@dagosa and @MikeInNH–Thanks for the great discussion of speakers. I am at the point where I think I am ready to upgrade. The WF (wife factor) is a certainly a limiting factor, but it can be used to an advantage. My original speaker was a 12" Jensen with a “whizzer” acoustical tweeter in the center that I installed in a “$3 speaker baffle” from plans I found in a Popular Electronics publication from about 1956 or 1957. The speaker baffle was made from a sheet of celotex. I built the baffle and installed the speaker during my first round of graduate school. Even after offers to paint the celotex baffle, my wife didn’t think that the speaker was aesthetically pleasing, so I was able to upgrade to an AR 2ax speaker in 1965. A couple of years later, I was able to upgrade to a stereo receiver and added another AR 2ax speaker. The rheostats that control the tweeters have since gone bad and I am trying to find replacement rheostats for the crossover networks. In the meantime, I was at a music store purchasing music and the store had a sidewalk sale with a pair of used Polk Audio mid line speakers made sometime in the 1990s for $60, so I bought them to use while I search for parts for the AR 2ax speakers. Since 90% of my listening is to chamber music, these Polk Audio units do a good job. I’m debating whether to continue using the Polk Audio, search more intensively for parts for the crossovers of the AR 2ax or upgrade. Your discussion of speakers has been very helpful.
For most of my life, I drooled over expensive audio equipment just as I drooled over owning a sports car. However, budget and practicality always took precedence–hence I bought a Rambler instead of an Austin Healy Sprite back in the 1960s and assembled my $3 celotex cabinet with the inexpensive Jensen speaker instead of buying the Electro-Voice top of the line “Patrician” speaker system (remeber those from the late 1950s?)
@Treidaq
AR2ax are great, you are my new hero for hanging on so long with them. I had a pair that succumbed to WF after a few years. I replaced them with small AR8b bookshelves which were excellent too. There should be a bunch of those around on eBay if that interests you. When paired with a quality sub in the 12" or less…recommend a Velodyne ( they specialize) you will not miss the AR2ax if that is the sound you like. AR8b are not bright but very neutral, just like the AR2ax. If they are older, they may have to be refoamed…great little project for you.
I would not buy any thing new but stay with that vintage from AR, Boston Acoustic, EPI, or Epicure ( same brand) all great chamber music speakers and all inexpensive used. Do buy new, a powered sub woofer. It not only adds bass but reduces Doppler distortion making your main speakers exceptionally clear. Take care and good hunting regardless what you decide.
For most of my life, I drooled over expensive audio equipment just as I drooled over owning a sports car. However, budget and practicality always took precedence--hence I bought a Rambler instead of an Austin Healy Sprite back in the 1960s and assembled my $3 celotex cabinet with the inexpensive Jensen speaker instead of buying the Electro-Voice top of the line "Patrician" speaker system (remeber those from the late 1950s?)
I bought my original Altecs when I was single right after college. When I upgraded a few years back the cheapest thing to do was to build them myself. The new speakers are as good or better then the original. My amp I made from a kit. The pre-amp and Blue-ray player I bought new. But my complete system cost me less then $5000. Most audiophile’s wouldn’t consider a system that’s under $10k. And you can do a even cheaper then mine. Used market is great for finding bargains if you know what to look for. I bought a beautiful Crown amp for less then $200. Used it for 15 years and sold it for $500.
I did every thing on the cheap. The some of the better speakers we ever heard, were the ones we made. A good friend was taking a computer course and wrote a simple program that would give you exact demensions, port diameter and length, and cross over frequencies, and projected frequency response dependent on these variables as you altered them. This was all from key speaker measurements. Then we got this bright idea because he lived near a dump, we would work the program backwards as making the boxes was the tedious part.
We looked for older well constructed boxes from Better speaker brands. They were not in short supply from a dump. We really got cranking and I lost count of the number we made. We started giving them away as gifts after a while. Then we started to experimenting with multiple bass drivers, multiple ports, passive radiators…you name it, we tried it…except for horns. A transmission line was never finished.
I still have several passive and powered subs we made as does my friend. Every room in the house except for the kitchen and bath rooms has a sound system. Being a bass freak, three rooms have systems with home made sub woofers and the family room with home theater has three of them…make that 4, one passive three powered. Multiple subwoofers don’t have to work as hard and you can control bass distortion better IMO. Years ago, I started running a sub woofer in the center channel and back, each set to large. I got such good results, my son started setting up speakers in his demo room at work that way. Sold a lot of extra speakers that way.
