AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,955 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nautilus808 /forum/post/17003710


Anyone think one of these bookshelfs is better than the other? These will go with an SVS Nsd12.

What about the emotiva bookshelf or speaker packages. Are emotiva good speakers?

What are you going to use them for? What are you going to drive them with? What are you looking for in speaker? Something with a warm sound or something more neutral?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,938 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,551 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nautilus808 /forum/post/17006610


Using a Denon AVR790

The D2.1SE probably compares more closely to the Sierra-1 than the CMT-340... the current sale pricing of the D2.1SE just skews things a bit. If you're looking for HT use with a sub and off-axis accuracy, the CMT-340 might be just what you're looking for. If you're looking for 2ch music without a sub, the D2.1SE might be a much better choice, though keep in mind that some space from side/back walls is necessary to eliminate an over-emphasis of the low end. For 2ch music AND highly-accurate HT, the Sierra-1 may be the best choice and are quite a bit less placement-sensitive than the D2.1SE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,020 Posts
I will add that the "family" sound between the Ascends and the D2.1SE is fairly different as well.


Take advantage of each company's trial periods and compare them in your own space.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,955 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Hopkins /forum/post/17007240


The D2.1SE probably compares more closely to the Sierra-1 than the CMT-340... the current sale pricing of the D2.1SE just skews things a bit.

I think you have to pay careful attention to what is a 'real' sale and what is not. It's very easy to put two tags on something, a $999.99 tag and a 2nd one in read saying: "50% off sale!!! Only $499.99!"


Hell, they've been on 'sale' for what, 13 months now? http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...light=swan+1se And actually, that sale was $499, now they're $599... Can we really call this a sale?
Quote:
Sale: an occasion (usually brief) for buying at specially reduced prices; "they held a sale to reduce their inventory"; "I got some great bargains at their annual sale"

Guess not, maybe it's more like a price reduction... But anyhow, we've seen other companies using the white van speaker 'scam' to hype their speakers and get unaware potential customers excited with their sales:

Regular price: $1 117.00

Sale price: $599.00

You Save: $518.00


Regular price: $2 297.00

Sale price: $1 599.00

You Save: $698.00


Regular price: $1 999.99

Sale price: $1 199.00

You Save: $800.99


Regular price: $899.00

Sale price: $599.00

You Save: $300.00


I'm not saying this is also white scam, but in both case, do you actually 'save' anything? Nope... The regular price is just like MSRP, the overblown price no sane person should pay for the item... The 'sale' price just ends up being the regular price. In the case of the above, no on will probably EVER buy a pair of those floorstanders for 2000$... The price will most probably remain what it is until the speaker will go out of production. Anyhow, it's all a pretty poor marketing strategy for the consumer, but unfortunately, seems to work. People go crazy about the 'great sales' (human nature), and go for what they perceive to be the 'biggest sale' and most money saved. So an unscrupulous merchant selling his gear with a 300% (theoretical) profit margin from the get go and then reducing it to 200%, might appear to offer a large discount and a really good deal on a product, but another merchant who from day one has priced his products aggressively, just doesn't have the margins to offer 'ridiculous' sales like someone who has overblown the sales price from day 1... So, even without the 'sale', the 2nd one who's always priced his products aggressively might actually be offering the better deal.


So many people get fooled by fake stickers and fake sales price... We've all seen it, even here, there's some big sidewalk sales, most shops put out 'special' sidewalk sale items (really cheap stuff), with 'fake' prices for this special sales event...


Quote:
Using a Denon AVR790

That might not be a good match for the Swans as they're known to be very demanding for amplification.
Quote:
Another factor to consider is electronics. During their break-in phase and

just after, they were being run by my vintage Harman Kardon 680i receiver.

