Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

The Official $3,000 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event

152K views 287 replies 51 participants last post by  kingnoob 
#1 ·
The Official $3,000 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event




Introduction

IT IS HERE! We are in the midst of the Home Theater Shack $3,000 Speaker Evaluation event, as I write this. Six pairs of speakers are on the premises, and over the next two days, Feb. 21 and 22, we will hear a lot of great tunes on them. There will be lots to report.

This is not a shootout. Each speaker will be set up for its best sound in this room and evaluated on its own merits.

For now, this post (#1) will be used as the summary post and will be updated through the weekend and beyond. Check back often - we will tell you ih later posts when this summary has grown.


The Speakers

The criteria for the speakers used in this event was floorstanding speakers with an MSRP between $2500 ($2499) and $3500 per pair as delivered for the event. Any finish was acceptable. Speakers requiring external DSP or an active crossover did not qualify. Since the emphasis is on 2-channel music use, speakers made for that purpose were favored, although some may be perfectly acceptable for home theater use as well.

Sadly, some of the speakers selected via the readers' poll were not available because the manufacturers chose not to participate. We cannot read minds to know all their reasons, but can only conclude that it is their loss not being included. We go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure that each model evaluated gets the fairest treatment possible by three sets of experienced ears. We will not, however, shy from the truth or be edited by the suppliers, even if they are HTS sponsors. In the end, we are confident that this serves all concerned in the best way possible.

We deeply appreciate those who DID choose to participate, some on short notice to fill in at the last minute. We ended up with a great mix, including some noteworthy technology offerings: one RAAL tweeter model and one concentric mid-tweeter model. We were looking forward to hearing every one of them by the time the big event arrived.

Here are the speakers included in the event:

The Room

Cedar Creek Cinema/Two-Channel Room, Luverne, Alabama. The most recent change to the room is that the equipment cabinet which used to occupy most of the space below the cinema screen has been removed. We deemed that removing the cabinet would improve the soundstage and imaging. Total changes relative to the diagram below:
  • Front equipment rack removed.
  • Corner traps added in rear corners.
  • Additional side absorptive panels.
  • Front subwoofer cabinets turned toward front corner traps with 4-inch gap (cabinets at 45° angle relative to the room) with dissipation panels on their backs (toward room center)..
  • Cutouts in stage structure allowing Left and Right Mains to be on the main floor within one foot of the front wall.


The room is heavily treated. Some might think the amount of treatment is too much for two-channel speaker evaluation, but I think it is just right. More on this in a summary post below. The measured RT60 is 0,2 to 0.3 second.




The Evaluators

The evaluators for this event have proven their ability to work together to provide what some describe as some of the most in-depth and worthwhile loudspeaker reviews on the web. They are:
  • Joe Alexander, Madison, Wisconsin. Joe is an avid audiophile and staff writer for Home Theater Shack.
  • Leonard Caillouet, Gainesville, Florida. Leonard has installed and set up speakers professionally for much of his life. He is a Moderator and Administrator and one of the chief technical gurus for Home Theater Shack.
  • Wayne Myers, Lincoln, Nebraska. A musician and lover of great sound, Wayne has a degree in Audio Technology and reviews speakers and headphones for Home Theater Shack.

Evaluation Tracks

We have gone back and forth a bit on how many test tracks to use. In the end. we decided that a certain number of tracks should be common, that all evaluators would listen to each pair of speakers with them. and that each evaluator could then have a number of tracks of his choice. We each have our favorites that we have used many times before and know exactly how they should sound. And each has his favorite music styles to listen with. Each evaluator spent one-half hour with every speaker pair at its ideal setup, plus brief listens close to the wall (zero toe and zero listening angle) and with Audyssey MultEQ.

No code has to be inserted here.


Associated Equipment


  • OPPO BDP-105 Universal Player - We will be using the 105 as the source for this evaluation. All of the tracks used during this evaluation event were extracted using either dBPowerAmp or Exact Audio Copy (EAC) from the original CDs, and were written to a USB flash drive and accessed for playback via the 5509's front-panel USB port. We appreciate OPPO being a sponsor here at HTS.


