Audiophile July 1992, Audiophile June 1994, Obelisk, The Absolute Sound
The Fifth Element - John Marks Jan 2004
Oddly shaped and bristling with drive units, the Arcs certainly catch the
eye. Alvin Gold and Jimmy Hughes find out whether they have anything other than
eccentricity to offer.
Whenever Linn Products sent a product for review, it would invariably
arrive with one of their more trustworthy staff who would set it up and
generally make sure the subtleties were handled correctly. For a while, the
person entrusted with the critical job of ensuring the press didn't screw up was
John Burns, a softly spoken native of Edinburgh with an obvious love for, and
encyclopedic knowledge of, recorded music.
Quite recently, John left and soon after, set up a company under the name
of Pear Audio to distribute a brand of loudspeakers called Shahinian he had
heard while on a visit to New York. By all accounts, founder Richard Shahinian
is also a softly spoken man with a love for, and an encyclopedic knowledge of,
recorded music, who in his time has designed loudspeakers for Rectilinear and
for Harman/Kardon (the Citation 13 is mentioned in the literature as the direct
progenitor of the Arc). All he seems to lack is a proper Edinburgh accent.
First time around, when John bought the speakers around for an earballing
session, I had some problems with the Arc. On that occasion it was listened to
hard on the heels of the more ambitious Obelisk, and from the start it was
obvious that whilst it had certain special qualities, it was also beset with
problems. The bass had considerable depth and fluidity, but its balance was
light and agile, at the expense, I felt, of the more visceral qualities of
power, weight and authority, More important, the tweeter had a definite sting in
the tail, a factor that was clearly a part of both speakers, not just one or the
other. One reason appeared obvious: the use of a synthetic tweeter dome with a
vapor deposited titanium layer, which on past form was always likely to be a
disaster and an abomination. More generally the speakers seemed in need of a lot
of running in, and John agreed that this was indeed the case. But I wasn't
convinced.
Some time later, the Obelisk returned. Not the original sample, but
another pair which had been used for a much longer period of time, and sure
enough the treble and deep bass had improved out of all recognition, which just
shows how wrong I was. Then history promptly repeated itself with the review
pair of Arcs. At first I assumed I was listening to the original pair, and I
rang John up to ask what had happened. But it turned out to be a different pair
which had been much more thoroughly run in. It transpires that Richard Shahinian
only does his development work with fully run in drive units. Hence they only
sound right when fully run in.
Positioning is easy: they're relatively uncritical of placement relative
to walls, though in my room I preferred a relatively open position. The Arcs can
even be partially obscured behind an armchair or other furniture without
problems. Once set up and plugged in, the speakers showed themselves capable of
providing realistic stereo over a wide lateral angle and range of listening
distances. What is more, this excellent soundstaging was available without too
much loss of specificity and focus of individual instruments. Offhand, I can't
think of another loudspeaker (apart from the Obelisk) more capable of providing
a firm placement of the main instruments, drawing a larger scale sound picture
of the recorded acoustic and simultaneously maintaining the imaging from a range
of angles and distances. Only dipole designs like the Martin-Logan Quests have
proved capable of the same (or better) clarity of position and a comparably
large image scale, but such designs impose draconian restrictions on where the
listener sits, and don't always display the corporeal presence of a pair of
Shahinians in full flood.
If it wasn't for the imaging properties, the Arcs could have been one of
the better Snells or Vandersteens: they have a similar combination of dynamics,
clarity and organisation of musical cues, and the same apparent disregard for
the sheer beauty of many sounds, a quality exemplified by the aforementioned
Quests or equivalents – or live performance. In fact the Arc has less
colouration and smear than with the other box speaker brands mentioned, and a
transparency to the source material that approaches a good panel.
And now we're getting close to what the Arc is all about. Unfailingly
musical in a genuinely undemonstrative way, this loudspeaker simply allows music
to speak for itself. It is remarkably adept at filling space in a way that could
be mistaken for the performer or group playing at the time, be it Suzanne Vega
singing in Tom's Diner or the massive augmented orchestral and vocal forces that
come together in Mahler's orgasmic 8th symphony. Although there are rough edges
(some shelving up of the treble) and some limitations (bass is still on the
lightweight side even after running in); these things do remarkably little to
intrude on the music. And here is one of those subtle ironies that makes hi-fi
endlessly intriguing: although the design is wilful almost to the point of
eccentricity, the Arc itself is not a wilful loudspeaker. It does not get in the
way.
More than just liking these speakers, I have to confess to being a
convert. It's not just the way the Arcs sound that really impresses; it is the
way the music itself is allowed to speak without cramping the style. Mere words,
however, really do not do them justice: like other idiosyncratic designs the Arc
is bound to evoke strong feelings, anti as well as pro.
I've always like direct/reflecting loudspeakers ever since I heard the
Swedish Sonab range way back in 1972. Recently, more to the point, I've grown
less happy with the concept of forward-radiating speakers, feeling their designs
present the ear with a waveform that is too stark and lacking in integration.
It's a bit like trying to evenly light a room with bright, directional
searchlights and then wondering why the effect is harsh; a diffuse light is
easier on the eye.
Not that there s anything diffuse of 'soft' about the Arc loudspeakers,
on the contrary, they're bright, lively, very articulate, detailed, and
altogether transparent. They produce a sound that is undeniably tactile and
forward, yet at the same time create a wonderful sense of wholeness and
integration. Clarity is outstanding, and instruments sound as if they have a
real space around them. Stereophonically, the sound is clear and impressively
holographic.
