# For experienced audiophiles only please



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

As I have come to find out that I have never owned a set of good speakers, please I beg your indifference to your personal preferences and just try to put yourself into my head for a moment, as I have put in over 2 months time and effort into this. That I ask this of you should go a long ways toward showing you good folks how much I respect your abilities and opinions.I am shopping for a set of front mains and center that will be married to my Denon 2808. I have 2-matched Mirage subs outboard of each floor stander at the moment for extended bass.Music and movies 50/50 classic rock, blues C&W. I really like everything except opera, rap, and Techno.
I have auditioned a number of speakersolk LSI9+very good
New Mirage OS3 FS towers=to tinny-is that a word?
Dana 680=to laid back
Paragram Studio 10= just sounded too smal
lRevel M12= bass covered detail/too colored would be the right word?
Vienna Hayden=Sweet like your mothers kiss on the check/no excitement?
B&W 685= I loved it? Just right.
Speakers that I have been reading glowing reports on for the last 4 weeks but have been unable to audition. These are the ones I would like your opinion on mentally comparing them to the B&W685 please.
Swan Diva 6.1
Totem Hawk
Salk Sound Tower
Vandersteen 2CE Sig II
Usher Be-718RHB TK-5CT
Or any others you may have a suggestion about. But remember please this is my head and my money so please leave your ears at the door.I sincerely thank you all for your time, comments and mental effort.
Mike


----------



## Otto (May 18, 2006)

I sincerely suggest you audition the Vandersteen products. I did and fell in love with the sound. I cannot necessarily compare them with all the others that you have auditioned, but they are engaging and many people like them. I see that they are on your list. I have heard some of the speakers you have heard (or their brethren) and I personally prefer the Vandersteen (I have the 3A Sig, but I understand that the 2CE SigII is very similar). Of course, many thing are variable, including your musical selection, your ears, your sense of headspace (i.e., your mood), your accompanying electonics, and, of course, your room.

Let us know how it goes...


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Martin Logan ... heavenly bliss! If there is any better, I haven't heard them.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Based on your comments and the things you have been listening to, I'd recommend listening to the Thiel products. The 685 is a hard one to beat in terms of value, IMO.


----------



## nova (Apr 30, 2006)

A couple others I'd suggest you audition are;

PSB - Imagine T
Monitor Audio - GS20
RBH Sound - 1266-SE/R


----------



## drdoan (Aug 30, 2006)

Having heard the Vandersteens, I think they are amazing especially for 2 channel. Have fun. Dennis


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

Otto said:


> I sincerely suggest you audition the Vandersteen products. I did and fell in love with the sound. I cannot necessarily compare them with all the others that you have auditioned, but they are engaging and many people like them. I see that they are on your list. I have heard some of the speakers you have heard (or their brethren) and I personally prefer the Vandersteen (I have the 3A Sig, but I understand that the 2CE SigII is very similar). Of course, many thing are variable, including your musical selection, your ears, your sense of headspace (i.e., your mood), your accompanying electonics, and, of course, your room.
> 
> Let us know how it goes...


Thanks all for the good input. I went out yesterday and auditioned a lot of B&W's at a store that had them all lined up so we could switch from one to the other. As far as they went I found a hard choice. The 685 with a center, or the 684 with center and last but not least the 683 with no center (1500.00 budget) the 85 and 84'2 sounded pretty much the same just a fuller on the 648. The 683 was a different dog altogether as it had a much flatter precise response and sound. A little like a CameroZ28 and a Corvette Both very good and fast but different. Then I went to audition a Vandersteen 2Ce SigII. Now that’s a horse of a different color for sure. Very open with a very large pleasing sound field (good for HT) the absolute sweet spot was rather small though. The clarity was good enough that (as a guitar player for 40+ years) I could tell you what guitar the artist was using. They are kinda ugly compared to some (Handsome my mother would say) and they are bulky with large footprint, and look rather dated, terminal post and all, along with being fussy with the equipment married to them. Jeeze I think I just described my-self. I wonder if I could give them a good home? I could only give them 14" out from wall and one side of each would be against a new slim line DLP, so not covered but there non the less. Other sides good breathing room as each has a hallway. Get the pic?


----------



## jackfish (Dec 27, 2006)

Go to John Fort Audio, 850 South Greenville Avenue Suite 100
Richardson, Texas 75081, 972-644-1199 and ask to audition the Vandersteen 2Ce Signature IIs. You might stop right there in your search.

Audio Video Unplugged in Farmers Branch and Krystal Clear Audio Video in Dallas should have the Totem Hawk, which should get a listen.


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

Thank you Jackfish!! Big time
I had gotten down to the nut cuttin as we say out in the country I thought
Vandersteen 2Ce SigII
Salk Song Tower
Rocket 850
and now another I want to check out the Totem Hawk
I have auditioned all the above except the ST and that is tommorow. I will have to do the TH after and just make up my mind
Just droped in to see what condition my condition was in. Yea


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

Auditioned the Song Towers and they are awsome! Clean mids that you just can't congest no matter how hard you try. Highs that set just right on the ears. Good sound stage. A little week in the bass so they do need a sub.
Vandersteen very full and huge right to left soundstage with lots of detail but also some of the detailed placement gets lost in that huge sound stage. Foward to rear soundstage a lot smaller.
Rocket 850 gotta wait and see.


----------



## mjbuoni (Jul 8, 2008)

I've spent the last 4 days getting to know the Rocket RS850's and comparing them to my Mackie HR824mk2's. The RS850's are clean and detailed top to bottom, a little more so than the Mackies. Also, they are very smooth and non-fatiguing at higher volumes, unlike my Mackies. 

Where they fail to impress me is their imaging/sound stage and relatively small sweet spot - the Mackies really are much better at this the more I directly compare them. With the Rockets, I constantly am reminded that I am listening to speakers while with the Mackies I hear a much more diffuse sound that extends well outside the speakers and with a huge sweet spot. I can sit anywhere between the speakers and still get a very clear image.

I hope my opinion helps, even though I may not be an "experienced audiophile." Best of luck with your decision.


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

Thanks that helps a lot. It's hard to find a pair of Rockets but on that explanation as I have heard the Mackies and agree with your review of them I will pass ,and just audition the Totem Hawks this weekend.


----------



## Alex Wilson (Feb 5, 2009)

Sonnie said:


> Martin Logan ... heavenly bliss! If there is any better, I haven't heard them.


