2. speakers
  3. 1080384372

Current Trends in multi thousand dollar speakers

Have any of you been paying attention to the current trends in larger multi-woofer speakers that cost multiple thousands of dollars? So that many of you can follow along, i'll use the Legacy Focus 20/20's at $6K, the Piega C8's at $15K and the Aerial 20T's at $23K as points of reference. All of these have been reviewed in Stereophile over the last few months. If you're not familiar with these, all of them are vertical dynamic designs using multiple woofers in vented cabinets.

If you look at the response of of these speakers, they all have very pronounced bass peaks with elevated low frequency plateau's taking place. Of these three, the Legacy's are by far the worst of the bunch. Not only do they diverge from neutrality the most ( +7 dB peak @ 100 Hz ), their elevated bass output or "low frequency plateau" levels out at 40 Hz and at 400 Hz. That is over 3+ octaves of "extra" output that wasn't on the recording. Above 400 Hz, the output levels off with very noticeable rippling slightly above that point in the midrange and multiple large peaks with a dip up in the treble response. Below 40 Hz, the output drops like a rock. The reason that the plateau levels out at 40 Hz is because of the associated sharp roll-off associated with vents below their point of resonance.

To sum things up, this speaker, which Paul Bolin raved about in Stereophile, is anything but "smooth" or "linear" in reproduction. As can be seen in the graphs, there is a very definite "boom & sizzle" type of response taking place here. As a side note, i found that the Legacy Signature III's showed a similar large bass peak centered at appr 100 - 110 Hz, so this would seem to be a consistent design attribute / "house sound" / "family voice" to Legacy speakers.

Moving onto the Piega's, their overall response looks to be measurably smoother than the Legacy's from the midrange on up. As far as bass goes, the Piega's peak occurs at an amplitude of +5 dB's and is centered at appr 85 Hz. Their "bass plateau" is quite wide, actually just as wide as that of the Legacy. Both show the same appr "elevated output" aka "bloat" from about 40 Hz to 400 Hz. Much like the Legacy's, the Piega shows the typical sharp roll-off below 40 Hz due to the output of the vent being out of phase with that of the undamped woofer. Even though both speakers show very similar plateau's and a similar F3 ( -3 dB point ), the Legacy's bass plateau has both a higher peak and a higher average.

Moving up to the $23K price range, we've got the Aerial 20T's. Similar to the Piega's, the Aerial's are reasonably smooth in response from the mids on up with a few low amplitude peaks and dips. Side by side comparisons though, it would appear that the Piega's are a little "flatter".

When it comes to low frequency performance, the Aerial's produced a +5 db peak centered at appr 60 Hz. Of the three speakers mentioned here, the amplitude of the peak is the same of the Piega's ( +5 dB's ), which is much lower ( 66% reduction ) than that of the +7 dB peak of the Legacy's. Even with this 66% reduction of the peak amplitude at resonance compared to the Legacy's, we are still talking about a divurgence of +5 dB's here!!!

As far as the "bass plateau" goes with the 20T's, this speaker is much more linear than either of the above. While the Aerial's also level out at appr 40 Hz and drop like a rock below that point, the upper end of the bass region is MUCH smoother. Whereas the others were contributing added output up to appr 400 Hz, the Aerial's are leveling out at appr 120 Hz or so. In effect, the Aerial's appear to offer the most controlled bass with the least amount of bass colouration. Then again, they are by far the most expensive also.


As far as low frequency extension is concerned, the Aerial's resonance peak is centered the lowest of the three i.e. 60 Hz for the Aerial's vs 85 Hz for the Piega's and 100 Hz for the Legacy. Even though the Aerial's have a resonance that is 25 Hz below that of the Piega's and 40% lower in frequency than the Legacy's, all of their -3 dB points are within a very few Hz of each other. While the graph's aren't completely legible, it appears that the F3 ( -3 dB point ) for all of these speakers are right about 34 - 38 Hz or so. How do such different designs achieve similar F3's? It has to do with the tuning of the vents and the amplitude of the peaks at resonance.

By creating a huge peak at resonance, it takes longer for the amplitude of the signal to fall off. As such, the Legacy's much larger peak at resonance allows it to achieve appr the same F3 on paper that the other designs worked harder to achieve. As such, were the Legacy's designed this way because they like the sound of massive bloat? Were they designed this way so that they could claim a lower F3? Could it be a combo of the two? We'll probably never know.

What does all of this add up to? Judged in comparison to each other and strictly talking about bass linearity, the Aerial looks the best on paper by far. Why just on paper? Because we have to factor in the added gain associated with in-room response. Our ears hear the entire presentation i.e. the speaker and how the speaker loads up / pressurizes & excites the room. As such, what looks the best on paper may not be what you like the most in your room. If you're room is properly set-up, the results on paper and the results in the room should pretty well jive. That is, at least as far as frequency response & linearity go. There are a LOT of other factors going on here though, not to mention personal preference.

