# A Bundle of Extreme Musical Happiness -- A Review of the Swans M200 MKIII



## zhouf

*Review of the Swans M200 MKIII*
   
  I apologize ahead of time for the lack of pictures… Almost as soon as I finished burning in these stunning, sexy speakers and writing this review, I presented them to my brother as a 28th birthday offering. Nevertheless, here is my long-overdue review of the Swans M200 MKIII.
   
*Unboxing*
   
  I think… I think I might have broken my back while carrying my NEW Swans M200 MKIII’s up the stairs.  Weighing in at around 15 pounds each, the M200’s represent the new flagship standard of desktop sound that is hard to beat…
   
  The M200’s were packed very snugly between two angled Styrofoam boards that fit together perfectly in the double-boxed package I received in my mailroom. For those of you who have bought from Swans/HiVi before, you must certainly agree that the packaging is top-knotch. The speakers (unfortunately) didn’t come with the white gloves that arrived with my Swans M10 2.1 system, but they were wrapped in a silk-like fabric. Also included are an RCA-RCA and RCA-mini cable and a well made, high-quality connecting cable. To be fair, the two RCA cables had a bit of a cheap feel to them, which leads me to believe that they may not withstand the test of time too well… But as any audiophile knows stock cables usually don’t have the best build quality.
   
  At first glance, the M200’s are beautiful – the double walled solid milled hardwood panels really give the speakers a sleek, sexy feel. The speakers themselves are actually larger than I initially imagined, taking up almost a fifth of my available desk space.
   

*Initial Impressions*
   
  Initial impressions are short, but very, very impressive. The M200’s outperformed my expectations by miles. Comparing this setup to Swan’s M10’s isn’t quite fair, but I feel it is important nonetheless…
   
  The M10’s are very fun in nature, which deliver exceedingly well at its price point in the mids and the highs.  Unlike the M10’s, Swan’s M200 delivers excellent analytical sound which rivals speakers in the $500-$750 range. I’ve auditioned many sets of bookshelf speakers, ranging from the NHT SuperZero’s to Spendor’s high-end hifi. If I had to put a finger on it, my first impressions of the M200’s put the somewhere between a Grado SR225 and a Sennheiser 600. The M200’s are mostly analytical sounding, but have a unique, and very enjoyable, coloration. As Glen wrote in 6moon’s review of the M200 MKIII, the Swans are truly a “class act.”
   

*The Beefy:*
   
  Initial impressions seemed to have gone a long way with the M200’s. From “Come What May,” a Moulin-Rouge favorite of mine, Nicole Kidman shined through with near-perfect tonal accuracy. The treble was perfectly balanced with the mids and the lows -- the instrumentals complimented the vocals vividly. The Swans managed to hit the perfect, treble sweet spot that falls a few notches under siblance. And the mids were analyticial, but warm, which complimented the male and female vocals well. As I stated in my initial impressions, Come What May was reproduced in a fashion that leaned towards the more analytic genre of sound, but for me this is more of a pro than a con.
   
  Testing several other tracks, it became obvious to me that the Swans M200 MKIII recreated vocals and string and woodwind instrumentals best. At these higher frequencies, the near-liner frequency response of the Swans shines through, and reveals enormous detail that other bookshelf speakers in the $500-$750 price range cannot provide. The frequencies 10kHz and up were vividly represented, and continuously hit that high-frequency treble sweet spot I mentioned earlier. There was no siblance whatsoever.
   
  The bass of the Swans M200’s, however, is a whole other beast altogether. Let me frame my comments about the bass – I’m not a basshead, by any means, but I’m very picky about the lower frequencies. I appreciate tight, controlled bass that I can feel in my head rather in my chest. I’m more inclinced towards controlled bass because I feel that, in headphones and 2.0 speaker setups alike, it is very easy for the lower frequencies to encroach upon the territory of the midbass and the treble.
   
  That said, the M200’s produced musically pleasant bass that was truly tight and controlled. Listening to Atmosphere, who in my opinion is *the* best indie/hip-hop rapper, the bass complimented the treble like the Super 8 subwoofer compliments the NHT SuperZeros – INCREDIBLY well. Out of every 2.0 speaker system and headphone I’ve listened to, I most enjoyed the bass of the M200’s. This might be arguable in a home theater context, but the controlled bass was very well balanced with the crisp, crystal-clear treble and upper frequencies. Again, I wasn’t exactly looking for deep, resounding bass like we would find in a dedicated subwoofer or the Fischer Audio FA-011. I was looking for tight, controlled bass that balances _well with the music_.
   
  But let’s go back a few steps… while the bass of the M200’s accompanies the mids and highs well, I also found it lacking in some contexts… The 5.25” woofers can reproduce bass, sure, but with modern hip-hop and Top-40 songs, the bass quantity was simply not there. This is precisely because the Swans only have 5.25” woofers… to experience the full frequency of sound, my personal opinion is that a dedicated subwoofer is needed. I’m not saying that there isn’t enough bass in the M200’s – I’m just saying that in SOME CONTEXTS, I felt that there wasn’t enough. With almost every piece of music in almost every genre, the Swans M200’s outperformed my expectations. Cymbals sounded crisp, detailed, and compact, while acoustic guitar felt aged and genuine. But if all you do is listen to Nicki Minaj’s SuperBass… you just might want to look somewhere else. Over a bridge, maybe.
   

