Why there isn't any revolution in PC Speakers

[Unknown-One]

What doesn't make sense?

I'm still waiting for you tell me what doesn't make sense about it.

That there are multiple places on the AVS chart that contradict the Toms chart?

That the AVS chart is missing whole chunks of spectrum?

That the AVS chat doesn't even show the crossover dip in the same place?

Take your pick...

No it doesn't.......Your chart makes the Klipsch look ridiculously flat.

Already fixed that (like I said, scale on the bottom-end was wrong, the chart has been corrected).

If that's the case, then why does your chart show nearly a +/- 3db change from 10khz-20khz, yet Tom's show it dropping almost 12db?

Already fixed that. The scale was compressed when it shouldn't have been. It's now 1:1.

Nope, sorry.

It does now, go back and read.

Edit:
Also, for anyone wondering what the MB42 --> MB42X upgrade looks like:



And after having a listen (with this EQ applied to make them almost perfectly flat), they are FINALLY objectively better than the ProMedia's.

And yes, I realize you can apply this EQ to the MB42's and get a flat frequency response graph out of them... but they still don't sound anywhere near as good as the MB42X's. I didn't believe the reviews, but they were totally spot-on: this doesn't even seem like the same speaker anymore. They can finally play multiple instruments, movies, and games without sounding like distortion and mud

Unfortunately, I had to spend a fair bit more than the ProMedia's to get here. $60 for the speakers + $30 for the crossover upgrade + $64 for the amp + another $20 on various cables. Grand total after all the tax and shipping was over $200. Ended up having to spend twice as much as I did on the ProMedia's to finally get something that perked my ears up.

 

[heflys20]

That there are multiple places on the AVS chart that contradict the Toms chart?

How does it contradict the Tom's chart? Crossover dip? Check. Weak highs? Check. Uneven frequency performance? Check. Subwoofer peak at about 50hz? Check. About a 20db decline before hitting 30hz? Check.

Tell me what's contradictory.

That the AVS chart is missing whole chunks of spectrum?

Huh?

That the AVS chat doesn't even show the crossover dip in the same place?

It's in the in the exact same place. Between the 100-200hz range. If you mean the frequency pattern isn't exactly the same, of course it isn't. It's at a different volume level and was probably recorded differently.

Take your pick...

What? If I were to pick something, it'd be better speakers and I wouldn't have to deal with the Promedias. That's just me though.

Already fixed that (like I said, scale on the bottom-end was wrong, the chart has been corrected).


Already fixed that. The scale was compressed when it shouldn't have been. It's now 1:1.


It does now, go back and read.

I posted that hours ago, before your edit.

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

And after having a listen (with this EQ applied to make them almost perfectly flat), they are FINALLY objectively better than the ProMedia's.

And yes, I realize you can apply this EQ to the MB42's and get a flat frequency response graph out of them... but they still don't sound anywhere near as good as the MB42X's. I didn't believe the reviews, but they were totally spot-on: this doesn't even seem like the same speaker anymore. They can finally play multiple instruments, movies, and games without sounding like distortion and mud

Unfortunately, I had to spend a fair bit more than the ProMedia's to get here. $60 for the speakers + $30 for the crossover upgrade + $64 for the amp + another $20 on various cables. Grand total after all the tax and shipping was over $200. Ended up having to spend twice as much as I did on the ProMedia's to finally get something that perked my ears up.

If you really say so. I mean I can't argue since I don't have either one. So, who knows. Maybe you're telling the truth. Personally I think that you got used to your Promedias' sound signature and that it maybe masked some of its flaws instead of making them easy to hear like with the Micca's. But that's blind conjecture, so we'll just have to add you to the pool (small pool) of reviewers that directly compared the Micca's to the Promedia 2.1 setup and found the Promedia setup better. Pity there aren't more reviewers that did the task.


Moving on, this would only affirm one thing to me: I was very smart about how I approached my first audio speaker upgrade. I didn't buy into the mainstream brands or these cheap random brands and instead recognized that speaker technology has stopped advancing for a while and then went straight to Ebay and then picked up a T-Amp to complement it. I got extremely good price performance ratio and excellent sound. These are the speakers I got, for reference:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/paradigm-atom-v3-loudspeaker-page-2
They smashed the price barrier then... I got them for a third of the price now (though again, I had to redo the surround on one of them after turning it up a bit loud several months after I purchased them).

