Technics SB-C700 Review (Coaxial Bookshelf)

[Crosstalk]

This has a wide dispersion pattern like the Wilson TuneTot, if you eq it to have a similar fr and don't listen at 96 db, can you get it close or is there some design feature in the TuneTot that prevents this? Asking from a design point of view of course

There is no design features but lot of obvious flaws I remember correctly with the TuneTot.

 

[jhaider]

I have an amp that measures as close to perfect as is possible. It has so little coloration that the sound is unbearably sterile. It just won't reproduce music with any involvement…

Unless that amp has inadequate power for peaks, that’s lala land fantasy.

For that reason I would probably prefer the revel for listening and prefer the technics if I wanted accurate, sterile, boring reproduction.

We need to understand that this “accurate is boring” nonsense is just marketing tripe by third-tier “high end” audio companies to compensate for inferior engineering talent or resources.

There’s nothing “boring or sterile” about these fine speakers (or the similarly excellent Revel M105) except for the limited low end. And that’s why we have subs to increase extension and practical headroom.

 

[amirm]

Interesting that Amir brought up the mids. I was thinking that I would bring down the 4k to 10k energy by 2-3 dB to achieve a steaper in room response. It seems that the problem is where the tweeter gets wider just above the crossover. I wounder if padding out the tweeter another few ohms would have fixed this.

I did that first but it didn't fix the issue. I also took down the bass bump and had the same outcome. In these rare situations I use PIR response which led me the correction I post in the review.

 

[Tangband]

Approximate yes. I would say the Revel 4,5 kHz peak may not be as aggressive as it looks as it is more attenuated in the average listening window.

What I like and accuracy are two completely different things.
The point is the C700 deserves an unqualified recommendation. Anyone in his right mind can see that.

Larry B. Larabee : I dont agree at all.
Ofcourse there are worse speakers than this, but this performance would be acceptable for a speaker costing up to maybe 500 dollars. This one costs 1700 dollars. The performance are on pair with a Kef ls50.

There are much better active alternatives for 500 dollars, including amplifiers. For 1100 dollars it can be wastly better.

 

[jhaider]

Dont agree at all.
Ofcourse there are worse speakers than this, but this performance would be acceptable for a speaker costing up to maybe 400 dollars.

Show me a $400 speaker with nice gloss paint finish and a grille and this combination of on axis and polar frequency response. I’ll wait.

I note you copied the measurements with the least correlation to anything that audibly matters.

The performance are on pair with a Kef ls50.

Respectfully, the measured performance here is three leagues better than OG LS50. Frankly Q100 was a higher performance speaker than OG LS50. Preference could vary based on directivity and willingness to EQ the direct field on LS50.

 

[Tangband]

Show me a $400 speaker with nice gloss paint finish and a grille and this combination of on axis and polar frequency response. I’ll wait.

I note you copied the measurements with the least correlation to anything that audibly matters.



Respectfully, the measured performance here is three leagues better than OG LS50. Frankly Q100 was a higher performance speaker than OG LS50. Preference could vary based on directivity and willingness to EQ the direct field on LS50.

The loudspeaker is beautifully made - agree. I dont believe that distortion measurements are unimportant.
I have done tests showing I can easily hear distortion if its higher than 1%.

 

[jhaider]

The loudspeaker is beautifully made - agree. I dont believe that distortion measurements are uninportant.

“Belief” is whatever. Cite me the research supporting that pov.

Also keep in mind that 96dB in the midrange is make you deaf levels. It’s a 3/4” tweeter on a flat waveguide. The choice was made for wider directivity, and the measurements show it was successful in that. The higher distortion at the lower end of its bandwidth is an expected consequence of that design choice. Note that at reasonable levels for a speaker of this size distortion is “very good above 50Hz” per @amirm.

 

[Tangband]

“Belief” is whatever. Cite me the research supporting that pov.

Also keep in mind that 96dB in the midrange is make you deaf levels. It’s a 3/4” tweeter on a flat waveguide. The choice was made for wider directivity, and the measurements show it was successful in that. The higher distortion at the lower end of its bandwidth is an expected consequence of that design choice. Note that at reasonable levels for a speaker of this size distortion is “very good above 50Hz” per @amirm.

I agree that 96 dB is a rather high volume level, especially using only one loudspeaker.

 

[fluid]

We need to understand that this “accurate is boring” nonsense is just marketing tripe by third-tier “high end” audio companies to compensate for inferior engineering talent or resources.

There is an element of truth to it which is why it persists. I experienced a similar thing myself with some AKG K712 headphones I had and enjoyed listening to for a long time and adapted to. I tried some Headphone EQ based on the Olive headphone research and at first I didn't like it. When I switched back and forth, the brighter, brasher unequalised response always drew my attention. I decided to persist with the EQ and after a while everything clicked into place and sounded right. When I went back to using no EQ it sounded bad, too bright and wild.