*The Staging*
   
  The M200’s really outdid themselves in this regard. Listening to the Swans was a completely immersive experience. Not only do the speakers sound terrific, but they create a very fluid listening environment that flowed all around me. These monitors shined through especially well in my near-field listening environment. They sat between two to four feet away from me, and were auditioned in two settings: facing inwards and facing straight forward.
   
  Near-field, the M200’s provided an expansive soundstage with a bit of a forward presentation. At moderate listening levels, the M200’s actually outperformed the NHT SuperZero in soundstage and depth. As a desktop setup, the Swans would be perfect for listening to orchestral reproductions – the expansive and impressive sound of the M200’s make it extremely suitable for classical music – in particular full orchestral reproductions. There is a defined, very crisp separation between the instrument classes, and the width of sound is truly incredible (better than everything I’ve heard from a 2.0 speaker setup, sans the $1500 Spendor speaker setup I had the pleasure of auditioning).
   
  The Swans easily filled a 15’ x 10’ x 10’ room with hifi sound, but aside from that I cannot comment regarding the quality of music in a setting other than near-field listening.
   
*The End*
   
  Would I buy the M200’s MKIII’s again if I wasn’t living in a small, cramped dorm room next year with a tiny desk? ABSOLUTELY.
   
  At $400/pair, the M200’s are a force not to be trifled with. From a purely musical standpoint, you’ll be hard-pressed to do better. The highs are crisp, and the mids are vivid and clear. The bass is tight and controlled, and extremely well-balanced with the rest of the frequency range. These speakers completely outperformed all of my expectations, from beauty to sound quality. The looks of the M200 MKIII’s are (in my humble opinion) enough to shovel out hundreds of dollars for. Everything from the double walled milled hardwood panels to the sleek black finish screams quality.
   
  You’ll be hard-pressed to find a speaker near this price point that provides the perfect balance of sound suitable for classical, jazz, and rock. For audiophiles looking to upgrade their desktop sound, look no further. The M200’s MKIII’s are sold directly through theAudioInsider.com (the North American importer and Internet-Direct seller for Swan)  and is accompanied with a one-year warranty.
   

_Any questions can be directed below, or feel free to PM me_.


----------



## DaveBSC

Nice review. The Swans can be beaten by the best mid-tier nearfield monitors, but as traditional "computer speakers" they are tough to beat. Certainly they make short work of Audioengines and Aktimates.


----------



## charlie0904

Very nice.

I'm very interested to get a pair.

Looking to see if I can find them locally in my country, singapore.


----------



## pigmode

Perhaps I missed it in your review, but what dac or other components are you running with the M200MKIII?


----------



## zhouf

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> Nice review. The Swans can be beaten by the best mid-tier nearfield monitors, but as traditional "computer speakers" they are tough to beat. Certainly they make short work of Audioengines and Aktimates.


 


   


  Quote: 





pigmode said:


> Perhaps I missed it in your review, but what dac or other components are you running with the M200MKIII?


 
  I was running the speakers straight out of my 2010 15" Macbook Pro. I also ran the M200's out through a Mav D1 Dac/Amp


----------



## pigmode

Thanks, I guess I'll find out for myself what these speakers are about, since mine just arrived in Cali after a four day trip across America. Should arrive on Wed. Any thoughts on burn in?


----------



## zhouf

Quote: 





pigmode said:


> Thanks, I guess I'll find out for myself what these speakers are about, since mine just arrived in Cali after a four day trip across America. Should arrive on Wed. Any thoughts on burn in?


 


  hmm -- I'm not sure if they burned in much, but I do remember the treble getting a bit more crisp over time. But I'm glad you picked up a pair -- post back and let us know your impressions?
   
  What kind of setting will you be using them in?


----------



## pigmode

^ The MKIII's will be set up in a smallish room on a desk, with the speaker backs facing into the room. Upstream I'll try the MBP direct, and also the Anedio D1 dac to see where that will lead. The initial goal was to set up computer speakers to handle the lower quality recordings and iTunes lossy files, for which my headphone system tends to be too revealing. I may very well have overshot that goal, but hopefully the MKIII's have some forgiveness in their sound presentation.


----------



## spart1cle

Great review! I'm upgrading to the MkIII's from my Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 system, and they should be here in a couple days


----------



## zhouf

What did you guys think about your swans?


----------



## trog

Kudos for the efforts and thanks for the review - hope to see one for the M60 soon 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  http://www.swanspeaker.com/products/products.aspx?cid=5&sid=0&pid=23


----------



## HxCKhaos

Quote: 





zhouf said:


> What did you guys think about your swans?


 
   
  I have the T200b's and am in love with them!!!
   
  I have an addiction though...and now i can't get my eye off the T900's. LOL


----------



## eclipes

Any good DAC recommendations to pair with the MKIII and also will giving tube warmth to the setup do any good with the swans. I am still deciding on whether I should get a dac and tube buffer or just a tube dac.


----------



## WNBC

I've been enjoying my Swans lately, choosing them over my headphones.  Mine came with the white gloves though I did not use them 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Paired with the W4S DAC-2 I have to say these speakers are a joy for any computer rig.


