Down with stand-mount speakers
Robert Harley -- Thu, 09/18/2008 - 14:58
After reviewing the October 2008 Editor's Choice Awards, I was amazed to see the number of small, stand-mounted, LS3/5A type speakers reviewed. Some of them go for nose-bleed prices.
Can we agree that, without a sub-woofer, this type of speaker is limited and, for the most part cannot compete with (well designed) floor-standing speakers?
It seems to me to be a disservice to recommend these. Too often, their designers seem to want to spare no expense at designing and producing the as-nearly-as-possible perfect small speaker. This may be good for the designer's ego, but I question the value to the consumer. It also seems to me that these speakers have a short life and disappear regularly, only to be replaced with a "new", higher priced model.
I played with this type of speaker off and on during my 50+ years as an audiophile. Finally, in 1989, I chose a floor standing speaker that is now reported to be the world's largest selling speaker. Yes, the price has gone up since then, but is still a fraction of the price of some stand-type speakers currently reviewed and highly recommended by your writers.
Just for curiosity, I don't recall seeing any review of a Legacy speaker system. Why?
Frank S. Thomas III
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
For some listeners, a small, stand-mount two-way is ideal. We've just finished putting together a feature on how four TAS editors would allocate a $5000 budget, and Wayne Garcia and Neil Gader each chose stand-mounted speakers.
I'm in agreement with you; I would choose a floorstander with real bass extension for my own listening. But everyone has different rooms and tastes.
We've reviewed two Legacy speakers; Anthony Cordesman reviewed the Whisper in Issue 135 and the I reviewed the Victoria (cover story) in Issue 152.
Robert Harley
It all depends on your listening environment.
Some rooms won't support a floor-mounted quasi-full range design. Using a smaller two-way stand-mounted transducer with multiple subs placed to best compensate for the room's resonant peaks and dips can deliver a better result than a pair of floor-standing speakers.
If you do most of your two-channel listening at a desktop in a near-field environment, as I do, a small two-way speaker coupled to a subwoofer is the ONLY way to go.
Rather than merely an exercise in speaker designer's ego, a well-made and designed two-way small monitor serves a very important segment of the market. ProAc who've been making excellent small speakers for many years, sell most of their output to professional studios and engineers who use them for recording monitors.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Thanks, I agree that different listeners have different tastes and needs, but what I was getting at is the exorbitant pricing of a few of the stand-mount two ways. For someone who needs to fill a small room, presumably a second listening venue, it would seem to me that something a little more modest would fullfill most users needs. Come on, $30,000 for the Magico Mini II?
As for the Legacy, I think you would agree those were some time ago. This issue is supposed to be "recommended" components in most price ranges. Aren't the Legacies up to the task?
Frank Thomas
I consider the Magico Mini II one of the world's best loudspeakers. Unless you've heard it for yourself, it's impossible to understand how a stand-mount two-way could be worth that kind of money. As for Legacy, it has been some time since we've reviewed them, but not because we've made a conscious decision to exclude them. There are many brands competing for a finite number of editorial pages.
Your choice of title is a bit extreme, I am not against them, I'm against requiring a home equity line of credit to purchase them.
Seriously, this discussion is devolving into a "I have my opinion, don't bother me with facts"; on both sides of the discussion.
Undoubtedly, there is a small segment of consumers for whom these are both useful and affordable. Not many, I'll wager.
Franktren
robert_harley6 wrote:
Can we agree that, without a sub-woofer, this type of speaker is limited and, for the most part cannot compete with (well designed) floor-standing speakers?
"Compete?" In regard to what? Coherence, driver integration, transparency, minimal cabinet resonances, ease of placement, musical engagement? No, unfortunately I can't agree. The aforementioned qualities are often reasons why one will choose a small(er) stand mount speaker over a larger one. It's been rare in my experience where I've heard a large floor stander that didn't in some regard betray its size and/or number of drivers. And it's probably no surprise to anyone that the ones that performed the best - or at least, minimized their size/driver-related issues, not only needed the very best in amplification, ancillaries and room size, but also carried the largest price tags.
I certainly agree a small stand mount will be "limited' in what it can do, but that is certainly not the same as saying even a comparably priced floorstander will not come without its own baggage, "limiting" its ultimate performance. We have a customer considering a pair of Sonus Faber Cremona floorstanders. He loves them, but is A) unwilling to pony up the funds to drive them to their best (the two woofers need more control than it's benign sensitivity and impedence curve suggests), and B) wants to push them back into the corners of his all-glass living room. While the Cremona Auditor stand mount lacks the extension and scale of its bigger sibling, having installed his last system in his room, I feel much better recommending the smaller speaker, given his particular set of circumstances. And I feel confident in saying that should he purchase the Cremona floorstander, given his current amplification and desire to place them close to the walls, the sound that he so loves in our demo room will have no chance of appearing in his room uncompromised.
robert_harley6 wrote:It seems to me to be a disservice to recommend these. Too often, their designers seem to want to spare no expense at designing and producing the as-nearly-as-possible perfect small speaker. This may be good for the designer's ego, but I question the value to the consumer.