  • Onkyo PR-SC5509 9.2-Channel Network A/V Preamplifier - Our preamp/processor for the event: Onkyos' 5509. It is a highly capable processor and very well regarded as one of the top preamp processors available. We decided in this speaker listening event to include a brief evaluation for each speaker pair with Audyssey MultEQ engaged to see how it affects the soundstage and image clarity and "evens out" the room's influence on frequency response. The 5509, with MuiltEQ XT32 capability, made this a breeze. Of course, its 192kHz/32bit Burr-Brown DACs and specs like 0.05% total noise plus distortion (20 Hz–20 kHz, Half power) ensure it to remain completely transparent. We appreciate Onkyo being a sponsor here at HTS.


  • Emotiva XPR-5 Five-Channel Reference Power Amplifier - The XPR-5 is a fully discrete, dual differential, high current, short signal path Class A/B amplifier with a Class-H power supply. The power supply rails are modulated to stay a minimum number of volts above the amplifier's output. This yields an efficient design that will stay cool while driving a pair of 8 Ohm speakers to 500 W or a pair of 4 Ohm speakers to 750 W. Having lots of clean power available is important when evaluating two-channel speakers. With the XPR-5 there is never a question or concern about being able to drive the speakers under test cleanly and reliably. Thanks to Emotiva for being a sponsor at HTS.


Thoughts On Placing Expensive Speakers Close To A Wall

Most speakers in most rooms will not sound that great when placed close to a wall. Remember that we are talking about fairly serious, discriminating listening, mainly to music, with roughly $3,000 worth of speakers. Our belief is that anyone willing to spend that kind of money on speakers will be serious enough about good sound to find the best possible way to set them up and get the absolute best performance from them, even if it means moving them to that desired location temporarily when said listener feels like getting a serious dose of great music with great sound.

There are speakers that do not sound too bad close to the wall. But none, in our experience, can give a deep, engaging soundstage when too close to the wall. If one has to place a pair of speakers close to a wall, it would be better to save money and buy a pair for a few hundred dollars - check out our Reviews Area for candidates - and call it good. A $3,000 pair of speakers might sound a little better there, but will not sound great and it is highly doubtful you will be getting your "money's worth" from those speakers with them shoved up against a wall.

Having said all that, some readers have expressed interest in doing exactly what we do not suggest, or they are at least curious enough to ask about it, and may place an expensive set of loudspeakers - like the ones we evaluate here - next to a wall. After all, it is their money to do with as they please. So, having made our recommendation, we have chosen to be as helpful as possible and briefly listen to these speakers close to a wall. This information will be included with the individual reviews.


Thoughts On Equalizing High-End Speakers

There was a time when it simply was not done. That time is past. There are numerous ways it can be accomplished these days...
  • With pinpoint frequency precision.
  • Using exactly the type and amount of correction desired.
  • With phase/time correction if desired.
  • Without adding noise or distortion.
  • Without adding audible artifacts.
We performed extensive listening tests with carefully-applied Audyssey MultEQ correction and with sparingly-applied Parametric EQ (PEQ) correction and are convinced that correction can be achieved without negative effects, and that categorical claims that such correction causes audible corruption are not provable in blind testing and are without merit. As a matter of fact, we are witnesses to some who actually prefer equalized sound.

In our case, we chose to finish the evaluation sequence by applying Audyssey MultEQ XT32 to see how well it could accomplished the following:
  • Lift drooping high frequencies resulting from off-axis listening angles.
  • Even out room-interaction frequency response variations.
  • Tighten and improve soundstage and imaging.
The results are reported with each evaluation.


