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
b_limo's avatar
b_limo
2,277 posts
 
Good to hear the outcome Hilde!  
Im a big fan of Beryllium tweeters as well.  I feel like they have the detail, clarity and sparkle I like so much but they aren’t so in your face / fatiguing as titanium.  I also notice sibilance with Titanium that isn’t there with Beryllium.

The comparison between the evokes and the Salks wasn’t fair.  The esotar tweeter is more in line with your BE SB’s.  I’d bet that you’d still prefer the BE sound signature over soft domes though, some people do, self included.

I noted earlier in this thread (I believe) that you wouldn’t need a sub really, if you had some good bass response from a stand mount speaker, which it sounds like you have accomplished that.  I have had many expensive, high end subs in my room and most of the time I prefer no sub.  REL’s are so subtle as well but I do love them!

Just to add a bit to the previous post about the Fritz Carrera BE’s, I’ve had my pair for awhile now and just love them.  Fritz is now using the Beryllium SB acoustics tweeter in the Carreras.  Its the same tweeter as in your Salks (if you have the neodymium magnet version).

Anyhow, happy listening!  
hilde45's avatar
hilde45 OP
4,980 posts
 
@b_limo Someday, we'll speaker swap for a month? Hmmmm.
brownsfan
1,508 posts
 
@hilde 45 and  @decooney, tube rolling in the Orchid was a brilliant (if obvious) lever to use. I’m just glad someone finally looked at the problem holistically instead of focusing on a single variable. A while back, there was an extensive thread on tube rolling in the Orchid. You probably saw it, but just in case, https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/mhdt-orchid-tube-rolling?highlight=orchid. Folks were using adapters to utilize 6SN7, the 6922 family, and some other stuff as I recall. That gives you an almost infinite number of great choices that can certainly emphasize or deemphasize any number of sonic attributes.

My one and only experience with Be tweets was in a Ref 3A speaker. It was a lovely tweeter. Very resolving but never bright. Unfortunately, it was much faster and much more articulate than the mid woofer, so it did not make a happy match. You could identify the tweet and midrange immediately as two separate drivers. My guess is that the Fritz and Salk both exhibit excellent coherence.

The monitors I use in my secondary system have Scan Speak Revelator soft domes, which are great tweeters, but I think one of the better Be tweets might be a better match in my living room. If you guys do a swap, please let me know what you think. One of those monitors might be in my future.
hilde45's avatar
hilde45 OP
4,980 posts
 
@brownsfan Will sure let you know. The Orchid tube was all @decooney I just know how to take good advice.
b_limo's avatar
b_limo
2,277 posts
 
I’d be fine with swaping for a bit in a few months once the honeymoon period has worn off for you.  I’d imagine that the Salks have more bass simply because of the size of the cabinet.  It would be interesting though.  Same tweeter, both utilize a paper style midbass close in size, yet I think they would sound different simply because of different crossovers and different size cabinets.  I’d be interested to see if the Fritz are more sensitive.

SB acoustics makes some nice drivers. The 6” carbon driver Fritz is using, and the Satori midbass that you have are really beautifully built drivers.  Good quality stuff.  
There’s other good drivers out there too from Seas, Scan Speak, Morel, Vifa, Raal; as you move up the line they go from good to great!

But BE tweeters are always expensive and towards the high end of the series of a manufacturer.  I had Paradigms with BE tweeters, and have heard Focals and Revels with BE tweeters and liked them all.
More to discover