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.
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.
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.
- ...
- 299 posts total
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. |
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. |
Thanks to progress with digital technology, DSP is not a bad word these days (except to some old-fashioned purist audiophiles). Lots to gain and little to lose if done right. Especially in acoustically challenged rooms. Should make getting to the desired results much easier.....and perhaps even less expensive in the end. |
@hilde45, Great post. The issue of harsh treble is one that’s very important to me when assessing any new speakers. I know I cannot live with speakers which have obvious treble issues. I say ’obvious’ because in my experience ALL loudspeakers have SOME treble issues - yes all of them. For example, I heard some Kerr Acoustic K320 floorstanders which had according to their site have a 2” True Ribbon tweeter with 0.027g diaphragm mass extending all the way to 45kHz, and they had admirable treble with no obvious nasties. Was the treble perfectly clean? No, it wasn’t. Not nearly as clean as I would have liked. Why was that? I don’t know. My Rega RS1s have a specially vented domed treble unit allegedly giving them greater headroom from distortion, but are they totally clean? No, they’re not. Very good and with no constantly edgy unpleasant treble issues but not perfectly clean, far from it. I know that some claim the treble of the Harbeth SLH5s aluminium dome to be inferior to that of the M30/M40s which share the same SEAS fabric tweeter. Yet others say they can’t hear any problems. I guess the perfect tweeter has not yet been built, nor the perfect crossover. I know that some tweeters cannot be crossed too low without distortions appearing at that point eg on certain male vocals. The way that a tweeter is mounted to the baffle also appears to be a factor in how clean it will sound. British reviewer Noel Keywood used to complain that the majority of speakers he tested had their frequency response tilted upwards to get more immediate attention during auditions. It would also give them a bright sound which some would eventually find very tiring. Sometimes treble issues can be down to the recording and the way it was miked etc, but that’s rare and not the speakers fault. As far as I’m concerned no tweeter is as clean and life-like as I’d prefer, but then I’ve not heard the latest beryllium or diamond domes, and don’t have to decide exactly where to put the crucial crossover point. Anyway, thanks for posting as this is the kind of real world experience many will find useful when drawing up potential shortlists. Especially those who are particularly sensitive to treble issues. I recently read a review for the Graham LS5/9f by Wojciech Pacuła which might be highlighting the extent of this problem. It was originally posted by @highend666, and here’s a direct quote. ’It is much easier for me to say who will NOT like it. The Grahams will not be liked, I think, by those who like highly detailed sound. The LS5/9f will not offer it. Also those who like a rigid, clear attack and precise sound will not be satisfied. These speakers will not be their first choice. They won’t also fulfil expectations of those for whom the bass must be perfectly controlled at all costs. Grahams don’t do that. They do something completely different: they are unbelievably natural’ http://highfidelity.pl/@main-1002&lang=en |
- 299 posts total