Some more picture:
1. Thrax Audio Gaida.
I think it is quite interesting. BMS4599 in mid horn 300-3000 Hz, 1" compression driver 3kHz up, dual 15" driver with motion feedback. Fully active system with crossover on DSP. Current drive amp for compression drivers. All the trick diyer could try to do :d Sound pretty good too. The drawback is soundstage, which is kinds of wall of sound for me.
1. Thrax Audio Gaida.
I think it is quite interesting. BMS4599 in mid horn 300-3000 Hz, 1" compression driver 3kHz up, dual 15" driver with motion feedback. Fully active system with crossover on DSP. Current drive amp for compression drivers. All the trick diyer could try to do :d Sound pretty good too. The drawback is soundstage, which is kinds of wall of sound for me.
If you are still there please go to Thorens room and tell me what you think about those open baffle speakers
Actually that is the picture from yesterday. I was there for only Thursday, which was a holiday anyway.
I have heard the open baffle speaker in room from Thorens on yesterday. I think it is a nice one like the Lyngdorf Model A, but not superb enough to be memorable. Tonality is on a sweet side of neutral, and the sound is very open, which is a trait of any decent designed open baffle speaker. But the deal breaker for me is imaging. Compared to other narrow baffle (LX521) or no baffle (IO Design Naked RS), their imaging is worse. Truth to be told, open baffle design or dipole design will never have imaging capability like horn speaker due to the strong back side reflection, but at least it need to be at the level of LX521.
From what I suspect, the top one of this speaker should be something like MTM, the bottom side should be a line array of some small driver since the thickness of the speaker is very short. What I don't understand is why there is an angle on the baffle, and why it is only on one side.
I have heard the open baffle speaker in room from Thorens on yesterday. I think it is a nice one like the Lyngdorf Model A, but not superb enough to be memorable. Tonality is on a sweet side of neutral, and the sound is very open, which is a trait of any decent designed open baffle speaker. But the deal breaker for me is imaging. Compared to other narrow baffle (LX521) or no baffle (IO Design Naked RS), their imaging is worse. Truth to be told, open baffle design or dipole design will never have imaging capability like horn speaker due to the strong back side reflection, but at least it need to be at the level of LX521.
From what I suspect, the top one of this speaker should be something like MTM, the bottom side should be a line array of some small driver since the thickness of the speaker is very short. What I don't understand is why there is an angle on the baffle, and why it is only on one side.
I had really hard time this year to fall in love with any of the systems presented. You mentioned Wilson chronosonic? I was surprised that I liked their presentation.
YG and Soulnote were making good sound, if I would be able to steal anything from this show it would be the Soulnote gear to drive the TL2 back at home.
What would your pick be?
To be honest, I never fall in love with any systems on audio shows. The acoustic side of the room is often terrible, and it is unfair to judge a system component completely based on it. The exception is when the speaker have some trait to utilize the room (narrow/no baffle dipole like LX521) and/or the speaker is designed to work with difficult environment (active high end bookself plus subs like Grimm LS1 + LS1s or D&D 8C last year). On the other hand, if the system have something special, this quality still shine despite of room acoustics, like the superiority of bass even in high volume like Vivid Moya or dynamic/lifelike sound of various horn system, at least in some frequency.
Overall, from this shows I like those systems.
1. Dipole: No Baffle Dipole (IO Design Naked RS), Narrow Baffle Dipole (LX521, outside but in the range of 30m from Munich Highend shows), Electrostatic (Popori Acoustics XR1)
2. Horn: SteinMusic TopLine Bob L, Lorenzo Audio Labs LM1, Cessaro's Zeta II horn
3. Box Speaker: YG Sonja + SoulNote electronics, TAD Reference One, Grimm LS1 + LS1s, Estalon Classics X, Rockport Avior II (with electronics from Brinkmann)
Some big names like Wilson Chronosonic (with electronics from CH Precision), Magico S5 (with Pilium Zeus amp), Magico S3 (with Audio Research new Reference 330M), Magico S3 (on MSB rooms), Martens Coltrane Quintet (with Halco amplifier), Kharma Enigma Veyron 2D, Avalon Precision PM2.2 (with some big tube Amp, I don't know the name), Rockport Atria 2 (with Absolare Integrated Amplifier), Linn System, is also decent, but nothing special to my ear.
Some Swiss system like from Goldmund, FM Acoustics still retain their lean, clear sound, not my favourite at all.
Worst sound: Audio Note, Voxativ (ok, they are really good at solo vocal, anything else terrible)
For a reasonable price, I think the new Mofi Electronics Source Point 888 is a really good choice.
