# Headphones vs Speakers -- an Inconvenient Truth



## GuyUnder

Most people say that after a certain point, high end headphones stop making sense and money is better spent on speakers.

But the hard truth to face is -- speakers aren't nearly as resolving as high end headphones, and getting than the center image from loudspeakers takes an optimal room geometry that most people don't have. My speakers sound like veiled trash next to my HE-6, TH900 and Utopia.


----------



## Mr Rick

Thank you for your opinion.


----------



## ProtegeManiac

guyunder said:


> Most people say that after a certain point, high end headphones stop making sense and money is better spent on speakers.
> 
> But the hard truth to face is -- speakers aren't nearly as resolving as high end headphones, and getting than the center image from loudspeakers takes an optimal room geometry that most people don't have. My speakers sound like veiled trash next to my HE-6, TH900 and Utopia.


 
 
Well the thing is some people do neglect to take into account that the money on an expensive headphone system could have been spent on acoustic treatments so their speakers don't sound like veiled trash or have a weird soundstage. I didn't start really getting into headphones until I spent a little bit on acoustic panels that didn't fix the skewed image in my room.


----------



## GuyUnder

Well I've spent over $500 on carpeting and acoustic panels. My entire living room was made into a listening room.

I got a pair of those new Chane 1.4s (bookshelves) and a Teac integrated (which claims to use an ICEPower amp so it shouldn't be garbage) to power them.

Veiled, rolled off, BORING, unresolving. It's true that the soundstage is wide, but it's basically center, left and right.

It's like, I'm listening to THIS instead of my Utopias?

So what's going on? Are my speakers just entry level junk and I'm being taught a lesson for listening to avsforum?


----------



## Music Alchemist (Aug 14, 2017)

Even if I heard a speaker system that was better than headphone systems in every way, I would still prefer the intimate presentation of headphones. I favor feeling at one with the music rather than having it come at me from a distance.
Edit: Since April 2017, I prefer speakers over headphones. 

I think it's funny when people talk about headphones having giant soundstages. An HD 800 is on my head right now and it sounds pretty intimate to me—just the way I like it. (Even cheap desktop speakers are far more spacious.)

Some interesting articles:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/strengths-and-weaknesses-headphones-and-speakers
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/across-great-divide-can-we-love-headphones-speakers-equally
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/aes-headphone-technology-conference-highlight-paper



> Imaging - Here's one I didn't know: Turns out that while headphone imaging is inside the head, it has been found to be more precise than speakers. In the plot above, speakers at 3 meters (normal room listening), speakers at 1 meter (near field listening), and headphones were evaluated for the ability to precisely locate a sound within the normal stereo image.


----------



## Bazile

guyunder said:


> Most people say that after a certain point, high end headphones stop making sense and money is better spent on speakers


 
  
 Sir;
 I'm not convinced that most people really say that. I think that "most people" on this site agree that headphone and speaker imaging differ. I also agree that folks will prefer one or the other. But "after a certain point" one is better than the other...nonsense Sir.


----------



## ProtegeManiac

guyunder said:


> Well I've spent over $500 on carpeting and acoustic panels. My entire living room was made into a listening room.
> 
> I got a pair of those new Chane 1.4s (bookshelves) and a Teac integrated (which claims to use an ICEPower amp so it shouldn't be garbage) to power them.
> 
> ...


 
 
The problem with speakers is that you have an entire room that can affect the sound whereas headphones are just right there by your ear canals. That makes it easier for a headphone to be more resolving since the room barely affects it past ambient noise. On the flipside, your left ear can't hear the right driver and vice versa, so imaging even on an HD800 can have issues. In some cases it's not even higher resolution but that you have some mild peaks (but peaks nonetheless) on the treble response that enhances what you perceive to be detail. Look at how headphones known to be "detailed" have such peaks while anything with a relatively flat though relatively weaker output (vs 1000hz and below) are known to be "laid back." Case in point: K701 vs HD650.
 
If you speakers sound like a headphone, ie, strong L-C-R with nothing in-between, that's as likely a problem with the room as the speakers. For starters, that kind of problem primarily lies in toe-in angles, and then on the room. Depending on the dispersion patter, too much toe in means narrow soundstage; too little, and you have a very 2D image with strong output on the flanks and center.  And what works with your seat 1.5m away won't necessarily work from 3m away.
 
Also, having tried some treatments doesn't automatically mean the speaker sucks, let alone all speakers suck, but of course there comes a point where treatments essentially will be like rebuilding the room altogether and the downsides of headphones are a good compromise compared to the time and money involved (let alone if you can even do such extensive work on the room).


----------



## penmarker

Different horses for different courses.
  
 Very best.


----------



## odevans

penmarker said:


> Different horses for different courses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 


My thoughts exactly. Its an entirely different listening experience, not just depending on the individual, but also location and situation.


----------



## oatp1b1

guyunder said:


> Well I've spent over $500 on carpeting and acoustic panels. My entire living room was made into a listening room.
> 
> I got a pair of those new Chane 1.4s (bookshelves) and a Teac integrated (which claims to use an ICEPower amp so it shouldn't be garbage) to power them.
> 
> ...


 
 I know you're likely baiting, but you cannot really compare a set of 400 dollar speakers with a pair of 4000 dollar headphones and anticipate them to be as good.


----------



## Rainstar

I use a $6000 integrated amp, I own most of the decent high end headphones. My speakers are preety good $10,000 msrp. I like some songs better on the headphones. Speakers > headphones. I blast speakers when no one is home and headphones when there are people. If I had to start all over I would go with speakers first.


----------



## musikevan

A carefully chosen, matched and properly positioned room-audio setup can be a thing of beauty. It will be less detailed and less neutral than headphones...but maybe more forgiving of most recordings. Nearly all headphones sound hyper detailed and too precise compared to a live acoustical performance of classical music. I find prices of a great headphone setup to be cheaper than a room based one, but not by that much. Room acoustics mods are free or dirt cheap. Decent inexpensive speakers are everywhere, cheap amps are common too.


----------



## theveterans

guyunder said:


> Well I've spent over $500 on carpeting and acoustic panels. My entire living room was made into a listening room.
> 
> I got a pair of those new Chane 1.4s (bookshelves) and a Teac integrated (which claims to use an ICEPower amp so it shouldn't be garbage) to power them.
> 
> ...


 
  
 IMO you chose the wrong speakers. I chose the Yamaha HS7 as my bookshelf speaker due to their unveiled presentation, precise imaging and excellent resolution for the price. It's better sounding and resolving than my AKG K712 headphone. Seriously, if you have invested so much on headphones already, you need to match it with speaker setup just to be on Utopia's level. For example KEF Reference 1 when listened on a small living room should be able to keep up with Utopias in sound quality.


----------



## canali

there is no inconvenient truth imo.
 Hi to each their own.
  
 a colleague i know feels headgear is subpar to a nice speaker setup.
 he once had a US$70k system (his interconnects alone were $5k _each_)
 ..he preferred his beloved sonus faber speakers and wadia cd player and esoteric $20k japanese shindo tube amp.
 but he also had to spend 2k on room treatments, too.
 he's recently downsized 90% but still prefers 3d speaker sound.
 he feels headgear can't compete on imaging, space etc.
 in fact he only uses his cans (senn momentums) for late night listening
 so as to not disturb his wife while sleeping.
 (but give cans a few yrs: more tech is coming out to take that 'in our head' sound
 to make it more speaker and 3d like).
  
 i just got back into audio last yr...started off with head gear.
  
 recently, however, I realized that i missed the larger, room filling music from speakers.  
 eg., when cooking or cleaning up having some live music to add some joy and life to my apt
 or while surfing at my desktop.
 so i  started with a desktop setup near  my kitchen: got the audioengine a5+ and a pioneer sub
 ...*love *the live music that can now spill out around me.
 now moving up to trying to find some *focal alpha 50*s to replace the audioengine a5+.
 additionally I am now looking at the new kef ls50 wls speakers to start
 setting up a home system in the living room.
  
 but that said: i also love the fab resolution and bang for buck value that good headgear
 can deliver, esp when i want to crank things up guilt free and not worry
 about pissing off my neighbours....looking at the focal elear to replace or compliment my senn 650s
  
 so in the end: different strokes for different folks...i love both, to be frank
 which is ideally what many of us perfer...but in the end it's a matter of limited $$$.


----------



## 5genez

guyunder said:


> Well I've spent over $500 on carpeting and acoustic panels. My entire living room was made into a listening room.
> 
> I got a pair of those new Chane 1.4s (bookshelves) and a Teac integrated (which claims to use an ICEPower amp so it shouldn't be garbage) to power them.
> 
> ...


 

  
  
  
 Put one of these in the audio circuit and the veiling will be gone...https://www.amazon.com/BBE-Sound-482i-Sonic-Maximizer/dp/B0002FDKIW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485136499&sr=8-1&keywords=482i+sonic+maximizer    
  
  
 .... Tweak the bottom end until it sounds balanced.  No need for a sub woofer if the speakers are of high enough quality in many cases...  and, I advise keeping off the high end process unless your speakers really need it.
  
 The heart of this unit is the NJM2153 chip made by NJR Corporation. Its the same company that gave us the audiophile Muses 01 and 02 chips.  It was designed to counter the veiling effect found in speakers.   All you interconnects and cables will suddenly reveal their strengths, or weaknesses.  Why?  Transparency.


----------



## canali

5genez said:


> Put one of these in the audio circuit and the veiling will be gone...https://www.amazon.com/BBE-Sound-482i-Sonic-Maximizer/dp/B0002FDKIW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485136499&sr=8-1&keywords=482i+sonic+maximizer
> 
> 
> .... Tweak the bottom end until it sounds balanced.  No need for a sub woofer if the speakers are of high enough quality in many cases...  and, I advise keeping off the high end process unless your speakers really need it.
> ...


 
  
 pretty easy to setup esp for usb based music?
 can one incorporate it into a desktop gig?
 i have a laptop connected to a DAC (mojo,dragonfly, or ifi micro idsd), then to powered speakers.


----------



## 5genez

canali said:


> pretty easy to setup esp for usb based music?
> can one incorporate it into a desktop gig?
> i have a laptop connected to a DAC (mojo,dragonfly, or ifi micro idsd), then to powered speakers.


 

  Just run from your DAC analog outs - to the inputs of the BBE.   Then run the outs of the BBE - to the RCA inputs of your powered speakers.
 Again... do not turn up the Process function (treble), and tweak only with the LO feature to get a good balance with the bass. Its not a regular EQ.  Its a dynamic linear boost and can make the bass sound excellent like nothing you heard before.  If your treble is weak, then use the Process knobs.  My speakers have great high end so I keep the Process feature turned off.
  
 When  listening near field...  Tweaking the speaker angles and height is important.   The stereo image is like focusing binoculars. Get them zeroe'd in and you will hear a surprisingly clear realism to the sound.
  
 I could write much more about getting things just right, but for now you should be able to hear a night and day difference.  Also. get one with an IEC power socket so you can use audiophile power cords.   I use Pangea source cords and they sound excellent after burning in. The BBE will also need to be burned in.
  
 Again - getting the speakers leveled and angled "just right" is a real eye opener.
  
 Click picture to blow up size....


----------



## canali

5genez said:


> Just run from your DAC analog outs - to the inputs of the BBE.   Then run the outs of the BBE - to the RCA inputs of your powered speakers.
> Again... do not turn up the Process function (treble), and tweak only with the LO feature to get a good balance with the bass. Its not a regular EQ.  Its a dynamic linear boost and can make the bass sound excellent like nothing you heard before.  If your treble is weak, then use the Process knobs.  My speakers have great high end so I keep the Process feature turned off.
> 
> When  listening near field...  Tweaking the speaker angles and height is important.   The stereo image is like focusing binoculars. Get them zeroe'd in and you will hear a surprisingly clear realism to the sound.
> ...


 
  
 thanks...on the look out for some focal alpha 50 speakers ..just ordered some
 unbalanced blue jean lc1 rca audio cables today
 https://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/audio/index.htm
 https://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/audio/LC1-design-notes.htm


----------



## chrisprotos

I've had a recent experience with cans vs. speakers.
  
 For comparison sake the cans are Oppo PM-3 and the speakers are KEF LS-50. Both run through a Parasound Halo Integrated with Tidal hi-fi as source.
  
 The Oppos resolved a bit more detail, e.g. you can hear the picks sliding across guitar strings, but the LS50s had such a more musically engaging presence in my small listening room.
  
 Of course, YMMV.


----------



## canali

chrisprotos said:


> I've had a recent experience with cans vs. speakers.
> 
> For comparison sake the cans are Oppo PM-3 and the speakers are KEF LS-50. Both run through a Parasound Halo Integrated with Tidal hi-fi as source.
> 
> ...


 
  
 those new* kef LS 50 wireless* look interesting
KEF LS50 Wireless review & DAR’s Product of the Year 2016 http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/12/kef-ls50-wireless-review-dars-product-of-the-year-2016/


----------



## 5genez

canali said:


> thanks...on the look out for some focal alpha 50 speakers ..just ordered some
> unbalanced blue jean lc1 rca audio cables today
> https://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/audio/index.htm
> https://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/audio/LC1-design-notes.htm


 

 Those must be excellent active speakers!   The BBE works just as well with active and passive speakers. 
  
 I never tried the Blue Jean cables.   All cables and interconnects sonic signatures will now become obvious with the BBE.  Some grainy cables that were not obvious before because of the typically veiled speakers, will now be heard.  Because the closer you get to a realistic music sound you can hear the artifacts that get mixed in the sound. That does not make it bad.  Just makes hearing subtleties very easy to detect. Some people disliked the BBE when they did not realize it was exposing the weaknesses they could not hear before. The BBE in itself is very pure.
  
 I find it hard to burn in different new components all at once.  For you will not know which component is causing what. I find that new units do not always sound very good when first listened to.  I always try to break in one component at a time to see how its contributing to the music I am hearing.


----------



## canali

5genez said:


> Those must be excellent active speakers!   The BBE works just as well with active and passive speakers.
> 
> I never tried the Blue Jean cables.   All cables and interconnects sonic signatures will now become obvious with the BBE.  Some grainy cables that were not obvious before because of the typically veiled speakers, will now be heard.  Because the closer you get to a realistic music sound you can hear the artifacts that get mixed in the sound. That does not make it bad.  Just makes hearing subtleties very easy to detect. Some people disliked the BBE when they did not realize it was exposing the weaknesses they could not hear before. The BBE in itself is very pure.
> 
> I find it hard to burn in different new components all at once.  For you will not know which component is causing what. I find that new units do not always sound very good when first listened to.  I always try to break in one component at a time to see how its contributing to the music I am hearing.


 
  
 thanks...in that Darko article he ref's the *micro rendu* as a great addition to the dac and speakers.
 ...so am reviewing the micro rendu
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRi9utNBl4&ab_channel=TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel


----------



## Chris J

IMHO.........I prefer loudspeakers.
Not trying to start a flame war, it's just my preference.


----------



## 5genez

canali said:


> thanks...in that Darko article he ref's the *micro rendu* as a great addition to the dac and speakers.
> ...so am reviewing the micro rendu
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRi9utNBl4&ab_channel=TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel


 
  I avoided a need for that.  I use high quality Optical.  With a BBE its amazingly pure sounding.  The galvanization effect heard with USB cords left me not wishing to pursue it.  But,  what you are looking at there may very well solve the USB problem. 
  
 I listen through a PS Audio NuWave DAC.


----------



## 000zero

I feel like it's two different ballparks. The room effects the sound so much it's not really fair to compare it headphones in terms of money invested before getting to a certain SQ level.


----------



## 5genez

000zero said:


> I feel like it's two different ballparks. The room effects the sound so much it's not really fair to compare it headphones in terms of money invested before getting to a certain SQ level.


 
  
  
 Don't confuse near field listening with in room (distance) listening.  Near field can give you the best of both worlds if done well.  Near field avoids much of the room interaction problems we get with in room listening at a distance. The only thing you need to avoid is getting the speakers too close to the back wall if they were not designed for that scenario.
  
 Here is one I found online...
  
  


 Its an entirely different listening experience.  Especially, if you can use a BBE Maximizer.
  
 My set up is a bit more elaborate...


----------



## 5genez

5genez said:


> Just run from your DAC analog outs - to the inputs of the BBE.   Then run the outs of the BBE - to the RCA inputs of your powered speakers.
> Again... do not turn up the Process function (treble), and tweak only with the LO feature to get a good balance with the bass. Its not a regular EQ.  Its a dynamic linear boost and can make the bass sound excellent like nothing you heard before.  If your treble is weak, then use the Process knobs.  My speakers have great high end so I keep the Process feature turned off.
> 
> When  listening near field...  Tweaking the speaker angles and height is important.   The stereo image is like focusing binoculars. Get them zeroe'd in and you will hear a surprisingly clear realism to the sound.
> ...


 
  
  
 Hello again...
  
 I need to make a correction...  I took out a pair of two good way speakers and have been listening to them for a few days.  The BBE Process control I suggested leaving off? I am relearning that it benefits a speaker with separate tweeters and woofers.  Its not to make the treble stronger, per se.  It actually helps lock in the two divers better with a slight time delay.  I am using just a bit of the high frequency Process, and find it makes the two way speakers sound more like my full range driver speakers.  So, I would suggest using it, but judiciously.   A problem has been with some when they simply crank it up and the effect stops being subtle.  Its designed to give greater clarity, not simply act as a treble boost...  For, no treble control sounds like this.


----------



## pureangus62

5genez said:


> My set up is a bit more elaborate...


 
 Is that a drum rack your speakers are mounted to? Nifty setup!


----------



## penmarker

pureangus62 said:


> Is that a drum rack your speakers are mounted to? Nifty setup!


 
 Those are IsoAcoustic stands.


----------



## canali

i found these great stands for $45..adjustable, too.


----------



## 5genez

pureangus62 said:


> Is that a drum rack your speakers are mounted to? Nifty setup!


 

 Yup...  living in an apartment forced me to store my drums. So?  I found good use for my rack. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Whats so good about it, is that it avoids large reflective surfaces like found on a typical desk.  Its almost like having stand mounted speakers, but within an arms reach.


----------



## 5genez

canali said:


> i found these great stands for $45..adjustable, too.


 
  
  
 I would get something like this to set them up with...   48"  ...  http://www.stanleytools.com/products/hand-tools/levels/i-beam/48-in-aluminum-professional-ibeam-level/42-480
  
 I found mine at Walmart.   If you are going to be able to zero in on the stereo focus in near field listening, getting both speakers at the right height for balance between drivers, and both cabinets at the same exact height is essential. I had to experiment up and down till I got the best balance.  Inward angle needs to find a way to get both the same. Its focusing a stereo image. Most do not bother, and never realize the potential for their system and keep trying new cables to find out what is missing. Focus first... then add tweaks.  The BBE makes hearing details in this area better to pick out because of the clarity and transparency it allows for.


----------



## canali

many on sale on ebay
 see link here for many vendors selling around $45
 http://www.ebay.ca/itm/361493982343?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
 they're adjustable from 31"  to over 50'', all in in* 4 inch increment**s*


----------



## pureangus62

penmarker said:


> Those are IsoAcoustic stands.


 
 I was referring to the large metal rail that both speakers are mounted to


----------



## 5genez

pureangus62 said:


> I was referring to the large metal rail that both speakers are mounted to


 

 Both are right.  I use the IsoAcoustic stands to fine tune the inward and out ward angles... Also, to fine tune the back and forth distance to my ears.  
  
 Some may not think its important,  but here is an article by Steven Stone about a good speaker he used on his desktop, and tells us that when a speaker has cohesive accuracy, very small movements in how the speakers sit can change what is being heard...
  
" After initial setup, I found that extremely small changes in the speakers' physical locations could result in big differences in soundstage presentation. Even a cat brushing the speakers as it walked across my desk could move the speakers enough that they required repositioning."
http://hometheaterreview.com/role-audio-canoe-loudspeaker-reviewed/
   
If you want to get the headphones effect off the head, and enjoy the impact of music in the room?   These things need to be learned and implemented. They work.  But it will take concentration, patience, and learning a new discipline to gain the fruits of your labor (pains)


----------



## 5genez

canali said:


> they're adjustable from 31"  to over 50'', all in in* 4 inch increment**s*


 
  
 Not sure... my height can be moved up and down as much or little as I need, and lock them in.  Not sure what to recommend. 4 inches is too crude.  I move my speaker height just a half inch in relation to my ear height, and it will change the balance for sure.  I had to experiment to find the sweet spot which will be different for different speakers.   This becomes like aligning the front tires on your car. Its has to be just right for angle and pitch.
  
 I wish I could manufacture what I got... it would make things a lot simpler, and potentially be better sounding by far.  Its all about stereo focus. Zeroing in to create the illusion it was designed for.


----------



## canali

5genez said:


> Not sure... my height can be moved up and down as much or little as I need, and lock them in.  Not sure what to recommend. 4 inches is too crude.  I move my speaker height just a half inch in relation to my ear height, and it will change the balance for sure.  I had to experiment to find the sweet spot which will be different for different speakers.   This becomes like aligning the front tires on your car. Its has to be just right for angle and pitch.
> 
> I wish I could manufacture what I got... it would make things a lot simpler, and potentially be better sounding by far.  Its all about stereo focus. Zeroing in to create the illusion it was designed for.


 
  
 sorry but 'illusion' is the key word here....doubt very much that 1-2 '' or so will make any diff at all.
 for me 4 inches imo works perfectly..then I can just tweak it by some pads or whatever.


----------



## 5genez

canali said:


> sorry but 'illusion' is the key word here....doubt very much that 1-2 '' or so will make any diff at all.
> for me 4 inches imo works perfectly..then I can just tweak it by some pads or whatever.


 

 Will you be listening near field?  Within arms length?  It will make a difference between fuzzy and unfocused sound, or clear bass and drums... and fully bodied guitar sound.  Not getting it right will either thin the sound, or muddy it.   But, if you enjoy what you hear any way?  That it makes you able to enjoy?  Great.
  
 Keep in mind... the illusion at *full potential *is based upon precision alignment of the two channels.   Liker Steven Stone mentioned in the link I posted.
  
 I speak of recreating an illusion of real live musicians playing in your room on a stage provided by nearfield listening.   
  
 When you watch a live performance?  We normally sit at a distance from the musicians.  Hold up your thumb as they play and you will realize that the musicians in your sight appear shorter than your thumb. That's what sitting in the audience does.  You would not want to recreate the actual sound field they were playing in your room.  If you could?  It would be like sitting a few feet in front of their amplifiers and drums. That would give you a head ache (and the reason so many musicians wear ear protection these days)...   
  
 If you want to capture the hall/room sound when its on the recording, it will require take getting things right. 
  
 If you are happy with what you hear otherwise?   More power to you!   I am looking to recreate the accuracy that top engineers hear at their desk.


----------



## canali

5genez said:


> Will you be listening near field?  Within arms length?  It will make a difference between fuzzy and unfocused sound, or clear bass and drums... and fully bodied guitar sound.  Not getting it right will either thin the sound, or muddy it.   But, if you enjoy what you hear any way?  That it makes you able to enjoy?  Great.
> 
> Keep in mind... the illusion at *full potential *is based upon precision alignment of the two channels.   Liker Steven Stone mentioned in the link I posted.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 ok if you're audio engineer involved then I understand...appreciate the detailed explanation.


----------



## 5genez

Not an engineer...   But, because of a dream I had many years ago.  I was able to see there is greater potential in what we are taking for granted in what we are hearing if we only knew what we need to do to get the best sound extracted from well made recordings... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   Headphone clarity ... without using headphones,


----------



## theveterans

5genez said:


> Not an engineer...   But, because of a dream I had many years ago.  I was able to see there is greater potential in what we are taking for granted in what we are hearing if we only knew what we need to do to get the best sound extracted from well made recordings...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 A great pair of budget bookshelf speakers, when listened near-field, offers that headphone clarity and even surpassed mid-fi level headphones in that regard.


----------



## canali

theveterans said:


> A great pair of budget bookshelf speakers, when listened near-field, offers that headphone clarity and even surpassed mid-fi level headphones in that regard.


 
 looking forward to trying out my focal alpha 50s shortly as upgrade to my audioengine a5+ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
*Leave it to the French to kick the sound of desktop/computer speakers up a notch* *https://www.cnet.com/news/leave-it-to-the-french-to-kick-the-sound-of-desktopcomputer-speakers-up-a-notch/*
  
 i wasn't expecting to pay this much for speakers
 vs these focals...will be spending about US$500...esp when i'm mostly at my desk listening.
 (was also considering new Kef LS50 wls but they're cdn $3500 with taxes/delivery...down the road perhaps but not right now
 ..will scoop them up used 1 yr from now or so and save some cash)
  
 now looking at adding a micro rendu...or the auralic aries...we'll see.


----------



## theveterans

I just use my regular computer as the source since I listen to music while using my computer and I want all of the controls in the same monitor. Be sure to take advantage of the balanced inputs since many studio monitors are much louder at the same gain when using balanced.


----------



## canali

theveterans said:


> I just use my regular computer as the source since I listen to music while using my computer and I want all of the controls in the same monitor. Be sure to take advantage of the balanced inputs since many studio monitors are much louder at the same gain when using balanced.


 
  i bought some unbalanced blue jeans LC1 cables.
 the dacs i'm using aren't balanced in their outputs: mojo, dragonfly red, ifi micro idsd


----------



## theveterans

Since you have Mojo and iDSD, they should pump enough gain to bleed your ears.


----------



## canali

theveterans said:


> Since you have Mojo and iDSD, they should pump enough gain to bleed your ears.


----------



## canali

Lol...I keep the volume under 75db or lower for most part.


----------



## theveterans

Really?
  
 You have to get used to 85 - 90 dB. That's where I get my head banging and thumping. Music and beats just throbs through your chest and it's a great sensation IMO.


----------



## canali

theveterans said:


> Really?
> 
> You have to get used to 85 - 90 dB. That's where I get my head banging and thumping. Music and beats just throbs through your chest and it's a great sensation IMO.




I hear you ...I just have to be considerate of others around me...But when they're no longer around up the volume goes.


----------



## JoHit

guyunder said:


> Well I've spent over $500 on carpeting and acoustic panels. My entire living room was made into a listening room.
> 
> I got a pair of those new Chane 1.4s (bookshelves) and a Teac integrated (which claims to use an ICEPower amp so it shouldn't be garbage) to power them.
> 
> ...


 
 How was your room treatment done? There's a-lot of science (and other variables such as speaker angle, placement, etc.) that go into setting up a room for good acoustic performance. Placing some panels on the walls and calling it a day isn't going to do the best job.
  
 I agree with what a member mentioned earlier, you picked the wrong speakers. If you want bookshelf/desk speakers that rival headphones in terms of soundstage, detail, etc... you're in the market for near-field monitors, like the ones used in music studios. These are specifically designed to reproduce sound as accurate as possible with soundstage definition and separation in mind, within a short listening distance.
  
 By far headphones are easier to setup and use: Source, DAC, amp, *PLAY*. You don't have to treat a room, decouple the speakers from your desk, angle and place them properly, find the optimal listening position, and then hope you don't bother any neighbors (if you're in an apartment of course). That being said, a well set up room with a good pair of monitors will leave headphones in the dust.


----------



## stellarelephant

In terms of presenting music accurately, the best speakers typically have a much flatter frequency response than the best headphones. +/-2 dB from 20 Hz to 20kHz is a common benchmark for reference speaker systems, and, in a good room, this will sound very realistic. 

If you check out the frequency responses of even the best headphones, they cannot achieve this linear response. Here are some measurements of some high-end cans: http://graphs.headphone.com/index.php?graphID%5B0%5D=4061&graphID%5B1%5D=2621&graphID%5B2%5D=2241&graphID%5B3%5D=3631&scale=30&graphType=0&buttonSelection=Update+Graph

Nowhere near linearity! Speaker systems have a huge advantage by using multiple drivers with crossover networks to feed each driver only the frequencies it delivers best. Commonly a large woofer or even subwoofer covers the bass, while a smaller cone covers the midrange, and a tweeter hits the highs. In a headphone, generally one driver must do everything. Most headphones fail to reproduce real sub bass in music because their drivers simply aren't large enough to push much air at those frequencies without distortion. While they often excel in the midrange, which is sort of the sweet spot due to driver diameter, the the treble is often "peaky" because the headphone drivers are also forced to produce frequencies above this region, where they suffer from breakup due to resonant modes, usually along with high-end roll off, this time because the driver is too big for the task!

This is not to say that headphones sound bad. I still really enjoy them. But in my experience, they do not present music with the same degree of neutrality and realism as speakers.


----------



## Seamaster

I fully agree with others about near filed listening, was a very engaging experience. Once I had my speakers, Tannoy Turnberry just placed on the each side of listening chair, about only a feet, that acted like a pair of giants headphones, love the sound! But unfortunately, i have kids at home that I can't have my speaker permanently placed like that.


----------



## canali

,


----------



## stellarelephant

Lol having a child is the reason I got into headphones too. Can't shake the house when he's asleep!


----------



## theveterans

I went the other way around and transitioned to speakers from headphones as I can blast them 24/7. No headphones without the insane price tag (TOTL) beats the listening pleasure that I get from nearfield speaker IMO. I'm not looking to spend 4 digits on a headphone which is far too above the diminishing returns already.


----------



## ProtegeManiac

stellarelephant said:


> Lol having a child is the reason I got into headphones too. Can't shake the house when he's asleep!


 
  
 Not to mention it'll require locking the room when the child is a toddler. They like poking wave guides and tweeters.


----------



## theveterans

^ Not to mention the woofer cones too if your woofer has one.


----------



## ProtegeManiac

theveterans said:


> Not to mention the woofer cones too if your woofer has one.


 
  
 What do you mean? All woofers have a cone, because if you looked at a speaker from the side, it's like a cone. If you think about it in ice cream terms it's just that the mouth is as wide as a waffle bowl than an ice cream cone. 

  
 A tweeter by contrast is usually referred to as a dome because the diaphragm is inverted, but some tweeters do come with a concave surface, like some Focals.


  
  
  
  
 If by "cone" you mean the alternate style dust cap that kinda looks like a 20mm rifle bullet, that's a wave guide, which I mentioned before the tweeters in my post. And that's what children poke and all the more if they look like these.
  
_Child's perspective taken into account in this photo..._

  
  
_...although they can look down and find this in some car doors too._


----------



## theveterans

I just used a broad term. I'll refer to it as "membrane" which some speakers have a dome shaped membrane style or a concave style like this:
  

  
 Here's a dome-shaped membrane dust cap:
  

  
 Then again, you can always put speaker covers, but kids eventually poke holes through them.


----------



## ProtegeManiac

theveterans said:


> I just used a broad term. I'll refer to it as "membrane" which some speakers have a dome shaped membrane style or a concave style like this:
> ---
> Here's a dome-shaped membrane dust cap:


 
  
 
The membrane is basically the dust cap, which is normally a separate piece from the actual sound producing diaphragm which is referred to as the cone (and hence why I said they all have cones). The way speakers are traditionally fabricated is a lot like a cone, except you don't get a sharp point on the bottom. In ice cream terms, it's like if you didn't have to bite the bottom first, it came that way from the factory. Then they have to cover that hole with a dust cap, which in some cases can be just a simple falt cover (as current entry level JL subs, like the W0v2 and W1v2), a dome like the sub you posted, or can integrate a wave guide like a whizzer on a fullrange driver or a bullet-shaped guide.
 
Newer fabrication methods however allowed for single piece inverted domes/bowls that are a lot shallower, like that ///////Alpine Type R subwoofer, the JL W7, W6v2, W3v3, and midwoofers like the DLS MS6 and on Mission's M3x series. While generally more costly to produce, the benefits are a stronger single piece cone (since you won't have the glued-on or stick on stress point from a separate dust cap) and more surface area, which are great for subwoofers that need a lot of surface area and excursion to go lower and louder. One downside I think is that the lack of a wave guide complicated dispersion patterns on some designs, which, on top of costs, is why it isn't as popular on midwoofers. DLS dropped it when they updated the MS6 into the MS6 Pro (the dispersion pattern probably wasn't picked up in their lab with the basketball grills in use, even in show/competition cars; with most other users however the grill isn't used as the midwoofer is mounted behind a stock door panel) and Mission hasn't used it on any other series.


----------



## pjk1

I believe speakers win for me but that could be personal preference. I feel like I can hear the little details better with speakers. I have the Abyss AB-1266, LCD3, HE1000 V2 headphones and my speakers are B&W 802 Diamond.


----------



## stellarelephant

pjk1 said:


> I feel like I can hear the little details better with speakers.



It's the tweeters! Headphone drivers just can't reach that high as gracefully...


----------



## ProtegeManiac

stellarelephant said:


> It's the tweeters! Headphone drivers just can't reach that high as gracefully...


 
  
 Fullrange drivers typically can't. Even fullrange driver speakers have the same problems as headphone driver response: it either rolls off early, or it's jagged and requires a notch filter as much as an EQ app is useful for a desktop headphone system. Or both.


----------



## theveterans

stellarelephant said:


> It's the tweeters! Headphone drivers just can't reach that high as gracefully...


 
  
 It doesn't need to be tweeters. Even midrange details are much better defined by nearfield powered speakers compared to *my *headphones IMO (AKG K712).


----------



## stellarelephant

Then down low there's the pleasure of actually feeling the bass in your body from speakers...pretty hard for any cans to compete with that. We should probably stop before we get banned lol...


----------



## Seamaster

stellarelephant said:


> Then down low there's the pleasure of actually feeling the bass in your body from speakers...pretty hard for any cans to compete with that. We should probably stop before we get banned lol...


 

 Agree, no headphone can pass the chest ponding test.


----------



## ProtegeManiac

stellarelephant said:


> Then down low there's the pleasure of actually feeling the bass in your body from speakers...pretty hard for any cans to compete with that. We should probably stop before we get banned lol...


 
 
They can't at all, period. Headphone drivers are delivering the sound from just outside your ears, the soundwaves really aren't going to hit anything but your skull.
 
And don't worry about getting banned, the point is to recognize that speakers and headphones are not without their own compromises. The way you wear a headphone can alter the response or the imaging, but at least you can try how others wear theirs. You can't do that for when speakers are interacting with your room, at least not without targeting the specific issues in that room. That's why there are headphone threads in primarily speaker forums also. You start out there and then discover that your non-dedicated audio room has all these issues, might as well get started on headphones there.
 
Also, no matter how large the soundstage is on a speaker system, it won't be as large as the actual stage unless your listening area is roughly as wide as that stage to begin with. You can simulate Norah Jones in a small hotel jazz bar, but you can't exactly project the same size stage as a symphony in Dresden's opera house or Metallica on their usual stage in nearly all audio rooms out there.


----------



## stellarelephant

Lol I was just kidding about getting banned for dissing headphones. Regarding imaging and soundstage, one situation when I really appreciate headphones is reproducing a live recording done with a stereo microphone pair in a concert hall. Same with recordings made in stereo in smaller spaces, like chamber music for instance. With an open headphone, the sense of space can be insanely immersive, even more than my speaker system. 

I think what is going on is that the recording is already chock full of room reflections and spatial cues, and the headphones preserve that sense of space without adding anything. Speakers, as have been mentioned, add the reflections of the listening room to the sound, and this tends to overwhelm the sound of the room that the original performance occurred in. Unless you have an anechoic chamber for a living room, of course!

People praise Grados for rock music. The best thing I ever heard on my SR80Es was Mozart quartets! Sense of space was amazing. People say that these on-ear cans have a tiny soundstage, and they're right. But when the music itself already has a sense of space, they reproduce it impeccably!


----------



## 5genez

stellarelephant said:


> Lol I was just kidding about getting banned for dissing headphones. Regarding imaging and soundstage, one situation when I really appreciate headphones is reproducing a live recording done with a stereo microphone pair in a concert hall. Same with recordings made in stereo in smaller spaces, like chamber music for instance. With an open headphone, the sense of space can be insanely immersive, even more than my speaker system.
> 
> I think what is going on is that the recording is already chock full of room reflections and spatial cues, and the headphones preserve that sense of space without adding anything. Speakers, as have been mentioned, add the reflections of the listening room to the sound, and this tends to overwhelm the sound of the room that the original performance occurred in. Unless you have an anechoic chamber for a living room, of course!
> 
> People praise Grados for rock music. The best thing I ever heard on my SR80Es was Mozart quartets! Sense of space was amazing. People say that these on-ear cans have a tiny soundstage, and they're right. But when the music itself already has a sense of space, they reproduce it impeccably!


 
   That's another subject.  One that got buried after multi channel listening came out.   A simple (but well made) digital time delay feeding amplification going to two good sized rear speakers (not these tiny satellites they use today) - ones  that do not need great tweeters (because the rear of halls reflect midrange and bass)... When set right?...Could ASTOUND you with a sense of sitting in a concert hall.  In the 70's a few companies came along with such devices. They were expensive and many did not understand how to use them.  Sadly,  they were ignored and phased out of the marketing scheme.