The match wasn’t a good one, even with the ultrawideband capabilities and

generally beefy transformer, the 85db Swan 2.1SE’s limited the HK’s ability to

drive the music with precision. Therefore, I recommend quality separates or

an integrated amp in order to achieve quality music reproduction. Not to

mention stands that can be filled with a ballast of some sort. I was lucky

enough to spend a couple of days hearing the Swan’s mated to a Classe CAP

151 integrated (150wpc), the result was impressive, tight, controlled bass,

with a rich midrange, and smooth highs.
Quote:
Some Technical Stuff

The D2.1SEs present a difficult load to the amplifier. Impedance plots were not available from Swans at press time, but Lane warned me before I took delivery of the review samples that they require robust amplification. The Parasound New Classic setup I run had no real problems with them, as most recordings required a 12 o'clock noon position on the volume dial. When this setting produced comfortably loud volume levels, some albums seemed to demand more to sound their best (3 o'clock on the dial was not uncommon). This suggests that the Swans would benefit from even higher current levels, like what you find on top-shelf solid state amplifiers from (for example) Bryston or Parasound's Halo line. Tubes are quite possibly out of the question here, but with a sonic signature as velvety as the D2.1SEs, I doubt anyone will miss them.

The 340SEs in contrast are a very easy load and really don't require very expensive monstrous electronics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,551 Posts
Comparing the Swans to anything from a white van is well beyond being a huge stretch and outright fallacy. You are right that, though, that price reduction is probably a more accurate description. The D2.1SE price reduction also has a lot to do with an upcoming version with crossover networks voiced by Jon Lane which will likely eventually replace the current version.


The D2.1SE compares much more closely to the Sierra-1 in almost all regards... speaker type (full-range monitor), configuration (2-way TM), focus audience (2-ch music), bass response (in-room into the mid 30hz range), sensitivity (~ 87db/w/m), and finish quality (multiple furniture-grade finishes).


You're definitely right that the CMT is an easier load than either the D2.1SE or Sierra-1 for the OP's AVR, with the D2.1SE having the tough combination of complex load and low sensitivity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,955 Posts
I didn't want to infer that they were white van, just that anyone looking at speakers should try to view price and sales with some skepticism and not just through rose colored glasses.


Anyhow, the Swans and Sierras seem pretty different to me. Pretty much as different as 2 way speakers usually get... Well, for how they sound, and their strengths/weaknesses... As Curtis put it, "family" sound between the Ascends and the D2.1SE is fairly different as well".


The choice between 340SE, Sierras or Swans 2.1 shouldn't be, imho, between Sierra/Swans because the Swans are 'closer' to Sierras... First, you should decide which type of speaker you like. Warm? Or neutral? If you answer warm speakers, then Swans, (or an equalizer), should be seriously considered, if you don't like warm speakers, and don't want bloated bass, want tight bass for example, then you should definitely be looking at Ascends, either Sierras or 340SEs, although Sierras do have an edge in bass performance vs 340SE...


I've personally replaced 1800$ (Totem Sttafs) speakers with 570$ 340SEs I originally purchased for a 2nd system... IMHO, without hearing the Swans, I'd bet they'd be much closer to the Totem Sttafs than they'd be to Sierras or 340SEs, and again, the Sierras would sound closer to 340SEs than Sttafs/Swans... If that would be the case, and, for example, the bass of Swans would be more similar to Sttafs than Ascends, then I'd most probably pick a pair of 340SEs over the Swans... (Personal taste and speaker quality criterias).


So anyhow, as I said, really depends on what you want and what you like. Price, sales, 'closer to this X more expensive speaker' should be almost irrelevant when choosing speakers. Who cares if they were marked 300$ off if you don't end up purchasing the right speakers for you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,020 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Hopkins /forum/post/17008737


The D2.1SE price reduction also has a lot to do with an upcoming version with crossover networks voiced by Jon Lane which will likely eventually replace the current version.

Right now, IMO, the D2.1SE and Ascends sound very different. It will be interesting to hear if the new crossover makes them sound more the same or farther apart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,020 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Party /forum/post/17009002


Would not the Salk MBOW1/CAOW1 also be appropriate for consideration and/or comparison to the D2.1SE and the Sierra 1? Having not heard all 3, I'm just wondering out loud.

I have not heard them, but definitely think it would be appropriate to think so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,551 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf /forum/post/17008913


I didn't want to infer that they were white van, just that anyone looking at speakers should try to view price and sales with some skepticism and not just through rose colored glasses.


