Audition # 4
Saturday morning at 4 a.m. began the beginning of a 20 hour roundtrip (of driving) to Craig(sub)'s home to partake in the first tier of a blind floor standing speaker get together. Although we immediately hit an unexpected detour in downtown Miwaukee, underwent a flat tire, had to sleep at a crappy motel with the worst beds on the planet, and had to wear the same cloths for about 40 hours, the trip was well worth it.
We arrived at Craig's home at just about 3 p.m. Eastern Time on the button. What a beautiful home Craig has!! We were greeted by Mr. Chase himself and a very large, friendly dog named Tex. After being introduced to Craig's wonderful family (especially his sweet wife), it was time to begin the listening tests. We were encouraged to make ourselves at home and get familiarized with the score sheets while Craig set everything up. After a few minutes we were called down into the mancave.
We each chose one of three available seats (of which we remained for all 6 rounds while listening) and got comfortable. To ensure a true blind test occurred we sat in complete darkness minus the small glow of the front end gear LED's. The speaker grill material was also placed over the speakers being listening to, just in case our eyes adjusted to allow us to be clued into what speakers were playing. All audio gear was McIntosh (plenty of juice to ensure no clipping, odd distortion or compression occurred).
The audition material consisted of a live Jazz-like piece that was heavy on the female vocals but was also a truly perfect song to determine the speaker's ability to achieve proper microdynamics and separation of instruments. The second part of the audition material consisted of the same CD that AJ (my brother), Justin and I spliced together before we started our auditions a few weeks ago. We used an audio program to cut and splice our favorite parts from our favorite songs into one 19 minute track. It consisted of some heavy rock/metal (in order to test dynamics and bass slam), classic rock, heavy piano and vocal based music such as Josh Groban and Live and some progressive rock (a good genre to test separation of instruments). It should be noted that much of the progressive and heavy rock had a ton of classical influence, sometimes even sound as if a symphony was playing along with the band. All in all the audition tracks pretty much covered all the bases that we wanted.
While listening to the first set of speakers I was pleasantly surprised. They had good separation of instruments, a lush midrange and decent bass. The middle to upper frequencies may have been a bit forward, but not too bad. Bass extension was decent, but could have gone lower. The soundstage was pretty decent and gave me the they are here feeling. I thought to myself Heck, these are the first pair of speakers5 to go, and I wouldn't mind just taking these home with me. They were certainly musical but could have had tighter bass. I was certainly impressed, but being as they were the first speakers and much comparing was ahead, I knew it was plausible that they probably wouldn't remain at the head of the pack (I was for the most part wrong).
Being as this was the first speaker we had audition blind, I tried to use it as a reference and go back to it when comparing to the others. It remained the reference speaker until the third round.
After each round we were sent upstairs so we could fill out our score sheets while Craig got the next pair ready. Each category had a maximum of 10 points and a minimum of zero (0 being the worst and 10 being the best). Without giving out scores we all agreed that speaker #1 (whatever brand it was) was a good one to start with. It did many tings well and only a few wrong. Of course, after listening to the other 5 we knew that our perceptions could change, but stillgood stuff.
Here are my scores as indicated after the first round of listening:
Definition - 8.0
Continuity of Soundstage - 7.5
Width of Soundstage - 7.0
Impression of Width/Depth - 7.5
Abnormal Effects - 1.5 (lower is better)
Ambiance-Spaciousness - 8.5
Dynamics - 8.0
Overall Rating - 7.8 (averaged and rounded without the abnormal effects score)
Speaker number 1 was the Swan Diva 6.2's run full range in stereo mode.
This is certainly a good speaker for the price. If it had a little more bass depth and tightness it would have scored higher marks. Even though I had read that the tweeter used on the Swans is a poor performer, this is not how I felt. And even if this is true, the engineering made up for it because it was not evident during the listening tests.
Round two commenced and not even 3 minutes into it and I began to get squeamish and fidgety. The high frequency of this speaker was piercing and shrill. The midrange, though not as forward as the upper frequency, was still overpowering and very un-engaging. There was virtually no bass depth or punch. Needless to say this made it difficult to hear the separation of instruments, especially when a half dozen were playing at once. Voices sound thin and too in your face; there was nothing lush or captivating about it. Although the treble was so overpowering and forward, the speakers still lacked detail, especially subtle nuances. The soundstage was small; very easy to determine where the sound was coming from. When pushed to higher levels, they sounded thinner - worse. This speaker proved to be the worst rated speaker of the day.
Here are my scores pertaining to the second round of speakers:
Definition - 5.0
Continuity of Soundstage - 3.0
Width of Soundstage - 2.5
Impression of Width/Depth - 2.5
Abnormal Effects - 4.5 (lower is better)
Ambiance-Spaciousness - 5.5
Dynamics - 5.5
Overall Rating - 4.0 (averaged and rounded without the abnormal effects score)
Speaker number 2 was the Acculine A3 run full range in stereo mode.