So yeah, I suppose if you truly just want to UTTERLY BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF PROMEDIAS WITH A BASEBALL BAT.... You'll have to go to Ebay... which isn't an option you can invalidate either way. The other solutions will only sound on par or marginally better, or (in your case) worse. That doesn't mean much except that like B00nie said there aren't really any good (new) competitive speaker options in the <100-150 range.

I do want to point something out though: That amplifier is reusable. So are those speaker wires. So your next speakers if you choose to upgrade, your budget can be higher because you do not have to worry about those components. Just like I went from my Paradigms to these MS Aviano 2's without any trouble, reusing my Topping amp.

 

[heflys20]

I do want to point something out though: That amplifier is reusable. So are those speaker wires.

Yes, I'd be be glad to pay for separate speaker wires. If a Promedia hard-wired cable gets damaged, good-luck replacing it.

 

[Bluesun311]

What? If I were to pick something, it'd be better speakers and I wouldn't have to deal with the Promedias. That's just me though.

I gave up with this individual on another thread. Devil's advocate pretty much guaranteed. Wants to be controversial. I do it too sometimes, but in the end I found the discourse absolutely mind numbing.

If I only had 140 dollars I still wouldn't buy the ProMedias again. I'd follow StoleMyOwnCar's lead. I have good credit so when I was disappointed with the Klipsch system I was able to just throw money at a boutique integrated system that sounds totally different. But I'm still paying for it. I could have gotten away a lot cheaper than 500 dollars for similar high quality nearfield sound (or better for all I know) without the cutesy integrated pre amp module and weird silver finish.

 

[B00nie]

I can't take that graph seriously as a basis for comparison. It makes absolutely no sense. Here, take a look at what happens when we overlay some additional results on it...

Red: Micca MB42 (The graph you posted, non-EQed version)
Purple: Micca MB42 (The graph you posted, EQed version)
Blue: ProMedia 2.1 (AVS Review)
Green: Promedia 2.1 (Toms Hardware Review)

Edit: Fixed the scaling on the graph ^^. The Toms Hardware review is off the bottom because they tested at an overall-lower volume than everyone else, and that was the only way to map the data precisely 1:1

Note how when Toms Hardware reviews the same ProMedia 2.1 speakers.. the graph looks totally different? The graph actually makes sense and is comparable?


Like I said, I can listen to them side-by-side. Without EQ, the MB42's have serious issues. The huuuuuge humps at 1k and 7k, for instance. I've seen roller-coasters that are flatter than the results displayed by the MB42's here: http://noaudiophile.com/DSP_Corrections/uncorrected.jpg

If you play clean, uncomplicated music, they can cope... but anything complicated and the MB42's shit the bed. Rock music is a painful mess to listen to. Complicated audio in games and movies also brings out their weaknesses.

The crossover in the MB42X's is supposed to fix that issue.

The graphs make perfect sense. The Toms test uses 1/3 oct smoothing and the AVS guy does not. All those ripples disappear when the graph is smoothed. This is what I was preaching earlyer, smoothed response charts mask response problems, you can have total saw tooth and never see it from the graph. Also the AVS chart is probably measured in a room while the Toms one is probably an anechoic measurement. Room affects a LOT of things in measurements.

 

[B00nie]

I gave up with this individual on another thread. Devil's advocate pretty much guaranteed. Wants to be controversial. I do it too sometimes, but in the end I found the discourse absolutely mind numbing.

If I only had 140 dollars I still wouldn't buy the ProMedias again. I'd follow StoleMyOwnCar's lead. I have good credit so when I was disappointed with the Klipsch system I was able to just throw money at a boutique integrated system that sounds totally different. But I'm still paying for it. I could have gotten away a lot cheaper than 500 dollars for similar high quality nearfield sound (or better for all I know) without the cutesy integrated pre amp module and weird silver finish.

For 500 dollars you could already get real active studio monitors such as B3030a:s or even B3031a:s that will hands down beat promedias to moon and back lol.

 

[Unknown-One]

The graphs make perfect sense. The Toms test uses 1/3 oct smoothing and the AVS guy does not. All those ripples disappear when the graph is smoothed. This is what I was preaching earlyer, smoothed response charts mask response problems, you can have total saw tooth and never see it from the graph. Also the AVS chart is probably measured in a room while the Toms one is probably an anechoic measurement. Room affects a LOT of things in measurements.

Well then, I guess we need to throw out the Micca charts posted here, as they were also smoothed.