Anyhow, the Swans and Sierras seem pretty different to me. Pretty much as different as 2 way speakers usually get... Well, for how they sound, and their strengths/weaknesses... As Curtis put it, "family" sound between the Ascends and the D2.1SE is fairly different as well".


The choice between 340SE, Sierras or Swans 2.1 shouldn't be, imho, between Sierra/Swans because the Swans are 'closer' to Sierras... First, you should decide which type of speaker you like. Warm? Or neutral? If you answer warm speakers, then Swans, (or an equalizer), should be seriously considered, if you don't like warm speakers, and don't want bloated bass, want tight bass for example, then you should definitely be looking at Ascends, either Sierras or 340SEs, although Sierras do have an edge in bass performance vs 340SE...


I've personally replaced 1800$ (Totem Sttafs) speakers with 570$ 340SEs I originally purchased for a 2nd system... IMHO, without hearing the Swans, I'd bet they'd be much closer to the Totem Sttafs than they'd be to Sierras or 340SEs, and again, the Sierras would sound closer to 340SEs than Sttafs/Swans... If that would be the case, and, for example, the bass of Swans would be more similar to Sttafs than Ascends, then I'd most probably pick a pair of 340SEs over the Swans... (Personal taste and speaker quality criterias).


So anyhow, as I said, really depends on what you want and what you like. Price, sales, 'closer to this X more expensive speaker' should be almost irrelevant when choosing speakers. Who cares if they were marked 300$ off if you don't end up purchasing the right speakers for you?

You're starting to sound a little fanboy-ish at this point. I've been pointing out pros and cons of both options, where you've simply been pointing out pros of one and perceived cons of another.


Also, you say you haven't heard them yourself, but you or anyone else hearing "bloated bass" from the D2.1se more than likely have them within 1' of side/back walls and have not taken any care in placement. Bass extension from a stand-mount speaker does not equate to bloated bass. Smoothness in the high-end does not equate to "warmth". While these speakers will sound very different and deserve comparison, I'm seeing less and less validity with each post you make.


Just because speakers are extremely subjective doesn't mean objectivity needs to be thrown out the window. I'll have a set of Sierra-1s on hand in early October for an EH review, as well as a set of D2.1SE when the matching center becomes available. I won't be doing head-to-head reviews but should be doing them serially and hopefully can comment on similarities, differences, signatures, and deficiencies, all in the same room with the same electronics. Hopefully this will be more helpful than conjecture we've all put out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,955 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Hopkins /forum/post/17009107


Also, you say you haven't heard them yourself, but you or anyone else hearing "bloated bass" from the D2.1se more than likely have them within 1' of side/back walls and have not taken any care in placement. Bass extension from a stand-mount speaker does not equate to bloated bass. Smoothness in the high-end does not equate to "warmth". While these speakers will sound very different and deserve comparison, I'm seeing less and less validity with each post you make.

Warmth = bass emphasis, aka, plays bass louder than mids and highs.


And warm doesn't mean bloated, bloated means that it's more exaggerated, and without good definition (higher distortion I'd guess). If you have excessive bass and if it's not tight and well controlled, sound muddled, well, that's bloated bass for me, too much of it and not too well controlled, not too tight, muddy, etc...
Quote:
"Smoothness in the high-end does not equate to "warmth"

. I agree. Treble smoothness definitely does not equate to warmth.

Quote:
"Bass extension from a stand-mount speaker does not equate to bloated bass."

I entirely agree, not all bookshelf speaker had bloated bass, some do, some don't, and it's very different than bass extension. Extension reflects on how low it goes, bloated is more an indication of quantity and quality. More extension is definitely something you want, bloated bass, well, some definitely like warmth, but some even like bloated.


Quote:
While these speakers will sound very different and deserve comparison, I'm seeing less and less validity with each post you make.

