So who won the great bake off?

[oivavoi10]

The speaker that used a dedicated midrange driver for the midrange rather than forcing the tweeter to work lower than it's comfortable operating range and, particularly, forcing the woofer to work higher than it's comfortable operating range had the best midrange. Why would anybody be surprised by that? The EV is also notable for smoothly matching the directivity across the midrange which can be expected to be a significant benefit to sound quality. The raggedness of the on-axis response is likely to be worse than the 2 ways and so it will not have been all positives.

Thanks, HG. Excellent comment, even though I'm not sure if I agree about everything. That's the kind of informed comment which may make it worth it to frequent forums such as this

I'm most interested in the EV vs AVI issue. I agree that the directivity thing (because it's hornloaded) probably is very important. But then again, given a room with different acoustics and lots of off-axis reflections, or when listening off-axis, it might be less ideal.

Concerning the dedicated midrange: In theory you're right, of course. I do believe, though, that the AVI driver is supposed to go into break-up mode at a higher frequency that most drivers of comparable size. And there are lots of tweeters these days that are able to go fairly low before they start to sweat. The horn system I mentioned above, had a compression driver tweeter covering everything from 500 hz and up... even though it was heavily EQed. And that system sounded simply amazing. Having heard the DM10s, and what I perceive as their exceptional clarity, I'm just not sure whether the "comfort zone" argument is relevant here. But I might be wrong, of course.

 

[radiorog]

Just remind us all: How much did the Hegel H160 cost? Ah, and how much to upgrade to the 360? what is the price for the ATCs?

Thought so: Yet your costly upgrades gets whammed by two systems costing a fraction of yours, and one amp which the person said "The Creek amplifier is the worst I've ever owned".

*ROFL*

malicious comments made by long time posters set bad standards on this forum.

Not malicious at all. Back on #103 I asked politely:

"Thanks Lindsayt. Like Chebby I'm stunned, although probably for different reasons.

Can I flip this test on its head? What was actually wrong with the Hegel/ATC set-up? Sorry, I've read a number of posts here but no-one has stated the problem with the said kit?"

Then Mr. sarcastic comes back with his usual s####y posts towards me.

There were three systems tested but little was mentioned about the Hegel/ATC combo until I asked.

If you are going to test the pros and cons of three systems let's read the good, the bad and the ugly.

Mr. Sarcastic has just bleated on about the test being fun, but as this is a hi-fi forum, you should expect questions about the aforementioned systems... all three. There's nothing unreasonable about that, is there?

As your motives have an agenda but paint it how you want.

There is nothing wrong with the hegel. So sorry to dissapoint you.

The hegel was imo the best amp in the room.

So sorry now nickpick someone elses 'synergy' there is no story for you here.

So you're saying your amp is the best. Funny that: Lindsayt first stated you were all in agreement that the Creek/EV was the best. Then IPV said on here he preferred his AVIs. And now you are saying the Hegel.

So you're really not agreeing.

Have NO agenda. What would be my motives? I'm trying to learn more as I've never heard any of the systems tested - in fact I've never heard any active speakers, any Hegel equipment or EV speakers.

The way I read it, and I presumed everyone else here,w as that a Lindsay was proud to say that a very cheap and even pretty rubbish amp, could be used with his speakers, and they still came out top. And wasn't there a mention of the Hegel connections not being suitable.

As I mentioned earlier, it would be a shame for the most interesting thread this year to get derailed with infighting. I would back up the three who actually took part in the test, to simply ignore people asking ridiculous questions.

Thanks to all who took part in this very revealing, interesting and meaningful experiment. Top draw. Quite how Lindsay moves those speakers around as well, beggars belief!

 

[chebby]

Everything back to normal again?

Ah well. Good while it lasted.

I thought something 'bigger' than the bake-off itself had begun.

 

[ID.]

While I'm feeling a bit confused about why plasticpenguin seems to be almost taking this personally, I'm going to read between the lines (pp, please feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood or misrepresented you).