Our Test Sequence

Here is the sequence that each speaker pair went through:
  1. Close-To-Wall Evaluations 1 & 2.
    • Set up 1.
      • Speaker Location - Set close to the front wall, pointed straight at the Listening Position (LP). We used a previously-decided-upon setup location typical of a home theater environment or a general-purpose room where speakers have to be close to a wall for some reason.
      • Distance from back of the speaker to wall: 2 ft.
      • Distance from center of front baffle to side wall of the room: 5 ft.
      • Distance apart: 9 ft 4 in.
      • Zero Listening Angle (speakers pointed straight at the LP).
    • Run REW Sweeps L & R, check for good matching and proper function.
    • Set up 2.
      • Same as above.
      • Zero Toe In (speakers pointed straight at the back wall).
    • Run REW Sweeps L & R.
    • Evaluate 2. Three to five minutes listening time by each evaluator.
    • Set up 1
    • Evaluate 1. Three to five minutes listening time by each evaluator.
  2. Ideal Location Evaluation 3.
    • Set up 3.
      • Ideal setup location is determined for deep soundstage and sharp imaging. This could take from a few minutes to 45 minutes.
    • Run REW Sweeps L & R.
    • Evaluate 3. Thirty minutes listening time by each evaluator.
  3. Audyssey MultEQ Evaluation 4.
    • Run MultEQ Setup
    • Run REW Sweeps L & R.
    • Evaluate 4. Three to five minutes listening time by each evaluator.
  4. Record physical measurements.


Initial Results

As usual, there were some surprises. We heard some soundstage and imaging that were to die for. While we did not expect any of them to sound terrific in a close-to-the wall setting, a few actually sounded fairly good there, and one sounded VERY good. One model sounded downright awful close to the wall, and then had its revenge by giving us one of the better soundstage / imaging performances in its final setup that we heard over the weekend.

We were amazed to see how a very small difference in listening angle - one degree - that's right, one single degree - could transform a soundstage from lackluster ho-hum to WOW.

Some of these are beastly heavy monsters. And some finishes were eye-popping.

It has been invaluable to have the three sets of ears and listening perspectives together for these events. One evaluator will hear a certain quality and be ready to rave about it, making note of some other "minor factor," and another evaluator will have found that "minor factor" to be more like a showstopper, adding in his notes only a mention of what the first evaluator was crazy about. All in all, our perspectives came to rest with a great deal of consensus, but the contrasting views will no doubt stand out in our final write-ups.

One of the early pairs we listened to - I will never reveal which - got a mixed set of reactions initially. A few hours later, one of the group said he thought they might deserve a second listen in a different location. So we investigated further and found that they did, indeed, give a better performance there. We keep each other grounded, providing checks and balances and perspective balancers at every turn.

In the end, loads of fun were had by all. Terrific hosts and savory grilled meats did not hurt one bit. Cheese curds from Wisconsin and chocolate meltaways from Nebraska made their way to the snack bar. I doubt anyone lost weight with all the treats and good food available. The moderate Alabama weather treated us nicely. Gracey, the Cedar Creek Cinema cat, reminded of us her mascot status and insisted on a scratch or two whenever we came out for a break.

And discussions are under way for what our next evaluation event might entail.

In the mean time, stay tuned for our detailed results. We sill start feeding them into the following posts in the next couple of days.
 
See less See more
8
#175 ·
I think you are right on. I tend to like a speaker that is somewhat lean on the bottom but goes deep, but I really am sensitive to any tendency to get harsh or bright. My priorities are well defined mid bass through upper midrange with lots of detail and very low distortion.
 
#178 ·
Glad I suggested the Axiom M100, Maybe the HP M80 should be tested seeing how it's the same as the M100 but with one less woofer. The HP M80 might have better near wall performance even though Axiom has the same spec's for both.

Keep up the good work and keep on testing.
 
#189 ·
I've been following your obsession with a deep soundstage and it appears from your review that you have found something here that captures what you so intently seek. I applaud your words. The above is very well written.
To those who have never witnessed such a soundstage, it probably comes acrosss like a bunch of drivel written by someone on hallucinogens or worse. When you have heard it - and it really is a quantum leap contrast - it does challenge you concept of what is possible with sound reproduction. Really spoils you, too. How do you go back to anything else?
 