How does it contradict the Tom's chart? Crossover dip? Check.

Check? The Toms chart shows a crossover dip at 150Hz, while the AVS chart actually shows the 3rd-highest SPIKE on the entire graph at 150Hz...

Honestly, the difference is large enough that I'm starting to wonder if Klipsch did a silent revision of the ProMedias with a different crossover. Measuring at a lower volume isn't going to slide the crossover dip over by 50Hz.

Weak highs? Check.

Again, the Toms chart shows weak highs (which the ProMeadi's do suffer from without EQ), but... right when the Tom's chart is bottoming out, the AVS chart shows a massive spike just below 20k. Another contradiction... if the AVS chart was accurate, the highs on the ProMedia's would sound like crystallized distorted garbage, but that's not a complaint I've EVER heard about these speakers. The complaint is usually just that the highs need to be boosted (which is what Tom's chart portrays).

Uneven frequency performance? Check.

Again, the Toms chart is far less uneven overall.

Subwoofer peak at about 50hz? Check.

AGAIN, the two charts disagree. The AVS chart shows the sub peaking at 48Hz, while the Toms chart shows that 48Hz is actually a bit of a dip (Toms shows the peak at closer to 65Hz)

About a 20db decline before hitting 30hz? Check.

That's about the only thing that really matches.

Tell me what's contradictory.

Done and done...

 

[heflys20]

The Toms chart shows a crossover dip at 150Hz, while the AVS chart actually shows the 3rd-highest SPIKE on the entire graph at 150Hz...

Third highest spike? How does any of that negate my assertion that the crossover dip occurs in the 100-200hz range? These speakers are going to have a crossover dip. LOL.

I'm not sure why we're really stuck on this point.

Honestly, the difference is large enough that I'm starting to wonder if Klipsch did a silent revision of the ProMedias with a different crossover.

There are various other factors that could impact frequency response. Room, the recording process, volume, etc.

Again, the Toms chart shows weak highs (which the ProMeadi's do suffer from without EQ), but... right when the Tom's chart is bottoming out, the AVS chart shows a massive spike just below 20k. Another contradiction.

Boonie, more than likely, already clarified this for you. The AVS member didn't smooth out the chart, and it really doesn't matter, since the highs are still weak in both examples.

No contradiction at all.

the highs on the ProMedia's would sound like crystallized distorted garbage.

Distortion? Distortion would likely cause clipping, which would make the peaks look abnormally flat [the waves appear almost cubical]. That isn't distortion and you likely won't notice it since most people can't hear up to 20khz.

Again, the Toms chart is far less uneven overall.

Yeah, it has been smoothed out. The same issues are there. Crossover dip between 100-200hz, weak highs and peaky bass that massively drops off before hitting 30hz.

AGAIN, the two charts disagree.

You keep saying this. Not sure why.

The AVS chart shows the sub peaking at 48Hz, while the Toms chart shows that 48Hz is actually a bit of a dip (Toms shows the peak at closer to 65Hz)

So I should throw out the AVS chart because of a 10-11hz peak difference, particularly when they are at different volumes?

Okay.

 

[B00nie]

Well then, I guess we need to throw out the Micca charts posted here, as they were also smoothed.

Yes naturally. And those Miccas are probably crappy as hell also in reality. No wave guides means non-existant controlled directivity. This kind of speaker works well only in near field or an anechoic chamber, if even there.

Check? The Toms chart shows a crossover dip at 150Hz, while the AVS chart actually shows the 3rd-highest SPIKE on the entire graph at 150Hz...

Honestly, the difference is large enough that I'm starting to wonder if Klipsch did a silent revision of the ProMedias with a different crossover.

If the other measurement was done anechoic and the other has the room bass boost included that explains the difference.

Again, the Toms chart shows weak highs (which the ProMeadi's do suffer from without EQ), but... right when the Tom's chart is bottoming out, the AVS chart shows a massive spike just below 20k. Another contradiction.

Early reflections from crappy non-waveguide tweeters. No contradiction IF the AVS measurement was done on desk/in room. Anechoic lies as far as end result in room goes.

Again, the Toms chart is far less uneven overall.

Room modes and early reflections will do that for you.

AGAIN, the two charts disagree. The AVS chart shows the sub peaking at 48Hz, while the Toms chart shows that 48Hz is actually a bit of a dip (Toms shows the peak at closer to 65Hz)

Room boost will drop the peak to lower hz, anechoic doesn't get the boost.