Overall, from this shows I like those systems.
1. Dipole: No Baffle Dipole (IO Design Naked RS), Narrow Baffle Dipole (LX521, outside but in the range of 30m from Munich Highend shows), Electrostatic (Popori Acoustics XR1)
2. Horn: SteinMusic TopLine Bob L, Lorenzo Audio Labs LM1, Cessaro's Zeta II horn
3. Box Speaker: YG Sonja + SoulNote electronics, TAD Reference One, Grimm LS1 + LS1s, Estalon Classics X, Rockport Avior II (with electronics from Brinkmann)
Some big names like Wilson Chronosonic (with electronics from CH Precision), Magico S5 (with Pilium Zeus amp), Magico S3 (with Audio Research new Reference 330M), Magico S3 (on MSB rooms), Martens Coltrane Quintet (with Halco amplifier), Kharma Enigma Veyron 2D, Avalon Precision PM2.2 (with some big tube Amp, I don't know the name), Rockport Atria 2 (with Absolare Integrated Amplifier), Linn System, is also decent, but nothing special to my ear.
Some Swiss system like from Goldmund, FM Acoustics still retain their lean, clear sound, not my favourite at all.
Worst sound: Audio Note, Voxativ (ok, they are really good at solo vocal, anything else terrible)
For a reasonable price, I think the new Mofi Electronics Source Point 888 is a really good choice.
Last edited:
Ahh, I missed this one. I had plan to visit its room before coming, but somehow got side track by Lorenzo's horn speaker then completely forgot it.
Something I get from this Munich highend
1. It confirms me that for my taste of music, classical music, in a normal room then No/Narrow Baffle Dipole is a right choice. If a really big room, then dipole line array with planar/AMT driver or electrostatic is a good choice.
2. For lifelike dynamic in vocal, non-orchestral works then no better choice than horn, at least from 1000 Hz up, ideally 300-500 Hz. The midrange need to be at least 10", high sensitivity driver. Bass need high sensitivity driver or use generous amount of total Sd. But the choice of frequency in which horn will cover or size of midrange driver must be chosen based on the total area of room and the possible distance to listener, otherwise the sound will be disjointed.
3. Box speaker, even when well designed, is always kind of jack of all trade, master of none. They are good at many thing, but don't bring anything to the most satisfying level. Sound field can not compared to dipole in 3D term, dynamic, lifelike quality is always worse than well designed horn system.
And they need to have those thing to sound good to my ear: 1. big round over and/or deep bevel baffle and/or waveguide in tweeter to have disappeared effects. 2. a really well damped cabinet 3. a good sets of driver with enough Sd for bass music and the more the better. 4. Good crossover design. Those kinds of thing are never existed at reasonable price due to high cost of manufacturing and component. So diy is always a great choice to achieve great sound, considering that diyer have a decent budget, a good ability in wood working and crossover design.
1. It confirms me that for my taste of music, classical music, in a normal room then No/Narrow Baffle Dipole is a right choice. If a really big room, then dipole line array with planar/AMT driver or electrostatic is a good choice.
2. For lifelike dynamic in vocal, non-orchestral works then no better choice than horn, at least from 1000 Hz up, ideally 300-500 Hz. The midrange need to be at least 10", high sensitivity driver. Bass need high sensitivity driver or use generous amount of total Sd. But the choice of frequency in which horn will cover or size of midrange driver must be chosen based on the total area of room and the possible distance to listener, otherwise the sound will be disjointed.
3. Box speaker, even when well designed, is always kind of jack of all trade, master of none. They are good at many thing, but don't bring anything to the most satisfying level. Sound field can not compared to dipole in 3D term, dynamic, lifelike quality is always worse than well designed horn system.
And they need to have those thing to sound good to my ear: 1. big round over and/or deep bevel baffle and/or waveguide in tweeter to have disappeared effects. 2. a really well damped cabinet 3. a good sets of driver with enough Sd for bass music and the more the better. 4. Good crossover design. Those kinds of thing are never existed at reasonable price due to high cost of manufacturing and component. So diy is always a great choice to achieve great sound, considering that diyer have a decent budget, a good ability in wood working and crossover design.
Thank you for writing, it seems like we share more or less same ground and taste with our observations.
Most of the system you mentioned were my favorite as well.
The linkwitz lx521 I heard last year and very much enjoyed the soundstage depth it produced, it just lacks the bite and snap of a good horn.
More and more I feel that maybe there is a place for one more loudspeaker in this high end zoo.
I'm talking about the TL2 of Troels Gravesen.
It uses a horn for the tweeter and a 10inch driver for the midrange.
