real world differences between speakers

[jliedeka]

To make a long story short, I want to upgrade my receiver, speakers and subwoofer over the next 1-3 year depending on how my budget works out.

I've been trying to listen critically to my Klipsch Synergy speakers which are almost 10 years old. I've noticed some limitations but overall I think they are still decent, especially since they were fairly inexpensive.

My question is, do you need to really push a set of speakers to notice the difference between high end and mass market? I don't generally tend to crank the volume and I know my receiver could theoretically blow my speakers if I did.

I've noticed that the sound can get a little muddy when there is lots of stuff going on like parts of DSOTM and the latter parts of Bolero where all the instruments are playing forte.

When I start to audition replacement speakers, I have some ideas what to listen for, given the above. What I want to know is can I improve my speakers without spending a fortune? I could budget $8-900/pair (or more) for satellites and surrounds provided I wait until 2009. I have to wonder if that's really necessary.

I use my system for both movies and music. Movies are a priority but I wany my system to sound goo for music as well. I have a decent collection of vinyl and CDs with a few DVD-As and SACDs.

 

[MDS]

My question is, do you need to really push a set of speakers to notice the difference between high end and mass market? I don't generally tend to crank the volume and I know my receiver could theoretically blow my speakers if I did.

I'm in the same boat with regard to wanting to upgrade speakers soon but I don't really know what magical qualities can be had by spending more on speakers. To me, nearly all speakers sound good when you listen to them in a showroom and it's only after you've lived with them for awhile do you begin to notice one or two things that you think could be better. So I'm no help there.

What I do want to comment on (and have others do as well) is the quoted portion of your post. I see remarks to that effect time and time again and it just doesn't make sense to me. Take for example, the discussion of Polk speakers (higher end RTi line - like RTi10/12 and the LSI). People will always comment that 'these speakers really need a lot of power to sound their best'.

Now I know that people think that a 200 wpc separate amp will always sound better than a receiver even though that amp will only be pushing a few watts to a few tens of watts at moderate listening levels. Doesn't the idea that a given speaker needs a lot of power imply that they sound like garbage at low levels? That certain speakers don't sound good at all at low to moderate levels but somehow really shine when pushed to concert levels?

It doesn't make any sense to me and I for one cannot imagine buying any speakers that only sound 'good' at 100 dB SPL because I rarely ever want to crank it up that high.

 

[nordhaven]

I'd like to hear more on this as well!
I have brought it up before that I think higher efficiency speakers (92bd+)sound better at low power low volume levels. While low sensitivity (86db-) do not seem to open up or perform the same at low power low volume levels but excel when being pushed at high volume/power levels.
On the other end, super high efficient speakers like some custom Fostex stuff I have that are like 101db sensitive turn to crap when pushed to hard.

I have or have had speakers that range as low as 83db all the way up to 101db efficiencies and every where in between. I think there is a sweet spot somewhere?

I'm no big fan of Klipsch but don't they just seem sound good at any volume no matter what's driving them? The same with Energy and other high efficiency stuff?

 

[fmw]

That's a really good question and not easy to address. I started writing a book on the subject here but decided nobody would read it.

Let me say that more expensive speaker systems have drivers with heavier magnets and larger, heavier and better braced enclosures. The better drivers are less important than the enclosures themselves. Cheap drivers in a great enclosure will sound better than expensive drivers in a poor one.

When you spend more money for speakers at any given level, you are usually paying for larger drivers and larger enclosures to get more bass. At different levels you are paying for better drivers and heavier, better braced enclosures to reduce resonances and distortion.

Those are the tradeoffs unless you spend a lot of money to have both better and larger drivers with larger, heavier, better braced enclosures.

Briefly, I have "high end" speakers in my home theater as mains. They are small and very lacking bass. Not a problem since the home theater has a powered subwoofer to support them. I have "mid fi" speakers in my stereo system upstairs with larger enclosures and drivers that perform just fine there. The "high end" speakers would be unsatisfactory for me in that environment without a sub. I know because I had them there. They were awful compared to the 'mid fi' models I have there now.

There you go. That's a long way from the book I started writing.

 

[Sheep]

Those are the tradeoffs unless you spend a lot of money to have both better and larger drivers with larger, heavier, better braced enclosures.

