Speakers ~$10K for rock, alternative and some pop. Not Jazz or Classical. - Page 6

Yeah but your missing the point....an auto's pricetag is alot more justified(even the expensive "supercars")having THOUSANDS of components, exotic materials, or REAL ENGINEERING FEATS, vs a speaker that consists of a few sheets of wood, few feet of wire, few caps n coils and a few drivers for the price of a car.......

Besides, alot of those "supercars"(nvm supercars, alot of "economy" autos do as well) come with some pretty nice stock A/V systems included in the price(and include navigation etc).

And probably have a few grand left over too.

Jin: this is a fantasic lil qute you have in your signature. I can say back years ago when I first started selling and installing all this "high end" equipment that I without question fully fell into the first part of the statement. Over the years and experiences I can now say that I more lean towards the second part of this.

In some ways I can even admit to being a bit jaded on high end home AV market due to the political, selling practices and the end cost to the consumer thats been around for decades, but I am not against some of the high dollar items, far from it. But I think that I am alot more selective in what I like and at what pricepoint. Alot of times it goes against the grain of what alot of others think and feel. But I feel its good to get the other side out in the open on the opinion of what constitutes quality. WHich is why I suggested the OP spend a few bucks on some test equipment and gear to see what they were really capable of before plunging into his next set permanently. It was also stated that not everyone wants to modify an item that was $$$ money either, I agree with this in many ways as well, but if you knew you could improve the performance out of them wouldn't that intrigue you enough to look into it or explore the option? Why leave untapped potential go to waste?

The other weekend when I head these: http://www.clearwaveloudspeaker.com/...mphonia7R.html a minamilist 2 way monitor, I was 100% impressed. Not just in the sound, but the build quality, the little touches etc. 100% bone stock. I almost bought a pair on the spot, and still am debating going back for a second listen and possible pickup. But the $4k price was just like hitting a brick wall. 10-15 years ago this wouldn't have been the case. But finding a product like this I feel is not as easy as it sounds. I think its pretty dissapointing that you can spend thousands of dollars and still not get a true top notch quality product. Not just speakers either........any piece of av gear touted as high end, especially after being introduced to alot of DIY setups and what they are capable of for substantially less money. Which is why I tend to be more picky myself and why I bring up and suggest other options and/or ideas. Some people unfortunately take it the wrong way, since I don't always sugarcoat the presentation in my own postings.

Regardless, yes there are great products(albeit at steep prices)out there no question about it, but I think it warrants taking time to learn and explore all the options available.

Like my Kef XQ20's? $2k for the pair retail. Would I have paid that for them? Never. But they looked, sounded and were built/designed well enough(to me)with alot of untapped potential that warranted me to pick them up for nearly a quarter of the price and with a few simple mods were able to get me exactly what I wanted after doing alot of research, demoing/testing on my own.

You're missing the point. I was talking about a 200K+ car that has 24K car parts in it.

Well, then thats what smart shopping is all about. You would never catch me buying an Acura, which is nothing more than a rebadged Honda with a much bigger pricetag in alot of respects. Not all "supercars" though are repackaged/rebranded items.

You know I was interested in the Symphonia 72R but it uses the same RAAL as the Sierra towers. The specs are probably similar and as flat too. I wish someone would have listened to both to be able to justify the 3x price difference...

Im sure the tweeter is or near identical........but the Accuton drivers are really nice. I see so many people always gawk and talk about "tweeters", but seem to always bypass the fact that the most important driver is the one that covers the majority of the frequency spektrum the midrange/midbass driver.

Haven't heard the 72R, but the 7R's cabinet is 2" thick all sides, plus heavy bracng, full wood veneer, plus bamboo/birch ply inner on request. One thing I noticed, no resonation could be noticed with my hands placed on it at any volume level. Its built well without question. But its double the price of the Sierra tower as well, and 4x the price of Sierra's monitor which I do have experience with. Is it worth it? Its without question built better and has that luxury aura the Sierra doesnt have, but with the extra $3k saved, Im sure I could put the money into some other audio equipment to get the Sierra 1 monitor to sound as good or better with ease.

^ Exactly my thought. Those slim Sierra towers has less resonance than other towers I've owned so I figured the 72R's advantage would only be on the drivers. IF that's even can be proven to be "better" instead of different sounding.

Way OT...


