Speaker shootout update; aggressive treble eliminating some (fairly?)


I've been trying out speakers in a complicated shoot out, both bookshelves and towers — all in my home with my gear. I'm looking for speakers obtainable up to about $4k but could go up (or down) a bit if the right thing came along.

Basic facts: All speakers were run in at least 100 hours. Room is 27 x 14 x 6.5 ceilings. Powering with all QS tubes, 60w, NOS, tube R2R dac, and decent cables. No terrible reflection points; room not overly live or dampened. REL R 328 sub available but I did most listening without it.

Recent auditions, type:

Klipsch RP 600-M (budget singleton of the group)
Fritz Rev Carbon 7 mk II (bookshelf, 2 way, soft dome)
Focal 936 (tower, 3 way, inverted metal)
Martin Logan Motion 60s XTi (tower, 3 way, AMT)

Coming soon:

Salk SS 6M (bookshelf, 2 way, beryllium)
Dynaudio Evoke 30's (tower, 3 way, soft dome)

Let me speak just to the problems, rather than what was good about the speakers. So far, I've found the Klipsch, Focal, and especially the Martin Logans were all too bright — forward, aggressive, "turn it down" treble.

The ML's were the most impossible to tame and hardest to listen to on more tracks. (I did a lot of hanging of towels and other dampeners and other soft things to try to see if I could bring them to heel. I varied the recordings used. Changed cables/wires. No luck.)

The Focals were occasionally too bright; their bigger problem was a bit too much energy in my small listening space. They were better when I plugged their ports with socks.

I'm looking forward to how the next two speakers sound. The Dynaudio towers, I notice, are 10 inches shorter and half the weight of the other towers; not sure what that might mean, but it could just be right size for my space. I'm looking forward to seeing if the Salks bring more detail to the treble without also being too rolled off or harsh.

Hearing is very personal for physiological and taste reasons. However, if anyone has any thoughts about why I might be experiencing some of the phenomena I am (harsh treble, especially) based on my room or gear, etc., that might help me understand factors I'm not fully appreciating. Thanks.


128x128hilde45

Showing 5 responses by helomech

The Motion 60XTs outperformed several costlier speakers in my audition, including the lower-tier ML ESLs. 
I appreciate you following through with updates. So many start speaker search threads and abandon them with no conclusion. 
The ML Motion 60XTs had a very pleasant and balanced treble in my audition. Very surprised by your trouble with them. I expect it from the Focals though.
If you want detailed treble with zero harshness and/or brightness, you'd be hard-pressed to find anything better than Stirling Broadcast SB-88s. 
@helomec,
did you audition the older "XT" or latest "XTi" version? Updates for the XTI version mention  no tweeter or crossover changes, but I’m suspect. The woofer surrounds in the new XTi version are noted as upgraded and  "stiffer". I’ve heard the older 60XT many times, and own the smaller ML40XT for another setup, and they are not overly bright, fairly neutral in fact. As noted before, found a spike on the response graph between 10k-15khz.

Still kinda wondering if there was a change in material used in the AMT diaphragm or crossover with the new XTI version...no proof, just curious.

I auditioned the older XTs. I noticed the spike in the measurements of one online review, but a spike in that octave is most likely to result in a sense of "air" and atmosphere, not brightness. I do wonder if these AMT drivers might require a break-in period where the binding/matrix material has to undergo micro-cracking, thereby allowing the pleat to relax, not unlike a conventional spider material. Not all AMTs are created equal that's for sure. The ML AMTs are far superior to those used by Golden Ear.