Loudspeaker Upgrade: Decisions, Decisions, Decisions

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Something tells me he is mainly interested in the B&W & Focal. And if the B&W is overpriced, he will buy the Focal.

Paradigm and PSB just aren't "high-end" enough for him.

 

[KEW]

Have you been able to tell an unequivocal improvement with any of these more expensive speakers over your Studio 100 v.5?

Treble so much better?

Midrange so much better?

Bass so much better?

Anything so much better?

Just for the record, the difference in the treble between the Studio and Focal Be tweeter (or the Paradigm Signature tweeter) is quite apparent were you ever to A-B them.
My Focals give better detail in the mids than the Paradigm Signature Series.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Just for the record, the difference in the treble between the Studio and Focal Be tweeter (or the Paradigm Signature tweeter) is quite apparent were you ever to A-B them.
My Focals give better detail in the mids than the Paradigm Signature Series.

Do you think everyone will hear the same "day-and-night" significant IMPROVEMENT if given a blinded side-by-side level-matched test with instant switching?

Or maybe some will and some won't?

 

[KEW]

I wouldn't call it day and night, but I think unless someone has hearing loss (whether due to age or overexposure) they will hear a definite, unquestionable difference in a blinded, side-by-side, level-matched test which has the ability to switch without delay (minimizing dependence on audio memory).

Edit: I am 56, and the difference is obvious to me. Recently, TheWarrior heard the Focals against RBH 61lse (Scan Speak 9500 soft dome) and SVS Ultras (custom and well executed Aluminum, but not top of the line KEF, which I haven't heard) and he can confirm that the improvement in treble is definite.

For me, the most revealing content for treble (which targets the treble weaknesses of most speakers) is Tubular Concert Chimes. They have a resonant fullness with harmonics extending well into the upper frequencies that allow you to evaluate balance, as well as clarity and presence across the upper spectrum.

Metal strings on an acoustic guitar are good for determining the presence of upper frequencies which is clear with the RBH/Scan Speak vs Focal, but the Studio or SVS Ultra will sound fine because they have those upper frequencies.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I wouldn't call it day and night, but I think unless someone has hearing loss (whether due to age or overexposure) they will hear a definite, unquestionable difference in a blinded, side-by-side, level-matched test which has the ability to switch without delay (minimizing dependence on audio memory).

"Different" is one thing. Whether it is "significant" enough to warrant the higher price is another thing. And whether the difference translates into significant SUBJECTIVE IMPROVEMENT to warrant the higher price is something else.

People who have lived for months and years with 10 or more sets of speaker concurrently may feel that good similarly spec speakers sound more alike than they sound differently. Thus the term "diminishing returns" come to mind.

Different is one thing. Actual significant improvement is another. Only the OP can determine this.

When I was on my 12 pairs of speaker buying spree, I didn't really care if they were "significant" or "worth" the money. I only care now. But I never cared in the past.

So perhaps the OP (and others) may not care either.

Anyway, I voted for the B&W Diamond. If I don't care about "worth" or "significance", I'm going to spend my money on DIAMOND. Beryllium isn't all that exotic to me.

BTW, I gave my uncle a few single-blinded tests on the B&W 802 Diamond vs Revel Salon 2 when I owned them. He preferred the Diamond over the Beryllium.

Very subjective stuff.

As for me, Silk or Aluminum are great enough. It's the technology and design that is salient to me, not the actual material or content (actual percentage or purity of Beryllium or synthetic Diamond) of the tweeter or midrange.

 

[KEW]

"Different" is one thing. Whether it is "significant" enough to warrant the higher price is another thing. And whether the difference translates into significant SUBJECTIVE IMPROVEMENT to warrant the higher price is something else.

People who have lived for months and years with 10 or more sets of speaker concurrently may feel that good similarly spec speakers sound more alike than they sound differently. Thus the term "diminishing returns" come to mind.

Different is one thing. Actual significant improvement is another. Only the OP can determine this.

I absolutely agree with you. Values are personal.
I believe there is an undeniable improvement, whether it is significant in the context of $100's to $1,000's is in the buyers purview, not ours.
I have often wondered what are the minimum costing speakers that I would be totally happy with. Often, I know that the only reason I detect the shortcoming of a speaker is because I A-B'ed it against a better speaker. Had I kept the better speaker in the other room I would be none the wiser.

PS, I added an edit to my previous post. I don't think it effects our conversation, but wanted to call your attention to it.

