AVS Forum banner

My Journey to find the "perfect" speaker...

825K views 7K replies 336 participants last post by  gurkey 
#1 · (Edited)
This is the best A/V forum on the internet, so I hope this thread assists myself and many others.

For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Brandon and I am a audio/videoholic.
Since before I can remember and up until present day, I have listened to many speakers, however no speaker I have run across has ever been perfect to my ears. Hmm, perfect is a poor choice of words...how about this: I have not run across a speaker of whose flaws I could live with for a long, long time. Ever since I delved into A/V a number of years ago I have been on a seemingly hopeless quest to find that one "perfect" speaker. I have come close in some instances, but in the end I always yearn for more. So if you don't mind, I would like to share a little of my experience with you and explain to you what I am looking for. Hopefully with your help and recommendations, I can come to a journeys end…well, at least for a while.

Here goes:

All right, concerning myself...I have listened to a lot of crap over the years, but on the other end of the spectrum I have listened to a few very nice speakers, most of which are out of my current price range. So, being a man who strives for (near) perfection in every purchase he makes, I don't know which products will fill that void. I have owned many speakers, the most recent being Canton Ergo 900's, B&W 604's, Rocket 750's and 550's and the Vandersteen 2CE Sigs. Not one pair of speakers on the list was perfect to my ears, but as mentioned, none are or ever will be. However, I want to finally find an affordable solution of whose flaws I can live with for a long, long time.

Here are the requirements that I would love to be met (most of them anyway), unrealistic as they may be…

To die for imaging/wide soundstage/great dispersion - This system needs to be used for Home Theater and perform like a champ in 2-channel and multi-channel music listening. I don’t want to just hear what is coming from before me; I want to be captivated by it! I want the speakers to disappear into the room. I want to hear music, not speakers trying to reproduce music, if that makes sense.

My wife does not understand this hobby as many of us men do, and with that said she wants me to limit my purchase to one system (7.1 at the most). This means finding a set of fronts that will excel at music above all else (home theater is much easier to reproduce than the intricate and delicate dynamics and nuances of musical instruments, in my opinion of course. If I can find a speaker to do the latter, home theater requirements will easily be met). It also means meeting the WAF (aesthetically).

Dynamics, in both meanings of the word - One: able to be run at near reference levels without distortion or tonality changes. Two: able to pick out each and every instrument and every sound and nuance that said instrument makes on a boundary-less soundstage presented before me. The latter definition is more important to me than the first.

Accuracy – I know what you are thinking, it’s a relative and subjective term with no true definition, but I am indeed a stickler for flat frequency responses. Perhaps it’s a mental/anal retentive thing; a way to just appease that part of my brain, but it’s necessary for me nonetheless. I want a speaker that measures flat all the way through. I don’t want to have to worry about treating my room in order to improve the speaker, but rather just treat my room to only treat the reflections. In my opinion, too much EQ is a bad thing, thus I am against all EQ except parametric. Still, wouldn’t it be amazing to only have to EQ (treat) the room due to its imperfections rather than any of your equipment’s imperfections? Perhaps I am grasping at straws here, but one can hope.

Efficiency – I don’t mind shelling out for good equipment in order to get the most out of my speakers, but there is so much voodoo and snake oil out there…it’s disheartening, not to mention I will have to save over time in order to be able to afford this equipment. Still - the more true power (the actual power when measured with all channels driven), the better. And, of course, low total harmonic distortion measured when under duress. Obviously that is a completely different topic for another time (amplification). However, in lieu of the above mentioned, an efficient speaker that can be run on modest power (until I purchase the power that the speakers deserve) would be wonderful. This is the one place the Vandersteens lack…well, that and the looks department to appease the WAF.

Cost - I am just an average Joe that makes an average salary at an average job with a not so average passion for his hobbies, especially A/V. I also have a not so average wife (yes, she’s that good), and I have to think about her through all of this as well. I don’t have the luxury of being able to purchase what I want when I want and then compare it in my own home without worrying about cost. And this is no knock on those that can do such, God bless them. Due to cost restraints and my personal experience with what I have listened to over the years I have spent in this hobby, Internet Direct offers the best value to performance ratio in my opinion. And for the record, my arrival at this conclusion has nothing to do with the ID “fanboys” or the ID “haters,” or the fact that I get along with many of the ID supporters. It’s a simply judgment call that I have made based on my listening experiences. It is also not a knock on B&M speakers as they make some amazing products. And I am certainly not saying that all ID product are better than their rival B&M products in that same price range (I have heard garbage from both ID and B&M). But if one can eliminate most of the markup created by a local shop, the decision becomes a no brainer for me – look to ID first. This line of thinking is not static, however. If I can find a good deal on a used product or receive a nice discount on B&M equipment – awesome, I’m all over it.

