@decooney No one is "one and done," at least not on this forum. The very claim is laughable braggadocio.
Speaker shootout update; aggressive treble eliminating some (fairly?)
I've been trying out speakers in a complicated shoot out, both bookshelves and towers — all in my home with my gear. I'm looking for speakers obtainable up to about $4k but could go up (or down) a bit if the right thing came along.
Basic facts: All speakers were run in at least 100 hours. Room is 27 x 14 x 6.5 ceilings. Powering with all QS tubes, 60w, NOS, tube R2R dac, and decent cables. No terrible reflection points; room not overly live or dampened. REL R 328 sub available but I did most listening without it.
Recent auditions, type:
Klipsch RP 600-M (budget singleton of the group)
Fritz Rev Carbon 7 mk II (bookshelf, 2 way, soft dome)
Focal 936 (tower, 3 way, inverted metal)
Martin Logan Motion 60s XTi (tower, 3 way, AMT)
Coming soon:
Salk SS 6M (bookshelf, 2 way, beryllium)
Dynaudio Evoke 30's (tower, 3 way, soft dome)
Let me speak just to the problems, rather than what was good about the speakers. So far, I've found the Klipsch, Focal, and especially the Martin Logans were all too bright — forward, aggressive, "turn it down" treble.
The ML's were the most impossible to tame and hardest to listen to on more tracks. (I did a lot of hanging of towels and other dampeners and other soft things to try to see if I could bring them to heel. I varied the recordings used. Changed cables/wires. No luck.)
The Focals were occasionally too bright; their bigger problem was a bit too much energy in my small listening space. They were better when I plugged their ports with socks.
I'm looking forward to how the next two speakers sound. The Dynaudio towers, I notice, are 10 inches shorter and half the weight of the other towers; not sure what that might mean, but it could just be right size for my space. I'm looking forward to seeing if the Salks bring more detail to the treble without also being too rolled off or harsh.
Hearing is very personal for physiological and taste reasons. However, if anyone has any thoughts about why I might be experiencing some of the phenomena I am (harsh treble, especially) based on my room or gear, etc., that might help me understand factors I'm not fully appreciating. Thanks.
Basic facts: All speakers were run in at least 100 hours. Room is 27 x 14 x 6.5 ceilings. Powering with all QS tubes, 60w, NOS, tube R2R dac, and decent cables. No terrible reflection points; room not overly live or dampened. REL R 328 sub available but I did most listening without it.
Recent auditions, type:
Klipsch RP 600-M (budget singleton of the group)
Fritz Rev Carbon 7 mk II (bookshelf, 2 way, soft dome)
Focal 936 (tower, 3 way, inverted metal)
Martin Logan Motion 60s XTi (tower, 3 way, AMT)
Coming soon:
Salk SS 6M (bookshelf, 2 way, beryllium)
Dynaudio Evoke 30's (tower, 3 way, soft dome)
Let me speak just to the problems, rather than what was good about the speakers. So far, I've found the Klipsch, Focal, and especially the Martin Logans were all too bright — forward, aggressive, "turn it down" treble.
The ML's were the most impossible to tame and hardest to listen to on more tracks. (I did a lot of hanging of towels and other dampeners and other soft things to try to see if I could bring them to heel. I varied the recordings used. Changed cables/wires. No luck.)
The Focals were occasionally too bright; their bigger problem was a bit too much energy in my small listening space. They were better when I plugged their ports with socks.
I'm looking forward to how the next two speakers sound. The Dynaudio towers, I notice, are 10 inches shorter and half the weight of the other towers; not sure what that might mean, but it could just be right size for my space. I'm looking forward to seeing if the Salks bring more detail to the treble without also being too rolled off or harsh.
Hearing is very personal for physiological and taste reasons. However, if anyone has any thoughts about why I might be experiencing some of the phenomena I am (harsh treble, especially) based on my room or gear, etc., that might help me understand factors I'm not fully appreciating. Thanks.
