Notes from auditioning speakers

[john72953]

I think the Rainmakers will need more room than what a bookshelf will offer. The Mites on the other hand are more likely to perform better on a shelf as they are a true mini-monitor.

Like another poster has said, don't be afraid to get the salesman to set them up in the way you expect to hear them.

The "Rainmaker" is one of those speakers that falls in between a floorstander, a bookshelf or mini-monitor in terms of their sound signature. I would even be prepared to say they are a floorstander in a bookshelf suit! One cannot and should not compare the Mites vs Rainmakers as they are miles apart in their ability to reproduce sound. I have Mites running as my surrounds and a Mite-T center channel and they are wonderfully coherant and able to support my front Sttaf's. However, the Rainmaker is much better and would offer one the possibility of being run on the front soundstage with clarity, dignity, proficiency and confidence for quite some time. In fact, a 5.1 Rainmaker setup (sub of your choice) will knock the socks off many a system. They are that good.

I will agree that the Rainmaker needs a seperate stand and would be wasted being put upon a shelf whereby their ability to shine is diminished. If that were the case, then the Mites are a wonderful alternative.

John

 

[fredk]

One cannot and should not compare the Mites vs Rainmakers as they are miles apart

I agree with that. I compared the two and the Rainmaker was a much better speaker. Its also in a higher price category. I would love to have compared the rainmaker to the Studio 40 (another speaker I really liked), but the dealer was having none of that: no other speakers allowed in the Totem listening room...

 

[3db]

jostenmeat - lol ! No worries!

I am aware that PSB has based their designs on NRC research. My statements might not have been clear enough, but I did mention that the PSB design with rolled-off highs was a purposeful choice and not something that they did by accident.

Quite a few different speaker companies took their design cues from the NRC research, but they did not all decide upon the exact same design. The research concluded that certain measurable aspects of a speakers output correlated to listener preferences, but from there, different companies drew their own conclusions about which particular aspects were most important to the design.

Paradigm focused largely on the off-axis response. PSB seemingly noted that slightly rolled-off highs correlated to many positive reactions and ran with that particular aspect. Axiom focused on the flat on-axis anechoic response. And JBL focused on the accumulated response of measurements taken all around the speaker.

So even though the NRC research turned up actual measurable differences that correlated to positive listener responses, not all companies took the exact same design cues from that research.

And I didn't mean at all to say that PSB lovers are also Bose lovers All I meant is that people who were unfortunate enough to waste their money on Bose and eventually realized that things could sound SO much better often seem to really like the PSB sound. It's highly likely that if they were using Bose cubes, the room is either medium or small in size. As such, the rolled-off highs of the PSB speakers would be a plus because, as I said, even perfectly flat frequency response might sound "bright" in a smaller, reflective room.

I'm personally not a fan of a "warm" sound and I happen to really like as much detail as possible without distortion, so for me, the PSB sound isn't my top choice. But I still recommend PSB speakers to some people because if their room is a certain type and they also prefer a certain type of sound, then PSB might be the best fit and THAT is what it's all about!

I've heard the entire Axiom line when they first came out and I found them to be on the bright side of neutral where as PSB Image series ran on the warm side of neutral. When comparing these two speakers, the detail on both Axiom and PSB was there. The Axioms through the detail in your face where as the PSBs invited you to listen and if you didn't listen, you would have missed the details..sort of like a soft whisper.. I prefer the latter over the former as it makes placement easier. It all boils down to listener preference. PSB just happened to sound what I was looking for.

 

[cornelius]

That was a great summary of your audition! It was interesting to hear that the Vandersteens were brighter than the other speakers, because I've heard many of their floorstanders, and they're always very, very smooth. I haven't heard the monitors, but what makes Vandersteens distinctive is their time coherent design. That may have something to do with what sets them apart from the other speakers that you auditioned. And, also why they sounded similar to the Theils...

I do know with the Vandy floorstanders, the sweet spot is somewhat narrow (but when you're in it - they sound excellent). If you re-listen to the monitors, try and move around a bit to see how they sound.