Here's some sources of my info:

See here for a comparison: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...wans_d21se.htm From another post:
Quote:
from your link:
Quote:
Comparisons

I ran the D2.1SEs against my benchmark for the breed/price range, the Ascend Acoustics Sierra-1. In my review of the Sierra-1 last year, I characterized the Sierra as "the least compromised speaker currently available under $1000". There aren't many sub-$1k speakers that can deliver a wholly satisfying musical package all by themselves, but I'd say the Sierra now have some company. Beyond that, however, the two speakers are very different. The Swans had the Sierra beat on bass extension, but lag behind them in bass tightness and control. This continued, to a degree, up into the midrange: the Sierra's mids are crisp and detailed while the Swans' are plummy and romantic. The opposite is true for the highs, where the Sierra is natural & uncolored, but the Swans slightly spitty treble continued to pull subtle details out of my recordings that the musicians, I expect, would have rather kept hidden.

(EM)


Again, it depends of the listener, but for me, "bass tightness and control" is more important than ~5hz bass extension... Mids, "crisp and detailed", to me, is again far better than "plummy and romantic".
And highs: " natural & uncolored, but the Swans slightly spitty treble", anyhow, again, I'd much rather have natural and uncolored highs than spitty highs... But I guess that could depend on the listener.


Anyhow, someone compared them on another instance:
http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?t=3978
Quote:
I compared them and I will say it was close. The Swan's had bigger bass but the bass was tighter on the Sierra. I also think I preferred the tweeter on the Sierra. I went with the Swans because they dropped in price and came in at about $300 less than the Sierra. Not to mention that the finish is AMAZING on the Swans.

But that poster purchased Sierras in Espresso after though... Anyhow, to me, it's obvious that the attributes of the Sierras vs Swans would make the Sierras a much more desirable speaker for me... But I can't speak for everyone, if you think Swans sound better to you, go for them and save the $!

Anyhow, another post I made some time ago:
Quote:
Swans... Well... That would depend on what you like in speakers, I'm guessing that if the Digms Studios were purchased, Swans might not be the ideal choice:

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?t=2992
Quote:
Hi all. Big thanks to Curtis for opening his home to us. I had a great time. Here are my impressions:


D2.1se: Much larger in size compared to Sierras. The bass is more prominent. Some would say too prominent. The sound beams high and wide, as well as in your face. I was sure this set's volume was slightly louder. However, I don't think my impression would be too far off. It reminds me of my Rockets when I first got them. Piano seems to be behind a wall of curtains. Vocal was spot on and pleasant. Warmish sound. Pretty impressive indeed. Drop dead gorgeous Piano Rosewood veneer.


Sierras: Definitely more articulate and more separation. My whole family plays piano, and I always listen for the piano. The Sierras deliver here. It also has more transparency. Sound beam floats more. Everyone thought we had visitors outside during a specific track. It was life-like. None of the other speakers had the same effect. I thought the horns were a bit too much (I never listen that loud in my own room though). Overall, I am EXTREMELY impressed.



Acculine A1: Not my cup of tea. Too metallic and too local. The mids seem to break up. I don't know for sure, but I didn't like it right off the bat. I didn't think this was a fair comparison at all.


340se: Full sound and transparent. Judging by my ears, this set was A LOT more sensitive than the A1s, but the measurements only show roughly 1db more. There was no comparison here, the 340s walks all over the A1s. Even though I thought the 340s were a bit bright sounding, it was not metallic bright.
Quote:
These are just my impressions and are not meant to be anything more than that.

The Swan D2.1SE are very nice speakers. They are physically larger than the Sierras and they play a little deeper in the bass. As openwheelracing mentioned the bass seemed a little too prominent and it wasn't as punchy as the Sierras. The highs were nice, very neutral. We took some frequency response measurements by placing my mic about one foot in front of each speaker. The Swans measured very flat, except for a dip around 6hz and a rising response around 18khz (probably not noticeable). One area where they seemed to lag behind the Sierras was the midrange detail. Things like drums and stringed instruments just didn't seem to have the same snap or clarity as the Sierras. If I get a chance I would like to listen to these some more.


