Most Transparent Speakers under $1500? (1 Viewer)

[Paul_Scott]

Lee,
what kind of system qualifications are needed?
can you get by with an Onkyo or Yamaha or Denon reciever?
also, what would i do for a center channel.
the primary purpose is HT, but i find now that if i can get 1/2 way decent gear, i'm sure i will be listening to music much much more.

also what surrounds could i use ( ineed as small as possible here).
and finally,
are these the kind of speakers that sound phenomonal on great sources, but are merciless on the less than great?
a major concern for me, because quite a lot of my collection is old movies with less than stellar audio tracks.

 

[Martice]

I don't think you can beat the Magneplaner 1.6QRs at $1700 (maybe you can get the dealer down a bit) for transparency and imaging.

I've heard that they do an impressive soundstage. Worth a try I think.

 

[John A. Casler]

Of course most of the speakers mentioned will offer a degree of what many would call transparency. Transparency is the ability of a speaker to allow you to see (hear) the sound without the typical "veils".

Veils are descriptive of the sonic barriers to clarity that our speakers and electronics impart to the sound, so that as we improve the speakers and electronics we seem to be removing more and more veils, layer by layer. This is when the sound becomes clearer and clearer. We begin to hear sonic minutia that we never heard before or was covered by hash and very low level distortion.

"IF" this is what you seek, then the best speaker I have heard with this quality is the VMPS line of neodynium ribbon speakers. Because of the inertia of cone type speakers they inherently cannot move as quickly as these ribbons and subsequetly they impart sonic artifacts and overhang. They simply cannot resolve the detail the ribbons can.

Much of what has been said about soundstage and imaging is true and proper set up (placement) and front end components are also important.

In your price range, VMPS has two speakers

1)the RM1 floorstanding (list $1580)
2) the QSO626R Ribbon Monitor (list $1598)

I have heard more speakers than I care to admit and NOTHING approaches the clarity, air, detail, tranparency, resolution, soundstage and imaging of these speakers when properly set up.

So if your quest is to find that air of transparency, this is where to go.

I might add that (and this is not to slight any speaker or opinion since audio is such a subjective hobby) that speakers that rely on reflected and out of phase sound to create that air (like the Maggies, Mirage and Def tech) are NOT going to give you an accurate sound stage. As pleasing and wonderfully room filling as they are, they are not much more accurate at recreating the "original" event recorded than the BOSE speakers.

Adding additional "reflected sound" from your listening environment to the sonic mix is the farthest away you can get from the original recording. You want to eliminate as much of that "sonic illumination" from your ears as you possibly can. It only obfuscates the signal into pleasing sonic hash.

Again, this is my subjective listening opinion and you may LOVE that sound. No offense meant.

Regards,

John Casler

 

[Lee Scoggins]

can you get by with an Onkyo or Yamaha or Denon reciever?

Actually you can drive these speakers with a good high current amp. I use a tube amp from Audio Research, but a good Onkyo or Denon at 140 watts or more should be fine, although I am less sure about the Yamaha having never heard a decent one. I would also look into a fice channel amp from the new Adcom or Aragon lines. I have heard the Maggies on both and they sound fine. These speakers also work well with $10-20K high end amps but I am assuming that's likely out of the question.
You may want to add a sub for very deep bass, but I find it is fine since it goes down to 40hz.

 

[Paul_Scott]

If you've been listening to B&W's with equipment
that may not be up to getting the speakers to perform on a high level then that may be the
reason why you haven't been impressed with the ones you've heard already.

no, that was just the point. the B&Ws did have what i assumed was very good amplification, at very least it wasexpensive.
i was contrasting this (with a sigh of relief) to coming home to the speakers i'm auditioning with sub $400 Onkyo reciever.
since what i heard at home is starting to sound better, i can only assume that going up the amplification ladder to a much better, powerful reciever, or pre/pros, that i'll only be happier at the sound.

i read up a little on the maggies, and don't think they would be the best overall choice for me at the moment.
transparency is still only one factor, albeit one thats on my mind much at the moment.
there are other consideration that may amount to working at cross purposes.

just found out a guy i haven't worked with in a while has them, so next time we bump into each other i suggest an audition.
he's in Iowa now, so it probably won't be anytime soon.

 

[Alex F.]

John:

I mean, really. You say that Magnepan, Definitive Technology, and Mirage are not much more accurate at reproducing the original event than Bose? Just a wee bit of exaggeration here?

I do not own any of the three brands either, but all three manufacture quality high-performance products and should not be ignored when one is shopping for loudspeakers. Magnepan, especially, is the brand of choice among many serious audiophiles.

 

[John Royster]

Heck I thought Martin Logan an Magnapan are the most transparent or them all.
You can practically see right thru them.
And yeah, the Bose comment lent oneself to completely ignore the entire post.

