or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Revel F12 vs QSC KW 153
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Revel F12 vs QSC KW 153 - Page 3

post #61 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BassThatHz View Post

I'll keep what I have...

even on youtube the B&W tweeter sounds the same as when i heard it in person ... like scratching nails on a chalkboard.

i have two pairs of speakers with 1" metal tweeters and both sound metal ... but both sound very different from each other, and from B&W. odd. maybe its the lack of a baffle for the tweeter that makes it sound this way ? the one i listened to had a baffle-less midrange as well.

in any case, are those subs 21" ?
Edited by g1981c - 6/24/12 at 4:56pm
post #62 of 65
Yep, they are 21's.

Sonus Faber Stradivari (the most expensive speaker I've ever heard) wasn't bad overall, it had a nostalgia to its sound, like sipping an expensive Cognac on a rainy day by a cozy cabin fire nook type sound.
Very inviting... but it sounded too warm in the mids and too thick in the bass for my tastes. Not aggressive or bright; more like overly laid back.

Everything in the B&W line below the 804's, sounded like excessively bright, overpriced poop to me.

I've only ever heard of a few brands before: Sonus faber, Paradigm, Klipsch, Polk, Energy and B&W. So I'm no expert. I should expand my horizons before my next upgrade.

By comparison, the B&Ws sound very analytical and transparent, almost to the point of being overly sterile, they tend to be extremely aggresive, and totally unforgiving of source and upstream equipment.
Overall they are not an inviting speaker to listen to most of the time, I can totally understand why that drives many people away from them.
post #63 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BassThatHz View Post

Yep, they are 21's.
Sonus Faber Stradivari (the most expensive speaker I've ever heard) wasn't bad overall, it had a nostalgia to its sound, like sipping an expensive Cognac on a rainy day by a cozy cabin fire nook type sound.
Very inviting... but it sounded too warm in the mids and too thick in the bass for my tastes. Not aggressive or bright; more like overly laid back.
Everything in the B&W line below the 804's, sounded like excessively bright, overpriced poop to me.
I've only ever heard of a few brands before: Sonus faber, Paradigm, Klipsch, Polk, Energy and B&W. So I'm no expert. I should expand my horizons before my next upgrade.
By comparison, the B&Ws sound very analytical and transparent, almost to the point of being overly sterile, they tend to be extremely aggresive, and totally unforgiving of source and upstream equipment.
Overall they are not an inviting speaker to listen to most of the time, I can totally understand why that drives many people away from them.

I think you summed up Sonus Faber vs B&W well. I heard them 5 minutes apart and had the exact same impression - Sonus Faber was liquid smooth but overly warm and with less than tight bass ( driven by valve amps ). B&W sounded much more like a studio monitor than an audiophile speaker - more "accurate" but also harder to enjoy ( was driven by some solid state stuff ).

It's funny how some reviewers ( even more than a decade ago ) write that today high end is so good that they are all basically perfect ... what nonsense smile.gif Certainly that is true of wires, it may be true of the higher-end electronics ... but not of anything that has moving parts in it.

If you have never heard Martin Logan you may want to check them out. But they must be driven with a good amp - i know that's a cliche but with these i think it is actually true - probably has to do with capacitive impedance load. When i heard them on a regular receiver they sounded like a completely different speaker compared to when i heard them on a proper amp. On a good amp they almost combined the smoothness of Sonus with the brightness of B&W. There was still room for improvement in the bass though.

also may be impossible to use Martin Logan in the same setup with 21" subs as they might modulate the membrane into hitting the stators. this is the main reason why i'm not seriously thinking about electrostatic options - because i really loved the sound.

I think we may still in the future experience a system that is going to be an order of magnitude better sounding than anything we have heard - and i don't mean an order of magnitude in terms of specs - but in terms of actual experience. I think it should be possible for a system to sound SOBER as good, or ALMOST as good as a decent system sounds when stoned smile.gif
post #64 of 65
The Thiel cs3.7 is near the top of my "must hear" list, it's a bit ugly looking but from the youtube videos I've heard of them playing, it could be a potential replacement candidate.
I've heard of ML and I've seen one in person, but never heard one play (other than youtube); it's also on my list of things to hear.

As for pro speakers, the Pioneer 2401 and 2402 are really good, but the Rey Audio rm-7v's are that much better. They are also "must hear" products.
post #65 of 65
To the OP:

So it's been about a year...did you ever end up pulling the trigger on the QSC KW153's or the JBL 590's? If so, then I would be very interested to hear about it.

I have my home theater in a large basement room almost 50' long, so I need big speakers. I was using a pair of budget KUSTOM KPC15 2-way 15" PA speakers for my mains, but I recently switched to Klipsch RF-7 Classics with the RC-7 center. The Klipsch are nice, but I got a good deal on them, so if necessary I could flip them for a profit if I decided that I might be happier with the QSC KS153's or the JBL 590's. Those are both speakers that I was looking at before I found the deal on the RF-7's.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Revel F12 vs QSC KW 153