If you're BUYING. You can alway take the DIY route and build some speakers that would destroy most anything on the market at or over they're price. The key is getting the right components (notice how I said right, not expensive) and building the right box. Couple it with proper amplification (and all the other goodies to make the speaker work) and you're set.

Now, how are you with tools?

SheepStar

 

[jliedeka]

I hadn't really thought about the enclosures making a difference but that makes sense to me.

I guess what we all want is speakers that accurately reproduce the sound at normal listening levels and maybe for the few times we want to crank it up. Given that you can spend an almost unlimited amount of money pursuing ever diminishing returns, I wonder where to draw the line.

How much better is an $8-900/pair speaker than a $400/pair speaker? Those would be the price points I'm considering.

 

[davidtwotrees]

Hmmmm. Great post. My recent speaker upgrade was a bit of an eye opener. Without getting into an audiophile gushy type review, some of the StereoPhile cliches hit home for me. When I switched from the Mordaunt Short 502's to the Canton L800DCs at nearly double the retail cost my first critical listening sessions left me amazed. I heard things I hadn't heard before. Cymbals and high hat sounds were crisp. Vocals sounded like they were coming out of my center channnel when listening in two channel mode. I suddenly understood what the terms soundstage meant. Insturments seemed to be coming out of different areas. The bass was much more present but not boomy at all. The Cantons also began to show up crappy recordings. CD's that sounded ok on my MS502's sounded like s%#t on my L800's. The Canton's sounded better at low volumes. But the more I push them, the better they sound. I have to be careful as the volume level creeps up without noticing. (neighbors)
Does that mean the MS502's suck? No way. Accessories for Less has them for $800........a steal! They also have the L800's for $2000......a steal!

Hope that helped describe what happened when I upgraded my Front Speakers.

 

[fmw]

I'm in the same boat with regard to wanting to upgrade speakers soon but I don't really know what magical qualities can be had by spending more on speakers. To me, nearly all speakers sound good when you listen to them in a showroom and it's only after you've lived with them for awhile do you begin to notice one or two things that you think could be better. So I'm no help there.

What I do want to comment on (and have others do as well) is the quoted portion of your post. I see remarks to that effect time and time again and it just doesn't make sense to me. Take for example, the discussion of Polk speakers (higher end RTi line - like RTi10/12 and the LSI). People will always comment that 'these speakers really need a lot of power to sound their best'.

Now I know that people think that a 200 wpc separate amp will always sound better than a receiver even though that amp will only be pushing a few watts to a few tens of watts at moderate listening levels. Doesn't the idea that a given speaker needs a lot of power imply that they sound like garbage at low levels? That certain speakers don't sound good at all at low to moderate levels but somehow really shine when pushed to concert levels?

It doesn't make any sense to me and I for one cannot imagine buying any speakers that only sound 'good' at 100 dB SPL because I rarely ever want to crank it up that high.

What you are referring to is speaker system efficiency or the power needed to drive them to a given SPL. As an example, horn drivers are way more efficient than cone drivers so systems with horns (like Klipsch) will normally be very efficient. Since it requires a doubling of amplifier power for each 3 db of overhead, it doesn't take much inefficiency to gobble up power.

Having said that, let me say that efficiency is not related to distortion. I won't get into "sounding like garbage at low levels" because that is another subject entirely and relates to human hearing, not speakers. So inefficient speakers at a given SPL don't have more distortion by defitinition than efficient ones. They just needed more power than the inefficient ones to reach that SPL. To say X speakers "need a lot of power to sound their best" misses the important issue of SPL (sound pressure level) and room size and acoustics. In other words It is a meaningless statement by itself.

To say that X speakers are less efficient than Y speakers by a certain number of decibels (dB) is meaningful because it helps define the amount of amplifier power needed to reach a given SPL. Each 3 dB, as mentioned above, require a doubling of the amplifier power (geometric progression.)

To put all of that into perspective, listening to a normal recording in a normally sized room in a home with normally efficient speakers at normal listening levels only requires a watt or two of amplifier power with perhaps 5 or 6 watts needed on the peaks. The rest of the available amplifier power is overhead to be sure we don't over-drive the amplifier into clipping (signal distortion.) a 100 watt amplifer would provide something around 20 dB of overhead on average with perhaps 12 db of overhead for the peaks. A 200 watt amplifer would provide 23dB to follow the example and a 400 watt amplifier would provide 26 db.

