Jump to content

What speakers for $2,000?

johnt

Wasn't in on the thread, but now I'm jelly.

I'll take that as a compliment :) there's plenty more I'm sure. I haven't yet tested my frequency response. I just finished arranging my living room with subwoofers and all. So I plan to test this upcoming week. I mean, as exciting as a FR curve might be.

I'm also debating whether I should just give in and buy a PSA center and surrounds so that my system all sounds similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're very welcome, JohnT.

 

When used correctly, higher bit depths and sampling rates is likely to result in an output that is closer to the input (whether within or outside of the audible range). This is the same way uncompressed UHD will render more detail than FHD. It is simply a matter of precision (granted that the devices used provide consistent performance). It is still a debate whether a lot of it is perceptible, but I'd rather have the detail in there until it is conclusively proven that it does not matter (which is the stand of those that prefer standard res audio). 

 

A perfect standard res digital system (that doesn't exist) which uses the correct decoding theorem (that normally does not happen) will result in a clean sine wave when fed 20kHz. Though real-world output is far from it, let's assume that it is. Despite this "perfection," minute changes in amplitude or frequency will not be captured by just 2 sample points per wave (oftentimes the source form may not be even close to a clean wave). This makes the system miss information within the target bandwidth of 20Hz-20kHz. Its only saving grace is the widely trumpeted premise that the human ear's mechanism cannot respond fast enough to decipher that detail (most people will accept this as fact, unless possibly scientifically proven otherwise). This premise is only a mathematical assumption based on the current medical understanding of how the ear works, and has not been measured. The medical understanding is derived from relating how we hear and how other animals respond to sound, and comparing how our ears are versus theirs.

 

What we do know is that it has been validated that most human ears can decipher upto around 140dB of dynamic range (as good in this realm as the best recording microphones). This is why the Fletcher-Munson curve spans 140dB. This much dynamic range cannot be contained in a 16-bit recording without compression and subsequent expansion (this is how 16-bit Dolby Digital can get 105dB of dynamic range, versus 96dB for plain old 16-bit PCM). This is what pushed 24-bit 48kHz to become the most common Bluray Audio resolution (since it covers the entire audible bandwidth and dynamic range at a convenient data rate), and the most common AVR DSP internal processing resolution. 

400px-Lindos4.svg.png

 

Round Earther = Follows conventional measurement and judgement. Most people think this way as they believe that they are supported by science. In audio, they typically spend the most on speakers as that is conventionally regarded as the greatest source of distortion (and highly disregard the upstream components because they believe that these produce no or minimal audible benefit as long as there is sufficient gain and definition). Spec geeks tend to fall under this umbrella. Round Earthers generally look for the "weakest link" in a system (say room acoustics or speaker performance).

 

Flat Earther = It's a derogatory term given by the round earthers to the "less scientific" audiophile. It's supposed to mean that they are adhering to a belief that is proven wrong. Flat Earthers eventually accepted the term as a differentiator, as they believe that current measurement systems do not correctly quantify component performance. They often look after subjective things based on experience with a system, instead of measuring performance or looking at spec sheets. These people tend to readily spend more on front end equipment and amplification, together with interconnects (like those exotic cables) and accessories (such as power filtration or even double-conversion). Their general belief is that your component is only as good as its signal source... so they focus on the source, following down the signal chain to the speakers.

 

Though I generally consider my approach closer to Round Earth, I accept both mindsets. All of Round Earth's newer measurements stemmed to explain experiences that Flat Earth used to just describe (what used to be left uncaptured by the tools of the time). It happened over a long time, as measurement methods improved. A lot of the numbers now like step response were just mathematical assumptions based on subjective descriptions until the tools with enough resolution to measure this existed to prove its effect (high speed digitizers are a fairly recent phenomenon). History had vindicated Flat Earth. 

 

Are there other things to scientifically "discover" and measure in audio? Time will tell, but I am not siding with either camp. I'd wait it out and do what I can with what I have (or can have).

 

I believe there is much to be understood and improved in the current state of audio recording and playback. Until we get to the point that we can recreate every type of live sound convincingly, there is work to be done. We are getting there in tech capability (I have heard uncompressed recordings of live performances that are eerily close to it with the right equipment), but far from it from an affordability/feasibility standpoint.

