Criteria for new speakers

H

hardworking

Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Location
Europe
Prompted by Tenson's comments about headphone amps and transparency, it occurs to me that I need a simple set of criteria when choosing a set of speakers. The choice is simply too wide, and its too easy to be influenced by the wrong things. I would be interested to know what people think these criteria should be - eg

-flat response!
-type - standmount, floor standing etc according to preference
-impedance
-price/budget
-etc

I realise that eventually you get to more subjective questions, as well as cosmetic matters; however, I would be interested in discussing some criteria which help to narrow down the field. Or is it all subjective?
 
Well, there are a few things to help match your room and system.

Sensitivity is important to match the power of your amp. But... it's better to buy the amp for your preferred speakers.

Frequency response can be thought of in two ways I suppose; the tone and the room matching.

Regards tone, it is simply a case of whether you want a softer sound or a lively sound, for example. I wouldn't look for flat as a criterion as it often doesn't sound best.

As for room matching you might like to think about how deep the bass goes and if it is boosted slightly, flat all the way or an 'extended shelf' where it rolls off a little but still goes low. If you have a small room you might be best to avoid speakers that peak the bass which is quite common with small speakers actually as they want to make them seem larger than life.

Electronics are easy to set criterion for, but speakers are still highly flawed and as such it's more of a subjective choice. There are of course reasons they sound the way they do, but with so many 'issues' it becomes a complex matter.

I think the best way to draw up a short-list is to give details about your room, budget and system and see what suggestions you get.


..all that said, I don't think anybody can go far wrong with the Behrigner Truth 2031A active speakers. They are affordable, play to a decently loud level and recently scored the highest preference among some other very respected speakers in a blind listening session conducted by Earl Gedds (world famous acoustic engineer).
 
Thanks - never heard of those Behringers - they look like a very good deal.

I was starting out wondering if there are specific things to look for, before getting into room and system specifics. But I understand that its hard to narrow this down without getting into those.

The system will be quad 34/306 mentioned in another thread, currently being serviced. The room they will eventually be going into - without boring you with why it will be a while before this happens - will be about 12' square. Floor standers are basically out of the question for reasons of domestic harmony :) I Budget is...well, no idea really, but I am guessing at 500 at the absolute outside. Ideally much less. The other thing is whether to look for a design with some link to the quad era...Though I am aiming for a system that works for the next 20 years, so I don't want something that needs too much TLC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Markus S said:
Link to that listening session?

edit: Don't bother, plenty of info out there, including this: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ns-beaten-behringer-what-303.html#post3668834
Click to expand...

In which Gedds says: (my bold)

What people miss here is that the Behringers were judged as not significantly different in the blind test. This could occur if the test was botched, i.e. the responses were too widely variant to conclude anything. Which IMO, was precisely what happened. I was asked to participate in this test with my speakers but I declined because I did not like the test protocol.
Click to expand...


....or it could be because they really weren't significantly different.

He didn't participate - so we, and he can only make assumptions.
 
hardworking said:
The system will be quad 34/306 mentioned in another thread, currently being serviced. .
Click to expand...

Phil, just finished the pair half an hour ago.
Currently on test sounding absolutely lovely :)

I think you'll enjoy them.
 
I didn't see that comment from Geddes. None the less, he did say he was really impressed by the polar response, which is arguably one of the most important factors in the sound of a speaker. I've seen measurements for the distortion and response of the system too and it is really quite amazing for the money.

By the way, they do a passive version, so you could use your Quads. I'm not sure that has the same attraction as the active version though. If going passive I'd look at other speakers but I'm not sure what to sugegst off the top of my head. Could you get some used PMCs? FB1 or TB2?
 
Not heard them but they are a Peter Comeau design and he doesn't get it wrong. They reportedly share the voicing of the Quad ESLs with a mildly BBC balance, so slightly more relaxed and laid back than most current designs.

Would definitely be worth a punt at the right price. You'd should sell them on easily at no loss if they aren't to taste.

Another really sweet little loudspeaker with an easy and relaxed sound is the Mission 750LE.
This one was designed by Robin Robin Marshall of Epos fame and sounds beautifully clean and sweet.
It was introduced as a 25th anniversary product and is quite different to the usual forward Mission house sound.
Another is the Mission 751 which has a more modern balance - very clean and engaging.
Both should be available <£150 for a mint pair.

402511-mission_762i_or_mission_761_or_mission_760i_se.jpg



Mission_751.JPG
 
Those Mission 750 looks nice :)

I have heard the Quad 11L speakers and I can't really recommend them. The voicing is okay, but the tweeter is just too poor quality and sounded shooshy.

I used to have a pair of Monitor Audio Gold Reference 10. They were very nice indeed, clean and lively. I put some foam in the ports of mine as I had them near room corners. As an aside, I didn't much like the Silver series at the time. I could have got 3-way Silver series but the small Gold speakers were just more engaging. That takes me back. Hearing the Gold 60's in the shop was one of those first 'wow can hi-fi sound like that' moments. Hard to beat that feeling and you keep chasing it! Oh, and stay away from the ribbon tweeter MAs - zing zing!

One day I WILL own a pair of MA GR10 and PMC AML1 again!! I will re-live my hi-fi past.
 
Tenson said:
Those Mission 750 looks nice :)

.
Click to expand...

They are, I had a pair for a couple of years during my Cyrus phase.
Custom Audax Aerogel bass/mid and Audax fabric dome with waveguide.
Very good mid and nice integration.
 
Thanks guys, I had a feeling those quads were not quite right somehow...maybe the second hand values were a sign.

You started me off on PMCs ! Never heard any. I need to track some down to listen, but I like what they stand for. Though much as I like the idea of the PMCs, I will have to save a bit to spend that kind of money, and need to sell some kit first.

Those 750s look the part though- and a bargain if I can find some. Apparently some sold on ebay for even less than 100 - so not a big risk. It seems the MA golds fit in between price wise - so lots to think about.....hmmmmm!
 
I'd agree with the above. I've had both the Quads and the Missions (in earlier guise) and preferred the Missions. They had more about them tonally, were smoother in the treble and as for the imaging....as good as it gets. Good choice of drivers and decent crossover. Front porting let them down a bit as with many small "choked" designs it does have a bit of an 80Hz hump (one note) but many of that size do.
 
That is often a case of needing to be tuned a bit lower. You can help that by extending the port a few cm with a pack of straws or using some open foam to damp it.
 
It can be, but it also depends upon the driver Qts and system Qtc, plus Vas figures. If the cabinet is already "optimal" for the drivers selected, then dropping the tuning point won't necessarily generate cleaner deeper bass and the hump in response may still be there. The limit can be dropped a little but shouldn't be dropped anywhere too close to the driver resonance point or driver/amp damage can occur. Damping the port changes the system Qtc (damping) and response. Tbh, such designs can rarely be significantly improved upon...it's the nature of the design and cabinet size.
 
I think it is very uncommon that the bass hump is due to driver fs and qts being high, rather than the port tuning simply being a little high. It's not really about the cabinet being optimal IME, it's just a choice by the designer in the tuning of the system, neither is right or wrong.

Here is an example of the Kensai. It is tuned as the lower curve which has less bass output but goes lower. Many small speakers will choose the other option which is exactly the same cabinet size and driver but tuned higher. It will sound like a bigger speaker at first but will kick off room modes more due to the peaking bass and won't like being close to walls or corners.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top