I am trying to set it up to work with a smaller woofer, a 12 inch instead of 18N862. Should work better in smaller room... seems to work... now working on the finnish and style. Here are some cupboard modeling and rendering.
Alas Troels has no interest of making this TL2 a commercial product, I asked, he refused.
Could have been a blast
I imagine any (fine enough) speakers give good imaging in wide variety of rooms as long as it is positioned properly in the room. Imaging seems to depend on listening distance. Shrink the listening triangle until you get clear imaging.
This is easy to test at home with your current setup. Multiple things happen when one gets closer to speakers, early reflections get later and all room sound quieter in relation to direct sound. So, moving closer to speakers sound changes and at some point hearing system can pick direct sound out from "noise" and suddenly provides clear image to your perception, room sound gets more enveloping instead of being lump in front. There is more to it, like edge diffraction and overall dynamic capability of speakers, which could affect.
I speculate horn systems just have it further into room. So next time, try and find where transition distance for clear imaging is with each setup in each room and listen if they differ in any way other than listening distance
I've been to one hifi show only, and about all setups had all listening chairs too far out into the room = no good (clear) imaging, but the typical early reflections enhanced bit blurry sound for everyone except me, who was bold enough to get close enough, where the good sound happens. Well, shows are tough since there are lots of people, but if you always get to close enough no matter which room and speakers, your own auditory system somewhat abstracts the room away and you'd be now evaluating mostly the speaker. Break the circle of confusion @tmuikku : I have doing this kind of tweak many times, but while it can improve the imaging a bit, they can not be at the level of horn speaker. Why? Because what you do is improve of direct/reflection sound, and this approach work best with box speaker. On dipole speaker, because of the sound energy is concentrated to a lob on front side (which is direct sound) and a lob on back side with strong amplitude (not diffused one like monopole box speaker), your approach is not very effective. On the other hand, horn speaker with big woofer tends to have narrow sound wave, so sound is more concentrate on front lobe. That's why I said dipole speaker can never have imaging capability of good horn speaker.
For good horn speaker, due to the fact that the horn is big and the woofer is big too (or many woofer), the distance from listener to speaker must be long enough so that all drivers can blend together, so you should never sit near field with horn speaker. And I found that the distance should be at least 6-8m with reasonable size horn speaker like SteinMusic TopLine Bob L, and higher with bigger horn system (15m with Aries Cerat huge horn system). For this kind of distance, the imaging is great if the track have enough performers to verify it, so I can confirm your hypothesis that the maximum distance for clear imaging with horn speaker is higher.
For good horn speaker, due to the fact that the horn is big and the woofer is big too (or many woofer), the distance from listener to speaker must be long enough so that all drivers can blend together, so you should never sit near field with horn speaker. And I found that the distance should be at least 6-8m with reasonable size horn speaker like SteinMusic TopLine Bob L, and higher with bigger horn system (15m with Aries Cerat huge horn system). For this kind of distance, the imaging is great if the track have enough performers to verify it, so I can confirm your hypothesis that the maximum distance for clear imaging with horn speaker is higher.
Last edited:
Hi trung224, thanks for your comment! What you describe for big horns I'd call that minimum listening distance instead, closer which one is too close. This is the official near field / far field of speaker, and one should be on the far field as you say.
What I ment by max distance is distance where everything that is needed for clear image perception is included, beyond which something happens and clarity is gone. Basically state of auditory system changes from being able to lock on to the direct sound and turn room sound into envelopment. Further out this doesn't happen and perception is just bit hazy sound somewhere in portion of room where the speakers are.
I think it's possible to have a speaker system in a room, where the room and speaker directivity would requires close listening distance to get the clarity (auditory system state change) while system size requires longer to be in far field, so there is no goldilock zone anywhere in the room in this case.
What I'm getting at there is four things that need to align for clear perception of image to happen, and those are auditory system in a state with stream separation that positioning enables given room and speakers. Any of these not aligned for the goal and perception doesn't happen. If you can maneuver yourself to a listening position where the clarity happens you know many things: you'd be far enough from speakers they integrate, but you'd be close enough regarding early reflections to direct sound so that direct sound is loud enough, speakers are positioned so that any of this was possible, and their directivity and other attributes are suitable for this positioning in this room be practical. Complicated may seem, but it's all tied to logic so not voodoo in that sense
It's mainly logic over David Griesinger studies what goes into thing called Proximity, and that is state of auditory system. Learning to listen state of auditory system in this recards enables the logic. If there is no state change available, one can deduct something or multiple things are wrong. To fix it start from shrinking stereo triangle, get the whole triangle further from boundaries, check toe-in and try again. Still not happening, perhaps speakers aren't good for the application.