The Sierras sounded good as always. Fantastic detail especially in the the Tori Amos track Somewhere Over the Rainbow. Although not measuring quite as flat as the Swans, they are still fairly neutral. For whatever reason (my room, receiver, ears...) I prefer to run my Sierras at -2dB treble. It makes the highs a little more subdued but still retains all the detail.



The Acculines sounded good for the money, but I certainly preferred the 340SE. Acculines sounded thin with not much bass. If you crossed them over to a sub around 100hz that would probably help.


I was glad to hear the 340SE again. I never got a chance to hear them with the Sierras. They sounded very good, but not as good as the Sierras. I think the biggest difference is the in the detail and punchiness of the bass of the Sierras. In comparison to the Acculines, however, they certainly sounded more full and solid. The highs were definitely clear and strong but certainly not bright or subdued at all.
Quote:
You guess correct on the Swan and Sierras for my viewpoint...pretty much inline with Mike's and openwheel.

Or, actually, you could also consider the Ascend 340SEs, they're having a special, 518$ shipped , or you might even actually consider the complete 5.1 speakers for 1000$...

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages...S340Ascend.pdf
Quote:
Pitting Ascend's SE against the speakers in my reference theater was hardly fair, but I did it anyway. My main reference speakers are the Paradigm Studio 100 v3s, which at $2100/pair cost more than three times as much as the CMT-340SEs with stands. You'd expect a sonic leap that corresponded with such a huge gap in price, but I heard more similarities than differences. In fact, the Ascends surprised me by producing a slightly deeper soundstage than the Paradigms. The Ascends fell slightly short in detail, at which the 100s excels. Also the Paradigms handle dynamics somewhat better-to be expected, considering that they have twice the number of woofer.

Again, it depends what you're after, if detail/resolution are important to you, than going with the Sierras would be a good idea imho, also the Sierras have better bass and imaging.
Quote:
You're starting to sound a little fanboy-ish at this point. I've been pointing out pros and cons of both options, where you've simply been pointing out pros of one and perceived cons of another.

Anyhow, as I said, seems to me like they sound pretty damn different and would definitely attract different type of listeners. I don't think they sound all that close as I've said, I've had warm speakers before, and wouldn't say that they sound close to Ascends, quite the contrary, Ascends don't sound 'warm' in the excessive sense of the word; They won't add warmth to recordings which don't have it. Some consider that a good thing, others will consider that a bad thing. To me, they're almost polar opposites: Warm speakers vs neutral speakers. I like neutral speakers, and rather dislike warm speakers. So, Sierra & 340SE are most probably a lot closer together than Swans, IMHO, from what I've read about the Swans, and with my personal experience with 340SE & Sierras, and other warm speakers which I've owned, and not owned. But like I said that's all imho, for me this particular con is a deal killer, if it's not for others, then fine, go with what sounds better to you, but since it's such a big deal for me, I'd rather make it very clear for others who might have similar tastes, or dissimilar tastes.


If you really love warm in speakers (lots of excessive bass), you might want to look somewhere other than Ascends, or, get Ascends with some sort of bass adjustement, receiver with bass EQ, an EQ, etc.. Or a sub, which you can run 'hot'...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,020 Posts
Stephen....let's be fair about this. You have been a proponent of Swan for a long time, active in Swan threads, and I recall a discussion or two where you stated a Swan was better than an Ascend, even though you did not hear them in the same room. With any reviewer, subjectiveness/preferences come into play, especially since these speakers sound fairly different. Have you heard Sierras?


That said, I think it is exciting that you are writing for EH, and look forward to reading your stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,955 Posts
What's EH btw?


Some comments about the Totem Sttafs so you can compare to 340SE, Sierras and Swans. Tell me which speaker (340SE/Sierra/2.1) the Sttafs comments sound more similar to... http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speak...8_1594crx.aspx


Btw, I take it you heard the Swans 2.1se? Would you qualify them being as warm or not? (prominent bass?) What is this new 'crossover' voicing improvement supposed to improve?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,551 Posts
I've not yet heard the Sierras. I have heard the D2.1SEs briefly in a demo environment and the CMTs in a friend's room. I have some past history as a Swans owner (not the D2.1SEs) but I feel I've been VERY objective in most everything I've said in this thread. I feel Grandarf has not.