If the speakers are more or less efficient than average then, of course, the requirements would be different as would the numbers.

Incidentally, 100 db SPL in a typical home room would be deafening - literally. You would experience pain and hearing loss from it. That's why rock musicians either wear ear plugs when they perform or eventually go deaf. They stand in front of enough db to fill an auditorium. Been there done that. I always wore ear plugs. 40 db would likely drive you out of the room or would at least be uncomfortable.

 

[WmAx]

When I start to audition replacement speakers, I have some ideas what to listen for, given the above. What I want to know is can I improve my speakers without spending a fortune? I could budget $8-900/pair (or more) for satellites and surrounds provided I wait until 2009. I have to wonder if that's really necessary.

I use my system for both movies and music. Movies are a priority but I wany my system to sound goo for music as well. I have a decent collection of vinyl and CDs with a few DVD-As and SACDs.

The surround channels are the least important. I would recommend investing a larger ratio of money into the L, R and Center, and then go with the lowest price, but decent speakers for the surround channels if you want to maximize the perceived quality relative to monetary investment. There seems to be a turning point where about $1000-$1500 per small 2 way speaker seems to get substantially better cabinets and crossovers overall for many brands. So, as an example of the ratio difference I intend: perhaps invest in $1000-$1500 on each L, R and Center units($3000-$4500 total) and buy some $150-$200 each decent entry level quality bookshelf speakers for the rear and side surround channels. Pair this stuff up with some moderate quality subwoofers(multiple smaller units suggested over a single large unit in order to increase room response linearity).

-Chris

 

[Seth=L]

I'm in the same boat with regard to wanting to upgrade speakers soon but I don't really know what magical qualities can be had by spending more on speakers. To me, nearly all speakers sound good when you listen to them in a showroom and it's only after you've lived with them for awhile do you begin to notice one or two things that you think could be better. So I'm no help there.

What I do want to comment on (and have others do as well) is the quoted portion of your post. I see remarks to that effect time and time again and it just doesn't make sense to me. Take for example, the discussion of Polk speakers (higher end RTi line - like RTi10/12 and the LSI). People will always comment that 'these speakers really need a lot of power to sound their best'.

Now I know that people think that a 200 wpc separate amp will always sound better than a receiver even though that amp will only be pushing a few watts to a few tens of watts at moderate listening levels. Doesn't the idea that a given speaker needs a lot of power imply that they sound like garbage at low levels? That certain speakers don't sound good at all at low to moderate levels but somehow really shine when pushed to concert levels?

It doesn't make any sense to me and I for one cannot imagine buying any speakers that only sound 'good' at 100 dB SPL because I rarely ever want to crank it up that high.

A 4 ohm 86dB @ 1watt/meter speaker needs large amounts of power to handle the load if a higher spl is needed. If only listening at moderate levels a small 50 watt per channel integrated or receiver would get you by fine with that kind of speaker. That doesn't mean the speaker won't sound very good at lower volumes because it is power hungry, but at lower levels of output it will make the amplifier work harder than a more efficient more even/easy loaded speaker would.

Some of the best speakers in the world are extremely difficult to drive with anything but a Class A amplifier, but they still sound great at lower levels of output.

 

[Seth=L]

40 db would likely drive you out of the room or would at least be uncomfortable.

This part is a tad off. Forty decibels is not that loud. If what you where saying was correct one tenth of a watt would be extremely loud with most speakers. 40 decibels is probably the level of SPL reached when I type on my keyboard.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/OPD/DivisionofDesign-decibel-scale_clip_image001.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/OPD/DivisionofDesign-decibel-scale.htm&h=485&w=208&sz=121&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=DQ7XRnFehXEvZM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=55&prev=/images?q=decibel+scale&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&rlz=1B3DVFC_enUS241US241&sa=G

 

[MDS]

What you are referring to is speaker system efficiency or the power needed to drive them to a given SPL.

Actually, that is not what I am referring to.

