|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2551 Registered: Mar-05 | Inspired by the "under $400 thread," I just looked at the Epos' specs at one of the few websites carrying it. http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo.asp?number=EPOSELS3 Very interesting: 4 ohms and 87 db sensitivity, 65 Hz bass extension. My bedroom NAD is 4 ohm capable so the impedance is not an issue, but I tend to associate lower impedance in bookshelves with nice warm sound and strong bass...is this a generally accurate perception? Wonder how these would compare to the Lings in warmth, they both have the same sensitivity but the Lings are 8 ohms. Also the blurb claimed, "In true Epos style, the ELS 3 has a minimalistic crossover." What exactly is a "minimalistic" crossover? Would the Lings' crossover be described like that too? I know Tawaun has heard both speakers, so T-man how would you compare and contrast the two? Robert Reina from Stereophile gushes about them but he also gushed very similarly about the Infinity Primus 150, which does give me pause... |
|
Silver Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY USA Post Number: 139 Registered: Oct-04 | Yeah T-Man. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2553 Registered: Mar-05 | Read the full Robert Reina review. This passage struck me: "When pushed hard, the ELS-3 compressed the sound; the upper midrange could get quite glary. During the hairiest passages of Stravinsky's The Firebird (LP, Mercury SR-90226), I was so taken by the Eposes' airy, ambient disappearing act, their wide, deep soundstage and vibrant dynamic range, that I kept turning up the volume--at which point the famous Mercury midrange forwardness turned into unpleasant glare during the more highly modulated passages." It struck me because up until that point, his description of the Epos' detail, midrange bloom and transparency was very similar to most reviewers' (professionals and consumers) writing about the Ascend 170s. (The only exception being that Reina seems to praise their bass extension which would be unheard of in the 170s.) However, glare and compression at high volume levels is something I have NEVER experienced with the Ascends---neither my 340s nor the 170s of Quinn's that I had for a couple of days. The 170s in particular do not show ANY sound degradation at 95db nor at 75db. This is the kind of thing I would expect from (and have experienced with) Polk RTi's and other lesser speakers. However like the Lings, perhaps the Epos are really not designed for listening above maybe 80db. What I'm wondering is, if the Epos can handle musical complexity better than the Lings while retaining that unique "warm" character. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6123 Registered: May-04 | ed - You're talking about budget speakers in every case. There is no speaker made which doesn't have some set of trade offs in its design. The more money you cut from the materials, the more compromises you will have to make as a designer and as a listener. If you trade bass extension for dynamic capability, that's a swap trade in many listener's book of virtues. Power compression is a fact of life in speakers with the design of the driver's motor assembly and the execution of the enclosure having direct effects on how severe the compression will be and when in the speakers power curve it will occur. Not surprisingly the motor design and enclosure also affect bass extension. That one speaker tends to compress when driven hard is no more of a fault than bass extension is a virtue of and by itself. As you move up in price and supposed quality of parts, you should begin to get better control of both areas. But that is unlikely to happen in a truly budget design. How the Ling deals with complex material is an issue not related to power compresion in the same manner as a more "traditional" two way system. I assume a minimalist Xo means they use no more parts than are necessary to make the drivers work together properly for the Xo type they have chosen. That leaves out many other possibilities for making the speaker "sound better". It also doesn't tell you much about the design of the Xo as far as what type it follows nor the slope of the HP/LP curves. All it says is it is minimalist. You could assume a first order design in both cases but that is not what is stated. Many "minimalist" speakers have been designed with no inductor on the woofer's high side and then merely using the mechanical roll off of the driver as the "minimalistic" fashion for achieving a LP Xo. I have no idea why anyone would have the impression four Ohm speaker loads are more capable of warmth or strong bass. The impedance of the speaker is just that, it is a measure of the electrical and acoustic load the speaker presents to the output of the amplifier. While there is an obvious correlation between the load the amplifier sees and the overall frequency reponse of the system, there is nothing I know of which would indicate a four Ohm load is any different in its general "sound" than an eight or sixteen Ohm load. A vented design in most cases will have two peaks in impedance at low frequencies around system resonance. This takes the design well away from a four Ohm load in that area. I don't know how that would amount to "warmth" or strong bass since many times these peaks can be an additional thirty Ohms of loading. If anything, you would assume most receivers would produce less power into the high(36 Ohm) impedance loads in that frequency range and actually produce less bass. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2554 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan, I agree they're all budget speakers (your idea of "budget" is probably a couple hundred above mine of course, lol) and tradeoffs are inevitable. Still I think that the lack of bass extension is easily remedied with the addition of a sub whereas the inability to handle complex musical passages is not, AFAIK. (Unless you know some tricks you haven't divulged yet.) So there are pros and cons to even the pros and cons...ah, what a hobby! > Many "minimalist" speakers have been designed with no inductor on the woofer's high side and then merely using the mechanical roll off of the driver as the "minimalistic" fashion for achieving a LP Xo. Would you characterize that as producing a desirable outcome in sound or undesirable? Hmmm...if there are no inherent advantages in making a 4 ohm speaker, why then do speaker companies still make them, knowing full well that only a relatively small proportion of receivers and amps can drive them? Surely there must be some reason why Polk did not make your LSIs 8 ohms? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6134 Registered: May-04 | The outcome is dependent on several factors. If the speaker manufacturer is exactly that and produces the drivers in house to be used in their speakers, the problem can be mitigated by the design of the woofer. A change in the suspension and the surround and the driver will roll off naturally at what is usually a 6 dB roll off at the top. If that can be designed to suit your Xo point, the results can be quite good. In a speaker with such a design, the woofer is connected directly to the amplifier with no intervening Xo pieces in the signal path. No phase shift, impedance is well controlled and nothing to rob the amplifier of delivering its full dynamics to the driver. A reasonably small, high quality capacitor in line with the tweeter to provide the other 6dB portion of the Xo and you have a "minimalist" speaker. It works, it's cheap and it can sound good. That is, when the designer is in control of all aspects of the design process down to designing and building their own drivers it can sound good. This is less easily accomplished when you are using drive units not designed specifically for this purpose. But, even with the best designs there will be some disadvantages such as a more ragged frequency response at the woofer's top end or increased IM distortion at the frequency extremes. It takes a fairly talented designer to get something this simple to sound exceptionally good. As to the reason designers still produce four Ohm speakers; there has never been an indication speaker designers pay any attention to what amplifier designers are doing. If the amplifier can drive the load (and all four Ohm loads are not equal, you have to look at the phase shifts and the impedance swings to know what a speaker will do to an amplifier), the listener will gain a bit in output level. Possibly enough to make the decision between this speaker and another when switching in a showroom. Though most speakers are now ported designs, the addition of a port and four Ohm loading would give a designer an extra 6dB or so of volume potential over a sealed box at eight Ohms when connected to a capable amplifier. That's a reasonable amount when the most typical repair done on speakers is a blown tweeter from being driven by a clipped amplifier. I would think many speaker companies can and do make the assumption the salestaff will inform the customer concerning matching speakers to amplifiers. That should be part of a salesperson's job. And, it should be part of the education the companies give the salestaff. That the marketing department doesn't talk to the design department nor designer to the warranty department is whose fault? While there are essentially less educated customers buying and selling audio gear, if a person walked into a Honda dealership and wanted to buy a Civic DX to tow his 32' boat, the Honda salesperson would probably suggest it's not a good idea. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 555 Registered: Dec-03 | Just because an amp "can" handle a 4 ohm load doesn't mean it will be at it's best performance doing so. In nearly every case the amplifier will perform better with a higher impedance speaker system. Why make a 4 ohm speaker then? Perhaps the driver designer has his reasons. Perhaps the typical shopper wants to buy the receiver with the higher power rating at the lower impedance then buys lower impedance speakers so he can say he has 150 watts instead of 100. I prefer the higher impedance system unless I have a compelling reason to do otherwise. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6136 Registered: May-04 | "Just because an amp "can" handle a 4 ohm load doesn't mean it will be at it's best performance doing so." That's true, but that also depends on the amplifier. In general though, I'd much rather have a low impedance benign resistive load than a "high" impedance reactive load. I think most of the problem comes down to an uneducated public including too many salespeople who don't or won't take the time to educate themself and the customer. The customer has to bare a lot of the responsibility since the marketing of audio has focused on watts and T.H.D. in amplifiers and frequency response in speakers. If someone orders a system based on those criteria along with the lowest price, they stand a good chance of being disappointed. The mass market manufacturers and retailers have accepted a business plan which allows a certain percentage of P.O.'d customers instead of taking the time and putting the effort into doing the job correctly. It is the same with too many items being sold today which take the dumbed down "Consumer Reports" methodology to sales numbers. |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 185 Registered: Apr-05 | "It takes a fairly talented designer to get something this simple to sound exceptionally good" Thank God for talented designers. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 2764 Registered: Mar-05 | TW, now that you're back, maybe you could tackle this one. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1116 Registered: Jun-05 | Well I value the Lings for different reasons,my favorite thing about the Lings is the way they unravel voices,and it takes patience with the Lings.They are not a better all around speaker than the els 3,they dont play as loud as the els 3 which play very well in the mid 90s as long as you have a good amp with a lot of current.The Epos have good warmth they are not as warm in the midbass as the Lings,in fact they have one of the most accurate and nuetral midbass regions as I've heard,while the Lings use the ole Rogers midbass hump to make you think they have more lowbass than they actually have.The Lings image and soundstage well particulaly in the depth plane,while the Epos can equal them there and they have a much better verticle soundstage.I like both aproaches to the treble both in different ways the the Lings with a touch more delicacy and the els 3s a little more extension and more robust.But this where the Epos run away from them at is in rhythum and timing the els 3s transits will make you dance along to the beat,thats an old Epos trait that dates back to the old es 11s it hard for any speaker to better than a Epos in that regard.I like the Lings and Tims design pholosophy,but its gonna be real tough for something to be as good as the els 3 for the price except for the Wharfedale diamond 9.1 and the Usher HTS 520,thats their only true compition. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1117 Registered: Jun-05 | Robert Reina did gush about the Infinity Primus and for good reason they are the best $200 speaker you can buy right now the all time best would be the Diamond 8.1 which I still own for 5 years running and a classic.His budget refference is the Epos els 3,and now the recent review of the Diamond 9.1s,both speakers are the are univerally known as the worlds best budget speakers and the Ushers HTS 520s is Asias budget standard.Usually reveiwers hype rarely measures up,but beleive the hype all 3 of these speakers are phenominal and will make waste with a lot more sustancially expensive speakers,their only weakness the size of their boxes and whats there is powerful and taunt.Eddie im thinking about buying all 3 of them just to have them in my stable they are all destine to be classics so take your pick,the budget speaker arena has never been so good! |