As mentioned above, the tipped up high frequencies to grab the listener in a store, is tactic to wow the senses with detail, but in the long run leaves the owner with a fatiguing, unrealistic sound. This is a problem that I have with so many speakers these days (it's not just high end models, either).

 

[Robof83]

I've heard the entire Axiom line when they first came out and I found them to be on the bright side of neutral where as PSB Image series ran on the warm side of neutral. When comparing these two speakers, the detail on both Axiom and PSB was there. The Axioms through the detail in your face where as the PSBs invited you to listen and if you didn't listen, you would have missed the details..sort of like a soft whisper.. I prefer the latter over the former as it makes placement easier. It all boils down to listener preference. PSB just happened to sound what I was looking for.

I have seen graphs of the PSB speakers that correlate with what you are saying. The highs of the PSB were a few dB down from the mids/lows which tends to lead to a perceived "warmer" sound as opposed to a "forward" sound.

 

[jostenmeat]

I've heard the entire Axiom line when they first came out and I found them to be on the bright side of neutral where as PSB Image series ran on the warm side of neutral. When comparing these two speakers, the detail on both Axiom and PSB was there. The Axioms through the detail in your face where as the PSBs invited you to listen and if you didn't listen, you would have missed the details..sort of like a soft whisper.. I prefer the latter over the former as it makes placement easier. It all boils down to listener preference. PSB just happened to sound what I was looking for.

I have seen graphs of the PSB speakers that correlate with what you are saying. The highs of the PSB were a few dB down from the mids/lows which tends to lead to a perceived "warmer" sound as opposed to a "forward" sound.

While perhaps not the most popular journal around these parts, Stereophile has some measurements of some speakers I used to own, the B25s. It says a couple of interesting things:

"Higher in frequency, the Image B25 is superbly flat on the tweeter axis (fig.3), the trace broken only by some slight wrinkles in the crossover region and a slight excess of energy at around 10kHz. Considering the B25's low price, this reveals some excellent speaker engineering on the part of PSB's design team. Of course, whether a speaker with a flat on-axis response actually sounds flat in a room will depend on its dispersion, but the Image B25 excels in this area also. The contour lines in its lateral dispersion plot (fig.4) are smooth and even, with just the slightest off-axis flare in the bottom of the tweeter's passband. The tweeter does get a bit directional above 10kHz, but in-room this will tend to balance the slight energy excess at 10kHz mentioned above."

However, it was this part that I found unique, as I don't often read about this thing with speakers. Of course, I'm not very educated on speaker design, so that's not saying much. but check this out:

"In the vertical plane (fig.5), a big suckout develops in the crossover region more than 5 degrees above the tweeter axis, suggesting that high stands will work better than lower ones. However, given the slight flare in the tweeter's off-axis output between 3kHz and 7kHz, it's possible that the listener could ameliorate the effect of this on the perceived balance in very live rooms by sitting just above the tweeter axis."

http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/1204psb/index4.html


I wonder if we need to note the height of tweeters relative to listener more often.

 

[3db]

While perhaps not the most popular journal around these parts, Stereophile has some measurements of some speakers I used to own, the B25s. It says a couple of interesting things:

"Higher in frequency, the Image B25 is superbly flat on the tweeter axis (fig.3), the trace broken only by some slight wrinkles in the crossover region and a slight excess of energy at around 10kHz. Considering the B25's low price, this reveals some excellent speaker engineering on the part of PSB's design team. Of course, whether a speaker with a flat on-axis response actually sounds flat in a room will depend on its dispersion, but the Image B25 excels in this area also. The contour lines in its lateral dispersion plot (fig.4) are smooth and even, with just the slightest off-axis flare in the bottom of the tweeter's passband. The tweeter does get a bit directional above 10kHz, but in-room this will tend to balance the slight energy excess at 10kHz mentioned above."

However, it was this part that I found unique, as I don't often read about this thing with speakers. Of course, I'm not very educated on speaker design, so that's not saying much. but check this out:

"In the vertical plane (fig.5), a big suckout develops in the crossover region more than 5 degrees above the tweeter axis, suggesting that high stands will work better than lower ones. However, given the slight flare in the tweeter's off-axis output between 3kHz and 7kHz, it's possible that the listener could ameliorate the effect of this on the perceived balance in very live rooms by sitting just above the tweeter axis."

http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/1204psb/index4.html


I wonder if we need to note the height of tweeters relative to listener more often.

