or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Best speakers (stereo) around ~$3000?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best speakers (stereo) around ~$3000? - Page 2

post #31 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Manufacturers do take nearfield measurements, though, and that's how they get their bass response specifications. Just because they don't post them on their website doesn't mean they are being dishonest, which is what Rick Craig is claiming, and is completely incorrect concerning; they don't post them because the room dictates how low the speakers can reach in your room.

I'm not sure that is fair, because all measurements, FR, sensitivity, etc. are taken in an anechoic or quasi-anehoic environment. How else do you verify anything?

Certainly, third party is best.
post #32 of 119
@ac500...

no matter what you buy, it's going to be "different" than cans...

i have "pretty good speakers" (salk ht2-tl's) and "pretty good cans" (grado ps1000's)... they are two completely different experiences...
post #33 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

I'm not sure that is fair, because all measurements, FR, sensitivity, etc. are taken in an anechoic or quasi-anehoic environment. How else do you verify anything?
Certainly, third party is best.

I agree, I was simply speaking of near field measurements concerning bass depth. The room has such an influence in that regard, and that is my point. It's not like Salk and Ascend don't take those measurements.
post #34 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by ac500 View Post

I'll deal with treatment later I guess, assuming that's not inseparably tied to speaker selection.
Unfortunately, they are inseparably tied to speaker selection, just like abject ignorance of perception and acoustics (and blissful willingness to demonstrate so) is inseparably tied to audio forums.
Best of luck:)

cheers,

AJ
post #35 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

I'm not sure that is fair, because all measurements, FR, sensitivity, etc. are taken in an anechoic or quasi-anehoic environment. How else do you verify anything?
Certainly, third party is best.

I agree, I was simply speaking of near field measurements concerning bass depth. The room has such an influence in that regard, and that is my point. It's not like Salk and Ascend don't take those measurements.
Ok. I thought this was about verifying bass response.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
post #36 of 119
I would recommend a pair of Legacy Audio Studio HD speakers (about $1,500 pr depending on finish option), and spend the rest of the money on a pair of solid speaker stands and room treatments at the first reflection points in the room.
500500
In room, they are spec'd 41Hz -30 kHz. The Studio HD has a 1" neodymium / pleated kapton diaphram ribbon tweeter and an 8" silver-graphite/Rohacell backed woofer. It is a rear ported design with 93 dB sensitivity, and is 4 ohm rated, so it will play nice in either tube or solid state systems. There are two switches on the back that you can use to tailor the sound to your room and taste. One trims tweeter output above 10 kHz by 2 dB, and the other trims bass below 60 Hz by 2 dB, which can be used when mating the Studio HD with a subwoofer, or if there is too much bass in your room.

Of course, if you want or need more bass extension, you can always add a subwoofer later, or step up to one of Legacy's floor standing models. Please let me know if you have any questions. biggrin.gif
post #37 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

That being said, Floyd Toole says the room dominates the response below the Schroeder Frequency
He stated a great deal more about what should happen above the Schroeder Frequency in consumer living rooms too, based on a compilation of researchers and his own double blind controlled tests. It conflicts directly with the recommendations of the majority of forum posters and their anecdotes.
But then again, this is an audio board. May the loudest fanclub win biggrin.gif.

cheers,

AJ
post #38 of 119
Using a claimed in room bass response as a spec is a marketing gimmick. Proximity to boundaries, and room dimensions will determine what the actual in room response is. It is safe to assume the majority of people will not have the same placement/dimensions, so it is not safe to claim the in room response is an accurate spec.
post #39 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1 View Post

Using a claimed in room bass response as a spec is a marketing gimmick. Proximity to boundaries, and room dimensions will determine what the actual in room response is. It is safe to assume the majority of people will not have the same placement/dimensions, so it is not safe to claim the in room response is an accurate spec.

