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
#232 ·
Take-aways from this round of reviews...

Many have expected that these would be "shoot-outs" because we had multiple speakers in the same place at the same time. We have explained many times that we would not do so and would try very hard to let each speaker stand on its own. This was very hard to do, as comparisons always come up. If any comparisons were made, I tried to make them to the Montis, which are a much more expensive speaker and a fine reference point that we listened to extensively in the same room. And, frankly, they are, IMO, better than anything else I have heard there in most ways.

What I think all of the reviewers would agree on is that in this round we have reached a price point where identifying obvious shortcomings in each speaker becomes very difficult. Even more so than the lower price points, they all do most things at least adequately to be satisfying, and most do some things extremely well. They are all solit designs. The differences between them would likely be overcome by placement, room acoustics, and personal preference and priorities. I hope we gave enough information to relay our impressions of how they perform and under what conditions they might be better or worse choices for individual needs. That is very difficult to do, and we do not mind getting critiques or questions.

The Arx A5, which was one of our preferred speakers in the first session, which was intended to select a winner, has been discussed in this thread. I have to say, it does hold up pretty well against the higher priced speakers, but it does have some relative shortcomings. Whether they are important enough to justify the price difference is a personal choice, and I would not buy any speaker without some serious listening time. As fine a speaker as it is, there are others that one might prefer in any of the three groups of speakers we evaluated.

We have so many fine options in speakers these days that it really does boggle the mind. If I have learned anything in these sessions, it is that there are many good choices out there. And most importantly, once you get to speakers that reveal the detail that these do, music is a phenomenal experience. I think I am enjoying everything I listen to more since I have upgraded my speakers.
 
#233 ·
Take-aways from this round of reviews... Many have expected that these would be "shoot-outs" because we had multiple speakers in the same place at the same time. We have explained many times that we would not do so and would try very hard to let each speaker stand on its own. This was very hard to do, as comparisons always come up. If any comparisons were made, I tried to make them to the Montis, which are a much more expensive speaker and a fine reference point that we listened to extensively in the same room. And, frankly, they are, IMO, better than anything else I have heard there in most ways. What I think all of the reviewers would agree on is that in this round we have reached a price point where identifying obvious shortcomings in each speaker becomes very difficult. Even more so than the lower price points, they all do most things at least adequately to be satisfying, and most do some things extremely well. They are all solit designs. The differences between them would likely be overcome by placement, room acoustics, and personal preference and priorities. I hope we gave enough information to relay our impressions of how they perform and under what conditions they might be better or worse choices for individual needs. That is very difficult to do, and we do not mind getting critiques or questions. The Arx A5, which was one of our preferred speakers in the first session, which was intended to select a winner, has been discussed in this thread. I have to say, it does hold up pretty well against the higher priced speakers, but it does have some relative shortcomings. Whether they are important enough to justify the price difference is a personal choice, and I would not buy any speaker without some serious listening time. As fine a speaker as it is, there are others that one might prefer in any of the three groups of speakers we evaluated. We have so many fine options in speakers these days that it really does boggle the mind. If I have learned anything in these sessions, it is that there are many good choices out there. And most importantly, once you get to speakers that reveal the detail that these do, music is a phenomenal experience. I think I am enjoying everything I listen to more since I have upgraded my speakers.
Nice summary Leonard! Thanks for all of your guys hard work in these evaluations. It really helps those on this site to perhaps determine what price point they are willing to go up to when choosing a speaker. Of course your preferences might not be someone else's preferences so each person must choose the speaker that is right for them but these evaluations definitely point people in the right direction.
 
#235 ·
Excellent work Wayne. Thanks for this.

I have a question that any of you can address but I am especially interested in what Joe has to say because the things he listens for seem to align rather well with what I listen for. How do you feel about the way an electrostatic like the Montis handles audio versus the more traditional speakers you've been listening to? I leave this as a pretty broad question intentionally.
 
#237 ·
Bryan,

Having had little prior experience with an electrostat, I had to rely on what I read mostly - and that was they are extremely finicky about placement. Also, one small shop in my area suggested they were akin to a Klipsch in one way - you either love them or you don't.

Having heard a couple electrostats at the shows and now the Montis speakers in Sonnie's room, I can tell you that I personally really enjoyed the sound. They do have a very open presentation and project very well - provided that you take them time and effort to get the placed. And, it can be a matter of an inch - there were instances when Wayne and I were playing with the Montis' location where I moved them that slightly and we could detect a difference in the soundfield. Once you do have them placed, I would put them up against any of the speakers I have deemed to have that "open, airy" sound.

The great thing about the Montis (IMO) is that they made a separate woofer cabinet in the base of the speaker to handle low end. There were a couple that I heard at shows that did not do this, and they really suffered in precision because of it.