I would endorse this opinion. When watching home theatre, most high quality speakers make me feel as though I am listening to a high quality surround sound system. The Martin Logans make me feel as though "I'm there!", especially on really complex material such as sporting events where there are literally thousands of little noises (from thousands of spectators) going on all the time. You can hear the sound of the breeze that is blowing, the intake of breath from the spectators, the subtle echoes of murmuring throughout the crowd, the cough from a distant spectator, and so on. You can hear the atmosphere! The Martin Logans seem to separate all these little noises into distinct and separate sounds whereas most other speakers in my experience tend to blend them all into 'background noise'. 

Limitations? 

Because they radiate sound both forwards and backwards, they can become a little bright for some ears if the room has hard, reflective surfaces. There are a number of solutions to this that will cost you a little or a lot of money, but one that will not cost anything if you are facing them along a rectangular room, is to break the normal rules of positioning and put them close to the side walls toed-in so the sound will reflect off the side walls onto the back wall and then back to the listeners. Each reflection weakens the reflected signal and tones down the brightness. Because their dispersion is limited to 30 degrees, they can be placed close to the wall without significant forward reflection off the side walls.

The top models can be quite expensive but excellent second-hand units can be found for a fraction of the new price.


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

Alex Wilson said:


> I would endorse this opinion. When watching home theatre, most high quality speakers make me feel as though I am listening to a high quality surround sound system. The Martin Logans make me feel as though "I'm there!", especially on really complex material such as sporting events where there are literally thousands of little noises (from thousands of spectators) going on all the time. You can hear the sound of the breeze that is blowing, the intake of breath from the spectators, the subtle echoes of murmuring throughout the crowd, the cough from a distant spectator, and so on. You can hear the atmosphere! The Martin Logans seem to separate all these little noises into distinct and separate sounds whereas most other speakers in my experience tend to blend them all into 'background noise'.
> 
> Limitations?
> 
> ...


Don't they take a lot of amp to run though? At least thats what I have heard and seen when looking at them. Because of this I have not auditioned any so far. Just bought my Denon 2808 and a set of new speakers is already pushing the WAF headroom:foottap:


----------



## Alex Wilson (Feb 5, 2009)

olddog said:


> Don't they take a lot of amp to run though? At least thats what I have heard . . . and a set of new speakers is already pushing the WAF headroom:foottap:


The biggest issue with electrostatics is whether your amp can drive them. There are two components to this question: impedance and sensitivity. 

(1) Impedance. Many amps are not happy at all driving a 4 ohm speaker and Martin Logans are 4 ohms speakers. I looked at the Denon 2808 manual and the specifications quote the two channel dynamic power as 120 watts into 8 ohms and 170 watts into 4 ohms. This seems to suggest that they could handle the Martin Logans from the perspective of impedance, albeit not perfectly (in which case they would produce 240 watts into 4 ohms).

(2) Sensitivity. Are the speakers sensitive enough to produce adequate volume given the power of your amp? Generally the Martin Logans are more efficient than the B & W 685s. The 685's quote an efficiency (sensitivity) of 88dB/Watt/meter. The Logans are typically quoted between 90dB and 93 dB.

For ease of calculation, let's assume you were comparing the B & Ws (with their 88dB sensitivity) to ML's that had a sensitivity of 91dB. This means that the ML's would be 3db louder at one meter when both were fed with a 1 watt signal. How much is this? It means that one channel of the ML's would be equivalent in volume to two channels through the B & W's. Put another way, _played at the same volume, the B & Ws would require twice as much power as the MLs_. I can explain this in more detail and more mathematics if you wish.

How do we reconcile this with the fact that the B & W 685 is quoted as requiring 25-100 watts and the ML (say the Source with a sensitivity of 90dB) is quoted as requiring 100-200 watts? To be honest, I don't know for sure, but the manufacturers probably think their speakers sound best with amps within the recommended power range. Regardless, your amp should be at least adequate for both.

I have not heard the B & W 685's, nor have I heard the cheaper MLs. My main experience is with the dearer models. I just know that from the quoted specs, the ML's need less power than the 685's to produce the same volume. Reviewers may say that the ML's need lots of power to sound their best, and maybe that is the case. However the real issue for you is _not_ "Are the ML's going to sound their best through my amp?" but rather "Are the ML's going to sound better than the B & W's through my amp?"

Keep in mind though that specs cannot really be trusted. There is no substitute for _you_ listening with _your_ ears through _your_ amplifier and making _your_ call. I suggest you listen to both through your amplifier (take it and some favourite music with you) and let your ears decide.

As for the WAF. I understand. That is why I have tried to quote specs on the cheaper MLs. I would also suggest second-hand. I picked up my Prodigys for 21% of the new price and they are in near perfect condition. It also makes it much easier to upgrade later without losing too much money. In fact if you can get them for a really good price, you may even be able to recover your money on resale. That possibility can carry a lot of weight with the Significant Other. 

Hope this is of help.

Alex


----------



## jackfish (Dec 27, 2006)

Listen to the Totem Hawks. They sound great, are easy to drive and take up the same room as bookshelf speakers on stands.


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

Alex Wilson said:


> The biggest issue with electrostatics is whether your amp can drive them. There are two components to this question: impedance and sensitivity.
> 
> (1) Impedance. Many amps are not happy at all driving a 4 ohm speaker and Martin Logans are 4 ohms speakers. I looked at the Denon 2808 manual and the specifications quote the two channel dynamic power as 120 watts into 8 ohms and 170 watts into 4 ohms. This seems to suggest that they could handle the Martin Logans from the perspective of impedance, albeit not perfectly (in which case they would produce 240 watts into 4 ohms).
> 
> ...


Thanks Alex I will give them a tryout this weekend with the Totems and let everyone know.


