Can you get "bookshelf sound" from a floorstander?

9rw,

I do like some pro audio gear, but I've never owned/lived with any at home. OTOH, I have lived with Thiel (3.x, late '90s can't recall the precise designation, probably because they belonged to girlfriend's former boyfriend). I've also heard the SC-IV and Vandy 2s (Vandy 5 and Quattro, just a bit less) extensively. I'm completely unfamiliar with Von Schweikert and Totem.

IME, the Thiels would be closest in character to the Merlin, though they have greater ultimate output capability in the bass and a slightly crisper upper mid/treble. It's the latter quality that would lead me back to the VSMs - which themselves walk a fine line for me in this regard.

The SC-IV are a very different animal with a more prominent bottom octave, a tonality that many people prefer, but just ain't my cup of tea for the long run. The Vandy 2 is great - a warm, musical speaker that represents great value, but isn't IMHO in the same league as any of the others you listed for audiophile "Parlor tricks". It's probably the best value of the bunch if you're not a hobbyist.

Oddly, my associated stuff looks a lot like yours.

Primarily LS-25/VT-130SE. Sources include a Sony SCD-1, Cary 303, and QSonix server with Benchmark DAC 1 and a DacMagic for digital. Analog is via an Aesthetix Rhea fed by an Oracle/Graham/Graham and a A-Solid/Rega/Lyra.

I also use these same sources with a Joule Line Amp with TAD SS monos (previously a Krell KSA 50s and later Odyssey monos) for SS. Tube options now include Cary 300Bs and 805s, Prima Luna 7s, and a Panacor Dyna St-70 reissue. There were too many tube amps thru the system over the last 10 years to list all of them here. On occasion, I've used my Bel Canto and Pathos integrated with the VSMs as well.

Other speakers currently include the Verity Parsifal Encore, Sonus Faber Cremona, Zingali 3s, Red Rose Ribbon monitor, and a biamp set up where mains are either Ohm 100s or Maggie SMGs with digitally room corrected subs. You may have noticed that I have some sort of disorder regarding the hording of hardware.

I'm a bit surprised that you'd group Thiel, Dunlavy and Vandy since (despite the common use of first order x-overs) these speakers sound very different, one to the next, to my ear. The Vandys, in particular, come from a different place; unless you're talking Quatros or 5s, which can be adjusted to sound like a lot of different things, including - to some extent - VSMs.

As to hearing the separate drivers in the VSMs, either your friend has much better hearing than me (possible!) and everyone else who has heard the speaker with me (feels less likely), is mistaken (also possible), or there's some issue with your particular speakers. Literally, dozens of people (including many audio hobbyists) have heard the VSMs at the various homes my VSMs have resided in over the years, and none has made that particular comment. A fair number of folks have said they'd prefer a different tonal balance (read: more bass), but that matter of personal preference ALWAYS comes into play for extended bandwidth speakers. Some like vanilla, others prefer chocolate.

There are always different takes on any speaker system, and I respect those opinions. The only reason that I commented is because the issues of driver integration and system compatibility aren't the ones that I'd ever associate with Merlin VSMs. I will concede that system matching is often something of a fetish for many Merlin owners, but that's not because there's only one right answer.

I believe that the idea of "magic" system matching to optimize the VSMs' performance arises because:

A) The speaker is very revealing. This motivates listeners to comment on upstream equipment more often than a less revealing alternative (the Vandy being a prime example, IMHO) might.

and

B) Bobby has strong opinions on system matching and fans of the speakers sometimes take that to exclude alternative choices.


Feels like one of those "agree to disagree".

Marty

Tvad,

I own VSMs and concur.

I also have Preludes in my gym. That one's a bit of a stretch. A good speaker and great value, but not a substitute for a top shelf monitor.

Marty

9rw,

The VSM presents a sufficiently benign load to the amp that virtually ANY model over 10-15 wpc will work well. I've used more than a dozen different power amps from 300B SET designs to SS high output monsters. Ironically, it allows successful system matching with a greater variety of amps than just about any other extended bandwidth speaker (in-room bass to <30hz) that I've heard. Bobby's personal preferences aside, it's simply wrong to suggest that anyone need change out their system to accomodate VSMs (unless they're running flea powered SET amps).

I'd also point out that the system is a 2 way with x-over at 2200hz. This set up should intuitively provide more "coherent" sound than 3 ways or systems which feature x-over points in the octave or 2 around middle C, where the ear is most sensitive to discontinuity. In my experience, that is exactly what happens with the VSM.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinions, but your specific criticisms of the VSM are at odds with my 10+ years of experience with this speaker. It's not perfect, by any means, but it is Very easy to match to the amp of your choice and it is Very "coherent" (seamless) for a speaker with its low bass roll-off point.

Marty

9rw,

I tend to agree with you re: accuracy...to an extent.

I've measured the VSMs @ +/- 4db from 120hz to 15khz in my last room, and -3db at 33hz, -10db at 25hz: which is pretty good in my book. (There was some unappetizing lumpiness between 35hz and 120hz, but it's all room related).

Unfortunately, that's a static test tone, on-axis measurement. It's the best measurement we have -IMHO- for judging accuracy, but far from dispositive. By this test, the VSMs are as good as anything I've measured (except for the room corrected subs below app 80hz). I still can't say that makes them more accurate than others which do worse on this particular test because some people may prefer room response to on-axis testing. There are also tests for dynamic behavior (which I've never tried). Are small errors in the mid-range more important than somewhat larger errors above or below the key midle octaves. Small colorations vs octave to octave imbalances? How do you prioritize?

So, to be fair, accuracy is somewhat subjective - you pick your test to reflect your priorities.