@dagosa–I know what it is like doing everything on the cheap. When I went to college back in the 1950s, I was hoping to have a room mate from a wealthy family. Instead, my room mate was a minister’s son and his family had about the same income as my family. The college I attended had a great record collection and we had no means to play the records. When we went shopping for a record player, all we found in our price range ($30 or less in 1959) was junk. In desperation, I purchased a VM record changer (no amplifier or speakers) for $28. I reasoned that since I had a clock radio and every radio has an amplifier section and a speaker, I should be able to make it work. I found a book about radio circuits in the library, bought a phono jack and a switch and was able to tap into the amplifier section of the radio (this was in the tube days before printed circuits). The switch allowed me to switch between the radio and record player. A used Eico amplifier and pre amplifier and the speaker in the celotex baffle came after graduation.
There’s a lot of very good stuff out there that isn’t expensive. Building your own speakers can be fun and can save you a LOT of money. And you don’t have to write your own custom program. There are programs readily available (FREE) for almost every type of operating system.
Believe it or not…some of the older (pre-1990) speaker components from Altec and JBL are as good or BETTER then 90% of the new stuff you can buy today. And there are places like Great Plains audio that can refurbish them back to as new condition. The total cost is very cheap. Put them in a home built cabinet…and you’ll have one of the sweetest sounding speakers available. And a nice thing about using drivers from Altec and JBL…is they are very efficient…so you don’t have to buy high-powered (usually expensive) amps. I drive my Altecs with a 20watt per channel (although I really only have 12 usable watts) amp. And 99% of the time I barely get over 2 watts. At 12 watts…it’s thundering sound in a 24’x15’ room. You can buy a decent receiver from companies like NAD or Denon for well under $500.
@MikeInNH–Thank you for the information. Before I retired in May of 2011, I didn’t have time to really think about updating my audio equipment. It’s great to know that some of the older speaker components are better than what can be purchased today.
Many years ago thre was an article in Stereo Review ( could have been another publication) that stressed how important the crossover points were to deliver the necessary dispersion for life like sound. The use a formular base upon the crossover for each drive v it’s diameter and gave each an overall rating. With. 1.00 in rating being the cut off it was amazing how it matched the higher regarded speakers. The early Advents which were trend setters had a very low cross over for a two way at 1.8 k , but sold like wild fire. Their rating was well over the 1.00 limit. When buyers started cranking them up, they started blowing tweeters. The company responded to that complaint by raising the crossover to 2.5 kh instead of improving the tweeter. That one move, cost a legendary speaker a place in history as people stopped buying them even though the FR was exactly the same ! They increased the power handling and ruined the sound by ruining the dispersion characteristics.
As the digital age with it’s greater dynamic range took hold, speaker companies responded by raising crossovers points to increase the durability of the smaller drivers. That’s why, in the mid fi range @Treidaq is absolutely right to stay with his early AR 2ax speakers (with very high ratings) or same vintage for non home theater applications. As a rule, most cost concious mid fi speakers of today are set up for home theater with it’s greater dynamic range requirements and really S.U.C.K. for music. The option as @MikeInNH has rightfully adopted, is very large and efficient speakers with horns which nominally have low crossovers and exceptional dynamic range. The WAF always works against this option.
When we made speakers, we always chose the lowest crossover points that the tweeters would accept as one of our main criteria…we were never disappointed. I have been searching for that article on line for years since it has been out of print, but have yet to find it…when I do, I will references it . Being a math person, it was amazing to look down through the list of speakers with the higher ratings and see how his simple idea corresponded to so many highly regarded speakers of that time.
So @MikeInN), even though you may say you do not believe as much as I in the importance of controlled dispersion, your choices do indicate you know your ears and you know your speakers.
So @MikeInN), even though you may say you do not believe as much as I in the importance of controlled dispersion
There are different ways for dispersion. One through deflection…the other through proper dispersion (especially in the upper frequencies to eliminate beaming…Newer horn speakers (CD type or traxtrix) are excellent for this.
As for crossovers…my home speakers have a twin pro model…The ONLY difference is the crossover point…Mine is at 1500hz…the pro model - 1200hz.
Mike, I assume you have a 15 inch woofer ? A crossover of 1.5 k is exceptionally low in a two way and only possible with horn tweeters of high mechanical efficiency. That’s one reason for the musicality of the speakers. I did find a copy of the article I always kept.
" Using speaker specifications to your advantage " by Dennis Smith
Included is a list of dozens of speakers listed by his directivity index. But this list is a list of old, before speaker makers started to prostitute their souls for home theater to make a buck…
Names like older models of ADS, B &W, Kef, Ohm, EPI etc. are nearer the top of the list…of old. But unfortunately for many, some early Bose models appear there as well. There is still a reason they sell.
