With acoustic lenses in front, you don't need a centre speaker!

The acoustic lens speakers make it possible to create a "phantom center" that beats everything else on the market. I would therefore strongly suggest that B&O should update the software on the BeoSystem 3 and all their other surround processors to make it possible to channel the centre-channel info to the front acoustic lens enabled speakers.

This would make it possible to lose the problem child centre-speaker -- as already mentioned in this thread, if you switch from BeoVision to movie screen projection, your ideal screen position is problematic because of that centre-speaker. But if you don't need a centre-speaker, because you're using brilliant acoustic lenses, then as a B&O owner you have an advantage over everyone else trying to solve this eyesore problem!

I am extremely critical when it comes to movie sound, and I am extremely pleased that my BL5s  make it possible to get excellent centre-channel info without a centre-speaker. (As would also be possible with BL9s or 3s, in smaller setups.)

Why all the enthusiasm around the acoustic lens? It is a good solution for wide sound dispersion but sure isn't the only solution. Some rooms cannot deal with such a wide dispersion besides the lens tends to put more emphasis on horizontal dispersion than lateral dispersion: there's a recent trend of moving towards narrow dispersion BTW, a loudspeaker with a narrow dispersion will reduce room interference problems and reproduces sound with greater accuracy. I think it will be nicer if the upgrades to the Lab6000s and 8000s include better speaker components. Introduce upgrades and send them for reviews, that way you get more exposure.

Wonderfulelectric, your post is confusing, to say the least.

The acoustic lenses are a major breakthrough in sound reproduction, in line with many other advances that are seeking to mine the impact of room reflections. Consider Wilson's Alexandria speakers, that electronically recreate the room reflections. It's an audiophile convention that room reflections should be avoided - in many tests, reproduction with room reflections is much preferred, and judged to be much more natural (even by professional musicians), than are direct beam reproductions.

http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product/alexandria/experience.php

The acoustic lens is one method of achieving such a dispersion mode.

Please reread your post and explain the difference between horizontal and lateral dispersion, if you will. I do believe they are the same thing.

The "recent trend of moving towards narrow dispersion" can't be that recent, since it's chiefly what high-end speakers have been doing. Monitor range or near-field listening does quite a bit to eliminate the room, but makes for quite uncomfortable listening over time - it just doesn't feel natural. I'd say the most recent trend in high-end audiophile bespoke reproduction is that of using DSP to generate authentic holographic listening environments - quite opposite to the narrow beam listening in isolation you describe.

Having compared a number of dispersion technologies, and room reflection generation techniques, I have yet to find anything with a result similar to the acoustic lenses, when properly implemented and set up, relative to price (in spite of B&O's price point.)

Regarding the original post, I would say, that there are more speakers to choose from in the current range, than there have been in the past.

2009's BeoLab: 3, 4, 5, 9, 3500, 4000, 6000, 8000 + 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 10
2009's BeoVox: 1
Totally: 9 different designs (if you exclude the tv speakers which could be used for normal stereo), 13 speakers.

2003's BeoLab: 1, 2000, 3500, 4000, 6000, 8000
Totally: 6 different designs, 6 speakers.

1991's BeoLab: 3000, Penta
1991's BeoVox: 3000, Penta, RL35, RL45.2, RL60.2, RL140, CX50, CX100
Totally: 4 different designs, 10 speakers.

1981's BeoVox: MS150, M150, S75, S45, S40, S30, P45, P30, C30, C40, C75
Totally: 5 different designs, 11 speakers.

Good work, Christian!

Thanks. All the online catalogues made it possible for me, to sum up the last 30 years.

soundproof:

Wonderfulelectric, your post is confusing, to say the least.

The acoustic lenses are a major breakthrough in sound reproduction

I'm no audio engineer, but there was a massive difference between the BL6000s and BL3s. I tested some BL3s when I owned the BL6000s, over a weekend, went back to the BL6000s and they were awful (in comparison). Audio seemed to be within a limited range (little treble, no lows) and sit to the right of the BL6000s and the audio quality suffered badly. Do the same thing with BL3s and the sound dispersion is more effective. Also, the BL3s are a better mid-range speaker for playing audio CDs.

soundproof:

Wonderfulelectric, your post is confusing, to say the least.

