Bookshelf Speaker Faceoff 2007

[corey]

Here's what Gene said: "Its .... imperative to bass manage these speakers and mate them with a good subwoofer or two,"

I agree. I can see why you didn't want to introduce the extra variable of a sub in the review, but don't understand why you didn't set them all up as small, crossed at 80hz.

Playing these speakers "large", especially on the opening part of "Chant", is like testing to see how long an engine can run without oil. It's interesting, but most of us put oil our cars, and use subwoofers with our bookshelves.

 

[Pianoman84d]

Thanks for the great read!! Really interesting stuff. Just curious and perhaps I missed it, but how come no toe in was used for any of the tests?

 

[Seth=L]

Seems as though the Onix X-LS are similar to the chesty babe with not much going on upstairs. Fun to look at, and everyone just loves that big chest, I mean bass, but later you find that they are just implants, or they bottom out and that there isn't much personality, or good high end.

 

[silversurfer]

Very interesting read, especially the range of opinions by the participants. Just goes to show that relying on your own ears is the best policy.

Finding a reviewer that has the same tastes as yours wouldn't hurt either.

 

[yshostak]

I'm wondering how the Sierra-1's or MC-6c's would compare to RBH's 61-SE/R speakers.
thank you.

 

[stratman]

Very interesting read, especially the range of opinions by the participants. Just goes to show that relying on your own ears is the best policy.

Finding a reviewer that has the same tastes as yours wouldn't hurt either.

How true! Stereorvile's tests somehow garnish rave reviews/comments from the parties involved, you'll never see two participants take totally different sides and rarely do the shortcomings of a product are blatantly discussed (in order not to offend that manufacturer, who happens to adverstise with them.)

 

[gene]

I'm wondering how the Sierra-1's or MC-6c's would compare to RBH's 61-SE/R speakers.
thank you.

Having directly compared the 61-LSE (similar to SE/R but with standard crossover components) against the MC-6C's, I'd say the 61's are clearly superior to the MC-6C's in virtually every category. They have a much more open top end, better imaging and an overall more refined sound.

That being said, the MC-6C's were voiced to sound similar to the Status Acoustics Decimos (same speaker as 61-LSE but with a ceramic cabinet). With the 61's you are simply getting a more refined speaker at a premium cost.

 

[stratman]

I'd like to see how Totems would fare against some of these.

 

[mule.variant]

I'd like to see how Totems would fare against some of these.

Me too! I listened to a pair of Model 1s a couple of weeks ago and I'm close to pulling the trigger on them. But still compelled to shop around some more....

P.S. - First post here...hello everyone....

 

[hopjohn]

EDIT: Tried Posting this yesterday and it ended up in an entirely different thread, weird.

In my opinion this is, to date, the penultimate review written by Audioholics staffers. To me it reaffirmed what I've always felt to be true: Their is no best, only different. It also confirms that at $1800/pr for speakers you still haven't reached a minuscule difference in quality over less expensive models, ie a diminishing return.

Before anyone decides to start saving for the Dali's, understand they were $1000 dollars more than the next most expensive speakers. For that you could have gotten two pairs of any of the others, and six pair of the least expensive. Also consider there are plenty of other offerings at this same price point, so don't rush to judgment based on this review alone.

 

[tnilsson]

Why bother?

I am torn. I am impressed with the work that went into the faceoff. But I am disgusted with the failure to make the faceoff a blind one and the failure to also listen to the speakers with a sub.

The faceoff would have had a lot more reliability, and objectivity, if it had been blind. As it is, the reviewers based their conclusions on factors such as the looks of the speakers, on the prices of the speakers, and on their prior experiences with the speakers. None of that leads to an objective review and it is a shame given that making the faceoff blind would not have taken much more work at all.

The conclusions would also have been more useful if the bookshelf speakers had been tested with a sub as well as without one. While using a sub would make it hard to tell how the speakers compared on their own, or whether they really needed a sub, not using a sub means that the reviewers were left to speculate that their conclusions may have been very different if the speakers were mated with a sub (as they probably would have been in the real world).

