Speakers and Sources

[AcuDefTechGuy]

so of all your speakers which do you think is your a)most listened speaker? B) Best speaker for the money C)one speaker you would part with.

A) Salon2
B) TAD 2201
C) ATC SCM7

If I could have just one set of speakers (one brand) it would be the Revel Salon2.

So if I could go back in time, I would just get five Salon2 speakers and four Funk 18.0 subs.

But for now and the foreseeable future, I would keep everything I have, not sell any of them, and not add another speaker - even when I build my custom house.

Time to put my growing HT budget toward a Lexus LX.

 

[fmw]

Everyone is different for sure. My uncle, another audiophile, loves the 802D2. He prefers them over all my speakers.

I've always been a fan of the "British" sound. To me it has always been accurate and smooth. The Brit speakers never seem to call attention to themselves. I use a pair of Epos speakers in my main home theater. They sound similar to the B&W but they only have a 6 1/2" woofer so they need some help from a powered B&W sub. My 802's didn't need the help.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

My friend elaborated a little:

"I am not a huge fan of B+W, while they always sound great they just don't sound real to me, more highfi'ish. The Phil3 sounded alright, but just didnt have that last layer of resolution or realism the higher end speakers had. I was pretty suprised by the Orion's as they really did sound great, but for me they are entirely to much hassle with the active crossovers and multi channel amp not to mention the cost if you don't DIY them. Kef's sounded pretty good for their size, I was impressed by their high frequency reach, but feel I would get tired of it after a while. Plus those or the bigger ones would require subwoofers. Then there were the revels, which to me have the smoothest most realistic yet detailed upper range while maintaining the appropriate energy throughout the entire audio spectrum. They really are fantastic speakers. All and all we are getting pretty picky through as all the speakers in your reference room anyone would be pleased with if they didnt have another to switch to. If I were to have 2 pairs in one room it would be the Kef's and the Revels. I feel these sounded different enough from one another that when you got a hankering for a change the two could appease the need."

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I've always been a fan of the "British" sound. To me it has always been accurate and smooth. The Brit speakers never seem to call attention to themselves. I use a pair of Epos speakers in my main home theater. They sound similar to the B&W but they only have a 6 1/2" woofer so they need some help from a powered B&W sub. My 802's didn't need the help.

Wait, I never realized you owned the 802s.

 

[ratso]

very interesting thread here. it has started to add some ammo to a notion i have been kicking around lately in my head. i have been a believer for a while that the only thing you can really improve in your sound system is the speakers. all the rest; amps, preamps, cd players, etc. are all going to sound the same (assuming quality of course). but lately i have been wondering - could it be the same with speakers? all of ADTG's speakers are high quality, they all have sound designs by people that know what they're doing. they all measure well. sure some will play louder than others, some will go lower. but i have heard ADTG say a couple times that the differences between most of them are not great. he says the person in question in this thread had a hard time distinguishing between a relatively cheap bookshelf speaker and a fairly big bux floor stander. do you get to a point where if a speaker is competently designed, with quality hardware, the correct size for you room, measures reasonably flat and listened to on axis that the difference becomes splitting hairs?

 

[Irvrobinson]

very interesting thread here. it has started to add some ammo to a notion i have been kicking around lately in my head. i have been a believer for a while that the only thing you can really improve in your sound system is the speakers. all the rest; amps, preamps, cd players, etc. are all going to sound the same (assuming quality of course). but lately i have been wondering - could it be the same with speakers? all of ADTG's speakers are high quality, they all have sound designs by people that know what they're doing. they all measure well. sure some will play louder than others, some will go lower. but i have heard ADTG say a couple times that the differences between most of them are not great. he says the person in question in this thread had a hard time distinguishing between a relatively cheap bookshelf speaker and a fairly big bux floor stander. do you get to a point where if a speaker is competently designed, with quality hardware, the correct size for you room, measures reasonably flat and listened to on axis that the difference becomes splitting hairs?