If someone doesn't like listening like so but prefers local room "enhanced" sound it's fine. My point is only when the transition in perception is found, one can then relate the perceptio to logic and understand what is going on with the system. Not knowing this, auditory system state is unknown, which makes circle of confusion basically. Power here is, when the transition is known, the system can be positioned so that both states of auditory system sound good, and one can switch between at will, which ever soudns better given recording and mood.
Well, what I write is speculation as I do not have extensive experience on this, mainly my own setup in various rooms, some experiments with friends box store systems, and visit to a hifi show.
What I ment by max distance is distance where everything that is needed for clear image perception is included, beyond which something happens and clarity is gone. Basically state of auditory system changes from being able to lock on to the direct sound and turn room sound into envelopment. Further out this doesn't happen and perception is just bit hazy sound somewhere in portion of room where the speakers are.
I think it's possible to have a speaker system in a room, where the room and speaker directivity would requires close listening distance to get the clarity (auditory system state change) while system size requires longer to be in far field, so there is no goldilock zone anywhere in the room in this case.
What I'm getting at there is four things that need to align for clear perception of image to happen, and those are auditory system in a state with stream separation that positioning enables given room and speakers. Any of these not aligned for the goal and perception doesn't happen. If you can maneuver yourself to a listening position where the clarity happens you know many things: you'd be far enough from speakers they integrate, but you'd be close enough regarding early reflections to direct sound so that direct sound is loud enough, speakers are positioned so that any of this was possible, and their directivity and other attributes are suitable for this positioning in this room be practical. Complicated may seem, but it's all tied to logic so not voodoo in that sense
It's mainly logic over David Griesinger studies what goes into thing called Proximity, and that is state of auditory system. Learning to listen state of auditory system in this recards enables the logic. If there is no state change available, one can deduct something or multiple things are wrong. To fix it start from shrinking stereo triangle, get the whole triangle further from boundaries, check toe-in and try again. Still not happening, perhaps speakers aren't good for the application.
If someone doesn't like listening like so but prefers local room "enhanced" sound it's fine. My point is only when the transition in perception is found, one can then relate the perceptio to logic and understand what is going on with the system. Not knowing this, auditory system state is unknown, which makes circle of confusion basically. Power here is, when the transition is known, the system can be positioned so that both states of auditory system sound good, and one can switch between at will, which ever soudns better given recording and mood.
Well, what I write is speculation as I do not have extensive experience on this, mainly my own setup in various rooms, some experiments with friends box store systems, and visit to a hifi show.
Last edited:
I do not know of any room that big enough to do justice for Aries Cerat System. The system made me be very eco conscious, felt bad for being a puny citizen and for the huge tree that had to be cut off to make this beast.
About Horns, not all Horns made equal, I really didn't like the huge Cessaro system, would take their smaller offerings any time
Maybe less is more in audio.
About Horns, not all Horns made equal, I really didn't like the huge Cessaro system, would take their smaller offerings any time
Maybe less is more in audio.
Yep, in my view best system can be described being "problem free system", which includes how the speakers plays with the room and listener in the feedback loop.
The big multi horn systems don't make much sense for domestic rooms, overkill for no good reason having some potential thats perhaps never utilized, but comes with trade-offs somewere regardless, that matters like the nearfield extending too far regarding room acoustics so there is no good listening position. Better approach, in my logic, is to sacrifice any overkill stuff in order to eliminate some trade-offs that matter, in order to get more problem free system. As philosophical framework to navigate all this complexity prioritizing perceived sound quality above all else
Perhaps obvious and important implication is to know what is important, to know what one wants to hear from their system, then be able to select suitable system for the room and context in general. Big horns might be the ticket if practical listening position is far away, or "optimal" sound isn't necessarily the priority, what ever that is. If practical listening position is few meters away the speaker likely needs to be smaller than one meter, and so on, to get The Sound happen where one usually sits at.
edit. how does this relate to hifi show in munich then? well, finding the auditory system transition in show room, or not finding it, one can now use logic to relate the system into their own context at home, if it would work there or not and what would it sound like there. Anyway, please continue I'm way of munich and speakers presented there
The big multi horn systems don't make much sense for domestic rooms, overkill for no good reason having some potential thats perhaps never utilized, but comes with trade-offs somewere regardless, that matters like the nearfield extending too far regarding room acoustics so there is no good listening position. Better approach, in my logic, is to sacrifice any overkill stuff in order to eliminate some trade-offs that matter, in order to get more problem free system. As philosophical framework to navigate all this complexity prioritizing perceived sound quality above all else
Perhaps obvious and important implication is to know what is important, to know what one wants to hear from their system, then be able to select suitable system for the room and context in general. Big horns might be the ticket if practical listening position is far away, or "optimal" sound isn't necessarily the priority, what ever that is. If practical listening position is few meters away the speaker likely needs to be smaller than one meter, and so on, to get The Sound happen where one usually sits at.
