|
Anonymous | Hodgepodge System NAD C370 Integrated Amp Pioneer PDR-W839 CD Recorder Project 1.2 Turntable with Pearl Cartridge Paradigm Monitor 7 Loudspeakers (@ 6 years old-version 1?) Plus Recent addition of: Axiom M22ti Loudspeakers System resides in a carpeted family room 12x24 in size. Pretty pleased with everything originally, but I live in a condo and the bass from the Monitor 7's was too much when turned up to around medium listening levels. I auditioned the Totem Arros (loved 'em) but didn't want to spend that much money at the time. I also auditioned a PSB bookshelf speaker (can't remember which model) that I liked a lot, but not as much as the Totem's. My goal was to get good sound, at decent levels, without driving the whole house (and neighbors) crazy, and without spending an arm and leg. Around a year ago I started reading up on the Ascend/Axiom bookshelf comparisons, and decided to give the M22's a tryout, replacing my Monitor 7's. At first I loved them, but now I'm not so sure and can't tell if it's the source material, speakers, CD player, or a combination of all of the above. With certain CD's, mainly acoustic jazz, the system is great. It also sounds good when watching movies or listening to digital radio broadcasts. When I play more "commercial" music CDs, (pop, r&b, contemporary jazz), the system sometimes comes off as too bright. Could this be because much of the commercial crap includes drum machines and programmed keys, mixed in the studios by folks that don't have a clue as to what they are doing? LOL I know, part of the problem is the wide variety of music chosen, but I don't see that changing any time soon. Also, because I have no interest in surround sound, a sub is not really part of my future plans. Having said all that, would the Ascend CBM-170's be worth a try? Should I go back and give the PSB's another shot? Are the Axioms worth keeping if I change my CD player? Would they sound better in a smaller room? Again, I want to be able to hear the bass without necessarily feeling it. Thanks |
|
Silver Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 557 Registered: Mar-05 | A sub is by no means for surround sound only...a good one can greatly enhance any 2-channel setup unless you have +$2000 towers that really provide quality mids & highs AS WELL AS good bass and which are driven by truly high quality powerful amps to get that maximum performance out of them. For everything else, mid- to low-fi, I would say that you only have lots to gain with a sub...allows you to get very good sound out of relatively inexpensive speakers and amps/receivers. > Again, I want to be able to hear the bass without necessarily feeling it. Then a higly musical sub like a Hsu would be a good choice, esp. paired with the CBM-170s. I've read of many people returning Axioms and keeping Ascends, but very few if any returning Ascends and keeping Axioms. |
|
T-Mac Unregistered guest | Anonymous: I think the pairing of the M22's in that size room, without a sub, is your biggest problem. I also understand about not wanting to add a sub for various reasons (wife factor, space, etc.) but it would make a great difference. As far as changing bookshelf speakers, I can't speak on how much more bass the Ascends will bring to your setup, but I have heard PSB bookshelfs that would give you a nice bottom end. Good Luck! |
|
Silver Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 616 Registered: Mar-05 | The Ascend 170s only go down to 70Hz so yes you would need a sub to get decent bass. |
|
Barnacle Unregistered guest | The Ascends go lower than 70hz. It is that they reach 3dBs off a flat response in the upper 60s. By the time they hit 40Hz they are down 6dBs from flat. http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/cbm170/cbm170meas.html |
|
Barnacle Unregistered guest | Oh and that is anechoic. Add in room gain and it will take you down a few dBs lower. |
|
Anonymous | Try moving the Axioms closer to the back wall to increase their bass response. |
|
Silver Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 619 Registered: Mar-05 | Barnacle, If you say so, those graphs are Greek to me! Being a technical ignoramus, I was going by these numbers: http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/cbm170/cbm170specs.html |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3847 Registered: May-04 | Golly gee whilikers, Mr. Wizard, those numbers for typical in room response look an awful lot like the specs represented on the measurements. But I'm not sure what a "quasi-anechoic" room amounts to. There seems to be some hair splitting going on here. Either a room has no reflections and can be considered anechoic or it has some reflections and it is not anechoic. None the less, the -6dB at about 40Hz is what a typical room should achieve. That, for many people, is more than adequate bass response. Adding a sub to that will only muddy up the coherence of the speaker in the opinion of lots of music listeners. The manufacturer offers the speakers as a combo deal with a sub, but indicates about half the owners forgo a low frequency system. Depending on the type of music played, the actual room volume and the levels the system is asked to perform at, the speakers could easily satisfy my tastes without a sub. And a sub would probably distract me from what the