 

You can imagine it took me a little while to read through this. I was distracted by slightly shiny objects that make a lot of noise :)

Is 16-bit why DVDs sound so damn awful compared to blu-ray? I always felt like they would amplify the music by so much that it's almost impossible to find a balanced volume between dialogue and music. Especially in action movies. I never really gave thought that it might a dynamic range issue. I just thought the sound techs didn't know what they were doing.

I can attest that speakers make a difference in quality. The PSAs are very light and airy compared to my Klipsch. I was able to watch tv and listen to a show while my receiver was turned up to -55 dB the other day. While the same show in the past I have to turn up to -30 dB with my Klipsch. Otherwise the noise from the towers were very muffled. It was a two channel source in Netflix. Same receiver and cables. But at the same time, I'm using a $250 Yamaha receiver. I did spend a lot of time looking for cables though. I bought dual wire designed for in wall installation, oxygen free, stranded copper. I made it wasn't copper clad aluminum. I'm not sure if my cables are helping anything sound better over the traditional CCA, although it's one less thing I have to worry about.

I guess that makes me a half breed between flat and round earthers. I care about measurements, but I always question if they are accurate. Sometimes my ears and eyes are a better measuring device than any device. I also came across the Yamaha CX-5000 and CA-5000 the other day. My mouth started drooling. But I couldn't justify paying that much for a pre amp and amplifier. I'm sure they are designed for speakers that are much harder to drive than mine. My little $250 receiver plays everything I need it to at very loud volumes.

Cost definitely plays a big role. I'd love to have the best of both worlds, but I don't want to spend ten thousand on components in addition to speakers. It would be really interesting to hear a conversation between a true audio flat and round earthers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright! Time to share some unboxing photos.

 

These speakers are remarkably... clear. They take a few days to adjust to, but nothing unusual. The sealed cabinet is a bit interesting. It houses one tweeter, but the dual 10-inch woofers produce nearly zero bass... maybe the highest of mid-bass... but that's pushing it. A subwoofer is required. These speakers are highs, higher highs, and mid-tones. They get SO loud and stay SO clear. It's very hard to say they sound bright... because they just don't. They stay clear.

 

Like a good car that provides confidence when you're driving fast... it just makes you want to drive faster... these speakers promote super loud volumes. I only fear one thing when turning up the volume... my hearing! 

 

Here are a few pics I took when I got home last week.

 

attachicon.gif1. MTM-210 - Box.jpg

attachicon.gif2. MTM-210 - Unbox.jpg

attachicon.gif3. MTM-210 - Shipping Materials.jpg

attachicon.gif4. MTM-210 - Grille.jpg

attachicon.gif5. MTM-210 - Pair.jpg

 mjnklbhsdfe newrfydch nxk;ijuwaspohoqw3yuherjfinkdmowl;sajhmxgyfvycuvjkgubyilytrdf gesezrdawqttfyghuijklokfygtrdesawdtfegyvhujbbinklytret65y4fedgawersdxfstrcgdvtvyhfbujnikmhloijghfdsrftrfyguhjijyoukoujohijgfhtgdxrcghjukuijoyhtuyftdxsrtrtghjhjuiohugfccg

Sorry, I was drooling like crazy. Those are some sexy speakers. I am not exactly a speaker kind of person, but sometimes I like it when companies make speakers that look sleek has its kind of aesthetic identity despite that there are some other speakers that probably look 1:1 like it, but with their own kind of slight aesthetic adjustments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

 mjnklbhsdfe newrfydch nxk;ijuwaspohoqw3yuherjfinkdmowl;sajhmxgyfvycuvjkgubyilytrdf gesezrdawqttfyghuijklokfygtrdesawdtfegyvhujbbinklytret65y4fedgawersdxfstrcgdvtvyhfbujnikmhloijghfdsrftrfyguhjijyoukoujohijgfhtgdxrcghjukuijoyhtuyftdxsrtrtghjhjuiohugfccg

Sorry, I was drooling like crazy. Those are some sexy speakers. I am not exactly a speaker kind of person, but sometimes I like it when companies make speakers that look sleek has its kind of aesthetic identity despite that there are some other speakers that probably look 1:1 like it, but with their own kind of slight aesthetic adjustments.