Showing 24 responses by hilde45
@mapman @brownsfan Thanks for looking at the diagram. As I said in other posts, I'm NOT having problems with the highs w/bookshelves. Improving the lows would be a reason I'd move things around. (I'll try the REW.) The suggestion to lower my seat also helped. Alas, though, I cannot move them for another reason — the plugs on that side of the room all have reversed polarity which I tried to trouble shoot over many days with folks on this forum — to no avail. Thus, I'm stuck until I hire an electrician or get rid of my guest bedroom. 1st world problems! But the sound is fine for bookshelves. Thanks for sharing your setup. I'll study it. I'm really tempted by Ohms. Maybe, maybe. Oh, and you saw this on Bosch, right? https://images.app.goo.gl/FX1wVPkpX4XzU2WV8 |
@b_limo I was also wondering if a lack of lows is contributing to the brightness.There is no lack of lows in my room. The lows are fine, deep, right, taut. No problem. Why "rolled off"? Specs say: Carbons 38Hz-35Khz +/- 3 db Focals 39Hz - 28kHz +/- 3dB ML 60 xti 35–25,000 Hz ±3dB In actual listening experiences, bass notes were present in the towers that were not even registering in the bookshelves, while slightly higher pitched bass notes were not taut in the bookshelves, even with solid state. Kind of didn’t expect them to be, and they weren’t. But they’re bookshelves, right? They sounded really good. But down at the bottom, how could they compete? Maybe if I had a 300w amp, the difference would disappear, especially since the bookshelves are harder to drive. |
@djones That's quite a damning review from ASR and the measured sensitivity (below 80db), if true, would probably put this speaker out of the range of most people looking to spend modestly on amplification. Back in January, I went for this speaker based on forum comments and reviews from elsewhere but after learning more, I changed my order toward the higher sensitivity and more expensive SS 6M because I didn't want to have to drive such a difficult load. I noticed that Jim Salk recently changed his sensitivity of the SS 6M from 90 to 87 db because an error in his graph was discovered. I suppose one can always make the argument that measurements don't matter and that any piece of equipment has to be experienced to be tested, but even so, the fact I knew I would have tube amplification influenced me to narrow down options by looking for somewhat easier speakers to drive. So, numbers have some role to play. It helps if procedures for arriving at the numbers is standard and if the reported numbers (whatever the method) are accurate. I have no idea where the truth lies with the Wow1. |
@auxinput By the way, it appears there are tone generators on Spotify, etc. too. Is there a reason not to search out these tones via a streaming service rather than download each one, burn a CD, etc.? In other words, would this do it? Audio Test Tones ALBUM Audio Test Tones 2013 48 min 42 sec 1 kHz 0 dB 10:05 20 Hz -10 dB 0:34 30 Hz -10 dB 0:34 40 Hz -10 dB 0:35 50 Hz -10 dB 0:34 60 Hz -10 dB 0:34 100 Hz -10 dB 0:35 125 Hz -10 dB 0:34 250 Hz -10 dB 0:34 400 Hz -10 dB 0:34 800 Hz -10 dB 0:34 1 000 Hz -10 dB 0:34 1 250 Hz -10 dB 0:35 2 500 Hz -10 dB 0:34 3 150 Hz -10 dB 0:35 4 000 Hz -10 dB 0:35 5 000 Hz -10 dB 0:35 6 000 Hz -10 dB 0:34 7 000 Hz -10 dB 0:35 8 000 Hz -10 dB 0:35 9 000 Hz -10 dB 0:35 10 KHz -10 dB 0:34 11 KHz -10 dB 0:35 12 KHz -10 dB 0:35 13 KHz -10 dB 0:35 14 KHz -10 dB 0:35 15 KHz -10 dB 0:35 16 KHz -10 dB 0:35 17 KHz -10 dB 0:35 18 KHz -10 dB 0:36 440 Hz -10 dB 1:05 Sweep on both channels 0:46 Left and right channel sweep 20 Hz to 20 KHz -10 dB 0:13 Pink noise -10dB 3:04 Pink noise out of phase -10 dB 1:04 200 Hz left and right channels in phase -10 dB 1:07 200 Hz left and right channels out of phase -10 dB 1:06 Left channel 10 KHz -10 dB 1:06 Right channel 10 KHz -10 dB 1:06 Drum solo mono 120bpm 5:30 Drum solo stereo 120bpm 5:30 |
Thanks djones and @mapman. I think I'll order that Minidsp UMIK-1 @cd318 Glad the post is eliciting such a good conversation. I'm learning a lot. Given how much I have to learn, I think the first step is to get a speaker which sounds mostly good — with no dealbreakers. If I'm already thinking about the lengths I might have to go to fix problems, then that is at least a clue to keep trying. I can tweak "good" to "great" later, if need be. We're talking about choosing a hittable pitch to swing at. @auxinput Thanks for putting my data into this table and for the test tone sweep page. I'll try those. |
@jackd Thanks for the instructions on measuring. I like your comments on stability; I don't want anything too resonant, but the black metal stands one fills with sand are not that attractive to my eye. @jtcf Those seem like really nice speakers. If we were neighbors, it would be fun to speaker swap! (As long as you're not violating any vows.) @djones51 I just played the sweep tone that folks here were mentioning. The speakers sound good — a more detailed description is coming, but they are not harsh or aggressive at all. That bullet's been dodged. (Talk about burying the lede; that's the answer to this entire thread!) @brownsfan Appreciate your feedback. I'll do another measurement soon (I'm moving the speakers around a bit) and will try to generate additional graphs. I need to look up what an "impulse graph" is, to be honest. But I'll do one of those, too. Let's see if that weird null at 200 hz is reproduced, and where, and then I'll walk around a bit to see what's going on. |