Exactly.
post #40 of 119
Hi-

Since you state it's for a small room I would really consider monitors and a sub. I use monitors in a medium size living room and a sub and I love them. My living room set-up would be over your budget but I do think you would find something from Dynaudio if you can audition. Focal is also very nice. I also swear by REL subs when using monitors but once again this is my personal preference.

Another option and might be easier for you to audition at Best Buy is I picked up a pair of Bowers and Wilkins CM5 monitors in piano black for my bedroom and I must say they sound very very nice. I tried the little M1 then took them back. Then CM1 and while music was better than M1 took them back and finally the CM5. They are 8ohm and 88 sensitivty I believe and have a very good warm yet detailed character to them. I also have Sennheiser HD 650 cans so I undestand the sound you seek.They are $1500 a pair and I must say I am very happy with them. I picked up the CMC center today and it is okay but I am used to the Dynaudio in my living room. The CM5 monitors are much better than the smaller CMC center but I wasn't supposed to be turning my bedroom into a second HT. Sometimes I think I am nuts! I am a bit surprised I ended up with Bowers and Wilkins but they were an easy auditon, sounded good for crappy BB and when I got them home even better. A really nice sound in my bedroom. The stands are also little brickhouses for a decent price. A great little total package for the price.

This would leave you with enough for a REL sub wink.gif

I only suggest these as it's an easy audition and like ID a 30 day return policy at BB. I think you would enjoy these based on the Sennheiser phones.Dynaudio if you have a dealer near by...

Good Luck...

Edit: nice looking and really nice sound. A little surprise find for me in this price range.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJjgR5gd6Uc


Rick
Edited by Mr.SoftDome - 6/7/12 at 10:23pm
post #41 of 119
I have to say that I feel the Dynaudio X16s are a better speaker then the CM5. I was comparing the X16s to the CM8s and CM5s when I was shopping, and the bass on the X16s was very comparable to the CM8s, but I felt the X16s were more open and detailed thru the mids and highs; with smoother highs, and less colouration. The only thing I felt the X16s lacked that the CM8s offered was output. I always thought I would own B&W speakers because my dads had his for 15 years, but that didnt happen.

However for $2500ish, the Focus 160s would be a great speaker. Of course as you said, he would have to have a local Dynaudio dealer.
post #42 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by callas01 View Post

I have to say that I feel the Dynaudio X16s are a better speaker then the CM5. I was comparing the X16s to the CM8s and CM5s when I was shopping, and the bass on the X16s was very comparable to the CM8s, but I felt the X16s were more open and detailed thru the mids and highs; with smoother highs, and less colouration. The only thing I felt the X16s lacked that the CM8s offered was output. I always thought I would own B&W speakers because my dads had his for 15 years, but that didnt happen.
However for $2500ish, the Focus 160s would be a great speaker. Of course as you said, he would have to have a local Dynaudio dealer.

That's good to know. I have not heard the Xcite series. I moved from Focus(the original) to Confidence. The Focus are sweet as well. Dynaudio is my favorite but since I was doing a little bedroom set-up I wanted to try somthing different. The CM5 were an easy buy and I like them a lot.

To be honest, what I really wanted to try but once again this second system is for the bedroom is Martin Logan. Kid you not, a couple of years ago I walked into BestBuy for something and there was AC/DC playing loud. Number one, it was odd it was cranked at BB but it sounded fantastic. I had to search out the sound and ugh this is BB. They were Martin Logan's. I can't remember which model but they were around $3K a pair. I loved them. It brought me to this year and I LOVE my Dynaudio Confidence C1s and Center but I did go audition the ML Summits. Nice room. They sounded great but it was not the wow factor of the lower level MLs from a year earlier..These are around $12K a pair. I had expected a nirvana experience with the Summits and I would have considered selling the C1s and Center. It just was not the same sound as Dynaudio despite that little BB memory but on that day those MLs were great!

But I will say to the OP perhaps check out ML at BB. You may be surprised. Try the CM5 as well. If I could have shoe-horned ML in my bedroom I would have been game.