Depends. If you are going to buy the fully-loaded Honda with a bunch of options, it might be cheaper to buy the Acura with those things standard. That was the case for me over a decade ago anyway when a fully loaded Civic cost more than the comparable Acura with still more features standard.

Curious.......ever think about a high quality set of monitors(regardless of whatever brand you choose) and sub combo instead of the towers? You will get better performance(Optimal placement for bass and soundstage imaging), and total cost will probably be a bit less too. Tower speakers IMO = compromise, and normally end up costing quite a bit more.

That's the approach I'm looking at, although in a slightly lower price range. Something like the Selah Tempesta or Salk Soundscape M7. 3 for the L/C/R. Raal tweeter, Accuton Mid and Scanspeak Illuminator Woofer in the Selah.

I auditioned a pair along with 1038be's, decided to go with 1038be's and pocket the difference. The 1038Be's are as good as the Studio2's imho. Both are incredible speakers. For the difference in cost you could add a sub or 2 to the 1038's. The 1038's are also quite a bit more efficient than the Revels which will factor into cost of amplification options.

Also as far as looks the 1038's mop the floor with the Studio2's, imho of course! You might also want to see if you can find some Monitor Audio PL300's to audition.. maybe even some ELAC FS249 Black Editions or Wilson Sasha W/P... the fun thing is you are at a pricepoint with no shortage of amazing options! Enjoy the hunt!

Is this true though really? If a monitor + sub combo is the best possible setup then why do they keep making those towers...

Alot of people just like the aesthetics and simplicity of towers better than a set of stand mounted monitors and subs. I personally think a high quality set of stand mounted monitors and matching subs though look so much better. But regardless if SQ is your ultimate goal, then a pair of high quality monitors coupled with a sub or preferably subs, will give you multiple advantages.

A. With stand mounted monitors, you can now focus soley on optimal imaging and soundstage presentation WITHOUT also having to worry about trying to get best in room bass response as well. Case in point, my Revel Salon's, even in the moderate sized room I use(used, since they are broken down in pieces currently) them in the optimal placement for midrange imaging would leave 2 frequency bumps and one large dip in the bass region. I found to even partially smooth them out via placement, they would be set too far apart and imaging would suffer tremendously, and the soundstage would pull too far to the right(left side has opening to another room) and have a hollow point just right of center. Using a set of monitors in the same room and pair of subs I was able to get a perfectly centered imaging with rock solid instrument placement. THe bass was also perfectly optomized for the room as well since both subs were able to be seperatly placed in positions that allowed for perfectly smooth in room response as well.

This right here is the biggest advantage and its a HUGE one.

B. Cost, normally I find that the monitor version of a specific speaker line can be nearly half price or even less sometimes than the same lines "tower" offering or offerings. WIth that money saved you can normally get far superior powered active subs and still save money in the long run.

C. Flexibility: With powered subs you now have dedicated amps for each sub, therefore relieving your main amp of the need to play "full range", which in turn can gain you a little bit in dynamics and headroom only having the need to play a limited bandwidth. Also, since now your running active subs you have much more control of fine tuning of the sub frequencies, phase, level, xover points, even EQ of the sub frequencies all can be fine tuned to your room and monitors for best response. Your not stuck with a tower's "passive" bass system, not only in terms of placement as mentioned previously, but in terms of system tailored response directly with your monitors and rooms own abilities.

Alot of times tower speakers will be lined with multiple smaller 6",7" or 9" drivers that just don't have the displacement of a good dedicated sub, and displacement is key when hitting those low frequencies cleany unless you have a gigantic passive box in the tower, most times though the big tower speakers are still tuned to somewhere in the 30-40hz range thus still lacking that last true octave in response performance.

Most speaker mfg's have a monitor version of their tower speakers, and they use the same quality drivers, cabinets, and xover parts. Towers are normally nothing more than a monitor "head" thats combined with a passive bass box instead of a stand.

Ive had the pleasure of selling, installing and hearing some of the "best"(in terms of paid advertisement)speakers mass mfg'd over the past 2 decades, and the best sounding and true full range setups involved high quality monitors and dedicated subwoofers. There are very good tower speakers out there too(and a few came darn close to reproducing the total sound of a sub/sat combo, dont get me wrong, but all of them has always left me feeling that there was something missing here or there.......always.

Veda: Those 718's are very good performing monitors on their own......too bad you haven't gotten a chance to pair them up with a set of quality subs flanking them. That 107 definetly does not even come close to qualifying.