----------



## customNuts

Has anyone heard both the M200 mk111 and the T200b?? I'm not sure which to get??


----------



## Blockman86

Same question as above... I'm also considering the Emotiva Airmotiv4's.  Anybody heard both sets of speakers to compare?


----------



## Audio18

I own both of them.  Both are spectacular.  With the T200Bs, you can expect a better midrange, more detail and slightly better bass.  You can ask me any specific questions you have and I will answer them.


----------



## eclipes

i currently own the MKIII but have briefly compared them both before making the purchase of MKIII. T200B definitely sounds better because its more accurate and detailed. However I prefer the MKIII because it matches my music more (all around type, sounds crazy with rock) T200B are more neutral, reminds me of the Adam A7x where many use it for recording so you can expect a very flat neutral sound. 
   
  Depends on your preference, the MKIII can be interpreted as slightly coloured compared to the T200B


----------



## Audio18

My thoughts exactly.  I will also add that the T200B are much more source dependent, the sound may sound quite a bit with different sources. The construction of the T200B is also nothing short of amazing.  Much higher-end feel and materials than the M200 MKIII.  The only drawback that the T200B is the volume control (which requires input from a remote control).  Still, if you can afford them, shoot for the T200B, it is a world-class speaker.    That being said, the M200 still marks a truly great value in sound quality. 
  Quote: 





eclipes said:


> i currently own the MKIII but have briefly compared them both before making the purchase of MKIII. T200B definitely sounds better because its more accurate and detailed. However I prefer the MKIII because it matches my music more (all around type, sounds crazy with rock) T200B are more neutral, reminds me of the Adam A7x where many use it for recording so you can expect a very flat neutral sound.
> 
> Depends on your preference, the MKIII can be interpreted as slightly coloured compared to the T200B


----------



## WNBC

Just looking at the specs of the T200b with its bi-amping.  Looks to be a definite upgrade over my MKIII.  Are you guys using the balanced inputs and if so, did you find it an improvement over RCA input?  
  Would you say the T200B are better for jazz over the MKIII whereas the MKIII are better for rock?
  The pictures I see of the T200B show the volume is on the back of them.  So can you use the dial rather than the remote?  Audio18 indicated one has to use the remote.
  
  Quote: 





eclipes said:


> i currently own the MKIII but have briefly compared them both before making the purchase of MKIII. T200B definitely sounds better because its more accurate and detailed. However I prefer the MKIII because it matches my music more (all around type, sounds crazy with rock) T200B are more neutral, reminds me of the Adam A7x where many use it for recording so you can expect a very flat neutral sound.
> 
> Depends on your preference, the MKIII can be interpreted as slightly coloured compared to the T200B


 
   
  Quote: 





audio18 said:


> My thoughts exactly.  I will also add that the T200B are much more source dependent, the sound may sound quite a bit with different sources. The construction of the T200B is also nothing short of amazing.  Much higher-end feel and materials than the M200 MKIII.  The only drawback that the T200B is the volume control (which requires input from a remote control).  Still, if you can afford them, shoot for the T200B, it is a world-class speaker.    That being said, the M200 still marks a truly great value in sound quality.


----------



## Audio18

Technically, you could use the knobs in the back for volume adjustment but I would avoid that.  Even the owner's manual states, and let me paraphrase, "Select your desired volume with the remote, aim at the left speaker, press SEND, then point at the right speaker and press SEND."  The knobs in the back are mainly just to match the speaker level with the source so you don't end up with an overly sensitive remote.  I usually have both of mine set at around 80% at the back and just use the remote to adjust the volume.  I think the ideal setup would use my Little Dot MKIII headphone amp to act as the pre-amp, setting the volume on the T200B to a level that is appropriate, then using the Little Dot's pre-amp feature to make the rest of the adjustments.  I really wish the T200B would get the volume dials from the M200 but I can see that the fact that the T200B being a true bi-amplified monitor makes this difficult.  The volume dials in my opinion also take away from the overall beauty of the speaker, lending the speakers to look more like "computer" speakers than monitors/bookshelves.  The T200B truly achieves a very clean and classy look without the unsightly controls in the front.  It is really a give-and-take thing. 

 As far as the balanced inputs, I have never tried them.  My source is currently the 2011 Fubar SpitFire MKII DAC which only has unbalanced RCA outputs.  I've heard running these monitors balanced will provide a quieter background and more detail. 
  Quote: 





wnbc said:


> Just looking at the specs of the T200b with its bi-amping.  Looks to be a definite upgrade over my MKIII.  Are you guys using the balanced inputs and if so, did you find it an improvement over RCA input?
> Would you say the T200B are better for jazz over the MKIII whereas the MKIII are better for rock?
> The pictures I see of the T200B show the volume is on the back of them.  So can you use the dial rather than the remote?  Audio18 indicated one has to use the remote.


----------



## WNBC

Thanks for the info.  I'm holding onto my MKIIIs for a while but if I could get a loaner pair of the T200B that could make me a convert.
  