It is easy to make something sound more exciting on a short listen, and in comparison the speaker designed to be more neutral may sound dull and boring. But when you take the bright shiny monster home and listen to it a while it starts to annoy you, and seems really picky as to which program material sounds good. So you are back to the Hifi shop looking for another pair of speakers, where you get suckered in by the same trick and get stuck on Groundhog day.

 

[sarakyel]

@amirm at first I was amazed by how similar the vertical and horizontal directivities looked, and then I realized you posted the horizontal directivity plot twice...

 

[Larry B. Larabee]

There is an element of truth to it which is why it persists. I experienced a similar thing myself with some AKG K712 headphones I had and enjoyed listening to for a long time and adapted to. I tried some Headphone EQ based on the Olive headphone research and at first I didn't like it. When I switched back and forth, the brighter, brasher unequalised response always drew my attention. I decided to persist with the EQ and after a while everything clicked into place and sounded right. When I went back to using no EQ it sounded bad, too bright and wild.

It is easy to make something sound more exciting on a short listen, and in comparison the speaker designed to be more neutral may sound dull and boring. But when you take the bright shiny monster home and listen to it a while it starts to annoy you, and seems really picky as to which program material sounds good. So you are back to the Hifi shop looking for another pair of speakers, where you get suckered in by the same trick and get stuck on Groundhog day.

If you had the chance to listen to good recordings (few and far between) for an extended period with both speakers after some time the revels would exhibit a characteristic signature that would make every selection sound similar in a bad way. Maybe even contribute to listening fatigue depending on the 'amount' of that signature. The tehnics, however, would allow for the ability to differentiate between things like very good and excellent recordings and upstream component differences by not introducing any colorations, or few compared to the revel. Personal preference between the two is still obviously a crap-shoot for some people. The whatshifi technics review used bryston bp26/4b to evaluate, a bad combination if there ever was one. (Analytical neutral meet analytical neutral).

 

[PeteL]

If you had the chance to listen to good recordings (few and far between) for an extended period with both speakers after some time the revels would exhibit a characteristic signature that would make every selection sound similar in a bad way. Maybe even contribute to listening fatigue depending on the 'amount' of that signature. The tehnics, however, would allow for the ability to differentiate between things like very good and excellent recordings and upstream component differences by not introducing any colorations, or few compared to the revel. Personal preference between the two is still obviously a crap-shoot for some people. The whatshifi technics review used bryston bp26/4b to evaluate, a bad combination if there ever was one. (Analytical neutral meet analytical neutral).

Do you honestly see all that from these measurments alone? Or did you hear both in the same listening environment.

 

[Everett T]

If you had the chance to listen to good recordings (few and far between) for an extended period with both speakers after some time the revels would exhibit a characteristic signature that would make every selection sound similar in a bad way. Maybe even contribute to listening fatigue depending on the 'amount' of that signature. The tehnics, however, would allow for the ability to differentiate between things like very good and excellent recordings and upstream component differences by not introducing any colorations, or few compared to the revel. Personal preference between the two is still obviously a crap-shoot for some people. The whatshifi technics review used bryston bp26/4b to evaluate, a bad combination if there ever was one. (Analytical neutral meet analytical neutral).

Can you elaborate on on your post? What about the Revel speakers (which model?) creates listening fatigue? What again is bad about a flat responce?

Id rather have a flat responce and EQ to preference (I don't, but if wanted to) then a speaker with a jagged responce and try to EQ to a preference.

 

[Descartes]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Technics SB-C700 coaxial 2-way bookshelf speaker. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $1,699.
View attachment 184257
The enclosure is built quite solid and the paint job is first class. Not that it matters but I was surprised to see no marking on the back as to model and manufacturing location:
View attachment 184258

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

Measurements are compliant with latest speaker research into what can predict the speaker preference and is standardized in CEA/CTA-2034 ANSI specifications. Likewise listening tests are performed per research that shows mono listening is much more revealing of differences between speakers than stereo or multichannel.

Reference axis was the center of the tweeter (aligned by eye). Measurement room was at 10 degrees C which may lower bass output a bit. Accuracy is better than 1% in most of the frequency spectrum but degraded to 2% above 5 KHz indicating complex interference from multiple sources .

Technics SB-C700 Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

View attachment 184259

On axis is surprisingly good. Yes, there are a few resonances but overall, it is quite flat. The closes competitor to SB-C700 is the KEF LS50. Here is its spin:

Quite on even and worse than Technics.

Port is tuned to lower frequency and hence creates a shelf there:
View attachment 184260

Cabinet resonance around 1.4 kHz is visible but at much lower level than we see in budget ported speakers. Still, as noted you can see it cause a dB or so peaking in on-axis response.

Early window reflections have high similarity to on-axis response due to excellent directivity:

View attachment 184261
There is a broad dip though which is also reflected in predicted in-room response:


View attachment 184262

Beam width is wide and generally smooth:
View attachment 184264

Same story with directivity:
View attachment 184265

Due to coaxial driver, vertical response is almost the same:

View attachment 184265

Distortion is kept in check at 86 dBSPL but gets out of control at 96 dBSPL:
View attachment 184267

View attachment 184268

Impedance is on the low side but then again, this is a similar story to many small speakers:

View attachment 184270

For fans of timing analysis, here are those measurements:
View attachment 184271

View attachment 184273

View attachment 184274

Technics SB-C700 Listening Tests
First impression was that the tonality was correct. Yet track after track did not impress. Some sounded a bit tubby, some a bit bright. Both of these were indicated in the measurements but correcting them didn't improvement things. So switched out the speaker with Revel M105. Wow, oh wow! The sound was so much more detailed, open and delightful than what I was getting out of Technics. So I pulled out the predicted in-room response of the M105 and saw this perfection:

In comparison, the SB-C700 has that broad dip. I put in a quick and dirty boost there and improvement was substantial:

View attachment 184275

I have noticed the same in countless headphone measurements. Make this region right and the sound opens up with better detail and spatial qualities. Now, I could sit back and enjoy the sound of the Technics!

Conclusions
The SB-C700 made quite a buzz on its release circa 2015. Panasonics (parent of Technics) had existed TV business but was getting seriously back into audio and this was their entry. I remember hearing it though at an audio show and walked away unimpressed. Part of it was the poor demo but now that I have listened to it, I can see that it is so close to being an excellent speaker. Objectively it is far better than KEF LS50 which has run away with this market that could have been Panasonic's. Sadly I think the SB-C700 is being discontinued, likely due to zero marketing.

As is, even though objective performance is very good, I personally can't recommend the Technics SB-C700. Add a bit of EQ to it though and it becomes a very capable speaker that I can recommend.

-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

It seems like unless it is Harman your don’t like the sound, bias a bit!

 

[Everett T]

It seems like unless it is Harman your don’t like the sound, bias a bit!

Having a reference speaker to make comparisons off of is not unique. Regardless, I'm not here for subjective opinions in reviews so I never think about it.

 

[LukeG]

I own 4 of these speakers because I was going to do a 4.1 Home theatre surround setup, so was very interested to see the review.. I bought them blind having read the reviews. To me these speakers don't sound flat at all, but almost exactly like their near field measurement... almost ear bleedingly loud from 2.5k upwards and have required lots of EQ. These speakers dont sound rich and dont like to be EQ'd to sound that way either.

They're incredibly clear in their detail resolution, but like the reviewer alluded to, they sound a bit lifeless. The imaging in my exp is very good though probably because they are coaxial. I will probably sell them though even though the quality of cabinet is 1st rate, the detail and imaging its great, to me they're just too bright from 2.5k and up.

 

[Thomas_A]

The main “problem” of these speakers is the dip of energy off-axis 1-2 kHz vs off-axis 2-5 kHz. It will be worse in a stereo set-up. Partly it can be compensated for by Amirs EQ.

 

[amirm]

@amirm at first I was amazed by how similar the vertical and horizontal directivities looked, and then I realized you posted the horizontal directivity plot twice...

Sorry about that. Ran into a rare forum bug where it was inserting the image in the wrong section of the text. It was hell finishing the review and caused that image screw up. I fixed it now. It is still remarkably close to horizontal dispersion.

 

[amirm]

It seems like unless it is Harman your don’t like the sound, bias a bit!

I have liked countless other brands of speakers (Genelec, Neumann, etc.). I don't have them to compare though so you are stuck with the Revel comparison.

 

[Larry B. Larabee]

I own 4 of these speakers because I was going to do a 4.1 Home theatre surround setup, so was very interested to see the review.. I bought them blind having read the reviews. To me these speakers don't sound flat at all, but almost exactly like their near field measurement... almost ear bleedingly loud from 2.5k upwards and have required lots of EQ. These speakers dont sound rich and dont like to be EQ'd to sound that way either.

They're incredibly clear in their detail resolution, but like the reviewer alluded to, they sound a bit lifeless. The imaging in my exp is very good though probably because they are coaxial. I will probably sell them though even though the quality of cabinet is 1st rate, the detail and imaging its great, to me they're just too bright from 2.5k and up.

That's really too bad about the hi freq. especially when the detail,resolution and imaging are great, usually stuff that's hard to come by. Room setup seems to be critical and taming them by following the recommendation in the manual have helped according to owner's suggestions in previous posts. I can't see not being able to reduce the ear bleeding with toe in/out positioning.