I've auditioned both Studio2 & Salon2. The only difference was more bass output from Salon2. But for most 2.0 music, you probably won't even notice the difference unless they were side-by-side. Both have Beryllium tweeter & Titanium midrange & woofer drivers.

In reference to towers vs bookshelves, there's lot of bass above 80 Hz that larger speakers are better at providing impact for relative to smaller speakers with smaller drivers. The crossover point is way higher than 80 Hz on 2 or 3-way speakers. Nothing wrong with using larger speakers with a sub. I do.

It depends on the monitor in question and your xover points used, but there are plenty of monitors that can easily handle frequencies down to 80hz and lower and do it with authority cleanly at high volumes. I personally have my monitors crossed over at 120hz(24db slope low and highpass to the subs/sats), even though on their own they are able to extend down to 40hz.

Don't know about plenty, but we may not have the same definition of with authority cleanly at high volumes in any case.

In my case Im talking about clean volume levels around 110db in room. Nothing to sneeze at.

110 dB of low bass is easy because that's your sub at work. Play something with mid-bass with your sub off and see if you still reach 110 dB with no compression using small speakers.

Im not talking about low bass, Im talking about my monitors. Room is moderate sized(19x16), moderate efficient 6.5" pointsource monitors with 89db sensitivity roughly driven full range. Accounting for natural room gain its not really that big of a deal. They are capable of playing louder than Ill ever use them for, thats all that matters.

Sure, I just doubt that most small speakers play cleanly at 110 dB without help from the sub. I have a 15 dB head start on you with 104 dB sensitivity. Anyway, enough said.

Im sure alot of small monitors will have some issues, especially if asked to play too deep into the bass frequencies. But my monitors have about 25-30db of clean headroom based off their in room sensitivity and when paired with a good sub system and crossed over in the 120hz region via steep slope. Again, more than enough output for my needs and then some. I know there are plenty of high efficiency speakers capable of alot more output, again though, I dont need total rock concert level volume when I use em, even though I can get close. If I need PA level output, then Ill use my PA rig.

That was my point, if you recall. People keep saying to use small speakers and a sub but forget the mid-bass and rock and pop contain for this application. It's not because you set speakers to small that they have to be small. Mine weight 160 lbs each.

To 110 dB using 2 speakers with 89 dB sensitivity near a wall at 10 feet requires 300 Watts according to http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html, so I doubt that you are not suffering from any compression at that level unless they are rated for 1000W or more, again not typical. The 120 Hz crossover to a sub is rather high and permits the sub's localization and limiting its placement to the front stage; again not typical. Starting with 104 dB sensitivity, I can do the same with under 10 Watts, so no compression, and still cross over at 40 or 60 Hz.

If i had $10k it would be danley synergy horns in a second. When it comes to power response in a room most of the stuff mentioned here is going to suck. No consideration for directivity = bad power response = bad sound.

Unless youre listening in an anechoic chamber.

Using your plug in calculator for my room and setup, I get exactly 110db. Its actually pretty spot on. And its basically what my spl meter(very accurate)reads when running my monitors full range on various testing material. But when you high pass my monitors at 120hz and let a pair of subs take over the frequencies from 120hz down, I gain an extra 3-6db of clean output. Your also right about the power requirements which is about what my amplifier puts out.....200-300 watts rms in the 8-4ohm range which is the rough variance of my speakers impedance curve.

As for the subs higher than norm xover point, no localization at all, they are downfiring units, work well with higher xover points, and the high/low pass are steep 24db slopes, not the typical 12db slopes most people have built into their AVR's and subs which allows me to cross over higher with less signal bleed through between the mid and bass drivers.

Again though. In my setup and in my room properly tuned, I am able to get live concert type output at maximum volume. But thats not the levels I listen at. I mean a loud motorcycle is still around 100db, which is 10db down still from the upper volume limits of my system. Even at 90db volume listening to music your talking about having to YELL in a room to hold a conversation. And thats right about the loudest I play at RMSwise in reality.....1-2 watts rms with tons of dynamic headroom.....exactly what the speakers design intention was in terms of output and a great fit for a medium sized room. So in reality, at the volumes I listen to there is any audible compression, or even at 100db. At 110-115db which is basically the limits of my system in room? If we are talking quick dynamic bursts from real content and not controlled test tones/signals etc I doubt the compression is audible if there is any, but its right at its able limit with minimal distortion and compression without question.