Hi all, I can't believe this has not been discussed before but I couldn't find anything from searches. I recently considered buying some Goodmans Dimension 8 speakers off ebay, then buying another pair in the future for a quadset-up. I want them because a) they look 'groovy' and b)they are from the same period as my Sansui QRX8001. They are supposed to give a wide sound-stage and I cant decide if this would be good or bad for a quad system as opposed to speakers that have 'good imaging'. Maybe it wouldn't be quite as good for sitting in 'the sweet spot'? Or maybe it would result in a wider more enveloping sound field? Any thoughts? I should add that I haven't had any of my quad gear up and running yet. While we are at it, what speakers do you use with your old receivers?
Thoughts on ideal speakers for quadraphonic
- Thread starter gazmono
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Google searches will yield better results than the QQ search engine. Use the Google "site" command. Put the following text in the Google search bar:
site:https://www.quadraphonicquad.com best speakers with quad
The words "best speakers with quad" can be changed to anything you want to search for.
site:https://www.quadraphonicquad.com best speakers with quad
The words "best speakers with quad" can be changed to anything you want to search for.
I believe this is one of those "ask ten people and get ten different answers" kind of question.
I also have a Sansui QRX-8001 that I need to replace speakers on.
Currently just using older Boston bookshelf speakers until I can figure out my preferred sound/ size to room layout/ and price convergence.
Currently the speakers are set about 6 ft. apart between the fronts (and between rears) and about 8 feet between fronts and rears.
For that small a room I may be OK with my preferred speakers which are MartinLogan Motion 35XT; but may be too small for some folks.
I also have a Sansui QRX-8001 that I need to replace speakers on.
Currently just using older Boston bookshelf speakers until I can figure out my preferred sound/ size to room layout/ and price convergence.
Currently the speakers are set about 6 ft. apart between the fronts (and between rears) and about 8 feet between fronts and rears.
For that small a room I may be OK with my preferred speakers which are MartinLogan Motion 35XT; but may be too small for some folks.
Thanks. Will do.
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,033
The best speakers for quad surround or any other array are... the best speakers you can afford.
My only point to make here is speakers are speakers. There aren't types of speakers for different kinds of systems. I mean terms like "surround speakers" or "computer speakers" or "studio speakers". There are great, good, bad, and grifter level facsimile level product choices for everything. Speakers are no exception. The marketing brochure speak with terms like I noted may at best suggest the intended use the product is aimed at. Usually this is meant to confuse people. eg. "Oh, I guess I need 'computer speakers' if I want to use them with a computer/interface and I guess 'normal' speakers must not work for that"
Nope! They're all speakers.
Powered speakers simply have amps built into the speaker box FYI.
Buy speakers and amps to power them. Either separate boxes or combined as you please. Shop for the most bang for the buck in performance.
Already have an amp? Then don't buy powered speakers with their own amps built in! (You already have that part.) See how that works?
My only point to make here is speakers are speakers. There aren't types of speakers for different kinds of systems. I mean terms like "surround speakers" or "computer speakers" or "studio speakers". There are great, good, bad, and grifter level facsimile level product choices for everything. Speakers are no exception. The marketing brochure speak with terms like I noted may at best suggest the intended use the product is aimed at. Usually this is meant to confuse people. eg. "Oh, I guess I need 'computer speakers' if I want to use them with a computer/interface and I guess 'normal' speakers must not work for that"
Nope! They're all speakers.
Powered speakers simply have amps built into the speaker box FYI.
Buy speakers and amps to power them. Either separate boxes or combined as you please. Shop for the most bang for the buck in performance.
Already have an amp? Then don't buy powered speakers with their own amps built in! (You already have that part.) See how that works?
Ok, I know I asked at the end what speakers people were using but the main question I asked was about using dipole as opposed to conventional speakers and the effect on 'image', 'sweet spot' and 'sound stage'. The link to old posts weren't much better apart from article about positioning of speakers. I would appreciate more nuanced and relevant responses please. I know old speakers may need refoaming and I know Americans all own Klipsch, JBL and infinity speakers.
Last edited:
I've never tried dipoles in a surround system, but I have had dipole stereo systems. In the right room they can sound awesome and present an excellent image and sound stage, and I think that wouldn't change when making the jump to Quad. But put them in a room that is too small where the reflections are bouncing all over, and things start to deteriorate. I would surmise that's going to happen with both stereo and Quad.
