I got a chance (in India is very difficult) to listen to B&W, Dyna Audio and Dali speakers, bookshelfs as well as floor standers. While the floor standers that I heard, (all three) were of course great, I intend to go for the Dali Concept 1 bookshelf (25-100W RMS), matched with either a Yamaha or Sherwood A/V 100W receiver. Coupled with a decent sub that I asked the dealer to hook up, these bookshelfs impressed me considerably. The Dyna Audio Audience 42 and 52 bookshlefs sounded a tad too harsh/clinical to me.
The 600 is great for beginners (although the 601 is much better). Make sure you have good amplification! Something like a NAD integrated amp 320BEE. (Also, I would have probably gotten the Paradigm titans which are $225)
Id take the 600 series over the other plastic B&Ws anyday.
My Nautilus 805's are hooked up to my computer through Rotel RC-1070 preamp and RB-1070 amp. Can't say any other solution out there comes close (for the money). ACI Titan takes care of the 16-32hz bass.
What started out as upgrading my Klipsch Ultra 5.1's to B&W 602S3 quickly turned into what I have now. Be careful, this hobby is addictive and more expensive than swapping out graphics cards.
Id take the 600 series over the other plastic B&Ws anyday.
My Nautilus 805's are hooked up to my computer through Rotel RC-1070 preamp and RB-1070 amp. Can't say any other solution out there comes close (for the money). ACI Titan takes care of the 16-32hz bass.
What started out as upgrading my Klipsch Ultra 5.1's to B&W 602S3 quickly turned into what I have now. Be careful, this hobby is addictive and more expensive than swapping out graphics cards.
You could just analog out of your X-Fi into an amplifier rather than buy the receiver (unless you want the tuner). Try it out, see if you like it!
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
- Aug 6, 2001
- 31,205
- 45
- 91
Hey great input. I have an older NAD 7220PE stereo amp that I believe will do the job until i can educate myself further. Like u said this is a $$$$$addictive$$$$ hobby.
QUESTION: I tried looking for a pure amp since I already have all receiver functions in my X-Fi. I couldnt find one that wasnt like $5,000. Can you recommend a specific model?.
right now I am looking at the yamaha i mentioned or this rather nice NAD receiver LINK (found one for $500 [$699 MSRP, good deal?]), its their entry level model but its very high quality some good reviews and more than enough power for me.
Would you be so kind as to list all your equipment and what kind of setup/computer you are using it on?
Also, what kind of cable are you using as the interconnect from the X-fi?
Beefy vintage amps rock the Casbah my friend.
Crown and it takes balanced XLR input, so if you want quality you pay, but either way
Just for reference, the nicest system I ever worked on included a Lexicon MC12b v5, 7 Crown Studio Reference 2s, a pair of Kharma Exquisite per channel, a Krell Master Reference Subwoofer, video section was Barco Cine9 and Stewart Filmscreen Blackhawk hooked up to a PC with 7800 GTX 512MB SLI.
Crown and it takes balanced XLR input, so if you want quality you pay, but either way
Just for reference, the nicest system I ever worked on included a Lexicon MC12b v5, 7 Crown Studio Reference 2s, a pair of Kharma Exquisite per channel, a Krell Master Reference Subwoofer, video section was Barco Cine9 and Stewart Filmscreen Blackhawk hooked up to a PC with 7800 GTX 512MB SLI.
I believe any pro amp will do you find like Ribbon13 just suggested. Crown makes some solid ones. Also, QSC is another popular one. GuitarCenter has them, as will any Guitar store. Dealers will swear up and down that proamps are terrible for sound quality. To tell you the truth, I don't believe that at all - my ears cant tell the difference!
I have a 1/8" stereo mini plug to L/R RCA adapter, then I use an RCA interconnect from the adapter into the preamp. I then use an RCA interconnect between the Preamp and the amp.
