# Sticky  The Official $3,000 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event



## AudiocRaver

*The Official $3,000 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event*


 ​
*Introduction*

IT IS HERE! We are in the midst of the Home Theater Shack $3,000 Speaker Evaluation event, _as I write this._ Six pairs of speakers are on the premises, and over the next two days, Feb. 21 and 22, we will hear a lot of great tunes on them. There will be lots to report.

This is not a shootout. Each speaker will be set up for its best sound in this room and evaluated on its own merits.

For now, this post (#1) will be used as the summary post and will be updated through the weekend and beyond. Check back often - we will tell you ih later posts when this summary has grown.


*The Speakers*

The criteria for the speakers used in this event was _floorstanding speakers_ with an MSRP between $2500 ($2499) and $3500 per pair as delivered for the event. Any finish was acceptable. Speakers requiring external DSP or an active crossover did not qualify. Since the emphasis is on 2-channel music use, speakers made for that purpose were favored, although some may be perfectly acceptable for home theater use as well.

Sadly, some of the speakers selected via the readers' poll were not available because the manufacturers chose not to participate. We cannot read minds to know all their reasons, but can only conclude that it is their loss not being included. We go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure that each model evaluated gets the fairest treatment possible by three sets of experienced ears. We will not, however, shy from the truth or be edited by the suppliers, even if they are HTS sponsors. In the end, we are confident that this serves all concerned in the best way possible.

We deeply appreciate those who DID choose to participate, some on short notice to fill in at the last minute. We ended up with a great mix, including some noteworthy technology offerings: one RAAL tweeter model and one concentric mid-tweeter model. We were looking forward to hearing every one of them by the time the big event arrived.

Here are the speakers included in the event:

Axiom M100
Phase Technology PC-9.5
Polk Audio LSiM705
PSB Imagine T2
Salk Songtower SC
Tannoy Precision 6.4

*The Room*

Cedar Creek Cinema/Two-Channel Room, Luverne, Alabama. The most recent change to the room is that the equipment cabinet which used to occupy most of the space below the cinema screen has been removed. We deemed that removing the cabinet would improve the soundstage and imaging. Total changes relative to the diagram below:

Front equipment rack removed.
Corner traps added in rear corners.
Additional side absorptive panels.
Front subwoofer cabinets turned toward front corner traps with 4-inch gap (cabinets at 45° angle relative to the room) with dissipation panels on their backs (toward room center)..
Cutouts in stage structure allowing Left and Right Mains to be on the main floor within one foot of the front wall.


The room is heavily treated. Some might think the amount of treatment is too much for two-channel speaker evaluation, but I think it is just right. More on this in a summary post below. The measured RT60 is 0,2 to 0.3 second.

 


*The Evaluators*

The evaluators for this event have proven their ability to work together to provide what some describe as some of the most in-depth and worthwhile loudspeaker reviews on the web. They are:

Joe Alexander, Madison, Wisconsin. Joe is an avid audiophile and staff writer for Home Theater Shack.
Leonard Caillouet, Gainesville, Florida. Leonard has installed and set up speakers professionally for much of his life. He is a Moderator and Administrator and one of the chief technical gurus for Home Theater Shack.
Wayne Myers, Lincoln, Nebraska. A musician and lover of great sound, Wayne has a degree in Audio Technology and reviews speakers and headphones for Home Theater Shack.

*Evaluation Tracks*

We have gone back and forth a bit on how many test tracks to use. In the end. we decided that a certain number of tracks should be common, that all evaluators would listen to each pair of speakers with them. and that each evaluator could then have a number of tracks of his choice. We each have our favorites that we have used many times before and know exactly how they should sound. And each has his favorite music styles to listen with. Each evaluator spent one-half hour with every speaker pair at its ideal setup, plus brief listens close to the wall (zero toe and zero listening angle) and with Audyssey MultEQ.

No code has to be inserted here.


*Associated Equipment*




*OPPO BDP-105 Universal Player* - We will be using the 105 as the source for this evaluation. All of the tracks used during this evaluation event were extracted using either dBPowerAmp or Exact Audio Copy (EAC) from the original CDs, and were written to a USB flash drive and accessed for playback via the 5509's front-panel USB port. We appreciate OPPO being a sponsor here at HTS.




*Onkyo PR-SC5509 9.2-Channel Network A/V Preamplifier* - Our preamp/processor for the event: Onkyos' 5509. It is a highly capable processor and very well regarded as one of the top preamp processors available. We decided in this speaker listening event to include a brief evaluation for each speaker pair with Audyssey MultEQ engaged to see how it affects the soundstage and image clarity and "evens out" the room's influence on frequency response. The 5509, with MuiltEQ XT32 capability, made this a breeze. Of course, its 192kHz/32bit Burr-Brown DACs and specs like 0.05% total noise plus distortion (20 Hz–20 kHz, Half power) ensure it to remain completely transparent. We appreciate Onkyo being a sponsor here at HTS.




*Emotiva XPR-5 Five-Channel Reference Power Amplifier* - The XPR-5 is a fully discrete, dual differential, high current, short signal path Class A/B amplifier with a Class-H power supply. The power supply rails are modulated to stay a minimum number of volts above the amplifier's output. This yields an efficient design that will stay cool while driving a pair of 8 Ohm speakers to 500 W or a pair of 4 Ohm speakers to 750 W. Having lots of clean power available is important when evaluating two-channel speakers. With the XPR-5 there is never a question or concern about being able to drive the speakers under test cleanly and reliably. Thanks to Emotiva for being a sponsor at HTS.




*MiniDSP UMIK-1 Calibrated USB Measurement Microphone, calibration by **Cross Spectrum Labs* - The UMIK-1 is a high-accuracy calibrated acoustical measurement microphone with a build-in analog-to-digital converter (ADC). It interfaces directly with HTS's Room EQ Wizard audio analysis application and was used for all speaker measurements taken during the event. Thanks to MiniDSP for being a sponsor at HTS.
 
*Thoughts On Placing Expensive Speakers Close To A Wall*

Most speakers in most rooms will not sound that great when placed close to a wall. Remember that we are talking about fairly serious, discriminating listening, mainly to music, with roughly $3,000 worth of speakers. Our belief is that anyone willing to spend that kind of money on speakers will be serious enough about good sound to find the best possible way to set them up and get the absolute best performance from them, even if it means moving them to that desired location temporarily when said listener feels like getting a serious dose of great music with great sound.

There are speakers that do not sound too bad close to the wall. But none, in our experience, can give a deep, engaging soundstage when too close to the wall. If one _has_ to place a pair of speakers close to a wall, it would be better to save money and buy a pair for a few hundred dollars - check out our Reviews Area for candidates - and call it good. A $3,000 pair of speakers might sound a little better there, but will not sound _great_ and it is highly doubtful you will be getting your "money's worth" from those speakers with them shoved up against a wall.

Having said all that, some readers have expressed interest in doing exactly what we do not suggest, or they are at least curious enough to ask about it, and may place an expensive set of loudspeakers - like the ones we evaluate here - next to a wall. After all, it is their money to do with as they please. So, having made our recommendation, we have chosen to be as helpful as possible and _briefly_ listen to these speakers close to a wall. This information will be included with the individual reviews.


*Thoughts On Equalizing High-End Speakers*

There was a time when it simply _was not done._ That time is past. There are numerous ways it can be accomplished these days...

With pinpoint frequency precision.
Using exactly the type and amount of correction desired.
With phase/time correction if desired.
Without adding noise or distortion.
Without adding audible artifacts.
We performed extensive listening tests with carefully-applied Audyssey MultEQ correction and with sparingly-applied Parametric EQ (PEQ) correction and are convinced that correction can be achieved without negative effects, and that categorical claims that such correction causes audible corruption are not provable in blind testing and are without merit. As a matter of fact, we are witnesses to some who actually prefer equalized sound.

In our case, we chose to finish the evaluation sequence by applying Audyssey MultEQ XT32 to see how well it could accomplished the following:

Lift drooping high frequencies resulting from off-axis listening angles.
Even out room-interaction frequency response variations.
Tighten and improve soundstage and imaging.
The results are reported with each evaluation.


*Our Test Sequence*

Here is the sequence that each speaker pair went through:

Close-To-Wall Evaluations 1 & 2.
Set up 1.
Speaker Location - Set close to the front wall, pointed straight at the Listening Position (LP). We used a previously-decided-upon setup location typical of a home theater environment or a general-purpose room where speakers have to be close to a wall for some reason.
Distance from back of the speaker to wall: 2 ft.
Distance from center of front baffle to side wall of the room: 5 ft.
Distance apart: 9 ft 4 in.
Zero Listening Angle (speakers pointed straight at the LP).
 
Run REW Sweeps L & R, check for good matching and proper function.
Set up 2.
_Same as above._
Zero Toe In (speakers pointed straight at the back wall).
 
Run REW Sweeps L & R.
Evaluate 2. *Three to five minutes listening time by each evaluator.*
Set up 1
Evaluate 1. *Three to five minutes listening time by each evaluator.*
 
Ideal Location Evaluation 3.
Set up 3.
Ideal setup location is determined for deep soundstage and sharp imaging. This could take from a few minutes to 45 minutes.
 
Run REW Sweeps L & R.
Evaluate 3. *Thirty minutes listening time by each evaluator.*
 
Audyssey MultEQ Evaluation 4.
Run MultEQ Setup
Run REW Sweeps L & R.
Evaluate 4. *Three to five minutes listening time by each evaluator.*
 
Record physical measurements.


*Initial Results*

As usual, there were some surprises. We heard some soundstage and imaging that were to die for. While we did not expect any of them to sound terrific in a close-to-the wall setting, a few actually sounded fairly good there, and one sounded VERY good. One model sounded downright awful close to the wall, and then had its revenge by giving us one of the better soundstage / imaging performances in its final setup that we heard over the weekend.

We were amazed to see how a very small difference in listening angle - one degree - that's right, one single degree - could transform a soundstage from _lackluster ho-hum_ to _WOW._

Some of these are beastly heavy monsters. And some finishes were eye-popping.

It has been invaluable to have the three sets of ears and listening perspectives together for these events. One evaluator will hear a certain quality and be ready to rave about it, making note of some other "minor factor," and another evaluator will have found that "minor factor" to be more like a showstopper, adding in _his_ notes only a mention of what the first evaluator was crazy about. All in all, our perspectives came to rest with a great deal of consensus, but the contrasting views will no doubt stand out in our final write-ups.

One of the early pairs we listened to - I will never reveal which - got a mixed set of reactions initially. A few hours later, one of the group said he thought they might deserve a second listen in a different location. So we investigated further and found that they did, indeed, give a better performance there. We keep each other grounded, providing checks and balances and perspective balancers at every turn.

In the end, loads of fun were had by all. Terrific hosts and savory grilled meats did not hurt one bit. Cheese curds from Wisconsin and chocolate meltaways from Nebraska made their way to the snack bar. I doubt anyone lost weight with all the treats and good food available. The moderate Alabama weather treated us nicely. Gracey, the Cedar Creek Cinema cat, reminded of us her mascot status and insisted on a scratch or two whenever we came out for a break.

And discussions are under way for what our next evaluation event might entail.

In the mean time, stay tuned for our detailed results. We sill start feeding them into the following posts in the next couple of days.


----------



## AudiocRaver

*Re: The Official $3,000 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event[*

*Axiom M100*


 
   ​

*Optimal Placement*
No code has to be inserted here.


*Wayne Myers (AudiocRaver)*

*Specifications*


3-way Tower
Frequency Response: 31 Hz – 20 kHz (± 3 dB)
Power Handling: 400 W
Sensitivity: 88 dB anechoic, 92 dB in room (2.83 V/1 m)
Impedance: 4 Ohms
Woofer Size: 6.5”
Midrange Size: 5.25"
Tweeter Size: 1"
Crossover: 160, 2.3 kHZ
Tuning Port: One On Front, Five On Rear
Dimensions: 47.5" H x 9.25" W x 17" D
Weight (Each): ~70 lbs.
MSRP (Pair): $2,690
*Configuration*

The Axiom MM100 is a 3-way tower with three aluminum woofers, two aluminum midranges, and two titanium dome tweeters. They feature Anti-Standing-Wave cabinets that suppress internal resonances and Vortex ports to reduce port noise.

Axiom Website

*Setup and Placement Flexibility*

The Axiom M100 were not difficult to place. We took a little extra time with them because it was clear they were going to deliver a first-rate soundstage and imaging and wanted to be sure we found their performance peak.

*Impressions* 

Wow!

*Frequency Response, Bass Extension*



  

*Room EQ Wizard MDAT file for download: *
View attachment Axiom M100 -- Final.mdat​
*UPDATE: Port plugs are supplied with the M100 speakers. These plugs might be useful in modifying bass response, if desired. We did not test the M100 using these port plugs.*

The M100 were very bass heavy. The frequency response as we measured it seems to tell the story. The response is almost ruler strait but with a slant that puts the lowest frequencies 12 dB hotter than the 10 kHz level.

The acoustic instrumental on _Ode to a Butterfly_ sounded tubby, overweight. Vocals did not suffer, though, seemed balanced and natural. Even Melody Gardot's voice, which tends to have a deep resonance on _Baby I'm A Fool,_ was well controlled. Brad's baritone on _Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm_ had a crisp reality.

But the overall tonal balance of most tracks was more bass-heavy than I preferred.

*Soundstage and Imaging*

It is no secret that I am nuts for a great soundstage. The soundstage and imaging from the M100 simply took my breath away for a moment as we were finishing the setup process and I realized the quality of soundstage we were witnessing.

Over the last few years, my definition of an ideal soundstage has changed a number of times as I have witnessed better and better ultimate examples of them. It was in that very room that several of those "best soundstages ever" had been witnessed, all within the last seven months. The first time I heard one of the kind the M100 gave us was from a $50,000 pair of speakers at RMAF last October. That experience has been challenged, to my utter delight, three different times with speakers costing a fraction of those that set that original benchmark, and I have been privileged to be involved in the setup of all three. It has been a bit overwhelming, and hearing that kind of soundstage from the M100 as we completed the setup process was just a bit much.

Imagine a soundstage with imaging that appears to go a level beyond sound waves into the realm of actually seeming to materialize in the air before you. The soundstage is carved in space with such density you feel you could walk among those solid images and explore them as they hang there, morphing at the rate of the flow of music and sound right before your eyes and ears. The image clarity and depth acuity are so precise that each image source seems outlined like the figures in cartoons from the 30's and 40's, a boundary that defines with stark clarity the edge of each sound. Every pluck, crackle, tone, drumbeat, breath, chord, kick, syllable, and every echo, delay, double, and splash of reverb, is simply popping into existence as an individual three-dimensional entity in space before you. The soundstage that _*POPS!*_

Okay, this all sounds a little over the top. The experiential contrast, though, between this quality of soundstage and a merely great soundstage with sharp imaging and depth acuity is a quantum leap, from a different dimension of the sonic universe. That is why the experience leaves me feeling inadequate using normal descriptors.

Then one gets a good laugh and is re-grounded by realizing that the nature of the event is shared readily by some and almost shrugged off by others. Leonard seems to have been somewhat knocked out by the density of that soundstage, to use his own descriptor, yet our other two listening companions that day were distracted by other listening qualities and only offered a _Oh, yeah, nice soundstage, but..._

Fair enough, we each have our priorities. For me, the M100 knocked the Soundstage and Imaging category out of the park. The acoustical instruments on _Ode to a Butterfly_ might as well have been right there in the room. The pounding drum at the beginning of _Chant_ popped right out of the wall before us, and the accompanying snare drum owned its volume of space about a foot in front of the wall. Each tinkle from the panning rain stick created a little impact crater in space as it struck, as did each note through the piano solo.

The soaring synthesizer in _Rhinestone Eyes_ left a sonic trail in space behind it. The detail from the Dobro guitar on _Strange Fruit_ was so succinct that it jumped forward in the mix with a real dynamic punch.

Cranked up for the _Also Sprach Zarathustra / Star Trek_ orchestral sequence and the rocking _Shallow,_ the M100 maintained the same three-dimensional image clarity and natural (supernatural?) openness at all volume levels from _too loud_ to _whisper soft._

*Clarity & Power Handling*

the M100 did not even flinch at the deep opening BOOMS of our _Star Trek_ power handling test. Even our highest volumes and deepest bass never came anywhere close to revealing any kind of dynamic range limitation for the M100. They liked being pushed and thrived on revealing dynamic detail for us. I heard more close-up detail in Cassandra's voice on _Strange Fruit_ than ever before. _Struttin' With Some Barbecue_ was especially alive, the saxophone rattling in space before us.

The cymbals in _Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm_ had a gorgeous ring to them. You almost have to hear a good quality cymbal live once in awhile to appreciate the wonderful complexity of clear individual tones they can produce. The M100 gave us cymbals with perfect clarity and explosive dynamics. _Shallow_ was fun and dynamic and almost dared me to open up the throttle and *ROCK.*

*Performance at Final Position With Audyssey MultEQ XT32*

Audyssey MultEQ helped tame the bass beastliness of the M100, but detracted from the wonderful carved-in-space quality of the soundstage and imaging. The change was subtle, but they seemed forced, not as free and natural as without the correction applied. Dynamic range seemed restricted, like some of the detail had been sacrificed. Although not a drastic difference, I preferred the M100 without MultEQ, although it is easy to see that some would go for the controlled bass over the slightly more dynamic soundstage. Given the means to accomplish it, a single low shelf or perhaps a low shelf plus an attenuating peak parametric EQ band would probably be all needed to settle down the bass without disrupting other M100 qualities.

*Performance Close to the Front Wall*

*UPDATE: Axiom has contacted us with a very kind reminder that they recommend plugging the bottom three ports on the M100 when locating them close to a wall, and that port plugs are supplied with the speakers to accomplish it. There is even a demonstration video concerning this linked from their website. This would certainly have made a big difference in their performance close to the wall in our review, and might even have given us an easy way to modify their bass response in their optimum setup if we had desired. We simply did not notice the port plugs as we unpacked the M100 speakers.

Our thanks to Axiom for pointing this out and our apologies to Axiom and our readers for the oversight on our part. Please keep this in mind as you read this review.*

The first rule of Axiom M100 placement is _DO NOT place them close to a wall._ The second rule of Axiom M100 placement is _DO NOT place them close to a wall._

At the wall, the M100 bass response was stronger, sluggish, thick, and SLOW. It took a couple tenths of a second for each note to form, each percussive hit to develop, and again for them to fade. Every bass note was slurred and way too strong.

Imaging was fairly-to-good, and the soundstage was okay, although not deep. But the thickness and slowness of the bass response were absolute deal killers as far as using the M100 close to a wall.

*Physical and Visual*

The M100 is an imposing structure. They are big towers, and are meant to sit in a listening room wherever they need to be placed to sound their best. To use them in any other way seems a terrible waste. They look and sound big and powerful, commanding the space they occupy just the way they command the air they vibrate. The finish is simple, a flat black with grain showing, contrasting with the white driver cones.

*Overall Listening Experience*

Listening to the Axiom M100 was a genuine treat. Other than being bass heavy, I can think of no flaws in the way they present any of the music we heard. They left me wondering, _How do they do it?[!I] They delivered simply awesome performance.


*Leonard Caillouet (lcaillo)*

It was the best of sounds, it was the worst of sounds…OK, my apologies to real writers like Dickens. The Axiom was one of the speakers that I looked most forward to hearing. When we started the listening with the speakers on axis to the listening position I was dejected. I could not believe how thick the bass and mid bass were, how recessed the vocals were, and I was thinking, OK this is a trip back to the 1970s and the classic ARs which have been exceeded by so many fine products in the past few decades. Flat sound, even bloated. Moving them to the perpendicular near wall orientation did little to change anything. The image was moderate, but nothing to excite. Not a speaker to own if you are not going to place it carefully.

BUT, occasionally, one finds a Dickens’ packaged in a Hemingway jacket (I never could get Hemingway). When we moved them out into the room they simply came alive. I was stunned at the difference, and found the siren was calling me to the listening position. I think I went through every second of my playlist and went through all of the songs on a couple of the other guy’s lists. The image was impressive. I have not heard the “density” of image like this in many speakers and I have heard many over the years. I must explain what I mean by density of image. When some speakers produce an image and you get a pinpoint location of instruments it is quite impressive. Precious few have that precision but with the sense that there is a solid instrument or a real person standing in front of you. This requires not only exceptional detail but the ability to move a lot of air and deliver the precision with authority. The precision of the locations of the instruments in the soundstage, the depth, the width, it was all so engaging. But it felt like something more.

As I moved through the playlist I kept listening for the flaws that I can detect in most speakers. While nearly all of the speakers in this event had few if any flaws that stood out, the Axioms not only lacked issues, but did so much so well that I just kept on listening. I was tired when we started, and after hearing them near the wall was expecting the session to be drudgery. Boy, was I wrong. The emotion in Melody Gardot’s vocals, the off-balance neurosis of Joni Mitchell and Donald Fagen, the subtle detail in the lower strings of an acoustic guitar that makes you want to go out and buy one and take guitar lessons, or at least get out your Chet Atkins vinyl, it was all there. When Fagen’s smarmy voice makes you want to lock up your young cousins and you want to go to California and be one of the people that Joni digs…OK, I could go on and on about the great experience listening to these, but I think you get the idea. These touched a string in my head.

So they have all the subtleties. What about screaming rock and pounding funk. Yep, they do that too. In fact, one of the things that I noticed is that the image did not become chaotic at very loud volumes. It seemed quite stable. When playing Honey Bee by Stevie Ray, I could enjoy it from the front row or the back at incredible levels. Never a complaint. I felt like I was in a blues joint back home in Baton Rouge and it was time to walk to the bar and get a beer, but I did not want to miss anything. 

The overall balance is slightly heavy on the bass, but when placed properly they prove to be very articulate and not obscure the mid bass and lower midrange that I look to for detail. I tend to like my speakers a little lean on the bottom compared to Sonnie, but I would have no problem loving these. 

The detail from bottom to top and in the soundstage is all there. One of the tracks that shows it all is Chant. The panning of the rain sticks, the deep bass, the snap of the drums, the detailed attack and harmonics of the piano, lower strings detail…outstanding on all counts. The Melody Gardot track is one that can excite a lesser speaker with sibilance. No problem here. I went off the reservation a bit and pulled up some classical music (the Telarc Pictures at an Exhibition track that someone had stored) and it brought back memories of the kind of wide ranging articulation of multiple instruments with a huge powerful sound field that I recall from the old Acoustat 8s. Not quite the transparency of electrostatics, but very close.

Of course, my preference for eccentric vocalists and guitars makes for difficult tests for speakers sometimes. As I mentioned above, all of it was revealed and none of the tendencies toward annoying brightness ever popped up. I just keep coming back to the feeling that I got listening to these speakers. It is hard to quantify performance at this level, so I listen with my gut, for the big picture. The forest was there, but the trees, down to the leaves were clearly defined. 

These are a solid performer in all regards. The detail and image precision was much like what one gets with larger electrostatics, not quite the openness, but the solid delivery was just plain fun. You do have to take the speaker out well into the room, and make the effort to locate the right position, but the result is pretty exciting. My fabric/clothing analogy here would be a very fine merino wool suit, tailored perfectly, with great attention to detail.


*Joe Alexander (ALMFamily)*

We are starting to get to the speakers I have not heard before, and this is the exciting part for me. While it is a thrill to hear the same speaker in a different environment, there is a "first date" feel to listening to a speaker I have not heard previously.

I always seem to start with this, but, really, the finish is the first thing you see so it seems natural to discuss it right off the bat. You know, it is funny. Most people look at a black walnut type finish and think it looks plain. I, for some reason, have always really liked that type of finish (my bedroom set is finished this way) and this one is done extremely well with no visible defects. I like the choice of white colored drivers as it gives the front baffle a very clean look which I personally like. Packaging was really well done with reinforced cardboard corners and plenty of foam. They even include sliders to make moving them easier which was good because these were the heaviest of the bunch - although I did not use them. :flex: The cabinet had a straight front baffle with a tapering to the rear which gives the speaker some character.

When placed close to the wall and toed-in, the banjo in Ode to a Butterfly images just inside the right speaker as expected while the mandolin and violin image just right of where I have been hearing them previously which was an odd start. The rain stick panning effect in Chant imaged just fine as it panned from left to right. However, low end is really loose as it feels like it rolls on just too long. Reasons Why has very little depth which is not unexpected with this location. Strange Fruit has good spatial imaging of each piece, and the trumpet and lap guitar are where I expect them to image with the height difference between the lap guitar and Cassandra's vocals able to be discerned. Hells Bells had a tad better low end, but it was still not precise. Once we moved them to facing straight, the mandolin moved out more toward the left speaker with much better separation between it and the violin with the banjo still just inside the left speaker. However, the rain stick effect in Chant now had a hole in the middle and low end was still flabby. The vocal depth in Reasons Why has better depth off axis. With this orientation, the kick drum in Hells Bells sounds off as one kick drum sequence seems to bleed together. 

These did not take long at all to find a great location - the hardest part was the actual process of moving them. Did I mention that they were the heaviest? 

Track 1 - Ode to a Butterfly

Wide soundstage – great separation between the instruments – mandolin and violin especially. Great string detail on both the mandolin and banjo. Images perfectly.

Track 2 - Chant

Rain stick panning effect handled perfectly. Fantastic low end – great impact and can hear that kick of the drum. Nice snare drum punch! Excellent piano detail. Guitar vibrations – heady stuff! 

Track 3 - Reasons Why

Deep vocal soundstage. Good, open female vocal sound. Stand up bass has good impact here.

Track 4 - Strange Fruit

Images perfectly including the height difference between the lap guitar and the vocals. String detail is really good here too. Each piece is even in level – no one overpowers the other. Excellent vocal detail.

Track 5 - Struttin' with some Barbeque

No sense of horn fatigue. Nice piano action.

Track 6 - One

Precise kick drum imaging in the first sequence – really crisp. Can hear the kick drum rolls clearly in the second sequence too. 

Track 7 - Hells Bells

Excellent bell ringing. Guitar riff at start sounds great and high hat splash is crystal clear. Precise kick drum here too.

Track 8 - Let It Go

Good vocal depth to soundstage but with an "in-your-grill" presence. Handles dynamic shifts effortlessly – no signs of compression at all. 

Track 9 - Where Do The Children Play

Excellent string detail here. Good vocal depth to soundstage with presence here too. Can hear more vocal detail when he trails off in the chorus. Handles dynamic range at the 3:20 minute mark effortlessly.

Track 10 - Tricycle

The dynamic swings really get the ol' heart jumping. No signs of compression or strain.

Track 11 - Just One Of Those Things

Excellent piano detail.

Track 12 - Walking On The Moon

No comments here.



On the Melody Gardot track, sibilance at higher volume (-8) was borderline uncomfortable.


Overall, an excellent speaker that does several things really well - string detail, vocal presence and piano detail really stood out for me personally in these speakers and the low end imaged very precisely as well. That said, I do feel that this is not a speaker that is going to perform as well when you are forced to locate it close to a wall, but if you can get it out into the room, you will definitely be pleased with its capabilities. The only thing I struggled with was the sibilance, and it was not horrible to the point of not being able to listen, but I could tell after a few hours of listening (maybe less), it would be fatiguing. Again though, the Gardot track was listened to a -8, so if you listen at more moderate levels, I do not think it would be an issue at all._


----------



## AudiocRaver

*Re: The Official $3,000 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition Event[*

*Phase Technology PC-9.5*


 
  ​

*Optimal Placement*
No code has to be inserted here.


*Wayne Myers (AudiocRaver)*

*Specifications*


4-way Tower
Frequency Response: 32 Hz – 22 kHz (± 3 dB)
Power Handling: 450 W
Sensitivity: 91 dB (2.83 V/1 m)
Impedance: 4 Ohms
Woofer Size: 6.5”
Midrange Size: 1.5"
Tweeter Size: 1"
Crossover: Absolute Phase™ / 100, 700 Hz, 3.5 kHZ
Tuning Port: Single, On Front ~12" From Base
Dimensions: 45.5" H x 9" W x 14.7" D
Weight (Each): ~66 lbs.
MSRP (Pair): $2,920
*Configuration*

The Phase Technology PC-9.5 is a 4-way tower with dual woofer and single low-midrange with 6.5” glass fiber/RPF™ composite solid piston with NBR surround, 1.5" Patented woven synthetic soft dome midrange, and 1” Patented woven synthetic soft dome tweeter.

Phase Technology Website

*Setup and Placement Flexibility*

The Phase Technology PC-9.5 were not overly difficult to place. None of the models evaluated placed themselves with total ease, and the PC-9.5 ended up taking about the typical amount of time and number of moves to get right.

While the imaging and soundstage performance was quite good, they did exhibit one little quirk that sent me on a merry chase. Our first evaluation track, _Ode to a Butterfly,_ starts out with banjo near the right side of the soundstage, usually just inside of the right speaker. For some reason we were never able to surmise, that banjo could not be tightly localized by the PC-9.5, and it sounded like each note had a separate spot in the soundstage, spread over a two-foot width. I must have tried a dozen different adjustments of angle and location to try to settle down that banjo, and was never able to get rid of the effect. I started wondering if it had always been that way and I had somehow never noticed, even having heard that track several hundred times on many systems. Is was enough to make me start doubting my sanity, or wonder if some prankster had inserted a modified mix of the track into my evaluation track folder for the fun of watching my consternation. I finally gave up and moved on. No other speakers we evaluated shared that banjo localization problem, and no other instrument on that or any other track displayed the same quirk on the PC-9.5..

*Impressions* 

Some speakers have qualities that jump out to impress you, yet have flaws that keep you from loving them. Others are quiet and unassuming and end up being solid performers. The PC-9.5 are more the latter type. No grand show, no big disappointments, they just performed in a solid fashion and did their job. This is the way most speakers should act.

I noted that they were "airy and authoritative," simple and unassuming -- solid.

*Frequency Response, Bass Extension*

  

*Room EQ Wizard MDAT file for download: *
View attachment Phase Technology PC-9_5 -- Final.mdat​
On _Ode to a Butterfly,_ the midbass response was just enough emphasized that the instruments all had a tubby effect. I could not help but visualize an over-sized guitar, a baritone mandolin, and a viola being used as a fiddle, all over-large enough to have their resonances shifted down about half an octave. The mandolin seemed a bit hollow-sounding, too. That is the only track where this was in evidence.

I liked the way the PC-9.5 handled mids and highs. The crisp guitar and mandolin strums and the rich string bowing sounds from the fiddle were lifelike and lively, natural and smooth, airy and accurate. I would call this one of their particular areas of strength. The pianos on _Struttin' With Some Barbecue_ and _Chant_ had a lively tinkle to them. _Struttin' With Some Barbecue_ sounded incredibly live, and a bit raw as it should, yet with refinement and control at of the same time.

The tonality of male and female vocals was truthful and rich in energy. On _Baby I'm a Fool,_ the strings were wonderfully spacious, and Melody Gardot's vocal resonance was full and powerful but well-controlled, a balance difficult to achieve and the main reason I like that song as a test track. The PC-9.5 handled the close-up detail in her voice in a way that seemed particularly intimate.

The soaring synthesizer on _Rhinestone Eyes_ also had a richness that hinted at some upper-mid over-emphasis, yet still was properly controlled and true to its source. _Shallow_ was downright crunchy, and the big snare drum had an extra degree of power in its punch.

A slightly boxy tone, indicating an lower-mid / mid-bass emphasis, only showed up a couple of times, once on the male vocal part on _Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm._ That same emphasis gave the punchy snare drums on _Rhinestone Eyes_ and _Shallow_ their powerful kick.

The standup bass on _Strange Fruit_ seemed almost taller than usual, perfect for this track. The upper-mids and highs of the Dobro guitar were especially detailed and pulled that instrument forward in the mix where many speakers almost allow it to be lost over there on the right side by itself.

There was one under-damped resonance that did some ringing when struck by a particular bass tone. The standup bass on _Reasons Why_ activated it a few times, and it clearly took a little settle time for the PC-9.5 to get it back under control.

*Soundstage and Imaging*

The soundstage and imaging, other than that confounded opening banjo, were exemplary, the imaging very sharp, solid, and tightly localized, and the soundstage wide and almost overly-deep. The sense of specific depth acuity was fair, somewhat in evidence but not very sharp. It was a natural and engaging soundstage, not stellar, but a solid performance.

The BOOM of the opening drum on _Chant_ was not as tightly localized as I would have liked, but that turned out to be a difficult percussive sound for other speakers to manage, also. Centered female vocals were imaged to precision, with the vocal sheen and sibilance centered right on the main vocal sound, no wandering or smearing. The standup bass string buzz near the end of _Ode to a Butterfly_ is also a telltale imaging test, and was exactly where it belonged, not shifted left or right like some speakers will allow.

I noticed a couple of times the soundstage seemed especially deep, which I enjoyed, yet on _California_ and _Reasons Why,_ it seemed like the centered vocal was farther back in the soundstage them usual. I suppose that is what you get when you go looking for the deepest soundstage you can find, sometimes a sound you want up front will end up farther back than you might like. At the same time, that distant trumpet on _Strange Fruit_ seemed even more distant than usual, and I loved it. A spacious soundstage is an organic creature of sorts, and can sometimes surprise you where it places instruments and sounds, having a soundstage attitude of its own.