In general, I'd say to choose speakers based on your specific needs. Big room with no obstructions? Feel free to go with large planers, electrostatics, or full range towers if you want. Small room with furniture on the floor? Go with smallish monitors and a sub. What works with stereo will work with Quad.
If the system will be geared more toward 5.1 vs 4.0 then there is the issue of integrating the center channel speaker. Kind of hard to integrate a large tower for a center, but if there is no video involved... why not? 7.1?? Atmos???
Classic Quad really is not much different that four stereo soundstages combined and listened to from the center... 4 speakers, and 4 phantom centers.
In general, I'd say to choose speakers based on your specific needs. Big room with no obstructions? Feel free to go with large planers, electrostatics, or full range towers if you want. Small room with furniture on the floor? Go with smallish monitors and a sub. What works with stereo will work with Quad.
If the system will be geared more toward 5.1 vs 4.0 then there is the issue of integrating the center channel speaker. Kind of hard to integrate a large tower for a center, but if there is no video involved... why not? 7.1?? Atmos???
Classic Quad really is not much different that four stereo soundstages combined and listened to from the center... 4 speakers, and 4 phantom centers.
Cool, thank you very much. That all makes sense.
Well some of you drive pick-up trucks or cop cars with flashing red lights.Yep... Every last one of us....
We are also all rich and drive Cadillacs too
Dipoles have a less direct sound. You need to have some open space in back of them so they can radiate into the room.
I like them for surrounds but I prefer regular speakers for the other channels.
Kal Rubinson
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
I have heard two absolutely wonderful 5.0 systems with 5 dipole speakers and they had a lot in common. First, they employed the same large, full-range all-dipole (Magnepan in one and Sound Labs in another) in all channels. Second, they were arrayed relatively closely around the MLP nearly creating a complete enclosure but with relatively small gaps. Third, they were both set up in large rooms such that there was much less enclosed listening space than there was external space in the room.
Last edited:
I designed and made my own system, which is basically a studio monitoring system designed to be able to reproduce the recordings we make at our famous opera house & other locations by our team of engineers.
Rear speakers are by far and away best using omnidirectional designs. I found some ancient Connoisseur vertical bass reflex with full range drivers inside. For this they are fantastic, and require very little power.
The front channels are an array triwired and driven by a very unusual high power 1960s industrial valve amp which has multiple windings and taps, enabling one to use the output transfomer as part of the crossover network.
The very large main front speakers are enormous 1.2m high with 2 large drivers in each. (12" and 15").
People come from the whole region to listen to their recordings on it, to see how they really sound.
Rear speakers are by far and away best using omnidirectional designs. I found some ancient Connoisseur vertical bass reflex with full range drivers inside. For this they are fantastic, and require very little power.
The front channels are an array triwired and driven by a very unusual high power 1960s industrial valve amp which has multiple windings and taps, enabling one to use the output transfomer as part of the crossover network.
The very large main front speakers are enormous 1.2m high with 2 large drivers in each. (12" and 15").
People come from the whole region to listen to their recordings on it, to see how they really sound.
Jesus! That sounds amazing. A little out of my league though.
Lots of stuff here,-
This is basically how one bit of the RHF channel looks with the "billiard table" linearSPL frequency response down to 35Hz :-
(that was the basic idea, instead of the usual -6dB/octave roll off below 90Hz).
With this tool we are able to check spectral responses of typical hi end studio microphones and compare their behaviour when used for recording (we are working with the manufacturers).
It's powered by this beast which has also a linear reponse (-1dB at 8hz). That's also quite unusual for a 100W valve amp from 55yrs ago.
So, what I read on this forum, that valve amps somehow don't cut it, and not powerful enough is utter rubbish.
The rear speakers are a model designed via some of those really talented north of England engineers (Sugden) who's belt driven decks are still popular today.
I have only ever seen ONE other pair in the world.
It's an omnidirectional design which these days is considered by some to be highly advanced design.
For rear channels it's perfect, because it spreads the rear channel info over a much wider image than is customary.
I also have an ultra rare item. I guess,- probably less than half a dozen in the world.
The genuine BBC UHJ matrix decoder from 1977, which I constructed myself from the wireless world plans and PC boards from that period.
