Q Acoustics 3020 speakers -- My Insight

[Dennis Murphy]

If a speaker really annoys me -- it leaves the house -- and measurements tend to show that.

I will not take a trip, I will mail the speakers to him -- I may, might pick up some measuring tricks, tips -- however my ears are the final judge on overall sound for me. There can be some decent nice measuring speakers out there, but still have limited overall resolution and sound bland. All in all, some people who love audio, and in the pass were not really concerned about measurements; still seemed to enjoy the speakers before seeing measurements -- and some have enjoyed and liked their speakers, even when they did not measure perfect after the fact. Some just will not confirm it.

I for one overall still prefer a more linear sound, but with drivers that have good resolution.

Feel free to send them on--I promise not to open them up or get Golden Retriever hair in the port. My guess is that they will measure very decently. My main interest is to see how other designers treat baffle step compensation, and what the useful low-end response is. And, of course, I won't post the measurements.

 

[zieglj01]

Feel free to send them on--I promise not to open them up or get Golden Retriever hair in the port. My guess is that they will measure very decently. My main interest is to see how other designers treat baffle step compensation, and what the useful low-end response is. And, of course, I won't post the measurements.

If I send them, which I most likely will soon -- you do have permission to open them up, not a problem -- also, if they measure poor then I would be shocked.

 

[KEW]

@zieglj01
It is clear that these are v. good speakers for their price, but compared to the MB Quarts or your K7's what do you consider the biggest cons of these speakers?

Also as a point if reference, what do you drive them with?

 

[zieglj01]

@zieglj01
It is clear that these are v. good speakers for their price, but compared to the MB Quarts or your K7's what do you consider the biggest cons of these speakers?

Also as a point if reference, what do you drive them with?

I drive them with the Integra 50.2 receiver, measured from Sound and Vision >>

speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 147.4 watts and 1 percent distortion at 172.4 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 200.4 watts and 1 percent distortion at 259.8 watts.

The MB Quart is more clean and pure, with overall better resolution for detail, definition and depth.

I want to do more listening with the Snell, and then I will get back on that comparison -- because they are not that far apart. I want to make sure that Mr Placebo has left the building.

 

[shadyJ]

I drive them with the Integra 50.2 receiver, measured from Sound and Vision >>

speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 147.4 watts and 1 percent distortion at 172.4 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 200.4 watts and 1 percent distortion at 259.8 watts.

The MB Quart is more clean and pure, with overall better resolution for detail, definition and depth.

I want to do more listening with the Snell, and then I will get back on that comparison -- because they are not that far apart. I want to make sure that Mr Placebo has left the building.

So long as you have knowledge of which speaker is in use, Mr Placebo will always be in the building.

 

[zieglj01]

So long as you have knowledge of which speaker is in use, Mr Placebo will always be in the building.

He even knows how to dodge a flashlight when I go looking for him.

 

[KEW]

So long as you have knowledge of which speaker is in use, Mr Placebo will always have the potential to be in the building.

Fixed it for you.
I don't ever remember reading a study that established that a placebo is always in effect unless the study is blind.
Have you?
IME the differences between speakers are often too obvious for placebo effect to have much room to operate. I think most people can tell the difference between the taste of Coke and Pepsi whether the study is blind or not. The study has more relevance as scientific evidence if it is blind, but you can't conclude the study cannot have useful information if it isn't blind.
Now if you are comparing the taste of Publix brand purified bottled water vs Kroger brand purified bottle water the differences are not so obvious and there seems a lot more room for a placebo effect to gain significant purchase.

Having read countless Zeig reviews over the years and being able to correlate that with my own experiences, I read his reviews with interest, knowing they are free of any obligation to favor a product, pull punches, or candy coat the conclusions (unlike many pro reviews that depend on advertising dollars).

 

[zieglj01]

@zieglj01
It is clear that these are v. good speakers for their price, but compared to your K7's what do you consider the biggest cons of these speakers?

