[nebuchadnezzar]

I'm very surprised no one has mentioned Martin Logan

Granted, the smaller models have a smaller sweet-spot....but boy is it sweet when you find it!

 

[gerG]

nebuchadnezzar, although I think that ML look absolutely gorgeous, bipolar (and dipolar) speakers do not appeal to me at all. Maybe something to do with the 3 db signal to noise ratio. Same goes for Bose 901s. Personal preference, of course.

gerG

 

[nebuchadnezzar]

I'm sure that you didn't just mention 'Logans in the same post as bose.

 

[gerG]

oop, sorry about that. Too much bourbon apparently makes me a bit mean.

ML are beautiful speakers, and I love the sound that comes out the front. Unfortunately I can't stand the racket that comes out the back and floods the room with what I consider a high noise level. If I could get rid of that rear wave I would probably own a pair.

btw has anybody ever tried turning the ML panels around and setting them up for nearfield at the focal point of the cylindrical panel? That has always intrigued me, but dealers don't like it when I start moving their gear around, especially electrostatic panels which have a rather spectacular failure mode.

As for the Bose design, it sprays most of the signal out the back. Good for ambience I suppose. I never quite got that design. I certainly do not consider them in the same class as the MLs.


gerG

 

[nebuchadnezzar]

The most common problem with 'Logans is placement.
The smaller speakers tend to be more difficult to place properly.
I currently own a pair of Aerius i's and live in an apartment...it took me over a month to get them placed just right. The larger the panel, the easier they are to place correctly --probably as a result of a larger sweet spot. Although, the larger speakers do need a larger room; thus more room beside and behind them.

Another problem I've read about (haven't expirienced) is having an overly reflective surface/wall behind them, as this is a problem with all speakers, it would stand to reason to be more so with speakers like 'Logans.

As far as turning them around, never tried it.

'Logans are very detailed, smooth and crisp through the lower midrange and up. They do lack low end extention below the area of 50-60Hz (you definetly need a sub with the smaller ones). The one thing 'Logans are not is forgiving of gear or music.
I think a focused "sweet spot" as with Martin Logans, is as close as you can get to listening with headphones, as far as detail and clarity go, without strapping speakers to your head.

 

[Calanctus]

I'm with markl, DarkAngel and SuperGiraffe: headphones are wonderful things, but given the choice I prefer my speakers. The spatial illusion adds so much for me. Of course, it helps that my speakers (Revel M20s, plus a REL Storm 3) have an extremely flat response, great dynamics and excellent synergy with my gear and room.

SuperGiraffe , nice to hear about your experience with the RABOS kit. I was under the impression that it was mostly useful for tuning the parametric equalizer that Infinity's own subs use. But now that I know you've benefitted from it with your REL, I'll probably get one. I'm still thinking about subwoofers, and may add a second REL Storm 3.

 

[SuperGiraffe]

Calanctus, I thought the RABOS kit was very useful. I was a little worried that it would be mostly useful for adjusting the Infinity speakers with the parametric EQs too, but decided it was worth the risk. To get both the disc with 1/3 octave test tones from 20 hz through 100 hz and a simple SPL meter designed for low frequency notes in a small easy to use package for not an outrageous sum of money was worth it, I think, and helped me a lot in setting up my REL. While the directions are geared for the Infinity speakers with the EQ, all it took was a bit of common sense to utilize it for simply blending a sub with the mains. I also toyed around quite a bit with positioning and level/crossover points, using the RABOS to predict adjustments, until I was satisfied. Prior to getting the RABOS, and trying to set up the REL by ear with various types of music was frustrating, as one song would have too much bass, while another might not have enough. Maybe I was just lucky, or maybe its all in my head, but it turns out that what measured the best with the RABOS seems to sound the best too. Word to the wise, though, would be to stock up on 9v batteries. I went through about three when setting up the sub.

 

[scrypt]

For my next speakers, I intend on getting a pair of B&W 602 S3 for about $570. I've listened to the 602 S2 extensively and there's very little difference (though the driver is a bit better) and you can often find them used for half the money.

I tend to buy speakers that I'll be using in the studio as well as for pleasure. I decided on the B&W because I like the sound and because studios in London often have them.