He would like more details on what people felt the ATCs lacked because with the right synergy, i.e. Kit that balanced out or made up for those shortcomings, the field could have been leveled more and perhaps the results would have been different.

At least, that's what I think his point is.

I have my own views on whether its practical to try a wide enough range of equipment to find a perfect synergy, let alone trying to do that in the context of a bake off. There's only so much time in a day.

 

[hg]

I'm most interested in the EV vs AVI issue. I agree that the directivity thing (because it's hornloaded) probably is very important. But then again, given a room with different acoustics and lots of off-axis reflections, or when listening off-axis, it might be less ideal.

I think you might have this back-to-front. The objective of directivity control is to set the level and the frequency response of the reflections. The AVI for example will create a substantial proportion of reflections with an almost step change in level from low below the crossover frequency around 2 kHz to high above the crossover frequency, the ATC will have a similar change in level but the step will be smoother and less noticeable, the EV as shown in the directivity factor and beamwidth plots is smooth through this region where the ear is most sensitive and that will be reflected in the frequency response of the reflections.

Although a step change in the off-axis frequency response is not high fidelity in the sense of being faithful to the source it may well sound like detail and be considered good. More than that, if the listener gives little weight to the idea of high fidelity then it is good. There is a fair chance this has a significant role in the difference heard between the ATC and the AVI. To check if this is the case try sitting close at about 0.75m. away and listen if the difference in clarity narrows since this will be reducing the strength of the reflections compared to the direct sound.

Concerning the dedicated midrange: In theory you're right, of course. I do believe, though, that the AVI driver is supposed to go into break-up mode at a higher frequency that most drivers of comparable size.

Chortle. I tried to talk about the reality of cone resonances in the other thread/s to counter this bit of effective AVI marketing but it didn't seem to get picked up. Even the results from the chap building 3 two way speakers using the same SB driver and 3 different cone materials fell on stoney ground.

 

[oivavoi10]

Thanks, HG. Appreciate you taking the time to answer. It is completely clear to me that you are highly competent in the area. Need to do some work for the rest of the day, so no more discussion from me for a while...

 

[chebby]

I now want to explore half or two thirds scale versions of those Sentrys (something well made and along the same lines but with 10" or 12" bass drivers and commensurately smaller cabinets).

Any recommendations?

 

[oivavoi10]

I now want to explore half or two thirds scale versions of those Sentrys (something well made and along the same lines but with 10" or 12" bass drivers and commensurately smaller cabinets).

Any recommendations?

Before I log out for the day... I would look at Klipsch Heresy III, if you can get to hear them. 12-woofer for the bass, three-way, horn-loaded midrange and tweeter. Big wooden rectangular box, but smaller than than the sentrys. So roughly the same design. Never heard them though, but looks like promising speakers.

 

[hg]

I now want to explore half or two thirds scale versions of those Sentrys (something well made and along the same lines but with 10" or 12" bass drivers and commensurately smaller cabinets).

Any recommendations?

The Neumann KH420 has plenty of supporting information on the RHS which you can compare with the EV information sheet to see how things have evolved over the decades. There is of course a range of equivalents from other pro manufacturers but they tend to put up less factual information about their products on their websites.

 

[davedotco]

I now want to explore half or two thirds scale versions of those Sentrys (something well made and along the same lines but with 10" or 12" bass drivers and commensurately smaller cabinets).

Any recommendations?

Before I log out for the day... I would look at Klipsch Heresy III, if you can get to hear them. 12-woofer for the bass, three-way, horn-loaded midrange and tweeter. Big wooden rectangular box, but smaller than than the sentrys. So roughly the same design. Never heard them though, but looks like promising speakers.

I can think of nothing else that will come close to the classic 'bin and horn' system as the Heresy III. Still quite large by modern standards but probably not that much bigger than what you have, room positioning is similar too.