With all of that being said, I do not have a set price range. I would like to keep things as low in cost as possible, but if I find a true contender that can win me over, I will try to save for it. However, let's not get too crazy here.


To conclude, I am looking for a speaker with the open and airiness of a Vandersteen, the dynamics of a Klipsch horn, the sound stage of beffleless speakers and a price that won’t break the bank or give my wife a reason to hate me. Add in a shake of accuracy and a dash of a well balanced treble extension, and that is my "perfect" speaker. Does such thing exist? Is something along these lines in the works?

So there you have it; my requirements, however unreachable they are.

In lieu of all this, I have no issues at all with purchasing the front speakers and adding the rest of the multi-channel system later.

So that brings me to the present and the decisions I have to make. Where do I go from here? Many of you have been doing this much longer than me, so can you offer any advice? And, of course, everyone’s ears and opinions are different, so I am specifically looking for opinions and some recommendations on what to listen to. I know better than to purchase based on someone else’s opinions, but I assure you they will be taken to heart and appreciated, though taken with a grain of salt.

Thank you all! Sorry for the very lengthy read. Feel free to PM me if you feel you may be flamed or challenged on your recommendation.

Thanks,
Brandon

Update - 3-23-08

Having listened to many speakers, I'm going to chose a "perfect speaker" for my ears based on price categories. So, here is what my favorites are at each price point thus far:

My "perfect speaker" under $1000/pair:
Vandersteen 1C

My "perfect speaker" under $3000/pair:
Salk SongTower

My cost no object "ultimate speaker:"
Salk SoundScape

As you can see there are a lot more price categories out there, which is why I will continue my journey until I've picked something for each category. No, I can't listen to everything, but that won't stop me from trying.


Jump to Audition # 1
Monitor Audio RS6 and Vandersteen 1C

Jump to Audition # 2
Paradigm Studio 100 v.3 and Monitor Audio GS60

Jump to Audition # 3
Vandersteen 2CE Sig II, Vienna Acoustics Schonberg, Sonus Faber Concerto Domus, Vandersteen Quatro and Vandersteen Model 5A

Jump to Audition # 4
Swan Diva 6.2, Acculine A3, Onix Rocket 850 Signature, Salk SongTower QWT, Definitive Technology BP10B and NHT Classic 2

Jump to Audition # 5
Ascend Acoustics Sierra-1

Jump to Audition # 6
Dynaudio Contour S1.4

Jump to Audition # 7
SVS MTS Series, Onix Rocket 850 and Paradigm Studio 100 v.4

Jump to Audition # 8
Monitor Audio PL300

Jump to my final decision...for now.

Salk SongTower's

Bonus Speaker Review
Chase Home Theater WAF-1's

My journey's end - the final choice (including review)
Salk SongTower RT (ribbon tweeter) - the first pair ever built

Unfortunately I have not added all of the speakers I have auditioned to this thread. It is very time consumming, and it would mean trying to remember all of the qualities of every speaker I've listened to before creating this thread (about another two dozen speakers or so). However, if you are interested, please PM me and I will answer your questions to the best of my ability (memory).

Finally, I want this thread to be more than my "journey." I want this thread to be used as a timeline of events for everyone and their search for their "perfect" speaker. Please don't let this die, even if and when I find my speaker and am content with it. In that event, the journey must continue, but now it's your journey folks.
 
See less See more
5
#703 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge /forum/post/13153228


I see your point, but I think you are being idealistic. As I stated just moments ago, not everyone likes truly accurate speakers. Some want to hear the vocalist pulled forward in the mix, others want to hear every minute detail while listening at low volumes, some want big fat bass that goes boom, and so on. While it may be hard for you to believe, based on my current choice of speakers, I am not one of those. I like technically accurate.

Well, my point being that some people can listen to a speaker and say "I like ______ because I like a little brighter sound" and I can absolutely respect that. Others say "I like them because they're so detailed and they reveal my crappy equipment and CDs" and that is just, unfortunately, companies taking advantage of people's perceptions.


kinda like the 'wait 30 days [for your ears] to break in' scam.
 
#704 ·
OK, I'll take one last stab at convincing you that you are wrong about the new Electra's.



