Ring of the Lings, Part 2: Edster's impressions
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page| Thread | Last Poster | Posts | Last Post | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Archive through August 04, 2005 | Curtis | 100 |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 370 Registered: May-05 | Curtis, Yes, it's an interesting hobby. One my wife does not understand at all, except when she watches movies and the sound is good. How are the waves in Manhattan Beach? I miss the beaches in So. Cal. but not much else. There's nothing like having 12 million of your closest friends on the freeway with you. LOL |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 13 Registered: May-04 | I've got some close friends that think it is strange too...mostly female. Ah yes...traffic. I have not had to deal with traffic for almost six years....an 8 minute commute to my former employer. The new job that I think I will be taking is at UCLA...so I will be dealing with it again! The beaches are great. Annual Surf Festival this weekend...so it is going to be nuts. Unfortunately I can not participate this year due other obligations. I have only missed two in 10 years. Here are pictures from the 2003 Surf Festival Volleyball tournament. That year, we got Ascend to sponsor my friend's team. http://changpics.smugmug.com/gallery/340116/1 |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 424 Registered: Dec-03 | Wait a second. Edster, a 6000 cu. ft. room? Mmm...a 4.5" driver in a 6000 cu. ft. room. As great as they are that's asking a lot. There's only so much a driver that size can do. I'm thinking that rolling to a sub at 80Hz with this speaker is the best setup for rooms over 1500 cu.ft. You'll still get a lot of dynamics even though it's such a small speaker. Even better would be stereo subs. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 372 Registered: May-05 | U rah rah rah, C rah rah rah, L rah rah rah, A rah rah rah, U C L A fight fight fight. (8 clap anyone). OK, now you've done it, I do miss my 50 yard line seats at the Rose Bowl and watching the Bruins, unfortunately mostly hated watching them lose to University of Spoiled Children (yeah, they're back and they're No. 1 in the country again.) BOO!!! Now, you've done it again. I may have majored in pysch and minored in history BUT I spent more time at Santa Monica playing volleyball than anything. Only 5'9" tall but had a 38" vertical. Lost to Keith Erickson, Wilt Chamberlain and the father of beach volleyball, although I can't recall the guy's name. Karch Kiraly was just a baby and we wouldn't let him play with us. But, UCLA was on its 7th or 8th NCAA championship and I got to play beach ball against several of the guys, Mike Simons and John Hennan for two. Simons was 6' and had a 42" vertical and was the only guy I ever met, including the Wiltster, who could hit over the top of my block. Yeah, had a jass class with Bill Walton and a couple of the also National Champion basketball team. Hey, we were a basketball school. OK, earth to Dave, time to return to reality. Geez Curtis, you hit a couple of "happy spots" there. LOL P.S. - I still played fairly competitive up to 3 years ago when I tore both ligaments in my left foot, landed on large foot under the net. OUCH |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 14 Registered: May-04 | WOW!! I am only 5'7"...primarily a setter and defense guy, but I loved to hit. I actually played college tennis and picked volleyball because I had lots of friends doing it. I played in leagues with ex-olympians and college players....even good enough to win one championship. I forget the ratings of the league. Father of beach volleyball...would that be Jim Menges or Ron Von Hagen? I heard Wilt wasn't that good, just that his height and athleticism helped him at the net....but terrible technique.  I have not played much in the last 8 years or so..maybe just a handful of times during the summer, and few more throughout the year. I also have two torn ACLs..custom brace for one knee. Messed one up in college during tennis practice. The other, I landed on a portable net standard when playing hack volleyball with friends (I won't do that again). OK...yeah...this has nothing to do with speakers...but it is fun. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 373 Registered: May-05 | Good job, Ronnie Von Hagen. I knew of Jim but Von Hagen used to show up in his Porsche on lunch hour, play awhile and leave. I never did figure out what he did for a living but I really wanted that job. Wilt couldn't move at all. He teamed up with Keith Erickson and another guy on occasion. When my partner and I played them, Erickson covered the whole court, set him and then just got out of the way. Wilt could hit straight down on the beach, not many people can do that. Actually, I played with Wilt indoors twice and he had gotten fairly decent by the time he got into the pro volleyball indoor circuit as an owner. Yeah, now back to our regularly scheduled audio programming. Sorry about the complete take off here guys BUT it's all Curtis' fault. LOL |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1815 Registered: Jan-05 | There goes Eddie again..... Talking about that 'fast' bass. Hahahaha One of the best misnomers in all of hifi. Also, if you're concerned about which receiver creates the most bass, you need to turn around and immediately toss your current speakers into the garbage. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 15 Registered: May-04 | yeah....but since you understand it as a misnomer, then you know what he is hearing. Once you know that, you know what his preferences are in bass. For the receiver, I don't think it is necessarily the one that creates more bass, but the one that has better amps and damping/control. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1819 Registered: Jan-05 | You can also take it a step further...... If you own a quality amp and speakers, you'll never feel the need to access or change the tone controls from the standard flat position.. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 16 Registered: May-04 | I'll agree with that...of course, you have to like your speakers too. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1431 Registered: Mar-05 | Curtis, You might want to browse through a dozen or so of Paul's postings so you know who you're dealing with here. He's one of Ecoustics' most reliable and prolific sources of comic relief, intentional and (more often) unintentional. Strangely endearing...kind of like a wart that one begins to regard as a beauty mark after a few months. LOL! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1432 Registered: Mar-05 | anyways, just solved my wiring issue so will soon be listening to the speakers on the NAD with the Hsu hooked up. Tonight's my last night with these babies, the 170s and Lings will be headed to Quinn tomorrow afternoon, after which Jan will be receiving them. Damn I'm gonna miss having 3 pairs of speakers to play with! In all seriousness, if I had the moolah and acquiescent wife I might seriously consider keeping the Lings to switch to when listening to certain types of music that they're especially suited for. Have only had a chance to go through the "Trainspotting" soundtrack tonight so far, and not surprisingly the Lings excel with electronic drum machines, synthesizers and power chords. On male vocals with quiet background piano (Lou Reed's "Perfect Day") they definitely give the 170s a run for the money, it's a complete tossup which one I preferred more for that song. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 505 Registered: Jun-05 | Edster,go over to the future of speakers thread,you will see something funny. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 425 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks for a thorough job Edster! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1434 Registered: Mar-05 | Tim, Thank YOU for letting me audition them! It's been a thoroughly enjoyable, and very educational, experience on many levels. Also thanks to Quinn for loaning me his 170s and STF-2, I hope to read your thoughts on the Lings soon. Later tonight I'll post my last detailed review, this time of the 170s, 340s, and Lings. Today was a lesson in speaker and subwoofer placement. Let's just say that the Lings, when placed 3 feet apart creating an isosceles triangle towards the listening position, are hugely improved. I originally had them over 6 feet apart to form an equilateral triangle. Also the STF-2 when angled at the wall so that the rear port bounces off more towards the listening position, also enjoyed better performance. Turns out that I do prefer the 170s over the 340s, though...go figure! lol |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1104 Registered: Feb-04 | 3 feet apart! Yikes! |
