Passive Speaker Recommendations for USA (by @sweetchaos)

[jbattman1016]

When is RSL going to show up on the list I have a set, but do not have the ability to measure.

 

[warthor]

Hi @sweetchaos,

I have been looking for some additional speakers to make my system 7.1 (from 5.1). I noticed that the JBL Studio 530 is only represented in the top few charts in passive bookshelves (but is not carried down through the rest of the tables). Is there a reason for that (e.g., quality or other sound issue)?

It looks like a great speaker and more so because it is on sale and currently represents a great value.

Thanks.

 

[sweetchaos]

I have been looking for some additional speakers to make my system 7.1 (from 5.1). I noticed that the JBL Studio 530 is only represented in the top few charts in passive bookshelves (but is not carried down through the rest of the tables). Is there a reason for that (e.g., quality or other sound issue)?

For $600 and $650/pair, they made it to the top 3 list because of it's preference score.
But at $700/pair, there's 3 speakers that beat it in terms of preference score, and because Amir didn't give it the highest recommendation (aka golfing/soccer panther) (which is one of my requirements for keeping a speaker on my table) this speaker didn't make the cut, so it dropped off the list at price points above.

The difficulty of creating such a list like I made is that I won't just list every speaker that we have measurements for...otherwise, it just be a long list.
We have measurements of about 650 speakers so far.

The original idea behind this thread was to quickly narrow down your shopping list of 650 speakers, by showing you the top 3 preference score speakers, followed by highly-recommended speakers (by Amir, Erin) as well as a few top picks that I thought were worthy of mentioning (upcoming models, similar performing models, etc).

 

[Dasbeerboot]

Where does the RP-600M II fit in here? I'm guessing it would make the top 3 based on Erin's review. Especially if it's classified in the under $600 category, as it's more often on sale than full MSRP.

 

[Entropy]

For $600 and $650/pair, they made it to the top 3 list because of it's preference score.
But at $700/pair, there's 3 speakers that beat it in terms of preference score, and because Amir didn't give it the highest recommendation (aka golfing/soccer panther) (which is one of my requirements for keeping a speaker on my table) this speaker didn't make the cut, so it dropped off the list at price points above.

The difficulty of creating such a list like I made is that I won't just list every speaker that we have measurements for...otherwise, it just be a long list.
We have measurements of about 650 speakers so far.

The original idea behind this thread was to quickly narrow down your shopping list of 650 speakers, by showing you the top 3 preference score speakers, followed by highly-recommended speakers (by Amir, Erin) as well as a few top picks that I thought were worthy of mentioning (upcoming models, similar performing models, etc).

The studio 530's often go on sale to below $250 USD (as they are currently it seems, https://www.harmanaudio.com/jbl/STUDIO+530.html?). Any reason why it isn't in that bracket?
Edit: I saw your comment from last year, looks like the BF deals are back.

 

[sweetchaos]

Any reason why it isn't in that bracket?

Because I don't keep up with the deals.
I list MSRP prices... for the most part.

Otherwise, I'll be here all day.

 

[chang]

Because I don't keep up with the deals.
I list MSRP prices... for the most part.

Otherwise, I'll be here all day.

Great list!... it's really helped narrow things down. I'm looking for my first real setup and I've been eyeing the R200's. Even with the asterisk, would you consider these one of the better speakers among their price range? Was also considering the Encore B6's after Joe N Tell's speaker comparison.

 

[chenm0416]

Can anyone comment on how using the KEF Q350 would compare to the THX-365C in terms of volume, clarity, etc?

 

[flipflop]

Can anyone comment on how using the KEF Q350 would compare to the THX-365C in terms of volume

Dimensions
Q350
358 x 210 x 306 mm
362 x 210 x 306 mm (with Rubber Feet)

THX-365C
246 x 581 x 275 mm

clarity

No EQ, no sub: Q350 is better.
No EQ, with sub: THX-365C is better.
With EQ, no sub: Q350 is better.
With EQ, with sub: Q350 is better.

What I'm referring to here as 'EQ' is anechoic EQ. Room EQ is always mandatory, especially with a sub.

etc

Q350 performs better with multiple listeners.

 

[beaRA]

Can you help me understand how you came to these conclusions? The calculated preference scores do not follow your suggestions.

No EQ, no sub: Q350 is better.

THX-365C - 4.6. Q350 - 5.7. No problem here as the lower bass extension of the Q350 does give it an advantage.

No EQ, with sub: THX-365C is better.

THX-365C - 7.5. Q350 - 7.5. Matched.

With EQ, no sub: Q350 is better.

THX-365C - 5.0. Q350 - 5.7. The gap closes some, but agreed the Q350 bass extension still gives it the edge.

With EQ, with sub: Q350 is better.

THX-365C - 7.9. Q350 - 7.6. The THX-365C now overtakes, but the scores are too close to declare a definitive winner. Preference will come down to other factors like dispersion width and output capability.

Can anyone comment on how using the KEF Q350 would compare to the THX-365C in terms of volume, clarity, etc?

Both speakers have similar linearity and neutral tonality out of the box. The THX-365C has significantly higher sensitivity and output capability, but definitely requires a subwoofer. The THX-365C also has very wide dispersion through most of its bandwidth, but beams in the last octave. The Q350 has narrower dispersion through most of its bandwidth, but maintains close to a constant directivity up to 20kHz.

 

[flipflop]

Can you help me understand how you came to these conclusions?

Sure thing.

THX-365C - 7.5. Q350 - 7.5. Matched.

The deficiencies of THX-365C are mainly dips. Q350's are a mix of dips and peaks. Peaks are more audibly objectionable than dips. The predicted preference score model does not take this into account.

THX-365C - 7.9. Q350 - 7.6. The THX-365C now overtakes, but the scores are too close to declare a definitive winner.

The THX-365C's EQ profile in question is higher quality than the one of Q350.
Both are PIR based equalizations but the THX-365C EQ hugs its own regression line tighter than the Q350 does. The Q350 EQ also doesn't have a sufficiently steep slope, resulting in an excess amount of energy in the mids and treble.
If both were subject to more precise EQ profiles, the Q350 would take the lead due to its superior ERDI and the ON-LW mismatch of the THX-365C.

 

[beaRA]

Sure thing.

The deficiencies of THX-365C are mainly dips. Q350's are a mix of dips and peaks. Peaks are more audibly objectionable than dips. The predicted preference score model does not take this into account.

The THX-365C's EQ profile in question is higher quality than the one of Q350.
Both are PIR based equalizations but the THX-365C EQ hugs its own regression line tighter than the Q350 does. The Q350 EQ also doesn't have a sufficiently steep slope, resulting in an excess amount of energy in the mids and treble.
If both were subject to more precise EQ profiles, the Q350 would take the lead due to its superior ERDI and the ON-LW mismatch of the THX-365C.

Thanks for humouring me! I can see where you are coming from now, but I do think we are discussing minor differences in tonality preference with a sub and/or EQ involved. I'm thinking the difference in dispersion widths and output capability are more likely to drive a decision between these two.

 

[flipflop]

I can see where you are coming from now, but I do think we are discussing minor differences in tonality preference with a sub and/or EQ involved.

I agree that the differences with a sub and without EQ are minor and I wouldn't mind calling it a draw in the grand scheme of things, but it should not be underestimated how lacking the current Q350 EQ profile is. It does not even increase the post-EQ predicted preference score (5.7 w/ and w/o) despite the fact that the speaker has a very smooth ERDI.
With the attached 20-band EQ profile, the post-EQ score jumps to 6.8.

I'm thinking the difference in dispersion widths and output capability are more likely to drive a decision between these two.

Possibly.
I'm having a hard time comparing Amir's contour plots to those made by Erin, so I'll refrain from commenting on dispersion widths.
It's even harder to compare the output capabilities as Amir doesn't perform that type of measurements. However, Erin's instantaneous compression test of the THX-365C didn't show great results:

His own comment:

First off, the compression results threw me for a loop so I actually re-tested the speaker. Same result. I then did a comparison of the impedance at 0.10v vs 2.83v to see if anything stood out in that regard. There was a difference, but nothing that would quite explain what I was seeing. At least, not immediately. I double checked the speaker by opening it up and verifying nothing was loose or resonating inside. The results, therefore, stand.

 

[beaRA]

I agree that the differences with a sub and without EQ are minor and I wouldn't mind calling it a draw in the grand scheme of things, but it should not be underestimated how lacking the current Q350 EQ profile is. It does not even increase the post-EQ predicted preference score (5.7 w/ and w/o) despite the fact that the speaker has a very smooth ERDI.
With the attached 20-band EQ profile, the post-EQ score jumps to 6.8.

Possibly.
I'm having a hard time comparing Amir's contour plots to those made by Erin, so I'll refrain from commenting on dispersion widths.
It's even harder to compare the output capabilities as Amir doesn't perform that type of measurements. However, Erin's instantaneous compression test of the THX-365C didn't show great results:
View attachment 253501
His own comment:

@pierre has an awesome website that normalizes the plots for comparison.

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

 

[192kbps]

Can we have a list of overhead speaker?

There seem to be very few speakers with mounting holes on the back like this?

 

[sweetchaos]

Can we have a list of overhead speaker?

There seem to be very few speakers with mounting holes on the back like this?

I know 3 types of speakers that have mounting holes:
1. Studio monitors.
Higher-cost models usually have some kind of mounting system.
Lower-cost models may or may not have mounting systems.
Example: Genelec 8030

2. Outdoor-type (waterproof) speakers, which usually have a mounting system.
Here's the ones Amir reviewed:
-Revel M80XC
-JBL Control X
-Polk Audio Atrium 4
-OSD Audio AP650
-RSL Outsider II
-Focal Chorus OD 706 V
-Revel M55XC
Example: Focal Chorus OD 706 V

3. Atmos-style (angled) passive speakers, which usually have a mounting system.
Examples include:
-Kef R8A
-SVS Elevation
Example: Kef R8A

The problem is doing such a list gets difficult.
Here's a few reasons I can come up with:
1. Aesthetics, that play a major role in mounting speakers overhead. Studio monitors, outdoor speakers, Atmos-style angled speakers, in-wall speakers.
I personally like in-wall speakers mounted above, instead of a physical speaker, but that's only my preference.
2. Some people need water-proofness (since they're doing the outdoor installation), while others don't need water-proof (since they're doing in house installation).
3. Response is often much more limited in terms of bass output, so while Amir liked and highly recommended Revel M55XC, it's preference rating is only 2.4. Mostly due to having LFX of 90hz and not exactly flat frequency response. Still, overall, the sound was preferred. Alternatively, if you compare this with say a studio monitor that can be mounted like Neumann KH80 (with preference rating of 6.2) which has a better LFX of 48hz.
4. Active vs passive. Active speakers require the power cable and input cable. Passive speakers only need the power cable. In-wall speakers have hidden cables.

This means recommendations become more subjective and must be tailored for your use-case.
I think the user will need to do their own research.

Remember, my lists are ranked based on preference score. I'm not quantifying things like power handling, distortion handling, aesthetics, etc.
Also, I'm already recommending in-wall/in-ceiling speakers, which is easy to separate from the rest of the speakers.
At this point, Im thinking if you want to have mountable speakers overhead, you already know who you are and you probably have a certain criteria for choosing such speakers.

 

[radix]

I know 3 types of speakers that have mounting holes:
1. Studio monitors.
Higher-cost models usually have some kind of mounting system.
Lower-cost models may or may not have mounting systems.
Example: Genelec 8030

2. Outdoor-type (waterproof) speakers, which usually have a mounting system.
Here's the ones Amir reviewed:
-Revel M80XC
-JBL Control X
-Polk Audio Atrium 4
-OSD Audio AP650
-RSL Outsider II
-Focal Chorus OD 706 V
-Revel M55XC
Example: Focal Chorus OD 706 V

3. Atmos-style (angled) passive speakers, which usually have a mounting system.
Examples include:
-Kef R8A
-SVS Elevation
Example: Kef R8A

Some Arendal speakers have mounting holes. The KEF LSX and Gallo Acoustic also have wall mounting. There's also wall mounts from Elac, Dali, and many others (not just their atmos).

 

[Doctors11]

Can we have a list of overhead speaker?

There seem to be very few speakers with mounting holes on the back like this?

The Aperion Audio A5 gives you multiple mounting options, including holes on the back.

A5 Atmos 5.25" Immersive Reflective/Height Module Speaker Pair

The Aperion A5 Immersive Height Module is perfect for achieving the latest surround formats such as Dolby Atmos and DTS:X that require "height" channels.

www.aperionaudio.com

 

[ferrellms]

You better listen to the speakers before you believe the conclusions in this list. I own the Revel M105 and the BMR monitors. In side by side tests the BMR monitors beat the M105 by a mile for clarity, fullness and punch. It's not even a contest.

I also doubt if I bought the Revel 208 and matched it directly against my Revel F328Be that the 208 would be preferred. Logic has me scratching my head on some of these posted recommended results. You could easily prefer a speaker at the bottom of the list or not on the list at all in a direct comparison with the proclaimed speaker in the #1 slot.

Anybody can prefer any speaker's sound, it is subjective. When you claim one speaker sounds much better than another it unclear why anyone should make a buying decision based on that. True, listening for yourself is great, but largely impossible in today's market. That is why the speaker preference ratings, that use groups of listeners correlated with objective measurements, were invented. You may not agree with them, fine, but purchasing speakers based on a single person's reported subjective preferences in audio forums is less likely to offer a good choice for most people.

 

[dlaloum]

Anybody can prefer any speaker's sound, it is subjective. When you claim one speaker sounds much better than another it unclear why anyone should make a buying decision based on that. True, listening for yourself is great, but largely impossible in today's market. That is why the speaker preference ratings, that use groups of listeners correlated with objective measurements, were invented. You may not agree with them, fine, but purchasing speakers based on a single person's reported subjective preferences in audio forums is less likely to offer a good choice for most people.

On the other hand, there may be reviewers out there, with preferences that correlate with your own... determined over years of following that reviewers articles, and reading about his choices for his own system...

Finding such a reviewer that appears to align with ones own tastes, can then provide a good reference to follow in terms of what speakers would be worth investigating...