 

[Irvrobinson]

My experience is completely different with speakers. In 2010, I had a lot of problems finding speakers that compelled me to buy them. As I've posted many times before, the Linkwitz Orion didn't, even though I really wanted it to compel me. (I liked the engineering.) The B&W 800D1 didn't. The SoundLab A-1PX absolutely *did*, but it was too huge and finicky. The newer ones from Legacy Audio didn't do it for me on solo piano, like the Orion. The Magicos were too expensive to consider. The Wilsons too expensive and too colored. It wasn't until I heard the Salon2 that a speaker screamed "Buy Me!". In ADTG's old posts you can see that Salon2s had the same impact on him. It has always amazed me though how many people who hear my system don't prefer the Salon2s, which I believe is due to a more "boring" presentation on less than perfectly recorded material, especially popular music. It makes me wonder... will Revel make the next generation more colored to attract more buyers? The competition in the >$5K price range is a lot more intense now than it was in 2010, when I bought.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It makes me wonder... will Revel make the next generation more colored to attract more buyers?

I doubt it. It would go against everything Harman stands for.

I think most speaker companies favor accuracy these days anyway.

Even B&W & GoldenEar/Def Tech may be going towards more accuracy.

The 802 Diamond's FR was +/- 2.8dB (Home Theater Magazine/S&V), which is not very "colored".

The Def Tech BP7000SC I used to own was +/-2.8dB as well. The new GoldenEar Triton One was like +/-1.9dB or better (S&V).

KEF, RBH, PSB, Paradigm, Revel, Linkwitz, Pioneer/TAD, Focal, NHT, Ascend, Salk/Phil, and many more companies favor accuracy FR as well (+/- 3dB or better).

The "inaccurate" or "colored" companies are Bose, Wilson, Zu, and a few more. But I think most companies favor accurate speakers these days.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I absolutely agree with you. Values are personal.
I believe there is an undeniable improvement, whether it is significant in the context of $100's to $1,000's is in the buyers purview, not ours.
I have often wondered what are the minimum costing speakers that I would be totally happy with. Often, I know that the only reason I detect the shortcoming of a speaker is because I A-B'ed it against a better speaker. Had I kept the better speaker in the other room I would be none the wiser.

PS, I added an edit to my previous post. I don't think it effects our conversation, but wanted to call your attention to it.

I consider my 44YO hearing to be very sharp. I've always protected my hearing.

My finding is that after owning expensive speakers like Revel Ultima, KEF Reference, B&W Diamond, and Linkwitz Orion, I don't think very expensive speakers are worth it.

 

[KEW]

Anyway, I voted for the B&W Diamond. If I don't care about "worth" or "significance", I'm going to spend my money on DIAMOND. Beryllium isn't all that exotic to me.

BTW, I gave my uncle a few single-blinded tests on the B&W 802 Diamond vs Revel Salon 2 when I owned them. He preferred the Diamond over the Beryllium.

Very subjective stuff.

As for me, Silk or Aluminum are great enough. It's the technology and design that is salient to me, not the actual material or content (actual percentage or purity of Beryllium or synthetic Diamond) of the tweeter or midrange.

Pick a side!

You can't have it both ways! You say material doesn't matter, but then you make statements with material as the critical element (in color).
******************************************************

Did your uncle specifically target the treble?

Either way, I do not believe the difference between very well executed metal domes to be that great. I used to own Studio v5, and know that there is distortion (the sound of bacon frying) in the sound of cymbals. Most people would be happy with that on the basis that a cymbal does, in many ways, sound like bacon frying. But if you can switch to a cleaner speaker in the middle of the cymbal crash, there will be no doubt which is better. I imagine (and hope) that the well regarded KEF Al tweeter does not have this distortion or properly limits it.

In the case of soft dome vs hard dome, I'll stick with material as mattering because I have heard tons of soft domes and they are consistently wanting in their presentation of high frequency content. I can pick this out every time on a well recorded trumpet performance.

On the other hand, I choose a soft dome for my bedroom system because the absence of upper frequency stuff is more relaxing. There is fatigue from a harsh speaker (like older horns and many modern poor Al implementations), but there is also fatigue from an accurate speaker (which you would also experience were you to listen to a symphonic performance with reasonable brass content all day). So I should say that my use of the term "improvement" is based on accuracy.

I've never heard Diamond, it would be great if it can surpass the Be. Physics argues for the Be, but until I hear, I would never argue the Diamond was not as good.

 

[KEW]

I consider my 44YO hearing to be very sharp. I've always protected my hearing.

My finding is that after owning expensive speakers like Revel Ultima, KEF Reference, B&W Diamond, and Linkwitz Orion, I don't think very expensive speakers are worth it.

