2. speakers
  3. 158881-139155

Speaker shootout update; aggressive treble eliminating some (fairly?)

I've been trying out speakers in a complicated shoot out, both bookshelves and towers — all in my home with my gear. I'm looking for speakers obtainable up to about $4k but could go up (or down) a bit if the right thing came along.

Basic facts: All speakers were run in at least 100 hours. Room is 27 x 14 x 6.5 ceilings. Powering with all QS tubes, 60w, NOS, tube R2R dac, and decent cables. No terrible reflection points; room not overly live or dampened. REL R 328 sub available but I did most listening without it.

Recent auditions, type:

Klipsch RP 600-M (budget singleton of the group)
Fritz Rev Carbon 7 mk II (bookshelf, 2 way, soft dome)
Focal 936 (tower, 3 way, inverted metal)
Martin Logan Motion 60s XTi (tower, 3 way, AMT)

Coming soon:

Salk SS 6M (bookshelf, 2 way, beryllium)
Dynaudio Evoke 30's (tower, 3 way, soft dome)

Let me speak just to the problems, rather than what was good about the speakers. So far, I've found the Klipsch, Focal, and especially the Martin Logans were all too bright — forward, aggressive, "turn it down" treble.

The ML's were the most impossible to tame and hardest to listen to on more tracks. (I did a lot of hanging of towels and other dampeners and other soft things to try to see if I could bring them to heel. I varied the recordings used. Changed cables/wires. No luck.)

The Focals were occasionally too bright; their bigger problem was a bit too much energy in my small listening space. They were better when I plugged their ports with socks.

I'm looking forward to how the next two speakers sound. The Dynaudio towers, I notice, are 10 inches shorter and half the weight of the other towers; not sure what that might mean, but it could just be right size for my space. I'm looking forward to seeing if the Salks bring more detail to the treble without also being too rolled off or harsh.

Hearing is very personal for physiological and taste reasons. However, if anyone has any thoughts about why I might be experiencing some of the phenomena I am (harsh treble, especially) based on my room or gear, etc., that might help me understand factors I'm not fully appreciating. Thanks.


128x128hilde45
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,341 posts
 
..except MC is not being forthcoming because on his thread about his new speakers he indicates he will be making various thus far undisclosed modifications so it does not appear to be etched and done at all.

Which is it? Knowing MC it will be both at the same time as best serves him.

Sorry to digress......
b_limo's avatar
b_limo
2,277 posts
 
Dude, you’ve got a great room apart from the ceilings.  I’d change the whole orientation Brother.  You need to set your room up long wise, if that makes sense.

Is the room strictly yours and mainly for listening purposes?

you should set your equipment up where the bed is and put the bed wherever it ends up after you’ve set up your listening area.  If it were me, I’d buy 6 panels and get to rearranging.  Acoustic treatments come up on c-list sometimes but sell quick.  I’ll keep my eyes peeled for you.


I’d put the system where the bed is.  Pull them3 feet out from the front wall, 2 feet from the side walls and sit 9-10 feet back.  The room is a big part of what you hear with a system and you’ve got some great dimensions apart from the low ceiling but no biggie.

If I were able to drive I’d bring the carreras up and help you re arrange but my clutch leg is down and I can’t drive 🤷🏼‍♂️
I helped a friend (well a few friends) and my brother with a set-up and they are pretty much identical.  Kef LS50w’s and a sub.  My friends set-up is one of the best I have heard, a 9 from 1-10, and my brothers is a 6.  Same set-up, different room and execution.

speaker placement, listening seat placement make huge differences.  You could have your speakers pulled far away from any walls and have a listening position far from any walls as well and thats really the direction you should go, IF you can.



lalitk's avatar
lalitk
5,570 posts
 
“..except MC is not being forthcoming because on his thread about his new speakers he indicates he will be making various thus far undisclosed modifications so it does not appear to be etched and done at all”.

@mapman,

You’re spot on with your post about millercarbon.....if his new speakers as he says perfect he wouldn’t have grand plans to modify them in three phases.

We all know the old saying "You get what your pay for".
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,341 posts
 
Hmm well I did not catch the location within the room but firing down the long dimension to reduce reflected sound amplitude from walls and provide more flexibility with seating location and distance from rear wall sounds like a good thing to try at least if not already the case.
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,183 posts
 
You’re spot on with your post about millercarbon.....if his new speakers as he says perfect he wouldn’t have grand plans to modify them in three phases.
EMBEDDING speakers rightfully, mechanically, electrically, and acoustically is not the same than UPGRADING some of their parts( legitimate for those who want to improve the speakers)...

All speakers NEED to be embed in these three dimensions....

We must then distinguish between modyfying, upgrading parts, and embedding them....

Decreasing vibrations from a crossover for example is a modification that is welcome in ALL speakers....

Using a device like my "golden plate" or a Emat to lower the electrical noise floor is welcome on any speakers even one million dollars one...

No piece of gear, be it speakers, dac, amplifier, is at his true potential right out of the box without means implemented to embed them in these 3 dimensions...Thinkin that any piece of gear is what it can be right out of the box, without any work at all to embed them in the room, in the house, and with all the other gear, it is ignorance pure and simple....

Some knows that, most dont even understand what i speak about.....

It seems to me millercarbon understand something.... That’s all....

More to discover