For a speaker so tonally bright and dynamic, the sound has remarkable
depth and space; you really get a sense of the acoustic in which the recording
was made. The bass is powerful and surprisingly deep for such a small enclosure,
and overall the Arcs are capable of real clout on dynamic material. They're fast
too, but tonally not wholly neutral. The initial impression was of a bright
peaky treble combined with a strong bass line, and not much in the middle. Yet,
curiously, the ear quickly adjusts to this, something that wouldn't happen quite
so readily with a conventional speaker.
It's almost as though these speakers succeed despite their quirky tonal
balance, so integrated and musically rewarding is the effect produced. Listening
to the Arcs is indeed a very musical experience, and something that may not be
immediately apparent is the way they seem to make sense of the music and its
performance, being excellent in terms of rhythm and timing.
Purists will probably hate them, but anyone willing to listen with an
open mind should gain a clear idea of their remarkable qualities. A very special
speaker and one far greater than the sum of its parts.
Although not the most outrageous loudspeaker in the five-strong range
that is being handled in the UK, the Arc is unusual enough. It is a floor
standing box with a top surface. In effect the baffle, slanted about 45°
upwards, and with a large area passive bass radiator fitted stage rear (the
classic 'flapping baffle' of yore). Lift the cover and you'll find not two but
three drive units, a 200mm polypropylene cone bass driver, a 34 mm fabric dome
midrange and a 25mm metallised dome tweeter.
One small criticism of the Arcs is that
the
enclosures
are not handed left and right and therefore will not radiate in true
mirror image fashion. But the close proximity of the units makes the effective
acoustic 'size' very small, and the units sound unusually homogeneous even from
close quarters.
The enclosure, constructed of 19mm wood veneered fibreboard, has an
irregular internal shape by virtue of the top panel, and is filled with two
grades of sound absorbing material, namely BAF wadding and long hair wool, to
give the required absorbent characteristic. This is typical of the fastidious
attention to detail of this and other speakers in the range, or at least the
Obelisk, which I have examined minutely. The inset base is fitted with hard,
wide diameter feet (not spikes) and a single pair of loudspeaker terminals with
a fuse inset.
The most intriguing aspect of the design, however, is the acoustic
design. It is Richard Shahinian's belief that a loudspeaker should radiate sound
into a room in much the same way that acoustic instruments do which means that
the speaker should approach being omnidirectional. The Arc throws the sound
upwards and forwards, and is bounced off the hard, reflecting areas of the
listening room giving a sense of air and space not usually available from
traditional forward radiating loudspeakers. There is a degree of forward bias in
the Arc's output though.
Keen readers will recognise the similarity of concept with the Canon
range. Those with white-fringed goatees may even remember Sonab. Come back.
Prof. Stig Caarison, all is forgiven. . .
In search of system satisfaction this month we decided to see what we could assemble for £6000 that would have a vinyl enthusiast in raptures. We sent Malcolm Steward to Loughborough, to Sound Advice, to set the whole thing spinning...
Watching while Sound Advice's boss Derek Whittington and Pear Audio's
John Burns set up this system was intriguing. Most of the activity centred
around the unusual Well Tempered Classic turntable and tone arm. It’s a dream
for those vinyl fans who enjoy fine-tuning the front-end set up! There's no
aspect of the silicone damped WT tone arms geometry or operation that can't be
twiddled or tweaked. That having been said, in use it’s neither fiddly nor
delicate.
Coming to terms with the Classic itself takes a little more effort. A
unique main bearing design allows the platter to flop over if you apply slight
pressure to the side away from the motor. The latter, incidentally, isn't
attached to the main body of the turntable: it sits directly upon the support
surface and protrudes through a circular cutout in the plinth. The bearing
arrangement sounds highly impractical, but is said to offer a better performance
than more conventional bearing designs. Soon adapting to placing a finger on the
motor side of the platter while clamping discs onto the deck, I noticed none of
the cell-tale signs of poor speed stability nor bearing give while the system
was being played.
Of course, this all had to wait until the deck had been parked on its
perch. Burns didn't want to use my regular Mana support, saying that the WT
preferred something very substantial beneath it. Exactly how much more
substantial than seven steel tables, six sheets of Medite and one of glass - all
of them supported upon my concrete floor - I wondered!
Burns suggested a sideboard or heavy wooden table, saying that his
experience showed the WT didn't much favour most steel tables. We compromised by
using a Mana Sound Table topped with Medite, upon which we placed a slab of
slate separated from the Medite by rubber feet. So supported, the Classic voiced
no objections. Its bass sounded as firm and nimble as it had done in Sound
Advice's listening room, and the unusually neutral quality I'd heard on vocal
recordings was evident, too.
I enjoyed this system's impressive dynamic compass. One of the discs I
bought at Sound Advice was a recording of the Dallas Symphony orchestra playing
Copland's Fanfare For The Common Man and dances from the ballet Rodeo.
It's a wonderful recording, here made all the more inspiring. From out of a
CD-like blackness the music thundered and resounded with breathtaking power and
extraordinary finesse. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the recreation of
the percussion.