speakers are capable of doing. Keep in mind there isn't too much actual information in a music system beneath 40Hz. The original post doesn't mention the room's height, but the 12' X 24' measurement doesn't look good for decent bass response. Rooms where the dimensions are divisible by a common number often have standing waves and room nodes which work against evenly distributed bass response. In such rooms I have had the best luck with a set up at 1/3 the length of the room. Placing the speakers on the short wall would then put the speakers about 8' into the room. With a small speaker on a good stand, the speaker can easily be moved to this position for listening and placed in a more convenient position when not in use. Either way, I would suggest the speaker placement is the key to the type of bass response the poster is desiring. Of course, good solid stands that are filled with lead, sand or even kitty litter to damp the pillars will be a large help in the bass response. The stands should be spiked to the floor through the carpeting to the point the speakers don't move when force is exerted on the front or side on the cabinet. The brightness could be due to may things. More than likely the system is just reflecting the "jump" factor of most commercial recordings. But it could also be the listener is too close to the rear wall or the first reflections from the speakers are severe. All the speakers mentioned should be capable of giving good sound. One speaker may be more desirable than another, but if the same sound is consistent with several speakers in the same room, the room is probably to blame and should get some attention before any other changes are made to the system. I would first spend some money on good stands and then set the speakers up properly. That should start you on the way to better sound. Then I would investigate how to deal with the room. http://www.mhsoft.nl/SpeakerPlacing.asp http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/speakerplacement.html http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/roomacoustics.html |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3848 Registered: May-04 | Concerning the speaker stands, the speakers should either be Blu-Tak'd to the stands or a sheet of toilet paper should be placed between the speaker and the stand. The effect is different for both set ups and is a matter of preference as to which is "correct". |
|
Barnacle Unregistered guest | The number Ascend posts is the point were the designer feels they reach the limit of a flat response(-3dB). They do produce sound below. Here is a link to independent measurements taken a Canada's NRC- http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/ascend_cbm170/ The review is by the same guy in the NSM Audio reviews on NSM Audio's site. http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/ascendacoustics_cbm170.htm |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3859 Registered: May-04 | I happen to own a pair of the NSM 5S speakers as auxilary speakers and would also give them a hearty recommendation. http://www.nsmaudio.com/ My opinion is the smaller the woofer, the faster the woofer and the stiffer the woofer cone and basket. The larger the woofer, the slower the woofer (both start and stop) and the more likely it is to bend and distort when playing big stuff. Sealed boxes will have half the per octave bass roll off of a vented design. (Minus 6db per octave for sealed boxes and minus 12dB per octave for vented enclosures.) So choose what you want the bass response to sound like. Small woofers crossed over to a single large woofer for "deeper" bass is for those who feel inadequate unless they can mention something big they possess. There just isn't much real information in music below 50Hz so why muudy up the bass you have with something that just adds thump? If you want to spend the money for a very good subwoofer, that's your choice. If you listen to organ symphonies or electronic music with real deep bass extension, there is a case for a sub. Though in a situation where you can disturb the neighbors with the growling of a subwoofer shaking their walls on this sort of fare, headphones are suggested for those times when bass is required. I find the majority of subs to be distracting and so will most neighbors. If the system is set up well with decent components, a small speaker is much more impressive in its transparency and presence than a boomer system. After you purchase the decent components, set up is where you get the system to work properly. In the one third of the room dimension set up, the difference between the speakers being placed at that one third position vs. one foot in front or behind that spot is quite noticeable in most rooms. Anyone who has never read an article on how to properly set up their speakers and done the job with a tape measure and a few tools should give this a try. You have nothing to loose but a bit of time. |
|
T-Mac Unregistered guest | So, you guys don't think the Ascends will make a difference? Also, are newer pop/r&b/contemporary jazz cd's THAT poorly recorded? It seems that with each passing year, the cds become louder and louder level-wise, with very little care given to the overall sound of the finished product (but I thought it was just me). |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3873 Registered: May-04 | Well, with each passing year my hearing gets a little worse so maybe they are compensating for the aging boomers with money. The real answer is it depends on what label and artist you purchase. Most Pop and commercial recordings are not great quality, but that has been true for decades. |
|
T-Mac Unregistered guest | Jan, I read the reviews on the NSM 5's and find it hard to believe that a little speaker that weighs only 7 lbs each could provide such good sound. What is the secret, if there is one? How would you (or anyone else) rate them in comparison to the Ascends and Axioms mentioned above? Thanks. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3883 Registered: May-04 | Since I've not heard the speakers you mention, I really can't make a comparison. If you read the reviews on any given speaker manufacturers web site, you will undoubtedly notice every speaker is hailed by users and reviewers as the best thing since sliced bread. It is dificult to believe each of these designs raises the bar for all the competition. What wonderful sound we would have at $100 per pair if that were true. None the less, in my experience computer aided design has made it considerably easier to manufacture a decent sounding speaker for not that much money. Speaker design has long been an area where trickle down technology has benefited those of us at the lower price range. As to your question about the weight, you must consider what mass does to resonance. While mass itself will make a structure, whether an audio cabinet or a speaker cabinet, more difficult to begin vibrating; once the structure is excited the mass will tend to work against the damping of vibration. A massive structure will hold the vibration and resonant frequency much longer than a light system which will tend to release the vibration very quickly. The more massive unit will have a resonant frequency which is lower due to the mass. A lighter structure will have resonant frequency at a higher point. By shifting the resonance of a panel upward in frequency, the system shrugs off the vibration more quickly and has a disturbance which is above the area where your hearing is most sensitive. Of course, it is a matter of length and width which determine how easily a panel will vibrate. That combined with the density of the material will change how much the speaker system vibrates and how that affects the sound. Everything will vibrate and have at least one resonant frequency once it is set in motion, it is the job of the talented speaker designer to deal with that resonance in a well thought out fashion. Remember that not all speaker cabinets must be made super rigid, that is merely the prevailing fashion at the moment. Minimizing the effects of the vibration on the sound is the main goal. This can be accomplished several ways. There are still well regarded speakers which utilize what is termed a "lossy" cabinet construction which is designed to move vibration away from the cabinet very quickly. As always, listening will tell whether any speaker design suits your taste. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3886 Registered: May-04 | http://www.mhsoft.nl/RoomAcoustic.asp |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3889 Registered: May-04 | http://www.soundstage.com/audiohell/audiohell200111.htm http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/speakerplacement.html |
|
Silver Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 636 Registered: Mar-05 | Barnacle, thanks for pointing that out, I owe you one! : ) Also wanted to add that I appreciate the fact that you are technically very well-versed, but NOT at all pedantic, pretentious or tedious/verbose...how refreshing! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3894 Registered: May-04 | Short attention span, eddie? |
|
Anonymous | Now I'm really curious: What are the major differences between the NSM Model 5 and the Role Kayak (other than finish)??? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3898 Registered: May-04 | I assume you've noticed the Role speakers are a division of NSM. My understanding is the Model 5 is the least expensive speaker in the NSM line. The Role Kayak is the second model in the line. I purchased the 5S which is said to have different drivers than the standard 5. By comparison to the NSM 5S, the Role Kayak is about $100 more expensive. The NSM 5 can be had for approximately $200 less than the Kayak. The 5S which I have in my possession does have a paper cone woofer with aluminum phase plug. The Kayak states it uses the (apparently) identical carbon fiber impregnated woofer from the lower priced NSM 5. I was somewhat confused by this since you would assume a carbon fiber woofer would be more expensive and stiffer than a standard paper design. None the less, the 5S is a good sounding speaker in terms of bass quality, speed and tunefulness. It is possible the Role uses a different model driver form the same manufacturer. The Role speaker specs a 3Hz deeper response than the 5S and the 5; not a big deal really. This would lead me to think they are using a different driver, since the same driver in the same volume enclosure should make the same spec. The tweeter to the 5S and the Role appear to be different units, though I can't say that with certainty. Neither