Would you guys rather have a cheap 2.1 or better 2.0 - Edifier MR4 + SUB or Kali UNF

[mikeylemur]

I have the opportunity to buy the Kali LP UNF for cheap, but I'm not sure the higher price is really justified. The Edifier MR4 costs about half as much, and I could pair it with a budget-friendly 8" subwoofer to get better bass extension.

From what I've read, the MR4 and LP-UNF sound pretty similar once EQ'd properly. I recently picked up the Behringer ECM8000 measurement mic, so I could dial in the MR4 setup myself.

Also, the SPINORAMA scores for the LP-UNF were lower than I expected and not that far off from the MR4. So I'm wondering—would going with the MR4 and some EQ be the smarter choice?
Kali LP-UNF -https://www.spinorama.org/speakers/Kali%20LP-UNF/ErinsAudioCorner/index_eac.html
Tone 4.4
w/sub 6.5
w/eq 5.7
w/both 7.6

MR4 - https://www.spinorama.org/speakers/Edifier MR4/ASR/index_asr.html
Tone 3.3
w/sub 6.0
w/eq 5.7
w/both 8.3

I'm not quite sure how to read the graphs—are there certain resonances that EQ just can't fix? Since I'll be using the speakers in a nearfield setup, would those issues even be noticeable? Honestly, having better bass extension might be the bigger priority.

 

[Trdat]

From the perspective of sub or no sub, adding a properly integrated sub is the best thing you can do to a system. However, if you comparing a great measuring speaker without a sub I personally would recommend getting the top speaker and adding a sub when you can afford it.

In the above case however, both speakers are fairly similar although I will let someone else chime in with explaining the graphs and providing advice from the speaker point perspective.

So, I would definitely consider the sub and potentially choose the cheaper speaker in this particular case.

 

[olymind1]

Someone here uses the Edifier MR-5. It goes down to 40Hz, but probably it also benefits from a sub. MR-5 topic, measurements.

 

[kemmler3D]

This is a tricky one. When it comes to preference scores the accepted wisdom is that a difference of a full point is meaningful but less than that, maybe not. In this case we are looking at a point difference out of the box, so it's probably fair to say the Kali speakers are better before EQ.

There are certain things that EQ can't fix with both speakers and on a casual glance I'd guess the Kalis have less resonances.

If it were my money I'd go for the Kali set and save up for a used sub later on. An 8" sub usually doesn't do much anyway, 10-12"+ tends to be much more worthwhile. But if you want a decent set of speakers with real bass right away, the Edifiers won't be a disaster in comparison.

 

[mikeylemur]

Someone here uses the Edifier MR-5. It goes down to 40Hz, but probably it also benefits from a sub. MR-5 topic, measurements.

I believe the MR5's MSRP is comparable to the LP-UNF's sale price. I'm also leaning toward the Kali since I found a great deal on it right now.

From the perspective of sub or no sub, adding a properly integrated sub is the best thing you can do to a system. However, if you comparing a great measuring speaker without a sub I personally would recommend getting the top speaker and adding a sub when you can afford it.

In the above case however, both speakers are fairly similar although I will let someone else chime in with explaining the graphs and providing advice from the speaker point perspective.

So, I would definitely consider the sub and potentially choose the cheaper speaker in this particular case.

Thanks for the advice, I'll take this into consideration.

This is a tricky one. When it comes to preference scores the accepted wisdom is that a difference of a full point is meaningful but less than that, maybe not. In this case we are looking at a point difference out of the box, so it's probably fair to say the Kali speakers are better before EQ.

There are certain things that EQ can't fix with both speakers and on a casual glance I'd guess the Kalis have less resonances.

If it were my money I'd go for the Kali set and save up for a used sub later on. An 8" sub usually doesn't do much anyway, 10-12"+ tends to be much more worthwhile. But if you want a decent set of speakers with real bass right away, the Edifiers won't be a disaster in comparison.

Doesn't the overall score become irrelevant if I plan to use EQ anyway? In that case, their EQ-adjusted performance is pretty similar.

Since they sound pretty similar, I’m thinking it might be better to save a bit longer and go straight for a 10–12'' sub. If I do decide to save up for a better sub, would the Edifier be a smarter choice?

I don't get how the 'with both' average is calculated. Both speakers have the same scores with sub and with EQ, yet the final 'with both' score for the Kali is significantly lower.

 

[mikeylemur]

Sounds like you all agree that EQ will minimize the differences, since both speakers have resonance issues anyway.