I dare say chat this was one of a handful of systems I’ve heard that
could convey both the instrumental colour and sheer power of this score at
anything approaching realistic listening levels. Others that could manage the
same degree of poise and insight surely couldn't muster the same physical
presence and might. And on the subject of CDs inky black silences, please don't
be misled: while the Classic is super quiet it's hard to imagine a CD player
that would match the WT and Dynavector pairings reach-out-and-touch-it sense of
instrumental timbre and three-dimensionality. Timpani rolls, for instance,
weren't merely low frequency rumbles but palpable masses of air being set in
motion as a result of skins being fiercely struck.
As I played more albums two things became apparent above all else.
Firstly, this system communicated the emotional qualities in music with
remarkable eloquence. Nothing I played left me feeling short-changed in the fun,
excitement or drama departments. Secondly - and doubtless partly influential in
respect of point one – this system is one of those rare animals that could be
simultaneously musical and analytical. It's a detail vulture, but its facility
for information gathering rarely intruded upon its ability to involve me in the
music.
This latter quality, however, is to some extent tuneable, as I discovered
by accident. During a session I put on an elderly Steve Marriott album, 30
Seconds to Midnite, for the track All Or Nothing. But it sounded
uncharacteristically detailed in a hi-fi-ish, clinical manner - certainly an
informative portrayal, but not especially involving nor as coherent as I'd
expected. Indeed, the system appeared to have lost some of its approachable,
human quality and taken on a comparatively mechanical, artificial character...
I switched to another album, and normality was restored. So I went back to the Marriott disc and that now seemed okay. There was no loss of detail, but now everything seemed cogent and properly integrated. John Burns suggested a possible cause: I'd tightened down the Classic's record clamp too much. He was right! Backing it off a quarter of a turn did the trick. It's important to fix records firmly to the platter, but you must avoid placing them under tension. This particular disc's tight centre hole had exacerbated the situation.
When you have discs clamped optimally the system reveals what’s
happening within recordings and mixes without any undue highlighting. It seems
to separate notes better, to punctuate phrases and passages more accurately with
silences, allowing individual events to be more clearly appreciated. The
rhythmic precision of tracks on the Steve Marriott disc and others reinforced
this hypothesis. When the Well Tempered latches onto a groove it leaves you in
no doubt of its ability to portray timing information decisively and
sympathetically. The temporally adept Naim amplifiers and responsive Shahinian
speakers reflect this quality more than adequately.
The system is revealing of its own set-up and state of tune. I'd wired
the speakers initially with Audio Note silver cable while the Naim NAC A5 cables
destined to connect the system were being prepared. I've used this particular
Audio Note cable with Naim amps and other speakers quite successfully, but it
wasn't happy here. The system sounded closed-in, the bass was weakened and less
tuneful, the top end unusually dirty and lacking in transparency. Switching to
NAC A5 pumped up the bass, cleaned the mid and treble, and opened out the sound
remarkably.
This was how the system stayed for the remainder of its sojourn. I felt
no urge to tinker or twiddle, but I'll admit that it made me feel incredibly
guilt-stricken. I realised just how lazy I've become of late - simply switching
on the CD player when I want to relax, rather than blowing the dust off a record
occasionally! While I lived with this system I rediscovered the joys of vinyl
and relived the excitement of previous milestone encounters in my addiction to
long-playing records -
such as buying a Naim ARO tone-arm, and first planting my Linn on a Mana table.
A flick-through the pile of unusual bedfellow discs next to the Classic
— Fun Boy Threes Waiting, John McLaughlin's Extrapolation, Little Feat's Last
Record Album, and Mozart's Le Nozze De Figaro - best witnesses the systems
finest qualities. The diversity tells you that it treats all manner of music
equally and, just an importantly, that it stimulates that
I-wonder-what-this-disc-will-sound-like appetite, which is
the most reliable indicator of a system working as it should. Any confection
that encourages me to mix Lowell George
with opera -for
fun and not professional interest – has to be worth taking seriously!
One final note concerning the most frequently cited criticism of vinyl
systems - distracting surface noise. I didn't once remove a disc because I found
surface noise in the least intrusive. And remember that I listen at high levels
and usually clean records by wiping them with the first soft object that comes
to hand. The lack of HF nasties has nothing to do with the systems tonal
balance: this rig covers the range from lowest bass to highest treble without
any mollifying subjective dips.
The system I’d discussed by phone with Sound Advice had been set up
before I arrived. It was amended slightly – to include a less expensive
cartridge and power amplifier than the planned £998 DynavectorXX1-L and £940
Naim NAP180 - merely because of a communications mishap regarding what was to be
included in the price. That sorted, my writing schedule then coincided with Naim
Audio’s April price rises, so we nonetheless still broke the bank — but only
by a paltry £69!
Otherwise everything sailed plainly. I walked into the demonstration
room, sat and listened to Hendrix, Jeff Beck, Edgar Varèse and Copland seasoned
with a dash of Adrian Sherwood, and said ‘Wrap it up, I’ll take it’
Buying hi-fi in real life should be that easy. Forget endless A/B comparisons chasing insignificant cosmetic differences; three quarters of any successful and worthwhile demonstration should be spent pillaging the dealer’s record shelves. If it isn’t, then whatever’s under consideration clearly isn’t especially exciting.
From the outset, Sound Advice’s system played music so fluently and
persuasively that I felt no inclination to fret about its performance or
presentational aspects - not that there were any that concerned me unduly.
There’s almost nothing else to say...