AMD 1800+ @ 2000mhz
2x512MB DDR3200 2:2:2
ATI9800pro 256MB @ 420mhz/360mhz
ATI TV Wonder Pro (for my playstation two)
SB Audigy 2ZS
Stereo out 1/8" on the back of the card
1/8" stereo miniplug to Stereo RCA adapter
RCA Interconnect (Acoustic Research cheapo from Bestbuy)
Rotel RC-1070 Preamp
Rotel RB-1070 Amp ($700 for 135Watts x2)
Rotel RCD-1072 HDCD player
BlueJeans Cables 12ga White speaker cable
Monster Quickspade speaker wire terminators
B&W Nautilus 805
ACI Titan II LE Subwoofer
Your NAD 7220PE will probably be more than enough. Seriously, NAD makes solid products and I'd be using NAD if I hadn't jumped all the way to Rotel. I think that receiver outputs 30Watts per channel - that is plenty if you have a small (12x12 or less) room and you dont care for reference level (85dB +/- 20dB) playback. My first integrated amp (Cambridge Audio) (receiver without FM Tuner) was rated at 40W and it could play louder than my ears could take without distress.
I have a 1/8" stereo mini plug to L/R RCA adapter, then I use an RCA interconnect from the adapter into the preamp. I then use an RCA interconnect between the Preamp and the amp.
AMD 1800+ @ 2000mhz
2x512MB DDR3200 2:2:2
ATI9800pro 256MB @ 420mhz/360mhz
ATI TV Wonder Pro (for my playstation two)
SB Audigy 2ZS
Stereo out 1/8" on the back of the card
1/8" stereo miniplug to Stereo RCA adapter
RCA Interconnect (Acoustic Research cheapo from Bestbuy)
Rotel RC-1070 Preamp
Rotel RB-1070 Amp ($700 for 135Watts x2)
Rotel RCD-1072 HDCD player
BlueJeans Cables 12ga White speaker cable
Monster Quickspade speaker wire terminators
B&W Nautilus 805
ACI Titan II LE Subwoofer
Your NAD 7220PE will probably be more than enough. Seriously, NAD makes solid products and I'd be using NAD if I hadn't jumped all the way to Rotel. I think that receiver outputs 30Watts per channel - that is plenty if you have a small (12x12 or less) room and you dont care for reference level (85dB +/- 20dB) playback. My first integrated amp (Cambridge Audio) (receiver without FM Tuner) was rated at 40W and it could play louder than my ears could take without distress.
The kevlar used in B&W cone drivers is resonant (meaning you hear reoccuring afterimages long after the signal stops playing). This produces a "bright" or "harsh" sound that some "might" like, but is neither neutral nor true to the source. B&W also like many north atlantic speakers implements a "bass hump" in the midbass to give the illusion of more bass extention than it actually has, at the expense of accuracy (a bit boomy or bloated). Note, these are qualities found in a LOT of Euro/British speakers (bass hump and resonant drivers) as it is the current fad. However, it's not ACCURATE in a playback sense.
If you want tonal accuracy, you will want to look at companies like Energy Connoisseur, Ascend Acoustics (such as Yoyo suggested), or NHT Classic series (a little pricier, but nicer finish).
B&W, which utilizes resonant drivers, is considered on the bright side, similar to Thiel, Axiom. Note Yoyo's speakers are AV123 Rockets, which also use aluminum drivers, but unlike the companies I listed, AV123 actually bothered to engineer a steep 24db/octave crossover to eliminate driver resonances, giving the Rockets the advantage of detailed aluminum sound without the resonance (although at the cost of some midrange output).
On the warmer side you have Paradigm (and Rockets of course).
You should decide what kind of sound you prefer--accurate, bright, or warm (slight bass hump, laid back highs) before you jump into a speaker choice. I've heard it said before everyone's preferences is the same (since hearing sound can be construed as a form of irritation or pain) and as a result how well you hear (whether thats gained or innate hearing loss) will strongly determine what kind of sound you prefer.