The Nautilus series and the Thiels are a bit out of my price range. Also: So far as I know, Thiels haven't been tested extensively in studio situations, though I'd loved to be proved wrong by someone with a test table URL.

 

[Tuberoller]

I don't want to join this discussion as banana peel.I can't say that speakers or headphones sound better than one another.I can say that I did do a bit of research(unscientific of course) and have found that frequent headphone users tend to prefer loudspeakers which replicate the sonic characteristics of the best phones they have heard or the ones they like best.Planar,Electrostatic and Phase-correct or time-aligned cone speakers tend to be the favorites among headphone users.I posted a thread about this in the general forums a while back and the results were fairly consistent.The fact that headphones typically feature a sonic signature that causes all the music reproduced to arrive to your ears at the same time strongly reinforces the speaker preferences.Notice that all these speaker designs I mentioned are designed to have the entire frequency range of the recorded music arrive to your ears at the same time.

A very good example of the strength of this preference comes from my time at CES with Tyll Herstens and Todd Green from Headroom.Tyll was ranting that about how great these Green Mountain loudspeakers sounded.Green Mountain speakers are famously known as a very accurate time-alinged loudspeaker.They feature box-less mids and tweeters that are adjustable for alingment and phase.The fact that Tyll,and myself,love these speakers comes as no great suprise.Which type of speaker sounds best to you is very highly subjective but I can suggest that if you are a frequent headphone user and you actually like the sound of headphones to try some of these speaker types.

 

[Orpheus]

well, i didn't read this whole thread, so i hope i'm not repeating anyone....

but anyway, to answer the question, i personally think that no speaker, no matter how good, will ever match good headphones in detail. the reason is very simple....... the headphone puts the sound directly into your ear. there's not loss of sound to the air, the surroundings, to walls, to whatever..... it just comes straight from the drivers. well, almost...... pretty much.

and of course.... a lesser reason... headphones tend to have better isolation than speakers. less ambient noise means you hear small quiet details better.

i personally have some very detailed monitors here... the NHT Pro A-20 + B-20 near-field system ($4000. and i also have some Sequerra monitors--$1100. and some Urei's... not sure the price... but they weigh 600lbs a pair, so they are very big.) very detailed. extremely accurate. but still, sometimes when i want to really pinpoint some super duper quiet sound or noise, you just simply can't hear as well on monitors. sometimes i'm mixing.... and i hear something strange. i play it over and over.... and i still kinda "feel" it. then i put on the headphones.... and suddenly the problem becomes very clear. i can hear what i previously just had a feeling was there.

....now, detail is different from "sounding good." some people probably will never like the sound of headphones. and that's fine. ....and i know what they mean. with good speakers, the music sometimes feels more real. and with bigger speakers, you can "feel" the impact of the sound too. and that's a nice feeling. ....personally, i use speakers more than headphones... mostly cause i like to move around, but also because i like the sound of good speakers with a little room ambience.

......but to answer the original question, no..... no speaker can possibly match a headphone in detail. simply not possible. in my opinion anyway.... well, not in any practical terms at least. i suppose if you were to spend the BIG bucks and create a room absolutely dead.... and i mean DEAD... with no reverberation, no sound ambient noise.... no nothing. then yes, i suppose you can experience something similar with speakers. but such a room is not practical, not even for rich people..... and for one thing, it would sound like crap. loudspeakers in a totally dead room just plain sound bad. but that's what you would need to get headphone level detail.

ps.... scrypt, .....in what kind of studio situation do you mean? ....do you mean in mastering rooms?--cause yes, i do see plenty of audiophile type speakers there. but i think in normal composition and mixing studios, they mostly use professional products. sometimes some b&w's for far-fields....... but VERY rarely for main near-field systems. most popular i see are of course the ns-10s's..... but genelecs, krok, jbl, mackie, tannoy, and some others. but i have never seen a b&w near-field in any major studio.

 

[Czilla9000]

I agree with Orpheus...most good headphones allow you to hear more details than a live performance.

 

[scrypt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheus i have never seen a b&w near-field in any major studio.

I can understand that, Orph, if you're talking about the States.