"Value" is a relative term. And it is just as valid to say that too often "designers seem to want to spare no expense at designing and producing the as-nearly-as-possible perfect multi-driver, floorstanding speaker. This may be good for the designer's ego, but I question the ability of the consumers room to actually allow them to perform anywhere near their potential relative to their price."
robert_harley6 wrote:It also seems to me that these speakers have a short life and disappear regularly, only to be replaced with a "new", higher priced model.
The small stand-mount speakers I have the most experience with are Harbeth's, ProAc's and ATC's. Most of them are based on designs that are a decade old, if not older. And I would gladly own anyone of them in preference to most multi-driver, floorstanding speakers, given my own preferences and especially, the size of my living room.
Cheers.
robert_harley6 wrote:Thanks, I agree that different listeners have different tastes and needs, but what I was getting at is the exorbitant pricing of a few of the stand-mount two ways. For someone who needs to fill a small room, presumably a second listening venue, it would seem to me that something a little more modest would fullfill most users needs. Come on, $30,000 for the Magico Mini II?
As for the Legacy, I think you would agree those were some time ago. This issue is supposed to be "recommended" components in most price ranges. Aren't the Legacies up to the task?
Frank Thomas
Frank,
There's no doubt on some level $30,000 for two drivers in a compact cabinet will seem exorbitant to some, or even most people (as has been discussed on this forum before).
But it seems, unless I'm mistaken (and it's happened before), that you're equating price with quantity rather than quality. I fully believe the TAS reviewers when they say the Mini is one of the best cone-based speakers they've heard irrespective of price, size or driver number. Mr. Valin has said (almost) as much in his review and posts here.
However, the question is not, "can one buy a bigger, more extended, more sensitive, more-driver'ed loudspeaker for $30K" (the answer, is, of course, "yes"), but rather, can one buy a less-compromised design for $30K? I can't answer that, because I've never heard the Mini. But again, I have no doubt Jonathan wrote what he did because in his experience, at the time of writing, there was simply no cone-based speaker that performed as well as the Mini did, its limitations notwithstanding. (And he certainly makes no bones about what he thinks their limitations are.)
Finally, I hope you're not asking TAS to retroactively justify your purchase of your chosen loudspeaker. If you like them, and I can only assume you do, then it should matter not one iota whether they feature in TAS's recommended components list or not.
Again, cheers.
Niner: I regret that you are in the business, or are a dealer because in my days as a curmudgeon I can't give your opinions much credibility. You see, I was once in the business too in the '70s. I witnessed much too much bias in the equipment we sold, the recomendations we made and the pressure tactics we were asked (no demanded) to employ. My tunure there didn't last long.
One of the top lines we sold was McIntosh, no surprise. While there some of the other more tenured salesmen were very high on the (then) new solid state Mac equipment. I was persuaded to purchase a pre-amp to replace my Citation One. Only after months of listening did I finally decide that the Citation was superior sounding, thru my JBL speaker system. But, alas, I had already sold the Citation.
My point is, as has been so aptly stated by others, that biases can lead to poor buying decisions.
Now to the main reason for this reply. I don't expect, nor need, validation from TAS or anyone else for my speaker choice. Since 1989 it has satisfied me like no other I have owned, both commercial or home built.
franktren
franktren wrote:Niner: I regret that you are in the business, or are a dealer because in my days as a curmudgeon I can't give your opinions much credibility. You see, I was once in the business too in the '70s. I witnessed much too much bias in the equipment we sold, the recomendations we made and the pressure tactics we were asked (no demanded) to employ. My tunure there didn't last long.
One of the top lines we sold was McIntosh, no surprise. While there some of the other more tenured salesmen were very high on the (then) new solid state Mac equipment. I was persuaded to purchase a pre-amp to replace my Citation One. Only after months of listening did I finally decide that the Citation was superior sounding, thru my JBL speaker system. But, alas, I had already sold the Citation.
My point is, as has been so aptly stated by others, that biases can lead to poor buying decisions.
Thanks for your concern, Frank. But you may be pleased to know that this year saw me return to University full-time to complete a long-unfinished degree, so I'm only working part-time now, and very much enjoying putting my mind to something other than 'the industry'. (It's likely once the degree is complete I'll leave the industry altogether.)
You may also be pleased to know that I am employed by one of the only stores that pays its employees a salary - we don't work on commission; never have, never will. And for all the reasons you suggest. We represent no less than 40 brands, and are completely free to sell whatever serves the best interest of the customer. I've never been asked (or forced/coerced/bribed) to sell Brand X to a customer by my bosses, or by a distributor. While it's true to say that our distributors aren't exactly over the moon that we promote all brands equally, at the same time they know they all receive the exact same treatment. We may not be perfect - in fact, I know we're not - but we do strive for integrity, and look for that from our suppliers and the products as well. Some brands we've had since the stores inception, some are new, and some we've lost - either due to the vicissitudes of industry, lack of consumer interest, and some because the relationship with the distributor either ended via natural causes (they ceased trading or lost the agency) or due to a deterioration of said relationship to the point where it became toxic. Like I say, we're not perfect, but after 40 years in business, we can claim an extraordinarily loyal customer base, and a level of ethical service we're extremely proud of. I'm saddened to hear your experience has been dissimilar to mine.