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

Well, Susan, (the best side of me and the WAF comptroller in my life), and I got up early and went out to audition the Totem Hawks today. She has never auditioned any speakers, nor given to understanding or belief of what I was talking about when I did. We took along some of her favorite music, (“The Elegance of Pachelbel”), along with my standard reference songs that I have already listed. We went to the B&W dealer first, where understanding what listening to good music on good equipment, was reveled to her and the light of understanding came to her eyes and ears as we reviewed the 685,684,683,704,805,and the 804. I had her rate them all on my sheet. I will come back to this later.
Then we went to listen to some Totems and ended up meeting one of the most hospitable, gracious, knowledgeable persons I have ever had the pleasure of making an acquaintance with. For an old Texas boy that’s saying A LOT!
His name is Don Krasen, owner of Krystal Clear, in Dallas. He has been in business here for 20+ years, so he is the real deal. Well, Don did not have the Totem Hawks in stock but he had the Totem Arro and the Totem Rainmaker. We would have likely auditioned more, but we just could not stop discussing with Don all the intricacies of system applications and the holistic ability of the synergy of the parts which can add up to over 100% of the realization of the end product, if done properly. He never once tried to move us beyond our budget or ruin us for life by letting us listen to something we could not afford. Goggle his name and you will see, he had the power to do so. What an education Susan and I had TOGETHER today!
Now to the Totem Arro. We were totally amazed at the sound that such a small footprint speaker could put out. It uses the Transmission Line enclosure to accomplish this.
Specs are
Break in time:	100 - 150 hours
Placement from rear wall:	6" - 3' / 152 - 914 mm
Placement distance apart:	2' - 12' / 610 - 3 658 mm
Mass Loading:	10 - 20 lb / 4.5 - 9 kg in each cabinet
Frequency Response:	40 Hz - 20 kHz ± 3 dB (with proper room positioning)
Impedance:	4 ohms
Sensitivity:	87 dB
Recommended Power:	20 - 80 W
Crossover frequency:	2.4 kHz, 2nd order Linkwitz-Riley (optimized)
Woofer:	4.5" / 114 mm sandwich cone double magnet”
Tweeter:	1 impregnated textile dome 0.75" / 19 mm (low resonance freq.)
Max SPL's:	In average size listening room (12' x 20' / 4 m x 6 m)103 dB peak (12' x 15' / 3 658 x 4 572 mm) from pair at 7' / 2 m
Dimensions (w x h x d):	5.1 x 33.5 x 7.1" / 130 x 850 x 180 mm
We drove both the Arro and Rainmaker speakers in stereo only with an Acram 50w per channel solid-state amp. These little towers would do anyone justice with a small to mid size room without a sub at normal listening levels. When you try to drive them hard, however, we found the highs become too fatiguing. We both felt that they were very forward in sound with a large and definitive sound stage with excellent dynamics. What else can you ask of a speaker of this size? Well, it delivers what you ask in spades and then some for the price point.
I just found out after all these years that Susan, (I gave her the remote and gave her the sweet spot all day), likes to drive it to reference volume! When I asked her why, she told me “It sounds like the performers are right there in front of you!” Guess that says something about my current system, as it has been rare, that she has even listened to any music on it!!
Next the Totem Rainmaker
Specs

Break in time:	70 - 100 hours
Placement from rear wall:	1' - 3' / 305 - 914 mm
Placement distance apart:	4' - 8' / 1 219 - 2 438 mm
Frequency Response:	42 Hz - 20 kHz ± 3 dB
Impedance:	4 ohms minimal
Sensitivity:	87.5 dB/W/m. Maximum sound pressure before dynamic compression
Recommended Power:	30 - 100 W
Crossover frequency:	2.3 kHz, 2nd order
Woofer:	5.5" / 140 mm
Tweeter:	1" / 25 mm aluminum dome, chambered
Dimensions (w x h x d):	6.8 x 14 x 9.1“ / 173 x 355 x 230 mm
Volume:	9 l (internal)
Weight:	5.8 kg (approx. 12 lb)
Recommended stand:	TOTEM T4S

We both found this speaker to be a bit colored, but very smooth and responsive, with a pleasing high even at Reference level. More laid back would be the term I believe, without loss of soundstage or spaciousness. We both felt it was a little like a B&W 685 with more extended highs with better decay. Once again, good bass to the point in a small venue no sub would be needed. Just not enough dynamics to suit our preferences. Don apologized for not having the Hawks for us, but explained that the sound would be a happy marriage of the Arro and the Rainmaker. Alas, we still need to find a pair to audition. However, this is a good thing, as we find this to be a fun and enlightening experience to share!
Susan’s take on the day was just like mine. The B&W’s won so far today for what we listened to, not so for what they did great, (because they did nothing great), but for the fact of they did everything good. The others were great in some points but failed in others. Does that make sense? It’s kind of like a win by default.
Now guys, listen up. My Sweetie had a great time today! Why? Because I made sure not to interrupt her and let her ask her own questions. Then, I made sure she always had the sweet spot along with the remote CONTROL. Never was I condescending answering any of her questions in private, and I asked her opinion of everything. Along with that, a fantastic lunch shared, and she got to play with some very expensive equipment, and, Viola!! You have an enthusiastic and understanding partner in your endeavors. Touché!! (The wine at lunch didn’t hurt either!!)


----------



## drdoan (Aug 30, 2006)

That is a great story! Would that all of us would audition as you 2 have! Keep us posted as to you decisions. Have fun, Dennis


----------



## superchad (Mar 7, 2008)

Totem and Vandersteen are probably the smoothest speakers on your list, other like BW will play louder and offer some added punch but they have more sizzle on top and a forward midrange that some find fatigueing. I own VMPS so I have no owner bias towards my recomendation (I do own BW surrounds but again I caution you...cant get much more honest than that.) The Vandersteen is also first order crossover, time and phase accurate with minimum baffle that is pleasing and correct in a way that few other speakers are and if I had to fault them it would be they are not a cosmetic gem of a speaker. The Vandersteen is a music lovers speaker many buy when they get off the upgrade path and just want to enjoy music.
The Totem will throw a nice expansive smooth sound that will fill the room and image very well, and its likely you find them purtier than the Vandersteen but these two are the IMO smoothest on your list.
I also own Innersound Eros Electrostats (same as Martin Logan late model statement speakers before Summit without curved panel) and these speakers are not for everyone, they require much more space, and thought into placement within that space. They also can be brutally revealing on popular material, plus they offer limited dispersion. I liked this type speaker, ran it for 2 years and actually still own it but caution against it without at minimum a lengthy audition that hopefully can be done in home. Some love this type speaker and some not so much, they throw a unique sound that many love and many not so much and its easy to get thrilled at first hear only to discover once the initail thrill is gone its just not for you, this happens with all speakers and not just Electrostat's BUT the M.L. is a very different design and thus it hapens more often. 
I grew up and moved to another hybrid design which is VMPS with dynamic woofers and Planar technology for mids and tweets. This speaker gives me the speed I liked in stat's with better dynamics, SPL's and user friendly sweetspot. If your in Ohio you can demo mine in your own home if you wish to see if a hybrid Electrostat is for you, just an offer to demo and nothing more in an effort to be helpful, they are not for sale.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

@olddog, Thats a great story and should be a good learning point for all of us who have wives who dont understand our love for good sound. Somtimes you need to give them the tour and let them hear first hand.


