases!

Your example of the CM9s and accompanying amplifiers, you should find that the M6500 will have a tighter grip over what the speaker is doing, giving bass more agility and speed. In cases like this, you can sometimes find that the bass suddenly has more presence, as better amplification is able to bring out 'real' bass in some speakers - the KEF Reference range is a good example. With insufficient amplification, they sound lean, and bordering on brightness. With the right amp, they're smooth but detailed, and the bass has real solidity and punch to it, without lacking control.

So if you're working to a budget, sometimes it is better to have the lesser speaker with better amplification, as the last thing you want is a speaker that is underforming. Of course, if the budget stretches to both the better speaker and better amplifier, life can be less stressful

 

[Native_bon]

I haven't upgraded from fewer drive units to more within the same range, but I have done a few demos of this kind. For instance, comparing the 2-way Sonus faber Cremona Auditor Ms against the 3-way SF Cremona Ms (I preferred the 2-ways and bought them). I also compared the 2-way SF Olympica Is with the 3-way Olympica IIs: I preferred the 3-ways.

Which just goes to show how important implementation is and how in many cases experience trumps theory.

Talking of theory, and going back to jcbrum's post:

The crossovers are the critical devices employed to do that, and are usually not very good at it. IMO, active crossovers do the job better, but it would be best if no crossovers were needed, or at least the number employed be kept to a minimum.

One way to do that would be to make the best two-way loudspeaker possible, and employ a separate sub-woofer, with a tailored response, so as to achieve the 'crossover' acoustically. i.e. no electronic crossover for the bass region.

You can pretty much forget all of that when you move from dynamic speakers to electrostatics, as the amount of distortion created by a good electrostatic is a couple of orders of magnitude lower than for dynamic speakers. In theory a decent passive electrostatic will beat a decent active dynamic speaker hands down.

Matt

I agree 100 percent with your statement.. I once listened to a pair of electrostatic speakers & i have yet to hear a sound thats even remotely comes close to it. Just incredible sounding. But I think it was about 9 grand a pair.