I think there are more speakers available now than there ever have been that demonstrate relatively flat on-axis frequency response, especially at lower volume levels, so on a lot of material I think many speakers do sound similar, at first. Nonetheless, I think there are still differences that very much matter to critical listeners, even at the $20K/pair price level. Frankly, I've heard three of the speakers ADTG owns, the Revel, the B&W, and the Linkwitz Orion, and I think they sound very different.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

very interesting thread here. it has started to add some ammo to a notion i have been kicking around lately in my head. i have been a believer for a while that the only thing you can really improve in your sound system is the speakers. all the rest; amps, preamps, cd players, etc. are all going to sound the same (assuming quality of course). but lately i have been wondering - could it be the same with speakers? all of ADTG's speakers are high quality, they all have sound designs by people that know what they're doing. they all measure well. sure some will play louder than others, some will go lower. but i have heard ADTG say a couple times that the differences between most of them are not great. he says the person in question in this thread had a hard time distinguishing between a relatively cheap bookshelf speaker and a fairly big bux floor stander. do you get to a point where if a speaker is competently designed, with quality hardware, the correct size for you room, measures reasonably flat and listened to on axis that the difference becomes splitting hairs?

There's probably a good reason why Harman test their accurate speakers vs inaccurate speakers in DBT's, instead of accurate speakers vs accurate speakers.

If you, I, and everyone here attended a great sounding concert at the "sweet spot", would we all listen for the same exact things? Would our brains interpret the same exact things? But we would all experience a great sounding concert!

So the speakers may have different image and soundstage, different interpretations. But they may all sound great.

Of course, if the speakers can't handle certain dynamics and start to bottom out or distort, the difference will be significant.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I think there are more speakers available now than there ever have been that demonstrate relatively flat on-axis frequency response, especially at lower volume levels, so on a lot of material I think many speakers do sound similar, at first. Nonetheless, I think there are still differences that very much matter to critical listeners, even at the $20K/pair price level. Frankly, I've heard three of the speakers ADTG owns, the Revel, the B&W, and the Linkwitz Orion, and I think they sound very different.

When people compare speakers, they usually compare them in Direct 2.0 mode, not 2.1 mode. So whether they want to admit it or not, they are also comparing the BASS, which is EXTREMELY obvious to differentiate. They also compare by memory or within minutes or hours or different rooms. But the bass is probably the biggest give away. Next is the localization of the speakers since the speaker are usually NEVER in the same exact spot.

Sometimes comparing these speakers is like comparing the same exact concert from different SEATS.

I think we can tell the difference, but it's not as obvious as you think if the speakers are all equally accurate and you compare them in 2.1 mode (remove bass from equation), switch within seconds, place speakers very close to each other, and sit further away from them.

They may be a lot more shockingly similar than most people think and ever want to admit.

But yes, they can sound different.

 

[ratso]

When people compare speakers, they usually compare them in Direct 2.0 mode, not 2.1 mode. So whether they want to admit it or not, they are also comparing the BASS, which is EXTREMELY obvious to differentiate. They also compare by memory or within minutes or hours or different rooms. But the bass is probably the biggest give away. Next is the localization of the speakers since the speaker are usually NEVER in the same exact spot.

Sometimes comparing these speakers is like comparing the same exact concert from different SEATS.

I think we can tell the difference, but it's not as obvious as you think if the speakers are all equally accurate and you compare them in 2.1 mode (remove bass from equation), switch within seconds, place speakers very close to each other, and sit further away from them.

They may be a lot more shockingly similar than most people think and ever want to admit.

But yes, they can sound different.

thanx to both of you. i think the above is sort of how i think of it. i also run dual subs so that takes bass (well extension anyways) out of the equation. and i just don't think that many of us have the opportunity to A/B speakers - we are basically going off of memory. i know that speakers can sound dramatically different - many speakers are too bright for me for instance and nothing i have ever heard could play the imaging "tricks" that my martin logan vantages could. but when i start thinking about "hmm.. i wonder how much better speaker $$$ would sound than my salks" i wonder if i'm just chasing fools gold.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

thanx to both of you. i think the above is sort of how i think of it. i also run dual subs so that takes bass (well extension anyways) out of the equation. and i just don't think that many of us have the opportunity to A/B speakers - we are basically going off of memory. i know that speakers can sound dramatically different - many speakers are too bright for me for instance and nothing i have ever heard could play the imaging "tricks" that my martin logan vantages could. but when i start thinking about "hmm.. i wonder how much better speaker $$$ would sound than my salks" i wonder if i'm just chasing fools gold.

Diminishing returns for sure.

..... Even if the speakers are more preferred by some.

What's really funny is people actually saying that the Revel F32 is literally tenfolds better than the F12, the F52 is literally tenfolds better than the F32, the F206 is literally tenfolds better than the F52, the F208 is literally tenfolds better than the F206, but the Studio2 and Salon2 are only a little better than the F208 because they own the F208 and other people own the other speakers.