Here's another review of the smallest speaker in the line, the 1007Be, that includes an FR plot. You can see that there is a *slight* rise in the high treble (which I have never denied), but the overall response is +/- 2dB. Like the FR plot in the French mag, you will see that unlike the Stereophile measurements, there is no hash in the treble range.

http://www.avguide.com/file-download?review=2546


A few choice quotes:


"Outside of a bit of suckout where the tweeter crosses over to the mid/woof at 2kHz and a slight elevation in the midtreble, this is exceptionally flat frequency response. Though the 1007Be doesn’t have much low bass, its mid-to-upper bass is fairly smooth and substantial for a two-way"


"As its frequency-response plot would suggest, the 1007Be does sound impressively natural in timbre on most

instruments and voices."


So while you may not prefer any lift to the treble, the speakers are within the limits of what is considered generally accurate performance.


In closing to this argument, let me just say that while you have an aversion to treble lift, no matter how minor, likewise I can't stand a forward sounding speaker. We all have our preferences, and while yours and mine are different one is not more right than the other.


All the best,


- Tim
 
#705 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/13153666


Well, my point being that some people can listen to a speaker and say "I like ______ because I like a little brighter sound" and I can absolutely respect that. Others say "I like them because they're so detailed and they reveal my crappy equipment and CDs" and that is just, unfortunately, companies taking advantage of people's perceptions.


kinda like the 'wait 30 days [for your ears] to break in' scam.

I suppose that thought of mine was a little incomplete. I should have added that while my goal is to have techincally accurate speakers, if they err, slightly bright is the way I lean.


BTW - I don't beleive in break-in either.
 
#706 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge /forum/post/13153804


OK, I'll take one last stab at convincing you that you are wrong about the new Electra's.

Good luck!!!
Quote:
Here's another review of the smallest speaker in the line, the 1007Be, that includes an FR plot. You can see that there is a *slight* rise in the high treble (which I have never denied), but the overall response is +/- 2dB. Like the FR plot in the French mag, you will see that unlike the Stereophile measurements, there is no hash in the treble range.

Have you seen the Stereophile measurements? Also, keep in mind that the French mag wasn't measuring the speaker's response with any sophistication. It appears they were measuring with test tones and a level meter based on the low resolution graph, hardly the same as sophisticated speaker measurement suite that can show plenty of hash when not overtly smoothed as in UltimateAV.




The Focal Electra 1007 Be's measured performance is generally superb. However, that elevated mid-treble will make the speaker intolerant of inadequate electronics and over-reverberant rooms alike. Large, acoustically well-damped rooms will be more to this speaker's liking than small, lively rooms.—John Atkinson
Quote:
"Outside of a bit of suckout where the tweeter crosses over to the mid/woof at 2kHz and a slight elevation in the midtreble, this is exceptionally flat frequency response. Though the 1007Be doesn’t have much low bass, its mid-to-upper bass is fairly smooth and substantial for a two-way"

Suckout = bad on a $4000 speaker.
Quote:
So while you may not prefer any lift to the treble, the speakers are within the limits of what is considered generally accurate performance.

When entire regions are lifted, i don't consider it accurate. We're talking that the treble and bass is 4 or 5dB higher than the midrange! Not 1 or 2dB.
Quote:
In closing to this argument, let me just say that while you have an aversion to treble lift, no matter how minor, likewise I can't stand a forward sounding speaker. We all have our preferences, and while yours and mine are different one is not more right than the other.

Well, preferences aren't more right or more wrong, but objective truth is. I tend to stick with that because i'm trying to give customers better long term experiences, not what they are susceptible to at the moment.
 
#707 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge /forum/post/13153847


I suppose that thought of mine was a little incomplete. I should have added that while my goal is to have techincally accurate speakers, if they err, slightly bright is the way I lean.

i guess i'm thinking that every company should have the same goals, but that we will definitely go with the approximation that feels right to us. But clearly, not every speaker company has the same goals, outside the desire to sell the most possible.
 
#708 ·
Thought I'd throw this in since I've been in the same mode "looking for a speaker that I can live with". Sorry I didn't read every post here so I hope I'm not off base.


I've been living with Def Tech's BP2000 for a decade because the speakers I like are way up there in cost. How to get around this?


My idea is this;


Line stage arrays. I want music top to bottom effortless, dynamic, detailed that sounds great at low and high volumes, does 2 channel audio as well as HT. I can't afford to spend more than 3 to 4K dollars. Check out GR-Research or Selah Audio. Google the LS-6's or LS-9's 2K - 2.6K $ in DIY form. As long as your wife is easy about size, (they are BIG) I think you'll find that these might interest you. They also have many other interesting speakers and speaker kits for much less which are well received. They don't use a middle man for costs therefore money saved goes toward drivers and crossovers which are typically of excellent quality.


They offer kits which you build yourself and save $$$$$ money!


having listened to so many speakers over the years I decided that room acoustics is really a tough thing to get around with most speakers. I've heard Sophia's that literally disappeared in a room, I mean, best ever, then not in another. It's baffeling (no pun).