|
New member Username: QuinnPost Number: 5 Registered: Aug-05 | I wish I'd thought to write down my settings on the STF-2 before I lent out to Eddie. I'll need to recalibrate the HT system this evening or tomorrow. I guess I'll start part III for my thoughts. This is the dead week between summer camp and before school starts on Thursday here for the kids. That makes my listening window whenever the wife can get the kids out of the house this weekend until next Friday. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 427 Registered: Dec-03 | "Turns out that I do prefer the 170s over the 340s, though...go figure! lol" Some people like D'Appolito configurations and some don't. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1834 Registered: Jan-05 | "Today was a lesson in speaker and subwoofer placement. Let's just say that the Lings, when placed 3 feet apart creating an isosceles triangle towards the listening position, are hugely improved." ------------------------ Ahhh, it's a good Idea you moved them 'way apart' like that. Three feet should be plenty of space to allow for plenty of space between them and your Panasonic so you wont have to worry about whether they're shielded or not. HEH |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 528 Registered: Jun-05 | Its just the coherency of a 2 way bookshelf,they are when designed good are rather magical in that regard. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4843 Registered: May-04 | T8 - As one of the next recipients of the audition pair of Lings, I've wanted to ask you about your suggestions for placement. I normally use a "rule of thirds" speaker placement which puts the speakers 7' out from the front wall in my listening room. I sit anywhere from 7-9' away from the speakers in a 21' deep room (21x15x9 approx.) with the speakers placed about 10-11' apart. (I know, but it works like nobody's business!) I set the toe in to cross the speaker axes just at my listening position. This gives me a stage full of performers stretching from wall to wall and sometimes, given the right recording techniques/effects, beyond the physical boundaries of the room. "Palpable presence" is terrific. (Blossom Dearie performed just for me last night and a wonderful oerformance it was!) While much of this placement of performers and instruments in space is attributable to the 3/5a's, I've duplicated 90% of the feat with less expensive speaker systems (KEF, B&W, Polk & NSM). Ed says he listened at 6' away (?). Can the drivers in the Ling give good cohesion to the sound from that near field position or do they require a further distance from the speakers to coalesce? When I tried my Spica's in this back room (the floor standing Angelus**) with their quirky physical design, first and fourth order X-over and time aligned driver placement, I needed a few more feet away from the speaker or sounds would sometimes "stick" to the cabinets. Also, I've been using the speaker placement suggested by Mapleshade Audio which puts the speakers about 8" above the floor.* With the LS3/5a's and the other small speaker enclosures, and this has provided excellent balance to the sound with an expansive stage width, depth and height. Rick Barnes has also been using this placement with his Spendor 3/5's(?) and SM has used this with several small speaker systems with excellent results. Any thoughts you can share on the subject of stands? *http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/tweaks/bedrocks.php http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/tweaks/gilbraltars.php (I had used the lower placement when I had the LS3/5a's in the front room. Now that they have moved to the back room where I have more room treatment, I have switched to the higher placement though this still puts the woofer only about 9" off the floor. I've compared this several times to taller stands, both sand damped metal and concrete damped (Sound Anchors) stands, and found a more cohesive sound from the lower placement in both rooms with several amps. **http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/693/index4.html I have several sets of speaker cables to use (including Home Depot extension cords), but my favorites that have found a place in my main system for many years are the old Sumiko OCOS cables. A very odd design, I don't know if you remember this cable or not. Any ideas on speaker cables that have synchronicity with the Lings? |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 530 Registered: Jun-05 | I have a friend in california who has those stands, with some Pro Ac Tablellite Reference 8s,but his room is extremely small,actually one of the smallest listning rooms I've seen.So do they really work in a room the size of yours?and yeah I usually sit about 8feet away with the speakers about 9 feet apart. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4847 Registered: May-04 | "This gives me a stage full of performers stretching from wall to wall and sometimes, given the right recording techniques/effects, beyond the physical boundaries of the room. "Palpable presence" is terrific. (Blossom Dearie performed just for me last night and a wonderful oerformance it was!)" "With the LS3/5a's and the other small speaker enclosures, and this has provided excellent balance to the sound with an expansive stage width, depth and height. Rick Barnes has also been using this placement with his Spendor 3/5's(?) and SM has used this with several small speaker systems with excellent results." YEP!!! It works well!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 430 Registered: Dec-03 | I think your placement method is pretty good Jan. The "rule of thirds" works well in most cases. Where I do my music listening may be different than most. There are no parallel walls, the ceiling is 11' high and there is no wall behind the center point of the speakers. Directly behind each of the speakers is a 45 degree wall about 4 feet long and there is no wall closer than 4 feet. The speakers are about 7-9 feet apart (a little closer for the Lings) and I sit anywhere from 7-9 feet away (depending on which speakers are playing. I try to get my ears on axis with the tweeters, if the speakers are a little higher I don't mind that as much as music coming from the floor. The only time I've had them 3 feet apart is when I've used them as PC speakers (definite overkill). 5 feet is still a bit close together for me. These things always depend on the room. I've used the Lings in listening sessions in rooms with an average ceiling height and maybe 15'W x 24'D with the speakers backed up within inches of the wall, spread ~7' apart and they sounded pretty darn good. For stands I use my DIY models and toe spikes. The center column is 4" PVC filled with play sand. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4852 Registered: May-04 | How high are your stands? Any tilt to the platform? Is this for use with a subwoofer or alone? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 432 Registered: Dec-03 | About 30". No tilt. I only use subs in HT. That's a completely different setup. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 433 Registered: Dec-03 | Well, I should say I have used subs in my music system but only temporarily. It depends on what I'm working on. |
|