The acoustic lenses are a major breakthrough in sound reproduction, in line with many other advances that are seeking to mine the impact of room reflections. Consider Wilson's Alexandria speakers, that electronically recreate the room reflections. It's an audiophile convention that room reflections should be avoided - in many tests, reproduction with room reflections is much preferred, and judged to be much more natural (even by professional musicians), than are direct beam reproductions.

http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product/alexandria/experience.php

The acoustic lens is one method of achieving such a dispersion mode.

Please reread your post and explain the difference between horizontal and lateral dispersion, if you will. I do believe they are the same thing.

The "recent trend of moving towards narrow dispersion" can't be that recent, since it's chiefly what high-end speakers have been doing. Monitor range or near-field listening does quite a bit to eliminate the room, but makes for quite uncomfortable listening over time - it just doesn't feel natural. I'd say the most recent trend in high-end audiophile bespoke reproduction is that of using DSP to generate authentic holographic listening environments - quite opposite to the narrow beam listening in isolation you describe.

Having compared a number of dispersion technologies, and room reflection generation techniques, I have yet to find anything with a result similar to the acoustic lenses, when properly implemented and set up, relative to price (in spite of B&O's price point.)

 

Well, have you seen the number of open baffle and panel speakers increasing lately? Open Baffle speakers typically eliminate most room reflections to give you more insight to the recording itself: the lack of reflected sound energy help manage bass frequencies etc. DSP is relatively old news.

The problem with the Acoustic Lens is that it won't work well in sparsely adorned rooms because as you know since the lens produces lots of energy off axis, then the boundary reinforcements will amplify the sound energy many fold. The most ideal sound pattern has always been the pulsating sphere sound wave propagation not one that is artificially steered to the listener mind you. I am not saying that the lens is a bad innovation but I am just saying that not many people have the right type of rooms for it or even only listen to music seated, as you know that the lens do not disperse much sound laterally, the listener will be missing most of the treble information while standing up. I am just saying that B&O shouldn't put all its eggs in one basket.

Personally I do enjoy the high frequency details that the lens provides but many in the audiophile community find it artificial; having done some research in some audiophile forums, I have come to find that most of the members were very impressed with the bass performance but not with the mids or the highs of the Beolab5s and one of the member who took genuine interest in the speakers decided to spend twice the price of the Beolab5s to get a B&W Nautilus 800 set-up instead. 

PS.I am just saying that B&O speakers will generally benefit much more from driver upgrades than say adding the ALT lenses. If the sound is bad to begin with, no matter how much you try to spread it out it will be just as nasty no? So better drivers first then ALT. 

moxxey:

soundproof:

Wonderfulelectric, your post is confusing, to say the least.

The acoustic lenses are a major breakthrough in sound reproduction

I'm no audio engineer, but there was a massive difference between the BL6000s and BL3s. I tested some BL3s when I owned the BL6000s, over a weekend, went back to the BL6000s and they were awful (in comparison). Audio seemed to be within a limited range (little treble, no lows) and sit to the right of the BL6000s and the audio quality suffered badly. Do the same thing with BL3s and the sound dispersion is more effective. Also, the BL3s are a better mid-range speaker for playing audio CDs.

 

Well of course you do. The beolab3s are light years ahead of the belab6000s in terms of everything. Are you guys missing the point I am trying to make? Anyways I have posted a response above to soundproof which might clear up the confusion. 

wonderfulelectric:

Well, have you seen the number of open baffle and panel speakers increasing lately? Open Baffle speakers typically eliminate most room reflections to give you more insight to the recording itself: the lack of reflected sound energy help manage bass frequencies etc. DSP is relatively old news.

The problem with the Acoustic Lens is that it won't work well in sparsely adorned rooms because as you know since the lens produces lots of energy off axis, then the boundary reinforcements will amplify the sound energy many fold. The most ideal sound pattern has always been the pulsating sphere sound wave propagation not one that is artificially steered to the listener mind you. I am not saying that the lens is a bad innovation but I am just saying that not many people have the right type of rooms for it or even only listen to music seated, as you know that the lens do not disperse much sound laterally, the listener will be missing most of the treble information while standing up. I am just saying that B&O shouldn't put all its eggs in one basket.

Personally I do enjoy the high frequency details that the lens provides but many in the audiophile community find it artificial; having done some research in some audiophile forums, I have come to find that most of the members were very impressed with the bass performance but not with the mids or the highs of the Beolab5s and one of the member who took genuine interest in the speakers decided to spend twice the price of the Beolab5s to get a B&W Nautilus 800 set-up instead.