#181 ·
It is interesting that my description was very similar, even though we had not discussed the speakers very much at all after the listening session. We did not compare notes on the Axiom like we did on some others. What Wayne describes is very similar to what I meant by "density" in the image. I attribute that to very low distortion, very precisely matched components, and the ability to move lots of air.
 
#184 ·
Joe and I have very similar tastes in some ways and those two areas are examples. I have found that planar drivers deliver the low distortion and extended response that leads to the "delicate" sound in the treble. I was, therefore, somewhat surprised at how much I liked the Axiom.
 
#187 ·
I may have said this already, but this is the hardest set of reviews of the three sessions we have done. I am finding it hard to find aspects of most of them to criticize. Maybe we got many of the best speakers in this price range. Maybe the manufacturers that sent them knew they would perform well and were confident in their products. Makes me wonder about the ones that did not participate, or whether we are just not being discriminating enough. Going over my notes, I find lots of stuff that each does right and very little that I did not like. And the criticisms that I do have are quite minor. Some of the speakers made me want to listen more than others, but as picky as I am, I could live with any of them.
 
#191 ·
That's an interesting comment, and encouraging that when you spend the kind of money we're talking about here, it seems likely you're going to be getting an excellent product with excellent performance. I was going to ask you all when all the reviews had been posted whether you felt that the performance gained from going from the $2000-$2500 area to the ~$3000 area justified the price increase. And how much better things are getting. Obviously this would be generalizing a bit since your sample size is pretty small relative to the number of products available in this price range. Still, I find it interesting.
 
#188 ·
Maybe you guys need to review the bigger Bryston's. The Bryston mini A's are going to be comparable to the Axiom HP line. (100,HP80,HP60) However the Bryston model T series uses an 8 inch driver instead of the 61/2 in the same format as the Axiom HP line. Hopefully a future review.
 
#198 ·
Sibilance is the tendency for consonant sounds like the "s" sound to sound like hissing at the end of a vocal sound. A speaker with excessive sibilance makes the natural sibilant sounds of some vocals sound like the way Elton John sings Bennie and the Jetssssss.
 
#211 ·
Yes a pair of subs is already in the budget, as are speakers for 7.1 and a receiver and a blu ray player and projector. But if the speakers could save me some money that would be awesome.

I am fortunate to have enough connections in the audio world that I can get pretty good pricing on lots of stuff. So my budget allows for speakers that MSRP in the low $2000 range, but I wouldn't be paying that much. That's one disadvantage with Arx (or any ID company) for me only -- I don't get a deal on them.
 
#227 ·
Bryan, the ID business model is bare bones, anyone purchasing from that model is already saving a bunch. Even you, my friend. A5 sounds like a bargain, add A2 center, A2 surrounds, you are well within budget and punching way above weight class.
 
#212 ·
The Polk Audio LSiM705 review is now ready for you. Follow this link to jump directly to it.

Leonard's and Joe's comments are forthcoming, as well as for the PSB Imagine T2. For the record, those guys are usually ahead of me in being ready to post. They are both extremely busy guys, and I am sure their contributions will be ready as soon as humanly possible.
 
#220 ·
This talk of the soundstage on a couple of seemingly excellent imagers being degraded a bit by Audyssey has me wondering why. I don't recall Wayne mentioning such a thing in his review of the Montis even though its imaging was highly praised. Is there enough variability in MultEQ that another pass on the PSB or Axiom would have sounded significantly different? Are speakers very sensitive to toe in angle more likely to get messed up by Audyssey or be exceedingly sensitive to placement of the Audyssey mic?

It also reinforces to me the value of an auto EQ system that allows the user to restrict the ranges of frequencies it is allowed to perform EQ on, such as Anthem's ARC. Presumably if you had been able to stop the correction at say 200 Hz it would have tightened up the bass issues but left frequencies most important for imaging largely alone. Pure conjecture on my part - just thinking out loud here.

