$2,000-3,000 Tower speaker comparison: Need help picking the contenders

[Steve81]

Depends on how far you are from the instruments, how many instruments are playing, and where the concert is too.

I say if you're trying to focus on imaging during a concert, you're doing it wrong

 

[NewHTbuyer]

I thought I would post some impressions after day 1. A friend stopped by and we did some A/B comparing for a few hours, so I did not have time to work with each speaker individually to find the best spot. For today's session, I had them set up without toe in. The back of the Phil lower cabinet was about 13 inches from the wall which made the back of the mid range about 24 inches and the front baffle about 37 inches out. Any more than that is not practical really in my room. The SVS were lined up with the fronts of the Phils. I also added the top diffuser pads to the Phil tweeter and covered about three teeth.

First off, my thoughts on the looks of the speakers, mostly the new SVS since many of you have seen the Phils. They are imposing for sure. Very solid, sturdy, dense. The metal rings around the drivers are a bit duller than the demo pair at RMAF, more gunmetal, by intention. I think it is an improvement. The finish is very nice. Now, that said, it is not as nice as on some I saw at RMAF, like the $8,000 Salk SS8s, but for 2K, pretty nice. The finish on the satin Phil 2s is more plain, but also nice. As far as any critiques of the looks, the only thing (besides not having a choice of wood grain finishes) that I wish was that SVS went with magnetic grills. With the grill off the looks would be improved without the 4 holes, kinda like the Kef R series. Also, since the front is so smooth, the grill kinda seems to stick on the front visually, rather then being a part of the speaker.

Here are my old Infinitys:



See how the grill nicely fits with edge. If you look back at some of the pics, you can see the Ultra front corners are angled, so a flush magnetic grill would look better. Just my tiny suggestion. I also kinda wish the Phil 2 upper cabinet sat a little bit lower and attached securely to the bottom cabinet to give it a cleaner look.

A far as how they sound, they do sound different, for sure. We listened to tracks from the Philharmonic demo CD, Diana Krall, Nora Jones, U2, Dire Straits, Marcus Miller, Beethoven, Pink Floyd etc.

One thing, neither is better than the other in every aspect, which I think speaks well for the new SVS, since the Phil 2 is known to be an excellent speaker. The noticeable good aspects of the SVS so far are the bass extension, which is excellent and powerful (keep in mind the rear port was probably 20 inches from the rear wall and the speakers were a good 3-4 feet from the side walls, so definitely not corner loaded). The bass is tight, not muddy, although the bass on the Phils might just be a touch cleaner, without quite as much extension. I really liked how the SVS sounded on bass guitar, very full, deep and impactful, and on male vocals. I watched some of the Laker-Thunder game (go Lakers!) last night while I was switching back and forth and found I was using the SVS more, maybe b/c of the male announcers. The loudness difference is not too much, to my ears, with maybe 1 or 2 clicks up on the volume knob needed when switching to the Phils. When I did switch to the Phils, I noticed the speakers seemed to disappear more than the SVS, and the soundstage broadened. Instruments like flutes, bells, etc. seemed to pop out of the air more and be a little clearer. The SVS seemed a bit contained in space, if that makes sense, by comparison. Both sets had good dynamics and hit you hard when the track demanded it (think The Mans Too Strong from Brothers in Arms). Female vocals sounded good on both, but I need to listen to more of those. The difference between the two as far as the high notes and soundstage seemed more noticeable on some of the Phil demo tracks like the acoustic guitars and on Diana Krall (by law, I was forced to use her CD during this comparison. You can look it up if you don't believe me!) . Less so on rock stuff like Dire Straits, U2. Did not do too much classical so far.

On a side note, he brought by the Gallo Classic CL-3s he is trying out, but we did not hook them up this time. He brought a speaker in to show me the grill, and next to the Phils and the Ultras, it kinda looks like a toy due to its much smaller size and weight. It is easy to grab a boxed up CL3 to carry, but I would never try that with the other 2. I reserve judgement on the CL3s though, until I get a chance to hear them, since he said they play bigger than their size.

So, a successful and fun first day.

More listening on Wednesday.

 

[cpp]

I say if you're trying to focus on imaging during a concert, you're doing it wrong

Got that right......

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I say if you're trying to focus on imaging during a concert, you're doing it wrong

No, I just listen to the music and not analyze the image or soundstage at all. Like when I watch movies, I just watch the movies.

When I listen to music at home, I don't analyze the image & soundstage either. All I know is the sound is crystal clear and the bass is tight & punchy. But most of all I just listen to the music itself.