PS.I am just saying that B&O speakers will generally benefit much more from driver upgrades than say adding the ALT lenses. If the sound is bad to begin with, no matter how much you try to spread it out it will be just as nasty no? So better drivers first then ALT.

Think we've been down this path before, and it's a question of personal taste. The clinical no-reflection listening that is in vogue in certain audiophile circles is one direction -- interestingly, one rarely favored by musicians. And you're making some pretty broad generalisations about the suitability of rooms - very little that needs to be done, in comparison to the extensive room dampening efforts that the no-reflection camp will embark upon.

Do share your "research in audiophile forums" with us!

The B&W statement is completely irrelevant. The 800D is a good speaker, but not as 'amazing' as it's made out to be. Considerable mid-range colouration, a lack of extension and weight for such a large speaker, uneven dispersion (I'd be interested to see some isobar plots for the 800D) and is difficult to match with amps correctly.

But as I said, it's irrelevant. As for open-baffle 'technology', it's hardly new. It was the first design used to good effect with speaker design, but tends to produce poor dispersion and relies heavily on the distribution characteristics of the drivers.

Siegfried Linkwitz is a brilliant speaker designer, and I was on the verge of getting his speakers instead of my BL5s back when I was considering which speakers to get.

Here's a great powerpoint presentation he held not that long ago, concerning what's required to achieve fidelity in sound reproduction. Using room reflections is essential to the result. Also note how crucial it is to have a symmetrical relationship between the room and the speakers, as well as a proper distance to walls, to achieve a delay between direct and reflected sound of more than 6 milliseconds.

Fortunately, true sound reproduction is opening up to some alternative interpretations.

Download the slides, and listen to the lecture. And note how he uses the hard windowpanes on the sides of his listening room to enhance reflections ... he deliberately uses reflections to help listeners correctly identify the source directions ina piece of music. This assists in creating a precise stereo image reproduction. It's a very interesting lecture, though long, but really worth the time it takes.

http://www.aes.org/sections/uk/meetings/a0711.html

(Click the two links to download the presentation slides and the mp3)

If you're not in the mood to listen, here's  a short version of the presentation with his notes - Room Reflections Misunderstood?: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/stereo%20reproduction.htm#Presentation

I believe wonderfulelectric will find Linkwitz' conclusions as to drivers quite challenging! Linkwitz himself has, in fact, desinged many - yet found that when he measured room responses, with various drivers, that once they were "good enough," there wasn't much to mine in reaching for the absolute high in drivers. And human perception is tuned to using reflections in order to add intelligibility to what we are listening to - the spatiality achieved makes the listening experience more natural, and integrated. And this is why acoustic lenses, as imagined by Manny LaCarrubba and Dave Moulton, are such a revolution - and if B&O had capitalised on them from the moment of launch of BL5, the company would have been way ahead now. A number of other companies are seeing that this is the way to go.

Soundproof,

I'm not a speaker guru so most of the conversation between you and wonderfulelectric is lost on me (though I've still enjoyed reading it as I do most of your posts).  However, one of the things you said piqued my interest.  Are there other companies that are utilizing the ALT?  If so, this bothers me as I'd like to think it's a B&O exclusive.

M

The acoustic lens technology, as created by Sausalito Audioworks, is exclusive to B&O.

But there are other companies that have looked at the principle of dispersing the sound, instead of aiming it. MBL have speakers that disperse the mid/top, Bolzano Villetri have a very radical design. Linkwitz is working with Dipole and Monopole designs, and there are others realizing that the room has to be engaged or simulated (Wilson Audio) -- which is amusing, since the fashion in audiophile listening has been focused on killing/dampening the room. Something Linkwitz considers completely wrong.

Linkwitz' lecture, which I have linked, is very interesting. It's really worth it to take the time to listen to his conclusions, it will make your listening richer. (His thinking has really helped me achieve better sound, with the BL5s).

None of these other designs have the controlled lateral dispersion of the acoustic lens, however, some are omnidirectional. I should add that Linkwitz, while lauding the BL5, considers that "it doesn't go far enough" in dispersing sound.