After five minutes messing to bring the line-up onto budget and ensure
that it still delivered the performance I wanted, I spent the rest of the
afternoon working through proprietor Derek Whittington’s demo discs and
filling a carrier bag with vinyl from the healthy stock of records he sells
alongside the hi-fi.
Two factors - apart from the system itself - probably explain the ease
with which I selected this system...
The first is the demonstration room at Sound Advice’s Loughborough
premises, which is especially conducive to listening to music. There’s no
equipment in the room bar the pair of speakers being auditioned, which, along
with carefully chosen decor, makes for a thoroughly comfortable atmosphere for
listening.
Secondly, there’s the shop’s music-first attitude. I’ve known
Whittington for over ten years and I’ve never had a conversation with him yet
that didn’t conclude with a list of album recommendations.
It was hardly surprising that he’d assembled a system that was right on
my wavelength, one that was overtly musically informative and rewarding. And,
though it incorporated one of Naim Audio’s smaller amplifiers, it easily
fulfilled my requirement for playing at realistic volume levels. As Whittington
pragmatically asserts, you can’t sell someone a £6000 system and then tell
them that it will work properly only at modest levels!
The Shahinian Arcs depart from conventional loudspeaker design at every
turn. For starters, their cabinets aren’t spiked — they squat on the floor,
on plastic feet. Then they’re not bi-wirable. Good grief, they even have fuses
in them! All this sacrilege is apparent before you consider what appears to be
their most obvious fault - none of the speaker’s drive units point towards
you. The passive radiator bass unit fires away from you while the bass, midrange
and treble drivers aim sky-wards. If that’s not enough to upset your
sensibilities then listening to them will be.
While you’d have every right to expect an oddball performance, you find
that while they’re certainly different these speakers are also incredibly
involving and musically can-did. They have an openness and a sense of composure
that provides an indecently clean window through which you may happily indulge
in musical voyeurism.
New drive units and a revised crossover also mean that the Arcs are no
longer the ball-breakers they use to be. With
a high sensitivity (probably just over 88dB, I’d guess) and an impedance curve
that’s friendlier than before, they no longer demand more than most amplifiers
could comfortably deliver. Suitably sourced and driven, they provide an
eye-opening insight into music — emotionally stimulating and astonishingly
earthy.
In System Satisfaction,
page 4, Malcolm Steward listens to a combination that includes the highly
unconventional Shahinian Arc loudspeakers. Here, he talks to Dick Shahinian,
their creator.
In an afternoon’s conversation with New York-born Dick Shahinian I
found myself discussing topics as diverse as real ale and Turner. In his
likeable and flamboyant manner Shahinian labels Turner as one of the ‘cosmic
greats’ in art. We talked music too - this man has a truly encyclopaedic
knowledge. The consequence of it all? I gained a better appreciation of why
Shahinians loudspeakers flout convention. Here’s some of what he told me,
though in this space I can barely penetrate the surface of the erudite and
entertaining discourse he gave...
‘Fifty years ago, when I was fourteen, I went to my first concert at
Carnegie Hall. I came away thinking records are a joke, affecting to duplicate
that dynamic range and tone at home! That was what started me in audio — the
idea that somehow it could be done. Since then, my reaction to convention has
been that being one of the pack is truly boring. I think that going back and
looking at what’s been ignored is more interesting than going forward like
some blind fool, hurtling ahead to find that what’s there isn’t really that
interesting or different.
‘Ninety-nine per cent of loudspeakers copy each other, either looking
or sounding alike. I’m taking another direction, following people like Otto
Enckel, A. Stewart Hegeman, Murray Crosby and Buckminster Fuller. I’m not
trying to challenge the rest of the audio community - other than to say that
I’m impatient with its idea that what 1m doing is off-centre! I’m ready to
start taking on its attitude towards non-directional or omni-directional sound
and address the fact that all sound in the universe is radial and not
directional.
‘What I'm doing is not trail-blazing or innovative, because much of my
work is based on things that you’ll find in Harry F. Olsons treatise in 1939,
following simple ideas such as the geometry published in Van Nostrand’s
Elements of Acoustic Engineering. This said that the worst possible shape for a
loudspeaker is a square cube with the driver mounted in the centre of one face,
and that the second worst is a rectangular box - which is exactly what most
modern loudspeakers are. The top form of the Shahinian Obelisk — by accident,
because I didn’t see Olson’s book until after I’d designed it - is the
second most nearly correct shape for a loudspeaker: the best is a sphere while
the second is a pyramid with a rectangular base.
‘Nobody seems to consider that the waveforms of music and sound are
radial. They radiate in all directions so why make a loudspeaker box where the
drivers sit on one face pointing towards you? Listen to someone standing in the
middle of a room and speaking: have them rotate through 360 degrees and they
have a sound that you can specifically hear as being on-axis and off-axis. Put
that voice through a conventional loudspeaker and rotate it, and once you get
about ten or fifteen degrees off- axis — notwithstanding all the nonsense
published about dispersion! - the voice takes on a very different character
because of diffraction and collected axial effects. Do that with our
loudspeakers and it sounds more like a person rotating. This sounds primitive,
but it demonstrates that what’s really required is that a loudspeaker be a
point source with polydirectional activity.