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

Well here we go again, been on the road for 4 days and still going.:coocoo:
After driving all the way to, Albuquerque New Mexico, via Taos (SKI Resort):bigsmile: to audition the Totem Hawks with Susan, I think we fell in love, again?!?
Specs.
Frequency Response:	<32 Hz - 21 kHz ± 3 dB (with proper room positioning)
Impedance:	6 ohms
Sensitivity:	88 dB
Recommended Power:	30 - 120 W
Crossover frequency:	2.5 kHz, 1st order compensated
Woofer:	ø 5.5" / 140 mm Special extreme long throw. Non-resonant cone and dust cap. Dynamic linear suspension for maximum airflow. Patented magnet system.
Tweeter:	1" / 25 mm alloy domeFlexible linear suspension Special low resonance chambered unit
Max SPL's:	In average room (12' x 20' / 4 m x 6 m)107 dB peak from pair at 7' / 2 m
Dimensions (w x h x d):	6.8 x 34.3 x 9.6" / 172 x 870 x 244 mm

The Totem Hawks were at an old friends home so there was no hurry here. An Onkyo SR805 was driving them so they had sufficient headroom. We started out nice and soft with Pachebel (I can’t spell his whole foreign name!) Susan’s favorite. We both were awe struck! The sound was natural, uncolored, with a wide and deep soundstage while sitting in the sweet spot. When you move off axis the sound gets quit a bit more laid back but still good with a good bass (I found so far all the Totem speakers have a good bass) It was hard to believe so much beautifull sound was coming out of such a small speaker. Then we put in SRV Blues at Sunset track 10. also just right! Now we put in Brian Setzer and everything was going sooo well until---SUSAN decided to run the volume up to reference level:devil::rofl2: so she could “feel like Brian was in front of her. (I thought we had a thing going on-ahh that’s another song) These speakers love the music with a cavet –they do not play well with reference level people. Bass got all muddied up and everything just went to in a hand basket.
If I had a small room in a crowded neighborhood that did not tolerate loud music and I wanted to be able to hear everything at moderate level in a most beautifull way then these would be the ones.
But I don’t, and I’m not, and they don’t give a , so these are not for us.
Sorry
Headed for San Antonio to check out some Theil’s? We will see and I will report.

I will tell you what? You can realy get to know someone ,the first time or all over again, by taking a loooong road trip together:yay2:


----------



## jackfish (Dec 27, 2006)

If you are looking for a speaker that performs well at loud listening levels you might also want to listen to the Paradigm Studio 100. The soundstage isn't as good as some of the others, but it should remain unstrained when played loud.


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

OK we got to San Antonio to check out some of the local pawnshops but really did not do much of anything, as we were having to good of a time relaxing and enjoying the sights, and great food. Guys if you ever want to take that Sig. Other somewhere to show her how romantic you’re other side can be this is the place! Left here and went to Party Town (Austin) where we found some Thiel 1.6s. I never had heard Thiels before and was looking forward to this. At the same time ran across some Spenders S5e speakers? I had never even heard of them before.
The Thiels looked to be easy to drive (I thought it would be otherwise) The Tweeter was rather low, as these are not that tall of a speaker? The design is a lot different than anything we have looked at as they are slanted back to accommodate the time and phase coherency of the speakers. Kinda of an odd looking bird with a long slit on the front bottom. As to the tweeter, a tall person would probably want to put these on some sort of pedestal?
Specs
Bandwidth (-3 dB): 48 Hz-20 kHz; Amplitude Response: 50 Hz-20 kHz +/-2 dB; Phase Response: Minimum ï¿½10 degrees; Sensitivity: 90 [email protected] V-1m; Impedance: 4 ohms (3.0 ohms minimum); Recommended Power: 50-300 watts; Cabinet Dimensions: 9 inches wide x 11.5 inches deep x 35.5 inches high; Weight: 38 pounds
They had excellent wide sound field and resolution of details with accurate imaging. Depth was very good also. It seems though that when the Misses ran up the volume they tended to get an uncomfortable brightness? To them. They also really need about 3ft. breathing room, which I don’t have. We drove them with a Denon 3809 on pure direct stereo.

The Spender S5e
These speakers are on the smallish side for a floor stander. The components seemed to be first rate. A Seas 1” fabric dome tweeter, and two individual 140mm Spendor drive units. One driver handles the midrange and upper bass. The second bass unit handles the very low frequencies and it is engineered to match the rear flow port. 
These are an easy listening speaker with good sound field and imaging. They sounded to us a little laid back on the high end and somewhat lacking on the low freq., but overall very accurate and didn’t mind being driven hard at all. The rear firing bass port once again forces placement problems for us.
We were under whelmed. Needles to say we both are getting a little tired and really want to get back home—but empty-handed?! Also this is the reason for the brevity of the review, we listened to others to but they all fell short for one reason or another, weather it was the sound design of placement or price.

Overall choice comparison so far would be:

For sound alone Vandersteen Sig 3A. Bad No adequate room for them and ugly.

Sound looks and usability Salk Sound Tower. Bad Over my budget and can’t find one used to fit my pocket book.

Price and sound: B&W 683. Bad Just a little too laid back and kinda cheap looking. (I do not have a dark AV theater) Living room for ALL TO SEE WAF.

So along with everything else we still have not found that SWEET DEAL but have a lead for this afternoon that maybe a good one!


----------



## Eric D (Feb 9, 2009)

Not pushing, but with what you're saying about playing volumes, price, and living-room furniture look (I don't want to say WAF because apparently your wonderful wife is just as interested in the sound as you are!), you might want to try looking up a set of the 850s. It was just one comment about imaging that you looked at, and that is also a function of the playing volume.

I'm not qualified to comment further, as I usually state I'm only a mid-fi guy. :whistling:



enjoy,


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

Thanks everyone.
I found our speakers here in Austin wow!!! Were going home with them now. Man are they heavy! Took two of us to carry them and three to load them but they defiantly have the WAF all the way.:yay2:


----------



## mjbuoni (Jul 8, 2008)

Eric D said:


> Not pushing, but with what you're saying about playing volumes, price, and living-room furniture look (I don't want to say WAF because apparently your wonderful wife is just as interested in the sound as you are!), you might want to try looking up a set of the 850s. It was just one comment about imaging that you looked at, and that is also a function of the playing volume.
> 
> I'm not qualified to comment further, as I usually state I'm only a mid-fi guy. :whistling:
> 
> ...


How is imaging/sound stage a function of playing volume? Either the sound diffuses properly or it doesn't, regardless of whether you have more or less sound pressure. 