Arrays seem to be very room friendly by the nature of their design. Anyway, the direction I'm heading..


Good luck.
 
#710 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/13153968


Have you seen the Stereophile measurements? . . . . We're talking that the treble and bass is 4 or 5dB higher than the midrange! Not 1 or 2dB.

Hmmm, once again you use data to support your argument that just a few posts ago you criticize for its inaccuracy. An interesting, yet completely inconsistent approach.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/13149314

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/13149314


Stereophile's FR measurements, while somewhat useful, aren't terribly accurate, especially in the bass or if the speaker has a low order crossover or if they are big or.........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/13149314


I just noticed that Stereophile and UltimateAV have measurement problems at both ends of the spectrum, at least in many cases, because of how they measure

Funny how the Stereophile measurements are considered valid data, but only when it suits your agenda? So let me get this straight. I should trust Stereophile measurements when they are for a Focal speaker, but not when they are measuring a speaker that you carry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/13149314


Also, keep in mind that the French mag wasn't measuring the speaker's response with any sophistication. It appears they were measuring with test tones and a level meter based on the low resolution graph . . .

The low resolution of the image is only due to the fact that the magazine review was scanned and converted into a PDF file. However there were two different measurements in that mag. One that uses sophisticated test equipment and the other that was a simple per octave sampling of the FR.


I'm referring to this one:



To show you that the measurements from this mag have good resolution, here is a sample of another speaker measured by the same mag, but this is a direct conversion from the mag to a PDF file , NOT a scan. BTW - this is a Triangle speaker, NOT a Focal speaker.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TAS magazine /forum/post/0


"Outside of a bit of suckout where the tweeter crosses over to the mid/woof at 2kHz and a slight elevation in the midtreble, this is exceptionally flat frequency response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/13149314


Suckout = bad on a $4000 speaker.

An inaccurate choice of words on the reviewers part that you have conveniently latched onto to support your biased view.

Suckout: A deep, narrow frequency-response dip.


Do you see a suckout in this response of the Focal 1007Be? I don't. I see a shallow dip. Big difference.



This is a suck out (blue line):



Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/13149314


When entire regions are lifted, i don't consider it accurate.

Likewise, when entire regions are depressed, like the mid treble on the NHT's and the upper treble on the PSB's, that is not accurate either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/13149314


Well, preferences aren't more right or more wrong, but objective truth is. I tend to stick with that because i'm trying to give customers better long term experiences, not what they are susceptible to at the moment.

Ah, but as we have seen in your responses, your idea of the objective truth is either colored by your bias, or you spin it to suit your agenda. In one breath you state that Stereophile's measurements aren't all that accurate, yet in the next breath you use those same measurements to support your argument. You say that reviewers can't be trusted, then you go on to quote reviewers. When I supply objective data from different sources it is challenged, yet when you do it is to be taken as the truth.


I think you have a lot a knowledge to share, and I have learned some things from you in the past, but man you can be difficult.
It is clear that no matter what I or others say, if it doesn't line up with what you think, you will fight tooth and nail to ensure that you are not wrong, even if there is good evidence to the contrary. If you stopped trying to be right all of the time (stopped arguing and started discussing), I think we could have some very constructive conversations.


- Tim
 
#711 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge /forum/post/13160100


Hmmm, once again you use data to support your argument that just a few posts ago you criticize for its inaccuracy. An interesting, yet completely inconsistent approach.

not really. i view it as eyewitness testimony. it gives you an idea, but could be flawed. So i look for patterns. And more importantly, when i get the chance, i listen. I don't need a graph to tell me that Electras are forward and/or bright. They just are. And many people like that.
Quote:
Funny how the Stereophile measurements are considered valid data, but only when it suits your agenda? So let me get this straight. I should trust Stereophile measurements when they are for a Focal speaker, but not when they are measuring a speaker that you carry?

Don't be ridiculous. It does depend on the speaker. For bookshelf and small er towers that aren't 1st order, they're usually pretty correct. For large and very large speakers, first orders, line arrays, you have to take it with a bigger grain of salt. Stereophile is pretty decent BUT they can be inconsistent. Soundstage is very consistent. UltimateAV is pretty sketchy, Home Theater is so-so, Sound & Vision is so inconsistent that it's essentially useless. I weight them accordingly. I also listen to many of these speakers that have been measured, so i can correlate what i hear to how they measure.
Quote:
An inaccurate choice of words on the reviewers part that you have conveniently latched onto to support your biased view.