Perhaps that's why I don't pick up on the "image" like a lot of people. I focus on the music, not the image.

 

[LS35a]

No comments on my suggestion of the KEF R500? Seems to be one of the best towers in the 2-3K price range.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

No comments on my suggestion of the KEF R500? Seems to be one of the best towers in the 2-3K price range.

I think KEF R would be great too.

 

[NewHTbuyer]

I did listen to the R700 at a local store and it was one of my favorites. They were lukewarm on letting me take it home for a demo though. They did not have the R500 on the floor, so not sure if it would have quite enough low end for me, since I plan to have no sub.

 

[NewHTbuyer]

I just finished about 2 hours with just the Ultra Towers, with the Phil 2s off to the side. I played with positioning a bit, finally ended up moving them closer together and toed in a bit. They are about 8'2" apart and it is about 10'6" from each speaker to my listening spot. That seems to have definitely helped the soundstage and imaging, which actually now sounds very good. I did not boost the treble yet at all. I have been at -25dB on my volume knob mostly.

Overall, the speakers sound excellent. Let me say, I have detected no harshness at all. Some have commented that they are wary of the Al dome tweeters. I find the sound very smooth, not harsh at all.
Some comments about the music I listened to:
I would say that the least impressive music so far has been classical. I played some 4 seasons by Vivaldi and Spacetaculars by Cincinnati Pops (stuff from scifi flicks). I did not feel totally awash with the music unless I turned it up. Some of the super high notes were again a tiny bit recessed. The lower strings and horns and bass were very good.

I played some more female vocalists, Nora Jones, Sarah McLaughlin, and Diana Krall. They sounded great. The instruments and vocals were clear, separate and much more enveloping than earlier. Sarah Mclaughlins voice seems higher to me, so I am interested to see how she sounds on the Phils.

I played more rock, Dire Straits, Def Leppard, Dave Matthews, The Killers. The Ultras shined with this music. Again, the male voices sounded great, the drums smacked hard, the guitar was clear and not harsh. Very fun listening. On Def Leppard Foolin' there is a part with a lot of L to R mixing, so I will compare that to the Phils soon to see how wide the Ultras really sound. Also, on Mr. Brightside there are lots of quick cymbal hits that I will keep an eye on when comparing to see how clear the Ultras are in comparison.

Rodrigo y Gabriella was awesome also. The Ultras seemed to take the super fast playing and dynamics in stride.

I finished up with Uakti, a track called Trilobita, that I heard in the Wisdom audio room at RMAF. Lots of percussions all over the place. It sounded great, really not compressed at all this time.

So, now I will switch them out and play the same tracks on the other set.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Try "Yo-Yo Ma Plays Ennio Moricone". The album has plenty of Dynamic Range Compression (sounding loud), but the music is so beautiful, it will make the speakers sing.

Amazon.com: Yo-Yo Ma Plays Ennio Morricone: Yo-Yo Ma, Ennio Morricone: Music

 

[SnowmaNick]

First of all, I just don't seem to pick up on imaging. Perhaps that's because I'm used to hearing music in an auditorium, where imaging is somewhere between nonexistant and less-than-pinpoint. For most studio recordings, who knows what the right imaging is given all the processing and knob-twiddling? I do pick up on a natural ambience and soundstage depth...

I find this an interesting argument. I often hear "imaging" in studio recorded music, and I know it is artificially created (the knob-twiddling), but I felt the end product was what was designed by the artist and producer. I *personally* feel it is similar to watching a movie. For example if a sound designer/director wants the sound of running feet behind the audience to advance part of the story or set a mood, that is where they put the sounds via the surround channels. I don't question that, I just accept it is how they designed the sound effects and consider having surround speakers as being more true to the directors intent. If a music recording artist and producer want the sound of the drums to be in between the guitar on the left and the bass player on the right, even though they weren't even in the same room when the recording was made, I still feel it is true to the producers/artists intent to recreate them that way.

Just my $.02 (which is a day late and a dollar short I'm sure )

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Fair enough. It's just that there's no good frame of reference to judge whether the imaging is correct. But basically, my ears just don't focus on lateral imaging--I'm too caught up in whether a French Horn really sounds like a French Horn, or whether the bass is bloated or the tweeter is running hot.

 

[NewHTbuyer]

This is an interesting discussion to me because I am trying to figure out what I like in a speaker. I have not had time yet to post my impressions from the Phil's because I did not have enough time to finish all the tracks. But, on one track I did compare, there was a certain bell or chime that seemed slightly to the left of center with one set of speakers but to the right of center with the other set! As Dennis mentioned, how would I have any idea which is correct? And, since I really do not have a trained musical ear, I am not sure whether a certain instrument sounds correct or is being colored, as would someone who has spent much more time around live instruments.