----------



## canali

i just hope my focal alpha 50 nearfield monitors will sound sweet.
i've not done any room acoustic treatment either.

steve guttenberg (CNET) says that because they're so close to you (arms length or whatever)
that room treatments are not as important as with other traditional speakers....but then again
these same monitors are often used for mixing, etc...where alot of room treatments DO exist.

https://www.cnet.com/news/leave-it-to-the-french-to-kick-the-sound-of-desktopcomputer-speakers-up-a-notch/

Leave it to the French to kick the sound of desktop/computer speakers up a notch

Focal isn't just a high-end speaker company, they also design studio monitors, the Audiophiliac checks out their affordable Alpha 50 pro speakers.



excerpt:  ''The Alpha 50 tells the truth about the sound of your recordings, so the good ones sound really good; the best stuff is astonishing_. *Close up, desktop listening minimizes typical room acoustic issues/problems*_*,* so you hear a lot more direct, from-the-speaker sound, and with something as tasty as the Alpha 50, that level of quality may come was a big shock. This speaker's low-end bass plumbs deeper than that of my Adam Audio F5s. Listening to A Tribe Called Quest's "The Low-End Theory" was really satisfying, the finely-honed shadings of the weighty bass lines put a big smile on my face.


----------



## tgx78

Yep, no headphones can replicate the sheer physicality and soundstage of well positioned maggies.
  
 I am a traveler and all my headphones and earphones serve me exceptionally well while I am away from my studio.


----------



## stellarelephant

Best system I ever heard was in a shop in Detroit...Maggies with a sub, just like that pic!  I thought the Crash Test Dummies were right in front of me.  Blew me away.


----------



## theveterans

canali said:


> i just hope my focal alpha 50 nearfield monitors will sound sweet.
> i've not done any room acoustic treatment either.
> 
> steve guttenberg (CNET) says that because they're so close to you (arms length or whatever)
> ...


 

 No need for room treatment in my case. I even place it 1 feet away from the corner wall and the sound is just fine. Bass doesn't resonate nor drown out any other frequencies in my case.
  
 Let it burn in then it will open up like and sound the way Guttenberg is describing it.


----------



## exsomnis

I'll chime in to say that headphone systems still have a long way to go yet to achieve natural vocals that make you think that the singer is singing for you as if she's standing right before you. That's what I heard a pair of Harbeth Super HL5's do in a fricking hotel room at an AV show. 
  
 And come on, headphone imaging? Humans and musical instruments playing in and around your head? I was a stereo speaker guy first and it took me quite a while to get used to that. Sure, there are software and hardware DSPs that try to produce actual speaker sound from headphones but as far as I'm concerned, high fidelity there is a long ways away yet. And even if it does reach a good level of fidelity, it will then take even longer to trickle down into mass affordablity.
  
 I have some regret in investing in headphones first but at the very least they give me a good reference for transparency and clarity for my speaker setup.


----------



## 5genez

They would have to make special recordings designed for headphone listening.   Essentially, a dummy head with two mics where the ears are.  And, able to pick up sound in all directions. Then it would stop sounding like music in your head.  They experimented with this years ago. As of now, you 99% of the time you are listening to music designed to be heard through speakers placed in front of you. Or,  with multi channel, speakers placed all around you.
  
  
​  
  
  
*Binaural recordings is what headphone listeners require for life like sound. *
  
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording*


----------



## exsomnis

They still do make binaural recordings. Dr.Chesky has done some albums recorded binaurally but I find that they only serve to make it seem like the sound field is slightly larger than your head. They also don't convey life-size like voices and instruments. Novel but not convincing.

The other thing about headphones are the positional cues. Move your head up and down and the soundstage is strapped to your head, moving with it. So if you turned 180 degrees or were in a handstand upside down, the soundstage would follow you. Instead of how it would really sound in real life, where the band is in a fixed position and turning 180 degrees means that the band is playing behind you.

VR does address this, but there is yet to be a headphone only application that is focused on high fidelity.


----------



## theveterans

exsomnis said:


> They still do make binaural recordings. Dr.Chesky has done some albums recorded binaurally but I find that they only serve to make it seem like the sound field is slightly larger than your head.* They also don't convey life-size like voices and instruments*. Novel but not convincing.
> 
> The other thing about headphones are the positional cues. Move your head up and down and the soundstage is strapped to your head, moving with it. So if you turned 180 degrees or were in a handstand upside down, the soundstage would follow you. Instead of how it would really sound in real life, where the band is in a fixed position and turning 180 degrees means that the band is playing behind you.
> 
> VR does address this, but there is yet to be a headphone only application that is focused on high fidelity.


 
  
 This is why I don't prefer headphone listening. That chest pounding beats always put me to the groove. I just can't get used to headphone imaging except for gaming.


----------



## 5genez

Was designed for headphones... This also sounds great on speakers.... 
  
​


----------



## jibzilla

guyunder said:


> Most people say that after a certain point, high end headphones stop making sense and money is better spent on speakers.
> 
> But the hard truth to face is -- speakers aren't nearly as resolving as high end headphones, and getting than the center image from loudspeakers takes an optimal room geometry that most people don't have. My speakers sound like veiled trash next to my HE-6, TH900 and Utopia.


 
  
 I have sort of come full circle when it comes to headphones and speakers. I was able to audition several $10-30k speaker setups at a friend of mines audio store and trying out $1-300 headphones when Amazon would let you try them for nothing. I could never really find any nitpicks with the $30k setups but they were way out of my price range. His $10k setups were amazing in their own right but I cold always find some fatal flaw and that was my max budget and back then way more than max budet. Saw that at $10k you could really afford the best of the best headphone wise and decided to go down that road. In the mean time I tried a bunch of powered speakers for my dj setup and bought a pair of adam a7x and sub8.
  
 Several years latter I have tried most modern day flagship headphones and totl headphone amps and was really pleased with 2 headphones but found even they had pretty big nitpicks over the long haul. While I was buying, selling and going to meets I was also demoing TT's. My fiend who owned the audio store never had and Japan equipment for demo. It was mostly American and European and mostly cd player/dac as well. Took some advise from a member on Audio Kharma and bought and sold a few vintage japan TT's. I have never had such a good experience audio wise by a country mile. All of them blew me away till I got my current TT which works out perfect space and feature set wise and was just the icing on the cake.
  
 Now I have an itch for vintage japan speakers that needs to be scratched. I'm holding on to my hd800 but I think that is it. Not sure what I will get yet. The adam's are amazing for what they are. Whatever I get will have some stiff competition.


----------



## penmarker

IMO, it is unwise to say something is worse than the other when your situation is not ideal for TOTL performance such as room geometry or non-binaural source recording.
 Both a Toyota and a Pagani will get you to the grocery store, but Toyota has more trunk space. That doesn't make the Pagani garbage.
  
 Like I said, different horses different courses.
  
 Very best.


----------



## mrtim6

jibzilla said:


> I have sort of come full circle when it comes to headphones and speakers. I was able to audition several $10-30k speaker setups at a friend of mines audio store and trying out $1-300 headphones when Amazon would let you try them for nothing. I could never really find any nitpicks with the $30k setups but they were way out of my price range. His $10k setups were amazing in their own right but I cold always find some fatal flaw and that was my max budget and back then way more than max budet. Saw that at $10k you could really afford the best of the best headphone wise and decided to go down that road. In the mean time I tried a bunch of powered speakers for my dj setup and bought a pair of adam a7x and sub8.
> 
> Several years latter I have tried most modern day flagship headphones and totl headphone amps and was really pleased with 2 headphones but found even they had pretty big nitpicks over the long haul. While I was buying, selling and going to meets I was also demoing TT's. My fiend who owned the audio store never had and Japan equipment for demo. It was mostly American and European and mostly cd player/dac as well. Took some advise from a member on Audio Kharma and bought and sold a few vintage japan TT's. I have never had such a good experience audio wise by a country mile. All of them blew me away till I got my current TT which works out perfect space and feature set wise and was just the icing on the cake.
> 
> Now I have an itch for vintage japan speakers that needs to be scratched. I'm holding on to my hd800 but I think that is it. Not sure what I will get yet. The adam's are amazing for what they are. Whatever I get will have some stiff competition.




I'm a massive fan of TOTL vintage Japanese Hifi gear. The interesting thing is most of the Japan Only gear is unknown in the west.

My current 3 hifi setups are:

Living room Yamaha A-S3000 integrated amp & Yamaha CD-3000 SACD/Streamer player (not vintage part of Yamaha 125 year anniversary) into Diatone DS-5000 4 way vintage (made 1982) speakers. Absolutely magnificent- really believe these can match the best currently available. Only downside is they are extremely rare even in Japan. I bought mine from hifido- who sent them to me in Sydney Australia in a wooden crate! Now the postage was expensive as each speaker weighs 87kg!

Listening room: Yamaha GT-2000 turntable (1982) - probably the best direct drive turntable EVER at it's retail and current price. Not I'm not say best DD turntable ever. I believe the GT however would not be embarrassed sonically in the company of any turntable.

Phono stage vintage Klyne 7PX - this is vintage American made not Japanese
Sony TA-E88B pre-amp (1977) see:
http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-TA-E88B.html
Into Sony TA-N7 VFET Power amp (1977)
http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-TA-N7B.html

This system is amazing really musically satisfying.

My HD800s or my TH900s or even my Pioneer SEM1 really can't match either of these systems in terms of feeling the music, despite being excellent headphones.


----------



## jibzilla

mrtim6 said:


> I'm a massive fan of TOTL vintage Japanese Hifi gear. The interesting thing is most of the Japan Only gear is unknown in the west.
> 
> My current 3 hifi setups are:
> 
> ...


 
  
 GT2000 and DS-5000!
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 That is some nice kit sir. Do you know Theophile? He is a fairly frequent poster on A.K. and turned me on to the GT2000 and also lives in Sydney. He has powered monitors like I do though. He did well in the KRK Expose. His Expose's and my Adam's were the only powered speakers I enjoyed out of 30 different models, and no middle ground what so ever like I found with headphones. I think he is getting the vintage japan speaker itch too though.  
  
 I have compared the GT2000 to a Brinkmann Bardo with 009/kgsshv to boot. I liked the Bardo a bit better but they also had a phono pre/cart advantage. At least for me the vintage japan tt's have literally a 3x advantage over anything modern day. The engineering and attention to detail is unreal. Sadly the GT2000 was too "Gigantic and Tremendous" for my small space. I do have a kp-9010 that is just a dream come true and a decent chunk of what the GT2000 is. DS-5000's are in the same boat at 87kg. buuuuuuuut
  
 I just put in a bid on some mint ds-3000's!!! In their original boxes just like my kp-9010! Maybe if vintage headphones like the R10, Original Omega's, k-1000, and he-90 still came mint in their original packaging at the same price as when they were released I'd stick with headphones. Can you imagine that? It's true with vintage japan TT's and Speakers. I got my kp-9010 for $1k shipped and if my bid holds out ds-3000's for $2k shipped. Just about the same price as when they were released in the late 80's.


----------



## mrtim6

Hi Jibzilla,

Yes I have spoken to Theo - he lives in Queensland not Sydney so we are not neighbors.

He is very knowledgable regarding the GT-2000 

The DS-3000 should be a fantastic speaker for the money I really love the DS-5000 more than my Yamaha NS-2000s.

Interesting your comparison between TTs - your right the GT Is a massive TT!


----------



## jibzilla

mrtim6 said:


> Hi Jibzilla,
> 
> Yes I have spoken to Theo - he lives in Queensland not Sydney so we are not neighbors.
> 
> ...


 
  
 There are lots of factors when comparing TT's so maybe comparing is not the best thing to do. Still because allot of the items I was looking at have not been affected by inflation and were made when music was at it's peak I still stand by my 3x better than modern day. Some people do not like over engineered stuff and I can respect that. I personally love it.
  
 Found out I will not get the ds-3000's for $2k shipped. The shipping alone is $2k. Still $4k for something that was $2600 in 1984 isn't too bad. I have heard from another vintage japan fan that Diatone was the way to go over Yamaha and has slipped under the radar.
  
 Shipping is brutal though. If there is any downside it's that you have to spend $1k for TT for shipping and transformer (acupwr) total: $400 and $4k for speakers for brutal shipping total: $2k to make the transaction worth it.


----------



## mrtim6

Yeah if you're buying from Hifido shipping is expensive- however they really know how to pack & ship a speaker. I recently received my 50th anniversary Diatone 610MB full range speakers. The packaging was second to none- absolutely superb. 

My DS-5000 were shipped in a crate with padded crossbeam in place bubble wrap & polystyrene for extra protection- it took me a day to cut the speakers out of the crate! 

I think the 1984 DS-3000 would be great value even with the shipping cost, as I doubt you will find a speaker that good at that price IMO.


----------



## jibzilla

mrtim6 said:


> Yeah if you're buying from Hifido shipping is expensive- however they really know how to pack & ship a speaker. I recently received my 50th anniversary Diatone 610MB full range speakers. The packaging was second to none- absolutely superb.
> 
> My DS-5000 were shipped in a crate with padded crossbeam in place bubble wrap & polystyrene for extra protection- it took me a day to cut the speakers out of the crate!
> 
> I think the 1984 DS-3000 would be great value even with the shipping cost, as I doubt you will find a speaker that good at that price IMO.


 
  
 I have not dealt with hifido.jp yet. I have always been able to find better deals on yahoo japan and the same impeccable shipping, packaging and product condition. I passed on this deal though cause the shipping was so high and am waiting for hifido and audiounion to respond to me about their shipping rates. Sounds like it's sky high no matter who I choose. As a hazmat certified operator though I'm shocked that speakers are hazmat. From what I have been told it's cause of the big ass magnets.
  
 At the same time it is that kind of packaging that will ensure I get my speakers in one piece. I just need to take a moment and think about it.


----------



## groovyd

5genez said:


> Was designed for headphones... This also sounds great on speakers....
> 
> ​





 interesting... with my mini maggies speakers his basement room is infront of me but behind me with my LCD-X. infact the entire thing is behind me with the headphones but otherwise with very precise left right imaging.


----------



## canali

one thing i am finding is, for my budget, neither system is perfect.
 just got some *Focal Alpha 50s* as my desktop monitors on stands.
 (untreated room...i do have the *sonarworks *app i'm trying for free for 21 days as below...)
 http://www.sonarworks.com/systemwide/download-2?utm_source=Sonarworks+Trial+Sign-ups&utm_campaign=eef9ffecd0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a1eb48c1bb-eef9ffecd0-285882413&mc_cid=eef9ffecd0&mc_eid=f90e57c7b1
  
 love that live sound out of my Focals...but then i miss the detail resolution that my iems/cans can provide, too.
 ...so when i try my cans i suddenly miss that larger sound and more real bass impact of speakers.
 so there are pros and cons to both systems.... guess it is best to have both.
  
 can't wait 'til we can move the sound out of our heads into resembling live speakers
*''Of headphones to come'' *(written by Ty for Stereophile a few months back)
*http://www.stereophile.com/content/headphones-come#fSyFFulcaYQuewwi.97*
  
 Ty and Guttenberg discuss this issue far better than I can.
 enjoy
  
_*NOTE: the 'innerfidelity' article was written a few yrs ago in 2013 ..really before *_
_*we saw some of the premium earphones/cans*_
_*that we do see today as a growing trend (focal utopia, sony z1r, etc)*_
 *Across the Great Divide: Can We Love Headphones & Speakers Equally* 

*http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/across-great-divide-can-we-love-headphones-speakers-equally#QaFGuEtyYEQkwMsS.9*
  
*''What's more accurate: speakers or headphones?''*
*https://www.cnet.com/news/whats-more-accurate-speakers-or-headphones/*


----------



## 5genez

canali said:


> love that live sound out of my Focals...but then i miss the detail resolution that my iems/cans can provide, too.
> ...so when i try my cans i suddenly miss that larger sound and more real bass impact of speakers.
> so there are pros and cons to both systems.... guess it is best to have both.


 
 You might want to try this and be in for a big surprise...  At times what I hear listening nearfield sound frighteningly close to being alive.
   
https://www.amazon.com/BBE-Desktop-Maximizer-Unbalanced-Connections/dp/B00FRLB87Q

  
 Sadly.. Its a last run on the model for now.   Get it while you can.  I have been using one in my system since the late eighties.  Its gone through many updates.   Its uses a chip inside manufactured by the same company that makes the Muses chips.   
  
 If you decide to get one, please let me know so I can give you a few tips at getting the best sound out of it.  What it does is correct some of the major anomalies that speakers cause to the sound. Too many people just cranked them up without knowing what they were doing and failed to get the true benefits.  I will tell you what I learned over the years.  
  
 Another option is the dual mono version that is rack mount size...  Many musicians use them. https://www.amazon.com/BBE-Sound-482i-Sonic-Maximizer/dp/B0002FDKIW


----------



## canali

5genez said:


> You might want to try this and be in for a big surprise...  At times what I hear listening nearfield sound frighteningly close to being alive.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/BBE-Desktop-Maximizer-Unbalanced-Connections/dp/B00FRLB87Q
> 
> ...


 
  
 so this piece of equipment won't interfere how i setup or use my DAC or microrendu thru my laptop/desktop (which i'm using as my ''NAS'')?
 i'm in canada...amazon.com won't ship the first product to me me...and the cdn link amazon.ca doesn't have it in stock....drag...
  
 but the 2nd one 'sonic maximizer' does show in stock and will ship...
  
 i just first want to do more research into them and if they'll fit my needs.
 laptop/microrendu/roon ready/ to DAC to speakers or cans... with music on laptop.


----------



## 5genez

That was just one place to buy.  There may be more on Ebay.
  
 If you have a preamp/amp set up?   You place it between the two.   If you have a DAC to integrated amp?  You place it then between those two.
  
 Once set up it can make the speakers very exacting. I do not use a subwoofer because the lo boost in a linear bass boost which is like a dynamic equalizer. It allows for variations in changes in impact that typical EQ or tone controls could never match.
  
 Learning the true benefits of a BBE requires learning a new discipline of setting both speakers in very exacting positions. Because you will be focusing the stereo imaging more like you were using a planar speaker.   That is why I always choose phase coherent speakers.  It becomes all about focus and angle.  Sometimes I wish I could drag some of the audio experts into my messy room and have them take a seat to listen to hear what they have been missing.   I am a musician.   I know what a live performance can sound like.  Its not always romantic sounding. 
  
 Once you begin correcting the inherent weaknesses of speakers with a BBE a new realm of "getting things exacting" is needed.  Headphones allows us to see that there is life after typical bookshelf speakers. A high quality bookshelf speaker with a BBE gets you closer to what headphones shine upon.  Headphones produce a surreal experience of their own.


----------



## aertus

canali said:


> there is no inconvenient truth imo.
> Hi to each their own.
> 
> a colleague i know feels headgear is subpar to a nice speaker setup.
> ...


 
 kef ls50 speakers are ******* dope and I love the futuristic look they have. there are so many audio companies im wondering if major audio companies like JBL etc can even compete anymore. JBL does great speakers too. 
  
  
 anyways, idk whats happened to the listenting experience. There is nothing like lsitenting to music live or with speakers. There is the experience of the sound and the bass vibrating shaking the room and your body, something that the headphones cannot recreate. 
  
 Its like watching a movie at the cinema vs wathing a movie on your pc. Its just not the same experience as going to the movies. I feel like its similar in that sense. Now since we are talking about home Ive always wondered why people spend so much money on TV's but leave the sound lackluster. You need both for a true entertaiment system. 
  
 headphones just can't match what the speakers are capable of in recreating sound as if you were listening to the musicians live. The bouncing of sounds around the room and vibrations adds to its unique experience. It sounds different and its all around better.


----------



## aertus

5genez said:


> Those must be excellent active speakers!   The BBE works just as well with active and passive speakers.
> 
> I never tried the Blue Jean cables.   All cables and interconnects sonic signatures will now become obvious with the BBE.  Some grainy cables that were not obvious before because of the typically veiled speakers, will now be heard.  Because the closer you get to a realistic music sound you can hear the artifacts that get mixed in the sound. That does not make it bad.  Just makes hearing subtleties very easy to detect. Some people disliked the BBE when they did not realize it was exposing the weaknesses they could not hear before. The BBE in itself is very pure.
> 
> I find it hard to burn in different new components all at once.  For you will not know which component is causing what. I find that new units do not always sound very good when first listened to.  I always try to break in one component at a time to see how its contributing to the music I am hearing.


 
 whats the difference between two and which one is more preferable for home audio?


----------



## 5genez

aertus said:


> whats the difference between two and which one is more preferable for home audio?


 

 Two?  Which two do you speak of?


----------



## aertus

5genez said:


> Two?  Which two do you speak of?


 
 active vs passive speakers.


----------



## 5genez

aertus said:


> active vs passive speakers.


 

 All depends....,   The BBE works well with either.  With passive you have the option of changing sound by changing amplifiers.  But,  that does not mean actives won't sound wonderful. The better ones will.
  
 What really makes a difference is if the speakers are wired phase coherent.  That can be found with passive or active.  Not all multi way speakers are. Single, full range speakers are.
  
 Headphones, because it uses a single driver per channel, are phase coherent.  When you work with crossovers which involves utilizing different drivers, the speaker elements may not be working in phase with the other.  That is why I always wanted bookshelf speakers that I knew had first order crossovers which render the speakers phase coherent.  At present I am listening to full range drivers that have no crossover. Just like headphones...The BBE brings all good speakers to life in a way that can not be described adequately.


----------



## aertus

5genez said:


> All depends....,   The BBE works well with either.  With passive you have the option of changing sound by changing amplifiers.  But,  that does not mean actives won't sound wonderful. The better ones will.
> 
> What really makes a difference is if the speakers are wired phase coherent.  That can be found with passive or active.  Not all multi way speakers are. Single, full range speakers are.
> 
> Headphones, because it uses a single driver per channel, are phase coherent.  When you work with crossovers which involves utilizing different drivers, the speaker elements may not be working in phase with the other.  That is why I always wanted bookshelf speakers that I knew had first order crossovers which render the speakers phase coherent.  At present I am listening to full range drivers that have no crossover. Just like headphones...The BBE brings all good speakers to life in a way that can not be described adequately.


 
 yeah I think for home entertainment I best go with passive.
  
 also whats all this talk about speakers not being detailed? or not being enjoyable. if this was the case nobody would ever go watch bands live. Why do I have a feeling not many people on this forum go see music live and instead would prefer to listen to music on their expensive equipment. I think all of them have their use. On the go i want really good IEMs. For home I want great over ear headphone when there is people. and if i really want to enjoy music I would want great speaker set up. 
  
 and if I really wanna go out and enjoy a band I like i would go see them live cuz there is not much like it. Its like never going to the movies.


----------



## 5genez

aertus said:


> yeah I think for home entertainment I best go with passive.
> 
> also whats all this talk about speakers not being detailed? or not being enjoyable. if this was the case nobody would ever go watch bands live. Why do I have a feeling not many people on this forum go see music live and instead would prefer to listen to music on their expensive equipment. I think all of them have their use. On the go i want really good IEMs. For home I want great over ear headphone when there is people. and if i really want to enjoy music I would want great speaker set up.
> 
> and if I really wanna go out and enjoy a band I like i would go see them live cuz there is not much like it. Its like never going to the movies.


 
  
 BBE takes care a lot of that missing detail situation....  The BBE is designed to reverse the masking that speakers inherently produce.
  
 I am a musician.  Not many live performances I would really like to hear on recording... Yet,  I prefer my audio/video to be from live performances.


----------



## canali

jibzilla said:


> I have sort of come full circle when it comes to headphones and speakers. I was able to audition several $10-30k speaker setups at a friend of mines audio store and trying out $1-300 headphones when Amazon would let you try them for nothing. I could never really find any nitpicks with the $30k setups but they were way out of my price range. His $10k setups were amazing in their own right but I cold always find some fatal flaw and that was my max budget and back then way more than max budet. Saw that at $10k you could really afford the best of the best headphone wise and decided to go down that road. In the mean time I tried a bunch of powered speakers for my dj setup and bought a pair of adam a7x and sub8.
> 
> Several years latter I have tried most modern day flagship headphones and totl headphone amps and was really pleased with 2 headphones but found even they had pretty big nitpicks over the long haul. While I was buying, selling and going to meets I was also demoing TT's. My fiend who owned the audio store never had and Japan equipment for demo. It was mostly American and European and mostly cd player/dac as well. Took some advise from a member on Audio Kharma and bought and sold a few vintage japan TT's. I have never had such a good experience audio wise by a country mile. All of them blew me away till I got my current TT which works out perfect space and feature set wise and was just the icing on the cake.
> 
> Now I have an itch for vintage japan speakers that needs to be scratched. I'm holding on to my hd800 but I think that is it. Not sure what I will get yet. The adam's are amazing for what they are. Whatever I get will have some stiff competition.


 
  
 heck not only japanese speakers...but their amps, too...
  my bud loved his *shindo* hand made preamp and tube amp...each at about US$15k.
*http://www.shindo-laboratory.co.jp/*
  
 i'm coming around to enjoying the live sound from speakers
 (currently *Focal Alpha 50s*...but they don't take a sub, despite have good bass))
 such that i'm considering moving up to the mord $$$ *CMS series*...or Genelecs for my desktop rig
 (but crap: their subs alone are $2-3K...ouch!)...and even prefer sometimes my iems over my headphones
 (*FLC 8S and incoming Aurisonics 1-plus*)....but that said I might spring for a pair of* Sony Z1R* cans for a deal.
 with good speakers, there is just something about that live 3D sound...but I also love the resolution
 and detail I get from my cans and iems without having to spend $$$$ on a speaker system
 (and then have to deal with room treatment, bass traps, etc etc for the best sound)
  
 so i'm messed up, not totally happy in either camp (for now)...anyone else in the same boat?


----------



## aertus

5genez said:


> BBE takes care a lot of that missing detail situation....  The BBE is designed to reverse the masking that speakers inherently produce.
> 
> I am a musician.  Not many live performances I would really like to hear on recording... Yet,  I prefer my audio/video to be from live performances.


 
 do you think the BBE is necessary for casual use or is it mostly used by musicians for their studio monitors? I'd probably recommend depending on how expensive it is. I dont know technicalities of any of this so I don't exactly understand what it does or what it is but I think i'll take your word for it you seem to know whats up. 
  
 exactly, sometimes I definitely prefer live audio song over their recordings. However, whenever I listen to genres such as shoegaze or dream pop or anything that relies heavily on effect pedals it's very difficult to recreate the recorded studio sound in live. So it can go either way. But its a great experience to go see a musician live. I wonder if the ones used in concerts are of the highest quality avalaible.


----------



## 5genez

aertus said:


> do you think the BBE is necessary for casual use or is it mostly used by musicians for their studio monitors? I'd probably recommend depending on how expensive it is. I dont know technicalities of any of this so I don't exactly understand what it does or what it is but I think i'll take your word for it you seem to know whats up.
> 
> exactly, sometimes I definitely prefer live audio song over their recordings. However, whenever I listen to genres such as shoegaze or dream pop or anything that relies heavily on effect pedals it's very difficult to recreate the recorded studio sound in live. So it can go either way. But its a great experience to go see a musician live. I wonder if the ones used in concerts are of the highest quality avalaible.


 
  
 The BBE is for all reasons.  The circuit inside that little unit is the same as the Sonic Maximizer 482i version.( http://www.bbesound.com/products/sonic-maximizers/482i.aspx     )  ... The desktop unit is stereo, and the larger studio is dual mono. Some use the studio size for their audio system.  I just do not have the space for it.
  
 What it does is to remove a layer of a type of distortion that causes us to know we are listening to speakers, not real music. Its a step closer to reality. 
  
 I only use the Lo boost for my small speakers ... and only enough to bring the bass up to the same level as the rest of the music. I do not bother with the hi frequency processing because in nearfield, good speakers do not need it.  I think its needed for distance listening to give the tweeter more presence. It does not give you a bloated bass heavy sound like a tone control or EQ.  On live videos the bass sounds to scale with what I see on the video's stage. Keep in mind how live bass sounds when you are sitting back in the audience.   Its not in your face.  Its just there with the rest of the band.   I find it refreshing to listen with. Without it, it sounds dull and drab. (like small speakers playing music)


----------



## canali

5genez said:


> The BBE is for all reasons.  The circuit inside that little unit is the same as the Sonic Maximizer 482i version.( http://www.bbesound.com/products/sonic-maximizers/482i.aspx     )  ... The desktop unit is stereo, and the larger studio is dual mono. Some use the studio size for their audio system.  I just do not have the space for it.
> 
> What it does is to remove a layer of a type of distortion that causes us to know we are listening to speakers, not real music. Its a step closer to reality.
> 
> I only use the Lo boost for my small speakers ... and only enough to bring the bass up to the same level as the rest of the music. I do not bother with the hi frequency processing because in nearfield, good speakers do not need it.  I think its needed for distance listening to give the tweeter more presence. It does not give you a bloated bass heavy sound like a tone control or EQ.  On live videos the bass sounds to scale with what I see on the video's stage. Keep in mind how live bass sounds when you are sitting back in the audience.   Its not in your face.  Its just there with the rest of the band.   I find it refreshing to listen with. Without it, it sounds dull and drab. (like small speakers playing music)


 
  
 but am still unsure how to use it on a desktop rig if I don't have an amp?
*my gig is pretty simple: laptop as NAS...ethernet from wall/router to microrendu to DAC and then to choice of cans /iems or Focal active speakers*
  
 btw, BBE replied to my email and recommended the *282IR.*
_The best product we have that will fit your needs is the 282IR. Here is a link to our product page on it: http://www.bbesound.com/products/sonic-maximizers/282i.aspx_
_ _
_It will definitely get the best out of  your speakers, it has a relatively small footprint, and be simple to use._
_ _


----------



## 5genez

canali said:


> but am still unsure how to use it on a desktop rig if I don't have an amp?
> *my gig is pretty simple: laptop as NAS...ethernet from wall/router to microrendu to DAC and then to choice of cans /iems or Focal active speakers*
> 
> btw, BBE replied to my email and recommended the *282IR.*
> ...


 

 The speakers are their own amp.  No?  They have their own internal amps.   
  
 I believe if you look on the back of the BBE you will see two kinds of inputs and outputs.  I only use the RCA types.  But, the type of inputs used by your speakers may be the other kind,  like used for certain headphones.  But the BBE is not designed for headphones.
  
 You would run outputs from your DAC,  to the BBE inputs,  and then to your speakers.
  
 Look at the third picture down for the rear panel.  This version uses RCA, and the plug type that I believe may involve your speakers.
  
 Article and picture.... http://www.audiopolitan.com/blog/bbe-sound-282i-series-sonic-maximizers/


----------



## canali

5genez said:


> The speakers are their own amp.  No?  They have their own internal amps.
> 
> I believe if you look on the back of the BBE you will see two kinds of inputs and outputs.  I only use the RCA types.  But, the type of inputs used by your speakers may be the other kind,  like used for certain headphones.  But the BBE is not designed for headphones.
> 
> ...


 
  
 this is what i thought AFTER i'd sent it...however, many thanks for your courtesy...i appreciate the clarification.
 i just have to find who over here sells it in vancouver bc....probably local tom lee music or such.


----------



## 5genez

canali said:


> this is what i thought AFTER i'd sent it...however, many thanks for your courtesy...i appreciate the clarification.
> i just have to find who over here sells it in vancouver bc....probably local tom lee music or such.


 
  
  
 You're going to have to look around.   Its been discontinued recently.  It may be back in the future with a new look. In the mean time?  You may want to look at the 482i.  Its bigger and has lights not needed for desktop use.  Its also dual mono...makes it a little quieter. My system with the 282i is very quiet as is. 
  
 I had been considering taping over the lights if I ever had to buy one. This unit also has the same kind of inputs in the back. You should be able to find that model easily in Canada.  And,  you can use an audiophile power cord with it if you wish.
  

  
  
 You can learn about it here...    http://www.pssl.com/BBE-482i-Sonic-Maximizer-18


----------



## gregorio

Quote:


5genez said:


> [1] What it does is to remove a layer of a type of distortion that causes us to know we are listening to speakers, not real music. Its a step closer to reality.
> 
> [2] Sometimes I wish I could drag some of the audio experts into my messy room and have them take a seat to listen to hear what they have been missing.


 
  
 Some of the statements I see posted on head-fi are just mind boggling! It's just marketing nonsense repeated as gospel.
  
 1. No, it does NOT remove a layer or type of distortion! What it does is add bass and treble, remove some low mids and play with the phase of the signal. It's entirely possible that an individual listener might like (or dislike) this effect but regardless, it's not removing any distortion and it's NOT more accurate or a step closer to reality. This and similar Sonic Maximiser  units used to be applied to mixes moderately commonly 20+ years ago, to recreate the sheen and bass often lost with analogue mixing and distribution. As digital mixing has taken over, with it's very accurate phase and frequency response, the need and use of Sonic Maximisers has gradually died out. This is presumably why BBE is finally discontinuing it.
  
 2. I have heard the Sonic Maximiser many times and unfortunately you have it completely backwards, as it's what you are missing (low mids/high bass). I am not disputing that with your speakers, in your room and with your preferences, you do indeed find what you are missing to sound better. For everyone else out there though, this is NOT a magic box which will suddenly make your music collection sound more real, it's just a straight forward old analogue effects unit that distorts the sound and which you might or might not find likeable.
  
 G


----------



## 5genez

gregorio said:


> Quote:
> 
> Some of the statements I see posted on head-fi are just mind boggling! It's just marketing nonsense repeated as gospel.
> 
> ...


 
  
 It remove "a" distortion.... and as a result,  more typical audio distortions can be heard as a result.  Why?   Typical speakers mask what the BBE allows you to hear.  It places you on a new playing field. One that requires you either improve what you have and learn better ways to use it. Or, go back to hearing audio sounding less like real live music.  That's the problem that some have, and wish not to use it.  That's fine, if you wish.
  
 Its not simply a bass boost.   You will  never hear a tone control, nor typical EQ that can achieve what is done to the bass.
  
 In one of my correspondences with BBE I was told what is going on there.  I will quote why it is unlike bass boosters nor typical tone controls.  I have used both in the past  (bass boost and tone controls) and they only produce a boom box effect.  
  
 The BBE creates a deep, clear bass sound.  Its the best way I can describe it.  Its not muddy, it makes the bass sound real.  Bass drums punch through like real life.  It all depends upon your system's capacity.  But, those who have not heard it operate as it can sound jump to conclusions.  Sadly.,  to lose out.
  
 Only the desk top version (at present) has been discontinued. All the other models still flourish. The desk top versions tend to go through model changes after so many years.   I have about the fourth, and fifth generations of the desk top model.
  
 I now use full range speakers so I no longer need to use the Process function for the mid range and high end.  But, its so much better than a subwoofer for keeping your nearfield experience cohesive. In regards to using it for bottom end on smaller speakers?  This is what I was told by BBE support.
  
  
*Quote:*
  
_   "Yes, the Lo Contour control boosts the 50Hz area in a linear fashion up to 145Hz and the Process control. _
_    Unlike other tone control or graphic equalizer’s simple boost, the Process control can provide greater clarity _
_    with less boost."_
  
  
  
 There is a big difference.  The bass also goes through what is called "dynamic EQ."  It moves with the music. Typical tone controls and EQ's are not dynamic.
  
 I am no fan of Bose 901's.   But,  by substituting a BBE in place of the Bose equalizer some who have done it, and said its to improve those speakers very much.  EQ is dull in comparison.
  
 But, be that as it may.  I hope your opinion is not based upon hearsay, but is based upon you taking the time to find out first hand. For, I have seen many improvements rejected based upon subjective speculation of individuals unwilling to try a product. 
  
 I would not have my Pangea power cords if I had listened to their nay saying.  And, I would not have found out how much better they sound over the typical stock cords.


----------



## jibzilla

canali said:


> heck not only japanese speakers...but their amps, too...
> my bud loved his *shindo* hand made preamp and tube amp...each at about US$15k.
> *http://www.shindo-laboratory.co.jp/*
> 
> ...


 
  
 I ended up getting Sony APM 4's and WOW. I know it is new toy syndrome and all but WOW. Lets just say my amazing experience with vintage japan TT's continues. The Adam's were great for what they were but they are getting dramatically not subtly beaten right now.
  
 Could very well be the amplifier but I have recently gone back to the Ravenswood so it is getting the same preamp as the Adams and I decided I am keeping the Ravenswood. I have read that Inspire owners and Denis himself have said you really need to pair the pre (lp27a) and power amp (fire bottle SE) together but I have found the Ravenswood pre to be pretty awesome in its own right.


----------



## gregorio

5genez said:


> [1] It remove "a" distortion....
> [2] Typical speakers mask what the BBE allows you to hear.
> [3] It places you on a new playing field. One that requires you either improve what you have and learn better ways to use it. Or, go back to hearing audio sounding less like real live music.  That's the problem that some have, and wish not to use it.  That's fine, if you wish.
> [4] Its not simply a bass boost.
> ...


 
  
 I'm not sure where to start with your response. It seems like:
 A. You didn't even read my post before responding,
 B. You are making/repeating incorrect factual statements and just making-up some magical properties to explain your personal opinions/observations and
 C. You are continually trying to foist your personal subjective opinions on everyone else. You can't keep casting aspersions or using veiled insults against anyone who doesn't agree with you because they have different systems, listening environments or preferences!
  
