Bookshelves with a cut around 3.5K and some upper bass punch

E

E-A-G-L-E-S

Full Audioholic
I need the ~3.5k range veiled as this seems to be where my ears feel harshness. My budget Onix x-ls identical front three have served me well in this regard. They are absolutely non-fatiguing.
I am looking for that same quality from a better bookshelf. One that has more clean punch from 80Hz-200Hz.
Large bookshelves are not a problem, but they must be bookshelf.
TIA!
 
E

E-A-G-L-E-S

Full Audioholic
That's my mistake. I am looking for something around a third of those cost wise.

*I need the three fronts to be $1K or less shipped. I bought the x-ls (x3) for $400 five years ago.
 
N

Nuance AH

Audioholic General
Didn't you just purchase a SVS subwoofer? Won't you be using it for music? If you cross around 80-100Hz you'll certainly get more punch, but it will be coming from the subwoofer. Why not wait until it arrives and you've had time to properly integrate it into your system?

Just a thought.
 
gtpsuper24

gtpsuper24

Full Audioholic
Yeah you should probably wait to get the SVS integrated. As far a bookshelf speakers with midbass punch, Arx should be at the top of the list for your $1k budget. Arx A2 LCRs across the front is awesome, they have great midbass punch 60-120, non fatiquing sound, crisp detailed highs from the planar tweeters. If you don't mind a basic veneer black ash, give them a looks. Not one unsatisfied owner of any Arx speakers yet.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Didn't you just purchase a SVS subwoofer? Won't you be using it for music? If you cross around 80-100Hz you'll certainly get more punch, but it will be coming from the subwoofer. Why not wait until it arrives and you've had time to properly integrate it into your system?

Just a thought.
Punch never came from any subwoofer. Try listening to any sub with a crossover at 100 Hz or below and see if you hear punch. You won't.

The punch comes from having a low Q sub plus the rest of the speakers having an excellent transient and frequency response, coupled with low driver Qts certainly below 0.4.

To really have punch, requires not playing completely loose with time and phase.

Unfortunately first order crossovers lead to other undesirable issues more often than not, especially in high powered systems. However I believe good audio demands, causing the minimum phase and time shifts required for smooth transitions at crossover and power handling requirements. Just producing a pretty frequency response does not cut it by itself. I don't care what O' Toole and Co. say, phase and time problems are significant issues with loudspeakers and should not be given short shrift.

As far as the 3.5 kHz issue in concerned, a smiley, as its known at 3.5 kHz will cover a multitude of ills. However you are better off with out it.

The problem generally stems from cone break up of woofers and midrange drivers, at and just above crossover, certainly within the octave above crossover. Dollars to doughnuts, this is what you are hearing and don't like.

Unfortunately this problem drives a lot of people crazy, my self and the OP included.

The problem is, it is an expensive taste problem, and the wide bandwidth drivers required do not come cheap. The other way of handling the issue is to hope break up occurs far enough above crossover, that the break up modes can be notched. However there will always be some stored energy in the cone, to make this less than ideal. The truly wide band width drivers required are less in number than the fingers of one hand.

Unfortunately, for most affordable designs, break up is generally starting below crossover frequency. Lowering the crossover frequency means using tweeters with unusually high power handling, and also with under slung voice coils, and with very low Q, so they can be driven below resonance. That creates a lot of expense and keeps the speaker out of the affordable range usually.

That brings up another cause of harshness, driving non low Q tweeters at Fs. If you are not using a very low Q tweeter, then you must have it at least 24 db down an octave below crossover.

There is so much more to a really good speaker, than meets the eye. I just wish there were budget price solutions.
 
ski2xblack

ski2xblack

Audioholic Field Marshall
I need the ~3.5k range veiled as this seems to be where my ears feel harshness. My budget Onix x-ls identical front three have served me well in this regard. They are absolutely non-fatiguing.
I am looking for that same quality from a better bookshelf. One that has more clean punch from 80Hz-200Hz.
Large bookshelves are not a problem, but they must be bookshelf.
TIA!
Have you considered simply upgrading the xl-s?