While up stairs writing down my thoughts on this speaker I remember thinking to myself Oh manplease God don't let those be the Rocket 850 Sig's that I planned on taking home. Fortunately, they weren't, but I didn't know this until many hours later. In lieu of the above, I cannot recommend this speaker to anyone, though please remember they were the cheapest pair of the group.
It was time for round three and we were all eager to get swinging. Much to my delight this speaker immediately made me forget my worries about the former speaker. This speaker had the best midbass slam and reached the deepest of all the speakers listened to thus far, something of quite the opposite of the Acculine A3. The midrange was engaging and slightly warm and the treble was airy and detailed but in no way fatiguing. This speaker had good separation of instruments with no details being overlooked. I would describe this speaker overall as very balanced. This was the first speaker that, with certain tracks, sent chills down my spine and made the hair on my arms and the back of my neck stand up, especially while listening to the Josh Groban piece. I knew I could relax and listen to this speaker all day long. It was also the most dynamic speaker of the day thus far (when cranked, it just kept going without compressing or sounding thin or harsh). At the end of the round we all agreed we had heard and felt bass that we hadn't thus far. So far this speaker gave the fullest sound.
At this point the three of us would have been happy to take speakers 1 or 3 home. This isn't to say they were perfect, just the best so far with speaker number 3 having the slight edge in overall performance.
Here are my scores pertaining to the third round of speakers:
Definition - 8.0
Continuity of Soundstage - 8.0
Width of Soundstage - 7.5
Impression of Width/Depth - 7.5
Abnormal Effects - 1.5 (lower is better)
Ambiance-Spaciousness - 8.0
Dynamics - 9.5
Overall Rating - 8.1 (averaged and rounded without the abnormal effects score)
Speaker number 3 was the Onix Rocket 850 Signature. Edit: AV123 is a crooked company, as the President is now serving jail time for stealing supposed charity money. Buyer beware!
After enjoying some refreshments it was time for round 4. From the beginning this speaker was very engaging. It had my utmost attention from song 1 and it kept getting better from there. This was the most detailed speaker of the bunch with a midrange that took second to none in the clarity department. Every detail was reproduced but clearer than any of the other speakers so far. Separation of instruments was a cinch. Near the middle of our listening session (perhaps 10 minutes in) I started to feel that this speaker was this engaging because it may have a slight forwardness to the midrange. Whatever it was, I didn't mind it at all but came to the conclusion that it may not be for everyone (some may get fatigued by it). However, I really did love how every detail was present without having to strain or really focus to hear it. Whether this was an accurate presentation or not, I don know. What I do know is that I liked it. Moving on to bass: this was the one area that I was a little disappointed in. The bass was tight and fairly balanced, but it didn't extend low or have that midbass slam that the third speaker did. If this speaker would have had that attribute, it may have won by more than it did (this could have been the room acoustics at play, though). My other quandary with this speaker was that they lost some of their magicality when pushed to higher levels (very loud). However, if you don't listen at ridiculous reference levels this may not be an issue. Also, when paired with a sub it may be resolved.
Here are my scores pertaining to the forth round of speakers:
Definition - 9.0
Continuity of Soundstage - 8.5
Width of Soundstage - 8.5
Impression of Width/Depth - 8.5
Abnormal Effects - 1.5 (lower is better)
Ambiance-Spaciousness - 9.0
Dynamics - 8.0
Overall Rating - 8.6 (averaged and rounded without the abnormal effects score)
Speaker number 4 was the Salk Song Tower run full range in stereo mode.
Yup, Craig fibbed about what speakers were going to be involved just to keep us honest. I remember while listening to the Salk's thinking hmmthese don't sound anything like I've read concerning the speakers that Craig said would be involved. In the end, they were a pleasant surprise. I was shocked by their mere asking price of $1500. Congrats, Jim; you have a fine product on your hands.
After a short 5 minute break our second to last round was underway. The very first apparent thing was that these speakers now took the deepest and most impactfull bass title away from contender # 3, though not by a lot. The bass line on the jazz piece just sounded right. My friend plays a string bass and it sounded most realistic on this speaker (which was what I previously had thought about speaker # 3). The difference between 3 and 5 wasn't huge, but the bass extended a little lower and was slightly more impactfull. It made for a very full sound. While listening to the next series of spliced tracks the speakers almost gave me a feel that they weren't floor standers but rather a pair of bookshelf's crossed over to a subwoofer. Justin was actually the first to make this deduction, one of which I was believed more and more the longer we listened. The reason we both felt this is because the midrange seemed to have a suckout, perhaps at the crossover point. The mids weren't as engaging and didn't present an open and large soundstage. When I focused it was impossible to try to determine where the singer may have been on stage. Finally, the vocals came from a small window between the speakers; if I moved my head left or right it quickly shifted in that direction. This made for a small soundstage and less than ideal imaging (in comparison to the other contenders). Lastly, the treble was not too hot nor too laid back, but it just didn't give me an I'm there feeling. It almost seemed to come from behind the midrange and bass, as if the tweeter was placed further back in the listening room.