‘Using such speakers you can enjoy the recreation of a
three-dimensional, natural effect of listening to music instead of the synthetic
activity of listening to two sources. About ten years ago the then technical
editor of Stereo Review, Larry Klein, wrote that he did not like the idea of
stereo — because he knew of no music which started out as two sources! The
spirit of what I’m doing is to go back to the professional symbol used for
stereo - a pair of overlapped circles. I don’t recognise left and right. For
me its left all the way to right, front all the way to back, I’ve never yet
seen a conductor conducting an orchestra where the middle of the stage was
empty, yet I think most loudspeakers sound like that.
Listen to Shahinian with a closed mind and preconceptions founded on conventional thinking and you alight indeed consider him off-centre. However, he has ways of confronting cynicism: ‘I did a series of psychoacoustical experiments every weekend for eleven weeks, using two pairs of identical Obelisk loudspeakers, one of which pairs was concealed by acoustically transparent screens. Every listener greatly preferred what they were sure were the larger speakers behind the screens. That alone illustrates that we still have much to learn about listening to music and loudspeakers.’
The Shahinian
Obelisk is
a speaker that
has thoroughly captivated my
soul. As it is a very unusual
design, its virtues and design are best understood by comparison with more
ordinary kinds of designs. Hence a
brief digression into the hows and whys of speaker design.
What is the job of a speaker? Simply put, to convert electricity into air motion, in accordance with the way that air motion was converted into that electricity in the first place. A speaker is pretty much the opposite of a microphone. A microphone is supposed to transform air motion into electricity in a predetermined fashion. A perfect chain from microphone to storage to playback to speakers should produce the exact pattern of air motion present at the microphone(s). Alas, nothing is perfect.
Ruling out losses from
microphones, storage and playback
equipment, a speaker should produce a pattern of air motion that matches the
original (microphone feed) as closely as possible. An ideal speaker should do exactly what the amplifier tells
it to do, nothing more, nothing
less. (In my
opinion this
is the paradigm for any
piece of stereo equipment, to simply do what its predecessor tells it to do
without adding or subtracting anything. ) The best that we can hope for from a
real world speaker is an increasingly close approximation to that ideal.
The problems of speaker design and operation are immediately complicated
by the fact that while speakers are rather
like microphones in their principles of operation, they are little like
the musical instruments that produce the original sounds.
A stereo recording is (usually) the result of multiple sound sources
being funneled into two channels. The
speakers must then create the illusion of the original array of sound sources.
All of this in the face of two major unknowns: The amplifier-cable-speaker
interface/interaction, and the speaker-room interface/interaction.
There are additional problems of size, cost, appearance, and how many
individuals may simultaneously hear and enjoy a proper presentation of a stereo
recording. Speakers must be
real-world products. They must be
affordable, and fit in with the decor of the room in which they are placed;
specially since many audio systems occupy people’s living rooms.
And, if a couple wants to listen to music together, they really
shouldn’t have to fight for the “sweet spot”. (Think
about the communal superiority
of television in this regard. )
Then of
course, there
are the
more technical
design considerations, including:
Planar vs. dynamic,
and if planar, ribbon, or electrostatic.
If dynamic, one must worry about full range vs, a satellite-subwoofer
arrangement; crossover points, the number of drivers, and the specific frequency
ranges that they should handle. There
are also considerations of frequency response-
tonal balance,
impedance, power
handling, efficiency,
time alignment, shape, size, weight, point vs. line source, loudness
capabilities, dispersion,
and finish.
And, there
are also production
considerations such as cost, repeatability for low unit to unit variation,
whether it can be UPSed, stable parts sources, etc..
All in all, it seems that the speaker designer’s job is a unending nightmare of
interlocking design and
production considerations. It’s
really a wonder anyone bothers.
To my thinking, success or failure of a particular speaker design
consists in achieving a unified gestalt, rather than a focus on particular
aspects of design or performance. There are no such things as ideal
woofers, tweeters,
crossovers, or
cabinets, considered in isolation. What
really matters is how the components interact
with each
other. Whole
designs are
what count.
Similarly, a great smile by Itself, does not make a great person.
I believe that many audiophiles are too concerned with what’s in the
box and what it’s made out of, instead of with its performance, visual appeal,
affordability, usefulness, and value.
It’s a real challenge to review speakers because of their unpredictable
interactions with rooms and amplifiers. Speakers,
unlike most loads, fight back. Speakers produce
an electrical signal when moving backwards, and how different amplifiers are
able to ignore this back EMF is somewhat unpredictable. And, it is
difficult to assess how this affects the sound, as you can’t hear the amp
without booking it up to speakers, and vice versa.
As the Obelisk is a rather unique design, before commenting on its sound
I will describe their appearance and configuration, (Most of this data is taken
directly from Shahinian’s brochure.) Imagine a Neanderthal Washington monument
in wood and cloth. The rectangular
portion of the cabinet is constructed from ¾” Finland birch, veneered in your
choice of wood. The pyramid tops
and the woofers are covered with either black or brown grille cloth, to
aesthetically match the choice of veneer for the main cabinets.
The edges of the Finland birch are mitered and exposed, producing a
striking and elegant contrast with the veneer.
The dimensions are 29” high, by 14.5” wide, by 12.5” deep.
They weigh 55 lbs. each, and the speaker is on double wheeled plastic
casters.
The Obelisk uses a patented woofer loading technique called the
“Shahinian passive radiator”. It
features a front firing 8” polypropylene curved texture cone woofer with a
1.5” aluminum high temperature voice coil and a 28 oz. ceramic magnet.
The woofer is mounted on the lower third of the front face of the
cabinet, slightly off center horizontally.