I will scan the article if I can’t find it on line.
You may want to consider having an external “whip” type antenna installed on your car. I noticed that antennae built into the windshield rarely perform as well as an external antennae.
Mike, I assume you have a 15 inch woofer ?
No…12" woofer…
My next speaker build (when wife will let me) will be using the 604 coaxial using a 16" woofer.
Why go so large. Why not just" hide" a sub woofer with a moderate size bookshelf. A moderate bookshelf is an easier build and a sub woofer can be hidden in basic black.
http://www.paradigm.com/all-about-sound/the-low-down-on-dispersion
Still can’t find it but here is a similar opinion.
Imho mating a powered sub with high quality monitors is very tough to do well. For home theater it’s perfectly acceptable but for serious 2 channel listening its hardly optimal. Again just my opinion. I’ve heard setups with very nice separate subs and was never impressed
IMHO, mating a powered sub with high quality “monitors” Monitor speakers…there in lies the problem…monitor speakers are in appropriate for home listening. They direct their concentrated sound to a sound engineer or performer if they are indeed used appropriately. They have high accuracy, but only in a narrow beam and can sound out of place and unnatural in a persons living room. Sub woofers are more omni directional and should be used with speakers with suitable dispersion characteristics for the entire system to work well. Obviously, you need to match the sub to the speaker. You can’t expect any sub to work with any speaker just like you can’t throw in any woofer with any midrange and tweeter and expect it to work. This is routinely done and why less then ideal results often occur. The term “monitor” has been over worked by speaker companies to a point of being totally useless in actually describing a home speaker. True Monitor speakers do not make good home stereo or home theater speakers to begin with.
They direct their concentrated sound to a sound engineer or performer if they are indeed used appropriately
Not all. The most widely used monitor speaker the Altec 604 has very good dispersion…Some can be very beaming…JBL’s 4341…is VERY VERY beaming.
I look at monitor speakers more as small, high quality speakers. And smaller drivers have better dispersion than larger drivers, so there are plenty of ‘monitor’-sized speakers that work great. I have a pair of smaller Paradigms that sound good with my Velodyne sub.
Monitor speakers are specially that. They are used to monitor the sound by an engineer in a static position with the speakers aimed at them. Because beaming its NOT an issue with the true monitor speaker, they have higher crossovers so as not to stress the upper range drivers. This allows them to reproduce signals under less stress with greater accuracy.
But, it’s an evaluation tool so the engineer can control mix and FR on a mixing board equalizer along with delay or what ever else they wish. Size is an ancillary consideration as monitor speakers can be EQ 'd themselves to get as flat a response as possible. But, monitor speakers can minimize dispersion, taking reflections out of mix as much as possible. This is all what a sound man friend who does recordings for his band has indicated to me. His monitor speakers that he primarily uses are NOT as expensive as you would think. Why ? Because they are compromises…and falling for the jargon that true monitor speakers give you “life like sound” is pure, unadulterated hype.
My Friend uses old EPI s for his living room…with very low crossovers and very good off axis dispersion along with a passive subwoofer. This mix is crossed over at a low 60 to 80 Hz, with the same efficiency as his EPI 's for good mid bass and low mid range dispersion by the EPI’s. This is totally impossible by his monitor speakers. The difference in sound quality of his highly regarded Monitor speakers and the EPI in his living room , is like night and day. The EPIs he has are very old and on their third refoaming…BTW, foam is better suspension material for acoustic suspension speakers then rubber which is another hype…
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sound-frequency-wavelength-d_56.html
Just adding this reference. Notice the wave lengths of sound at different frequencies. Generally, if a driver’s radiating area diameter is greater then the sound frequency length it is producing, that frequency will have a tendency to beam. If the sound wave is longer, it will be dispersed. If a crossover requires a low frequency driver to generate high frequency sound waves whose lengths are greater then it’s diameter, they will all tend to beam. So generally, smaller diameter drivers tend to disperse sound better, producing more natural overall sound…but, because the woofers don’t look as big, they they don’t impress people visually and smaller divers are more expensive to make not less, to make them capable of delivering low frequencies at higher volumes.
Woofers don’t beam…at least not much…And horn loaded high-frequencies are very good at dispersing the sound over a standard dome tweeter. And in the 80’s Altec invented the CD (Constant Directivity) horn. The design behind the horn was that the sweat spot was well off axis…not just a narrow area. Bruce Edgar’s TracTrix horn also has extremely good off-axis dispersion. JBL has their own version too.