The _Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm_ song is on my track list because of the complex yet well-organized way the soundstage is mixed. The PC-9.5 handled that mix wonderfully. It was spacious and well-controlled, all elements accurately placed and with wide-open separation around each image source. The ability of the PC-9.5 to tightly image the big standup bass on _Strange Fruit_ says a lot about its ability to localize with precision. The guitar and mandolin on _Reasons Why_ were also very tightly localized.

*Clarity & Power Handling*

The PC-9.5 played cleanly, handling loud rock tracks with ease. The punchy snare drum on _Shallow_ is on the edge of clipping in the recording, and can push a lesser speaker into dynamic compression. The PC-9.5 never indicated being anywhere close to feeling compressed or lacking extra dynamic range on this track.

The booming bass strikes at the beginning of the _Star Trek_ orchestral track were handled readily, and had a nice depth with the PC-9.5.

On _Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm,_ the ride cymbals had a clear "ting" and the crash and other cymbals were clear with no hashing of their complex tones. The clear handling of upper-mid and high frequencies was exemplary for cymbals, bells, and triangles.

*Performance at Final Position With Audyssey MultEQ XT32*

The PC-9.5 benefited quite nicely from the application of Audyssey MultEQ. Imaging was sharpened and the sense of depth acuity improved markedly. The slightly boxy tone was gone, and the under-damped ringing bass tone was well controlled.

As with the other models we evaluated, the PC-9.5 did not need MultEQ to sound good, but they clearly benefited from it. I noticed no downside to its use. The soundstage was made a little more predictable in specific instrument placement, perhaps not quite as deep as without, but barely enough to even notice. I would call the PC-9.5 a speaker that could benefit from carefully-applied correction or sparingly-applied parametric equalization, but also a thoroughly enjoyable speaker without.

*Performance Close to the Front Wall*

The PC-9.5 did not fare well close to the wall, in either the zero-listening-angle setup or in the zero-toe-in setup. The soundstage and imaging were non-specific, with only a general sense of where any particular instrument or sound was coming from on the few tracks I heard there. Bass response was highly emphasized, even though the port was well above the floor and on the front surface of the cabinet. The PC-9.5 would be a poor choice for this kind of replacement.

*Physical and Visual*

The finish for the PC-9.5 was a glossy piano black, very attractive and well done. The PC-9.5 cabinet design is all curvy and acoustically free of hard edges and corners. They are slightly swept back and a bit massive, not easy to hide, but why would you want to? In the PC-9.5, you see form and function working together with elegance in a simple yet powerful package.

*Overall Listening Experience*

While writing this review I experienced the journey of growing to like the Phase Technology PC-9.5 all over again. They start out simply and unassuming, like a soloist starting out a song with a simple, accurate style, but by the time they are done, you realize you have just witnessed a powerful and memorable performance. Another impression was that they know their strengths and do not over-reach, like Clint Eastwood's catch phrase in Magnum force, "A good man always knows his limitations." There are imperfections, but enough positive qualities that you end up with a warm spot in your heart for them.

In other words, they sneak up on you. Nice move.


*Leonard Caillouet (lcaillo)*

When placed near the front wall on axis to the listening position, they had the usual bumps in response at around 40 Hz and 120 Hz that Sonnie’s room creates in most speakers and overall exaggerated bass that one would expect in any near wall placement. The exaggerated bass did seem to distract from other detail. I would not want to live with these near the wall. The image was still present, just without much precision. As said with all of the other speakers, this is the pattern that most produce. These were actually easier for me to listen to in this condition than many other speakers. When the speakers were turned to the orientation perpendicular to the front wall, the soundstage widened a bit, but still did not produce much depth. Overall balance was similar.

As we moved to the optimum listening position, the image opened up nicely. The location of the instruments seemed to be pin point through much of the speaker’s bandwidth but seemed to drift from upper midrange to highs. One of the characteristics of speakers in this price range seems to be greater consistency in character across the drivers. The Phase Tech was certainly so. I never got the feeling that I was listening to more than one driver. I did not hear anything that really stood out, like for instance the very low distortion and extension in the highest treble in the RAAL tweeter. But there is something very pleasant about a seamless product like this. Obviously, most attention to detail in the design is necessary to get such consistency. I can’t say that they performed any magic, but there was not a single deficiency that I could point out in these speakers. Overall, the character is smooth, perhaps fine linen if one is using fabric analogies. 

Clean and smooth dominates my memory of these. I comfortably moved to the front row when someone else was playing Jazz at the Pawnshop fairly loud, closed my eyes and could sense that I was near the front of seating in a jazz club. The midrange and upper midrange would be my pick for the place that these shine best. Vocals and the space around them, subtle breath sounds and trembling, and the sense of emotion from great female vocalists, or their quirks are all coming through clearly. The lower midrange is clear, but a slight excess in bass response was, I found, a little distracting and perhaps limiting the performance here. Many would find this to be a positive thing, like Sonnie, who leans a little more to a heavier bottom end.

They can rock. Opening up the amp on the Stevie Ray Vaughn track and on the Talking Heads never seemed to strain them and they delivered on the impact expected from this kind of music. I found myself more comfortable playing them loud than many other speakers I have experienced. They had no edge when listening to Eva Cassidy let go or on the Melody Gardot track that tends toward sibilance. So where is there room for improvement? I can’t say that there are any obvious deficiencies, but I also cannot say that these speakers called me to listen for extended periods of time. While I felt that there were no missing eccentricities to Joni Mitchell’s voice, I was not seduced to listen more and more. The magic wasn’t there, but the speakers were competent in all areas that I look for. Maybe the tendency toward a bit heavier bass and the smoothness did not capture my attention. At this level it is a matter of personal preference, and while I was pleasantly surprised by the performance of the Phase Techs, they just did not resonate with me and did not make me feel the emotion in the music like, for instance, the Martin Logan Montis. Perhaps not a fair bar to set, as the Montis are three times the price, but that is what I felt when listening to these speakers. This is a speaker in which you will be hard pressed to find anything you don’t like. 

It is the kind of speaker I would buy if I wanted a speaker for life, that I knew I would never get tired of listening to. These folks have been making speakers and components for many decades and the refinement and quality of build is pretty obvious. It is a speaker that I would expect to be going strong and still be comfortable with a generation later.


*Joe Alexander (ALMFamily)*

I heard the Phase Tech speakers at RMAF, and I was really impressed with how they performed in a small, untreated hotel room so I was really curious with how these would sound in Sonnie's room.

As far as finish, I thought they had a very nice gloss black finish with no discernable defects. The cabinet has some front to back contouring which gives the speaker some character and the gray face of the drivers breaks up the front baffle, but not too much for the person who is looking for something that blends well unlike, say, a Klipsch front baffle appearance. Check out the photo of the side to see just how clear the reflection is – almost a mirror finish. The packaging on these was excellent – plenty of foam for buffering from the inevitable drop.

We started out with them close to the wall and with them toed in. There was a slight smearing of violin and mandolin on the Ode To A Butterfly track. On the Chant track, there was good panning of rainsticks, but the bass sounds just a tad boomy. There was really good separation in Strange Fruit. Overall, the Phase Techs had pretty decent imaging for a wall location – there was a slight compression of the image, but I could still delineate each piece clearly. We then faced them straight out and I noticed the guitar for Strange Fruit images right on right speaker where I did not expect it although there was more separation of violin and mandolin here. Chant had good panning of rainsticks but was still a bit boomy. 

We then moved them out into the room and started moving them around a bit to find the best location. This did not take that long at all - they felt like they could really have been placed just about anywhere with similar results. On to the music!



Track 1 - Ode to a Butterfly

Really wide soundstage – clear separation of instruments. Image stays pretty close to the same with head movement to either side – don’t have to lock your head in a spot. Excellent detail on the mandolin – very clear plucks and vibrations. 

Track 2 - Chant

Excellent rainstick panning. Low end has good impact and sounds pretty clean. As with RMAF, very close to that ribbon light, airy feel for vocals. Hooey – great piano clarity. Love those key strokes. After two tracks, I can say these are incredibly detailed – excellent guitar string vibration and plucking.

Track 3 - Reasons Why

Sweet, delicate vocals. Image perfectly. Same detail with the plucking of the mandolin strings. Shows good soundstage depth.

Track 4 - Strange Fruit

Image perfectly – separation as well as height for vocals and lap guitar. Nice detail on vocals – first time I noticed the hard “T” at the end of the word “fruit”. Stand up bass has excellent impact, but does not overpower the rest of the instruments. Fantastic vocal detail.

Track 5 - Struttin' with some Barbeque

Very clear trumpet, but does not feel fatiguing and I don’t get that shoulder cringe sensation.

Track 6 - One

Very clean bass drum. Good kick drum detail. 

Track 7 - Hells Bells

Excellent lingering bell sounds. Great high hat splash and kick drum impact.

Track 8 - Let It Go

Nice vocal depth of soundstage. Handles vocal dynamics really well – and her “warbling” sequences. 

Track 9 - Where Do The Children Play

Just love the string detail – on every track. Good vocal detail here too. Handles 3:20 minute dynamic range extremely well.

Track 10 - Tricycle

Dynamic shift has the feel I like – makes you want to jump each time the shift happens. Very crisp high hat pings – no lingering splash.

Track 11 - Just One Of Those Things

Excellent piano detail – key strokes easily heard. 

Track 12 - Walking On The Moon

Nice snare drum punch – excellent high hat splash and horn is crystal clear.



I then listened to Wayne's sequence and the Gardot track – sibilance did not bother me at all with these.


Overall, the Phase Techs are what I remembered from RMAF - just a fantastic speaker. They do the things I love – crisp midbass punch and vocals/piano have that excellent light, airy feel. Low end is ok, but the imaging is not as precise as I would like.

After running Audyssey, Ode's mandolin and violin sequence was a bit more precisely imaged as well as the kick drum in Chant. Reason's vocals seem just a bit more delicate to me and the same goes for the female vocals in Let It Go - powerful, but more delicate. The kick drum in Hells Bells seemed to image a bit looser. It seemed to help overall with just that one small part in Hells Bells that sounded looser detracting from the process.


----------



## AudiocRaver

*Polk Audio LSiM705*


 
  ​

*Optimal Placement*
No code has to be inserted here.

*Wayne Myers (AudiocRaver)*

*Specifications*


Transitional 5-way System, Triple Port Bass Reflex, 3 Individual Woofer Chambers
Frequency Response: 22 Hz – 40 kHz
Upper -3dB Limit: 30 kHz
Lower -3dB Limit: 42 Hz
Power Handling: 250 W
Sensitivity: 88 dB (2.83 V/1 m)
Impedance: 8 Ohms Nominal
Subwoofer Size: 5"
Mid / Woofer Size: 5.25”
Midrange Size: 3.25"
Tweeter Size: 1"
Crossover: 100 Hz, 280 Hz, 2.8 kHz, Orth crossover design
Tuning Port: Dual PowerPort bass venting
Dimensions: 47" H x 8 5/16" W x 14 3/8" D
Weight (Each): ~78 lbs.
MSRP (Pair): $2,999.90
*Configuration*

The Polk Audio LSiM705 Tower contains one 1" (2.54cm) Dynamic Balance enhanced ring radiator tweeter, one 3 1/4" (8.26cm) Dynamic Balance midrange driver with super cell aerated polypropylene cone, one 5 1/4" (13.34cm) Dynamic Balance mid / woofer driver with super cell aerated polypropylene cone, and two 5" (12.70cm) Dynamic Balance oval subwoofer drivers with super cell aerated polypropylene diaphragms.

Polk Website

*Setup and Placement Flexibility*

The LSiM705 war fairly easy to place, sounded quite good almost anywhere. Of course they had their soundstage sweet spot, but it was not super critical or terribly difficult to find like it can be with some speakers.

*Impressions* 

When I first heard that LSiM705 would be included in our evaluation weekend, I was tickled. I do not recall having heard Polk mentioned much has a favorite or prominent choice in this price range. But they have always had a soft spot in my heart. My first jaw-dropping experience hearing precise image location and clarity was from a top-of-the-line Polk tower pair many years ago. And my little Monitor5Jr bookshelves have served well for over 20 years, including some early serious soundstage and imaging work. So knowing they would be included for evaluation had me a little excited to hear what Polk has to offer these days.

I will not say that they blew me away. They did everything right and nothing wrong, all without flash, which can leave you feeling unimpressed at first. But considering their performance as a whole, the more I think about them the better I feel about them.

*Frequency Response, Bass Extension*

  

*Room EQ Wizard MDAT file for download: *
View attachment Polk Audio LSiM705 -- Final.mdat​
The first frequency response plots we took of the LSiM705 at their ideal location had me thinking we had made an error of some kind. It was unusually flat and free of variations. We re-ran them and it turns out they were correct. The frequency response of each of the two speakers was exemplary, including control of the low-frequency peaks that tend to plague most speakers in this room. Very nice. Now a complaint. While the two speakers we had were very close to flat, the matching between the two was not what it could have been. Having measured various speakers in this and lower price ranges, it is not unusual to see extremely tight matching, so it clearly can be done. As the plots show, the matching between the LSiM705 towers was not terrible, but also was not great. Tighter matching might have given a better soundstage and freedom from image smearing noted elsewhere. Still, this response was impressive, and the LSiM705 would gave us a solid performance.

Flat often sounds flat, meaning a flat frequency response often seems unexciting at first. With time you grow to appreciate that you are hearing the music and not the speakers, and that is good. Voicing a speaker is tricky business, and a slight change in tonal character can make a speaker stand out while still being well within a tight specification range. The LSiM705 have a neutral voicing, and in a way it seems unfair that the more neutral speaker would seem less attractive, but there you have it.

The tonal balance on _Ode to a Butterfly,_ a track I have heard hundreds of times, was absolutely even and true. Even the sound of the guitar strings seemed trustworthy, like you could identify the brand, type, and gauge from that sound.

The piano on _Chant_ was not as tinkly as I liked, but there you go, it was accurate, so should I complain or compliment? I will compliment.

The Dobro lap guitar on _Strange Fruit_ stood out more clearly then I expected it to with this pair of speakers. The crisp bass guitar tone at the beginning of _Vision of a Kiss_ said the LSiM705 were giving us good bass definition and tightness.

Melody Gardot's voice on _Baby I'm a Fool_ did not have as deep a resonance as we usually heard, and I once again credit the flatness of the LSiM705 response for that.

The soaring synthesizer on _Rhinestone Eyes_ was a little less exciting, and again I will compliment the LSiM705 on their unassuming accuracy. In a way the LSiM705 were probably one of the more accurate speakers we have evaluated. For musicians, audio professionals, or listeners who find that quality particularly attractive, the LSiM705 might be high on their short list of choices.

Joni's voice on _California_ was never better, she almost sounded pushier, more urgent than usual on a couple of notes.

*Soundstage and Imaging*

Soundstage and imaging were very good, very natural, open, wide and deep. Depth acuity was not particularly sharp. The rainstick sound on _Chant_ was not as concise as it could have been.

I noticed on _Reasons Why_ that the soundstage was very tolerant of head movement. There were no wandering instruments, the trumpet on _Strange Fruit_ and the banjo on _Ode to a Butterfly_ behaved exactly as they should and were steady in their location.

On the short segment of _The World's Green Laughter,_ the locations of all the vocal echoes were precise and surrounded by emptiness as they should be. Sometimes one little well-identified syllable can tell you a lot about speaker's soundstage and imaging performance. I did notice a couple of sibilant sounds that seemed to smear slightly on female vocals, a sign that matching in the upper-mid and high frequencies was less than perfect, but this only occurred occasionally and was not a big distraction.

Every sound was in its proper place for the _Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm_ track, one of my favorites for soundstage testing.

*Clarity & Power Handling*

The clarity of cymbals on the Crash Test Dummies track was excellent. The handling of the _Star Trek_ bass impacts was clean and solid.

The handling of the crunchy guitar and punchy snare drum on _Shallow_ was exemplary.

*Performance at Final Position With Audyssey MultEQ XT32*

With Audyssey MultEQ, the LSiM705 were brighter, more lively, more appealing and engaging due to the high-frequency lift. Speaker matching was clearly improved, as were imaging and soundstage. Image clarity and depth acuity were also improved.

*Performance Close to the Front Wall*

Here the LSiM705s towers gave us a really fun surprise. These speakers sounded absolutely great right next to the wall. Soundstage and imaging were not as tightly or clearly defined as when placed out into the room, and the soundstage had little depth, but they were quite good and very listenable. Bass response was accented but was not boomy or flabby, seemed quite well controlled.

As with most speakers close to the wall, I thought they sounded better in the zero-toe-in orientation. All in all, the LSiM705 handled being close to the wall incredibly well, making them an unusually flexible speaker. Kudos to Polk designers for carrying this off, it could certainly not have happened by accident.

*Physical and Visual*

The Mt. Vernon Cherry finish on our pair of LSiM705 was outstanding. The curved sides look sleek and aerodynamic, right out of a wind tunnel. The LSiM705 are real show pieces. The stand and bottom-placed port arrangement were unusual, and that port design certainly contributes to their placement flexibility and smooth bass response with minimum room interaction.

*Overall Listening Experience*

Words like _exciting_ and _fun_ do not come to mind for the Polk Audio LSiM705, but words like _exemplary_ and _admirable_ do. They make me think of people I have known who are conscientious, honest, and totally trustworthy, hand them all your bank account info and your house keys and rest easy knowing they will be well cared for. The LSiM705 will deliver your audio simply and truthfully, and that means a lot.


*Joe Alexander (ALMFamily)*

Eerily enough, I have never heard a Polk speaker before this event which is odd considering it is well-liked by so many of our members. I may have said it before, but I was really excited for this event because we really did get a great set of speakers to evaluate for me personally. There was a good mix of ones that I have heard before and ones I have not.

Packaging on these was very good with lots of foam and corner protection. As for the finish, the cabinet has some front to back tapering and the top has a convex design which helps to break up the standard box design. The front baffle is nondescript as it is completely black with all black drivers so nothing really stands out. However, this really helps the cherry finish of the side panels to pop. The cherry finish is really well done. Overall, it is an unassuming speaker that should disappear in a room pretty well.

They started out close to the wall and toed-in. The banjo in Ode To A Butterfly was inside the right speaker as expected. The image was actually not bad – it was compressed some, but there was still some separation there. Chant’s rain stick panning imaged well with no audible hole, but low end seemed to lack impact. The vocals in Reasons Why had a bit of depth. The horn in Strange Fruit images just inside the left speaker while everything else was slightly compressed. The low end in Hells Bells was ok but, again, it lacked impact. We then moved them straight, and the mandolin and violin in Ode seemed more compressed. Rain stick panning in Chant sounded good, but low end again lacks impact. The vocal depth in Reasons Why was not quite the same as with toe-in, and the female vocal seemed to come just left of center. The horn in Strange Fruit was in same location, and the height difference in imaging between the lap guitar and the vocals was here too. 



Track 1 - Ode to a Butterfly

Image perfectly – each instrument locates where I expect. Banjo just not drawing me in. No one instrument overpowers the other. Track sounds good, but I am just not getting a “live” feel.

Track 2 - Chant

Rain stick panning seemed to skip a space in the middle. Low end is ok, but lacking in impact. Nice snare snap. Just not engaging – my mind wandered for a couple seconds during this track. Clinical is how I would describe this so far – everything is there, just lacking in feeling and emotion. Strings sound a bit twangy.

Track 3 - Reasons Why

Good vocal depth for soundstage. This track confirms it for me – her voice just did not grab me.

Track 4 - Strange Fruit

Height difference in image between the lap guitar and vocals is there. Everything images where I expected it to be. Cassandra sounds a bit more forward than nickel creek. Click of breath there.

Track 5 - Struttin' with some Barbeque

Horn good – non-fatiguing, but again, needs life.

Track 6 - One

No comments here.

Track 7 - Hells Bells

No comments here.

Track 8 - Let It Go

Female vocals a bit more engaging here until about 2 minutes in and then it sounded muffled again. Almost like the depth changed. Potential compression issue – may be why it sounded muffled.

Track 9 - Where Do The Children Play

Guitar string clarity ok. Deep soundstage, but it feels like some detail is missing in the lowest octave of the vocals. Not very dynamic.

Track 10 - Tricycle

Nice dynamic jump here – definitely hits that jump factor. 

Track 11 - Just One Of Those Things

No comments here.

12 Walking On The Moon

No comments here.



On the Melody Gardot track, there was some sibilance issue, but not enough to be distracting.

Overall, I just did not connect with these speakers. While all the components were there, I just did not feel engaged. Again, in a word, clinical. I personally think it was because while they did everything ok, there was just not one thing that really stood out. 

Once we ran Audyssey, I noticed a couple things. The first – my two female vocal tracks sounded a bit more lively. The second – low end imaging was a bit more precise. It still lacked the impact, but the imaging was more pinpoint.

*Leonard Caillouet (LCAILLO)*

In the positions near the wall the Polk was one of the most balanced speakers, with slightly exaggerated bass, but not unlistenable like some speakers in this location. The image was typical of the location, diffused and lacking depth though the sound space was larger in the straight orientation. While listening from places other than the primary listening position I found this to be one of the more pleasant speakers to listen to near the wall.


Like every other speaker, moving them out into the room opened up the sound stage and they produced a nice wide and deep image. This was the hardest review of all. When I listen to a pair of speakers, I go through my tracks and perhaps a few of the other reviewers and look for obvious deficiencies first. Then I listen to the tracks that I have heard something special in, and just let the sound settle on me to see how engaged I am and how much I want to listen to them. Then there are the subtle things that most speakers do superbly to make them stand out from the rest. I had to look really hard to find anything to critique in these speakers. The overall level of competence in reproducing the sound was quite good in all aspects. 



So what was so hard about the review? Well, I did not get excited about any of the tracks, and I can’t describe any “magical moments’ listening, and I was not called back to listen more. Yet I was intrigued by how I could find a speaker that did not have any deficiencies but that also did not interest me sonically. Maybe the things that I hear that I like in other speakers are colorations that are not natural that stand out? Maybe these were producing the music so faithfully that all I was hearing was the music? I am not sure what to make of the experience. I just did not feel that I could get past the notion of listening to a pair of loudspeakers and see through to the music. Distortion seemed to be low, the character seemed the same throughout the speaker’s bandwidth, and they did get “out of the box” nicely. The image was where I have come to expect things to be on these recordings. But I was just not interested to listen beyond my time.


This is another very good speaker, competent in all the ways one would expect. It can rock, it can play softly without losing anything. They have impact as solid as most of the speakers we reviewed. Just not a flavor that I will go back to.


----------



## AudiocRaver

*PSB Imagine T2*


 
  ​

*Optimal Placement*
No code has to be inserted here.


*Wayne Myers (AudiocRaver)*

*Specifications*


Transitional 5-way System, Triple Port Bass Reflex, 3 Individual Woofer Chambers
Frequency Response @0°: 34 Hz – 23 kHz (± 3 dB)
Frequency Response @0°: 36 Hz – 20 kHz (± 1.5 dB)
Frequency Response @30°: 36 Hz – 10 kHz (± 1.5 dB)
Power Handling: 300 W
Sensitivity: 88 dB Anechoic, 90 dB Typical Room (2.83 V/1 m)
Impedance: 4 Ohms Min, 6 Ohm Nominal
Woofer Size: 5.25”
Midrange Size: 4"
Tweeter Size: 1"
Crossover: 500Hz LR4, 1800Hz, LR4
Tuning Port: Three, Spaced Along Rear
Dimensions: 40 5/8" H x 8 3/8" W x 13 5/8" D
Weight (Each): ~43 lbs.
MSRP (Pair): $3,498
*Configuration*

The Imagine T2 Imagine T2 Tower is a Transitional 5-way System, Triple Port Bass Reflex, with 3 Individual Woofer Chambers. It includes one 1” (25mm) Titanium Dome Tweeter with Ferrofluid Neodymium Magnet, one 4” (102mm) Clay/Ceramic filled Polypropylene Cone Midrange with Rubber Surround, and three 5 1/4” (133mm)
Clay/Ceramic filled Polypropylene Cone Woofers with Rubber Surround.

PSB Website

*Setup and Placement Flexibility*

The Imagine T2 took a bit more time than usual to get placed property. Their stealth-like curves gave us no flat surface to place our laser distance meter for measurements and alignment, which turned out to be crucial for the Imagine T2. It was worth every second when we heard the excellent soundstage and imaging that they would finally give us.

We pulled the Imagine T2 back into the room a second time for their Audyssey MultEQ evaluation. Even with their previous location carefully marked, once set them up again the soundstage was just not the same. Tweaking the listening angle very slightly, suddenly that sharp, lively soundstage was back again just as we remembered it.

Out of curiosity, we measured the angle of that last tiny adjustment. It was one degree. That one degree difference in listening angle transformed the soundstage and imaging from pretty good to excellent.

That experience got us wondering how many speakers are in use that could sound dramatically better than they do with just a few little positioning tweaks. The Imagine T2 is a good example of the possibilities that can sometimes be achieved through persistence in the setup process, and the opportunities missed out on when listeners fail to truly understand the range of performance their speakers can deliver.

*Impressions* 

What a great sounding pair of speakers. There are speakers that seem to fulfill every requirement, yet, like at the end of a first date, you just never end up calling again. The Imagine T2, while perhaps not perfect, just clicked for me, and I knew I wanted a second date before the first was even over.

I liked the tweeter mounted between the midrange and top woofer drivers. This arrangement gets the high frequencies coming from a more central point, much like the Mid-Tweeter-Mid (MTM) driver arrangement, more of a point source and probably contributing to overall image tightness and image clarity from the speaker.

*Frequency Response, Bass Extension*

  

*Room EQ Wizard MDAT file for download: *
View attachment PSB Imagine T2 -- Final.mdat​
Frequency response at the final location sounded very even to me, not flat, but nicely balanced with freedom from any annoying peaks or resonances. The mids and highs from the Imagine T2 were very smooth. The detail of Sarah's voice on _Reasons Why_ was very clear and natural. The orchestra and guitar on _Baby I'm a Fool_ were especially spacious. The combo on _Struttin' With Some Barbecue_ was lively and natural. The Imagine T2 would be great with any live recordings I could think of. The detail of the saxophone's tonal character was perfectly represented.

One noteworthy point is the way the spread arrangement of the woofers and ports manages to avoid the deep low-frequency dips that many speakers end up with in our room. The emphasis between 100 and 200 Hz was smooth enough to not sound peaky.

Our measurements indicated some mismatch between the speakers through the midrange and we were nervous that imaging clarity might be impacted. It was a pleasant surprise that the imaging and soundstage were nothing short of smashing.

*Soundstage and Imaging*

The Imagine T2 soundstage and imaging were absolutely excellent. Every sound image was precisely localized, depth acuity was razor sharp, and there was clear - almost dark - empty spaces in between. It was not the magical carved-in-space soundstage we knew was possible in that room, but it was definitely one to be envied. On _Chant,_ an especially detailed track for sound stage evaluation, every little tinkle of the rainstick had its own spot in space defined, including its unique distance from the listener, or so it seemed. I am not quite sure how that would be done in the recording process, but it was fascinating. Handclaps, finger snaps, little percussive sounds, details that normally blend into a mix were all independent in the soundstage, the image clarity and depth acuity were so clear. No individual sound was mashed in with the others out of laziness, the Imagine T2 were thorough in treating each and every speck of sound with the greatest of care.

It is interesting that PSB arranged the tweeter between the top woofer and the midrange driver. I have noticed many times that the best imaging and soundstage are found being on axis with the midrange driver rather than the tweeter, and wonder if this arrangement somehow contributes to the performance we witnessed.

On _Ode to a Butterfly,_ the body of the big standup bass appeared clearly defined, as it was with the guitar body. Even the guitar strings seemed to be individually represented. I know a lot of this is not actually possible in the recording process, and assume at some point the psycho-acoustical brain pitches in with information from memories. _That sound is so real, it must be coming from something that looks like THIS._

We had one wandering instrument episode, the trumpet in _Strange Fruit._ One evaluator noticed this and another joined the investigation while the other two tapped their feet impatient over the whole affair. As with the wandering banjo in another review, there was ultimately no explanation for it and no repositioning of the speakers that would resolve it.

On _Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm,_ the space in which Brad's voice was recorded seemed well captured by the recording, and was well represented by the Imagine T2, a space within a space. On this track the soundstage was simply gorgeous, wide open and super clean. The soaring synthesizer on _Rhinestone Eyes_ etched its trajectory through space, was as easy to follow as a jet trail. On _Shallow,_ the location of the guitar amp cabinet was as clear as day.

With a soundstage like this, one can learn much by listening to the space between the notes, the open spaces between this sounds. On _Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm_ and _Chant,_ they were wide open, completely blank. That contrast in a well-defined soundstage is delicious to witness.

Melody Gardot's voice on _Baby I'm a Fool_ hung in space, its depth precisely located in the soundstage. Even the spacial relationship between her voice and the drums, normally not noticeable, was well defined here.

Through the B-52's tracks, the location of every instrument was clearly defined. Interestingly, it again seemed easy to visualize the size and shape of guitar and bass speaker cabinets. Depth acuity was precisely indicating the distance from the listener of the instruments, voices, and guitar and bass cabinets.

*Clarity & Power Handling*

The Imagine T2 handled our base power punches on the _Star Trek_ theme with ease, and handled loud guitar and rock tracks with no indication of compression or loss of dynamic range at any volume level. The fat snare drum on _Shallow_ was especially punchy and stayed perfectly clear. Cymbals on all tracks were beautifully clear and clean.

*Performance at Final Position With Audyssey MultEQ XT32*

The soundstage and imaging with Audyssey MultEQ were not as sharp as without. The wandering trumpet on Strange Fruit settle down some, but not completely. The frequency response variations were flattened out very nicely. But that gorgeous soundstage and the super-sharp imaging were somewhat vague and fuzzy in comparison.

Our experience with this and other speakers in the evaluation has me thinking that more complex correction like Audyssey MultEQ simply tries to do too much with an already fine soundstage, especially if placement is crucial, while speakers that give a fair-to-good soundstage or allow more placement flexibility can benefit from that kind of correction. There is one recent exception to this rule of thumb that I can think of, but in general it seems to be a pretty good guideline. With the Imagine T2, I would recommend that any correction be done with parametric EQ sparingly applied and equally to both channels.

*Performance Close to the Front Wall*

The Imagine T2 performed fairly well close to the wall. The soundstage had no depth to speak of but was fairly wide and open. Imaging was fair but not tightly defined. Bass response was somewhat accentuated, but not horribly so, and was only slightly slurred as can be the case with speakers at that location. Especially at the zero-toe-in orientation they sounded quite natural and neutral.

*Physical and Visual*

The Imagine T2, one of the smaller speakers to be evaluated, was slim with stealth-llke curves and a piano black finish. The way the woofers are spread along the height of the tower was unusual and made them appear even slimmer, almost delicate. That might have affected my expectations, as I almost did not think they would do well in handling power and delivering deep, strong bass when asked to. But that illusion was dispelled readily in the listening tests.

*Overall Listening Experience*

The PSB Imagine T2 Tower gave us a very pleasing and satisfying performance. I had heard a PSB bookshelf speaker years ago in a setting that what is far less than ideal and was not all that impressed, yet I had heard so many good things about them since that I expected them to do well. I was not disappointed in the least. By the end of my listening session, I was tapping my foot and practically dancing in my seat with the music, enjoying it that much. And wondering how to get another date with those speaker. I honestly have a hard time imagining any listener not falling in love with them.


*Leonard Caillouet (LCAILLO)*

I found the PSB Imagine T2 to be one of the better performers near the wall. The bass and mid bass definition was not what it was out into the room, but they were not terribly uncontrolled or excessive here like many speakers. The image was diffused like most speakers and I noticed little difference in either orientation on the wall. Even here, these speakers asked to be listened to. 

Wayne describes them as hard to get precisely oriented due to the curved surfaces. While this is true, it actually took less moves, as I recall, and they seemed less critical to placement and orientation than others. Joe and I actually do most of the moves, while Wayne listens. Once we figured out to use the edge of the driver frame as a straight edge across the front of the speaker, we were able to use the laser sighting to get the orientation even on both sides. This turns out to be something that makes a big difference in the imaging. I could imagine someone taking one of the speakers we really liked and trying to orient them without a laser pointer having trouble getting a stable image that really has depth and opens up. It seems that some of the variables in getting such results include careful orientation and identical response between speakers and smoother response in the midrange and treble (no necessarily flat, but relatively smooth transitions.) The orientation is probably less critical with speakers with smooth off axis response, but when we are moving them through, perhaps, dozens of positions, the orientation being precise between channels removes one big variable. This speeds up the process significantly. 

If you recall the first and second sessions that we did at Sonnies, we had several speakers that had damage or production problems. We struggled with placement until we realized that we needed to do the testing for channel balance early to eliminate potential time waste due to damaged speakers. In this round we found none with problems, which is to be expected with speakers in this price range. The PSB tracked very nicely between channels. This is one area that Wayne and I disagree somewhat. I would smooth the curves more, just to minimize the visibility of what may be measurement artifacts. Picking nits, but we do that.