The cabinet is a transmission line terminated by a rear-firing plastic
10” passive radiator. Each of the
four faces of the pyramid contains a “W-shaped” polyamid dome
tweeter with a 10mm voice coil. The
front and back faces of the pyramid top contain “34mm cambric ultra light
exposed dome midrange drivers”. The
woofer cabinet is damped with lamb’s wool and virgin polyfill. The Obelisks are not mirror imaged, and their
nominal impedance is 6 ohms.
The Obelisk is configured as a three way design with a 6dB/octave slope
for the woofer, and 18dB/octave slopes for both the midranges and the tweeters.
It is comprised of high quality drivers and crossover parts, and is wired
internally with Kimber cable. They
are assembled with a perfectionist’s eye toward fit and finish;
and the reviewed pair was supplied in Rosewood.
The cabinetwork is extremely good, among the best I’ve seen.
It is easily of furniture quality. The
veneers are carefully matched, so that each surface of the speakers has markings
that match the respective surface on its mate.
This on every pair of Shahinian’s that I’ve seen, not all of which
have been Obelisks; (about 10-15
pair, if you’re curious.) Every
speaker is given a listening test to verify
that it
is performing correctly
before leaving the factory.
The crossovers are mounted on the bottom of the cabinet, and the panels
contain binding posts which accept dual bananas, spade lugs or bare wire.
The panels also contain screw-in fuse holders for regular 3 amp fuses.
It is easy to connect large gauge stiff speaker cables to the Obelisks
since the speaker cabinets are nicely elevated by the casters.
The bottom connection is a nice touch, not only because it makes the
speaker wire less obtrusive visually, but also because the speaker wire
doesn’t have to run several feet up to connect to the back of the speaker.
Given the cost of today’s best speaker cables, it’s nice to save six
or so feet of cable via bottom rather than rear connection.
The reason for the pyramid top and front woofer-rear passive radiator, is
so that the speaker can simulate a pulsating sphere point
source. Given
the dispersion
characteristics of
the particular drivers and their mounting positions, the Obelisk is
largely omnidirectional.
According to Shahinian, all musical waveforms are spherical in origin.
As such, only a point source omnidirectional speaker can
correctly reproduce
these waveforms.
So, the
unusual configuration of the Obelisk
is in fact a vital aspect of the design, rather than an attempt to market
them on the basis of an unusual shape.
I have heard the Obelisks with a variety of amplifiers in four different
rooms. I have spent at least ten
hours listening to them in each of these rooms, so these are valid reviewing
experiences. (FYI the four rooms
are: Shahinian’s room at the June
Consumer Electronics Show, Bedini’s room at the same Consumer Electronics
Show, an audio showroom where I worked for a year and had ample time to
familiarize myself with the room, ancillary equipment etc., and at home.)
Therefore, I feel equipped to speak accurately and intelligently about
the performance of these speakers under a variety of real world conditions.
I first fell in love with the Shahinian Obelisks about a year ago at the
June Consumer Electronics Show in Chicago.
I kept returning to Shahinian’s suite to hear music, as opposed to
hi-fi. Shahinian plays his speakers
at the show, rather than trying to sell them.
This is an important and not too
subtle matter. Shahinian is not
alone in this regard, but is certainly in the minority. It amazes
me that
these speakers
have been
in production, virtually unchanged for 10 years or so, and have been
entirely ignored by the audio press. What
they do they do uniquely well. They
do nothing badly. In this
regard they are only bettered by their more expensive siblings - the Diapason.
The Obelisks, somewhat uniquely in my experience, provide the listener
with an uncanny insight into the recording’s environment and microphone
placement. Their sound is spacious
and effortless, and they do not homogenize recordings. Records that should sound different do sound different.
They don’t call attention to a particular part of the frequency
spectrum. They produce a large
soundstage in width, depth, and height when and only when the recording has
soundstage information. They are
neither forward nor recessed, again
this depends on the recording. Some
records throw the soundstage mostly in front of the speakers, some partially in
front and partially behind them,
and some mostly behind the
speakers.
They are
neither bright
(tilted up tonal
balance) nor warm/sluggish
(downward tilted tonal balance). Bright
records sound bright through them, dull warm records sound warm and dull through
them. Acoustic music simply miked
in performance spaces sounds that way. Artificial studio recordings sound artificial.
The Obelisk is a detailed speaker without the false detail from tweaking
the frequency response. They
produce accurate tone colors, harmonic and soundstage information when
appropriate. They neither add it
nor subtract it. They are a
wonderful speaker to use if you
want to enjoy your records and CDs,
as they are decidedly not hi-fi artifice.
They don’t strike you as detailed, instead they simply allow you to
hear more of what’s going on in the performance.
They don’t tell you things, they simply let you hear them.
For me the main virtue of the Obelisks is that they let me forget the
equipment and focus on the performance. I
can’t think of a better criterion for evaluating audio equipment.
They are coherent and realistic, producing a smooth relaxed sound. They
do not, however, do this by robbing dynamics and smoothing over the source.
Rather, they just seem to be very comfortable producing whatever you feed
them.
No single performance aspect of these speakers calls attention to the
speakers themselves. In general,
when an audio product has noticeable performance in a single attribute, e.g.,
good bass, good imaging, this should alert you to the fact that the speaker must
be doing less well in other areas.
Instead, the design should be successful as a coherent whole.
This the Obelisks do quite well.
