AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

My ears are not particularly happy with the sound I'm getting from my setup despite playing around with all the settings... I feel like I'm not getting an appreciable mid-range, (if that's the term?) . Music often either seems too treble-y, or too bassy, depending on the source material.

 

I have an HK - AVR-1600, connected to a old small pair of Energy EX:L 15 speakers, and an EX 8inch subwoofer, which I use to listen to a range of music, from classical instrumental to classic rock, with this 2.1 setup.  The room size is about 16ft/20ft.

 

I was considering going to my local big-box store (I'm in Canada) and picking up a pair of Energy CF-30's or 50's to replace the EX:L's.  -as they are in my wife-imposed budget. I'd continue running the eX sub.

 

Would buying these larger speakers be the right path to take, or are there any other considerations I've overlooked? I'd appreciate any comments!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,062 Posts
the CF-30 or preferably the CF-50s are better speakers than your EX:L15 speakers.


The easiest way to get better sound would be with better speakers so you should see a significant improvement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by screener  /t/1495738/not-happy-with-sound-looking-for-basic-advice-any-takers#post_23857390


What crossover setting are you using?
 

 I've experimented between 80 and 100.. haven't found a "sweet spot" that has worked for my ears, anyway. Would you recommend I try out of that range?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by afrogt  /t/1495738/not-happy-with-sound-looking-for-basic-advice-any-takers#post_23857358


the CF-30 or preferably the CF-50s are better speakers than your EX:L15 speakers.


The easiest way to get better sound would be with better speakers so you should see a significant improvement.
 

 That was my initial thought - that perhaps the combination of a small speaker and a sub just doesn't do enough to replace the range of a floorstanding speaking for my ears.. so you figure the CF-50's are worth the extra $? I hope my receiver is strong enough to power them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,858 Posts
With as little power that your AVR puts out, I would go with the 30's. That is unless you plan to get something with a lot more oomph later on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool  /t/1495738/not-happy-with-sound-looking-for-basic-advice-any-takers#post_23860944


With as little power that your AVR puts out, I would go with the 30's. That is unless you plan to get something with a lot more oomph later on.
The 30's are 90db sensitive. The 50s are 96db sensitive. If you are worried about 60w being too little, you'd want the CF-50.


To get the same volume the 50 gets with 60w (about 114db BTW) with the CF-30 would require 240w
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,420 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flark33  /t/1495738/not-happy-with-sound-looking-for-basic-advice-any-takers#post_23857331


My ears are not particularly happy with the sound I'm getting from my setup despite playing around with all the settings... I feel like I'm not getting an appreciable mid-range, (if that's the term?) . Music often either seems too treble-y, or too bassy, depending on the source material.


I have an HK - AVR-1600, connected to a old small pair of Energy EX:L 15 speakers, and an EX 8inch subwoofer, which I use to listen to a range of music, from classical instrumental to classic rock, with this 2.1 setup.  The room size is about 16ft/20ft.


I was considering going to my local big-box store (I'm in Canada) and picking up a pair of Energy CF-30's or 50's to replace the EX:L's.  -as they are in my wife-imposed budget. I'd continue running the eX sub.


Would buying these larger speakers be the right path to take, or are there any other considerations I've overlooked? I'd appreciate any comments!

Your best price performance for sound quality improvement would come from improvements to room acoustics, possible changes to speaker placement, system tuning, and a better subwoofer.


Your basic symptom - " Music often either seems too treble-y, or too bassy, depending on the source material." suggests that system response in the room is uneven. This is often due to room acoustics including excess reflections and standing waves.


Check this out:

http://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/listening-room-acoustics-1
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,491 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flark33  /t/1495738/not-happy-with-sound-looking-for-basic-advice-any-takers#post_23857331


I'd continue running the eX sub.
That's the weakest link in your system, so it should be the first thing to replace, once you've made sure of your room acoustics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,858 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove  /t/1495738/not-happy-with-sound-looking-for-basic-advice-any-takers#post_23862923


The 30's are 90db sensitive. The 50s are 96db sensitive. If you are worried about 60w being too little, you'd want the CF-50.


To get the same volume the 50 gets with 60w (about 114db BTW) with the CF-30 would require 240w
I'm skeptical of the claimed sensitivity. There are quite a few manufacturers out there that artificialy inflate their specs. Here's a quote from one of the CF-70's reviews:
Quote:
The CF-70 presents a nominal 8 ohm load with a very high 96dB efficiency. However, the CF-70 didn't perform well with average power sources, and the sound improved a lot with better quality power. In other words, the performance and power needs ran counter to the 96dB rating. Adjust your power sources accordingly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool  /t/1495738/not-happy-with-sound-looking-for-basic-advice-any-takers#post_23864905


I'm skeptical of the claimed sensitivity. There are quite a few manufacturers out there that artificialy inflate their specs. Here's a quote from one of the CF-70's reviews:
It doesn't matter. Both specs are from the same manufacturer for the same line of speakers.


Unless you believe they lied on one (by 6db) and then didn't lie on the other; the comparison remains valid.


Lacking specific evidence: I will assert that Energy used the same standard for determining sensitivity on both speakers and therefore the 50 is 6db more sensitive than the 30.
Quote:
The CF-70 presents a nominal 8 ohm load with a very high 96dB efficiency. However, the CF-70 didn't perform well with average power sources, and the sound improved a lot with better quality power. In other words, the performance and power needs ran counter to the 96dB rating. Adjust your power sources accordingly.
This doesn't support your thesis at all. There's no quantification for "didn't perform well" and "improved a lot".


If it's a sensitivity issue, it should read "could not get loud enough with" and "got louder when more power was applied". And as above, it does not address differences between the 50 and 30.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,858 Posts
It addresses my assertion that the claimed Energy specs are an exaggeration just like many manufacturers, and should be taken with a grain of salt.


