What's in a speaker upgrade...or how high is up?

[InTheIndustry]

Quick Thought.....

Ribbon Speakers, like what BG offers tend to really give you more with less. They are very sensative and even their high end speakers ($12K per pair) can sound good with a $2K to $4K receiver. Please note that you really need a sub to make them sound their best.

 

[Tomorrow]

InTheIndustry. Thanks again.

I want to be clear on the points you're making. Let me ask you the amplification question in another way. If a receiver/amp has enough power to drive the relevant speakers to window shattering volume, does it make sense that that receiver/amp has enough headroom to make the speakers also perform their best..."amps = quality"? (Generalities are accepted and excepted. Also, hold all other elements, e.g. room reflections, cabling, etc, to be equivalent.)

Secondly, I, you, we, ....carelessly throw around terms sometimes...such as 'high-end' when referring to speakers or other a/v equipment. The point I made in an earlier post remains to itch me....since all speakers color audio to some extent, and require human preference integration...what truly is the perceived difference amongst speakers as you pay more for them? Or said otherwise, what does more money for more expensive speakers buy you except different coloration?

Ugh, I need an Audio-Video Philosophy college course.

 

[InTheIndustry]

RJBUDZ,

A/V philosophy is a very tumultuous subject. I advise people who don’t have one to not ever get one as it is a slippery slope

The answer to your first question is “no”. Just because a receiver can bring your speakers volume levels up really really loud does not mean that the power is adequate enough to get the most out of them. Receivers differ between brands and models as to what continuous current they can deliver. A $300 Onkyo can get your speakers up to un-listenable volume levels and so can the $1000 model. But, when set at your preferred listening volume the $1000 receiver sounds better. Why? Because the $1000 model’s continuous current to the speakers is considerably stronger. And that gives the speakers a better sound regardless of volume level.
A 400 watt Amp’s purpose isn’t to get super loud (although it can) its job is to offer more power in a continuous current for the speaker to work with. Therefore the speaker sounds better. The trick is mating a speaker with a receiver or amp that isn’t too much or too little because either way you aren’t getting your moneys worth. If given a tight budget you are always better off, in my opinion, buying the better speakers and skimping on the electronics. Why? Because a good pair of speakers could last you forever, but electronics come and go either through obsolescence or failure.

Your second question is totally brand and model specific. I can get into a million different reasons as to why speaker X costs more than speaker Y. Imaging, cabinet material, drive material, where was it is manufactured, spikes on the feet, crossover network, how many drivers, what size, binding post quality, real wood or laminate, and on and on. All of that stuff adds up. And don’t forget: there are $500 speakers that sound like $800 ones, $800 that sound like $1200, etc. When you find many high quality traits in a speaker, however, it is usually an expensive one. Plus, I think the word coloration gets kicked around in the audio community like the word digital used to get beat up in the video world.

Typically (if there is such a thing as typical in audio these days) the difference between two speakers from the same model family is the size of the low freq drivers and base response. One speaker might have one 6.5” woofer and the model above it might have 2 or maybe an 8”, etc. Some speaker manufacturers have built in powered subs as the selling point on a more expensive model. Usually the difference is either A: the number of drivers in a model or B: the size of the drivers. Sometimes it’s even both of those. That’s not coloration you’re hearing because both speakers from the same line use the same driver material. What you hear in a more expensive speaker when listening to the two models are more bass and fuller mid’s. Well, at least that’s what the manufacturer wants you to hear. Now, weather or not you like that and if it will sound better or worse in your room is up to you.

Does any of that help, hurt, or did I totally miss the point?

 

[Tomorrow]

I.T.I.....

I'm still working with you, here. On the first point, you're saying that available constant current is what should be the measuring stick of speaker amplification quality. Then how does one rate from specs, which amp should be applied to which speakers? Is it science or art?

I think you're still missing my point on the second issue. Appearance costs aside (e.g. some speakers are just plain lovely with wonderful, exotic woods), all the other 'things' that make up a speaker are irrelevant. Irrelevant to what?...to the quality one's ears/brain assigns to the sound made by a speaker. The Aerials Of My Dreams are basic boxes, loaded with stuff. Klipsch's Of My Nightmares are basic boxes, loaded with stuff. Some people on AH are going to love those Klipsch speakers at 1/4 the price of the Aerials (which will bore them).