Just to clarify my opinion, I think that the Rocket 850's are a very nice speaker (with a smooth, detailed and dynamic sound) for the price. But if you value a large sound field with airy highs and a wide image that extends beyond the speakers and blends seamlessly between them, then the 850's fail to impress me in this regard. I think the Vifa XT-25 is a somewhat directional tweeter and is responsible for this. For me, this quality was a deal breaker. But if it's convenient, I'd definitely recommend giving them a listen anyway...


----------



## nova (Apr 30, 2006)

And the winner is ????



olddog said:


> Thanks everyone.
> I found our speakers here in Austin wow!!! Were going home with them now. Man are they heavy! Took two of us to carry them and three to load them but they defiantly have the WAF all the way.:yay2:


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

mjbuoni said:


> How is imaging/sound stage a function of playing volume? Either the sound diffuses properly or it doesn't, regardless of whether you have more or less sound pressure.
> 
> Just to clarify my opinion, I think that the Rocket 850's are a very nice speaker (with a smooth, detailed and dynamic sound) for the price. But if you value a large sound field with airy highs and a wide image that extends beyond the speakers and blends seamlessly between them, then the 850's fail to impress me in this regard. I think the Vifa XT-25 is a somewhat directional tweeter and is responsible for this. For me, this quality was a deal breaker. But if it's convenient, I'd definitely recommend giving them a listen anyway...


The three main specifications for speakers are power handling capacity, frequency response, and sensitivity. If all these things are in balance you have definition, and placement of the various instruments and voices, which is perceived, as a sound field.

Power handling capacity indicates what is the maximum continuous or peak wattage that the speakers can handle without blowing out. However, if you have a low-powered amplifier and turn it up to the point where you get clipping (the tops and bottoms of the AC waveform peaks are flattened out, resulting in instantaneous DC to the speakers) you could burn out the voice coils of speakers that are rated higher than the amplifier output.

Frequency response is the range of frequencies that the speakers can reproduce. The human ear can hear about 20 Hz (hertz or cycles per second) to about 20 kHz (20,000 cycles per second). So, you want speakers that can reproduce as much of that audible range as possible without having deviations in the amount of volume they produce at certain frequencies. For example, a frequency response spec would be 50 Hz - 17 kHz +/- 3 dB. This means that the speakers will faithfully reproduce frequencies from 50 Hz to 17 kHz, with a +/- 3 dB volume variation between any two frequencies.

Sensitivity is the amount of volume that a speaker will put out for a given electrical input. Usually, this is measured in dB at 1 meter distance with an input of 1 watt. DB, or decibels, is a logarithmic scale. So, a +3 dB increase "sounds like" a doubling of the sound pressure level (volume). And a -3 dB decrease "sounds like" the volume being cut in half. 

Good sensitivity ratings for a pair of speakers are in the mid 80s to low 90s, with 120 dB being the threshold of pain (about as loud as a jet engine). The more sensitive speakers are, the less power your amplifier must put out for a given volume. The less power you use, the farther away you operate your amplifier from clipping. So, generally speaking, a higher sensitivity rating is preferred. However, super high-end (also called esoteric) speakers may have low sensitivity, because they are designed to operate with super high-end, high-current amplifiers. But if your speakers or amp. are not designed to work withen each others parimeters at high Db levels then you start to hear distortion. At that point you lose the cohesiveness of defination without which you can't hear the placement in the sound field, and it collapses:yikes:


----------



## mjbuoni (Jul 8, 2008)

olddog said:


> The three main specifications for speakers are power handling capacity, frequency response, and sensitivity. If all these things are in balance you have definition, and placement of the various instruments and voices, which is perceived, as a sound field.
> 
> Power handling capacity indicates what is the maximum continuous or peak wattage that the speakers can handle without blowing out. However, if you have a low-powered amplifier and turn it up to the point where you get clipping (the tops and bottoms of the AC waveform peaks are flattened out, resulting in instantaneous DC to the speakers) you could burn out the voice coils of speakers that are rated higher than the amplifier output.
> 
> ...


I think maybe we have different understandings of how speaker specifications and measurements lead to perceived sound. The following is my opinion based on my physical intuition, considering that I am a mechanical engineer. 

The 3 specs that you list (power handling, frequency response and sensitivity) tell you nothing about definition. Definition (or detail/resolution, pick your word) is more related to having low distortion over all frequencies and overall quickness or controlability of the drivers so that they can respond to every little nuance in the signal. Cumulative spectral decay plots the quickness (or settling time for a speaker) as a function of frequency and is the specification most related to definition. Sound field and imaging, in my understanding, is due in large part to a speaker's ability to disperse sound over a wide and tall angle. The other part of imaging is minimizing room interactions (back walls, side walls, ceiling, floor) so that the dispersed sound has room to spread out and fill the space. Definition sharpens up the image but does not make the sound field any bigger.


----------



## Eric D (Feb 9, 2009)

nova said:


> And the winner is ????


Agreed - did I miss an earlier post? Based on your earlier posts, I'd have to guess you found a great deal on the Salks? Whatever the result, congrats! cause you sound happy.


----------



## Eric D (Feb 9, 2009)

mjbuoni said:


> How is imaging/sound stage a function of playing volume? Either the sound diffuses properly or it doesn't, regardless of whether you have more or less sound pressure.
> 
> Just to clarify my opinion, I think that the Rocket 850's are a very nice speaker (with a smooth, detailed and dynamic sound) for the price. But if you value a large sound field with airy highs and a wide image that extends beyond the speakers and blends seamlessly between them, then the 850's fail to impress me in this regard. I think the Vifa XT-25 is a somewhat directional tweeter and is responsible for this. For me, this quality was a deal breaker. But if it's convenient, I'd definitely recommend giving them a listen anyway...


My apologies - knew I probably should have stayed out since I'm not an experienced audiophile. I was just reacting to his continuing emphasis on the following features: cost was an issue, he appeared to play at louder volumes, and was looking for furniture-type cabinets for a living room rather than into a treated room or a home theater. 

Re your first point: in my limited experience I find when playing very quietly, I only hear the direct sound path from the speakers, but as things get louder I hear more bounce off the walls (or why would we bother to worry about treatments?).

anyway, it's all good - take care.


----------



## mjbuoni (Jul 8, 2008)

Eric D said:


> My apologies - knew I probably should have stayed out since I'm not an experienced audiophile. I was just reacting to his continuing emphasis on the following features: cost was an issue, he appeared to play at louder volumes, and was looking for furniture-type cabinets for a living room rather than into a treated room or a home theater.
> 
> Re your first point: in my limited experience I find when playing very quietly, I only hear the direct sound path from the speakers, but as things get louder I hear more bounce off the walls (or why would we bother to worry about treatments?).
> 
> anyway, it's all good - take care.


