@b_limo Someday, we'll speaker swap for a month? Hmmmm.
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
@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. |
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. |
To the OP: given the 60XT’s impedance curve, it seems that they would not match well with tubes at all. Tubes require relatively stable impedance over the frequency range. They also perform quite poorly when driven with Denon / Marantz receivers (as the impedance goes down below 3 ohms at some frequencies). Hence, you get all these posts on how they underperformed in speaker comparisons at Magnolia. Pair them up with a good solid state amp (I use the Parasound A21) and you’ll realize how good they are. No brightness / harshness in treble at all. I had them side-by-side in my house for a month next to the Monitor Audio Gold GX-300 speakers (way more expensive than the 60XT) and the 60XT won out clearly. |
- 299 posts total