I have a pair of the original xl-s which have received upgraded crossovers from Danny Richie (weird guy, but the original designer of the xl-s, and with a talent for passive networks...the new one's aren't much different, just slightly better spec'd but modestly priced caps, thicker guage air core inductors, and with components mounted on a larger board), upgraded tweets with shallow waveguides, and some No-Rez dampening material added to the cabinet. What I ended up with are xl-s Encores w/ crossovers as originally intended (before they were cheapened to meet Shifty's low price point). To my ears, the most notable difference between stock and hot-rodded is slightly tighter bass and less boxiness/cab coloration. A notable step up, and cheap too.

If that sounds interesting, you should find info on the GR Research site or forum, or maybe through Sean Parque, aka the 'skiing ninja' (although he skis more like a sumo wrestler).
 
Last edited:
J

Josuah

Senior Audioholic
That's my mistake. I am looking for something around a third of those cost wise.

*I need the three fronts to be $1K or less shipped. I bought the x-ls (x3) for $400 five years ago.
I happen to be selling some Onix Reference 1 and 100 speakers. PM me if you're interested.

But, I find it odd that a 3.5kHz tone is causing you ear fatigue and that you are attributing it to your speakers. Unless you have a particular physiological issue with that frequency? You might want to invest a few hundred in room treatments first, if you are experiencing fatigue at high volumes. If your room is already well treated, it may be some upstream electronics or you're simply driving the x-ls too hard.
 
N

Nuance AH

Audioholic General
Punch never came from any subwoofer. Try listening to any sub with a crossover at 100 Hz or below and see if you hear punch. You won't.
The punch comes from having a low Q sub plus the rest of the speakers having an excellent transient and frequency response, coupled with low driver Qts certainly below 0.4.
Make up your mind. :)

I did listen crossed at 100Hz and I do have punch. So I was mostly right, as even you said:

"The punch comes from having a low Q sub plus the rest of the speakers having an excellent transient and frequency response, coupled with low driver Qts certainly below 0.4."

What I neglected to say was that punch is a combination of things. In my system when I run full range I lose "punch," but when crossed over it's back; this applies to other systems I've heard. So, even if it's a combination of the subwoofer and speakers, my comment still holds true, as I told him to integrate the subwoofer first and see if he's still lacking punch.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Make up your mind. :)

I did listen crossed at 100Hz and I do have punch. So I was mostly right, as even you said:

"The punch comes from having a low Q sub plus the rest of the speakers having an excellent transient and frequency response, coupled with low driver Qts certainly below 0.4."

What I neglected to say was that punch is a combination of things. In my system when I run full range I lose "punch," but when crossed over it's back; this applies to other systems I've heard. So, even if it's a combination of the subwoofer and speakers, my comment still holds true, as I told him to integrate the subwoofer first and see if he's still lacking punch.
I'm talking about running the subs alone, not the mains full range. You have to have frequencies above 100 Hz and well above, as well as good low frequency performance, to have punch.
 
N

Nuance AH

Audioholic General
I'm talking about running the subs alone, not the mains full range. You have to have frequencies above 100 Hz and well above, as well as good low frequency performance, to have punch.
Well then we agree, so I am unsure why you started the debate by quoting me and implying I was wrong. Oh well, moving along.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I'm talking about running the subs alone, not the mains full range. You have to have frequencies above 100 Hz and well above, as well as good low frequency performance, to have punch.
Thus, you think the lack of "punch" is due to subwoofers that have a higher Q value like 1.0 or higher?
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Thus, you think the lack of "punch" is due to subwoofers that have a higher Q value like 1.0 or higher?
To really have punch, you need a low Q woofer and the other speakers need to have a good transient response. You can't get punch from just a sub. It takes the right sub and the right speakers properly integrated.

A really tight bass that has no bloom or overhang and yet hits you in the chest, with a sharp kick to bass instrument transients is actually a very high bar.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top