Cool, no worries!


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

Folks I know I have sinned:bigsmile: so please forgive me. Here’s the rest of the story.


Well we got to Austin and checked into my friends house, rested a few then went out and checked out the Thiel 1.6 then the Spender S5e as in my previous post. Then we bought some steaks and went back to my buds home to have a little cook up. He was out with his son watching him play baseball.
Later, when they had gotten home and we had all eaten Susan and I were telling them about our travels. His son up and tells us about one of his baseball buds dad that was doing
a big remodel on their home, and had a couple of speakers for sale as they were doing an AV in-wall install. I asked if he had a phone# and I called. When we got over there I ended up meeting a true brother in arms. He was in the midst of a very big re-model for sure. He had taken out the fireplace and replaced it with an electric one. Where the chimney had been was now a recess across the wall that he had installed a large DLP and on either side 2x5ft holes cut out that would be receiving his new in wall speakers, along with ceiling holes cut in with boxes to suspend his new surrounds for a 7/1. He also had a custom recess off to the side to take in his equipment, one of which was a pair of Cary 805CsJ and a wireless music on demand (I gotta get one). He had his old speakers, turntable and amp (not the Cary’s) for sale he said, as he would not be needing them any longer.

I have been cautioned and have learned that first impressions are dangerous. It's why speaker retailers are considered a want-a-be or used-to-be car salesman, because they know how to exploit the one-hour demo. It's only later, after you've lived with your purchase, that you find out it's a great source for listener fatigue, and you'd been seduced by its special attributes rather than by accuracy or naturalness or musicality. If anything, I think you would want to err on the side of politeness, in sharp contrast to spitty, edgy, nasty aggression (Gee, who does that remind me of?)(Not me I’m sure).! So we cranked them up with his Cary’s and spent some time shooting pool on a Beautifull Manhattan, Brunswick he had just acquired. He put on some Frank and Dino and Aretha, Peggy, Ray Charles and Ella and the voices were so realistic that Susan and I agreed it felt like you could just reach out and touch them. I also pulled out my reference CD’s that have some particular high freq. cuts that have given many so far a problem (Brian Setzer Live in Japan) I couldn't get them to spit or sizzle, and yet never did I feel that the top end was lacking. Now these speakers have metal tweeters and what veteran metal tweeter haters will find so disconcerting is that we found them smooth, sweet and velvety - almost a complete denial of metal tweeter values. But I suspect that part of the effect was the speaker's room-filling dispersion. With no head-clamped-in-a-vice hot-seat effect, there was a seamless, wall-to-wall sonic stage, with a texture and depth, which can only be described as 'silky smooth', and warm and caressing with no upper-frequency nastiness. Yes a little colored but in a good way that leaves everything clean and accurate. More than once, I heard an instrument play way off axis and the bass while not strong or thumping was, or just, felt “just right”. Susan and I, both of our own separate accord came to the conclusion that these were just right. They did not interpret but were merely a conduit for the music in a most pleasing and realistic way. I had heard that you have to be careful with the front-end equipment with these speakers and that worried me no little bit, as all I have is a Denon 2808, but my new friend said that it should not be a problem and it has proven with proper placement and sub settings he was right.
We came to the point of an offer, and when he spoke first I took it. No Haggle. I was tiredJ
1200.00 inc. a 10ft. pair of Audioquest DBS BI-Wire and a pair of lead shot and sand filled stands from the Mfg.(the speakers were attached with a special adhesive and bolted to these stands and he said he was not taking them off, so they weighed about 100lbs. Each) 



Specifications:

Description: 2-way vented-box system
Drive units: 1x 1-inch aluminum dome high-frequency, 1x 6.5-inch woven Kevlar cone bass / midrange
Frequency range: -6dB at 42Hz and 50kHz
Frequency response: 49Hz - 22kHz ±3dB on reference axis
Dispersion: within 2dB of reference response
Horizontal: over 60º arc
Vertical: over 10º arc
Sensitivity: 88dB spl (2.83V, 1m)
Harmonic Distortion: 2nd and 3rd harmonics – 90dB, 1m, <1% 100Hz - 22kHz, <0.5% 150Hz - 20kHz
Nominal Impedance: 8Ω (minimum 3.7Ω)
Crossover frequencies: 4kHz
Recommended Power: 50W - 120W into 8Ω on unclipped program
Max. Recommended Cable Impedance: 0.1Ω
Dimensions: 16.5 H x 9.4 W x 13.8 D (inch)
Weight: 26lb 

Now if you haven’t guessed yet—the envelope please?
Please guys don’t hate me, pillage my village and or take my women, the price was just too good to pass up—and did I hear, or listen to better speakers-YES, but not at this PRICE!

B&W 805S
1200.00 with B&W stands (already filled) and Audioquest speaker cable. Now I have an extra 1200.00 for a tube amp.:jiggy:
They are in pristine condition, and the natural grain finish is just beautifull. After some tweaking for placement they are all of the above. I know some have said they found this speaker to be too harsh or bright? I really thought I had screwed the pooch when I first got these home as they sounded just that way setting 9” from the back wall. First I blamed the amp, and then went into depression, denial and pre-separation:hissyfit:.Then I decided to really get into tweaking them out. I moved them out from the wall about 4 ft. where they immediately lost the harshness. Then carefully moved them back till it started again (at 100lbs. each no small task). They ended up at 18 & 3/8 in. from back wall. Then I went into the amp and set them to small and set the sub crossover to 80Hz, along with that I boosted the 4Hz freq to 4.5DB. Then I set the pair of subs to 80HZ and backed off the attack till the transition from speaker to sub was unnoticeable. Susan has cranked them to 120Db (RS meter) and they still are rock solid and except for the VolumeJ no fatigue. This is all for music only, where I used an unused (7/1) amp channel and assigned it this task. I kept my HT (5/1) in tact so I have actually come a full circle, back to where I started looking in the beginning.
I have been listening to them as I wrote this. Thank you all for your help and guidance in my hunt and if I can be of any help to you just let me know please.

Old Texas Dog


----------



## mjbuoni (Jul 8, 2008)

Congratulations! It sounds like you made a good choice with your speakers. I really am happy for you.

Also, just wanted to say sorry if you interpreted my previous post as edgy or aggressive  - that was not my intention.