That's about the only thing that really matches.


Done and done...

If you believe you're done then I guess you're done. But you didn't prove anything.

 

[heflys20]

If you believe you're done then I guess you're done. But you didn't prove anything.

I'm not entirely sure what he's refuting, the charts show almost exactly the same weaknesses.

 

[B00nie]

I'm not entirely sure what he's refuting, the charts show almost exactly the same weaknesses.

He's getting confused from the half octave - octave shift in frequencies. If the other measurement is done in a regular room and the other in anechoic, they're not 1:1 comparable anymore. For all practical causes measurements that are done in room tell the truth far more accurately.

Audio reviewers and designers can't use in-room charts at all because each room is invididual. They're shooting in the dark as far as the end result goes in room. That's why the latest boom in speaker design is to use controlled directivity in order to minimize the effect of a room to the end result so that your speaker would sound more like designed also outside the anechoic chamber.

Near field monitors do not need controlled directicity, the listener gets mostly direct sound. Any speaker that is used outside near field gets in deep doo-doo if the radiating patterns of the tweeter, midbass and the bass are not carefully controlled and matched together.

 

[Unknown-One]

Third highest spike? How does any of that negate my assertion that the crossover dip occurs in the 100-200hz range?

I never disagreed. If you quote a range large enough you can claim anything falls within it

A sub crossover doesn't just magically slide 50Hz down the graph. THAT is the point I'm making.

These speakers are going to have a crossover dip. LOL.

Never said they wouldn't, so not sure what you're on about here.

He's getting confused from the half octave - octave shift in frequencies.

Confused? No, I'm simply pointing out that the two graphs don't match.

If the other measurement is done in a regular room and the other in anechoic, they're not 1:1 comparable anymore.

Bingo

 

[heflys20]

I never disagreed.

Then why did you bring it up, particularly when it refuted nothing I said. LOL.

A sub crossover doesn't just magically slide 50Hz down the graph. THAT is the point I'm making.

Uh, it depends on how audible the dip is. As has been stated in this discussion numerous times, there are various factors that can impact this.

It's not magic. Just science.

Never said they wouldn't, so not sure what you're on about here.

Then why did you mention the positioning of a peak, particularly when I said it appears around the 100-200hz range?

LOL.

Confused? No, I'm simply pointing out that the two graphs don't match

They match almost perfectly. Where it matters.

Bingo

LOL. I'm glad you finally agree that the AVS chart is the more realistic measurement.

Are we done here?

 

[Unknown-One]

Then why did you bring it up, particularly when it refuted nothing I said. LOL.

Huh? I didn't bring it up. Read more carefully.

I made the point that the crossover is in different places on the two graphs.
YOU made the point that they were both in the 100-200Hz range.

I never disagreed that they were within that range. The only thing I brought up is that they were in different places (50Hz off from one another).

It's not magic. Just science.

I never said it was magic, I said it doesn't happen magically.

The dead-zone between the high pass and low pass filters does not change based on the room. It's fixed.

Then why did you mention the positioning of a peak, particularly when I said it appears around the 100-200hz range?

I mentioned that one graph has a peak where the other shows the crossover dip. I never said that these speakers didn't have a crossover dip (just look at the charts, there's obviously a crossover dip in both of them somewhere)

The match almost perfectly. Where it matters.

Riiiight...

LOL. I'm glad you finally agree that the AVS chart is the more realistic measurement?

When did we agree on that? It still doesn't look accurate based on what I've heard from the speakers.

 

[B00nie]

Oh I'm loving this. They should change the name of the forum to 'audio wars'

 

[heflys20]

Huh? I didn't bring it up. Read more carefully.

Uh, you didn't say this yesterday:

That the AVS chat doesn't even show the crossover dip in the same place?

And this today:

Check? The Toms chart shows a crossover dip at 150Hz, while the AVS chart actually shows the 3rd-highest SPIKE on the entire graph at 150Hz...

Are you trolling me?

I made the point that the crossover is in different places on the two graphs.
YOU made the point that they were both in the 100-200Hz range.

Yes, and you said the exact same thing I said. Adding absolutely nothing.

Why?

I never disagreed that they were within that range. The only thing I brought up is that they were in different places (50Hz off from one another).

LOL. And why did you bring that up?

I never said it was magic, I said it doesn't happen magically.