*nods* I think so. Positioning is important and verticle postioning ....ie tweeter height with respect to the listener plays a role as well. The T45s aren't exactly tall for a tower so what I did was to angle them back slightly using the supplied speaker spikes and I noticed, it makes them sound less warmer than just having them point straight ahead.

 

[Nuance AH]

KEW,

Thanks for sharing your experiences. I've always enjoyed auditioning speakers, and enjoy reading about other people's journeys just as much.

I would be shocked if the Vandersteen's had tipped up treble. They are not known for that at all, and on most of their floor standers they have adjustment pots on the speakers themselves to reduce or increase the tweeter level (to compensate for varying rooms).

So did I miss the explanation? I assume floor standers are out? I think I read the speakers will go on the wall or in a shelf (do NOT do the latter)?

 

[KEW]

As mentioned above, the tipped up high frequencies to grab the listener in a store, is tactic to wow the senses with detail, but in the long run leaves the owner with a fatiguing, unrealistic sound. This is a problem that I have with so many speakers these days (it's not just high end models, either).

I'm not at all sure the Vandersteens had tipped up highs, all I can say is in comparison with the PSB's the Vandersteens had stronger highs. Whether the PSB's dropped off at the upper end or the Vandersteens have a hump on the upper end of the FR, I don't know.
Cheers,
Kurt

 

[KEW]

Hi KEW,

When I read this post, I was a bit shocked. Because you are saying that you want to install your speakers on a shelf! Or wall mounted! Ouch! Not the best way for serious audio listening. I think that it would be a good idea that your wife and yourself take the time to openly discuss the benefit of great sound from unobtrusive speakers, mounted on appropriate speaker's stands.

Also, don't forget that because of the better quality of drivers from the Reference Studio line of speakers, and also the Paradigm recommendation that you break them in for about 100 hours, the Studio 20 is a much better speaker than the Mini Monitor, even if the Mini is a great speaker in his own right.

*** Stands are highly recommended for speakers like the Studio 20s.

If you really want to put your speakers on shelves, just get the Mini Monitors.

BUT, please, do take the time to reconsider my advice, because great sound is after all our business.

Regards,

Bob

Bob,
I truly love and admire your passion! I have my man-cave where I can set up my listening room just as I want it; however, It is downstairs (my domain by happenstance) and two factors come into play:
1) part of my intent is to introduce high quality sound to my daughter as she is starting to get serious about listening to music.
2) one of my pet peeves is families where everyone goes into hibernation in their own isolated area. I don't want my listening to music to be synonymous with withdrawing from my family. In a couple of years my daughter may be out and about with her own social life, and this will no longer be so relevant.
Thus, I plan to set up good sound in the family room. It might work to use stands and just pull them out from the wall when I want to do serious listening, but with the dog, kid, and layout of our room, keeping stands out in the room just isn't practical.
However, I would consider this a temporary situation, so I still plan to get high quality speakers. Once I finalize the speakers, then I will figure the best compromise of position and what treatments are needed. I'm keeping it simple.
My current agenda is as follows (sequence subject to change):
1) Complete auditioning Paradigm mini vs studio at store 1 (yesterday).
2) Audition Vandersteen vs Totem Rainmaker at store 2 (still out of stock).
3) Audition champion of the above against my vintage speakers (AR-3a).
4) As a new twist to things, I ran across a deal I couldn't refuse on a pair of RBH 61LSE (essentially a 61-SE/R). So I hope these will make good reference speakers to use for comparisons between stores and a viable candidate for my final speakers. If not, I expect to breakeven on selling them. Unfortunately, I don't expect to have the RBH's in hand until ~7/12/09.

Cheers,
Kurt

 

[PENG]

3) Audition champion of the above against my vintage speakers (AR-3a).

Please let me know if the 3a can still hold its own, at such old age!