Edit: Another way around it, potentially, is to EQ manually as Wayne suggested in the PSB review. If you have the skillz an can resist overdoing it!
 
#223 ·
This talk of the soundstage on a couple of seemingly excellent imagers being degraded a bit by Audyssey has me wondering why. I don't recall Wayne mentioning such a thing in his review of the Montis even though its imaging was highly praised. Is there enough variability in MultEQ that another pass on the PSB or Axiom would have sounded significantly different? Are speakers very sensitive to toe in angle more likely to get messed up by Audyssey or be exceedingly sensitive to placement of the Audyssey mic?
Excellent questions, and I wish we knew more of the answers. I was thinking of the Montis when I wrote those remarks about the PSB Imagine T2. We never felt that the Montis suffered from the use of Audyssey MultEQ. But we are constantly learning here. There seem to be tendencies.
  • With Audyssey MultEQ, poor, medium, and pretty-good soundstages and imaging are improved somewhat by improved phase / time alignment and frequency response matching.
  • With Audyssey MultEQ, the best examples of soundstage and imaging may improve a little, not at all, or may actually suffer some. It is difficult to predict which it will be.
  • Even the best soundstage / imaging examples remain intact with sparingly applied parametric EQ.
  • If there is much attenuation of high frequencies due to the off-axis listening angle, soundstage / imaging are improved by having them boosted closer to flat.
It also reinforces to me the value of an auto EQ system that allows the user to restrict the ranges of frequencies it is allowed to perform EQ on, such as Anthem's ARC. Presumably if you had been able to stop the correction at say 200 Hz it would have tightened up the bass issues but left frequencies most important for imaging largely alone. Pure conjecture on my part - just thinking out loud here.
Sounds perfectly logical, would be another possibility to investigate.
 
#221 ·
Bryan... Wayne can probably better answer this, but I think it is a matter of the speakers and possibly the setup. There is no doubt the ML's sound better with Audyssey Music (no Dynamic EQ), than without it (IMO). I would not say overly dramatic, but a more refined and detailed, yet airy soundstage... and really amazing lifelike imaging. The longer I have listened to it this way, the more I like it, to a point that when I now switch it back to Pure Audio, I can tell it ain't right... almost a boxy sound that I did not notice at first... I lose some of the openness and clarity (hoping those are the right terms)... immediately focus draws inward too much, if that makes sense. It is something we noticed when A/B'ing some speakers... how the bass and midbass can seem good and even (and where it is supposed to be), and then get all boxed up. I think you can look at the response measurements and see why this happens, and to me it is anything but natural (IMO). It would be better if you could just hear it for yourself. None the less... I have not heard anything better, anywhere... period, including all the audio shows I have been to. Are they worth $10,000... that is a tough call. For those where money is no object, probably so. While I love the sound, I could be satisfied with less... and any number of the much lesser expensive speakers would probably do me just fine... and still get me pretty close, although probably not breathtaking like the Montis. If they are 10 of 10... and I can get 7-8 of 10, I think I am a happy listener for hours on end. They just kind of take you over the edge, so to speak. The music I listen to may also have something to do with it too.

I did NOT hear any of the other speakers with Audyssey, only without, so I cannot speak to the differences of those, and if any of them may have sounded better with Audyssey. However, the ML's are no doubt a completely different design, not only dipole, but electrostatic as well, so this could have been the main contributor to the difference.
 
#222 ·
Thanks for commenting, Sonnie. There are a handful of speakers on my audition list, and fortunately my budget allows me to have the ML Electromotion ESL on that list. The Phase Tech is also on my audition-in-my-home list (even though I've heard it elsewhere, or actually because I've heard it elsewhere. I share Joe's opinion on the airiness and openness of vocals on that speaker).

Might have to have one of these HTS-style comparisons of my own here soon.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top