----------



## Keith from Canada (Jan 30, 2008)

olddog said:


> As I have come to find out that I have never owned a set of good speakers, please I beg your indifference to your personal preferences and just try to put yourself into my head for a moment, as I have put in over 2 months time and effort into this. That I ask this of you should go a long ways toward showing you good folks how much I respect your abilities and opinions.I am shopping for a set of front mains and center that will be married to my Denon 2808. I have 2-matched Mirage subs outboard of each floor stander at the moment for extended bass.Music and movies 50/50 classic rock, blues C&W. I really like everything except opera, rap, and Techno.
> I have auditioned a number of speakersolk LSI9+very good
> New Mirage OS3 FS towers=to tinny-is that a word?
> Dana 680=to laid back
> ...


It's probably a no-go for you but I listened to the Magnepan 3.6 last weekend and was absolutely blown away. They were being demoed side-by-side with Martin Logan's at twice the price and the Maggies were quite a bit better IMO. I was quite surprised really, I fully expected to love the ML's but after listening to the Maggies, they are my new dream speaker! Tough to explain the difference but it was like I could 'feel' the instruments more with the Maggies...the soundstage was similar but everything had more resonance with the Maggies. I will probably work towards getting the 1.6's which are more in my ballpark. They're awesome speakers...especially if I hadn't heard the 3.6's during the same audition!!!

That being said, your Denon wouldn't be sufficient to properly run the Maggies. Just thought I'd pipe in on the question. Good luck!!!


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

mjbuoni said:


> Congratulations! It sounds like you made a good choice with your speakers. I really am happy for you.
> 
> Also, just wanted to say sorry if you interpreted my previous post as edgy or aggressive  - that was not my intention.


No not at all:bigsmile:and thanks. I would have never been able to discern what I wanted much less than what to pay for it without the help of the folks on this great forum because as anyone thats been down this road knows how dizzy:dizzy: it can make you. Thats probably what the high end audio stores count on. Now I'm going to reap the fruits of my labor and listen to some music:hsd:


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

Oh these are soo sweet:yay2:I have yet to find anything that does not sound better on them. Now I think I will look into a new BD--prehaps the new Oppo?


----------



## Eric D (Feb 9, 2009)

Sounds like a new thread then. Is the new thread going to be for experienced videophiles only? :neener:

:bigsmile:

enjoy,


----------



## Alarmnbob (Dec 19, 2007)

Sonnie said:


> Martin Logan ... heavenly bliss! If there is any better, I haven't heard them.





Alex Wilson said:


> I would endorse this opinion. When watching home theatre, most high quality speakers make me feel as though I am listening to a high quality surround sound system. The Martin Logans make me feel as though "I'm there!", especially on really complex material such as sporting events where there are literally thousands of little noises (from thousands of spectators) going on all the time. You can hear the sound of the breeze that is blowing, the intake of breath from the spectators, the subtle echoes of murmuring throughout the crowd, the cough from a distant spectator, and so on. You can hear the atmosphere! The Martin Logans seem to separate all these little noises into distinct and separate sounds whereas most other speakers in my experience tend to blend them all into 'background noise'.
> 
> Limitations?
> 
> ...


I agree I love my ML's but I do not use them in my Home theater! I separate my music from my movies
My home theater is in the basement and I listen to music upstairs. I think that both rooms need different setups and do not blend the two As some others do. It's my preference, does not have to be yours.

Martin Logans are worth an experience because it is not just listening. Test drive them you will not be sorry! Mine are old and still amaze me.


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

I also keep my music and HT seperate but they both share the same AMP on dedicated channels. I have a set of Warfdales for HT that I am very happy with and the B&Ws are sitting with them for music. The new Oppo will be for movies and SCAD and DVD A.


----------



## conchyjoe7 (Aug 28, 2007)

You've listened to and liked some very good speakers. I'm going to suggest staying with your original list as the B&Ws are excellent, BUT I wouldnt buy until you have heard the Vandersteens; The 2CE sig probably being the best bang in speakerdom for the money!
Cheers...


----------



## olddog (Dec 21, 2008)

conchyjoe7 said:


> You've listened to and liked some very good speakers. I'm going to suggest staying with your original list as the B&Ws are excellent, BUT I wouldnt buy until you have heard the Vandersteens; The 2CE sig probably being the best bang in speakerdom for the money!
> Cheers...


I realy liked the Vandersteens but they don't like me! I just did not have the space they needed to perform well. They were the most transparent that I listened to though.


----------



## ddgtr (Nov 1, 2009)

This is a great thread, y'all!!

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I've got a pair of Monitor Audio GR20 I picked up new for about $1500 (half the price) 2 years ago when the newer model GS20 came out. They can probably be had for a lot less now slightly used.

I don't consider myself an audiophile and do not like to use big audio words but here is my experience with these speakers...

They are unbelievably detailed and I like the fact that for the most part they are not placement sensitive. The off axis response is quite a bit better than some of the newer Paradigm V3 which I also found incredibly detailed with great separation and soundstage. To the Paradigm's defense, I was not able to compare them in a controlled environment with the same front end. It's on my to do list. Back to the MA's, they literally make you feel like you are in the room with the artist: with good recordings, you can clearly place the instruments and voice in space. Lips opening, fingers sliding on guitar strings are some of the things I had never experienced with my previous system. Oh, and revealing - they do not like bad recordings...

Haha, one of the greatest compliments I've received was when a sound engineer asked me whether I was matrixing the sound to the center speaker!!

Just out of curiosity, I compared them driven both by my Onkyo 805 and by my separates. Let me say that the Onkyo in Pure Mode was no slouch, although the separates were the way to go in my case.


----------



## JerryLove (Dec 5, 2009)

> The off axis response is quite a bit better than some of the newer Paradigm V3 which I also found incredibly detailed with great separation and soundstage. To the Paradigm's defense, I was not able to compare them in a controlled environment with the same front end. It's on my to do list.


 I assume you mean the Paradigm Signature line (as that's the one that the .v3 would be current for).

How did you measure off-axis response?

I've heard good things about the MA Gold line (I breifly owned a center-channel from that line, but did no listening other than to verify driver function).


----------



## anberg (Jan 5, 2011)

This may be basic, but I've seen people buy some pricey speakers and then put them in corners. So getting to demo a pair at home in the place they'll be is highly recommended.

I personally prefer Thiels. They sound good in a number of ositions, but like most speakers are best if you get themaway from the wall and treat first reflection


----------



## JoeESP9 (Jun 29, 2009)

I have seen many pictures of systems that people have posted here and on other forums. It's puzzling to me how many have, live with and think such poor speaker positioning produces good sound. Speakers sitting in the corners that don't belong there, bookshelf speakers on the floor and often only three feet apart can't possibly produce any kind of sound stage or a smooth frequency response. 

