What differences are there between portable loud speakers and home units?

[Sooner or later]

When comparing loud speakers be sure they are at rhe same db level.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

When comparing loud speakers be sure they are at rhe same db level.

While that might seem obvious, why? If one set needs more volume to sound at the same perceived level, is that bad?

On that note (), I was seriously considering a four-way (4 pairs) speaker switch and then I saw the ones with individual volume controls for each pair. About a Franklin more than a simple switch which I could probably make out of parts from the HD.

[astrochex]

Originally Posted by Zeke

While that might seem obvious, why? If one set needs more volume to sound at the same perceived level, is that bad?

On that note (), I was seriously considering a four-way (4 pairs) speaker switch and then I saw the ones with individual volume controls for each pair. About a Franklin more than a simple switch which I could probably make out of parts from the HD.

Its simply keeping a potential variable a constant. Volume difference can skew your perception of what you like, masking differences in speaker performance. An analogy is bright TV settings at a big box store, the ones they are pushing are adjusted for higher brightness. With equal volume/setup/music, any differences you hear can be mainly attributed to the speakers.

[Sooner or later]

Various speakers have different efficiency. A more efficient speaker will play louder than a less efficient speaker. The louder speaker will sound "better". Once you get to ear splitting levels that won't necessarily hold true due to added distortion.

Efficiency itself does not mean a speaker is better or worse.

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by astrochex

Its simply keeping a potential variable a constant. Volume difference can skew your perception of what you like, masking differences in speaker performance. An analogy is bright TV settings at a big box store, the ones they are pushing are adjusted for higher brightness. With equal volume/setup/music, any differences you hear can be mainly attributed to the speakers.

This is correct. If you spend money on a high end tv and don't properly calibrated it you might have wasted your money. Most people will have the picture far too bright.

[Norm K]

Originally Posted by cairns

Where did you get your JBLs re coned? I have an old pair of 4311s that need crossovers. They're still one of the best sounding speakers I've ever had.

I've rebuild dozens of engines, up to and including a split-case rebuild of my 930's powerplant yet I was always intimidated by speakers.

When I finally tried it, I couldn't believe how simple re-coning a speaker is. As to crossovers: on older loudspeakers it's usually a matter of replacing the worn out capacitors - another simpler-than-expected project.

C'mon, Man, jump in!

_

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

Various speakers have different efficiency. A more efficient speaker will play louder than a less efficient speaker. The louder speaker will sound "better". Once you get to ear splitting levels that won't necessarily hold true due to added distortion.

Efficiency itself does not mean a speaker is better or worse.

That was the point buried in my question.

Got it all together this evening and what I have now found using what I have, is that I have to make significant adjustments to the bass and treble and when it sounds better to use the "loudness" button. For instance, listening to radio doesn't seem to need changes once a 'curve' (I'm probably using this word incorrectly) that I like is established. OTOH, a Dylan record "Modern Times" had me backing down everything except playing with the treble whereas some Tom Petty let me 'push' it a lot more. Interestingly, the Dylan produced some distortion while the Petty record allowed me to let the kick bass thump pretty hard and it seemed nice and sharp.

My so called music room is a bit of a man cave with mementos (junk) all over. It's not hard to start things rattling on the walls. A window is not very tight and needs to be shimmed. It's not a perfect world.

I kinda laid off music for a few years but I have more time nowadays.

You know, when I get done with all this I'll want better gear.

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by cairns

Where did you get your JBLs re coned? I have an old pair of 4311s that need crossovers. They're still one of the best sounding speakers I've ever had.

In my case, I'm pretty sure a local stereo repair shop farmed them out...but that shop no longer exists. As others said, there are recone places in nearly every city of any size.. google might find one for you.

[Cajundaddy]

Yep, portable PA speakers are designed to cover larger areas or outdoors, survive the rigors of portability, and tend to emphasize *loud* over *smooth* response. Call me a fan. I have owned a bunch of them over the years including Altec A7, JBL, and several Electro-Voice for the purpose of pro sound and live performance. My current set of EVs are active with internal biamps and will generate 127db max SPL if necessary. (front row of a Black Sabbath concert SPL)

An 8 ohm PA speaker will work just fine with an 8 ohm amp. The difference is that a quality PA speaker will generate the same sound level or SPL at 5 watts that a nice home speaker will generate with 100 watts. Match your speaker to your amp and if you like your PA speaker you can keep your PA speaker. If it sounds good to you it is good.

[RKDinOKC]

The main differece is portable speakers are made to be carried around and home speakers are not. LOL.

Actually thing good home speakers are tuned to create a good sound stage in a room where portable speakers are made to recreate sound in a larger or open area.

In my home I have some old, early 80's speakers I would not trade for anything. Have even had the main speakers woofers rebuilt.