I plan on getting the wife's opinion also, since she has a better ear than me and played piano for many years.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

This is an interesting discussion to me because I am trying to figure out what I like in a speaker. I have not had time yet to post my impressions from the Phil's because I did not have enough time to finish all the tracks. But, on one track I did compare, there was a certain bell or chime that seemed slightly to the left of center with one set of speakers but to the right of center with the other set! As Dennis mentioned, how would I have any idea which is correct? And, since I really do not have a trained musical ear, I am not sure whether a certain instrument sounds correct or is being colored, as would someone who has spent much more time around live instruments.

I plan on getting the wife's opinion also, since she has a better ear than me and played piano for many years.

Hmmmm. Shifting bells, huh. That sounds more like the effects of a mild hangover than a speaker characteristic. Of course, I'm Irish so I've never experienced a mild hangover.

 

[frankty]

This is an interesting discussion to me because I am trying to figure out what I like in a speaker. I have not had time yet to post my impressions from the Phil's because I did not have enough time to finish all the tracks. But, on one track I did compare, there was a certain bell or chime that seemed slightly to the left of center with one set of speakers but to the right of center with the other set! As Dennis mentioned, how would I have any idea which is correct? And, since I really do not have a trained musical ear, I am not sure whether a certain instrument sounds correct or is being colored, as would someone who has spent much more time around live instruments.

I plan on getting the wife's opinion also, since she has a better ear than me and played piano for many years.

Kinda sounds like an interaction with the room. I've noticed shifts of certain frequency ranges when I move the speakers around. There is a pretty good YouTube video on installing a pair of Wilson Speakers (mucho dinero!) and how to figure out where the placement reacts with the room in different ways. Check out: Our Home Theater set-up - YouTube "Finding the zone of neutrality."
I'm sure it didn't hurt to reconstruct the room either .. I have a buddy that did that. Put a new set of walls inside the original walls with sound absorbing stuff, bass traps - you name it. Nearly an anechoic chamber!

 

[GranteedEV]

First of all, I just don't seem to pick up on imaging. Perhaps that's because I'm used to hearing music in an auditorium, where imaging is somewhere between nonexistant and less-than-pinpoint. For most studio recordings, who knows what the right imaging is given all the processing and knob-twiddling? I do pick up on a natural ambience and soundstage depth, and that's why I've concentrated on open-back midrange designs, plus the smoothest possible on-axis and slightly off-axis response. Second, you seem to treat wave guides as a free lunch. They're not. Like any other horn device, they can introduce reflections and cancellations that are very audible, and that can negate any advantages they confer. I just shot a couple of plots of a well-known controlled-directivity speaker with a large wave guide. I won't say which it is, but it's not obscure. The on-axis response is plagued by dips and peaks introduced by the wave guide. These smooth out nicely off axis (at around 45 degrees), but the damage has been done as far as early arrivals and tonal accuracy. Obviously it's possible to avoid these problems with careful design, but a big honking wave guide is probably not the way to go. I can stand to listen to this particular speaker for about 37 seconds. Then I just have to get back to a design with flat on-axis response, albeit with some minor peaks and dips (far) off axis. View attachment 11327View attachment 11328

Dennis, that graph you posted looks very familiar. If I'm understanding it correctly, the issues in the on-axis response are purely related to the waveguide, and not driver resonances?

In that case I would have to assume that speaker uses an axi-symmetric (IE circular) waveguide, in which case it should indeed have big suckouts on-axis. Audiokinesis and Geddes speakers have been known to have this issue along with some conical coaxials but it should be noted that such speakers are not designed to be listened to on the zero degree axis (in other words, that is not "on-axis")

If your speaker fits that criteria, then I would be willing to wager the listening (and on that note - design) axis sits at about 22.5 degrees off-center (Geddes for example has documented this fact). And on that note, such speakers are intended to be crossfired such that the speakers are aimed inward. This serves not only to smoothen out response at the primary listening position, but also widen the apparent sweet spot. I would hope that you test-listened in that setup. The diffraction cancellations do not seem to show up in the delayed sound.