Virtually all of these systems are built around a 15 in driver, vintage and modern. The best vintage models, such as those by Altec and JBL are essentially two way systems, made viable only by the exceptional compression drivers from these companies, the Altec 802/4 and the JBL 2420. These are possibly the best of their types ever made (along with some 'clones' by TAD, Coral etc) and are capable of covering from 800 to 15,000 Hz. JBL added a supertweeter to some models but for most use it was not necessary.

Klipsch never had access to such a driver so tended to follow the Electrovoice model of using a much less sophisticated midrange driver. In some models a version of the EV1823 was used, but as with all such designs using this driver, the heavy phenolic diaphagm lacked transient response and high frequency extension, so a separate horn tweeter was required above 3-4Khz.

The classic Klipsch Horns, La Scala models were all of this type but with the demand for smaller enclosures they moved from folded horns to reflex loading, with 15in and now 12in drivers. The reduction in bass output allowed for lower power, less expensive compression drivers for the mids and highs and led to the modern day Cornwall and Heresy models.

 

[oivavoi10]

I now want to explore half or two thirds scale versions of those Sentrys (something well made and along the same lines but with 10" or 12" bass drivers and commensurately smaller cabinets).

Any recommendations?

Before I log out for the day... I would look at Klipsch Heresy III, if you can get to hear them. 12-woofer for the bass, three-way, horn-loaded midrange and tweeter. Big wooden rectangular box, but smaller than than the sentrys. So roughly the same design. Never heard them though, but looks like promising speakers.

I can think of nothing else that will come close to the classic 'bin and horn' system as the Heresy III. Still quite large by modern standards but probably not that much bigger than what you have, room positioning is similar too.

Virtually all of these systems are built around a 15 in driver, vintage and modern. The best vintage models, such as those by Altec and JBL are essentially two way systems, made viable only by the exceptional compression drivers from these companies, the Altec 802/4 and the JBL 2420. These are possibly the best of their types ever made (along with some 'clones' by TAD, Coral etc) and are capable of covering from 800 to 15,000 Hz. JBL added a supertweeter to some models but for most use it was not necessary.

Klipsch never had access to such a driver so tended to follow the Electrovoice model of using a much less sophisticated midrange driver. In some models a version of the EV1823 was used, but as with all such designs using this driver, the heavy phenolic diaphagm lacked transient response and high frequency extension, so a separate horn tweeter was required above 3-4Khz.

The classic Klipsch Horns, La Scala models were all of this type but with the demand for smaller enclosures they moved from folded horns to reflex loading, with 15in and now 12in drivers. The reduction in bass output allowed for lower power, less expensive compression drivers for the mids and highs and led to the modern day Cornwall and Heresy models.

Very interesting read, Davedotco. You got me curious: Which models are you thinking of when you say "the best vintage models"?

 

[davedotco]

Most of my experience is with pro rather than hi-fi product of this period, but in many cases they are pretty much the same thing.

As explained above, this type of hi-fi speaker derived from cinema speakers which was far and away the driving force in loudspeaker technology in the 30s, 40s and 50s. If you google the huge Altec A2, then follow the product line down to the A7 it is easy to see how the standard speaker of the era was a 15inch plus compression driver.

The demand in the USA for high performance home systems gave birth to the original Klipsch Horn, the Jbl Hartsfield and similar (Tannoy in the UK) horn loaded corner systems. The big change came with the invention of stereo and the requirement for smaller speakers, the introduction of reflex enclosures brought the size down and the pivotal designs of the period were the JBL L200 and the Altec Barcelona.

The two 'Lansing' companies had a huge advantage, their compression driver technology was on a different level giving them a huge advantage in both the hi-fi and pro sectors. These simple, essentially two way systems of very high quality, defined the genre.

I have owned, sold, installed and serviced dozens of speakers of this type and would love to find something from this period but the practical difficulties are immense, not least the need for a serious demagnetiser/magnetiser to 'recharge' the fading cobalt alloy magnets.