That is the pricing vs. sound preference dilemma I'm talking about. Thusly, I suggest that an 'upgrade' need not cost more money and that 'high-end' is rendered meaningless. See...I told you it's an irrational conclusion. But it's the one I keep coming to. LOL, I think you're right about the Philosophical slippery slope!

 

[majorloser]

In most cases with towers, the additional money (in this case doubled) will get you a larger cabinet with more or larger drivers. Net output is usually more bass and mid range. Some companies also use a different tweeter. Granted, as stated before this is all based on staying with the same manufacturer's line.

Since we are talking about two speaker "stereo" sound, the same extra $1,000 can get a powered subwoofer that will give you a better increase in bass. In my case, I settled for the smaller towers with powered subwoofers.

 

[InTheIndustry]

I am using crap, low, mid, and hi-fi as reference points based solely on price. I also agree that some products from say a mid-fi company can compete with and sound better than some from a hi-fi. And, you are absolutely right, an upgrade doesn’t always cost more money. Sometimes it can cost less. It just depends on what speakers you are changing from and going to as well as what electronics you are using and your material that you listen to.

You cannot judge components, speakers, or electronics, by looking at the specs on paper. You have to experience them or go with a trusted A/V installer that knows what they’re doing. So, it’s a little bit of science and a little bit of art. Either way it should be a whole lot of fun.

I’m not missing your point on the second issue. No matter which way you slice it, what sounds good is completely based on opinion. There is no reference as to what “sounds best”. None whatsoever. If you think that the Klipsch speakers are better than the Aerials, then they are. In no way shape or form am I telling you that there isn’t a point of diminishing return on audio equipment. There is and it’s huge. But that point is also set different for everyone. And, you have to understand that because speaker A sounds great on receiver A that speakers B, no matter how expensive they are, might not sound better when plugged into same receiver A. Speaker B might need receiver/amp B to out shine speaker A which may or may not benefit from receiver/amp B. Got that?

Exotic woods can often times be a harder, more ridged material, so it might be there to sound better than a laminate speaker. It’s sole purpose sometimes is not just to look good. Some speakers, like the Canton Vento’s I mentioned before, have curved cabinets. This is to enhance sound and not just to look good. This is true about a lot of “stuff loaded in boxes”. It is in there because it is supposed to make the speaker sound good. Manufacturer’s also put it in there to charge a higher price. For some people the added “stuff” doesn’t sound any better in a lot of speakers. I find it hard to believe however that you would prefer a pair of Klipsh at ¼ the price of a pair of Aerials if both were set up properly. I would find it easy to believe that you could enjoy the Klipsh as much or more if the Aerials were plugged into inferior electronics than what they need. I will be the first to admit that there is a huge amount of hocus pocus in the speaker industry. But to rationalize that a $2K set up will usually outperform an $8K set up on a regular basis is not realistic. It happens, but not on a regular basis and in isolated comparisons. It might be a better value to you and sound better for the $, but as long as both pair are set up for the best performance the more expensive speakers usually sound best. I’m not saying the Aerials are the best value. I’m saying they would probably sound better to most.

Lastly, speakers are not just basic boxes filled with stuff and what’s inside of them is not irrelevant. There is much more to them than that. Finding a set-up that you really enjoy and fits your budget is super tricky, but it should also be super fun. Besides that, we haven’t even gotten into what types of speakers sound best with what types of materials. That also can make a difference as to what you need to consider when “upgrading”.

Helpful at all? Agree/Disagree?

 

[InTheIndustry]

Majorloser,

That decision made you a Majorwinner in my book. Just make sure you set the sub up properly and it can really add some punch to your material..... as long as your material can benefit from a sub like that.