 

[kemmler3D]

Doesn't the overall score become irrelevant if I plan to use EQ anyway? In that case, their EQ-adjusted performance is pretty similar.

The score with EQ can be a little misleading because it doesn't account for distortion or resonances and only accounts for directivity in a general / theoretical approximate way. To put it another way, it assumes there is no problem with the frequency response that EQ can't correct or at least improve, which is not always the case in reality.

"With sub" just adds the assumption that the speaker extends down to 20hz and so removes any penalty for missing bass from the score.

The score in general is only a loose guide to performance... But EQ in real life isn't necessarily as effective as it seems in these scores.

Also, as an aside, you won't want to correct above 300hz or so using your mic. Speaker corrections need to be based on anechoic measurements, so use the spin data for that, if you do go that route.

 

[mikeylemur]

The score with EQ can be a little misleading because it doesn't account for distortion or resonances and only accounts for directivity in a general / theoretical approximate way. To put it another way, it assumes there is no problem with the frequency response that EQ can't correct or at least improve, which is not always the case in reality.

"With sub" just adds the assumption that the speaker extends down to 20hz and so removes any penalty for missing bass from the score.

The score in general is only a loose guide to performance... But EQ in real life isn't necessarily as effective as it seems in these scores.

Also, as an aside, you won't want to correct above 300hz or so using your mic. Speaker corrections need to be based on anechoic measurements, so use the spin data for that, if you do go that route.

I see what you're saying. Based on the measurements of these two speakers, how would someone determine which resonances are more problematic? Is there a method to qualify and quantify these distortions to assign a theoretical score?

Also, does the 'with sub' rating only consider bass extension and not the actual quality of the bass? So speakers that end up with a higher 'with sub' scores just tend to have deeper bass prior to sub?

I've seen people doing quasi-anechoic measurements— hopefully that's something an average person like I could pull off with a cheap Behringer mic.

 

[kemmler3D]

I see what you're saying. Based on the measurements of these two speakers, how would someone determine which resonances are more problematic? Is there a method to qualify and quantify these distortions to assign a theoretical score?

Also, does the 'with sub' rating only consider bass extension and not the actual quality of the bass? So speakers that end up with a higher 'with sub' scores just tend to have deeper bass prior to sub?

I've seen people doing quasi-anechoic measurements— hopefully that's something an average person like I could pull off with a cheap Behringer mic.

As far as I know preference score is entirely derived from the on- and off-axis frequency response and doesn't consider distortion, resonances, or dynamic range, all of which of course also matter to whether you like the sound of a speaker or not.

So when it comes to resonances, the answer is "no", there is no established way to quantify their impact on preference in terms of a score... preference score was not developed with a dimension that includes resonances and AFAIK no listener testing has been conducted to generate such a score. As far as I know. So you'd mostly just want to look at which ones are bigger, longer, or in more sensitive regions.

So you'd need to look at the resonances and see how problematic you think they are - you can see them in the waterfall graphs of each speaker. Likewise, you need to look at the distortion and compression tests separately and decide how much they will impact your experience at the SPL levels you normally listen at.

Also, you can do quasi-anechoic measurements of your speakers for sure, but using the Klippel data is probably easier and just as good for doing these corrections.

 

[Blueprint]

I had the Edifier MR4 as cheap bedroom speakers for a while. Never measured them but they sounded very nice and natural to me. They couldn’t play loud but looking at the data, neither can the Kali’s particularly. The Kali’s look a whole lot more speaker visually, but I’m not sure if the data really backs up that they are.

 

[mikeylemur]

As far as I know preference score is entirely derived from the on- and off-axis frequency response and doesn't consider distortion, resonances, or dynamic range, all of which of course also matter to whether you like the sound of a speaker or not.

So when it comes to resonances, the answer is "no", there is no established way to quantify their impact on preference in terms of a score... preference score was not developed with a dimension that includes resonances and AFAIK no listener testing has been conducted to generate such a score. As far as I know. So you'd mostly just want to look at which ones are bigger, longer, or in more sensitive regions.

So you'd need to look at the resonances and see how problematic you think they are - you can see them in the waterfall graphs of each speaker. Likewise, you need to look at the distortion and compression tests separately and decide how much they will impact your experience at the SPL levels you normally listen at.

Also, you can do quasi-anechoic measurements of your speakers for sure, but using the Klippel data is probably easier and just as good for doing these corrections.

