Good secondhand speakers for £6-700... suggestions?

Oh hi, I'm in Glasgow, ATC SCM 100A SLs, drop me a PM if you are interested.

 

Er, your're turning this around a lot. You haven't even attmpted an answer at my questions, but raised a whole bunch more for me to answer!!

Bloody good! When it's flat over that region and has low distortion it's going to be about as good as it gets. I don't care whether it has ATC stamped on the front of it, or Mackie (or Bose for that matter!)

My original point was that you can't work forward from questions like those and design a speaker. And likewise, you can't take a speakers frequency response and work backward to a lot of subjective description...

Speaking of frequency response, why do have a TACT RCS? Are you interested in a flat frequency response? [Or did you buy it for it's "Cathedral" mode ]

 

dat, when a speaker is that flat across the full frequency spectrum it will have a signature if you like and will sound unpleasant to just as many listeners as anything else out there.

Err yes you can I'm afraid

I used a Tact to understand the subjective affect of frequency abherations. This enables me to question your post in the knowledge that I have some understanding of what does what and how to acheive certain presentations that some listeners might prefer. It also enables me to say conclusively that most listeners will find a flat frequency response boring as hell, lacking in bass weight (unless you utilise room modes in which case it ain't flat anymore), and somewhat tiring.

So the reason for the questions is simple really. As you seem so impressed by a graph supposedly showing a flat response (although no mention is made of the conditions under which the measurement was taken), I am trying to guage your understanding of how such a product will sound in comparison with some others that are out there.

 

H'okay doky, now is there any chance you could answer my earlier question please Merlin?

Ta.

Marco.

 

Common Merlin, Marco is waiting. It dosn't do to keep Marco waiting.

 

err,

What about phase coherence and accuracy in the time domain?These are at least as important as a speakers frequency response for obtaining high quality sound. IMO its a little naive just to read the specs and decide that something is good or bad based solely on that. Unless you are Paul Ranson:JPS:

 

OK Marco,

Sorry for the delay, I've been scouring the net looking for a concise explanation to little avail. This link does say it best though

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/PDF/THEABS.PDF

BBC voicing basically entails having a dip in the crucial presence region, between 2khz and 6khz where the ear is at it's most sensitive. Hey I think it's the way to go and gives the most natural midrange reproduction to my ears.

Most BBC type monitors also have an elevated response below 200hz in relation to the midrange, plus a gently rising response above 5khz. This response more closely mirrors human hearing than most so called monitors, giving a very natural sound. It will however sound laid back in comparison with a product without the BBC dip, tending to put the soundstage and vocalists in particular at or behind the plane of the speakers rather than projected out into the room.

I personally think the BBC got it right, and BBC derived monitors from the likes of Spendor and Harbeth can make music like few others. But some will prefer the more upfront dynamic reproduction of a flatter frequency response. One man's meat and all.

I think the link also goes some way to answering some of the questions raised by dat.

 

had the mackie 824s....not my cup of tea, VERY laid back, plain dreadful, and the flat bass sounded faster cutoff higher up.
sounded just like a musical fidelity amp. weak tea!! liked the genelec 1029s, loads of attitude, dunno about the bigger ones, but if they are better than the small ones, must be good

interesting about speaker voicing, had an eq and played around with boosting cutting, I am not convinced about the effect of 2 or 3 dbs of boost or cut, after fiddling, the character of a speaker seems to be far more complex than just its frequency response, and its very naive to say just cos its flat means its good. I thoght that about the mackies...one of the very worst for my tastes...wanted to like them...

as to mosfets, they are extremely rugged, and easier to parallel with more feedback to linearise...the essence of this audio game is that it may be bad theoretically, but if its musical, that is in the end what counts...


ATC amps in the beginning were designed by a guy from turbosound, and they are not a simple circuit, having one in front of me...I have seen much simpler...quite elaborate...

 

Tell me about how the ear descriminates phase relationships.

 

Here you go..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1976_29.html
THE DESIGN OF THE MINIATURE MONITORING
LOUDSPEAKER TYPE LS3/5A

H.D. Harwood, B.Sc., M.E. Whatton, C.Eng., M.I.E.E.*

You'll find other reports their too...

Note how they characterize their design in terms of frequency response. Odd that
Also look closely at figure 4...

 

Hey, no problem Merlin, and thanks for your effort - that was an interesting link!

And mine, too. After all, every loudspeaker is voiced in line with the particular requirements of the manufacturer, and of course all hi-fi components are a compromise of some sort, so this tailoring of the sound doesn't unduly concern me. It certainly, to my ears, doesn't adversely affect the realistic portrayal of instruments and voices, which is very important to me, or indeed my enjoyment of the music the Spendor's make.

I do wonder, however, if this 'BBC voicing' is more prevalent in Harbeth designs than Spendor, and also whether it features most in models such as the LS3/5A - the most common 'working model', so to speak, of BBC engineers. I get the feeling my SP100s are a bit more 'domestically' voiced (if you can call it that) than other BBC monitors and pro monitors I've heard. Certainly, when listening to them, there is little evidence of the midband sounding 'laid back' or it being reproduced with less emphasis in the presence range than that of other comparable designs. However, when listening to Harbeth HL Compact 7s (for example), and other models I've heard in their range, the overall presentation is somewhat more 'laid back' than what I get from my SP100s - maybe it's the Mana? Or Maybe Harbeth employs the use of more 'BBC voicing' than Spendor? Maybe it's a bit of both!