They disappear from the room, making it difficult to determine that the
sound is coming from those unusual looking boxes.
Instead, the speaker end of the room takes on the characteristics of the
space where the recording was made. The
speakers get out of the way so the music can come out.
Some of you might
be used
to reviews
that dissect
the performance of an audio component, describing
various aspects of its performance
in metaphoric
language somewhat
akin to
the esoteric terminology of wine tasting, for example. It
is my contention that this misses the point.
The easier it is to dissect the performance of the audio component,
the less coherent and
unified its performance. When I listen to the Obelisk it disarms my critical
faculties. Instead of thinking
about bass, highs, or imaging, I
find myself thinking about the
performance of the musicians, the ambience of the performance space, and other
purely musical criteria. These
speakers just don’t sound like speakers. They
do, however,
perform quite well in
traditional high end performance parameters.
The highs are sweet, dynamic and extended, not bright, harsh, hard or
grainy. Records that have a natural
high end sound this way. Conversely,
records that are bright or grainy sound that way. Deep bass is reproduced with tight, harmonically accurate,
clear-pitched bass. A well listened
audiophile friend proclaimed these as the best imaging speakers that he’d ever
heard. He thought that his Snell
AS’s, which cost three times the price and are almost four times the size
produced more bass. He could muster
no other critical remark. He
was dumbfounded. Another
friend, between smiles, said “My speakers image pretty good,
these are truly amazing. “
While these
speakers do
not sound bad
reproducing any particular
kind of music they really come into their own with well recorded acoustic jazz
and classical music - the penchant of their designer.
Shahinian knows well, and loves, the
sound of the concert hall, and knows how to produce speakers that evoke the
beauty, bloom, and emotional sweep of live music.
In addition to their wonderful musical sound, the Obelisks have many
other equally important virtues. They
are small, therefore visually unobtrusive.
They don’t take over the listening room the way some speakers can.
They aren’t that fussy about placement,
just keep them a foot or so from walls, away from the corners, and in my
experience, do not toe them in. They
like to be fairly far apart, and given their ease of placement, the casters
allow them to be easily rolled to the appropriate location.
Additionally, they throw a wide stereo image. These are not a lock your head in a vice speaker. They have
large sweet spot that is several feet wide.
My sofa is seven feet wide and I can hear a good stereo presentation from
any position on my sofa without lamenting being off the center position.
Thus, these speakers not only produce world class sound, but they satisfy
every rational real-world consideration. This makes them not only a great value,
but also a product that is easy to live with.
I can’t think of any way to improve them.
The Obelisk is a complete, coherent design that has stood the test of
time. They deserve to make Dick
Shahinian wealthy, even though this is not a particular concern of his.
I am delighted and proud to own a pair of these myself.
Until I can afford the Diapasons I would not swap these for any other
speaker that I’ve heard, even though I’ve heard many very good speakers that
are worthwhile in their own right.
The Shahinian Obelisks have been around for more than 20 years, but they have been continuously refined to keep pace with driver technology, and it was only this year that The Absolute Sound obtained a pair for review. The Obelisks are the heart of the Stereo for Mr. Stevens (see the Fifth Column, Issues 116 - 121). No other speakers I have heard in the $[outdated price removed] price range come close in filling the room with sound while rendering images with non-fatiguing refinement. They will work acceptably well with “affordable” sources and amplification, but they will only show what they are truly capable of with purified wall current, a coherently musical front end, amplifiers that have extraordinary bass control, and fast, detailed cables. Considering the Obelisks’ driver count and cabinet complexity, their price seems stuck circa the Carter presidency, so grab a pair quickly. The Obelisks are the loudspeaker sleeper bargain.
The
refinement of Mr. Stevens’
stereo-in-progress (see Issue115)
continues. In fact, we have arrived at Provisionally Poetic and Acceptable
System No. 1. Not, perhaps, the final word, but a safe bet that is worth getting
excited about.
The Thorens CD player has been gently nudged out by the slightly more
affordable ($2,500) Enlightened Audio Designs Ultradisc 2000 Revised.
(Additional benefit: HDCD decoding.) Enlightened’s CD player excels in
coherently bringing out musical subtleties such as vocal and instrumental
vibrato. The individual pulses of Ella Fitzgerald’s vibrato on “You’d Be
So Easy To Love” {The Cole Porter Songbook, Vol. 2, Verve CD 821-990-2}
came into focus as never before. This wonderful focus, both spatial and
temporal, does not come at the cost of edginess or glaze. Until further notice,
the Ultradisc 2000 Revised is our digital source “King of the Hill.”
Another high-quality integrated amp made its appearance here recently:
Conrad-Johnson’s all-tube CAV-50. The CAV-50 delivers enjoyable sound quality
and good value for money.
Thoughtful design couches and
beefy build, including lather
massive transformers, make it closer competition for the
150 wpc
Plinius 8150 than a 50 wpc tube amp has any right to be.
If
non-fatiguing (though not objectionably euphonic) listening is your Number 1
priority, you will be happy with the CAV-50.
If your
budget for amplification tops out at $2,500, you can acquire the CAV-50 with no
regrets, and with much confidence in its maker’s track record and customer
service. On balance, though, my judgment is that the Plinius 8150 is well worth
the additional $500 (though if your favorite recordings benefit from tubular
taming or your room volleys the high treble around, the C-J may be more
synergistic in your system).
So the amplification “King of the Hill” remains the Plinius 8150.