What happens if the room isn't properly set up? Compared to anechoic responses, all speakers will have greater output / added extension when placed in an average listening room. While specific speaker placement comes into play in terms of the extension and amount of boost, most rooms will produce maximum ouput somewhere in the 50 - 80 Hz range. Obviously, this varies with the size and shape of the room.

The net effect is that these speakers are going to produce even MORE bass than what they already show in these graphs. Not only are we picking up low frequency output from what is called "room gain" ( "cabin gain" in a vehicle ) by pressurizing the room, we are also going to be exciting the resonances of the room too. All of this adds up to GOBS more "apparent bass". Add in the fact that this bass lacks speed and control* and you've got "bloated, ill-defined thump" running rampant.

Other than that, one has to wonder just how extended the bass response of these designs would be if they didn't have such HUGE peaks? After all, the higher the peak at resonance, the lower the -3 dB point of the speaker appears to be. Do we have to add "bloat" to get extension? How do you get around all of this and still keep good sound? That's easy but it is a completely different subject : )

What i want to know is, what do you folks think about this type of performance at these price levels? Is there anything that we can learn from this? Do we see a specific trend taking place here and in other parts of the audio market? Inquiring minds want to know : ) Sean
>

* vented designs all suffer from a lack of transient response, increased ringing, over-shoot and phase problems. In this respect, a well designed port is typically "more linear" than a passive radiator.
sean

Showing 7 responses by bigtee

bigtee
803 posts
 
There was a big Legacy Focus discussion in this forum a while back. From some of the positive responses for the Legacy, I would have to agree with Sean's opinion that the market is driven by certain "Inaccuracies" in design to please the masses.
In the case of the 20T, JA tried to discount the bass peak somewhat with microphone level or something like that. He also noted the slight(and according to the chart-very slight)dip in the upper mids that he atributed it to what the reviewer heard in the response. I have seen much worse responses that JA has not said a negative word about in the testing of other speakers. The 20T was pretty darn flat in the world of speakers today through the mids and highs. The bass was pretty bad for a speaker at this price level. Of course I have never, ever liked ported designs. As Sean says, everyone of them are bumped up at a point to give the "Illusion" of extension so the roll off looks better.
I always thought "Hi-end" was about accuracy and truth to the source. I know a lot of people say accuracy isn't the only criteria and that is true. But, if you start with accuracy, add in neutrality and honesty to the source, I think you stand for having a speaker that performs well over a wider range of source material. It won't require so much tuning with cables, power cords, etc.
Richard Hardesty dedicated one of his Audio Perfectionist Journals to reading measured speaker performance. It was eye opening at the number of proven inaccurate speakers that were passed for being "Hi-end."
I personally believe you must start with accurate reponse across the frequency spectrum and then go from there. If you don't have accurate frequency response, then everything else is a moot point.
bigtee
803 posts
 
In the imperfect world of speakers, it would be nice to see a speaker at least within + or - 3db over a range of say 40-20k. The closer the speaker is to flat, yes, I believe it has a better chance at being accurate. As I stated, I believe everything must start with a accurate frequency response as possible, then go from there.
There is no perfect speaker but look at Vandersteen and Thiel for example. In a chamber, they are pretty dang flat (as the 20T was through the mids and highs.) Both these manufacturers(upper lines especially) hold their specs at + or - 1.5db from the upper 30's to at least 20k(1.2 in the case of the 5A.) In the case of the Vandersteen (and probably the Theil), they are matched within + or - .5db to each other or less.
The point here is, these manufacturer's have a proven accurate speaker(in todays world of accurate) at a much lower price point(especially in the case of Vandersteen.) You may not (and don't have to) like their sound, but they are accurate by any standard and built superbly to boot.
Look at the Legacy Focus 20/20. Do you feel + or - 10db to be accurate even if you think the speaker sounds good?
bigtee
803 posts
 
The Vandersteen 2's and 3's use a design where the enclosure is sealed with an active acoustic coupler below 35hz which does act somewhat like a passive radiator reacting to the front woofer. However, since the drivers are active, it gives you the best of both worlds. I have not found the Vandersteen bass to not be linear. Maybe I'm miss understanding the term linear. With this setup, the bass goes smoothly from its upper range to a roll off around the 30-35 hz area. Compared to other speakers in this price range, it's pretty darn good. I also think it performs better than ported speakers. Its transient response may not be the worlds best but for the price, it will compete with anything in its class. Of course I have gotten around this somewhat by using a pair of Vandersteen subs and rolling out the bass below 80hz.
The model 5 and 5A are not passive at all using a powered subwoofer. When set up properly, they offer extremely powerful, articulate and clean bass. I know of no other speaker that comes close to the performance of the 5/5A's performance at anywhere close to the price.
It is amazing at the performance Vandersteen can offer for these prices in both design and quality. It is certainly more difficult to design a time coherent and acoustically correct phase speaker.
I think the measured and published specifications speak for themselves for his speakers compared to any price but more especially at what they can be had for.
My point is back to the original statement, why is it that costs can be so high for a speaker that doesn't perform as well or any better than a speaker selling for $10000 less. It has got to make you wonder.
bigtee
803 posts
 