 

[Electro]

I quite fancy a pair of these Westlake SM1 monitors, they work very well with Electrocompaniet amps apparently . *shok*

 

[Andrewjvt]

I quite fancy a pair of these Westlake SM1 monitors, they work very well with Electrocompaniet amps apparently . *shok*

But a little more cost than Lindsay's £400 i think

 

[Electro]

I quite fancy a pair of these Westlake SM1 monitors, they work very well with Electrocompaniet amps apparently . *shok*

But a little more cost than Lindsay's £400 i think

Yes probably a couple of zero's on the end I recon. *smile*

 

[oivavoi10]

Thanks, Davedotco. Really enlightening read

Thankful that you share your experiences!

 

[CnoEvil]

....and what did Mary Berry think? Were there any soggy bottoms? *scratch_one-s_head* *biggrin*

 

[davedotco]

I quite fancy a pair of these Westlake SM1 monitors, they work very well with Electrocompaniet amps apparently . *shok*

But a little more cost than Lindsay's £400 i think

I met Tom Hiddle on a number of occasions in the early/mid 70s, his original design was a simple two way as I have described above, except that it used a pair of 15 inch drivers to increase output. The big jbl compression driver, the 2440, had little output above 10kHz, and a number of different 'supertweeter' options were tried and produced. The best versions used the smaller 2420 driver above 8-10kHz, both drivers on custom built wooden horns.

These were originally soffit mounted main monitors and their success prompted JBL to produce the 4350, which became the main monitor of choice on both sides of the atlantic. It, the 4350, brought to an end the era of the 'classic' 2 way studio speakers and ushered in the era of 4 way systems paving the way for the dome mid and treble units of so many modern designs.

There were a few 'retro' designs, the 4425, 4435 in the mid 80s and the DMS1 in the 90s. Any of these will be closer in spirit to the classic systems of the 60s and 70s.

 

[davedotco]

....and what did Mary Berry think? Were there any soggy bottoms? *scratch_one-s_head* *biggrin*

Interestingly (or not) Tom Hiddle (Westlake founder) was a huge advocate of limiting bass extension to suit the room, and his rooms were very successful.

Despite his monitors (at that time) using twin 15inch drivers, he routinely limited the bass extension to about 40hz, presumeably on advice from Mary Berry.

 

[oivavoi10]

I quite fancy a pair of these Westlake SM1 monitors, they work very well with Electrocompaniet amps apparently . *shok*

But a little more cost than Lindsay's £400 i think

I met Tom Hiddle on a number of occasions in the early/mid 70s, his original design was a simple two way as I have described above, except that it used a pair of 15 inch drivers to increase output. The big jbl compression driver, the 2440, had little output above 10kHz, and a number of different 'supertweeter' options were tried and produced. The best versions used the smaller 2420 driver above 8-10kHz, both drivers on custom built wooden horns.

These were originally soffit mounted main monitors and their success prompted JBL to produce the 4350, which became the main monitor of choice on both sides of the atlantic. It, the 4350, brought to an end the era of the 'classic' 2 way studio speakers and ushered in the era of 4 way systems paving the way for the dome mid and treble units of so many modern designs.

There were a few 'retro' designs, the 4425, 4435 in the mid 80s and the DMS1 in the 90s. Any of these will be closer in spirit to the classic systems of the 60s and 70s.

The question in my mind is why they changed the design. I believe that there are some significant sonic advantages to hornloading, if it's done right. But did they change things because of perceived auditory benefits? Did domes etc sound better? Or was it more about other concerns, such as saving space, making monitors smaller because they could, etc?

 

[CnoEvil]

Interestingly (or not).....

*shok*

DDC, you are always interesting.

 

[davedotco]

We are talking about horn loading at mid and high frequencies, the classic compression driver and horn.

There are both advantages and disadvantages of such a design, high sensitivity and good directivity control being the big advantages but high levels of distortion on transient signals being the big negative.

