Saga conclusion: 800D3 vs 802D3

[Mikado463]

Originally Posted by RebelMan

Understood, but my comments were not placed in a general forum. Besides, I am not a fan nor are most people as they (planars, stats, etc.) makeup the minority.

OK, but your sentence was constructed in a 'general sense', thus my reply to it. Regardless I still believe in the balance of speaker to room as it relates to 'size'.

As for the non-fan status of di-poles I suspect you never heard them done 'right' ................

[RebelMan]

Originally Posted by Mikado463

OK, but your sentence was constructed in a 'general sense', thus my reply to it.

Not really, it was constructed in context but perhaps implicitly.

Regardless I still believe in the balance of speaker to room as it relates to 'size'.

I don't disagree but the conclusions to the contrary were in error.

As for the non-fan status of di-poles I suspect you never heard them done 'right' ................

Honestly, it is a rare occasion to hear them done as you say 'right'. Although I am not a fan that's not to say that I haven't been impressed on occasion. One thing is certain, I prefer the Maggies to the ML hybrids.

[Mikado463]

Originally Posted by RebelMan

One thing is certain, I prefer the Maggies to the ML hybrids.

interesting, have you listened to the new 'renaissance' series from Logan ?

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by RebelMan

Sorry to poo-poo the party people but the size of the room matters little. Room architecture (construction, shape and materials) and speaker placement (boundaries and listening position) are the big players in achieving good sound. Success is VERY doable using small speakers in a large room or large speakers in a small room.
.

What matters is the speaker's LF alignment, and that's a matter for the designers. Small speakers work best in small rooms generally because they've been designed to produce an optimum in-room bass response with some boundary reinforcement, which becomes inevitable in small rooms. Large speakers are far more likely to be used in large rooms where greater SPL is required, so it makes sense to optimise them for use away from room boundaries where they can more easily create the ideal three dimensional sound stage. And boundary reinforcement is equally applicable to the listening position too, so in small rooms you get a double dose of it.

Physics plays a role too. All things being equal, a large speaker with greater internal volume and larger drivers will be more efficient at low frequencies.

[trponhunter]

To me, all of this becomes a good example of why some type of DSP, eq or control is needed over low frequencies. It is almost impossible to get truly extended low frequency response without significant dips and peaks in the preferred listening position without it. Even if you feel the system has great extension and is very smooth and even, a quick listen with properly applied dsp over the low end in a direct a to b fashion will show you how much more is capable. Large "full range" speakers are virtually impossible to make work ideally in a room. Most systems would be much better of with a smaller speaker and properly integrated subs - this is why you are now seeing so many people with large "super speakers" adding subs.

[RebelMan]

Originally Posted by Mikado463

interesting, have you listened to the new 'renaissance' series from Logan ?

I don't go out of my way to reacquaint myself with a brand and its offerings each time a new series or model is introduced, once I have written them off, although the Neolith did catch my eye - haven't heard it yet. That said, I have had enough exposure to conclude that the metallic tinge from a brand that also has an identify crisis is not for me.

[RebelMan]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

What matters is the speaker's LF alignment, and that's a matter for the designers. Small speakers work best in small rooms generally because they've been designed to produce an optimum in-room bass response with some boundary reinforcement, which becomes inevitable in small rooms. Large speakers are far more likely to be used in large rooms where greater SPL is required, so it makes sense to optimise them for use away from room boundaries where they can more easily create the ideal three dimensional sound stage. And boundary reinforcement is equally applicable to the listening position too, so in small rooms you get a double dose of it.

Physics plays a role too. All things being equal, a large speaker with greater internal volume and larger drivers will be more efficient at low frequencies.

That's a misconception. Engineers do not design to a given room size they design to a budget and target response (measured and audible). Why? Because the variable is too great, who's room shall it be yours or mine? It's also why companies (like Bryston) spend big bucks on anechoic chambers. And when listening is done the room is typically static. It is suggested (by the manufacturer), however, that if the speakers give too little or too much bass that boundary positioning can aid in response. Perhaps you have never heard of (heard) the Magico Minis? In a large room they were outstanding! Likewise, a pair of large floor standing Sonus fabers (I don't recall the model) in a relatively small room with a seating position near field defied all logic.

The size of the speaker is only a consideration when the footprint is of concern. Some people just don't have the room for larger monitors but they still desire the performance of one (meaning full-range). The physics of this does come into play as you say, and therefore there are limits to what smaller monitors can do without further assistance from the likes of a subwoofer for instance.

[RebelMan]

Originally Posted by trponhunter

To me, all of this becomes a good example of why some type of DSP, eq or control is needed over low frequencies. It is almost impossible to get truly extended low frequency response without significant dips and peaks in the preferred listening position without it. Even if you feel the system has great extension and is very smooth and even, a quick listen with properly applied dsp over the low end in a direct a to b fashion will show you how much more is capable. Large "full range" speakers are virtually impossible to make work ideally in a room. Most systems would be much better of with a smaller speaker and properly integrated subs - this is why you are now seeing so many people with large "super speakers" adding subs.

DSPs are a band-aid fix for most people who can't or won't address the low frequency spectrum passively. Although I am not a proponent they serve their purpose in multi-channel configurations but are detrimental for two.

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by RebelMan

Although I am not a proponent they serve their purpose in multi-channel configurations but are detrimental for two.

I think that two channel setups need EQ more than do multichannel systems. It's just that MCH fans are more amenable to it.

[trponhunter]

Originally Posted by RebelMan

DSPs are a band-aid fix for most people who can't or won't address the low frequency spectrum passively.

Respectfully disagree - effectively can't be done. No way to get true lower 20hz extension at the listening position when the speakers are located in the best location in the room where they have the best imaging and midrange resolution and lack of bass bumps.