Biased? It's my view based on what i heard. Most evidence supports what i hear. Just because you can find some things that say 'it's not that bright' doesn't override the body of evidence!
Quote:
Likewise, when entire regions are depressed, like the mid treble on the NHT's and the upper treble on the PSB's, that is not accurate either.

Well, personally, I'd rather have a slight rolloff than an equal rise. That's just me. i tend to go for speakers that are accurate to somewhat rolled off than speakers that are accurate to somewhat bright.
Quote:
Ah, but as we have seen in your responses, your idea of the objective truth is either colored by your bias, or you spin it to suit your agenda. In one breath you state that Stereophile's measurements aren't all that accurate, yet in the next breath you use those same measurements to support your argument. You say that reviewers can't be trusted, then you go on to quote reviewers. When I supply objective data from different sources it is challenged, yet when you do it is to be taken as the truth.

I understand how to read a reviewer's language, so when they say 'hard to drive', i know what it means. When they say 'more full bodied bass', i know what it means. They always find a nice way of putting every flaw. Most people think the review sounds great, but if you put on your decoder ring, you can pretty well establish what's wrong with the speaker. My decoder ring serves me pretty well.
Quote:
I think you have a lot a knowledge to share, and I have learned some things from you in the past, but man you can be difficult.
It is clear that no matter what I or others say, if it doesn't line up with what you think, you will fight tooth and nail to ensure that you are not wrong, even if there is good evidence to the contrary. If you stopped trying to be right all of the time (stopped arguing and started discussing), I think we could have some very constructive conversations.

Well, sell audio for 15+ years and listen to as much as I have and then you get to be as opinionated and obstinate as I am! I'm not trying to be argumentative, you just don't like my POV and want to cancel it out. That's fine, if you want, but it won't convince me I'm wrong having heard the speaker. I can see what many would like about it, they're just not my cup of tea. Utopias are, especially if I had the super elegant room to support their looks.
 
#712 ·
John -


At this point I think we will just have to agree to disagree. You've presented your side, I've presented mine. I'll let the jury of my peers decide where the truth lies.


All the best,


- Tim
 
#713 ·
If you hear both the positive and negative viewpoints about a speaker's sound, you'll be a far better judge of the truth than if you simply hear all the positives. I even tell my customers the weak points of the speakers I sell, so they will know whether they bother them. That's why I have so few returns and virtually all of those have to do with room issues.


So, IMO, the truth is the truth, we just each see it through a different prism.
 
#714 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/13164802


So, IMO, the truth is the truth, we just each see it through a different prism.

Well, I used to think so, but now as I grow older and realize how little I really know, I'm not so sure.


Is this the truth?

Revue De Son (French AV magazine) measurement of Focal 1037Be



Or is this the truth?

Stereophile measurement of Focal 1037Be




Your ears would tell you that the Stereophile measurements are correct, while mine tell me the Revue De Son measurements are more accurate.


So which is it?


The problem with absolutes or ultimate truths is that we have to rely on our senses or test instruments to attempt to uncover them. But what happens when your hearing is different than mine? Then what is true for you is not for me.


What happens when you change the way you measure or the test equipment becomes more sophisticated and you get different results? At one point the atom was considered to be the smallest particle, until sub-atomic particles were discovered. So if the truth changes depending on how we view it or measure it, what was once considered the truth is now false. Where does it end?


And in regards to us audiophiles, does it really matter how it measures if we like the way that it sounds?


In a related matter, I have read more than once, that some people do not like the sound of a speaker with ruler flat frequency response, and that it even sounds bright, lean and unnatural to them. So what do you tell them?
 
#715 ·
Nuance -


Back onto the subject of this thread, have you heard of the ERA speakers?


I recently listened to their new floor standing speakers (they used to only make bookshelfs), and I thought they sounded quite nice.

http://www.signalpathint.com/index.p...ign-14-Series/


The sales rep for the company told me that the cheif designer for Aerial Acoustics designed the drivers, so Mudslide will approve.



They are very well built too. Very solid, nice looking curved cabinets and excellent veneer work.


And I think they only cost $2K a pair. I would have thought they were $3-4K based on the quality and sound.
 
#716 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge /forum/post/13165277


And in regards to us audiophiles, does it really matter how it measures if we like the way that it sounds?

Nope. It's the only true important thing. Well...that and aesthetics for many.


Tim-


I've never heard Era speakers, no. But their cabinetry is pretty nice, and its good to know they use quality drivers. Is Era internet direct or B&M?
 
#717 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge /forum/post/13166287


Nuance -


Back onto the subject of this thread, have you heard of the ERA speakers?