Compression drivers, as their name suggests, generate substantial pressures in their 'throat' which are most noticeable on transient signals like music, air is a 'fluid' and does not compress in a linear manner leading to harmonic distortion which the ear reacts to in specific ways. This can give the 'midrange' a certain presence and if overdone, higher frequencies develope a kind of 'zing'.

The result is a lack of tonal neutrality and listening fatigue, particularly at the kind of levels routinely used in recording studios of that era. Ever increasing amplifier power allowed for smaller, less sensitive speakers that could still generate pretty high levels.

That said, recording techniques have changed a lot from those days, The Who allegedly using 6 pairs of JBL 4350s for example.

For my own use I would love a pair of JBLs classic 2 ways from the late 60s, (4320 monitors or L200 hi-fi) I know their limitation but they are huge fun. Given their size, they will be too big for most homes but a moderm more sensible alternative would be the Adam A8x, an active design that mimics the speed and transparency of these classics and given that the bass driver is only 8.5in (rather than a 'proper' 15in), makes a decent stab at the scale and punch too.

 

[lpv]

Compression drivers, as their name suggests, generate substantial pressures in their 'throat' which are most noticeable on transient signals like music, air is a 'fluid' and does not compress in a linear manner leading to harmonic distortion which the ear reacts to in specific ways. This can give the 'midrange' a certain presence and if overdone, higher frequencies develope a kind of 'zing'.[/b]

The result is a lack of tonal neutrality and listening fatigue, particularly at the kind of levels routinely used in recording studios of that era. Ever increasing amplifier power allowed for smaller, less sensitive speakers that could still generate pretty high levels.

it is highly possible that 'zing' is what I've heard ( coming from EVs) on this bake off.. my first thought was: this can impress listener on a short demo and can lead to listening fatigue during longer sessions.. however, this is unconfirmed by myself..

I'd rather choose speakers I can listen all day without need for break ( it's even more important with headphones)

 

[oivavoi10]

We are talking about horn loading at mid and high frequencies, the classic compression driver and horn.

There are both advantages and disadvantages of such a design, high sensitivity and good directivity control being the big advantages but high levels of distortion on transient signals being the big negative.

Compression drivers, as their name suggests, generate substantial pressures in their 'throat' which are most noticeable on transient signals like music, air is a 'fluid' and does not compress in a linear manner leading to harmonic distortion which the ear reacts to in specific ways. This can give the 'midrange' a certain presence and if overdone, higher frequencies develope a kind of 'zing'.

The result is a lack of tonal neutrality and listening fatigue, particularly at the kind of levels routinely used in recording studios of that era. Ever increasing amplifier power allowed for smaller, less sensitive speakers that could still generate pretty high levels.

That said, recording techniques have changed a lot from those days, The Who allegedly using 6 pairs of JBL 4350s for example.

For my own use I would love a pair of JBLs classic 2 ways from the late 60s, (4320 monitors or L200 hi-fi) I know their limitation but they are huge fun. Given their size, they will be too big for most homes but a moderm more sensible alternative would be the Adam A8x, an active design that mimics the speed and transparency of these classics and given that the bass driver is only 8.5in (rather than a 'proper' 15in), makes a decent stab at the scale and punch too.

Very interesting. I don't know much about these designs, only know that I've often found that I like the sound of horns.

Slightly off-topic, but I don't know if you saw the reaction of Ashely James to this bake-off at the AVI forum? He essentially claims that the reason these listeners preferred the Sentrys, was the added distortion. And that the perceived over-smoothness of the AVIs actually is more natural. You're a much nicer and diplomatic chap than Ashley, it seems... But aren't you now saying partly the same thing? That a compression driver such as the one that is/was used in the sentrys is adding distortion? And that this may add presence to the midrange, and may even be perceived as enriching and interesting (and perhaps more "forward"). The same thing goes for some valve/tube amplifiers, I think. Adds distortion, but exactly this added even-order harmonic distortion can be perceived as musically enriching. That may be another reason why some of the people who like tubes also like horns so much.... (in addition to the fact that horns are easier to drive, and therefore go better together with tubes)

 

[Andrewjvt]

We are talking about horn loading at mid and high frequencies, the classic compression driver and horn.