What makes the Plinius 8150 worth the additional money is finer detail, deeper
and more dynamic bass, and more “air.”
But both amps are safely over the line dividing the compromisers from the
truly capable servants of music.
Impressive as they are, the Speaker Art Super Clef loudspeakers are a
near-budget ($1,599) product. Direct comparison with my portable 2-way monitors
of choice, the Atelier de Synergic Acoustique’s inventively named ASA Pro
Monitors (ah, the wry subtlety of French wit), emphasized both strengths and
weaknesses in the Super Clefs. The ASA Pros cost about $3,250 in France, so it
is an admittedly unfair, but nonetheless instructive, comparison.
The Super Clefs were demonstrably the more articulate of the two. Our
test disc for articulation is the Kings Singers’ excruciatingly poofteh
Gilbert & Sullivan Here’s a Howdy Do [RCA CD 09026-61885-2). On
Track 9, “With Cat-Like Tread,” certain words that were questionable on the
ASA Pros were intelligible on the Super Clefs. Still, the ASAs had more
solidity, sweetness, and bloom, especially on orchestral strings.
Picking which speakers just to listen to music on was no contest.
(For fairness’ sake, I will one day evaluate a more expensive Speaker
Art offering.)
Comparing the costs of the two tweeters (Vifa fabric dome vs. Dynaudio
Esotec) went a long way toward explaining what I was hearing. Dollars (or
francs) spent on parts also explains why, despite their numerous virtues, the
ASA Pro Monitors are too rich for Mr. Stevens’ system budget. Especially after
the costs of importation are taken into account.
(And like most two-way monitors, the ASA Pro Monitors lack deep bass.) So
we have shifted the search to loudspeakers costing in the US up to $3,000 with
hoped-for economies elsewhere to balance the budget later.
On cue, a pair of Shahinian Acoustics’ Obelisk loudspeakers ($[outdated
price removed] and
up, depending on finish) glided into the system on wheeled casters. The 29 x 13
x 15-inch, 55-pound Obelisks look like squat wooden replicas of the Washington
Monument. Slightly wider than deep,
they are surmounted by a four-sided pyramid covered in black fabric. They
combine a front-firing 8- inch woofer-mid coupled to a
patented rear-mounted passive radiator at the end of a quasi-transmission line,
two 1.5-inch dome midranges (on the front and back faces of the pyramid), and
four tweeters (one on each face of the pyramid).
Richard Shahinian is devoted to orchestral music. He designs and voices
his speakers to recreate the concert hall, not test tones. Celebrity Shahinian
owners include not only this magazines Scot Markwell but also Plinius’ Peter
Thomson, so it is no surprise that the Obelisks and the 8150 harmonize
splendidly. The Obelisks handily crump the ASAs in bass, and offer a tonally
different but equally evocative window into the music.
On Telarc’s Robert Shaw Brahms German Requiem CD (have you bought your
copy yet?), the grandeur was manifest: glorious organ bass, shimmering string
tone, individuated choral voices. The
Shahinians, based on A. Stewart Hegeman’s polyradial point-source theory,
excel at presenting tonally luscious orchestral texture in a frame of width and
height usually unobtainable at this price. And you aren’t confined to a
“sweet spot” 18 inches wide, either.
Quibbles? Front-firing stand-mounted monitors such as the ASAs resolve
center images, especially from monophonic sources, appreciably better. (The ASA
Pros’ rendering of monophonic Ella Fitzgerald recordings is eerily
holographic.) Furthermore, the Obelisks attempt to deliver the sound of
Shahinian’s $[outdated price removed] Diapasons at one-third the cost, so the same 8-inch driver
handles all of the bass and much of the midrange.
The result is a velvety and slightly recessed lower midrange, coupled
with plummy bass.* In neither case offensive, just somewhat unfocused. But for
listening to music, this is a system that pulls together admirably and happily.
So, despite a $750 budget
over-run, I hereby proclaim a Provisionally Poetic and Acceptable System for Mr.
Stevens:
•
Enlightened Audio Designs Ultradisc 2000 CD player ($2,500)
•
Plinius 8150 integrated amplifier ($2,950)
•
Shahinian Obelisk loudspeakers ($[outdated price removed])
The total is $[outdated price removed] — our
core-system target was $7,500. And you still need wire goods. But this system
substantially meets the goals I posited in Issue 115:
I can recommend it with complete confidence to a friend. It delivers
musical enjoyment and lasting value for the money. I cannot yet say with
certainty that it is the optimum, just that it substantially meets all the
desiderata, except (sigh) price.
So the quest continues with two goals: evaluating alternative speaker
designs and design approaches (e.g., planar and electrostatic), and trying to
equal or surpass the performance of the Enlightened and Plinius electronics for
less money. Next time: speakers,
wire products, and the string quartets of Ravel and Debussy. Questions or
suggestions, please write, call, or e-mail (jmrcds@jmrcds.com).
Sources:
Enlightened Audio Designs: (515)
472-4132
Conrad-Johnson Design Group:
(703) 698-8581
Atelier de Synergic Acoustique:
fax: 011 33 54 695 5511
Shahinian Acoustics: (631) 736
0033
Ella Fitzgerald, The King’s
Singers, and Ein Deutsches Requiem recordings:
800 75-MUSIC or http://www.amazon.com
*That the center of the woofer is
about 9” from the floor may contribute to the plumminess. The factory assures
me that the bass tightens up with break-in.