Hear you about Dynaudio but It was fun to try something different in the bedroom. I am very happy with the CM5 thus far.

Rick
post #43 of 119
Man, I love reading about speakers but it is stressful! I think I need to do this after my 5 PM Tom Collins!

I'm also very interested in this price range. Dynaudio, B&W, Totem, Klipsch, Legacy... Would the Ascend Sierras even compete in this category?
post #44 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelkingdom View Post

Man, I love reading about speakers but it is stressful!

Why? How? Sounds exciting to me. biggrin.gif
post #45 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelkingdom View Post

Man, I love reading about speakers but it is stressful! I think I need to do this after my 5 PM Tom Collins!
I'm also very interested in this price range. Dynaudio, B&W, Totem, Klipsch, Legacy... Would the Ascend Sierras even compete in this category?

It's the rest of those speakers that would not even compete with the Ascends (And Philharmonics / LSR 6332s )
post #46 of 119
The Ascend Spring sale definitely has my interest. $700-$900 for their top monitor! 30-day trial... hmm....
post #47 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelkingdom View Post

Man, I love reading about speakers but it is stressful! I think I need to do this after my 5 PM Tom Collins!
I'm also very interested in this price range. Dynaudio, B&W, Totem, Klipsch, Legacy... Would the Ascend Sierras even compete in this category?

The Sierra Towers? Yes, I think they do. I think they're better than Totem and B&W no question, but that's just my opinion. The Sierra Towers and Salk SongTower's are the best two $2000 speakers I've heard. I'd also like to recommend the Philharmonic 2's. I heard a pair that was found to be faulty, which explains what I heard, but they have a great following and stellar measurements.

YMMV, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelkingdom View Post

The Ascend Spring sale definitely has my interest. $700-$900 for their top monitor! 30-day trial... hmm....

If you can swing it go with the Towers - they are much better IMO.
post #48 of 119
As far as smaller speakers go... I'd put some serious consideration into soundfield audio.
post #49 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Measurements are great, and I never said they weren't; they help us weed out the bad from the good. That being said, Floyd Toole says the room dominates the response below the Schroeder Frequency, so why is it necessary to provide a nearfield measurement if the room dominates that region? It doesn't reflect how it will interact in your room. Regardless, said measurements are taken prior the product specs be listed, so all you're claiming is Jim Salk dishonest, which isn't true. In fact, you're the one being dishonest.
It would be great if every manufacturer in the world was held to a standard and was required to provide various measurements, but that's unfortunately not how it works. Salk provides more measurements than most manufacturers, as do a lot of the Internet Direct companies; this is a very good thing. What's not good is your unproven claims mucking up a thread in which someone is looking for speakers. I don't see Jim Salk or Dave Fabricant going into threads and claiming your speakers aren't what you say they are. Most of the ID vendors are men of integrity; you clearly are not.
No one is calling measurements a marketing gimmic. Well, Paul did, but he was talking about nearfiled bass response, mainly because the room dominates the sound below about 200Hz, thus making those measureIments kind of useless to the consumer. Salk provides measurements on their website, as do Ascend. Manufacturers do take nearfield measurements, though, and that's how they get their bass response specifications. Just because they don't post them on their website doesn't mean they are being dishonest, which is what Rick Craig is claiming, and is completely incorrect concerning; they don't post them because the room dictates how low the speakers can reach in your room.
No one likes a liar, and now we're supposed to buy speakers from one (yes, you Rick)? I think not. By the way, Rick, you've been proven time and again that you're wrong about the TL design Salk uses, yet you continue to push the subject. Give it a rest.
ac500,
You need to do what you need to do, but I wouldn't recommend buying speakers from someone who needs to brand bash and spread false rumors in order to gain sales. Customer service is a huge part of what makes a company great, and Selah gets an epic fail from me in that department, especially after this stunt.