Now if that frequency response is a function of mechanical resonances, then it probably sounds just bad. That's a fact and I agree with you 100% because they will be audible on any axis.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Hi. I noted that the response flattens out off axis. As far as I can tell, the on-axis bumps and grinds are due mostly to the wave guide. I only have one of these speakers (on loan from an owner), and the basic sound doesn't change off axis. My main problem with the speaker is the edgy, metallic quality of the top end. But we're supposed to be talking about the SVS and Phil 2, so we better get back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[NewHTbuyer]

I had some family visitors listen for a bit to the two sets. Their observations were mostly similar to mine. I tried not to color their opinions by telling them what I though before we listened. I also tried to adjust the volume as I switched. The comments regarding the Phil2s were stuff like "clear", "clean", "less colored", "bright", "more open", "singing sounds better". The comments about the SVS were "warmer", "fuller", "more bass", "nice tone". For the session the Phi2s were on the inside of the SVS pair, in an AB....BA setup and the Phil2s had to be moved a bit close to the back wall to not stick out further than the SVS set. They were split as to which set they liked better overall. On one song the SVS caused some resonance on a low bass note that sounded bad, but I don't remember that happening before, so I am guessing it is due to its spot in the room.

A comment about the issues comparing two sets. I do notice the position can affect the soundstage and when they are next to each other the bass is accentuated and more muddy. But, overall, the sound characteristics are similar regardless of those factors. I want to get each in the best spot so I can make a fair evaluation of how they each sound at their best, but I think I have a pretty good idea now of the difference of the two sets. I am curious to see how the SVS measure, because now that I am beginning to get a good feel for the two sets, I am curious to see if measurements reflect what I am hearing. Also, I have not been too bothered by the sensitivity difference, as far as artificially favoring one set over the other. Maybe that is because these two are not all that different in their specs and quite different in their driver complement. It would probably be more noticeable with a bigger difference, like if one was rated 86 and the other 92 or something like that.

Anyway, I might get I some more time on Monday. Then I have Friday off to revisit the sets and do more critical listening to see which I really prefer.

 

[Tomorrow]

I had some family visitors listen for a bit to the two sets. Their observations were mostly similar to mine. I tried not to color their opinions by telling them what I though before we listened. I also tried to adjust the volume as I switched. The comments regarding the Phil2s were stuff like "clear", "clean", "less colored", "bright", "more open", "singing sounds better". The comments about the SVS were "warmer", "fuller", "more bass", "nice tone". For the session the Phi2s were on the inside of the SVS pair, in an AB....BA setup and the Phil2s had to be moved a bit close to the back wall to not stick out further than the SVS set. They were split as to which set they liked better overall. On one song the SVS caused some resonance on a low bass note that sounded bad, but I don't remember that happening before, so I am guessing it is due to its spot in the room.

A comment about the issues comparing two sets. I do notice the position can affect the soundstage and when they are next to each other the bass is accentuated and more muddy. But, overall, the sound characteristics are similar regardless of those factors. I want to get each in the best spot so I can make a fair evaluation of how they each sound at their best, but I think I have a pretty good idea now of the difference of the two sets. I am curious to see how the SVS measure, because now that I am beginning to get a good feel for the two sets, I am curious to see if measurements reflect what I am hearing. Also, I have not been too bothered by the sensitivity difference, as far as artificially favoring one set over the other. Maybe that is because these two are not all that different in their specs and quite different in their driver complement. It would probably be more noticeable with a bigger difference, like if one was rated 86 and the other 92 or something like that.

Anyway, I might get I some more time on Monday. Then I have Friday off to revisit the sets and do more critical listening to see which I really prefer.

I may have missed something you said in a previous post. But it's sort of standard practice, and for a couple of reasons, when A/B'ing two sets of speakers to run them AB - AB, not AB - BA.

Thanks for posting your experiences.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I may have missed something you said in a previous post. But it's sort of standard practice, and for a couple of reasons, when A/B'ing two sets of speakers to run them AB - AB, not AB - BA.

Thanks for posting your experiences.

That must be a typo--placing one pair of speakers inside the other would not only change the lateral imaging (they would be different distances apart), but the inside speakers would be farther from the side walls, which would reduce their bass response in the room. I saw pictures of the initial comparison, and the setup was AB AB. I have to assume the same configuration was used for this comparison.

 

[Tomorrow]

That must be a typo--placing one pair of speakers inside the other would not only change the lateral imaging (they would be different distances apart), but the inside speakers would be farther from the side walls, which would reduce their bass response in the room. I saw pictures of the initial comparison, and the setup was AB AB. I have to assume the same configuration was used for this comparison.

Well, he does also say that the "Phils were inside of the SVS pair." Image and bass response would be affected by that setup ... favoring the outside speakers.