I recently listened to their new floor standing speakers (they used to only make bookshelfs), and I thought they sounded quite nice.

http://www.signalpathint.com/index.p...ign-14-Series/


The sales rep for the company told me that the cheif designer for Aerial Acoustics designed the drivers, so Mudslide will approve.



They are very well built too. Very solid, nice looking curved cabinets and excellent veneer work.


And I think they only cost $2K a pair. I would have thought they were $3-4K based on the quality and sound.

This is a very nicely done speaker - and your sales rep would be right...



Bravo for ERA loudspeakers...


All the best...


mls
 
#718 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance /forum/post/13167130


Nope. It's the only true important thing. Well...that and aesthetics for many.


Tim-


I've never heard Era speakers, no. But their cabinetry is pretty nice, and its good to know they use quality drivers. Is Era internet direct or B&M?

Sold via B+M...




mls
 
#720 ·
If in fact you like the sound of (I love the looks) of the ERA speakers you might also try audtion the Silverline audio mineut and prelude series. Both of these companies use such small drivers and can subsantially reproduce very good bass. Aesthetically speaking, hands down they go to the ERAS. Interesting enough there have been a few published articles comparing the Eras and the Siliverline mineut.
 
#721 ·
Audition # 7

SVS MTS', Onix Rocket 850 Signature's and Paradigm Studio 100 V4's (floor standing speakers)


The reason I've waited so long to post a little review of the three above speakers is because they weren't compared in the same manner as the bookshelf speakers. The bookshelf speakers both sat on the same stands and were placed at the same position with the same amount of toe in. The same cannot be said about the tower's. The tower's remained in their spots all day/night, with the Rocket's taking the inside, the Paradigms hanging in the middle and the MTS' residing at the edges. It should also be noted that there was a bass null at the seating position. This was somewhat cured by moving the couch all the way against the wall, but very early into the GTG the couch was moved forward again to provide a second walk way, hence introducing that bass null again (FYI, the bass null seemed to not come into play while listening to the bookshelf speakers, perhaps due to the different speaker positioning and room interaction). Due to all of this the sound was going to be greatly effected by all of this, but it was what it was.


In lieu of the above I will post this disclaimer:
The following opinion is mine and only mine and should not even be considered worthy of an honest opinion. This is due to the different speaker positions, toe in and listening distances, so results may certainly vary. Nonetheless I will give my thoughts, if nothing else just to keep a record of my impressions.

SVS MTS Floor Standing Speaker



I first listened to these speakers in Warpdrv's room on the Friday before the GTG. Yes, his bedroom.
But it's okay because his master chef girlfriend was there to ensure nothing kinky happened. LOL! J/K



Upon first listening to the MTS' they didn't jump out at me at all. While sitting in the sweet spot they sounded dull and very uninvolving. I thought that it was probably because the tweeter was below ear level and because the speakers were fairly close to the back wall. Nonetheless I was left alone to listen to my own personal audition CD of which I stopped about 8 minutes through. These speakers just weren't "doing it" for me, so I decided to wait until Sunday to give a real listen.


Sunday arrived, and after giving the guests a quick listen to the MTS' in his room, Warprdv moved them into the basement with the rest of the goodies. This did improve the sound, but not as much as I would have hoped.


The first track we listened to (that I remember) was Copland's ''Fanfare for the Common Man.'' I thought that the SVS MTS' portrayed this piece better than the other tower speakers. It could have been due to their positions, I don't know, but I was shocked and remembered saying to Warpdrv, "Your bedroom acoustics must have been why these SVS' sounded so bad." However, I had to get my foot out of my mouth at the end of the night because no other musical piece sounded natural or correct to my ears on the MTS', especially rock and roll (which is my favorite genre ranging from Led Zeppelin and the Who to Dream Theater and Metallica). The SVS' were just unpredictable and sounded both harsh and dull at times depending on the Rock artist. They sounded boring and unengaging with The Eagles, and piercing and shrill with Dream Theater. At times they were downright unlistenable for me.


In the end, the SVS', which fell into the middle of the group for price, ended up being the least preferred (by me). There were a lot of factors that could have played a role in why they sounded so bad, but in that room on that day, the SVS' were not my cup of tea. The tweeter was unpredictable, ranging from laid back to ear piercingly bright. The midrange sounded recessed and muffled which caused a loss of detail. Finally, the bass was deep with an impactful feeling (probably the only thing I liked about the MTS'). But 1 out of 3 just didn't do it for me.


Not recommended as I can certainly think of a number of speakers that I like better in that price range.

Onix Rocket 850 Signature Floor Standing Speaker



I'll keep this review as unbiased as possible (because I own them). For the price ($1400/pair), they outperformed the SVS' and tied the Paradigm's IMO. I liked some things about the Paradigms better, but some things about the Rocket's better (more on the Digm's later).