 

I've been drooling for a couple months :) Glad I could provide some eye candy.

 

It's surprising you mention these speakers look sleek. I've heard PSA get a lot of crap on other forums because the design is very simple compared to the competition. But they appeal to me very much. They don't really attract attention in my house during movies. There's nothing special to look at... except the sheer size.

 

These speakers are like monsters screaming in my house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been drooling for a couple months :) Glad I could provide some eye candy.

 

It's surprising you mention these speakers look sleek. I've heard PSA get a lot of crap on other forums because the design is very simple compared to the competition. But they appeal to me very much. They don't really attract attention in my house during movies. There's nothing special to look at... except the sheer size.

 

These speakers are like monsters screaming in my house.

Well, I'm kind of like one of those guys who really get turned off when I see someone who has a legit bra size of D and larger, or have breasts larger and way off their proportions. I personally like C-cups and under... even flat. Thats what I saw on those speakers. Just sleek and has proper proportions, appears to be more on function than form, and I really like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can imagine it took me a little while to read through this. I was distracted by slightly shiny objects that make a lot of noise :)

Is 16-bit why DVDs sound so damn awful compared to blu-ray? I always felt like they would amplify the music by so much that it's almost impossible to find a balanced volume between dialogue and music. Especially in action movies. I never really gave thought that it might a dynamic range issue. I just thought the sound techs didn't know what they were doing.

 

Audio mastering may be a big factor when it comes to the difference in experience. There are DVDs that sound really good too.

 

The high peak levels in movies (105 dB spec for THX reference) can expose the limits of older 16-bit formats. Dolby addressed this in Dolby Digital by offering dynamic range expansion as part of decoding (the amount of expansion can be reduced by adjusting the DRC control). DTS addressed it by offering higher bit depths (20-bit support was added). I personally think that Dolby had the better implementation for the available resources then, delivering comparable quality at much lower bitrates (making it widely utilized up until now for things like Cable TV).

 

Bluray offers surround sound without lossy compression and at higher sampling rates and bit depths. It has the natural advantage of that support (thanks to increased storage capacity, read rate and new audio compression formats). 24-bit / 48kHz is supposed to be able to cover all that the ear can hear in terms of frequency and intensity range (as discussed previously, that doesn't automatically render higher formats useless). 

 

 

I can attest that speakers make a difference in quality. The PSAs are very light and airy compared to my Klipsch. I was able to watch tv and listen to a show while my receiver was turned up to -55 dB the other day. While the same show in the past I have to turn up to -30 dB with my Klipsch. Otherwise the noise from the towers were very muffled. It was a two channel source in Netflix. Same receiver and cables. But at the same time, I'm using a $250 Yamaha receiver. I did spend a lot of time looking for cables though. I bought dual wire designed for in wall installation, oxygen free, stranded copper. I made it wasn't copper clad aluminum. I'm not sure if my cables are helping anything sound better over the traditional CCA, although it's one less thing I have to worry about.

I guess that makes me a half breed between flat and round earthers. I care about measurements, but I always question if they are accurate. Sometimes my ears and eyes are a better measuring device than any device. I also came across the Yamaha CX-5000 and CA-5000 the other day. My mouth started drooling. But I couldn't justify paying that much for a pre amp and amplifier. I'm sure they are designed for speakers that are much harder to drive than mine. My little $250 receiver plays everything I need it to at very loud volumes.

Cost definitely plays a big role. I'd love to have the best of both worlds, but I don't want to spend ten thousand on components in addition to speakers. It would be really interesting to hear a conversation between a true audio flat and round earthers.

 

I'm glad that you're liking your new speakers. Your indicated volume numbers should change upon recalibration (as the AV receiver would adjust attenuation). The receiver would almost always target 85 dB nominal at the listening spot with a 0 dB volume level (and will adjust accordingly). 0 dB means 0 dB away from reference (85 dB nominal is reference based on the THX spec). -30 dB means 30 dB below reference, or 55 dB nominal.