Those same posters are usually bragging about how good their system sounds. I always wonder what they would say if their gear was set up properly. I guess they then might hire sky writers to boast about their systems. At least they would then have a reason to brag.


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

Better gear still sounds better regardless of optimum positioning. Perspective plays a big role for me, years of expensive Bose replaced with inexpensive Infinity was leaps and bounds of improvement despite install limitations.


----------



## anberg (Jan 5, 2011)

I absolutely agree with Type A. In fact I am only now paying attention to room treatments.

I've done a number of equipment upgrades and they all improved the sound considerably.

I've just done yet another upgrade and it occurred to me that the marginal returns were getting increasingly expensive relative to marginal return. I decided room treatments were the "low hanging fruit". I haven't done it yet, but I understand the bang for the buck is considerable

One thing I have been careful about has been speaker placment (get away from the walls and do not have same distance behind as on the side) and that has made a really big difference in terms of soundstage. openness, imaging

In the end you have to what you have to do. After all, we need to live there too


----------



## JoeESP9 (Jun 29, 2009)

Hey guys, no offense intended. I'm all for everyone having the best gear they can beg borrow or "steal". It's just that sitting bookshelf speakers two feet apart on the floor is a sound situation that all the better gear in the world isn't going to help. Room treatments IMO are the best bang for the buck improvement there is to a decent system that's set up reasonably well. Treatments don't have to look agricultural or industrial. A sensible choice of room furnishings can go a long way toward helping room acoustics.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

JoeESP9 said:


> A sensible choice of room furnishings can go a long way toward helping room acoustics.


So can paying close attention to diffraction. Many people set their speakers way back on a shelf, or too close to another object, causing the sound to reflect off of that surface.

I am doing this myself right now, I just bought dual subs and placed them towards the insides of my toed in speakers. My mains now reflect sound off the tops of the subs. Sure it still sounds good, but not like I am used to, and not as good as it could be.

I did this just to get them up and running, it is a temporary thing, but I believe I can hear the negative effects. The image is more diffuse, I cannot pinpoint sounds like I used to be able to. It is an easy fix, I will be moving them to the outsides of the speakers soon, while still maintaining the timing with the mains that I desire.

There are other problems in my room, some will never be fixed simply because of the compromise of having to live in that room. Someday it would be nice to have a dedicated listening room.


----------



## anberg (Jan 5, 2011)

I have a nice system in my Family Room. Thiel MCS-1's on Sound anchor Stands across the front

Due to WAF I can't have them too far oof the wall and in to the room.

Sounds pretty good. However, every now and then I pull them out a few feet for a particular movie or something.

Night and day. Sound opens up. Takes on a holographic quality; sound left to right/front to back are clearly placed in a particular place

You do what you can that do. I have a friend who spent big $ on some speakers which soundedd great in the store, but had to place them near the wall and was very disappointed. I think he wasted $. The speakers were sufficiently compromised that he wasn't getting the qualities you pay for in high end gear. I think lower priced speakers probably would have sounded almost as good


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

No offense taken at all Joe. However Ill have to do some research on 'room treatments for rookies' as I figured the concept was expensive, ultimately unsightly, and even requiring measurements (which Im not set up to do hardware-wise or knowledge-wise). Even still, Ill admit ascetics has always played a larger role than acoustics, especially for a poor man in a 10x20 room with seven speakers and two full-sized subs :rofl2:

I see your point that some may have poor installs based more on a lack of knowledge and not so much on situation tho.


----------



## jackfish (Dec 27, 2006)

Speakers positioned thusly: http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=26&pagestring

And bass absorption in the corners and on the back wall, and mid-frequency absorption at the first (secondary also if relevant) reflection points, side wall and ceiling, and on the front wall.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

Good info, Jackfish.

I wish I had room for the Cardas setup. I do recommend it to those that have room.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

TypeA said:


> No offense taken at all Joe. However Ill have to do some research on 'room treatments for rookies' as I figured the concept was expensive, ultimately unsightly, and even requiring measurements (which Im not set up to do hardware-wise or knowledge-wise). Even still, Ill admit ascetics has always played a larger role than acoustics, especially for a poor man in a 10x20 room with seven speakers and two full-sized subs :rofl2:
> 
> I see your point that some may have poor installs based more on a lack of knowledge and not so much on situation tho.


Joe makes a valid point, lots of times there are easy fixes that should be observed.

Per room treatments, go to the top of the forum home page and check out one of our sponsors, GIK Acoustics. Lots of useful info for treatment newbies. Also, check out our Home Audio Acoustics forum.


----------



## JoeESP9 (Jun 29, 2009)

TypeA said:


> No offense taken at all Joe. However Ill have to do some research on 'room treatments for rookies' as I figured the concept was expensive, ultimately unsightly, and even requiring measurements (which Im not set up to do hardware-wise or knowledge-wise). Even still, Ill admit ascetics has always played a larger role than acoustics, especially for a poor man in a 10x20 room with seven speakers and two full-sized subs :rofl2:
> 
> I see your point that some may have poor installs based more on a lack of knowledge and not so much on situation tho.


REW (available on this site for free) and a $50 Rat Shack SPL meter are all you need for measuring your systems frequency response..


----------



## anberg (Jan 5, 2011)

I think even just treating first reflection can make a big difference

You don't need measurements - just use the mirror trick. Sit in listening position. Have someone move a mirror along the wall and when you see the speaker in the mirror, that's the spot


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

Thanks all, the assistance is greatly appreciated. After looking over the info from jackfish, and considering my set up, I look to be a remarkably good candidate for treatments in both first reflection (front left and right plus high left and right) and sub traps that feasibly can be installed in the two front corners of the room. Sadly, my speakers are attached to the walls and new placements according to the "Golden Cuboid" is neither feasible nor desired. However, acoustic treatments are very feasible and Im assuming will still be highly beneficial despite my less-than-desirable forced placement. Very pleased with the results of the dampening layer I installed in all my speaker cabinets, and I managed that 11-speaker diy project as a rookie, I think I can handle creating some sound absorbers and sub traps, after some research on where to begin. :rofl: 


Luckily I already have a radio shack spl meter, an m-audio usb transit sound card (or maybe my windows 7 dell studio laptop on-board audio will be fine). Im off to read up on how to use it and rew...


----------



## Theresa (Aug 23, 2010)

For speakers, as always, I recommend a kit from Madisound, perhaps the ZRT that use top of the line ScanSpeak drivers.
I did not use any measurements in putting up the sound absorbtion panels. They went where the reflections are which can be visualized. They made a tremendous difference and are quite nice looking. They were purchased from ATS Acoustics. 
Its up to you whether they are worth it or not.


----------