I don't know that I would use them in a room in which I was going to do predominantly movies, but when I finally mke myself a two channel listening space at home (a bit in the future), I can tell you for certain that I will not be discounting an electrostat speaker - provided it is a hybrid.
 
#238 ·
Thanks Joe, that was the kind of info I was interested in. Electrostats were not on my radar, due to some pre-conceived notions about them, until Wayne's review of the Montis. Now I must hear a pair to see what all the fuss is about. Or I will always wonder. Gotta love the audio obsession.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming . . .
 
#241 ·
This excellent exercise (thankfully not a juvenile shootout format) validates in spades my view that virtually all competently designed & built speakers today are 'similarly good'. Some enthusiasts out there detest that notion & phrase but that is exactly what I found when I auditioned a bunch of brands & models before I finally settled on my Axioms. I could have easily lived with any of the units that I heard.

It's nice to see that common sense can still prevail in some places such as HTS.

Well done guys...

TAM
 
#242 ·
This excellent exercise (thankfully not a juvenile shootout format) validates in spades my view that virtually all competently designed & built speakers today are 'similarly good'. Some enthusiasts out there detest that notion & phrase but that is exactly what I found when I auditioned a bunch of brands & models before I finally settled on my Axioms. I could have easily lived with any of the units that I heard.
I've been to a few high end shows, where I assume the great majority of the speakers were competently designed and built. Given this, it was clear to me that speakers in the $3000 ballpark generally were not 'similarly good' to speakers costing ten times that amount. Sure, given my budget I could settle with the lower priced speakers; but even the word "settle" connotes an attitude which is quite different than a "gotta have it!" feeling. In the former one sifts through speaker options which appear 'similarly good'. In the latter one is captivated by a particular speaker's presentation, especially for the price. Both scenarios of course are relative to to one's own ears, experience and preference (and certainly room and equipment). This makes life more interesting and might veer us away from an absolutist viewpoint.

A big thank you to all the evaluators for the time and care taken for an illuminating evaluation process! I learned much from it.

Mark
 
#243 ·
I think these evaluations have helped us understand what to expect from a speaker at a certain price point. Beyond that I think it has proven that placement & room treatments really bring any speaker to its best showing.

Hoping to see the bookshelf speaker eval soon!

Great job guys!
 
#245 ·
Mark:

I admit that when I was shopping for speakers, I did not audition speakers in the $30K range. Even though I could afford to buy up in that range, it wouldn't have been a very efficient use of my time checking them out as spending that much on speakers is just not logical to me. Within the reasonable price range that I explored, 'similarly good' was indeed valid.

As I've gotten older (matured?), the 'gotta have it feeling' doesn't strike me very often anymore. Thankfully, common sense prevails now...

TAM
 
#247 ·
I can relate TAM, not in affording speakers in the 30K range :gulp: but rather being relatively free of the 'gotta have it' feeling. (That's a phrase used as a summary evaluation of great products at a certain other AV website.) I actually love window shopping, listening to incredible speakers at shows. Very fun and informative. I full well know what I'm missing out on, but at the same time I don't have to own it to appreciate the stuff.

Alternatively I know there there is a certain very fine satisfaction owning great value speakers which you know are getting you 80 percent of the way 'there' compared to speakers costing ten times as much and which get you 95 percent there. Right now I've got budget speakers which get me perhaps 50 percent of the way there, and which satisfied for a while, but I want to get to the 80 percent mark, which to me are speakers in the 1K to 3K range. My sweet spot for value is shifting ...

Mark

PS I cringe at quantifying things like 50 or 80 percent on something so varied and qualitative, but you get the idea.
 
#246 ·
I think you are in the same place as many of us, exlabdriver. While I could afford any of the speakers that we evaluated, my decision comes down to deciding at what price can I get the enjoyment out of the listening that I want. While I am intrigued with the subtle improvements beyond that, I don't feel the need to spend that much. It is fun to experience it, however, and it gives new perspective to the lower priced products. I hope that we have shared something valuable that allows others to experience the speakers through our ears and eyes to some degree. If others gain some enjoyment from what we do, gain some perspective that is useful, or learn about some products that they want to seek out and experience themselves, I am satisfied that the effort is worth it. If not, it is a weekend where the four of us share some fun and each other's company.

I think it is likely that we will do the bookshelf comparisons, next, and my preference is for the high value price ranges of $500 and under first. This is a product class that many people buy in and where solid reviews might be really useful.
 
#248 ·
Mark:

I thought that the phrase 'Gotta Have It' was familiar, ha!

Since I live on Vancouver Island, far away from large urban areas, I never have the opportunity to go to the trade shows so I'm restricted to what the local AV Dealers have in stock. Actually, some of their product is quite nice & pricey. On the other hand, perhaps that is an advantage as I really don't know what I'm missing by not experiencing the high end stuff!