My front surround are dbx SF-150, original and not the DAK dbx either. They are full range designed to produce the same level from both speakers across all frequencies anywhere in the room. The is no "sweet spot." In stereo you can put your ear right in front of one of them and the sound stage does not change, the sound still comes from the entire wall and not that particular speaker. And with 10 inch woofers there is no need for sub-woofers.

My rear surround are Bose 301 bookshelf indirect reflecting speakers. They are designed to disperse their sound so it doesn't come directly from the speakers. That makes them great rear channel surround speaker. And again the are full range. Most rear or dedicated surround speaker are limited in the frequency response.

My center channel is a Radio Shack, Realistic speaker from a pair of small speakers with heavy 4 inch woofer and 1 inch tweeter. Again full range.

Since all 5 speakers are full range and the receiver I use for a surround sound preamp amp tunes the surround to the speakers you have it sounds fantastic, AND anywhere in the room. You can put your each right next to any of the speakers and can barely tell there is any sound coming from it instead of hearing the sound stage. With most surround systems I've listened to you hear the sound coming from whichever speaker is closest unless you are in the small "sweet spot." Especially those with the 4 satellites and one subwoofer.

Setup my surround sound system in 1982. Surround or what they originally call quadraphonic has been encoded in music and video since 1972.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Zeke

While that might seem obvious, why? If one set needs more volume to sound at the same perceived level, is that bad?

.....

Not disagreeing with SOL about listening levels, but to your point...no, just different ways to get to sonic bliss. My largest Polk SDAs have a dozen drivers in each...not particularly efficient (need gobs of power)....I have run amps bridged mono (1k watts) into each.....also their slightly smaller brothers, whereas my smallest pair are sweet with a 200w stereo amp....but it's not about loud
.....all will produce the whole range humans can hear. And they rock....all of them....just different beasts. I used to have a "house of sound"..... I rocked and eveyone loved my SS system. Even an audiophile acquaintance who came to listen once.. BTW....his measly 17 watt tube system was awesome too

If it sounds good to you....nuthin' else matters imo.

My system is "broken", limping, now....but I know just the Pelican to seek

[J-Mac]

For home based speakers you have to go sonusfaber.com

Nothing compares. Portable don't know, I just listen to my iPhone through jaber ear pods. They're very good.

[Chocaholic]

The holy grail is to accurately reproduce a live performance. That leaves a lot of variability, but that’s the audiophile dream. Room acoustics and speaker positioning are probably more important than the speakers themselves.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Chocaholic

The holy grail is to accurately reproduce a live performance. That leaves a lot of variability, but that’s the audiophile dream. Room acoustics and speaker positioning are probably more important than the speakers themselves.

^^^^ Perfect....that's always been what it's been about for me...I don't care what anyone else does. I drooled over Polk SDAs back in the mid-80s....gimmick? I have three vintage pairs....they rock.

Half of my recordings are live shows....some are simply jaw dropping (again)....in my living room....if I choose to

[Chocaholic]

It’s like the old adage: it’s more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car fast.

Work on your room acoustics...it’s more fun to make cheap speakers sound great. Nailing the soundstage is a hoot. You sit in that perfect window and with two speakers you can pick out the location of each instrument in the room...and they’re not always located between the two speakers.

[KFC911]

^^^^^ If you have EVER heard SDAs....properly set up....big ol' ...everywhere out front.

I miss Ian........he disagreed....but I'm poor!

[Sooner or later]

SDA took a whole different path. A bunch of speakers with some in the left being driven by rhe right signal and a few on the right driven by the left feed, i think they had an extra cable that went from left to right speaker. They were really power hungry and speaker placement and listening position were more than just critical. Heard a pair at a shop that I frequented and they sounded spectacular.

A high end amp manufacturer (name escapes me, wanna say Crown but that's not right) tried to do the same thing electronicly.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

SDA took a whole different path. A bunch of speakers with some in the left being driven by rhe right signal and a few on the right driven by the left feed, i think they had an extra cable that went from left to right speaker. They were really power hungry and speaker placement and listening position were more than just critical. Heard a pair at a shop that I frequented and they sounded spectacular.

A high end amp manufacturer (name escapes me, wanna say Crown but that's not right) tried to do the same thing electronicly.

I've never heard Polk's that I liked, but that SDA setup sounds interesting.

McIntosh marketed a separate center channel (preamp/processor/amp/speaker) long before anyone else as an alternate to mono and stereo listening of the day. This was decades before Pro-Logic and the out of phase rear surround speakers.

McIntosh has always been champs about imaging a solid phantom center stage, I guess at some point they went that extra step.

Good stereo in my opinion isn't just a left and right channel, it is R&L, phantom Center with depth and a sense of the recording space around you. This is why I'm a flat panel guy, I don't like flat sound.

[Sooner or later]

It was Carver that tried the technology in an amp.

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by kach22i

I've never heard Polk's that I liked, but that SDA setup sounds interesting.

It's been a long time since I looked into them but I think my description is pretty close.