@larry5729 If you can afford to spend $6,000, I would buy a pair of SALK Song3 Encore towers. I heard these at the RMAF in Denver and they sounded better than a pair of $60,000 speakers down the hall. Call Jim Salk and tell him Larry Edwards from Denver sent you.Hi Larry, Thanks for the suggestion. I’m currently in possession of Salks which took 7 months to build, and am of the mind that towers are too large for my space. Plus, there's no way I'd wait another 7 months. I’ve often seen you recommend Salk with the suggestion that whoever you’re posting to say that "Larry Edwards from Denver sent you." I’m wonder if you have a special reason to have people mention you? Is there a chance you might become a local Salk dealer here in Denver? Because that would be big and very cool news! |
Well I did some experiments playing the speakers the long way down the room and it was inferior for sure. Placing the speakers on the long wall and playing across the short width of the room was better for imaging and tonal balance. Of course I have not done an extensive analysis of the room with the various tools we are talking about but I could do that at some future point. But, back of the envelope, it is better to put the gear on the long wall. |
@mesch Speakers are imminent. I tried 20" stands yesterday for a short time, but since I was not having much of a problem with the bookshelves anyway, whatever improvement there was — was hard to notice. I will check again when I have time to really go back and forth. @fastfreight (Ken) You mention the Proacs a bit 'boomy' with their ports - same with Focals, but plugging the ports cleaned that right up. Did you try that? I have no plans to buy B&W in my price class. The Revels interest me. Did you know they're owned by Samsung now? "Not that there's anything wrong with that," to wax Seinfeldian. |
@b_limo I’ve not really done my critical listening yet. Thanks for the info about the GIK stuff. I’m not ready to start spending money in this area yet. @jackd Here’s a nice comparison photo of Salks SS 6M and Fritz Carbon Rev Carbon 7 mk II Replace "dot" with "." photos dot app dot goo dot gl/Mn3xMdCuUn3dw41MA @lemonhaze Thank you so much for the links. Saving, reading, enjoying to come! I hope to design a listening room from the ground up, with a dedicated line. @brownsfan @lemonhaze @mapman @djones51I’ve tried some measurements using REW software. First I tested with my Adcom amp and then switched to the tube gear. At first I measured with the mic pointed straight up (D’oh!) and then did more with the mic pointed forward.So…three photos — if you can get to them — are with the Salk speakers, with the microphone pointed forward. SPL graph. Right, left, and combined. I’m new at this, so this is probably of limited value, but gotta start somewhere. photos dot app dot goo dot gl/Pus38hvRmMqrp8gz8 |
I've been listening to the Salks for several days and have not been systematic about recording impressions. This is preliminary. But a few things are certain.
|
@twoleftears et al. Update on speaker shootout: Salks win. I did extensive listening to all kinds of music, with many positionings of the speakers. There is no question that the Salks win, hands down. Besides having an estimable bass response (even firmer and only a little deeper when paired with my REL sub), the clarity and precision of the upper midrange really gave me what I was looking for, without the harsh, aggressive treble of the Focals or Martin Logans or what I can only describe as slightly rolled off or veiled highs in the Fritz or Dynaudios. They just smudge the details I really want to hear. There is no question for me that, among these speakers, none are perfect. The bass on the ML’s is low and tight; the soundstage on the Focals and the midrange is really luscious, expansive, and presses my "astonishment" button; the silky, across the board honesty and listenability of the Fritz is really an impossibly good combination. But given what I have discovered as my penchant for revealing and crystalline upper mids and treble, the Salks took the prize for me. On *some* tunes, I wished they would be a bit less forward, but this is a trade off which I think I can live with — even if I don’t address any of the issues in my room. (The REW data I’ve seen after a week of testing has shown me where some problems with my room are and I have some ideas about how to address them.) So, there you have it. End of the road. Good process; back to the beginning, but learned a lot on the way. |
@decooney @brownsfan Thanks to you both. I had good guidance from both of you on different phases of the process. Invaluable. FWIW, I mentioned in my note to Jim Salk that I loved the speakers but there were moments that they could be a little bright, and he said they make them for a flat response but depending on the rooms they're played in, this can happen. He's sending me a couple small resistors which he said could be added if I wanted just a bit less of those highs. |
@mesch That is such a nice thing to hear! Thank you! And there are a number of people on this forum (including you!) who have taken their time to answer questions, ask questions, provide advice, provide a sounding board, and more -- a genuine community of inquiry. It's reassuring to know that dialogue of such a collaborative and supportive kind is still possible in the increasingly precarious online space. |