The biggest difference with the Snell's, is that the Snell has a better box, weighing 6 lbs more each and is crossed-braced and has better damping (foam). Drums are more clearly defined with better attack and decay -- piano is more rich and full -- and bass a little more tight. For the lack of a better word, the speed and timing seem to be better with the Snell. The Snell seems to put you more in the stage, but the Canton seems to have more overall depth. The Snell is a little better with inner detail and nuances.

Voices are a little more rich tone wise with the Snell -- but can still be a little coarse and grainy. Vibration of the wooden string instruments are a little better with the Snell.

The Snell bass rolls off earlier and is 6 db down at 55 hz -- the Snell higher frequencies start to droop down from 5 kz up, however with the quality (resolution) of the Seas tweeter, it doesn't seem like anything is missing. The Snell is still a little more rich and defined over the Canton, but not not by much.

If the Canton had a better box -- they would be more neck and neck -- however the Snell was listed at $450 more USA for $1250

 

[shadyJ]

Fixed it for you.
I don't ever remember reading a study that established that a placebo is always in effect unless the study is blind.
Have you?

Any research that tried to study human preferences that didn't account for external biases would be dismissed as flawed. If you can find a study on human preference that does not automatically presume bias in the subjects, I would be very surprised.

 

[KEW]

Any research that tried to study human preferences that didn't account for external biases would be dismissed as flawed. If you can find a study on human preference that does not automatically presume bias in the subjects, I would be very surprised.

A matter of symantics, granted, but I agree that good science would rule out the possibility of bias by being performed blind; however, if we made the hypothesis "every observation would provide wrong information unless it is blind", I think you would agree that this would not be proven.
Science should not and does not consider any observations involving subjective evaluation as factual unless they are double blind, but that is far from saying any non-blind observation cannot be correct.
If that was the case, they could include non-blind observations as factual inaccuracies ... which would make them as valid as blind studies in some sort of bizzarro world kind of way!

 

[Dennis Murphy]

A matter of symantics, granted, but I agree that good science would rule out the possibility of bias by being performed blind; however, if we made the hypothesis "every observation would provide wrong information unless it is blind", I think you would agree that this would not be proven.
Science should not and does not consider any observations involving subjective evaluation as factual unless they are double blind, but that is far from saying any non-blind observation cannot be correct.
If that was the case, they could include non-blind observations as factual inaccuracies ... which would make them as valid as blind studies in some sort of bizzarro world kind of way!

I'm not sure anyone is claiming a non-blinded test can't be valid. It's purely a question of how much confidence we have in the results. But about the Coke-Pepsi thing--blinded tests frequently show that people can't tell the difference. And in a recent scholarly research project at Baylor University, students were equally split on their preference between Pepsi and Coke when they were blinded. Unblinded, the results were 75% to 25% in favor of Coke. http://web.bend.k12.or.us/jeremy.rubenstein/Mr._Rubensteins_Language_Arts_Page/Senior_English_files/PDF Coke vs Pepsi research.pdf

 

[KEW]

I'm not sure anyone is claiming a non-blinded test can't be valid. It's purely a question of how much confidence we have in the results. But about the Coke-Pepsi thing--blinded tests frequently show that people can't tell the difference. And in a recent scholarly research project at Baylor University, students were equally split on their preference between Pepsi and Coke when they were blinded. Unblinded, the results were 75% to 25% in favor of Coke. http://web.bend.k12.or.us/jeremy.rubenstein/Mr._Rubensteins_Language_Arts_Page/Senior_English_files/PDF Coke vs Pepsi research.pdf

Well, all I got to say is they must not be properly mixing it with rum because there's a world of difference!
But the statement was placebo effect is always there if the study is not blind. And my counter-statement is that the potential for placebo effect is always there if it's not blind.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Well, all I got to say is they must not be properly mixing it with rum because there's a world of difference!
But the statement was placebo effect is always there if the study is not blind. And my counter-statement is that the potential for placebo effect is always there if it's not blind.

OK, but based on my experience of around 40 years of conducting controlled consumer behavior trials and researching clinical trials, I would say that potential is pretty darn high.