  Quote: 





audio18 said:


> Technically, you could use the knobs in the back for volume adjustment but I would avoid that.  Even the owner's manual states, and let me paraphrase, "Select your desired volume with the remote, aim at the left speaker, press SEND, then point at the right speaker and press SEND."  The knobs in the back are mainly just to match the speaker level with the source so you don't end up with an overly sensitive remote.  I usually have both of mine set at around 80% at the back and just use the remote to adjust the volume.  I think the ideal setup would use my Little Dot MKIII headphone amp to act as the pre-amp, setting the volume on the T200B to a level that is appropriate, then using the Little Dot's pre-amp feature to make the rest of the adjustments.  I really wish the T200B would get the volume dials from the M200 but I can see that the fact that the T200B being a true bi-amplified monitor makes this difficult.  The volume dials in my opinion also take away from the overall beauty of the speaker, lending the speakers to look more like "computer" speakers than monitors/bookshelves.  The T200B truly achieves a very clean and classy look without the unsightly controls in the front.  It is really a give-and-take thing.
> 
> As far as the balanced inputs, I have never tried them.  My source is currently the 2011 Fubar SpitFire MKII DAC which only has unbalanced RCA outputs.  I've heard running these monitors balanced will provide a quieter background and more detail.


----------



## eclipes

to anyone who might be interested in a new source and amp, I just got the Grant Fidelity TubeDAC-11 and it sounds crazy right out of the box with my MKIII. Synergizes really well, so far its the best dac/amp i've used with the M200 MKIIIS. Project86 got it too and his impression are very positive. His review should be coming out too..


----------



## WNBC

Excellent, I've been looking for something to use with my single Siemens CCa tube that I have 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  How do you like the headphone section of the DAC-11?
  Swans sound amazing from my W4S DAC-2 but would be interesting to hear some tube flavor going through the Swans as well.  
   
  Quote: 





eclipes said:


> to anyone who might be interested in a new source and amp, I just got the Grant Fidelity TubeDAC-11 and it sounds crazy right out of the box with my MKIII. Synergizes really well, so far its the best dac/amp i've used with the M200 MKIIIS. Project86 got it too and his impression are very positive. His review should be coming out too..


----------



## Mauricio

$400 for a powered system where one speaker feeds the other can hardly be considered a good buy, or competitive with an active monitor.


----------



## Tachikoma

Hmm, I bought a pair of m200mkiiis. I like the soundstaging and the general character of the speakers, but they have this resonance at 130hz, which is very apparent on bass guitars/double basses and it annoys me quite a bit. Could someone else play a 130hz tone on their speakers to help me ascertain whether its a speaker issue, or a room issue? I do it by typing tone://130,5 in "add location" on foobar.


----------



## WNBC

I haven't noticed anything weird and the double bass is my favorite instrument.  My Swans are in a small room and on stands but definitely the room can have a major influence.  I'll listen for any weirdness this weekend.
  
  Quote: 





tachikoma said:


> Hmm, I bought a pair of m200mkiiis. I like the soundstaging and the general character of the speakers, but they have this resonance at 130hz, which is very apparent on bass guitars/double basses and it annoys me quite a bit. Could someone else play a 130hz tone on their speakers to help me ascertain whether its a speaker issue, or a room issue? I do it by typing tone://140,5 in "add location" on foobar.


----------



## Tachikoma

Its not a mild weirdness, a tone at 130hz is approximately twice as loud as a tone at 150hz in my setting >.<


----------



## WNBC

Ouch, that definitely isn't right.
  Did you buy the Swans new or used and can you return them?
 I've read many glowing reviews of the MKIII and none have mentioned your issue.  Mine are fine as well so it could likely be a defective pair.  Bummer.
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/swans2/1.html
   

   
  Quote: 





tachikoma said:


> Its not a mild weirdness, a tone at 130hz is approximately twice as loud as a tone at 150hz in my setting >.<


----------



## Tachikoma

Hmmm, I think I found the issue, they just don't play well with my desk. Taking them off the desk solved the resonance issue but ugh, this isn't how I'd like to run my speakers at all.
   
  Also, they're new. I don't think I can return them unless they're defective, but I've asked whether I could swap them for something else... which hopefully won't have the same issue.


----------



## WNBC

I had them on an Ikea bookshelf (very sturdy) and I now have them on Sanus speaker stands.  No resonance issues.  Definitely with desks, there could be these resonance issues but that is also common other speakers as well, not just the Swans.
  At the price of the Swans I'm not sure what else is in their league for active monitors.  Or will you be going higher end actives?
  
  Quote: 





tachikoma said:


> Hmmm, I think I found the issue, they just don't play well with my desk. Taking them off the desk solved the resonance issue but ugh, this isn't how I'd like to run my speakers at all.
> 
> Also, they're new. I don't think I can return them unless they're defective, but I've asked whether I could swap them for something else... which hopefully won't have the same issue.


----------



## Tachikoma

The dealer I bought the M200mk3 from has Swan H4s too, so I'm considering those. But yes, I'm worried that there is no real solution besides taking the desk out of the equation (not possible, I live in a dorm).


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *WNBC* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> At the price of the Swans I'm not sure what else is in their league for active monitors.


 
   
  Proper stand-alone active monitors that dispense with the clumsy piggybacking arrangement of the Swans, provide shelving equalization and accept balanced inputs.  None of these, of course, have the fancy wood side-paneling, and treble/bass controls, but then no person looking for the most precise and revealing sound reproduction would care for those features.
   