 1. This is an example of A and B. It does NOT remove distortions, it does not even attempt to identify distortion, let alone remove it!
 2. Another example of A and B. There is no speaker masking and the BBE does NOT magically remove it. The BBE just boosts bass and treble, so what it "allows you to hear" is more bass and treble!
 3. An example of C. It does NOT make music sound more live, although it may appear that way to you on your system, with your preferences. You CANNOT therefore use veiled insults about the "problem that some have". If anything, the "problem" is yours! Probably a poor system, system setup and/or poor listening environment, which just happens to be improved by boosting the bass and treble.
 4. An example of A and B again. Firstly, if you'd read my post, you'd have seen that I did not say it was only a bass booster! Secondly, you even posted a quote from BBE themselves who stated that it does in fact "_boosts the 50Hz area in a linear fashion up to 145Hz"_.
 5. An example of C. You may not have heard EQ's or tone controls which can achieve what you are hearing with your system but you CANNOT tell me or anyone else what I will never hear!
 6. B again: You are almost certainly not using "full range speakers", which by the professional definition of "full range" would need to be capable of a reasonably linear response from about 20Hz up to about 20kHz. Secondly, there are no full range speakers I'm aware of which are designed to be used "nearfield". And lastly, why would full range speakers make any difference to the mid and high end? A good set of bookshelf or nearfield monitors should have a good mid and high end, it's the low end where they roll-off early and are not therefore "full range".
 7. B and C: Firstly, if it is a dynamic EQ which "moves with the music", then it is not linear as stated in the quote from BBE! Secondly, in pretty much all popular music genres some form of dynamic EQ (or Sonic Maximiser type effect) has probably already been applied to the bass (and other) freqs by the mix and/or mastering engineers! Maybe your system/environment has a particularly weak bass response or maybe you just like even more/over processed bass freqs, which subjectively sounds more natural/live to you?
 8. A again. Why do you need to "hope" that, didn't you read my post?
 9. That's a strange observation, I've fairly rarely seen that. I have however seen many occasions where a claimed improvement can be rejected based upon objective fact and therefore a listening test may not be necessary. Again though, none of this is applicable in this case as I've heard the Sonic Maximiser many times, I also quite commonly use different types of dynamic EQ, Aural Exciters and other tools which can achieve the same results but are more flexible.
  
 G


----------



## PETEBULL

In favour of headphones:
  
 1. perfect positioning around listener
 This won't work on speakers as it should:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDTlvagjJA
 Competitive gaming is one more thing speakers can't
  
 2. Most headphones are single band while speakers need 2 or more with a crossover. This does not contribute to spectre continuity.
  
 3. Sub-bass may only be achieved with a speaker of 15 inch in diameter or more while with headphones it is not a problem.
  
 4. Treble direction is often too narrow so that you only have one position where treble sounds best.
  
  
 In favour of speakers:
  
 1. No stuff stuffed into or stacked onto your head.
  
 2. Feel sound with your body.
  
 3. Don't need a unit per person.


----------



## 5genez

In the mean time... I am hearing things you can not.  So? Where can I begin?    You must take the suggestion I offered if you wish to refute my claims. If you don't?   What are you basing your responses upon?  What?


----------



## draytonklammer

I LOVE my headphones (Abyss AB-1266, Utopia -- used to have the LCD-4 and HE-1000)
 but my Martin Logans hold their own very well.
  
 If I need to listen quietly, I reach for my headphones.
 If I play games I go for the headphones.
 If I want poor recordings to sound a bit better, headphones.
 If I want more intricate detail and analytics in some areas, headphones.
  
 If I want to tear up sometimes, speakers.
 If I want to feel the music, speakers.
 If I want to feel like I was at a live performance, speakers.
 If I want real sub bass, speakers.
  
 Honestly, if I had a slightly better room for it, and better living circumstances I would only ever listen to my Martin Logans.
 I don't, and will not for a long time, which means my headphone stand their ground proudly.
  
 Hell, to be honest, it amazes me how well my headphones hold up compared to my speakers.


----------



## exsomnis

5genez said:


> In the mean time... I am hearing things you can not.  So? Where can I begin?    You must take the suggestion I offered if you wish to refute my claims. If you don't?   What are you basing your responses upon?  What?


 
  
 There are going to be people who don't mind tweaking and twiddling around with their sound until they get the sound that they feel like they want to hear. These are people like yourself, who will intentionally use equalizers, DSPs, tube stages and various other methods to achieve it.
  
 And then there will be others who believe that the integrity of the sound source should be preserved from sound source to sound reproduction - where all parts of the signal chain should maintain the highest fidelity in maintaining that integrity without altering, enhancing or detracting from the sound in any way. In our case, if the amplifier or DAC or speakers or headphones are limited in any way, we swap them out.
  
 There is also the fact that not all recordings are created equal - there are excellent, audiophile grade recordings that sound amazing on decent enough hardware but the genre has no appeal. On the other hand, the music that you love might not be recorded with high fidelity in mind. No system will play all audio sources excellently and in fact, the best systems will expose bad recordings for what they are.
  
 If you feel that you have to enhance the sound of recordings that you like, then fair play to you. Just don't try to convince other people that you have a magic solution that will make all music recordings sound fantastic. There is no such thing. 
  
 I am personally getting fantastic results with my Harbeth P3ESR2, an Audio-gd DAC-19 and an Onkyo A-9010 integrated amplifier. No equalizer, no DSP, nothing modifying the sound signal in anyway. On the right recordings, the vocalist is singing right in front of me, in my living room. Trumpets are palpable and their transients naturally decay into the air. Pianos are liquid, as they sound like in real life. Drums sound like they're being drummed right there. I'm in the club or recording studio or the concert hall with the musicians. I close my eyes and I can see the individual performers in my mind because even with my eyes open, the sound doesn't seem to be coming out of the speakers only. It is, instead, as they like to say, a wall of sound.
  
 That is something I've been looking for for quite some time and I've found it. I just needed the right speakers and good speaker placement.


----------



## gregorio

5genez said:


> [1] I am hearing things you can not.  [2]  You must take the suggestion I offered if you wish to refute my claims. If you don't? [3]  What are you basing your responses upon?  What?


 
  
 1. You have absolutely no idea what audio experience I have, you know nothing about my hearing acuity/training and nothing about my equipment/listening environment. Your statement is therefore ridiculous, as you have absolutely no idea what I can or cannot hear! It's most likely that the exact opposite of your statement is true, that I can hear things which you cannot.
 2. What suggestion, that I come to your "messy room" and listen to your setup? If so, then yet again you are not reading the posts to which your are responding!! I have NOT refuted your claim of what you are hearing (or believe you are hearing) in your room or your subjective opinion of it. I am refuting your claim of: A. What the Sonic Maximiser is actually doing to the signal going to your speakers and B. That your room/setup, personal preferences and subjective opinion would apply to everyone else!
 3. I've very clearly stated (twice now!) that I've heard the Sonic Maximiser on many occasions. I've also stated that I've personally used the Sonic Maximiser and commonly use other (more flexible) tools which can achieve the same effect. This is what I'm basing my responses on, have I not made that clear?!
  
 I could go into more detail about my experience but that wouldn't in any way help your argument and besides, this discussion is getting silly because you are not reading (or not understanding) the posts to which you are responding and are making ever more ridiculous statements.
  
 G


----------



## 5genez

> . 2. What suggestion, that I come to your "messy room" and listen to your setup? If so, then yet again you are not reading the posts to which your are responding!! I have NOT refuted your claim of what you are hearing (or believe you are hearing) in your room or your subjective opinion of it. I am refuting your claim of: A. What the Sonic Maximiser is actually doing to the signal going to your speakers and B. That your room/setup, personal preferences and subjective opinion would apply to everyone else!
> 3. I've very clearly stated (twice now!) that I've heard the Sonic Maximiser on many occasions. I've also stated that I've personally used the Sonic Maximiser and commonly use other (more flexible) tools which can achieve the same effect. This is what I'm basing my responses on, have I not made that clear?!
> 
> I could go into more detail about my experience but that wouldn't in any way help your argument and besides, this discussion is getting silly because you are not reading (or not understanding) the posts to which you are responding and are making ever more ridiculous statements.
> ...


 
 Why have you heard it so much if its no good?   Its an honest question.  There are things to learn about its use.  That's why I am here.  Unless its set up correctly you will miss its benefits that can be realized.    Its seems you are not positive towards the BBE.   Am I reading that part wrong? I would have to know what were your experiences to validate them.   I have been using a Maximizer in its various version since the 80's .... apparently I have been using it correctly.  People have commented on what they heard.  One audiophile was astonished.  Another person was amazed at how good a soundtrack on a game even sounded. 
  
 What are you trying to establish about the BBE?  It seems I can not read you correctly.  Maybe you should try a more direct approach?
  
  


gregorio said:


> 1. You have absolutely no idea what audio experience I have, you know nothing about my hearing acuity/training and nothing about my equipment/listening environment. Your statement is therefore ridiculous, as you have absolutely no idea what I can or cannot hear! It's most likely that the exact opposite of your statement is true, that I can hear things which you cannot.


 
 You're assuming mine.....   Aren't you?    So, where are we?


----------



## jibzilla

You made your point now can you please let this go. I am so sick of hearing about equalizer's. The hd800 thread is now the Sonar works 3 thread thanks to this garbage.


----------



## 5genez

exsomnis said:


> There are going to be people who don't mind tweaking and twiddling around with their sound until they get the sound that they feel like they want to hear. These are people like yourself, who will intentionally use equalizers, DSPs, tube stages and various other methods to achieve it.
> 
> And then there will be others who believe that the integrity of the sound source should be preserved from sound source to sound reproduction - where all parts of the signal chain should maintain the highest fidelity in maintaining that integrity without altering, enhancing or detracting from the sound in any way. In our case, if the amplifier or DAC or speakers or headphones are limited in any way, we swap them out.


 
  I have sold audio (hi end).....  The subjective integrity of the sound is designed into each speaker.   No two speakers sound alike. No two amps.   No two DACs. No two TT's.  No two headphones even...
  
  There is no true integrity to be found.  Just different effects on the play back. Some designs eliminate distortions that others ignore.  Just using different speaker cables will alter the "integrity."  Using different phone cables can greatly effect what we hear. The key is.... to find something that most achieves what hearing live music produces in your soul. 
  
 How it makes you feel when music is good.  If anyone thinks there is an Absolute Sound to be gotten?   um umm... its not there. With the BBE some will just love how it makes their particular system to sound. If they listen to those who did not like how it made their particular system sound,  they will miss out.     And,  the ones who did not like it?   With a few tips may have learned why it was not working for them...
  
 Open minds. Closed minds.    Where do we go in this world?


----------



## gregorio

5genez said:


> I have sold audio (hi end).....


 
  
 And still are by all appearances, which explains a great deal! I've already answered your questions in previous posts, so we'd just be going round in circles and I agree with the previous poster, enough off topic marketing of an 1980's effects unit.
  
 G


----------



## 5genez

gregorio said:


> And still are by all appearances, which explains a great deal! I've already answered your questions in previous posts, so we'd just be going round in circles and I agree with the previous poster, enough off topic marketing of an 1980's effects unit.
> 
> G


 

 Its been through various generations of improvements since then. Interesting point... My refurbished Mac 275, made in the 60's?   You would have liked very much to have now. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 The BBE contains a proprietary chip manufactured by the same Japanese company that brought us their excellent audiophile Muses chips. 
  
 I placed a Muses 01 into my NuForce HAP-100. Until I may have different input, or output needs?  Its a keeper.


----------



## gregorio

> Originally Posted by *5genez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Interesting point...


 
  
 No, none of that was the least bit interesting, it wasn't even on topic. Again, enough of the off topic marketing!!!
  
 G


----------



## 5genez

gregorio said:


> No, none of that was the least bit interesting, it wasn't even on topic. Again, enough of the off topic marketing!!!
> 
> G


 
   
Its on topic!   I brought up the Sonic Maximizer because (when implemented with some know how) it can make good nearfield speakers accomplish some of the stronger points that one gets from headphones.  Its not off topic at all.   But,  an enhancement to the topic of "Speakers vs Headphones."   That is why I brought up the BBE in the first place.

  
 Please... Let others think for themselves.   There are people who love what a BBE does in their hi-end systems.  You are not one of them.   Let others think for themselves. 
  

 I do not work for an audio company to be involved with what you referred to as "marketing."  In contrast... You're sounding too much like you would want to be working for a bureaucracy that wants to dictate to people what they should listen to. 
 You had a bad experience with an older model BBE.. OK. In the mean time..  I find you very rude, condescending, and dismissive of something that would benefit maybe a few here who you are trying to discourage. They might willing to learn something that you don't want them to.


----------



## exsomnis

5genez said:


> I have sold audio (hi end).....  The subjective integrity of the sound is designed into each speaker.   No two speakers sound alike. No two amps.   No two DACs. No two TT's.  No two headphones even...
> 
> There is no true integrity to be found.  Just different effects on the play back. Some designs eliminate distortions that others ignore.  Just using different speaker cables will alter the "integrity."  Using different phone cables can greatly effect what we hear. The key is.... to find something that most achieves what hearing live music produces in your soul.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I love how you conveniently ignore the part where I achieved lovely sound already - all without any extraneous equipment. And yes, the music feels great too.   
  
 I have an open mind but I close it off to snake oil marketing when I see it. I've been around hifi for 25 years and I've seen a lot of hifi marketing BS. 
  
 The simplest fact is plainly obvious. If this device were truly as amazing as you claim it is, then why isn't it already a must have hifi enthusiast system component? It has been around for a while hasn't it? Why do none of the major hifi publications even mention it, let alone have a review?
  
 Because it either has a negative effect on SQ or it is entirely irrelevant to high fidelity reproduction of music.


----------



## 5genez

exsomnis said:


> I have an open mind but I close it off to snake oil marketing when I see it. I've been around hifi for 25 years and I've seen a lot of hifi marketing BS.


 
 So... Now I am supposed to accept that I am a BS artist?   Nice way to resolve this issue.  
  
 I worked in audio back in the 70's.  Met some very influential and smart people. Some were designers and technicians.  I have not lost contact with such folks.
  
 I too have seen a lot marketing BS. I have also had contact with people in the industry that have given me valuable tips and advice.  The audio industry is wide and diverse.


----------



## exsomnis

5genez said:


> So... Now I am supposed to accept that I am a BS artist?   Nice way to resolve this issue.
> 
> I worked in audio back in the 70's.  Met some very influential and smart people. Some were designers and technicians.  I have not lost contact with such folks.
> 
> I too have seen a lot marketing BS. I have also had contact with people in the industry that have given me valuable tips and advice.  The audio industry is wide and diverse.


 
  
 The simplest fact is plainly obvious. If this device were truly as amazing as you claim it is, then why isn't it already a must have hifi enthusiast system component? It has been around for a while hasn't it? Why do none of the major hifi publications even mention it, let alone have a review?
  
 Because it either has a negative effect on SQ or it is entirely irrelevant to high fidelity reproduction of music.


----------



## 5genez

exsomnis said:


> The simplest fact is plainly obvious. If this device were truly as amazing as you claim it is, then why isn't it already a must have hifi enthusiast system component? It has been around for a while hasn't it? Why do none of the major hifi publications even mention it, let alone have a review?
> 
> Because it either has a negative effect on SQ or it is entirely irrelevant to high fidelity reproduction of music.


 
 Everyone could be listening to something like tubes if your logic were to be consistent.   But, only a minority do.
  
 The general market is mostly geared towards those who don't really understand audio very well.  Ask an experienced audio salesmen who now sell, or have sold audio.  Those inside the industry don't have the same systems many times that the market gravitates to. I have seen some excellent products rejected because the average audiophile does not have someone to show them how to extract the most from their system.
  
 I remember selling to a nice couple a system that I put together for them.  One I personally auditioned in my home.  The boss would have been angry if he knew I sold them something for a lot less than what the ongoing opinion was.
  
 A few weeks later that same couple came back and thanked me personally.  They kept thanking me. They showed gratitude. They knew they got their money's worth.  I used to have conflicts with some of the other salesmen because they would push and sell the marketing BS to get the bigger dollars. Why did they do it?  Easy...  That's what the average person walking into an audio shop ends up with.   Not always.... But, often times, people are not sold what is best for their needs.  They are told things to make them think its their need.  The BBE  units I have been pointing to are not costly.  You can buy the larger unit (482i) with a 30 day money back guarantee in many places.


----------



## exsomnis

5genez said:


> Everyone could be listening to something like tubes if your logic were to be consistent.   But, only a minority do.
> 
> The general market is mostly geared towards those who don't really understand audio very well.  Ask an experienced audio salesmen who now sell, or have sold audio.  Those inside the industry don't have the same systems many times that the market gravitates to. I have seen some excellent products rejected because the average audiophile does not have someone to show them how to extract the most from their system.


 
  
 So what you're saying is, we should just take your word from it, trust some random person on the internet and go ahead and buy this device that claims to improve your SQ - when no expert reviewer or Hifi publication has ever mentioned it anywhere? 
  
 Ok, I'm done feeding. Unsubbed.


----------



## 5genez

exsomnis said:


> So what you're saying is, we should just take your word from it, trust some random person on the internet and go ahead and buy this device that claims to improve your SQ - when no expert reviewer or Hifi publication has ever mentioned it anywhere?


 
  
 Here is quite a list *of customer reviews *of the 482i.  This is the dual mono version of what I was talking about. 
  
  
*66 reviews* with a 92% getting a 5 star review says something.
  
 6% gave four stars.  and...
  
 Only 2% gave one star.  (there will always be those who don't like it)
   
 

https://www.amazon.com/BBE-Sound-482i-Sonic-Maximizer/dp/B0002FDKIW#customerReviews


----------



## snellemin

I've been using hardware BBE since the 90's in cars.  Came standard with Alpine units.  After that it was software BBE on my Iphone, Andriod and PC.  My home speaker system always had some sort of sound processing enabled. But for the past years it has an old school BBE 462 Sonic Maximizer and I also use a more compact version BBE 282iR for semi portable use.  
  
  
  
 I very much like my headphone setups to sound like my home speaker setups and not the other way around.


----------



## goodvibes

Takes more care to get a home in room system reasonably good but when there, I much prefer the experience to ear/headphones and I've owned great examples of both. From Stax to Quads to JHA customs to Dynaudio C4s. I think most home systems are held back by spec bias and folks not actually listening to differences under good conditions.


----------



## jibzilla

5genez said:


> Its on topic!   I brought up the Sonic Maximizer because (when implemented with some know how) it can make good nearfield speakers accomplish some of the stronger points that one gets from headphones.  Its not off topic at all.   But,  an enhancement to the topic of "Speakers vs Headphones."   That is why I brought up the BBE in the first place.
> 
> Please... Let others think for themselves.   There are people who love what a BBE does in their hi-end systems.  You are not one of them.   Let others think for themselves.
> 
> ...


 
  
 It is off topic. The only thing it is enhancing is your fanboyism for it which we have gotten for some time now. To keep going on and on about it is essentially calling the rest of us ignorant especially when asked politely to stop. Again we get it and please stop. If you wanna bring it up for a couple posts fine but this product is not a speaker and not a headphone and therefore off topic.


----------



## jibzilla

For me headphones is a personal experience where speakers are a shared experience. Still I like a shared experience when it's just me in the room sometimes. I think it mostly boils down to soundstage (speakers) and detail (headphones) but I do not think that is the whole story. My hd800's are pretty good at soundstage and my APM 4's are pretty good at detail so I know that is not the whole story.


----------



## 5genez

jibzilla said:


> It is off topic. The only thing it is enhancing is your fanboyism for it which we have gotten for some time now. To keep going on and on about it is essentially calling the rest of us ignorant especially when asked politely to stop. Again we get it and please stop. If you wanna bring it up for a couple posts fine but this product is not a speaker and not a headphone and therefore off topic.


 

 You just tried to usurp by being polite.  
  
 The point is. If speakers are going to do a better job at doing something that headphones do?  Then you answer the question as to why I introduced what I did into the equation.
  
 The purpose of this thread is the end resulting in success.  Not a contest with imposed restrictions as your "polite" approach just tried to accomplish.
  
 You like headphones?  They are great for certain things.  Speakers are great for certain things.  
  
 The BBE advances the speakers into a realm that headphones alone have (until now) held onto.
  
 That,  I will not change.   That does not in any way mean headphones have been made obsolete. For private listening they are the king.


----------



## 5genez

goodvibes said:


> Takes more care to get a home in room system reasonably good but when there, I much prefer the experience to ear/headphones and I've owned great examples of both. From Stax to Quads to JHA customs to Dynaudio C4s. I think most home systems are held back by spec bias and folks not actually listening to differences under good conditions.


 

 In room can be very frustrating to get the set up "just right."  In contrast, headphones align everything within a millimeter by default.   Live music is heard in rooms, not in our heads.  Don't get me wrong please.. I am not knocking it that much.  After my early experience with Sennheiser headphones and a headphone amp... I knew that speakers smeared certain things that I would love see eliminated in the speaker environment.   That is when I discovered the BBE systems.  And,  stayed with it since.
  
 The new problems I found introduced with using the BBE?   Transparency.  It made inferior cables and interconnects obvious to hear.   Not to mention power cords.  Of course, amplifiers and DACs were able to be analyzed as well as one can with headphones.
  
 Its a challenge for me.  I once had a beautiful dream and heard and saw on an audio-video system what was impossible to achieve at that time.  The technology did not exist. Today technology is getting us to where I may see that dream come true. Without a vision our audio systems stagnate. Those who improve audio (and video) I believe must be visionary.


----------



## 5genez

snellemin said:


> I've been using hardware BBE since the 90's in cars.  Came standard with Alpine units.  After that it was software BBE on my Iphone, Andriod and PC.  My home speaker system always had some sort of sound processing enabled. But for the past years it has an old school BBE 462 Sonic Maximizer and I also use a more compact version BBE 282iR for semi portable use.
> 
> 
> 
> I very much like my headphone setups to sound like my home speaker setups and not the other way around.


 

   The BBE will cause problems for those who want a simple set it and forget it system. I find moving just one speaker a hairs breath will change the entire sound and impact.... Stereo is an illusion that requires precision to get it to live up to its purpose.  Like focusing a microscope.
  
 Here is an article by Steven Stone where he mentions this effect (not using a BBE)... its got to do with transparency and quality sound reproduction. BBE enhances such transparency!
  
*"After initial setup, I found that extremely small changes in the speakers' physical locations could result in big differences in soundstage presentation. Even a cat brushing the speakers as it walked across my desk could move the speakers enough that they required repositioning." * http://hometheaterreview.com/role-audio-canoe-loudspeaker-reviewed/


----------



## jibzilla

5genez said:


> You just tried to usurp by being polite.
> 
> The point is. If speakers are going to do a better job at doing something that headphones do?  Then you answer the question as to why I introduced what I did into the equation.
> 
> ...


 
  
 We get it. You wont change. You done yet?


----------



## 5genez

jibzilla said:


> We get it. You wont change. You done yet?


 
  
  
 I have no reason to change simply because you reject something that others can benefit greatly from.


----------



## penmarker

Both of you are distracting, please continue this elsewhere. We have been very civil and tolerant to this banter but from this point on I won't hesitate to report or use harsher words.


----------



## 5genez

Fair enough....


----------



## canali

to bring it back on topic, i find i need both tools headphones and cans.
  
 headphones for their intimate resolution, but the bigger more visceral sound from quality speakers
 (and yet for speakers all that placement and  adding of bass traps, room calibration is not for me).
  
 i just started my desktop gig with my Focal Alpha 50s**...and am now considering stepping up into the larger 65s
 or even the double the price CMS series...i find i listen to music more at my desk vs the living room...i'm not one
 to sit on a couch and get lost in music or just do that....i find instead being able to surf, do things on my laptop
 while listening to good sound is where i'm at.
  
 i also know that Elac and Dynaudio make powered speakers, too.
  
 unsure to stick with active or go the passive route: but all that clutter (amp, more wires) etc is a bit of a turnoff.
  
 **laptop as NAS to microrendu/ultracaps power supply to DAC to iems/cans/powered Focal speakers.
  
 update: now have been offered a swell deal on a Naim Muso too...decisions.


----------



## fliz

Can confirm..

 After getting a good room and good speakers, I don't listen to headphones anymore.


----------



## samhain1969

I don't know what type of speaker setup you have, placement, specs, etc. they are so I cannot/will not pass judgement nor comment on them...
  
 However, I will say this... 
  
 After having using P-N-P desktop speakers, in all formats (2.0, 2.1, 5.1) from various manufacturers such as JBL, Altec-Lansing, Logitech, Bose, Midiland and Corsair up until 2014... They simply cannot AND will never compete with true monitor and/or passive bookshelf speakers (powered w/AVR, integrated, amp, etc.) for power, detailed sound, sound-stage (as you mentioned) and overall presence of the sound.
  
 I am not bragging I am simply stating my PC sound system as it is and for music (and gaming), I am simply stunned especially for what it is and for the price-point of everything:
  
 - Klipsch RB-81 II Ref. Series Bookshelf; 2 each placed on my desktop, facing forward, either side of my 27" monitor
 - Klipsch RW-12D Subwoofer; placed on left-hand side of PC desk due to space in a 10" x 12" room
 - Onkyo TX-NR809 AVR; set to "stereo" w/Music Optimizer set to "On" as the only sound mod
 - Speaker wires are 10 ga/oxy-free w/gold-plate banana-plug connecters; bi-wired to the AVR
 - Monster Cable subwoofer cable used from sub to AVR
 - Creative SoundBlaster ZxR PCI-e internal soundcard w/2 Monster RCA cables connected to the AVR; one of if not the best card for
   EMI shielding​ and just overall for any format use
  
 I'll admit that I have different sound profiles within the SB Pro Studio...  But, One is for Gaming, one is for listening to Sirius XM (has a rather anemic sound transmission) and one set for FLAT, so that nothing is boosted or equalized when listening to my iTunes and LP's.
  
 Again, for music this setup is amazing for what it is and for gaming... Forget it, it's the perfect marriage!
  
 I will admit though, that I am curious about looking into an integrated-amp for even better sound BUT would require a sub-out or require some ingenuity on my part and compare side-by-side at my desk.
  
 Headphones are great for music (and gaming) but having your sitting position filled with sound, it's full-presence and then feeling it too, simply cannot be replicated by any headphone at any price-point.


----------



## fliz

Nothing feels like live music in the room like properly placed high efficiency speakers.


----------



## snellemin

fliz said:


> Nothing feels like live music in the room like properly placed high efficiency speakers.


----------



## aertus

snellemin said:


>


 
 holy **** ridiculous. what are those two things in the middle of the speakers? who would own and buy something like thsi. what is this holy ****.
  
 also I think its fairly obvious speakers are ahead of headphones. In fact the best headphones try to emulate the sound of speakers/live music like the mdrz1r


----------



## ProtegeManiac

aertus said:


> holy **** ridiculous. what are those two things in the middle of the speakers?


 
  
 The amps.


----------



## jibzilla

protegemaniac said:


> The amps.


 
  
 It takes some digging but I think that might be one area where headphones have an advantage.


----------



## snellemin




----------



## aertus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8O_jZhpl4
  
 german engineering at its finest. 
  
 also, seems a bit excessive why not just go watch live shows. Why invest in a system thats even better than what the musicians themselfs have.


----------



## ProtegeManiac

jibzilla said:


> protegemaniac said:
> 
> 
> > The amps.
> ...


 
 
Yes and no. Yes, some headphones won't need a stand alone amp, they can work off a device with a headphone output, which _technically_ is an amp, while some speakers do come with a small amp built into the cabinets. No, or more accurately, not really if you take into account how the wide range of headphone impedance can make amp design harder than speakers for which you only need to design the amp to deliver power (and current) between 4ohms and 8ohms for the most part.
 
If anything the real advantage is that it's easier to have a headphone (or heck, an IEM) that will cover a wider swathe of the 20hz to 20000hz with a relatively smooth curve vs finding a speaker that can cover the same with a reasonably smooth curve at the distance the speaker is designed to work while remaining compact and having amps built into the cabinet (with no need for additional equipment other than the source). In this case, you're more likely to find 3in or smaller FR drivers or midwoofers with a tweeter in 2-way config that covers 100hz to 10000hz (higher for 2-way configs, but crappy designs tend to have badly designed crossovers, which is why in many cheaper compact speakers, an FR driver is more often used), while it's easy enough to find a headphone that goes a little bit deeper past 100hz.


----------



## gregorio

aertus said:


> Why invest in a system thats even better than what the musicians themselfs have.


 
  
 It depends on what you mean by systems that the musicians themselves have. The musicians themselves may have poorer home systems but compared to the systems in commercial studios, where the musicians are actually making the music, the system in the video is probably little better than a toy! The system in the video is plagued by audiophile myth, which has wasted a large chunk of the $1m spent and made no difference to the overall performance or even in some cases actually made it worse. As an analogy, if you were to spend $2m on a La Ferrari, at the end of the day you wouldn't get any actual performance benefit over say a Ford Focus if all you had to drive on were a field. That's what we've got here, a $1m system that could probably be bettered performance wise by a system costing a hundredth of the price. Like a car and the surface you've got to drive on, a speaker system's performance is limited by the acoustics of the room they're placed in. The room acoustics in the video appear to be terrible and the only thing done of any practical benefit to improve this situation is a rug on the wall?! Commercial studios address the issue of audio performance a completely opposite approach; they certainly don't skimp on the cost of their speakers but they spend far more on construction/acoustics because that's where you get the real performance bang for the buck! And those tape decks are definitely a toy, very expensive toys no doubt but toys nonetheless. Even semi-pro demo studios back in the analogue days wouldn't have used 1/4" tape decks and the units which the pros did use (Studer 2" decks for example) can still out performed by some of today's #99 ADCs/DACs. And, there's a lot more problems and wasted money with this system than just these two examples!
  
 The guy obviously has enormous pride of ownership and loves his system, it might even sound half-decent but he's almost certainly not even in the same ball park as the studios where successful musicians are creating music!
  
 G


----------



## LazyListener

IMO, and limited experience, *dollar for dollar*, headphones provide a better overall listening experience than speakers.  My $220 modest HD 598 / Fiio E10K set up does so many things so much better than my $2000 Polk RT1000P / Outlaw Audio set up.  The only thing the room setup does better is lower bass extension and more bass impact.  Headphone setup kills it in terms of detail, clarity, resolution, treble smoothness, and even soundstage and imaging.


----------



## penmarker

lazylistener said:


> IMO, and limited experience, *dollar for dollar*, headphones provide a better overall listening experience than speakers.  My $220 modest HD 598 / Fiio E10K set up does so many things so much better than my $2000 Polk RT1000P / Outlaw Audio set up.  The only thing the room setup does better is lower bass extension and more bass impact.  Headphone setup kills it in terms of detail, clarity, resolution, treble smoothness, and even *soundstage and imaging*.


 
 We could have different opinions on soundstage and imaging. Headphones will never be able to replicate what a good speaker setup can do. I've listened to a lof of high end headphone setups, though they do provide enjoyment and musicality, the soundstage can never be out of your head and holographic. Imaging just is as good as headphones can be as well because headphones do not have a natural crossfade  like you're listening to a pair of speakers. You get auditory cues on where the instruments are, but you can't 'see' where they are in the space in front of you.

 We can argue there are albums mastered for headphones/IEMs like the Chesky Records' that provides great imaging and soundstaging, but then we're going into the realms of "Best Case Scenario". Even then, they are only attempts to simulate a pair of good loudspeaker setup in a treated room without the actual thing. SPL also has the Phonitor series amplifier that has crossfade settings allowing your headphones to emulate the sound of speakers, but then again they are emulations at best. And if we intend to get those kinds of sounds then speakers will be a better choice.
  
 Different horses for different courses.


----------



## LazyListener

@penmarker
  
 Fair enough.  I can see that.  But dollar for dollar?  What $220 speaker/amp setup can do that better than my 598/E10K?  My Polk/Outlaw Audio room setup never did soundstage and imaging particularly well.  With my 598s, I hear more precise positioning when it exists in the recording and can really nail down even subtle movements side to side.  The room is more challenging.  The sounds kind of all just melt together.  I can hear C, L, R, but not so much subtle in-between movement and precising positioning like I can with 598.  Sure the sounstage is bigger with the room setup but the imaging is not as precise. I've positioned speakers best I could but it's not the same level as the 598.
  
 I'm just saying I think you have to spend a lot more money with speakers than with headphones before the speakers start doing most things better than the headphones.  Dollar for dollar, headphones rule supreme, IMO and limited experience.


----------



## aertus

even through youtube this soudns amazing? holy crap imagine in real life. 
  
 I wish i had enough money for this and the roof.


----------



## gregorio

lazylistener said:


> I'm just saying I think you have to spend a lot more money with speakers than with headphones before the speakers start doing most things better than the headphones.  Dollar for dollar, headphones rule supreme, IMO and limited experience.


 
  
 That all depends on how you define "better" and that's the problem with any discussion of headphones vs speakers. With headphones we have an artificially wide and close stereo image, the over presentation of some details and the under presentation of others, is this actually "better" or just more enjoyable? If by "better" we mean more accurate and closer to the intentions of those who created the recording, then probably not. If we mean more enjoyable, then obviously that's a matter of personal taste. The difficulty in such discussions (and indeed many audiophile discussions) is that many confuse "more enjoyable" with "better".
  


aertus said:


> even through youtube this soudns amazing? holy crap imagine in real life.


 
  
 Really? The bass resonance is woolly/poorly defined, the early reflections/echoes make the vocal sound like they're in a large toilet and apart from the reflections, the whole thing sounds mono. Without access to the recording for comparison, there's no way of knowing if these problems are the fault of the recording itself or of the system/room trying to reproduce it but either way, it doesn't sound amazing to me.
  
 G


----------



## Music Alchemist

Talk about a 180. I previously said that I preferred the more intimate presentation of headphones. Well, that has changed. Ever since getting JBL LSR305 active studio monitor speakers (now with Samson MS200 stands), I've pretty much lost interest in headphones. Even without doing any room treatments or EQ yet, these sound _many times_ more realistic than any headphone I've heard. (I've owned/heard multiple five figures worth of headphones and other gear.) It often sounds like the instruments are in the room with me. I don't think headphones have more detail; they just make some details more apparent by putting everything right next to your ears. But that's not how the original performance was. Speakers reproduce far more depth and subtlety than headphones ever could. I'm hearing countless details on these speakers that I never noticed before on headphones. I only spent $250 on these and I think they are superior to headphones in every way regardless of price. Can't wait to upgrade to a serious speaker system!


----------



## aertus

gregorio said:


> That all depends on how you define "better" and that's the problem with any discussion of headphones vs speakers. With headphones we have an artificially wide and close stereo image, the over presentation of some details and the under presentation of others, is this actually "better" or just more enjoyable? If by "better" we mean more accurate and closer to the intentions of those who created the recording, then probably not. If we mean more enjoyable, then obviously that's a matter of personal taste. The difficulty in such discussions (and indeed many audiophile discussions) is that many confuse "more enjoyable" with "better".
> 
> 
> Really? The bass resonance is woolly/poorly defined, the early reflections/echoes make the vocal sound like they're in a large toilet and apart from the reflections, the whole thing sounds mono. Without access to the recording for comparison, there's no way of knowing if these problems are the fault of the recording itself or of the system/room trying to reproduce it but either way, it doesn't sound amazing to me.
> ...


 
 no way to really tell very limited by microphone and speaker you're using and the youtube compression im sure its sounds awesome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sRR7XqTed8


----------



## gregorio

aertus said:


> no way to really tell very limited by microphone and speaker you're using and the youtube compression im sure its sounds awesome.


 
  
 Sorry, I don't understand. If there is "no way to really tell", how can you be "sure"?
  
 G


----------



## LazyListener

gregorio said:


> That all depends on how you define "better" and that's the problem with any discussion of headphones vs speakers. With headphones we have an artificially wide and close stereo image, the over presentation of some details and the under presentation of others, is this actually "better" or just more enjoyable? If by "better" we mean more accurate and closer to the intentions of those who created the recording, then probably not. If we mean more enjoyable, then obviously that's a matter of personal taste. The difficulty in such discussions (and indeed many audiophile discussions) is that many confuse "more enjoyable" with "better".
> 
> 
> G


 
 Well, I defined some aspects of my personal version of "better" in my previous posts here, but you're really good at ignoring the complete context of people's posts and prefer to cherry-pick only specific points that you want argue about.  Since I'm able to hear more details and vocal intelligibility through my headphones, than my speaker setup, that is obviously, better, no?  My headphones providing greater instrument separation than my speakers is obviously better, no?  Sure, "better" will vary by individual, but I'm only speaking for myself here.  And yes, music listening is about enjoyment ultimately.  So if product A brings me more enjoyment than product B, then it's better, end of story.  It's not a matter of confusing "more enjoyable" with "better" as both terms are purely subjective and generally go hand in hand.  Now, please don't go off about how "better" is subjective and what I may think is better, someone else may think is worse.  When I made my posts, I was talking about just my experience with my 598s and my much more expensive speaker setup.  Oh, and how exactly can we measure how close a headphone or speaker setup is to the creator's intentions?  For nearly all consumer listeners, their definition of "better" has to do with comparing consumer product A to consumer product B, NOT comparing the creator's intention to any consumer products, since they weren't in the recording/mixing studio with the creator to know what that reference baseline sounds like in the first place.