 

[Bruce Chang]

Find I pair of used Silverline audio sonatina mk1, NHT 3.3 used, B&W N804 used for $1200 (my friend got one for the price). Anything is possible as long as you wait.

 

[John A. Casler]

Hi Alex,
I knew no matter what type of disclaimer I wrote I would hit a nerve with someone.
First I tried to clearly state that "reflected sonic artifacts" from your own listening space can in "NO WAY" add realism to the recorded material.
If someone thinks they can, then I would like to know how it is done. My BOSE comment/comparison is based on that belief. Amar Bose spent years trying to make this happen. It never did.
Pleasing to many, yes. An intersting and enjoyable sound, yes. Realistic, not in my opinion. Doesn't mean it doesn't sound great.
John,
I don't think I ignored the entire post. How so? It would seem that the Paul is trying to set up a realistic soundstage, where the speakers disapear yet produce a transparent, true to life (and recorded material)image.
Am I missing something? I was suggesting that searching for this "sonic grail" by supplementing "in room" generated, reflected acoustic enhancements would more defeat the real goal.
The easy way to develop a "Wall of sound" is through reflective applications. It is not the most "transparent" (title of post) since the imaging comes from the direct sound "punching through" the sonic mis mash which gives one the feeling of false ambience or presence.
Alex, rightfully suggested the route of reflected sound, I felt the poster might benefit from a greater understanding of what this type of application actually does.
I can make any size speaker disappear in an approriate sized room. And this is done by removing or "over-riding" room interactions as much as possible, the result is a step toward greater tranparency, lifelike soundstage, realistic imagining, sonic detail and all the other qualities that were recorded to the original.
That's all I was offering
And I closed it with IMHO...
John Casler

 

[Doug_B]

First I tried to clearly state that "reflected sonic artifacts" from your own listening space can in "NO WAY" add realism to the recorded material.

I guess we can argue whether live instrument sounds can reflect off a wall behind the player, but I believe the argument is moot because Paul stated that he has velvet curtains on the wall with his screen. Not much opportunity for bipolar or dipolar reflections.

Doug

 

[John Royster]

Whoops, didn't notice the velvet curtains behind the speakers.
In that case di-polar speakers "might" not be a good choice. You want "some" reflections.
John Casler, I was ribbing you man. Found it odd you'd compare planar di-poles to bose. they are two completely different aspects of recreating sound. Thank goodness our hobby allows us to have our preferences...horn guys love horns, planar guys love theirs, and point-source like theirs (and we'll all proudly speak our beliefs ). I've had all and prefer planar.

 

[Doug_B]

I've had all and prefer planar.

Here, here. One disadvantage, though, is that it makes it tough to audition anything at a dealer who doesn't have planars hooked up. It takes a while to get used to those boxes again.

Doug

 

[John A. Casler]

John Casler, I was ribbing you man. Found it odd you'd compare planar di-poles to bose. they are two completely different aspects of recreating sound. Thank goodness our hobby allows us to have our preferences...horn guys love horns, planar guys love theirs, and point-source like theirs (and we'll all proudly speak our beliefs ). I've had all and prefer planar.

Hi John, Glad that was a ribbing and I didn't offend. My comaprison to Bose was not one of quality, but of method. Both speakers rely on "reflected" sonics from within your own environment to help provide the qualities they are trying to acheive.

Bose of course uses "direct reflecting" and the planar speakers use the "out of phase" reflections.

I love Maggies and what they sound like and do. I have had several models.

My general listening bias however tells me (my opinion) that trying to take a recorded signal and somehow re-manufacture an accurate semblance of that signal by again reflecting it or a portion of it, in a different space with totally different reflecting distances and surfaces is not only a difficult undertaking, but impossible.

So as much as I like the sound, I am not a "planar" listener for serious audiophile listening.

And I, like you, think it is great that we can all enjoy the hobby and have such a diverse group of products to "play with" and based on our preferences, enjoy until we find something better which only moves us closer to our goal.

Best regards,

John Casler

 

[Paul_Scott]