I believe the 180 degree dispersion (rather than 360 omni) of the acoustic lenses is what makes them so excellent if you want to create a phantom centre channel image, both for movie surround, but also for three-channel stereo listening - where you fill inn a more solid centre channel using the L/R information. (Meridian has been offering this to customers for years, though you have to use a centre channel speaker in their case.) Interestingly, B&O believed strongly in the benefits of a third speaker in the centre for better stereo imaging, and that's possible with the Beolab 5000 amp, which came out in 1967!

wonderfulelectric:

 

Personally I do enjoy the high frequency details that the lens provides but many in the audiophile community find it artificial;

 

I find this amusing = "artificial" What are these people comparing the sound to? It's the musicians and recording artists that can provide the answers regarding what sounds natural / realistic.

Soundproof, i apreciate your posts

Thanks, Dave.

I've been into reproduced sound long enough to understand that there are many tastes, many fashions and many different concepts as to what constitutes good audio reproduction, and no one way is necessarily right.

We've also come far in recent years due to the possibilities that have arisen in using fast computers to measure what is actually happening not only in the room when air molecules move, but in the brain when we listen. This has challenged many of the established audiophile conventions that still have the majority of the market be a box with speaker drivers in it, and requiring fortunes to be spent on cables to connect that and other boxes.

What B&O has done runs in the face of these conventions. Many audiophiles are extremely critical and dismissive of ICE-technology, for instance. 95% of the world's good to excellent audio setups are passive speaker designs, where B&O has chosen active speakers. This puts a mark against B&O from the start; the unusual, wood-free speaker cabinets are also a major challenge to the audio establishment; the thin cables just make them laugh; and the acoustic lenses are a glove in the face of 98% of existing speaker designs ...

Say what you will of B&O marketing or management, but the audio dept is world class, in a league of its own, really. They have stood behind some of the major speaker and audio advances through the years (also in analog, passive designs), and are engaged in serious audio research, often in collaboration with leading universities and labs, something I hope continues, in spite of the present hardship the company is experiencing. The BL5 may look strange, but every element of its shape is there because of an audio principle/finding expressed in form in order to enhance the function- actually a first for B&O, which has previously let its designers create a shape, and then challenged the engineers to place the components in it.

I fear coming off harsh against wonderfulelectric, and that's not my intention. He is very knowledgeable about audio and an asset to the site, as he challenges us to look again at B&O, from the viewpoint of established high-end hifi. But eliminating the room, either through narrow sound beams, sitting very close, or dampening the room's reflective walls, is not the solution, as is becoming increasingly clear to many, yet that is considered the ideal. But audiophiles who listen with "eliminated rooms,", and then listen to acoustic lenses, may have the reaction that "it sounds artificial," but rather it's the dampened room that is artificial, and it's time for a trip to a good concert hall, to listen to the "artificial" sound there in order to recalibrate one's ears.

I listened to the Q&A of Linkwitz' lecture last night, and caught this from him. He is describing how he collaborates with a friend, in his listening sessions, and how they use each other to stay objective:

We reach independent conclusions from each other. We challenge each other, to keep each other honest.
It's so easy in sound, to imagine things. As someone has said, if I suggest something that you are going to hear, if I give you a demo, and I tell you what you are going to hear, it's almost impossible for you not to hear what I told you that you are going to hear.
It's a thing that sales people in high-end audio stores use to great effect, to sell you cables and spikes, and all sorts of stuff. It's very difficult, it's honest, people really hear things, it's happening between your ears. There is no sound in the room, there are only air particles vibrating, air particles impinging on your eardrums, that's all. And then you try to make sense of these vibrating particles. As the saying has it: if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make any sound? No! It doesn't make any sound. Sound is just an illusion ... it is totally constructed in your head.

Something to think about!

Soundproof what do you think about the beolab 8000.

I haven't listened enough to the BL8000s to have an opinion, koning. And that doesn't mean that I didn't like what I heard, and therefore didn't bother. I believe they do a good job given the constraints of the thin column format, and that they have a very expressive design. But I think that if I was to add up the time I have done any focused listening to them, it would come to a total of half an hour, and that's far too little to say anything about them!

Of course it is down to personal preferences, so that's the reason why I stress that not all Beolabs should switch to ALT because it is not a perfect technology where the results will be everyone's fancy. My point is that B&O is better off upgrading the drivers of those Beolabs than to add ALT. Aren't you getting my point? Didn't this discussion start by evaluating upgrade routes for the older Beolabs? Why always off topic? 