----------



## LazyListener

music alchemist said:


> Talk about a 180. I previously said that I preferred the more intimate presentation of headphones. Well, that has changed. Ever since getting JBL LSR305 active studio monitor speakers (now with Samson MS200 stands), I've pretty much lost interest in headphones. Even without doing any room treatments or EQ yet, these sound _many times_ more realistic than any headphone I've heard. (I've owned/heard multiple five figures worth of headphones and other gear.) It often sounds like the instruments are in the room with me. I don't think headphones have more detail; they just make some details more apparent by putting everything right next to your ears. But that's not how the original performance was. Speakers reproduce far more depth and subtlety than headphones ever could. I'm hearing countless details on these speakers that I never noticed before on headphones. I only spent $250 on these and I think they are superior to headphones in every way regardless of price. Can't wait to upgrade to a serious speaker system!


 

 Define more realistic.
  
 Well, if "putting everything right next to your ears" allows you to hear more details, then so be it - headphones win because they allow you to hear more detail.  But it's not that simple.  Depends on the headphones and the speakers.  Some are more detailed than others.
  
 I personally hear more depth and easier for me to discern distance of sounds played and how layered sounds are with my 598s than with my speaker setup.  Maybe if I heard the JBLs, my thinking would change.  The huge advantage headphones have over speakers is that the headphone engineers are able to account for headphone chamber acoustics, whereas with speakers, the acoustics of the room will change the sound a lot, and engineers cannot account for the room in which their speakers will be used.  Then you have a lot more money and investment of your own to compensate for your room acoustics.


----------



## gregorio

lazylistener said:


> [1] Well, I defined some aspects of my personal version of "better" in my previous posts here, but you're really good at ignoring the complete context of people's posts and prefer to cherry-pick only specific points that you want argue about.
> [2] Since I'm able to hear more details and vocal intelligibility through my headphones, than my speaker setup, that is obviously, better, no?
> [3] My headphones providing greater instrument separation than my speakers is obviously better, no?
> [4] So if product A brings me more enjoyment than product B, then it's better, end of story.


 
  
 1. In a thread about headphones vs speakers, "better" is not cherry-picking, it's pretty much the central point!
 2. No, it's not necessarily better and it's certainly not "obviously" better! It's likely that the creator of a recording, expects you to hear a certain amount of detail, not very significantly more or less. For example, backing vocals are often intended to have less detail and "intelligibility" and be perceived as just a quiet background wash of sound. Being able to hear those unintended details makes it worse, not better but of course it wouldn't appear that way to you if you personally enjoy hearing those unintended details. Additionally, there are of course other areas where you are not hearing more details because headphones are incapable of producing them.
 3. Again, NO! If I have say a violin section in the music, I might want it to sound like a violin section rather than be separated out into say a dozen individual violinists. Or, I might want a drum kit to sound like a drum kit played by a drummer rather than a bunch of musicians individually playing a snare drum, kick drum, hi-hats, etc. Just as with the previous point, we certainly want a significant amount of separation (and detail) but not too much. As with other areas of audio reproduction, such as amount of bass for example, there maybe some or many who prefer "too much" but that doesn't make it "obviously better", except to them.
 4. If for example you liked Big Macs more than cordon bleu meals, would you therefore say that MacDonals is better than Michelin starred restaurants, end of story? You might say that you liked MacDonalds better but not that MacDonalds is better, unless you actually wanted to shock or appear ignorant of course. 
  
 Personally, I enjoy listening to speakers and headphones, although I generally prefer a very good speaker setup to even the highest end headphones. This is logical if you think about it, as the vast majority of audio recordings are actually designed on speakers for speakers, rather than for headphones.
  
 G


----------



## Music Alchemist

lazylistener said:


> Define more realistic.
> 
> Well, if "putting everything right next to your ears" allows you to hear more details, then so be it - headphones win because they allow you to hear more detail.  But it's not that simple.  Depends on the headphones and the speakers.  Some are more detailed than others.
> 
> I personally hear more depth and easier for me to discern distance of sounds played and how layered sounds are with my 598s than with my speaker setup.  Maybe if I heard the JBLs, my thinking would change.  The huge advantage headphones have over speakers is that the headphone engineers are able to account for headphone chamber acoustics, whereas with speakers, the acoustics of the room will change the sound a lot, and engineers cannot account for the room in which their speakers will be used.  Then you have a lot more money and investment of your own to compensate for your room acoustics.


 
  
 Like I mentioned: sounding like I'm listening to the actual instruments, plus having them in the room with me in this case. I never got that feeling with headphones, no matter how expensive. (Though obviously some sound a lot more realistic than others. Oh, and the curious can read through my profile to see stuff I've owned/heard.)
  
 Yes, room acoustics is a crucial factor. It's possible that the way your speakers are set up is sabotaging their potential, though it's hard to say without having an expert look at things. When I got the speaker stands yesterday, I noticed how much the sound fluctuated depending on the distance, angle, height, etc. But these particular speakers are designed to sound good in any room. If I had gotten floorstanding speakers instead of nearfield monitors, I'd bet they'd sound awful in this room.
  
 I've never heard any type of depth from headphones. All the sounds come from right next to your ears, after all. But if your room isn't suitable for your speakers, it's easy for headphones to beat them.


----------



## gregorio

music alchemist said:


> [1] Yes, room acoustics is a crucial factor.
> [2] It's possible that the way your speakers are set up is sabotaging their potential, though it's hard to say without having an expert look at things.
> [3] But these particular speakers are designed to sound good in any room.


 
  
 1. Yes, absolutely crucial but for two reasons, not just one: Firstly, yes, speaker performance is defined by the room acoustics. Typically, a $1,000 set of speakers in a well treated room will out perform a $20,000+ set of speakers in an untreated room. Secondly, commercial recording/mastering studios are NOT designed to be dead (anechoic), they do typically use some absorption to reduce room reflections but they usually employ at least a fair amount of diffusion. Diffusion randomises room reflections rather than removing them, which stops the reflections from interacting and changing the perceived frequency response. This too is a crucial factor because music is mixed and mastered in these rooms (with their neutral room reverb/acoustics). In other words, the music has been designed to be listened to in a room (with room acoustics). Listening to music on headphones obviously largely eliminates room acoustics, the music therefore sounds much drier (less reverb) than intended. The result of effectively less reverb is that the music sounds more "in your head", more separated and more detailed than was intended. Some people like that, others prefer accuracy (to hear what the artists intended).
  
 2. I would say that's certain rather than "possible". It's not a question of "if" the setup/room acoustics are "sabotaging" speaker performance, it's a question of "how much". Typical rooms in houses are roughly cuboid shaped which is unfortunately the absolute worst possible shape acoustically.
  
 3. That's simply impossible. I'm not knocking your 305's, I've used them myself and IMHO they're about the best you can buy in their price range. There's a bit of a misconception that Nearfield monitors solve room acoustics issues, this is not true. They can significantly reduce some issues but they can also cause others; typically they're placed on a desk, which acts as a very close, big reflective surface and that's very bad acoustically.
  
  -----------------------------------------
  
 There are a few photos/videos in this thread of systems which some members seem to be impressed by. I'm not impressed, quite the opposite in fact, to me they appear ridiculous. They look like the audio equivalent of someone who's just stuck a new V12 Ferrari engine into a Ford Fiesta. It might give you great "bragging rights", sound awesome and out perform a unmodified Fiesta but it won't perform anywhere near an actual supercar, it won't even perform as well as a relatively cheap stock sports saloon! Those audio systems are designed by people (and for people) whose passion is audio equipment, not those whose passion is audio performance. IE. It's for audio-equipment-philes rather than audiophiles! Here's a photo which illustrates my point above (about diffusion) and is a real audiophile "supercar". Notice that it's not about massive speakers, it's about very high quality, appropriately sized speakers and the effort put into the acoustic treatment:
  

  
 G


----------



## castleofargh

lazylistener said:


> gregorio said:
> 
> 
> > That all depends on how you define "better" and that's the problem with any discussion of headphones vs speakers. With headphones we have an artificially wide and close stereo image, the over presentation of some details and the under presentation of others, is this actually "better" or just more enjoyable? If by "better" we mean more accurate and closer to the intentions of those who created the recording, then probably not. If we mean more enjoyable, then obviously that's a matter of personal taste. The difficulty in such discussions (and indeed many audiophile discussions) is that many confuse "more enjoyable" with "better".
> ...


 
 but then again it's not the first time you have to explain this. maybe if you were less confusing by clearly expressing when your judgment is you personal taste, it would be clear for everybody.
 you will always face people like Greg or myself who assume quantification based on objective variables. calling something better and saying I prefer it, to you it's often the same, to us it isn't.
  
  
 about measurements, it's really hard, but there is a simple starting point. the album was most likely mastered on speakers, that alone means the stereo on headphones will be a mess compared to the original. 30degrees source isn't 90degrees source, and each channel reaching both ears isn't what headphones do(well there is some leakage into the other ear but way quieter and it depends on the headphone). of course there is the body feeling low freqs of real life sounds and speakers. so it's really not hard to assume that speakers can come closer to the sound heard on speakers while the mastering was done. as for the signature it's also way easier to know that we're closer to the right one because we can aim at electrically flat for speakers. for headphones if we wish to do it right we'd first need to establish the listener's own HRTF.
 speakers tend to have higher distortions and maybe if everything was done for the headphone from start to finish in the recording/playback process then we could indeed come closer to the original with a pair of headphone(in fact I do believe in this). but that implies many steps that are not taken on almost all recordings, and several steps that the consumer also will not apply. so aside from personal taste, I can't see how headphones could possibly win under actual circumstances. I wasted a lot of time and efforts into trying to get something fine for headphones, even making my very own sort of crossfeed with mid and side channels and a different convolution for both to better fit my own head in delays and signature. but it's far from perfect and my brains knows better than to be completely fooled(still better than default headphone stereo though). so even subjectively I give my vote to speakers measured and a not too horrible room (not one that would sound like I'm in the toilet).


----------



## Music Alchemist

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, absolutely crucial but for two reasons, not just one: Firstly, yes, speaker performance is defined by the room acoustics. Typically, a $1,000 set of speakers in a well treated room will out perform a $20,000+ set of speakers in an untreated room. Secondly, commercial recording/mastering studios are NOT designed to be dead (anechoic), they do typically use some absorption to reduce room reflections but they usually employ at least a fair amount of diffusion. Diffusion randomises room reflections rather than removing them, which stops the reflections from interacting and changing the perceived frequency response. This too is a crucial factor because music is mixed and mastered in these rooms (with their neutral room reverb/acoustics). In other words, the music has been designed to be listened to in a room (with room acoustics). Listening to music on headphones obviously largely eliminates room acoustics, the music therefore sounds much drier (less reverb) than intended. The result of effectively less reverb is that the music sounds more "in your head", more separated and more detailed than was intended. Some people like that, others prefer accuracy (to hear what the artists intended).
> 
> 2. I would say that's certain rather than "possible". It's not a question of "if" the setup/room acoustics are "sabotaging" speaker performance, it's a question of "how much". Typical rooms in houses are roughly cuboid shaped which is unfortunately the absolute worst possible shape acoustically.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks for all the detailed info.
  
 When I said sabotage, I meant ruin, so that would be in the "very much" category.
  
 I never said room acoustics is no longer a factor. But these do already sound good in my bedroom without doing any room treatments or EQ yet. Sounding good and sounding as good as possible are two different things. They do certainly sound a lot better placed on speaker stands than on a table or desk.
  
 That pic looks amazing. I wonder how much all that cost.


----------



## jibzilla

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, absolutely crucial but for two reasons, not just one: Firstly, yes, speaker performance is defined by the room acoustics. Typically, a $1,000 set of speakers in a well treated room will out perform a $20,000+ set of speakers in an untreated room. Secondly, commercial recording/mastering studios are NOT designed to be dead (anechoic), they do typically use some absorption to reduce room reflections but they usually employ at least a fair amount of diffusion. Diffusion randomises room reflections rather than removing them, which stops the reflections from interacting and changing the perceived frequency response. This too is a crucial factor because music is mixed and mastered in these rooms (with their neutral room reverb/acoustics). In other words, the music has been designed to be listened to in a room (with room acoustics). Listening to music on headphones obviously largely eliminates room acoustics, the music therefore sounds much drier (less reverb) than intended. The result of effectively less reverb is that the music sounds more "in your head", more separated and more detailed than was intended. Some people like that, others prefer accuracy (to hear what the artists intended).
> 
> 2. I would say that's certain rather than "possible". It's not a question of "if" the setup/room acoustics are "sabotaging" speaker performance, it's a question of "how much". Typical rooms in houses are roughly cuboid shaped which is unfortunately the absolute worst possible shape acoustically.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Where the other photos were over the top speaker wise this seems a little bit over the top room wise.


----------



## 5genez

*To avoid such a problem with desk reflections something more like this will avoid it..*


----------



## castleofargh

my speakers are standing on cheap yoga bricks ^_^. it improves the audio at my sitting position because the tweeter part is now very close to ear level(unless I sit like a larva). it reduced the reflections from the desk and almost entirely solved my original problem which was having the damn desk to resonate loudly
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## Mr Rick

castleofargh said:


> my speakers are standing on cheap yoga bricks ^_^. it improves the audio at my sitting position because the tweeter part is now very close to ear level(unless I sit like a larva). it reduced the reflections from the desk and almost entirely solved my original problem which was having the damn desk to resonate loudly
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I've had to flip my Airmotiv 5s on their heads ( Like the Z man on YouTube) to get the tweeters at ear level.
  
 I don't have that problem with the LS50s.


----------



## Music Alchemist

I just use stands.


----------



## 5genez

music alchemist said:


> I just use stands.


 
  
 I was considering doing that....
  
 If I did not have my drum rack sitting in the closet, its probably the route I would have taken.  Are those stand's height infinitely adjustable?   Or do they have stop points to lock into?


----------



## Music Alchemist

5genez said:


> I was considering doing that....
> 
> If I did not have my drum rack sitting in the closet, its probably the route I would have taken.  Are those stand's height infinitely adjustable?   Or do they have stop points to lock into?


 
  
 Well, it can't be raised to the heavens. lol. The maximum height is listed as 3.6'. But it doesn't have any preset steps. You just unlock it with the twisty thing (I dunno what it's called), adjust to your desired height, then lock it again. (It's better to do it without speakers on it; otherwise you'd have to lift up their weight.) If it's high enough, you can also insert a locking pin into a hole for added support. *Here* is info on the stands I have.


----------



## 5genez

music alchemist said:


> Well, it can't be raised to the heavens. lol. The maximum height is listed as 3.6'. But it doesn't have any preset steps. You just unlock it with the twisty thing (I dunno what it's called), adjust to your desired height, then lock it again. (It's better to do it without speakers on it; otherwise you'd have to lift up their weight.) If it's high enough, you can also insert a locking pin into a hole for added support. *Here* is info on the stands I have.


 
  
  
 If they are not preset?  This might help in zeroing in the focus.....  https://www.amazon.com/Stanley-42-480-48-Inch-Professional-I-Beam/dp/B00002X2F2


----------



## Music Alchemist

5genez said:


> If they are not preset?  This might help in zeroing in the focus.....  https://www.amazon.com/Stanley-42-480-48-Inch-Professional-I-Beam/dp/B00002X2F2


 
  
 I just used my hand.


----------



## noobandroid

5genez said:


> *To avoid such a problem with desk reflections something more like this will avoid it..*


 
 isoacoustic stands?


----------



## 5genez

noobandroid said:


> isoacoustic stands?


 
   Yes.....


----------



## noobandroid

5genez said:


> Yes.....


 
 they are seriously expensive in malaysia


----------



## mattlach

I've been a headphones guy for a long time out of necessity.
  
 The times when I've truly been able to blast music out into the air turned up to 11 have been rare, as I've lived in apartments with neighbors close by.
  
 Out of necessity then, I've gotten into headphones.  My current primary listening setup is as follows:
  
 Schiit Modi Multibit -> Schiit Jotunheim -> Sennheiser HD650
  
 Recently - however - I moved into a single family home, and have had more ability to play music out loud.
  
 At first I was very disappointed.  The speakers I tried all had very weak midrange compared to my HD650's and I found them unpleasant to listen to.
  
 Then I discovered RBH speakers.   My main listening area at my desktop now has a set of RBH 41-SE bookshelves powered by an Emotiva UPA-2 amp, with bass provided by an SVS SB12-NSD.  This setup is pure audio bliss.   I no longer feel like I ma suffering from that mid-range deficiency.   
  
 Right now Id' be torn between my headphones and my speakers.  I think I like the mids better in the HD650's, but the RBH speakers and the sub provide much better highs and bass,  It's a tough choice.


----------



## LazyListener

mattlach said:


> I've been a headphones guy for a long time out of necessity.
> 
> The times when I've truly been able to blast music out into the air turned up to 11 have been rare, as I've lived in apartments with neighbors close by.
> 
> ...


 

 What about soundstage, imaging, and fine detail?  Which allows you to better pick out specific locations of specific sounds?
  
 What I love about my 598s (even more so than the 650) is the wide soundstage and the layering of sounds.  By layering, I mean I can hear 2 or more distinct sounds coming from the same location, but some sound closer to me, others more far away.  I've never been able to achieve this 3-dimensional soundstage width and depth with my Polk towers, no matter how I positioned them.


----------



## 5genez

noobandroid said:


> they are seriously expensive in malaysia


 
  
  
 They were not exactly cheap here... but not very expensive.   Sorry to hear that.  Yet, you get products there that we need to spend a greater amount for as well.


----------



## 5genez

mattlach said:


> Right now Id' be torn between my headphones and my speakers.  I think I like the mids better in the HD650's, but the RBH speakers and the sub provide much better highs and bass,  It's a tough choice.


 
  
 You are blocking the midrange with all those monitors sitting between you and the speakers. You have a reversal set up of the concept of nearfield listening.   The bass will get through because its not directional, and the tweeters look high enough to peer over your monitors.  But, the midrange?    You're blocking it from reaching you.


----------



## Robert Wortman

Interesting thread.  As others have said headphone listening and speaker listening are two different things.  The headphone image is all between your ears and the bass only pounds your head, not your body..  This can sound impressive but not comparable to a stereo soundstage outside your head and completely not comparable, sorry for adding this complication, to well recorded and played back 5.1 surround.  Not as much to listen to, but I like some of what I have.  I think headphones are better bang for the buck up to a certain point.  That point may be different for different ears.   I don't really listen to headphones except for specific purposes or when travelling.  I can't haul my speakers around with me to set up in a hotel room.  When I am mixing sound live I need the headphones to isolate performers from the mix to check stuff out.  When doing a bit of amateur mixing at home, I need the phones to check to see if I overcooked the bass because my LSR305's don't go that low.  I have small systems all over the house and garage but my main stuff is this:
  
 desktop:  Focusrite Scarlett 2i2/ JBL LSR305
  
 Den:  Marantz SR6006 (for surround) Schiit Saga (two channel) NAD C275BEE power amp, Yamaha BD A1060 (disc playback, DSD files, streaming via wired ethernet from the JRiver server to the Saga), VPI Scout/Ortofon Rondo Blue/Simaudio Moon LP110,  Front stereo pair, PSB Imagine T2, rear surrounds Imagine Minis, center Imagine Mini C, JBL 12" sub crossed over at 40hz for surround, no sub for stereo listening.  I recently added a Chromecast Audio for streaming Pandora to the Saga so I can have the AVR switched to the cable box to watch sports, while listening to something else.  Sports announcers can grate after a while.
  
 I don't have any high end headphones.  I have a pair of Shure SRH840's for checking mixes at home and playing through a first generation Meridian Explorer when on the road.   I have a pair of Shure SRH440's permanently plugged into a Soundcraft Impact mixing console at my church.  They both sound pretty good but I can't compare them to seriously expensive 'phones because I haven't tried any.


----------



## Music Alchemist

robert wortman said:


> When doing a bit of amateur mixing at home, I need the phones to check to see if I overcooked the bass because my LSR305's don't go that low.


 
  
 ...I'm bummed out that I'd have to spend probably twice as much than I did on my speakers (same as yours) to get a subwoofer that can extend to 20 Hz. I looked at cheaper subs and some of them don't even go as deep as the speakers I already have.


----------



## theveterans

music alchemist said:


> ...I'm bummed out that I'd have to spend probably twice as much than I did on my speakers (same as yours) to get a subwoofer that can extend to 20 Hz. I looked at cheaper subs and some of them don't even go as deep as the speakers I already have.




Get something like ADAM Subwoofers or preferably SVS 15-18" subs then let your room shake like there's a 7.1 magnitude quake


----------



## theveterans

theveterans said:


> Get something like ADAM Subwoofers or preferably SVS 15-18" subs then let your room shake like there's a 7.1 magnitude quake




Also get a bass shaker installed in your chair for an even more impressive effect


----------



## mattlach

5genez said:


> You are blocking the midrange with all those monitors sitting between you and the speakers. You have a reversal set up of the concept of nearfield listening.   The bass will get through because its not directional, and the tweeters look high enough to peer over your monitors.  But, the midrange?    You're blocking it from reaching you.




I hear you. The stands were just a bit short when I got everything installed. It's something I am going to need to figure out a solution to.

It's not as bad as it looks though. The camera angle and wide angle lens conspire to make it look worse than it is.

Here is a close-up:







As you can see, the moving part of the woofer clears the top of the screen.

Still, I agree, it is too close to be ideal, but in comparing my listening tests before I put them on the stands and as they are installed, I can't tell much if any difference.


----------



## Music Alchemist

theveterans said:


> Get something like ADAM Subwoofers or preferably SVS 15-18" subs then let your room shake like there's a 7.1 magnitude quake


 
  
 Can you list specific models that extend to 20 Hz and are as affordable as possible?
  
 Would that be inaudible to houses next door? I don't want to get noise complaints.
  
 I will most likely just wait until I upgrade my speakers before getting a subwoofer, because I don't want to spend more on it than the speakers. (Only paid $250 for these.)


----------



## mattlach

theveterans said:


> Get something like ADAM Subwoofers or preferably SVS 15-18" subs then let your room shake like there's a 7.1 magnitude quake


 
  
 Those seem awfully big for near field.
  
 My comparatively small SVS SB12-NSD (which is a great deal right now as it is discontinued and stock is being slowly sold out) is totally overkill under my desk.   The gain sits at about 15-20%.
  
 Now, it's "only" rated down to 23hz, but keep in mind that these rating numbers are usually F3 values, which means, the frequency at which the curve drops 3db below the peak.
  
 It does not mean that is suddenly stops and doesn't play anything below that frequency.
  
 In near field most subs 12" or larger are total overkill.   You could get one, and just EQ it a bit, since you have all that head room to get the 20hz if you really need it.


----------



## Music Alchemist

It looks like all the ones that go that low are $400 and up. The money isn't a problem; it's just that I don't want to spend more than the speakers cost on it.


----------



## mattlach

music alchemist said:


> It looks like all the ones that go that low are $400 and up. The money isn't a problem; it's just that I don't want to spend more than the speakers cost on it.




Yeah, I was turned off by subwoofer price when I first started as well. It seems to just be a fact of audio life. Subs get expensive in a hurry. The SVS SB12-NSD was recommended to me as a decent sub at an unheard of low price of $399 when I bought it.

Subs are almost always going to be your most expensive components in a speaker setup, by a wide margin.

There are some cheaper alternatives you can try though. The best deal in subs seems to be the Dayton Audio SUB-1200 on parts express. It "only" goes down to 25hz in specs, but it can probably be EQ:Ed a bit. I say probably because I have never heard it myself, but a guy I know uses one and he swears by it.

Unfortunately it looks like they just raised the price on it. It used to be $129, with occasional open box specials at $89 (which is just nuts for what you get). Now it appears to sell for $149, which is still a good price for what you get.

Monoprice also sells a low cost 12" sub, but it doesn't appear to go down as deep, so I'd pass on that one.


----------



## Music Alchemist

mattlach said:


> Yeah, I was turned off by subwoofer price when I first started as well. It seems to just be a fact of audio life. Subs get expensive in a hurry. The SVS SB12-NSD was recommended to me as a decent sub at an unheard of low price of $399 when I bought it.
> 
> Subs are almost always going to be your most expensive components in a speaker setup, by a wide margin.
> 
> ...


 
  
 If I spent $2,000 on speakers, that doesn't mean I need to spend more on the subwoofer.
  
 I learned about the Monoprice sub here, but yes, it doesn't even extend as low as my speakers:
  
 http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-budget-subwoofer/
  
 That Dayton is cheap enough to be tempting...but it looks like the only output is via speaker cables? I need RCA or XLR outputs.


----------



## mattlach

music alchemist said:


> If I spent $2,000 on speakers, that doesn't mean I need to spend more on the subwoofer.
> 
> I learned about the Monoprice sub here, but yes, it doesn't even extend as low as my speakers:
> 
> ...




Well, as I've said before, the sub is usually the most expensive part. It's fairly normal to spend 2-3x more on your sub than on your speakers and amp combined, to get a similar quality part.

Yeah, that is odd about the Dayton not having RCA outs. Do you really need them though?

I missed the post where you explained your setup and I'm on my phone (waiting at a tire shop) right now, so it's tough to find it.

My Emotiva power amp has RCA's both in and out, so I go "Pre-Amp --> Power Amp --> Sub". 

If this isn't an option you can also use RCA Y splitters. It's not as sexy but it sounds the same and how often do you really look at the wires?

On non DSP subs the RCA outs are usually just internal Y splitters anyway. Some fancier models have DSP processed high pass outs with configurable delays and all that stuff, but now we are talking $1000+ subs.


----------



## Music Alchemist

mattlach said:


> Well, as I've said before, the sub is usually the most expensive part. It's fairly normal to spend 2-3x more on your sub than on your speakers and amp combined, to get a similar quality part.
> 
> Yeah, that is odd about the Dayton not having RCA outs. Do you really need them though?
> 
> ...


 
  
 That's usually not true for high-end speaker systems. (Five to seven figures.) The speakers almost always cost many times more than the sub(s).
  
 Yes, I need RCA or XLR because I'm using active speakers. (Listed in my signature.)
  
 That $400 SVS sub you mentioned does seem more appealing considering it used to be $679. And I could always use it with other speaker systems when I upgrade. I'm just hesitant to spend that much if I could get all the bass I need from something cheaper.


----------



## mattlach

music alchemist said:


> That's usually not true for high-end speaker systems. (Five to seven figures.) The speakers almost always cost many times more than the sub(s).
> 
> Yes, I need RCA or XLR because I'm using active speakers. (Listed in my signature.)
> 
> That $400 SVS sub you mentioned does seem more appealing considering it used to be $679. And I could always use it with other speaker systems when I upgrade. I'm just hesitant to spend that much if I could get all the bass I need from something cheaper.




Can't say I've ever spent that much on speakers. My personal experience is limited to the mid range. 

You know the: "expensive enough that significant others roll their eyes and non-audio folks think I'm crazy, but cheap enough that car-priced audio jewelry owners look down on you." segment.


----------



## Music Alchemist

mattlach said:


> Can't say I've ever spent that much on speakers. My personal experience is limited to the mid range.
> 
> You know the: "expensive enough that significant others roll their eyes and non-audio folks think I'm crazy, but cheap enough that car-priced audio jewelry owners look down on you." segment.


 
  
 I just think your statement should have clarified that you were only referring to speakers under a certain price range, not all speakers.
  
 What do you think of this one? Its specs go down to 20 Hz and it's cheap!
  
 https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=605999


----------



## mattlach

music alchemist said:


> I just think your statement should have clarified that you were only referring to speakers under a certain price range, not all speakers.
> 
> What do you think of this one? Its specs go down to 20 Hz and it's cheap!
> 
> https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=605999




Unfortunately I can't comment. I've never seen it before. Haven't seen it discussed anywhere.

I'm a little bit of a skeptic. A 10" driver in that small of a cabinet going down to 20hz seems - while not impossible - somewhat unlikely, especially if it is not a DSP sub.

Anything is possible I guess.


----------



## Music Alchemist

mattlach said:


> Unfortunately I can't comment. I've never seen it before. Haven't seen it discussed anywhere.
> 
> I'm a little bit of a skeptic. A 10" driver in that small of a cabinet going down to 20hz seems - while not impossible - somewhat unlikely, especially if it is not a DSP sub.
> 
> Anything is possible I guess.


 
  
 Figures. Just read this from a review:
  


> I have equipment to measure the frequency response. The low end reach is 35Hz at -3dB and 30Hz at -6dB. It is inaudible at 20Hz, so the spec if clearly wrong (even at unspecified attenuation).


 
  
 Maybe I should just suck it up and get one of the nicer subs recommended...


----------



## mattlach

music alchemist said:


> Figures. Just read this from a review:
> 
> 
> Maybe I should just suck it up and get one of the nicer subs recommended...




Whatever you decide on, let us know. Would love to hear your impressions!


----------



## Robert Wortman

music alchemist said:


> ...I'm bummed out that I'd have to spend probably twice as much than I did on my speakers (same as yours) to get a subwoofer that can extend to 20 Hz. I looked at cheaper subs and some of them don't even go as deep as the speakers I already have.


 

 ​Most music doesn't extend to 20hz either.  However, when I have a bass player or a kick drum I need to get a bit lower than the 305's go just to check.  Or I just render a quick stereo wav file and play it on my downstairs system.


----------



## mattlach

robert wortman said:


> ​Most music doesn't extend to 20hz either.  However, when I have a bass player or a kick drum I need to get a bit lower than the 305's go just to check.  Or I just render a quick stereo wav file and play it on my downstairs system.




I actually find the stuff that does extend down really low to be annoying to listen to, unless I'm having a dance party or something.

I find it tough to focus on other stuff when those deep bass notes resonate under my desk.


----------



## Music Alchemist

mattlach said:


> Whatever you decide on, let us know. Would love to hear your impressions!


 
  
 Looking at this one at the moment:
  
 https://www.svsound.com/products/pb-1000
 https://www.amazon.com/SVS-10-inch-300-Watt-Subwoofer/dp/B00AF88BRG
  
 It says it can extend to 18 Hz and it's apparently "the most forceful, detailed bass you can get for under $500." Going from reviews, it seems that people like it much more than the SB-1000. (Which some say is the successor to your SB12-NSD.)
  


robert wortman said:


> ​Most music doesn't extend to 20hz either.  However, when I have a bass player or a kick drum I need to get a bit lower than the 305's go just to check.  Or I just render a quick stereo wav file and play it on my downstairs system.


 
  
 All I know is that my speakers are listed as extending to 43 Hz, and the bass often disappears with music that has deep bass. (Whereas it's easily audible on headphones.) That's the main reason I want a subwoofer. But I also heard that you can have it handle all the frequencies below a configured amount, which supposedly makes your speakers sound better.


----------



## mattlach

music alchemist said:


> Looking at this one at the moment:
> 
> https://www.svsound.com/products/pb-1000
> https://www.amazon.com/SVS-10-inch-300-Watt-Subwoofer/dp/B00AF88BRG
> ...




Yep, it's a trade-off. Their PB models are ported. SB models are sealed. Ported models will produce a lot more bass at the same wattage compared to sealed models, but ported subs need bigger cabinets for the acoustics to work out right, so they will be larger.

Some also say that they prefer the sound out of sealed subs, calling the bass "tighter" and "more musical", but it appears to be a matter of preference more than anything else.


----------



## Robert Wortman

music alchemist said:


> Looking at this one at the moment:
> 
> https://www.svsound.com/products/pb-1000
> https://www.amazon.com/SVS-10-inch-300-Watt-Subwoofer/dp/B00AF88BRG
> ...


 

 ​My main speakers in my den are spec'ed for a minus 3db point of 34hz and minus 10db point of 29 hz.  They do not sound bass shy with music.  I am not disputing that you need to go lower than 43, just that you many not need a sub that gets down to 20 unless you are feeding it the LFE channel from a surround system or listening to pipe organ music.  Expensive professional monitor subs rarely go that low and live sound subs commonly go down to the mid 30's.  The big HT subs do but as I said, mostly for the dinosaur footsteps in the LFE channel.  If you go to amplified live music and the bass seems correct, 30 to 35hz is all you need.   Maybe I have tin ears but I don't agree that you have to spend a ton of money on a sub either.  It depends on what your main speakers are.  If your main speakers already go pretty low the sub isn't doing much.  I cross my T2's over to the sub at 40hz when playing my AVR.  I have occasional forgotten to switch from the Saga back to the AVR and heard music playing with the mains not playing.  The sub was audibly doing something but not that much.  Seems silly to me to spend thousands for a tiny bit of bottom fill that wouldn't really be missed that much if you didn't have it at all.


----------



## mattlach

robert wortman said:


> ​My main speakers in my den are spec'ed for a minus 3db point of 34hz and minus 10db point of 29 hz.  They do not sound bass shy with music.  I am not disputing that you need to go lower than 43, just that you many not need a sub that gets down to 20 unless you are feeding it the LFE channel from a surround system or listening to pipe organ music.  Expensive professional monitor subs rarely go that low and live sound subs commonly go down to the mid 30's.  The big HT subs do but as I said, mostly for the dinosaur footsteps in the LFE channel.  If you go to amplified live music and the bass seems correct, 30 to 35hz is all you need.




I agree with this statement.

In fact, my RBH 41-SE's while rated 60hz - 20khz have a very healthy bass. I suspect the lower spec of 60hz is very conservative.


When I first hooked them up, I forgot to connect the sub and at first I didn't even notice it wasn't hooked up.

In test tones 35hz was loud and clear on them. Amazing for such small speakers.

Might help that my amp has more than ample power to really drive the low frequencies.


----------



## Music Alchemist

robert wortman said:


> ​My main speakers in my den are spec'ed for a minus 3db point of 34hz and minus 10db point of 29 hz.  They do not sound bass shy with music.  I am not disputing that you need to go lower than 43, just that you many not need a sub that gets down to 20 unless you are feeding it the LFE channel from a surround system or listening to pipe organ music.  Expensive professional monitor subs rarely go that low and live sound subs commonly go down to the mid 30's.  The big HT subs do but as I said, mostly for the dinosaur footsteps in the LFE channel.  If you go to amplified live music and the bass seems correct, 30 to 35hz is all you need.   Maybe I have tin ears but I don't agree that you have to spend a ton of money on a sub either.  It depends on what your main speakers are.  If your main speakers already go pretty low the sub isn't doing much.  I cross my T2's over to the sub at 40hz when playing my AVR.  I have occasional forgotten to switch from the Saga back to the AVR and heard music playing with the mains not playing.  The sub was audibly doing something but not that much.  Seems silly to me to spend thousands for a tiny bit of bottom fill that wouldn't really be missed that much if you didn't have it at all.


 


mattlach said:


> I agree with this statement.
> 
> In fact, my RBH 41-SE's while rated 60hz - 20khz have a very healthy bass. I suspect the lower spec of 60hz is very conservative.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Perhaps you guys aren't listening to music that has deep bass. It's a major issue with some music. Like I already said, quite often the deep bass disappears on these speakers. As in it's not there at all, whereas it's there on headphones...so I need a subwoofer to get that with the speakers. If I'm gonna spend hundreds, I might as well spend $500 and get it taken care of "all the way", so when I upgrade my speakers, I won't feel the urge to upgrade the subwoofer.


----------



## jibzilla

music alchemist said:


> ...I'm bummed out that I'd have to spend probably twice as much than I did on my speakers (same as yours) to get a subwoofer that can extend to 20 Hz. I looked at cheaper subs and some of them don't even go as deep as the speakers I already have.


 
  
 I would save up your schillings and get a pair of vintage japan speakers and small power amp. No problems at all in the bass dept. with my APM 4's and fire bottle SE.
  
 The biggest hurdle is finding a domestic deal on the speakers imo. Shipping kills most international deals.


----------



## Music Alchemist

jibzilla said:


> I would save up your schillings and get a pair of vintage japan speakers and small power amp. No problems at all in the bass dept. with my APM 4's and fire bottle SE.
> 
> The biggest hurdle is finding a domestic deal on the speakers imo. Shipping kills most international deals.


 
  
 You're telling me to buy $5,000+ speakers instead of a $500 subwoofer to solve the bass issues of my $250 speakers?


----------



## castleofargh

music alchemist said:


> theveterans said:
> 
> 
> > Get something like ADAM Subwoofers or preferably SVS 15-18" subs then let your room shake like there's a 7.1 magnitude quake
> ...


 
 the lower the frequency the harder it is to stop it with walls and windows.
 a sub is made to annoy your neighbors. they will hate you for it, that's 100% sure.


----------



## mattlach

castleofargh said:


> the lower the frequency the harder it is to stop it with walls and windows.
> a sub is made to annoy your neighbors. they will hate you for it, that's 100% sure.




IMHO it really depends on the type of neighbors. If you are in a single family home, it's pretty difficult to reach neighbor annoying levels without blowing out your eardrums, unless - that is - you live in an open air hut.

If you live in an apartment building with neighbors in the same building - on the other hand - it is pretty difficult to use any sub without annoying the neighbors, especially if those neighbors are below you.