I first began working in studios in the late 80s. Yamaha NS-10Ms and UREIs were ubiquitous (even though many engineers kvetched in private about the Yamahas' lack of bass and lower mids). Bobby Clearmountain started the NS-10 trend by bringing his pair to [] mixes. No doubt they had a distinctly 80s sound.

Tannoys and Mackies soon replaced NS-10s in many studios; a casual survey of equipment lists in Mix [Magazine] shows what's in favor in the States today. Personally, I stopped caring after recording a bit in London.

Long ago in the early 90s, I went to London to record at studios like the Rack and Gabriel's place (which was excellent, but not standard -- Gabriel had his own way of setting up everything: The mixing desk window overlooked not a recording room but a view of the country; the bedrooms contained televisions on which you could view the doings in the control room[)]. (Not knowing this, I made a remark about the bass track being late. The bass player was back in the studio a few moments later offering to redo his track.)

What I noticed there were a lot of B&W speakers on the desks. [] English [musicians] often have different taste in sound than Americans -- they seem to like things a bit brighter and more full, for one thing. I found I agreed with them on monitors and for that reason have always meant to (and soon will) pick up a pair of 602.

(Something else I liked about London: Fighting in a pub seemed to stop instantly the moment a policeman arrived.)

 

[HD-5000]

Once you try speakers, you can never go back. That's exactly how I felt after I received my very affordable (but high performance) Wharfedale Diamond 8.1. Hands down better than my Sennheisers for most types of music except for rock and other pop types.

Quote:

I think that subwoofers are mandatory in any speaker system.

Arg! Audiophile blasphemy! Subwoofers belong in home theater, and nowhere else!

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkAngel Dusty Most of what you say is true about strengths of headphones plus the cost advantage. But a good analogy is: good headphone set is like looking at a good sharp photograph of something, very detailed etc. But good full stereo is like seeing the same same thing in person, full scale size and full 3D room filling soundstage.

You need to get out more. It's still an "image". I will allow you that it might be more "holographic" when you introduce "soundstage", but as I said previously, most of the music I listen to has been ruined at step zero (the recording), and has no soundstage to speak of, anyway, so I don't think I'm missing anything. (Think Alan Parson's I, Robot, Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here and Animals, synth-pop, etc.)

Besides, if I want soundstage, that's when I reach for my K1000.

I think the analogy is better said, headphones are to photographs what speakers with a good soundstage are to one of those binocular-vision photographs (you know, with the two images set so that when you look at one with one eye and the other with the other eye, you get a more three-dimensional image -- that).

I still think it's either a comfort thing (you don't want to be wearing anything) or a "visceral impact" thing. I mean, I know some of the music you listen to, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't have much of a soundstage. Or are you talking about classical? Is it possible your speakers are fabricating a soundstage (making it feel like you've got a soundstage, when, in reality, it's just two channels with instruments spread out sporadically)? (The following is a trick question.) Have you heard Cowboy Junkies' Trinity Sessions on speakers? It should suck. That album was recorded binaurally. It should be totally twisted around and inverted. Listen on headphones, and it actually improves. What's my point? It's a recommended experiment. If you can play that album, and still picture your soundstage, and then put on the Weavers' Live at Carnegie Hall (?title; I think I got it right) or some other recording that has a well-known good soundstage, that should completely fix things right up. (I picked that one because it has a soundstage to die for. I could actually picture the individual singers with a properly set up speaker system.)

Off-topic (or rather, somewhat back on-topic, albeit tangentially) Has anyone ever heard omnidirectional speakers? One of my many dream speakers is a Shahinian Diapason. I wouldn't mind getting those bi-amped with a couple of A3^CR's or A3CR^2's. That would sate the visceral impact thing and the comfort thing (and the sweet spot soundstage thing when you were in the sweet spot, without forsaking too much when not in the sweet spot).

 

[scrypt]

Isn't the other reason to listen to speakers (at a reasonable volume) to protect your hearing?

I honestly don't know what clients would do if they saw Green Mountains in place of 602s (or something equally ubiquitous). Clients are like dogs: "(sniff sniff) What's this unfamiliar substance doing in my dish?"