The bass null in the room greatly effected the bass response of these speakers. Although, even when the couch was against the wall, the Onix speakers seemed a little light in the bass depth. It could have been the speaker positioning, room acoustics and that bass null, but I tell it like I heard it. Due to this the Rocket's sounded a little brighter than when I heard them in my home and a few other owner's homes. In this room on that day, they probably would have benefited from zero toe-in. Nonetheless, the tweeter wasn't piercingly bright, but rather walked the line in between just right and a little too bright.


The Onix Rocket's strength was the midrange, IMO. The midrange detail surpassed the SVS MTS' and the Paradigm Studio 100's. No detail was overlooked while focusing on the human voice. I heard every breath, each lip smack and a nicely balanced vocal tone. While not the most resolving, full and lush midrange I've ever heard, it's tied for the best I've heard on a pair of speakers retailing for $1400 or less and is definitely the selling point of these (big) guys. I now know why they perform so well for home theater.


Compared to the rest of the speakers at the GTG, the Rocket's were the most dynamic. Even with the dB level in the 90's these big dogs never whimpered and just continued to flex their muscles, almost saying in a taunting tone, "bring it on!" They also sounded pretty darn good at lower levels, losing some bass impact, though. I've discovered that these speakers don't push a heck of a lot of air through the back ports, so near wall placement isn't an issue and may actually help with the bass response. IN comparison to the bass response of the Digm's, the Rocket's bass is tight and quick as opposed to boomy.


Finally, I felt that the 850 Sig's were easily the best looking speakers at the GTG. The Rosewood finish was just dead sexy (yes, a speaker can be sexy...
)! I honestly would have preferred a solid black driver color, but the white isn't terribly distracting, and I listen with the grills on anyway, so... These speakers are solidly made, but could have possibly been dampened a little better.


In the end, the Rocket's performed wonderfully, especially considering they were the least expensive floor standing speaker at the GTG. I wish they had a little more bass depth and impact, but that's just how they sounded that day in that room. All of the Floor Standing speakers could have benefited from crossing over to a capable subwoofer (yes, all of them).


The Rocket's are definitely recommend, especially considering the price you pay for a good sounding speaker with a high quality construction and look. I consider them the Paradigm's of Internet Direct. Cross them over to a subwoofer and they are even more impressive!

Paradigm Studio 100 V.4 Floor Standing Speaker



The Studio 100 is a great speaker; something I've already made clear earlier in my speaker thread. However, this time I was able to put some time in with the V4 rather than the V3, with the former benefiting from a new midrange driver.


As previously noted in my former Studio 100 thread, the Digm is a fairly balanced and accurate speaker with a slight bass hump. I feel that crossing over to a capable sub would be beneficial because that bass hump caused some loss of midrange detail. However, the midrange was lush and engaging and the treble was well extended and airy, though sometimes walking that fine line of being too bright. This could have been due to the room acoustics and speaker placement, however.


While listening to this speaker I again noticed that bass null I spoke of earlier. Up in Warp's main listening area (and in the well treated A/V shop in which I auditioned the Studio 100 V3's) the Digm's had more bass in 2-channel. Down stairs the bass was less pronounced but still noticeable. In fact, in my opinion the speaker's may have actually benefited a little from the bass null because the bass wasn't as boomy and overpowering. I do like powerful bass impact, but not at the expense of a loss of details. If the bass was a little tighter I feel that I wouldn't have had to strain to hear low level details and nuances. Again, crossing over to a subwoofer would probably be beneficial.


When it was all said and done I was still impressed with the Paradigm Studio 100's. However, due to the bland look (just not my style) and more than double the cost of the Rocket 850's, I can not highly recommend them over the Onix's. Is the treble a little more refine on the Digm's? Yes. Does the bass dig deeper? Yes, but at the expense of loss of detail. However, is it worth the price increase of $1400? I'd have to say no. Don't get me wrong, the Digm's are a terrific speaker, but I do feel the asking price is a little steep. I guess you can thank the markup of B&M for that, something that ID doesn't suffer from.


The Paradigm Studio 100's are definitely recommended, but I'd recommend purchasing used or finagling with the dealer for a hefty discount.
 
#723 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge /forum/post/13166287


Nuance -


Back onto the subject of this thread, have you heard of the ERA speakers?


I recently listened to their new floor standing speakers (they used to only make bookshelfs), and I thought they sounded quite nice.

http://www.signalpathint.com/index.p...ign-14-Series/


The sales rep for the company told me that the cheif designer for Aerial Acoustics designed the drivers, so Mudslide will approve.