As I said in the first paragraph, the Imagine T2 was calling. From all over the room, from the cheap seats while others were listening, they sounded great. I suspect that they have better off axis response than most, and when we notice something like this it reminds us that it would be nice to get another half day to be able to do more of the testing that we would like to do. When it comes right down to it, though, we prioritize each person listening as long as needed to get a good feel for the speaker and collect all of the listening notes that are desired. The result is that we just don’t have much time for a lot of measurement. Our feeling is that measurements correlate poorly to the experience in most cases. We also don’t have a highly controlled environment to make measurements, so the room impact would likely be hard for most people to parse out, particularly since we have a different position for all of the speakers.

The upper midrange on these down to the bottom of the bass sounded very well integrated and very detailed. I think these had the best mid bass performance I have heard in quite a while. The lower strings on acoustic guitars are my reference for this area, and I heard everything I have ever heard on each recording as crisply and in as much detail as ever. The treble was smooth and easy to listen to, but not as detailed as the best speakers that I have heard, but there was certainly a subtlety and delicacy that many speakers lack, with no tendency toward harshness or excess sibilance. Horns such as the trumpet on Strange Fruit and the percussive strings which can get out of control on that track at high levels were as smooth as could be without sacrificing information. The haunting sadness on that track was almost intoxicating. A fine silk is the fabric analogy for these. 

The dynamic capability was all that I would need and then some. I always crank up the Stevie Ray and Talking Heads to be sure that they rock and have the impact that I want. No problem there. The image stayed intact and stable to very high levels. Perhaps not as high a level as some physically larger speakers, but easily all I would want. 

Overall, the PSB is a great balance of doing many things really right, not just not having deficiencies. I got the emotional involvement with the music, particularly my eccentric vocalists, revealing the stormy force of Eva Cassidy soaring and the subtle breathlessness and psychic fragility of Joni Mitchell. I wanted for my recordings of Rickie Lee Jones and Rory Block.

I think this speaker fits well for someone who likes to listen to a wide range of music and wants a very forgiving speaker that never offends, yet reveals the magic, playfulness, or tragedy of great vocal performances, and can produce a big soundstage and hold its own nicely with orchestral music or raunchy rock and blues. The Let it Go track, which I find tiring to listen to was quite nice and the vocal dynamics that push many speakers to their limits was very listenable. The speaker is versatile in many ways and quite attractive with its smooth curves. The pictures above and on the PSB site don’t do them justice, IMO. They are much more impressive looking in person.


*Joe Alexander (ALMFamily)*

Having heard three speakers from PSB before the evaluation (Synchrony One and Two as well as the T5), I had an idea in my head going in what the T2 might be capable of doing. For my own personal speaker journey I started when I began to build my home theater, the Synchrony Ones were at the top of my list for quite a while.

The finish was a very well done gloss black finish, and, same as the Phase Tech, it was almost a mirror finish with no visible defects. The driver color gives the front baffle a very distinguished look and the cabinet’s tapered design gives them a bit of character. The feet were a bit tricky to get screwed in without feeling like I was cross-threading them, but of course that does not get done that often so it was not a deal breaker for me. These are obviously new as there were still plugs in the connectors which we took out to get the banana plugs in. They were very easy to carry as there are three ports in the back to use as hand holds. Packaging on these was excellent.

We set them up close to the wall with a toed-in orientation first. From this position, the banjo in Ode To A Butterfly images directly on the speaker and the mandolin and violin are a bit compressed spatially. The rain stick panning at the start of Chant was excellent with no audible hole in the effect, but bass seems a bit boomy and loose. The imaging in Strange Fruit was very compressed spatially, but vocals seemed to have a bit of depth which was unexpected. Once we turned them straight, the banjo in Ode images just inside (as in right next to) the right speaker, and the mandolin and violin have a tad more spatial separation but not a significant amount. There is still a bit of a boomy feel to the bass with certain notes. Strange Fruit images the same as it did from the toed-in orientation. Ultimately, it does not sound like there is much difference between a straight and toed-in orientation.



Track 1 - Ode to a Butterfly

Excellent banjo picking as well as the mandolin. Very tight imaging with definitive separation. Love hearing that string vibration. Detail on the mandolin is quite amazing.

Track 2 - Chant

Excellent rain stick panning. Extremely tight bass – no residual ringing heard. Whoa – mid punch of the snare!!!! Excellent low end impact that does not overpower the piano. Piano detail is very good – can “see” the key strokes. Pretty decent off axis – slight degradation of imaging.

Track 3 - Reasons Why

Very deep vocal soundstage. Vocals are very delicate – surprising for me. Again, string detail is fantastic.

Track 4 - Strange Fruit

Love how you can “feel” the standup bass. Images perfectly – the height difference between the lap guitar and vocals is easily detected. Really felt like I was at a live performance. Again, string detail is amazing. There is some detail from the lap guitar that I do not recall hearing previously. Just an effortless vocal sound – no signs of strain at all. Heard that click in her breath at the 4:50 minute mark – excellent detail!

Track 5 - Struttin' with some Barbeque

Great depth on the trumpet. No cringing or sense of fatigue.

Track 6 - One

Can hear the depth on the guitar from the bass guitar. Excellent low end impact. Very clean kick drum sequence. 

Track 7 - Hells Bells

Excellent resonant bell ringing. String detail! High hat splash!! Good low end impact.

Track 8 - Let It Go

A open, delicate sound that is engaging and powerful. A real live feel. Images perfectly. Excellent handling of the dynamic range with no sign of compression at all.

Track 9 - Where Do The Children Play

String detail again – would love to hear Keith Don’t Go on these. Again, a very live feel to the vocals with good soundstage depth. Vocal detail is very good. Handles the vocal dynamics perfectly.

Track 10 - Tricycle

Definitely jump worthy - handles that dynamic shift incredibly. Excellent detail on the high hat ping – no residual splash.

Track 11 - Just One Of Those Things

Piano sounds deep in the soundfield. 

Track 12 - Walking On The Moon

Excellent snare roll. Delicate sax sound – can hear the buzzing. Snap of hitting a wooden block very crisp. 



I was out of the room when the Melody Gardot track was played on these, but I did not note any uncomfortable sibilance during any of the previous tracks.

Overall, I really liked this speaker as it does everything well and really excels at string detail. Vocals did seem slightly muted which I normally liken to a dome tweeter. Placement was a bit dicey – the front baffle does not have a straight surface that allowed us to use the laser to get the toe in the same. We spent a bit of time trying to get them exact.

We ran Audyssey on Sunday. The mandolin and fiddle separation during Ode To A Butterfly was slightly better, and the vocals seemed less muted. The kick drum in Chant was a bit less precise – the imaging was fuzzy. The imaging in Strange Fruit was dicey – all instruments seem to wander. Vocals definitely do not sound as muted as they did pre-Audyssey as there was much more presence. However, imaging took a definitive hit as everything seemed fuzzy and wandering. So, we decided to turn it off and make sure of what we were hearing. Sure enough, imaging was much more precise with Audyssey off. Now, we just ran Audyssey from one position (the MLP) so it is conceivable that this would be better if we did the run at multiple listening positions.


----------



## AudiocRaver

*Salk SongTower SC*


  
  ​

*Optimal Placement*
No code has to be inserted here.

*Wayne Myers (AudiocRaver)*

*Specifications*


MTM 2-way Quarter Wave Tube Transmission Line Tower
Frequency Response: 34 Hz – 20 kHz (± 3 dB)
Power Handling: 150 W Tube Power, 250 W Solid State Power
Sensitivity: 88 dB (2.83 V/1 m)
Impedance: 4 Ohms Nominal (or "Stated"), 6 Ohms Average
Woofer Size: 5.75”
Tweeter Size: ribbon
Crossover: ?? Hz
Tuning Port: Single, On Rear At Base
Dimensions: 44.5" H x 8" W x 10.5" D
Weight (Each): ~40 lbs.
MSRP (Pair): $3,499
*Configuration*

The Salk SongTower SC is a Midrange-Tweeter-Midrange (MTM) 2-way design with a Quarter-Wave Tube Transmission Line, a RAAL ribbon tweeter, and two Seas Excel W15 midwoofers.

Salk Website

*Setup and Placement Flexibility*

The SongTower SC went on quite a journey around our room to find its ultimate "best placement" location. It ended up being a worthwhile trip, giving us a very engaging soundstage - wide, deep, and natural, with good depth acuity - and sharp, stable imaging. We were a bit surprised that this was as hard to achieve is it was. Someone suggested we start out with the oft-recommended equilateral triangle, zero-listener-angle setup. It sounded pretty good that way, although the wide, deep soundstage we look for was missing. They also spent time widely spaced and close to the Primary Listening Position (PLP), but ultimately worked best widely spaced and quite far from the PLP. Leonard gets the credit for doggedly insisting we try and try again, and ultimately got the SongTower SC to where they performed best. The length of that search is not a negative as far as I am concerned. Many speakers we work with end up being very particular with their placement requirements. With the SongTower SC, the reward is well worth the effort.

*Impressions* 

I was very pleased with the SongTower SC. There was something delicate about their nature, their sound, and their look. "I am not here to knock you over the head or blow you away," they seem to be saying. "Let me sing you a little song." And they start to sing and before you know it you are mesmerized.

There is a cohesive quality that makes their sound seem simple and extremely natural. I found myself taking more notes than usual about the SongTower SC, yet when I later sat down to decipher them, they all boiled down to a few simple descriptions. My final notation says it best: "Pretty and nice." They are speakers I can see being easy to fall in love with and become very attached to.

*Frequency Response, Bass Extension*

  

*Room EQ Wizard MDAT file for download: *
View attachment Salk SongTower SC -- Final.mdat​
If someone someday figures out how to use water as a transducer element in a tweeter, the RAAL tweeter's liquid-smooth presentation is what it would have to sound like. That tweeter always strikes me as having a liquid smoothness which never ceases to grab my attention.

The fiddle and mandolin on _Ode to a Butterfly_ were extremely lifelike, tactile, present in the room. When plucked, those mandolin, guitar, and fiddle strings really jumped out at us. Guitars all sounded like they had brand-new strings, with an extra bit of liveliness and clarity. The cymbals on _Chant_ were WOW-smooth and natural, and all the drums and percussion on that track jumped with liveliness.

The standup bass on _Strange Fruit_ seemed just a little uneven on certain notes. Bass response extended low enough to support the lowest tones in our test tracks adequately, although I would not say with real authority. The SongTower SC is probably not the speaker for the insatiably bass-hungry, but I lean toward preferring a flatter response, so their bass level seemed about right to me. The recessed range from 500 Hz to 1 kHz, just broad and deep enough to be noticeable, only occasionally evidenced itself as a slightly hollow effect.

Vocals were particularly clear and natural, harmonies simply melted together to perfection. On the piano solo on _Chant,_ each note had a wonderfully round "tang" on the hammer strike, another "wow" sound. The synthesizers on _Rhinestone Eyes_ soared with a smooth richness that was just yummy. Male and female vocals also seem to liquid smooth. Joni, on _California,_ sang "My heart cry it out for you," and it just felt good. Sibilants on that track and on _Ain't It A Shame_ and _Reasons Why_ seemed clean, natural, and properly balanced.

*Soundstage and Imaging*

The MTM three-driver configuration of the SongTower SC is one I have always liked, in particular with the RAAL tweeter. There is a cohesive nature about the presentation that has immediately grabbed my attention with similar designs and did again with the SongTower SC. It almost sounds like a single-driver speaker, but has the advantage of that RAAL liquid-smoothness in addition.

Imaging and soundstage were very good -- wide and spacious, very open with good depth and a clear sense of depth acuity. This is the kind of soundstage we strive for, are sonically addicted to, and delight in when we achieve it. The vocal sheen and sibilants on _Ain't It A Shame_ and _Reasons Why_ stayed centered on the core vocal sound for rock solid imaging. On _Rhinestone Eyes,_ the air was thick with rich synth sounds, each clearly localized in its proper place. The _Chant_ and _Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm_ tracks and the B-52s medley all involve complex yet well-organized mixes where every note, every sound, every echo and effect is given its own area in the space of the soundstage with clear separation from all the others. When speakers produce a really nice soundstage, as with he SongTower SC, all this is presented with such clarity that you could sketch out a 3-D diagram moment by moment indicating all those locations with detailed dimensions, including a pretty accurate idea of the distance from the PLP.

*Clarity & Power Handling*

Using the _Also Sprach Zarathustra / Star Trek_ sequence played at a standard SPL level as our bass-power-handling test sequence, the SongTower SC bottomed out on the deep bass impact notes at the beginning of Star Trek. This is not to say that they cannot fill a nice-sized room with music at a good volume. In fact they seemed to like being pushed a little, enjoying playing at volume. They are simply not going to be a speaker for handling lots of deep, bone-crushing bass.

Clarity for the SongTower SC overall was nothing short of superb in my assessment. Leonard thought he heard some midrange distortion, and measurements showed small distortion peaks around the crossover frequency. Leonard's ear is much better at catching small amounts of distortion than mine. For me, cymbal crashes and "ride" strikes all had that wonderful complex nature where every strange harmonic rang true with no sign of hash. Even on _Shallow,_ the cymbals stayed clean along with the crunchy guitars and super-punchy snare drum -- the SongTower SC was completely at ease handling our heavier rock tracks at a healthy volume. Orchestral bells and triangles burst out bright and true like a baby right out of the bath, all wet and fresh with a big, happy grin.

*Performance at Final Position With Audyssey MultEQ XT32*

Audyssey MultEQ room correction tightened the imaging and soundstage _slightly,_ and evened out the frequency response, filling in were there was just a little something missing and evening out the tonality, again _slightly._ They do not _need_ MultEQ to sound great, but worked well with it in our room.

*Performance Close to the Front Wall*

The SongTowers SC performed reasonably well close to the wall, with good imaging and a soundstage that was adequate but not deep -- far from perfect but quite nice. I felt I could listen to them in this configuration and not feel horribly cheated. Bass response suffered, though, was a bit boomy with the rear-mounted port, although not terribly so compared to what happens with many speakers in that location, and there was an occasional boxy tone. The zero-toe-in aiming gave a more open soundstage then the zero-listening-angle setup. The SongTower SC could live close to the wall like this and still be considered to sound quite nice, although nothing at all like they would perform well out into the room.

*Physical and Visual*

The SongTower SC definitely have a delicate slant to their appearance. The unique finish was flawless. Salk is known for their beautiful finishes using out-of-the-ordinary woods, and they tend to come across as nothing short of stunning.

*Overall Listening Experience*

The SongTower SC were very easy to listen to and enjoy. They scored high in all the areas that are important to me in a 2-channel speaker. Their only flaws were only rarely noticeable, and never a real distraction. The long journey to that ideal location gives the impression they are difficult to get good sound out of. Not so. They sound very good almost anywhere in a room, and sound _great_ with some extra placement care.

I have a hard time imagining any serious 2-channel listener not being completely happy with these towers. For me, the name seems to say it all. "I am not a loudspeaker, I am a Song Tower." Try to find something not to like about that.


*Leonard Caillouet (lcaillo)*

This was one of the speakers that I was most exited to hear. I had heard an older version without the RAAL tweeter recently and have heard much about speakers that use it so I could not wait. Of course the first thing I was listening for was the high frequency performance. I found the very high treble to be very smooth and detailed. This is obviously a very low distortion driver out to higher than I can hear. I was also listening for the bass performance near the wall, as Salk advertises that their design performs better than others in these locations. As expected, the bass was less defined and more exaggerated in both of the near wall positions we tested, compared to the optimum placement well out into the room. They were one of the better performers near the wall, however, and did have a decent image there. The orientation did not make much difference in the bass definition, but did have a slight effect on the soundstage. The image was more seamless, not losing the middle as much when they were perpendicular to the wall compared to on axis with the listener. Near the wall the bass was a bit more slurred and it was hard to distinguish notes on, for instance, the deep bass on the right near the guitar on Ode to a Butterfly. The image was indistinct and the speakers were obviously the sound source in the on axis orientation. In the perpendicular orientation the image got a bit better, and filled in the middle, and it was easier to “lose” the speakers. Not ideal, but for this location I would rate them very good.

Once we moved the speakers out and located the best position, the soundstage was very precise. The speakers got “out of the box” nicely. In other words, closing my eyes it was difficult to hear that the sound was coming from the direction of the speakers. The mid base cleared up significantly. Lower strings on a guitar became much more defined and realistic compared to near the wall. The deep bass improved as well but not as much as I expected. It extends deep enough to be satisfying with most music, but lacks a bit of authority for what I would like in a speaker in this price range. I am not surprised, considering the small size of the drivers used. But considering the size of the speakers and how well they did relative to others in near wall locations, I think they are a very good choice for a situation where you can’t move your speakers five or six feet out in the room.

There is one way in which the SongTower SC was clearly a standout. That is the finish. This is one area that I had heard high praise about and it is well deserved. This is a speaker that you would want to show off. If I had these in my home I would invest in some nice lighting like one would for a fine piece of art. While none of the speakers we reviewed in this event were in any way below expectations in finish, Salk obviously takes unusual pride and effort to create a unique and quite beautiful product. This is a speaker that would have a high approval rating in most homes.

I was pleased with the experience with the SongTower SC. In fact, while we heard some great things from it initially, we sensed that we could get more. We went back to it again to see if other placement would extract more performance out of it. On the second attempt we ended up with the speakers a little farther from the listener and the soundstage became even better than before. So while the speaker is apparently designed to perform well near walls in less than optimum positioning, and it took a while to find the optimum placement, it can become quite magical when careful attention is paid to positioning. It does not seem to lack bass extension even well out into the room, and the soundstage is deep and wide. The rain sticks on Chant started well outside of the left speaker and as they panned ended up well outside the speaker on the right.

So how did it make me feel to listen to these speakers? Well, I clearly got a sense of space and the feeling of performers performing as opposed to speakers playing a recording. I won’t say like a live performance because no system sounds like live, but on live recordings, it very good. The Jazz at the Pawnshop track, recorded live, gave a sense of an actual jazz club and listening from the back of a club. I know, many of you are rolling your eyes at reading this because if you have been around for a few decades you probably became sick of those recordings as they were used so much for demo and listening tests. But while they do not have precise imaging because of the nature of the mic placement, they do capture much of the excitement and feel of a live performance with real instruments. I got that with the Salk. My fabric analogy here is a no iron cotton dress shirt or maybe one with just a bit of poly. Banks, certainly, not Arrow. 

What about running them hard? You might expect a speaker with small drivers to complain when cranking the SRV or the Talking Heads tracks up to near max with the Emotiva amp, but they did not. The output is impressive. They don’t move as much air as others so you don’t get that knock you down power, but they remain very clean up to quite loud levels. The tweeter never seems to get out of control on the very highest treble, though there is a bit of roughness at high levels in the midrange to upper midrange when pushed. When Eva Cassidy soared, they went there, but not with quite as much grace in the midrange as the very top end. They did have a bit of trouble handling the big bass in the Star Trek intro.

Who should own these? I think a better question is who should not, as most people interested in very high quality sound would like them. If you really want power and authority and listen at extremely high levels, these might not satisfy. For more moderate levels, for superb imaging with deep bass, and an impressive visual performance these are a great choice. If your have to share a listening area without the ability to move them to an optimum position, they would outperform most speakers in this price range quite easily.


*Joe Alexander (ALMFamily)*

I have heard Salk speakers many times - not only the SC Songtowers, but many others as well. For me, I was really looking forward to seeing how these sounded in Sonnie's room as I have heard the Songtowers... well, I have lost count of the number of times. 

As far as finish, again, I have seen quite a few Salk speakers, and if you have ever read any of my thoughts on them, you already know I love the effort that is put into the finish on every Salk speaker. These do not disappoint – it looks like the fiddleback sycamore was used for these (the material looks the same as my surrounds at home) and the finish is really quite stunning. They have the standard cabinet design, but I do like how the gold “dust cap” adds a break-up to the front baffle. There was only one small annoyance that I may not have noticed had I not been on hook-up / moving duty – the connections are not color coded. There is a “+” sign on the plate next to the positive side that I did not see until I grabbed a small flashlight. Not really a big deal I guess since once they are plugged in, you are set, but there it is anyway.

As per SOP, the first bit of listening was done with them set up close to the wall. Spatial imaging is pretty good here with the speakers toed in to the LP. When they were pointed straight out, I noticed much better spatial imaging (spatial imaging to me is the amount of space between each separate component of the music i.e. vocalist, bassist, horns, etc) and the soundfield was wider. I was impressed with how these did with a close to the wall location as they had good low end with nice impact and the imaging was better than anticipated.

A quick note as this is the first of the six speakers posted for review - I decided to try to include each of my test tracks in my write-up and any specific thoughts I had during each track rather than summarize to give a better sense of what I was thinking at the time. 


Track 1 - Ode to a Butterfly

Very nice depth to the soundfield here – really get a sense of depth in each instrument. Good detail on the harpsichord. Each instrument images where I expect. 

Track 2 - Chant

The rainstick panning effect was handled perfectly – panned from left to right as expected with no hole. Excellent midrange punch. Piano key strokes readily apparent. Love that guitar pluck and resulting vibration sequence around the 3 minute mark.

Track 3 - Reasons Why

Image perfectly. Very light, airy female vocal sound. No sibilance issue for me.

Track 4 - Strange Fruit

Instruments image exactly where I expected them to – horn far left, bass in the middle, Cassandra just left of center, and the lap guitar to the right. Excellent blending of her vocals and instruments – no one piece overpowers the other. Wow – just got a sense of height differential where you can tell the guitar is on a lap below where Cassnadra's vocals would be coming from - cool!

Track 5 - Struttin' with some Barbeque

Nice depth – horn sounds deeper in the soundstage – no fatigue or feel of shoulder cringing with the horns.

Track 6 - One

Love the sound of the bass guitar here. Guitars sound like they are just outside the speakers. Very nice mid roll off – no sense of smearing.

Track 7 - Hells Bells

Excellent ringing of the bell and resulting vibration as well as high hat splash. Bass drum has great impact.

Track 8 - Let It Go

Sibilance just a little much here – turned the volume down to -10 from -4 and it was much better. Excellent piano clarity. Great vocal and instrument blending. Vocals dynamics handled really well – no signs of compression.

Track 9 - Where Do The Children Play

Great spatial imaging. Pluck of the guitar very clear and precise. Dynamic range and shifts in vocal levels handled extremely well – did not feel I missed any details. Nice bass drum impact – very tight and clean. No signs of compression at the 3:20 minute mark.

Track 10 - Tricycle

Great imaging here. Dynamic shifts show no compression. I am picking up on detail I do not remember when listening to it previously with the guitar toward the 1:50 minute mark.

Track 11- Just One Of Those Things

Very smooth piano sound – delicate. Imaging has good separation and depth here. Excellent piano detail and clarity.

Track 12 - Walking On The Moon

Fantastic high hat splash. Love the buzzing of the sax. I do not get a feeling of depth between the sax and drums – they sound like they are on top of the other.


I stayed in the room during Wayne’s session as there was one track I was really listening for - the Melody Gardot track. I chose to go with a different female track as I have been listening to it extensively the last couple months, and I really like it. But, I really love Melody’s voice and I was hoping one of the other guys would choose her! The vocals were so silky smooth. It has that light, airy vocal sound that I personally enjoy. Sibilance was not distracting at all for me until we turned the volume up a bit. Then, they were really grating.

We had some spare time on Sunday so we pulled these back into the room and moved them around to see if we could find a better location. They ended up closer to each boundary with less toe in once it was all said and done. Being closer to the boundary helped to reinforce the low end a bit and less toe in reduced some of the sibilance. It also helped to image the low end much better as it was a lot more precise. We then ran Audyssey and listened again. We achieved even better gains with the low end imaging and a reduction in sibilance. It was still not perfect, but the sibilance was at least more manageable.

Overall, I really like these as I enjoy that open, airy high end sound and they are a fantastic speaker to behold. Low end performance was good, but it did not stand out as there is not much impact. Crisp mid-bass really rounds out this speaker. The only real complaints I have is sibilance can be distressing at higher volumes and low end really did not have the impact I was hoping for.


----------



## AudiocRaver

*Tannoy Precision 6.4*


  
 ​

*Optimal Placement*
No code has to be inserted here.

*Wayne Myers (AudiocRaver)*

*Specifications*


3-way System, Concentric Midrange-Tweeter Driver
Frequency Response: 29 Hz – 35 kHz -6dB
Dispersion: 90 degrees conical
Continuous power handling: 100 Watts Peak RMS
Peak power handling: 400 Watts
Sensitivity: 90 dB (2.83 V/1 m)
Impedance: 8 Ohms Nominal
Subwoofer Size: 6"
Auxiliary bass radiator: 2 x 6”
Midrange Size: 6"
Tweeter Size: 1"
Crossover: 170 Hz, 1.6 kHz
Tuning Port: n.a.
Dimensions: 41.42" H x 12.20" W x 13.86" D
Weight (Each): ~48 lbs.
MSRP (Pair): $3,192
*Configuration*

The Tannoy Precision 6.4 features one Dual Concentric™ high frequency 25 mm (1”) Titanium dome driver with Tulip WaveGuide, one Dual Concentric™ mid frequency 150 mm (6”) treated paper pulp cone driver with rubber surround and 44 mm (1.75”) edge-wound voice coil, one Bass 150 mm (6”) treated paper pulp cone driver with rubber surround. 44 mm (1.75”) edge-wound voice coil, and two Auxiliary Bass 6” treated paper pulp cone radiators with rubber surround, mass loaded.

Tannoy Website

*Setup and Placement Flexibility*

The Precision 6.4 was not very hard to get placed well. In fact they impressed us with how readily they created a nice soundstage with varying amounts of toe-in. A very flexible speaker in this regard, the concentric midrange/tweeter driver undoubtedly helps make this possible.

Following a setup suggestion that applies to concentric driver designs, the Precision 6.4 started out fairly close together and "crossed," their zero-axis lines crossing just in front of the Listening Position (LP). Imaging was very good, but the soundstage was narrow and not very deep, After several moves, they ended up widely spaced and angled well outward of the LP, where we got more the kind of soundstage we were looking for.

*Impressions* 

Tannoy, long known for their concentric midrange/tweeter drivers, was a speaker I really looked forward to hearing. The Precision 6.4 was a speaker with sparkle and zip, a lively speaker, with a tight, crisp sound. I was hoping they would exhibit an especially focused high end, and was not disappointed. The concentric driver design was exceptional at contributing to sharp imaging within a broad soundstage, with wide placement flexibility and with a liveliness that never got out of control.

*Frequency Response, Bass Extension*

  

*Room EQ Wizard MDAT file for download: *
View attachment Tannoy Precision 6_4 -- Final.mdat​
The Precision 6.4 were lively but managed to never get harsh or overly bright. They were controlled enough that this never happened for my taste. The fiddle on _Ode to a Butterfly_ had a wonderfully lively tone. The stand-up bass, though, was a bit uneven on certain notes. The descriptors that came to mind for the overall tonal balance of the Precision 6.4 were: solid, natural, easy, and even, with adequate - although not impressive - extended bass response. The booming deep drum on _Chant_ had a round tone, you could really feel its size and volume. All of the percussion on that track had a very pure and crisp tonality. The piano had a nice tinkle that I really enjoyed.

_Reasons Why,_ one of my favorite test tracks, sounded so easy and natural -- fiddle, guitar, mandolin, and vocals. I could not imagine wanting to hear that song any differently.

My notes for the track _Struttin' With Some Barbecue_ said "natural, no issues." No issues? On more than one occasion I noted that the Precision 6.4 did their jobs as expected, sounded natural, easy, and accurate. There was something crisp about their handling of upper mids and highs, yet they never impressed me as sounding harsh or overly bright. Joni's vocals on _California_ had me noting that the high frequencies were not harsh yet still could "blast" a little if they really had to. The crunchy guitar on _Shallow_ was also crisp but avoided becoming harsh.

The synthesizer on _Rhinestone Eyes_ was rich and complex while remaining accurate and true.

*Soundstage and Imaging*

Imaging and soundstage were both very good. Image clarity was very solid, depth acuity was not quite as crisp as it could have been but was in evidence.

It seemed like part of that crisp quality of the Precision 6.4 was actually due to the quality of the soundstage. A concise soundstage can give the impression of _speed_ that is sometimes thought of as coming from a "fast" speaker. The final result, I believe, has as much to do with acoustical alignment of wavefronts in the sound field as the rise time of the speaker itself. Leonard has a much better ear for things like this than I do, though, and may have other thoughts on the matter.

On _Baby I'm a Fool,_ the depth positioning of Melody Gardot's voice is very stable in the soundstage. A lot of speakers have trouble controlling her voice that way, and on lower notes where her voice resonates, that sense of depth in the soundstage can become come vague. The Precision 6.4 kept that positioning right on target for every note.

_Chant_ and _Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm,_ the two tracks on my list with the most spacious and complex soundstages, were handled in stellar fashion by the Precision 6.4. The soundstage was natural, very open and wide, just plain huge. The specifications state a conical dispersion pattern, one you do not hear of very often. The hugeness of the soundstage had me impressed that the conical approach had some serious merit, at least in our well-treated room with its fairly high ceiling.

*Clarity & Power Handling*

The Precision 6.4 handled the _Star Trek_ bass impacts cleanly, although not with the depth we would have liked. This track goes really deep. The Precision 6.4 seemed on many tracks to provide sufficient depth, but not quite what this track called for. As expected with the concentric design the tight definition of cymbals and high percussive sounds were absolutely perfect to my ears. The clarity of cymbals on _Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm_ was absolutely yummy. The synthesizers on _Rhinestone Eyes_ were very clean and concise, very rich.

*Performance at Final Position With Audyssey MultEQ XT32*

Using Audyssey MultEQ gave the soundstage and imaging a definite boost in clarity and conciseness. The depth acuity was also improved. The low-frequency unevenness was flattened out nicely also.

*Performance Close to the Front Wall*

The bass was emphasized but quite well controlled close to the wall. There were a few peaks that stood out on certain notes on several tracks, were more boomy and loose but not overly so, and there was a hollow quality to the tonal balance.

Imaging and soundstage were best in the zero-toe-in configuration, respectable but not terrific. On axis, the images were soft, lacked solidity, and the soundstage was not deep but was large, although somewhat lacking in clarity.

*Physical and Visual*

The Precision 6.4 look with grille removed was all drivers, tightly packed, almost a bit busy and crowded, but very functional too, compact and efficient. It was an all-business look. They are small speakers for all they do. Our pair was finished in high gloss black, a high-quality finish. Construction quality appeared very solid and flawless.

The Precision 6.4 features include a plinth with threaded-through spikes so they can be adjusted from above the plinth, a welcome approach. There are five hookup terminals, allowing for optional bi-wiring, with the fifth terminal being a separate ground to the crossover assembly for shielding and noise control.

*Overall Listening Experience*

I enjoyed my Tannoy Precision 6.4 listening session. There crisp presentation remained controlled and accurate while adding a little sparkle and zip and extra life to our tracks. They ride a fine line between accuracy and enhancing the sound with that extra sparkle. I liked the Precision 6.4 and could easily see myself having a pair.


*Joe Alexander (ALMFamily)*

The Tannoy speakers were the only one of the speakers that I had not heard of before the evaluation. I was really looking forward to seeing the concentric tweeter design and giving these a listen.

As far as the finish on the Tannoys, they have a gloss black finish on them that is really well done – I could not detect any defects in the finish. I really like the look of the front baffle with the design and coloration of the drivers really offsetting them from the gloss black finish. The concentric design of the tweeter is really neat as well – I took a couple pictures to try to give a visual.

Once we set them up close to the wall, I was surprised by how well they imaged in both the toed-in and straight orientations. There was a little bit of smearing, but you really had to be listening for it. As with every other speaker in this location, soundstage depth really degrades.



Track 1 - Ode to a Butterfly

Image pretty well although the harpsichord is slightly right of where I expected it. Excellent detail on the plucks. 

Track 2 - Chant

Excellent panning with the rainsticks. Pretty decent low end impact with just slight lack of precision. Love the snare drum snap. Good blend of volume levels for vocals and instruments. Excellent piano clarity – delicate. Love the guitar vibration at 3:00.

Track 3 - Reasons Why

Image perfectly – the pluck from the harpsichord is right inside the left speaker. Very delicate female vocals – normally what I expect from a ribbon/planar.

Track 4 - Strange Fruit

Image separation is spot on. Can hear the height difference in the lap guitar and her vocals here as well. Excellent trumpet – not fatiguing or screechy at all. 

Track 5 - Struttin' with some Barbeque

Deep soundstage – the horn player sounds further back that the rest of the instruments. Not fatiguing here either. Nice high hat splash

Track 6 - One

Much better low end impact here – much more precise. Guitar images just outside speakers. These just do not seem to be struggling to hit higher SPL levels. Excellent bass drum roll off. 

Track 7 - Hells Bells

Great bell resonant ringing. Image perfectly. Great high hat splash. Low end has great impact and it is really precise.

Track 8 - Let It Go

Image perfectly here too. She seems to be deeper in the soundstage. Very light airy piano. Excellent vocal detail. Handles dynamic swings in vocals very well. Sibilance does not bother me here at all.

