[Bob Cal]

I am about to purchase either the 40's or 60's. I have only heard the speakers for about 1/2 hour. I am 200 miles from the dealer. I went to the dealers to purchase the 60's, but ended up unsure after listening to the 40's. Both work out to be the same price with the premier stands for the 40's ($1080 Cdn).

I assumed that the sound of the 60's would be almost the same as the 40's but with more base for the 60's because of the larger size . (The have exactly the same speaker setup)

But the sound is very different between the two speakers.


I was wondering if anyone else had the same problem . Maybe going in for the 60's and ending up with the 40's or vice versa.


I will be going back for extended listening in a week or so with my music.

I though the 40's seemed clearer, not sure if that is the correct description. But I have also read that some people found the sound too bright and after a period of time they had did not like them.


Because of the distance I cannot take them home for a demo or drop over for a listen anytime I want.


Any opinions would be of help. I know it is up to what I like, etc. But opinions do help.


Thanks

Bob

 

[Yosh70]

When I worked for a local stereo shop last year I sold my Monitor 7's and wanted to move in the Studio series....the 40's was my original plan but as you mentioned, but after I priced out the good stands I was so close to the 60's that the choice was clear...I have been very happy with them and

just recently added more power to them and the soundstage and clarity is

excellent...I cant disallow the 40's for you but all I can say is that I'm glad I got my 60's

 

[Woochifer]

I own a pair of the Studio 40s and absolutely love them. I did not audition the Studio 60s since they were just over my price limit. I can easily see why the 40s would sound different from the 60s. Even though they have identical driver arrangements and crossovers, the 60 has a larger internal volume and surface area, which on the one hand improves the lower bass response and on the other hand increases the likelihood for resonance and less focused imaging.


This is exactly what I noticed when comparing the Monitor 5 and 7. Very analogous situation -- both models have identical driver setups and one's a floorstander while the other one's a standmount. The Monitor 5 had more coherent imaging and slightly better focused midrange, while the Monitor 7 had a more forward presence and substantially more bass. The Monitor 7's weakness was with its very noticeable bass resonance. Then again, just about every floorstanding model that I auditioned in that price range had similar problems, which is why I began auditioning standmounted speakers.


The Studio 60s are a lot better braced and use more inert wood than the Monitor 7s, so you may not get the same effect. But, if you like the Studio 40 better, that shouldn't necessarily be a surprise. Other listeners feel that the Studio 20s are the best speakers in that series and that you can make up for any bass deficiencies with a good subwoofer. It's all a matter of personal preference and what you perceive as worthy tradeoffs when comparing the different models.

 

[Bob Cal]

Thanks guys for the replies. I have a small family room 13 X 17 so I figured I could put of purchasing a sub for a year , and still enjoy the extra base from the 60's for HT.


I was told to listen to the Studio's with some female vocals along with a few other cd's I know well. I have noticed on my mini-monitors that I had to tone down the treble on certain female cd (Celine Dion ) wife favourite. Not a big problem just on certain tracks even.


Anyway from the reviews and feed back I don't think I can go wrong with either speaker. Just a matter of preference I guess.


Thanks

Bob

 

[reaper]

I auditioned the 40s, 60s and 80s when I was searching for my speaker setup. I ended up with 2 pairs of 40s (fronts and rears). I found the 40s to be tighter in the midrange than the 60s or 80s. It is my opinion that the larger cabinet size of tower speakers does provide more bass but does it at the expense of midrange tightness. The mids seemed slightly more sloppy and boomy in the 60s and 80s. Since I bought a good subwoofer (the servo 15), I realized I didn't need any extra bass from my loud speakers. No matter which speaker you chose, you will be setting it to small and allowing the subwoofer to re-produce the bass anyway. That is unless you are a 2 channel purist who can't listen to music with a sub. So, my conclusion is to use great bookshelf speakers which produce outstanding treble/mids and then cross them over to a great sub that can reproduce bass. I love my setup and feel more confident with my decision everytime I am jamming on it or see the face of a new listener drop in aww. Much love to the people with 60s/80s out there. Main thing is that you're happy with you speakers... this is just my opinion. Hope it helps.


reaper

 

[dblloyd]

I'm a novice, so take this opinion with a grain of salt.


I've been looking at the Studio series for a while. The opinion of both myself and a friend is that the 20s, 40s, and 100s have great midrange. The 60s and 80s have better bass than the 20s and 40s, but less impressive midrange. The 100s have great bass as well.


My general feeling is that the 20s and 40s are great speakers when mated with a good sub, and the 100s are great speakers all by themselves.


I'm not sure this helps you, but just wanted to point out that the Studio series's midrange doesn't get worse with increasing cabinet size.



Hope this helps,

Dan

 

[reaper]

I have not auditioned the 100s but have heard from others that they may be an exception to my opinion about cabinet size vs. tight midrange. So, dblloyd's opinion is probably true. I neglected to mention that since they didn't seem to be in your price range based on what you have been auditioning. Remember the 100s usually require 200WPC to drive them properly though, wheras you can drive the 40s with around 100WPC pretty efficiently.


reaper

 

[Bob Cal]

Once again thanks guys , really great input.


Yea the 100's are out , not only for room size but the needed upgrade as mentioned. ( Although I might give them a listen when I go back)


When I was comparing the 40's to the 60's and only after I had told the dealer that I was unsure about the 60's , and kind of liked the 40's he told me that he sells a lot more 40's than 60's given that the price is the same with the cost of stand involved.


He had the 40's himself but he said it is depends on your equipment, room setup, and what you like in a sound.



My wife purchased the Mini's, CC170 and the Technics SA-dX950 for Christmas for me. My poor old Onkyo just could not cut it any more. She was kind of miffed at first when I started to talk about upgrading but now she it supportive.


I kind of like the Denon with the Studio's as well so , I think that will be the next upgrade.


Thanks

Bob

 

[Greg_R]

I preferred the clarity and imaging of the 40s/20s vs. the rest of the Studio line. Since I felt a quality subwoofer was a must for my setup, bass response from the mains was a non issue. If you get the Premiere stands, be sure to fill them with sand...