 

[KEW]

Paradigm vs Paradigm

As of yesterday, the Totems still have not arrived at Store 2, but I did get the chance to revisit the Paradigm dealership to listen to the Mini vs. the Studio 20.

Based on my first experience with these two speakers, I brought some acoustic guitar and some music which had electric bass with the type of "growl" I had noticed more on the Mini than the Studio.
The dealer couldn't have been more accommodating; he set me up with their gee-whiz Viewsonic tablet-controller and told me where I could find him when I was finished. I had the listening room to myself.

It is interesting how expectations influence our perceptions. On my first visit I expected the Studio to be better and was immediately drawn to the one aspect which the Mini could show up the Studio. This time, my expectation was that they were roughly equals, and it quickly became clear that the Studio20 was the better speaker. The difference I had focused on before was not near as substantial as I remembered. The Studio20 was by no means devoid of the percussive attacks from the guitar strings and it had plenty of "growl" from the electric bass. However, these sounds were indeed stronger on the Mini.
If I had to interpret the Mini's superiority (this one aspect) into performance measures (ie SWAG), I would attribute it to a combination of an overall higher efficiency, a FR with a little more emphasis in this mid range, and a little quicker mid-bass speaker. I believe with an equalizer to eliminate the first two items, the third would be truly hard to detect.
But here is what I heard listening to (almost) solo acoustic guitar (Eric Clapton - Unplugged), the Studio sounded more percussive than the Mini. The trick is that the Studio tweeter covered these transients so nicely in the overtones, that their slight reduction at the fundamental was not apparent. In the original music where I noticed this difference, the guitar was accompanying vocal and a full complement of other voices so these overtones were masked.
However, as I listened to the same passage on one speaker then the other, the Studio clearly outshined the Mini. The triangle has a little extra "shimmer" to it. While the Mini had greater presence (especially since the lead voices are guitar and Clapton which both fall in the Mini's dominant zone), the studio is much more open, providing more details from the live recording. The Studio is a speaker where you can pick out what each instrument is doing. My room at home is more acoustically live than the store's and I believe this openness would become especially important there.
The Studio is clearly superior. However, the electric bass string's "growl" (edginess?) on the Mini is simply better than that of the Studio (to my ear). The Studio goes amazingly low, but the Mini is quicker. It seems like I read somewhere that woofer designs have to trade between speed and extension. Is this correct?

Conclusions:
1) The Studio is definitely better. However if there is a speaker that offers the speed of the Mini's mid-bass with the clarity of the Studio20, that is the one I want!
2) If I was an unscrupulous salesman and could choose the listening material, I could convince a casual customer (you wouldn't be here if you were casual customers) that the Mini's were worth the same price as the Studios.
3) Maybe the most important thing is that auditioning speakers is forcing me to develop a more mature system for categorizing and comparing speakers. Presenting my experience here helps me spend time reflecting on and organizing these experiences. That's a win-win!
Cheers,
Kurt

 

[Lordoftherings]

Bob,
I truly love and admire your passion! I have my man-cave where I can set up my listening room just as I want it; however, It is downstairs (my domain by happenstance) and two factors come into play:
1) part of my intent is to introduce high quality sound to my daughter as she is starting to get serious about listening to music.
2) one of my pet peeves is families where everyone goes into hibernation in their own isolated area. I don't want my listening to music to be synonymous with withdrawing from my family. In a couple of years my daughter may be out and about with her own social life, and this will no longer be so relevant.
Thus, I plan to set up good sound in the family room. It might work to use stands and just pull them out from the wall when I want to do serious listening, but with the dog, kid, and layout of our room, keeping stands out in the room just isn't practical.
However, I would consider this a temporary situation, so I still plan to get high quality speakers. Once I finalize the speakers, then I will figure the best compromise of position and what treatments are needed. I'm keeping it simple.
My current agenda is as follows (sequence subject to change):
1) Complete auditioning Paradigm mini vs studio at store 1 (yesterday).
2) Audition Vandersteen vs Totem Rainmaker at store 2 (still out of stock).
3) Audition champion of the above against my vintage speakers (AR-3a).
4) As a new twist to things, I ran across a deal I couldn't refuse on a pair of RBH 61LSE (essentially a 61-SE/R). So I hope these will make good reference speakers to use for comparisons between stores and a viable candidate for my final speakers. If not, I expect to breakeven on selling them. Unfortunately, I don't expect to have the RBH's in hand until ~7/12/09.