----------



## Robert Wortman

music alchemist said:


> Perhaps you guys aren't listening to music that has deep bass. It's a major issue with some music. Like I already said, quite often the deep bass disappears on these speakers. As in it's not there at all, whereas it's there on headphones...so I need a subwoofer to get that with the speakers. If I'm gonna spend hundreds, I might as well spend $500 and get it taken care of "all the way", so when I upgrade my speakers, I won't feel the urge to upgrade the subwoofer.


 

 ​What I am saying is that as far as rock, jazz, and other types of popular music are concerned, mid 30's is deep bass.  The low string on an electric bass guitar is 40hz, a standup bass is the same.  When you go to a concert that uses a PA system the subs they use have a 3db down point in the mid 30's.  What kind of low bass rich music are you listening to?   there is more to sub performance than how low it goes.  Other stuff has to be compromised, including sensitivity.


----------



## Music Alchemist

robert wortman said:


> ​What I am saying is that as far as rock, jazz, and other types of popular music are concerned, mid 30's is deep bass.  The low string on an electric bass guitar is 40hz, a standup bass is the same.  When you go to a concert that uses a PA system the subs they use have a 3db down point in the mid 30's.  What kind of low bass rich music are you listening to?   there is more to sub performance than how low it goes.  Other stuff has to be compromised, including sensitivity.


 
  
 I'm not sure what point you're trying to make that is relevant to me, but my point is that my speakers do not go low enough to reproduce the bass in lots of music, especially electronic music, so I need a subwoofer regardless. I listen to all genres.


----------



## Robert Wortman

music alchemist said:


> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make that is relevant to me, but my point is that my speakers do not go low enough to reproduce the bass in lots of music, especially electronic music, so I need a subwoofer regardless. I listen to all genres.


 

 ​All I am saying is that you may not need a sub that goes all the way down to 20hz and that inexpensive ones that go that low, do so with aggressive eq in the amplifier that reduces efficiency. Basically to get flat to 20hz, they EQ everything above that down to the natural 20hz output of the driver.  Get a sub, have fun with it.
  
 Edit:  JBL makes a sub as part of the same series as the LS305,  the LSr310S.  Retails for $399.  Rated down to 27hz.  I bet it is the perfect complement to the monitors.  JBL does know a little something about pro sound.


----------



## jibzilla

music alchemist said:


> You're telling me to buy $5,000+ speakers instead of a $500 subwoofer to solve the bass issues of my $250 speakers?


 
  
 Well my APM 4's with shipping included was $4k and I think you could get something very nice for $2k shipped with enough patience. Yamaha NS1000's are all over the place at that price but I would look past those if you have the time from companies like Onkyo, Sony, JBL, Sansui, Diatone and others. Considering I could suggest $50k vintage japan speakers (yes there are options at this price level) and modern day speakers that dwarf them $$$ wise I don't think suggesting you save your money till you hit $5k is all that outlandish.
  
 I would put the most towards the speakers but even at $2k for just the speakers your still probably looking at close to $5k minus sourcing. $2k for speakers, $400 preamp, $800 power amp, $100-200 RAM speaker cables, $300-400 speaker stands, $600 GIK bass traps or $1200 Realtraps if you want something with a better finish.
  
 I know I wish someone would have suggested that to me years ago. There is not much out there active wise that is worth a hoot imo. Even the expensive stuff is rather lackluster imo. Most of the vintage japan speakers you can place right against the wall and they do not take up anymore space than active speakers. My APM 4's actually have to be placed close to the wall or they sound worse. 
  
 If you have to have active/modern day there are 2 that I highly recommend and they are Adam A7x/Sub8 and KRK Expose. Both are several thousand dollars though and I think the vintage japan route is a much better route to take.


----------



## Music Alchemist

If anyone wants to have an *otherworldly* experience with speakers, play the Higurashi No Naku Koro Ni (When They Cry) anime soundtracks. It's four rare CDs you'd have to import from Japan...but trust me...this is some of the best music I've heard.
  
 Info links:
 http://vgmdb.net/album/5868
 http://vgmdb.net/album/5864
 http://vgmdb.net/album/17908
 http://vgmdb.net/album/21625
  


robert wortman said:


> ​All I am saying is that you may not need a sub that goes all the way down to 20hz and that inexpensive ones that go that low, do so with aggressive eq in the amplifier that reduces efficiency. Basically to get flat to 20hz, they EQ everything above that down to the natural 20hz output of the driver.  Get a sub, have fun with it.
> 
> Edit:  JBL makes a sub as part of the same series as the LS305,  the LSr310S.  Retails for $399.  Rated down to 27hz.  I bet it is the perfect complement to the monitors.  JBL does know a little something about pro sound.


 
  
 I did not _ask_ what I _need_; I _said_ what I _want_. If it does not extend to at least 20 Hz, I'm not buying it.
  
 I will most likely go for the SVS PB-1000...but since I can live without it, I may postpone it for awhile.
  


jibzilla said:


> Well my APM 4's with shipping included was $4k and I think you could get something very nice for $2k shipped with enough patience. Yamaha NS1000's are all over the place at that price but I would look past those if you have the time from companies like Onkyo, Sony, JBL, Sansui, Diatone and others. Considering I could suggest $50k vintage japan speakers (yes there are options at this price level) and modern day speakers that dwarf them $$$ wise I don't think suggesting you save your money till you hit $5k is all that outlandish.
> 
> I would put the most towards the speakers but even at $2k for just the speakers your still probably looking at close to $5k minus sourcing. $2k for speakers, $400 preamp, $800 power amp, $100-200 RAM speaker cables, $300-400 speaker stands, $600 GIK bass traps or $1200 Realtraps if you want something with a better finish.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Well, I appreciate the thoughts, but I don't plan on spending four figures on speakers until later. (Probably not until I have a proper listening room that can be fully treated. And then, I'll do a lot of research to get the best sound I can for the money.)
  
 At any rate, it's not logical to suggest skipping an affordable subwoofer and instead saving up for a speaker system that costs thousands when the context is getting full bass extension with the speakers I already have.
  
 As mentioned, I got five figures worth of headphones in the past, and these $250 speakers already blow them away—and that's with just a humble Schiit Fulla 2 ($99) as DAC/preamp, Samson MS200 (~$70) speaker stands, and cheap cables. This very affordable speaker system also destroys headphone systems (including with high-end DAC/amps) that are far more expensive than ones I owned. (I really wasn't expecting it to be so much better.)
  
 So I'm not in a rush to upgrade to fancy speakers. One step at a time, as they say.
  
 Tomorrow I will compare my iFi micro iDSD to the Fulla 2 once the cables I need arrive.
  
 Oh, and I'm aware of high-end speakers. Just look at these:
 http://www.smh.com.au/technology/gear/the-worlds-most-expensive-speakers-yours-for-only-15-million-20160112-gm45ao.html


----------



## mattlach

jibzilla said:


> Well my APM 4's with shipping included was $4k and I think you could get something very nice for $2k shipped with enough patience. Yamaha NS1000's are all over the place at that price but I would look past those if you have the time from companies like Onkyo, Sony, JBL, Sansui, Diatone and others. Considering I could suggest $50k vintage japan speakers (yes there are options at this price level) and modern day speakers that dwarf them $$$ wise I don't think suggesting you save your money till you hit $5k is all that outlandish.
> 
> I would put the most towards the speakers but even at $2k for just the speakers your still probably looking at close to $5k minus sourcing. $2k for speakers, $400 preamp, $800 power amp, $100-200 RAM speaker cables, $300-400 speaker stands, $600 GIK bass traps or $1200 Realtraps if you want something with a better finish.
> 
> ...




Lol, wow are you out of touch.

Spending more than a few hundred on any sound system is getting pretty close the realm of the 1%.

Certainly nice if you can do it, but it wouldn't be my starting point in recommendations to anyone.


----------



## Robert Wortman

mattlach said:


> Lol, wow are you out of touch.
> 
> Spending more than a few hundred on any sound system is getting pretty close the realm of the 1%.
> 
> Certainly nice if you can do it, but it wouldn't be my starting point in recommendations to anyone.


 

 ​Well, the law of diminishing returns kicks in at some point, but I don't think you can get anywhere near the 99'th percentile for a few hundred dollars unless you spend it on tools to break into someone's house and steal their stereo.  That said, I seriously don't think the sweet spot is in thirty year old Japanese designs either.


----------



## Robert Wortman

music alchemist said:


> If anyone wants to have an *otherworldly* experience with speakers, play the Higurashi No Naku Koro Ni (When They Cry) anime soundtracks. It's four rare CDs you'd have to import from Japan...but trust me...this is some of the best music I've heard.
> 
> Info links:
> http://vgmdb.net/album/5868
> ...


 
  Well, a good bit of this hobby is about buying stuff we don't need.   Have fun.


----------



## Music Alchemist

mattlach said:


> Lol, wow are you out of touch.
> 
> Spending more than a few hundred on any sound system is getting pretty close the realm of the 1%.
> 
> Certainly nice if you can do it, but it wouldn't be my starting point in recommendations to anyone.


 
  
 If I told you that the original retail value (not necessarily the current value) of the audio equipment I got in the first four months of 2017 exceeded $17,000, you may think something along those lines...but I played it smart by doing it a little at a time instead of all at once. (By trading, selling, and returning things.) I feel a little burnt-out, so it's refreshing that I can keep costs down for now with the speakers. On the topic of saving up, I do think it would be better to reinvest more for the future instead of blowing everything on a nicer system sooner.


----------



## jibzilla

mattlach said:


> Lol, wow are you out of touch.
> 
> Spending more than a few hundred on any sound system is getting pretty close the realm of the 1%.
> 
> Certainly nice if you can do it, but it wouldn't be my starting point in recommendations to anyone.


 
  
 I have the opposite opinion but to each his own. I think it depends very much on the times and what is the main media of that time. Had I suggest spending 4 figures on a laptop, TV or video games I doubt you would have anything to say with me being out of touch. From what I can see amongst my fellow 30 something friends spending 4 figures is very much the norm on at least one of those items. Music is yesterday's news now but people were spending hundreds, with inflation factored in 4 figures, all day long back in the 1970's and 80's.
  
 Did you see the 1.5 million dollar speakers? The $2k I suggested is 1% of that.


----------



## mattlach

robert wortman said:


> ​Well, the law of diminishing returns kicks in at some point, but I don't think you can get anywhere near the 99'th percentile for a few hundred dollars unless you spend it on tools to break into someone's house and steal their stereo.  That said, I seriously don't think the sweet spot is in thirty year old Japanese designs either.




I was referring to the 1% in Occupy Wallstreet terms, not in sound quality terms. Has that vernacular really faded already?


----------



## Robert Wortman

mattlach said:


> I was referring to the 1% in Occupy Wallstreet terms, not in sound quality terms. Has that vernacular really faded already?


 

 ​OK.  I understand.  I live in an area where there are some pretty wealthy people.  There is one of those FreeCycle mailing lists.  I used to try and snag stereo equipment to fix up and give away.  I have been in a couple of pretty pricey houses with 100K+ worth of cars in the garage that were giving away a $200 stereo and replacing it with a Bose wave system.  I have also known people personally that lived in a cheap apartment and drove old beater cars so they could buy pricey sound gear.  I drive to work every day in a sea of 30 to 50K SUV's.    It all depends on your beliefs about sound and priorities.


----------



## jibzilla

robert wortman said:


> ​  That said, I seriously don't think the sweet spot is in thirty year old Japanese designs either.


 
  
 Tell that to Sony R10/ Stax Original Omega owners.


----------



## Robert Wortman

jibzilla said:


> Tell that to Sony R10/ Stax Original Omega owners.


 

 ​I am not saying that there aren't good sounding older designs.  I am saying the progress has been made and those old designs are not the state of the speaker makers art.


----------



## jibzilla

robert wortman said:


> ​I am not saying that there aren't good sounding older designs.  I am saying the progress has been made and those old designs are not the state of the speaker makers art.


 
  
 What progress?


----------



## penmarker

jibzilla said:


> What progress?


 
 In terms of speaker designs, for example B&W has been constantly updating their 800 Diamond series. Looking at the lineup you can see they were boxy and now they are roundy and curvaceous-y. Amp and DAC design has been getting better and better with lowest distortion measurement compared to any previous TOTL designs. Headphones are no longer drivers in cups but with engineered materials to dampen resonances and tuning. Anyone can go on and on about the 'progress' companies and manufacturers had made, but I have a feeling that's not what you are after.
  
 What are you really asking with this question?


----------



## snellemin

Analog amp design has not changed.  The material that is used like caps, resistors and such have been updated over the years, but the basic design has not changed.  Same thing with the drivers. It's the same motor structure mostly.  Some different designs have been implemented, but nothing major has been done.  Same thing with headphone drivers of any kind, nothing has changed except time and how much people are willing to spend on headphones.  
  
 The big changes are in microchip design.  Shrinking everything.    Just amazing what sound we can get now from a tiny device, vs 20 years ago.


----------



## jibzilla

snellemin said:


> Analog amp design has not changed.  The material that is used like caps, resistors and such have been updated over the years, but the basic design has not changed.  Same thing with the drivers. It's the same motor structure mostly.  Some different designs have been implemented, but nothing major has been done.  Same thing with headphone drivers of any kind, nothing has changed except time and how much people are willing to spend on headphones.
> 
> The big changes are in microchip design.  Shrinking everything.    Just amazing what sound we can get now from a tiny device, vs 20 years ago.


 
  
 Yeah there are a few audio items where I think there are good modern day offerings with real cutting edge creativity going on. Other items I think had their pinnacle back in the heyday when music was the main form of entertainment. Speakers, headphones and TT's especially fall into the latter for me and made in Japan if I'm going to nitpick that.
  
 Active speakers I guess you could argue have kind of taken off but I was incredibly disappointed by most of what I listened to from budget to almost 5 figures.


----------



## penmarker

Progress is not necessarily strictly something new. Improving upon existing designs is progress. Streamlining is progress. Shrinking chip size is progress. Improving efficiency is progress. Lowering measured distortion level is progress. No doubt we have progressed so much from how it was in our heyday. We cannot undermine the changes we see with our naked eye and say nothing major has been done. There are hundreds of companies with thousands of engineers/designers/researchers working around the clock to shave 0.01% of distortions or efficiency. A lot of these improvements are tiny but require thousands of hours of manhour to attain.
  
 Take for instance the turntable bearing. Even when the basic design is still unchanged, some bearings has half the rumble as others. A major breakthrough would be a rigid material like diamond, highly polished with less than a few hundredth of a micron variation. However if you hold that major breakthrough part beside an existing part the only thing you can see different is the material used and not the finishing because the finishing is already indistinguishable with the naked eye. However if you do manage to manufacture that part, the whole analog world will bow down to you if not applaud you. That is to produce one alone. Imagine if you managed to design the perfect manufacturing process to produce the same part with the same degree of tolerance between all of the products (save for a few dozen rejects per thousand probably) and at a profitable cost? You will be a god. But other people from outside of the circle will be laughing at these monkeys praising a polished piece or rod made of shiny rock.
  
 In my short time I have seen so so many progress done in so many fields, yet people are oblivious to them because they stay out of the way. We've been conditioned to only notice when something goes wrong, because everything is supposed to go right. Good design is invisible.


----------



## castleofargh

it has become much cheaper to get good products, and reliability of cheap devices has also increased significantly.
 also anybody nowadays can play pretend to be a pro and get something to measure and correct a speaker system. IMO that's pretty incredible. we can't fix everything of course, but we're far from the guy sticking expensive devices into a room and praying for lucky fidelity and balanced sound at the listening position.
 I also find DSPs to be a massive part of audio and can't imagine the future of audio without DSPs for everything. it's still misunderstood and underestimated by most audiophiles but the potential can't be contested.


----------



## Robert Wortman

jibzilla said:


> What progress?


 

 ​They have measurement techniques for optimizing driver performance that didn't exist thirty years ago.  I admit that they would be biased but I doubt if any old timer speaker engineers that are still working will tell you that the stuff they did 30 years ago was the same or better than what they are doing now.  But this won't convince anyone.  I have hung out on vintage audio and vintage motorcycle forums and in both places they maintain that the old stuff is better.  One guy told me his 1983 CB1100F with engine and suspension mods was the equivalent of a modern sportbike.   You can believe that if you never actually ride the modern bike.  Vintage gear is certainly good enough to enjoy this hobby.  If that is your preference.  Have fun with it.


----------



## snellemin

penmarker said:


> Progress is not necessarily strictly something new.
> 
> In my short time I have seen so so many progress done in so many fields, yet people are oblivious to them because they stay out of the way. We've been conditioned to only notice when something goes wrong, because everything is supposed to go right. Good design is invisible.


 
 +1
  
 The road to perfection comes at a high price.  At the end is all comes down to what you are willing to pay for that "perfection".


----------



## mattlach

Not to mention that modern speakers are designed with mathematical modeling tools to capture the wavelengths inside the enclosures properly.   The old designs were a combination guesswork and "dark arts".  Modern good speakers use complex wave calculations and optimizations and are much more "science" based in their approach.

There is a certain charm in old speakers, but educated guesswork from the pre-computer era, will never compete with the accurate computation of today.

That's not to say everything today is great.  Far from it.   There is a lot of cheap junk pumped out as well, but once you get into the good stuff there isn't much of a comparison.

I'd put my RBH sx-6300's up against pretty much anything made before the late 90's or so.


----------



## jibzilla

penmarker said:


> Progress is not necessarily strictly something new. Improving upon existing designs is progress. Streamlining is progress. Shrinking chip size is progress. Improving efficiency is progress. Lowering measured distortion level is progress. No doubt we have progressed so much from how it was in our heyday. We cannot undermine the changes we see with our naked eye and say nothing major has been done. There are hundreds of companies with thousands of engineers/designers/researchers working around the clock to shave 0.01% of distortions or efficiency. A lot of these improvements are tiny but require thousands of hours of manhour to attain.
> 
> Take for instance the turntable bearing. Even when the basic design is still unchanged, some bearings has half the rumble as others. A major breakthrough would be a rigid material like diamond, highly polished with less than a few hundredth of a micron variation. However if you hold that major breakthrough part beside an existing part the only thing you can see different is the material used and not the finishing because the finishing is already indistinguishable with the naked eye. However if you do manage to manufacture that part, the whole analog world will bow down to you if not applaud you. That is to produce one alone. Imagine if you managed to design the perfect manufacturing process to produce the same part with the same degree of tolerance between all of the products (save for a few dozen rejects per thousand probably) and at a profitable cost? You will be a god. But other people from outside of the circle will be laughing at these monkeys praising a polished piece or rod made of shiny rock.
> 
> In my short time I have seen so so many progress done in so many fields, yet people are oblivious to them because they stay out of the way. We've been conditioned to only notice when something goes wrong, because everything is supposed to go right. Good design is invisible.


 
  
 I think an air bearing would be the way to go if you had the cash. Made many years ago. But of course now we have a levitating platter in the MagLev. Horrible idea and not progress in the slightest. I thought this was about speakers and headphones.


----------



## penmarker

jibzilla said:


> Horrible idea and not progress in the slightest.


 
 Ok mister grumpy.


----------



## jibzilla

To each his own I just do not see much if any real improvements. Different yes, better no. Considering I received my speakers and TT in time capsule condition at what they retailed for many years ago I feel like I got a heck of deal with no inflation factored in. Headphones I can not do that even at mid level. Sony mdr-cd3000's, k-1000's and others go for many times the price they retailed for. Maybe not retail price for the k-1000 but I looked up lots of street price deals on here when they were available. Sometimes as little as $400 n.i.b. Sony R10, Original Omega, Original Orpheus forget about it. Tons of issues with all 3 headphones and dominated by a more uber wealthy/uber rare crowd. That is not the case with speakers and TT's. Lots of options in mint condition with no inflation and measurements be damned sound more preferable to my ears.
  
 I guess what gets me "grumpy" is that what you call progress I call gimmicks and I'm tired of all the gimmicks. Course the woofers in my speakers are a gimmick and work in spades so maybe I should lighten up a bit.


----------



## gregorio

snellemin said:


> The road to perfection comes at a high price.  At the end is all comes down to what you are willing to pay for that "perfection".


 
  
 Actually, I think that's probably the biggest change which has occurred. In much of the reproduction chain, "perfection" now comes at an incredibly low price. Mass produced components costing just a few bucks incorporated in devices like iPhones have reached a level of perfection/accuracy which even the most expensive of analogue hi-fi gear can't achieve. This only applies to components like DACs and amps though, rather than the transducers (like headphones and speakers) and unfortunately, at the same time as perfection has effectively been achieved ridiculously cheaply in parts of the chain, so the amount of time and money spent on creating/producing the musical content itself has massively declined.
  
 G


----------



## SP Wild

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes, absolutely crucial but for two reasons, not just one: Firstly, yes, speaker performance is defined by the room acoustics. Typically, a $1,000 set of speakers in a well treated room will out perform a $20,000+ set of speakers in an untreated room. Secondly, commercial recording/mastering studios are NOT designed to be dead (anechoic), they do typically use some absorption to reduce room reflections but they usually employ at least a fair amount of diffusion. Diffusion randomises room reflections rather than removing them, which stops the reflections from interacting and changing the perceived frequency response. This too is a crucial factor because music is mixed and mastered in these rooms (with their neutral room reverb/acoustics). In other words, the music has been designed to be listened to in a room (with room acoustics). Listening to music on headphones obviously largely eliminates room acoustics, the music therefore sounds much drier (less reverb) than intended. The result of effectively less reverb is that the music sounds more "in your head", more separated and more detailed than was intended. Some people like that, others prefer accuracy (to hear what the artists intended).
> 
> 2. I would say that's certain rather than "possible". It's not a question of "if" the setup/room acoustics are "sabotaging" speaker performance, it's a question of "how much". Typical rooms in houses are roughly cuboid shaped which is unfortunately the absolute worst possible shape acoustically.
> 
> ...




In the customer's toilet where I work, the urinary has a rubber pad with spines covering it laid on the bottom. 

At first I paid no attetion to it, until I peed on it... To my astonishment it dispersed all the energy contained within the urine stream, the result is absolutely no chance if splashback. I thought of this picture of a studio. 

Alas... One then realised one spends too much time on Head-fi.org.

Those are Genelec monitors atop what looks like ATC towers? 

The lesson here is, a properly treated studio room is what an audio professional will strive for... It in itself looks like a work of art.


----------



## SP Wild

Jibzilla, I used to go through the speakers on youtube on a Japanese channel featuring 'kendrick sound'. 

I would listen to all these speakers and love that sound style (using LCD2s). So much better than skinny speakers on youtube. I never thought I would own speakers that can create such a nice sound. They are all big woofered. A lot of JBLs and some others. 

The Inner Fidelity series of articles by Bob Katz made me build the courage to go audition studio monitors. I was previously fearful of expensive wonky sounding speakers I heard at audiophile shops that I couldn't even afford. 

Firstly a set if palm sized Genelec monitors for over a grand freaked me out... They packed more and better bass than my 8 inch Celestions. 

I still am pleased with the display Neumann KH120s that I walked away with. 

As with all things audio... There are things that weren't to my taste and I am curious with other speakers. 

Today I am breaking in a pair of Adam A7Xs. It dawns on me... These make that sound from those giant big woofered Japanese speakers. 

So far these A7Xs sound much better to me than the KH120s. I haven't plugged the KH120s to confirm... But to 'feel' they are 'much' better, I don't see the need to confirm.


----------



## jibzilla

sp wild said:


> Jibzilla, I used to go through the speakers on youtube on a Japanese channel featuring 'kendrick sound'.
> 
> I would listen to all these speakers and love that sound style (using LCD2s). So much better than skinny speakers on youtube. I never thought I would own speakers that can create such a nice sound. They are all big woofered. A lot of JBLs and some others.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I had A7x's and Sub8 for five years. One of the biggest mainstays I have ever had in my dj/casual listening station. Most gear does not last over a couple months. Great speakers and I also enjoy the Kendrick audio on youtube. They mostly specialize in JBL but I have seen other brands from time to time.


----------



## SP Wild

jibzilla said:


> I had A7x's and Sub8 for five years. One of the biggest mainstays I have ever had in my dj/casual listening station. Most gear does not last over a couple months. Great speakers and I also enjoy the Kendrick audio on youtube. They mostly specialize in JBL but I have seen other brands from time to time.




I don't feel the need for a sub on my KH120 or A7X. Where do you crossover? I think high passing at 80 HZ would be perfect. At around 60-40hz the bass is wooly on the A7Xs... More woolly than the KH120... But above the wooliness zone is a tighter bassline than the KH120s. Overall the A7X bass is more tuneful than the KH120. Toms sound more correct. Snare is more focussed indicating an overall higher transient capability. The X Art ribbon tweeter produces better treble resolution than HD800 and LCD2. The KH120 Dome is a shade less than those two headphones, in line with the D7000 headphone.


----------



## jibzilla

sp wild said:


> I don't feel the need for a sub on my KH120 or A7X. Where do you crossover? I think high passing at 80 HZ would be perfect. At around 60-40hz the bass is wooly on the A7Xs... More woolly than the KH120... But above the wooliness zone is a tighter bassline than the KH120s. Overall the A7X bass is more tuneful than the KH120. Toms sound more correct. Snare is more focussed indicating an overall higher transient capability. The X Art ribbon tweeter produces better treble resolution than HD800 and LCD2. The KH120 Dome is a shade less than those two headphones, in line with the D7000 headphone.


 
  
 I ran the sub8 at 80hz. Didn't use it a whole lot. Anything beyond 1/4th power and it started to drown out the A7x's which I ran at half power. Still for certain songs it was nice to have and I really enjoyed the remote that came with it. I turned the bass down just a smidge and the mids up a little on the A7x's after the sub8 was in the equation. Before that I ran everything stock on the A7x's. The ribbon tweeters do have a nice treble but can be harsh if you turn them up to high.


----------



## SP Wild

jibzilla said:


> I ran the sub8 at 80hz. Didn't use it a whole lot. Anything beyond 1/4th power and it started to drown out the A7x's which I ran at half power. Still for certain songs it was nice to have and I really enjoyed the remote that came with it. I turned the bass down just a smidge and the mids up a little on the A7x's after the sub8 was in the equation. Before that I ran everything stock on the A7x's. The ribbon tweeters do have a nice treble but can be harsh if you turn them up to high.




Listening to my Shure SE215s now and can see how I need a subwoofer for a full range sound. 

I switched back to the KH120 and noticed the center mids sound more 'spacious' and prominent. Then I took a break from the breaking in and listening to speakers. 

A few days later on fresh ears... The A7Xs sounded lean neutral... The KH120 never ever sounds lean. 

The doubts kick in. It doesn't matter how precise the woofer and tweeter is... If the tone ain't right to me, neither us the satisfaction. 

But wait... I forgot... These ain't audiophile passives. These are professional actives... There are tone trimmers out back. A few clicks positive on the low shelf, a few clicks negative on the high shelf and a few clicks negative on the tweeter level. 

Much better... The drivers on the A7X are more advanced than the KH120. The extra center mids is a resonant property of the aluminium box on the KH120, helped as well by the smaller size of the woofer perhaps. 

The A7Xs are better every where else. I don't wanna turn them off after adjusting the trims... But alas, tommorrow is work and it's getting late. 

Before going to bed I conclude that the HD650 and now listening to the SE215 are competitive with studio monitors in the KH120 and A7X league, with regards to overall resolution. 

What about my LCD2s and HD800S? Where do I have to go with speakers to match their resolution capability? 

Adam just released their S line of top level monitors... The S2V seems awesome. I contemplate doing a massive liquidation of my audio gear to raise the funds.


----------



## ajreynol

For me the decision to listen to my D7000's or my B&W floor speakers + pair of $4,000 Martin Logan subs is purely a function of whether I want to hear the music on my head or in my chest. Personally I like the balance of my headphones. They actually make some of the imbalance (recessed low mids) stand out in my full speaker setup.
  
 But my headphones...I can't feel Kendrick's DNA. in my chest. And obviously it's not a solution for gatherings. 
  
 So yea, different solutions for different situations.


----------



## castleofargh

sp wild said:


> Listening to my Shure SE215s now and can see how I need a subwoofer for a full range sound.
> 
> I switched back to the KH120 and noticed the center mids sound more 'spacious' and prominent. Then I took a break from the breaking in and listening to speakers.
> 
> ...


 
 measure the room response, calibrate your speakers and if that's not enough start taking some walls down to limit reverb.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 but seriously the idea that because you have reasonably flat speakers, the sound at your ears in your room will be flat is a basic mistake. the room and placement are an important part of the final sound and proper setting, calibration, room treatment, can go a long way.
  
 your focus on perceived details feels to me like you don't want speakers in the first place. in my case for example, I spend my time trying to get headphones to sound like speakers(signature, reverb, stereo). I can't wait to get a Smyth Realiser to improve on that and get the instruments in front of me and at a reasonable distance. headphone presentation of typical albums is driving me crazy. half the reason is my own head and how far I am from the average head(just by size only I'm a minority), but the other half is that I listen to albums mastered on speakers for speakers. headphones do not offer the same stereo at all so my vision of overall resolution isn't yours.
 if those things don't matter to you, and you only care about particular feelings of detailed sound, or getting objectively low distortions, then it's a fact that headphones can do better.


----------



## Music Alchemist

I wonder what the best nearfield speakers are regardless of price and type. Usually, when talking about serious audiophile speakers, people mean passive floorstanding speakers...but they wouldn't work in a nearfield setting.


----------



## theveterans

music alchemist said:


> I wonder what the best nearfield speakers are regardless of price and type. Usually, when talking about serious audiophile speakers, people mean passive floorstanding speakers...but they wouldn't work in a nearfield setting.




Nearfield monitors don't work well on living room setting either as they would be too bass heavy for that purpose


----------



## Music Alchemist

castleofargh said:


> your focus on perceived details feels to me like you don't want speakers in the first place. in my case for example, I spend my time trying to get headphones to sound like speakers(signature, reverb, stereo). I can't wait to get a Smyth Realiser to improve on that and get the instruments in front of me and at a reasonable distance. headphone presentation of typical albums is driving me crazy. half the reason is my own head and how far I am from the average head(just by size only I'm a minority), but the other half is that I listen to albums mastered on speakers for speakers. headphones do not offer the same stereo at all so my vision of overall resolution isn't yours. if those things don't matter to you, and you only care about particular feelings of detailed sound, or getting objectively low distortions, then it's a fact that headphones can do better.


 
  
 I am convinced that headphones do not have better resolution than my speakers. I have yet to come across any details reproduced by the most resolving headphones (like the HD 800, STAX, etc.) that are not also reproduced by the speakers. It's just that they aren't right next to my ears anymore, so they're not always so apparent. But that's how the details tend to be in the original performance as well. When something is out on a stage, you're not going to be able to analyze it in the way that headphones let you. And to be honest, I'm hearing plenty of details on these speakers that I never noticed on headphones.
  


theveterans said:


> Nearfield monitors don't work well on living room setting either as they would be too bass heavy for that purpose


 
  
 I don't plan on switching my listening setting anytime soon. I only listen to music at my computer in my bedroom, which is why I'm curious how far I can take things in that setting. Eventually I will pursue the best sound at all costs, but that could be years from now.


----------



## Robert Wortman

music alchemist said:


> I wonder what the best nearfield speakers are regardless of price and type. Usually, when talking about serious audiophile speakers, people mean passive floorstanding speakers...but they wouldn't work in a nearfield setting.


 

 ​I don't know what the previous poster meant by monitor speakers being too bass heavy for a living room.  Monitors for near field listening in my experience are the opposite, too bass shy to fill a room with low frequency sound.  I am using a pair of PSB Imagine Mini's as rear speakers in a surround setup.  Before I mounted them, I listened to them as front stereo speakers.  Tiny and  pretty stunning sound but you do need an amp to power them. Not cheap, but not over the top expensive either.  I don't know what the "best" ones are.  No one else does either.  Best for one listener isn't the same as best for someone else.  Best for what?   A guy mixing rap probably isn't go to choose the same monitor as a guy doing orchestra recordings.  http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/imagine/Imagine-Mini


----------



## Music Alchemist

robert wortman said:


> ​I don't know what the previous poster meant by monitor speakers being too bass heavy for a living room.  Monitors for near field listening in my experience are the opposite, too bass shy to fill a room with low frequency sound.  I am using a pair of PSB Imagine Mini's as rear speakers in a surround setup.  Before I mounted them, I listened to them as front stereo speakers.  Tiny and  pretty stunning sound but you do need an amp to power them. Not cheap, but not over the top expensive either.  I don't know what the "best" ones are.  No one else does either.  Best for one listener isn't the same as best for someone else.  Best for what?   A guy mixing rap probably isn't go to choose the same monitor as a guy doing orchestra recordings.  http://www.psbspeakers.com/products/imagine/Imagine-Mini


 
  
 I meant best as in highest fidelity (most accurate) in every way or at least in the most ways. I already have JBL LSR305 speakers, so I'm not looking at others around the same price range. (Especially not smaller ones.) I'm in the research process of which speakers to get next when the time comes. I know the KEF LS50 is well-regarded in the entry-level four figure range for nearfields...but I have no idea which assortment of speakers would be the absolute best in the nearfield category regardless of price.
  
 Oh, and my speakers (with five inch woofers) can produce monstrous bass that can vibrate through the house at high volume. Maybe the nearfields you've used just don't do bass well. @theveterans is using even larger nearfield speakers. I wouldn't be surprised if there was too much bass if you just randomly put them in a room. I set the LF trim switch to -2 dB on mine because it's too much, and still is sometimes even then. (Haven't bothered with serious EQ yet.)


----------



## theveterans

^ I have it at -4 db bass trim for that reason. I went with the larger woofers for a flatter low frequency extension. A sub however would be disastrous in a bedroom setting IMO so 6.5" woofer is perfect for me. To me, I don't recommend Chord Mojo as the DAC for studio speakers as I find that it artificially boost bass leading to resonance problems. That's why I use the Schiit Bifrost Multibit instead since it sounds flatter, but Mojo sounds better with headphones IMO due to that bass boost.


----------



## Music Alchemist

theveterans said:


> ^ I have it at -4 db bass trim for that reason. I went with the larger woofers for a flatter low frequency extension. A sub however would be disastrous in a bedroom setting IMO so 6.5" woofer is perfect for me. To me, I don't recommend Chord Mojo as the DAC for studio speakers as I find that it artificially boost bass leading to resonance problems. That's why I use the Schiit Bifrost Multibit instead since it sounds flatter, but Mojo sounds better with headphones IMO due to that bass boost.


 
  
 I actually bought a Modi Multibit the other night. Excited! Someone who has a lot of DAC experience prefers it over the Bifrost Multibit and even Gungnir Multibit (but not Yggdrasil), which surprised me. What surprised me even more, though, is how much difference there is between the two DAC/amps I have on hand. With the iFi micro iDSD in DAC/preamp mode, it sounds like I'm listening to different speakers...but it's a little _too_ different. It's more accurate when I put it in DAC only mode and pair it with the Schiit SYS passive preamp.


----------



## theveterans

Bifrost Multibit is analytical sounding, more akin to Chord Hugo in that sense. That's why some prefer the Mojo over Hugo.


----------



## castleofargh

I really can't help, I use the lsr308 into a scarlet 2i2. does everything I want except bringing me pizza, but it's not exactly TOTL gear ^_^.


----------



## Music Alchemist

castleofargh said:


> I really can't help, I use the lsr308 into a scarlet 2i2. does everything I want except bringing me pizza, but it's not exactly TOTL gear ^_^.


 
  
 Nice. Didn't realize our speakers were so similar. And on that note...I finally got around to watching One Punch Man yesterday. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 (For those not in the know, his avatar is the main character from that anime.)


----------



## Robert Wortman

music alchemist said:


> I meant best as in highest fidelity (most accurate) in every way or at least in the most ways. I already have JBL LSR305 speakers, so I'm not looking at others around the same price range. (Especially not smaller ones.) I'm in the research process of which speakers to get next when the time comes. I know the KEF LS50 is well-regarded in the entry-level four figure range for nearfields...but I have no idea which assortment of speakers would be the absolute best in the nearfield category regardless of price.
> 
> Oh, and my speakers (with five inch woofers) can produce monstrous bass that can vibrate through the house at high volume. Maybe the nearfields you've used just don't do bass well. @theveterans is using even larger nearfield speakers. I wouldn't be surprised if there was too much bass if you just randomly put them in a room. I set the LF trim switch to -2 dB on mine because it's too much, and still is sometimes even then. (Haven't bothered with serious EQ yet.)


 

 ​I have the same speakers.  I would not call them full range or bass heavy speakers in any medium sized or larger room.  I have to use headphones to check my mixes because I can end up with too much low bass in them if I trust the 305's alone. I bet you can ask 20 people, either well heeled audiophiles or big budget recording engineers, and you won't get a consistent answer. Once you get to a certain level ,price and accuracy don't correlate at all.  In the audiophile circles, accurate speakers tend to be disliked.


----------



## Music Alchemist

robert wortman said:


> ​I have the same speakers.  I would not call them full range or bass heavy speakers in any medium sized or larger room.


 
  
 But are you using them in a not-large bedroom like me? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







  
 These are nearfields, so I don't see why anyone would get them for a large room.
  