I am referring to the often heard statement 'these speakers need a lot of power to sound good'. If you were comparing two speakers where one pair had a sensitivity of 86 dB and the other pair 92 dB, then it is obvious that the lower sensitivity speakers require more power to achieve the same SPL in the same room.

What is not obvious, and in fact non-sensical in my mind, is to say that any given pair only sounds good when played loud. I have JBL speakers that were purchased in 1996 or so and the fronts have a sensitivity of 92 dB. They sound just fine at low volumes.

Now contrast those with Polk RTi speakers, which are rated 89-90 dB. There is your minimal 3 dB difference and you can achieve the same SPL as the JBLs by bumping the volume from 30 to 33.

Yet time and again people say 'don't get the RTi10 because they need a lot of power to sound good'. I'm sure they sound 'different' than mine but they cannot sound bad at low volumes and great at high volumes.

 

[WmAx]

I'm sure they sound 'different' than mine but they cannot sound bad at low volumes and great at high volumes.

In fact, a speaker can be designed to bias the perception of listeners based upon loudness. Refer to Fletcher–Munson curves. The ear's frequency response changes with SPL. Based upon this, you can theoretically design a speaker to sound optimal within a particular SPL range.

-Chris

 

[Adam]

Based upon this, you can theoretically design a speaker to sound optimal within a particular SPL range.

I completely agree. I've heard some speakers that were clearly designed to sound their best at 0dB.

 

[OttoMatic]

40 db would likely drive you out of the room or would at least be uncomfortable.

Is "40" a typo?

Measuring ambient in my room (fridge running, back door open and someone mowing the lawn four yards away, etc.) is coming out at about 45 dB.

 

[no. 5]

Is "40" a typo?

Measuring ambient in my room (fridge running, back door open and someone mowing the lawn four yards away, etc.) is coming out at about 45 dB.

Maybe he doesn't like it that quiet.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Now I know that people think that a 200 wpc separate amp will always sound better than a receiver even though that amp will only be pushing a few watts to a few tens of watts at moderate listening levels. Doesn't the idea that a given speaker needs a lot of power imply that they sound like garbage at low levels? That certain speakers don't sound good at all at low to moderate levels but somehow really shine when pushed to concert levels?

It doesn't make any sense to me and I for one cannot imagine buying any speakers that only sound 'good' at 100 dB SPL because I rarely ever want to crank it up that high.

It doesn't make sense to me either since you are into speaker compression, higher speaker distortions and out of its linear operation mode as the harder you drive it So, it is totally incongruous.

 

[jostenmeat]

I've noticed that the sound can get a little muddy when there is lots of stuff going on like parts of DSOTM and the latter parts of Bolero where all the instruments are playing forte.

In my limited experiences, transparency is perhaps the one commonly singular aspect that comes with greater price. My impression is that this is true in comparison to imaging, soundstage, ability to crank, pleasing coloration, bass handling, etc. But, what do I know...

When I start to audition replacement speakers, I have some ideas what to listen for, given the above. What I want to know is can I improve my speakers without spending a fortune? I could budget $8-900/pair (or more) for satellites and surrounds provided I wait until 2009. I have to wonder if that's really necessary..

Only you can be the judge of that.

To me, nearly all speakers sound good when you listen to them in a showroom and it's only after you've lived with them for awhile do you begin to notice one or two things that you think could be better..

You're lucky enough to be spoiled with only excellent showrooms. I heard one room with BW 802s (which I do think are fantastic), powered with Krell monoblocks, and I thought all of the tweeters were blown (seriously, I even asked). Unbelieveably bad setup...

What I do want to comment on (and have others do as well) is the quoted portion of your post. I see remarks to that effect time and time again and it just doesn't make sense to me. Take for example, the discussion of Polk speakers (higher end RTi line - like RTi10/12 and the LSI). People will always comment that 'these speakers really need a lot of power to sound their best'.

Now I know that people think that a 200 wpc separate amp will always sound better than a receiver even though that amp will only be pushing a few watts to a few tens of watts at moderate listening levels. Doesn't the idea that a given speaker needs a lot of power imply that they sound like garbage at low levels? That certain speakers don't sound good at all at low to moderate levels but somehow really shine when pushed to concert levels?