Track 9 - Where Do The Children Play

Love the guitar pluck here too. Picking up more vocal detail than I recall from previous listening. No signs of compression at all at the 3:00 minute mark.

Track 10 - Tricycle

Much better dynamic swing on this – even expecting the higher sequence, it caused a jump.

Track 11 - Just One Of Those Things

Like the piano better here – seems more lively to me. Images perfectly. Definitely has a very lively sound overall. 

Track 12 - Walking On The Moon

Image perfectly here. Bass pluck easily heard and has some impact too. Great high hat splash.



Overall, this was a great experience for me. It has really good low end impact and is very precise. The vocals, piano, and strings seemed so effortless. The imaging was a bit compressed, but that was due to our placement as we had them closer together. We moved them to the position Sonnie had the Montis in when we arrived and listened for a short bit. The soundstage was wider, but the image was not quite as precise.

On Sunday, we placed them in that second position and ran Audyssey. The mandolin seemed to float a bit. Reasons Why vocals were still deep in the soundfield. Spatial imaging is better for Strange Fruit as there is better separation between lap guitar, stand up bass, and Cassandra’s vocals. The kick drum sequence in One sounded tighter.


*Leonard Caillouet (LCAILLO)*

Placement near the wall on axis to the listening position yielded a very bass heavy balance. These go very deep but it is hard to tell in this location if they can produce detail in the deep bass. They produced an image, but little depth and width. The image is somewhat diffused. None of this is unexpected and was typical of most of the speakers in this position. When turned to the perpendicular orientation the depth of image only slightly improved but did expand it out beyond the speakers to the left and right. I heard no more precision in the sound stage or density to the image.


Once the optimum position was located, the Tannoy produced an extremely precise image with a wide and deep soundstage. These are wonderful sounding speakers that are very hard to critique in terms of image performance or balance. The heavy bass smoothed out to be well defined, very deep and extended. The detail in the bass was good and my sensitivity to mid bass detail was satisfied. Vocals were very smooth with plenty of impact over a wide range. Higher vocals had no sibilance and mid and lower vocals and breath sounds were clear and realistic. When Joni Mitchell inserts her eccentricity or when Eva Cassidy opens up you sense the emotion and the presence of great vocal instruments. Details like plucking on strings and sharp sticks on a drum reveal balanced and rapid attack and decay. The ambience in certain recordings around notes came through nicely with no edge.


Can they rock? Absolutely! They stay clean at high levels and can scream with a stratocaster and snap with a kick drum, and you feel it. These will move some air. Honey Bee by SRV was just plain fun, cranked up to a level that felt like a performance is a blues bar. With the intro to Star Trek I felt the excitement from the movie in the same grand scale of a large theater. At high levels Bablylon Sisters stayed tight and every bit of Fagen’s quirkiness came though, not changing character at different volumes. Again, the consistency of the sound was notable.


One of the things that stood out for me in the Tannoy is the nice balance and transition between drivers. They seem to have consistent character across all, giving a very easy to listen to result. This is a very pleasing speaker that has a reasonably dense and precise image. I would be very surprised if anyone who heard them was not happy to listen to them when placed optimally. Even near walls they were easy to listen to, just quite heavy in the bottom. Are they worthy of the price? They are, easily, in my opinion. The finish is clean, as I would expect in this price range. The workmanship and quality seem very good with good balance between the channels.


The Tannoy is a solid, very consistent speaker that can excite in various musical contexts and over wide ranges. I don’t find much to critique. They don’t have quite the magic of some much more expensive speakers, but we are definitely in the part of the bang for the buck curve that is levelling off.


----------



## AudiocRaver

*Fun Photos*​

*Big thanks to Joe Alexander for all the great photo work.:T*


*The lineup:*

​

*Speaker Storage:*

   


*What happened to the other equipment that was in that equipment rack?*

 


*A good view of the stage cutouts for the front speaker mains and the front subwoofer cabinets with dissipator panels:*




*Other room views:*


----------



## AudiocRaver

*In Summary*​
*Wayne Myers (AudiocRaver)*

*Random Thoughts* 

*You really can get a lot of loudspeaker for $3000 a pair.* While none of these models grabbed me personally as a "gotta have it" speaker, if I woke up one morning and found a pair of any of the six of them properly set up in my room ready to hit play, I can see myself being pleasantly surprised and eager to sit down for a listen. There were definitely no cases of head scratching and wondering how a particular model had found its way to market. I can see any one of these models on someone's short list for evaluation. And while they may not be the models that most readers are likely to pick as their ultimate to aspire to, each has qualities that could strike a chord with a listener and end up earning a spot in his listening space.

*Performance against the front wall* was where we saw the greatest variation. As we have said many times, one is not likely to get really great sonic performance with speakers placed very close to a wall, and it seems a waste to spend $3000 on a pair of speakers and place them whrre they are almost guaranteed to not perform well. The resulting range of performance levels with these models against the wall seems to bear that prediction out, although there were a few surprises along the way. Those surprises were all along the lines of the extremes of that range, how poorly the worst could sound there - although that was largely due to our oversight and failing to use optional port plugs which were intended for use at that location - and how nice the best could sound there. One model in particular seemed bent on defying our prediction and insisted on sounding very good against the wall just to spite us.

*Frequency response* differences at final placement were more difficult to differentiate than in our past speaker evaluation events. The individual character of each speaker seemed less willing to be describe simply in terms of frequency response, insisting on other kinds of descriptors. It was like giving six books the exact same cover so they could not be easily judged by them, forcing the evaluators to do all the reading before getting detailed impressions. This made our jobs harder, but ultimately much more satisfying.

*Soundstage and imaging* performance covered the range from good to jaw-dropping. There were no examples of a "mashed potatoes" sound stage, borrowing Sonnie's terminology. There were several outstanding sound stage / imaging examples, one of which about made my heart stop. Zowie! While we come to these events ready to roll up our sleeves and work, a few exciting moments like that help fuel the fire of passion for our work with audio and keep us coming back for more.

*Audyssey MultEQ* was run for each of the speaker sets in its final destination. The tendency seemed to be that those models exhibiting a good-to-pretty-good soundstage benefited from the correction applied. The best examples did not benefit, in fact seemed to suffer slightly, although the improvement in smooth bass response may have been worth the slight soundstage / imaging sacrifice, depending on personal preference.

*An impression* that stood out with a couple of models was akin to going out on a *first date* and finding that all the boxes on the checklist of desirable characteristics were checked off, but in the end you never felt motivated to call back for a second date. Some inexplicable aspect of the right *chemistry* was just not there. In other cases the chemistry clearly was there, except there were also one or two *flaws* that stood out and held one back. Ah, life can be so vexing at times, yet is all the more interesting for it.

*That quality that makes the listener want to stay in his seat* in the primary listening position and not have to quit was there to some degree for me with all the speakers. There was never a sense of _That is enough of THAT speaker,_ for me anyway. I had never personally heard any of these models before, and had never heard anything from four of the manufacturers represented. So there was much to be learned, absorbed, and enjoyed over the weekend.

*The Room* 

I started out referring to our listening room at Cedar Creek Cinema as a lightly treated room. When I think "heavily treated," I tend to think of studio control rooms, where every surface is something out of the ordinary. But Leonard rightly corrected me, shifting my perspective into thinking in terms of home theater rooms, and I agree that it would be more proper to call it "well treated," perhaps even "heavily treated," although there is plenty more that could be done. All four corners have corner bass traps, the side walls have absorptive panels along the front half of their length, the rear wall is well covered with absorptive material, the floor is carpeted, and there are even absorptive panels on the ceiling at critical reflection points. The front wall remains mostly untreated, which supports concise soundstage generation.

There are those who would call it overly-treated for two-channel listening, perhaps even vastly so. I do not. We are here to evaluate speakers, not be enveloped in room reflections, however pleasing that might be for some types of listening, even critical listening. We have witnessed stunning soundstage creation in this room, and have listened to tracks with detailed and complex sound stages. A room with more live qualities than this would have a tendency to "fill in the blanks" between the sharply-defined images of those soundstages and make them less distinct. I find the size and reverberant quality of the room as it is to contribute a very nice amount of spaciousness to the soundstage while preserving the sharpness and clarity of the imaging and the sense of empty space between those images. For the more complex evaluation tracks we use, this seems preferable to me for the process of evaluating speakers.

For music that is mixed with minimal studio processing, a more lively listening space might very well be in order. But for the listening preferences of all of the evaluators, I believe this room to be about the right environment for listening to these tracks and evaluating speaker characteristics in detail.

*Soundstage and Imaging*

I confess to being the soundstage / imaging (SS/I) fanatic of the group. It is a high priority for all of us, but I am probably the one who has to be most careful about keeping my head on straight about other sonic qualities when presented with an especially fine case of SS/I. Experiencing the super-dense, carved-in-space type of soundstage that we are learning more about just recently has triggered some thoughts about other sonic matters including how SS/I affects other qutlities we talk about with speakers.

*1.* With Audyssey MultEQ, poor, medium, and pretty good SS/I are improved somewhat by improved phase / time alignment and frequency response matching. The best examples of SS/I may improve a little, not at all, or may actually suffer some. It is hard to tell which it will be.

*2.* Sparingly applied parametric EQ can be applied to SS/I, even superb ones, without degrading their finer qualities.

*3.* Really good SS/I will usually have some high-frequency droop due to off-axis listening angle. As the highs are raised closer to flat using Audyssey MultEQ or parametric EQ, the upper-mid and high-frequency cues that give the SS/I its sharpness are strengthened can really make the SS/I POP! Often a single HF shelf filter is all that is needed.

*4.* What is a “fast” speaker? What does it sound like? There is probably no easy answer to this one. But a really concise soundstage sounds fast. Adjust the toe-in angle so the soundstage softens up, and the speakers sound “not-so-fast.” Adjust the toe-in angle so the soundstage tightens up and becomes super dense, and it sounds incredibly fast. I am not saying there is no such thing as a “fast” speaker, just that there can be other factors that make a speaker sound fast or not-so-fast, and that SS/I quality might be what a listener hears that sounds fast, not necessarily the speaker itself, although one would expect there to be some correlation. The sharp, precise alignment of reflections that come together in a room to form strong SS/I line up in a way that delivers sound with _impact_, a fast sound if ever there was one.

*5.* Detail improves with good SS/I. A lot of what we think of as detail gets masked and lost in muddy SS/I. When the SS/I is sharpened, those little details either get their own clear spots in the soundstage or are properly aligned with the sound they are a part of and can really stand out. Add the speed element (point 4) and that little detail feature gains the advantage of impact -- then the details jump right out at you.

*6.* Low-frequency sounds can seem more directional with good SS/I, more tightly focused. I have no explanation for this, as it defies basic laws of psychoacoustics. I am only reporting what I have observed. It is probably a result of the focusing of upper-low frequencies of which we have a more limited sense of directionality.

*7.* Instruments and sounds can sound so real it is almost scarey. As one HTS member posted in this thread, "I really messes with your head." No kidding. Your concept of the nature of sound reproduction can face some serious challenges. In a good way.

*8.* Some people hear it and some do not. Well, to be more accurate, anyone with normal hearing can _hear_ it - I have never had someone hear great SS/I and not at least comment positively on it - but attunement, appreciation, and priority levels vary widely. One listener is enthralled, to another it sounds "nice" but the nuances are lost, to another it is just not a big deal, and to a fourth it is buried beneath their annoyance with the song or the accented bass or whatever. When you achieve knockout SS/I and show if off to someone and they do not do cartwheels for you, try not to be too hurt.

*9.* Related to point 8, do not be hurt when family threatens to lock you up over the amount of time you spend fiddling with "those silly speakers." When they see you aligning those speakers with lasers, putting alignment markings on pieces of gaffer tape on nearby walls, scratching out one of those marks and replacing it with a new one 1/16th of an inch away from the first, you are going to get some looks, and they will probably not be looks of admiration or affection. Let it be. You know that it is worthwhile and that is all that matters.


----------



## AudiocRaver

*Appreciation*​
*Wayne Myers (AudiocRaver)*

I have gained a new level of appreciation for the extent to which the individual listening talents of the evaluators complement each other, and marvel sometimes at the kinds of details Leonard and Joe are able to tune into. I have learned volumes about listening for sonic details that I never have before, simply by paying attention to their comments and writeups. My deepest appreciation and respect go out to these gentlemen, they are such a pleasure to work with.

And, while he will probably down-play his role and this last event, none of this would have been possible without the vision, energy, preparation, and hosting of Sonny Parker, HTS owner, his lovely and gracious wife Angie, and their fun little furball cat Gracie, who always seemed to know when we needed a mental shift of gears and would show up expecting a good back scratch. And thanks again, Sonnie, for the grilling, certainly going a step above and beyond the call of duty for our enjoyment on an already insanely busy weekend.

Thank you, HTS readers, for your interest and support of these evaluation events. Thank you for all of the comments and suggestions, and for your ongoing involvement and encouragement.

And of course a huge THANK YOU goes out to the speaker manufacturers who entrusted us with your precious wares. It is our belief and hope that our evaluations end up benefiting them and their present and future customers. It was disappointing how many manufacturers chose not to participate. To all those who did, we offer our thanks for placing your trust in us, and our hopes that the end result of that participation is a big win-win for everyone concerned.

Until next time.....


----------



## Tonto

Nice, I know you guy's are having fun. Keep us in the know how things are going! Are you guys planning on devoting part of the eval to finish. I feel that is a significant part of the speakers cost at this price point. Keep up the good work...loving these evals.


----------



## AudiocRaver

We will be talking about finish. One of the models already evaluated is particularly striking. This clearly becomes more important when one is spending this much on a pair of speakers.


----------



## fokakis1

Subscribed. I think I just heard CCC rockin' over here in Mississippi! Anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing your impressions and I hope you are all having a good time.


----------



## ALMFamily

Tonto said:


> Nice, I know you guy's are having fun. Keep us in the know how things are going! Are you guys planning on devoting part of the eval to finish. I feel that is a significant part of the speakers cost at this price point. Keep up the good work...loving these evals.


For me personally, finish is always something I look at regardless of cost, so my impressions will always include a blurb about how they look.


----------



## fishinbob

AudiocRaver said:


> We will be talking about finish. One of the models already evaluated is particularly striking. This clearly becomes more important when one is spending this much on a pair of speakers.


Lemme guess :wave:


----------



## ALMFamily

fishinbob said:


> Lemme guess :wave:


----------



## AudiocRaver

The third set of speakers is set up and ready for listening first thing in the morning. This particular model is especially tolerant of position changes. They sound great everywhere we placed them - away from the wall, anyway.


----------



## Mike0206

You guys are putting in work as usual! Looking forward to the concluding comments.


----------



## lcaillo

It seems like there are always surprises in these listening events. We come in with assumptions about what to expects only to find that things are not always as we expect. Some speakers do things that are more than expected and some disappoint. Most have a lot to like, some excel at much more. I don't have any doubt that this round of reviews will be very interesting. As we get better at getting the most out of speakers and at challenging them, as well as communicating the experience I think we get better at giving a picture of each.


----------



## Harry

I know this will be a stupid question. Can members attend? I'm from Alabama and dont have many chances to hear good speakers arround here. Also If I had paid attention I would have planned on going since todays the 22nd.
Fishinbob: I bet I can guess which speaker also. lol
Harrison


----------



## lcaillo

Sorry but no, only the review team attends. We actually are guests at Sonnie's and there would be little time to allow others to listen. For four people to do extensive listening, running all of the sweeps and collecting data, and all of the experimenting with position it is pushing it now. Sonnie's room is large, but even so we are tripping over each other some times.

It would be great if we could have others attend, but it would be almost impossible to get as deep into each speaker as we do. To make it fair to all of the vendors that are kind enough to send their products, we really have to be thorough.

Look in your area for an audio group that might do gatherings. I just discovered the one in Tampa and would be at their meeting this weekend if I were not here. You might also consider some of the shows where many manufacturers display their products.


----------



## ALMFamily

Just finished unpacking the last couple of speakers - both are quite hefty!


----------



## prerich

Excited about learning what's special about each speaker, especially the Tannoy!


----------



## AudiocRaver

Four down, two to go.

There has been some interesting discussion about test tracks. While there is a lot of overlap in our four areas of taste and musical preference, there are some tracks that are favorites for one and are barely - _barely_ - tolerated by one or two others in the group. My Gorliiaz and Crash Test Dummies tracks, it turns out, are not popular with at least two of the three others here for the weekend (including our host, Sonnie) - the parties shall remain nameless. Go figure. And I thought I was giving them such a treat!

Ah, well, there is no accounting for taste. Referring to theirs, of course. Mine makes perfect _sense._ Other than that little anomaly, they are really good people.:coocoo:

On a totally different note, there is one of us here who has the sense to sleep when he is tired. That can not necessarily be said of the entire group.


----------



## lcaillo

So not appreciating Crash Test Dummies and Gorilaz is anomalous? Must be something in that Nebraska water.

Well I never dreamed that the one of us that would be most critical about image precision and placement would be Sonnie. He has developed a keen ear, regardless of his claims.


----------



## bkeeler10

AudiocRaver said:


> Four down, two to go.
> 
> There has been some interesting discussion about test tracks. While there is a lot of overlap in our four areas of taste and musical preference, there are some tracks that are favorites for one and are barely - barely - tolerated by one or two others in the group. My Gorliiaz and Crash Test Dummies tracks, it turns out, are not popular with at least two of the three others here for the weekend (including our host, Sonnie) - the parties shall remain nameless. Go figure. And I thought I was giving them such a treat!
> 
> Ah, well, there is no accounting for taste. Referring to theirs, of course. Mine makes perfect sense. Other than that little anomaly, they are really good people.:coocoo:
> 
> On a totally different note, there is one of us here who has the sense to sleep when he is tired. That can not necessarily be said of the entire group.


I pulled up many of the tracks on YouTube yesterday. Well, CTD is not at the top of my list, but neither is Metallica or ACDC. Everything else I heard was interesting though not necessarily my thing. One I really liked was Tricycle. I will be exploring Flim some more. Melody Gardot and Cassandra Wilson might be acquired tastes for me. And I still have some more tracks to listen to.

Anxious to get your impressions, although I realize that's probably several days out.

I guess Sonnie has been spending too much time with electrostats to put up with mediocre imaging. Which reminds me -- I have read that electrostats are great at soundstaging but image specifity (image size and location) is not so precise. Did you all find that to be the case with Sonnie's Montis?


----------



## lcaillo

I found the Montis to be very precise in imaging. My experience with electrostatics and planars is that the planars are more fussy about the room and placement and as long as the listening position is also precise you can get tight imaging if placed properly in the right room. The curved panels of the ML are less fussy but still need careful placement, and when you hit the spot they are more tolerant of movement of the LP.

Sonnie and Wayne hit the spot with the Montis and it is a phenomenal speaker. I could not hear much to critique.


----------



## lcaillo

Melody Gardot has grown on me, and the track we use is a good test for how a speaker deals with sibilance. Cassandra Wilson has not, but Strange Fruit is a great track to reveal a lot about speakers with. When speakers reveal all of the detail in her voice and the space in the music is open with the ambience precise, it touches something deep in me emotionally. Perhaps being from the south it has more impact. It also has a character to the performance that is dark and creepy that seems to come through with some better than others.


----------



## Sonnie

I have NINE Cassandra Wilson CDs... phenomenal recordings. Of course my favorite Strange Fruit... and Come Into My Kitchen... incredible imaging and detail.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Looking beyond musical preferences and focusing on Test Track qualities, what I like about Crash Test Dummies is the mix quality, extreme attention to sonic detail, lots of interesting little details, each given its own spot in the mix in terms of location and frequency spectrum. A speaker with a cohesive soundstage and tight, stable Image Clarity is able to resolve all of those details and present them clearly as individual little sonic entities separated by clear, quite space. At least that is the way it appears to me. If the speakers are not well matched or do not present a nice soundstage, the result is jumbled up and chaotic. The effect is easier to hear and visualize with a more complex recording. like many by the B-52s and Crash Test Dummies. That is why they make my list of test tracks.


----------



## lcaillo

Of course, the variety in our mix of test recordings becomes a real advantage, even if we rib each other on the choices. While I would not choose to listen to some of them for pleasure, they can be informative, even from the "cheap seats" on the second row while someone else is listening. And sometimes, we find different recordings that we look to for the same information.


----------



## ALMFamily

I concur with the guys - I know not a one of them is enjoying the Metallica and AC/DC back to back, but I like the Metallica track for its kick drum sequences and quick guitar action. And, the AC DC track is one of the best I know for that clean high hat splash.

The look on their faces is just an added bonus...


----------



## Sonnie

lcaillo said:


> While I would not choose to listen to some of them for pleasure, they can be informative, even from the "cheap seats" on the second row while someone else is listening.


Absolutely! Very informative! I learned to immediately change the channel and at all cost AVOID buying Crash Test Dummies, Gorilla, Metallica or AC/DC... and the soundtrack from Frozen, if I want to keep my hearing and not get shrilled to deaf. I am learning how to save very good money at the cost of a couple of these metal heads.


----------



## zieglj01

Next time, sneak in some music from Yo-Yo Ma and Chris Botti.


----------



## ALMFamily

zieglj01 said:


> Next time, sneak in some music from Yo-Yo Ma and Chris Botti.


Sonnie actually has a Chris Botti DVD that we watched last time. Unfortunately, we have not had a chance to do much of anything else besides speakers to this point.


----------



## Sonnie

Great BD too. :T


----------



## bkeeler10

So are you guys wrapping up on the formal evaluations? Must be getting late in the eastern time zone. 

How are you feeling in general about this group of speakers compared to the last set? Is there much to be gained by spending that extra $500 - $1000


----------



## Sonnie

The last one is being evaluated now.... 10:10PM CST here.

No secrets revealed just yet! :bigsmile:


----------



## prerich

bkeeler10 said:


> So are you guys wrapping up on the formal evaluations? Must be getting late in the eastern time zone. How are you feeling in general about this group of speakers compared to the last set? Is there much to be gained by spending that extra $500 - $1000


they're in the Central time Zone, just around the way from me 

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## fokakis1

AudiocRaver said:


> Looking beyond musical preferences and focusing on Test Track qualities, what I like about Crash Test Dummies is the mix quality, extreme attention to sonic detail, lots of interesting little details, each given its own spot in the mix in terms of location and frequency spectrum. A speaker with a cohesive soundstage and tight, stable Image Clarity is able to resolve all of those details and present them clearly as individual little sonic entities separated by clear, quite space. At least that is the way it appears to me. If the speakers are not well matched or do not present a nice soundstage, the result is jumbled up and chaotic. The effect is easier to hear and visualize with a more complex recording. like many by the B-52s and Crash Test Dummies. That is why they make my list of test tracks.


I bought that album when it first came out. Even back in the day, on sub par systems, I remember thinking that it just sounded good. Srings, vocals, piano were all very clear.


----------



## zieglj01

Sonnie said:


> Great BD too. :T


Chris Botti in Boston, on Bluray - is a key one that I use as reference, to test
speakers. > One of the key tracks that I use is Emmanuel, playing with Lucia
Micarelli - to test the trumpet and Violin sonic sound, and the imaging. >>

Another track that I use is with Sy Smith, singing the Look OF Love.

This is a good Bluray to test Orchestra, trumpet, male and female voices for
good imaging and soundstage presentation.


----------



## laulau

bkeeler10 said:


> One I really liked was Tricycle. I will be exploring Flim some more.


Ah, Flim & the BBs. After 30 years they are still my go to tracks for demoing dynamic range. I guard my F&BBs CDs like they're part of the family jewels and only play my ripped FLACs nowadays. Those discs are still some of the highest performers in the DR Database, especially Big Notes and Tricycle.


----------



## ALMFamily

laulau said:


> Ah, Flim & the BBs. After 30 years they are still my go to tracks for demoing dynamic range. I guard my F&BBs CDs like they're part of the family jewels and only play my ripped FLACs nowadays. Those discs are still some of the highest performers in the DR Database, especially Big Notes and Tricycle.


Glad to see you post - a belated welcome to HTS!

I was exposed to Flim just within the past year when Sonnie brought it along to one of the audio shows. Now, I have at least one of their albums and willbe more than likely getting more.


----------



## ALMFamily

Well, Leonard is on the road home and I will be leaving in a couple hours. 

Wayne and I are spending a bit of time today with each set of speakers and applying one more test to each.

I must say - I am exhausted, but it is well worth it. Hope you all like the glut of information that is going to be coming your way!


----------



## laulau

ALMFamily said:


> Glad to see you post - a belated welcome to HTS!
> 
> I was exposed to Flim just within the past year when Sonnie brought it along to one of the audio shows. Now, I have at least one of their albums and willbe more than likely getting more.


Thanks for the warm welcome. Been lurking for a long time, mostly in the REW threads.

Those Flim & the BBs discs have been out of print for quite a while, luckily they're readily available on the used market.

Will be interested to see how the Salk SCSTs and the Tannoys did in the evaluation.


----------



## ALMFamily

I tell ya - Wayne is a bulldog when it comes to this stuff. We finished the additional test on each speaker, and we are already on to the next thing. I am getting tired just watching him go to it!


----------



## bkeeler10

Yeah it's pretty obvious when you read Wayne's reviews or articles that he is very thorough and either loves digging into the nitty gritty details or is passionate enough about the end result to go through those details that most are not patient enough to deal with (or, probably, both).

Just take a look at his Audyssey investigation! Yowsa!


----------



## Klarerwind

Aww. Was hoping that the Ascend Acoustics Sierra Tower (RAAL Tweeter) would be picked. Oh well. At least the Salk SongTower SC was chosen.


----------



## lcaillo

The Ascend was picked but they did not get the speakers to us for review.


----------



## a|F

bkeeler10 said:


> Just take a look at his Audyssey investigation! Yowsa!


I'm unfamiliar, could you provide a link, please?


----------



## a|F

I think many of us were hoping to see the Salks and Ascends go head to head. I was also hoping for a coaxial battle between Kef and Tannoy.

Of course this is not a shootout or comparison....


----------



## Big Red Machine

a|F said:


> I think many of us were hoping to see the Salks and Ascends go head to head. I was also hoping for a coaxial battle between Kef and Tannoy.
> 
> Of course this is not a shootout or comparison....


There were many speakers in an event in northern Wisconsin a few years ago. Ascends were there. That discussion was on AVS I believe. Maybe search under the Salk or Speaker categories there. I was there. Seaton was there as well.

Found it:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1324185/se-wi-tower-speaker-gtg


----------



## bkeeler10

a|F said:


> I'm unfamiliar, could you provide a link, please?


http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/audio-processing/68407-audyssey-multeq-faq-setup-guide.html


----------



## bkeeler10

:whistling: . . . . Eerie silence . . . . cue the crickets . . . :whistling:

I know it will be a few days before any reviews start showing up, but I'm going crazy here! I guess I should pretend that this thread doesn't exist until the end of the week.


----------



## B- one

I don't recall any food pics either?!


----------



## AudiocRaver

fokakis1 said:


> I bought that album when it first came out. Even back in the day, on sub par systems, I remember thinking that it just sounded good. Srings, vocals, piano were all very clear.


THANK YOU! Apparently I am not _totally_ insane!

:sn::sn::sn::sn::sn::sn::sn::sn:

On to other matters:

Well, the party is over. Now we have to sift through our notes and generate some snazzy reports for our patient and faithful readers. We will try to start feeding some bits of results in a couple of days, Of course the bigger writeups will take longer to complete.

Joe took a plethora of photos, has probably uploaded most of them already. I will start filling in the "reserved" posts with photos, specs, the report outlines, and some tidbits of results info. As for "fun" pics, some of those might just end up in a "Misc Stuff That Happened" post.

POST #1 WAS JUST UPDATED WITH THE FOLLOWING!

*Associated Equipment* - A little about the support equipment we used.
*Thoughts On Placing Expensive Speakers Close To A Wall* - We have talked about this before, but for the sake of being thorough...
*Our Test Sequence* - Gotta have a process to follow. Ours changes every time we get together. We got to where we were marching like the mechanical figures in one of those fancy clock movements, everyone had a job and knew it and we stayed in sync and clicked along until we were done.
*Initial Results* - Just a few to spark your curiosity.
We are working, working, working on the results, will get them ready to post ASAP. And are putting together some initial thoughts about our next evaluation get-together.


----------



## admranger

AudiocRaver said:


> THANK YOU! Apparently I am not _totally_ insane!
> 
> :sn::sn::sn::sn::sn::sn::sn::sn:
> 
> On to other matters:
> 
> Well, the party is over. Now we have to sift through our notes and generate some snazzy reports for our patient and faithful readers. We will try to start feeding some bits of results in a couple of days, Of course the bigger writeups will take longer to complete.
> 
> Joe took a plethora of photos, has probably uploaded most of them already. I will start filling in the "reserved" posts with photos, specs, the report outlines, and some tidbits of results info. As for "fun" pics, some of those might just end up in a "Misc Stuff That Happened" post.
> 
> POST #1 WAS JUST UPDATED WITH THE FOLLOWING!
> 
> *Associated Equipment* - A little about the support equipment we used.
> *Thoughts On Placing Expensive Speakers Close To A Wall* - We have talked about this before, but for the sake of being thorough...
> *Our Test Sequence* - Gotta have a process to follow. Ours changes every time we get together. We got to where we were marching like the mechanical figures in one of those fancy clock movements, everyone had a job and knew it and we stayed in sync and clicked along until we were done.
> *Initial Results* - Just a few to spark your curiosity.
> We are working, working, working on the results, will get them ready to post ASAP. And are putting together some initial thoughts about our next evaluation get-together.


Love the close to the wall tests! Can't wait to see the results for that part of the test.

I was a bit :sneeky: over mentioning the Oppo 105 and then stating that you used a USB stick in the 5509 instead. The Oppo's Sabre DACs get seriously good reviews, not that the Burr-Brown's don't, but I'm wondering why have the Oppo at all if you aren't using it? :dontknow: Perhaps my reading comprehension after a long day is in need of some improvement? 

All I know is that even with the extra cabling (albeit some of Silnotes' finest XLR cables), using my Oppo 95 (via pure direct on the 8801) provides better results with digital files than the Marantz 8801 does, even with Audyssey engaged.


----------



## Utopianemo

Happily waiting. Must've checked the thread 9 times today. Great stuff!


----------



## lcaillo

admranger said:


> Love the close to the wall tests! Can't wait to see the results for that part of the test.
> 
> I was a bit :sneeky: over mentioning the Oppo 105 and then stating that you used a USB stick in the 5509 instead. The Oppo's Sabre DACs get seriously good reviews, not that the Burr-Brown's don't, but I'm wondering why have the Oppo at all if you aren't using it? :dontknow: Perhaps my reading comprehension after a long day is in need of some improvement?
> 
> All I know is that even with the extra cabling (albeit some of Silnotes' finest XLR cables), using my Oppo 95 (via pure direct on the 8801) provides better results with digital files than the Marantz 8801 does, even with Audyssey engaged.


We did use the Oppo, though we did not do any comparisons of the two devices. I would not expect much difference as both are competent converters, but perhaps it is something we could do. Comparing level matched analog line level signals would be rather easy to see if there actually is any differnce and what it might be.

The complete reviews take a while, but I can tell you that there were some clear patterns, though some performed relatively better near the wall than others. Generally, as expected, the bass was reinforced and the depth of image was reduced. There was still significant imaging on all of the speakers, but the soundstage was generally not as wide and deep and the image was more diffuse. There was generally little difference between the on axis and perpendicular orientations at the wall, and some of the speakers behaved just a bit differently with respect to any imaging improvements. Any changes were very small, however, compared to moving them out.

I find your interest in near wall placement and different DACs a curious juxtaposition. Not trying to be critical, just curious. The difference between placing a speaker near the wall is orders of magnitude greater on any conceivable scale than any potential difference between converters. Even moving the speakers a few inches or degrees can make differences that are likely greater. Are you just curious about the near wall performance because most people do so or are you limited to such placement yourself? The reason that I ask is that we had this discussion before deciding to do the tests. From our perspective it is a big waste of time, as no speaker we have ever heard performs better near a wall, unless the priority is bass emphasis. The single greatest variable in any system beyond perhaps the speakers themselves is generally placement.


----------



## ajinfla

admranger said:


> The Oppo's Sabre DACs get seriously good reviews, not that the Burr-Brown's don't


Yep, that's the nature of purely anecdotal "listening" (while being cognizant of the raves btw).
Now if someone who thinks the Sabre sounds "better", wants to step up to the plate and pick it over the Burr-Browns in a controlled, ears only/no peeking listening session....

Otherwise, one anecdote is as good as any other.

cheers


----------



## Sonnie

Actually Wayne and I have already compared the OPPO vs the 5509 DACs... neither of us could hear any differences... blind or not blind AB'ing.


----------



## fokakis1

lcaillo said:


> From our perspective it is a big waste of time, as no speaker we have ever heard performs better near a wall, unless the priority is bass emphasis.


Are you referring to Sonnie's theater, or every speaker everywhere? I agree with this myself for the most part, as it has been my experience as well. It breaks my heart to walk in to a theater with 5 figures worth of equipment and see the speakers in the corners or backed up to the front wall.