 Since they only extend to 43 Hz or so, they're definitely not full-range, but this is only an issue for music with really deep bass.


----------



## Robert Wortman

music alchemist said:


> But are you using them in a not-large bedroom like me?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 ​Yes, I am using them in a bedroom.  The post I disagreed with said that nearfield monitors were too bass heavy for use in living room.  That seems wrong to me.


----------



## Music Alchemist

robert wortman said:


> ​Yes, I am using them in a bedroom.  The post I disagreed with said that nearfield monitors were too bass heavy for use in living room.  That seems wrong to me.


 
  
 I see. I thought you were saying they're always bass-light or something. Anyway, as I understand it, the larger woofers generate a lot more bass.


----------



## theveterans

robert wortman said:


> ​Yes, I am using them in a bedroom.  The post I disagreed with said that nearfield monitors were too bass heavy for use in living room.  That seems wrong to me.


 
  
 I would be more specific that it's those rear-ported speakers are the ones that tend to be bass heavy as you increase the distance between you and the speakers. Unless you have excellent bass traps in the wall, this effect is very apparent at least in my living room.


----------



## Music Alchemist

theveterans said:


> I would be more specific that it's those rear-ported speakers are the ones that tend to be bass heavy as you increase the distance between you and the speakers. Unless you have excellent bass traps in the wall, this effect is very apparent at least in my living room.


 
  
 Yep, I noticed weird things going on when I moved them further away. I prefer them closer anyway.


----------



## Music Alchemist

Based on my research, it would appear the ADAM A7X and ADAM Sub8 would be a good choice for when I upgrade my nearfield setup. Then perhaps I could stick with that until I can build a dedicated treated listening room for floorstanding speakers. I'm enjoying my current speakers so much I don't feel the urge to upgrade soon, at any rate.
  
 Anyone else notice how much more enjoyable late night listening can be? I suspect it's due to biology more than anything else.
  
This jazz track sounds phenomenal.
  
 Edit: Then again, the A77X is 3-way and some say it doesn't need a sub. ...But I came across this post that claims the S2X is the best nearfield speaker even when compared against more expensive ones. That caught my attention. At $5K for a pair, it's pretty pricey, though... The speaker hobby is definitely even more neurotic than the headphone one. O_O


----------



## SP Wild

music alchemist said:


> Based on my research, it would appear the ADAM A7X and ADAM Sub8 would be a good choice for when I upgrade my nearfield setup. Then perhaps I could stick with that until I can build a dedicated treated listening room for floorstanding speakers. I'm enjoying my current speakers so much I don't feel the urge to upgrade soon, though.
> 
> Anyone else notice how much more enjoyable late night listening can be? I suspect it's due to biology more than anything else.
> 
> ...




No...Just us audiophiles are a little neurotic. Pro audio guys pic a monitor that is a good tool for them to do the job and get on with it.

Me? No... I have to be an audiophile.... After deciding the A7Xs had better drivers than the Neumann KH120s, case closed...Sell the KH120s and move on...I shall.

I created a new playlist having tire of the old playlist...Bask in the gargantuan IMAX like soundstage of these A7Xs (a curved IMAX screen even....Like those gimmick curve TVs...The soundstage wraps around me! I never experience this 'soundstage' like this before...I come from headphones, and speakers before I knew about 'speaker placement'). I think to myself...I paid big bucks for these KH120s, they blew me away with their enormous soundstage and how panoramic their soundstage was, let's have a listen to them again, a farewell session. So I connect them up. Hit play.

Wait a minute. There are things in this new playlist I didn't hear in the A7Xs. The reverse happened with my old playlist...Started on the KH120 hear new things on the A7Xs.

There is so much more information in the midrange...Positional information. Voices definately come out more with a naturalism the A7Xs cannot match. The sound stage is a slightly smaller IMAX...Not curved, but it has more depth, A 3D IMAX? Either way, the soundstage sounds more realistic on the KH120 than the A7Xs, to me.

What about this whole A7X has better drivers than KH120s?

They do! I swear. I have been in this exact same situation before. When I owned the HD650 and bought the D7000. The Denon D7000 had better transients, a tighter bass...I was smitten with them, but it didn't take long for me to realise I still preferred the HD650.

And it was because of the midrange.

At this stage I know not which studio monitor I definately like more.



On a different note, I would like to conclude with my take on this whole headphones Vs speakers.

Going along with the IMAX theme. Imagine IMAX is the speaker...Does that make headphones A TV screen? IEMs are like tablets? That could work. We could see just as much detail on the tablet as on the IMAX, maybe more...Depending on how close we hold the tablet to our vision.

I personally would change it up a bit. When I put on headphones or IEMs..I can still enjoy music immensely. I get a full range sound, bass down to 20hz on an IEM costing 100 dollars, bass more accurate than a million dollar speakers in an untreated room. It's like watching good home cinema.

Speakers is the IMAX screen...In 3D...Better than we have now, we don't need 3D glasses. In fact putting on the 3D glasses on in this theoretical IMAX screen reduces it to 2D and the image shrinks to that of home cinema. That's what headphones are. You wear them, like glasses. IEMs are like Contacts...Maybe not, I don't wear glasses and therefore cannot comprehend sticking things in my eyeballs, only to find the image reduce further in size from home cinema!

Of course it's not so cut and dry. There is the issue of neighbours and late night listening.

It's kinda like watching the Spice Girls live in London... Ain't no one gotta know 'bout dat schiit!


----------



## lexipenia

I enjoy listening on headphones, but I view them as a rather artificial, even "analytic", way of appreciating music. People talk about how having a wide soundstage is so important for classical music, but listening with HD800s is miles away from listening in a concert hall – it's so wide, it's like you're on the conductor's podium. Even if speakers don't easily achieve the same level of detail, the experience of having sound there in the room with you, not just in your head, is far more natural.


----------



## a1uc

one can also benefit from headphones if they have room issue , listening to headphone takes the room out of the equation . I like both speakers and headphones .


----------



## Music Alchemist (May 4, 2017)

One o' muh buddies has been tryin' to turn me on to Ascend Acoustics.

He talks about how they're designed to have very high accuracy and implies they are just as or more accurate than some of the most expensive speakers even though they're under $2,000.

Does anyone have experience with them?

I am particularly curious how they compare to ADAM's flagship S series.

On that note, I contacted ADAM Audio and was basically informed that the S2V is replacing the S2X and is even better despite being $3,500 per pair instead of $5,000.

Links, for reference:
https://www.adam-audio.com/en/s-series/s2v/
https://www.adam-audio.com/en/s-series/
http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRM2/srm2.html

Given the impressive things I've read about the S2X, the S2V is at the top of my list for potential endgame nearfields to use until I can build a much more serious floorstanding system. (Which will most likely not come to fruition until I move into a different house.)

I could always simply buy the Ascend speakers in addition to the ADAMs to find out for myself how they compare, but I thought I'd pop in here and see if anyone had insights.


----------



## gregorio

SP Wild said:


> [1] Pro audio guys pic a monitor that is a good tool for them to do the job and get on with it.
> 
> [2] Me? No... I have to be an audiophile.... After deciding the A7Xs had better drivers than the Neumann KH120s, case closed...Sell the KH120s and move on...I shall.
> 
> [3] I created a new playlist having tire of the old playlist...Bask in the gargantuan IMAX like soundstage of these A7Xs ...



1. That's a lie! Pro audio guys do NOT just pic a monitor, they typically get a studio designer to design and build an entire system, which include the monitors, room construction/treatment to ensure optimal performance.

2. Yep, that sounds like an audiophile. Ignore the important factors which really affect the sonic performance of a system and make a decision based on some inconsequential detail.

3. You're joking right? You do realise an Imax system has six channels, including surround and ceiling channels? If you're saying that your stereo pair of A7Xs has a soundstage that extends all the way behind you and up to the ceiling then you've got some very serious phasing/positioning problems!! On another note, I put some special synthetic motor oil in my Ford Focus and now it drives exactly the same as a Ferrari, I swear! lol

I'm not knocking the A7Xs, they're good little nearfield monitors for the price but that's all they are, they're not made by angels to break the laws of physics and they're nothing even remotely like an Imax system, in either frequency response or soundstage.

Apologies if I've come across too harshly but I do get annoyed with some of the ridiculous claims audiophiles make about kit. More people would get more enjoyment and far fewer would get ripped-off without even realising it, if more audiophiles were more honest/realistic.

G


----------



## SP Wild

Anyone here got any experience with the ATC Scm20 ASL MKII?  I think for me to settle on nearfields I have to move above the KH120 and A7Xs. 

I will probably sell the A7Xs and keep the KH120s. 

These past couple of months, 3 sets of studio monitors have been evaluated.  In this time frame the only head phone I used was my SE215s on my daily commute. 

I have learned a lot.  Like how the tweeter flavours the entire sound of the speakers, because virtually all transient events must pass via the tweeter... Including kick drums and bass guitar. 

Which is why I incorrectly believed the A7Xs had a better woofer than the KH120s.  The bass attacked better on the A7Xs.  But why can I follow the bass better on the KH120? 

Because the tweeter on the A7Xs are more detailed than on the KH120.  However,  the KH120 'stopped'  or 'braked' the bass notes more quickly, so I follow the bass better.  The woofer in the KH120 is better than the woofer on the A7Xs. 

Any tweeter should do so long as it is not poor.  Dome, ribbon or horn. 

What is difficult with speakers due to costs and physics, is the woofer sounds.

I would like to hear Harbeths, who have a great article on their website explaining the 'IMAX' like, metaphorically speaking, sound stage.  And curved soundstage etc, and I concur.  Having experienced all these types fron the 3 studio monitors that passed my hands. 

The ATC Scm20 ASL MKII, has a monstrous looking 6 inch woofer.  And is extremely heavy for a two way nearfield.  But I think it aligns with my 'bottoms up' philosophy on audio reproduction. 

I recently put on my HD800S and have a new found appreciation for this headphone.  Along with my LCD2, they far out resolve studio monitors in the league of A7X and KH120... Due only to physics and the woofer.  The tweeters can keep up with my headphones no problems... But from where the woofer takes over all the music, there is no contest.  The top end headphones are far superior.  More detailed, more technical, more musical, more enjoyable.

Unless sound stage is of primary concern, headphone hold the edge in audio fidelity value for dollar and pound for pound.


----------



## Music Alchemist

SP Wild said:


> Anyone here got any experience with the ATC Scm20 ASL MKII?  I think for me to settle on nearfields I have to move above the KH120 and A7Xs.
> 
> I will probably sell the A7Xs and keep the KH120s.
> 
> ...



If you're looking at nearfields that pricey, add this one to your list as well. It's the one I want.

https://www.adam-audio.com/en/s-series/s2v/

As I mentioned before (I know I'm repeating myself perhaps a bit too much), I think my JBL speakers are far superior to headphones in every way...but it's all just opinions.


----------



## SP Wild

Music Alchemist said:


> If you're looking at nearfields that pricey, add this one to your list as well. It's the one I want.
> 
> https://www.adam-audio.com/en/s-series/s2v/
> 
> As I mentioned before (I know I'm repeating myself perhaps a bit too much), I think my JBL speakers are far superior to headphones in every way...but it's all just opinions.



I mentioned those a few posts ago.  They look totally Darth Vader cool. 

I look at the economics of producing a speaker.  Where is the cost breakdown, providing the manufacturer is reputable.  Going by my Adams, a large part of the cost is the handmade in Germany AMT tweeter.  And that is where it's strength is. 

My KH120 monitor is similarly priced.  It uses a regular dome tweeter, saving cost. It uses a smaller woofer.  Where it makes the ground up, is a higher quality woofer, hence I get better mids and more tuneful bass, along with an aluminium housing to contain the physics of the better woofer, hence a better midrange. 

I know I prefer to maximise value on the woofer and the associated cabinetry to contain the physics.  ATC is a woofer specialist that's how they began as a company, they built woofers.  Their economic efficiency is in the woofer. 

Adams economic efficiency is in their tweeter, they buikd their own AMT ribbon.  They outsource their woofers.

Without being abke to audition both in my room to compare, educated guess is all I can do for what I know I like. 

I heard the JBL LSR 305.  I don't think I heard a 5 incher go so deep in the bass.  Unbelievable speaker to be honest.  After all, JBL has massive economy scales, manufacturing all their own drivers.  Doggy and birdy ones!


----------



## Robert Wortman

[QUOTE="SP Wild, post: 13487705, member: 142470
Unless sound stage is of primary concern, headphone hold the edge in audio fidelity value for dollar and pound for pound.[/QUOTE]

This is true up to a point. Once you reach the point where the speaker has similar resolution, the headphone stops being better and starts just being different.  I also don't know of you can do real surround with headphones and HD surround can sound pretty magical.


----------



## Music Alchemist

I'm still waiting for a headphone to reproduce something that my speakers can't. (Aside from bass extension, of course.)


----------



## Robert Wortman

Music Alchemist said:


> I'm still waiting for a headphone to reproduce something that my speakers can't. (Aside from bass extension, of course.)



Dollar for dollar up to a point.  I have a pair of Shure SRH840's.  I don't believe there are any $200/pair speakers that can duplicate the resolution of these 'phones.


----------



## Music Alchemist (May 13, 2017)

Robert Wortman said:


> Dollar for dollar up to a point.  I have a pair of Shure SRH840's.  I don't believe there are any $200/pair speakers that can duplicate the resolution of these 'phones.



I owned five figures worth of headphones and auditioned five figures worth of other headphones on top of that. (Read through my profile for details.) I have yet to hear a single detail on any headphone (including highly resolving ones like the HD 800) that my speakers do not also reproduce. It's just that headphones tend to emphasize certain details in an unnatural way while speakers reproduce them in a more natural way.

Oh, and I'm actually hearing far more *real* detail from the speakers.


----------



## Robert Wortman

I wasn't talking about 5 figure anything.  I listen to my speakers except when I travel because they do things no headphone can do.  At the cheap end, though, headphones outperform speakers.  That is my experience. I have heard headphones under $50 that didn't sound bad at all.  I have NEVER heard a speaker pair under $50 that weren't garbage.   I have a pretty expensive surround setup that sounds better than any headphone I have heard.  My Shure's are better than my JBL LSR305's at some things. I still use the JBL's more for mixing because a headphone stereo image is just strange.   If your 5 figure headphones aren't any better than a cheap pair of speakers I guess I am glad I never bought any 5 figure headphones.


----------



## Music Alchemist

Robert Wortman said:


> I wasn't talking about 5 figure anything.  I listen to my speakers except when I travel because they do things no headphone can do.  At the cheap end, though, headphones outperform speakers.  That is my experience. I have heard headphones under $50 that didn't sound bad at all.  I have NEVER heard a speaker pair under $50 that weren't garbage.   I have a pretty expensive surround setup that sounds better than any headphone I have heard.  My Shure's are better than my JBL LSR305's at some things. I still use the JBL's more for mixing because a headphone stereo image is just strange.   If your 5 figure headphones aren't any better than a cheap pair of speakers I guess I am glad I never bought any 5 figure headphones.



I meant the total value of all the headphones, not an individual headphone. The LSR305 was originally $400, so it's a little higher than the "cheap" range. I can't think of a single category in which any headphone is actually better. (Save for the fact that headphones can extend deeper in the bass.) I'd be interested in hearing what others who disagree are hearing.


----------



## Music Alchemist

[double post]


----------



## gregorio

SP Wild said:


> [1] The ATC Scm20 ASL MKII, has a monstrous looking 6 inch woofer.
> [2] Unless sound stage is of primary concern, headphone hold the edge in audio fidelity value for dollar and pound for pound.



1. Do you mean it's "monstrous looking" because it's shaped like a monster? It's can't be monstrous looking because of it's size, as a 6" LF driver is small and the exact opposite of "monstrous"! 
2. Accurate soundstage reproduction is part of "fidelity"! So your statement doesn't make any sense. It still wouldn't have made sense if you'd said "Provided soundstage is of no concern, ... "



SP Wild said:


> I know I prefer to maximise value on the woofer and the associated cabinetry to contain the physics.



You are still falling into the same audiophile trap I mentioned previously. Despite you mentioning "the physics" a number of times, you don't seem to realise that you're actually ignoring the physics! The cabinetry of a speaker is obviously NOT designed to "contain" the physics, it's designed to project sound out into the listening environment and this is the part of "the physics" which you're completely ignoring. If you're the least bit interested in fidelity, instead of thinking only about the physics of the speaker components, you'd be thinking about the physics which dictate how those speaker components will actually perform in the real world. If one doesn't consider environment, a speaker's price or performance is irrelevant! It's like with a car, where you also have to consider environment. If you were to spend $200k on a Ferrari for it's performance you'd be sorely disappointed, as you'd actually get better performance from a $20k Land Rover if your environment is a muddy field. In the audiophile world though, testimonials, marketing and reviews in say Car-o-phile magazine would likely result not in sore disappointment but an honest belief they were actually getting "night and day", $180k better performance than a Land Rover! lol

Provided you are actually listening nearfield (a meter or so) to decent nearfield monitors, they are very good but, never great because you cannot get great low freq performance out of small nearfield monitors, at any price. Most start loosing accuracy around 60Hz and below about 40Hz there's typically very little accuracy at all. This is why commercial recording studios never use only nearfield monitors, they always also have a set of main, mid-field monitors with large integrated woofers. Cinemas and Imax not only have large integrated woofers in the front (screen) speakers but a whole bank of additional large woofers and incidentally, these "large" woofers are typically double to triple the diameter of your "monstrous looking" woofers!

While good headphones will reproduce low freqs more accurately than nearfields, you've again failed to consider the physics. This additional headphone LF accuracy does NOT equate to "fidelity" because this LF content is often intended for powerful subs which cause the audience to physically feel the impact of the sound pressure waves on their body. Headphones are physically incapable of reproducing this effect/intention, so in this respect they have virtually no fidelity whatsoever!

G


----------



## SP Wild

gregorio said:


> 1. Do you mean it's "monstrous looking" because it's shaped like a monster? It's can't be monstrous looking because of it's size, as a 6" LF driver is small and the exact opposite of "monstrous"!
> 2. Accurate soundstage reproduction is part of "fidelity"! So your statement doesn't make any sense. It still wouldn't have made sense if you'd said "Provided soundstage is of no concern, ... "
> 
> 
> ...



You're going to have to excuse my hyperbole, typing on a tablet, it is easier sometimes for hyperbole.  I could have typed 'an impressive magnet and basket structure for a 6.5 in woofer'.  'Monstrous' was easier on my patience.

In my opinion, one is not subject to true fidelity without a very low measured THD throughout the audible frequency band.  I could wire one speaker in a stereo speaker out of phase, and experience a subjective 'monstrous' soundstage, high fidelity?  Questionable.

Soundstage is purely subjective.  It cannot be measured objectively.  Positional audio is purely imaginary.  When one spends time and resources that cannot be recovered in chasing imaginary positional sounds in an auto repair, one understands and learns quickly how factual this is.

THD on the other hand can be measured, it is objectively factual.  At any reasonable given price range, with reasonably engineered, headphones or speakers.  The headphone will have a lower measured THD.  Subjectively, it sounds that way to me also.

In the case of the HD650 headphone, not only will it give a high fidelity, low distortion sound.  The frequency response is very near a good house curve, or Cinema X curve.  It even has better lower distortion resolution in the mid, low mid and bass than both my 'studio' monitors (the monitors holding an edge in upper mids and treble resolution).  The price difference, is 'vast' to say the least.

I think I got lucky this time around with speakers.  I normally flank my TV screen with speakers, because TV sounds are awful.  This time around, I ran out of space where I normally flank the speakers.  But the table was deep enough that I could move it forward from the TV screen.  This left space between my passive Tannoy bookshelves.  This empty pocket of space created the so called 'soundstage'.  Which I constantly read about, but could never figure out what was so impressive about it.  At near field, it was indeed very spacious and going back to my SE215 IEMs, the next morning was a bit of a shock, the space had collapsed.

The point of my anecdote is simple.  Are engineers recording for themselves and each other, so they can run back to their sound treated ego...I mean studio, and enjoy their perfect sound?

Because in reality, most, make that no consumers will be attaching pads of any type to their ceilings, the ones that consume the product you offer and pay your wages.

I was fortunate to be exposed to good headphones...which was a battle in itself, considering the crap that was out there a decade ago.  I have a good frequency response and low THD reference at affordable prices.  Because of the affordability of accurate headphones, I have become a new breed of audiophile that is well experienced with low THD, neutral sound before listening to any Hi Fi speaker.

Unfortunately for you, an audiophile is what defines a consumer with interest in hi fidelity.  Not all consumers of this type managed to become audio engineers.  It is also unfortunate, that this word fills you with disgust.  But this is the only consumer that pays your wages and appreciates your efforts.

Here is hoping that we can work in unison , rather than in opposition, for the greater good.

Cheers mate.


----------



## SP Wild

I'm starting to think these Iso Acoustic stands are a load of crap, maybe not a load of crap, but they aren't useful in all scenarios and in some scenarios do the opposite of what they claim.

For those that don't know, isoacoustic stands are very popular to place under studio monitor speakers and 'decouple' the speakers from the desk.

I have two sets.  One for my A7X and smaller ones for the KH120s.  The smaller set was a catastrophe waiting to happen.  I had assembled them them found one set as higher than the other set.  So I squished the taller one some more.  They were harder to assemble than my bigger set.

Somewhat even, I place 2K worth of KH120 on top, and boy were they wobbly.  After sometime, I see that my speakers are tilting up.  I pull them off and notice the stands have sunk.  I am a strong guy, all my might squeezing them could not overcome the combination of friction and compressed air to seat them correctly.

Fortunately, I am mechanically minded and a dab of rubber friendly silicon grease 'supe lube' solved the problem.  I can't believe how much lower the speaker sat once assembled correctly.

Ill conceived made in China crap.  The marketers have made a truck load of money selling rubbish.  The thought of my KH120s toppling over because of this, an inevitable fate had I not greased the rubber and tubes.

So having spent a week purely on my KH120s, enjoying their detailed midrange, laid back highs, and tuneful bass that seems to go lower with better tune at the very bottom than the A7X.  It's f..ken crazy if you see how freaking small this thing is.  I'm telling you, this 5 inch woofer' packs a bass you would not believe...not sloppy either, with excellent definition, not the best, but very good.  Despite the rated not as low as the A7X with its 7 incher...they go usefully lower with better linearity and clarity than the way bigger A7X.

After a week though I miss something.  I always feel that the KH120s are clinical and lacks emotion.  The reason for this I know why.  The small 5 incher cannot resolve lower mids well.  At all.  Not compared to instrument speakers...big paper coned, fabric surrounds, high resonance...15 inches.

It is here that speakers tend to fall short on good headphones.  It's evident in the best factory car stereos.  Meridian, Bowers and Wilkins, Harmon Kardon, Bang and Olufsen...you name it.  Physics, my friends is the enemy of simple guitar and piano chords.  The most basic schiit you learn in music classes.

Here, my HD650s, SE215, LCD2, HD800S...destroys puny speakers.  Crushes them into a bloody mess.

It's here the A7Xs hold an advantage to the KH120.  It resolves the lower mids better.  I put my ear up to the woofer' of the KH120, all I hear is mud... indistinct warmth (as I type this am reminded to put my ear to the woofer of the A7X...aha!).   I then put my ear to the tweeter...there is all that midrange detail and space I hear.

Are the woofers better on the KH120 than the A7X.  I start to doubt my earlier declaration.  The tweeter is leading the center midrange charge as well as reproducing the uppermidrange.

Perhaps the woofer in the KH120 is weak, but the advanced computer designed aluminium construction housing extracts the most out of it.

I suspect that in fact, the dome tweeter is the cause of the highly detailed and spacious center midrange.  The ART tweeter always felt a bit upper mid/lower treble recessed, could this be the cause of the midrange 'compression', i.e two dimensional midrange of the A7X?

The answer is yes.  The A7X needs a bigger ribbon to move more air for uppermidrange dynamics, so the midrange can breath.  I now have the A7X running.  Putting my ears on the tweeter confirm my suspicion.  Putting my ear on the woofer of the A7X I hear definition...not just warm indistinct sounds like on the KH120.

I have also removed the Iso Acoustic stands on the A7X, they sit on a non slip rubber mat.  They are more stable without the stands.  The stands make the recessed upper mids worse.  It loses some subbass for an illusion of bass tightness at the expense of bass linearity.  The A7X has rubbish sub bass, complete and utter rubbish.  But above that the bass is quite tight.  The crappy stands make all !y speakers more unstable.  It is easy to test...pushing them creates a subtle oscillation...on the table they are stable.  Those stands are crap...Iso Acoustic suck.  Big time.


----------



## SP Wild (May 20, 2017)

SP Wild said:


> I'm starting to think these Iso Acoustic stands are a load of crap, maybe not a load of crap, but they aren't useful in all scenarios and in some scenarios do the opposite of what they claim.
> 
> For those that don't know, isoacoustic stands are very popular to place under studio monitor speakers and 'decouple' the speakers from the desk.
> 
> ...



The lesson hear is, there are no winners here.  Both get a participation award.  They both win. Or they both suck.  But no, I enjoy them both...it's like a menage a trois...


Edit...I didn't mean to quote myself, that was meant to be an edit, I hope I didn't quote myself again .

Edit...thank god I didn't quote myself again, image how stupid that would look...


----------



## Music Alchemist

@SP Wild

Why not get proper speaker stands?

I use the Samson MS200. They made a big difference.


----------



## SP Wild

Music Alchemist said:


> @SP Wild
> 
> Why not get proper speaker stands?
> 
> I use the Samson MS200. They made a big difference.



I have had a new set in the boot of my car for months.  I haven't worked out how to arrange stands in my current layout.  They are the same as your one, a bit pricier but triangular base for maximum stability, adjustable height. 

I had a pair if stands in the late 90s...the university had a volleyball court.  Late at night I got busted with my speaker stands at the court, which was just outside my college room, filling with sand.  The other students could not comprehend what I was doing.  I had Gale speakers back then.

But yes... They were certainly more solidly stable than the Iso Acoustics.  As I only set them up without them late last night, today I will give a thorough diagnosis of those, and how they effect each of my monitors.  

I suspect the A7Xs get affected by those stands more than the KH120.  The KH120 box is solid like a rock and is probably never affected by the stands sloppiness.


----------



## gregorio

SP Wild said:


> [1] In my opinion, one is not subject to true fidelity without a very low measured THD throughout the audible frequency band.
> [2] I could wire one speaker in a stereo speaker out of phase, and experience a subjective 'monstrous' soundstage, high fidelity?
> [3] Soundstage is purely subjective.  It cannot be measured objectively.  Positional audio is purely imaginary.
> [4] At any reasonable given price range, with reasonably engineered, headphones or speakers.  The headphone will have a lower measured THD.  Subjectively, it sounds that way to me also.
> ...



1. Agreed, although that's only one aspect of fidelity.
2. No, it would not be high fidelity or even vaguely close. You might (or might not) get a large soundstage but it would not be an accurate soundstage, plus, you'd destroy freq response!
3. Soundstage is a perception and is not directly measurable. However, it is not _purely imaginary_, it is carefully produced (by human beings who also perceive soundstage) and therefore a system with high fidelity must be able to faithfully reproduce it. You do realise that audio "fidelity" means: "How faithfully sound can be reproduced"?
4. The amount of THD becomes irrelevant once below the threshold of audibility.
5. By the definition of "fidelity", no the HD650s are not high fidelity. They cannot faithfully reproduce that which has been produced. Namely, soundstage and bass response. That's not a fault with these particular headphones but with headphones in general because the vast majority of music is mixed/mastered for speaker presentation and headphones do not faithfully reproduce speaker presentation!
6. A house curve and the x-curve are two different things, which is why they have different names. So your HD650's freq response could ONLY be "very near" to one OR  the other, not to both!  In actual fact, HD 650's are not close to either! I'm not saying HD 650's are bad headphones, they're very good, I own a set myself! If you had some understanding of what house curves and the x-curve are (and what they are for), you'd understand why.

7. No, we obviously have no concept of reality, we spend all our lives in studios and none of us have ever been in a normal person's house or heard a normal person's sound system. We have no idea who pays us and we obviously don't care and have no idea what consumers think of our products! Sheeeesh, have you not even the most basic understanding of why mastering exists, what makes successful audio engineers/producers successful, that it's a competitive field?

8. Yep, and that's the problem! Headphones are nowhere near a "neutral sound" but to audiophiles, if they like the sound of some bit of kit then they'll call it "neutral", "transparent" and/or "Hi-fi" without any real understanding of what those terms actually mean! Providing you're using your nearfield monitors appropriately, they are going to be more neutral and produce more fidelity (faithful reproduction) than your headphones, though not necessarily a presentation you personally prefer or are used to. Obviously (I hope!), the opposite would be true if trying to reproduce a mix/master designed for headphones (a binaural recording/mix for example).
8a. That's incorrect! Many audiophiles, particularly the most vociferous, extreme ones, have little/no interest in high fidelity. Their interest is in audio equipment and a sound presentation which they like. They call this high fidelity, even though it frequently has nothing to do with fidelity, and they call themselves audiophiles, even though they love their equipment and personal preferences, rather than the sound itself.
8b. Yes, it is unfortunate, for nearly everyone: It's unfortunate for the public, who see audiophiles as nutters, it's unfortunate for true audiophiles, who don't want to be tarred with the same"nutter" brush as the audio-equipment-philes calling themselves audiophiles and it's even unfortunate for those audio-equipment-philes themselves, although they typically don't realise, understand or care why it's so unfortunate for them!
9. No, audio-equipment-philes typically contribute only an insignificant fraction of our pay, the vast majority of it comes from normal/rational people.

10. Well that depends on you! It's not going to happen if you continue trying to make yourself look big by spouting nonsense and casting aspersions on audio engineers, when it's obvious you don't have the first clue about audio engineering/engineers!

G


----------



## SP Wild

I'm not here to argue with you, by all means educate those that are interested. 

But by no means am I of any significant relevance in solving the issue you have with audiophiles. 

Me sound big?  I am not even relevant,  period,  to the bigger scheme for things.  You take issue with an irrelevant random strangers exhuberance with the new speakers he bought, studio monitors, because he was inspired by professionals ... Huh, way to go Mr Serous Audio Engineer. 

The way you carry on, who wouldn't lose interest in audio engineers.  Not that this is the reason any of us are here.  We are here because we enjoy music and are fascinated by the science and artistry.

Perhaps one day, you too will rediscover the youthful exhuberance you once had and not harbour a grudge with those that never lost it.


----------



## Music Alchemist (May 25, 2017)

SP Wild said:


> I haven't worked out how to arrange stands in my current layout.



What is the layout of your listening room?

Mine is about as basic as it gets: a table in the corner of a bedroom. I guess you could say I'm lucky because I haven't even touched room treatments and EQ yet, but already have phenomenal sound. And the stands are simply placed on either side of the table within arm's length. (I experimented with positioning and ended up preferring a more intimate placement.)

The most noticeable difference with the stands is that the bass doesn't resonate through the furniture and walls nearly as much. (I'd still like to improve the stand setup because it isn't fully isolated.)


----------



## gregorio

SP Wild said:


> [1] I'm not here to argue with you, by all means educate those that are interested. But by no means am I of any significant relevance in solving the issue you have with audiophiles.
> [2] You take issue with an irrelevant random strangers exhuberance with the new speakers he bought, studio monitors, because he was inspired by professionals ...
> [3] We are here because we enjoy music and are fascinated by the science and artistry.
> [4] Perhaps one day, you too will rediscover the youthful exhuberance you once had and not harbour a grudge with those that never lost it.



1. You started your post (#262) trying to make yourself look big/superior by lying about and insulting "pro audio guys", implying we don't care much about sound quality compared to discerning audiophiles like yourself. I challenged that lie/insult (and your continued litany of other utter nonsense) and now you're acting like I'm a big insensitive bully picking on you, the poor "insignificant" victim?!

2. If that isn't just another lie and you really were "inspired by professionals", then why would you insult/lie about them and make yourself out to be superior audiophile? If you really were "inspired by professionals" then why are you acting completely the opposite of professionals? Why are you focusing on the specifics of monitor construction rather than their actual performance in your acoustic space, why aren't you using your professional nearfield monitors as professionals would and why are you making utterly ridiculous statements and comparisons which no professional would?

3. Who do you think is responsible for employing the science and creating that artistry? And, if you really were "fascinated by the science" then you'd make some effort to understand it, instead of ignoring, perverting and/or just cherry-picking the bits of it which suit your agenda! It appears that like all extreme audiophiles, you are not in it for the enjoyment of music, for it's artistry and certainly not the science, you're in it for the audio equipment and you'll happily sacrifice the music, along with it's artistry, fidelity and the science to that end!

4. I do still have some exuberance for audio equipment and even some for the specifics of it's construction but most of my exuberance is focused on the artistry of the music/audio itself. If I do "harbour a grudge", it's for those who have lost or never had a "youthful exuberance" for music/audio and the science and artistry and instead, their "youthful exuberance" is restricted to their audio equipment and feeling/communicating their superiority over those who do!

For anyone else still reading; good professional nearfield monitors are good when used for what they were designed for: As nearfield monitors for professionals (IE. In a professional nearfield monitoring environment)! They are not so good when used for a task they were not designed for, such as: Not nearfield, if looking for anything other than an accurate/clinical sound and/or if used in an inappropriate acoustic space. None of this really matters to the more extreme (or aspiring) audiophiles though, because just owning a pair of mid priced "professional nearfield studio monitors" is enough and makes them feel a step above/superior, regardless of the monitors' suitability for the task or actual performance in situ! Comparisons and descriptions of performance in such situations are typically worse than worthless, IE. Massively misleading!

G


----------



## Music Alchemist (May 26, 2017)

@gregorio

Since you do all that pro audio stuff ("Music Producer, Composer, Audio Engineer, Audio Post Production" as listed on your profile), do you have a list anywhere of albums you've contributed to? It would be interesting if I've heard some of them. (If you want to keep this info private, I understand.)

I'm also curious which speakers you use professionally.

Once I'm able to build a music studio, I'd like to record my own music someday. (I've already composed thousands of incomplete songs in all sorts of genres.)


----------



## SP Wild

gregorio said:


> 1. You started your post (#262) trying to make yourself look big/superior by lying about and insulting "pro audio guys", implying we don't care much about sound quality compared to discerning audiophiles like yourself. I challenged that lie/insult (and your continued litany of other utter nonsense) and now you're acting like I'm a big insensitive bully picking on you, the poor "insignificant" victim?!
> 
> 2. If that isn't just another lie and you really were "inspired by professionals", then why would you insult/lie about them and make yourself out to be superior audiophile? If you really were "inspired by professionals" then why are you acting completely the opposite of professionals? Why are you focusing on the specifics of monitor construction rather than their actual performance in your acoustic space, why aren't you using your professional nearfield monitors as professionals would and why are you making utterly ridiculous statements and comparisons which no professional would?
> 
> ...



You have got to be kidding me right?  So you were offended by this:

'No...Just us audiophiles are a little neurotic. Pro audio guys pic a monitor that is a good tool for them to do the job and get on with it.'

Where I make fun of Audiophiles for being neurotic and praise professionals for being practical.  Much like amateur mechanics would fuss over a ratchet and tooth count or whatever irrelevant issues, and a professional technician would use the right tool for the job at hand, because the end result is what counts.

Oh and what about my post previous to that one where I explicitly stated that I was inspired by Bob Katz from reading Inner Fidelity articles and took the plunge to purchase studio monitors?


----------



## SP Wild

Music Alchemist said:


> What is the layout of your listening room?
> 
> Mine is about as basic as it gets: a table in the corner of a bedroom. I guess you could say I'm lucky because I haven't even touched room treatments and EQ yet, but already have phenomenal sound. And the stands are simply placed on either side of the table within arm's length. (I experimented with positioning and ended up preferring a more intimate placement.)
> 
> The most noticeable difference with the stands is that the bass doesn't resonate through the furniture and walls nearly as much. (I'd still like to improve the stand setup because it isn't fully isolated.)



The room I am doing all my nearfield auditioning us actually quite small about 2.8 metres x 3.8 metres.  The speakers are on a solid desk along the shorter wall, 0.7 metres from the back wall and left wall, 0.5 metres from the mirrors on the right that make up the right wall as it is a large built in wardrobe. 

The speakers are 1.3 metres apart, I form an equilateral triangle at the listening position.  I angle the speakers to my listening position and center all tone controls. 

I am pissed off Music Alchemist.  I bought the cheapest smallest studio type monitor thinking I will use it on the bedside for 'drift away to sleep listening.' 

I ended up with KRK Rokit 4.  I am mad as hell, because this tiny f...er has a more complete midrange to me than either my way more expensive monitors.  It  disproves my assumption that only bigger woofers can resolve lower midrange information.

So the only compromise compared to the expensive ones I can hear is slight loss in bass extension and upper treble not as resolved and airy. 

But they outresolve the A7Xs in the uppermids and out resolve the KH120 in the lowermid.  It basically has the most integrated and complete midrange for nearfield listening... And it is by far the cheapest. 

I can't make any sense of the economics at all.


----------



## Music Alchemist

SP Wild said:


> [snip]



Hmm. Interesting. All I can say is that the stands made a crucial improvement for me to the point that I feel they shouldn't be evaluated until you at least put them on stands.

It's possible that you may change your mind after putting your speakers on stands. (If you don't change your mind, that means those more affordable speakers are a great value!)

Do you have a photo of your listening room so I can have a better idea of its limitations? I'm not using much space at all in mine. Here's a recent photo.



Spoiler


----------



## gregorio

SP Wild said:


> You have got to be kidding me right?  So you were offended by this:
> 
> 'No...Just us audiophiles are a little neurotic. Pro audio guys pic a monitor that is a good tool for them to do the job and get on with it.'



No. While this is a lie: " _Pro audio guys pic a monitor that is a good tool for them to do the job and get on with it. ... Me? No... I have to be an audiophile...._"  and is somewhat offensive, I also took offence at: "_The point of my anecdote is simple. Are engineers recording for themselves and each other, so they can run back to their sound treated ego...I mean studio, and enjoy their perfect sound?_" along with you repeatedly talking about the physics/science while actually ignoring the physics/science, making utterly ridiculous claims about your monitors' performance and still trying to attribute what you're hearing to completely the wrong things. There are others but these are the main ones!

G


----------



## SP Wild

Music Alchemist said:


> Hmm. Interesting. All I can say is that the stands made a crucial improvement for me to the point that I feel they shouldn't be evaluated until you at least put them on stands.
> 
> It's possible that you may change your mind after putting your speakers on stands. (If you don't change your mind, that means those more affordable speakers are a great value!)
> 
> ...



The layout in my room is a little more ideal than yours.  You would of course benefit from stands as one if your speakers is in a corner quarter space and the other in half space. 

My speakers are closer to free space and being positioned at the front edge of the desk eliminates more desk bounce than with isoacoustics stands on the desk, which actually gives a more reflective surfaces to bounce off!

Adding stands to my setup would brighten the sound more, which I could counter by moving back closer to the wall.  There are many ways to approach the desired speaker tuning.  There are yet again, tone controls also. 

My neutrality estimation is an average of all recordings at my disposal and the availability of information in each section of frequency response in.  This arrives at the conclusion that what I hear in the HD650 and SE215 as close with my preference for a shade warmer tilt, which is no less coloured than a shade leaner tilt

These studio monitors tell me I came very close.  All these studio monitors are non peaky.  Smooth responses.  Some like the A7Xs are great at 'not disturbing others'  volume.  The KH120 better at moderate volumes and the crazy value little wonders, the Rokit 4 splitting the difference.  These monitors tell me I was right that the HD800S has a slight recessed uppermidrange followed by a slighty peaky treble.  The LCD2s have a slightly subdued upper midrange.

The HD650s almost exactly like my KH120 in overall tonality. 

Neutrality comes in slightly different tilts with the common denominator being a smooth, non peaky frequency response.

Going nearfields minimise room interaction.  The next stage for me is high quality microphone and measurement software. 



gregorio said:


> No. While this is a lie: " _Pro audio guys pic a monitor that is a good tool for them to do the job and get on with it. ... Me? No... I have to be an audiophile...._"  and is somewhat offensive, I also took offence at: "_The point of my anecdote is simple. Are engineers recording for themselves and each other, so they can run back to their sound treated ego...I mean studio, and enjoy their perfect sound?_" along with you repeatedly talking about the physics/science while actually ignoring the physics/science, making utterly ridiculous claims about your monitors' performance and still trying to attribute what you're hearing to completely the wrong things. There are others but these are the main ones!
> 
> G



I may not have worded my sentence very well, and I'm about as perfect as holes in an umbrella on the best of days. 

Your insistence that my speakers are not in a sound treated room invalidate what I hear coming from my speakers nearfield was becoming tiresome, hence the question of who exactly are professionals recording for? 

I found this video from Floyd Toole very educational:


----------



## gregorio

SP Wild said:


> [1] I may not have worded my sentence very well, and I'm about as perfect as holes in an umbrella on the best of days.
> 
> [2] Your insistence that my speakers are not in a sound treated room invalidate what I hear coming from my speakers nearfield was becoming tiresome, hence the question of who exactly are professionals recording for?



1. I'll take that as a veiled apology.

2. Forgive my bluntness but that's a stupid question! It's stupid for 3 reasons: Firstly, you know full well who professionals are recording for! Secondly, it's an insulting question and Thirdly, it's the wrong question, it does not get you any closer to the answers you're looking for.

Unfortunately, there are some fundamental holes in your knowledge and therefore your reasoning is flawed, your conclusions are incorrect, you're wasting money and looks like you're just about to waste some more! If you're willing to admit there are some holes in your knowledge and that your reasoning and conclusion could be flawed/incorrect, then maybe I can provide some useful info/help but not if you continue with the snarky questions!



Music Alchemist said:


> Since you do all that pro audio stuff ("Music Producer, Composer, Audio Engineer, Audio Post Production" as listed on your profile), do you have a list anywhere of albums you've contributed to? It would be interesting if I've heard some of them. (If you want to keep this info private, I understand.)
> I'm also curious which speakers you use professionally.



Sorry, two of the mods on head-fi, who I've communicated with for years, know who I am some of the details of my work history but I highly value my anonymity, as I wouldn't be able to answer anywhere near as honestly/freely without it. No disrespect to you, I'm sure you would keep anything I told you confidential but I'd rather not take the risk of me misjudging you. I can answer part of your questions but I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it or settle for no more than a vague confirmation from one of the two mods (castleofargh and brooko).

It's possible you've heard some of my work, you certainly would know some of those with whom I've worked. I am credited on a number of albums but many of the most famous I've worked with was in the context live performances. Both classical and various popular music genres. The majority of my work these days (80% or so) is in audio post production mainly for film and some TV. 

In my main mix room I use Genelec monitors: 3 x 1037C for fronts, 2x 8050B for rears and 2 x 7070A subs. My edit suite has a smaller Genelec system. However, I spend a fair amount of time at other studios and dub stages, so I'm used to a range of studio monitors.

G


----------



## Music Alchemist

gregorio said:


> The majority of my work these days (80% or so) is in audio post production mainly for film and some TV.
> 
> In my main mix room I use Genelec monitors: 3 x 1037C for fronts, 2x 8050B for rears and 2 x 7070A subs. My edit suite has a smaller Genelec system. However, I spend a fair amount of time at other studios and dub stages, so I'm used to a range of studio monitors.



Interesting. I know someone on here who does visual effects for television series and movies, and he is also protective of his identity. I guess I can understand why. I'd rather be unknown than famous.

Very nice. Do you have any thoughts on what would be best for an active nearfield system? Do you think any Genelec models in the same price range as the ADAM S2V and Sub12 (so basically under $6,000) would be better? If so, which ones, and why?

I know room treatments and EQ are important as well, but since I'm very new to speakers, I wouldn't even know where to begin. Getting the equipment side of things taken care of first is easier for me than learning and implementing the technical side. I do want to tend to every aspect, so any info you can provide (even if it's just links to tutorials) relating to nearfield room treatments is appreciated. As of now, I am in a humble bedroom. Eventually I would like to have a dedicated treated listening room, but may end up moving to another house and staying in a bedroom for awhile. I'd imagine that makes things more challenging since you can only do so much in a bedroom.


----------



## gregorio

Music Alchemist said:


> Do you have any thoughts on what would be best for an active nearfield system? Do you think any Genelec models in the same price range as the ADAM S2V and Sub12 (so basically under $6,000) would be better? If so, which ones, and why?
> I know room treatments and EQ are important as well, but since I'm very new to speakers, I wouldn't even know where to begin. Getting the equipment side of things taken care of first is easier for me than learning and implementing the technical side.



To a large extent, you're approaching the issue backwards and falling into the same trap as @SP Wild. Understanding the history and intended purpose of nearfield studio monitors is essential: Unlike with cinema sound studios (mix/dubbing stages), there are not and never have been any specifications to which music studios have to adhere and therefore different music recording studios sound significantly different from each other. This became a serious problem by the late 1970's and '80s as technology allowed music engineers/producers to be far more creative participants, which caused a demand for the best ones, who became freelancers working in numerous different studios rather than effectively tied to one. Legend has it that Bob Clearmountain, one of the first of this new breed of celebrity engineers/producers, got a set of Japanese consumer hi-fi speakers which were small enough for him to easily carry around and plumb into whichever studio he happened to be working in that week. This gave him a relatively consistent sound between different studios because firstly, obviously he was the same speaker and secondly, being small speakers placed very near to the listening position in a fairly large room meant that the different acoustic designs of each studio was also minimised. Thus the nearfield monitor was born and despite various manufacturers trying to jump on to the bandwagon, by the 1990's there was hardly a commercial music studio on the planet that didn't have a set of those same little Japanese Hi-Fi speakers (Yamaha NS10s) popularised by Bob Clearmountain, in addition to their main monitors of course.

There should be some crucial take-away's from the above: There's no magic here, nearfield monitors do not have magical drivers or magical design properties which reduce or minimise room interactions! They reduce room interactions simply because you sit very near them in a relatively large room and therefore you will hear a much higher level of direct sound compared to the sound reflected from the relatively distant reflective surfaces (walls). So, the effect/benefit of "nearfield" monitors is that you are far nearer to them than to your reflective surfaces (walls/ceiling) and obviously, if your reflective surfaces are relatively close (IE. You use nearfield monitors in a small room), there is no nearfield effect/benefit! Worse still, the smaller the room the more interactions there will be AND, obviously you've also got less space available for applying any acoustic treatment. The defining feature of any monitor in a small room is therefore the room! In other words, a significantly better/more expensive monitor will probably sound marginally better in a small room but it could sound worse, depending on the exact acoustic problems of the room. Effectively you cannot judge how good a monitor is in a small room, what you're really judging is the room's acoustic response and regardless of how good the monitor actually is, you're always going to get relatively poor sound. This is why commercial studios only use small rooms for toilets or storage, or at a push, for non-critical basic audio tasks (EG. Editing but not mixing/processing). The problems are so severe/insurmountable with very small rooms that you'd be better off with headphones, even though the positioning/imaging will be off/wrong.

Back to your questions then and hopefully now you can see you've got it backwards. First you have to think about the room, because there can be no sensible answer about "which monitors would be better" without knowing about the room. If it's a very small room, then the answer most likely is: "No monitors would be better", don't waste your money on good nearfields, stick with what you've got and get some decent cans. If it's a larger room and you can actually achieve some nearfield benefit/effect, then getting some mid priced monitors makes sense. If you've got a very decent sized room and/or can put in some acoustic treatment, then you'll actually get the benefit of good nearfields. Once you've worked out the fundamental basics, you know the room size and can therefore determine an appropriate area/price bracket of monitors for that room, only then does it make any sense thinking about the fine details, such as differences between makes and models of monitors. And BTW, if you've got (or will have) a moderately sized room, some basic acoustic treatment is not difficult or expensive. An amateur DIY'er with a couple of days and a few hundred bucks will likely give you more than a 10 fold bang for the buck improvement. IE. Spending $300 on some DIY acoustic treatment will almost certainly result in better/more accurate reproduction than spending $3,000 on new/better monitors!

G


----------



## Music Alchemist

gregorio said:


> [snip]



Those are good points. But as I mentioned, I happen to strongly prefer my nearfield studio monitors (which are just placed on stands in my bedroom, no fancy preparation yet) over any headphone—and I've owned/heard some of the best and/or most expensive ones.

I will most likely move into a different house sometime in the next few months, so this is an opportunity for me to seek out a good room to work with. What should I be looking for specifically? (Like the shape and size.) Should I take the possibility of larger speakers (midfields, farfields, whatever) into account? Or would the room need to be significantly larger for that?

What about how to do the room treatments and EQ? Do you have links to recommended guides? I've done a bit of research but it's overwhelming.


----------



## BattleBrat

gregorio said:


> 1. I'll take that as a veiled apology.
> 
> 2. Forgive my bluntness but that's a stupid question! It's stupid for 3 reasons: Firstly, you know full well who professionals are recording for! Secondly, it's an insulting question and Thirdly, it's the wrong question, it does not get you any closer to the answers you're looking for.
> 
> ...



Hmm what do you think of the JBL Control Ones? Specifically combined with the Control SB1 sub?


 (To OP)
I have the Control ones and their matching SB-1 Sub, there is NO Veil! Neither is there with my Thiel MCS1's I would imagine you're not powering the speakers you're using properly.


----------



## gregorio

Music Alchemist said:


> [1] I happen to strongly prefer my nearfield studio monitors (which are just placed on stands in my bedroom, no fancy preparation yet) over any headphone.
> [2] I will most likely move into a different house sometime in the next few months, so this is an opportunity for me to seek out a good room to work with. What should I be looking for specifically? (Like the shape and size.)
> [3] Should I take the possibility of larger speakers (midfields, farfields, whatever) into account? Or would the room need to be significantly larger for that?
> [4] What about how to do the room treatments and EQ? Do you have links to recommended guides? I've done a bit of research but it's overwhelming.



1. If you're creating/mixing music just for yourself and only to be played back in your room, then you can go with whatever your prefer. If this is not the case, then the goal would be to get the most accuracy your circumstances will allow and if your circumstances are restricted to a very small room, that could mean headphones rather than monitors but ultimately of course it's your room and your choice.

2. Ideally, you'd want a room with no parallel surfaces, for example, a sloping ceiling (which therefore would not be parallel to the floor) and walls which are not parallel, as reflections between parallel surfaces interact and amplify the acoustic problems. All commercial studios are built this way (without parallel walls/ceilings) but unfortunately, you're extremely unlikely to find such a room in a typical house but it's worth baring this in mind. Odd shaped rooms, say "L" shaped, also cause significant issues which are worth avoiding, as are low ceilings, as you'll have parallel surfaces relatively close together. As far as size is concerned: Think of an equilateral triangle, the corners of which are your two monitors and your listening position and the sides of the triangle are going to be about 1m. The walls of your room should be about double the distance away from the triangle as the length of the sides of the triangle. So, with 1m between your monitors, the right wall should be at least 2m from your right monitor and the left wall should be at least 2m from your left monitor, resulting in a room of at least 5m width. Same with the front/back walls, although preferably more, as a perfectly square is particularly bad acoustically.

3. Generally, the maximum length of the sides of the triangle would be around 1.5m or so. Beyond that distance and you're looking at smaller midfields rather than nearfields and you're also looking at difference guidelines for positioning the triangle. Typically the speakers would be no more than 1-2m from the front wall (typically flush mounted in a commercial studio), with the listening position somewhere between the middle of the room and 2/3 of the way towards the back wall. Obviously this means that a relatively high level of reflections will arrive at the listening position from the back wall and therefore some acoustic treatment of at least the back wall is essential when using midfields. The distance between the speakers and listening position, along with the total volume of the room, will dictate the size and power requirements for the midfields. I think you can safely forget about farfield monitors, unless you're planning on a cinema sized room.

4. Yes, when you really get into it, there's a great deal to learn/understand. Acoustics is a complex, well evolved speciality and even pro audio engineers generally have relatively limited knowledge, which is why commercial studios employ specialist studio designers/acousticians. However, don't let this put you off! Even very simple/basic acoustic treatment has a dramatic affect and anyone with just a bit of acoustic knowledge and some basic carpentry/DIY skills can do it. There is a popular forum with a wealth of information on DIY acoustic treatment, from basic all the way up to quite advanced but I'm not sure if head-fi's TOS allows me to link to it here. If you don't know which forum I'm refering to, let me know and I'll send you a PM. ... BTW, EQ is a blunt tool for dealing with acoustic issues, it certainly can improve some acoustic problems but for some typical issues it's completely ineffective and unless used wisely/judiciously it's easy to inadvertently make matters worse. The general rule of thumb is to rely on physical room treatments and only use corrective EQ for the last 10% or so. In your case, some of the more modern monitors with built-in room analysis/correction would certainly be worth looking at, but this approach should be considered as an addition to basic room treatment and not as a replacement!

G


----------



## gregorio

BattleBrat said:


> Hmm what do you think of the JBL Control Ones? Specifically combined with the Control SB1 sub?



I've never heard them so I can't say specifically. Nevertheless, the answer to your question would depend on context. Compared to the average external computer speakers for example, I'm sure that in most listening environments they would be a significant improvement. We're talking about the extreme end of low budget for speakers claiming to be "pro" though, so while they might be great for their size/budget, they won't be great in a wider context.

G


----------



## Music Alchemist

gregorio said:


> [snip]



Yes, although ultimately I want as much accuracy as possible, I don't actually need it. For the time being I only listen to music for pleasure and don't mind the acoustic issues I have in my bedroom. Someday I may build a music studio and record my own music, but not anytime soon. So I'm taking it step by step.

The thing is, I don't plan on owning a home anytime soon either; I would merely be renting. It doesn't seem likely that I would find an ideal room in the next house I move to. And although I'm willing to do it sooner or later, learning and implementing room treatments would probably require a considerable deal of my time, energy, and money. And some of that may only come after I find (or even build) a good room. That's why I have no problem upgrading equipment first even if it is backwards, especially if the other aspects couldn't come until much later anyway. But since there are all sorts of room treatments, I would still take care of some of them earlier on.

What type of room in a typical house do you think would be best for nearfield listening?

Are most room treatments easily reversible? Which types aren't?

If I hire an expert to take care of room treatments for me, what do you think would be the minimum outlay? I've heard about people spending five to six figures on room treatments, and I'd like to keep it at four. I know I can approach it little by little anyway.

For main monitors such as this one, would the room really need to be as large as a movie theater? I looked up images of farfield main monitors in studios on Google Images, and the rooms aren't so huge. In fact, many of them aren't much bigger than my bedroom.

https://www.adam-audio.com/en/s-series/s5h/

Some feel that the best nearfields are more accurate than the best farfields, but this seems like just another conflicting opinion. I'm trying to figure out what I should plan for. Maybe I should just go out and seek auditions.

If you can elaborate on the benefits and downsides of the different sizes of monitors (nearfield, midfield, farfield), it would also be helpful. For example, which things would farfield give me that nearfield can't?


----------



## Jazmanaut

My 2 cents to discussion on topic.
I run Mastering suite, and my nearfieldish system in well treated room is very flat in full range and amazingly revealing.
My second system is in my livingroom area, and is a bit older hi-fi, or even high end, depends who do you ask. Not as accurate. More like a very, very good homesetup, for casual listening.
My third and most used, is proper hifi in my kitchen, with turntable and such. It´s for backround music and setting the mood.

And then comes my headphones: I got proper inears, for sports, and travels. They sound very good, and fit in very small space.
I got several closed cans for my live mixing and tracking purposes, wich also serves me in enjoying music in noisy environments.
And then i have couple of my open headphones, wich are for enjoying music in a hi-fi matter, even when i´m not in my studiochair, or in my sofa.
Or when it´s not possible to play it in proper volume all the times. (I´m maried man)

So to me question in topic is a bit absurd; Wich of my system is the best? It depends purely on purpose on hand.


----------



## Pokemonn

FYI cardas cable has speaker setup pages. i dont know those info is truth or false...
in my experience, distance between rear wall and speaker is important.
http://www.cardas.com/room_setup_main.php


----------



## gregorio

Music Alchemist said:


> [1] ... learning and implementing room treatments would probably require a considerable deal of my time, energy, and money. ... That's why I have no problem upgrading equipment first even if it is backwards, especially if the other aspects couldn't come until much later anyway.
> 
> 2. Are most room treatments easily reversible? Which types aren't?



1. That depends on how you define "considerable" in the context of amount of learning, time and money. Compared to the cost of a lot of audiophile equipment and the amount of time/effort many audiophiles put into researching products, reading reviews, etc, then no, it's not "considerable". In fact, considering the magnitude of the improvement, it's insignificant compared to the time and money many audiophiles put into products for improvements which are often marginal (at best)! Sure, some spend 5, 6 or even well into the 7 figures on acoustic treatment, depending on exactly how you define acoustic treatment. Some people spend 8 or 9 figures on a car, depending on the requirements of their work but for me, 5 figures is OK. I've spent well into the 5 figures on acoustics because my job requires it but with a budget just in the 3 figures, one can achieve astounding results compared to an untreated room. As 3 figures is not necessarily very much compared to the cost of upgrading the equipment, your argument doesn't make much sense to me, especially as you realise it's backwards anyway. It appears that you are still thinking of room, monitors and acoustic treatment as completely separate items, when in reality they are all completely inter-dependent. Your room defines what speakers you need, the acoustic treatment defines what speakers you need, the speakers and the room define what acoustic treatment you need, etc. Do it the other way around and you run the risk of wasting considerable money on a "frankenstein" system.

2. This and some of the other questions you've asked are taking us progressively off-topic. Why don't you start a new thread about rooms, acoustics, speakers/monitors, etc?

G


----------



## SP Wild

BattleBrat said:


> Hmm what do you think of the JBL Control Ones? Specifically combined with the Control SB1 sub?
> 
> 
> (To OP)
> I have the Control ones and their matching SB-1 Sub, there is NO Veil! Neither is there with my Thiel MCS1's I would imagine you're not powering the speakers you're using properly.




Hmmm.... The problem is obvious.  You clearly need more monstrous woofers.  I recommend minimum 21 inches. 


On a more serious note, I am quite enjoying the evolution of this thread.  Some good information here.  


Y'all can thank me later.


----------



## SP Wild (Jun 3, 2017)

One thing I do agree with is that audiophiles often times do work backwards sometimes with basic engineers principles.

I just decided to set up my old Tannoy passives and honestly, I never heard them sound so terrific.

Last time I connected them they sounded horrible compared to the monitors which was in stark contrast to how I thought they sounded pretty good when I first heard them in this room.

Last time I had them on iso acoustics stands... Which in my experimention with variables... For which speakers are far more and complex than headphones.  Yeah those iso acoustics stands do nothing but destabilize the image and intoduces distortion artefacts to my speakers, so far, the KRKs, Adams and Tannoys sound worse on them.  I am currently using Auralex foam pads, so I don't scratch the bottom of my speakers when getting OCD with speaker position, they don't kill the sound, they may even do some kinda 'decoupling' whatever. 

The next thing is that high passing at 50hz, makes the Hi Fi Tannoy passives competitive with the resolution of the studio monitors.  By getting rid of 50hz and below, the woofers can breathe in the midrange.  The smear is cleared and the soundstage explodes with better location and instrument definition.  Without this function the midrange eminating from the woofer is f...ed, period.

I am running the speakers of a huge 4 channel car amp which I bridge to run stereo.  The high and low pass is variable in the amp, making comparisons easy.

It's unfortunate that basic integrated audiophile amplifiers sold to drive commonly expensive bookshelf audiophile speakers don't have this hi pass function.  Because this simple function will make more difference than any Dac, amp, cables or power filters.  Just the fact that audiophile amps don't have bass and treble controls screams of amateurism.

All this in comparison to my headphones... (in order to pretend that this thread hasn't gone off the rails ages ago!)


----------



## Music Alchemist (Jun 6, 2017)

Tonight I moved the speaker system about a foot to the right and raised them on the stands to the point where I could insert the safety pins. (Which aligns the tweeters with my ears when I sit upright as opposed to slouched.) The sound is even more impressive now! I was also able to comfortably switch the low frequency trim switch to the default 0 (instead of -2 dB) position since there's less (but more precise) bass.

June 5th update: Ahh. Now I've got a pretty good placement of the speakers. I rearranged everything in the room. I roughly measured everything (with footsteps...lol) to make it all symmetrical. As is recommended by pros, the speakers are in the center of the back wall, with equal distance between them and equal distance to the walls on either side. My listening position distance is roughly equal to the distance between the speakers. The tweeters are angled towards my ears and are at the same height. So there's an equilateral triangle between myself and the speakers and everything is much more spread-out. It sounds more like I'm in a music studio now. Very nice, to say the least.

June 6th update: A few hours of research brought me to the concept of diagonal placement, with the listening position towards a corner of the room. Some say that this is better for square rooms and fixes many issues with room acoustics. After trying it, I am inclined to agree.


----------



## RitzyBusiness

I can easily forgive the shortcomings of many speakers, merely because a decent system even with improper acoustics has that feeling of clean, natural, easy.  The characteristics of speakers imo are so far removed from headphones that I wouldn't even compare the two.  They are different experiences on a base level.

I prefer headphones for all their benefits, in particular their intimacy but when alone and wanting to just melt away into music speakers are where its at.


----------



## 4krow

From my experience _synergy_ has bee fleeting, but rewarding. Most everything sounds just right, and then for whatever reason, a recording, your restlessness (read OCD), or some other factor sways the system into a sort of blind path. Start over, and wonder what you did right, and why you had the impulse to change it.


----------



## gregorio

Music Alchemist said:


> [1] As is recommended by pros, the speakers are in the center of the back wall, with equal distance between them and equal distance to the walls on either side. My listening position distance is roughly equal to the distance between the speakers.
> 
> [2] A few hours of research brought me to the concept of diagonal placement, with the listening position towards a corner of the room. Some say that this is better for square rooms and fixes many issues with room acoustics. After trying it, I am inclined to agree.



1. What pros? For nearfield monitors you need more distance between the speakers and walls than between the speakers and listening position, preferably at least double! That way reflection levels are significantly lower than the direct sound from the speakers at the listening position and therefore room acoustics less intrusive, which is the whole point of nearfields.

2. There's no absolute rule, which is better depends on the various acoustic properties of the room and their relationship to the speakers and listening position. In other words, in some consumer situations it could be better and in others worse. Neither is going to be particularly good though, unless you get your nearfields well away from the walls and/or treat the reflections.

G


----------



## Music Alchemist

gregorio said:


> What pros?



Various ones. Look it up if it interests you. When I said the center of the back wall, I was referring to the distance between the horizontal walls and speakers; not having the speakers pushed against the back wall. But that configuration had more acoustic issues than the diagonal placement I'm using now. All of them have problems, of course. I will most likely move into a new house in the next few months, so I'll figure out room treatments sometime after that's taken care of.


----------



## ToonMechaMan

Speakers and headphones are hit and miss for me. Headphones overall have more consistent accuracy but speakers have more punch and I can usually relocate in my room and hear more of some instruments than I can of others whereas headphones you're stuck with what you get unless you mod it. I prefer headphones though, especially for gaming.


----------



## LazyListener

After trying some KEF Q300s in a 2.0 setup around the TV in the living room (untreated, of course), I can say I still prefer my HD 598 headphones.  The Q300s image very nicely.  That and the sense of listening in a large, open space are about the only advantages the speakers have.  The 598s do just about everything else better - resolution, detail, layering.  I guess I'd give dynamics to the speakers, too.

With speakers, there's just too much room matching and/or correction required, to get the best, or in some cases, even decent sound.  My 598s cost me less than $150 new.  I can only imagine how many times that amount I'd have to spend to get speakers sounding as good in a room.


----------



## Music Alchemist

LazyListener said:


> With speakers, there's just too much room matching and/or correction required, to get the best, or in some cases, even decent sound.  My 598s cost me less than $150 new.  I can only imagine how many times that amount I'd have to spend to get speakers sounding as good in a room.



I'm curious what you'd think of the JBL LSR305, because, as I'm sure you know, I think mine (which I got new for just $250) are far superior in just about every way to any headphone I've heard, including ones that cost four figures. (And that's without any room treatments or EQ yet. But I'm in a bedroom, not a living room.)


----------



## Delayeed

Music Alchemist said:


> I'm curious what you'd think of the JBL LSR305, because, as I'm sure you know, I think mine (which I got new for just $250) are far superior in just about every way to any headphone I've heard, including ones that cost four figures. (And that's without any room treatments or EQ yet. But I'm in a bedroom, not a living room.)



Agreed. My 305s also destroy every headphone I've heard in all but low level detail (Ether C is miles ahead), other than that yeah. Imaging: Not as 2D and wide as headphones, BUT way -way- more accurate.
Dynamics also, oh man headphones do not even come close to dynamics that any speaker will provide. That being said I do 95% of my listening on the Ether C and HD600 because I love that detail and
frankly don't want my neighbors hear everything I do.


----------



## Music Alchemist

Delayeed said:


> Agreed. My 305s also destroy every headphone I've heard in all but low level detail (Ether C is miles ahead), other than that yeah. Imaging: Not as 2D and wide as headphones, BUT way -way- more accurate.
> Dynamics also, oh man headphones do not even come close to dynamics that any speaker will provide. That being said I do 95% of my listening on the Ether C and HD600 because I love that detail and
> frankly don't want my neighbors hear everything I do.



I'm still confused about the "headphones have more detail" thing. For example, many say the HD 800 is the most detailed/resolving headphone...but so far I haven't heard a single detail on the HD 800 that my speakers don't also reproduce, whereas I do hear details on the speakers that I never did on headphones, and it's much more natural too. I think headphones just make certain details more apparent, but in a less accurate way.


----------



## LazyListener

Music Alchemist said:


> I'm curious what you'd think of the JBL LSR305, because, as I'm sure you know, I think mine (which I got new for just $250) are far superior in just about every way to any headphone I've heard, including ones that cost four figures. (And that's without any room treatments or EQ yet. But I'm in a bedroom, not a living room.)


What do you use for volume control with your 305s?  I'm assuming you don't adjust the volume individually on each speaker using the built in control.

Also, when I do use speakers, I enjoy the remote volume control I get with my receiver.  Most active monitors don't have remote volume control.


----------



## Music Alchemist

LazyListener said:


> What do you use for volume control with your 305s?



Schiit SYS passive preamp.


----------



## mousike

A reference headphone setup is about 6k to 10k while a reference speakers setup is about 10 times more. Which is better? To my ears a reference speakers setup with all top of the line electronics spinning from a vinyl source with marginal room treatment gave me mind boggling sound experience - pure fidelity and not just to my ears but I felt it on my skin literally! 

So is headphones not worth the spend or inferior? Not true. Yes, the visceral real world reproduction of sound in your room can bring the performance physically right around you in person and not just in your head. But it cost many times more to achieve that and there is no way one can lug all those gears out the door and enjoy the same sound in the open. One can have similar reference sound quality from a headphone in a cafe while enjoying a cup of freshly brewed coffee and watching folks passing thru. They are both different experience and not one can replace the other afterall music is about connecting people to you a form of communication not about gears

Is there a threshold on headphones spend? Well, I do certainly thinks the current price reference headgears are nearing the grey areas. That said, so are the reference speakers so it's not a phenomenon in the audiophile space. In my view and it's a fact that the material cost of these products is only a small fraction of it's asking price. The profits are in madness scale, not sustainable, and not doing the community or industry any good. Unfortunately this is now the reality...at the current course of developments more and more have got into diy producing some gears that punch way above some well known brands. 

In conclusion speakers and headphones meets different needs and the experience is different. Spend within means and enjoy your music~


----------



## Music Alchemist

mousike said:


> A reference headphone setup is about 6k to 10k while a reference speakers setup is about 10 times more.



Sounds like you've been exposed to too much overpriced equipment and not enough reasonably priced high fidelity equipment. For example, I think entry-level used STAX (which only costs a few hundred dollars) _kills_ non-electrostatic headphone systems; even ones approaching five figures. (It measures better too.) And, as I've stated too many times here (and I know this is just my opinion), I think studio monitor speakers that also only cost a few hundred easily beat all those. (Aside from not being able to extend to 20 Hz without a subwoofer and having to deal with your listening room.) As for expensive speakers, I know plenty of people who say that speakers that cost just a few thousand can be just as good as (or even better than) many ones that cost five to six figures if you make the right decisions.


----------



## mousike (Jun 18, 2017)

Don't misunderstand the context of my points. I was merely sharing my personal experiences and not from third sources. As said, in this hobby it is important to spend within means and I repeat it is about connecting with people thru music not gears. Glad what you have now works for you. Cheers~


----------



## SP Wild

Music Alchemist said:


> I'm still confused about the "headphones have more detail" thing. For example, many say the HD 800 is the most detailed/resolving headphone...but so far I haven't heard a single detail on the HD 800 that my speakers don't also reproduce, whereas I do hear details on the speakers that I never did on headphones, and it's much more natural too. I think headphones just make certain details more apparent, but in a less accurate way.




Compared to any two way monitors, my HD800S has way more bass detail to start.  It doesn't just go lower but it is also more 'details' in the bass.  I think the crossover frequency on the LSR 305 will be about 2.5khz.  I can guarantee the HD800S can put out better separation and definition below the crossover frequency. 

Put your ears to the woofers... Those warm sounds.  They're far more defined on good headphones as opposed to just being warm. 

I would not trade my LCD2 or HD800S for my A7X or KH120.  If I had only one choice, it would be my LCD2s, with HD800S very close behind as second choice.  But I would choose either of those speakers over all my other headphones. 

There is a great scene in the movie Amadeus, about Mozart, where his arch nemesis gets a hold of Mozart's music score and by looking at them nearly fainted at how exquisite the music is. 

I am just like Mozart's arch nemesis!  Just not so musically genuis... But I too can nearly faint with the exquisiteness of the music... Just substitute musical scores with great headphones.

Perhaps in a different life, I too could have eargasms by reading musical scores.  But alas, I am useless without my ears. 

On a different note, I fired up my dual 12 inch subs.  They're schiit, too slow.  I am looking at the SVS SB13 sealed 12 in sub to extend my monitors to full range. 

Was also thinking of the Eve Subs.  They can remote control overall volume, I could probably just plug the Dac straight in and control the volume via the sub remote. 

Any ideas about Subs?


----------



## Music Alchemist (Jun 19, 2017)

SP Wild said:


> I would not trade my LCD2 or HD800S for my A7X or KH120.  If I had only one choice, it would be my LCD2s, with HD800S very close behind as second choice.  But I would choose either of those speakers over all my other headphones.
> 
> Any ideas about Subs?



I had the HD 800 and LCD-2F. Can't think of a single category in which they sounded more realistic to me than the speakers, honestly. (I also drove an HD 800 from high-end systems at a shop before that.) I never thought of the HD 800 as having better separation and definition; just sounded like an overly tight, dry, mechanical headphone to me, even after extensive equalization. Just goes to show ya that preference is king.

I got my third STAX system today, but have to wait until I receive a speaker amp before I can use it.

I know that SVS claim to make the best subs. And there are various opinions on ported vs sealed. But I'm not exactly the person to ask, since I've never even owned a sub. If I get the ADAM S2V, I was thinking of pairing it with the Sub12, but that's like $5,500, so I have plenty of other things to take care of first. (Like finding a good house to move to and installing room treatments. hehe)


----------



## LazyListener

SP Wild said:


> Put your ears to the woofers... Those warm sounds. They're far more defined on good headphones as opposed to just being warm.


Agreed.  From my limited experience, the midrange, especially low mids, are more detailed and apparent, on headphones than they are with speakers.  With speakers, there always seems to be a relatively large tradeoff.  If you get ones with good midrange clarity, then the mid-high bass is lacking.  If you get ones with punchy, impactful mid-high bass, then the midrange clarity suffers.  At least that's what I've noticed with 2-way designs.  With headphones, the tradeoff is still there, but much less so, IMO.  Seems with speakers, you need a 3-way design or a 2-way with good midrange clarity (and weak bass) and a subwoofer.


----------



## SP Wild

Music Alchemist said:


> I had the HD 800 and LCD-2F. Can't think of a single category in which they sounded more realistic to me than the speakers, honestly. (I also drove an HD 800 from high-end systems at a shop before that.) I never thought of the HD 800 as having better separation and definition; just sounded like an overly tight, dry, mechanical headphone to me, even after extensive equalization. Just goes to show ya that preference is king.
> 
> I got my third STAX system today, but have to wait until I receive a speaker amp before I can use it.
> 
> I know that SVS claim to make the best subs. And there are various opinions on ported vs sealed. But I'm not exactly the person to ask, since I've never even owned a sub. If I get the ADAM S2V, I was thinking of pairing it with the Sub12, but that's like $5,500, so I have plenty of other things to take care of first. (Like finding a good house to move to and installing room treatments. hehe)



I realise I tend to drift further away from nearfield with my monitors as time goes by.  I sat close again to my Rokit 4 s and by golly... That spaciousness is amazing, headphones have zero spacious capabilities in comparison.  It could be a matter of being used to things, who knows, my mind could change with time and I may totally prefer speakers in the future? 

If I must sell one, the A7Xs or KH120s... The KH120s will be sold.  The Adams sound so gorgeous.  That tweeter is incredibly sweet and resolving, more than anything else I have ever heard.  I do wish it had more weight in the mid treble and some more pop in the uppermids, but it's a nitpick.  The lower mids are great, and bass has great punch.  If the S2V sounds the same but better they'd be amazing! 



LazyListener said:


> Agreed.  From my limited experience, the midrange, especially low mids, are more detailed and apparent, on headphones than they are with speakers.  With speakers, there always seems to be a relatively large tradeoff.  If you get ones with good midrange clarity, then the mid-high bass is lacking.  If you get ones with punchy, impactful mid-high bass, then the midrange clarity suffers.  At least that's what I've noticed with 2-way designs.  With headphones, the tradeoff is still there, but much less so, IMO.  Seems with speakers, you need a 3-way design or a 2-way with good midrange clarity (and weak bass) and a subwoofer.



By golly! 

You are 100 percent correct with your observations with 2 ways, I never picked a pattern but my KH120s have the greatest bass for a two way, no subs necessary, but the woofer mids are a bit indistinct. 