*Active monitor*
  $400/pair:
   
*Yamaha HS50M*

   
*KRK Rokit 6 G2*

   
   
*JBL LSR2325P*


----------



## WNBC

Too late for me then but I guess you guys still have options.  The Swans are perfect for my small room.  The only negatives are that each Swan monitor is not independently powered (one power cable) and they do not accept balanced inputs.  Maybe these are not negatives.  The Swans are only my 2nd powered monitors.  1st being Bose Companion 5.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





wnbc said:


> The only negatives are that each Swan monitor is not independently powered (one power cable) and they do not accept balanced inputs.  \


 
   
  I can see a few other negatives from afar.  If the manufacturer claims are true, the one powered speaker houses four separate amplifiers, one for each driver in the system.  Instead of putting a power supply and two amps in each speaker, they chose one power supply for four amps in one speaker.  This was probably done in order to cut costs.  Did the savings go to consumer or to the manufacturer?  If Yamaha, KRK and JBL can put two, higher powered amps in each box with their own power supply for $400/pair, I don't see why Swan chose to cut corners and give you less for the same money.  Unless the money went for the fancy wood side-paneling and treble/bass controls, of course.
   
  I wonder what impact this system design decision has on the quality of the amplifiers.  Also, I would read with keen interest a report that compared measurements in the response characteristics between the right active and the left passive speaker, being that their cabinets are filled with different volumes and the cabinet resonaces and coloring are likely to be different.  Of course, none of this occurred to 6Fools or to those who are otherwise fastidious about their components.


----------



## Tachikoma

Mauricio, I'm sure you're right but on the other hand, does it really, really matter? These aren't studio monitors, they're just computer speakers. Swan has the H4 if you want those features anyway, and they cost roughly the same too.


----------



## WNBC

In the end it may not matter.  It's a fantastic desktop speaker system to my ears and has won many awards.  Albeit awards do not mean much but at the very least it has undergone some level of scrutiny.  I don't know about measurements but I don't hear an imbalance from the left to right.  The power is clean to each speaker, nothing harsh or unsettling.  Swan has been making speakers for a while so lets hope they have considered the things you bring up.  These are my 2nd pair of actives, maybe my last, maybe not.  With so many active speakers in the $200-500 range one eventually just has to bite the bullet and try one.  I feel my $400 was well spent.   Somebody suggested the MKIII to me.  When we move to a house I may say goodbye to active monitors and hello to a dedicated power amp and passive speaker rig.  
      
    
  Quote:


mauricio said:


> I can see a few other negatives from afar.  If the manufacturer claims are true, the one powered speaker houses four separate amplifiers, one for each driver in the system.  Instead of putting a power supply and two amps in each speaker, they chose one power supply for four amps in one speaker.  This was probably done in order to cut costs.  Did the savings go to consumer or to the manufacturer?  If Yamaha, KRK and JBL can put two, higher powered amps in each box with their own power supply for $400/pair, I don't see why Swan chose to cut corners and give you less for the same money.  Unless the money went for the fancy wood side-paneling and treble/bass controls, of course.
> 
> I wonder what impact this system design decision has on the quality of the amplifiers.  Also, I would read with keen interest a report that compared measurements in the response characteristics between the right active and the left passive speaker, being that their cabinets are filled with different volumes and the cabinet resonaces and coloring are likely to be different.  Of course, none of this occurred to 6Fools or to those who are otherwise fastidious about their components.


----------



## steve2151

You might want to look into a pair of Auralex Speakerdudes, found here: http://www.auralex.com/sound_isolation_speakerdudes/speakerdudes.asp
   
  I bought a set for my T200b and it helps greatly with resonance issues. $40 is a lot for foam, but it's very dense and much cheaper than stands if you don't need the height adjustment. 
   
  Quote: 





tachikoma said:


> Hmmm, I think I found the issue, they just don't play well with my desk. Taking them off the desk solved the resonance issue but ugh, this isn't how I'd like to run my speakers at all.
> 
> Also, they're new. I don't think I can return them unless they're defective, but I've asked whether I could swap them for something else... which hopefully won't have the same issue.


----------



## Tachikoma

I tried lifting the speakers off the table with my hands and the resonance was still there, so I don't think the foam will help. The only way to get rid of it was to take it off the table entirely, although putting them at the very edge of the table does seem to reduce it to manageable levels.


----------



## Mauricio

Fair enough.  By the same token, people should think twice before saying things to the effect that nothing can touch them at that price point.  I am fairly confident in saying that many people here are looking for high-value products.  There's a lot of noobies and impressionable folk who can be easily led astray by such facile, off-the-cuff pronouncements.
   
  Finally, this separation between "computer speakers" and monitors is ultimately an artificial one.  If the primary objective is the most precise and faithful reproduction of the input signal, this artificial market (and mental) segmentation and labeling is besides the point.  Accurate sound reproduction is accurate sound reproduction no matter whether you are mastering a record, listening to a CD in your home or streaming music via your computer or playing a video game.


----------



## WNBC

Agreed and until people actually own the Swans they can't say there are better or worse products at this price range.  In the end there is no way for people to hear everything out there so they speak of what they own.
  
  Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Fair enough.  By the same token, people should think twice before saying things to the effect that nothing can touch them at that price point.  I am fairly confident in saying that many people here are looking for high-value products.  There's a lot of noobies and impressionable folk who can be easily led astray by such facile, off-the-cuff pronouncements.
> 
> Finally, this separation between "computer speakers" and monitors is ultimately an artificial one.  If the primary objective is the most precise and faithful reproduction of the input signal, this artificial market (and mental) segmentation and labeling is besides the point.  Accurate sound reproduction is accurate sound reproduction no matter whether you are mastering a record, listening to a CD in your home or streaming music via your computer or playing a video game.


----------



## Mauricio

I don't have to own a car with a carburated engine to know that fuel injection is more efficient and precise.  I don't have to have flown in a helicopter to know that an airplane typically flies faster.  This idea that one cannot analyze systems and their potential outputs without owning the system smacks of a willful desire to bury one's head in the sand.


----------



## zhouf

Congrats on your 300'th post bud. I'm glad this thread is being revived, as the speakers are pretty good for the price they cost.
   
  @Mauricio: while you do have a point that a "true" active, dual-amped speaker would be "better" than the current version of the MKIII's, it's really the quality of the amplification that matters more than the number of amplifiers we have. To be fair, while speakers like the KRK Rokit x's are truly powered speakers, they don't actually sound that much better. They can push out more music with more power, but generally we're not going to be using the MKIII's for house parties.
   
  I guess what I'm trying to say (and I'm sure you know this already) is that, yes, the MKIII's may be better if it had two amps rather than one, but for most desktop solutions, it's enough to have just the one amp in the left speaker. If we wanted to get a true hifi system, I'd say go for some Cambridge / Quad-11L's and a small Jolida amp. It'll run you around 500 buckaroos more, but it'll sound much, much better.
   
  ____


 Second off, I am a bit insulted by your remarks about impressional noobies. It is my firm belief that one cannot obtain true "monitors" for your desktop. While it may be that speakers can sound accurate and faithful to the reproduction of music, desktop speakers simply cannot compete with the power, beauty, and elegant reproduction of music from real bookshelf speakers. I've heard system that range from $50 to $80,000, and I'm absolutely certain that most desktop systems with an onboard amps (or four) can't compare to a full stereo setup.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *zhouf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> ... it's really the quality of the amplification that matters more than the number of amplifiers we have. To be fair, while speakers like the KRK Rokit x's are truly powered speakers, they don't actually sound that much better.


 

  It's more than that.  It's not only the quality of the amplifiers, but also where the amplifiers are located along the signal chain.
   
  Those KRK are not powered.  They are active.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





charlie0904 said:


> Very nice.
> I'm very interested to get a pair.
> Looking to see if I can find them locally in my country, singapore.


 

 You can find the KRK, Yamaha and possibly the JBL at SimLim.  In Singapore your choices are far from limited.


----------



## Audio18

I am not directing this post at anybody in particular, but I feel as though too many people on forums are not specific enough about their recommendations and are blindly listing equipment they _believe _sound good.
   
  It is imperative to focus in on what exactly someone's needs are.
   
  Will you be listening on the computer or on an iPod?  Studio mixing or musicality?  Neutral or warm?  The questions span on, and on...

 I've heard monitors in the $1000 price range that sound excellent at doing what they do best, which is to produce the signal as precise and clean as possible for mixing purposes, but then turn around and sound like complete garbage with music playing through them.  Sure, they might be technically superior to many loudspeakers out there, but it does not simply equate to listening pleasure.  Although this is not true with all monitors, they are true for many and I have heard my fair share to sufficiently support and voice this opinion.  

 Since we are on the topic about the Swans MKIII, they sound better than many "true" monitors in the same price range in regards to pure musicality and enjoyment.  They are detailed, yet forgiving.  The bass is warm without being dry and blends well with the rest of the frequencies.  The midrange, although it is not their strongest strength, is good enough to create a convincing sound stage.

 Am I saying the Swans MKIII knock out all the competition in every way?  Absolutely not.  However, they represent a great value and do not simply let the amplification or the price tag fool you.  Although those factors play a role in the sound quality a loudspeaker produces, it is hardly a solid indication of real sound quality.  Trust your ears first.  The Swans do what they intend to do, which is to play music, movies, and video games incredibly well.


----------



## Mauricio

Talk about schizophrenia.  In the first sentence the suggestion is that people should refrain from recommending components that they_ feel_ sound good.  But then the rest of the post is about how this particular person _feels_ about one type of speaker vs. another type, and about the Swans.
   
  I'll tell you what's ridiculous.  Ridiculous is telling people that a speaker is "detailed, yet forgiving", that "the bass is warm without being dry" and that it "blends well".  These are all subjective feelings, constrained even further by the signal content, listening room, listening position, and personal tastes.  Is this of any fundamental objective use and meaning?  No.  "Dry bass", for example, could mean a hundred different things to different people.  If you want to be taken seriously, you're gonna have to dispense with the voodoo and the religious talk.
   
  I have made no claims on how warm the bass is, or how "revealing" the treble can be.  Instead I have told you of technologies and system design choices that improve on the ability of a speaker system to reproduce the input signal accurately and precisely.  Bringing up all that other garbage is a red-herring.
   