As to the issue of "bias" - we're all for it. We ask our customers to bring their preferences and prejudices to the audition, and go through a process of matching these to the product that best fulfills them. We're pretty up front about our own preferences and prejudices, but inform them that ultimately they're redundant aprpos their own. Personally I'd much rather own a Sonus Faber or ProAc to any Dynaudio or KEF product, but that's never prevented me removing my own bias to help a customer work out which product best meets their bias. They may end up preferring a product I've never felt the love for, but that's what I get paid to do - take customers through a process of auditioning products that best meet their sonic, aesthetic and budgetary requirements. We're biased (that's why we stock some brands and not others) and our customers are biased (they inevitably purchase one product and not the others auditioned).
franktren wrote:Now to the main reason for this reply. I don't expect, nor need, validation from TAS or anyone else for my speaker choice. Since 1989 it has satisfied me like no other I have owned, both commercial or home built.
franktren
And if beauty is really all in the ear of the be-hearer, then who am I to argue?
You should probably try listen to the Magico Mini 2 (say) before making such sweeping statements.
I would argue that they are fairly priced considering their sound quality. You're not buying volume, but sound reproduction.
Frank,
I agree with Zeb. You really should take the time to listen to something like the Magico Mini II, adequately set up and driven, before making a sweeping statement about stand-mounted mini-monitors vis-a-vis floorstanders. OTOH, I see no reason to beat you about the head and neck for having an opinion (at least when it comes to cost versus perceived sonic value) which most folks on this site probably share.
JV
jvalin wrote:
OTOH, I see no reason to beat you about the head and neck for having an opinion (at least when it comes to cost versus perceived sonic value) which most folks on this site probably share.
It's the eternal argument and is such a personal thing: cost vs perceived value. You can apply the same thing to wine, food, clothes, cars, BBQs, whatever :)
I tend to think that if you can get the same quality / performance at a lesser price, then the product is expensive (whatever the price). Otherwise, it might just costs a lot of money that someone may or may not think is well spent.
Here's a conversation I've had a few months ago with my 17 year old daughter:
(she comes home and sees the 610T)
Her: Oh you got new equipment!
Me: No, they're on loan from the dealer - I'm testing them
Her: The sound is really good - will you buy them ?
Me: I don't know - they're really really expensive
Her: But do you like them?
Me: Very much so, they sound fantastic
(she leaves and comes back a few minutes later)
Her: Dad, I think you should buy them
Me: (surprised) Really? Why do you say that ?
Her: With the amount of time you spend listening to music, it's worth it.
(note: the iPod generation think it is weird that one can listen to music without doing something else at the same time).
There you are - can't say no to my daughter :p Admittedly, I was ripe for the plucking, but she had a good point. All of my friends think my system is fantastic, though most would think I've fallen on my head if they knew how much it cost. There again, I probably listen to more music in a week, than they do in a lifetime! Having said that, many of my friends have also ended with much more reasonable costing, yet musical systems, after hearing what is possible at my home.
To: Niner and jvalin: Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I probably should hear the Magicos. Hypothetically, if I did and LOVED then, would I buy them? No, because I would consider them too expensive. My value standard, not yours or someone else's. I admit, sheepishly, for making a too-sweeping statement. But as a curmudgeon, I am entitled to do that, no? Seriously, your comments were well taken.
Zeb: Let's hope your daughter matures into some sound value judgements of her own. I envy you that singular pleasure of a young daughter. Mine was young once too, but that was a different time and place. No iPods.
Now, if I could, I would like to address the issue of how and to what extent we (collectively) audiophiles train ourselves. If anyone is put off by the term audiophile, my apologies, I'm not politically correct and don't intend to change.
How do we train ourselves? I submit, again without rancor or fear of reprisal that one cannot properly train his/her hearing by listening only to "popular" music, or to pseudo-music known as rock, hard rock, metal, etc. This is not meant to exclude live jazz, trios, quartets, or even singular instrumentalists or singers.
The first requirement is to have listened, over a period more than one year, to live symphonic music. Preferably, this should begin at an early age, say around 15.
Secondly, one should have been a participant in a choir, chorus, or music program at school, again early in life. Ideally, one should have some training in music, be it primitive music appreciation or sophisticated music lessons on an instrument. Alternatively, one could actually perform with an orchestra, either as an instrumentalist or as a singer.
Third, one should ally with an audiophile (there's that word again) who has met most of the foregoing requirements. This individual can be quite helpful in finding and assessing audio equipment.
Finally, after 20 or 30 years of the above, and continuous attendance at live symphony or live operatic concerts one may be qualified to claim the title "audiophile", or in the alternative, a music lover.
While this may not qualify one to "review" audio equipment, it will at least provide a basis for determining what one likes and values in reproduced sound, ie reproduced music.
I'm sure I've left out some criterion or other that someone else has found valuable. If so, please let us hear from you.
On a personal note, I have developed my preferences by engaging in all of the above activities.
franktren