Cheers,
Kurt

OK Kurt, that's very fine by me. Now, you just opened another totally new dimension to the meaning of audiology in a family gathering experience.

May I suggest that you bring your daughter with you, when auditioning various speakers. You might be surprised at her ability to pinpoint the most detailed and pleasing speaker for her.

Cheers,
Bob

 

[Lordoftherings]

As of yesterday, the Totems still have not arrived at Store 2, but I did get the chance to revisit the Paradigm dealership to listen to the Mini vs. the Studio 20.

Based on my first experience with these two speakers, I brought some acoustic guitar and some music which had electric bass with the type of "growl" I had noticed more on the Mini than the Studio.
The dealer couldn't have been more accommodating; he set me up with their gee-whiz Viewsonic tablet-controller and told me where I could find him when I was finished. I had the listening room to myself.

It is interesting how expectations influence our perceptions. On my first visit I expected the Studio to be better and was immediately drawn to the one aspect which the Mini could show up the Studio. This time, my expectation was that they were roughly equals, and it quickly became clear that the Studio20 was the better speaker. The difference I had focused on before was not near as substantial as I remembered. The Studio20 was by no means devoid of the percussive attacks from the guitar strings and it had plenty of "growl" from the electric bass. However, these sounds were indeed stronger on the Mini.
If I had to interpret the Mini's superiority (this one aspect) into performance measures (ie SWAG), I would attribute it to a combination of an overall higher efficiency, a FR with a little more emphasis in this mid range, and a little quicker mid-bass speaker. I believe with an equalizer to eliminate the first two items, the third would be truly hard to detect.
But here is what I heard listening to (almost) solo acoustic guitar (Eric Clapton - Unplugged), the Studio sounded more percussive than the Mini. The trick is that the Studio tweeter covered these transients so nicely in the overtones, that their slight reduction at the fundamental was not apparent. In the original music where I noticed this difference, the guitar was accompanying vocal and a full complement of other voices so these overtones were masked.
However, as I listened to the same passage on one speaker then the other, the Studio clearly outshined the Mini. The triangle has a little extra "shimmer" to it. While the Mini had greater presence (especially since the lead voices are guitar and Clapton which both fall in the Mini's dominant zone), the studio is much more open, providing more details from the live recording. The Studio is a speaker where you can pick out what each instrument is doing. My room at home is more acoustically live than the store's and I believe this openness would become especially important there.
The Studio is clearly superior. However, the electric bass string's "growl" (edginess?) on the Mini is simply better than that of the Studio (to my ear). The Studio goes amazingly low, but the Mini is quicker. It seems like I read somewhere that woofer designs have to trade between speed and extension. Is this correct?

Conclusions:
1) The Studio is definitely better. However if there is a speaker that offers the speed of the Mini's mid-bass with the clarity of the Studio20, that is the one I want!
2) If I was an unscrupulous salesman and could choose the listening material, I could convince a casual customer (you wouldn't be here if you were casual customers) that the Mini's were worth the same price as the Studios.
3) Maybe the most important thing is that auditioning speakers is forcing me to develop a more mature system for categorizing and comparing speakers. Presenting my experience here helps me spend time reflecting on and organizing these experiences. That's a win-win!
Cheers,
Kurt

Very nice post Kurt. Luv it.

LOL. Maybe you can cut both speakers in half, straight down the middle, horizontally, and glue the bottom part from the Minis to the top part of the Studio 20s. That way, you got your speaker pair the way you like it.