If anyone wants an example of what a speaker with a lot of resonance looks like, the following two images compare the B&W DM603 and the Ascend Acoustics CMT-340, or as I would like to call it, the difference between slapping drivers into a piece of wood, and good engineering.
B&W DM603
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/DM603fig2.jpg
Ascend Acoustics CBM-340
http://ascendacoustics.com/images/products/speakers/cmt340m/340mWF.gif
The B&W decay plot lasts as long as 74 milliseconds (and counting!...if you notice the graph is just cut off at that point). Now look at the Ascends...the longest decay is roughly 5ms in the less troublesome midbass area. In the midrange, the longest decay lasts under 3ms. These numbers will improve even better as the current Ascends will be replaced with far superier drivers within a month. When people talk about "bright" or "harsh" they are generally talking about spectral decay, which is the buildup of distortion over time. This leads to listener fatigue for people with NORMAL LISTENING. On the flip side, people who have HF cutoffs in their hearing might NEED this distortion to hear details that would otherwise be lost to them. Might be a good idea to download Audacity (for free) and see how far your hearing really extends.
Now look at the measurements:
http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/images/ascenduploads/340SE_FRQ_OA_WEB.gif
+/- 3db 48hz-24KHz for the 340SEs
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/DM603fig4.jpg
+/- 5db 35-25KHz for the 603 S3s
The B&Ws extend further (and you see the "midbass hump" on the B&W graph), but the more accurate speaker is obvious ; )
If you want tonal accuracy, you will want to look at companies like Energy Connoisseur, Ascend Acoustics (such as Yoyo suggested), or NHT Classic series (a little pricier, but nicer finish).
B&W, which utilizes resonant drivers, is considered on the bright side, similar to Thiel, Axiom. Note Yoyo's speakers are AV123 Rockets, which also use aluminum drivers, but unlike the companies I listed, AV123 actually bothered to engineer a steep 24db/octave crossover to eliminate driver resonances, giving the Rockets the advantage of detailed aluminum sound without the resonance (although at the cost of some midrange output).
On the warmer side you have Paradigm (and Rockets of course).
You should decide what kind of sound you prefer--accurate, bright, or warm (slight bass hump, laid back highs) before you jump into a speaker choice. I've heard it said before everyone's preferences is the same (since hearing sound can be construed as a form of irritation or pain) and as a result how well you hear (whether thats gained or innate hearing loss) will strongly determine what kind of sound you prefer.
If anyone wants an example of what a speaker with a lot of resonance looks like, the following two images compare the B&W DM603 and the Ascend Acoustics CMT-340, or as I would like to call it, the difference between slapping drivers into a piece of wood, and good engineering.
B&W DM603
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/DM603fig2.jpg
Ascend Acoustics CBM-340
http://ascendacoustics.com/images/products/speakers/cmt340m/340mWF.gif
The B&W decay plot lasts as long as 74 milliseconds (and counting!...if you notice the graph is just cut off at that point). Now look at the Ascends...the longest decay is roughly 5ms in the less troublesome midbass area. In the midrange, the longest decay lasts under 3ms. These numbers will improve even better as the current Ascends will be replaced with far superier drivers within a month. When people talk about "bright" or "harsh" they are generally talking about spectral decay, which is the buildup of distortion over time. This leads to listener fatigue for people with NORMAL LISTENING. On the flip side, people who have HF cutoffs in their hearing might NEED this distortion to hear details that would otherwise be lost to them. Might be a good idea to download Audacity (for free) and see how far your hearing really extends.
Now look at the measurements:
http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/images/ascenduploads/340SE_FRQ_OA_WEB.gif
+/- 3db 48hz-24KHz for the 340SEs
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/DM603fig4.jpg
+/- 5db 35-25KHz for the 603 S3s
The B&Ws extend further (and you see the "midbass hump" on the B&W graph), but the more accurate speaker is obvious ; )
You're really going to be looking for wooden speakers if you're spending any kind of money. Only exquisitely expensive composites can even approach the resonance and damping characteristics of wood.
I'll just add that I have some DM602's and they sound terrific. They are a little bright but that can be dealt with by hitting the loudness button on the amp or playing with an EQ. They are a great speaker company (though personally I think their media speakers are way overpriced for what you get and you would be better off with a set of Promedia Ultras)
Sidenote: the dm600s are not magnetically shielded, which may be a problem for anyone thinking about using them for their computer. You need to keep them about a foot away from sensitive equipment.
Astrallite, I was a bit shocked at the graphs you have been quoting and decided to read further into the sources you quoted. I'm trying not to make this sound like a flame but i suspect it will seem like that. While I'm certainly not a sound expert (yet), My Masters is based heavily on statisics so I can make some accurate comments on your post.
1) these are both larger speakers , not the small bookshelf size we were discussing
2) You quoted from 2 different sources (one is a Mfr website, the other is a 3rd party review) with different testing methodology. They test at different dB levels -12 vs -34. Furthermore, you may have quoted the wrong figure in your comparision.
For the decay analysis stereophile has 2 graphs, fig2 @attached to side of cabinet" and fig8 @ 50" away from the speaker FIG LINK. Acend does not say the distance they measure decay at. Judging by the other stereophile reviews the 50" distance would be a closer but not exact comparision.
3) Another big difference between the Ascend 340 (identical woofers) and the B&W 603 is that the 603 has the kevlar mid driver and then an additional pure woofer that goes much deeper and causes more vibration to the cabinet. According to fig8 from sterophile your negative comments about kelvar resonance are false and the minor spike they do find the review states is caused by the the deeper woofer.
4) the frequency response graphs you quoted, the steoreophile B&W is averaged at tweeter height over 30 degrees off horizontal axis. The ascend graph you quoted was @ 1m on-axis in a "quasi-anechoilic" quasi meaning "not really but resembling." This means that Ascend may have the room acoustically tuned to favor their speaker for those test results. (i.e. marketing bullshit). The closest graph that Ascend presents is LINK. You will need to look at the lower yellow lines for the proper comparision. Please note the yellow lines have been offset so dont read the actual dB levels, just compare differences in dB level on a single lines which ends up being +/- 6dB from 100Hz to 20Khz.
In conclussion, none of the graphs can be directly compared. The stereophile review will likely be more accurate than the ascend numbers. Your comments about each company's engineering have no grounds. Now if you have personal experience with each speaker set I can not refute your opinion on their sound, however, all your stated hard numbers are not vaild for comparision. The 2 speakers chose to compare are in a different size class than the ascend 170 or the b&w dm600. The actual steorphile reviewer himself gave a very favorable review to the B&W's citing excellent detail, accuracy, and physical appearance.
Astrallite, I was a bit shocked at the graphs you have been quoting and decided to read further into the sources you quoted. I'm trying not to make this sound like a flame but i suspect it will seem like that. While I'm certainly not a sound expert (yet), My Masters is based heavily on statisics so I can make some accurate comments on your post.
1) these are both larger speakers , not the small bookshelf size we were discussing
2) You quoted from 2 different sources (one is a Mfr website, the other is a 3rd party review) with different testing methodology. They test at different dB levels -12 vs -34. Furthermore, you may have quoted the wrong figure in your comparision.
For the decay analysis stereophile has 2 graphs, fig2 @attached to side of cabinet" and fig8 @ 50" away from the speaker FIG LINK. Acend does not say the distance they measure decay at. Judging by the other stereophile reviews the 50" distance would be a closer but not exact comparision.
3) Another big difference between the Ascend 340 (identical woofers) and the B&W 603 is that the 603 has the kevlar mid driver and then an additional pure woofer that goes much deeper and causes more vibration to the cabinet. According to fig8 from sterophile your negative comments about kelvar resonance are false and the minor spike they do find the review states is caused by the the deeper woofer.
4) the frequency response graphs you quoted, the steoreophile B&W is averaged at tweeter height over 30 degrees off horizontal axis. The ascend graph you quoted was @ 1m on-axis in a "quasi-anechoilic" quasi meaning "not really but resembling." This means that Ascend may have the room acoustically tuned to favor their speaker for those test results. (i.e. marketing bullshit). The closest graph that Ascend presents is LINK. You will need to look at the lower yellow lines for the proper comparision. Please note the yellow lines have been offset so dont read the actual dB levels, just compare differences in dB level on a single lines which ends up being +/- 6dB from 100Hz to 20Khz.
In conclussion, none of the graphs can be directly compared. The stereophile review will likely be more accurate than the ascend numbers. Your comments about each company's engineering have no grounds. Now if you have personal experience with each speaker set I can not refute your opinion on their sound, however, all your stated hard numbers are not vaild for comparision. The 2 speakers chose to compare are in a different size class than the ascend 170 or the b&w dm600. The actual steorphile reviewer himself gave a very favorable review to the B&W's citing excellent detail, accuracy, and physical appearance.
Ribbon, that mini-stereo to RCA interconnect is $30. I have a radioshack variety interconnect. Have you actually used something like that and noticed a difference?
I dont know that my $175 speakers will be able to discern the difference...
Titan- b&w 805s and no x-fi ? I had the Audigy 2 ZS. The X-fi has some nice feature and a noticable improvement in sound quality especially with mp3s.
Your stereo mini to rca connector, is it anything like ribbon suggested or radioshack?
****Update on the DM600 S3 pair.
You definitely need to break your speakers in before you can really enjoy them. They started out too bright to the point of being harsh and painful. Less than a week later and 40 hours of playtime they are getting that crisp detail that I heard in the showroom. Findign their sweet spot really helps. These do not do well as nearfield speakers. Push them back and spread then out and they are great!
Sound quality wise I am very happy with my purchase. My original intent was to integrate them into my existing 5.1 setup. It just doesnt work. For music they are great, i turn the 5.1s off and turn the B&Ws up. I tried integrating them into the 5.1s for gaming but its just too difficult try to match the volumes every time since they run off a separate amp..
These are not magnetically shielded and they are not meant for near field listening, making them not so good as computer use speakers. I would recommend avoiding bookshelf speakers entirely for computer use.
Had i the chance to do it all over again I probably would have gone with all b&W M1s and a NAD T763 A/V receiver which would have cost more that my computer.
You definitely need to break your speakers in before you can really enjoy them. They started out too bright to the point of being harsh and painful. Less than a week later and 40 hours of playtime they are getting that crisp detail that I heard in the showroom. Findign their sweet spot really helps. These do not do well as nearfield speakers. Push them back and spread then out and they are great!
Sound quality wise I am very happy with my purchase. My original intent was to integrate them into my existing 5.1 setup. It just doesnt work. For music they are great, i turn the 5.1s off and turn the B&Ws up. I tried integrating them into the 5.1s for gaming but its just too difficult try to match the volumes every time since they run off a separate amp..
These are not magnetically shielded and they are not meant for near field listening, making them not so good as computer use speakers. I would recommend avoiding bookshelf speakers entirely for computer use.
Had i the chance to do it all over again I probably would have gone with all b&W M1s and a NAD T763 A/V receiver which would have cost more that my computer.
**another update.
Ive had the speakers for a while now, had time to listen to different material. Depending on where i set them up in the room its a completely different listening experience.
I found the best best height for them was having the base at 3' so as the tweer lines up with my ears. Had to move them away from the walls as well which seems to have reduced some resonance I was getting. For a few days I pondered blowing another $2000 for more hifi level stuff but the law of dimishing returns kicks in pretty heavy. I can reproduce that sound i heard in the listening room but it really is an awkward position to sit in and set the speakers. My conclussion is shelling out more money will not improve my situation. The dm600s still handle quite well. My other choice would likely have been the Revel M12. A similar size but shielded and received many favorable reviews. I believe they run a little over $500 a pair.
Ive had the speakers for a while now, had time to listen to different material. Depending on where i set them up in the room its a completely different listening experience.
I found the best best height for them was having the base at 3' so as the tweer lines up with my ears. Had to move them away from the walls as well which seems to have reduced some resonance I was getting. For a few days I pondered blowing another $2000 for more hifi level stuff but the law of dimishing returns kicks in pretty heavy. I can reproduce that sound i heard in the listening room but it really is an awkward position to sit in and set the speakers. My conclussion is shelling out more money will not improve my situation. The dm600s still handle quite well. My other choice would likely have been the Revel M12. A similar size but shielded and received many favorable reviews. I believe they run a little over $500 a pair.
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
- Aug 6, 2001
- 31,205
- 45
- 91
Yeah, positioning is probably the biggest obstacle besides price for moving to more HT oriented stuff.
I'm glad they're growing on you vs. the initial impressions.
I'm glad they're growing on you vs. the initial impressions.
found a great source for headphones. The descriptions among different cans and applications are very uselsss. most of the phone have the spl/Hz graph as well.
http://www.headphone.com
and another update on the dm600s
The speakers sounds best if i am up against a soft absorbant surface about 10 feet away. The way I usually listen to them is at my desk so of course thats not even 3 ft away.
I bought a radio shack digital SPL meter LINK
And flatened out the frequency response at the near field position. Certain notes would feel extremely bright and sure enough the 8Khz range had to be cranked down a full -10dB on my X-Fi equalizer. Now I am able to increase the volume without certain treble spikes feeling a little uncomfortable.
I can see why audio is such an appealing hobby. So much to learn and experience.
http://www.headphone.com
and another update on the dm600s
The speakers sounds best if i am up against a soft absorbant surface about 10 feet away. The way I usually listen to them is at my desk so of course thats not even 3 ft away.
I bought a radio shack digital SPL meter LINK
And flatened out the frequency response at the near field position. Certain notes would feel extremely bright and sure enough the 8Khz range had to be cranked down a full -10dB on my X-Fi equalizer. Now I am able to increase the volume without certain treble spikes feeling a little uncomfortable.
I can see why audio is such an appealing hobby. So much to learn and experience.
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
- Aug 6, 2001
- 31,205
- 45
- 91
That's great that you went through the effort to make it sound better. I have the analog version of the radioshack SPL meter but haven't used it on my new stuff since my current receiver has built in equalization and it sounds great already.
Headphones can get really expensive quickly too, so watch your wallet
Headphones can get really expensive quickly too, so watch your wallet
I found a very good tone generator for flattening out the EQ : LINK
A big warning to all of u this could seriously damage your hearing running these tests calibrate at 70dB or less like 60dB. I cal'ed at 70 with the use of earplugs and a radioshack SPL meter.
5kHz - 8Khz the speakers are a little too bright.
A big warning to all of u this could seriously damage your hearing running these tests calibrate at 70dB or less like 60dB. I cal'ed at 70 with the use of earplugs and a radioshack SPL meter.
5kHz - 8Khz the speakers are a little too bright.
oh but come one now...we all know that break-in is a myth??
teehee.
sean,
You'll find that positioning is the biggest impact on your sound quality above all else. Be careful with EQ'ng because you'll introduce more harm than good IMHO unless it is done in the digital domain.
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
- Aug 6, 2001
- 31,205
- 45
- 91
I know im continuing this this thread almost talking to myself. My intention is once I have had enough research and experience to condense my findings into a single useful review.
Something I found that might be a little better for the computer desk work space are near field monitors. One person suggested the swan m200s which seem to have been better tailored to the PC market. Another pair that looked appealing where the M-Audio Studiophile SP-5B although TRS and XLR inputs are not something most people have. There are of course adapters...
Something I found that might be a little better for the computer desk work space are near field monitors. One person suggested the swan m200s which seem to have been better tailored to the PC market. Another pair that looked appealing where the M-Audio Studiophile SP-5B although TRS and XLR inputs are not something most people have. There are of course adapters...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter