Passive Speaker Recommendations for USA (by @sweetchaos)

[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.

Aperion A5 Atmos 5.25" Immersive Reflective/Height Module Speaker Pair

Aperionaudio A5 Immersive Height Module 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...

 

[amper42]

The speaker preference ratings can be a good place to start but from my experience using it as the sole tool to select a speaker without a listening test is a bad idea. The example of the BMR monitor vs Revel M105 is one example. While the BMR has amazingly strong bass reproduction the Revel 105 distorts easily in the low end. That one feature will cause most to select the BMR as the winner in AB tests. The preference scores don't make that clear. The Revel M105 requires a subwoofer and an 80Hz crossover - not to mention the 5" woofer doesn't offer the same presence. It's a huge difference. The preference score can easily lead someone to select a speaker they would never select in an AB listening test. A listening test is required. Don't depend on the preference score or someone else - take the time to listen. Most companies offer a great return policy. If they don't it's best to shop elsewhere.

 

[jbattman1016]

Yeah, speakers are tricky. Don't hate on me, but how I select a speaker is I try to get one with the flattest response curve in the frequency range I'm concerned with (60Hz and up) and with the least amount of distortion at moderate levels (80db). I use a sub for low end. After that, it's trial and error really

 

[cavedriver]

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.

I don't think it's about subjective opinions. The preference scores and testing that is being done using the Klippel gets us much of the way there but it does not tell us everything about the performance of a speaker and it's quite possible (imho and experience) to have a speaker that scores in the 5~6 range that has clear flaws and would be rejected when compared to another speaker with a similar (or better) score. It's worth saying again, I absolutely will NOT buy any speaker I can't A/B against a similar quality speaker.

 

[192kbps]

Are all Center Channel Speakers passive?

 

[Danaxus]

Are all Center Channel Speakers passive?

No, there's no reason for them to be. So long as your AVR supports a centre pre-out, you're fine with an active if you wish. That said, it might be tricky finding a single active speaker for sale - most active speakers I know, outside of studio speakers like Genelec, are sold in pairs, with the brains usually put in one of them. All that's to say: yes, you can do active centre, just make sure you check the details before going ahead.

 

[chris760]

Just wanted to take a moment and say THANK YOU for this. I had no idea about 2-way, 3-way speakers, let alone which brands outside of the one (paradigm) I had tried before that are any good. Somehow the stars aligned and the day I found this thread is the day I found a set of Revel F208s and a C208. From the recommendation on here I bought them sight unheard. It's difficult to articulate how amazing these speakers are compared to anything I have ever heard before. The sound stage is immense, the detail is so crystal clear. I must have listened to music for 6+ hours the first night I had them and never once felt fatigued.

If you close your eyes during a show/movie the center does this magic trick were you cant even tell its there. It sounds like you are IN the scene and not WATCHING the scene. I literally shed a tear when re-watching avatar and they were walking through a short cave and it FELT like you were in the cave with them. I only have a 3.0 setup and could not be happier. Even crummy music off youtube of live concerts sounds amazing.

All this to say. Thank you for taking the time to demo soo many speakers. Thank you for taking the time to rank them and make an EASY button for folks like me who don't have time to go audition 1,2,10 different speakers.

 

[Howie Dern]

I don't understand arranging speakers by price range. I look for the best speaker at the best price.

It seems that some members love to hate on the ps but the only suggested alternative seems to be to listen for yourself. This is not practical as almost nobody has access to more than a few of these speakers and very few people would/could do more than a couple of in-home trials. And I would venture that the ability to do multiple blind ABX tests with any significant number of speakers would be impossible for nearly all. Therefore, I see the ps as a very useful tool. Certainly, considering room size and output level desired vs speaker size is also a big factor one must consider.

I listen at moderate volumes in a mid-sized room, use a sub, and am not super concerned with speaker cabinet appearance. So, it seems the Philharmonic AAM's plus sub are a great choice for me. Why should I buy something more expensive? Really, what am I missing here?

 

[sweetchaos]

I don't understand arranging speakers by price range.

I do. Not everyone has the same budget.

I look for the best speaker at the best price.

What is your definition of "best price"?
If you say I look for the best speaker for a given price point, then yes, that's what my list is about.

So, it seems the Philharmonic AAM's plus sub are a great choice for me. Why should I buy something more expensive? Really, what am I missing here?

A world of wonderful speakers, lol.

I personally don't like the look of Pioneer SP-BS22-LR, so aesthetics alone eliminates this option for me.

People buy different cars (to use an analogy) to get to the same destination. All cars will get you there, but every car will get you there with a unique style.
It's the same with speakers, assuming they're not a broken design. They all make sound, but the experience you'll get will differ with each speaker.

My goal was always to help people narrow down the options, keeping good-enough speakers on the list, and removing broken designs.

 

[Howie Dern]

Let me first say THANK YOU for creating the compilation spreadsheet. It's been very useful to me and, I'm sure, many others. I was not trying to criticize.

I certainly can understand paying more for better aesthetics but this is in the realm of individual preference and not science. I thought the idea of ps ratings was to try to compare with science so that we don't judge a product by price.

The "best price" is the lowest one that meets my needs for ps, output, and aesthetics. If I have $1000 to spend, I still don't want to exclude $100 speakers if they meet my needs.

Again, many thanks for your great contributions!

 

[CauliflowerEars]

In regards to what's the difference between a score of 5.0 vs 6.0, here's Dr Sean Olive's answer:

So ... could an argument be made that currently having speakers with 5.7 Preference Score (say, Elac DBR-62) means the next sensible upgrade would have to be in the (at least) 7.0 range? (not turning to mathematics for an excuse to splash more money, ofc

 

[goldark]

So ... could an argument be made that currently having speakers with 5.7 Preference Score (say, Elac DBR-62) means the next sensible upgrade would have to be in the (at least) 7.0 range? (not turning to mathematics for an excuse to splash more money, ofc

The next sensible upgrade could have the same preference score but have increased power handling or wider dispersion, for example, if the user finds that is what they prefer. These factors aren't reflected in the preference score.

 

[Benedium]

Wonder if it means that the higher the preference score, the less deviation between the tonality of different speakers? So perhaps kef reference sounds more like genelec and neuman than kef q series? Then if there were 2 different speakers with 100% score, they should sound identical?

 

[geox]

maybe, i'm not understanding the list,
I'm reading it as Polk R200 with Sub is better than Perlisten S4B with a sub ?