New member Username: QuinnPost Number: 6 Registered: Aug-05 | Eddie just dropped everything off a little bit ago. I got they idea from Eddie and his wife that they liked the Lings better at 3 feet apart and toed in rather than 6 feet part. I did get the idea he does his listening at 6 feet away. That to me means he is listening near field. It might also explain his liking the 170 over the 340. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1839 Registered: Jan-05 | Listening at only 6 feet?? Geez, that's almost as bad as when Im speaker shopping and getting up close and personal. HEH |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1437 Registered: Mar-05 | Paul, PUH-LEEZ...for *you* to even ATTEMPT to say anything about music listening is like a g-a-y man giving advice on Dining At The Y. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 19 Registered: May-04 | LOL!!! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1438 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan, I took a measuring tape and found that my ears are actually about 8 feet away from where I positioned each of the Lings. All of my gear is on a low TV stand about 5 feet wide, so I ended up having to put the Lings on their stands in front of the stand. The Ascend 340s are immediately on either side of the stand and toed in, and I had the 170s positioned right next to them. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 20 Registered: May-04 | I am about 10 feet from my 340's, not sure I would want to be any closer. Bringing speakers in front of the TV plain, or removing the TV entirely, will help with imaging. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1439 Registered: Mar-05 | Anyways, here's my last session with the Lings. Moving them closer together improved their coherence and soundstage enormously...they are still nowhere as intricately detailed as the Ascends but it was as if they finally JELLED, I had the sense that all of the notes finally locked into place and I was finally hearing a unified soundfield. Bach, Brandenburg Concerton No. 3 (mostly violins) - Ascends the clear winner with the airy strings, the Lings sounded like they were playing from inside a bottle in comparison. Bach, Toccata & Fugue (pipe organ) - Lings fared particularly badly here. Using an SPL meter, I had to set the NAD's volume at 12 o'clock (a first for me with not only the Ascends but also with the Lings) in order to get the same output as the Ascends at 9 o'clock position, and even then I still thought I was only hearing maybe half of the music, the Lings were just plain comatose on this one. Ascends 5-1. Gypsy Kings (flamenco guitar) Heiter Villa Lobos (classical Spanish guitar) - Lings had a delightfully golden, lush sound. The Ascends were clearer but almost harsh, not nearly as enjoyable. Lings 3-1. Thelonius Monk, "Ruby My Dear" - Lings did very well with Monk's relaxed, simple horns, very warm. The Ascends also did well, I noticed at a lot more detail even at lower volumes (65db) versus the Lings (75 db). Lings 4-3. Branford Marsalis Quartet, "Mo Better Blues" - Lings again came out beautifully warm and smooth on the long laid-back notes. The Ascends were more open, spacious and transparent. Dead heat here. Metallica, "Enter Sandman" - surprise, surprise! Lings sounded very dark, flat, closed when contending with the continuous bass guitar and monotonous almost one-note deep bass. The Ascends were more dynamic but the high end was thin around the edges. Neither speaker did too well in any case...Cerwin Vegas, anyone? : ) Thank God I almost never listen to metal anymore, I might have to get some JBLs or something like that. Ascends 3-2. Metallica, "Wherever I May Roam" - the gong that opens this song had much slower decay on the Ascends, with the Lings it all but flashed and disappeared at the same time. Opposite of how the Lings perform with mid to low tones on solo accoustic guitar and piano. Ascends 4-2. In conclusion, I keep coming back to the pipe dream of having two pairs of speakers to use with different types of music. Should still be a heck of a lot cheaper than some truly high end audiophile speaker (Tawaun, Jan, and Art among others could provide plenty of candidates I'm sure) that supposedly does EVERYTHING beautifully, lol! Ah, the El Dorado of speakers... When the Lings are matched with the right type of music, and placed more in an isoceles triange (at least in my room...YMMV), they are wonderfully lush and warm and comforting, offering a totally different listening experience. More of a hit and miss speaker: when they hit they really are gorgeous, but when they miss...not a pretty picture. The Ascends are a more consistent speaker, more often than not they are astonishingly transparent, dynamic and precisely detailed. My earlier Cezanne vs. Ansel Adams analogy keeps coming back. At the same time the Ascends never could create quite the same feeling as the Lings could at their best. PS. I ended up preferring the smaller 170s to the 340s, the latter's extra driver provided a fuller sound but at high volumes (over 85db) seemed to lose control of the highs, whereas the 170s stuck to their immaculate and unflappable neutrality no matter how hard I pushed them. Now that I think about it, I had a similar preference when I first auditoned both the 170s and 340s at Quinn's house before I ordered from Ascend, albeit Quinn had the two in different rooms, running off of different amps and CD players; I chose the 340s then because I figured with my enormous living room the larger 340s would work better. My experience in the past week especially using the speaker switcher truly confirms the fallacy of that line of thought: unless one lives in an outright auditorium, speaker size may be largely irrelevant as long as you have a decent power source. However I have to say that the Lings' 4.5" drivers might indeed be way too small...they consistently clipped with deep bass (kick drums especially) when played at volumes above 80-85db though the 80Hz crossover on my Marantz 5400 helped. With the NAD I found that I had to turn the bass knob on the pre-amp to 9 o'clock. Also my earlier comments about the Hsu not being able to keep up with fast drums might have been hasty. Today when I angled the Hsu's rear port instead of having it square at the wall, and experiemented with the phase setting and its own crossover point, I found its performance much improved. With the NAD, the Hsu's relatively slowness was much less of a factor than it was with the Marantz. PPS. Going from NAD to Marantz back to NAD again confirmed how much I prefer the NAD's sound even if it does lack the Marantz's HPF which came in very handy with the Lings...I suppose the bass level knob on the NAD will have to do for now. Hmm, since I have the speaker switcher I wonder if I should bother doing a comparison of my Mordaunt Short MS-05s and the horrific Polk R20s from my bedroom minisystem, just for laughs? |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 21 Registered: May-04 | Make good use of that speaker switch! Whatever you do, don't disconnect it....always have it ready for comparisons. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 22 Registered: May-04 | great stuff Ed! |
|
Anonymous | When does Jan get his turn? I want to hear an evaluation with some real reference quality components. |
|
Bronze Member Username: QuinnPost Number: 12 Registered: Aug-05 | I should have thought to borrow the speaker switch. Anonymous I don't know what Jan's gear is. My comparisons are being done on Audio Refinement Complete gear. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1854 Registered: Jan-05 | "When does Jan get his turn? I want to hear an evaluation with some real reference quality components." ----------------------------- From what I can see, Jans the small bookshelf speaker expert. Im not sure if he's even listened to anything else, so his review should be right on the mark. |
|
Anonymous | Exactly my point. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 24 Registered: May-04 | No disrespect to Jan, but if all he knows is bookshelves, that doesn't invalidate the opinions of others. Jan has preferences just like everyone else. Everyone's opinion is subjective. |
|