When it comes to things like on- and off-axis response and directionality, I assume EQ can't really alter those characteristics. That’s probably due to the physical design of the speaker, right?

Is it better to EQ a speaker to a flat response using Klippel data first, and then adjust for room acoustics separately? Or should you use quasi-anechoic measurements that include room sound and EQ everything together?

 

[mikeylemur]

I'm checking out some Polk PSW10Es on eBay, so it'll likely come down to a setup like the Polk plus MR4 versus the Kali LP-UNF. Would a subwoofer of that quality be worth getting over the Kali's alone

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

How big is the room and how far will you sit from the speakers? Nearfield I would go stereo, more distance particularly in a not small room, I would likely go sub.

A sub will take some strain off the speakers, so if you want to play a bit louder than can help on more than just extension.

 

[mikeylemur]

How big is the room and how far will you sit from the speakers? Nearfield I would go stereo, more distance particularly in a not small room, I would likely go sub.

A sub will take some strain off the speakers, so if you want to play a bit louder than can help on more than just extension.

I'll be using this in a nearfield setup, so it's an even 2:2 split between sub and stereo.

It's tricky because I've never used studio monitors before. I'm not even sure I'd be able to hear the difference in resonance. If I knew I couldn't, I'd just go with the Edifier.

 

[kemmler3D]

When it comes to things like on- and off-axis response and directionality, I assume EQ can't really alter those characteristics. That’s probably due to the physical design of the speaker, right?

Correct. EQ can adjust the overall output, but the difference between on and off axis will remain the same.

Is it better to EQ a speaker to a flat response using Klippel data first, and then adjust for room acoustics separately? Or should you use quasi-anechoic measurements that include room sound and EQ everything together?

Generally the former. The room takes over below what's known as the Schroeder frequency, so you need to take measurements in your room to fix that part of the response. Above that you can correct the speaker using anechoic data.

 

[kyuu]

I would say the Kali UNF is unabashedly the superior speaker. However, if you are severely constrained by your budget and won't be able to get a subwoofer to supplement the lower octaves, the Kalis by themselves will likely be less satisfying than the MR4s paired with a sub. Good bass response is pretty essential to a satisfying experience with an audio system. This isn't just an opinion, research backs it up.

So if you can afford it, get the Kalis and a sub (make sure you have provisions to do proper bass management, a subwoofer's built-in low-pass by itself is very seldom adequate). If you can only afford the MR4s plus a sub, go that route and don't feel any remorse. It will still be a quite a decent system as long as you aren't expecting big SPLs (you won't get that from the Kalis either).

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

I'll be using this in a nearfield setup, so it's an even 2:2 split between sub and stereo.

It's tricky because I've never used studio monitors before.

If you listen to a lot of music with low bass (pipe organ, hip hop, some rock, etc) then go sub. The lowest octave I don't miss with jazz, most classical, acoustic, etc.

Nearfield I don't listen to bass heavy music very much, so I would go Kali.

 

[olymind1]

I believe the MR5's MSRP is comparable to the LP-UNF's sale price. I'm also leaning toward the Kali since I found a great deal on it right now.

Edifier MR-5 is 250€, Kali LP-UNF is 350€. Here at least. Kali is 2-way (4.5+1), Edifier is 3-way (5+3.75+1).

But which is better i can't say.

Also Erin said the MR-3 is better speaker than MR-4, and the MR-5 looks more like the MR-3 than the 4 and also cheaper, adding to the options.

 

[mikeylemur]

Edifier MR-5 is 250€, Kali LP-UNF is 350€. Here at least. Kali is 2-way (4.5+1), Edifier is 3-way (5+3.75+1).

But which is better i can't say.

Also Erin said the MR-3 is better speaker than MR-4, and the MR-5 looks more like the MR-3 than the 4 and also cheaper, adding to the options.

I heard the original MR4 received a silent revision that made it a better buy than the MR3. On the used market, they’re priced about the same anyway.

 

[mikeylemur]

Thanks for the advice, everyone. In the end, I went with the Kali LP UNF for £113 delivered, which I think is a solid deal. The MR3 and MR4 typically go for around £50 used. Honestly, I think I would’ve been happy with either option, but the Kali feels more future-proof.

Quick question about speaker stands: I'm planning to buy a pair to raise my speakers to ear level, but I was wondering—does using foam to decouple the speakers actually make a noticeable difference? From what I understand, high-quality stands typically rely on mass to reduce vibrations. However, that won’t be an option for me since I’ll be placing them on an electric standing desk.