company states they build their own drivers so I would imagine either company is sourcing from a supplier to their specs. The tweeter in the NSM Model 5 and the Kayak do look the same, though again may be a different model number or held to closer tolerances. (A large portion of the additional cost between the LS3/5a and the KEF 101 clone resulted from the tighter specs held for the BBC version. These tighter tolerances will pay off in imaging and soundstaging.) The Role indicates it uses a silver clad copper wire to the tweeter, where as the NSM states just copper. Other than those differences, I would think the major portion of the cost is on the veneered cabinet should you decide you purchase that option from Role. When I looked at the two companies, I decided the NSM was the better value. It might be worth a call to the companies to get their explanation. If you do so, please let me know what they say. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3899 Registered: May-04 | Well, you got me curious, so I called NSM to inquire about the differences between the Model 5, the 5S and the Kayak. If I understood correctly, here's what I was told. The 5S and the Kayak use the same tweeter sourced from SEAS out of Norway. SEAS makes a very wide range of drivers but their products are most often found in the upper midrange of speakers price wise. The Model 5 uses a tweeter sourced from the Orient. The Kayak and the 5 use the same carbon fiber impregnated woofer while the 5S uses a paper cone with an aluminum phase plug. According to the gentleman at NSM, both drivers are sourced out of the Orient with the 5S woofer having better excursion and control to provide better dynamics and bass extension. (This is not reflected in the website specifications.) So at this point the three speakers have basically split the difference between the models as far as drivers are concerned. The Kayak is available as a standard biwire speaker where the 5 and 5S would have to be revised at the factory though they can be done as a biwire if so desired. (This is not an option on the price sheet, but apparently can be done upon request at additional cost.) The double binding posts on the Kayak are slightly better and more expensive than either NSM model. The cabling to the tweeter is "better" on the Kayak which uses the silver clad copper cable. The X-over on the Kayak is on a more substantial circuit board and uses slightly better components than the NSM products. All speakers use a first order 6dB X-over though the X-over frequency is slightly different among the speakers. They are all configured to be a point source design with time and phase coherence. They are all acoustic suspension systems. The cabinet of the Kayak has an additional brace though the basic cabinet is the same for the Kayak and the NSM's. If you order the Kayak in a veneered finish the workmanship regarding fit and finish is slightly better. (My 5S's are the off white painted MDF cabinets, so I cannot speak to fit and finish on the NSM's. What I see is quite acceptable to my needs.) All cabinets for both companies are manufactured in house while drivers are sourced outside the company. The NSM speakers have a mounting hole for a wall mount bracket, the Kayak does not. In general the description given indicated the NSM line to be the better value and with better resolution and extension in the bass through midrange in the 5S over the 5 and the Kayak. The Kayak should have slightly better resolution and focus in the upper midrange through the high frequencies than either NSM. Though the family resemblance is claimed to be quite obvious, the 5S should have a slightly warmer sound and the 5 and the Kayak a slightly leaner sound. The description indicates the difference is likely to be more noticeable on source material than the actual balance of the speakers. If loud volumes are desired, the 5 and the Kayak might be better suited to supplementation with a subwoofer. My personal experience with the 5S doesn't indicate it would need a sub for my tastes in music. (The opening of Copland's Fanfare for a Common Man [BIG cymbal crash and BIG drumbeat] and any drum solo I put through the system was suprising in its power and speed. Electric and acoustic bass has the right amount of oomph and delicacy. It is very easy to differentiate between drum notes and electric bass. I occasionally listen rather loud, but mostly at low to moderate volumes.) As I've said, there just isn't much beneath 50Hz on the majority of what I have in my collection. When I want to listen to organ pieces, Bosendorfer piano recordings or Dark Side of the Moon, I can take the disc into my home theater where I can use a sub. One note of warning. My 5S's took a very long time to break in. I put them on a different system and played them 24/7 at low volume for almost three weeks before I heard what I was hoping for from the speakers. Since slightly bright speakers can bother me quite a bit, I think the top end of the NSM 5S is as good as I can find under $2,000. I am not a fan of metal dome tweeters and I like the sound of a paper woofer over other materials. The 5s is much flatter and therefore more resolute through the mid to upper bass than my LS3/5a's though not as detailed at the very top. The mids are very close and that is an area where the 3/5a