 

[KEW]

OK, but based on my experience of around 40 years of conducting controlled consumer behavior trials and researching clinical trials, I would say that potential is pretty darn high.

I think a lot depends on what is being evaluated.
As an experienced listener, do you often find that your observations are faulty?

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I think a lot depends on what is being evaluated.
As an experienced listener, do you often find that your observations are faulty?

Well, let's just say I find it much easier

I think a lot depends on what is being evaluated.
As an experienced listener, do you often find that your observations are faulty?

Well, let's just say I find it much easier to hear differences in speakers I'm evaluating with my instant switching machine when I know which is playing than I do when someone else is manning the remote. We're all susceptible to biases we bring into the room. I see that all the time at audio shows and in reviews on audio forums. How else to you explain the frequent phenomenon of speakers that get lots of buzz at audio shows garnering rave reviews on, say, AVS for a couple of months, followed at last by general deflation as reality does finally set in. And it works in the other direction. People who carry a grudge against premium brick and mortar speakers with high margins tend to hate them at audio shows even when they might love them if they thought they were Internet-Direct with a bargain price. In fact, I'll go so far as to say I think speaker evaluations in general are particularly affected by placebo effects and various biases, partly because not that many people have reliable ears trained by frequent exposure to live music (other than rock concerts).

 

[zieglj01]

We are all somewhat bias -- and mood swings can also interfere with the listening sessions, blind or not -- all in all, any type of review is subjective.

 

[KEW]

The biggest difference with the Snell's, is that the Snell has a better box, weighing 6 lbs more each and is crossed-braced and has better damping (foam). Drums are more clearly defined with better attack and decay -- piano is more rich and full -- and bass a little more tight. For the lack of a better word, the speed and timing seem to be better with the Snell. The Snell seems to put you more in the stage, but the Canton seems to have more overall depth. The Snell is a little better with inner detail and nuances.

Voices are a little more rich tone wise with the Snell -- but can still be a little coarse and grainy. Vibration of the wooden string instruments are a little better with the Snell.

The Snell bass rolls off earlier and is 6 db down at 55 hz -- the Snell higher frequencies start to droop down from 5 kz up, however with the quality (resolution) of the Seas tweeter, it doesn't seem like anything is missing. The Snell is still a little more rich and defined over the Canton, but not not by much.

If the Canton had a better box -- they would be more neck and neck -- however the Snell was listed at $450 more USA for $1250

What is your sense of power handling and playing loud?

 

[zieglj01]

What is your sense of power handling and playing loud?

They quote 85 db sensitivity -- however they seem a little higher -- they seem to take a lot of power, and louder than I care to listen. The woofer is not easily stressed. However, some nasty recordings can get under your skin. While they do not go real low, they do have some nice bass for what they can hit.

 

[speakerman39]

Excellent write-up Ziegl. Just wished you could compare the QA Concept 20's to both the Focal Aria 905's and/or the Canton GLS 2's. Now that would be a great shoot-out! Before I bought my Wharfies, I was very close to pulling the trigger on both the QA 20's and/or the Focal Aria 905's. Furthermore, I would love to see just how the JBL 530's would compare to these as well. Should have never sold me set of 530's. The dumbest thing that I have ever done in this hobby. But, they did go to a good home.


Cheers,

Phil

 

[zieglj01]

Well, since I like to toy some -- I have modded the inner cabinet some (there went the warranty or return options ) -- after listening to the drums on the Snell, I wanted to see if I could improve that sound some on the GLS 2) So far I like what I did better (I can always reverse it). I must say the speaker is real sensitive to inner cabinet change. And they sure do have a lot of bass energy.

I put some adhesive felt padding inside and replaced the poly-batten with 1" NUFOAM (which is poly-foam). If I did Fiberglass and sold the speakers in the future -- I would have to pull the Fiberglass out, since some people may be disturbed by fiberglass. I wanted to use/try Denim insulation, which I like -- however too expensive for one roll with shipping, and $36 for 6 rolls at Home Depot is much more than I need or can store at this time.