There are both advantages and disadvantages of such a design, high sensitivity and good directivity control being the big advantages but high levels of distortion on transient signals being the big negative.

Compression drivers, as their name suggests, generate substantial pressures in their 'throat' which are most noticeable on transient signals like music, air is a 'fluid' and does not compress in a linear manner leading to harmonic distortion which the ear reacts to in specific ways. This can give the 'midrange' a certain presence and if overdone, higher frequencies develope a kind of 'zing'.

The result is a lack of tonal neutrality and listening fatigue, particularly at the kind of levels routinely used in recording studios of that era. Ever increasing amplifier power allowed for smaller, less sensitive speakers that could still generate pretty high levels.

That said, recording techniques have changed a lot from those days, The Who allegedly using 6 pairs of JBL 4350s for example.

For my own use I would love a pair of JBLs classic 2 ways from the late 60s, (4320 monitors or L200 hi-fi) I know their limitation but they are huge fun. Given their size, they will be too big for most homes but a moderm more sensible alternative would be the Adam A8x, an active design that mimics the speed and transparency of these classics and given that the bass driver is only 8.5in (rather than a 'proper' 15in), makes a decent stab at the scale and punch too.

Very interesting. I don't know much about these designs, only know that I've often found that I like the sound of horns.

Slightly off-topic, but I don't know if you saw the reaction of Ashely James to this bake-off at the AVI forum? He essentially claims that the reason these listeners preferred the Sentrys, was the added distortion. And that the perceived over-smoothness of the AVIs actually is more natural. You're a much nicer and diplomatic chap than Ashley, it seems... But aren't you now saying partly the same thing? That a compression driver such as the one that is/was used in the sentrys is adding distortion? And that this may add presence to the midrange, and may even be perceived as enriching and interesting (and perhaps more "forward"). The same thing goes for some valve/tube amplifiers, I think. Adds distortion, but exactly this added even-order harmonic distortion can be perceived as musically enriching. That may be another reason why some of the people who like tubes also like horns so much.... (in addition to the fact that horns are easier to drive, and therefore go better together with horns)

I have not read the avi forum since yesterday so dont know whats been said.

I want to clarify a few points.
First ive never claimed or said the avi dm10s sounded over smooth only smoother than the sentrys. Thats all the senteys push the frequency that little bit further.

We listened for a very long time and distortion was one of my questions to lindsay regarding the sentrys and another would have been fatigue over long periods. As ive only heard over the one period i cant say one way or the other so ill give you my impressions and lindsay can agree or differ opinion but im not sure.

Regarding the sentrys.
On first listen. Totally wowed by the clarity as was not expecting it to sound so clear.

On single instruments and simple arrangements hands down more realistic eg: pianno and violin etc.

Even on complex same result but in not sure if they could get a little congested on complex stuff or if they could get fatigue the ears slightly.
With the senteys also imo listening position is very important (i may be wrong)
More listening sessions would only show me this and im not sure but these are the questions i have. Still very impressed and ill say again has renewed my excitement to build the kit k100s in a big way.

Now the dm10s were smoother but for me still exciting and dynamic. And very revealing.

Even though not as extreme in the frequency also very close and im in no doubt that ine can listen over extended periods without fatigue. They sound very good also. They give off a very high end sound thats different and stands out. I think this is where the ear phones explanation comes in.

Like i said though 70kg speaker v a 10kg speaker.

When it comes to cost the cheaper ev senteys win in sound per pound but then a brand new equivalent would be very expensive also. So the avi dms represent amazing value for money. There are pros and cons