An Intersting & Enlightening Day Of Speaker Shopping
i reluctently took the Hour and 1/2 drve to a audio shop today (The Sound Concept in Rochester, NY) to hear some of the brands i've been reading so much about.
Primarily the Thiels, which from what i read are supposed to image like crazy and throw a very impressive soundstage.
these were the qualities i've had on my mind ever since i heard Vienna Mozarts last year.
i'm judging any speaker purchase to my memories of these.
that was the kind of sound i fell in love with, and i didn't want to settle for much less (as economics will allow ).
well, the Thiels didn't disappoint in this area.
the stage was huge and imaging was impressive.
almost everything i listened to sounded so fun (?).
then i played some Chili Peppers and for some reason the glow was gone.
i took some written notes at the time and what i have down is:
"Recessed... sibilant, almost like electronic crackle, stage seems to be reduced to a cone in the middle between the speaks"
it was the same for the next three RHCP tracks.
this dampened my enthusiasm.
they were clearly great with some material and considerably less than on others.
i had him hook up the Thiel centers he had and using a disc i had brought...just wasn't impressed.
especially at the $1400 one.
add this to how demanding they were in regards to equipment and placement (and the fact they were really out of my budget by a few hundred), i was able to mentally check them off the list.
i also listend to some Revel bookshelfs (performa M-20).
my least favorite of the entire day. they were smooth, but in most respects, they had the dimensional qualities of Speakers that i'm auditioning at home now. and actually, i liked those much better than the Revels at less than 1/3 of the price.
He had the Magneplaner 1.6s in the room and just out of curiosity, i had him hook those up so i could see what all the talk was about.
well, i didn't go there to listen to them, and i wasn't planning to give them more than a passing listen, but here they were. these HAD it...and i really didn't know i was even looking for it!
They may not be for serious audiophile listening, but these were, flat out, the coolest looking, most easily-listenable speakers i've ever heard.
The Mozarts (from what i remember) may have been more bombastic, but i only heard them with one classical selection.
on these Maggies i listened to rock, jazz, classical, country- everything sounded great.
they didn't image all over the place like the Thiels, but in comparison, the Thiels sounded dirty...noisy.
the Maggies were on the exact same equipment and sounded clean..pure, and yes absolutely transparent.
and they were just at the top end of my budget (well...a little over), but if anything justified budget busting it was these.
i asked why didn't everybody love these, and he said they weren't very substantial with bass. so i guess they were out with the rap crowd.
they sounded just fine for me and my set-up in this regard.
i also, just to be thourough listened to JM Labs, and thought, they were just behind the Maggies in my preference (another big surprise for me).
The JM Labs were also remarkably clean sounding, which surprised me.
i don't want to make this post too dense, so i'll break it up into 2 parts

 

[Paul_Scott]

i originally used the word Transparency in the title of this thread because i equated an "un-boxy" (i.e. transparent) sound with a wide, dispersive soundstage with lots of effects and sounds occuring beyond the outside edges of the speakers.
this is exactly the quality the Thiels had.
in contrast the Maggies soundstage was mostly BETWEEN the speakers. There really wasn't a whole lot of sound way past the edge of the panel.
And yet, i finally came to the realization, this just didn't matter.
the sound was just so... clean, so pure sounding, that i realized THIS was what i would rather have than a lot of showy bombast.
like i said the bass they put out sounded just fine for the music i was listening to.
and i couldn't believe how (relatively) reasonably priced they were.
hundreds less that the bookshelves i didn't like, less than B & W's i had liked, and pretty much on par with everything else, and considerably less than the Mozarts that got me started on this whole thing.
There was only one problem.
as much as i want the best speaker for 2 channel music, an HT application is my primary goal.
Music is still secondary.
i always figured if a speaker can do music well, HT sould be a snap.
Unfortunately this is where the Maggies came up short.
i tried out their huge center, and the almost complete absence of bass was just really unfortunate.
i'd actually rather not use a sub, but w/ these it was a complete neccesity. even then they seemed to come up short.
getting a sub to blend well for HT seemes like it would be a lot of work, and the cost begins to put these further out of reach.
in essence, the Magnepalnar was like watching a Hi-Def movie cropped to fit a 4:3 display.
the clarity and sharpness and lifelikeness of the picture was stunning.
but part of the picture was still missing.
As much as i loved them, i just can't see using them for my HT :frowning:
at least not with that center.
The JM labs, on the other hand were more solid for HT, but all of a sudden seemed WAY too bright for me.
ok, you got this far now here is the punch-line.
i'm doing all this speaker shopping while i am auditioning some from an internet e-tailer at home.
i have 30 days and i wanted to make sure these were going to be the best value before i'm stuck with them forever.
i had serious concerns about what i was hearing (size of soundstage, imaging, transparency, etc) but nothing i have heard so far in up to double their price range has been THAT much of a difference.
The Thiels threw a more impressive stage, etc, but they choked on some of the music and didn't sound all that great on HT (that $1400 center couldn't hold a candle to this one at $600).
The Maggies were my favorite by far for music, but just couldn't handel the demands of HT.
in comparison, this center i have now is robust and lush.
to top it off, apart from the unique look of the Maggies, the speakers i have now are by far my favorite asthetically.
and at this kind of price range, that is an important consideration.
So what are they?
Onix Rockets.
i've got the $700 250 bookshelfs and the $600 200 center.
the center really does blow away everything i have heard so far (no just today) and the 250's are a perfect match for HT.
not just good for the budget, they do their job, in my room, perfectly!
But now that i'm convinced the quality is there, i'm ready to pop for one of the floorstanders.
i came to this conclusion after replacing one of the 250s with the center.
That extra mid-range driver added quite a bit of body to everything. everything sounded more fully rounded and...lush.
the 250s will do music in a pinch, but they do seem to me a little thin and tight.
significantly more slam than 80% of what i heard under $1k, but i know now i won't be satisfied until i get a little fuller sound for music.
still undecided which floorstander to go with.
BTW, they also are being driven in my home by a $400 open boxed Onkyo 600. I won't be keeping this either, i find it kind of harsh, but its nice to know i can easily get by with something of its modest caliber, if the funds run out.
compared to the requirements of some of these other speakers, the Rockets couldn't be easier to drive if they had training wheels.
i didn't want this to end up sounding like a sales pitch, i just thought that the conclusions i've come to were a surprise to me and might have some interest for someone else in my position.
ideally, if it would work, i would take the Maggies and just use the Rocket center.
if they mated well, it would be best of both worlds.
The owner would let me demo these at home, but at this point, i doubt its worth the effort.
Someday it would be nice to own them, in a different area, but for now, the Rockets look like they are going to satisfy both my primary and secondary goals in high style.
the value is there, i just had to make sure.
thanks for all the feedback, it helped tremendously.
(wipes his forehead)sheesh...its kind of a relief to be done with all this handwringing and indecision.
now all i have to do is pay for 'em.

