Seeking recommendations: Best active speakers for $10k/pair? (Would also be offered for measurement.)

[Sancus]

Clarity and minimal ringing of up to 250/300 Hz cannot be improved by subwoofers, which usually play ≤ 120 Hz [LFE]. Hence, the W371A - not a typical subwoofer, I would say - which will provide huge improvements [from 23 Hz @ -6 dB] up to 500 Hz (-6 dB); with its 14" front closed box + 12" rear reflex box woofers. This, not only with regards to lower distortion at increased max. SPL.

Certainly, one would require to match each main loudspeaker with a W371A, due to increasing directivity above 100 Hz. ^^

Yeah, for sure, the W371 is very much qualitatively different from subs. Many rooms have issues all the way up to 500hz, and subwoofers can't help you at all there... hence the motivation for that system. Only bad part is the price.

Interesting. What application? Home? Studio? Home theater?

My main system is used for both HT and music, as I live in a condo and simply don't have space for multiple systems. So they will be L/C/R there. I also love surround music. Currently I have Neumann KH80s for surrounds and heights, and the goal is to eventually have 8351B L/C/R and probably 8341A surrounds, and just use the Neumanns for heights. Budget doesn't allow buying all Genelec right out of the gate, unfortunately. This does mean I can't realistically use GLM for the entire system, though I have been pondering whether it's worth it to let GLM correct the speakers it CAN reach, before running Audyssey on top of that(restricted to 500hz or something with the app, probably).

A future upgrade will probably be Dirac + bass module via a Monoprice HTP-1, or some other similar option, although I have no idea how GLM with Genelec subs would compare to DiracBM + say, rythmik subs. I do know that the Genelec subs seem damned expensive for their speced output levels, that's for sure.

 

[richard12511]

Only bad part is the price.

This is my biggest problem with it. -3db @25Hz and 120db max peak output for $9,000 is a TERRIBLE price/performance for deep bass when there are subs out there for $3,600 with a -3db @12Hz and 130db max peak output. Problem is, those other subs don't go up to 500Hz(and don't offer the cardioid dispersion), which I think is pretty unique, and very valuable if you're pairing it with an 8351b. If you don't care about ULF, it's a much more attractive offering (imo), though still too expensive. If I were Scrooge McDuck, I'd probably use a pair of them as mid-bass modules, and then have 4 bigger subs take over the bass.

 

[Sancus]

This is my biggest problem with it. -3db @25Hz and 120db max peak output for $9,000

Yeah, there is a big difference between "advertised MSRP in the US" and what I pay here in Canada, thankfully. The advertised price of the W371A here is ~$6800 USD, and based on my experience with the 8351, I suspect some cross-shop haggling could save you another 10-20%.

It's still a lot of money though, and my bigger concern is that, in a multi-channel system, you'd need one for the center as well(so now you're back up to $18K USD) , and it is way too tall to fit there with an 8351B on top of it, at total height of ~55" even with the speaker horizontal.

Maybe in a few years when the financial pain is a memory and if I'm still not happy with my 100-500hz performance I'll reconsider

 

[HooStat]

So they will be L/C/R there.

Are you planning to feed them analog or digital for multichannel/HT? Just curious. You don't have to answer here. Eventually I will start a thread on this topic -- how to integrate digital active speakers into multichannel and home theater.

 

[detlev24]

[...] Many rooms have issues all the way up to 500hz, and subwoofers can't help you at all there... hence the motivation for that system. Only bad part is the price. [...]

Above 250/300 Hz and up to ~500 Hz, we are talking about the 'Low mid' region. Most issues already come from reflections here, no longer from room modes. For instance, dips at around 400+ Hz are very characteristic for reflections from large surfaces; like desks.

I know, the W371 is so "unreasonably" tempting!

 

[Sancus]

Are you planning to feed them analog or digital for multichannel/HT? Just curious. You don't have to answer here. Eventually I will start a thread on this topic -- how to integrate digital active speakers into multichannel and home theater.

