Seeking Advice on Replacing Polk Monitor 30's

[Meatloaf30]

Hello,

I am seeking advice in selecting a set of new front speakers to replace my existing Polk Monitor 30's. These will be used almost exclusively for music, mostly rock and a little bit of jazz (all mp3's or radio). My current setup is a Pioneer VSX-819 receiver connected to a pair of Polk Monitor 30's for fronts, a Polk RM7 center, a Polk PSW10 sub, and a pair of Cambridge Soundworks MC55's for rear's. The room all of this is located in is a square, 12' x 12' room that is carpeted. The Polk fronts are sitting close to the floor, about 10" away from the wall. My A/V cabinet limits the size of my front speakers, so I probably can't go beyond 13.5" x 10" x 12" (H x W x D).

My goal is to have new fronts that will have more clarity, a more full sound to where I'll hear things I wasn't hearing before. I want these new speakers to impress me so that I'll look forward to listening to them. My current Monitor 30's have good range to them, but I feel that I'm missing out on parts of my music. On the plus side, they work well at my low volume listening levels and have a softer sound without any listener fatigue (not a Klipsch fan). For my budget, I'd like to stay below $350. Here is what I've been considering:


Axiom M2 v3
+ Good reviews on sound quality
- Really worth the $316/pair?
+ Company seems to stand behind product with good service

Aperion Intimus 4B
+ Great return policy, free shipping both ways
+ User reviews are positive
- Less sensitivity than other speakers, will require more amp power
- Not much on the low end, I will have to raise my crossover up to ~120Hz (not what I want to do)
- Price is ~$260/pair

KEF iQ10
+ A rather attractive speaker, with the tweeter inside the woofer
+ Good freq range and sensitivity
- Few reviews out on the net
+ Low price, ~$220/pair

PSB Alpha B1
+ Plenty of reviews, all of them positive
- 6ohm, will my receiver have to work harder?
- Price is ~$279/pair
- Aluminum grills, not exactly my type


I'm leaning towards the KEF's or the Axiom's, but I want to keep an open mind. Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[sholling]

My goal is to have new fronts that will have more clarity, a more full sound to where I'll hear things I wasn't hearing before.

For the price Monitor 30s aren't bad speakers. I suspect that your goal would be better served by replacing the source material (MP3s) with lossless rips and that's where I'd start. Lossy fomats like MP3 are inherently missing parts of of the recording. The lower the bit rate the more that's missing and the more lifeless it sounds. The way to test this is to play a CD and compare it to the MP3.

If you do go forward with speakers then I'd strike the 4B from the list due to the poor sensitivity and total lack of base and replace it on the list of candidates with Ascend's CBM-170 which is a pretty good if plain looking speaker that's on sale right now.

 

[zumbo]

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=MRM2

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_732CB20/Energy-Connoisseur-CB-20.html?tp=186

 

[STRONGBADF1]

I'm with Sholling. It all begins with the source. (duh!) I also am a big fan of Ascend Acoustics CBM-170se. http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/cbm170/cbm170.html

FWIW On your list I'd go with the Kefs.

 

[Meatloaf30]

Thanks for the advice, everyone. Sholling definitely has a good point, garbage in = garbage out. I will have to give Ascend a look.

 

[fragzem]

I agree also, the mp3's are terrible to begin with.

There are sites here and there where you can get .flac files to replace whatever you may have on mp3. Probably not allowed to link it here so I won't... but look around.

 

[Matt34]

Another option that is just a little bit more than the rest.

Swan Diva 2.1

http://www.ozhometheater.com/ozht_prodcat_htspeakers_bookshelf_2.1bc_backorder.htm

 

[mike c]

there's a lot more to be improved in SQ from the Polk Audio Monitor 30 (even with mp3's as source)

i use 320kbps mp3's myself, i could have gone with wav when i ripped my audio cd's but i liked the embedded info the mp3 files.