 

[Tomorrow]

I find it hard to believe however that you would prefer a pair of Klipsh at ¼ the price of a pair of Aerials if both were set up properly. I would find it easy to believe that you could enjoy the Klipsh as much or more if the Aerials were plugged into inferior electronics than what they need. I will be the first to admit that there is a huge amount of hocus pocus in the speaker industry. But to rationalize that a $2K set up will usually outperform an $8K set up on a regular basis is not realistic. It happens, but not on a regular basis and in isolated comparisons. It might be a better value to you and sound better for the $, but as long as both pair are set up for the best performance the more expensive speakers usually sound best. I’m not saying the Aerials are the best value. I’m saying they would probably sound better to most.

Lastly, speakers are not just basic boxes filled with stuff and what’s inside of them is not irrelevant. There is much more to them than that. Finding a set-up that you really enjoy and fits your budget is super tricky, but it should also be super fun. Besides that, we haven’t even gotten into what types of speakers sound best with what types of materials. That also can make a difference as to what you need to consider when “upgrading”.

Helpful at all? Agree/Disagree?

I.T.I....

I tried to indicate in my post that I am no fan of Klipsch. I'd rather take an ice pick to my eardrums than listen to a pair. The Aerial 7B was the sweetest speaker I've ever heard (but can't afford). But the point was that some people WILL prefer the brightness and sibilance of the Klipsch.

As to whether, as you say "expensive speakers usually sound best", I refer to the above paragraph. "Outperform" is also irrelevant and subjective. 'Does it sound good to you?' is what is relevant to speaker hunting/upgrading.

The irrelevance of 'the stuff in the box' is only in regards to the first paragraph, as well. Certainly it IS important what components are used (as an example to make that irritating and shrill Klipsch sound). Man, am I making some enemies here! Sorry Klipsch-peeps. But in terms of cost...it is not relevant. All that is relevant is what sounds good to an individual's pair of ears.

And so goes my particular problem. I have heard a speaker that I love and cannot afford. My search for an inexpensive Aerial clone seemingly dead-ends. So in my case, at least, cost is an important consideration. Unrequited love. That's sad. I think my upgrade search has ended, not with fun, but with a thud. And to further rub the salt into the wound, I agree with you that adequate amplification would additionally have to be purchased to make the 7B's sing.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

I might suggest that if you're considering spending money on upgrades that you think in terms of systems rather than speakers. That is, you can never actually hear the speaker, what you actually hear is the complex result of the speaker/room system interaction. I would further suggest that improving this overall system is what you really want to be doing.

That said, in the range of what you're talking about, IMHO you'd get far more bang for the buck from educating yourself about room acoustics and spending that extra thousand dollars treating your room. I did and the results were remarkable... more like going from thousand buck speakers to five grand ones.

I would specifically comment that all the factors you mentioned- air , clarity, separation and such were substantially improved through treating the room.

I couldnt agree more. It's amazes me how so many have done absolutely nothing to improve the acoustics of their listening environment. To me, it makes all of these kinds of debates seem so silly.
The most important upgrade that you can make is the "ROOM" upgrade if you have not already done so.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

I agree room acoustic is a huge factor, but I wouldn't down play the difference in sound between speakers in the sub 2K range. If you put two speakers, say one in the $1K range and the other in the $2K range of the same make side by side, you will hear the obvious difference regardless the room acoustic. You may call that difference "voicing", or "sound quality", but they will most likely sound different enough for most people to tell them apart.
.

It's true....... You will hear a difference.

That's because the more expensive speaker system will sound terrible compared to the modestly priced alternatives in a treated room.

A 5.1 setup comprised of $5k worth of speakers in an acoustically treated environment, compared to a setup comprised of $10k worth of speakers in an untreated room........ The $5k setup will outperform the latter every single time. It wont even be close......

 

[InTheIndustry]

While I dissagree that a room treatment is number 1, I totally agree that the room being treated can make a system sound remarkably better. A $5K to $10K is a bit of a strech, but certainly possible with a lot of environments. If a room is particularly difficult it doesn't matter what type of equipment you put in. It can sound flat, have echos, or both.

But if someone had a $10K system, the cost of some GIK acoustic panneling shouldn't be so overbearing as to not do it. If it were, I would recommend to step down a bit and get the pannels as long as they could fit in with the look of the room. Good call, Buckeye_Nut.

 

[Tomorrow]

I couldnt agree more. It's amazes me how so many have done absolutely nothing to improve the acoustics of their listening environment. To me, it makes all of these kinds of debates seem so silly.
The most important upgrade that you can make is the "ROOM" upgrade if you have not already done so.

B.Nut...

I think we're all in agreement that this is true. But to call this A. a "debate", and B. "silly" suggests that you have not carefully read the posts.

This is NOT a debative thread about how to make your audio system sound the best that it can. Think of this thread as a specific exploration of the relative value of speakers and the philosophy of speaker 'upgrade'.

EDIT: Ooops. I see you're a Klipsch owner. That explains your "silly debate" statement. Sorry if my comments about Klipsch speakers set you off the course of this discussion.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

While I dissagree that a room treatment is number 1, I totally agree that the room being treated can make a system sound remarkably better. A $5K to $10K is a bit of a strech, but certainly possible with a lot of environments. If a room is particularly difficult it doesn't matter what type of equipment you put in. It can sound flat, have echos, or both.

My only point is that if one is interested in good sound, they wont find what they're looking for until they account for the room. Between the deep nulls and chatter caused by untreated walls, the soundfield and integrity of any surround sound setup will be destroyed. Since I've treated my room, I cringe every time I see photos of someones 'high end' theater without a room treatment in sight because I realize that the sound produced in such a room will result in a flawed, jumbled up mess by comparison. Im just trying to stress that point to those who have yet to see the light.

No.... I dont have a high end elitist system, but I wouldnt trade my 'room' for another with components costing several times more if they're placed in a neglected room. The room counts for 'HALF' of what reaches our ears, and if that half is ignored, the components have gone to waste.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

B.Nut...

This is NOT a debative thread about how to make your audio system sound the best that it can. Think of this thread as a specific exploration of the relative value of speakers and the philosophy of speaker 'upgrade'.

EDIT: Ooops. I see you're a Klipsch owner. That explains your "silly debate" statement. Sorry if my comments about Klipsch speakers set you off the course of this discussion.

Actually, I dont think I was responding to your post.

Your comment had nothing to do with my response, nor am I insecure about my speaker choice. My point is that if you want good sound, the room must be accounted for regardless of what is spent speakers. If you dump $50k into speakers and neglect the room, all you'll end up with is a $50k pile of pooooh for movie sound.

The initial post was asking for opinions about speaker upgrades, and my response was simply to take care of the ROOM first, and worry about speakers later. Not until the room is fixed, can a person really know what he/she has.

 

[InTheIndustry]

Room treatments have become the latest buzz word and "it" thing in the A/V industry.

While I agree that room treatments are important, to say that they account for 'HALF' of a systems sound is sensationalizing. Please don't misunderstand my point; they can make a very strong difference if you have a bad room. However, I have put in plenty of dedicated theaters in which the customer did not opt for room treatments (typically due to WAF or space) and they sounded great. Don't misunderstand, there have been rooms that would have sounded better had they been treated as well. Usually, as an A/V integrator and system designer, if when calibrating a system a room could really benefit from treatments and the customer doesn’t mind the look I will go ahead and put a couple of panels in at no charge. I do this because I care that the room sounds right. It’s worth more than what a couple of those panels cost me to know that my customer is getting the most out of their system (see, and you guys thought all a/v integrators are money hungry jerks!).

"Room Treatments" is a much generalized statement. Would using the thickest carpet padding and thick carpet help a room? Absolutely - big time. Would six or seven micro fiber or cloth movie theater seats help? Yeah, and in a huge way. Moving speakers inward from the side walls to minimize reflection? That helps, too. Even a couch with thick fabric and lots of pillows will make a difference. Those few things may be all someone needs. There are lots of simple things that add up to "room treatments". As far as sound panels go, you really have to take your time to set them up right. Just hanging them around where they look cool doesn't get the job done optimally. Often times a light switch might be in the way as to where the panel needs to go. Maybe an outlet or a window is taking up space that should be used by a panel. Your wife might hate them being angled into the wall like that, and on and on… so, now you're putting panels in the room just to have the peace of mind of them being there, but are they really helping? It truly depends on the individual room.

I know that the GIK panels were recently reviewed on AH and everybody’s excited because it’s an extremely affordable way to get what is generally considered a “high end” piece of audio gear. Plus, they look cool. I have used Glen’s products in a recent theater and thought that they were great. I will certainly use them again. GIK panels are an awesome value and they get my full endorsement (for what that’s worth).

In conclusion: There are a lot of things that can be considered “room treatments”. Some rooms need more, some less. Some rooms can handle the look of 2/4” x 2’ x 4’ panels hanging on the walls, some can’t. To go all-in on the idea that all “room treatments”/acoustic paneling makes everything 2 to 3 times better and that without them your system will be crap is sensationalizing and over generalizing in a dangerous way if you’re giving advice.

 

[Tomorrow]

Actually, I dont think I was responding to your post.

Your comment had nothing to do with my response, nor am I insecure about my speaker choice. My point is that if you want good sound, the room must be accounted for regardless of what is spent speakers. If you dump $50k into speakers and neglect the room, all you'll end up with is a $50k pile of pooooh for movie sound.

The initial post was asking for opinions about speaker upgrades, and my response was simply to take care of the ROOM first, and worry about speakers later. Not until the room is fixed, can a person really know what he/she has.

This was Sarius comment to my first post (without any demeaning comments like "silly debate")...

That said, in the range of what you're talking about, IMHO you'd get far more bang for the buck from educating yourself about room acoustics and spending that extra thousand dollars treating your room. I did and the results were remarkable... more like going from thousand buck speakers to five grand ones.

To which I responded...

Sarius....I agree that the room interaction requires attention. But, it's the philosophy of speaker upgrade that I want to zero in on...not the dollar spent for sound system quality per se.

So as I stated to you before, we all agree that there are benefits to room treatments, and this is NOT a thread about audio system quality.

 

[PENG]

RJBUDZ,

Why? Because the $1000 model’s continuous current to the speakers is considerably stronger. And that gives the speakers a better sound regardless of volume level.

I agree with many things you said but this one doesn't make sense to me. May be you can clarify it a little.

Thanks!

 

[PENG]

InTheIndustry. Thanks again.

I want to be clear on the points you're making. Let me ask you the amplification question in another way. If a receiver/amp has enough power to drive the relevant speakers to window shattering volume, does it make sense that that receiver/amp has enough headroom to make the speakers also perform their best..."amps = quality"? (Generalities are accepted and excepted. Also, hold all other elements, e.g. room reflections, cabling, etc, to be equivalent.)

(

I know the question is not for me but I think you know the answer already. It could be true that a cheap receiver's 100W may not be the same as a $1K receiver e.g. RX-V2600, Denon 3806. To say a high end system will sound better than a RX-V2600 driving a pair of $1 to 2K speakers is a stretch. A small % of the population may have that gifted ability to hear the difference, but I'll bet most people will have trouble hearing the difference.

An amp with specs like 100WX2 RMS continuous into 8 ohms, 5 to 100,000 Hz +0.5dB -3 dB, 20 to 50,000 Hz, +0dB, -1dB with THD<0.05% damping factor>200 at 20 Hz or higher, will not sound noticeably different whether this amp is a high end amp or not. This is governed by physics and electrical principles. Ohm's law and all those power formula are proven, engineers apply those principles every day in the field of electricity generation, transmission and distribution, telecommunication, medical and space technologies. Those principles help getting us to the moon and beyond. There aren't much hidden details, and linear amplifier technologies are no rocket science after all.

Expensive hi-end, hi power amps will better the mid priced ones in their ability to drive difficult loads, e.g., 4 ohm or lower impedance, sensitivity lower than say, 86 dB, speakers that use multiple large woofers, and to play music/movies that has very high dynamic range information at very loud level. Further, in general, when you pay more, you do get better reliabilty, fits and finishes, and that high end look etc.

 

[InTheIndustry]

Disclaimer: Please understand that I am by no means the be-all/end-all source for A/V knowledge. I am constantly learning and open to change. I can only state my opinions and experiences and absolutely respect any and everyone’s opinions and findings through their experience. If my posts come across as harsh, I apologize in advance to those I may offend.