Sean, I think your paragraph on setup is probably the most important bit of information to come from this thread. I understood this many years ago when I first got into Vandersteen. These speakers are a pain in the butt to get set up correctly and it has taken me years to really figure it out. Once set up, they are pretty impressive.
As for your statement on high frequency roll-off and drive problems, I don't know about that. Any test I have seen shows them flat out to past 20K. I have used special measuring instruments and a signal generator in my room and as mine sit, they are pretty flat to 20k.
If you are refering to the Vandersteens sounding rolled, well that's another story. It is partly the design of the speaker. Since the tweeters acoustic output arrives with the mids, they don't throw a bright sound at you(although with the wrong electronics, I have heard mine bright) Also, setup is so important and Richards suggestions are just that, suggestions.
I have had many speakers through my room and the Vandersteen's do not sound rolled in comparison to any of them in this setting. I have found them articulate, with pristine highs. If I had a gripe, it would probably be more in the midrange arena.
If you ever make it to the Charleston area here in SC, you're more than welcome to stop by. We have good seafood and a beautiful city. I think you could be pleasantly surprised on how a Vandersteen can really sound as a bi-product of years of fine tuning a system.(Of course along the way, I have thought of dumping the whole thing and buying a new boat!)
Right now, I'm disappointed in high end audio. It has lost something along the way. I've been at this for over 35 years and I've never been more disappointed with much of the new entries that are coming out.
Everytime a new product comes out, everyone jumps on the bandwagon only to dismiss it a few months down the road for the latest and greatest.
People can argue against accuracy and argue about this and that. However, I have never heard an accurate speaker(relatively speaking) that didn't sound decent. I guess in the process, the designer pays attention to the other stuff also.
With all the variables in audio, which ones do we want to take as truth. I mean, my kids think their car stereos are the end of the reproduction chain. Hey, it sounds good to them. So, I guess it fits into the high end---it sounds good. So what if it has a 15db boost at 80hz. And this is what I reading from some of the posters here. High end redefined!
We have to start somewhere and I feel accurate acoustical output is it. I think it is better to tune the room than tune the speaker.
bigtee
803 posts
 
Just to add something to Sean's post since he mentioned AR, there was that big fuss between the large Advent(a sealed system) and the JBL Century 100(which was ported)back in the 70's. The JBL had a lot of frequency deviations but would play much louder and seemed to have more drive(it was also a lot more efficient.) All of this was the "West coast sound" vs. the "East coast sound."
Seems to me the manufacturers have changed but the war goes on. Some people love the inaccurate sound(which is ok) My point is, I thought "High end" was the pursuit of accuracy in reproduction. Not that it sounded good to select people. Of course, I can also see a manufacturers position but lets be honest about it, if we are going to accept some of these speakers then why can't Bose be accepted? They cost enough for crap they are!
When you listen to a truly accurate speaker, it sounds -well-dull compared to others. However, it will sound better in a few months and with a wider variety of material once you get use to it.
On another subject, I have found that in setting up my Vandersteen subs to mate with the 3A Signatures, that when set correctly, they do sound lean. The Vandy subs can be adjusted for a "Q" of just under .5 to something along about a "Q' of 1.5.
As you go up in Q, the bass sounds more prominent. As you go the other way, it gets very, very tight and sounds lean. Now of course you can raise the level, but then output of the subs is exceeding the output of the mids and highs of the main speakers. Everything can actually be shown just as Sean explained above. The Vandersteen 3A Sigs seem to be set for a Q of about .7 or so. The subs integrate well set at about a Q of .6 to .7 You can set the Q lower but the bass becomes very lean and detaches from the music a touch. I really don't see how you get a sub to match without some control over the Q differences between the lower section of the mains and the sub.
Roy makes a valid point above about phase relationships. I became convinced sometime ago that phase and time was an issue. I still stand convinced on this subject. One of these days, I'm going to give one of his speakers a run.
bigtee
803 posts
 
Richard Hardesty has just added a couple of "Watchdog" reports to his web sight on the very issue of what is being discussed here(from new stuff at the show). Imagine a proffessional reviewer saying some of the things he says in these articles. Go to www.audioperfectionist.com and read up.
bigtee
803 posts
 
Sean, The new APJ is now mailed and is no longer an online download. He just offered a new watchdog for subscribers only(#16.) For anyone desiring to see a pretty unbiased account of audio, read Hardesty's journals. The first two are a free downloads from his sight. It is interesting reading to say the least. You may not agree with everything he says(which he does mentioned as perfectly ok with him) but he really explains and sorts thing out. The one thing I really appreciate is the fact he gives you an explanation for everything he states as his beliefs. He also does not deal with the "What ifs" but the "What is." As a side note, I'm sure he will upset electrostatic / planer people!
More to discover