Buyer’s Remorse – Energy CF-50 >> Looking for Bigger Sound

[mrvilla]

This is not a post to say that the Energy CF-50 is not a decent speaker – it is. It actually sounds pretty good.

But I’ve waited a long time to be in a home where I could buy nice speakers, and “pretty good” is not good enough.

I made the classic mistake of buying something that was a very good value, but not what I really wanted.

The CF-50 is very good for what it is.

But I want something with a much larger presence. Something that better envelopes the room with sound. Something I feel a little more (yes, I have a sub).

I pushing the speakers with a Onkyo TX-NR808, so I believe I have that part covered.

I guess I’m willing to go to $1000 a speaker.

After reading this forum for several days, I have some ideas. But it is difficult to listen to many of the speakers that get high marks in the forum.

I want a very large, bold, bright speaker, but without the shrillness I’ve heard from some horn tweeter speakers.

The following seem to get high marks in this forum and in independent reviews – and I can’t really listen to any of them.

>>Axiom M80 v3 Floorstanding Speakers – their top of the line speaker at $1400 a pair.

>>Aperion Verus Grand Tower Speaker – their new top of the line speaker at $1800 a pair.

>>Salk SongTower QWT's at $2000 a pair.

With what I’m looking for, can I get some opinions about which of these would best suit me, and what other speakers should I be looking at?

Thank you.

 

[sholling]

But I want something with a much larger presence. Something that better envelopes the room with sound. Something I feel a little more (yes, I have a sub).

Generally when I see a post like this the first thing that comes to mind is too little subwoofer for the room. Just because you own a sub doesn't necessarily mean you have enough sub for the room. Are you looking for a more detailed sound, a more enveloping sound, or more impact and dynamics? What the $2k/pr speakers you listed are going to buy you is detail and accuracy but not so much a more tactile experience.

Before you spend anymore money let's see what you have. How large is the room (L/W/H), what is the total cubic footage including any attached spaces (kitchen, halls, etc)? What sub are you using?

 

[Swerd]

I can't disagree with what sholling says in general, but at the same time, I understand your disappointment with your present speakers. I don't think a different subwoofer will change that.

Of the three speakers you mentioned I strongly recommend the SongTowers. I've owned mine for over 3 years and still love them. (My listener's impressions are linked below.)

Where in Virginia are you? I'm in Gaithersburg, MD, in the Washington, DC suburbs. If it isn't too far for you, you are welcome to come hear my speakers. Send me a PM for contact info.

 

[billy p]

Aperion offers a 30 day free in home audtion on all their produts with free return shipping if your unsatisfied...who else will offer you that? I own Energy speakers but I didn't care for the CF's...fwiw.

 

[GranteedEV]

Before you spend all thay money tell me if these criteria are currently satisfied:

3-4 feet from back wall
3-5 feet from side walls
8-12 feet apart from left to right
Aggressive toe in.. tweeters pointed at your shoulders
Bass Traps in corners + diffusion at side walls etc

now try EQing such that 4khz- 8khz is 1 to 2 db hotter. is this what you think you need? can you even hear the difference?

Now. test the baffle step. raise everything below 400-500hz by anywhere from 1 to 3db. does it sound fuller? adjust the sub accordingly. also try different crossover frewuencies. does that change anything? is the sub just inadequate?

also give audessey flat a go and compare it to source direct. my understanding however is that onkyo's audessey implementation is rather poor compared to marantz' so ymmv

Now once that has been established what aspect of the speakers sounds wrong we may be able to help you a bit more.

and forget you horn bias too. klipsch speakers might have hot tweeters but a good horn tweeter may be EXACTLY what you want for that non fatiguing intimacy and envelopment. look into a Gedlee Nathan perhaps.

 

[KEW]

You are getting excellent advice.
I especially appreciate Sholling's notion to let us spend a bit more time looking in more detail at your overall setup to be sure you are directing your efforts/money in the right directs.
Swed's offer is outstanding! One of the biggest drawbacks to buying Salk speakers is you have no recourse if you decide they are not for you (most other internet direct companies will refund your money if you dislike the speakers, but you eat the return shipping. Aperion is the rare class act that will actually pay for return shipping as well!). However, if you take Swerd up on his offer, you need to see if he will let you bring your speakers to his house as well. I have no idea of his setup, but the difference in sound if he has a smaller room with good acoustics and you have a large room with poor acoustics could convince you that the Salks would solve your problems and they may not once you got them to your room. If you listened to the Energy's in his room and they exhibited the same inadequacies they do in your own room, while the Salks give you what you want, you have a very good chance that they will solve your issue. In any case, you should never turn down the opportunity to hear a pair of speakers on your short list!
I know it is a pain to transport tower speakers around, but that is really the only way to find out what your problem is. The room has as much influence on your sound quality as the speaker.