50W isn't a whole lot of power, and only the most sensitive speakers are going to produce sufficient volume.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool  /t/1495738/not-happy-with-sound-looking-for-basic-advice-any-takers#post_23865276


It addresses my assertion that the claimed Energy specs are an exaggeration just like many manufacturers, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Yet given the question "should I get the 30's or the 50's", and given the stated concern "volume", the 50's remain better than the 30's regardless of how Energy measures.
Quote:
50W isn't a whole lot of power, and only the most sensitive speakers are going to produce sufficient volume.
90db gets you [email protected]@40w. That's considered "low sensitivity".


THX sustained is 85db. Even if I consider 50W the absolute maximum, and even going as low as 90db sensitivity, you are still only about 1db shy of THX requirements (105db peak) at 50w.


Since 50W should be 50W x 7 RMS, we should actually be able to peak higher. Since the 50's are rated at 96db, they should be >90db. But even if not, they are still a better choice (from the perspective of volume) than the 30's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,947 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool  /t/1495738/not-happy-with-sound-looking-for-basic-advice-any-takers#post_23865276


It addresses my assertion that the claimed Energy specs are an exaggeration just like many manufacturers, and should be taken with a grain of salt.


50W isn't a whole lot of power, and only the most sensitive speakers are going to produce sufficient volume.

100 watts is not a whole lot either and would make little difference- 3dbs max. I run the same AVR with little NHT SuperZeros rated at 85db efficiency and with blu-ray movies I rarely get above -10db on the receiver because it's REALLY loud by then. 90- 95db at the LP (about 9ft).


Unless the room is huge AND his LP is far, that AVR has plenty of power for most. What the OP needs to do is get a real subwoofer first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,858 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove  /t/1495738/not-happy-with-sound-looking-for-basic-advice-any-takers#post_23865530


Yet given the question "should I get the 30's or the 50's", and given the stated concern "volume", the 50's remain better than the 30's regardless of how Energy measures.

90db gets you [email protected]@40w. That's considered "low sensitivity".


THX sustained is 85db. Even if I consider 50W the absolute maximum, and even going as low as 90db sensitivity, you are still only about 1db shy of THX requirements (105db peak) at 50w.


Since 50W should be 50W x 7 RMS, we should actually be able to peak higher. Since the 50's are rated at 96db, they should be >90db. But even if not, they are still a better choice (from the perspective of volume) than the 30's.

50W X 7? No way. Name me a low end AVR that puts out it's specified power all channels driven. They don't exist. Also, you're not taking into account the loss of output for the distance to the LP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts
This was your old argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool  /t/1495738/not-happy-with-sound-looking-for-basic-advice-any-takers#post_23865276


50W isn't a whole lot of power, and only the most sensitive speakers are going to produce sufficient volume.
When I responded, you changed to this argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool  /t/1495738/not-happy-with-sound-looking-for-basic-advice-any-takers#post_23865930


50W X 7? No way. Name me a low end AVR that puts out it's specified power all channels driven. They don't exist.
But fine: When you benched the HK 1600, how many WPC did you get?


What? You didn't bench it? Do you have a link to someone who did? No? So you have no idea, but you assume it must be less than 50wpc by some amount?


Did you notice the OP is running 2.1, not 7.1? So I guess the x7 number is something of a straw-man?


Actually: the HK AVRs have measured *higher* than rated in what I can find ( http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/amps-pre-pros-receivers/59072-help-understanding-harman-kardon-avr-power-ratings-5.html )
Quote:
Also, you're not taking into account the loss of output for the distance to the LP.
Yes I did, though I assumed 6ft as a listening distance. If he's 12ft, he's gonna lose some volume from the peak... except that a 50W x7 RMS AVR, even if liberally rated, should be able to do 2-channel peaks that are considerably higher.


Also: the speakers being discussed are 96db, not 90db
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,858 Posts
And once again, you're assuming that Energy is being truthful with their specs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
795 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool  /t/1495738/not-happy-with-sound-looking-for-basic-advice-any-takers/0_100#post_23865930


50W X 7? No way. Name me a low end AVR that puts out it's specified power all channels driven. They don't exist. Also, you're not taking into account the loss of output for the distance to the LP.

Denon 1913? 100 x 2, 70 x 5, 50 x 7 It's pretty easy and cheap to get 50 x 7

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/denon-avr-1913-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyng_fool  /t/1495738/not-happy-with-sound-looking-for-basic-advice-any-takers#post_23866637


And once again, you're assuming that Energy is being truthful with their specs.
You are assuming that they are not, when you lack anything to establish that. You are assuming *how* dishonest they are being without evidence. You are making different assumptions about the 30's and the 50's without evidence.


You have made assumptions about the volumes 90db speakers can be expected to reach that I have proven wrong. You have made assumptions about amp output that have been proven wrong.


Your batting record is poor here. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·

Wow, I thought I had all the advice I was going to get earlier on in the thread, so I bought the CF-50's after the post advising them based on the sensitivity. I guess I should have waited a bit to read the more recent responses, but it seems to have worked out.

 

My experience after setting them up has been overwhelmingly positive. I understand now from several posters that my subwoofer is of low standard, but perhaps the added bass from the larger speakers has helped to reduce the dependence on it; my AVR1600 seems to power the CF-50's more than adequately - lots of volume even at fairly low power.

 

Sound now is definitely fuller and more "rich", with less separation between highs and lows between the speakers and the sub. I'm happy, and expect it will get even better as I understand the speakers will break in after awhile.

 

Really appreciate the responses and advice -thanks to all. I will also experiment with the placement and acoustics etc as per the article.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top