If no graphs are shown doesn't imply that the specifications are misleading; however, if you look at the NRC tests on various speakers you'll see that the numbers are often fudged. Graphs can also help buyers compare things like the coverage of a center channel - for example, a horizontal MTM that will have worse off-axis dispersion or another system's impedance that drops too low in the bass making the speaker more difficult to drive for a regular receiver. Providing that kind of information is one indication of the integrity of the manufacturer. Nearfield or groundplane curves closely follow anechoic measurements without the cost of a large dedicated chamber. The advantage to a buyer is that they can compare the performance of two systems without the effects of the room.

A TL is simply a variation on a ported box. If I have been proven wrong then I would like to see some real evidence on how the TL will conquer room modes better than a well-designed ported box (or even a sealed one for that matter). A groundplane measurement of the SCST is all that's needed for a fair comparison to the Verita's bass extension (hint - groundplane is easier because no summing of the port response is needed). To go further (since you claim I'm a liar and lacking integrity) I would suggest looking at the W15's measured TL parameters. I've used the W15 in several systems and it's not the best choice for a ported or TL design. Having worked with Paul Kittinger I know the TL's are very sensitive to parameter variances as well as the amount of series resistance from a passive crossover. The W15 has suspension and motor limiting which will increase compression and disortion at higher levels. The Qts of the driver is much higher than Paul would advise for a TL and makes it better suited for a sealed box. The cone will easily unload when driven with frequencies below the cabinet tuning. A low tuning will also increase the cone excursion, especially at higher levels.

The impedance listed for the SCST is clearly wrong. One woofer has a d.c. resistance of 5.5 ohms, two in parallel would be 2.75 ohms. The crossover will add some resistance from the inductor(s) but not nearly enough to reach the 6 ohms nominal (average) on the Salk website. With the woofer's Q already being fairly high adding too much resistance via the inductors isn't a good thing. Something on the order of 4 ohms nominal and 3-3.5 ohms minimum is more likely as the real system impedance.
post #50 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelkingdom View Post

Man, I love reading about speakers but it is stressful!
Nothing that a few "dancing notes" and a trip down Dale Mabry wouldn't redress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelkingdom View Post

The Ascend Spring sale definitely has my interest. $700-$900 for their top monitor! 30-day trial... hmm....
Please let me know once you get them, then I'll bring down some M1s. Should be nice stress relieving fun.smile.gif

cheers,

AJ
post #51 of 119
rick, i think you should not rate your speaker too conservative, if you rate your speaker more optimistic you certainly will sell more speakers. just a thought.eek.gif
post #52 of 119
You're not worth the time, Rick. We'll leave it to the real professionals to rate their own speakers. Your claims are nothing more than that.
post #53 of 119
The Salk site lists the nominal impedance of the SST as 4 ohms, not 6. The average is 6 ohms, which is boosted by the usual impedance peak below the crossover point. I think the nominal rating of 4 ohms is justified, although I would agree with Rick that the minimum is a little below that. The W15 doesn't have quite as much travel as the non-excel version used in the regular SST, but it definitely goes lower at moderately loud levels.
post #54 of 119
I had the chance to listen to three interesting speakers today. I listened to them on Marantz equipment.

Dynaudio Contour 1.4
Totem Signature 1
NOLA Boxer

I really liked all three for different reasons. The Dynaudio was the most substantial and rich. I would describe the sound as dark and beautiful. The NOLAs were very smooth and easy to listen to but lacking in impact. The Totems were a real surprise. The midrange was amazingly clear and the instruments were separated. Honestly, they were all great speakers.