 

[Dustin B]

Little late to this thread (and sounds like you've settled on a great winner for you Paul). But here is an option that is a little different. The coaxial Adire HE10.1. Needs a sub for the low end, but holds its' own down to the low 50hz range. Very efficeint, time alligned, very dynamic and images extremely well. You can get them in a kit form from Adire for $299 (you supply and build the enclosure) or finished (Kosala) for under $700.
DIYcable.com offers a modified version with upgraded crossover components and a beautiful veneer finish for $1300. The also offer it like Adire in a kit form with the upgraded crossover components for $450.
http://www.diycable.com/he10.1_sig.htm
Not sure what the time frame for release is, but Adire will have an XBL^2 enabled version out hopefully soon that will improve the performance of this speaker even more (give them the extra Vd needed to excel for HT as well as music).
This speaker has really impressed some tube heads, and Dan has sold quite a few to recording studios.
The only hiccup is you can't get them sheilded. So directview forget about HT use. RPTV you might get away with it on top of your RPTV. FPTV no problem.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Dustin,
at this point, i probably won't bother investigating kits.
some time further on down the road, it seems like it would be a fun project (i love putting stuff together) but i would have to read up on the electronics to make sure i had a clue what i was doing.
as far as finished kits, they would have to have the same kind of no-hassle return policy that the Rockets and this particular store has, before i could even consider them.
at this point i think my path is alittle more clear.

just have to put in a plug for the store, while i'm at it.
i went in there, unshaven, and dressed like a beach bum, and dominated their time for over three hours and they were Fabulous.
all the non-commisioned help was eager to please and informative and the owner Jim took a lot of time, and gave me a lot of room to breathe.
Buffalo is pretty much a wasteland for high end audio, unless you want B & W or Paradigm, but Sound Concept was worth the trip (and $4 in tolls).
i'd recommend them highly for anyone in western or upstate New York!

 

[Dustin B]

Well Adire has a 30day no questions asked (provided product not damaged in anyway) full refund return policy on finished products. The kits can be returned as well but have a 25% restocking fee.

DIYcable.com doesn't accept returns for most of their stuff.

 

[PomingF]

Scot, don't take my word for it. If you really like the 1.6's this much you owe it to yourself not to bring the 200 center down to the Maggie dealer to see how they go together. Btw, you'll like the 750 as fronts a lot more than the 250's.

PF

 

[Paul_Scott]

Poming,
i'm not exactly sure what that meant, but i probabaly won't go back and torture myself.
i had the tape measure out this morning and there really wasn't a lot of play in the space available for them anyway.
just as well...
sniff sniff.
y'know, i'm evaluating and dismissing the 250s, yet i'm actually not even sure they've broken in yet.
i don't have anywhere near 100 hours on them, 50 at the most.
i might have these little puppies read all wrong.
i'm thinking that the 250's are closer to the 750s (quick dynamic) and the 550's are closer in sound to the 200 center (a little more rounded tones).
am i off base?
i said it over on the other forum, but the set-up that would make me grin from ear to ear would be 3 200's across the front.
i'm pretty confident it would sound sooooo sweet. i'm just not crazy about how it would look.
i hate myself for being so common.
always chasing the tall and skinny because they are so damn sexy, when its the short and fat ones that make you happier in the long run.
and you know i'm right