It works for the Nimbus recordings, but sadly their engineers made recordings which frankly are pretty overhyped rubbish!
Our surround recordings we have been making since 20 years frankly are much better.
I have a surround recording of the Brahms requiem live and Schubert Wintereise which frankly make Nimbus attemps look hamstrung plain amateur...
This is basically how one bit of the RHF channel looks with the "billiard table" linearSPL frequency response down to 35Hz :-
(that was the basic idea, instead of the usual -6dB/octave roll off below 90Hz).
With this tool we are able to check spectral responses of typical hi end studio microphones and compare their behaviour when used for recording (we are working with the manufacturers).
It's powered by this beast which has also a linear reponse (-1dB at 8hz). That's also quite unusual for a 100W valve amp from 55yrs ago.
So, what I read on this forum, that valve amps somehow don't cut it, and not powerful enough is utter rubbish.
The rear speakers are a model designed via some of those really talented north of England engineers (Sugden) who's belt driven decks are still popular today.
I have only ever seen ONE other pair in the world.
It's an omnidirectional design which these days is considered by some to be highly advanced design.
For rear channels it's perfect, because it spreads the rear channel info over a much wider image than is customary.
I also have an ultra rare item. I guess,- probably less than half a dozen in the world.
The genuine BBC UHJ matrix decoder from 1977, which I constructed myself from the wireless world plans and PC boards from that period.
It works for the Nimbus recordings, but sadly their engineers made recordings which frankly are pretty overhyped rubbish!
Our surround recordings we have been making since 20 years frankly are much better.
I have a surround recording of the Brahms requiem live and Schubert Wintereise which frankly make Nimbus attemps look hamstrung plain amateur...
Attachments
That's cool but what about pure quadraphonic music listening, which is what I am into ( or will be once I have restored my sansui). I imagine it would be best if all 4 speakers are the same.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,704
As anyone who knows me will know that I am very biased and I declare my interest that we do manufacture electrostatic speakers.
Having said that my answer is as follows
1 Scrap the external subwoofer idea if you can, it really was only put out in the first place to sell little Bose like cubes where you could lift the bottom crossover frequency on the lie that you cannot directionalise base.
2 Always use concentric dipole speakers. This is a problem as 99.9% of speakers on the market are nonconcentric monopoles (done a lot of testing on this and its dramatic!). Oh bias alert - electrostatics are concentric dipoles naturally!
3 I know this is contradictory......If you are antisocial like me and only like listening privately use highly directional speakers (yes electrostatics are perfect) and sit in the 3 cm of joy sweet spot. If you are a social butterfly use wide dispersion speakers (we have a very wide dispersion electrostatic - yes it can be done)
4 Piss off the center channel lie
5 You can break some of the above guidelines if you use our Involve SST (Sweet Spot Technology) that gets rid of the sweet spot and centerises the image from all seated positions - using highly directional electrostatics plus some electronic tricks---see our new Involve y4 bookshelf system.
Regards
Chucky
Having said that my answer is as follows
1 Scrap the external subwoofer idea if you can, it really was only put out in the first place to sell little Bose like cubes where you could lift the bottom crossover frequency on the lie that you cannot directionalise base.
2 Always use concentric dipole speakers. This is a problem as 99.9% of speakers on the market are nonconcentric monopoles (done a lot of testing on this and its dramatic!). Oh bias alert - electrostatics are concentric dipoles naturally!
3 I know this is contradictory......If you are antisocial like me and only like listening privately use highly directional speakers (yes electrostatics are perfect) and sit in the 3 cm of joy sweet spot. If you are a social butterfly use wide dispersion speakers (we have a very wide dispersion electrostatic - yes it can be done)
4 Piss off the center channel lie
5 You can break some of the above guidelines if you use our Involve SST (Sweet Spot Technology) that gets rid of the sweet spot and centerises the image from all seated positions - using highly directional electrostatics plus some electronic tricks---see our new Involve y4 bookshelf system.
Regards
Chucky
audiomaster
Well-known Member
You left off beautiful, handsome and humble!Yep... Every last one of us....
We are also all rich and drive Cadillacs too
himey
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 3,505
I would go with quality first rather than matching. If the option is four lesser speakers that match or "better" unmatched speakers, I would choose the better ones, unless you will be listening in an enclosed cube with a symmetrical furniture layout.
Similar threads