has held its own with other speakers for 3 decades. The imaging and soundstaging are very good, giving up a bit of overall size and scale, depth and width but not resolution to the 3/5a. If you've not heard it, the 3/5a is an amazing speaker in this regard so not measuring up to its standards is not a disparagement. Both speakers simply disappearing from my system as easily as the Queen in a street game of Three Card Monte. Overall for the money spent, I am quite pleased with the 5S. I can imagine other small speakers also doing a very good job, but not at this price. I find the sound of ported boxes bothersome, so it was pleasant to find a sealed box system. If there is a slight failure to the NSM it would be in the ability of the 5S's woofer to make your toe tap. If you are used to a Linn Kan you will be disappointed with the NSM. If you are used to a typical ported speaker, the NSM will suprise you with its speed and dynamics in the lower octaves. |
|
Silver Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 661 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan, > Short attention span, eddie? No, just a low tolerance for pompous @sses...LOL! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3900 Registered: May-04 | This is not meant to be an advertisement for NSM, merely a little more information about loudspeakers: |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3907 Registered: May-04 | Eddie - That's a good one, but you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. Anyone who wishes to try the NSM's or the Role's might want to consider trying the speakers on their side with some BluTak between the speaker and the supporting shelf or stand. This will couple the speaker rather well to the support along the longest dimension of the cabinet and add quite a bit of virtual mass to the speaker. Place a mass on the top of the sideways speaker's other long side using a diver's weight and you can minimize the amount of flex inherent in any cabinet. Use BluTak between the weight and the speaker or try attaching three small ball bearings to the underside of the weight with SuperGlue. Judge whether this method offers better sound since rapping the cabinet of the NSM 5S with your knuckle gives a different sound compared to the more typical and lower frequency thunk of most speakers. |
|
Bronze Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 83 Registered: Dec-04 | Jan, I read with great interest and admiration, your posts. Obviously a man of great knowledge and experience, a superb reference and occasional source of dour humour, such as myself. But A sheet of toilet paper under the speaker? sheesh. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 3917 Registered: May-04 | A paper towel will do if the speakers are slightly heavy. It won't be the sound everyone is looking for, but for some it will be a much better soultion than the ubiquitous BluTak. |
|
Anonymous | The original post mentions good sound from digital radio and movies. Doesn't this somehow point the problem to the CD player? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4044 Registered: May-04 | Somehow, in a round about way, possibly. The original post indicates the system sounds acceptably good on certain types of recordings and with various sources. If a whole system upgrade is in the works, the best place to begin is most often at the source. However, the original post also sends the discussion off in several directions. Is the desire for taming the brightness of certain CD's or is it to feel the bass? I think we can all agree that many commercial Pop recordings are of poor quality and that is merely a fact that must be lived with. Then the question becomes what is the next most important item on the wish list. In this case it appears to be a desire to deal with the speakers and add some bass content to the overall sound. With the CD player listed, a new CD player is unlikely to change the amount of bass in the room unless a substantial upgrade is accomplished. My impression is the system requires more careful set up to enable more music to sound balanced. After the system is set up properly where to go next in an upgrade path is easier to sort out. |
|
Steely Unregistered guest | So, does it make sense to believe that the dynamic range (at the high end) of cable co fm (music choice?) and most dvd movies is that much less than commercially available cds? This would then smooth off the bright high end the poster referred to and make the overall listening experience more tolerable, correct? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4146 Registered: May-04 | The frequency range of FM is narrowed in comparison to CD or DVD. (FM = 50Hz to 15kHz compared to CD and DVD at approximately 20Hz to 20kHz.) Anyone who has heard excellent live FM broadcast will know it has the potential to be as broad in its dynamics as CD or DVD. (Specs may not indicate this is true, but the marketing of FM ceased long ago.) What the FM signal is subjected to after transmission by the station is another matter all together. What in reality is the dynamic range and frequency response of CD and DVD is another matter all together. If the original post had indicated an acceptable sound quality only on FM and never on CD or DVD (which it doesn't), your assumption would probably be correct. |