Then, went home and listened to my BW 805Ns. Those are still my favorites.
post #55 of 119
I see a lot of people recommending speakers that are sold by middlemen(dealers) like Triad and the like. I know these are all reputable brands and make some amazing products. But, can they really match an Ascend, Salk or Philharmonic at this price point? I would think just by the nature of cutting out the middleman you would be getting much higher quality components for your dollar at this price point. I have no clue as this is just speculation as I have not heard any of the speakers suggested. I know if I had $3000 to spend on just 2 speakers that I have never heard myself...I would be going Salk with RAAL ribbon tweeter or the Ascend tower with ribbon tweeter. There are just so many people that speak so highly of these two companies. You can argue all day about the allocation of funds... whether you'd be better off buying 2k speakers and adding a sub. It just all depends if you ever see yourself forking out more dough in the future to add a sub. If so, drop $3k on some nice speakers now. If not, I would spend $2K on speakers and $1K on a sub. Either way, you're on the path to having a badass set-up man. So enjoy the process of looking at speaker porn .
post #56 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Murphy View Post

The Salk site lists the nominal impedance of the SST as 4 ohms, not 6. The average is 6 ohms, which is boosted by the usual impedance peak below the crossover point. I think the nominal rating of 4 ohms is justified, although I would agree with Rick that the minimum is a little below that. The W15 doesn't have quite as much travel as the non-excel version used in the regular SST, but it definitely goes lower at moderately loud levels.

Sorry to drag you into this Dennis. Here's the link for the impedance I noted...

http://salksound.com/songtower%20supercharged%20specifications.htm
post #57 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelkingdom View Post

I had the chance to listen to three interesting speakers today. I listened to them on Marantz equipment.
Dynaudio Contour 1.4
Totem Signature 1
NOLA Boxer
I really liked all three for different reasons. The Dynaudio was the most substantial and rich. I would describe the sound as dark and beautiful. The NOLAs were very smooth and easy to listen to but lacking in impact. The Totems were a real surprise. The midrange was amazingly clear and the instruments were separated. Honestly, they were all great speakers.
Then, went home and listened to my BW 805Ns. Those are still my favorites.

I thought the Kappas were your fav? confused.giftongue.gif
All 3 in same showroom? Size room? Own music?
post #58 of 119
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by benclement11 View Post

I see a lot of people recommending speakers that are sold by middlemen(dealers) like Triad and the like. I know these are all reputable brands and make some amazing products. But, can they really match an Ascend, Salk or Philharmonic at this price point? I would think just by the nature of cutting out the middleman you would be getting much higher quality components for your dollar at this price point. I have no clue as this is just speculation as I have not heard any of the speakers suggested. I know if I had $3000 to spend on just 2 speakers that I have never heard myself...I would be going Salk with RAAL ribbon tweeter or the Ascend tower with ribbon tweeter. There are just so many people that speak so highly of these two companies. You can argue all day about the allocation of funds... whether you'd be better off buying 2k speakers and adding a sub. It just all depends if you ever see yourself forking out more dough in the future to add a sub. If so, drop $3k on some nice speakers now. If not, I would spend $2K on speakers and $1K on a sub. Either way, you're on the path to having a badass set-up man. So enjoy the process of looking at speaker porn .

I agree. If people are recommending products that go through a "middleman", I'd like to know exactly how they can possibly offer something as good as these other companies that are selling them so close to the cost of the parts themselves. I think what I'll do at this point is look into reviews of products by Selah, Salk, Ascend, Philharmonic, etc., or others mentioned here that have extremely high quality components.

Oh, I do have one technical question. Looking at the Sierra Tower for example, I see *four* drivers per tower. How is it possible that this sound quality would compete with something with less speakers? This is a technical question because I don't know how this works. Intuitively it would seem that at a given price range, adding more drivers would have to compromise the quality of the individual drivers.
post #59 of 119
Paradigm Studio 100s are around the $3K price point. I don't think you'll need a sub unless you want a full home theater.
post #60 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

I thought the Kappas were your fav? confused.giftongue.gif
All 3 in same showroom? Size room? Own music?


Yes, all in the same showroom, with my own tunes. The room is slightly larger but I had my same favorite nearfield listening position. 7 feet apart and 7 feet from each speaker.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Best speakers (stereo) around ~$3000?