Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Barry Hufker]

For several years I've had a pair of Avalon Acoustics "Professional Mixing Monitors".  Undoubtedly (IM0) these are very fine speakers.  However, I'm always wondering if there is something better (that I can reasonably afford) and what it might be.

After reading all the enthusiastic comments about Lipinski monitors (esp. 707), I wanted to hear and compare them with the Avalons.  Unfortunately this means purchasing the Lipinskis on approval (and all the inherent costs of that) because no one near me has any.

So I'm hoping you can lend some insight.  Have you heard *any* Avalon Acoustics (NOT related to Avalon Electronics) speakers and if so, can you compare/contrast them with the Lipinskis?

Thanks!

Avalon Acoustics: http://www.avalonacoustics.com/
After arriving there you'll have to select the "mixing monitor".

[crna59]

I have mastered on Avalon Sentinel and Eidolon. I have not heard the Lipinski and Avalon side by side in a controlled environment. The Avalon definitely is more coherent from top to bottom being a full range speaker. Now if you are talking about the mixing monitor, then I would have to say, depending on sub integration, either one would be fine if the smaller Avalon retains the "house" sound. I feel the Lipinski is more revealing in the mids and the Avalon sounds like it may soften the transients. Maybe it was the room... either way, when you get up in this part of the atmosphere, it's just a matter of taste. I wouldn't be ashamed of either.

Regards,
Bruce

[Barry Hufker]

Thanks Bruce.  The Mixing Monitor is pretty well integrated between tweeter and woofer.  It has a fine sound stage (sense of width and depth) and is pretty detailed.  I know it is very well time-aligned (which is one of the things I worry about for the Lipinski as its tweeter is phase-inverted in order to create a good "step" (time) response.

I have yet to add a sub-woofer to the system -- which is probably a huge mistake I must soon rectify.

I don't know, maybe a couple of days of kicking this around a little further before drawing a conclusion.  Other friends with Avalons are encouraging me not to get different speakers but none have heard the Lipinskis.

[Dave Davis]

As a former Dunlavy SCIVa user, I actually prefer the L707s to the Duns, and consider them to be something of a design tweak on Dunlavy's concepts.  They are quite similar in presentation and feel, which is to say they are brutally honest.  This can be disturbing: a client might think his mix sounds great, until played back on Duns or Lipinskis, then freak out and want to remix after pushing the warts forward.  The Duns are the least flattering speakers I've ever used, but the L707s are a very close second.

The design tweak is separating the midrange and sub-bass sections of the cabinets.  Dunlavy designs put each set of matched drivers in it's own sealed and isolated cabinet.  Dunlavy SC-1AV's are essentially the tweeter/midrange drivers of an SC-IV in a separate cabinet (in fact, we had a set spec'd by Dunlavy as surrounds for our big stereo SCIVas, which became stereo subs in that configuration).  Removing the LF drivers from the cabinets addresses my biggest gripes with the Duns: positioning them was ALWAYS a compromise.  Rooms are acoustically lumpy by nature, yet the magic of Dunlavy's is fanatical attention to detail/parts to deliver near-ideal impulse response.  The configuration of Duns retained impulse performance for all users, at the expense of potentially "lumpy" sound in different positions.  The Lipinski design allows, or rather FORCES the acoustician to address both room modes AND impulse performance.  When it's wrong it's ugly, but positioning is actually easier/better with the Lipinskis because sub-bass can be tweaked more.

Recently a couple different designers have been pushing stereo subs in opposing corners, rather than l/r.  The idea is that this equalizes the pressure waves from both LF drivers in the middle/listening zone, while respecting whatever l/r positional cues may exist in the program.  Such configurations are impossible with Duns or other standalone full range speaks.  In a well-designed room, the benefits may be slim, but the closer your space is to commercial construction, the greater the potential the Lipinski approach has to improve your monitoring over full range speakers.

That's all I've got.

-d-

[Barry Hufker]

Dave,

That's certainly worthwhile information.

[tom eaton]

I love my SCIVa Duns... but agree with Dave to the degree that they demand a room play nice.  I know Jonathan Wyner at M-Works does excellent work using both SCVs and 707s.

The 707s do seem to "steal" from Dunlavy, using foam instead of his patented felt, and obviously using the MTM design with the stepped baffle.  My Earthworks Sigma 6.3s are quite similar, too (which, like the Sigma 6.2s, use the same Vifa ring radiator tweeter as the Lipinskis) using a first order crossover and MTM layout.

I remember hearing one of my mixes in Jonathan's room, the 707s sounded familiar, "right"...the Dunlavys were a whole other animal!

-tom

[Matt_G]

I'm actually in the Duntech camp & in my room I preferred the Duntech Marquis instead of the Lipinski L-707 although the L-707's were a close 2nd. The Marquis are a 3 way design which are a fair bit smaller then the bigger Sovereigns. This worked out great for me as they go down to 45Hz & so I have them running with stereo DD12 subs & this gives me the undeniable Duntech accuracy in the mids, highs & stereo imaging with the advantage of locating the subs where I need to work best.

The L-707's were very good & portrayed similarities to the Duntech's in terms of detail, accuracy & imaging but not to the same degree as the Marquis. So I have a set of L-707's for sale for this reason.

Matt

[Barry Hufker]

I've abandoned the notion of auditioning the 707s.  It was just getting to be too big a deal to pull off.  The idea of paying $5k to listen to a pair of speakers just to hear if I like them just isn't worth it.

I really like my Avalon Acoustics speakers and while I have a *very* bad habit of always seeking something better (in any area of audio) this just doesn't make sense, as it did when I first pursued this idea.

Thanks folks!  Not as a commercial but just as an FYI, the Avalon Acoustics speakers are highly regarded and may be worth a listen the next time you think about a change or upgrade.

Barry