I agree with most of what Grandarf has been saying up until the point that he goes off the fanboy cliff. Saying that any warm speaker has excessive bass is pushing it big time. Quoting reviews that support your point without quoting others that don't does as well. Making comments that try to sound object in the first half of the sentence with condescending or derogatory tone in the second half is just passive aggressive (reminds me of my mother-in-law). Classifying "warmth" simply as prominent bass is just wrong. If this were the case, every Honda Civic with Kicker 12s running down the road would sound "warm". What most people refer to as "warmth" is a roll-off of the highest frequencies. Many folks prefer this, especially for 2ch listening, because it takes the edge off higher-pitched vocals. My personal preference is a sound just a touch on the warm side of neutral... a little because a bright speaker becomes fatiguing to me after long listening sessions (i.e. a long movie), but more so because it tends to hide many of the flaws of sub-par recordings. I would normally say I greatly prefer a speaker with a sound closer to accurate with no huge swing towards the muddy side of warm or the harsh side of bright... but that's just me.


I've been very careful not to push the Swans as a favorite of mine exactly because I haven't heard the Sierras and didn't hear them in the same room (or even that close in time) to the CMTs. I've honestly been trying to steer conversation in a more objective direction and away from the mass generalizations and spec-quoting that's been going on (and I'm probably not innocent of that myself).


My main point to start with wasif you're considering the D2.1SE and also looking at Ascend, the Sierra may be what you want to compare them to... not because they are kissing-cousins in terms of sonic characteristics, but they seem fit in the same space a bit more so than the CMTs.


I'll be sure to report back here once I've heard the Sierras in October as well as when I get to spend time with the D2.1SEs in the same room/setup (probably later in the fall or early winter, depending on when the matching center is available).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,955 Posts

Quote:
I've not yet heard the Sierras. I have heard the D2.1SEs briefly in a demo environment and the CMTs in a friend's room. I have some past history as a Swans owner (not the D2.1SEs) but I feel I've been VERY objective in most everything I've said in this thread. I feel Grandarf has not.


I agree with most of what Grandarf has been saying up until the point that he goes off the fanboy cliff.

Bwahaha, you sure love to wield the fanboy stick now do you?
Why do you feel I wasn't objective? You state the following as explanation:

Quote:
Saying that any warm speaker has excessive bass is pushing it big time.

But see, that's exactly the definition of warm... A FR which shows a prominence of bass, aka; excess of bass, or, "more bass" that it should have. Of course, 1-2dB is largely insignificant and isn't what is considered a warm speaker.


And again, that's if you prefer a neutral speaker, without an emphasis with either highs/mids/lows. If you prefer warm speakers and want a speaker which will put an emphasis (exaggerate) on bass, then of course you won't find that the amount of bass is exaggerated, because you prefer to have more bass. But again, a speaker FR should be flat, not have more bass than mids/highs, if it has an excessive amount of bass (more than it should have), it is, by definition, a warm speaker.

Quote:
Quoting reviews that support your point without quoting others that don't does as well.

What reviews are you talking about exactly? You infer that there was others...


Besides, I've owned and spent A LOT of time with the Totem Sttafs. I can tell you, 100% that they're definitely warm speakers. Reading reviews , that isn't even made evident. I actually thought it would, the 1st hinted to it: "(bass) was often too boomy and not tight as the Arros. Ultimately, the boominess of the bass would sometimes divert your attention" and I expected the rest to be similar, but no.


Anyhow, it's like that for basically all reviews, take this: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...rs-5-2007.html where they mention things like: "a distinct sonic character", or about vocals: "rendering it lively and natural." Yet, 2 seconds later: "Sttaf introduces a bit of lushness", which is probably the understatement of the year. "Sttaf also presented Sting's readings and slightly nasal singing with warmth and depth.", uh yeah, that's how it'll present ANYTHING, with warmth. Thanks for mentioning it...