----------



## admranger

lcaillo said:


> I find your interest in near wall placement and different DACs a curious juxtaposition. Not trying to be critical, just curious. The difference between placing a speaker near the wall is orders of magnitude greater on any conceivable scale than any potential difference between converters. Even moving the speakers a few inches or degrees can make differences that are likely greater. Are you just curious about the near wall performance because most people do so or are you limited to such placement yourself? The reason that I ask is that we had this discussion before deciding to do the tests. From our perspective it is a big waste of time, as no speaker we have ever heard performs better near a wall, unless the priority is bass emphasis. The single greatest variable in any system beyond perhaps the speakers themselves is generally placement.


Near wall placement isn't something I desire, but it is something I have to live with given the constraints of my house. Now, if someone wants to send Tom Silva and Norm Abram over to do a remodel (on someone else's dime), I'm cool with having more options. However, given that the likelihood of the above is so near zero as to be indistinguishable, I have to find ways to deal with my media niche where my equipment and speakers live. 

Fortunately, I have room behind the speakers. What I don't have is room to the outsides of the speakers. That's the world I live in. It's not a perfect world after all, so compromises must be made. If it were a perfect world, I'd have ATC SCM150ASL active monitors and no tinnitus. 



ajinfla said:


> Yep, that's the nature of purely anecdotal "listening" (while being cognizant of the raves btw).
> Now if someone who thinks the Sabre sounds "better", wants to step up to the plate and pick it over the Burr-Browns in a controlled, ears only/no peeking listening session....


As far as the different DACs go, my ears like the sound the Sabres in the Oppo make vs. the DACs in the 8801. Does that mean the Sabres are "better"? No. It just means I like their sound better. Does anything else really matter? 

However, I'm always looking for the opinion of others like you guys. You hear more gear in a year than I've heard in a decade (I don't get out much, it's best for the community that way. :coocoo. I'm happy to step up to the plate using my system for a controlled listening session. Come on over! :wave: We can also talk about how I like my Silnote Morpheus XLR cables better than my RCA cables for two channel listening with the Oppo. :doh:


----------



## ajinfla

admranger said:


> Near wall placement isn't something I desire, but it is something I have to live with given the constraints of my house.


Have you considered sliding your speakers further out into room for possibly better 2ch spatial reproduction when its focused listening time, then sliding them back for "regular programming"/the Mrs ?



admranger said:


> As far as the different DACs go, my ears like the sound the Sabres in the Oppo make vs. the DACs in the 8801. Does that mean the Sabres are "better"? No. It just means I like their sound better. Does anything else really matter?


Nope, pretty much exactly as I've always said. Your (anecdotal/casual listening) perceptions are just that, yours.



admranger said:


> However, I'm always looking for the opinion of others like you guys. You hear more gear in a year than I've heard in a decade (I don't get out much, it's best for the community that way. :coocoo.


I do my best not to "hear gear", unless its tubes, a TT or a non-linearity/malfunction.
Yes, I'm exposed to literally hundreds and hundreds of pieces of gear over the years, many passing through my own system.



admranger said:


> I'm happy to step up to the plate using my system for a controlled listening session. Come on over! :wave: We can also talk about how I like my Silnote Morpheus XLR cables better than my RCA cables for two channel listening with the Oppo. :doh:


Not exactly what I meant by claimants "stepping up to plate", but party on.
Now, Sonnie already stated the DAC had no effect upon his perceptions (in line with all scientific/physical reality)...and this was a speaker listening soiree.
As such, we should expect to hear about speakers in this thread, not DACs.

cheers


----------



## lcaillo

Nothing we heard in the extensive listening sessions with any of the very fine group of speakers led any of us to ever question whether the associated equipment had any deficiencies that limited our ability to evaluate the loudspeakers. I am also satisfied with Sonnie and Waynes assessment.


----------



## padgman1

How about a description of the food and drink, guys, at least while we're waiting for the technical yet flowery commentary on the speakers?

Inquiring (and jealous) minds want to know..........my stomach does, as well........

Any chance on obtaining any recipes from this funfest?? Or are proprietary secrets involved??


----------



## AudiocRaver

Sonnie said:


> Actually Wayne and I have already compared the OPPO vs the 5509 DACs... neither of us could hear any differences... blind or not blind AB'ing.


We gave them a pretty thorough workout, different music styles, more A-B switches than I could keep track of, many quick switches back & forth with repeating loops about 15 to 20 seconds long, some full tracks. Once in awhile I thought I heard a difference, then I would focus on it and find there was none.



fokakis1 said:


> Are you referring to Sonnie's theater, or every speaker everywhere? I agree with this myself for the most part, as it has been my experience as well. It breaks my heart to walk in to a theater with 5 figures worth of equipment and see the speakers in the corners or backed up to the front wall.


That has been my experience universally. At 1 foot or closer, no speaker I have worked with has performed well. At about 2 to 3 feet out, a lot of speakers start to perform very nicely. At 3 feet, you can often get enough bass reinforcement to extend the LF to deep levels without muddiness, and an excellent soundstage with nice depth (although farther from the wall will mean an even deeper one). Three feet out from the wall, generally speaking, is the minimum distance I would consider trying for a no-compromises high-performance speaker setup. No doubt there are exceptions.



lcaillo said:


> Nothing we heard in the extensive listening sessions with any of the very fine group of speakers led any of us to ever question whether the associated equipment had any deficiencies that limited our ability to evaluate the loudspeakers. I am also satisfied with Sonnie and Waynes assessment.


As Leonard says, the supporting equipment never drew attention to itself negatively in any way.



padgman1 said:


> How about a description of the food and drink, guys, at least while we're waiting for the technical yet flowery commentary on the speakers?
> 
> Inquiring (and jealous) minds want to know..........my stomach does, as well........
> 
> Any chance on obtaining any recipes from this funfest?? Or are proprietary secrets involved??


Sonnie would be the one to reveal any culinary secrets, and I doubt he will budge. My observation is that patience, attention to detail, loads of TLC, and a big dash of love for great food and the guests he is preparing to serve -- these seem to be significant factors in his technique, and in the way he goes about most things in his life.

My favorites - his grilled rib tips with caramelized BBQ sauce and the grilled sausage (2 types, cajun and smoked) are the ones that especially knock my socks off. He also crock-pots pork roast or sometimes goat and uses the broth to make rice for a "modest" (meaning _you can't get enough of it_) side. That's all I know, other than you can eat it right off the grille, then heated up a couple of times for lunch, then cold from the fridge at 2 AM, and never come close to getting tired of it. Just thinking about it makes me want more.


----------



## Sonnie

Okay... I will give ya one "cold from the fridge at 2AM"... but how about Angie saying she heard a little mouse in the fridge one morning about 3AM ... and as she describes it... the "deet deet deet" of the microwave buttons. 

I do love to cook... and let me tell you... these guys deserve to be treated like kings for all they do. Being away from their family for several days... putting in a LOT of solid listening hours... several hours of moving speakers around six inches at a time... it is a LOT to ask them to do, all for the love of doing it and their loyalty to making this forum one of the most informative (without the nonsense). I can hear Wayne now... "mark that spot and let's move them forward about 6-8 inches".... "okay toe them in a little more"... "nope, back out"... "okay let bring them in a little more"... "ahhh back to the starting point" (Leonard and Joe looking at other intently)... "okay... let's go back about 6-8"... "now in about 6"... "toe back out a little"... "now bring them forward a bit"..."ahhh, back to where they started" (Leonard and Joe rolling eyes)... "okay guys, let's turn them upside down" (of course not... I was joking)... you get the idea.

You gotta love it all.


----------



## ironglen

Sonnie said:


> I can hear Wayne now... "mark that spot and let's move them forward about 6-8 inches".... "okay toe them in a little more"... "nope, back out"... "okay let bring them in a little more"... "ahhh back to the starting point" (Leonard and Joe looking at other intently)... "okay... let's go back about 6-8"... "now in about 6"... "toe back out a little"... "now bring them forward a bit"..."ahhh, back to where they started" (Leonard and Joe rolling eyes)... "okay guys, let's turn them upside down" (of course not... I was joking)... you get the idea.
> 
> You gotta love it all.


I hope you guys pace yourselves on the frequency of these evaluations, so as to avoid 'burnout' :heehee: I also wish that you would carry out the evaluations prior to the advertised date, then immediately release the results without delay! :whistling:


----------



## Sonnie

But then there is no suspense... no anxiousness... no curiosity.

It would just be boring.


----------



## admranger

ajinfla said:


> Have you considered sliding your speakers further out into room for possibly better 2ch spatial reproduction when its focused listening time, then sliding them back for "regular programming"/the Mrs ?


Based on what I've read so far in this thread, and what I read later on when speaker placement discussions are addressed, I will have give it a try. However, I'll need to mark their 'home' position, so I don't have to re-run Audyssey every time for multichannel operations.

This is like right before a big football game. Waiting for kickoff takes an eternity. The reviews from the previous two threads have been so thorough and detailed that I find myself anxious for my next "fix".


----------



## AudiocRaver

I do indeed wish there was as way to hit you all with finished reviews on the Monday after the event. That would involve super powers of some sort. There is a fair amount of talent in the mix, but nothing superhuman witnessed yet. We should be hitting you with some of the goods this weekend.


----------



## AudiocRaver

admranger said:


> Based on what I've read so far in this thread, and what I read later on when speaker placement discussions are addressed, I will have give it a try. However, I'll need to mark their 'home' position, so I don't have to re-run Audyssey every time for multichannel operations.


A good approach is to use tape to mark the location - 1/4-inch accuracy is about right - and laser pointer or laser distance meter aimed along a side to reference points on a far wall for angle -- that combination gives good repeatability. Tape: we are now using gaffer tape, available in all colors, sticks great but does not leave gummy gunk behind.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Just for fun, we have decided to randomize the order in which the reviews are posted, rather than going alphabetically or in the order we evaluated them. Further, we will not tell you what that order will be. You will find out as they show up. Just for fun.:bigsmile:


----------



## bkeeler10

Fun for who??!! :bigsmile:


----------



## lcaillo

AudiocRaver said:


> I do indeed wish there was as way to hit you all with finished reviews on the Monday after the event. That would involve super powers of some sort. There is a fair amount of talent in the mix, but nothing superhuman witnessed yet. We should be hitting you with some of the goods this weekend.


Sorry, but it takes me a while to digest my notes and form them into a coherent document. They are about a page of quick observations in no sensible order, with abreviations and my own shorthand from the moment...for each speaker. That has to get translated into something that communicates the experience in a meaningful way and that takes using both sides of the brain. I am lucky at any point in time to have one working well. So it will get here when it gets here. I'll try to get most of the first drafts done this weekend and a couple of them finished.


----------



## ironglen

I'm ok with the lack of suspense. :nerd:


----------



## ambesolman

I may have missed it somewhere, but is there a reason the KefR and CM10 didn't get into the evaluation when they had the most votes?


----------



## prerich

ambesolman said:


> I may have missed it somewhere, but is there a reason the KefR and CM10 didn't get into the evaluation when they had the most votes?


Yes, those companies chose not to participate.

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## ambesolman

prerich said:


> Yes, those companies chose not to participate. Sent from my iPad using HTShack


Losers. Thanks for the info!


----------



## zieglj01

AudiocRaver said:


> I do indeed wish there was as way to hit you all with finished reviews on the Monday after the event. That would involve super powers of some sort. There is a fair amount of talent in the mix, but nothing superhuman witnessed yet. We should be hitting you with some of the goods this weekend.


Which weekend - the one that has just passed?

However the movie trailers (teasers), seem to be interesting.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Apologies, that was the intention. The first is in the internal review process, very close...


----------



## Tonto

Sitting on the outside, looking in....I can tell you that waiting is not an American thingy!!! I don't like waiting, so come on already.

OK, I'll put another log on the fire. Just put the Salks first or last, that's all I ask.


----------



## bkeeler10

Yes the waiting is no fun, but if history is any guide it will be worth the wait. Most of us could do with a little more delayed gratification!

Oh, who am I kidding? I pounce on every email notification of an update to this thread!


----------



## Utopianemo

bkeeler10 said:


> Yes the waiting is no fun, but if history is any guide it will be worth the wait. Most of us could do with a little more delayed gratification! Oh, who am I kidding? I pounce on every email notification of an update to this thread!


+1


----------



## prerich

bkeeler10 said:


> Yes the waiting is no fun, but if history is any guide it will be worth the wait. Most of us could do with a little more delayed gratification! Oh, who am I kidding? I pounce on every email notification of an update to this thread!


ditto!!!

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## Utopianemo

Nice pic, guys. You are really building the suspense here! I didn't think about it earlier, but all the speakers there except for the Salks have a lot of drivers. I'll be particularly interested to see how the dynamics and max output of the Salks fare in relation to the other models you're looking at.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Thank you for your patience.

The Salk SongTower SC Review has been posted and is ready for your reading and comments. Follow this link to get there quick.

The next of the series should follow very quickly.:bigsmile:.


----------



## bkeeler10

Excellent start gentlemen! Sounds like the Salk Songtower is all people say it is.

I really like the "very quickly" part of that last post!


----------



## padgman1

Excellent review of the Songtowers........and nice to see that it performed well near walls as well as in more "ideal" locations.......a characteristic that should appeal to many speaker- position- restricted members such as myself.......

The finishes on these speakers "speak" volumes about the internal quality, as well......


----------



## bkeeler10

I am surprised that Sonnie doesn't have anything to say regarding all these speakers, since he has been a part of the written evaluation of speakers in past events. Just curious why. I presume he listened with you all.


----------



## B- one

I think Sonnie said in the past his hearing isn't as good as the young whipper snappers. Plus I'm sure he is in love with the speakers he currently has. That's just my guess outside of having to cook all the tasty eats!


----------



## Utopianemo

Hey guys, out of curiosity, which of the speakers are sealed, ported, or vented? Some of the supporting literature on their websites is a little vague and/or they don't show the backs of the speakers.


----------



## Tonto

Wow, nice review. Really makes me feel like I'm in the room with you guy's. From the sounds it, I would drool over the chance to listen to my music on these speakers. I a huge Supertramp fan & these sound like the perfect speakers for that kind of music. Great work!!!


----------



## Putz

Glad everyone liked the SC Songtowers. I had the regular Songtowers with the dome tweeter. They were wonderful speakers with a great soundstage and imaging although they did lack bass punch and they benefitted from a sub. The Rosewood finish on them was sublime. They also benefitted from a KT-88 tube amp

I've since moved on to an older pair of Salk HT3s with the pre Raal tweeter. Sub was retired as the bass on these hits hard. Unfortunately the tube amp was also retired due to the low sensitivity of the HT3s.

Great job guys and looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the remaining 5 speakers.


----------



## ALMFamily

Utopianemo said:


> Hey guys, out of curiosity, which of the speakers are sealed, ported, or vented? Some of the supporting literature on their websites is a little vague and/or they don't show the backs of the speakers.


I got pictures of the backs of all the speakers - if you do not see them in the post, go to the gallery in the $3,500 section and all the pictures are there.



Putz said:


> Glad everyone liked the SC Songtowers. I had the regular Songtowers with the dome tweeter. They were wonderful speakers with a great soundstage and imaging although they did lack bass punch and they benefitted from a sub. The Rosewood finish on them was sublime. They also benefitted from a KT-88 tube amp
> 
> I've since moved on to an older pair of Salk HT3s with the pre Raal tweeter. Sub was retired as the bass on these hits hard. Unfortunately the tube amp was also retired due to the low sensitivity of the HT3s.
> 
> Great job guys and looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the remaining 5 speakers.


TBH - the pair that Leonard referenced hearing are mine - he was up my way for work and we hung out a couple nights and had a chance to give them a listen.


----------



## AudiocRaver

bkeeler10 said:


> I am surprised that Sonnie doesn't have anything to say regarding all these speakers, since he has been a part of the written evaluation of speakers in past events. Just curious why. I presume he listened with you all.


Personal decision. Sonnie decided to let us do all the talking this time around.



Utopianemo said:


> Hey guys, out of curiosity, which of the speakers are sealed, ported, or vented? Some of the supporting literature on their websites is a little vague and/or they don't show the backs of the speakers.


Will be part of each review. None of the speakers evaluated was sealed, and porting strategies varied.


----------



## fokakis1

Excellent review of the Salks. I'm glad you guys pushed hard to find their sweetest spot. 

You guys commented briefly on the effects of MultEQ. Did any of you prefer the sound of the Salks with MultEQ vs direct?


----------



## AudiocRaver

The rear-view photo has been added. The Salk site shows the port on the front, as I had stated in the specs. Ours had the port on the rear, so I corrected the spec listing.

I will include the rear pics in future reviews.


----------



## AudiocRaver

fokakis1 said:


> Excellent review of the Salks. I'm glad you guys pushed hard to find their sweetest spot.
> 
> You guys commented briefly on the effects of MultEQ. Did any of you prefer the sound of the Salks with MultEQ vs direct?


I thought they sounded great, heard no downside whatsoever. We are not saying that they NEED MultEQ, just that they worked well with it in our room.

Edit: Given the option, I personally would go without, favoring their natural sound, or use a single parametric high shelf just to lift the off-axis treble slightly.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Well.....

Joe and Leonard have submitted their comments for the next review, so I will try to get the rest of it together for posting tomorrow.


----------



## Utopianemo

Oh, great. Now I'm not going to get anything done at work tomorrow because I'll be checking this thread every ten minutes or so. You guys are ruining me!


----------



## admranger

Awesome first review on the Salks. :clap::clap::clap:

I am curious about evaluating a speaker on how it handles sibilance. Sibilance is mostly due to the wrong microphone being used up front. If a song has sibilance issues (I'm looking at you, Al Stewart!), the blame should be firmly placed on the engineer. Too bad Al's engineer didn't use a more dynamic mic like the the current EV RE20.

I guess my point is that if the source material has sibilance and the speaker reduces it, what else in the music is the speaker altering from the original recording and how does that change the overall listening experience? I can see the thought that if you can hear the sibilance, perhaps the speaker is accentuating it. That would definitely be bad. 

Anyway, just trying to understand the thought process on this issue of the review.

Although, my ears have too many hours at the Zoo bar in Lincoln to be considered accurate measurement instrumentssssss.


----------



## AudiocRaver

admranger said:


> Awesome first review on the Salks. :clap::clap::clap:
> 
> I am curious about evaluating a speaker on how it handles sibilance. Sibilance is mostly due to the wrong microphone being used up front. If a song has sibilance issues (I'm looking at you, Al Stewart!), the blame should be firmly placed on the engineer. Too bad Al's engineer didn't use a more dynamic mic like the the current EV RE20.
> 
> I guess my point is that if the source material has sibilance and the speaker reduces it, what else in the music is the speaker altering from the original recording and how does that change the overall listening experience? I can see the thought that if you can hear the sibilance, perhaps the speaker is accentuating it. That would definitely be bad.
> 
> Anyway, just trying to understand the thought process on this issue of the review.


Excellent questions. I felt that the smooth high end and low distortion of the SongTower SC did a pretty good job of not accentuating sibilance. I would not say that they cut it or controlled it, just did not make it worse. Joe is our "sibilance authority," with Leonard a close second, I am sure they will have something to say.




> Although, my ears have too many hours at the Zoo bar in Lincoln to be considered accurate measurement instrumentssssss.


Earplugs. Even our beloved Zoo bar gets loud enough you need 'em. I catch a fair amount of live music in the Lincoln/Omaha area, and these are my choice. Yeah, they seem to make the music sound dull at first, but after a couple of songs of adjustment time for your ears, you will forget they are there. When the show is over - no ringing ears!


----------



## AudiocRaver

The *Initial Intro Post* has been updated for _probably_ the final time, with additional information about


*The Speakers*
*The Room*
*Associated Equipment*
*Thoughts On Equalizing High-End Speakers*
Also, a Summary Post has been updated with *Joe's Fun Photos* of

*The Speaker Lineup*
*Speaker Storage*
*The Aftermath of the Removed Equipment Rack*
*The Stage Cutouts and Front Woofers*
*Other Room Views*


----------



## ALMFamily

I decided to include some thoughts on sibilance as there were a couple instances where it really stood out to a point where I considered leaving the room. Since some people are more sensitive to it than others, I thought it would be good to mention it.


----------



## prerich

Salk review turned out as I expected it to - it's a very good product and I know a few people that have the model with the Raal tweeters and they have similar comments about it. I'm very interested in two of the upcoming reviews ... the Tannoy speakers and the Phase Techs. You don't hear a lot about these two brands - but Tannoy has been around for a while, and I do like concentric drivers :T! Phase Techs are nice as well, but seemed to disappear from public view for a while, it will be good hearing a review of one of their models again! :bigsmile:

So far so good! P.S. Nice pics as well!!!


----------



## Big Red Machine

Salk speakers are not known for sibilance. If it is in the recording, then you will hear it. Have owned 6 pairs of salks with all tweeter types. Overall a review I expected given my own long term insights. Well written and thorough guys. And lots of hours of " work"!!


----------



## ALMFamily

Big Red Machine said:


> Salk speakers are not known for sibilance. If it is in the recording, then you will hear it. Have owned 6 pairs of salks with all tweeter types. Overall a review I expected given my own long term insights. Well written and thorough guys. And lots of hours of " work"!!


True Pete - I have heard quite a few different Salk speakers, and this was the first I recall having difficulty with sibilance. Now, do note that the volume was at -4 at the time and when it was turned back to -10, it was better. To me, the Salk speaker is one that I never personally thought of as a speaker you crank up to loud volumes - it is one you want to sit, relax, look at that stunning finish , and just listen to some soothing tunes. That is the picture in my head when we start talking Salk speakers.


----------



## ALMFamily

I also want to take a minute out to say a big thanks to Wayne - the amount of work and effort he puts into these really makes it all happen. I applaud you sir! :clap:


----------



## zieglj01

Big Red Machine said:


> Salk speakers are not known for sibilance. If it is in the recording, then you will hear it.


A good point - also the speaker was not made for the extreme head-banging crowd,
or for those who want to continue to enjoy listening, to poor recordings.


----------



## Erin H

If you guys had some quasi-anechoic on/off-axis data for the speakers tested, that would resolve the concern over whether the speaker is adding or removing something from the music. In that sense, the speaker performed as it should have (ie; it contributed in some way to the response by removing or adding something to what should be a flat _anechoic _respons).

You may even be able to extract this information to some degree by evaluating the IR and gating the response. I'd imagine the best you could achieve is a reflection free response above 400hz or so, but that would at least tell you what's occurring in the speaker itself (not caused by the reflections that aren't able to easily be identified without in depth analysis).

Just some positive "criticism" for future testing.


----------



## jsalk

First off, thanks to Sonnie for putting this project together and to Wayne, Leonard and Joe for their time and dedication in reviewing the various models. We at Salk Sound were honored to have been able to participate and provide our Supercharged SongTowers for this evaluation.

For those interested, I thought a few comments regarding our design philosophies would shed some additional light that some may find useful.

As I've said many times in the past, speaker design is all about balancing trade-offs. There is no free lunch. Often, achieving performance in some area involves a trade-off somewhere else. For example, high efficiency generally comes at the expense of bass extension. Choose a larger driver that plays deep and it probably won't perform all that well in the midrange. You get the idea. It is simply the laws of physics at work.

In our opinion, the most important aspect of speaker performance is midrange accuracy and detail. All great speakers have one thing in common: they get the midrange right. This is where 80% of the information is in a recording and where all the dialogue is in home theater. If you don't get this right, you may have a "good" speaker, but you will never have a "great" speaker.

So when we consider a new design, we won't put our name on it unless we are satisfied that the midrange performance meets our expectations. Top end air and transparency, along with deep bass extension, are secondary considerations. 

If we sold speakers at retail, perhaps our design goals would be different. In a quick evaluation in an audio showroom, consumers generally take note of top end air and bass extension. But they often pay relatively little attention to midrange performance. Unfortunately, only after they get their purchase home do they discover that the bass is boomy and the top end is fatiguing. Since we don't sell at retail, we don't need to play games to win a showroom shoot-out. We are free to concentrate on speakers that excel in the all-important midrange go from there.

As you move up in our product line, the top end becomes more detailed and transparent and the bottom end becomes more extended. But we try to insure that no matter which speaker a customer chooses, the midrange performance will be excellent.

For example, the Supercharged SongTowers use Seas Excel W15's, a 5" woofer with magnesium cones. Magnesium is lighter and stiffer than paper. So these drivers can start and stop faster than a typical paper, kevlar or poly coned driver. The result is more detail and accuracy in the midrange. These 5" drivers do an exceptional job but, of course, can only move so much air down low. Want more bass? Move up to our Veracity ST's with 6" W16's or our Veracity HT2-TL's with 7" W18's. These speakers will move more air down low for added bass weight and heft.

But the midrange performance in all three of these models will be equivalent.

The other thing I might point out is that manufacturers will often boost bass in the region somewhere between 50Hz to 200Hz. This provides the illusion of "better" bass performance. But the frequency is no longer flat and the speakers do not accurately reproduce the sound they are being fed. In this case, the speakers are adding content that is not in the original recording.

I once had a cusomter come to our shop with a pair of his current (from an un-named but well-respected brand) speakers to compare to the SongTowers. He loved everything about the SongTowers but thought his speakers played deeper bass. I didn't think this was the case, so we measured both speakers. Sure enough, the SongTowers actually played deeper. His speakers simply had a hump in the response around 100Hz that provided an illusion of enhanced bass performance.

That is not to say that a person cannot enjoy a speaker with a response that is modified to accentuate some frequencies. But that is not what we are interested in doing. Our goal is to produce speakers that are neutral and accurate and don't add any character of their own to the sound. We are building speakers, not musical insturments that modify the sound.

One final comment... Much has been written about our finishes. We do put a lot of extra effort (and time) into our finishes. It is only natural to think we may pay less attention to finish quality on our lower priced models. This is not the case. No matter what speaker a person chooses, it is an important purchase and one that they will likely live with for some time. So we do our best to insure that the speaker they receive serves as a source of pride for years to come.

Again, thanks for taking the time to evaluate our Supercharged SongTowers. Great job and much appreciated!

- Jim


----------



## padgman1

Jim,

Thanks for restating your speaker philosophy from your website in so many words - it makes much sense.


----------



## fokakis1

jsalk said:


> First off, thanks to Sonnie for putting this project together and to Wayne, Leonard and Joe for their time and dedication in reviewing the various models. We at Salk Sound were honored to have been able to participate and provide our Supercharged SongTowers for this evaluation.
> 
> For those interested, I thought a few comments regarding our design philosophies would shed some additional light that some may find useful.
> 
> As I've said many times in the past, speaker design is all about balancing trade-offs. There is no free lunch. Often, achieving performance in some area involves a trade-off somewhere else. For example, high efficiency generally comes at the expense of bass extension. Choose a larger driver that plays deep and it probably won't perform all that well in the midrange. You get the idea. It is simply the laws of physics at work.
> 
> In our opinion, the most important aspect of speaker performance is midrange accuracy and detail. All great speakers have one thing in common: they get the midrange right. This is where 80% of the information is in a recording and where all the dialogue is in home theater. If you don't get this right, you may have a "good" speaker, but you will never have a "great" speaker.
> 
> So when we consider a new design, we won't put our name on it unless we are satisfied that the midrange performance meets our expectations. Top end air and transparency, along with deep bass extension, are secondary considerations.
> 
> If we sold speakers at retail, perhaps our design goals would be different. In a quick evaluation in an audio showroom, consumers generally take note of top end air and bass extension. But they often pay relatively little attention to midrange performance. Unfortunately, only after they get their purchase home do they discover that the bass is boomy and the top end is fatiguing. Since we don't sell at retail, we don't need to play games to win a showroom shoot-out. We are free to concentrate on speakers that excel in the all-important midrange go from there.
> 
> As you move up in our product line, the top end becomes more detailed and transparent and the bottom end becomes more extended. But we try to insure that no matter which speaker a customer chooses, the midrange performance will be excellent.
> 
> For example, the Supercharged SongTowers use Seas Excel W15's, a 5" woofer with magnesium cones. Magnesium is lighter and stiffer than paper. So these drivers can start and stop faster than a typical paper, kevlar or poly coned driver. The result is more detail and accuracy in the midrange. These 5" drivers do an exceptional job but, of course, can only move so much air down low. Want more bass? Move up to our Veracity ST's with 6" W16's or our Veracity HT2-TL's with 7" W18's. These speakers will move more air down low for added bass weight and heft.
> 
> But the midrange performance in all three of these models will be equivalent.
> 
> The other thing I might point out is that manufacturers will often boost bass in the region somewhere between 50Hz to 200Hz. This provides the illusion of "better" bass performance. But the frequency is no longer flat and the speakers do not accurately reproduce the sound they are being fed. In this case, the speakers are adding content that is not in the original recording.
> 
> I once had a cusomter come to our shop with a pair of his current (from an un-named but well-respected brand) speakers to compare to the SongTowers. He loved everything about the SongTowers but thought his speakers played deeper bass. I didn't think this was the case, so we measured both speakers. Sure enough, the SongTowers actually played deeper. His speakers simply had a hump in the response around 100Hz that provided an illusion of enhanced bass performance.
> 
> That is not to say that a person cannot enjoy a speaker with a response that is modified to accentuate some frequencies. But that is not what we are interested in doing. Our goal is to produce speakers that are neutral and accurate and don't add any character of their own to the sound. We are building speakers, not musical insturments that modify the sound.
> 
> One final comment... Much has been written about our finishes. We do put a lot of extra effort (and time) into our finishes. It is only natural to think we may pay less attention to finish quality on our lower priced models. This is not the case. No matter what speaker a person chooses, it is an important purchase and one that they will likely live with for some time. So we do our best to insure that the speaker they receive serves as a source of pride for years to come.
> 
> Again, thanks for taking the time to evaluate our Supercharged SongTowers. Great job and much appreciated!
> 
> - Jim


Thank you for submitting your speakers to this evaluation. I trust these guys insight and have enjoyed reading about your STs. Welcome to the forum.


----------



## jmilton7043

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!


----------



## Feanor

What? No classical music among the test tracks? For me this invalidates are subjective results.


----------



## lcaillo

Erin H said:


> If you guys had some quasi-anechoic on/off-axis data for the speakers tested, that would resolve the concern over whether the speaker is adding or removing something from the music. In that sense, the speaker performed as it should have (ie; it contributed in some way to the response by removing or adding something to what should be a flat _anechoic _respons).
> 
> You may even be able to extract this information to some degree by evaluating the IR and gating the response. I'd imagine the best you could achieve is a reflection free response above 400hz or so, but that would at least tell you what's occurring in the speaker itself (not caused by the reflections that aren't able to easily be identified without in depth analysis).
> 
> Just some positive "criticism" for future testing.


I don't know what you mean by "quasi-anechoic on/off- axix data" nor how that would tell us anything about whether a speaker is adding or removing something from the music. There are many assumptions implicit in that kind of determination and an infinite number of variables in collecting and interpreting such response. I don't see where there is much to be gained beyond the measurements that we already have published, on both the speakers and the room.

I appreciate constructive criticism, but I really do not understand why you think we could gain anything like this.


----------



## lcaillo

jsalk said:


> Again, thanks for taking the time to evaluate our Supercharged SongTowers. Great job and much appreciated!
> - Jim


Jim, 
The pleasure was ours! It is a joy to get to spend time with so many fine products and we appreciate manufacturers who are willing to allow us to evaluate their products for our members and guests.

I hope that we succeed in giving our readers some insight into each that is meaningful. It gets to be much more difficult with speakers at this level. We are beyond the point where individual perception and preference dominate much of what we hear and readers should take our experiences and how we report them in that context. These are, after all, just our individual experience, and others may take something comepletely different away from listening under the same conditions.


----------



## lcaillo

Feanor said:


> What? No classical music among the test tracks? For me this invalidates are subjective results.


Then you don't have to read the reviews. You are welcome to audition the speakers for yourself and report your findings with whatever music you choose. It just so happens that most of what the group of reviewers listen to is not classical. We all have some in our collections but it does not represent the bulk of our preference. We report our experiences with music that we are familiar with and listen to. Certainly there are much better reference recordings than many of our test tracks. We try to select music that reveals something about the speaker and is fun for us to listen to.

You are welcome to suggest some tracks for the next round of evaluations, if there is one. We will consider it.


----------



## lcaillo

ALMFamily said:


> I also want to take a minute out to say a big thanks to Wayne - the amount of work and effort he puts into these really makes it all happen. I applaud you sir! :clap:


Same here! These sessions and reviews are much more the work of Wayne and Sonnie than Joe and I. It is a team effort, but Wayne does far more of the work, the thinking, the writing, and the testing. We just support what he does and get to listen and comment. Pretty good deal for Joe and me.


----------



## Erin H

lcaillo said:


> I don't know what you mean by "quasi-anechoic on/off- axix data" nor how that would tell us anything about whether a speaker is adding or removing something from the music. There are many assumptions implicit in that kind of determination and an infinite number of variables in collecting and interpreting such response. I don't see where there is much to be gained beyond the measurements that we already have published, on both the speakers and the room.
> 
> I appreciate constructive criticism, but I really do not understand why you think we could gain anything like this.