 

[KEW]

I own Energy speakers but I didn't care for the CF's...fwiw.

Which models did you compare?
I always assumed that the RC-30's and the CF-30's were essentially the same speakers.
Ditto for the 50's and 70's!
What differences did you detect?

 

[avnetguy]

Which models did you compare?
I always assumed that the RC-30's and the CF-30's were essentially the same speakers.
Ditto for the 50's and 70's!
What differences did you detect?

Though closely related, the CF and RC lines are not the same and do have a different sound.

 

[Swerd]

You are getting excellent advice...

However, if you take Swerd up on his offer, you need to see if he will let you bring your speakers to his house as well. I have no idea of his setup, but the difference in sound if he has a smaller room with good acoustics and you have a large room with poor acoustics could convince you that the Salks would solve your problems and they may not once you got them to your room. If you listened to the Energy's in his room and they exhibited the same inadequacies they do in your own room, while the Salks give you what you want, you have a very good chance that they will solve your issue. In any case, you should never turn down the opportunity to hear a pair of speakers on your short list!

I know it is a pain to transport tower speakers around, but that is really the only way to find out what your problem is. The room has as much influence on your sound quality as the speaker.

If mrvilla can come to hear my speakers, I also encourage him to bring his Energy towers. A direct side-by-side comparison is the best way to hear speakers. I'll be glad to help him carry them in.

My room is medium to large sized, 19' long x 15' wide x 9' high. It is a family room separated from a kitchen by a half-height wall, so the kitchen adds another 15' to the long dimension. Overall including the kitchen, the room is 34' x 15'. I don't know if that is considered a medium or large room. The speakers are along the long dimension, facing mostly windows on the wall 15' away. There is thick carpeting, a brick fireplace on one side, and shades available to cover the windows on the wall opposite the speakers. There is plenty of furniture, but there is more than enough room for a another pair of tower speakers.

I have had visitors before who brought their speakers to compare to the STs in the same room. The largest speakers anyone brought was a pair of B&W CDM7 NT towers. I liked the STs better, but I just might be biased .

 

[billy p]

Which models did you compare?
I always assumed that the RC-30's and the CF-30's were essentially the same speakers.
Ditto for the 50's and 70's!
What differences did you detect?

Subjectively speaking of course the CF's(I listened to the CF30's and 10's) seemingly appeared more forward or bright in nature when compared to the laid back or recessed approach used by Energy with the original RC's. The higher sensitivity rating might come from Klipsch's influence with the brand and they appear to have cut some corners in the build quality of the cabinets with these 2 speakers. I don't think the CF's are bad speaker or sounded terrible becasue they don't and they do have that Energy sound but for me the 2 aren't close.

Regards, Bill...

 

[jostenmeat]

Great advice, great assistance, and particularly what KEW said. I vote for an order of the Aperions for a three way battle.

my understanding however is that onkyo's audessey implementation is rather poor compared to marantz' so ymmv

Because Onkyo has always offered the latest and most advanced version of MultEQ technology, and that Marantz is always on an older version?

 

[GranteedEV]

Because Onkyo has always offered the latest and most advanced version of MultEQ technology, and that Marantz is always on an older version?

Let me clarify here. I've never owned an Onkyo and I'm not trying to be negative about them. I'm simply saying that from what I have read on various boards Onkyo owners feel Audessey collapses their soundstage whereas Marantz owners feel Audessey works well.

Perhaps that's me coming off as a Marantz Fanboy. Totally understandable. Nothing I said has much backing behind it, not even my personal experience. I was merely pointing out that perhaps Audessey isn't worthwhile for Onkyo/Integra owners compared to source direct. Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[zieglj01]

Great advice, great assistance, and particularly what KEW said. I vote for an order of the Aperions for a three way battle.