 

[sholling]

there's a lot more to be improved in SQ from the Polk Audio Monitor 30 (even with mp3's as source)

i use 320kbps mp3's myself, i could have gone with wav when i ripped my audio cd's but i liked the embedded info the mp3 files.

I don't disagree about the Monitor 30s but the source is the place to start. BTW this is where flacs come in. You have all of the sound quality of a wav in a slightly smaller file with tags just like an MP3. If you rip with dBpoweramp ($39) it will read the disc info and compare it to a database and then file the albums how you like them (I use \Music_lossless\Artist\Album title) and name and tag the tracks all automatically just about as fast as you can feed it CDs. It also comes with a batch converter that you can run against one folder or the whole tree that will make and file MP3s from your flac folders. I know there are free tools but not on this level. Hours of my time are worth more than $40.

 

[mike c]

I don't disagree about the Monitor 30s but the source is the place to start. BTW this is where flacs come in. You have all of the sound quality of a wav in a slightly smaller file with tags just like an MP3. If you rip with dBpoweramp ($39) it will read the disc info and compare it to a database and then file the albums how you like them (I use \Music_lossless\Artist\Album title) and name and tag the tracks all automatically just about as fast as you can feed it CDs. It also comes with a batch converter that you can run against one folder or the whole tree that will make and file MP3s from your flac folders. I know there are free tools but not on this level. Hours of my time are worth more than $40.

i wasn't sure on the compatibility of flacs to PS3 (my main compressed format player), CD/DVD players, car stereos (these usually only market mp3 compatibility) which is why it wasn't one of my choices. (i've been a status quo type of guy, very resistant to change even at the cost of being left behind by technology).

anyway, back OT, i've heavily compared the Polk Audio Monitor 40 vs Polk Audio RTi4 before deciding (and buying) that the latter was quite a bit better. Since then, it is now my weakest pair of bookshelves (relegated to PC duty) and i have not spent much actually to improve on it.

even the KEF Q1 (bought it as it was being replaced by the iQ series) is better than the Rti4, so i'm of the opinion that the OP is but at the first rung of the speaker upgrade ladder (much lower than the rung he is now on using mp3's - unless this was less than 160kbps). it's his weakest link IMO.

 

[tom67]

i wasn't sure on the compatibility of flacs to PS3 (my main compressed format player), CD/DVD players, car stereos (these usually only market mp3 compatibility) which is why it wasn't one of my choices. (i've been a status quo type of guy, very resistant to change even at the cost of being left behind by technology).

anyway, back OT, i've heavily compared the Polk Audio Monitor 40 vs Polk Audio RTi4 before deciding (and buying) that the latter was quite a bit better. Since then, it is now my weakest pair of bookshelves (relegated to PC duty) and i have not spent much actually to improve on it.

even the KEF Q1 (bought it as it was being replaced by the iQ series) is better than the Rti4, so i'm of the opinion that the OP is but at the first rung of the speaker upgrade ladder (much lower than the rung he is now on using mp3's - unless this was less than 160kbps). it's his weakest link IMO.

I would'nt count on the Kefs.....I would trade my IQ 3s for the Polks...my Kefs are tinny sounding gimmick speakers. They look good, but embedding tweeter in main driver probably not a good idea....mine are distorted at moderate to high levels....

 

[Shakeydeal]

I bought an old pair of Monitor 30s for 20.00 several years ago. They are pretty good speakers and you would be surprised at how good they sound if you power them with something other than a receiver. I am using them in a makeshift HT setup upstairs, but when I take them downstairs to the big rig, they sound much better.

So as stated above, better source and partnering electronics will make them sound better. And the same will be true when you upgrade speakers, whatever you choose.