My 3 sets of Axioms (1 x HT, 2 x audio only sets - 1 SS & 1 Tube Amp driven) throughout my house provide me & my wife with great pleasure & I think they present really good performance for what they cost me while I acquired therm over the past couple of years...

TAM
 
#249 ·
That "Gotta Have It" bug really does infect different listeners in intriguing ways. Interesting that for most mortals there is usually some value or bang for buck element to it even though the actual expenditure limitation can be much higher, and a satisfaction in achieving a high Bang/Buck ratio. This is very much in evidence with loudspeakers, a more personal audio equipment choice than most.

The speakers in the price range evaluated offered so much that I have a hard time ever seeing myself owning a pair with an MSRP much higher than that range. As we have said before, the best audible driver/technology choices are there and a great deal of what you see in the higher-priced differences is more or bigger drivers for deeper bass and higher volume levels.

Having heard a number of $10K+ speakers at audio shows, some mighty fine sounding specimens, the sonic gains beyond the $3K bracket were not huge, in many cases were hardly worth mentioning, and our experience says those differences could have been mostly due to room and setup anyway.

Then there are several standout examples from even lower price brackets we have evaluated that push the Bang/Buck envelope even farther. The Arx A5 keep getting mentioned as leaders in that category. A couple of A5 owners have said they are "done looking," hear all or most of what they want to at an incredible Bang/Buck point.
 
#250 ·
Then there are several standout examples from even lower price brackets we have evaluated that push the Bang/Buck envelope even farther. The Arx A5 keep getting mentioned as leaders in that category. A couple of A5 owners have said they are "done looking," hear all or most of what they want to at an incredible Bang/Buck point.
Yep I have a pair of A5s and they do everything I want. I actually went from more expensive Axioms to cheaper but "similarly" good Arx speakers. I would say the Arx A5 is "similarly" good to many other brands more expensive models, like Axioms M60HP at more than double the cost but its "similarly" good at $798. Its great that the discussion is about $3k tower speakers but the $800 Arx A5 keeps getting mentioned.
 
#251 ·
When it was time to replace my 70's era speakers I did not have a predetermined max budget.
My requirements were pretty simple, the new speakers had to be an upgrade.

I was somewhat shocked that nothing did it for me until I got up to the Paradigm Studio 100, B&W 804S, and Klipsch RF-83.
I drew the line there because it was way more money than my uninformed prediction.

Luckily before any purchases were made the Klipsch were offered for one weekend at 50% off MSRP and I took the deal (they even discounted the RS-42's 50%) so in the end I feel like I couldn't have done better for the actual money spent.
Nothing I heard (IMO) priced at $1500/pr came close to the RF-83 speakers.

I shopped every price bracket up to $4k very hard and for the most part I thought the the speakers were competitive to each other in the same price range.

Even at $4k/pr all I had to do to hear better sound was listen to the next model up the chain.
Worth it? ?? That's for each individual to decide for themselves.

I found no speakers that jumped a price point much less two price points but I did find some complete duds at every price point.

Every speaker sounded different, not always better or worse compared to similarly priced competition but always different.

At MSRP I would have been satisfied with any of the 3 that were finalists even though the B&Ws were $1k more they were also the #1 choice by a small but worthy margin.

It pays to listen to everything you can multiple times and to be patient
 
#252 ·
I have to apoplgize to everyone. I just noticed that my Polk impressions were not in the post. I really thought I had uploaded it a while back. Not sure if I forgot to save or what. Anyway, it is now there.
 
#255 ·
I have wondered about this before, and thought it might spark some discussion since things have slowed down around here. A couple of speakers in this evaluation seemed to stand out for one thing or another, but three or four models seem to not quite have the "magic" that draws the listener in to listen more and more.

In what ways (if any) do we want a speaker to stand out? Are there some ways of standing out that impress at first and become annoying after living with a speaker for several months? Are there other ways of standing out that are good over the long haul?

On the other hand, regarding the speaker that does not stand out on first listen, how does it fare several months down the road? Does it remain "boring" and unengaging, or does one come to appreciate its simple, unassuming way of going about things (this absent any significant flaws, as all the speakers here seem to be)?

Obviously this is rather subjective, depending on what the listener wants from a speaker. Some people want things to stand out or be emphasized, which might be considered by others who are "purists" to be an alternate version of reality or hyper-real, or whatever. Just wondering, for those of you who have listened to and, more importantly, lived with for a long period of time, several different pairs or sets of loudspeakers.

What has your experience been? Have you ever bought a pair of loudspeakers because they sounded exciting at first blush, but ended up realizing they were fatiguing or annoying much later? Or have you ever bought a loudspeaker and found several months down the line that you've become bored with them and wanted to move on to something more exciting?
 
#259 · (Edited)
Just wondering, for those of you who have listened to and, more importantly, lived with for a long period of time, several different pairs or sets of loudspeakers.

What has your experience been? Have you ever bought a pair of loudspeakers because they sounded exciting at first blush, but ended up realizing they were fatiguing or annoying much later? Or have you ever bought a loudspeaker and found several months down the line that you've become bored with them and wanted to move on to something more exciting?
Both types after a while - fatiguing and boring > that is why I have
extra bookshelf speakers.

However, since I just bought the former MB Quart VS05B bookshelf
speakers, from a crazy good deal - I am becoming more content.

I want the box speakers to be transparent, revealing, refined/clean
and for the imaging and soundstage presentation to call me in. To
give me the more you are there, sense and feel.

Brightness that is sharp/edgy and harsh, is not the only thing that
brings ear fatigue to me - the mushy/boomy and thumpy bass, will
also give me ear fatigue (wear me down).
 
#256 ·
These are very good questions. My experience has been that often, on first listen, a speaker sounds good but after listening to a wide range of music, I find that it exaggerates something or there is a character that is not to my liking. Only a handful of speakers have ever called me to listen more after a wide range of listening. None of them sounded any less appealing months later.

What I generally find appealing is excellent detail and very low distortion. But there must be something else that I have a hard time quantifying. The Polks had detail that I expected and very low distortion. The just did not do much for me, and I am not sure why.
 
#258 ·
bkeeler10, great questions! I love my speakers however when I'm bored I'll reposition them. I'll move my room treatments. Eventually my speakers and treatments go back to their original position which always sounds best to me.
There is no chance of me moving my home theater speakers around. I hate to say it but the home theater is all about the WAF!
 
#260 ·
I find it ironic, yet somewhat not surprising, that you guys found the speakers with the flattest frequency response unengaging. Not to mention that they were very accurate, detailed and had no real weaknesses.

A lot could be taken from that and discussed about the objective and the subjective.
 
#262 ·
I thnk of frequency response sort of like color in displays. We tend to accommodate variances quite well over time. This is why I believe that there is much more to the sound of a speaker than just frequency response. Low distortion allows us to hear detail, clean impulse response lets us hear is without ringing or overdamping. Of course these interact so frequency response is important, but relative levels are just like a gray scale shift. We adjust for it to hear the music. Other characteristics like consistency of character between drivers and channel balance contribute to the character of a speaker as well.

Certainly, frequency response anomolies can attract one's attention and make a speaker sound more attractive or not. And over time, even though we can accomodate variance, some speakers will fit the preference of certain listeners better than others. Sonnie clearly prefers a balance to more bass than I do. Put it all together and my conclusion is that we really don't have good objective ways of describing the experience. I think we could do better in terms of what and how we measure speakers, but it would be a very complex problem.

That is why I try to listen to reference tracks for a range of characteristics that identify problems or give a speaker a chance to excel, then rely on my gut reaction, my overall sense of how well I can get lost in the music and forget that I am listening to speakers (much different perhaps than reproducing a live sound) and how much I experience the emotion and facination with the performance. That is certainly not a reliable measure, nor objective in any way, but it seems to be the best I can do to communicate the experience at this point. After all, it is that magic, the connection with the music that calls me to listen to my system. I am not one that likes to listen to pick out the intricacies of the sound of the system itself. Getting to do so with the team once in a while is fun, but when it comes down to what makes me want to listen at home, it is my interest in the music.

I conclude from these trials that any of the speakers in the last round would be great for someone. That is probably true for all of the speakers we have tested, but more so for these. There were certainly a few in the earlier rounds that I know I would have become tired of quickly. I really think that any of these are speakers I could live with for a long time. The Polks did not create the magic for me that certain others did, but they were still very very good and I heard everything that I listen for in them.

This is tricky business, evaluating speakers. I just hope that I communicate something of value in the reviews. If there is something more that I might say to give better context to the sound of each, please tell me.
 
#264 ·
That is why I try to listen to reference tracks for a range of characteristics that identify problems or give a speaker a chance to excel, then rely on my gut reaction, my overall sense of how well I can get lost in the music and forget that I am listening to speakers (much different perhaps than reproducing a live sound) and how much I experience the emotion and facination with the performance. That is certainly not a reliable measure, nor objective in any way, but it seems to be the best I can do to communicate the experience at this point. After all, it is that magic, the connection with the music that calls me to listen to my system.
This is what it's really all about. If I were to rank, in order of importance, my priorities in terms of speaker performance this would be a higher priority than flat frequency response. Ideally, I would get "that magic" first and then improve room variables to flatten response if possible.

If frequency response (among other measurements) was all-important there would be no need to read all of your impressions. I can't think of a better way for you guys to convey this information than to just tell us what you really think. Your subjective reviews are quite valuable and I appreciate your willingness and honesty.
 
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