Technics SB-C700 Review (Coaxial Bookshelf)

[BadAudioAdvice]

To add a few more details about the Technics SB-C700 (it was mine that was being evaluated).

The speakers are made in China. I was a bit disappointed that they aren't made in Japan. Not necessarily because of the quality or craftsmanship (because these speakers really feel top-notch) - more so from a nostalgia perspective for the Technics brand.

The piano black gloss finish is really really nice. IMO the speakers look beautiful.

I liked that there weren't any stickers or marking on the speakers - gives them a clean aesthetic.

The speakers are solid, and nearly 19lbs each. I was surprised at how hefty they felt the first time I picked them up.
They also come with magnetic grills that look quite nice (not shown in the photo).

In regards to Amir's listening impressions I agree.

I always felt they sounded OK - but not great. I've tried them in big rooms, small rooms, away from walls, close to walls, desktop usage etc...they performed similarly in all situations - just fine.

I am looking forward to getting the speaker back and figuring out how to apply a similar EQ curve to the one Amir recommended.

 

[tifune]

Same story with directivity:
View attachment 184265

Due to coaxial driver, vertical response is almost the same:

View attachment 184265

This part really caught my eye, because I don't think I've ever seen such a perfect match between vert/horizontal response. But, I think it's because you accidentally posted the horizontal twice?

BTW, I hope your flooding situation is resolved and everyone fully recovered. Water is the worst - from a homeowner perspective, it's one of my big phobias because the residuals can stay hidden seemingly forever.

 

[Rottmannash]

"The enclosure is built quite solid and the pain job is first class."

I think you meant "paint" job.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

The takeaway I get from this review is that small differences can be crucially important. Just by adding 2db in that crucial midrange area, Amir was able to get these speakers to open up. Seems like a small difference but it correlates strongly with his preference for the speakers. I think the other reason why he so strongly preferred the Revel 105's, btw, was the rolled off bass shelf on the Technics--similar to his original experience with the Kef R3's.

Likewise some reviewers have suggested that the OG LS50's and the Metas are basically the same speakers because their measured differences seem rather small--particularly with respect to on axis FR. On the other hand, I've owned both and currently have them in my listening room (the OG's are now surrounds), and I find the difference between the two is highly significant. To my ears, the Metas have a subjective rightness that the OG's can never approach even with EQ and DSP. That underscores that small measured differences can make all the difference at least in certain areas of performance. Objective measures are important, but some are more important than others. We still have a lot to learn concerning how these objective measures correlate with our psycho acoustic utility curve.

 

[Larry B. Larabee]

I always felt they sounded OK - but not great. I've tried them in big rooms, small rooms, away from walls, close to walls, desktop usage etc...they performed similarly in all situations - just fine.

It's a point source.

 

[Thomas_A]

There might be a better explanation for the differences heard when looking at the raw horizontal response. Here's the Technics:
View attachment 184303

Here's the Revel:

View attachment 184302

The Technics do show a more consistent scooping behavior (look at 60 degrees, for example, a prime angle for sidewall reflections), whereas the scooping in the revels seems to come primarily from the vertical response -- the scoop is reinforced on the technics while it is less of an issue on the revels. One thing revels seem to consistently have in their favor is this kind of off-axis response -- where even if the on-axis isn't perfect, the 20-90 degrees curves are usually better than the vast majority of competitors.While some speakers often 'add up'to something that looks as good as revels, I find myself preferring the revels when I dig deeper into the data.

I'd still personally pick up the C700 over the revels though taking everything into account for my tastes (including looks .

Just a theory of course. In any case, does seem a little EQ to get tonality to one's liking could go a long way here.

This has been noted before but the relation between 1-2 kHz and 3-4 kHz levels are important. Peaking 3-4 kHz vs 1-2 kHz will cause speakers to sound a bit rough and hard, IMO.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

The takeaway I get from this review is that small differences can be crucially important. Just by adding 2db in that crucial midrange area, Amir was able to get these speakers to open up. Seems like a small difference but it correlates strongly with his preference for the speakers. I think the other reason why he so strongly preferred the Revel 105's, btw, was the rolled off bass shelf on the Technics--similar to his original experience with the Kef R3's.

Likewise some reviewers have suggested that the OG LS50's and the Metas are basically the same speakers because their measured differences seem rather small--particularly with respect to on axis FR. On the other hand, I've owned both and currently have them in my listening room (the OG's are now surrounds), and I find the difference between the two is highly significant. To my ears, the Metas have a subjective rightness that the OG's can never approach even with EQ and DSP. That underscores that small measured differences can make all the difference at least in certain areas of performance. Objective measures are important, but some are more important than others. We still have a lot to learn concerning how these objective measures correlate with our psycho acoustic utility curve.