There really are no assumptions implicit or explicit. It simply is what it is. Quasi-anechoic would give you the speaker response itself, removed of any room effect. In all things electronic, distortion is described by anything that alters the signal. think of it as simply "signal in = signal out". In a real world, this isn't possible. But, that's the ultimate goal of a true reference system; to not alter the source media. The best way for us hobbyists to determine this is a simple quasi-anechoic measurement. You are able to then capture what the speaker itself is doing to the signal source. The on & off-axis measurements would go further to show you how well the polar response of said speaker behaves. ie; is there a lobing issue at the crossover between the mid and tweeter? this would be apparenty in any axis. Providing this data would tell us what the speaker is doing. Without the effect of the room in a single space. This is important if you want to determine what the speaker is contributing and just how it contributes to what you hear. In other words, what shows up in one axis may not show up in another. Multiple measurements are needed. 

If mesuring the speaker quasi-anechoically via a gated impulse response isn't possible (though, it shouldn't be impossible) then another option is to measure the respons with the mic placed in various locations and then average them. ie; spatial averaging. What you guys have presented, I can only assume by the lack of mention and by the lack of multiple data indicating otherwise in your REW screenshots, is a single-point response at the seated position. This really tells us nothing more than what you hear if you head is in a vice. It doesn't capture the culmination of sound over a listening area which is essentially now the standard in measurement technique for evaluating a speaker in a given room (ie; John Atkinson of Stereophile, Earl Geddes, Linkwitz, et al). A good spatial average will provide more information as to the power response of a speaker which also is a means of getting to the root of what the speaker is doing. The reason why a single point axis measurement doesn't work is pretty simple: loudspeakers radiate different depending on their design. Some artifacts may be heard differently than others depending on the placement of your head/mic (even as much as one inch can alter what you hear and/or measure above 6khz thanks to combing). 

IF you have that data, then the discussion of "well, the Salk speaker sounded sibiliant" would be much easier to nail down because you'd have a measurement of what the speaker itself does over a broad range of listening space or axes. You can directly compare an average or look at it's polar response vs another speaker to see why it may sound sibilant (or why another speaker doesn't). You see a bump around 6-8khz? Probably explains it. You think the soundstage presentedby speaker A is better than the rest? A set of polars showing lobing between the mid/tweeter is present by an off-axis drop in response in the 2-3khz range would likely explain this. A single response measurement isn't going to do that for you. There are a whole lot of objective reasons for why speaker A performs "better" than speaker B. You just need the data to show it. 

It may seem like I'm being nitpicky and I am not. Nor am I trying to stir anything up. Simply put, I'm posting what is really widely known in most audio circles and has been adopted by hundreds of companies/magazines/reviewers/etc. I'm just relaying the info so you guys can consider doing this next time. I believe I mentioned/asked for this information before you guys kicked off the testing. Just so you don't think I'm making this stuff up, here's a good link that summarizes most testing methods and explains the importance if you'd like some better info:
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/speaker-measurements-101

I'm not at all trying to diminish your efforts. I'm just trying to help you guys. Maybe in a future test I can join you fellas. I do appreciate all that was done here. Really and truly am just trying to help.

- Erin


----------



## lcaillo

Erin H said:


> There really are no assumptions implicit or explicit. - Erin


To say there are no assumptions is simply not correct, nor possible, in any set of measurements or evaluations. This, however, is a subject for another thread. This one is for discussion of this group of evaluations, and since we did not use this technique for measuring the speakers we should stick to discussing what we did measure and what we reported. Please start another thread where we can discuss this in detail and not distract from the reviews as conducted.


----------



## ISLAND1000

AudiocRaver said:


> Earplugs. Even our beloved Zoo bar gets loud enough you need 'em. I catch a fair amount of live music in the Lincoln/Omaha area, and these are my choice. Yeah, they seem to make the music sound dull at first, but after a couple of songs of adjustment time for your ears, you will forget they are there. When the show is over - no ringing ears!


That brings up some questions, in what condition is the collective hearing of the testers? 
Can they hear to 15,000Hz?
Are both ears of each tester equally sensitive? 
Do the testers have any tinnitus?
Do they wear a baseball cap backwards? LOL

As my own hearing has declined in quality and perception over time, I can't judge speaker quality accurately enough to be a judge anymore. I'm limited to 8000Hz or less, left ear less sensitive than my right. 
Some years ago I thought my own DIY speakers had a sibilance problem. No one else could hear it though. It turned out my tinnitus was reacting to certain frequencies at higher listening volume producing a sibilant type inner ear noise. I had to have an auditory ENT specialist identify my problem. Welcome to old age.


----------



## Big Red Machine

ALMFamily said:


> True Pete - I have heard quite a few different Salk speakers, and this was the first I recall having difficulty with sibilance. Now, do note that the volume was at -4 at the time and when it was turned back to -10, it was better. To me, the Salk speaker is one that I never personally thought of as a speaker you crank up to loud volumes - it is one you want to sit, relax, look at that stunning finish , and just listen to some soothing tunes. That is the picture in my head when we start talking Salk speakers.


But just to be clear to potential Salk owners, if you wish , the soundscape 8'S can be cranked. 25 hz and up means fun. Certainly outside the price range/ discussion here.


----------



## Blacklightning

Feanor said:


> What? No classical music among the test tracks? For me this invalidates are subjective results.


I’m a big classical music fan as I play in an orchestra but the last thing I want is a guy that does not listen to classical music telling me which speakers sounds better for classical music. I want someone that has been to many symphony concerts and has heard things beyond movie soundtracks. Granted if I was a part of this I would add a few classical tracks and add a disclaimer about the rock stuff as I have never been to a rock concert.

I think want these guys are doing is great. Back to back listening to great speakers… wow My hat is off to you. :clap:


----------



## Erin H

lcaillo said:


> To say there are no assumptions is simply not correct, nor possible, in any set of measurements or evaluations.


The data itself would be objective, which was what I was talking about regarding the no implied assumptinos. You perform it in X manner and you post it as such. 



lcaillo said:


> This, however, is a subject for another thread. This one is for discussion of this group of evaluations, and since we did not use this technique for measuring the speakers we should stick to discussing what we did measure and what we reported. Please start another thread where we can discuss this in detail and not distract from the reviews as conducted.


Understood and agreed. You asked a question and I replied. I didn't intend to make this a full convo... just a point worth making. I've said what I felt was worthwhile on the matter. If you'd like to start another thread that's fine, but I don't see any reason to do so myself as I've said my piece; no sense in rehashing it for the sake of it. 

I just ask that you guys consider my comments in the future tests. Maybe we can discuss it further before then. 

- Erin


----------



## prerich

lcaillo said:


> . We all We report our experiences with music that we are familiar with and listen to. Certainly there are much better reference recordings than many of our test tracks. We try to select music that reveals something about the speaker and is fun for us to listen to. You are welcome to suggest some tracks for the next round of evaluations, if there is one. We will consider it.


 Excellent!!!! If a person doesn't enjoy classical and it's not his or her reference, how can they rightly review a speaker by listening to classical? Listen to the music you enjoy when you review a speaker, because you know what you are listening for (and you guys do plenty of measurement test)! keep on truckin'!!!!

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## lcaillo

Erin H said:


> The data itself would be objective, which was what I was talking about regarding the no implied assumptinos. You perform it in X manner and you post it as such.
> 
> 
> 
> Understood and agreed. You asked a question and I replied. I didn't intend to make this a full convo... just a point worth making. I've said what I felt was worthwhile on the matter. If you'd like to start another thread that's fine, but I don't see any reason to do so myself as I've said my piece; no sense in rehashing it for the sake of it.
> 
> I just ask that you guys consider my comments in the future tests. Maybe we can discuss it further before then.
> 
> - Erin


Please start a thread to discuss this further. There is merit in more extensive measurement, but I am not convinced that the gain is worth the cost, in terms of time and effort. Getting all the listening in is tough as it is.

How we interpret data, however, is always subject to assumptions. The data is the data as you say, but making it meaningful and informative requires much more. Interpretaion of what data means in terms of what we experience has many leaps that are not objective. What a speaker adds or fails to reveal is not just a matter of response, but other factors as well, such as distortion.

Again, I would love to discuss these ideas, so please do start a thread.


----------



## elco

Kudos to Wayne, Leonard and Joe for their hard work on this review. :clap:



jsalk said:


> For example, the Supercharged SongTowers use Seas Excel W15's, a 5" woofer with magnesium cones. Magnesium is lighter and stiffer than paper. So these drivers can start and stop faster than a typical paper, kevlar or poly coned driver. The result is more detail and accuracy in the midrange.


I own a pair of Seas Excel W12's and I agree with your comments about its excellent midrange.


----------



## admranger

AudiocRaver said:


> Excellent questions. I felt that the smooth high end and low distortion of the SongTower SC did a pretty good job of not accentuating sibilance. I would not say that they cut it or controlled it, just did not make it worse. Joe is our "sibilance authority," with Leonard a close second, I am sure they will have something to say.


Some songs are worse than others, no doubt, and we certainly don't want it accentuated. It's a great item to mention as it is an annoying issue to some of us. :wave:



AudiocRaver said:


> Earplugs. Even our beloved Zoo bar gets loud enough you need 'em. I catch a fair amount of live music in the Lincoln/Omaha area, and these are my choice. Yeah, they seem to make the music sound dull at first, but after a couple of songs of adjustment time for your ears, you will forget they are there. When the show is over - no ringing ears!


Unfortunately, my time at the Zoo was in the early to mid-80's. Matt "guitar" Murphy was one of my favorites, though Brave Combo (nuclear polka) was fun too. Played in the marching band so my ears got toasted on a regular basis when I was young and slightly more stupid than I am now. I do wear earplugs to concerts that get loud (Garbage in the Pearl at the Palm was 103 dB), but these Etymotic earplugs are worthy of consideration. I may get some to try for my next 'loud' show. I didn't need any when listening to the St. Petersburg Philharmonic (and a 305 yr old Stradivarius :gulp a the Smith Center for the Performing Arts Saturday night.



ALMFamily said:


> I decided to include some thoughts on sibilance as there were a couple instances where it really stood out to a point where I considered leaving the room. Since some people are more sensitive to it than others, I thought it would be good to mention it.


I agree it can be annoying as which is why I got on my soapbox about engineers who need to better understand their trade (or use more revealing speakers in the studio). :rant: Good stuff!

Again, awesome work so far.

Nice to see a vendor drop in for a visit. Mr. Salk, thanks for your input. I've unfortunately never had the pleasure of listening to or seeing your speakers in person. Without reviews like these, I'd never even have a) known about your speakers and b) considered them (speakers are my next big upgrade). Thanks for participating.


----------



## AudiocRaver

The Phase Technology PC-9.5 review has been posted. Grab THIS LINK to jump there directly.


----------



## prerich

Excellent review of the Phase Tech speakers!!!! Great job!


----------



## AudiocRaver

Erin H said:


> If you guys had some quasi-anechoic on/off-axis data for the speakers tested, that would resolve the concern over whether the speaker is adding or removing something from the music. In that sense, the speaker performed as it should have (ie; it contributed in some way to the response by removing or adding something to what should be a flat _anechoic _respons).
> 
> You may even be able to extract this information to some degree by evaluating the IR and gating the response. I'd imagine the best you could achieve is a reflection free response above 400hz or so, but that would at least tell you what's occurring in the speaker itself (not caused by the reflections that aren't able to easily be identified without in depth analysis).
> 
> Just some positive "criticism" for future testing.


We are already discussing ways to potentially up our game with additional measurements. It is no easy task determining what will get us more _bang_ from our precious _buck_ of available time.



Feanor said:


> What? No classical music among the test tracks? For me this invalidates are subjective results.


The _Also Sprach Zarathustra / Star Trek_ sequence is orchestral. We have many tracks with simple recordings of natural instruments. There is no way to cover every corner of every genre. We are confident that our tracks provide broad coverage of genres, instruments, and recording techniques. Yet there is no way to satisfy everyone. There will always be those who choose to negate our results for some reason rather than see value in what we have accomplished. So be it.



ISLAND1000 said:


> That brings up some questions, in what condition is the collective hearing of the testers?
> Can they hear to 15,000Hz?
> Are both ears of each tester equally sensitive?
> Do the testers have any tinnitus?
> Do they wear a baseball cap backwards? LOL
> 
> As my own hearing has declined in quality and perception over time, I can't judge speaker quality accurately enough to be a judge anymore. I'm limited to 8000Hz or less, left ear less sensitive than my right.
> Some years ago I thought my own DIY speakers had a sibilance problem. No one else could hear it though. It turned out my tinnitus was reacting to certain frequencies at higher listening volume producing a sibilant type inner ear noise. I had to have an auditory ENT specialist identify my problem. Welcome to old age.


Can't speak for the others. My ears are both good to 14,000 Hz. I have measured them both and know their characteristics. And I protect them carefully while enjoying what they can do. And I do not wear hats.:bigsmile:


----------



## AudiocRaver

jsalk said:


> First off, thanks to Sonnie for putting this project together and to Wayne, Leonard and Joe for their time and dedication in reviewing the various models. We at Salk Sound were honored to have been able to participate and provide our Supercharged SongTowers for this evaluation.
> 
> ...............
> 
> Again, thanks for taking the time to evaluate our Supercharged SongTowers. Great job and much appreciated!
> 
> - Jim


Jim, thank you so much for allowing us to evaluate the SongTower SC. We realize it can be a little intimidating for a speaker designer/manufacturer to send his children off to a strange land to be "measured up" for publication to the masses. The pleasure was ours.

Thank you for dropping by to comment. We appreciate your insights.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Erin H said:


> What you guys have presented, I can only assume by the lack of mention and by the lack of multiple data indicating otherwise in your REW screenshots, is a single-point response at the seated position.


That is correct.



> This really tells us nothing more than what you hear if you head is in a vice.


Which is precisely the way we listen.



> It doesn't capture the culmination of sound over a listening area which is essentially now the standard in measurement technique for evaluating a speaker in a given room (ie; John Atkinson of Stereophile, Earl Geddes, Linkwitz, et al). A good spatial average will provide more information as to the power response of a speaker which also is a means of getting to the root of what the speaker is doing. The reason why a single point axis measurement doesn't work is pretty simple: loudspeakers radiate different depending on their design. Some artifacts may be heard differently than others depending on the placement of your head/mic (even as much as one inch can alter what you hear and/or measure above 6khz thanks to combing).


We are well aware of what is possible and preferable given oodles of resource and time.



> IF you have that data,


We do not. We may have more next time.



> I'm just relaying the info so you guys can consider doing this next time. I believe I mentioned/asked for this information before you guys kicked off the testing. Just so you don't think I'm making this stuff up, here's a good link that summarizes most testing methods and explains the importance if you'd like some better info:
> http://www.soundandvision.com/content/speaker-measurements-101


We are well aware of what is possible and preferable given oodles of resource and time.

Thanks for the input.


----------



## Erin H

You don't need "oodles" of time. It takes less than 30 seconds to perform a simple head area sweep. I'm not sure what is giving you guys the impression that you need some insane amount of time. 

However, the semi-anechoic on/off axis measurements would take more time. I won't get in to it here but the short story is it would take at least 20 minutes per speaker and the design would dictate that. That said, your efforts would be much more improved doing this and providing a spatial average. Those two sets of data is all anyone needs to make a strong and more objective correlation between what you fellas are reporting in your subjective analysis as it tells you what the speaker is doing more than a single point measurement. If you haven't read the link I provided previously, please do. It's an excellent summation of the pros and cons of various speaker measurements. 

I know you're trying to cram a lot already in to a relatively short weekend. Next time, I'd be more than happy to help if I'm available as I'm within a few hours' drive of Sonnie. I'm genuine with that offer. Sonnie and I have discussed me possibly joining you guys in the future. I'd be more than happy to pick up the measurements end if it helps lighten your load and means getting even better data on the speakers tested. 

If you'd like to understand my background, here's my test site. I'm not some kid spouting off buzzwords to look cool. I do have a legitimate interest in bettering our communities' understanding of speaker performance. 
http://medleysmusings.com

Regarding OT: I really don't want to keep going over this here just as you guys don't. It is better suited elsewhere. I definitely don't want to take away from the subject of this thread but my points are not invalid and I really think we can work together on this to make these shoot-outs you're doing have even more weight for the objective crowd. However, I'm responding to you in this thread because the response to me was written here. Porting all of this convo to a new thread isn't something I can easily do, but I'd imagine a mod should be able to (based on my experience as a mod on other forums). If you guys want to carry this over to another thread feel free to do so and we can pick up there. I imagine Sonnie would be more than willing to do so if you guys don't have those mod privileges. Just let me know if you do. Or , shoot me a PM and we can chat that way. 

Edit: I *am **NOT *trying to be 'that' guy who pops his head in and tells you how you're doing something wrong. Trust me, I deal with that stuff all the time with my measurements, so I know how it feels. I *am *trying to help, though, with constructive feedback and we can carry on discussion on how to perform said measurements or possibly how to let me help you guys and maybe perform the measurements, with Sonnie's permission, in future tests. I shot Sonnie a message asking if he can help split this to another thread so we don't keep mucking this one up. 

- Erin


----------



## AudiocRaver

Erin H said:


> You don't need "oodles" of time. It takes less than 30 seconds to perform a simple head area sweep. I'm not sure what is giving you guys the impression that you need some insane amount of time.


You have taken my statement out of context. I am well aware of the time it takes to make several measurements around the head area.



> However, the semi-anechoic on/off axis measurements would take more time. I won't get in to it here but the short story is it would take at least 20 minutes per speaker and the design would dictate that. That said, your efforts would be much more improved doing this and providing a spatial average. Those two sets of data is all anyone needs to make a strong and more objective correlation between what you fellas are reporting in your subjective analysis as it tells you what the speaker is doing more than a single point measurement. If you haven't read the link I provided previously, please do. It's an excellent summation of the pros and cons of various speaker measurements.
> 
> I know you're trying to cram a lot already in to a relatively short weekend. Next time, I'd be more than happy to help if I'm available as I'm within a few hours' drive of Sonnie. I'm genuine with that offer. Sonnie and I have discussed me possibly joining you guys in the future. I'd be more than happy to pick up the measurements end if it helps lighten your load and means getting even better data on the speakers tested.
> 
> If you'd like to understand my background, here's my test site. I'm not some kid spouting off buzzwords to look cool. I do have a legitimate interest in bettering our communities' understanding of speaker performance.
> http://medleysmusings.com
> 
> Regarding OT: If you guys want to carry this over to another thread feel free to do so and we can pick up there. I imagine Sonnie would be more than willing to do so if you guys don't have those mod privileges. I'm responding to you in this thread because the response was written here and me trying to port all of this convo isn't something I can easily do. But a mod should be able to (based on my experience as a mod on other forums). Just let me know if you do. Or , shoot me a PM and we can chat that way.
> 
> - Erin


I am aware that you are a very capable tester. So, we believe, are we. We are also painfully aware of the real-world extra time it takes to add a single seemingly simple step to our process, how that will shorten our already short nights of sleep, and how an additional person, however capable, may or may not be helpful in getting more done. Sincerely, there is no disrespect intended, and as I have already said, we are considering how best to expand our review coverage for future events. Your input IS appreciated.


----------



## Erin H

AudiocRaver said:


> You have taken my statement out of context. I am well aware of the time it takes to make several measurements around the head area.
> 
> 
> 
> I am aware that you are a very capable tester. So, we believe, are we. We are also painfully aware of the real-world extra time it takes to add a single seemingly simple step to our process, how that will shorten our already short nights of sleep, and how an additional person, however capable, may or may not be helpful in getting more done. Sincerely, there is no disrespect intended, and as I have already said, we are considering how best to expand our review coverage for future events. Your input IS appreciated.


In my defense, your reply seemed to imply you thought the measurements I mentioned would take "oodles" of time. I didn't intend to take them out of context; I suppose it was simply misinterpretation. That happens with text. 

As I seem to have taken your words out of context, perhaps you have taken mine out of context as well. I didn't say you weren't capable testers. I simply pointed out data that is missing that would be useful to have and provide and offered to help where I can. I don't know your guys' process but I can certainly appreciate the fact that by now you likely have it down to a method that maximizes time. And I therefore understand an additional body may wreck that process. I'll just leave the offer on the table in case you guys decide it would be something useful. I'm not offering up my time as a means to best anyone. Just as a means to better maximize efforts IF it can. 

With that said, I'll leave this aspect alone now unless you guys wish to discuss it further here or elsewhere.


Looking forward to more of the test results.


----------



## Utopianemo

Sooo! How 'bout those speakers! Good stuff.


----------



## SoCalWJS

Looks like a lot of thought went into this and I will spend some time going through the whole thread for details, but I came up with a question pretty quickly.

Yuri Honig Trio's _Walking on the Moon_ is a piece that I use for evaluation as well (although apparently looking for different things than the reviewers) and looked at the comments on how it was perceived and I became confused.....

Is there more than 1 version of this?

I'm familiar with a Saxophone version and kept seeing comments about the Trumpet. :scratch:


----------



## bkeeler10

Great job on the Phase Tech review guys! My taste in music leans toward vocals, and especially female vocals, as well as piano and percussive instruments. My experience with this speaker at RMAF, particularly with vocals and delicate percussion, lines up pretty well with your observations. This probably explains why I like the speaker so much. It was interesting that Joe thought for vocals it sounded almost like a ribbon tweeter.

How often is it that the speaker position that offers the best imaging and soundstaging characteristics also exhibits the best low-frequency performance? Like, never! While reading Wayne's comments, I kept wondering what would happen to the low-frequency anomalies you experienced if a little EQ were applied. I'm glad you guys went ahead and did a little testing with Audyssey for all the speakers, and it sounds like that pretty well took care of the bottom end nicely. Is that a fair assessment of your experience? 

I suspect you found low frequency improvement in all the speakers with Audyssey, and that it was by far the most beneficial change.


----------



## petmotel

Nice job guys, your speaker reviews are excellent IMHO. I have two pair of Ascend Towers w/RAALs, one of which will be used as surrounds when I finish a dedicated A/V space. I sure wish I had made plans to get a pair out to you folks for evaluation purposes. I don't know how Joe got out there, if he drove he could have picked them up from me, I'm in Northern IL. In fact, I met Joe at one of the SE WI GTGs at Terry's place.

In any case, if we can make arrangements, and you'd be interested in reviewing a pair of Ascend Towers in the near future, I'm game.

Jay


----------



## AudiocRaver

bkeeler10 said:


> Great job on the Phase Tech review guys! My taste in music leans toward vocals, and especially female vocals, as well as piano and percussive instruments. My experience with this speaker at RMAF, particularly with vocals and delicate percussion, lines up pretty well with your observations. This probably explains why I like the speaker so much. It was interesting that Joe thought for vocals it sounded almost like a ribbon tweeter.
> 
> How often is it that the speaker position that offers the best imaging and soundstaging characteristics also exhibits the best low-frequency performance? Like, never! While reading Wayne's comments, I kept wondering what would happen to the low-frequency anomalies you experienced if a little EQ were applied. I'm glad you guys went ahead and did a little testing with Audyssey for all the speakers, and it sounds like that pretty well took care of the bottom end nicely. Is that a fair assessment of your experience?
> 
> I suspect you found low frequency improvement in all the speakers with Audyssey, and that it was by far the most beneficial change.


That is pretty accurate. At home when I have more time with a speaker setup, it is fun to see how _little_ EQ is needed, using parametric EQ, to tame the response. A soundstage (SS) is a terrible thing to waste, and it seems the better it is the more delicate it is and the easier it can be disrupted. Often only a few bands is all it takes:

A HF shelf to lift the HF droop from off-axis listening position
One or two _broad_ bands to tame the overall profile of LF room effects
Right now a setup at home is giving _killer_ results with only 3 bands of correction (foobar2000 + VST Wrapper + PEQ plugin).
It is actually quite impressive that Audyssey MultEQ can even out a speaker's response without destroying SS/imaging, can even improve them sometimes. And it is so _easy._

Naysayers will insist that correction drains the life out of the sound, and I will agree that a supersoundstage (SSS:bigsmile might be disrupted by anything but the more sparing correcting, but for 99% of applications MultEQ or PEQ can give fantastic results.


----------



## AudiocRaver

petmotel said:


> Nice job guys, your speaker reviews are excellent IMHO. I have two pair of Ascend Towers w/RAALs, one of which will be used as surrounds when I finish a dedicated A/V space. I sure wish I had made plans to get a pair out to you folks for evaluation purposes. I don't know how Joe got out there, if he drove he could have picked them up from me, I'm in Northern IL. In fact, I met Joe at one of the SE WI GTGs at Terry's place.
> 
> In any case, if we can make arrangements, and you'd be interested in reviewing a pair of Ascend Towers in the near future, I'm game.
> 
> Jay


Good idea, and thanks for the generous offer. Maybe we can twist Joe's arm into a little get-together at his place once his HT room is all finished off.:bigsmile: [{(don't you just love it when people are generous with _your_ stuff?)}]:whistling:


----------



## AudiocRaver

SoCalWJS said:


> Looks like a lot of thought went into this and I will spend some time going through the whole thread for details, but I came up with a question pretty quickly.
> 
> Yuri Honig Trio's _Walking on the Moon_ is a piece that I use for evaluation as well (although apparently looking for different things than the reviewers) and looked at the comments on how it was perceived and I became confused.....
> 
> Is there more than 1 version of this?
> 
> I'm familiar with a Saxophone version and kept seeing comments about the Trumpet. :scratch:


As I recall - having just played that track in the last couple of days - it is a saxophone.


----------



## ALMFamily

AudiocRaver said:


> Good idea, and thanks for the generous offer. Maybe we can twist Joe's arm into a little get-together at his place once his HT room is all finished off.:bigsmile: [{(don't you just love it when people are generous with _your_ stuff?)}]:whistling:


If you think Sonnie's room is over damped, mine has even more so be prepared for that!

Interesting idea though - putting that one in the pressure cooker that is my brain for later. And, thanks much for the offer!



AudiocRaver said:


> As I recall - having just played that track in the last couple of days - it is a saxophone.


It is indeed... :R

Thanks for the correction!


----------



## bkeeler10

Leonard, your comment on the Phase Techs as speakers you would buy if you wanted "speakers for life" cracked me up. Check out the picture of the 2014 product guide. That's been a tag line for a few years. Made me laugh.


----------



## lcaillo

I assure you I did not know that. It was a purely honest and spontaneous impression.


----------



## bkeeler10

I'm confident you didn't and that it was a sincere comment. Makes it all the more funny. Wanna come do some marketing for Phase Tech? :rofl:


----------



## bkeeler10

AudiocRaver said:


> Right now a setup at home is giving _killer_ results with only 3 bands of correction (foobar2000 + VST Wrapper + PEQ plugin).


That wouldn't be the baby brother of a certain forum owner's certain pair of recently acquired loudspeakers, would it?  :heehee:


----------



## bkeeler10

bkeeler10 said:


> I'm confident you didn't and that it was a sincere comment. Makes it all the more funny. Wanna come do some marketing for Phase Tech? :rofl:


In all seriousness, no offense or disrespect intended to Leonard or anyone else  My prior comment could be taken the wrong way. You guys are doing awesome and I love reading what you have to say about each speaker.


----------



## lcaillo

No offense taken at all. I just don't want anyone to think that I am in any way influenced by any manufacturer in what I write.

Those who know me at all will know that I am no shill for anyone and will speak my mind. But guests might get the wrong idea when the words are so similar.


----------



## bkeeler10

This is part of the reason why I (and I think many others) put so much stock in what you all have to say. I feel confident that you will be forthcoming in reporting your impressions and opinions, both the good and the not-so-good. Carry on!

Now, where are those other reviews?? :foottap:

:bigsmile:


----------



## AudiocRaver

bkeeler10 said:


> That wouldn't be the baby brother of a certain forum owner's certain pair of recently acquired loudspeakers, would it?  :heehee:


Mmmaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyybbeeeee.


----------



## fokakis1

AudiocRaver said:


> That is pretty accurate. At home when I have more time with a speaker setup, it is fun to see how little EQ is needed, using parametric EQ, to tame the response. A soundstage (SS) is a terrible thing to waste, and it seems the better it is the more delicate it is and the easier it can be disrupted. Often only a few bands is all it takes:
> 
> [*]A HF shelf to lift the HF droop from off-axis listening position
> [*]One or two broad bands to tame the overall profile of LF room effects
> Right now a setup at home is giving killer results with only 3 bands of correction (foobar2000 + VST Wrapper + PEQ plugin).
> It is actually quite impressive that Audyssey MultEQ can even out a speaker's response without destroying SS/imaging, can even improve them sometimes. And it is so easy.
> 
> Naysayers will insist that correction drains the life out of the sound, and I will agree that a supersoundstage (SSS:bigsmile might be disrupted by anything but the more sparing correcting, but for 99% of applications MultEQ or PEQ can give fantastic results.


I noticed you have mentioned this high frequency shelf a few times. Would you consider Dynamic EQs effect on high frequencies to be an effective compensation?


----------



## HeartFixr

All of you are to be commended for your hard work in thoroughly evaluating these speakers. Performing all of those measurements consistently for all of the speakers is hard work and we all thank you. Nice show from the other LA.


----------



## AudiocRaver

fokakis1 said:


> I noticed you have mentioned this high frequency shelf a few times. Would you consider Dynamic EQs effect on high frequencies to be an effective compensation?


We have tried it (accidentally) and it can cause vocals to wander in the soundstage on some tracks. There is some detail about that in this recent review.


----------



## AudiocRaver

The Axiom M100 Review is up and ready for your reading pleasure. Jump to it here.


Three down, three to go. Fingers crossed that we can get them posted this weekend!

Who wants PSB next? Who wants Polk? TOO BAD, you get what you get!:devil:


----------



## lcaillo

AudiocRaver has assumed control:flex:...but we do whatever he asks, since he does most of the work.:hail::hail::hail::hail:


----------



## fokakis1

AudiocRaver said:


> We have tried it (accidentally) and it can cause vocals to wander in the soundstage on some tracks. There is some detail about that in this recent review.


Nice review. I haven't noticed this "wander" with Dynamic EQ. Sounds quite strange to me. I wonder (haha) if it has more to do with the dipole design of the MLs. Variations might be heard at the MLP that are exaggerated by the boost. Maybe a comb filtering effect? Just a guess, but I intend to test tomorrow to see if I hear what you're talking about.


----------



## admranger

Would the Axiom bass boominess benefit from plugging one or more of the ports?


----------



## rhale64

admranger said:


> Would the Axiom bass boominess benefit from plugging one or more of the ports?


I was wondering the same of the Phase Technology. I owned the 9.1's and if I recall they came with port plugs.


----------



## HeartFixr

Just found my original Flim and the BB's Tricycle CD. Can't wait to get familiar with it again.


----------



## brwsaw

I really like that you're making a point to be honest and unswayed.


----------



## exlabdriver

I had artificial bass reinforcement with my Axiom M3s on stands due to their placement in in corners (close to 2 walls) requiring a -6 Db Bass EQ in my AV receiver. After reading an article at Axiom about their new Port Plugs (availability TBA), I fashioned my own to see if they would help. They did in spades.

The M3s' bass became tight again & I was able to remove all EQ out of my system & return it to flat. I would think that Port Plugs would work with the M100s as well in rooms that reinforce bass response.

BTW, this phenomena was not just for my M3s. Other speakers that I had used there exhibited the same type of behavior... 

TAM


----------



## lcaillo

admranger said:


> Would the Axiom bass boominess benefit from plugging one or more of the ports?


I want to be clear that I did not find the Axiom boomy, once it was placed optimally. I found the balance a bit more to the bass than I would prefer, but not to a degree that I would find bothersome. A speaker, for me, can have a bit too much bass and not be boomy. Boomy to me is a combination of excess bass and smearing of bass detail, uncontrolled and/or under damped sounding. Near the wall the detail was lost but out into the room it was quite good. The difference was quite striking. I would consider the performance near the wall one of the poorest and out into the room one of the best.


----------



## AudiocRaver

lcaillo said:


> AudiocRaver has assumed control:flex:...but we do whatever he asks, since he does most of the work.:hail::hail::hail::hail:


As if I have ever had any real control over anything in my life!:rolleyesno:

Truly, this is such a team effort. Without the wonderful efforts of Leonard and Joe, and of course Sonnie's hosting and room and the inertia he has given the entire series and HTS as a home for it all... it would be a pitifully empty effort. Hats off to all involved.



fokakis1 said:


> Nice review. I haven't noticed this "wander" with Dynamic EQ. Sounds quite strange to me. I wonder (haha) if it has more to do with the dipole design of the MLs. Variations might be heard at the MLP that are exaggerated by the boost. Maybe a comb filtering effect? Just a guess, but I intend to test tomorrow to see if I hear what you're talking about.