Peng,

You are correct and basically just reiterated my point. Speaking in a general sense, the Yamaha RX-V2600 or a Denon 3806 are designed to power speakers of a certain ilk. $1K to $2K speakers are oftentimes not a stretch for something like that. I’m sure that those models can power all sorts of speakers and give a great sound. However, what I am saying is that those products may or may not have the capabilities to get the most out of the speakers someone is upgrading to. The original post was about upgrading speakers and at what point was it worth it or not. I guarantee you that if someone with a Denon 3806 and a pair of $2K Polks went out and bought a pair of Canton Karat Reference 6.2’s at $9K a pair they would not be getting anywhere close to the sound that those speakers were designed to put out. Don’t believe me? Go look in the review section of AH and pull up the Canton Karat review link. One of the cons is “Require high-powered/current amp for optimal performance”. That means, don’t hook them up to a $1K receiver and expect them to perform like a $9K speaker should. I spoke of the Gallo Reference’s in an earlier post. Those speakers are in the $3K range and need a strong amp to run them. Gallo even designed them to be used with a separate amp as well as one of their own amps for optimal performance. A $1K receiver just is not going to give you anywhere close to your $ worth with those speakers.

For those of you thinking, “I.T.I., who would go from $2K speakers to $9K speakers? That’s not common.” That is a big jump, true. But I have news for you. Several speakers in the Karat line are built with the same engineering principles (as are the Vento’s above them) and would benefit from a high current amp. Speaking from personal experience, I have a customer who had some Polk RTI-1000 tower speakers ($500 each MSRP) and the matching center and rears being powered by an Onkyo TX-DS787 ($1000 MSRP) being used for HT. My customer wanted to upgrade so we got rid of the Polks and put in a set of Jamo D7 THX Ultra 2 certified speakers ($1K each + Sub). The customer wanted to keep his receiver because it sounded fine with the other speakers. Might as well give it a shot, right? Well, guess what? The D7’s sounded good (better than the Polks), but not worth $8K. Keep in mind that I have installed these before both in other customer’s homes as well as my own (secondary theater/sitting area). They are normally outstanding and one of the best speaker sets for movies that I have ever heard. We switched out his receiver with a Marantz SR9600 and it made a strong difference. Doing this for seven years has afforded me a lot of real life examples involving both high and low $ systems. This doesn’t just happen with really expensive gear.

As for the details about the amp… Without getting really deep into it I will say this. If what you are saying is true, then two cars with the same horsepower would be guaranteed to perform identically. We all know that this is not true and that there’s a lot more that goes into making a car’s engine go fast or run smooth. That thought process is also not true with receivers and amps. Two speakers from two different companies might have the same specs, but not sound anywhere close to the same. There are hidden details (and no, I’m not talking about snake oil) in a lot of equipment. But, you can’t tell the difference until you drive the car or listen to the stereo. Then make up your mind based on what you feel sounds best for your $.

Also, spending more money doesn’t by you more reliability. Will an $80K Cadillac last longer than a $15K Honda? It’s anybody’s guess, but I would bet that there’s more stuff on the Cadillac that could potentially break vs. anything that would make it last longer. In my experience one pays for feature’s, looks, prestige, sometimes convenience, and (often times) performance when dealing with A/V. As far as build quality goes, I can tell you that the $300 Onkyo is built with the same vigor and quality that the $5000 has. Harmon Kardon is the same. Heck, going by looks it’s tough to tell one HK from another half the time.

Do my examples make sense?

 

[AverageJoe]

...As for the details about the amp… Without getting really deep into it I will say this. If what you are saying is true, then two cars with the same horsepower would be guaranteed to perform identically. We all know that this is not true...

If I may stretch your analogy a bit...

For me, the question would be:
If I intend to drive at 65 MPH (or listen at 65dB), do I gain anything by putting a blown 454 in a BMW? Or a Ferrari, even. Way more horsepower, but how did that improve the performance (idle in first gear, or rev up a bit in second)?

I'll acknowledge that I must be missing something. If I turn my Yamaha up to get 65dB, or turn a high-powered, hi-end amp down to 65dB - how does the speaker perform differently? What is all this latent, pent-up power doing for it?

What does it know that I don't