Anonymous | With all due respect to everyone, my point is I want to hear an evaluation with a reference quality amp and speakers. I don't want to know how they sound with a HT multichannel receiver. I want to know how they compare to a classic reference speaker like the LS 3/5a. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 25 Registered: May-04 | That is fine. Then again, it is "reference" because you have heard them before. Some of us have never heard the LS 3/5a, but have heard other quality speakers. IMO, it is a bit rude to post as "Anonymous", imply that Quinn's opinions are of no value, and then ask him to hurry along so you can get what you want from Jan. You know Jan is going to get them....you can just sit back, wait, and be courteous. On top of all that, it makes it even more interesting that you do not want to reveal who you are. Some can think that you might have an agenda of sorts. To me, that is a dis-service to Tim and Jan. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1137 Registered: Feb-04 | I just ignore most anonymous posts anyway. You can't be sure you'll dealing with the same person within a single conversation. Heck, if anonymous wanted a review of the Ling's, he could have added his name to the list of people to review them! |
|
Anonymous | Peter's dead on. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1427 Registered: Feb-05 | I want to take this opportunity to thank Edster and cohorts for their work comparing speakers. Sounds like the winner by a nose for Edster is the 170's. Look forward to reading other's impressions. I am particularly interested in TW's. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1139 Registered: Feb-04 | Funny! |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1453 Registered: Mar-05 | Art, Actually it was more than a nose, sorry if I didn't make that clear. The Lings sound amazing on a fairly narrow segment of the musical genres I listen to: most male vocals, classical & Spanish guitar, solo piano, simple jazz horns, synth-pop dance music. Basically music that yes has a lot of percussion driving it, but also has a simpler compositional structure. The Ascends' uncanny detail and openness I found much more pleasing with a far wider range of music, and with the Lings-friendly genres that I listed above, the Ascends were still very good to competent. The only time the Ascends actually sounded BAD was with the Marantz in Pure Direct mode playing the Gypsy Kings. However I found that the Lings' performance fluctuated wildly---with certain types of music like pipe organs or string quartets they were simply disastrous. Like I wrote earlier, pairing the Lings with a pure-digital receiver might be a very interesting combination... Tim, you might want to consider purchasing say a $200-300 Panny or JVC as part of your R&D budget. If I owned both speakers I would listen to the Lings about 30% of the time and enjoy them immensely during that 30% of the time; the other 70% of the time however I would definitely choose the Ascends. Now I am curious: is there a bookshelf speaker you would recommend that in your opinion can do all those musical genres equally well and costs well under $1000/pair? I'd run right out and listen to it! |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1145 Registered: Feb-04 | Funny ...was directed at anonymous. Art interjected a post there. |
|
Silver Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Usa Post Number: 352 Registered: Jul-04 | I find it interesting that Edster prefers the speakers he doesn't own. (the 170s over the 340s which he owns, and over the lings). Adds an underline of objectivity to his assessments that he has often been accused of not having. (At least that seems to be one of the accusations he gets). |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 375 Registered: May-05 | Edster, FANTASTIC REVIEW!!! Excellent descriptions, including information on speaker placement, set-up and components. YES, I'm excited the 170s came out on top, in a way. BUT, as I found, the Lings could sound absolutely incredible in some genres, so much so that you felt darn close to that audio nirvana but the Ascends just seemed to do everything fairly well and some things very, very well. Anyway, fantastic rundown and you said everything better than I could with much better detail. The speaker switch had to make a huge difference in side by sides for the reasons we discussed earlier. I'm looking forward to Quinn's thoughts.' P.S. - I'm still in CA. and my brother's computer has dialup, thus, the long time between posts. Hpme tomorrow and back to DSL, YEAH!! |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1434 Registered: Feb-05 | Paradigm Studio 20v3. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1624 Registered: Mar-05 | Having just read Jan's long-awaited detailed review of the Lings there are a couple of things I wanted to add. 1. Humongous "DUH!!!" moment of the year: Christ, all that time for some reason it just never sank into my head that the Lings don't have a crossover between the tweeter and the woofer at all, which is largely what makes them so unique and so different from the Ascends. All the more embarassing since Tim's website has that crucial little tidbit in bold type and I had looked at that page at least a half dozen times: http://www.us.alegriaaudio.com/Ling.htm 2. Detail vs. "realism" --- this to me is what lies at the crux of the Ascends vs. Lings matchup. When Marc was over at my place he generally preferred the sound of the Ascends over the Lings by a much wider margin than I did. However I clearly remember that while listening to a solo piano piece, he immediately said of the Ascends, "that is NOT a piano." This moment has stayed with me due in part to that "Do you listen" thread about using live performances as a reference point of comparison for audio systems, and also because Marc is a semi-professional musician who would be obviously far more qualified than me to judge what is a "natural" or "realistic" sound. 3. The local Barnes and Noble megastore has this great little system where you can scan any CD's barcode in the store and listen to MP3 excerpts of that CD's songs through headphones. Today I was listening to a bunch of different Spanish classical guitarists and though the shop's sampler system was far from premium audiophile quality, the headphones presented the music in a wonderfully warm and involving manner that brought back some wistful memories of the Lings' performance with similar source material. As much as I love my Ascends' astounding detail and soundstage, it hit me that they have never evoked quite that kind of emotional response from me. 4. Listening levels---most of the Lings' shortcomings that I found came about at 80db and up. Unfortunately I have always enjoyed the 80-90db levels especially at the end of a long day, but maybe the goldenness and warmth of the Lings might be worth sacrificing that extra 10-15db? So I guess what all of this boils down to is the possibility of revising what I consciously look for when I listen, changing how loudly I listen, as well as accepting the Lings' limitations within my personal musical selection in exchange for the glorious 30% (maybe up to 50-60% if I get used to giving up that 10-15 db) which the Lings do so fabulously. Now just out of curiosity, does anyone know of another crossover-less speaker that somehow manages to achieve a bit more midrange and treble detail, maybe an extra 5 db of sensitivity, yet while retaining that magical warmth and realism? I'd love to go hear them myself just out of curiousity because that should be just about Audio Nirvana. I'm sure these Audio Nirvanas would cost many times more than the Lings, but hey allow a man to dream...LOL |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 211 Registered: Jul-05 | "1. Humongous "DUH!!!" moment of the year: Christ, all that time for some reason it just never sank into my head that the Lings don't have a crossover between the tweeter and the woofer at all, which is largely what makes them so unique and so different from the Ascends. " There is a crossover, it just isn't in the midrange. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 40 Registered: May-04 | Right...it has it listed as a "linear phase crossover". It may not be in the "midrange"....but it has to be in some range. If it is crossed too high, it isn't good for the mid-woof's performance either. It is a delicate balance between components. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 472 Registered: Dec-03 | There is a crossover. The mid-woof has a natural roll-off at 12kHz. I found that to be too high and made the XO point just under 10kHz. This is not your typical mid-woof as the design goal of this driver was for it to be "full-range". |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5282 Registered: May-04 | Curtis - Do not pass "Go". Do not collect $200. Read about the speaker, Curtis. Then you'll see how you comment fits into the discussion. I don't know of S.D.F.R. system that is easily available for audition. Most of the designs have been sold over the internet, to my knowledge. As I pointed out, it is a very small, dedicated group of designers who are going to present a speaker that is out of the mainstream. Why don't you cruise this site for starts, ed. The single driver market is driven more by the single ended amplifier users than mid 80's dB speakers such as the Ling. Their amplifiers run a few watts so the speakers need to be very efficient. Keep in mind efficiency quite often equates to large boxes and horn loading and a frequency response that is not always as smooth as a more conventional system. Whether the typical two way is the best compromise is open for debate. But, it exists in abundance for a reason other than just being cheap to build. |
