You must have focused on that area more than before, because the speakers certainly didn't change. I can't agree with your statement that they might make good monitor speakers because they would allow you to hear what's wrong with a recording. The purpose of a monitor speaker isn't to exaggerate a portion of the frequency spectrum in order to spotlight technical deficiencies. You want to hear exactly what's on the recording and make adjustments accordingly. If you use a peaked up speaker as a studio monitor, you would probably produce recordings that would sound rolled off of an accurate speaker.Interesting. They are less peaky in the upper midrange (though still more than I prefer) but now the major peakiness has moved up to the highs so that I'd describe them as more"sizzly" than peaky. Less objectionable than they were before. These might like a very mellow, rolled off amp with tubes or soft MOSFETs.
I pm'd you in case you didn't see the alert.Yes. I didn't mean literally but figuratively they are like monitor speakers. They do emphasize recording errors, and not musical content. Of course they lack the accuracy of true monitor speakers.
I could have some room reflection issues that are changing their response. They do seem quite sensitive to placement and positioning.
Many good qualities but hard for me to love because of their kinky frequency response.
I guess if used in mid to far field, but then you get more of the room involved. Typically monitoring is done near-field, so a big waveguide separating the drivers isn't the right design.Another serial thought: these may be very good as monitor speakers. They allow you to hear what's technically wrong with a recording. Lots of monitor speakers use waveguides, too. I haven't tried these in nearfield listening yet, however.
For me they are not as successful at letting me hear what's good about the music because they highlight the technical errors.
I tried toed out and that didn't seem to work well at all. Toed in seems a bit smoother.
Bottom line (for me) is that these are clinical speakers, detailed and revealing of recording problems. Could be successful as studio monitors. But to my ears they lack the warmth and musicality that brings out the musical content in less than stellar recordings (as most recordings are, regrettably).
Of course your mileage may vary.
I prefer the Polks. I've grumbled quite a bit about the ELACs. They are not bad, and they do achieve a nice transparency (with a good stereo image) that's pretty impressive for their price* -- but tonally they just don't quite do it for me, and I've fiddled with amplification, sources, and placement quite a bit in the couple of years I've had them**.I see very good things about the R200. I'll have to check them out. How do they compare with the Elac you have right next to them?
Polk does indeed recommended to point the tweeters towards the listener in their "manual", but I didn't find them markedly better when so aimed, so I went back to no toe-in (FWIW).It seems that positioning the R200 with their ring tweeters is the opposite of the Monoprice B6 - the Polks you want to be sure to point right at you while the Monoprice you want to be sure to point away from you. LOL
When she saw them , the wife of the woodworker who built the big cabinets for me said to him:FYI: She says if I brought those speakers into the house they would go in the closet and I'd be locked in with them.
Oh, they can both use them as coffins when they die.
The cabinets were designed for and for many years contained a pair of Altec 604E Duplex (coaxials).Not many saints so good for you.
A question though: not clear from the photo, but your L/R speakers appear to have only one driver. Is that a coaxial driver or full range? What are you using? Thanks.
Why would you even ask this? Just to show off how powerful the amp is? Don't use it at full gain.would driving a pair of these with my crown xli 800 @4ohm at 300 per channell be to much at full gain