You seem to imply it was some sort of trickery, otherwise why bring up where the crossover dip is? In fact, yesterday, you claimed the entire chart didn't make sense:

I can't take that graph seriously as a basis for comparison. It makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not sure where this is going.

I mentioned that one graph has a peak where the other shows the crossover dip. I never said that these speakers didn't have a crossover dip.

My point was, and still, is why did you bring it up? It seems it was intended to discredit the AVS review (which you have been doing through out most of this discussion), yet now you seem unwilling to admit that.

When did we agree on that? It still doesn't look accurate based on what I've heard from the speakers.

Based on what you heard from these speakers? You likely wouldn't be able notice some of these things unless you conducted a thorough test yourself. Not to mention that people have selective hearing.

 

[Unknown-One]

Huh? I didn't bring it up. Read more carefully.

Uh, you didn't say this yesterday:

That the AVS chat doesn't even show the crossover dip in the same place?

And this today:

Check? The Toms chart shows a crossover dip at 150Hz, while the AVS chart actually shows the 3rd-highest SPIKE on the entire graph at 150Hz...

Are you trolling me?

No? I'm not sure what you're confused about.

I said that the two graphs show the crossover dip in different places (100Hz on one graph and 150Hz on the other). That DIFFERENCE + those specific values are what I brought up.

You then pointed out that they were both in the 100-200Hz range... well duh? That was just stating the obvious and agreeing with what I said. A RANGE is what you brought up, a range that had very little bearing on the point I was making.

Yes, and you said the exact same thing I said. Adding absolutely nothing.

Why?

Why? Because we didn't say the same thing.

I said that the graphs don't agree when it comes to crossover frequency. They're 50Hz off.
You then simply quoted a large range that included the two crossover values.

You're the one who added nothing

I never disagreed that they were within that range. The only thing I brought up is that they were in different places (50Hz off from one another).

LOL. And why did you bring that up?

You just quoted exactly why I brought it up.

One shows the crossover dip at 100Hz, the other shows it at 150Hz. That's a disagreement.

The fact that you quoted a range that both numbers fall within doesn't change that fact.

You seem to imply it was some sort of trickery, otherwise why bring up where the crossover dip is? In fact, yesterday, you claimed the entire chart didn't make sense

I never said there was intentional trickery. I said the AVS graph doesn't match my experience with the speakers.

And I already told you why I brought up where the crossover dip is: Because the graphs disagree massively on something that should match. The frequency of the crossover shouldn't vary like that.

I mentioned that one graph has a peak where the other shows the crossover dip. I never said that these speakers didn't have a crossover dip.

My point was, and still, is why did you bring it up? It seems it was intended to discredit the AVS review (which you have been doing through out most of this discussion), yet now you seem unwilling to admit that.

I already told you why I brought it up, because there's a difference where there shouldn't be one. That means SOMETHING isn't right (possibly that the two sets of ProMedia's tested used different crossover hardware).

 

[heflys20]

The dead-zone between the high pass and low pass filters does not change based on the room. It's fixed.

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/frontiers_5.htm

"Note that none of these physical offset and crossover effects can be sorted out by in-room frequency response measurements of the loudspeaker system. The required measurement time window is too long to reject the room response which tends to dominate the measurement results below 1000 Hz in typical size rooms and for meaningful measurement distances. The analysis here deals with the direct sound or first-arrival frequency response. Included in this analysis is the requirement that the midrange acoustic high pass behavior is either LR2, B3 or LR4 which in practice has to be assured by proper equalization of the midrange channel. Fortunately the low frequency direct sound can be easily modeled, predicted and measured for free-space or half-space conditions. The correlated, but delayed response of the listening room, though, is a different matter. But regardless, it is important to understand and control the behavior of the source of sound in the room if optimum results are to be obtained."

 

[Unknown-One]

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/frontiers_5.htm

"Note that none of these physical offset and crossover effects can be sorted out by in-room frequency response measurements of the loudspeaker system. The required measurement time window is too long to reject the room response which tends to dominate the measurement results below 1000 Hz in typical size rooms and for meaningful measurement distances. The analysis here deals with the direct sound or first-arrival frequency response. Included in this analysis is the requirement that the midrange acoustic high pass behavior is either LR2, B3 or LR4 which in practice has to be assured by proper equalization of the midrange channel. Fortunately the low frequency direct sound can be easily modeled, predicted and measured for free-space or half-space conditions. The correlated, but delayed response of the listening room, though, is a different matter. But regardless, it is important to understand and control the behavior of the source of sound in the room if optimum results are to be obtained."

