I don't like SBL's

For me the real trick is to arrive at a position where you forget the system and its various technical shortcomings (there will always be some) and simply concentrate on the music

It sounds like a cliche and is often cited yet remains true...when one is so captivated by the music that one can simply ignore any foibles in the system, then one is getting close to the ideal

The front vs back debate is interesting. As usual there is rights (and wrongs) in both extreme approaches. The trick is to arrive at a point that is making full use of MOST of the capabilities of every item in the chain...where the components are "pulling in the same direction" ..easier said than done, and the resultant system will differ from one room to another and from one persons` sonic priorities to another..what`s right for one listener in one room may be wrong for another etc etc

FWIIW, I owned SBLs for about 5 years. I have heard them sounding sublime and also sounding awful. They need v careful setting up, of course, but I understand fully what their fans love about them as well as what others dislike also.

Both viewpoints are valid

Laurie S

Laurie,

How do your ProAc's R 3.5 compare to the SBL's? I own a pair of 2.5. Despite I love them very much, I'm thinking of a future upgrade to either SL2 or ProAc's new D38.

My system: CDS3,252,250(aiming for 300),2.5

Reto

quote:

---

How do your ProAc's R 3.5 compare to the SBL's? I own a pair of 2.5. Despite I love them very much, I'm thinking of a future upgrade to either SL2 or ProAc's new D38

---

To try to answer:

(1) they are a MUCH bigger speaker, with everthing that implies in terms of weight, scale etc
(2) they are not as "fast" (what is?)
(3) They have a slightly more "rose tinted" presentation...SBLs can sound "cool" in some circumstances
(4) the mid/top is, to my ears about as good as I`ve heard...very beguiling

To my ears, they play all types of music well and seem to have the knack of emphasising the good rather than the shortcomings of any recordings



The D38s are, I believe, descended from the Response 3.8s, which replaced the 3.5s

Watch out for that rear firing port....it may impose limitations on placement or listening room size/layout

Hope this helps

Laurie S

I'd been stuck in strict source first until about 2 years ago when I bought a big power amp. Hmmm, I thought this is a big step towards scale, volume, dynamics. Last Friday I took the Ultimate step. Now I am utterly convinced that if you want scale, dynamics, volume, you need big speakers.

Of course there are lots of crap big speakers and excellent small ones, indeed this is a general rule, but when you find a big speaker that breaks the rule you suddenly realise that nothing else can deliver that degree of excitment and insight (having a big room helps too). Mr Tibbs is absolutely right IMO.

Alex;

how do you define "big" speakers?

Surely there is an optimum for any given room.

The danger here is of adopting the line that if "something is good, then more must be better"

No one in their right mind would fail to appreciate what big(high quality) speakers bring to the party. I am as much a fan of their benefits as anyone here. I love the effortless scale,dynamics weight,etc

In any given situation, though IMHO,it is a question of balance. In some circumstances, a better front end will bring greater rewards per £ spent, in others better speakers, in others, better preamp or power amp etc

I seem to have discussed something along these lines with Mr Tibbs a few months ago(re 2 way vs 3 way speakers)....the correct solution to the "problem" of the best way to bring the best sonic rewards will always be a compromise, and the final choice will vary with rooms, personal preferences etc. There is no one "right" answer for ALL circumstances

NO solution is without compromise

Laurie S

Laurie, I agree completely that speakers must match the room. I would define any speakers as big if they effortlessly fill the room. My newly acquired MF9s (excuse the fact that I'm a little over-excited just now) are big speakers which fill my big room. If I had a much smaller room I might decide that MFS's are big speakers. Given a choice I would always opt for big speakers/big room, it certainly helps to suspend disbelief if you're playing a Shostakovich symphony, for example, but the demands on one's wallet are not to be taken lightly. Obviously, electronics, mains, supports, room acoustics/treatments, have to up to the job or big speakers will just equal big problems.

Alex

PS I hope you, Roy and cw can come over one day. . .

Quote:-

There is no one "right" answer for ALL circumstances
____________________________________________________

You completely right Laurie there has to be a compramise somewhere but if you have the space to use a "big" speaker then there is no real substitute for size. The MF9's are simply stunning and there is no way a speaker the size of say the SL2 can match the weight and scale of a big speaker. The Jaw thread taught me that.

I now have a room that is almost twice the size of my old listening room and the MF9's really sing. Some may argue that the MF9's are far to big but I couldn't care less what they say. I challenge them to spend 5 minutes in my listening room and then say there is no substitute for size.


Regards


NB

Quote:-

Choose Neat. It's always the right answer
_________________________________________


Not if you want to listen to bass light music


NB

"A good source is a good thing to have, but a change of speakers, in a system that can handle it, can just abolutely transform what you hear in a way that no change of boxes can."

Indeed Bruce, and very concisely put.

"For me the real trick is to arrive at a position where you forget the system and its various technical shortcomings (there will always be some) and simply concentrate on the music"

Prior to having the E-III's, my system with the ES 14's was able to let the music speak freely, but now with the Ergo's, the music really sings – that is the difference.

"It sounds like a cliche and is often cited yet remains true...when one is so captivated by the music that one can simply ignore any foibles in the system, then one is getting close to the ideal"

This is quite correct, and many here will know the feeling of being able to enjoy the music despite minor shortcomings in the system. The Epos 14's were well able to communicate the beauty and emotion of the music, but E-III's can do that and much more. The sheer clarity and breadth of scale now available, makes even simple acoustic pieces take on a whole new life never even hinted at with the 14's.

"The trick is to arrive at a point that is making full use of MOST of the capabilities of every item in the chain...where the components are "pulling in the same direction"..."

Yes, and once you've achieved that trick, the music is so damn good that you forget all about the next upgrade. The problem is, to achieve this requires you to set aside the notion you can get there with just a good set of speakers. I'm now thinking that even a midrange system will never show its true worth unless partnered with a truly great speaker system.

"I seem to have discussed something along these lines with Mr Tibbs a few months ago(re 2 way vs 3 way speakers)....the correct solution to the "problem" of the best way to bring the best sonic rewards will always be a compromise, and the final choice will vary with rooms, personal preferences etc. There is no one "right" answer for ALL circumstances"

I seem to remember the gist of your argument against 3-way speakers being that the necessarily more complex crossover somehow renders the 3-way less musically cohesive. Having now had the benefit of a good few hours in front of the E-III's, I simply marvel at just how musically cohesive they are – better even than the 2-way (practically crossover-less) Epos 14's, as well as possessing dynamics and clarity far beyond the scope of the 14's

"but when you find a big speaker that breaks the rule you suddenly realise that nothing else can deliver that degree of excitment and insight"

I think I've been lucky enough to have found a big speaker that rewrites the rule.

Mr Tibbs

quote:

---

but if you have the space to use a "big" speaker then there is no real substitute for size.

---

precisely my point...for any given room there is an optimum size.....obviously for a large room, that optimum might well be a large speaker...to exceed the optimum would be counterproductive, and in these cases funds might be better allocated elswhere.....and I speak as someone who fully takes on board the advantages that large speakers bring.....I myself use speakers as large as I dare ("large" by reference to commonly accepted standards)....I wish I had the size room to allow me use even larger ones....(that will have to wait until the next house move)

My main point.though is that we should try to resist the temptation to imply that one particular solution , in our own environment, withour own personal preferences, is automatically right or best for others.....balance is the key....extreme, unbalanced, "front" or "back" heavy systems tend, IMHO to give less value than systems where all parts of the chain are allowed to perform anywhere near their full capabilities.....that does not necessarily imply any particular divison of funds...good CD replay kit can be quite cheap


PS thanks for the invite Alex....I hope to take you up on that soon, and by return, if you`re ever in this neck of the woods......

Laurie S

quote:

---

Yes, and once you've achieved that trick, the music is so damn good that you forget all about the next upgrade

---

I have.....when my I sorted my mains

Laurie S

Laurie,

It's not just cabinet size. The type and amount of drivers and driver layout makes quite a difference. I believe my room is only just big enough for my Shahinian Arcs. Moving them about has a huge effect on the sound as they are not forward firing speakers.

They are also an excellent upgrade from a set of Rogers LS6a2s!