The Rokit 4, the smallest and cheapest has the best resolution in the woofer mids, but lacks bass. 

The A7Xs split the difference. 

I was thinking for the price of ATC 20 ASL, I could buy some big ass 3 way JBL passives.  Dunno, never owned decent 3 ways, but maybe you're on to something?


----------



## cocolinho

Music Alchemist said:


> I'm curious what you'd think of the JBL LSR305, because, as I'm sure you know, I think mine (which I got new for just $250) are far superior in just about every way to any headphone I've heard, including ones that cost four figures. (And that's without any room treatments or EQ yet. But I'm in a bedroom, not a living room.)


That's my plan for the very near future. Since I'll move house and get a dedicated place to work I plan to move away from headphones to small speakers. After onwing maybe 50 different ones from USD20 to USD1800 I'm bored with headphones. Can't wait to receive these LSR305!


----------



## LazyListener

SP Wild said:


> By golly!
> 
> You are 100 percent correct with your observations with 2 ways, I never picked a pattern but my KH120s have the greatest bass for a two way, no subs necessary, but the woofer mids are a bit indistinct.
> 
> ...


I don't think a 3-way design will automatically sound better than a 2-way.  It has the potential to sound better.  Depends on other factors like the crossovers and enclosure design, etc.  I think regardless if it's a 2-way or 3-way, it's important to isolate the low-mid bass notes away from the enclosure that reproduces the rest of the spectrum.  Some 3 or 4 ways, usually tower speakers, have built in subwoofers that are very well isolated from the rest of the drivers.  With 2-way designs, low-mid clarity can likely be improved, by using a separate subwoofer and crossing over both speakers and sub at around 80-120 Hz.

Small bookshelf type speakers really aren't able to reproduce low-mid bass accurately.  When they are forced by design to do so, so that they sound full and balanced, they typically sacrifice midrange clarity, and the bass isn't the best it can be either.  Some sort of subwoofer is necessary, IMO, to accurately reproduce the full range of sound, in any speaker system.

I'm no speaker expert.  Just my intuitive opinions on the matter, so take them with a grain of salt.


----------



## kid vic (Jun 27, 2017)

Listening to my new to me Dynaudio BM6p's there's a few pro's that are immediately clear over all my headphones:

1) Space, spreading sound between 2.5 feet (roughly) is way more natural a method of listening to music than cramming into your head and roughly 3 inches to either side max.
2) Bass, not more impactful than my TH600's (the feeling of them rumbling on your head rivals subwoofers in some ways), not better textured than my HE500's but incredibly articulate with the right amount of punch to keep you engaged.
3) Full sounding, I like neutral bright tuning for all my gear which seems to be the studio standard. These speakers are voiced very similarly to both my Sony MDR-7520 and AKG K7XX but have a fuller sound than both without coming across as thick like my HE500's
4) Definition, listening to "Sad Souvenirs" by the four tops everything sounds so well placed and distinct as if every member is perfectly spread out on a stage in front of me.  
5) Harmonious, not saying Headphones aren't in harmony its just that with space it all goes hand in glove, firmly attached to another gloved hand. Hearing that slight interplay between speakers and your room makes it more seamless.

Now, this is a nearfield setup, if you were listening to a set of tower speakers in a large well treated room you might have slightly different opinions on a few points but my observation thus far is that my current headphone setup is not losing much except for a touch of natural ease overall.
The good thing with both the tuning of the speakers and there increased level of space and authority is that it lends itself to all types of music so that one setup will play Ramirez with the same deftness as Eric Clapton whereas with headphones I might pick my K240 or K340's for Clapton but HE500's for Ramirez. Obviously a few headphones are genre masters (K7XX,MDR-7520,HE500 out of my collection) but their are times where I might prefer the signature of one to the others. That could either be a pro or a con depending on your budget and how simple you like your life to be.
Which leads to my number one pro of headphones over speakers the ability to have as many subtly or drastically listening setups as you want but they can all fit on your desk or a bookshelf AND for less than a mid sized 2-channel setup. My HE500's cost the same amount as the Dynaudios ($450cad) and are run off of the same speaker amp's tabs so they are the closest comparison; once I add the cost of stands and cables for the BM6p's I have almost the same price as my AKG K240 sextetts. Thats 2 great headphones that rival summit-fi headphones for the same price as a pair of speakers that never go as low as the price I paid (normally the BM6's go for $900-$1,300cad); if I had paid the normal market price for them it would be the same as adding the price of most of my remaining head gear and it would still only be one system (albeit versatile) versus a wide range and combination of gear.

All in all I would rather have both my headphone collection and speaker setup over just one.


Edit: just realised this is my 800th post


----------



## Pokemonn (Jul 15, 2017)

FYI this graph is "good sounding loudspeaker FR curve" made by Mr Ishii(famouse japanese audiophile). some may prefer it some may not. YMMV.


----------



## LazyListener

Pokemonn said:


> FYI this graph is "good sounding loudspeaker FR curve" made by Mr Ishii(famouse japanese audiophile). some may prefer it some may not. YMMV.


Well, it sure looks pretty, but looks like it wouldn't sound very good.  I'm good with A and B, but -6 db at 10kHz?  That's too much treble drop for me.


----------



## Pokemonn (Jul 15, 2017)

Yes its description say curve may vary with room and various loudspeakers and music genres.
At least mr ishi is very experienced listing room architect, he concludes that from his experiences.


----------



## 14likd1

Not an expert when it comes to audio but I thought I could give my two cents in this conversation since I have experienced probably some of the worlds best Home Speaker setup and a HD 800. While I do agree that headphones are more intimate the feeling you get when you listen to an insane home audio system is something headphones cannot produce. When I listen on headphones my mind is swayed to the tune of the music but when I am listening on a great speaker system my whole body is affected. Another point I like to make is that a headphone can't do everything while with speakers you can add more specialized things which make a more versatile system.


----------



## headdict

What do you mean by 'more specialized things'? Could you please give some examples?


----------



## kid vic

14likd1 said:


> Not an expert when it comes to audio but I thought I could give my two cents in this conversation since I have experienced probably some of the worlds best Home Speaker setup and a HD 800. While I do agree that headphones are more intimate the feeling you get when you listen to an insane home audio system is something headphones cannot produce. When I listen on headphones my mind is swayed to the tune of the music but when I am listening on a great speaker system my whole body is affected.* Another point I like to make is that a headphone can't do everything while with speakers you can add more specialized things which make a more versatile system*.




Funny that you mention this point, it seems like a lot of people on head-fi have multiple headphones just because some are tuned to better play certain genres (AKG K501 for classical, Beyer DT770 for hip hop, etc). It's pretty difficult to have a bunch of different speakers for a few genres and moods (unless your super rich).


----------



## LazyListener

I've chimed in this thread before, and have since listened to a few different speakers in a 2.0 setup.  The speakers I've auditioned include KEF Q100 and Q300, Dali Zensor 1, Q Acoustics 3020, and JBL LSR305.  I also own an older Polk RT1000P/CS400/RT35i 5.1 home theater setup.  After listening to all of these speakers, I can unequivocally state that I still prefer the listening experience with my HD 598 headphones over any of the speakers.  The biggest reason being that I can hear all the details clearly.  With speakers in a non-acoustically treated room, some of the details get lost or are barely audible.  The 598s create the proper acoustic environment automatically and provide a nice sense of ambiance of the recording.  Layering and separation are better than any of the speakers I tried.  Imaging and soundstage accuracy are better on either of the KEF speakers.  The 598s are not known for accurate imaging, but do provide a nice wide and spacious soundstage.  The KEF speakers are great though.  They come close to the detail and separation/layering of the 598s, and have more accurate imaging and soundstage.  The 598s still sound better to me overall though.  If I had to pick one over the other, I'd pick the 598s every time.


----------



## Music Alchemist

LazyListener said:


> I've chimed in this thread before, and have since listened to a few different speakers in a 2.0 setup.  The speakers I've auditioned include KEF Q100 and Q300, Dali Zensor 1, Q Acoustics 3020, and JBL LSR305.  I also own an older Polk RT1000P/CS400/RT35i 5.1 home theater setup.  After listening to all of these speakers, I can unequivocally state that I still prefer the listening experience with my HD 598 headphones over any of the speakers.  The biggest reason being that I can hear all the details clearly.  With speakers in a non-acoustically treated room, some of the details get lost or are barely audible.  The 598s create the proper acoustic environment automatically and provide a nice sense of ambiance of the recording.  Layering and separation are better than any of the speakers I tried.  Imaging and soundstage accuracy are better on either of the KEF speakers.  The 598s are not known for accurate imaging, but do provide a nice wide and spacious soundstage.  The KEF speakers are great though.  They come close to the detail and separation/layering of the 598s, and have more accurate imaging and soundstage.  The 598s still sound better to me overall though.  If I had to pick one over the other, I'd pick the 598s every time.



That's pretty interesting, but my experience has been quite different. As you know, I owned higher-end models in the Sennheiser HD series, such as the 800, 700, 650, and 600. I auditioned the 558 (which has the same drivers as the 598) as well. You probably also remember that STAX is my favorite headphone manufacturer. In 2015 I had the SR-207 and SR-30, and just recently, I got the SR-L300 and SR-Lambda. While it may be true that you don't have to worry about the listening room with headphones, and they let you analyze detail more easily, this isn't much of an advantage in my book. To my ears, the LSR305 has better macrodetail and only loses to headphones a tiny fraction of a percent of the time when it comes to microdetail. (In many cases, it's not reproducing fewer details; it's just putting them in their proper place in the background.) I'm not sure how your headphones could have better layering and separation, because no headphone can even touch my speakers there either. It's like I'm listening to the actual instruments in the room, whereas with headphones, everything is just right next to my ears, and in addition to the imaging disadvantage, it doesn't sound even remotely as realistic. I ended up selling both of those more recent STAX systems shortly after getting them, since I prefer the speakers and would rather have the extra cash. I still love headphones, though, and once I'm in a better position financially, I'll have no problem owning both speakers and headphones in the four to five figure range. Anyway, it's possible that your lackluster experience with the 305 was due to sub-optimal setup. The room and the position of the speakers in the room really does affect the sound greatly, even in a nearfield setting. Some recordings can sound a lot worse than they normally would if the speakers aren't set up well. (Even with positions in my room that sound great with some recordings, they may have major problems with others.)  I also discovered that the speakers don't sound nearly as good when used with affordable DACs. For example, I think the JDS Labs OL DAC is the best DAC I've heard under $200, but compared to the Chord 2Qute and Mojo, it sounds sorta lo-fi to me. If I had only, say, auditioned the speakers without a (relatively) high-end DAC, I wouldn't be so impressed by (let alone know about) what they're capable of. Then again, my opinion of speakers vs headphones remains the same regardless of the source components used. In the future it would be a good idea to experiment with how the speakers are set up.


----------



## LazyListener

Music Alchemist said:


> That's pretty interesting, but my experience has been quite different. As you know, I owned higher-end models in the Sennheiser HD series, such as the 800, 700, 650, and 600. I auditioned the 558 (which has the same drivers as the 598) as well. You probably also remember that STAX is my favorite headphone manufacturer. In 2015 I had the SR-207 and SR-30, and just recently, I got the SR-L300 and SR-Lambda. While it may be true that you don't have to worry about the listening room with headphones, and they let you analyze detail more easily, this isn't much of an advantage in my book. To my ears, the LSR305 has better macrodetail and only loses to headphones a tiny fraction of a percent of the time when it comes to microdetail. (In many cases, it's not reproducing fewer details; it's just putting them in their proper place in the background.) I'm not sure how your headphones could have better layering and separation, because no headphone can even touch my speakers there either. It's like I'm listening to the actual instruments in the room, whereas with headphones, everything is just right next to my ears, and in addition to the imaging disadvantage, it doesn't sound even remotely as realistic. I ended up selling both of those more recent STAX systems shortly after getting them, since I prefer the speakers and would rather have the extra cash. I still love headphones, though, and once I'm in a better position financially, I'll have no problem owning both speakers and headphones in the four to five figure range. Anyway, it's possible that your lackluster experience with the 305 was due to sub-optimal setup. The room and the position of the speakers in the room really does affect the sound greatly, even in a nearfield setting. Some recordings can sound a lot worse than they normally would if the speakers aren't set up well. (Even with positions in my room that sound great with some recordings, they may have major problems with others.)  I also discovered that the speakers don't sound nearly as good when used with affordable DACs. For example, I think the JDS Labs OL DAC is the best DAC I've heard under $200, but compared to the Chord 2Qute and Mojo, it sounds sorta lo-fi to me. If I had only, say, auditioned the speakers without a (relatively) high-end DAC, I wouldn't be so impressed by (let alone know about) what they're capable of. Then again, my opinion of speakers vs headphones remains the same regardless of the source components used. In the future it would be a good idea to experiment with how the speakers are set up.


Hey, buddy!  Glad you replied.  Your raving about the LSR305s was part of the reason I auditioned them.  I did like them quite a bit, but in the end decided to go with the more accurate imaging, larger soundstage, and more detailed sound of the KEF speakers.  I appreciated the JBLs for their neutrality and low bass extension.  What I found lacking was the clarity in the highs.  The treble energy didn't fill the room enough to my liking.  I get that they're intended more for nearfield listening, and when I put my ear closer and directly in front, there was a bit more apparent detail and treble energy.  So maybe in my small room listening about 6-8 feet away, is not what they're best at.  The setup was a simple 2.0, about a foot from back wall, facing straight out, about 7 feet apart, with me listening 6-8 feet away.  I'm sure they sound better nearfield angled in at 30 degrees, but I was not going to use them that way.  By comparison, the KEF, both Q100 and Q300, are not that picky about placement, and they radiate sound that fills the entire room for a very wide sweet spot.  Identical setup and placement with the KEFs and they just disappear and you get a large wall of sound with an accurate phantom center and accurate positioning of sounds.

The DAC used on both setups was the same.  Fiio E10K line out.  Cheap, yes, and I'm sure more expensive DACs sound better.  But the Fiio doesn't sound like trash either.  After all, the KEFs did shine with the same DAC used with the JBLs.

What I forgot to mention was that I really enjoyed how realistic the JBLs made piano in classical music sound.  By comparison, the KEFs color the sound warm low and bright high, and it doesn't sound as realistic.  Shouldn't be surprised there since the JBLs are studio monitors after all and should have that more netural/flat frequency response.

Another thing I noticed with the JBLs is that dynamics seemed somewhat compressed.  Not fully compressed, but definitely not the same dynamic range that the KEFs put out.  This was obvious with Classical music.  Do you know if the JBLs electronics do anything to compress or limit dynamics?

I really wanted to keep the JBLs, but in the end, the KEFs had a lot more of what I was looking for.  In the future, I may still get studio monitors, but I'd want ones with more clarity and treble energy, even if it means less bass.  I think bass is best handled by a separate subwoofer anyway.  I'm thinking something like Yamaha HS5s with a subwoofer.  Everything I've read says the Yamaha studio monitors are the some of the most accurate around, and have better clarity/detail than the JBLs but weaker bass, which could be cured with a matching subwoofer.  Another reason I chose the KEFs was that I didn't have to worry about an internal amp dying like is possible with active studio monitors.

I'll just repeat that I really liked the LSR305s (that low bass extension and pop for their size is impressive), and for the money, they seem like very good speakers, especially for those looking for something somewhat neutral and accurate, while still being musical and not overly analytical/sterile.

I just want to be sure we're defining our terms.  Please define "macrodetail" and "microdetail."  I'm not sure I know the difference.  Separation and layering for me is related to being able to hear all the details.  Separation for me, means each instrument or sound that was recorded to occupy its own "space" in the mix is clearly heard that way and the various sounds/instruments are not congested together.  For me, layering is similar to separation, except it has more to do with foreground vs background as opposed to "space" in general.  An accurate reproduction of layering will put the various instruments/sounds in their correct place as far as background and foreground are concerned, creating an illusion of depth and/or distance (similar to a painting creating an illusion of distance).  So yes, for me, the 598s do the detail, layering, and separation better than any of the speakers I've tried.

I don't agree with your statement that the JBLs simply put the details in the proper place in the background.  That is implying that headphones do not.  The way I see it (or hear it) is that the headphones are not enhancing the details in any way - they are not pushing the background details to the foreground.  My guess is that with headphones, there are fewer reflected soundwaves and more direct soundwaves, so less of the sound is "lost" before entering your ears.  This way you hear more of the details.  Whereas with speakers in a room, unless your room is fully acoustically treated to minimize reflections, and you are listening completely on-axis with the speakers pointed at your ears, and preferably at a close distance, then the already weaker soundwaves of background sounds get reflected and a lot of that sound energy is lost and not as much of those soundwaves get absorbed by your ears.  To me, it's obvious that the KEF's coaxial design and tweeter waveguide dispersion do a better job of dispersing the sound throughout the room than JBLs tweeter waveguide.  Like mentioned earlier, JBL is better for nearfield with speakers pointing directly at your ears.  The KEFs don't have this limitation.

I agree that headphones will never have the size, scope, and spaciousness of sound coming from speakers - that's just pure physics.  Headphones will always sound in or around your ears.  But some headphones do a pretty good job of recreating a smaller version (headstage) of a speaker system's soundstage, and that headstage can be pretty darn accurate and convincing (just sized down a lot).


----------



## 14likd1

Well imo Head phones are jack oF all trade but masters of none. For example in speakers systems there are 3 main types of drivers, the Tweeter which has the smallest diaphragm and vibrates the fastest to produce high frequency noises, the woofer which has a larger diaphragm and producea mid to low frequencys and the subwoofer with its massive diaphragm used to play that bass. These drivers all have specialized jobs to create certain sounds at the best possible quality buck suck at the other frequency ranges. A headphone is supposed to do the job of all three while having a diaphragm size that's smaller than a woofer/subwoofer and larger than a tweeter.


----------



## Music Alchemist (Jul 18, 2017)

LazyListener said:


> [...]



Oh, yeah, you definitely want to have them closer and angled to form an equilateral triangle between the speakers and you. I wouldn't even want to listen to them with the setup you described. I have them at arms' length at the moment.

I'd say that soundstage depends more on the positioning of the speakers than which speakers you choose. But since you did not set them up in the way they're meant to be, you wouldn't be able to hear how they're supposed to sound. Many say that JBL has some of the best imaging available. The waveguide on the LSR305 is actually adapted from their $20,000 flagship monitors.

The LSR305 is very neutral, so if you want brightness, you can equalize it. (That goes for any speaker or headphone.) But I wouldn't want it to be brighter than it is. The clarity is at a realistic level to the point that, comparatively to headphones, it sounds like I'm there listening to the real instruments. (Though it's obviously not the same as being at an actual live performance. I would know, being a lifelong musician.) Another thing to remember is that the room can alter the frequency response considerably, so even when a speaker has neutral measurements, it may not be that way in the room you listen in.

Lacking dynamics? Something was wrong there. I get insane dynamics with aggressive music like metal at high volume. I can even make the floor shake with some bassy electronic music, and that's without a subwoofer. Classical is also fine. I'm sure plenty of other speakers are even better, but I can't comment on any particular one without being able to hear it first.

Microdetail is low-level sounds that may not be noticeable (or reproduced at all) on some systems, while macrodetail is comprised of "larger" sounds that are apparent on pretty much any system, but are presented differently on each. Think of things like timbre, texture, articulation, spatial cues, and so on.

Yeah...I don't get how any headphone could touch the separation, layering, imaging, etc. of decent speakers. I'm not hearing what you're hearing. (And bear in mind that I am very familiar with headphones with far higher performance than those Senns.) I suspect this is due to what I mentioned: suboptimal setup of the speakers you heard.

With headphones, all the sounds are presented in the same area: right next to your ears. There is next to zero depth. So background details are presented in the foreground even when they shouldn't be. With speakers, they are in different positions in the room. Subtle details are subtle instead of artificially emphasized in the way that makes them easier to analyze on headphones.


----------



## LazyListener

Music Alchemist said:


> I'd say that soundstage depends more on the positioning of the speakers than which speakers you choose.


Both.  Depends on the speaker design and positioning.  Some are more picky about positioning than others.  The manual for the LSR305s recommends angling the speakers in, whereas the manual for the KEFs shows them straight out or in the case of a home theater setup, either straight or angled.  With the JBLs, you're stuck in a small sweet spot due to the angling requirement and close distance.  With the KEFs, much larger soundstage and wider sweet spot for more people to enjoy simultaneously.



Music Alchemist said:


> The LSR305 is very neutral, so if you want brightness, you can equalize it.


In my subjective opinion, in my room and setup, I'd say on the warm and smooth side of neutral.  I don't like to EQ speakers.  Rarely ever EQ headphones.



Music Alchemist said:


> Lacking dynamics? Something was wrong there.


Yup.  Definitely lacking dynamics.  Like I said, the dynamic range wasn't completely compressed with the JBLs, but it seemed to be to some degree.  All the other speakers I tried, did a better job of reproducing the full scale dynamic range.



Music Alchemist said:


> I can even make the floor shake with some bassy electronic music


That's not a good test for dynamic range compression.  DR can be compressed and the bass can still pound.  Classical music is a better test.  Need to hear how much scale there is between the quietest sounds and the loudest sounds within a track.



Music Alchemist said:


> Yeah...I don't get how any headphone could touch the separation, layering, imaging, etc. of decent speakers. I'm not hearing what you're hearing. (And bear in mind that I am very familiar with headphones with far higher performance than those Senns.) I suspect this is due to what I mentioned: suboptimal setup of the speakers you heard.


I don't know.  I can hear all those things very well with my 598s, just on a smaller scale (headstage) than speakers (soundstage).  Can't blame suboptimal setup in the case of the KEF speakers.  Like I said, with those, imaging accuracy and soundstage size were clearly better than the 598s.  However, it's hard to compare soundstage size between speakers and headphones, since headphones scale everything down by default to a headstage.



Music Alchemist said:


> With headphones, all the sounds are presented in the same area: right next to your ears. There is next to zero depth. So background details are presented in the foreground even when they shouldn't be. With speakers, they are in different positions in the room. Subtle details are subtle instead of artificially emphasized in the way that makes them easier to analyze on headphones.


Yes, with headphones all the sounds are near your ears, but presented at different volumes, creating an illusion of depth and distance, while the stereo image creates an illusion of positioning.  Background sounds are at lower volumes relative to foreground sounds and are still presented that way, at least on decent cans like the 598s.  Some cans do a poor job and cannot recreate depth/layering very well - everything sounds congested/compressed/same or similar volume.  I don't hear "background details... presented in the foreground" as you say, with the headphones I use.

With my 598s, subtle details are still "subtle" relative to other sounds, just more audible than with speakers, whereas on speakers those sounds are far less audible or some may be "there" but inaudible to me.  Not sure what you mean by "artificially emphasized."  My 598s don't have a DSP chip.  Not sure how they can emphasize subtle details without affecting the no-so-subtle sounds as well.


----------



## Music Alchemist (Jul 19, 2017)

LazyListener said:


> In my subjective opinion, in my room and setup, I'd say on the warm and smooth side of neutral. I don't like to EQ speakers. Rarely ever EQ headphones.



Fair enough. It's certainly not on the bright/lean side of neutral. I do hear more dips than peaks in a frequency sweep, but that's preferable, since peaks are much more annoying. Even without EQ, it's already more neutral to my ears than any headphone I've heard.

If you refuse to do equalization, you'll never achieve a neutral tonal balance. Just sayin'.



LazyListener said:


> Yup. Definitely lacking dynamics. Like I said, the dynamic range wasn't completely compressed with the JBLs, but it seemed to be to some degree. All the other speakers I tried, did a better job of reproducing the full scale dynamic range.



I'll take your word for it about the other speakers having better dynamics...but on the topic of the thread, I'm getting far better dynamics with the speakers than with any headphone.



LazyListener said:


> That's not a good test for dynamic range compression. DR can be compressed and the bass can still pound. Classical music is a better test. Need to hear how much scale there is between the quietest sounds and the loudest sounds within a track.



True...but I sense no lack of dynamics with soft-to-loud classical and have to adjust the volume rather frequently with music like that. So I guess it comes down to the other speakers being better in this area rather than the JBL being poor per se.



LazyListener said:


> Yes, with headphones all the sounds are near your ears, but presented at different volumes, creating an illusion of depth and distance, while the stereo image creates an illusion of positioning. Background sounds are at lower volumes relative to foreground sounds and are still presented that way, at least on decent cans like the 598s. Some cans do a poor job and cannot recreate depth/layering very well - everything sounds congested/compressed/same or similar volume. I don't hear "background details... presented in the foreground" as you say, with the headphones I use.
> 
> With my 598s, subtle details are still "subtle" relative to other sounds, just more audible than with speakers, whereas on speakers those sounds are far less audible or some may be "there" but inaudible to me. Not sure what you mean by "artificially emphasized." My 598s don't have a DSP chip. Not sure how they can emphasize subtle details without affecting the no-so-subtle sounds as well.



They're artificially emphasized precisely because of the sounds being right next to your ears. It's not about volume; it's about the fact that they are all in the same area, representing a constant foreground, rather than in various areas of the room, as you can get with speakers. One example: Let's say there's a harp at the back and corner of a stage. The speakers would present it like that: very much in the literal background. Although the volume of the harp would be softer than other instruments on headphones, it still makes it easier to notice due to the sound's proximity to your ear; easier to notice than it would be with the original performance.

In some cases, the headphones are actually more resolving and reproducing details that the speakers aren't...but this was relatively rare for me.

But different volumes can never be a replacement for real depth, with sounds coming from different areas of the room, especially in front of you. I'd be interested in an explanation for how the headphones have better depth for you. On the other hand, accurate depth is difficult to do right with speakers even though there's far more depth than headphones. With speakers, you generally have a stage in front of you, but it would appear that you need a larger speaker system for the sonic images to occupy places in the room that represent the true depth of the recording, if there is much in the first place.

(Side note: If you're out in the audience at a classical performance, you don't really get much depth aside from the stage being in front of you. That's something to ponder in all this. Being on-stage and performing with the other musicians was a more dimensional experience for me.)

However, I enjoy the intimacy of nearfield listening. It's like the headphone version of speaker systems, so to speak. If you recall, I used to prefer headphones over speakers, and I'm guessing that's because larger speaker systems I heard in the past made me feel distanced from the music.


----------



## Music Alchemist

I'm having a heavenly session with the Koss KTXPRO1. (One of the few headphones I haven't gotten rid of since transitioning to speakers. I actually have three pairs.)

I cannot deny that certain details are easier to perceive with headphones, even when the headphones aren't nearly as resolving as the speakers. Having more "direct" sound without room reflections can be advantageous as well. And let's not forget about full sub-bass extension.

For me, the KTX strikes a good balance between technical proficiency and sacrificing some of that for musicality. It's engaging and relaxing at the same time. I stop analyzing everything so much and just get lost in the music endlessly. It's obviously not as good as high-end headphones, but I tend to enjoy it more consistently than most of them nonetheless.

The realism of my speakers is many levels higher, of course, but the KTX has a special sound that has become part of me. I'm thinking this headphone will still be one I use no matter how high I climb the echelon of speakers.


----------



## SP Wild

Pokemonn said:


> FYI this graph is "good sounding loudspeaker FR curve" made by Mr Ishii(famouse japanese audiophile). some may prefer it some may not. YMMV.



That looks like a good frequency response for 'live' like listening volume levels.

Neutrality is a load of crap.  Depends on your mood which will dictate how loud you will listen. 

I got studio monitors here... All neutral, all sound good.  One is great for lower volumes, the other is better at higher volumes. 

One has awesome 'soundstage' but at the cost of lower midrange smear... Which is precisely what gives it a greater perception of depth. 

The other has less depth because the lower midrange is more precise... But it has a bigger scale and more 'height' to the soundstage. 

Both these studio monitors at 2K ish Aussie dollars has their woofer midrange definition excelled by my 300 dollar studio monitors.  Which also has the snappiest kick drum... Which is the clearest correlation to mid woofer definition.  Except the dome tweeter is a bit 'unrefined' and dark sounding and the whole system hisses like a snake. 

From memory, the JBL LSR305, has a PA speaker sound which lends it a 'live' character.  The detail comes from its horn like coloration, just like the K701 from Harmon.  The warmth comes from its extended bass... Which always comes at a cost of kick drum snap and middle C definition.  The tweeter also is not as articulate as the dome on the KH120 and the AMT on the A7Xs are far more extended.  The dome is on par with the dome on my Rokit 4, but is helped along by that magnificent waveguide.


----------



## 227qed (Apr 23, 2019)

.


----------



## 227qed

Well I’m a bit late to the party, but have two cents to donate since I’ve listened to headphones exclusively for the last 4 years but just got my first set of towers. 

Two chains:
Mimby—>iCAN—>TH-X00
MSRP $950
Mimby—>Emotiva A-100–>Airmotiv T1
MSRP $1250

SPEAKERS
The speakers sound pretty veiled unless they’re played loud, but the stage can be pretty cool in movies. Like the broom chase at the intro of the Crimes of Grindelwald.  Terrible movie IMHO, but one if the first things I tested the speakers with and I was genuinely impressed with the sound going up, down, side to side, during the opening scenes. Also I’m a basshead and need a sub to be really happy, so there’s some inherent bias against speakers.  Overall though, I know speakers are much more expensive and complicated to set up right and I’m by no means disappointed. I now prefer the speakers to headphones for casual watching/listening. And I did form a nearly perfect equilateral triangle with the speaker angle, positions, and listening location. 

HEADPHONES
Detail and imaging is no comparison, the headphone setup absolutely slaughters the speakers.  Texture, dynamics, etc too. Fill in all the audiophile buzzwords and headphones win. Gaming too.  Maybe a 5.1 - 9.2 system would be comparable, but I cannot game on 2.0 and have a comparably immersive experience. My “modest” setup still amazes me every time I fire it up. Not the same with the speakers. 

OVERALL
I’m really happy to have both. My girlfriend thinks my headphones sound like crap and she likes the speakers. So much that she actually takes the time to walk over and dial in the pot instead of just using the TV remote/built in speakers.  That says a lot. I’m really impressed by the speakers.  Dollar for dollar I was not expecting the speakers to do so well vs. the headphones.  But the headphones do objectively provide a better critical listening experience for music and gaming.  Movies seem to be more of a personal preference, but moving forward, I’ll mostly go speakers, and probably all the time when I get a sub.

MY RECOMMENDATION
Don’t overspend in one or the other if you have a wide variety of applications.  You can do pretty well 50/50 if you shop for deals on “bang for the buck” gear. My speakers were on close out for 33% off, and I bought my headphones used.  The A-100 is a killer headphone amp too, so it’s win win. Just inconvenient to switch cables around since the speaker stuff is setup up near the tv and the headphones go next to me. Speakers are definitely a no brainer for shared listening experiences too. I’d be pretty sad if I overspent on headphones and had to listen to tv speakers the rest of my life every time I watch something with the old lady.


----------



## Robert Wortman (Apr 29, 2019)

Comparing the two is kind of a waste.   They are different experiences.  If you want to try to reproduce what a live performance sounds like, speakers are the only thing that comes close.   Headphones just don't produce the sense of a band arrayed in front of you or the body thump of a bass drum or guitar.   If you want to hear the micro-detail of every snap, crackle, and pop no speaker will do what headphones can do simply because of the physical distance between your ears and the HF drivers.  Mix engineers often use both.  If you insist on comparing, you need to be comparing systems in the same fidelity range, not price range.  Speakers are more expensive to make.  Thousand dollar headphones are approaching the state of the art.  Thousand dollar speakers are not.  Other than the portability, the main reason for the popularity of headphones is the bang for the buck.  You need to spend 5 to 10x the amount on speakers to get equivalent fidelity.


----------



## Whazzzup

I looked at my speakers and said, nope, those things are way to heavy for my head so


----------



## Fuzziekiwi

To me a lot of bookshelf speakers are hit or miss; most studio monitors are far better. My LSR305's are by far the best thing I have ever listened to for the price (99 ea. on sale, but even at $150 it's a steal) wonderful tonality and detail beating basically every piece of gear I have; while also providing soundstage depth width and height (I assume the waveguide has quite a bit to do with it!). KRK Rokit 5's don't seem to have the treble magic these have. They don't have to be cranked up loud to sound good either (Looking at you Elac B6's). But we all know speakers can't be used all the time if you live with other people.


----------



## Blackwoof

GuyUnder said:


> But the hard truth to face is -- speakers aren't nearly as resolving as high end headphones, and getting than the center image from loudspeakers takes an optimal room geometry that most people don't have. My speakers sound like veiled trash next to my HE-6, TH900 and Utopia.



Also size means nothing for detail/res & even bass. There are IEMs with <10mm that are very resolving, Not to mention there on your head & in your ears. The volume needed to pump sound is very very little than what a 4 way 2.1 stereo system has to do, Even then Speakers still have issues with THD. Where the avg is 2 ~ 12.5% vs <0.1 ~ 2% of headphones.

Not to mention with them being Single driver is huge pro since crossovers can cause artifacts. Yet a Single driver speaker can really struggle with doing both bass/treble which headphones have no problem with while using <40mm drivers.


----------



## Grayes

Robert Wortman said:


> Comparing the two is kind of a waste.   They are different experiences.  If you want to try to reproduce what a live performance sounds like, speakers are the only thing that comes close.   Headphones just don't produce the sense of a band arrayed in front of you or the body thump of a bass drum or guitar.   If you want to hear the micro-detail of every snap, crackle, and pop no speaker will do what headphones can do simply because of the physical distance between your ears and the HF drivers.  Mix engineers often use both.  If you insist on comparing, you need to be comparing systems in the same fidelity range, not price range.  Speakers are more expensive to make.  Thousand dollar headphones are approaching the state of the art.  Thousand dollar speakers are not.  Other than the portability, the main reason for the popularity of headphones is the bang for the buck.  You need to spend 5 to 10x the amount on speakers to get equivalent fidelity.



agree, work a lot with a sound engineer, that to switch around from cans to actual speakers. they said for detailed purposes they will be using cans instead. but for the actual sound coverage analysis, they will use speakers instead because its simply for refined sound when you hear from another source that not stick to your ear. I've tried $5000 cans it makes such a big difference from $500 cans. but when i compare the full specs speakers $4500 vs $2000 I simply cannot compare it. For me, it's just a reference thing to switch between these two.


----------



## gregorio

Robert Wortman said:


> [1] If you want to hear the micro-detail of every snap, crackle, and pop no speaker will do what headphones can do simply because of the physical distance between your ears and the HF drivers.
> [2] Mix engineers often use both.
> [3] If you insist on comparing, you need to be comparing systems in the same fidelity range, not price range.  Speakers are more expensive to make.
> [3a] Thousand dollar headphones are approaching the state of the art.  Thousand dollar speakers are not.  Other than the portability, the main reason for the popularity of headphones is the bang for the buck. You need to spend 5 to 10x the amount on speakers to get equivalent fidelity.



1. Actually, speakers (monitors) can get close to reproducing the level of detail headphones are capable of. It's not so much the physical distance between your ears and the HF drivers as what's in that distance. (see #3).

2. Often but not always and in some cases the mixing is done exclusively on headphones, although the results of doing so are typically inferior.

3. I agree with your basic premise but the common mistake made by the audiophile world is to consider the cost/performance of speakers and the cost/performance of headphones. This is a mistake because while the performance of headphones relies entirely on the headphones themselves, the performance of speakers is only partly reliant on the speakers themselves, it's also heavily reliant on the room in which they're placed (the "distance" mentioned in #1).  In other words, the actual equation to consider is the cost/performance of speakers + room. Therefore:
3a. To get close to an "equivalent fidelity" not only requires generally spending say 5x the amount on speakers but spending way more than that again on room acoustics. I've heard ~$20k audiophile speakers that sounded poor, not because of the speakers themselves but because of the room in which they were placed. As there's little or nothing the vast majority of audiophiles can do to their room, they tend to simply ignore/dismiss this vital part of the equation plus, exceedingly few audiophiles have ever experienced top quality monitors in a top quality listening environment. To achieve this combination typically costs hundreds of thousands or even millions but that's what commercial studios spend and why some mix engineers don't use both.

And continuing on:



Grayes said:


> [1] agree, work a lot with a sound engineer, that to switch around from cans to actual speakers. they said for detailed purposes they will be using cans instead. but for the actual sound coverage analysis, they will use speakers instead because its simply for refined sound when you hear from another source that not stick to your ear. I've tried $5000 cans it makes such a big difference from $500 cans.
> [2] but when i compare the full specs speakers $4500 vs $2000 I simply cannot compare it.



1. There are various different reasons why sound engineers may use cans: A. For isolation when doing live sound or when tracking or B. To check/reference what the mix or master is going to sound like on headphones or C. HPs can sometimes be more practical when editing very low level (undesirable) details than using monitors at a high playback level. However, cans are rarely used for other "detailed purposes", for example positioning/soundstage details or frequency details, because the perception of these details is so affected by small anatomical differences between different people when using cans. In other words, if cans are used to work on these types of details there's a much higher probability that it won't "translate" for other people, even if they use exactly the same cans.

2. Because you're missing a large part of the equation. $2k speakers can easily outperform $4.5k speakers, depending on the room acoustics and speaker positioning within the room.

G


----------