I will test at home with the same tracks and another set of speakers.



admranger said:


> Would the Axiom bass boominess benefit from plugging one or more of the ports?





rhale64 said:


> I was wondering the same of the Phase Technology. I owned the 9.1's and if I recall they came with port plugs.





exlabdriver said:


> I had artificial bass reinforcement with my Axiom M3s on stands due to their placement in in corners (close to 2 walls) requiring a -6 Db Bass EQ in my AV receiver. After reading an article at Axiom about their new Port Plugs (availability TBA), I fashioned my own to see if they would help. They did in spades.
> 
> The M3s' bass became tight again & I was able to remove all EQ out of my system & return it to flat. I would think that Port Plugs would work with the M100s as well in rooms that reinforce bass response.
> 
> BTW, this phenomena was not just for my M3s. Other speakers that I had used there exhibited the same type of behavior...
> 
> TAM


Excellent info. Alternate port tuning might be just the ticket for the Axioms in some setups.



lcaillo said:


> I want to be clear that I did not find the Axiom boomy, once it was placed optimally. I found the balance a bit more to the bass than I would prefer, but not to a degree that I would find bothersome. A speaker, for me, can have a bit too much bass and not be boomy. Boomy to me is a combination of excess bass and smearing of bass detail, uncontrolled and/or under damped sounding. Near the wall the detail was lost but out into the room it was quite good. The difference was quite striking. I would consider the performance near the wall one of the poorest and out into the room one of the best.


Well put, Leonard. To clarify my own assessment, in the final position the M100 bass was tight and controlled, just stronger in balance than I would have preferred - NOT boomy.


----------



## Utopianemo

Great review of the Axioms! I always go back and forth when considering purchasing Axioms, because I'll read 7 "A" reviews of their products and then 2 "B-minuses". It really sounds like the M100's are solid performers. 

lcaillo, you had me until you started comparing Dickens to Hemingway. :heehee: It's not Dickens if it isn't a run-on sentence a paragraph long. I mean, Hemingway's dry, but at least he knows how to be concise.  Anyway, great insights by each of you and I appreciate your dedication.

I also enjoy the tone you've collectively taken with this $3,000 evaluation. You kept saying at the beginning that this wasn't a shootout or a competition, and I kind of took it with a grain of salt. I mean, what's the point of listening to a bunch of speakers at the same time if not to see which one's the best? Plus we had just seen the $2.5K and $1K evaluations, which really had more of a shootout feel(especially the $1K, which involved the "winning" speaker becoming Sonnie's purchase). The word "shootout" was used in those reviews more than once.

Having said that, you all really seem to be letting each speaker so far stand on its own merits. I hope this will encourage other manufacturers to be more willing to contribute their offerings for future evaluations. Also, has Sonnie given any thought to throwing in a few comments at the end? I know he opted out of the reviews, but if was there and he listened to them, I for one would love to hear a word or two.

One last question: At what volume are the tones played to determine in-room freq response? I freely admit I'm not an expert here, but reading the three evaluations so far($1K, $2.5K and $3K, plus some other Cedar Creek reviews), I'm really surprised at how many speakers have been deemed harsh or bright when pushed.....some of which do not have a reputation for being bright. I'm just wondering out loud if the sonic characteristics of that room in particular have a multiplicative response to high frequencies at higher SPLs? if a test at reference level shows a flat response, does it show a flat response at higher than reference level? Again, I have the highest respect for you guys and what you're doing here. It's refreshing to have a forum that has such a positive vibe.


----------



## AudiocRaver

*UPDATE concerning the Axiom M100 Review:*

*UPDATE: Axiom has contacted us with a very kind reminder that they recommend plugging the bottom three ports on the M100 when locating them close to a wall, and that port plugs are supplied with the speakers to accomplish it. There is even a demonstration video concerning this linked from their website. This would certainly have made a big difference in their performance close to the wall in our review, and might even have given us an easy way to modify their bass response in their optimum setup if we had desired. We simply did not notice the port plugs as we unpacked the M100 speakers.

Our thanks to Axiom for pointing this out and our apologies to Axiom and our readers for the oversight on our part. Please keep this in mind as you read this review.*


----------



## Utopianemo

Glad you brought that up and it's great of you to put it in the review text. I wonder how the near-wall performance would have changed given the use of those plugs. The bass was the one detracting element to the review; does that mean the Axioms(with plugs) have no real weaknesses?


----------



## billy p

Nice to read that review on the Axiom's....although, I owned some briefly I never found the critique often associated with them on these forums mostly unfounded. Many of the guys ripping on them where just piling on....as people generally like to do. 

Now hurry up with the last 3 reviews...


----------



## exlabdriver

Utopian:

I would think that they would have to do another listening session with the M100s using the plugs before leaping to that conclusion...

TAM


----------



## AudiocRaver

Utopianemo said:


> One last question: At what volume are the tones played to determine in-room freq response? I freely admit I'm not an expert here, but reading the three evaluations so far($1K, $2.5K and $3K, plus some other Cedar Creek reviews), I'm really surprised at how many speakers have been deemed harsh or bright when pushed.....some of which do not have a reputation for being bright. I'm just wondering out loud if the sonic characteristics of that room in particular have a multiplicative response to high frequencies at higher SPLs? if a test at reference level shows a flat response, does it show a flat response at higher than reference level? Again, I have the highest respect for you guys and what you're doing here. It's refreshing to have a forum that has such a positive vibe.


Very good questions. As far as the room goes, it really does not seem to be brighter than other rooms I have worked with. If anything, the treatment keeps the highs pretty well under control.

My own ears are fairly tolerant of extended highs if they are smooth and if the distortion is low. The others seem more sensitive than I am, Leonard a little and Joe moreso, and either will catch any significant amount of mid/hf distortion - in Leonard's case it is more like a superpower.

So remember that sensitivities and preferences vary - we are reporting what we hear and telling you our sensitivities and preferences the best we can for the sake of context.

Joe & Leonard, please speak up if I have misrepresented either of you.:innocent:


----------



## lcaillo

I think you are right on. I tend to like a speaker that is somewhat lean on the bottom but goes deep, but I really am sensitive to any tendency to get harsh or bright. My priorities are well defined mid bass through upper midrange with lots of detail and very low distortion.


----------



## lcaillo

exlabdriver said:


> Utopian:
> 
> I would think that they would have to do another listening session with the M100s using the plugs before leaping to that conclusion...
> 
> TAM


That is unlikely to happen. I think it is a reasonable bet that it would tame it a great deal, since the issue is not bad bass, but too much.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Utopianemo said:


> Glad you brought that up and it's great of you to put it in the review text. I wonder how the near-wall performance would have changed given the use of those plugs. The bass was the one detracting element to the review; does that mean the Axioms(with plugs) have no real weaknesses?


My own assessment: Take the accentuated bass and the against-the-wall muddiness out of the equation and they are very special speakers. No real weaknesses? Flawless? As in _perfect?_ Maybe close, from my perspective, at the ideal location. Hard to say without another listen, especially for close-to-wall performance.

Edit: I would love the opportunity to give them another chance, heh, heh. But that is unlikely, short of buying a pair.


----------



## Bjski

Glad I suggested the Axiom M100, Maybe the HP M80 should be tested seeing how it's the same as the M100 but with one less woofer. The HP M80 might have better near wall performance even though Axiom has the same spec's for both.

Keep up the good work and keep on testing.


----------



## brwsaw

I'd second the M80HP review.
The image totally messes with your mind.
You're going to close your eyes and be forced to rethink stereo.


----------



## fokakis1

AudiocRaver said:


> Axiom M100...
> 
> Imagine a soundstage with imaging that appears to go a level beyond sound waves into the realm of actually seeming to materialize in the air before you. The soundstage is carved in space with such density you feel you could walk among those solid images and explore them as they hang there, morphing at the rate of the flow of music and sound right before your eyes and ears. The image clarity and depth acuity are so precise that each image source seems outlined like the figures in cartoons from the 30's and 40's, a boundary that defines with stark clarity the edge of each sound. Every pluck, crackle, tone, drumbeat, breath, chord, kick, syllable, and every echo, delay, double, and splash of reverb, is simply popping into existence as an individual three-dimensional entity in space before you. The soundstage that POPS!


I've been following your obsession with a deep soundstage and it appears from your review that you have found something here that captures what you so intently seek. I applaud your words. The above is very well written.


----------



## lcaillo

It is interesting that my description was very similar, even though we had not discussed the speakers very much at all after the listening session. We did not compare notes on the Axiom like we did on some others. What Wayne describes is very similar to what I meant by "density" in the image. I attribute that to very low distortion, very precisely matched components, and the ability to move lots of air.


----------



## ALMFamily

AudiocRaver said:


> Very good questions. As far as the room goes, it really does not seem to be brighter than other rooms I have worked with. If anything, the treatment keeps the highs pretty well under control.
> 
> My own ears are fairly tolerant of extended highs if they are smooth and if the distortion is low. The others seem more sensitive than I am, Leonard a little and Joe moreso, and either will catch any significant amount of mid/hf distortion - in Leonard's case it is more like a superpower.
> 
> So remember that sensitivities and preferences vary - we are reporting what we hear and telling you our sensitivities and preferences the best we can for the sake of context.
> 
> Joe & Leonard, please speak up if I have misrepresented either of you.:innocent:


That is a good representation for me as well - as with Leonard, I really appreciate a clean, crisp mid bass. As for high end, I prefer a light, delicate high end.


----------



## ALMFamily

As for the plugs for the ports for the Axioms, I did mention them in my write-up - incorrectly deeming them sliders for moving the speakers. It did not occur to me they were port plugs... :R


----------



## lcaillo

Joe and I have very similar tastes in some ways and those two areas are examples. I have found that planar drivers deliver the low distortion and extended response that leads to the "delicate" sound in the treble. I was, therefore, somewhat surprised at how much I liked the Axiom.


----------



## admranger

AudiocRaver said:


> *UPDATE concerning the Axiom M100 Review:*
> 
> *UPDATE: Axiom has contacted us with a very kind reminder that they recommend plugging the bottom three ports on the M100 when locating them close to a wall, and that port plugs are supplied with the speakers to accomplish it. There is even a demonstration video concerning this linked from their website. This would certainly have made a big difference in their performance close to the wall in our review, and might even have given us an easy way to modify their bass response in their optimum setup if we had desired. We simply did not notice the port plugs as we unpacked the M100 speakers.
> 
> Our thanks to Axiom for pointing this out and our apologies to Axiom and our readers for the oversight on our part. Please keep this in mind as you read this review.*


You're welcome for the 'heads up' on the plugs. :sn:

Now I have to really consider Axiom speakers into my upgrade list along w/my beloved at first listen, but out of my pocketbook range ATC SCM40's and some near to home Von Schweikert VR-22's...

Your reviews are going to cost me money! You are doing excellent work! However, I'd avoid my wife if I were you three. :yikes:


----------



## lcaillo

You mean you actually pay attention to all of our blather?


----------



## lcaillo

I may have said this already, but this is the hardest set of reviews of the three sessions we have done. I am finding it hard to find aspects of most of them to criticize. Maybe we got many of the best speakers in this price range. Maybe the manufacturers that sent them knew they would perform well and were confident in their products. Makes me wonder about the ones that did not participate, or whether we are just not being discriminating enough. Going over my notes, I find lots of stuff that each does right and very little that I did not like. And the criticisms that I do have are quite minor. Some of the speakers made me want to listen more than others, but as picky as I am, I could live with any of them.


----------



## Bjski

Maybe you guys need to review the bigger Bryston's. The Bryston mini A's are going to be comparable to the Axiom HP line. (100,HP80,HP60) However the Bryston model T series uses an 8 inch driver instead of the 61/2 in the same format as the Axiom HP line. Hopefully a future review.


----------



## AudiocRaver

brwsaw said:


> I'd second the M80HP review.
> The image totally messes with your mind.
> You're going to close your eyes and be forced to rethink stereo.





fokakis1 said:


> I've been following your obsession with a deep soundstage and it appears from your review that you have found something here that captures what you so intently seek. I applaud your words. The above is very well written.


To those who have never witnessed such a soundstage, it probably comes acrosss like a bunch of drivel written by someone on hallucinogens or worse. When you have heard it - and it really is a quantum leap contrast - it does challenge you concept of what is possible with sound reproduction. Really spoils you, too. How do you go back to anything else?


----------



## dolsey01

AudiocRaver said:


> To those who have never witnessed such a soundstage, it probably comes acrosss like a bunch of drivel written by someone on hallucinogens or worse. When you have heard it - and it really is a quantum leap contrast - it does challenge you concept of what is possible with sound reproduction. Really spoils you, too. How do you go back to anything else?


It is the search for the Holy Grail. I've heard it once, Martin Logan's factory demo room on a pair of CLS IIz through a bunch of ARC tube gear that cost 10-15X the price of the speakers. I think the speaker cables in use were more expensive than the CLS speakers. What I heard that blew me away was a saxophone player about 6 feet behind my seat as real as anything. Talk about a deep soundstage. That's my Holy Grail.


----------



## bkeeler10

lcaillo said:


> I may have said this already, but this is the hardest set of reviews of the three sessions we have done. I am finding it hard to find aspects of most of them to criticize. Maybe we got many of the best speakers in this price range. Maybe the manufacturers that sent them knew they would perform well and were confident in their products. Makes me wonder about the ones that did not participate, or whether we are just not being discriminating enough. Going over my notes, I find lots of stuff that each does right and very little that I did not like. And the criticisms that I do have are quite minor. Some of the speakers made me want to listen more than others, but as picky as I am, I could live with any of them.


That's an interesting comment, and encouraging that when you spend the kind of money we're talking about here, it seems likely you're going to be getting an excellent product with excellent performance. I was going to ask you all when all the reviews had been posted whether you felt that the performance gained from going from the $2000-$2500 area to the ~$3000 area justified the price increase. And how much better things are getting. Obviously this would be generalizing a bit since your sample size is pretty small relative to the number of products available in this price range. Still, I find it interesting.


----------



## Utopianemo

AudiocRaver said:


> To those who have never witnessed such a soundstage, it probably comes acrosss like a bunch of drivel written by someone on hallucinogens or worse. When you have heard it - and it really is a quantum leap contrast - it does challenge you concept of what is possible with sound reproduction. Really spoils you, too. How do you go back to anything else?


To that, I'd add, "to those who have never NOTICED such a soundstage." The best setup I've ever heard belongs to an acquaintance whose listening room was engineered by Rives Audio and employs Revel Ultimas and Lamm monoblocks, among other things. I'd imagine that if any setup had a holographic soundstage, that'd be it. But I didn't notice it; and I was paying attention(or at least I thought I was). As mentioned before, that soundstage bowled some of you over, and was barely noticed by the rest.


----------



## Utopianemo

bkeeler10 said:


> That's an interesting comment, and encouraging that when you spend the kind of money we're talking about here, it seems likely you're going to be getting an excellent product with excellent performance. I was going to ask you all when all the reviews had been posted whether you felt that the performance gained from going from the $2000-$2500 area to the ~$3000 area justified the price increase. And how much better things are getting. Obviously this would be generalizing a bit since your sample size is pretty small relative to the number of products available in this price range. Still, I find it interesting.


The question is made more interesting by the fact that the speakers in both the $2.5K and the $3K fall on both sides of the target dollar amount. I'd be even more interested to see how much better these speakers are than, let's say, the ARX A5's, which were at the top of the $1K pile($750 no less!)


----------



## bkeeler10

Utopianemo said:


> The question is made more interesting by the fact that the speakers in both the $2.5K and the $3K fall on both sides of the target dollar amount. I'd be even more interested to see how much better these speakers are than, let's say, the ARX A5's, which were at the top of the $1K pile($750 no less!)


Yes I'm interested in that as well. Everything I'm reading suggests the A5 could easily sell for $1500 per pair and be a good deal still. So that does beg the question: If you can only spend say $1k, and if you bought the A5, what would you be leaving behind? How much better is a $3k speaker than the A5? And if you are able to spend $3k, are you wasting your time looking at the A5, or is there a reason to consider it?


----------



## chashint

If I thought I could flip a pair of the ARX5's for no loss I would give them a spin just to hear them.
But getting all the money back out of them would be very unlikely and I am unwilling to pay shipping for the privilege of an audition.


----------



## exlabdriver

I noticed that Axiom has their Port Plugs for their speakers now available at their site. 

I may get a pair for my M3s to replace my decidedly amateurish home made plugs...

TAM


----------



## JeffB

I was wondering if someone could define the term "Sibilance" as used in the reviews.


----------



## lcaillo

Sibilance is the tendency for consonant sounds like the "s" sound to sound like hissing at the end of a vocal sound. A speaker with excessive sibilance makes the natural sibilant sounds of some vocals sound like the way Elton John sings Bennie and the Jetssssss.


----------



## ALMFamily

JeffB said:


> I was wondering if someone could define the term "Sibilance" as used in the reviews.


Jeff,

When I refer to sibilance, I am talking about the "s" sound during vocals.


----------



## ALMFamily

lcaillo said:


> Sibilance is the tendency for consonant sounds like the "s" sound to sound like hissing at the end of a vocal sound. A speaker with excessive sibilance makes the natural sibilant sounds of some vocals sound like the way Elton John sings Bennie and the Jetssssss.





ALMFamily said:


> Jeff,
> 
> When I refer to sibilance, I am talking about the "s" sound during vocals.


Guess who beat me to it!


----------



## lcaillo

bkeeler10 said:


> Yes I'm interested in that as well. Everything I'm reading suggests the A5 could easily sell for $1500 per pair and be a good deal still. So that does beg the question: If you can only spend say $1k, and if you bought the A5, what would you be leaving behind? How much better is a $3k speaker than the A5? And if you are able to spend $3k, are you wasting your time looking at the A5, or is there a reason to consider it?


I can speak to this as I ended up with a pair of A5s. If cost is no object, up to the cost of the most recent round of speakers, I think the A5 is worth a listen, no matter what speakers you are considering in all three rounds. What you would miss compared to all of the $3K-$3500 speakers, and most of the $2500 speakers is bass extension. Many of the more expensive speakers had slightly more stable and solid imaging, but not by much in most cases. A few have better midrange detail. If cost does matter, as it does to me, as I would not invest in new speakers if I had to spend significantly more, then the A5 is certainly something I would recommend anyone give serious consideration to.

That is not to say that some of the other speakers in all three rounds are not worth considering. There are lots of things to like about most of them. When you get to the last group, there is not much to call out as defeciencies and the differences get to be pretty small.


----------



## AudiocRaver

The PSB Imagine T2 Tower review is up for your viewing. Follow this link to get there quick. Joe's and Leonard's comments will be added shortly.

Apologies we are not all done yet. We will feed you what is ready when it is ready. All should be up for your reading fairly quickly. Thanks for your patience.


----------



## Utopianemo

Thanks,guys! Can't wait to read!

Sibilance also shows up in the decay of cymbals and sometimes bright reverb(the kind that was ubiquitous during the early 90's).


----------



## AudiocRaver

Utopianemo said:


> To that, I'd add, "to those who have never NOTICED such a soundstage." The best setup I've ever heard belongs to an acquaintance whose listening room was engineered by Rives Audio and employs Revel Ultimas and Lamm monoblocks, among other things. I'd imagine that if any setup had a holographic soundstage, that'd be it. But I didn't notice it; and I was paying attention(or at least I thought I was). As mentioned before, that soundstage bowled some of you over, and was barely noticed by the rest.


Good point. At my first _carved in space_ soundstage witnessing at RMAF last October, I might have doubted my own ears except Dennis (Tesseract) was right beside me and had the same reaction. But there have been occasions like that where I was knocked out by it and others have not. So a factor is appreciation and being attuned to it.

Also, fine equipment does not a fine soundstage make. At RMAF there were many rooms full of ridiculously expensive equipment that had mediocre soundstages. There was only one _carved in space_ soundstage at the whole event that I heard, one of the two Wilson Alexia setups. Even the main Wilson room only gave a _pretty good_ soundstage in comparison. There are a lot of factors.


----------



## bkeeler10

AudiocRaver said:


> The PSB Imagine T2 Tower review is up for your viewing. Follow this link to get there quick. Joe's and Leonard's comments will be added shortly.
> 
> Apologies we are not all done yet. We will feed you what is ready when it is ready. All should be up for your reading fairly quickly. Thanks for your patience.


Sounds like a pretty sweet speaker. Considering all the great things that have been said about it, I would have been disappointed if it had not been great.

Wayne's second paragraph under the "Impressions" heading is not quite finished . . .


----------



## ALMFamily

bkeeler10 said:


> Sounds like a pretty sweet speaker. Considering all the great things that have been said about it, I would have been disappointed if it had not been great.
> 
> Wayne's second paragraph under the "Impressions" heading is not quite finished . . .


It really was - I was curious how it compared to the more expensive Synchrony line, and I was not disappointed at all.


----------



## FastGame

dolsey01 said:


> What I heard that blew me away was a saxophone player about 6 feet behind my seat as real as anything. Talk about a deep soundstage. That's my Holy Grail.


And how natural is that ? We are talking 2 ch stereo aren't we ? I've been to many live performance over the past 50 years and never heard anything from the stage that sounded like it was playing next to me, unless of coarse the speakers were behind me. I want natural separation & depth, front to back, bottom to top. Yes I'm aware of room acoustics were sound is bouncing around and they seem to be coming from another direction, that could be good or bad depending on one's setup.

Another thing..

I wonder how many people have enough room to set speakers up to the final setting spec's, matter of fact how many even have the room for the close to wall spec's ? And, how many people reading the review paid attention to the following quote...

"There are speakers that do not sound too bad close to the wall. But none, in our experience, can give a deep, engaging soundstage when too close to the wall. If one has to place a pair of speakers close to a wall, it would be better to save money and buy a pair for a few hundred dollars - check out our Reviews Area for candidates - and call it good."

I do agree with that quote and I will say you guy's do a nice job with your reviews.

Thanks.


----------



## bkeeler10

lcaillo said:


> I can speak to this as I ended up with a pair of A5s. If cost is no object, up to the cost of the most recent round of speakers, I think the A5 is worth a listen, no matter what speakers you are considering in all three rounds. What you would miss compared to all of the $3K-$3500 speakers, and most of the $2500 speakers is bass extension. Many of the more expensive speakers had slightly more stable and solid imaging, but not by much in most cases. A few have better midrange detail. If cost does matter, as it does to me, as I would not invest in new speakers if I had to spend significantly more, then the A5 is certainly something I would recommend anyone give serious consideration to.
> 
> That is not to say that some of the other speakers in all three rounds are not worth considering. There are lots of things to like about most of them. When you get to the last group, there is not much to call out as defeciencies and the differences get to be pretty small.


I appreciate this enlightening comment. If the only major thing being given up is bass extension, that is most impressive. I have the ability to play in the low $2000 range for the most part (or $3k in the case of one speaker), but it sounds to me like I should make an effort to hear the A5 when I am ready to do some auditioning.


----------



## ALMFamily

bkeeler10 said:


> I appreciate this enlightening comment. If the only major thing being given up is bass extension, that is most impressive. I have the ability to play in the low $2000 range for the most part (or $3k in the case of one speaker), but it sounds to me like I should make an effort to hear the A5 when I am ready to do some auditioning.


You should - it really is one dandy speaker...


----------



## fokakis1

bkeeler10 said:


> I appreciate this enlightening comment. If the only major thing being given up is bass extension, that is most impressive. I have the ability to play in the low $2000 range for the most part (or $3k in the case of one speaker), but it sounds to me like I should make an effort to hear the A5 when I am ready to do some auditioning.


For your budget you could get a pair of A5s and two nice subs. Then I doubt you would be giving up bass extension to these $3000 speakers.


----------



## bkeeler10

Yes a pair of subs is already in the budget, as are speakers for 7.1 and a receiver and a blu ray player and projector. But if the speakers could save me some money that would be awesome.

I am fortunate to have enough connections in the audio world that I can get pretty good pricing on lots of stuff. So my budget allows for speakers that MSRP in the low $2000 range, but I wouldn't be paying that much. That's one disadvantage with Arx (or any ID company) for me only -- I don't get a deal on them.


----------



## AudiocRaver

The Polk Audio LSiM705 review is now ready for you. Follow this link to jump directly to it.

Leonard's and Joe's comments are forthcoming, as well as for the PSB Imagine T2. For the record, those guys are usually ahead of me in being ready to post. They are both extremely busy guys, and I am sure their contributions will be ready as soon as humanly possible.


----------



## AudiocRaver

bkeeler10 said:


> Wayne's second paragraph under the "Impressions" heading is not quite finished . . .


Oops, and thanks for the heads-up. The paragraph now reads:

"I liked the tweeter mounted between the midrange and top woofer drivers. This arrangement gets the high frequencies coming from a more central point, much like the Mid-Tweeter-Mid (MTM) driver arrangement, more of a point source and probably contributing to overall image tightness and image clarity from the speaker."


----------



## zieglj01

So, are the other 2 from the SoundStage trio, planning to 
comment on the PSB soon?


----------



## lcaillo

I should have mine up later this evening. Just been backed up with work.


----------



## Tom Riddle

Very cool, but where's the Klipsch. While slightly over $3,000, I would have liked to see how the RF-7 II's stacked up. Maybe in a later evaluation......


----------



## prerich

Tom Riddle said:


> Very cool, but where's the Klipsch. While slightly over $3,000, I would have liked to see how the RF-7 II's stacked up. Maybe in a later evaluation......


klipsch refused to participate in other challenges if I'm not mistaken.

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## lcaillo

OK, my PSB Imagine 2 impressions are in the review now, here.

Working on the Polk next.


----------



## AudiocRaver

lcaillo said:


> OK, my PSB Imagine 2 impressions are in the review now, here.
> 
> Working on the Polk next.


Thanks, Leonard.

Joe's comments have been added as well. Enjoy!


----------



## bkeeler10

This talk of the soundstage on a couple of seemingly excellent imagers being degraded a bit by Audyssey has me wondering why. I don't recall Wayne mentioning such a thing in his review of the Montis even though its imaging was highly praised. Is there enough variability in MultEQ that another pass on the PSB or Axiom would have sounded significantly different? Are speakers very sensitive to toe in angle more likely to get messed up by Audyssey or be exceedingly sensitive to placement of the Audyssey mic? 

It also reinforces to me the value of an auto EQ system that allows the user to restrict the ranges of frequencies it is allowed to perform EQ on, such as Anthem's ARC. Presumably if you had been able to stop the correction at say 200 Hz it would have tightened up the bass issues but left frequencies most important for imaging largely alone. Pure conjecture on my part - just thinking out loud here.

Edit: Another way around it, potentially, is to EQ manually as Wayne suggested in the PSB review. If you have the skillz an can resist overdoing it!


----------



## Sonnie

Bryan... Wayne can probably better answer this, but I think it is a matter of the speakers and possibly the setup. There is no doubt the ML's sound better with Audyssey Music (no Dynamic EQ), than without it (IMO). I would not say _overly_ dramatic, but a more refined and detailed, yet airy soundstage... and really amazing lifelike imaging. The longer I have listened to it this way, the more I like it, to a point that when I now switch it back to Pure Audio, I can tell it ain't right... almost a boxy sound that I did not notice at first... I lose some of the openness and clarity (hoping those are the right terms)... immediately focus draws inward too much, if that makes sense. It is something we noticed when A/B'ing some speakers... how the bass and midbass can seem good and even (and where it is supposed to be), and then get all boxed up. I think you can look at the response measurements and see why this happens, and to me it is anything but natural (IMO). It would be better if you could just hear it for yourself. None the less... I have not heard anything better, anywhere... period, including all the audio shows I have been to. Are they worth $10,000... that is a tough call. For those where money is no object, probably so. While I love the sound, I could be satisfied with less... and any number of the much lesser expensive speakers would probably do me just fine... and still get me pretty close, although probably not breathtaking like the Montis. If they are 10 of 10... and I can get 7-8 of 10, I think I am a happy listener for hours on end. They just kind of take you over the edge, so to speak. The music I listen to may also have something to do with it too.

I did NOT hear any of the other speakers with Audyssey, only without, so I cannot speak to the differences of those, and if any of them may have sounded better with Audyssey. However, the ML's are no doubt a completely different design, not only dipole, but electrostatic as well, so this could have been the main contributor to the difference.


----------



## bkeeler10

Thanks for commenting, Sonnie. There are a handful of speakers on my audition list, and fortunately my budget allows me to have the ML Electromotion ESL on that list. The Phase Tech is also on my audition-in-my-home list (even though I've heard it elsewhere, or actually because I've heard it elsewhere. I share Joe's opinion on the airiness and openness of vocals on that speaker). 

Might have to have one of these HTS-style comparisons of my own here soon.


----------



## AudiocRaver

bkeeler10 said:


> This talk of the soundstage on a couple of seemingly excellent imagers being degraded a bit by Audyssey has me wondering why. I don't recall Wayne mentioning such a thing in his review of the Montis even though its imaging was highly praised. Is there enough variability in MultEQ that another pass on the PSB or Axiom would have sounded significantly different? Are speakers very sensitive to toe in angle more likely to get messed up by Audyssey or be exceedingly sensitive to placement of the Audyssey mic?


Excellent questions, and I wish we knew more of the answers. I was thinking of the Montis when I wrote those remarks about the PSB Imagine T2. We never felt that the Montis suffered from the use of Audyssey MultEQ. But we are constantly learning here. There seem to be _tendencies._

With Audyssey MultEQ, poor, medium, and pretty-good soundstages and imaging are improved somewhat by improved phase / time alignment and frequency response matching.
With Audyssey MultEQ, the best examples of soundstage and imaging may improve a little, not at all, or may actually suffer some. It is difficult to predict which it will be.
Even the best soundstage / imaging examples remain intact with sparingly applied parametric EQ.
If there is much attenuation of high frequencies due to the off-axis listening angle, soundstage / imaging are improved by having them boosted closer to flat.



> It also reinforces to me the value of an auto EQ system that allows the user to restrict the ranges of frequencies it is allowed to perform EQ on, such as Anthem's ARC. Presumably if you had been able to stop the correction at say 200 Hz it would have tightened up the bass issues but left frequencies most important for imaging largely alone. Pure conjecture on my part - just thinking out loud here.


Sounds perfectly logical, would be another possibility to investigate.


----------



## Tom Riddle

prerich said:


> klipsch refused to participate in other challenges if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using HTShack


That's disappointing. I'm glad the RF-62 II's were featured in the $1000 evaluation (I'm an owner). Nonetheless, this was a great evaluation. I've been interested in how the Axioms performed compared to the competition, so that was helpful.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Sonnie said:


> Bryan... Wayne can probably better answer this, but I think it is a matter of the speakers and possibly the setup. There is no doubt the ML's sound better with Audyssey Music (no Dynamic EQ), than without it (IMO). I would not say _overly_ dramatic, but a more refined and detailed, yet airy soundstage... and really amazing lifelike imaging. The longer I have listened to it this way, the more I like it, to a point that when I now switch it back to Pure Audio, I can tell it ain't right... almost a boxy sound that I did not notice at first... I lose some of the openness and clarity (hoping those are the right terms)... immediately focus draws inward too much, if that makes sense. It is something we noticed when A/B'ing some speakers... how the bass and midbass can seem good and even (and where it is supposed to be), and then get all boxed up. I think you can look at the response measurements and see why this happens, and to me it is anything but natural (IMO). It would be better if you could just hear it for yourself. None the less... I have not heard anything better, anywhere... period, including all the audio shows I have been to. Are they worth $10,000... that is a tough call. For those where money is no object, probably so. While I love the sound, I could be satisfied with less... and any number of the much lesser expensive speakers would probably do me just fine... and still get me pretty close, although probably not breathtaking like the Montis. If they are 10 of 10... and I can get 7-8 of 10, I think I am a happy listener for hours on end. They just kind of take you over the edge, so to speak. The music I listen to may also have something to do with it too.
> 
> I did NOT hear any of the other speakers with Audyssey, only without, so I cannot speak to the differences of those, and if any of them may have sounded better with Audyssey. However, the ML's are no doubt a completely different design, not only dipole, but electrostatic as well, so this could have been the main contributor to the difference.


I concur with Sonnie's thoughts. I would definitely normally elect to listen to the Montis in Sonnie's room with MultEQ on. There was no downside whatsoever that I ever heard.


----------



## tesseract

AudiocRaver said:


> Good point. At my first carved in space soundstage witnessing at RMAF last October, I might have doubted my own ears except Dennis (Tesseract) was right beside me and had the same reaction. But there have been occasions like that where I was knocked out by it and others have not. So a factor is appreciation and being attuned to it.
> 
> Also, fine equipment does not a fine soundstage make. At RMAF there were many rooms full of ridiculously expensive equipment that had mediocre soundstages. There was only one carved in space soundstage at the whole event that I heard, one of the two Wilson Alexia setups. Even the main Wilson room only gave a pretty good soundstage in comparison. There are a lot of factors.


That wonderful tonal balance, soundstage and imaging were from an analog rig. Amazing what can be had from LP's and proper setup!


----------



## tesseract

bkeeler10 said:


> Yes a pair of subs is already in the budget, as are speakers for 7.1 and a receiver and a blu ray player and projector. But if the speakers could save me some money that would be awesome.
> 
> I am fortunate to have enough connections in the audio world that I can get pretty good pricing on lots of stuff. So my budget allows for speakers that MSRP in the low $2000 range, but I wouldn't be paying that much. That's one disadvantage with Arx (or any ID company) for me only -- I don't get a deal on them.