Here are my scores pertaining to the fifth round of speakers:
Definition - 7.5
Continuity of Soundstage - 7.5
Width of Soundstage - 7.0
Impression of Width/Depth - 8.0
Abnormal Effects - 1.5 (lower is better)
Ambiance-Spaciousness - 8.0
Dynamics - 8.0
Overall Rating - 7.7 (averaged and rounded without the abnormal effects score)
Speaker number five was the Definitive Technology BP10B.
I was almost sure this was a bookshelf sub combo due to the well tuned bass and slight midrange suckoutI was wrong.
For $1000/pair, they certainly aren't bad at all. In fact, they were my brother's favorite speaker (I'll let him comment on them later).
The last round of the night was an interesting one. When the auditioning began the bass was full and big, but the mid's and treble sounded lifeless and recessed. Perhaps the bass overpowered them. While continuing to listen we found ourselves talking amongst each other because the mechanical sound coming before us wasn't engaging. A word that I used to summarize these speakers was stale. We all agreed they weren't very impressive but that the gobs of bass may have added to that. After the contenders were revealed we gave speaker # 6 another listen after better fine tuning the subwoofer. They certainly sounded better than before, but they were still stale and fairly un-engaging. We just couldn't get into them especially after listening to a sub $200 pair of bookshelf speakers that defeated speaker # 6 in dynamics, clarity and overall appeal. These were certainly a disappointment; however they didn't quite meet the criteria of the floor standing speaker GTG (an explanation of that below).
Here are my scores pertaining to the sixth round of speakers:
Definition - 6.5
Continuity of Soundstage - 7
Width of Soundstage - 7
Impression of Width/Depth - 7
Abnormal Effects - 3.5 (lower is better)
Ambiance-Spaciousness - 6
Dynamics - 7
Overall Rating - 6.8 (averaged and rounded without the abnormal effects score)
Speaker number six was the NHT classic 2 crossed over to an eight inch subwoofer.
After the listening tests the speakers were revealed with my favorite being the Salk Song Towers. I think we were all shocked at how poor the Acculines and NHT's performed, which is one reason were gave the NHT's another listen. While they did sound better after some careful tuning, they still left us uninterested. If I had to re-score them they would receive a 6.5 or so overall.
While having to deal with a flat tire, cheap hotel, minimal sleep, a $110 tire replacement and our entire Sunday being ruined sounds terrible, the trip was well worth it for me; I consider it a success. Meeting Craig and his family was truly a pleasure! And his homewow; what a beautiful place to be! It's one of the nicest homes I have stepped foot in.
To conclude, I really enjoyed our road trip. Things certainly got a little hairy, but now we have fun stories to tell.
I now have a system in my home that will keep me more than satisfied until I one day find my perfect system (I think/hope Justin will say the same thing as he took home a pair of Rocket 760's and a Bigfoot center channel). AJ now knows what speaker to save up for, so I am sure he'll start squandering what he has until that day comes. Within our stated price range of $1500 or less for speakers, ID really does offer an amazing bang for buck. I would certainly choose the Salk Song Towers over the Paradigm Studio 100's I auditioned a few weeks back. And oh, what's this? They are quite a bit cheaper too! It's good to know that I can put my faith in some of the ID offerings, even if it does mean I'll be called a fan boy of that brand. Say what you like, but I've put a lot of time into this hobby, not to mention a lot of miles, and I can safely say that the Salk Song Towers and the Swan 6.2's are the real deal.
Thanks for taking the time to read this insanely long post.
Things to note before I take off:
I gave each speaker a 1.5 for abnormal effects simply because all speakers exhibit distortion and none are perfect. I used 1.5 as the basic maximum and minimum unless that particular speaker exhibited some out of the ordinary stuff. And in all honesty, I have only heard one speaker that simply disappeared and gave me the sense that I was truly experiencing the artist rather than their reproduction. In lieu of all this, 1.5 was the base line. I probably should have used .05 or 1.0, though, but that rating wasn't factored into the overall score anyway. Take it how you want to.
It's amazing how honest a blind test will keep you. No, it wasn't leveled matched, but we didn't care. All the speaker's strong suits (and most of their faults) were still very apparent whether we listened at 60dB or 90dB. In fact, this was part of the scoring (micro vs. macro dynamics). Upon re-listening to a few of the speakers under sited conditions, our impressions didn't change. There was no bias whatsoever! IMO, it's a great way to find a speaker that is right for you without letting the unimportant things get in the way (such as brands). Sure, I realize that some brands have better reputations than others, but does it really matter if the speakers are perfect for you?
Feel free to check and perhaps correct the math involved in my scoring. I am really out of it right now, so there may be an error or two.
Finally, this hobby is a great way to meet and make new friends. I strongly encourage you to either host or partake in a GTG such as this. I have no regrets or reservations and would love to attend future GTG's. This hobby is great, but the relationships you build because of it are even better.
Okaymy head hurts. Time to get some rest
P.S. - Edit: Having had the opportunity to listen to all of these speakers again, either at Craig's or in another room entirely, I have adjusted the scores. Room interaction played a role when auditioning at Craig's, thus I felt it necessary to update the scores based on what I heard there and in other rooms/showrooms.
) and so it got me to thinking about how that maps to the way I hear various speakers.
