Legacy/Audioholics
- Thread starter Dentman
- Start date
Which one? Legacy Audio used to located in Springfield IL about 90 minutes from my house. I have been there a couple of times and their stuff is nothing short of amazing in my opinion. They were then bought out by Allen Organ Company in PA, but I think now they are back in Springfield.
If I ever win the SuperMegaPowerLotto Legacy will be at the top of the list for speakers in my new super duper high end audiophile quality no expense spared home theater with $50,000 speaker wires.
Ok, all of that is true except the speaker wire part.
I have also met Legacy's head guy, Bill Duddleston on a couple of occasions and he is a really nice guy.
Initial impressions... just about everything he is doing actually make sense. I disagree with his goals to achieve great listening experiences, but I don't disagree with his methods to achieve goals I wouldn't choose for myself.
The AMT tweeters mounted directly in front of a midrange cone are bothersome for me since AMT drivers are dipolar and thus have open backs (unless he chose to seal the backs of those particular tweeters which could impact their performance - if he did, then I assume he was very careful to do it as best he could). I also struggle with such high frequencies being produced by two horizontal drivers and all the horrible comb filtering which occurs.
Being very large dipole speakers, they will fill a room as dipolar speakers do, so adding the "stereo unfold" drivers to bounce ambient information around the room solves many of the negative aspects inherent in dipole speakers. The amount of processing necessary to extract only stereo specific ambient info is significant. I think the concept is pretty cool, but do I want a recording manipulated by adding or accentuating sounds in order to increase a sense of concert hall? Usually I'd say no, but if I were listening to a live recording of an orchestra, string quartet, or small acoustic jazz combo made in a real performance space, then maybe that would be cool.
Most of his claims are right on the money:
Some of his claims I do not agree with, or at least the inferences he makes about other designs than his:
If I toss out one of the drivers and accept the 4-way claim, then the crossover points for what I consider the most critical acoustic range (the midrange), most of what you hear is coming from a single horn speaker with a hybrid diaphragm feeding a 1.5" flare throat which couples to the room via the cone of one of the 14" mid-woofers which is also housing two AMT tweeters. Basically, all of the most important audible content, the frequencies our brains and ears are most sensitive to and which we use to determine what we are hearing (the difference between a saxophone and a trumpet, for example) is coming from one less than ideal horn speaker operating from 800 to 6,000Hz. Of course, he didn't say much about that driver other than it was elegant and had a very nice flare on the post that came through the woofer. He also mentioned it came from Italy, which suggests Faital, B&C, or RCF, any of which are capable of making very good drivers to any reasonable specification.
Overall, these are clearly tour de force speakers applying every idealized concept he has for the best possible listening experience. Every design decision is based on real science which will, indeed, have an impact on the sound (rather than BS claims from many ultra-high-end brands), so more power to them. I would love to hear them. It may change my opinions about what the ideal goals of home audio reproduction of recordings should be.
The AMT tweeters mounted directly in front of a midrange cone are bothersome for me since AMT drivers are dipolar and thus have open backs (unless he chose to seal the backs of those particular tweeters which could impact their performance - if he did, then I assume he was very careful to do it as best he could). I also struggle with such high frequencies being produced by two horizontal drivers and all the horrible comb filtering which occurs.
Being very large dipole speakers, they will fill a room as dipolar speakers do, so adding the "stereo unfold" drivers to bounce ambient information around the room solves many of the negative aspects inherent in dipole speakers. The amount of processing necessary to extract only stereo specific ambient info is significant. I think the concept is pretty cool, but do I want a recording manipulated by adding or accentuating sounds in order to increase a sense of concert hall? Usually I'd say no, but if I were listening to a live recording of an orchestra, string quartet, or small acoustic jazz combo made in a real performance space, then maybe that would be cool.
Most of his claims are right on the money:
- I agree about the issues many have with trying to get outstanding mid-bass from a single small mid-woofer at serious listening levels
- I agree that room acoustic treatments should be carefully applied when someone goes that route
- I agree that digital processing can make a very positive difference in the performance of a speaker in a room
- I agree with his use of digital crossovers and dedicated amplifier
- I agree with his thoughts on dispersion of speakers to generate a great stereo image
Some of his claims I do not agree with, or at least the inferences he makes about other designs than his:
- I don't agree that single normal tweeters have a very narrow dispersion characteristics in the critical listening range
- I don't agree that smaller midranges are inherently flawed for the tasks they are ideally suited for
- I don't agree that the most ideal dispersion angle is 60 degrees
- I don't agree that those side radiating speakers are directional at 80Hz as he suggests
If I toss out one of the drivers and accept the 4-way claim, then the crossover points for what I consider the most critical acoustic range (the midrange), most of what you hear is coming from a single horn speaker with a hybrid diaphragm feeding a 1.5" flare throat which couples to the room via the cone of one of the 14" mid-woofers which is also housing two AMT tweeters. Basically, all of the most important audible content, the frequencies our brains and ears are most sensitive to and which we use to determine what we are hearing (the difference between a saxophone and a trumpet, for example) is coming from one less than ideal horn speaker operating from 800 to 6,000Hz. Of course, he didn't say much about that driver other than it was elegant and had a very nice flare on the post that came through the woofer. He also mentioned it came from Italy, which suggests Faital, B&C, or RCF, any of which are capable of making very good drivers to any reasonable specification.