  Once again, if the primary objective is the accurate and precise reproduction of the input signal, it doesn't matter whether the speaker is reproducing the sounds of video games, a DVD movie or a vinyl record.  The speakers don't know whether you are mixing, mastering, messing up at Donkey Kong or simply sleeping in front of it.  This idea that a speaker is accurate for mixing, but inaccurate for listening is an artifact of marketing and of the imagination.


----------



## Audio18

I'm sorry if my post offended you.  I don't think there is much objectivity at all in audio and sound reproduction.  It's pretty much all subjective.  How should I go about describing a certain sound I hear?  If you have a better way for describing a way a certain speaker sounds over internet text, please enlighten me.  I am trying my best to convey how the MKIII sound to people who have never heard the system.  What does voodoo and religious talk have to do with anything I said?  That is completely out of scope.  I think you take this too seriously, seeing you make a connection about religion and audio in your signature as well.  I didn't mean to spark any sort of supernatural debate.
  
  Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Talk about schizophrenia.  In the first sentence the suggestion is that people should refrain from recommending components that they_ feel_ sound good.  But then the rest of the post is about how this particular person _feels_ about one type of speaker vs. another type, and about the Swans.
> 
> I'll tell you what's ridiculous.  Ridiculous is telling people that a speaker is "detailed, yet forgiving", that "the bass is warm without being dry" and that it "blends well".  These are all subjective feelings, constrained even further by the signal content, listening room, listening position, and personal tastes.  Is this of any fundamental objective use and meaning?  No.  "Dry bass", for example, could mean a hundred different things to different people.  If you want to be taken seriously, you're gonna have to dispense with the voodoo and the religious talk.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mauricio

No worries.  Let's move on...


----------



## eclipes

did anyone switch their speaker cable to something else? I can't seem to find other options for that type of connection. Oh yeah, to whomever still interested in a good dac/amp to pair with the MKIII, the tubedac-11 is sounding way too good. Not to mention the flacs and high quality movies, i'm actually enjoying videos on youtube.


----------



## TexasBuck

I bought my M200 MKIII around Christmas time.  I listened to the Yamaha HS50M's, M Audio BX5A's and Adam Audio A5X.  Of those, I liked the Yamaha's the best but wasn't totally blown away.  I decided to take a chance and order the the Swans, without hearing them.  I'm 100% glad I did.  Absolutely love the Swans.  As others have mentioned, they are detailed yet forgiving.  Aggressive but not harsh.  I was going to buy a sub at a later date, but after listening, it's not needed.  Bass is ample for me as is.  The only downside:  I like the Swans so much that I don't like to listen to my headphones anymore.  I will say: To be fair to the other speakers I tested, Guitar Center isn't the best sounding place to critically listen.


----------



## eclipes

that is what happened to me too haha, i sold all my headphones after acquiring the Swans MKIII
  
  Quote: 





texasbuck said:


> I bought my M200 MKIII around Christmas time.  I listened to the Yamaha HS50M's, M Audio BX5A's and Adam Audio A5X.  Of those, I liked the Yamaha's the best but wasn't totally blown away.  I decided to take a chance and order the the Swans, without hearing them.  I'm 100% glad I did.  Absolutely love the Swans.  As others have mentioned, they are detailed yet forgiving.  Aggressive but not harsh.  I was going to buy a sub at a later date, but after listening, it's not needed.  Bass is ample for me as is.  The only downside:  I like the Swans so much that I don't like to listen to my headphones anymore.  I will say: To be fair to the other speakers I tested, Guitar Center isn't the best sounding place to critically listen.


----------



## Leo888

Hi, sorry that i have to revive this thread but need some opinions for my1st desktop speaker system. I'm trying to decide between the MK2 & MK3 and really like to know how they compare. From what I gathered, the MK3 is nearly double in cost compared to the MK2. Apart from better build and and electronics that I've read here, I would really appreciate if anyone can compare them solely on SQ. Many thanks.


----------



## icecreamxd

I've never heard the MK2 but I do own the MK3. I've had them for about a year and am absolutely in love with these. Very efficient, and is very accurate to my ears. The bass is never overly heavy but present. Midrange tends to be very warm and soothing. The high's are never harsh or painful to listen to but are still detailed. I can easily listen to it for long periods of time without fatiguing. I don't hear any distortion at higher volume but the amp is so strong, I don't even need to go past half way.
  These were my first desktop speakers and they were the best investment I've made. They were built very strong and with good parts. The reason I was drawn to this was the design and the fact that it was so talked about in many reviews. Knowing that the m3 have more power, I knew that I was going to be wondering what I was missing if I went with the m2. I say save up a little more for the good stuff and you won't regret it. I've been happy with the speakers ever since I got em and am trying to get the same sound for my car as well.


----------



## tzjin

A bit sidetracking, but if you really want the best sound, you should probably go the passive + amp route. You can snag a Cambridge S30 + that cheap Lepai Tripath for about $250.


----------



## Leo888

Hi icecreamxd thanks for the feedback. Too late for the MKiii as I've decided and took a shot with the MKii. Cost to performance ratio after couple of days of researching doesn't adds up for the extra outlay and there are those who actually prefer the MKii to the MKiii and it could be case of personal preference.So far, the MKii does mirrors what you have described with MKiii and it's probably a more refine MKii. On a side note, as I normally listen at a moderate volume, the sales guy actually recommended the MKii as the difference will not be too far off with the way I'll be using it unless I do intend to push it harder. My pair is still fresh out of the box and will let it burn in for a couple of days and see how it work out. Will post back again when I have more time with them.
   