It doesn't make any sense to me and I for one cannot imagine buying any speakers that only sound 'good' at 100 dB SPL because I rarely ever want to crank it up that high.

To be honest, I never really cared too much about the wattage, as important as that might be. I think the most important thing for me in selecting was current/amperage. I would like my amp to have greater power when the impedance curve asks for it, rather than giving the speaker less when it wants it the most. I wonder how many receivers out there that can increase power with load.

Let me say that more expensive speaker systems have drivers with heavier magnets and larger, heavier and better braced enclosures. The better drivers are less important than the enclosures themselves. Cheap drivers in a great enclosure will sound better than expensive drivers in a poor one.

When you spend more money for speakers at any given level, you are usually paying for larger drivers and larger enclosures to get more bass. At different levels you are paying for better drivers and heavier, better braced enclosures to reduce resonances and distortion.

Those are the tradeoffs unless you spend a lot of money to have both better and larger drivers with larger, heavier, better braced enclosures.

Im really glad that the cabinet has been touched upon. One would think (or I would previously assume) that an inert cabinet cannot be that difficult or expensive to build. Right? Wrong!? A simply knock test shows such different inertness among speakers. I could break an entry-level Polk with my fist, and conversely a BW 802 would break my fist. In between, other mid-line models (PSB, MA, etc) have an inertness somewhere in between. Simple test with simple results!

I guess what we all want is speakers that accurately reproduce the sound at normal listening levels and maybe for the few times we want to crank it up. Given that you can spend an almost unlimited amount of money pursuing ever diminishing returns, I wonder where to draw the line.

How much better is an $8-900/pair speaker than a $400/pair speaker? Those would be the price points I'm considering.

Did I mention... Only you can be the judge of that. Let's assume that this diminishing returns has a certain slope on a certain graph. The thing is, this slope is not perfectly even or ruler-flat. That jumping up to one model for a few hundred more might give you only a perceived marginal difference, while doubling the price for a certain model might give you double the pleasure... You will get plenty of different impressions once you start hitting the stores up...

The surround channels are the least important. I would recommend investing a larger ratio of money into the L, R and Center, and then go with the lowest price, but decent speakers for the surround channels if you want to maximize the perceived quality relative to monetary investment. There seems to be a turning point where about $1000-$1500 per small 2 way speaker seems to get substantially better cabinets and crossovers overall for many brands. So, as an example of the ratio difference I intend: perhaps invest in $1000-$1500 on each L, R and Center units($3000-$4500 total) and buy some $150-$200 each decent entry level quality bookshelf speakers for the rear and side surround channels. Pair this stuff up with some moderate quality subwoofers(multiple smaller units suggested over a single large unit in order to increase room response linearity).

+1. One of main towers cost twenty times than that of one of my surrounds. Again, this was actually not originally intended, but the path that I ended up thinking was best...

A 4 ohm 86dB @ 1watt/meter speaker needs large amounts of power to handle the load if a higher spl is needed. If only listening at moderate levels a small 50 watt per channel integrated or receiver would get you by fine with that kind of speaker. That doesn't mean the speaker won't sound very good at lower volumes because it is power hungry, but at lower levels of output it will make the amplifier work harder than a more efficient more even/easy loaded speaker would.

Some of the best speakers in the world are extremely difficult to drive with anything but a Class A amplifier, but they still sound great at lower levels of output.

+1. If I am ever lucky (maybe next year?) to have a dedicated 2-ch room, and decide on SS for a 2-ch amp, Im going to buy A+A/B. (drooling). I'll want a better pre-amp before that anyways.... doot doot...


Thanks all for the great thread...

 

[mtrycrafts]

This part is a tad off. Forty decibels is not that loud. If what you where saying was correct one tenth of a watt would be extremely loud with most speakers. 40 decibels is probably the level of SPL reached when I type on my keyboard.

]

Typo. Brain finger coordination age?

 

[Seth=L]

Typo. Brain finger coordination age?

Does anyone really know? 100 dB is quite loud, for a while it would be "ok" but prolonged exposure could cause damage, but you may not feel pain. It isn't to different from looking at UV light, you don't feel it burning the cornea, but it is slowly destroying your vision.

(not lecturing, you, I know it wasn't your post)