edit. how does this relate to hifi show in munich then?
well, finding the auditory system transition in show room, or not finding it, one can now use logic to relate the system into their own context at home, if it would work there or not and what would it sound like there. Anyway, please continue I'm way of munich and speakers presented there
Last edited:
Personally, I think there is too much trade off in speaker design and the way its interact with room acoustics, especially normal room. So if you want to create the end-game system in specific room to satisfy all music material to highest quality, it is an impossible task. If you try to "sacrifice any overkill stuff to get more problem free system", which is in my book a big compromise way, you will end up at best like Grimm Audio LS1 + LS1s system, great but jack of all trade and master of none.
My approach is different. I will choose the important quality of system that cannot be done through other type of system, and design to preserve this quality and minimize the problem caused by this type of system in my room. For example, my main music is classical, and vocal music (US/UK pop, and Asian). For orchestral music, I have my no baffle dipole speaker now. This system is excel in 3D soundstage and create very strong phantom image, which cannot be done with other type of system. Its imaging quality with careful toe in at my position, 3.5m from speaker, is good enough and equivalent to what I experience when I sit in row 5-8 in concert hall, which is good enough for me. But honestly, I miss the dynamic, bite and vivid of sound I get when I sit near the artist in small chamber hall. This type of dynamic is in my experience only available through horn speaker, so I will make a horn speaker. Of course, since my listening room is not large, I must compromise that I cannot use a big horn to cover 500Hz up or I cannot use 15" driver for midrange. But I can settle to a horn cover 1000-1200Hz up and 10-12" midrange.
This kind of approach will result that I must have two system in one room, but only this way I can maximize my listening enjoyment without compromising. My notion is that when one have two choices, children choose one of them but adult should choose both At least, since we are diyer, we can use our time and pay some decent money to get there without needing to spend 20k or 200k Euro.
For me, this Munich High End is a good experience, as now I know what I need to do, which is make a horn speaker in the format of SteinMusic or Lorenzo Acosutics.
My approach is different. I will choose the important quality of system that cannot be done through other type of system, and design to preserve this quality and minimize the problem caused by this type of system in my room. For example, my main music is classical, and vocal music (US/UK pop, and Asian). For orchestral music, I have my no baffle dipole speaker now. This system is excel in 3D soundstage and create very strong phantom image, which cannot be done with other type of system. Its imaging quality with careful toe in at my position, 3.5m from speaker, is good enough and equivalent to what I experience when I sit in row 5-8 in concert hall, which is good enough for me. But honestly, I miss the dynamic, bite and vivid of sound I get when I sit near the artist in small chamber hall. This type of dynamic is in my experience only available through horn speaker, so I will make a horn speaker. Of course, since my listening room is not large, I must compromise that I cannot use a big horn to cover 500Hz up or I cannot use 15" driver for midrange. But I can settle to a horn cover 1000-1200Hz up and 10-12" midrange.
This kind of approach will result that I must have two system in one room, but only this way I can maximize my listening enjoyment without compromising. My notion is that when one have two choices, children choose one of them but adult should choose both
At least, since we are diyer, we can use our time and pay some decent money to get there without needing to spend 20k or 200k Euro.For me, this Munich High End is a good experience, as now I know what I need to do, which is make a horn speaker in the format of SteinMusic or Lorenzo Acosutics.
Last edited:
Please consider TL2/TL3 from Troels Gravesen. I am using MasterSound 845 compact single ended amp with them. They disappear, they bite and snap with tremendous dynamic and as a Gustav Mahler fan I have never heard a better rendering of Mahler work on other speakers.
@noamgeller : Thanks for the recommendation. I will definitely consider this option. I also a huge fan of Mahler's symphony. Actually my first exposure to horn speaker is fifteen years ago when I heard the Bernstein's Mahler 1 recordings (with VPO) with I think Avantgarde's speaker
Last edited:
Nothing like mahler live on stage.
Dritte Sinfonie Erste Satz- Solo Trompete and you immediately realize that loudspeakers are extremely handicap and can only replicate a faint shadow of instrument dynamics capabilities. It was a good shock and a bitter one to realize that.
What a guy this Mahler was... not envy though! just speechless recognizing his depths.