Noel

quote:

---

Laurie,

It's not just cabinet size. The type and amount of drivers and driver layout makes quite a difference. I believe my room is only just big enough for my Shahinian Arcs. Moving them about has a huge effect on the sound as they are not forward firing speakers

---

I agree...size is a very crude yardstick, though in general, larger speakers are so because they are designed to produce more bass, which is often the limiting factor

Also, in general, the samaller the room, the more limited the choice of speakers that will work...there are plenty of exceptions....in my experience, Linn Isobaricks work ver well in quite small rooms (possibly due to the sealed - box bass loading....ports tend to be far more problematic with room matching)

The point I was trying to make was that for any given room there will be a ceiling on the speakers that will work well...the same does not really apply to electronics,(at least to anything like the same degree) where it is possible to keep upgrading without running into room - size restrictions (apart from the rack space they occupy!)...eg if I upgrade my 52 to a 552, I have a pretty good idea in advance of what I would be able to achieve. If I swapped my speakers for the next model up the range, the outcome would be far less predictable, and could even give poorer overall results

Its really all about optimising the system ,....and that optimum position will depend as much on personal preference as anything else, and is no less valid for that

Laurie S

quote:

---

Amen to that! There's no substitute for cubic inches. Who ever said size doesn't matter LIED or is in DENIAL.

---

I agree...provided your room can cope...

to use a motoring analogy.....would it be wise to try to shoehorn a 6 litre v8 into a mini?...it might accelerate in a straight line more quickly.....

Laurie S

Quote:-

to use a motoring analogy.....would it be wise to try to shoehorn a 6 litre v8 into a mini?...it might accelerate in a straight line more quickly.....
_______________________________________________________________

Yes but think of the fun you would have!

Regards

NB

quote:

---

Yes but think of the fun you would have!

---

I share your humour but you`ve actually hit on a serious point.......how long would the "novelty" last........not long, I would suggest

Similarly, I could put the most OTT sub into my system and get a buzz from the gut- churning bass....for a short time....I am sure I would soon get sick of it

To allude to James` point:

quote:

---

There's no substitute for cubic inches.

---

Surely it`s a case of quality over sheer quantity....no-one would argue with "more"...until the quality starts to suffer, as it would sooner or later, if you reached the limit of the room (or the limit of the amps to control the speakers properly)

Laurie S

Quote:-

I share your humour but you`ve actually hit on a serious point.......how long would the "novelty" last........not long, I would suggest
_______________________________________________________________

Who said I was joking Laurie?

We have had this discussion before. I would rather have a pair of speakers that are to powerful for the room rather than a pair that are underpowered.

You can always turn the volume down but you can never turn the volume higher than the speaker can handle.

Ultimately I agree with you that it getting a balance and the Ultimatums need a lot of air to work well in. However I wonder how they would sound in a small room. I may take them upstairs and try them in one of the spare rooms!

Regards


NB

quote:

---

We have had this discussion before. I would rather have a pair of speakers that are to powerful for the room rather than a pair that are underpowered

---

surely there is some "crossing of wires" here...the "power" of the speakers (however one defines that) is not at issue...

quote:

---

Who said I was joking Laurie?

---

evidently then, your objectives in running a hi-fi system are not the same as mine. It would seem, from this comment that you share much with the "loadsabass" brigade, where such things as finesse take a back seat....still it`s a free country, and your perfect right to take this stance, though not one I share

Trying to link speaker quality to size only is bit like suggesting that te quality of a wine depends primarily on it`s alcohol content

Laurie S

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Fri 26 March 2004 at 11:28.]

Quote:-



evidently then, your objectives in running a hi-fi system are not the same as mine. It would seem, from this comment that you share much with the "loadsabass" brigade, where such things as finesse take a back seat
________________________________________________________________

I prefer to say I like music with Weight and scale with as much detail and clarity as possible. I am certainly not a "loadsabass" fan as you infer but I would tend to agree that our listening preferences are obvioulsy incompatable.

It would be a boring world if everyone agreed with each other!



Regards


NB

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

quote:

---

We have had this discussion before. I would rather have a pair of speakers that are to powerful for the room rather than a pair that are underpowered

---

surely there is some "crossing of wires" here...the "power" of the speakers (however one defines that) is not at issue...

quote:

---

Who said I was joking Laurie?

---

evidently then, your objectives in running a hi-fi system are not the same as mine. It would seem, from this comment that you share much with the "loadsabass" brigade, where such things as finesse take a back seat....still it`s a free country, and your perfect right to take this stance, though not one I share

Trying to link speaker quality to size only is bit like suggesting that te quality of a wine depends primarily on it`s alcohol content

Laurie S

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Fri 26 March 2004 at 11:28.]

