Monolith by Monoprice Encore B6 Bookshelf Speaker

[AM88]

it will be a good test of whether we're really on the same wave length.

Nicely done….

 

[Chromatischism]

Guess I won't have to send Amir the one unit I have. I have definite opinions about it and have done extensive measurements, but I didn't learn much about the one thing I was most interested in--the wave guide. If a speaker measures very well with a wave guide--like the ELAC DBR-62--but still doesn't sound right to me, I can pretty much conclude that it's the wave guide that's bothering me (but maybe no one else--just my personal opinion). In this case, there were some frequency response issues in the on-axis response on out to 30 degrees, after which things smoothed out. So i wasn't sure what was responsible for what--the crossover? the tweeter? the wave guide? I'm looking forward to Amir's measurements and reactions. it will be a good test of whether we're really on the same wave length.

Wish you could hear the S400 MKII as a point of comparison. While I didn't have an issue with it, the area you struggled with on the MKI was really changed by the crossover.

 

[Les_H]

I have just gotten a pair of these and haven't measured them but do have decades of experience owning and using many different speakers ranging from $30/pair (Radio Shack Minimus) to $20,000/pair (B&W 800).

These are not smooth, relaxing speakers for me. They have peakiness in the upper midrange that I've heard in other speakers that some people like. This offers a sense of extra detail and dynamics, but for me is wearing. Maybe some eq would help (haven't tried yet), but I prefer simplicity where the natural frequency response is listenable. For reference, a contemporary bookshelf speaker that I find relaxing and listenable in its natural state is the Kef Q350.

These Monolith do have some of the best bass I've heard from bookshelf speakers, so if you're a basshead and don't mind the midrange you may really like these (as did one reviewer).

This is a quick first impression and subject to change as I listen more.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I have just gotten a pair of these and haven't measured them but do have decades of experience owning and using many different speakers ranging from $30/pair (Radio Shack Minimus) to $20,000/pair (B&W 800).

These are not smooth, relaxing speakers for me. They have peakiness in the upper midrange that I've heard in other speakers that some people like. This offers a sense of extra detail and dynamics, but for me is wearing. Maybe some eq would help (haven't tried yet), but I prefer simplicity where the natural frequency response is listenable. For reference, a contemporary bookshelf speaker that I find relaxing and listenable in its natural state is the Kef Q350.

These Monolith do have some of the best bass I've heard from bookshelf speakers, so if you're a basshead and don't mind the midrange you may really like these (as did one reviewer).

This is a quick first impression and subject to change as I listen more.

I think that peak may be a bit higher up than you think. You might want to listen to some triangles or the like. Or maybe you're just hearing something I'm not.

 

[Les_H]

I think that peak may be a bit higher up than you think. You might want to listen to some triangles or the like. Or maybe you're just hearing something I'm not.

I'd call it upper midrange and lower treble peakiness. Voices (for example) do not sound natural, they are missing their support. This emphasized portion of the spectrum jumps out and does not integrate with the entire sound.

Again, at first listen this characteristic can make the speakers sound exciting and involving. Over time (for me at least) it would probably not be comfortable to live with. I realize that some people like this type of spectrum and there are popular speakers probably designed with this character.

Speakers are very personal regardless of their measurements.

 

[Chromatischism]

I have just gotten a pair of these and haven't measured them but do have decades of experience owning and using many different speakers ranging from $30/pair (Radio Shack Minimus) to $20,000/pair (B&W 800).

These are not smooth, relaxing speakers for me. They have peakiness in the upper midrange that I've heard in other speakers that some people like. This offers a sense of extra detail and dynamics, but for me is wearing. Maybe some eq would help (haven't tried yet), but I prefer simplicity where the natural frequency response is listenable. For reference, a contemporary bookshelf speaker that I find relaxing and listenable in its natural state is the Kef Q350.

These Monolith do have some of the best bass I've heard from bookshelf speakers, so if you're a basshead and don't mind the midrange you may really like these (as did one reviewer).

This is a quick first impression and subject to change as I listen more.

Toe them 15-30 degrees?

 

[Les_H]

Toe them 15-30 degrees?

They are already toed in a bit I'll try some more and see what that does.

 

[richard12511]

You might want to listen to some triangles

Perfect track for that vvv

Once you hear it, it can't be unheard.

 

[Les_H]

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.

 

[mhardy6647]

I'd call it upper midrange and lower treble peakiness. Voices (for example) do not sound natural, they are missing their support. This emphasized portion of the spectrum jumps out and does not integrate with the entire sound.

The nastiness that defined (defines) the Klipsch Heritage loudspeaker sound for me (based on a pair of 1974 Cornwalls I lived with for a decade) has been long and widely reputed to be a 9 kHz resonance. May or may not be germane here, but 1) it could be and 2) I rarely will forfeit an opportunity to diss the Heritage Klipsch, umm, sonic signature.

 

[Les_H]

The nastiness that defined (defines) the Klipsch Heritage loudspeaker sound for me (based on a pair of 1974 Cornwalls I lived with for a decade) has been long and widely reputed to be a 9 kHz resonance. May or may not be germane here, but 1) it could be and 2) I rarely will forfeit an opportunity to diss the Heritage Klipsch, umm, sonic signature.

Funny - when I was thinking of similar-sounding speakers that era Klipsch came to mind. As I said, many people loved those. I wasn't one of them.

 

[Les_H]

And even very smooth, mellow (but good) recordings like "Year of the Cat" sound somewhat harsh. No matter what angle these are placed at.

Harsh recordings (for me) are likely to cause ear pain. And there are lots more harsh recordings than smooth ones.

 

[Les_H]

It's not all bad. There are very good points to this speaker, including:

Bass: Some of the best I've heard in bookshelf speakers of this size - for detail, extension, power, integration. This is probably their strongest point in favor.

Clarity: Good detail and resolution. Partly a function of the brightness that bothers me? Maybe. Partly due to good design. I am picking up lyrics that are normally buried.

Appearance: They look better than their price point. Black mirror surfaces on top and bottom. Nice binding posts.

For me the question is whether I can get past the frequency response anomalies that bother my ears to appreciate these other good qualities.

 

[mhardy6647]

It's not all bad. There are very good points to this speaker, including:

Bass: Some of the best I've heard in bookshelf speakers of this size - for detail, extension, power, integration. This is probably their strongest point in favor.

Clarity: Good detail and resolution. Partly a function of the brightness that bothers me? Maybe. Partly due to good design. I am picking up lyrics that are normally buried.

Appearance: They look better than their price point. Black mirror surfaces on top and bottom. Nice binding posts.

For me the question is whether I can get past the frequency response anomalies that bother my ears to appreciate these other good qualities.

Have you heard the new(ish) Polk R200 yet?

 

[Les_H]

Haven't yet. Thanks, I'll investigate. Historically lots of the Polks have sounded bright to me as well. Newer ones may be better from reviews I've seen.

 

[Les_H]

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.

 

[dshreter]

They are already toed in a bit I'll try some more and see what that does.

Maybe toe out then so they will be darker

 

[Les_H]

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.

 

[mhardy6647]

Haven't yet. Thanks, I'll investigate. Historically lots of the Polks have sounded bright to me as well. Newer ones may be better from reviews I've seen.

The L200 and R200 are quite nice; hearkening back to the early Polk Audio "Monitor Series" of very high value loudspeakers for their modest cost (to my ears and taste). The cost isn't modest, but the value's still pretty good. The R200 is (less than) half the price of the L200.
I am pretty happy and favorably impressed with the pair of R200s I picked up recently (and at 45% off their nominal list price), FWIW.

DSC_0027 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

 

[Les_H]

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?