 

Flat or round earth does not matter much to me, as long as the system sounds good and that we're having fun. Round earthers often think that I'm a flat earth guy, since I spent a bit on front end gear. That's until they realize that I often do more round earth stuff than most do.

 

The CX-A5000 + MX-A5000 combination should be very good indeed, as with any flagship product. I'd take the Arcam AVR750 over this though, unless I need the extra output (yes, that's the flat earther in me talking). The lower spec Arcam may not appeal in terms of looks, features or specs, but it produces output more akin to traditional HiFi.

 

The Class D3 Pioneer AVRs are actually better-equipped when it comes to driving difficult speaker loads. They just have strong amp sections for the price (most can deliver rated power with 5-7 channels simultaneously driven, some exceptional ones like the SC-09TX can deliver it with all channels driven). Though it doesn't have the most extensive EQ, full band phase control as a part of its processing is a big plus for me. Read up on MCACC Pro: https://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ephox/StaticFiles/PUSA/Files/Home/2014_MCACC_Ref_Guide.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm kind of like one of those guys who really get turned off when I see someone who has a legit bra size of D and larger, or have breasts larger and way off their proportions. I personally like C-cups and under... even flat. Thats what I saw on those speakers. Just sleek and has proper proportions, appears to be more on function than form, and I really like that.

 

I always appreciate discussing this topic ;) I know exactly what you mean though. They are definitely designed with function than form... which I also appreciate with these speakers.

 

Some made recommendations for Focals or B&W. And while yes, they are great speakers, they looked way too ostentatious for my taste. I have a very bland room with a couple paintings from my grandmother from the 70's. I didn't want the speakers to attract attention.

 

You wouldn't expect the speakers I purchased to sound the way they do. And to me that's the best part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

legit bra size of D

Hahaha, my girlfriend is that, but she's also over 6'1", so it's proportional [emoji14] (I'm 6'6", so we go well together very well)

Hey! New SIgnature! 

 

I'm supposedly a person on the Internet, but you'll never know if I'm human or not ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha, my girlfriend is that, but she's also over 6'1", so it's proportional [emoji14] (I'm 6'6", so we go well together very well)

Dayum... you guys are TALL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dayum... you guys are TALL!

Yup... [emoji14]

Hey! New SIgnature! 

 

I'm supposedly a person on the Internet, but you'll never know if I'm human or not ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always appreciate discussing this topic ;) I know exactly what you mean though. They are definitely designed with function than form... which I also appreciate with these speakers.

 

Some made recommendations for Focals or B&W. And while yes, they are great speakers, they looked way too ostentatious for my taste. I have a very bland room with a couple paintings from my grandmother from the 70's. I didn't want the speakers to attract attention.

 

You wouldn't expect the speakers I purchased to sound the way they do. And to me that's the best part.

 

Though they don't play as loud (and cost more), ProAc also makes plain-looking speakers that sound great. They really shine when properly matched.

 

As a B&W owner, I am willing to admit that Focal makes nicer speakers in the high end (Electra Be and Utopia range). The impulse response of their higher end models are just that good that I may choose them over more expensive speakers (if given the choice).

 

I am glad that you're happy with the purchase. PSA's performance to price ratio (bang per buck) is way up there. Tom would be happy to hear another call from you.  ;)

 

 

 

Hahaha, my girlfriend is that, but she's also over 6'1", so it's proportional [emoji14] (I'm 6'6", so we go well together very well)

She is very tall for a lady. Even 6'6" is tall for a guy (I'm 6'4" and most people consider me tall).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is an automatic subwoofer equalizer worth investing into? I understand this isn't directly related to speakers.

 

http://www.dspeaker.com/en/products/anti-mode-8033.shtml

It does the same thing as Room EQ Wizzard, except you don´t need the computer to use it. If you are planning to get measuring gear anyway you can first test REW and then decide if you need a stand alone hardware for room EQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does the same thing as Room EQ Wizzard, except you don´t need the computer to use it. If you are planning to get measuring gear anyway you can first test REW and then decide if you need a stand alone hardware for room EQ.

I was wondering about that actually. Do I need a PC hooked up running REQ all the time to process the signal for peak corrections?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering about that actually. Do I need a PC hooked up running REQ all the time to process the signal for peak corrections?

Yes, you also need a convolver for the EQ, since REW will only give you a filter impulse response file. This is possible with players with convolver plugins available such as foobar. If you would want to EQ all system sounds you would need to purchase additional software that routes all system sounds through a convolver. So you don´t need to run REW all the time but you will need to run a convolver all the time for the EQ to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you also need a convolver for the EQ, since REW will only give you a filter impulse response file. This is possible with players with convolver plugins available such as foobar. If you would want to EQ all system sounds you would need to purchase additional software that routes all system sounds through a convolver. So you don´t need to run REW all the time but you will need to run a convolver all the time for the EQ to work.

So what do I do about home theater and blu-ray? I've never even heard of a convolver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do I do about home theater and blu-ray? I've never even heard of a convolver.

You can use convolver with windows media player classic. If you want to play blu-rays from a blu ray player then the best option is to get an external hardware like the one you linked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is an automatic subwoofer equalizer worth investing into? I understand this isn't directly related to speakers.

 

http://www.dspeaker.com/en/products/anti-mode-8033.shtml

 

If you plan on playing back encoded content from your pc, then possibly yes. If you plan on using other sources aside from your pc, then yes.

 

Do note that better AV receivers already have decent subwoofer EQs. Dedicated subwoofer EQs can get pricey; if you are planning on getting a new AVR anyway, you might as well get one with a good onboard sub EQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

When did we get so many rich dudes with fancy equipment on the forum? I'm feeling like a pleb all of a sudden.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

When did we get so many rich dudes with fancy equipment on the forum? I'm feeling like a pleb all of a sudden. :D

Haha I just work. I worked a lot of overtime earlier this year... Nearly doubled my salary compared to last year. My wife and I have no debt. So plenty left over for toys.

This stuff is expensive man! There's no way I can continue spending money like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha I just work. I worked a lot of overtime earlier this year... Nearly doubled my salary compared to last year. My wife and I have no debt. So plenty left over for toys.

This stuff is expensive man! There's no way I can continue spending money like this.

 

It was in jest. Everyone deserves a toy now and then,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get some good quality studio monitors, something like KRK RP10's or KRK VXT 8's;

 

 

ALL THE WAY , VXT's and if you have cash to spare , maybe the 12 inch krk sub. boy thats a dreamy setup right there. I have a pair of VXT6 first gen. had them for almost a decade , and still sound AMAZING

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was in jest. Everyone deserves a toy now and then,

 

A toy or two... or seven  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

ALL THE WAY , VXT's and if you have cash to spare , maybe the 12 inch krk sub. boy thats a dreamy setup right there. I have a pair of VXT6 first gen. had them for almost a decade , and still sound AMAZING

 

I checked out the 12 inch KRK sub and I definitely think there's better subwoofers for the money. It seems like a great sub for music, but I doubt it can stand up to the task when watching movies. For $1,500 you can get way more slam for the buck.

 

Thanks for the suggestions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can use convolver with windows media player classic. If you want to play blu-rays from a blu ray player then the best option is to get an external hardware like the one you linked.

 

Thanks for chiming in with helpful input.

 

 

If you plan on playing back encoded content from your pc, then possibly yes. If you plan on using other sources aside from your pc, then yes.

 

Do note that better AV receivers already have decent subwoofer EQs. Dedicated subwoofer EQs can get pricey; if you are planning on getting a new AVR anyway, you might as well get one with a good onboard sub EQ.

 

I have to get an AVR with something like Audyssey, correct? I'm a little partial to Yamaha for no good reason. I'm not sure which one of their AVRs support EQ, but I'm pretty sure Yamaha doesn't use Audyssey. I don't think YPAO does room EQ... just small calibrations (large/small speaker, distance, etc.)

 

I'm not planning to purchase a new AVR for another year or so. I have to let the AVR world recuperate a bit before dropping $1,000+ on a new AVR (thanks to Atmos, DTSx, HDCP 2.2, HDMI 2.0)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×