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
decooney
2,133 posts
 
Looking up the woofer used in the Wow1 Seas W12, the specs are consistent with the frequency response test and findings on this ASR site. Definitely makes a good argument for a better woofer driver.

@Hilde45,
If any of these graphs and tests are close to accurate, it’s probably a good thing you moved up to the Salk 6M SS. The published driver tests on the Satori 6.5 woofer used in your next speaker definitely looks better between 100hz and 2k so it really depends on that x-over. You’ll have to test and see.

A few colleagues in a different group who run 82db sensitivity ProAc Response speakers with 6-8w low watt triode amps, with nice transformers, specs don’t look great and yet its very musical and plenty loud for most folks. In your smallish room, might be okay. Its all in the transformers, good luck on the next chapter of demos :)
brownsfan
1,508 posts
 
@b_limo and @hilde45,  You will get a null at any frequency resulting from a distance that corresponds to one quarter wavelength from any room boundary.  A sound wave reflecting off of a surface will be exactly out of phase with its primary wave at 1/2 wavelength creating a substantial cancellation of that wave.  The formula is 281.5/ ft.to back wall = frequency of null.  So if your ear is at let's say, 2 ft from the back wall surface, there will be a substantial null at 281.5/2 = 140.75 Hz.  With a 6.5 ft ceiling and normal seating height, one would expect a null at 87 Hz and its multiples.   With a 14 ft room depth, there will likely be reinforcement of at 40, 80, and 160 Hz, so one might in fact get some significant low frequency reinforcement from the back wall, consistent with b_limo's comment above and your subjective impression of bass frequencies.  In your case there could be some fortuitous cancellation of the 87 Hz null by the 80 Hz back wall reinforcement leading to unexpectedly flat low frequency response.  This could be one of those rare cases where long wall orientation is better than a short wall orientation. 

With respect to imaging, if your ear falls at 2 ft or less from the back wall, that would give you a delay of 4 milliseconds or less, which might be early enough to not be heard by the ear as a separate signal.  

All of this gets an order of magnitude easier with REW measurement.  Before I started using REW, I had an acute awareness of things not being quite right, but I wasn't able to put my finger on exactly what was causing the problems and figuring out what to do about it.  When you are able to get REW up and running, it will be interesting to see how the room actually measures.  I expect you will be able to correlate what you hear with what you measure, and it should enable getting whatever speaker you are working with to perform well in your setting.
hilde45's avatar
hilde45 OP
5,015 posts
 
@brownsfan  That's very helpful. I'm going to play some test tones today and also try to get that software working!
decooney
2,133 posts
 

Hello @brownsfan, with REW, were you able to effectively use a simple USB microphone to your personal computer or laptop, or did you end up also buying a dedicated hardware audio interface too for improved results?  Also, did you end up with a simple mic such as the Dayton or something more, for more accurate readings? Good helpful rec btw. 
djones51
4,947 posts
 
I noticed in the ASR review of the WoW1 if used with DSP it corrected very good. I suspect in your room no matter the speaker DSP would make an improvement. I use ARC and it works very well, so does Dirac I've used it too. The main thing it does for me is attenuate the low frequencies, sounds like you need to tame the higher frequencies. REW is excellent from everything I've read about it but it's harder to use and you would need to load the filters in something if you decide you want to use them. 
More to discover