PS. Not every audiophile is dismissive of Icepower BTW. Many actually endorse them. I personally feel that the technology has not matured to the point where it is suitable for the very high end applications. But Icepower as of right now represents tremendous cost savings for people wanting to get a slice of high end audio nirvanna. 

PPS. The Forum that I did my research in was www.audiogon.com, a website dedicated to the high end audio committee. 

PPPS. Regarding the B&W 800D, I remember saying that it isn't that good a deign due to its many inherent flaws in another thread, especially pinpointing the lack of high end crossover  and driver integration issues. I was simply trying to say that ALT is not the last word in high end audio application. Many factors such as the use of better quality drivers may result a more natural and real sound than say using average drivers coupled with acoustic waveguides.

Koning, if you will like more comments about the Beolab8000s, you can do a search at the audiogon forum. A member claimed that the Beolab 8000s sound best without the use of a B&O source but instead substitute the source with a high quality cd player and preamp. 

I find it interesting (and no real surprise) that some people like the design of the ALTs and some don't. I personally think they look great and immediately create an impression. I remember when I got my BL3s, the obvious comparison was with the BL8000. I liked the design of both at the time, so I chose the BL3s over BL8000s for the precision in sound which I love in my audio setup. The BL8000s seemed to have more power in my opinion which was their advantage, but I knew that any speaker can have a lot of power, not only a B&O speaker. So to get back to the chase, I have always wondered if B&O could integrate an ALT inside the current BL8000s, behind the frets. The design would therefore remain untouched and not immediately date all previous BL8000s and those who don't like the look of ALTs won't have any complaints either.

I am still the biggest fan of my BL3s and their design has grown on me even more over time. I would love to have another pair in a link room if I had the spare cash!

I read something simular on the dutch HTforum.

I'm going to read it!

soundproof:

With acoustic lenses in front, you don't need a centre speaker!

 

Are you serious? I have BL5 in a surround setup with my Avant as a centre speaker. It works ok, but could have been better. I am considering buying a BV7 with BL7-4, but the 7-4 speaker makes the set a bit too tall for my wall (I have two paintings over the TV that can´t be moved).

Buying a BV7-40 with bluray and without the speaker, would make it possible to wall mount it a few centimeters lower, and that probably should solve it. The BL 7-2 is not an option, as I´m not happy with the looks of it.

w.e. - you write:

Of course it is down to personal preferences, so that's the reason why I stress that not all Beolabs should switch to ALT because it is not a perfect technology where the results will be everyone's fancy. My point is that B&O is better off upgrading the drivers of those Beolabs than to add ALT. Aren't you getting my point? Didn't this discussion start by evaluating upgrade routes for the older Beolabs? Why always off topic?

Don't think anyone is changing the topic, w.e. -- the thread is called "Any new BeoLab in the near future" - as pointed out, Kalle Hvidt Nielsen is championing ALT in a statement, saying they will appear across the range. You rain on ALT, which is quite OK, horses for courses.

As to upgrading drivers, it's quite interesting that with modern measuring apparatii, one has the hardest time distinguishing between various top-end drivers, when they are run through the paces. As you may have heard from Linkwitz himself, who has built a large number of drivers, he was very surprised himself to see how driver independent the room response and direct response on/off axis is, once the drivers are "good enough."

And again - as mentioned before - a lot of the focus on drivers comes from the world of passive speakers, where speakers are built to be able to accommodate a wide range of connected hardware. While in the world of B&O, where the speakers are active, where the amplifier driving the speaker is custom built and tuned for the task, and where it's a signal that is being carried from the source to the speaker, and not the power required to run the drivers in the speaker -- it's a different equation, all round.

That said, I have myself written in here about possible upgrades to the BL5, including an extra driver to take care of frequencies above 6kHz, on the basis of a strong recommendation from someone who works with high-resolution recordings.

And to conclude, nor have I said that BL5s are the terminus, zenith and absolute apogee of what will be achieved in speaker technology. There are better speaker solutions out there - but given the speaker's footprint, compact design with on-board amp and processing, and very respectable sound (to say the least), it is one hell of a package. And used right, BL3 and BL9, as well as the curiously named ASS for the Audi top models, really show what ALT is capable of, with an ingeniously simple solution.

Very few hits over at audiogon on either olufsen, bang & olufsen, or b&o. Maybe you can supply us with a link?

Cheers!

Search keyword: olufsen