Ls50m and ls50og measure very different in their FR.

 

[amirm]

Corrected availability date to 2015.

 

[Habu]

Not that it matters but I was surprised to see no marking on the back as to model and manufacturing location:

Maybe the sticker is under the speaker ?

 

[Larry B. Larabee]

This part really caught my eye, because I don't think I've ever seen such a perfect match between vert/horizontal response. But, I think it's because you accidentally posted the horizontal twice?

BTW, I hope your flooding situation is resolved and everyone fully recovered. Water is the worst - from a homeowner perspective, it's one of my big phobias because the residuals can stay hidden seemingly forever.

ya

 

[Jmudrick]

I have both the Revel M106 and C700 , and have no complaints about either. I'm not a 96DB listener and have ARC room correction employed for the bass so not AMIR's setup. I also listen in stereo. I'll probably keep the Technics . A much tougher call than for Amir.

 

[Habu]

An old post from IIkless regarding « Port Resonance Suppression: Inspiration from Technics » with exploded views of the Technics SB-C700.

Port Resonance Suppression: Inspiration from Technics

You may have seen the measurements I posted here of the Technics SB-C700, a coaxial 2-way standmount. Despite being an innovative design with superior measurements to the LS50 (especially wrt directivity

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[napilopez]

The takeaway I get from this review is that small differences can be crucially important. Just by adding 2db in that crucial midrange area, Amir was able to get these speakers to open up. Seems like a small difference but it correlates strongly with his preference for the speakers. I think the other reason why he so strongly preferred the Revel 105's, btw, was the rolled off bass shelf on the Technics--similar to his original experience with the Kef R3's.

Likewise some reviewers have suggested that the OG LS50's and the Metas are basically the same speakers because their measured differences seem rather small--particularly with respect to on axis FR. On the other hand, I've owned both and currently have them in my listening room (the OG's are now surrounds), and I find the difference between the two is highly significant. To my ears, the Metas have a subjective rightness that the OG's can never approach even with EQ and DSP. That underscores that small measured differences can make all the difference at least in certain areas of performance. Objective measures are important, but some are more important than others. We still have a lot to learn concerning how these objective measures correlate with our psycho acoustic utility curve.

Not to be rude, but the LS50 and LS50 Metas measurements are not small? The differences are rather dramatic imo, two fundamentally different speakers.

LS50:

LS50 Meta:

Other than the similar bass tuning nothing about that on-axis would tell you these are the same speaker family. The metas also have different directivity and this is reflected in their sound; the original have a telltale directivity dip. Absolutely different speakers.

I do agree that small differences can make a big impact though! Small broad differences in particular.

 

[Larry B. Larabee]

I have both the Revel M106 and C700 , and have no complaints about either. I'm not a 96DB listener and have ARC room correction employed for the bass so not AMIR's setup. I also listen in stereo. I'll probably keep the Technics . A much tougher call than for Amir.

You can make one sound like the other if EQ doesn't make you gag.


from noaudiophile.com:
(+4@18k looks weird, though)

Move imaging forward	Filter 1: ON PK Fc 1600 Hz Gain 2.0 dB Q 1.00
Move imaging backward	Filter 1: ON PK Fc 1600 Hz Gain -2.0 dB Q 1.00
Transparency(or the B&W filter)	Filter 1: ON PK Fc 5000 Hz Gain -5.0 dB Q 4.00
Warmth	Filter 1: ON PK Fc 220 Hz Gain 2.0 dB Q 1.50
Detail	Filter 1: ON PK Fc 8000 Hz Gain 2.0 dB Q 2.50
Analytical	Filter 1: ON PK Fc 18000 Hz Gain 4.0 dB Q 0.70

 

[Walter]

I have both the Revel M106 and C700 , and have no complaints about either. I'm not a 96DB listener and have ARC room correction employed for the bass so not AMIR's setup. I also listen in stereo. I'll probably keep the Technics . A much tougher call than for Amir.

Just toss whichever one you decide against in your suitcase the next time you head this way.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Could it be that that roll off from around 170 hz is the problem?
LS50 has more bass looking at measurements and that has major influence on our perception.
If subwoofer is added, could it score better then KEF? Because from 170hz and above, FR looks great.

One thing I do often is set up speakers such as this one with a pair of 8" subwoofers crossed into play at 125-150hrz, with the bass HP out of the monitor(even higher is easily possible).
The ease with which some speakers play when high-passed and truly free from bass duty vs bearing that load is quite immediately apparent.
This speaker in particular would seem to benefit greatly due to the added bass heft, the reduced cone excursion & thus reduced influences on the tweeter during playback, and of course simply a cleaner sound due to a less stressed driver at volume.