Yet, this other review, says : "Sttafs rendered this music with rhythmic and tonal accuracy.". "tonal accuracy". Wait... What?! bwahaha! So when I talk about the Sttafs, which I've owned and listened to for months and know pretty much as well as anybody can know a set of speakers, I should also quote all reviews which say things differently? What a laugh! Or the fact that I don't would make me a fanboy? Jesus, some people...

Quote:
. Making comments that try to sound object in the first half of the sentence with condescending or derogatory tone in the second half is just passive aggressive (reminds me of my mother-in-law).

Like what comments?
You sure love to make empty accusations without backing them up.

Quote:
Classifying "warmth" simply as prominent bass is just wrong. If this were the case, every Honda Civic with Kicker 12s running down the road would sound "warm". What most people refer to as "warmth" is a roll-off of the highest frequencies.

What you mean here is laid back and/or having recessed treble. Wordage aside, when terms like: "The bass is more prominent. Some would say too prominent.", or "bass seemed a little too prominent and it wasn't as punchy as the Sierras.", that describes warm speakers to me. Sure, they could also have a hot treble and that would ruin their warmth (would give them the old V EQ curve), but to me, prominent bass is warm speakers.


How would you describe speakers with: "The bass is more prominent. Some would say too prominent.", or "bass seemed a little too prominent and it wasn't as punchy as the Sierras."?

Quote:
Many folks prefer this, especially for 2ch listening, because it takes the edge off higher-pitched vocals. My personal preference is a sound just a touch on the warm side of neutral... a little because a bright speaker becomes fatiguing to me after long listening sessions (i.e. a long movie)

Btw, you go from one extreme to the other, from your sens of warm (recessed treble), with bright treble (excessive amount of treble). Again, objectively, a speaker is a transducer, converts an electrical signal to acoustical energy. Your speakers shouldn't act as EQ: Reinforcing some frequencies, recessing others, adding bass, mids, etc... So they shouldn't add highs, nor should they reduce highs. They should have a neutral sound: nor add nor reduce ANY frequencies. That's if you're rating speakers objectively by their function; transducers.

Quote:
but more so because it tends to hide many of the flaws of sub-par recordings. I would normally say I greatly prefer a speaker with a sound closer to accurate with no huge swing towards the muddy side of warm or the harsh side of bright... but that's just me.

Right. You were talking about objectivity vs subjectivity, that's your subjective preference. Some might agree with you, others might not.

Quote:
I've been very careful not to push the Swans as a favorite of mine exactly because I haven't heard the Sierras and didn't hear them in the same room (or even that close in time) to the CMTs. I've honestly been trying to steer conversation in a more objective direction and away from the mass generalizations and spec-quoting that's been going on (and I'm probably not innocent of that myself).


My main point to start with wasif you're considering the D2.1SE and also looking at Ascend, the Sierra may be what you want to compare them to... not because they are kissing-cousins in terms of sonic characteristics, but they seem fit in the same space a bit more so than the CMTs.

Right, and I've illustrated that even if they "fit in the same space a bit more than the CMTs" (1st time I've seen the 340SEs be referred to as the 'CMTs'), that's really not an accurate representation as I've illustrated in my previous posts. That makes me a fanboy? Unobjective? You do realize that "fit in the same space" is a rather pointless criteria to compare speakers right? I mean, a million others fit in the same space too, B&W 600, 700, 800, CM's bookshelves, Paradigm's, Monitor, Studio, Signatures, Monitor Audio's Bronze, Silver, Gold lines, etc etc... There's much more important criterias, such as, sonic characteristics...


But again, who knows about what the OP wants, maybe he's all about looks, speaker size and driver configuration than he is about actual sound...



cschang: "Electronic House" Thanks I might look it up later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,020 Posts
Stephen, it will be interesting how your preferences are portrayed in your speaker(any speaker) reviews. Do you plan on mentioning your preferences in your reviews?


I think the notion that "many people" prefer rolled off highs, shows bias, because the blind tests by the folks at Harman, do not show this. I guess it also depends on how we define "many". According to Harman, most prefer a flat response.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top