Why not a four way battle. The PSB GT1 will be good also.
Move down the page a little.
http://www.saturdayaudio.com/

 

[jostenmeat]

Why not a four way battle. The PSB GT1 will be good also.
Move down the page a little.
http://www.saturdayaudio.com/

In all honesty, for how good the reception has been for the newer PSB models, I don't know that I'd go for the GT1. Also, the price point is not the competitive segment to the Salk or Aperion, and the equivalent would more likely be the Imagine T, and if B stock is ok, they'll still be hundreds less than either Salk or Aperion.

http://www.saturdayaudio.com/picturepages/psb_bstock.htm

And, why not a four way battle? Well, I'm not sure that you can just return the PSBs. I think that I could probably convince my dealer to let me try, maybe with a deposit or something . . . but I dunno about the OP.

 

[GranteedEV]

Yeah, well my vote goes to the SVS MTS-02

 

[jostenmeat]

Let me clarify here. I've never owned an Onkyo and I'm not trying to be negative about them. I'm simply saying that from what I have read on various boards Onkyo owners feel Audessey collapses their soundstage whereas Marantz owners feel Audessey works well.

Well, if I gave you my anecdote, then you could say Onkyo has the best implementation, EVAH! I've said it a number of times here, but the implementation of my XT was after about double digit treatments, and the improvement was about nearly as dramatic as the inclusion of the treatments. However, this was after the treatments. That's a pretty darn good anecdote.

Perhaps that's me coming off as a Marantz Fanboy. Totally understandable. Nothing I said has much backing behind it, not even my personal experience. I was merely pointing out that perhaps Audessey isn't worthwhile for Onkyo/Integra owners compared to source direct. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Over pretty much the entire duration of my interest in this hobby, I would put Marantz at the very bottom of the list as far as Audyssey implementation, of the numerous brands.

If there was a way for me to obtain good information about the processing power of any, well, processor, it would be my #1 factor. If I ever implement Dolby Volume (or Dynamic Volume), matrixing for not only rears but perhaps heights as well in a 11.1/11.2 system, of course after decoding the advanced bitstreams to begin with, and oh yeah, having MultEQ XT32 filters galore implemented up the yin yang over 13 channels all simultaneously, well yeah, that's a pretty big processing load.

Marantz may (I mean did they), have FINALLY given us enough processing power in their current line so that we can actually do much simpler things like matrix for rears while having MultEQ applied (I'm not even talking about XT yet, which was only offered this generation as far as Marantz is concerned; I've had my Onkyo XT for a few years now, for $600), or a simple unzipping/decoding of TrueHD or DTS-MA while having MultEQ applied. You heard me right, for about the entire duration of my interest in AV, Marantz units could not even simply accept a bitstream and simultaneously apply the relatively long in the tooth vanilla MultEQ.

 

[GranteedEV]

You heard me right, for about the entire duration of my interest in AV, Marantz units could not accept a bitstream and apply the relatively long in the tooth vanilla MultEQ.

I don't disagree with this but then again I use my PS3 as a blu ray player and it can't send bitstream anyways, just PCM.

Anyways no point getting into an argument about something I don't at all feel passionately about.

 

[jostenmeat]

I don't disagree with this but then again I use my PS3 as a blu ray player and it can't send bitstream anyways, just PCM.

And my first bluray player that I used for years before giving it to a friend could not send DTS-MA as mch PCM, but only as a bitstream (Panasonic BD30). Either way, no problem with Onkyo, big problem with Marantz.

Anyways no point getting into an argument about something I don't at all feel passionately about.

I'm not that passionate either, and it's probably why I don't think I addressed you the first times you mentioned Marantz's superiority in this regard over Onkyo in particular. I've read you say it enough times now where I finally took the time to offer my take on it.

 

[GranteedEV]

you mentioned Marantz's superiority in this regard over Onkyo in particular. I've read you say it enough times now where I finally took the time to offer my take on it.

Now I need some DBT to determine if the end results after audessey are truly the same between marantz and onkyo or not. Who in the Calgary Area has an Onkyo?

 

[jostenmeat]

Now I need some DBT to determine if the end results after audessey are truly the same between marantz and onkyo or not. Who in the Calgary Area has an Onkyo?

If the:

1. processing power is sufficient (which IS an issue with certain processors, just ask M Code).

2. xover points are identical.

3. target curve is identical.

4. listening mode is identical.

5. the properly "matching" mic is used (well, the mics have improved over time too, no longer is the puck style mic being used).

The only differences you would hear would be due to the preamp and amp. ALL codes (for any given tech) given to EVERY company by Audyssey are identical, and that comes from the horse's mouth.