That is your choice.

I don't believe expensive cars are worth it. I appreciate the benefits of more expensive cars, but no matter what I get, I will be getting rid of it in 7-10 years.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Pick a side!

You can't have it both ways! You say material doesn't matter, but then you make statements with material as the critical element (in color).

I say that material/content itself doesn't matter as much as the technology and design.

But Diamond costs 4 times more than Beryllium, which makes Diamond more exotic to me in terms of "style" or "fashion", not in terms of sound quality.

 

[Irvrobinson]

KEF, RBH, PSB, Paradigm, Revel, Linkwitz, Pioneer/TAD, Focal, NHT, Ascend, Salk/Phil, and many more companies favor accuracy FR as well (+/- 3dB or better).

Oh yeah, I forgot about the KEF 207/2. They were also pretty compelling. If I hadn't heard the Salon2 a week or so later I probably would have gone for the KEFs. Massively ugly though, which is why I had to think about them for a while, and cymbal reproduction wasn't ultimately quite as good as the Salon2. More upper bass too, that did make solo piano sound bigger than live, but otherwise an awesome speaker. If I hadn't heard the Salon2 I probably could have been perfectly happy with the 207/2.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

That is your choice.

I don't believe expensive cars are worth it. I appreciate the benefits of more expensive cars, but no matter what I get, I will be getting rid of it in 7-10 years.

Equilibrium or balance is the key to all things.

Cost and value, aesthetic and style, quality and performance, class and reputation are all important to me when it comes to cars, audio, houses, and all things.

 

[Irvrobinson]

The 802 Diamond's FR was +/- 2.8dB (Home Theater Magazine/S&V), which is not very "colored".

That's not what I hear or my friends hear. The 802D2 has more prominent upper mids and and bass overall than the Salon2, and when you measure in-room you can see it on OmniMic. And the two owners of 802D2s I know definitely prefer them. You can measure "flat" within +/- 3db and still experience very different sound balances in-room, because that isn't flat, that's a 6db total variance.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I think most of us here believe that accurate speakers are the most preferred because people can always use EQ to color the heck out of the sound if desired.

But if the speaker were colored by default, no EQ in the world can make it accurate.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

That's not what I hear or my friends hear. The 802D2 has more prominent upper mids and and bass overall than the Salon2, and when you measure in-room you can see it on OmniMic. And the two owners of 802D2s I know definitely prefer them. You can measure "flat" within +/- 3db and still experience very different sound balances in-room, because that isn't flat, that's a 6db total variance.

The same magazine (S&V) measured the Salon2 with a total variance of 3.24dB (+1dB/-2.25dB), so it is "flatter" than the 5.6dB variance of the 802 Diamond, although there are speakers with MUCH BETTER NUMBERS (NHT Absolute zero is -0.9dB/+0.8dB, 1.7dB total variance).

The same magazine measured the Klipsch KL-650 as +1.0dB/-0.8dB (total variance of 1.8dB). So does that mean the Klipsch is a lot more accurate and less colored than the Salon2 and most speakers?

I think that is just chasing numbers.

TLS Guy thought his friend's B&W 800D sounded very neutral, even though the 800D is actually even less accurate in FR than the 802 Diamond. He also thought Paradigm speakers sounded colored even though Paradigm speakers measure very flat.

I think that's why people say +/-3dB is "flat" or maybe "flat enough".

 

[herbu]

I don't believe expensive cars are worth it.

If $50k is a significant amount to someone, a Honda may be a better choice than an Audi. If $20 is significant, a Choice steak may be a better choice than a Prime steak. If $2k is significant, Aperions may be a better choice than Phil3s.

It's all relative.

 

[Irvrobinson]

My finding is that after owning expensive speakers like Revel Ultima, KEF Reference, B&W Diamond, and Linkwitz Orion, I don't think very expensive speakers are worth it.

You certainly have been all over the map with your opinions over the years. I've made the mistake before of trying to interpret any particular post of yours and using it as some sort of guidance. The one thing you've been consistent about lately is that you like to have adjustable bass. You think if it sounds good it is good. You think measurements are BS and you think relative accuracy is BS. Got it.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I don't believe expensive cars are worth it. I appreciate the benefits of more expensive cars, but no matter what I get, I will be getting rid of it in 7-10 years.

I'm not sure what you mean by "worth it". The discernible differences between a $25K car and a $75K car are huge and unsubtle, much more so than the differences between a $5K speaker and a $50K speaker. Do you want to spend your wealth that way? Well, that's a different question altogether.