Floor Loudspeaker Reviews

Snell Type B loudspeaker Larry Greenhill's Reference System

Sidebar 3: Larry Greenhill's Reference System

My associated equipment included such comparison loudspeakers as the Quad ESL-63/Gradient subwoofer system and Krell KSA-250, and the newest version of the Bryston 4B.

The Quads and the Snell A/III's midrange/tweeter section were driven by the No.27 via 15' runs of Monster Cable. The Quad/Gradient subwoofer and the A/III's woofer section were driven by the Krell KSA-250 and the Bryston 4B via HF10C Levinson speaker cables. The Quad system was used with its own Gradient crossover unit and balanced interconnects; the Type A/III Improved speakers used a Snell-manufactured outboard electronic crossover with single-ended connectors. Analog interconnects included AudioQuest LiveWire Topaz interconnect cables and Krell Cogelco balanced leads.

Vinyl discs were played on a Lingo-modified Linn LP-12 turntable with an Ittok tonearm and a Spectral Reference moving-coil cartridge, all finely tuned by Innovative Audio's Casey McKee. I played CDs on a Krell MD-1 CD turntable connected by standard interconnects to a Krell SBP-32X D/A converter. Other sources included the Day-Sequerra FM Reference, Meridian 204, Pioneer F-93 Reference, and Quad FM-4 FM Stereo tuners. Phono preamplification was provided by a Mark Levinson ML-7 preamplifier with an Duntech/Audio Standards MX-10 head amp, and by a Krell KBL preamplifier.—Larry Greenhill

COMPANY INFO
Snell Acoustics
Authorized agent: Atomic Hi Fi and TV
20 Main Street
Ashland, MA 01721
www.snellacoustics.com
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
s10sondek's picture
Submitted by s10sondek on October 15, 2022 - 3:33pm

JA1, thank you very much for posting these historic reviews.

One small request: would it be possible to dig up and append the Manufacturer's Comment from Kevin Voecks? It would really help provide another perspective to the dialog between LG, PWM, and RH.

I will add that reviews like this are very special and important, for several reasons: 1/ It is a NEGATIVE review, in which the reviewer explicitly states that the product is NOT recommended. This is exceedingly rare in Stereophile's pages over the last two decades, so it is useful to see an example of one; 2/ It contains 3 different perspectives from Stereophile reviewers -- which goes to show how opinions and value judgements can vary -- dramatically (and the manufacturer's comment would add a valuable 4th), and 3/ The primary full-length subjective review by RH somewhat contradicts the objective measurements provided - the measurements show 'near textbook' engineering and performance, while the subjective perspective shows dissatisfaction, an example of how great measurements are merely a necessary but not sufficient condition for great subjective performance in a loudspeaker.

I'll add one more general comment, which is that the review language of this prior era seems more analytically pointed than that which is commonplace today. It is easier for me to grasp how a component sounds using that more straightforward language than the more evocative poetry that appears now. I've read things recently in this magazine along the lines of "the singers sounded like they were dancing barefoot in the candlelight in a state of intense reverie." I mean, the latter is descriptive but I have no idea how that impression would map to my experience listening to the component in my system with my music. For all I know, that may translate to all music sounding crude, blurry, and dimly-lit ... served with a side of painful calluses that respond poorly to repeat salicylic acid treatments and long foot soaks.

John Atkinson's picture
Submitted by John Atkinson on October 16, 2022 - 6:09am
s10sondek wrote:
JA1, thank you very much for posting these historic reviews.

You're welcome. When Stereophile launched its website 15 years ago, one of the goals was to post every review to the free on-line archive. We're well on the way to reaching that goal!

s10sondek wrote:
One small request: would it be possible to dig up and append the Manufacturer's Comment from Kevin Voecks? It would really help provide another perspective to the dialog between LG, PWM, and RH.

I'll retrieve the comment from the archived files and post it in a day or so.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

s10sondek's picture
Submitted by s10sondek on October 17, 2022 - 1:19pm

Thank You for adding Kevin Voeck's Manufacturer's Comment, JA1!

Wow, what an invigorating dialog around this loudspeaker! You've got the systematic formulation of hypotheses regarding the bass response from various parties; and then subsequent validation/invalidation of them through measurements and simulations (amplifier output impedance, frequency response, etc) and experimentation within LG's listening room. Talk about thorough. And in the end, you get a sense of resolution or explanation as to why different people had different perceptions as to the speaker's bass performance.

Coming out of all this, I really get a good sense of how this speaker would sound in various kinds of rooms and driven by different kinds of amplification. What a treat. Furthermore, reviews like this give me a more general framework for how I can think about other loudspeakers that I may be listening to or reading about.

Thanks again JA1 for posting this Gold from the Stereophile Vaults.

John Atkinson's picture
Submitted by John Atkinson on October 17, 2022 - 1:12pm
Is now posted: www.stereophile.com/content/snell-type-b-loudspeaker-manufacturers-comment.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

X