Bryan, the ID business model is bare bones, anyone purchasing from that model is already saving a bunch. Even you, my friend. A5 sounds like a bargain, add A2 center, A2 surrounds, you are well within budget and punching way above weight class.


----------



## AudiocRaver

The Tannoy Precision 6.4 review has been posted. Here is a direct link to it.

Leonard's and Joe's comments will follow shortly for the Tannoy and Polk reviews.

Summary comments will be posted this weekend. Thanks to all for your patience.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Joe's comments are all in, so they have been posted for the Polk and Tannoy reviews.

I really appreciate all the time Joe and Leonard put into preparing their comments. As I have said, they are both really busy guys.


----------



## bkeeler10

tesseract said:


> Bryan, the ID business model is bare bones, anyone purchasing from that model is already saving a bunch. Even you, my friend. A5 sounds like a bargain, add A2 center, A2 surrounds, you are well within budget and punching way above weight class.


I don't disagree at all. That and the reputation of Arx means I will probably audition them even though I can go more than twice as high. And I won't be overly surprised if I end up liking them best or deciding that 95% of the performance for half the price is the way to go.


----------



## lcaillo

I have posted my impressions of the Tannoy. Still working on the Polk.


----------



## lcaillo

Take-aways from this round of reviews...

Many have expected that these would be "shoot-outs" because we had multiple speakers in the same place at the same time. We have explained many times that we would not do so and would try very hard to let each speaker stand on its own. This was very hard to do, as comparisons always come up. If any comparisons were made, I tried to make them to the Montis, which are a much more expensive speaker and a fine reference point that we listened to extensively in the same room. And, frankly, they are, IMO, better than anything else I have heard there in most ways.

What I think all of the reviewers would agree on is that in this round we have reached a price point where identifying obvious shortcomings in each speaker becomes very difficult. Even more so than the lower price points, they all do most things at least adequately to be satisfying, and most do some things extremely well. They are all solit designs. The differences between them would likely be overcome by placement, room acoustics, and personal preference and priorities. I hope we gave enough information to relay our impressions of how they perform and under what conditions they might be better or worse choices for individual needs. That is very difficult to do, and we do not mind getting critiques or questions. 

The Arx A5, which was one of our preferred speakers in the first session, which was intended to select a winner, has been discussed in this thread. I have to say, it does hold up pretty well against the higher priced speakers, but it does have some relative shortcomings. Whether they are important enough to justify the price difference is a personal choice, and I would not buy any speaker without some serious listening time. As fine a speaker as it is, there are others that one might prefer in any of the three groups of speakers we evaluated. 

We have so many fine options in speakers these days that it really does boggle the mind. If I have learned anything in these sessions, it is that there are many good choices out there. And most importantly, once you get to speakers that reveal the detail that these do, music is a phenomenal experience. I think I am enjoying everything I listen to more since I have upgraded my speakers.


----------



## Mike0206

lcaillo said:


> Take-aways from this round of reviews... Many have expected that these would be "shoot-outs" because we had multiple speakers in the same place at the same time. We have explained many times that we would not do so and would try very hard to let each speaker stand on its own. This was very hard to do, as comparisons always come up. If any comparisons were made, I tried to make them to the Montis, which are a much more expensive speaker and a fine reference point that we listened to extensively in the same room. And, frankly, they are, IMO, better than anything else I have heard there in most ways. What I think all of the reviewers would agree on is that in this round we have reached a price point where identifying obvious shortcomings in each speaker becomes very difficult. Even more so than the lower price points, they all do most things at least adequately to be satisfying, and most do some things extremely well. They are all solit designs. The differences between them would likely be overcome by placement, room acoustics, and personal preference and priorities. I hope we gave enough information to relay our impressions of how they perform and under what conditions they might be better or worse choices for individual needs. That is very difficult to do, and we do not mind getting critiques or questions. The Arx A5, which was one of our preferred speakers in the first session, which was intended to select a winner, has been discussed in this thread. I have to say, it does hold up pretty well against the higher priced speakers, but it does have some relative shortcomings. Whether they are important enough to justify the price difference is a personal choice, and I would not buy any speaker without some serious listening time. As fine a speaker as it is, there are others that one might prefer in any of the three groups of speakers we evaluated. We have so many fine options in speakers these days that it really does boggle the mind. If I have learned anything in these sessions, it is that there are many good choices out there. And most importantly, once you get to speakers that reveal the detail that these do, music is a phenomenal experience. I think I am enjoying everything I listen to more since I have upgraded my speakers.


 Nice summary Leonard! Thanks for all of your guys hard work in these evaluations. It really helps those on this site to perhaps determine what price point they are willing to go up to when choosing a speaker. Of course your preferences might not be someone else's preferences so each person must choose the speaker that is right for them but these evaluations definitely point people in the right direction.


----------



## AudiocRaver

My final postings are up for the event.

*"In Summary,"* jump to it here.

*"Appreciation,"* jump to it here.

Cheers!


----------



## bkeeler10

Excellent work Wayne. Thanks for this. 

I have a question that any of you can address but I am especially interested in what Joe has to say because the things he listens for seem to align rather well with what I listen for. How do you feel about the way an electrostatic like the Montis handles audio versus the more traditional speakers you've been listening to? I leave this as a pretty broad question intentionally.


----------



## prerich

Excellent work guys!!! Bravo :clap: !!!!

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## ALMFamily

bkeeler10 said:


> Excellent work Wayne. Thanks for this.
> 
> I have a question that any of you can address but I am especially interested in what Joe has to say because the things he listens for seem to align rather well with what I listen for. How do you feel about the way an electrostatic like the Montis handles audio versus the more traditional speakers you've been listening to? I leave this as a pretty broad question intentionally.


Bryan,

Having had little prior experience with an electrostat, I had to rely on what I read mostly - and that was they are extremely finicky about placement. Also, one small shop in my area suggested they were akin to a Klipsch in one way - you either love them or you don't.

Having heard a couple electrostats at the shows and now the Montis speakers in Sonnie's room, I can tell you that I personally really enjoyed the sound. They do have a very open presentation and project very well - provided that you take them time and effort to get the placed. And, it can be a matter of an inch - there were instances when Wayne and I were playing with the Montis' location where I moved them that slightly and we could detect a difference in the soundfield. Once you do have them placed, I would put them up against any of the speakers I have deemed to have that "open, airy" sound.

The great thing about the Montis (IMO) is that they made a separate woofer cabinet in the base of the speaker to handle low end. There were a couple that I heard at shows that did not do this, and they really suffered in precision because of it.

I don't know that I would use them in a room in which I was going to do predominantly movies, but when I finally mke myself a two channel listening space at home (a bit in the future), I can tell you for certain that I will not be discounting an electrostat speaker - provided it is a hybrid.


----------



## bkeeler10

Thanks Joe, that was the kind of info I was interested in. Electrostats were not on my radar, due to some pre-conceived notions about them, until Wayne's review of the Montis. Now I must hear a pair to see what all the fuss is about. Or I will always wonder. Gotta love the audio obsession.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming . . .


----------



## zieglj01

AudiocRaver said:


> *You really can get a lot of loudspeaker for $3000 a pair.* While none of these models grabbed me personally as a "gotta have it" speaker,


I found that statement interesting.

I guess some people around here, will need to go the DIY route.


----------



## AudiocRaver

zieglj01 said:


> I found that statement interesting.
> 
> I guess some people around here, will need to go the DIY route.


Just to be clear, and you might have already read my comments correctly, I am not ordering any of them immediately. One brand is now on my mental list of those I am "thinking about a lot."


----------



## exlabdriver

This excellent exercise (thankfully not a juvenile shootout format) validates in spades my view that virtually all competently designed & built speakers today are 'similarly good'. Some enthusiasts out there detest that notion & phrase but that is exactly what I found when I auditioned a bunch of brands & models before I finally settled on my Axioms. I could have easily lived with any of the units that I heard.

It's nice to see that common sense can still prevail in some places such as HTS.

Well done guys...

TAM


----------



## htsmarkie

> This excellent exercise (thankfully not a juvenile shootout format) validates in spades my view that virtually all competently designed & built speakers today are 'similarly good'. Some enthusiasts out there detest that notion & phrase but that is exactly what I found when I auditioned a bunch of brands & models before I finally settled on my Axioms. I could have easily lived with any of the units that I heard.


I've been to a few high end shows, where I assume the great majority of the speakers were competently designed and built. Given this, it was clear to me that speakers in the $3000 ballpark generally were not 'similarly good' to speakers costing ten times that amount. Sure, given my budget I could settle with the lower priced speakers; but even the word "settle" connotes an attitude which is quite different than a "gotta have it!" feeling. In the former one sifts through speaker options which appear 'similarly good'. In the latter one is captivated by a particular speaker's presentation, especially for the price. Both scenarios of course are relative to to one's own ears, experience and preference (and certainly room and equipment). This makes life more interesting and might veer us away from an absolutist viewpoint.

A big thank you to all the evaluators for the time and care taken for an illuminating evaluation process! I learned much from it.

Mark


----------



## Tonto

I think these evaluations have helped us understand what to expect from a speaker at a certain price point. Beyond that I think it has proven that placement & room treatments really bring any speaker to its best showing.

Hoping to see the bookshelf speaker eval soon!

Great job guys!


----------



## tusker

Tonto said:


> I think these evaluations have helped us understand what to expect from a speaker at a certain price point. Beyond that I think it has proven that placement & room treatments really bring any speaker to its best showing.
> 
> Hoping to see the bookshelf speaker eval soon!
> 
> Great job guys!


I would also like to read about a bookshelf evaluation.


----------



## exlabdriver

Mark:

I admit that when I was shopping for speakers, I did not audition speakers in the $30K range. Even though I could afford to buy up in that range, it wouldn't have been a very efficient use of my time checking them out as spending that much on speakers is just not logical to me. Within the reasonable price range that I explored, 'similarly good' was indeed valid.

As I've gotten older (matured?), the 'gotta have it feeling' doesn't strike me very often anymore. Thankfully, common sense prevails now...

TAM


----------



## lcaillo

I think you are in the same place as many of us, exlabdriver. While I could afford any of the speakers that we evaluated, my decision comes down to deciding at what price can I get the enjoyment out of the listening that I want. While I am intrigued with the subtle improvements beyond that, I don't feel the need to spend that much. It is fun to experience it, however, and it gives new perspective to the lower priced products. I hope that we have shared something valuable that allows others to experience the speakers through our ears and eyes to some degree. If others gain some enjoyment from what we do, gain some perspective that is useful, or learn about some products that they want to seek out and experience themselves, I am satisfied that the effort is worth it. If not, it is a weekend where the four of us share some fun and each other's company.

I think it is likely that we will do the bookshelf comparisons, next, and my preference is for the high value price ranges of $500 and under first. This is a product class that many people buy in and where solid reviews might be really useful.


----------



## htsmarkie

exlabdriver said:


> Mark:
> 
> I admit that when I was shopping for speakers, I did not audition speakers in the $30K range. Even though I could afford to buy up in that range, it wouldn't have been a very efficient use of my time checking them out as spending that much on speakers is just not logical to me. Within the reasonable price range that I explored, 'similarly good' was indeed valid.
> 
> As I've gotten older (matured?), the 'gotta have it feeling' doesn't strike me very often anymore. Thankfully, common sense prevails now...
> 
> TAM


I can relate TAM, not in affording speakers in the 30K range :gulp: but rather being relatively free of the 'gotta have it' feeling. (That's a phrase used as a summary evaluation of great products at a certain other AV website.) I actually love window shopping, listening to incredible speakers at shows. Very fun and informative. I full well know what I'm missing out on, but at the same time I don't have to own it to appreciate the stuff. 

Alternatively I know there there is a certain very fine satisfaction owning great value speakers which you know are getting you 80 percent of the way 'there' compared to speakers costing ten times as much and which get you 95 percent there. Right now I've got budget speakers which get me perhaps 50 percent of the way there, and which satisfied for a while, but I want to get to the 80 percent mark, which to me are speakers in the 1K to 3K range. My sweet spot for value is shifting ...

Mark

PS I cringe at quantifying things like 50 or 80 percent on something so varied and qualitative, but you get the idea.


----------



## exlabdriver

Mark:

I thought that the phrase 'Gotta Have It' was familiar, ha!

Since I live on Vancouver Island, far away from large urban areas, I never have the opportunity to go to the trade shows so I'm restricted to what the local AV Dealers have in stock. Actually, some of their product is quite nice & pricey. On the other hand, perhaps that is an advantage as I really don't know what I'm missing by not experiencing the high end stuff!

My 3 sets of Axioms (1 x HT, 2 x audio only sets - 1 SS & 1 Tube Amp driven) throughout my house provide me & my wife with great pleasure & I think they present really good performance for what they cost me while I acquired therm over the past couple of years...

TAM


----------



## AudiocRaver

That "Gotta Have It" bug really does infect different listeners in intriguing ways. Interesting that for most mortals there is usually some _value_ or _bang for buck_ element to it even though the actual expenditure limitation can be much higher, and a satisfaction in achieving a high Bang/Buck ratio. This is very much in evidence with loudspeakers, a more personal audio equipment choice than most.

The speakers in the price range evaluated offered so much that I have a hard time ever seeing myself owning a pair with an MSRP much higher than that range. As we have said before, the best audible driver/technology choices are there and a great deal of what you see in the higher-priced differences is more or bigger drivers for deeper bass and higher volume levels.

Having heard a number of $10K+ speakers at audio shows, some mighty fine sounding specimens, the sonic gains beyond the $3K bracket were not huge, in many cases were hardly worth mentioning, and our experience says those differences could have been mostly due to room and setup anyway.

Then there are several standout examples from even lower price brackets we have evaluated that push the Bang/Buck envelope even farther. The Arx A5 keep getting mentioned as leaders in that category. A couple of A5 owners have said they are "done looking," hear all or most of what they want to at an incredible Bang/Buck point.


----------



## gtpsuper24

AudiocRaver said:


> Then there are several standout examples from even lower price brackets we have evaluated that push the Bang/Buck envelope even farther. The Arx A5 keep getting mentioned as leaders in that category. A couple of A5 owners have said they are "done looking," hear all or most of what they want to at an incredible Bang/Buck point.


Yep I have a pair of A5s and they do everything I want. I actually went from more expensive Axioms to *cheaper* but "similarly" good Arx speakers. I would say the Arx A5 is "similarly" good to many other brands more expensive models, like Axioms M60HP at more than double the cost but its "similarly" good at $798. Its great that the discussion is about $3k tower speakers but the $800 Arx A5 keeps getting mentioned.


----------



## chashint

When it was time to replace my 70's era speakers I did not have a predetermined max budget.
My requirements were pretty simple, the new speakers had to be an upgrade.

I was somewhat shocked that nothing did it for me until I got up to the Paradigm Studio 100, B&W 804S, and Klipsch RF-83.
I drew the line there because it was way more money than my uninformed prediction.

Luckily before any purchases were made the Klipsch were offered for one weekend at 50% off MSRP and I took the deal (they even discounted the RS-42's 50%) so in the end I feel like I couldn't have done better for the actual money spent.
Nothing I heard (IMO) priced at $1500/pr came close to the RF-83 speakers. 

I shopped every price bracket up to $4k very hard and for the most part I thought the the speakers were competitive to each other in the same price range.

Even at $4k/pr all I had to do to hear better sound was listen to the next model up the chain.
Worth it? ?? That's for each individual to decide for themselves.

I found no speakers that jumped a price point much less two price points but I did find some complete duds at every price point.

Every speaker sounded different, not always better or worse compared to similarly priced competition but always different. 

At MSRP I would have been satisfied with any of the 3 that were finalists even though the B&Ws were $1k more they were also the #1 choice by a small but worthy margin. 

It pays to listen to everything you can multiple times and to be patient


----------



## lcaillo

I have to apoplgize to everyone. I just noticed that my Polk impressions were not in the post. I really thought I had uploaded it a while back. Not sure if I forgot to save or what. Anyway, it is now there.


----------



## zieglj01

lcaillo said:


> I have to apoplgize to everyone. I just noticed that my Polk impressions were not in the post. I really thought I had uploaded it a while back. Not sure if I forgot to save or what. Anyway, it is now there.


It seems, or sounds like the Polk timbre character, was not for you.


----------



## lcaillo

True, but as I said in the review, there were no obvious shortcomings. They did just about everything well. Just not my preference.


----------



## bkeeler10

I have wondered about this before, and thought it might spark some discussion since things have slowed down around here. A couple of speakers in this evaluation seemed to stand out for one thing or another, but three or four models seem to not quite have the "magic" that draws the listener in to listen more and more.

In what ways (if any) do we want a speaker to stand out? Are there some ways of standing out that impress at first and become annoying after living with a speaker for several months? Are there other ways of standing out that are good over the long haul?

On the other hand, regarding the speaker that does not stand out on first listen, how does it fare several months down the road? Does it remain "boring" and unengaging, or does one come to appreciate its simple, unassuming way of going about things (this absent any significant flaws, as all the speakers here seem to be)?

Obviously this is rather subjective, depending on what the listener wants from a speaker. Some people want things to stand out or be emphasized, which might be considered by others who are "purists" to be an alternate version of reality or hyper-real, or whatever. Just wondering, for those of you who have listened to and, more importantly, lived with for a long period of time, several different pairs or sets of loudspeakers. 

What has your experience been? Have you ever bought a pair of loudspeakers because they sounded exciting at first blush, but ended up realizing they were fatiguing or annoying much later? Or have you ever bought a loudspeaker and found several months down the line that you've become bored with them and wanted to move on to something more exciting?


----------



## lcaillo

These are very good questions. My experience has been that often, on first listen, a speaker sounds good but after listening to a wide range of music, I find that it exaggerates something or there is a character that is not to my liking. Only a handful of speakers have ever called me to listen more after a wide range of listening. None of them sounded any less appealing months later. 

What I generally find appealing is excellent detail and very low distortion. But there must be something else that I have a hard time quantifying. The Polks had detail that I expected and very low distortion. The just did not do much for me, and I am not sure why.


----------



## bkeeler10

Interesting insight Leonard. Thanks.

In case it wasn't apparent, the question was not just for those who evaluated in this event, but also for anyone with experience and an opinion on it who also cares to share. :T


----------



## Bjski

bkeeler10, great questions! I love my speakers however when I'm bored I'll reposition them. I'll move my room treatments. Eventually my speakers and treatments go back to their original position which always sounds best to me.
There is no chance of me moving my home theater speakers around. I hate to say it but the home theater is all about the WAF!


----------



## zieglj01

bkeeler10 said:


> Just wondering, for those of you who have listened to and, more importantly, lived with for a long period of time, several different pairs or sets of loudspeakers.
> 
> What has your experience been? Have you ever bought a pair of loudspeakers because they sounded exciting at first blush, but ended up realizing they were fatiguing or annoying much later? Or have you ever bought a loudspeaker and found several months down the line that you've become bored with them and wanted to move on to something more exciting?


Both types after a while - fatiguing and boring > that is why I have 
extra bookshelf speakers.

However, since I just bought the former MB Quart VS05B bookshelf
speakers, from a crazy good deal - I am becoming more content.

I want the box speakers to be transparent, revealing, refined/clean
and for the imaging and soundstage presentation to call me in. To
give me the more you are there, sense and feel.

Brightness that is sharp/edgy and harsh, is not the only thing that
brings ear fatigue to me - the mushy/boomy and thumpy bass, will
also give me ear fatigue (wear me down).


----------



## fokakis1

I find it ironic, yet somewhat not surprising, that you guys found the speakers with the flattest frequency response unengaging. Not to mention that they were very accurate, detailed and had no real weaknesses. 

A lot could be taken from that and discussed about the objective and the subjective.


----------



## bkeeler10

Yes that's what kind of sparked this question in my head. It was remarkable how many times that came up - that a speaker didn't have any significant flaws and yet didn't captivate. I don't recall reading this in the previous event - maybe I need to go back and read it again.


----------



## lcaillo

I thnk of frequency response sort of like color in displays. We tend to accommodate variances quite well over time. This is why I believe that there is much more to the sound of a speaker than just frequency response. Low distortion allows us to hear detail, clean impulse response lets us hear is without ringing or overdamping. Of course these interact so frequency response is important, but relative levels are just like a gray scale shift. We adjust for it to hear the music. Other characteristics like consistency of character between drivers and channel balance contribute to the character of a speaker as well.

Certainly, frequency response anomolies can attract one's attention and make a speaker sound more attractive or not. And over time, even though we can accomodate variance, some speakers will fit the preference of certain listeners better than others. Sonnie clearly prefers a balance to more bass than I do. Put it all together and my conclusion is that we really don't have good objective ways of describing the experience. I think we could do better in terms of what and how we measure speakers, but it would be a very complex problem.

That is why I try to listen to reference tracks for a range of characteristics that identify problems or give a speaker a chance to excel, then rely on my gut reaction, my overall sense of how well I can get lost in the music and forget that I am listening to speakers (much different perhaps than reproducing a live sound) and how much I experience the emotion and facination with the performance. That is certainly not a reliable measure, nor objective in any way, but it seems to be the best I can do to communicate the experience at this point. After all, it is that magic, the connection with the music that calls me to listen to my system. I am not one that likes to listen to pick out the intricacies of the sound of the system itself. Getting to do so with the team once in a while is fun, but when it comes down to what makes me want to listen at home, it is my interest in the music. 

I conclude from these trials that any of the speakers in the last round would be great for someone. That is probably true for all of the speakers we have tested, but more so for these. There were certainly a few in the earlier rounds that I know I would have become tired of quickly. I really think that any of these are speakers I could live with for a long time. The Polks did not create the magic for me that certain others did, but they were still very very good and I heard everything that I listen for in them.

This is tricky business, evaluating speakers. I just hope that I communicate something of value in the reviews. If there is something more that I might say to give better context to the sound of each, please tell me.


----------



## ironglen

Great discussions here; I'm curious: we measure speakers for their frequency response and look for it to be flat. We have various listeners: do their auditory senses hear those reproduced sounds as the speaker provides them? In essence, do the listeners favor speakers based on their own auditory 'signature'? Perhaps this provides a reason why a particular speaker's flat response is not favored over another with a different/unique response: I'll have to ask an audiologist friend about this.


----------



## fokakis1

lcaillo said:


> That is why I try to listen to reference tracks for a range of characteristics that identify problems or give a speaker a chance to excel, then rely on my gut reaction, my overall sense of how well I can get lost in the music and forget that I am listening to speakers (much different perhaps than reproducing a live sound) and how much I experience the emotion and facination with the performance. That is certainly not a reliable measure, nor objective in any way, but it seems to be the best I can do to communicate the experience at this point. After all, it is that magic, the connection with the music that calls me to listen to my system.


This is what it's really all about. If I were to rank, in order of importance, my priorities in terms of speaker performance this would be a higher priority than flat frequency response. Ideally, I would get "that magic" first and then improve room variables to flatten response if possible. 

If frequency response (among other measurements) was all-important there would be no need to read all of your impressions. I can't think of a better way for you guys to convey this information than to just tell us what you really think. Your subjective reviews are quite valuable and I appreciate your willingness and honesty.


----------



## bkeeler10

Yep I agree. At the end of the day what matters is whether you like to listen to the system you dropped a bunch of money and spent a bunch of time on.


----------



## zieglj01

Captivate is a good word.

I have owned some speakers, that some measurement purist people
would be offended by - however, they worked for my nit-picking ears.


----------



## AudiocRaver

bkeeler10 said:


> I have wondered about this before, and thought it might spark some discussion since things have slowed down around here. A couple of speakers in this evaluation seemed to stand out for one thing or another, but three or four models seem to not quite have the "magic" that draws the listener in to listen more and more.
> 
> In what ways (if any) do we want a speaker to stand out? Are there some ways of standing out that impress at first and become annoying after living with a speaker for several months? Are there other ways of standing out that are good over the long haul?
> 
> On the other hand, regarding the speaker that does not stand out on first listen, how does it fare several months down the road? Does it remain "boring" and unengaging, or does one come to appreciate its simple, unassuming way of going about things (this absent any significant flaws, as all the speakers here seem to be)?
> 
> Obviously this is rather subjective, depending on what the listener wants from a speaker. Some people want things to stand out or be emphasized, which might be considered by others who are "purists" to be an alternate version of reality or hyper-real, or whatever. Just wondering, for those of you who have listened to and, more importantly, lived with for a long period of time, several different pairs or sets of loudspeakers.
> 
> What has your experience been? Have you ever bought a pair of loudspeakers because they sounded exciting at first blush, but ended up realizing they were fatiguing or annoying much later? Or have you ever bought a loudspeaker and found several months down the line that you've become bored with them and wanted to move on to something more exciting?





fokakis1 said:


> I find it ironic, yet somewhat not surprising, that you guys found the speakers with the flattest frequency response unengaging. Not to mention that they were very accurate, detailed and had no real weaknesses.
> 
> A lot could be taken from that and discussed about the objective and the subjective.


Of course frequency response is far from representing the total experience of a speaker, but it does tell us a lot. One trend I have noticed in the frequency response curves of the models we have evaluated in our speaker events is that the "interesting" ones tend to have a presence peak of some kind around 2 kHz (somewhere between 1 and 3 kHz). That one feature seems to add some _zip_ to the sound, and without it, speakers with otherwise great characteristics seem to sound a bit drab.

One of the models I heard at RMAF in October was the Grimm Audio LS1 with incredibly flat response for use in mastering rooms. My first impression was "the definition of neutral," another way of saying _accurate but not exciting._

Flattening the response with Audyssey MultEQ can eliminate that _zip_ factor, but often brings enough other benefits that the loss of that _zip_ goes unnoticed.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Did I miss the results? How were they ranked? Who got poll position?


----------



## bkeeler10

Well, they weren't ranked and it was never intended that they would be. It was more like a series of mini-reviews conducted by a few people in the same room with the same music over the course of a few days. However, if you read the reviews in detail (all posted on the first page of this thread) and read between the lines a bit, you will see that each reviewer favored one or two speakers, depending on their own preferences and priorities.

This is, in my opinion, the proper way to do a comparison test. The very fact that there is no universal consensus among the reviewers proves that ranking the speakers would do disservice not only to the manufacturers but also potentially to the readership, many of whom would take such rankings as gospel and buy the top-rated speaker without realizing or having pointed out to them that they might prefer one of the others.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

bkeeler10 said:


> Well, they weren't ranked and it was never intended that they would be. It was more like a series of mini-reviews conducted by a few people in the same room with the same music over the course of a few days. However, if you read the reviews in detail (all posted on the first page of this thread) and read between the lines a bit, you will see that each reviewer favored one or two speakers, depending on their own preferences and priorities.
> 
> This is, in my opinion, the proper way to do a comparison test. The very fact that there is no universal consensus among the reviewers proves that ranking the speakers would do disservice not only to the manufacturers but also potentially to the readership, many of whom would take such rankings as gospel and buy the top-rated speaker without realizing or having pointed out to them that they might prefer one of the others.


Agreed. Its also tells us how subjective one's hearing is and whats good for the goose may not be good for the gander.  . Being a PSB fanboy/owner of two different series, I can relate to what was said about these speakers.


----------



## exlabdriver

HTS Reviews of this kind are far superior to most others where everything is a ridiculous competition to the death. The ubiquitous shootouts found elsewhere are just juvenile IMO.

There is no way that products (such as speakers) that are rated so subjectively by an individual or testers can be be given a numerical score that is meaningful. If speakers A,B,C & D are tested & I like 'C' the best, it doesn't matter to me what the others might think. 'C' would be my choice even though it might not be for others.

Kudos to HTS for testing in this manner. It shows maturity, professionalism & for me is the reason why HTS remains a cut above the rest ...

TAM


----------



## lcaillo

Of the three speaker review events, the only one where a "winner" was attempted to be defined was the first. The criteria was all about what fit Sonnie's need at the time. As it turned out, there was a general concensus around two of the speakers, but we quickly learned that all of the speakers had aspects which would be of value to some and few attributes that would lead us to reject them. That makes sense if you think about the market and how we picked from very reputable vendors. And there are many of those.

If you read carefully you will see that we were careful to include much information about placement and how easy or difficult it was to get what we expected in terms of soundstage presentation, and were not concerned so much with frequency response. This is because while speakers are highly subjective with respect to overal frequency balance, the room affects this so much that the combination of room, placement, and speaker may yield very different results for most users.

Bottom line is that we agree with exlabdriver's comment above in principle, though by the standards of posting here, we would not be so harsh in criticizing other reviews.


----------



## Blacklightning

bann said:


> the speaker is so cool ,but a little expensive:dontknow:


1/3 the price, 97% of the sound.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...r-evaluation-home-audition-event-results.html


----------



## kingnoob

Blacklightning said:


> 1/3 the price, 97% of the sound.
> 
> The Official $1,000 Speaker Evaluation / Home Audition...


Hmm thought I won one of the events but never got any money .. sonnie is gone tho so nothing I can do or ask about . Rip 🪦 fail


----------



## kingnoob

Very angry over no prize , and sonnie vanished . Can’t find him anywhere else


----------



## willis7469

Sorry noob. This thread is 6 years old...
Sonnie is at AV Nirvana.


----------



## kingnoob

willis7469 said:


> Sorry noob. This thread is 6 years old...
> Sonnie is at AV Nirvana.


Just figures I’d get screwed over like this , he coulda sent me more messages ... I’ll never win anything now ever ... was my only chance .. and I’m really angry Over this


----------



## willis7469

kingnoob said:


> Just figures I’d get screwed over like this , he coulda sent me more messages ... I’ll never win anything now ever ... was my only chance .. and I’m really angry Over this


You got screwed over.....how?


----------



## kingnoob

willis7469 said:


> You got screwed over.....how?


Was supposed to get a cash prize never got anything, not sure how much... back in 2013
For speaker evaluation thread. Even if I got ahold of that owner he won’t give me anything now .
I’ll never win anything ever now .... no give always anymore. I could pm you screenshot messages but won’t help ... what’ a jerk site owner right ? Said I won and never reminded me again he needed my info , I don’t even wanna think about it I get so mad .
I’m sure anyone else who won stuff actually got it .
I’ll never find a job either it’s like a Great Depression in Ohio .


----------



## willis7469

kingnoob said:


> Was supposed to get a cash prize never got anything, not sure how much... back in 2013
> For speaker evaluation thread. Even if I got ahold of that owner he won’t give me anything now .
> I’ll never win anything ever now .... no give always anymore. I could pm you screenshot messages but won’t help ... what’ a jerk site owner right ? Said I won and never reminded me again he needed my info , I don’t even wanna think about it I get so mad .
> I’m sure anyone else who won stuff actually got it .
> I’ll never find a job either it’s like a Great Depression in Ohio .


Well I may missed it, but I don’t remember anything about a cash prize from the speaker evaluation. 
And no. Sonnie is not a jerk in any sense. I’ve encountered him many times, and all I can say is he’s a beautiful human being.


----------



## kingnoob

willis7469 said:


> Well I may missed it, but I don’t remember anything about a cash prize from the speaker evaluation.
> And no. Sonnie is not a jerk in any sense. I’ve encountered him many times, and all I can say is he’s a beautiful human being.


o well I can’t go back in time and fix this ,
He sent me this and I never got anything, and won’t even act like he remembers it ... what ** , 
Even if he wasn’t intentionally being dishonest, coulda sent me another message before he up and left ... 
..don’t say you won stuff and screw me over.
Wish I hadn’t found this site back then . Now everytime I check my messages I get mad .


----------



## kingnoob

I’ll be forever angry over this , he could had sent me more messages or said im selling the site .


----------



## willis7469

He did say he was selling it. Half the members left too. It was a sad time. 
You should move on.


----------



## kingnoob

willis7469 said:


> He did say he was selling it. Half the members left too. It was a sad time.
> You should move on.


Still lost money someone got it ,I got screwed stuck with nothing ...
Even if prize was small I’ll never stop worrying over this horror show of a Failure . 
I’ll never financially recover from this and having no job for years . It’s like a Great Depression in America 🇺🇸, ontop of losing whatever I was supposed to get .
I don’t see how it could be any worse...
Maybe shouldn’t had joined it


----------



## kingnoob

just losing more money 💰 what else is new 💨💨💨😂... always be mad 😡
This is like a travesty, *every time I log In Now Now reminds me of the prize that wasn’t ... didn’t exist . *
Even if it wasn’t much money would’ve helped a ton , would not mind if the site becomes defunct .
After getting screwed over why bother with anything again ... never have anything to show for what I lost.
Fake promos fake prizes , nothing exists


----------



## kingnoob

My audio set up will stuff eternally now due to this failure 😨.... should post it everywhere the fake prize that never happened . Site blows like Bose Bose F1 Model 812 Flexible Array Loudspeaker
Sonnie Must’ve been too busy to remind me so I got nothing ... .. maybe he’s nice in person but terribly bad at messaging . 
probably listening to a very expensive set up ⬆ hey making a site isn’t easy I may have gotten screwed over but , he did contribute a lot to the audio world on here . So rip 🪦 money 💴 nice 🧊 being broke


----------



## willis7469

.


----------



## kingnoob

Going to beat this failure 😣 like a dead horse 🐎 worse thing that ever happened in Audio was this thread and evaluated fake lies and no prizes .


----------