You can also allow the 8" woofers to play up into the 200hrz region and with DSP ultimately adjust the whole bass and upper bass area to taste.
The woofer can also be the monitor stands or they can be placed nearby.
Mine are actually 2 feet behind the monitor stands and there are no adverse effects or if there are the positive gains dwarf the drawbacks, I do use time delay to be safe.

In fact in my experience this is such a rewarding upgrade to the sound that it is amazing it is not more often used. Of course it is pretty complex vs a finished product.

 

[Remlab]

It's really remarkable the performance Technics managed here on a passive speaker, while making one of exceedingly few wide-directivity coaxials. I remember a few people saying these were better than the original LS50s and measurement-wise, that seems to be absolutely the case (frankly, looks better than the LS50 Meta too, at least for my tastes)

That is absolutely fantastic measured performance IMO and this kind seems like my dream speaker if I'd seen these measurements beforehand. Shame they stopped making them (I believe). These measurements are nearly on par with Genelecs' the Ones.

I do also need to point out that the PIR for the C700 and Revel M105 really are not that different; in fact, remarkably similar from ~150Hz to ~5 kHz.

View attachment 184282

The Technics just seem to be a little brighter, although it might simply be because they are (slightly) wider directivity (I think, haven't dived deep enough into the data to be sure).

Not sure what in the measurements suggests dullness and tubbiness from the Technics in that comparison, considering the revels have that bump at 100Hz, unless there was some room reinforcement at 40-50hz where the technics have much more energy. Could be a fluke, could be expectations, could be preferences, could be positioning, could be distortion, could be some revel secret sauce. Not saying what was heard wasn't real, just pointing it out for the sake of discussion =]

Amir's use of the trend line is basically subjective on his part(Which is perfectly fine) and can be deceiving if one doesn't understand this. This overlay is a perfect example as compared with the trend lines he uses for the same two speakers.

 

[bennybbbx]

It's really remarkable the performance Technics managed here on a passive speaker, while making one of exceedingly few wide-directivity coaxials. I remember a few people saying these were better than the original LS50s and measurement-wise, that seems to be absolutely the case (frankly, looks better than the LS50 Meta too, at least for my tastes)

That is absolutely fantastic measured performance IMO and this kind seems like my dream speaker if I'd seen these measurements beforehand. Shame they stopped making them (I believe). These measurements are nearly on par with Genelecs' the Ones.

I do also need to point out that the PIR for the C700 and Revel M105 really are not that different; in fact, remarkably similar from ~150Hz to ~5 kHz.

View attachment 184282



Not sure what in the measurements suggests dullness and tubbiness from the Technics in that comparison, considering the revels have that bump at 100Hz, unless there was some room reinforcement at 40-50hz where the technics have much more energy. Could be a fluke, could be expectations, could be preferences, could be positioning, could be distortion, could be some revel secret sauce. Not saying what was heard wasn't real, just pointing it out for the sake of discussion =]

The 200 hz boost and the 4 db bass reduce give the tubby sound. i get such a FR as the technics in my room with all speakers. it sound arghh horrible. It is important for this technics to reduce 200 hz 2-3 db. then get more clarity. the low bass is better as the revel. at 40 hz it is 5 db more.

 

[Jmudrick]

One thing I do often is set up speakers such as this one with a pair of 8" subwoofers crossed into play at 125-150hrz, with the bass HP out of the monitor(even higher is easily possible).
The ease with which some speakers play when high-passed and truly free from bass duty vs bearing that load is quite immediately apparent.
This speaker in particular would seem to benefit greatly due to the added bass heft, the reduced cone excursion & thus reduced influences on the tweeter during playback, and of course simply a cleaner sound due to a less stressed driver at volume.

You can also allow the 8" woofers to play up into the 200hrz region and with DSP ultimately adjust the whole bass and upper bass area to taste.
The woofer can also be the monitor stands or they can be placed nearby.
Mine are actually 2 feet behind the monitor stands and there are no adverse effects or if there are the positive gains dwarf the drawbacks, I do use time delay to be safe.

In fact in my experience this is such a rewarding upgrade to the sound that it is amazing it is not more often used. Of course it is pretty complex vs a finished product.

Interesting...I have the Technics hi passed at 80 via the (fixed) filter in the 2 JBL subs.

 

[Laserjock]

I have both the Revel M106 and C700 , and have no complaints about either. I'm not a 96DB listener and have ARC room correction employed for the bass so not AMIR's setup. I also listen in stereo. I'll probably keep the Technics . A much tougher call than for Amir.

Which one do you Listen to more?
Do you interchange or two separate systems?