Anyway, glad you like what I call 'old school' speakers from the likes of Spendor, Harbeth and ATC. They're not perfect, but in my opinion, they play some of the best music you're likely to hear from any loudspeaker, and are made by people with I believe an unparalleled expertise in loudspeaker design. They're also, without doubt, a far cry from the peaky, shrill, anaemic-sounding offerings from the likes of Naim and some other hi-fi electronics manufacturers who like to kid on they can make good speakers

Marco.

 

Dat, could you explain what you are trying to say in a more understandable way?

Are you trying to tell me that BBC monitors are flat across the spectrum, let's say +/-1.5db as your fabled Mickies are?

Do you understand what adding as little as 1db to the output of a transducer at say 100hz will do? Or say 2db at 12khz? The graphs are interesting, showing the lift below 2oohz and the rising treble response (less than real world computer measurements but it's still there!) so I take it you are agreeing with me on this.

I can't beleive that you are naive enough to assume that a tailored frequency response involved huge peaks and troughs.

I've nought more to say so it's over to you guys!!!

 

I think the post is fairly intelligible by my standards!!

I never said anything about the bbc voicing speaker response, interestingly, I have seen a measurement for the harbeths compact 7s, and it is very true to form....a bass boost of a few dbs, the mid region dipping a little, and slightly rising into the treble, very tailored, very clever...these guys certainly know what they are doing..
I heard the 7s, too, they were laid back, but relaxing, and very easy to listen to.

Maybe try some active hhbs the 5 actives...these are designed by harbeth.

As to frequency tailoring, many little speakers have there bass boosted by 3-5 dbs, by reducing the box size, or adjusting the port, to give impact to drums and such like, proac commonly does this, and dreadful hifi speakers boost treble for a bit of excitement, which gets tiring listening for periods.


As to voicing, I am not talking about the measurement of a transducer in isolation in an inert chamber, but the SYSTEM frequency response...I have said it a million times, but you cannot categorically judge hifi by its measurements...engineers have to design to specs., yes, but I have heard WAY too much hifi to say that you can predict how pleasant something will sound by simple figures.

There are many great speakers that are not flat, and though its an ideal to aim for like very low distortion, is no guarantee of a good sound..accurate, maybe, but get it in a room midfield, and it all goes to pot anyway.

AS it happens, the mackies have been gone a long time, an they provide facilites to eq, and cut or boost around 3 dbs in the bass and treble, as well as the bass cutoff point. I have used some expensive graphic and parametric eqs from my brothers sound business, to boost and cut, and the effect is far from catastrophic as you imply, the basic character of the speaker determined by the driver materials, and magnet interactions are still there. Its a complex issue and figures alone are insufficient, certainly to the enjoyment of music. I am not a spec. man, if I like how it sound in room, that is and must be the FINAL test.

oops I have confused my response with dat...doh..

 

That you can quantify a loudspeaker with 4 parameters: frequency response, noise, distortion and how loud it can play (for some distortion).

Nope, not at all. If I wanted to make a speaker with that BBC sound, I'd measure the frequency response of an LS3/5A and then diddle with my speakers response until it was the same. Game over, job done. No need to listen to an LS3/5A and generate a list of subjective terms - for which there is no agreed upon definition.

Sure in those technical terms, but there aren't subjective labels for the effects that that we all agree upon. What if I said to you a "slight bass hump" or is it "upper mid bass"?

The sad truth is that a lot of speakers out there, have just dreadful response curves and people buy them anyway.

The Mackie's that I originally suggested (and which caused this discussion) have a very good response curve and therfore should not be eliminated from the "shopping list" because of brand prejudice. And they are a technically superior speaker to the LS3/5A

 

if people have listened to them and enjoyed them and then bought them why is this sad. at the end of the day, for most people, it comes down to a subjective decision based on what a persons ears tell them. i know when i;ve auditioned speakers in the past i've never measured frequency responses. i've always had them in my room and listened to them. let me put it this way... if you had a speaker that measured well but sounded awful in your room or one that measured awfully but sounded excelent in your room which one would you take?
cheers


julian

 

Sad truth is that you couldn't. That is not all there is to the BBC "sound". Derek Hughes has been selling various BBC Monographs on Ebay recently. Might be a place to start...
Mackie speakers do sound pretty awful BTW.

 

It isnt sad mate, its logical, sensible and what 99.9%* of people do!... unfortuately, this seems to be more about ''my response curve is flatter than your response curve, my dad is bigger than your dad'' etc than.... what is the best speaker for the poor chap at the beginning of this who's got £600 to spend, and probly got bored about 50 posts ago...

*99.9% - this figure came right out of my arse, it may well be 99.99%.

 

Hear, hear! :beer:

Dunc

P.S. - Went to the Scottish Hifi Show here in Edinburgh today. Some very interesting stuff. I rather liked the Totems, ProAcs, and Meadowlarks, but the best speakers I heard there were the Leema Xyps - which are only £799! Whoop! I'm going back tomorrow, so I'll try to spend some more time listening to the above speakers...

 

I'd take the speaker that "measured well", because in the real world the room response isn't constant and can be changed by:

moving the speakers
moving the listening position
soft furnishings
even (gasp) parametric EQ

Speakers that measure badly are hardly ever going to be mated to a complementary room.

 

It'd be an awful lot easier to just buy the speakers that sound the best Who cares what the measurements say? You listen to music with your ears. At the end of the day, that's the only measuring device that counts, surely?

BTW, are you Uncle Eric in another life?