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
jtcf's avatar
jtcf
1,620 posts
 
Hoping once again that the Salks will work out this round!Also that you gain some knowledge from your sweeps:-)
I've had the Harbeth C7ES here for a couple of days.
First observations are 1.these largish monitors need to be out a couple of feet for smooth bass
2.silky smooth and natural 3.harsh upper mids are handled by rounding them off,sort of 'blunting' them so they aren't excruciating.Less good recording are much more listenable.
They are just as dynamic and detailed as the Tektons but put me back a few rows instead of front row center.And they somehow sound best to me with the damned lamp cord rather than the AP or Clear Day cables.I'm going to pull out my old mid monos and try them out of curiosity.Just thought you'd be interested as your journey continues:-)
hilde45's avatar
hilde45 OP
5,015 posts
 
Very curious about Harbeth and Mid Monos! Please reveal what you discover.
decooney
2,133 posts
 
@jtcf
Heard my buddies Harbeth 40.1s with my former EL34 tube amp, sounded pretty darn nice, weighty transformers drove them fine in 50w strapped triode mode. Curious to know if you are running the 2-way or 3-way Harbeth’s, and if you have other output tubes for the Mid Monos to try, KT77, KT88s, other.

If you report out on the test results for your combo or make posts in a separate QS thread elsewhere, will be on the lookout for it. Thx.

mesch
3,523 posts
 
So you are still waiting for the Salks? I am waiting to hear what you think of them. Given the low ceilings I like the idea of using monitors on short stands, maybe 16" - 20". Also play with tilt. I am using 16" stands with my Esoteric MG10s which are 17" high. My ceilings are 8'5".
fastfreight
835 posts
 
Hi OP,
Interesting thread and I am sure you get more opinions than you need!
I am all SS stuff and love maximum resolution and soundstage without harshness or fatigue.  Not an easy combo!  I have had or auditioned B&W, KEF, Proac, Focal and Revel.

The Proacs had amazing treble, and clarity, but I found the floor standers a bit 'boomy' with their ports.  Impressive bass, but a bit much.

 The new B&W were 'over exciting' and seemed boosted in the highs.  

KEF'S vary widely within their product line.  

Focal did not excite me.

Ah the Revel's: seemingly underwhelming until you just keep listening, and then they grow and grow on you.  I mean the Studio's, which can be found used for close you our price range.  Great imaging, no fatigue, and the treble is adjustable if you need.  I have moved up to the Salons, as I have a large room and they 'fill the air' much better.  I always believe a good sub helps,,,REL in my case.  Can't return a used speaker, but I found mine local used, so auditioned on the same day as several others in store.

Harbeth - I want to hear these.

Well reviewed speakers are not hard to sell if you want to move on later...lower end harder I think, as are fringe brands.

and I know nothing as Shultz would say about the Fritz or Salk.

Finally, silver wires in my system were not a good match; they added harshness or brightness.  I now use Audience AU24 SX interconnects and speaker wires in one system, and Au24 SX interconnects with homemade  8 gauge copper speaker wires in the other ( long runs).
The Audience stuff is smooth sounding, which is great synergy for my SS equipment (Audionet :) and Mola Mola.

My other speakers are B&W 802N's and I got them used three years ago for $4100.  The are nice, less overly bright than the newer ones, and a great deal at 4k.  But I like the Revels better.

Good luck!  Ken
More to discover