Please, if you do this again, take a little more time and effort and go all the way, rather than just half-way, so that the faceoff is actually useful.

 

[hopjohn]

I would prefer to know which set of speakers handles the highs and midranges above 80hz the best and gives the best sound stage.

Maybe you should reread the review, I'm sure I remember this being discussed repeatedly, for each speaker, and with qualifications if you were using a sub.

 

[hopjohn]

Please, if you do this again, take a little more time and effort and go all the way, rather than just half-way, so that the faceoff is actually useful.

I feel its actually more useful to allow the speakers to stand on their own for a number of reasons. Also how can you remain objective if you supplement a bookshelf with a sub? Then you won't know precisely where the bass is coming from. Having them stand alone helps you better discern design compromises and limitations and there's no chance of mudding up the midrange. If the review doesn't apply enough usefulness with the comments on what limitations are present then maybe you're just expecting too much from a review. I don't think it's reasonable to expect every scenario to best meet your interest. Take what you can from it and move forward.

 

[Lex]

I appreciate the work done in setting up this review, guys, and the results are interesting.

Now, to the forum monkeys:

Gentlemen, there is little meaning in agonizing over their choice of methodology. Take their qualitative observations into account and realize that the frequency response graphs are pointless to analyze. All the speakers in question are rated to +/-3dB or better across their playback range on-axis in an anechoic environment. It therefore follows that room effects and measuring equipment created the variation.

What I'd like to see is a completely subjective "relevant to me" type of review sometime in the future. In my case that would mean:

-a 2.1 channel setup, with a reference quality sub.
-a proper highend software or hardware equalizer. A software eq would probably work the best, since you could control the audio stream in the digital world & avoid analog signal manipulation
-get a proper, calibrated microphone with a known spectrum response, hooked up to a balanced soundcard with known response & distortion values.
-Establish 3 volume levels to test at: "sitting alone sipping scotch in the afternoon", "watching a movie", and "party time".
-Create fine-tuned EQ profiles for each pair of speaker at each volume. (ie, account for dips & bulges & level them out as much as humanly possible!)

THEN after the speakers have been fully tuned to precision:

-get a handful of volunteers who don't have audiophile bias
-get their hearing tested. That's right, get their hearing tested. The human ear's frequency response can be remarkably bad.

-run 3 sets of listening sessions for each reviewer:
-without equalization
-with speaker/room correction equalization
-with speaker/room/human correction

Do NOT use music, or atleast any music the reviewers have ever heard. That way, there will be no bias in their brains as to what that music is supposed to sound like (coloration memory).

Subjectives to test:
-microdynamic detail at bass, low-mid, mid-high-mid, high frequencies
-listener preference

Objectives to test:
-use a microphone (at room/speaker equalization settings) and see how comparable the output is to the input wave form. Use an autocorrelating function and see how close you can get. In theory the closer signal wins.

...If you want to do it scientifically

 

[irvin]

Wow the reviewers prefered the Polk monitor 30 over the HSU bookselves.

 

[silversurfer]

Wow the reviewers prefered the Polk monitor 30 over the HSU bookselves.

And the AV123 X-LS's.

 

[gene]

All the speakers in question are rated to +/-3dB or better across their playback range on-axis in an anechoic environment. It therefore follows that room effects and measuring equipment created the variation.

Actually above 300Hz (the transition region in small rooms), these measurements are fairly accurate since they were taken at 1 meter on axis.

 

[mziegler]

Listening gets so weird sometimes.

I guess I'll have to listen to the Dali's some time. I have heard the Dali Ikon 1 and Helicon 300 in comparative situations, and I didn't care for either.

 

[Reorx]

Great review.
I know that when I buy a set of bookshelf speakers, I won't have a sub for a little while. Plus floor space is limited per WAF.

I would of liked to have seen a few more speakers compared in the $800 range.

I do have a question though...but I'll post it in a separate thread.

Thanks again for taking the time to listen and write the review.

 

[moe32274]

Atlantic Technology 1200

Any idea where the Atlantic Technology "1200" speakers would fall in this Faceoff? I'm a fan of AT - just wondering what the larger world thinks of them.

Regards,

Moe.