Not sure why you quoted that when it doesn't negate anything I said?

The crossover frequency is fixed, the room doesn't change that. If there's a total dead-zone in the middle of the crossover where almost nothing gets through, it should show up in pretty much exactly the same spot no matter what room you test the speakers in.

The fact that the two charts disagree on where the crossover frequency is means something here isn't right.

 

[B00nie]

Not sure why you quoted that when it doesn't negate anything I said?

The crossover frequency is fixed, the room doesn't change that. If there's a total dead-zone in the middle of the crossover where NOTHING gets through, it should show up in pretty much exactly the same spot no matter what room you test the speakers in.

The fact that the two charts disagree on where the crossover frequency is means something here isn't right.

The room gain makes the bass response extend lower than it otherwise would. I'm guessing this may explain the difference. XO frequency is not changed but the measured response is.

 

[heflys20]

I said that the two graphs show the crossover dip in different places (100Hz on one graph and 150Hz on the other). That DIFFERENCE + those specific values are what I brought up.

WHY? WHY?

You then pointed out that they were both in the 100-200Hz range... well duh? That was just stating the obvious and agreeing with what I said.

And that's why you repeated what I said. Again?

A RANGE is what you brought up, a range that had very little bearing on the point I was making.

You said the crossover dip doesn't appear in the same place. It does. If you mean exactly, to T (which would be ridiculous). Then no. You are right. I guess you were being pedantic.

I never disagreed. If you quote a range large enough you can claim anything falls within it

Yeah, like saying you can't hear the things in the AVS chart, so it must be wrong or doesn't make sense, right?

Why? Because we didn't say the same thing.

You said the crossover wasn't in the same spot. I said it was, because being between the 100hz-200hz is all that really matters. You then mentioned a minute/meaningless detail that they weren't in the EXACT HZ wise. Refuting absolutely nothing.

I said that the graphs don't agree when it comes to crossover frequency. They're 50Hz off.
You then simply quoted a large range that included the two crossover values.

100hz-200hz isn't that large of range in that spectrum, particularly when the spectrum goes from 20hz-20,000khz in regards to human hearing.

You just quoted exactly why I brought it up.

One shows the crossover dip at 100Hz, the other shows it at 150Hz. That's a disagreement.

The fact that you quoted a range that both numbers fall within doesn't change that fact.

I'm done with the semantics. Moving on.

I never said there was intentional trickery. I said the AVS graph doesn't match my experience with the speakers.

Unless you tested the speakers and created your own graph, that means absolutely nothing and does nothing to refute the AVS chart. You just disagree with it (for whatever reason), even though it pretty much goes along with the TH chart.

And I already told you why I brought up where the crossover dip is: Because the graphs disagree massively on something that should match. The frequency of the crossover shouldn't vary like that.

AUDIBLE differences. Audible.

I already told you why I brought it up, because there's a difference where there shouldn't be one. That means SOMETHING isn't right (the the two sets of ProMedia's tested used different crossover hardware).

Yeah. I already explained what it was.

 

[heflys20]

Not sure why you quoted that when it doesn't negate anything I said?

Are you serious? Did you miss part where room acoustics can affect the audibility of crossovers lower than a 1000hz, and he recommends controlling room acoustics when testing lower crossovers?

 

[Unknown-One]

WHY? WHY?

Because that difference shouldn't be there. I keep telling you...

You said the crossover dip doesn't appear in the same place. It does.

No it doesn't? It's 50Hz off.

You said the crossover wasn't in the same spot. I said it was

You cited a range. If it was in the same spot on both charts you wouldn't have to cite a range.

100hz-200hz isn't that large of range, particularly when the spectrum goes from 20hz-20,000khz in regards to human hearing.

You realize we're talking about a sub, right?

A 100Hz difference at frequencies on the low-end is a hell of a lot more noticeable.

AUDIBLE differences. Audible.

A sub's crossover being moved from 100Hz to 150Hz is audible. You'd have audio CLEARLY meant for satellites coming out of your sub...

That's far less of a problem at 100Hz, though ideally you'd go even lower than that.

 

[heflys20]

Because that difference shouldn't be there. I keep telling you...

Yes it can, if you record with a mic in a different environment. I just linked you to a credible source corroborating that fact.

No it doesn't? It's 50Hz off.