You did ask a question from your above post, quoted here, relating to the speed vs. extension of the woofer driver design.
Ouf! That is another reason that I don't come too often in the speaker's forums. Just too many variables, different listening opinions and more risk to get red chicklets too.
I can talk for a long time about that one, as many other ones too, but I'll give only my very brief understanding on it.
* Extension is created by several methods, like vented ports, speaker box cubic volume, driver voice coil, driver material used, x-over point, impedance of the woofer, electrical phase and others.
* Speed is a term to delineate the agility to stop on a dime, and restart on a good dose of clean power from the amp itself.
** You can have both. Together at the same time, youpie!
I don't believe that there is a trade-off there anymore. Was there ever one to begin with? Of course there was, on the dark ages. But we now live in the future. How cool is that.

Anyway, your analysis, so far between these two speakers is pretty dead on.
Remember though, the Studios need more break-in time than the Minis to really show it's gutz. But it seems that they were already cooked for your listening session.
Overtime, you'll probably get use to the quick bass from the Studios, it is a more resolving bass. You're just not use to it, simple as that. you're more use to the bass from the Minis, because it ressembles more the bass you're used to.
But the drivers, woofer and tweeter from the studios, are more accurate, faster, agile, resolute, opened, subtiler, truer, MORE THERE without showing it clearly.

I'm done. I told you that I would be very brief.

Oh, one last thing, don't try this at home without the supervision of your daughter in your company.
My way of saying, that it is just that, my own personal way of saying it.

Keep listening, and bring your daughter with you (she'll reveal few important facts to you),
Bob

 

[fredk]

with a little more emphasis in this mid range, and a little quicker mid-bass speaker

In other words, a coloured midrange. Its easy to make a speaker sound good in a quick comparison by overemphasizing a particular frequency range.

The impression of quicker mid-bass may also be because of this overemphasis.

Clapton unplugged is a great audition disk. The more I listen to it, the more impressed I am with how well recorded it is. I now find myself dissappointed with percussion on many discs I really like otherwise.

3) Maybe the most important thing is that auditioning speakers is forcing me to develop a more mature system for categorizing and comparing speakers. Presenting my experience here helps me spend time reflecting on and organizing these experiences.

Threads like this really help others as well. They were the best threads for me when I was shopping for my system. Keep on posting your thoughts and experiences!

 

[KEW]

I don't believe that there is a trade-off there anymore. Was there ever one to begin with? Of course there was, on the dark ages. But we now live in the future. How cool is that.

Anyway, your analysis, so far between these two speakers is pretty dead on.
Remember though, the Studios need more break-in time than the Minis to really show it's gutz. But it seems that they were already cooked for your listening session.
Overtime, you'll probably get use to the quick bass from the Studios, it is a more resolving bass. You're just not use to it, simple as that. you're more use to the bass from the Minis, because it ressembles more the bass you're used to.

Cool! I like living in the future.
You may well be right about the sound I am used to. Basically, Acoustic Suspension was "the way" when I was last picking out speakers. That is definitely what I've been happily living with for the past 3 decades.
It'll be interesting to see what the SB12-Plus sounds like in this regard since it is a sealed subwoofer.

My daughter will be coming with me once I'm down to two speakers. At 11 years old, she doesn't have the patience or interest to spend hours in a showroom. However, once I get it down to the finale, I'll bring her and get her opinions.
Cheers,
Kurt

 

[KEW]

Please let me know if the 3a can still hold its own, at such old age!

Not to worry!
I do have to admit that after so many years, I love these speakers and you can expect a biased report (but I'll do my best).
If I can wax poetic, these speakers have been a strong and steady companion through the chaos of life!

 

[Swerd]

In case you're interested, here are some frequency response curves for AR3as.

http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=AR3a.html

I always find it interesting to see FR curves for what has been widely said to sound good. Of course, it isn't fair to compare these to today's speakers. It would be better to compare them to other speakers available in the 1960s.

 

[fredk]

Wow! that looks rough compared to todays speakers. The big upside is that the upgrade will seem that much more worth the money and effort.

 

[KEW]

In case you're interested, here are some frequency response curves for AR3as.

http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=AR3a.html

I always find it interesting to see FR curves for what has been widely said to sound good. Of course, it isn't fair to compare these to today's speakers. It would be better to compare them to other speakers available in the 1960s.

(Hands over ears) NaNaNaNaNaNaNaNa!

Thanks