Analog for now, I don't know of any practical way to feed them digital and still have Atmos/Auro3D except for the JBL SDP-55's Dante outputs. Of course I could use a different output chain for 7.1 or less music listening, but I don't think it's worth the hassle. I may get the JBL next year, we'll see.

 

[richard12511]

Yeah, there is a big difference between "advertised MSRP in the US" and what I pay here in Canada, thankfully. The advertised price of the W371A here is ~$6800 USD, and based on my experience with the 8351, I suspect some cross-shop haggling could save you another 10-20%.

It's still a lot of money though, and my bigger concern is that, in a multi-channel system, you'd need one for the center as well(so now you're back up to $18K USD) , and it is way too tall to fit there with an 8351B on top of it, at total height of ~55" even with the speaker horizontal.

Maybe in a few years when the financial pain is a memory and if I'm still not happy with my 100-500hz performance I'll reconsider

For HT reference level playback, it may be easier to just get some of the bigger Genelec mains + traditional subs. From what I've seen, though, the measurements don't look as pretty

 

[Sancus]

For HT reference level playback, it may be easier to just get some of the bigger Genelec mains + traditional subs. From what I've seen, though, the measurements don't look as pretty

I'm honestly not worried about that, my listening distance is about 2.1m and there will be 2 subs so the 8351B should have plenty of output 100hz and up. I may do some SPL tests(with and without subs), but given that I rarely go above -10dB anymore it will be just for the sake of a forum post.

If I went for W371a it would be more about the cardioid 100-500hz and GLM smoothing capability in that range than output concerns.

 

[Zog]

If I were to hypothetically buy the best pair of speakers for $10k/pair, what would you recommend? If I did, I certainly would offer them to be loaned for measurement here if Amir wanted to measure them.

I have not read the full thread (I will when I retire, I promise). In the meantime I am happy with my Magico A3s. First up they are far better looking in the flesh than any photos I have see. Second, size wise they do not overpower the room. Third, having only ever previously owned ported floorstanders I will never go back to a wooly sounding ported design. Fourth, specs seem good. Fifth, strong preference over previous speakers - Technics, Wharfedale, Paradigm, Spendor, Triangle, Jamo. No real downsides but my wife who is a bit of a bass-head would like more. Medium sensitivity.

 

[echopraxia]

I have not read the full thread (I will when I retire, I promise). In the meantime I am happy with my Magico A3s. First up they are far better looking in the flesh than any photos I have see. Second, size wise they do not overpower the room. Third, having only ever previously owned ported floorstanders I will never go back to a wooly sounding ported design. Fourth, specs seem good. Fifth, strong preference over previous speakers - Technics, Wharfedale, Paradigm, Spendor, Triangle, Jamo. No real downsides but my wife who is a bit of a bass-head would like more. Medium sensitivity.

No worries. I already bought the Genelec 8351B, and am very happy with them so far.

On the topic of those Magicos though: (1) They're passive, not active. Active speakers have amplification built in, which is what I was looking for. (2) Where are the measurements of those? IMO any speaker in that price range needs at least some fairly detailed measurements from the manufacturer or some 3rd party for me to even consider them. While I'm not in the market any more, I'm still curious though.

 

[Zog]

No worries. I already bought the Genelec 8351B, and am very happy with them so far.

On the topic of those Magicos though: (1) They're passive, not active. Active speakers have amplification built in, which is what I was looking for. (2) Where are the measurements of those? IMO any speaker in that price range needs at least some fairly detailed measurements from the manufacturer or some 3rd party for me to even consider them. While I'm not in the market any more, I'm still curious though.

I cannot recall where I got the specs originally, from online or magazine reviews I think. They are now on the Magico Website - A PDF under support/manual.

 

[Sancus]

No worries. I already bought the Genelec 8351B, and am very happy with them so far.

On the topic of those Magicos though: (1) They're passive, not active. Active speakers have amplification built in, which is what I was looking for. (2) Where are the measurements of those? IMO any speaker in that price range needs at least some fairly detailed measurements from the manufacturer or some 3rd party for me to even consider them. While I'm not in the market any more, I'm still curious though.

Can't find any measurements of the A3, but the A1 is the bookshelf version and seems to use the same tweeter/midrange, so it's probably close(except for bass), and was measured by Soundstage.

Honestly, Magicos usually have pretty underwhelming frequency response, so I'm not surprised. They do seem to have pretty wide dispersion up until 7ish khz or so, though. That looks wider than the Revel Performa3(F206 etc) line to me. But worse directivity control. Honestly always considered them to be a pretty overpriced, underwhelming brand, at least from everything I've seen and heard. I'd buy Philharmonic BMRs before these.

 

[richard12511]

Keep in mind though that both those are extremely flat speakers. I find that all my active monitors (KH120A, KH310A, Genelec 8351B) sound better on just about everything vs my passive speakers (like Revel F206) which have many more frequency response imperfections.

For example, perhaps the bass hump exhibited by many passive speakers could explain the 'blurry' sound of this 'thump' that I hear across all my passive speakers, all of which have some kind of bass hump that you typically see in passives -- and which exists on none of my actives.

Anyway, all of this is an equation with many confounding variables. When I get my stands, I'll be sure to compare the Neumann KH310 as well as the Genelecs vs Revel and Ascend towers and listen to this clip to see how they sound in the same room. If it's the room, then the same issues should appear independent of the speaker (when disabling room correction EQ).

The F206 don't measure as well as the F208 for some reason, which is weird. Usually the smaller models measure better, but sacrifice output. It would be interesting to compare the F208 to those speakers. The Revels seem to have slightly better measurements than the Neumans, and slightly worse than the Genelecs, but they should have a good deal more output/extension than either. Honestly, they seem like a great value.

 

[Vintage57]

The F206 don't measure as well as the F208 for some reason, which is weird. Usually the smaller models measure better, but sacrifice output. It would be interesting to compare the F208 to those speakers. The Revels seem to have slightly better measurements than the Neumans, and slightly worse than the Genelecs, but they should have a good deal more output/extension than either. Honestly, they seem like a great value.

Can you post third party results for the F208 vs a Genelec and Neuman. I’m curious

 

[richard12511]

Can you post third party results for the F208 vs a Genelec and Neuman. I’m curious

They've all been measured here, actually.

Give me a minute.

*Edit: I lied. Only the Revel F208(8.16) have been measured here. The Neumans measured here were the KH80DSP(7.66) and the Genelecs were the 8341A(8.45). I can't find comprehensive spinorama style measurements for Neuman speakers, but Genelec seems to have pretty good measurements on their site(not spinorama, but close), and the 8351 seem to measure even better than the 8341, so I would expect them to score even higher than 8.45.

 

[Vintage57]

If price is a factor, there would be $900.00 in the budget to equal the Genelec cost. The best Neumann to put into the 3 way comparison is the KH310 which has comparable performance, and is less expensive than the others in this compariso.

If you haven’t already, visit the Neumann web site, measurements are Klippel verified.

Revel F208 $5,000.
Genelec 8341A $5,900. w/power
Neumann KH310 $5,000. w/power

 

[richard12511]

If price is a factor, there would be $900.00 in the budget to equal the Genelec cost. The best Neumann to put into the 3 way comparison is the KH310 which has comparable performance, and is less expensive than the others in this compariso.

If you haven’t already, visit the Neumann web site, measurements are Klippel verified.

Revel F208 $5,000.
Genelec 8341A $5,900. w/power
Neumann KH310 $5,000. w/power

I looked on their(Neumann) website, but couldn't find any spinorama style measurements. Can you give me a link.

 

[richard12511]

If price is a factor, there would be $900.00 in the budget to equal the Genelec cost. The best Neumann to put into the 3 way comparison is the KH310 which has comparable performance, and is less expensive than the others in this compariso.

If you haven’t already, visit the Neumann web site, measurements are Klippel verified.

Revel F208 $5,000.
Genelec 8341A $5,900. w/power
Neumann KH310 $5,000. w/power

I was able to find some on axis measurements for those Neumann via google image search. Eyeballing it, they look definitely more neutral than the Revels, but it's too close to call with the Genelecs(imo).

It'd be interesting to blind those 3 speakers against each other. Would people prefer the slightly more neutral response of the Genelec, or the wider horizontal dispersion of the Revel? Seems kinda like a repeat of the Salon 2 vs M2. The M2 was more neutral, but the Salon 2 had wider dispersion, and that's why it won.

I'd be really curious who would come out on top for most people. Based on the Salon 2 vs M2 blind, it's probably the Revel, but it just seems wrong to me(as did the Salon 2 vs M2 results). The more I learn, the more I'm starting to think the wide vs narrow dispersion thing is really preference based and different between individuals. I kinda suspect that the Salon 2 vs M2 test may have just had a bunch of wide dispersion lovers in attendance, and may not be indicative of the results with a larger pool of listeners(there were 3 people who consistently preferred the M2).

 

[Vintage57]

I looked on their(Neumann) website, but couldn't find any spinorama style measurements. Can you give me a link.

Here is one, more available on Neumann site.

file:///C:/Users/Lat/Downloads/resolution_kh310_v12-6sr.pdf

 

[echopraxia]

I was able to find some on axis measurements for those Neumann via google image search. Eyeballing it, they look definitely more neutral than the Revels, but it's too close to call with the Genelecs(imo).

It'd be interesting to blind those 3 speakers against each other. Would people prefer the slightly more neutral response of the Genelec, or the wider horizontal dispersion of the Revel? Seems kinda like a repeat of the Salon 2 vs M2. The M2 was more neutral, but the Salon 2 had wider dispersion, and that's why it won.

I'd be really curious who would come out on top for most people. Based on the Salon 2 vs M2 blind, it's probably the Revel, but it just seems wrong to me(as did the Salon 2 vs M2 results). The more I learn, the more I'm starting to think the wide vs narrow dispersion thing is really preference based and different between individuals. I kinda suspect that the Salon 2 vs M2 test may have just had a bunch of wide dispersion lovers in attendance, and may not be indicative of the results with a larger pool of listeners(there were 3 people who consistently preferred the M2).

I’ve compared the Revel F206 vs the Neumann KH310 in the same room, and it’s not even remotely close. The KH310 is comically superior to the F206 in every way except perhaps peak SPL and some dispersion characteristics. It’s not hard to understand why, either: the KH310 is MUCH more neutral with far less defects in the overall frequency response, and has bass that extends far deeper and with much better neutrality (because it doesn’t begin to roll off slowly until the very end, and it lacks the bloated mid bass hump most passive speakers have to extend bass response). It’s not that the F206 is bad by any means (I love them), but it’s hard to compete with the neutrality and capabilities of active speakers in a “fair” comparison with no EQ on either speaker.

The superior bass extension is perhaps the most stark and undeniable superiority of the Neumann, but the lack of the mid bass bump and generally superior neutrality is what really sets it apart IMO in terms of perceived fidelity.

I’m sure the Revels would be much more competitive if EQ’ed so bass response is more flat and extends further down to 30hz like my Neumann KH310’s and Genelec 8351B’s do, but I also don’t know how much I’d be stressing the F206 in that case, since it clearly wasn’t designed for that kind of bass extension whereas the Neumann/Genelec obviously was AND comes with self-protecting limiter circuits.

I do plan to blind test these all in the same room, once my stands arrive for the Genelec’s. I think the more difficult comparison if any will be between the actives (8351B vs KH310). I’ve already compared these in the same room and find the Genelec’s better, though I’m not sure why. The difference was nowhere near as extreme as that between the Neumann KH310 vs Revel F206 though, where the Revel didn’t stand a chance.

I also plan to test vs my Ascend Towers which have even wider dispersion than the Revel F206, I believe.

P.S. Both the Neumann KH310 and Revel F206 cost about the same with dealer discounts. You should be able to get a pair of KH310 brand new for under $3K USD if you shop around.