Fine. If you want to believe that's a huge difference. So be it. A sub shouldn't be going that high to begin with. Unless the crossover is damn near unnoticeable.

BTW. It appears to be a 20-30hz difference now that a look at it. But, meh.....

You realize we're talking about a sub, right?

A 100Hz difference at frequencies on the low-end is a hell of a lot more noticeable.

That's actually ironic, since you were originally telling us that the Klipsch was THX certified at an 80 LFE crossover.

Yet both charts (primarily the Tom's Hardware one, which you trust) show it exceeding that.

A sub's crossover being moved from 100Hz to 150Hz is audible. You'd have audio CLEARLY meant for satellites coming out of your sub...

Well, if you're stating (more like hinting) that the Klipsch's are mediocre in terms of sound reproduction and that the THX badge is malarkey, who am I to judge. I didn't necessarily say such a high crossover was bad, though it isn't preferred.

It's a bit amusing (no offense meant) that the AVS chart, which you think is less credible, shows a marginally lower crossover for the sub than the Tom's Hardware one; which shows the sub crossing over into higher frequencies.

 

[B00nie]

Are you serious? Did you miss part where room acoustics can affect the audibility of crossovers lower than a 1000hz, and he recommends controlling room acoustics when testing lower crossovers?

Not only that, we don't know what method the AVS guy used when he did the measurement. If he used a time window based measurement, that inherently gives a reliable result only up to a certain frequency. Usually the measurement is done so that you measure 1000-20khz using one shorter run, then the lower octaves using a longer time window. Short of going to record outdoors to some field, even this method doesn't give completely 'anechoic' style result. The room will show.

If he just measured 'live' without a time window, this would explain all the anomalies in the response as he would have recorded the room response instead of the direct radiated response.

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

This is kind of off-topic-ish, but I noticed these were on Amazon for just 100 bucks.

http://www.amazon.com/Mordaunt-Shor...m_sbs_e_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=039W5Y9G7TX7PBG1Y6TH

I dunno how the Alumni compares to what I have but it might be pretty darn decent for the price only one pair in stock, too. Of course it will likely lack bass, but eh. Normally 320 bucks a pair. Not powered, but a TP20 or Lepai will likely drive them, I think. Their recommend wattage is 15-100.

Specs and a review:
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/mordaunt-short-alumni-speaker-system-glance-ratings

 

[UMASS]

Stole: That's a really, really good find. For $100.00 my bet is those Mordaunt-Short speakers are worth every penny. For $150.00 (including amp) someone could have a nice little 2.0 package for short coin.

I just took a peek @ the M-S website. The build quality looks outstanding:

http://www.mordaunt-short.com/products/alumni-2

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

One thing I noticed, their frequency starts at about 100Hz (which is higher than even my Atom V3's). So you might want something for the lower frequencies if you want some bass. These are probably good for everything else for the price though. Sensitivity is also a tad lower. I think they'll be fine on a Topping/Lepai but no way to tell for sure. Shrug.

Just some caveats I think I forgot to mention last time.

 

[B00nie]

Stole: That's a really, really good find. For $100.00 my bet is those Mordaunt-Short speakers are worth every penny. For $150.00 (including amp) someone could have a nice little 2.0 package for short coin.

I just took a peek @ the M-S website. The build quality looks outstanding:

http://www.mordaunt-short.com/products/alumni-2

They look really nice indeed. But small satellite speakers like this have real physical restrictions. Audible restrictions.

Getting good value for money is always a two edged sword. Some people brag that they're getting a huge value for money driving a brand new Dacia. Then again some people would not even want to touch them for free and opt out to drive a preowned Mercedes for the same money. A third one would just go and buy a Bentley and think it's an excellent deal despite blowing 20 times the price of the Dacia.

I'm the kind that would definately blow the money for a Bentley if I could afford it. Sadly you need to pay over 125000 dollars even for a 2004 model here thanks to lame car taxing. A 2014 basic model with no options extra goes past 400 000 USD.

 

[Bluesun311]

As long as we're spending hypothetical money on cars here, I would go straight for the 918 Spyder. Not sure what she would equate to in speakers but the Bentleys are too stately and refined for a guy like me. Also I think a car should be dangerous or you get complacent--the Bentley is liable to just slowly come to a stop after destroying a brick wall head on at 100mph. The Spyder will explode into fragments directly upon impact like a proper car.

 

[oshia86]

Meh, P1 or gtfo!

 

[Bluesun311]

Omg take your hybrid super car nonsense to Luxembourg or something. Jk, I drive stupid Prius.

 

[Neutrino]

I'm the kind that would definately blow the money for a Bentley if I could afford it. Sadly you need to pay over 125000 dollars even for a 2004 model here thanks to lame car taxing. A 2014 basic model with no options extra goes past 400 000 USD.

Are you not in the states? If yes no complaining. The car taxes here in Europe and so much worse they make US car taxes seem nonexistent.

Worst is engine size tax ... stomps so hard on my American V8 plans. I'll probably get a 4c just because of this

Omg take your hybrid super car nonsense to Luxembourg or something. Jk, I drive stupid Prius.

Hey don't knock Luxembourg, they actually have reasonable car taxes

 

[B00nie]

Are you not in the states? If yes no complaining. The car taxes here in Europe and so much worse they make US car taxes seem nonexistent.

Worst is engine size tax ... stomps so hard on my American V8 plans. I'll probably get a 4c just because of this

Yep I live in Finland. Our government is expert on taxing. If it moves, it's taxed. If it breathes, it's taxed. If it doesn't move, then its property taxed. You get the picture.

 

[Neutrino]

Yep I live in Finland. Our government is expert on taxing. If it moves, it's taxed. If it breathes, it's taxed. If it doesn't move, then its property taxed. You get the picture.

Auch ... yeah I think you guys might have it worse than us on car tax.


Btw since you live in Europe, how did you source your magnepans? They are quite hard to get here, or maybe I was looking at the wrong places.

Of and one more question if you don't mind:
Since you live closer to the source, do you know of any way to get a good deal on Genelecs (something like a factory outlet for example)? I cannot ever find them discounted.

 

[B00nie]

Auch ... yeah I think you guys might have it worse than us on car tax.

Yep we pay the same amount of money for a 9 year old car that they pay for new cars in Germany.

Btw since you live in Europe, how did you source your magnepans? They are quite hard to get here, or maybe I was looking at the wrong places.

All hifi or high-end shops worth their salt offer Magnepans and/or Martin Logans here. You need to find a hfii or high-end specialist shop - they're not so expensive as you might think usually.

Of and one more question if you don't mind:
Since you live closer to the source, do you know of any way to get a good deal on Genelecs (something like a factory outlet for example)? I cannot ever find them discounted.

Ironically the Genelecs are the most expensive right here. If I would order Genelecs from Germany (say, thomann.de) I would get them at least 20% cheaper than from next door to the factory. I've visited the Genelec and Gradient factories btw.

 

[Neutrino]

All hifi or high-end shops worth their salt offer Magnepans and/or Martin Logans here. You need to find a hfii or high-end specialist shop - they're not so expensive as you might think usually.

Not that popular with the hifi shops around belgium Plus it seems to me that most audio boutique shops mark up prices like crazy

Ironically the Genelecs are the most expensive right here. If I would order Genelecs from Germany (say, thomann.de) I would get them at least 20% cheaper than from next door to the factory. I've visited the Genelec and Gradient factories btw.

Bummer, I'll try thomann.de to see how their prices are. I mostly use www.bax-shop.nl

 

[B00nie]

Not that popular with the hifi shops around belgium Plus it seems to me that most audio boutique shops mark up prices like crazy



Bummer, I'll try thomann.de to see how their prices are. I mostly use www.bax-shop.nl

You might want to try to find a preowned pair of Genelecs if price is the issue. Genelecs have good protection circuits so it's relatively hard to kill them just by playing.

I really liked how a pair of these http://www.tek4.com/forsale/genelec1031/ sounded in the studio when I was taking my AV courses.

 

[UMASS]

B00nie: I'm a bit of a history nut. My favorite reading is WWII. I have about 11-12 books on the Finnish Winter War of 1939-40 It's my favorite part of pre-WWII by far. The Finns kicked some serious ass against the Russians! The Soviets/Stalin gave you no choice! You lost your 2nd largest city @ the time (Viipuri) Unfortunately you also lost the nickel-rich area of Petsamo & your access to the Artic sea.

Mannerheim was a great tactician! The Finns were outnumbered 8-1 & you still held them off for a solid 3+ months. The Finns are a hearty breed! This is my favorite political cartoon from the Winter War. Sorry for being so off topic! Had to share.

http://allthingsfinnish.tumblr.com/post/30747019748