Marty

9rw,

I'd say that frequency response is FOR ME much, much more than half the story, but your point is taken...to an extent. The idea that any single deviation from thoretically perfect neutrality in any ONE respect can be deemed equal to another deviation in a different respect is simply not true on the face of it. Deviation from flat on-axis frequency response versus power response versus bandwidth versus dynamic compresssion can't be quantified to measure relative importance.

To your 3 specific points: coherency in 1st order x-overs, large systems, and dynamics:

1) First order analog crossovers cause drivers to significantly overlap in their operating ranges, a condition which presents it's own issues. If phase perfect response is half the story and frequency response the other half, why aren't you using a room corrected, digitally crossed system? These speakers will typically deliver near perfect in-room frequency and phase response, and any event will blo away your system (and mine) on these parameters.

Note also that the crossovers in these devices will typically be designed for super HIGH order operation, specifically to avoid the problems associated with first order crossovers. I assume you don't go this way because FR and phase response together are NOT the whole story.

2 + 3) Properly designed large systems have greater capability? I don't entirely follow. Large cabinets often mean more bass capability, but that's no free lunch, either. More cabinet often means more cabinet coloration, impaired imaging, etc. If you mean 3 way systems are superior to 2 way systems (assuming extended bandwidth), that's a mixed bag, too. You may get more dynamic capability, but usually at the EXPENSE of the coherence of a 2 way system (additional x-over and driver).

Also, if you really want to maximize dynamics, your sub should be crossed in much, much higher than it is (and shouldn't be a REL). However, I'm gonna guess that you object to the integration issues of higher x-over frequency and chose REL for it's superior "speed" (group delay performance). I'd go the other way EVERY TIME, but that doesn't make me right, either.

Look, you like what you like because you have your priorities. That's cool. But don't confuse the "greater capability" of a large system with superior "sense of realism" in any given room. That is an overstatement.

Marty

Sorry all.

Got involved in the debate at the expense of the OP, but won't go any further. At $1k, I'll defer to Tvad, the Prelude is a good call.

Marty

Since the last 8 posts here have been Bobby and 9rw and are OT, I'll start a new thread for you guys, see:

Another Merlin Thread

Then we can return this one to "regular programming" for the OP.

Marty

Ron,

I hold a Masters degree from the Stern school. I have been published more than once. I can play a piano. The last concert I attended was an organ recital at the Great Cathedral in Passau, Germany, the largest such instrument in Europe. I have also served as EP on the most recent release by a prominent LA based French Horn player (who shall remain nameless as I have an economic interest in this product). Want to make any more guesses about my tastes, experience, or credentials?

I'll give you this: You're consistent. Unlike even a broken clock, you're never right.

9RW,

I don't know why you'd be surprised that I've kept the LS 25. Oh, yeah, I do - it's because you're not remotely as clever as you think you are.

I don't replace electronics in my listening room very often. The ARC stuff is nearing age 12/13/14ish and remains my primary chain. Since I rotate speakers fairly often (when the mood strikes, as this is a hobby for me) I do have other electronics I use when I feel the ARC isn't the best choice - including those ocassions when the VSMs are in rotation. I also have set-ups in my gym, office, family room, etc. which accounts for the balance of the inventory.

So, yes, Ron, your mistake. One among many.

Marty

Ron,

Your capacity for error is impressive.

I never said 1st order crossovers were worse than any other design, merely that they presented their own advantages AND disadvantages. I assure you that Thiel, Vandersteen, and Dunlavy would be the first to agree with this statement. They prefer working around the trade-offs presented by first order crossovers.

OTOH, designers from several other respected companies go a different way. Current favorites from Magico and YG are good examples as are the most recent top models from Revel, among many, many others. Maybe they missed the news. But I'm sure you can point out their errors to them - maybe in a peer review journal.

Now, let's talk about someone with real credentials - Sigfried Linkwietz, who literally wrote the book on modern crossover design. If you have any willingness to explore the issue (which I doubt), I'd suggest you look at the work posted by Linkwietz at his website where he explains the advantages and disadvantages of various crossover designs. Oddly, he uses different crossover slopes for different projects, as he deems optimal. He rarely first order designs, though, finding that the DISADVANTAGES usually outweigh the advantages. Of course, I'm sure you'll explain to him why he is wrong. In one of those peer review journals you seem to enjoy so much.

Are you really arrogant enough to believe that every attempt at SOTA loudspeaker design must perforce employ first order crossovers? Because less than a handful of respected designers chose that route? While so many others have gone a different way?

I guess you are. And just plain smug, to boot. And wrong. Again.

Marty

Ron,

I can only assume that you're kidding. Grammar and syntax? Psst - I got a secret for ya. Folks take some liberties with the formal rules of the language on this here internet thingy. It's called "conversational" English and it's assumed to be the default choice for exchanges like this one. Even a numbskull like you could not possibly have been confused by any of the linguistic constructions you cited in your post. That makes 'em okay here.

BTW, I've been paid for authoring technical articles on subjects ranging from alternative energy finance structures to DWDM technology in subsea cables. I've also been very well paid for my work on drafting complex financial documentation. When I need to employ more formal language, I do so. It's just that I know when it's appropriate. You can't distinguish such context? Who'da guessed that? Pedantic ass.

As to your repeated mistakes, well, let's see. You have speculated about my taste in music, preference for pro gear, inexperience with first order loudspeaker designs, and educational background, among other things. In each case, you were wrong. Are you starting to see a pattern?

Marty

FYI, The Stern School is the business school at NYU. Last I looked, the admission policy at Stern was among the most academically selective in the country.

Sloppy is right - it's informal. I don't edit.
It's called sarcasm when you're right. When you're wrong, it's called wrong.

Bye. Enough for me - last word is yours.

Tvad, of course you're right. It got under my skin because I let it.

Marty