|
pu pu platter Unregistered guest | Edster, that is a great post. Point #2 is what I've been thinking about since these Ling reviews have started. In my opion, 99% of the speakers are unnaturaly bright so we think we're getting such great detail. Usually at the expense of the big picture. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 41 Registered: May-04 | Jan...I understand. I was just pointing out that mating two drivers is always a delicate balance. As with ANY design there are trade offs, and the designer chooses those trade-offs and in the end, how the speaker sounds. Jan, in your opinion, what is the ultimate goal of a speaker design? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5292 Registered: May-04 | To do nothing. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5293 Registered: May-04 | That is an answer that leaves open too many doors. The ultimate goal of a speaker design is to accomplish the requirements of the design spec. A speaker which has to fill an outdoor arena is not the same as a speaker that is meant for a consumer's home system. If the requirements are different, the goals of the design have to be different also. In a home audio system, my personal choice is to come as close to the above answer as possible within the given budget. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 42 Registered: May-04 | So if we do not know the requirements or goals, how do you evaluate the speaker? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5296 Registered: May-04 | I don't understand. If you don't know whether you're making ragu or hamburgers, why slaughter the cow? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5297 Registered: May-04 | Once again, too many options in that answer. You cannot design something without knowing what you are designing. You might create something you weren't expecting; but that is an accident and not a design. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 43 Registered: May-04 | "The ultimate goal of a speaker design is to accomplish the requirements of the design spec." How do you evaluate a speaker based on this statement? I am not saying this needs to be specific, in fact, what is the "general" goal of "good" speaker in anyones opinion? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5302 Registered: May-04 | First, you have to be more specific. A speaker with 100-7kHz response would be OK for a basketball auditorium. Limited verical and horizontal dispersion would be another quality that you might want in that application. That it ran at 20% T.H.D. would have no real effect when the signal was bouncing around the walls, floor and whatever else got in its way. For the purpose, it is still an acceptable design. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 44 Registered: May-04 | OK....lets back up. You just evaluated the Lings. Do you know what the design spec is, what/who they were intended for, or the goal? "First, you have to be more specific. A speaker with 100-7kHz response would be OK for a basketball auditorium. Limited verical and horizontal dispersion would be another quality that you might want in that application. That it ran at 20% T.H.D. would have no real effect when the signal was bouncing around the walls, floor and whatever else got in its way. For the purpose, it is still an acceptable design." So the goal for that speaker is to sound good in an auditorium.....which is pretty general. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 430 Registered: May-05 | Jan and Curtis, Please carry on. Edster, thanks for adding to your original review. See, it's called the after effect and reversal of cognitive dissonance. Now that they're gone, you're thinking maybe I acted to hastily. Well, join the club. I could see the Lings working fantastic in the right 2 or 2.1 channel system with a good integrated amp or separates. Now, if only my wife wouldn't notice the missing money and the new components sitting downstairs in the room off our living room. HMM? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5307 Registered: May-04 | I asked Tim to give me an idea of what he was after when he began designing the Lings. That helped me in approaching the speaker from the point of view of the designer. It still stood or fell on its own merits. It was nice to see how closely I thought the end result came to the original concept. Pretty well, I would say. The auditorium speaker would have more specs attached if this was designed from the ground up or spec'd for an installation. When I was Master Electrician at the D.T.C., I designed, purchased and installed several different systems for the various stages, touring systems and recording studios we had going. I used product that had already been designed and placed on the market so my specs read differently than the original product's design spec would. I was picking a product to fit a specific need. To see what a designer's spec sheet might look like, get on a search engine and call up a speaker company that sells to the professional sound reinforcement market; something like "Davis" or even "Klipsch Professional" or "JBL Pro". You can usually find the specs for a driver or a horn in those sites. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 45 Registered: May-04 | So if you approach a review from the its designer's point of view, as a opposed to your own, doesn't that lend itself to positive bias? |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 740 Registered: Jun-05 | The Ohms are crossed over 8k to a supertweater though,a totally crossover less speaker the Refference 3a De Caprio.A crossover setting above 3.5k generally will give a more realistic midrange.The Epiphonys are crossed over at 6k,I tend to like that kind of sound or a first oder crossover that doesent sound foward in the midrange like Epos M5&12.2. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5309 Registered: May-04 | I don't know. Was the reason I liked the Lings a matter of them suiting my tastes in music reproduction or because Tim gave me the idea he was going after? I think I judged the speaker fairly whether I knew what Tim was going for or not. As far as I'm concerned it was judged on its ability to portray music in my rooms without any regard for another speaker or anyone else's input. I took down the main speakers from the HT system when I set up the Lings. After the second night I installed a similarly priced speaker (the NSM 5S) for a few songs to verify what I thought I was hearing. The Lings went back into the HT system and remained there until I moved them to the two channel system. I put the Polks back but couldn't listen to them after the Lings. In the two channel system, the LS3/5a's were taken out and nothing was substituted for the Lings until I was finished listening to them. Then the 3/5a's, the NSM's, a pair of KEF's and back to the Rogers in quick succession went into the system to verify what I was hearing, and what I knew to be the case, on various recordings. The amount of time I had the Lings, I spent 95% of that time with the Lings. I had already begun the listening process when I asked Tim for some information. I also asked if he had any ideas how to get the best out of the speakers as far as set up was concerned. In the end it was my playing with the speakers to get what I thought was the best performance. There were no suggestions concerning stands, TipToes, paper towels or toeing the speakers in. Tim gave me a bit of information about the way a single driver reacts to complex signals after I had asked if he had any idea why I was hearing what I was hearing. I tend to think that Tim and I have a similar set of values and preferences for what we get from our music. If you see any sign of bias beyond that in what I wrote, please point it out to Tim and me. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 433 Registered: May-05 | T-Man, "The Ohms are crossed over 8k to a supertweater though . . . I tend to like that kind of sound or a first order crossover that doesn't sound forward." (Edited by DAK only for typos.) I love it when you talk dirty. LOL Curtis and Jan, I think I understand what Jan meant, although he can certainly explain himself, BUT I don't believe there's a bias in understanding what the designer's intent was and then evaluating whether he hit a home run, a double, a single or struck out. That portion of Jan's review simply tells us that Tim came very close or he accomplished what he set out to do. Throughout the several reviews, Jan critically examines what the Lings do well and where they don't perform as well. (I could excerpt if you would like or you can go back and reread.) Anyway, we now have a fairly exhaustive set of reviews that confirm Jan's conclusions so "what's" or "where's the beef?" so to speak. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 434 Registered: May-05 | Sorry my last post was being written while Jan was speaking for himself. OOOPPPSSS!!! |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 46 Registered: May-04 | I am not implying any bias, sorry if it came out that way. What I am trying to do is establish a frame of reference for comparing and reading. If you say the goals of a designer were met, and I don't know what those goals are, then it doesn't help. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5311 Registered: May-04 | I'd say check the AlegriaAudio web site or send a message to Tim. I'm just curious, but why are you interested in whether Tim hit a design goal? Firstly, I can't imagine a designer releasing a product until they feel they've come reasonably close to their goal. Unless they happen to have a happy accident along the way. I consider the sound of the speaker by itself to be what's important in the overall scheme of the Ling. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CurtisManhattan Beach, CA Post Number: 47 Registered: May-04 | I did check the website. I am interested in how the speaker sounds, not the design goal. The design goal came up when I asked about how you evaluate a speaker. OK...so you say the designer at least came close to his goal, yet you do not want to say what the goal is. That is what I do not understand. Now you say the sound is important, and I agree. So now what do you evaluate, how well the designer met the goals, or how the speaker sounds to you...regardless of goals? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5314 Registered: May-04 | I said I evaluated the Ling based on how I felt it portrayed music in my two rooms and in the context of my two systems. I would say what is on the web page is 95% of what Tim told me about the speaker's design. The small bit that isn't on the web amounts to making the enclosure as small as Tim felt possible for that low frequency driver. If Tim had told me his design goal was to establish a benchmark for all speakers at any price with audibly rising high frequency content to 50kHz and the ability to strip paint at 50 feet along with "hammering" bass lines down to 15Hz, I would have reported he missed his goals by a million miles. As is, what he aimed for, he got very close to in my opinion. Certainly given the budget of the speaker, he acheived a terrific success. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1631 Registered: Mar-05 | > There is a crossover. The mid-woof has a natural roll-off at 12kHz. I found that to be too high and made the XO point just under 10kHz. This is not your typical mid-woof as the design goal of this driver was for it to be "full-range" whoops, there I go again...! lol OK Tim, can you clarify what a "linear phase crossover" is and what it does differently compared to the more common types of crossovers? I had the basic impression that the Lings allow a much wider range of frequencies to go through the mid-woofer than most speakers. So am I understanding you correctly, that you're saying the mid-woof is designed to tackle everything under 10kHz while the tweeter handles everything above 10kHz? I'm sorry, I'm finding your website's explanations going way over my head...it seems to be written primarily for very technically educated audiophiles which I am not. Is it possible to elucidate all this in simple layman's terms? |
|
Gold Member Username: Thx_3417Post Number: 1064 Registered: May-05 | To Jan, Technical specifications are always subjected to change, that's sometimes the case with some loudspeakers...... |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 438 Registered: May-05 | "Me Tarzan, your Jane." Translated, Tim used a crossover that stayed completely outside the midrange and rolls off at just under 10kHz. The goal was to avoid having the typical crossover that affects midrange. This is possibly part of the explanation for the Lings rendering male voices better than female voices. Now, lest you think I know anything or that I've actually become an audiophile, Tim explained most of this to me after I reviewed his website way back when and I've probably only got it about half right anyway. So, Tim or Jan or Art or John A or Stof or Curtis or just about anyone else can set me straight now. LOL OK Ed, how am I doing? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 475 Registered: Dec-03 | The female and male vocals are both handled by the mid-woof. If there is someone out there that can sing at 10kHz NASA may be interested 'cuz they're probably an alien. If the male voices sound better it's only because the driver handles that set of frequencies better than the frequency set presented by the female voices. All 1st order Butterworth crossovers are linear phase. Because of its reactive (energy storing) nature each capacitor in a circuit contributes 90 degrees of phase shift, either positive or negative depending upon its application. Since the HF section of a 1st order XO places the capacitor directly in the signal path, this circuit starts out with +90 degree phase shift. This is called phase lead. The LF section, which starts out with zero degrees and eventually becomes -90 degrees is called phase lag. This results in a summed phase response of zero. In essence this means the output phase of a 1st order XO is the same as the input phase. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 443 Registered: May-05 | OK Edster, that makes it perfectly clear, doesn't it? Hey, I'm back to Me Tarzan, You Jane. Jan, Art, Stof, someone want to translate Tim's statements into English for me? HELP, I've fallen down and I can get up. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1642 Registered: Mar-05 | > pimfa!)_(dnf d98587;kna n904u;'sd@#$jlk 87u15[-34oji;' 98u['ja@#&^ kdja&& OK, that's much clearer now... AAAAAAAAAAGGH!!! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5315 Registered: May-04 | Pretty dang simple, guys. Male and female voices sound very good through the Lings.