Shakey

 

[sholling]

i wasn't sure on the compatibility of flacs to PS3 (my main compressed format player), CD/DVD players, car stereos (these usually only market mp3 compatibility) which is why it wasn't one of my choices. (i've been a status quo type of guy, very resistant to change even at the cost of being left behind by technology).

anyway, back OT, i've heavily compared the Polk Audio Monitor 40 vs Polk Audio RTi4 before deciding (and buying) that the latter was quite a bit better. Since then, it is now my weakest pair of bookshelves (relegated to PC duty) and i have not spent much actually to improve on it.

even the KEF Q1 (bought it as it was being replaced by the iQ series) is better than the Rti4, so i'm of the opinion that the OP is but at the first rung of the speaker upgrade ladder (much lower than the rung he is now on using mp3's - unless this was less than 160kbps). it's his weakest link IMO.

Sony stubbornly refuses to add flac playback to the PS3 but my Western Digital TV Live will even playback 24bit / 96khz audiophile flacs (CD is 16bit / 44khz). Even my phone supports flacs. It makes sense to have very high bit rate MP3s for portables because most good quality portable headphones and car stereos still aren't good enough to make the reduction in quality noticeable, but I simply refuse to play MP3s through multi-thousand dollar home audio systems.

What I do is rip to flac for home use and then I run dBpoweramp's batch converter to make a second copy in high quality VBR MP3 format for my MP3 player and car. It's super simple with the batch converter and hard disk space is cheap. I could be wrong but I seem to recall that some computer audio players even claim to automatically convert flacs to MP3 on the fly when loading music on your MP3 player.

BTW just for comparison the bit rate for 16/44 WAV is 1411kbps vs ~1100kbps for no loss in audio quality lossless flac vs 320kbps for the highest quality MP3.

Getting back on topic - the reason to start with the source (MP3s vs CD) is that the test is free. Stick a CD in and if the sound still sucks it's the speakers. On the other hand if the OP likes the sound from the CD then we're back to garbage in = garbage out. A simple free way to know for sure.

If it's the speakers I'd give the Ascend a good hard look.

 

[SpicolisBrother]

A couple of different ideas....first off, any source will sound only so good using your AVR as the amp. If your AVR has pre-outs, begin researching separate amps. Another idea - move the Monitors to surround duty and look to the Polk RTiA line of either bookshelves or floorstanding speakers. The RTiA series is a good music speaker and great HT speaker IMO.

 

[mike c]

I would'nt count on the Kefs.....I would trade my IQ 3s for the Polks...my Kefs are tinny sounding gimmick speakers. They look good, but embedding tweeter in main driver probably not a good idea....mine are distorted at moderate to high levels....

yes, here is where taste comes in and separates all of us
that's why i chose to differentiate the polk audio monitor series with the rti series (for those who prefer that "sound")

i'm sure the KEF's won't handle high levels of SPL, but i've never pushed them that hard yet.

for me on the other hand, i've a/b'ed the kef q1 with a pair of speakers that are literally 5-6x more expensive and i've found little reason to change except for build quality and aesthetics. [e.g. Monitor Audio GS10]

i will be soon be moving the q1's to PC duty and getting a new pair of bookshelves for the bedroom (of course as soon as funds allow) where the supposed benefits of the uni-q tech is best used (nearfield).

 

[TLS Guy]

I don't think any of the speakers on your list are much of an upgrade, if at all.

I would ditch the mp3 files and ave up for a decent small bookshelf.

In the size speaker you are looking for there are practically no speakers that are any good. The list is short.

Quite the best small bookshelf I know, and it is small, is the ATC SCM 7. It is by far and away the best very small speaker I know. Save up for that and it will be the last small bookshelf you buy. If it is more clarity you want, this will deliver and at good spls. You pay for what you get.

This outfit has a sale on for them at the moment. You can get a bookshelf that is a lot more expensive, but I don't think a better one. It will be about double you budget, but many times better value for money than anything on your list.

 

[GranteedEV]

If you do go forward with speakers then I'd strike the 4B from the list due to the poor sensitivity and total lack of base and replace it on the list of candidates with Ascend's CBM-170 which is a pretty good if plain looking speaker that's on sale right now.

I second the Ascend!

 

[zumbo]

Yeah, add an amp to the receiver. That's gonna change the sound of the speakers.