---

Laurie,

I have some respect/understanding for your POV, but I have to say some of your recent posts do come across as someone who is possibly a touch arrogant. I would also, if I may (& please don't take this the wrong way) observe that some of your findings are not as objective or reasoned as you imply.

Are you a teacher BTW?

regards

Dev

quote:



Laurie,

I have some respect/understanding for your POV, but I have to say some of your recent posts do come across as someone who is possibly a touch arrogant. I would also, if I may (& please don't take this the wrong way) observe that some of your findings are not as objective or reasoned as you imply.


Would you care to elaborate Dev? In the interests of fairness, if you make an essertion like that, then please give me specific examples, in order that I may respond

As a pre-emptive, I try to ensure thatmy comments are presented in a measured, even handed way, and refrain from making assertions based on lack of personal experience.

Some of my comments do take up a humourous toungue in cheek tinge, though in keeping with the flavour of the discussion at the time.

Over to you now:.....

Laurie S

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Fri 26 March 2004 at 13:15.]

Trying to link speaker quality to size only is bit like suggesting that te quality of a wine depends primarily on it`s alcohol content

But quantity does matter.

Emil

quote:

---

But quantity does matter.

---

Depends upon what it is you are talking about, and what you are feeding it with!
Back to topic: You may not like the sbl's, but in terms of volume mine are filling a 18ft by 12.5ft living room very well, but only after sorting out stuff like Mains, source and support etc. No doubt the 250II will augment that as an when funds permit, but the 180 is doing a sterling job at the moment.

I feel speakers are the most awkward part of the hi-fi chain, hence so many differant makes etc being available at a set price point.

I have heard some B&W standmounters fill a much larger room that mine very well, and yet have listened to other speakers much bigger struggle to make an impact on a smaller room.

A home trial of any speaker in theory is the only way to go, because of the speaker/room interface. I would not judge any speaker in a demo room unless I absolutly had no other choice, and even then I would be sceptical. This is especially bearing in mind the price some of the speakers we discuss. The original starter of this thread listened to the sbl's in a demo room. This could be more awkward should the speakers in question be potentially being purchased via ebay etc.

andy c!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
quote:



Over to you now:.....

Laurie S

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Fri 26 March 2004 at 13:15.]

---

Laurie,

With respect I have neither the time or the inclination to enter into a virtual debate with you on this, except to say that your experience on many issues (eg. Meridian CD players, Olive vs New, ProZac speakers and to an extent mains) are completely at variance with mine, and therefore a discussion woudl be fruitless and ultimately pointless. Sorry.

But the more general & imporatant point I was making is that your post came across as rather arrogant, which I am sure was unintentional.

regards,

Dev

ps. oh, and PR, if Lauries views diverge from mine at least I can see where he is coming from, you are on another galaxy

quote:

---

Laurie,

With respect I have neither the time or the inclination to enter into a virtual debate with you on this, except to say that your experience on many issues

---

and

quote:

---

But the more general & imporatant point I was making is that your post came across as rather arrogant, which I am sure was unintentional.

---

Well, Dev, my (I hope you percieve as measured) response is:

(1) It is not really on to assert that my comments are arrogant, and then decline to give details, thus effectively blocking me the opportunity to counter your claim. Your assertion of my attitude simply then relapses to your perceptions, rather than establishes fact.......you are entitled to your opinions as much as anyone, in fact very much in keeping with:

(2) my opinions on such matters as Naim CDPs, Meridian CDPs, ProAcs etc are unashamedly subjective, and I make no apologies for that

If my opinions come across as arrogant, then I would respond:

On matters which concern, what I believe to be irrefutable fact,I will express and argue my beliefs strongly and, and on matters that are based on my subjective opinion, I try to be careful to add this caveat

I have engaged with other parties expressing sweeping, simplistic generalizations, which, by default, put down people who do not fall in line with that particular view(as in this thread....ie bigger equals better re speakers).

I then feel impelled to engage these sweeping generalisations and try to expose them for what they are.


If you percieve that as arrogant, then either I am choosing my language incorrectly, or else I might suggest you are being oversensitive

Laurie S