  @ tzjin, thanks for chipping in. Have thought of the S30/Emotiva Mini plus cablings and the cost will adds up not forgetting it will also take up more table space. My decision was to spend less for now and take my time to save up for a more mid end system for my living room. Cheers.


----------



## aarg

@Leo - How do you like MKii after the burn-in period? I am considering MKii over MKiii for similar reasons as you described, but haven't made up my mind yet. I will probably also think about buying a dac later.


----------



## Leo888

Hi aarg, I think I'm quite happy with the MKii up till this point of time after putting in about 100 hours on them. It has a rather smooth and laid back sound signature but sound stage is a little narrow but with very good depth and a very focus midrange. Clarity and transparency is good with good source file but lesser quality file also sounds pleasing as the sound signature does helps to smooth out the edginess but has a graininess to the midrange. Overall transient is good and has the ability to maintain good speed and attack with faster tracks. I actually would have liked it to have a little more bite on the highs and will be trying out some IC to see if it helps. As always, this is my personal take on the MKii and it just falls into what I wanted for my usage and YMMV depending on your usage and preference. Just for your reference, I'm running the Swans with my Laptop>F2K>Wasapi>Wireworld Starlight USB Cable>Fiio E7/E9>Mogami 2549 IC>RCA line out>MKii and I have also custom built a copper power cord which replaces the one that comes bundled with the speakers. Hope this helps.


----------



## zhzzza

what DAC or USB sound card would you suggest for T200B? I am running with my Thinkpad directly...


----------



## kookoo

Hey guys,
  I had a quick question about these types of monitors (2.0) since i am in the market to buying one currently. Do these setups need a subwoofer? The reason I'm asking is because I see in the tech specs that the frequency cutoff is 53Hz (for the Swans). Am I just worrying for no reason or not? The subs costs as much as the monitors themselves which is something I need to take into consideration when making my purchase. FYI My computer setup is in a fairly small room, maybe I won't need that much power.


----------



## tzjin

53hz is decently low, enough that you probably won't need a sub if you aren't a basshead. Visit testsounds.com and take a look at what 60hz sounds like.


----------



## kookoo

Quote: 





tzjin said:


> 53hz is decently low, enough that you probably won't need a sub if you aren't a basshead. Visit testsounds.com and take a look at what 60hz sounds like.


 

 Thanks, that was a neat site.
  I guess I was worrying for no reason


----------



## cravenz

I've got these now. Had them for a bit, but I'm getting a slight hiss without any music playing. I can't swap cables etc so have problems eliminating the issue. Running it from my laptop to my HDP then to the Swans.


----------



## techboy

I have listened to several Swan and Aktimate speakers. Aktimate makes better speakers than Swan at the same price point in Australia. However, Swan makes good speakers as well. 

Aktimate>Swan>Audioenigne A5+

I have owned speakers from all three companies.

Based on my experiences, for true hifi sound:
Aktimate Mini+>Swan speakers up to $1000>Swan MK200MKIII>Aktimate Micro>Swan MK200MKII>Swan D1080>Audioengine A5+

Aktimate Micro costs $279 in Australia but $500 in USA.

So if you get Swan MkIII for $400 then that is a bargain. And no monitor setup within $400 comes close to Swan MKIII.

Between Swan and Aktimate, a lot comes down to preference and taste, but from the point of view of true hi fi Aktimate is better.

Thank You

Aakshey


----------



## KB24

I have the M200 MKII. How are the MKIII better than the II other than being louder. Is it worth the upgrade?


----------



## danielhowk

techboy said:


> I have listened to several Swan and Aktimate speakers. Aktimate makes better speakers than Swan at the same price point in Australia. However, Swan makes good speakers as well.
> 
> Aktimate>Swan>Audioenigne A5+
> 
> ...


 
  
  


kb24 said:


> I have the M200 MKII. How are the MKIII better than the II other than being louder. Is it worth the upgrade?


 
 what do you think about swan hivi x4 or t200B swan


----------



## chuckgopal

I have and love the MIII. They're a great speaker option in India, a country where, otherwise, stuff isn't too easy to come by in terms of high-end audio. They're available on ProAudioHome.
 I've taken an output from my HRT MusicStreamer II+ (with another out going to an Asgard headphone amp). Soon I'll be upgrading the Asgard to a Lyr2 which has RCA outs for the speakers - so it'll be pretty interesting to see what effect tubes have on these.
  
 The speakers sound terrific, look spectacular and in my mind offer terrific value for money. Highly recommended buy.
  
 Chuck


----------



## Shogster

I have the M-Audio AV42 speakers,and the left one just died.Thats a shame because i got them a year ago,and i really like the way they sound.
 Do these sound better than the M-Audio's?I also could get the Adam Audio A3X for a good price here,so which of the two would you guys recommend?


----------



## mark5hs

What's better from a purely sound quality standpoint: these or the H4? Bother are around the same price and I'm trying to figure out if I should go for the mkiii on massdrop.


----------