Overall, these are clearly tour de force speakers applying every idealized concept he has for the best possible listening experience. Every design decision is based on real science which will, indeed, have an impact on the sound (rather than BS claims from many ultra-high-end brands), so more power to them. I would love to hear them. It may change my opinions about what the ideal goals of home audio reproduction of recordings should be.
Wardsweb
Renaissance man
In the world of high end audio, this is actually reasonable. If I can say reasonable and $80K in the same sentence. The 1% market for ultra high end is filled with over the top and cost no object stuff. A friend of mine who plays in that sandbox has Rockport Arrakis speakers. At around $200K, the Valor's seem like a bargain. I have said it many times, there will always be someone with more and someone with less. Serenity comes not from what you have but knowing what you can live without.
Dentman
Well-Known Member
Yes it's funny, I thought the same thing when he mentioned the price. I doubt very much it takes 80k to make a jaw dropping good loud speaker system based of active cross overs. As you mentioned 80k is very reasonable to play in this space. Crazy.
Dentman
Well-Known Member
I don't know nearly enough to question his design even though some of it raised my eyebrow at points. However I applaud his efforts to deliver some new ideas. Maybe I should say I applaud his efforts in the use of these newer technologies.
MakeMineVinyl
Well-Known Member
Some recordings already have good imaging. I surely wouldn't want a speaker which has to get its piss on that fire hydrant just because it can. Yes, I know dipole speakers add ambience and all that, but my problem with that is that you never actually hear the recording, unaltered. The speaker is always imprinting hits interpretation beyond what is actually on the recording.
Last edited:
They have done several high end projects over the last 15 years or so, and I like that he mentioned them as research projects and not flagship products. The Helix, Aeris, and now Valor, I believe all fit into that category. Again I have not seen or heard any of these designs, but their more traditional designs like the Focus 20/20, Focus SD, and Focus XE, Signatures, and Classics are all fantastic for more traditional box designed direct radiating loudspeakers. I have also heard the Whispers (a dipole design with no back is the best way my little pea brain can describe it) on a couple of occasions and they are really cool too with unbelievable clarity in the mid range.
Dentman
Well-Known Member
See for me that's the rub. If this was another company I'd be a lot quicker to call BS. From all I know of Legacy they are well respected and make some really nice stuff.
Dentman
Well-Known Member
Pretty much his claims about how well the electronic interactions work along with the design choice. If it was from another company I would most likely dismiss a lot of the design tto marketing hype. I'm still not convinced but I give legacy the benefit of the doubt on most of it.
I do love the idea of the active crossovers and integrated pre/pro. The DSP features are also interesting.
TitaniumTroy
Well-Known Member
Okay I am going through in my $.02 worth, I have heard the various Legacy speakers at 4 AXPONA shows. None of them ever really impressed me though, they always have one of the largest display rooms at the show. Usually on the ground floor with a pair of speakers at each end of the room.
Something about the imaging never really gelled for me, which is a top priority for me and why I love planers. When the soundstage is off for me, I kinda lose interest in the speaker. So I can't comment on the speakers other qualities.
I would probably have a better opinion of them in a dedicated dealer showroom, however some speakers set up in much smaller rooms and every year and sound great. Tidal is one such speaker company they set up in a regular hotel room and always sound awesome, their prices are very high though.
I do like their marketing compared to Wilson, which just seems to give you a bigger speaker and more drivers for a lot more money as you move up the line. While Legacy seems to be trying different technologies, to give you better sound.
On the other hand my JBL 4367 was designed for 3D sound too. It also has a lot of technology behind too it but is seems a lot simpler being only a 2 way. Of course if it had dedicated amps and DSP technology I would welcome that part. But then I could just buy the JBL M2.
I don't live far from Springfield IL, so maybe I should stop over to have a listen sometime. Also have one of Legacy's audiophile free test disc's, given out at the show's, so I need to give a spin on the Oppo player sometime.
Something about the imaging never really gelled for me, which is a top priority for me and why I love planers. When the soundstage is off for me, I kinda lose interest in the speaker. So I can't comment on the speakers other qualities.
I would probably have a better opinion of them in a dedicated dealer showroom, however some speakers set up in much smaller rooms and every year and sound great. Tidal is one such speaker company they set up in a regular hotel room and always sound awesome, their prices are very high though.
I do like their marketing compared to Wilson, which just seems to give you a bigger speaker and more drivers for a lot more money as you move up the line. While Legacy seems to be trying different technologies, to give you better sound.
On the other hand my JBL 4367 was designed for 3D sound too. It also has a lot of technology behind too it but is seems a lot simpler being only a 2 way. Of course if it had dedicated amps and DSP technology I would welcome that part. But then I could just buy the JBL M2.
I don't live far from Springfield IL, so maybe I should stop over to have a listen sometime. Also have one of Legacy's audiophile free test disc's, given out at the show's, so I need to give a spin on the Oppo player sometime.