They are very well built too. Very solid, nice looking curved cabinets and excellent veneer work.


And I think they only cost $2K a pair. I would have thought they were $3-4K based on the quality and sound.

Well then...the ERA's MUST be good!



With regard to speaker preferences, comparative and DBT studies have shown that 'generally speaking', most people with adequate hearing will have a tendency to prefer a speaker with a flatter FR. That said, those people perhaps did not hear a speaker more to their liking. Flat FR speakers, ala studio monitors, tend to be quite dry and lifeless. The key ultimate speaker for any individual is undoubtedly one that has a perfectly flat FR AND THEN is equalized to the preferences (and physical environment) of the individual owner/listener.


Absolute statements about the quality of loudspeakers are verboten as they are judgements. Judgements cannot carry the weight of fact or truth or be 'absolute'. And to carry this all the way to the wall, like fingerprints, no two set of ears-brain connection are alike. We all simply DO hear differently. John, one person's description of a speaker's weaknesses, say yours as a seller, may be the siren call sound for the buyer.


I have yet to meet an FR chart that thrilled my ears, btw.
 
#724 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge /forum/post/13165277


Well, I used to think so, but now as I grow older and realize how little I really know, I’m not so sure.


Is this the truth?

Revue De Son (French AV magazine) measurement of Focal 1037Be



Or is this the truth?

Stereophile measurement of Focal 1037Be




Your ears would tell you that the Stereophile measurements are correct, while mine tell me the Revue De Son measurements are more accurate.


So which is it?

Neither. They're simply approximations of the truth, that's why they are somewhat different. It's like seeing two paintings of the same scene.
Quote:
And in regards to us audiophiles, does it really matter how it measures if we like the way that it sounds?

In a way. Measurements help determine the difference between real objective progress and flavor swapping. It's easy to make a pleasantly colored speaker, not as easy to make a pleasantly accurate speaker because you have to eliminate distortions rather than cover them up.
Quote:
In a related matter, I have read more than once, that some people do not like the sound of a speaker with ruler flat frequency response, and that it even sounds bright, lean and unnatural to them. So what do you tell them?

Buy some of those 'rolled off' PSBs and NHTs?



in all seriousness, people don't dislike accurate speakers, they dislike distortion. Eliminate that and accurate doesn't sound bright, lean or unnatural at all. NHT's Xd were proof of that. They measured flat as a board, yet sounded rather lush, rich, smooth because they were so low in distortion. They were brighter, yet less fatiguing than the 'rolled off' NHT Fours. They didn't seem "detailed", yet you could hear everything.
 
#725 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mudslide /forum/post/13168747


Well then...the ERA's MUST be good!



With regard to speaker preferences, comparative and DBT studies have shown the 'generally speaking', most people with adequate hearing will have a tendency to prefer a speaker with a flatter FR. That said, those people perhaps did not hear a speaker more to their liking. Flat FR speakers, ala studio monitors, tend to be quite dry and lifeless. The key ultimate speaker for any individual is undoubtedly one that has a perfectly flat FR AND THEN is equalized to the preferences (and physical environment) of the individual owner/listener.


Absolute statements about the quality of loudspeakers are verboten as they are judgements. Judgements cannot carry the weight of fact or truth or be 'absolute'. And to carry this all the way to the wall, like fingerprints, no two set of ears-brain connection are alike. We all simply DO hear differently. John, one person's description of a speaker's weaknesses, say yours as a seller, may be the siren call sound for the buyer.


I have yet to meet an FR chart that thrilled my ears, btw.

In fairness though, the work of the NRC in Canada and further research by Floyd Toole at Harmon indicated that there are criteria by which individuals preferred certain speakers under DBT conditions. Of course, it was not just flat on axis response although that was ONE (and only one) of the criteria.
 
#726 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge /forum/post/13166287


Nuance -


Back onto the subject of this thread, have you heard of the ERA speakers?


I recently listened to their new floor standing speakers (they used to only make bookshelfs), and I thought they sounded quite nice.

We agree! I don't find them without color, especially the soft dome sound which isn't my idea of reality, but they have amazing midrange quality and lushness and deep, 'tuneful' bass so we're bringing some in on our next order. Incredible build quality. Almost to the point of the ridiculous.
 
#727 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall /forum/post/13168919


We agree! I don't find them without color, especially the soft dome sound which isn't my idea of reality, but they have amazing midrange quality and lushness and deep, 'tuneful' bass so we're bringing some in on our next order. Incredible build quality. Almost to the point of the ridiculous.

John, which model-the floorstanders?
 
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