* How's that? *If I gave the impression the Lings favor male voices over any other area, I didn't mean to do so. Take a look at the frequency response of the Ling provided on Tim's web page and you will see a very slight rise in the lower region of male voices and in the upper region of female voices. With no change in drivers through the midrange and no X-over components to distort the signal, the Lings have a consistency that is perfect for reproducing both types of signals. http://www.us.alegriaaudio.com/LingFR.htm Try this: "As I see it, crossovers are evil, . . . but a necessary evil. If I could make all my loudspeaker systems full range types with no crossovers at all, I would. That's because accurate acoustic summation of the separate outputs from a woofer and tweeter remains an elusive goal that is rarely, if ever, achieved in practice. The best you can even hope for is to have reasonably accurate summation over a narrow listening angle for a given 2-way speaker system. Crossover summation problems remain the most significant flaw in most production speaker systems made today. Real world systems have a roughness in the frequency response through the crossover region that changes with the listening geometry." "There is one wonderful exception to the generally nasty behavior of 3-way and higher crossovers: the 1st order Butterworth crossover. The ideal performance of this simplest of all crossover types holds up even in 3-way and higher crossover types. The electronic summation characteristics are absolutely perfect. This crossover sums to deliver not only a flat frequency response but a flat phase response as well . . . regardless of the complexity of the crossover." http://www.trueaudio.com/st_xov_1.htm http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=171115 |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1646 Registered: Mar-05 | > Male and female voices sound very good through the Lings.* hmm, this was definitely NOT my experience with the Lings, especially not with female voices that were flying all over the scales. However I found that the two worst simple-source materials for them by a long shot were pipe organs and violins...total disaster! I'd be curious to hear a technical explanation of this, if you know. As for Tim's frequency charts it appeared to me from reading another (much more heated) thread that his measurements might not be taken with the best equipment or under the best room environment. I'll say no more on that subject. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 798 Registered: Sep-04 | Tim My problem with the phase in a 1st order XO as you describe above is that there seems little point in summing the phase differences. It still means that the mid-woof signal is 180 degrees out of phase with the high frequencies. This gives great space and air but ruins the timing since the bass lags behind the rest of the track all the time. You have avoided much of the problem by crossing over at 10khz, thus taking care that the 1khz - 3khz presence range is in phase, but the destructive interference of the high frequencies will still make the music sound slower than it should, won't it? I do have one observation to make on the listening tests. From what I've (scan) read, the ling is 85db/w/m. That's a hellish load which really requires very powerful (or very high current) amplifiers indeed to really give good grip and control. My own Totem Mani-2s are also 85db/w/m. they suffer tremendously when powered by an amplifier inadequate to the task and this masks their very positive attributes, making them sound slower, either too bass heavy or screechy in the treble depending on the amp. I'm wondering if this may have been partially why the Ling has not had more complimentary results. Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 478 Registered: Dec-03 | All audio systems distort the signal in one way or another. The designer has to choose which distortion is going to be targeted more than another. That decision may be partially influenced by market conditions and is definitely influenced by monetary concerns. Controversy rages over crossovers. As Jan noted some will say the 1st order crossover is the best while others will insist that it should be a minimum of 4th and that 8th order or higher is the best methodology. Even more constrovery surrounds just which distortions are audible or perceptible to humans. Some tests have suggested that distortions below 4% are not noticeable. Even more startling is that some test subjects prefered higher distortion over lower! I'm not saying that distortion elements should not be avoided, just that there is such evidence out there. Fascinating stuff and the argument is far from being settled. Yes, the designer of the driver opted to sacrifice sensitivity to gain increased bass response and a flatter motor strength curve over a wider excursion range. This is usually not a problem as many people own high power amplifiers. There are differences in amplifiers that THD and power ratings do not describe. Whether or not that was a problem in some people's auditions I really don't know. The bottom line is perception. Either they like what they hear or they don't and that's what matters in the end. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5325 Registered: May-04 | If you will look on the web site of the raw driver, you will find a frequency response chart which closely matches what Tim has put on his web page. If you need explanation of how the two measurements differ, when one is of the raw driver and the other is of the driver mounted in a box with a tweeter handling signals above 10kHz, possibly Tim can give more explanation of how the two measurements were taken. However, the raw driver has a frequency response that does not indicate significant problems at any frequency. This response should not change significantly when the driver is put in a box. It seems well agreed upon the driver used in the pair of Lings I auditioned, the CSS WR125ST (http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=WR125ST) has a roll off above 10kHz. But, the smoothness of the driver through its lower frequencies does not appear to be anything but even and well controlled by comparison to any other raw driver I can remember. There was nothing I put through the Lings that I thought had significant problems until the driver was asked to work too hard. That was accomplished by using the sort of material I've pointed to in my write up. Complex material caught the single driver off guard as the volume increased. I had no problems with female voices through the Lings unless it was contained in source material that fit that category. The worst sounding recording I put through the Lings was a Talking Heads CD. I think many people, hearing just the Lings playing that music, might find the problem to be less bothersome than I did. The Lings simply failed to give the music any life and momentum. This is a heavily produced studio recording. When given recordings that captured the musical event as it took place, the Lings were a superior component, in my estimation. I think the Ling has a bit of a problem with an undamped backwave that causes a loss of purity normally found in the Ling. Tim and I have sent messages concerning my reaction to this. This problem is, in my estimation, not that intrusive into the music and in keeping with many small speakers. I cannot recall having anything but pleasant memories of the Ling on all orchestral music that had any semblance of quality to the recording. Mercury's and Living Stereo CD's and LP's both came across as natural as they do with the LS3/5a's. This was with the Lings connected to the Mcintosh tube amplifiers and AI tube pre amp. As I said, I don't normally listen to orchestral or classical pieces through the solid state HT system. Whether the tubes made the difference I can't say. The electronics' character certainly was reflected in the sound of the Lings in the two channel room. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5326 Registered: May-04 | Frank - I think it is a bit unfair to think a speaker is a "hellish load" based only on the sensitivity spec. You have to remember the Ling is a single driver design for nine of the ten octaves. There are no large scale inductors or capacitors in the Ling to eat up voltage and most importantly current. If you refer to my write up, I specifically give mention to the deleterious effects of placing XO components in the signal path of the drivers. Heat is thy enemy!!! I am unfamiliar with the XO used in the Totems, but comparing a conventional speaker design to the single driver concept does the latter a disservice and only plays into the hands of the former. My 3/5a's are 84dB (81dB in real world use) and still considered one of the most tube friendly speakers ever designed. And, certainly valves do not compete on a "my amps got more amps than your amp" scale compared to solid state. I had no problems getting to sufficient levels with either of the two speakers, the Ling or the 3/5a's, in my system. Admittedly, I do not judge audio components by their ability to "hammer" another component into "smithereens". Neither speaker will accomplish that task. If you haven't yet, read up on single drivers and find what they are currently used with in terms of amplification. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1334 Registered: Feb-04 | My 3/5a's are 84dB (81dB in real world use) and still considered one of the most tube friendly speakers ever designed. Yes, but because of their impedence curve. Not whether heat gets dissipated in a crossover vs a coil. I agree that Frank has load confused with sensitivity. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 805 Registered: Sep-04 | Jan Hmmm, hellish may have been an inappropriate word to use in this company. It's not a word that causes problems on this side of the pond when discussing speaker loads. The fact remains, however, that an amplifier will find the Ling to be a difficult load under all conditions. The sensitivity spec doesn't lie and 85 is one of the lowest sensitivity specs out there. Admittedly, the impedance curve looks very benign, staying above 7 ohms (if I can read the graph correctly). If it didn't, the load would be a nightmare as opposed to just heavy. Most single driver systems I have seen have been very high efficiency items with their own problems, particularly in the bass, which Tim has sorted out. As to the Totem crossover in the Mani-2s, I imagine it's an absolute nightmare since it is actually an isobaric 3-driver system, with 2 bass-midrange drive units working in tandem, yet done in a ported enclosure (unusual for an isobaric). Tim, Thanks for the answer. The speaker looks very well behaved according to the measurements. I was just expressing a concern that the speaker may need a bigger amp than is usually matched to a $399 speaker. After all, I think a NAD320BEE would find it difficult to drive the Ling properly, but a 372 should be able to cope. Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 445 Registered: May-05 | Jan, Belated but thanks for the explanation of Tim's explanation and, "yes", that did make more sense, although I'm not about to say I understood everything you said but you got the general point across. One of the reason that I seriously enjoy Tim's input on this site is that he has technical expertise that I don't have and he shares it freely. Also, he's practical and that will take most intelligent, technical folks a long ways, e.g.: "The bottom line is perception. Either they like what they hear or they don't and that's what matters in the end." Never have such profound words come from a speaker manufacturer's mouth. Ultimately, you can nail the specs, nail your design goal, have the greatest looking frequency response chart ever created and the "prettiest" speaker on the planet but if people don't like the sound, you're still broke. I must concede that I wondered if the Denon had the right type of power to drive the Lings to their best. I almost wish I had some of the options that Jan used, and even Ed used, to compare. I think the Denons have decent power, although overrated power, and I know that how that power is used varies greatly from component to component. I've seen, and heard, low wpc tube amps that could drive just about anything quite well and some of these Pioneer/Kenwood receivers with a gazillion wpc that couldn't drive the Ascends. Importantly, I think Tim has his priorities in order and, ultimately, he's going to turn his "hobby" into a going business. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 806 Registered: Sep-04 | Hear Hear Dak! Tim's contributions give great insight and are much appreciated. Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 447 Registered: May-05 | BTW, when I said "going", I meant extremely successful and I'm still waiting for news on "Emma", Tim. I may have to come to Seattle and meet "her" personally at some point. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1336 Registered: Feb-04 | I said: I agree that Frank has load confused with sensitivity. After reading his further post, I no longer believe that either. Just a misunderstanding... |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 481 Registered: Dec-03 | I spent about 2 hours with Emma last night and while I did lose a little bass response it still presents a stand up bass with authority and there were moments when I got chills from the mids and the highs. Clear twinkling bells and vocals that just came out of the air. Lots of fun. Granted, this is much more your typical two way monitor, 6" mid/woof, 1" dome, 86db, but where I differ a bit is getting the XO up above 3kHz and using drivers that get me a solid 40Hz to 20kHz without drooping when it reaches those extremes. I've found my tweeter selection to be very unforgiving of certain recordings. If there's a problem it's going to tell you in no uncertain terms. The flip side is, if it's a great recording you get it all. Emma is going on a little trip with me this weekend to visit some friends. I'm looking forward to their input. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5335 Registered: May-04 | " .. the impedance curve looks very benign, staying above 7 ohms (if I can read the graph correctly). If it didn't, the load would be a nightmare as opposed to just heavy." Tim can correct me if I wrong about this, he has far more experience with this driver than I do. But, if it didn't stay a benign 7 Ohm load, it wouldn't be a single driver, full range unit. The tweeter's impedance appears to be very straight forward, also. Taking nothing away from Tim, I wouldn't imagine maintaining a very benign impedance curve is a difficult task to accomplish with these two drivers hooked up as they are (1st order XO) in the Ling. Until the voice coil heats up quite a bit, I wouldn't think a single driver design begins to fluctuate much in inductance or phase shift. True or false, Tim? This should be a reason to try a speaker such as the Ling on a 320BEE. It depends on your volume requirements in your room, but I've used the 15 Ohm 3/5a's with a 40 watt into 8 Ohms amplifer for years. This is a solid state amp, so not output transformers to adapt the load. That should put the amp at about 25 watts. Not a headbanger myself, I never wanted for more volume that I knew wouldn't require an extra 300 to 500 watts. I don't even mention that amount of power to the little KEF B110 4" woofer in the Rogers. They're tough; but I know my limits. Once again, someone can corect my knowledge base here. Two drivers working in tandem in a ported enclosure sounds more like a bandpass design than an isobarik. Is it marketed as an isobarik? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 5337 Registered: May-04 | Frank _ I'm not sure where I read the information, whether it was on the driver spec sheets or in the DIY forum. The driver used in the Lings was apparently taken down in sensitivity in order to get a bit more bass extension. It seems bass beneath 70-100Hz is a problem for most high sensitivity SD drivers no matter the enclosure type or size. From all indications extending the bass over the Fostex, Lowther and other SD drivers was part of the design spec. To get bass, you have to give up some efficicncy. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 484 Registered: Dec-03 | Inherent in the XBL^2 motor design is a very smooth impedance curve that doesn't go below 7 ohms. The plus side is lower distortion and a wider motor strength curve. The minus side is less sensitivity. Tube friendly speakers will have the quality of a smooth impedance curve rather than wide swings across the frequency range. Most manufacturers of full range drivers recognize that their customers will most likely be using tube amps and design their product accordingly. As an aside, I've used a full range driver of similar size to the CSS125 that has a slightly higher sensitivity, a higher resonance frequency and a much smaller Xmax (excursion). I got pretty decent bass response but at the expense of SPL. Off the top of my head I can't think of a full range driver under 6" that can achieve over 90db sensitivity. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics