Passive Speaker Recommendations for USA (by @sweetchaos)

[phoenixdogfan]

The Sierra LX does measure amazingly well. The price is shockingly reasonable given the quality of parts and the measured performance.

I wonder a little about the flat fronts of the cabinets. Are early reflections from a flat surface an issue? Would that show up in any of the measurements? Or is it not really a concern, and it's mostly a marketing gimmick to add a curved face?

The only downside I can see is that the enclosures look pretty ordinary and boxy. Not ugly, just a little retro compared to the state of the art measurement and drivers. If you want to impress people with expensive-looking speakers, other brands have more bling. If you care about the objective measurements, the Sierra's are a step up in appearance from most of the studio monitors that offer similar performance.

Anyone actually heard them? Does anyone own them. and what are the listening impressions, in room measurements?

 

[beaRA]

@sweetchaos do you think the Klipsch RP-500M II deserves a shout in the under $600/pair group?

 

[beaRA]

The number of good options below $1000/pair is growing! Maybe the next enhancement in info provided to help people narrow down could be some sort of horizontal dispersion width binning. You could also indicate which ones have a matching 3-way or coaxial center.

 

[jasoncd]

Anyone actually heard them? Does anyone own them. and what are the listening impressions, in room measurements?

When I first saw these were upcoming I expected to see a huge review thread. Maybe it’s just not much stock out there?

My next upgrade is for my main setup which is near field. Makes it harder (for me) to determine based on measurements what works vs far field.

 

[sweetchaos]

Improvements:
Added Ascend Acoustics Sierra-2EX V2. Measurements provided by vendor.
PS 6.0. PSwSub 8.0. LFX 42hz.
Makes it to the 3rd place for US$1650/pair spot.

We need these Ascend Acoustics NFS measurements confirmed...

 

[pseudoid]

The site already has the "review index". Maybe Amir can make a searchable, filterable index for your data as well.

Yes, I had asked previously, as you cannot even search for that review index readily, let alone search within.
I had also suggested that each equipment in the 'review index' should show a price (or a letter denoting some price ranges) vertically-oriented within each bar at the bottom.
It maybe a herculean effort... like @sweetchaos must be finding out about this great thread!
---------------
Question @sweetchaos: Is there a reason why (for example KEF Q150s) show-up (repeat) multiple times in different price brackets?

 

[sweetchaos]

Q150 (5.25" woofer) (PS 4.9) is a good speaker ideal for several applications (surround, surround backs or overheads) due it's good vertical directivity and small size.
There is Q350 (6.5" woofer) (PS 5.7) and LS50 Meta (5.25" woofer) (PS 5.7) as well, but their cost is higher.
I'm including Kef's in each price point, since they all have something to offer.

I believe a new review index for ASR is currently being developed. The current index's discussion is here.

I mentioned this before, but I can't include every speaker that we have spinorama for, since my list would be too huge...I'm already running out of characters and can't fit everything into one post. Lots of speakers don't make the cut in my opinion. You may disagree. You're free to start your own list.
If you want to see all known measurements, see Pierre's github, since it's the golden reference.

 

[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.

 

[anander]

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.