Do my ears deceive me??


     The money is in the bank, thinking of upgrading speakers, but everything I demo is no better or worse than what I have.   Willing to spend up to $6,000.      Upgraditis??   My main system is Mcintosh MX 134 that I bought in 2003, with a pair of Focal 836v's and a Parasound 5250  (250w/channel) amp I bought around 2012.   I either blew the tweeters or crossover on my 836's, so they are in for repair.   Since I've owned them for 10 years, I was considering new speakers.    The blades are way more than I would spend, but I also demoed the Kef R11s, Martin Logan xtf 200's, Mcintosh XR 100s, and B&W 703 S3.   

       None of them sounded better than what I'm hearing right now from my BP 2006s.    Would I really need to demo them in my room to make a fair comparison??  Or are speakers just not much better than they were 20 years ago?   I know I love detail, and tend to lean towards aluminum tweeters.  I pretty much only listen to classic rock and roll.   Of all I demoed, I really like the B&W 706s.   They sounded much brighter/cleaner than the others.   But they had the reciever set up so I couldn't adjust the treble/bass.  I love a V equalizer curve, and bump up the bass and treble a bit on my home/car systems.   Maybe I just have the good luck of prefering cheaper speakers.   

 

  

fenderu2

I like Waytoomuchstuff's idea ^ about the crossovers.   I did that very thing with my old Epi 100 speakers... brought 'em right to life again.  Xover parts can age.

@fenderu2   They're not $6000, but if you add a nice sub from SVS, perhaps their SVS Micro 300 for $600 (has a nice app to customize the response to your speakers and room), then you'll be up around $4000 w tax:  the Q Acoustics Concept 50, which takes the tech from the Concept 500 and slims it down... and there's some argument to be made that the 50 might actually be better than the 500 once you get that sub in there w the 50s due to more precise control of the woofers and the slimline design which helps the speaker "disappear".  The "silver" finish is pretty stunning, too... excellent modern speaker w robust sound and super soundstage.  

btw, I have never had an equalizer help the sound of my speakers... I've tried numerous times.  At most, I've used the bass/treble control, and that quite subtly.  Select the speakers that can stand on their own and avoid the extra peripheral. 

btw, I have never had an equalizer help the sound of my speakers... I’ve tried numerous times. At most, I’ve used the bass/treble control, and that quite subtly. Select the speakers that can stand on their own and avoid the extra peripheral.

That said, the Concept 50 + SVS idea that I gave might be nice for you because the SVS does have an EQ function so you can smoothly bring up the bass a bit if you'd like, and if you want a bit more top end from the 50 just simply use your treble tone control.  That way, your only "peripheral" is your sub/app.  

No manufacturer — and I mean ZERO— uses any EQ in their audio systems at high-end audio shows.

 

Ahem!

  • Vandersteen
  • Legacy
  • JL Audio

Just to name a few.

The use of an EQ is controversial in some ways because of how they were sold initially in the home and in some because users don’t really understand what to do with them.

The absolute best scenarios where I can point to tremendous gains is in clipping bass peaks and tuning a sub to have a descending FR from 16 Hz to 80 Hz.

The worst scenarios are when users try to "flatten" their speakers and end up using a horizontally flat curve.

Overall I’m with Floyd Toole, and believe that EQ’s should be used sparingly and precisely. If you attempt complete "room correction" what then is the point of picking out any particular brand of speaker over another?

My speakers are 68 years old. 

I recone them every ten years. 

My ears never deceive me, but the brain that they are connected to often does.