Speaker suggestions for those who enjoy listening to metal?

[vlastoc]

In one of our local forum, these tips were picked out (not too much expensive):

- try to find older modeles of QUADRAL AURUM - Wotan, Amon, Vulkan, Titan... for a better money than the newer models.

check the website: http://www.aurumspeakers.com/75-Prod...tml#contenttop

---------------------

- Next JBL, e.g JBL TL260 -


JBL ti10k -


JBL LS80.


------------------------------

I will think about some other tips to add it here.

[YBArcam]

While not metal, my favorite genre would be hard rock along the lines of GN'R. I've narrowed my search down to the Monitor Audio RX2, ProAc Studio 110, Dynaudio Excite X16 or DM 2/8, and PMC TB2i.

The RX2 and 2/8 both have 8" drivers, for a bigger sound and deeper bass. But all the speakers I mentioned are bookshelf designs. I see you are already considering Dyn and MA. I think MA would likely have a more exciting sound, though the highs on the old RS series had way too much energy IMO. The new series is hopefully different in that respect (I haven't heard it yet). Supposedly, ProAc Studios are also a very detailed and exciting speaker, with a slightly bright top end, but they use a soft dome tweeter. So I think ProAc might be worth a look. I already know PMC kicks butt, but they aren't cheap. I'll be comparing all the models I've listed over the next few weeks.

[RGA]

To be quite frank I would look at speakers with wide baffles and larger drivers. Metal and harder rock are about the impact and "feeling" of the music as it is about the bass or the treble crash. So of course there are cheaper speakers that can do that - problem is they usually stink at everything else.

By what you write you want a speaker that will have the big "club" Tannoy speaker sound but also the ability to sound quite excellent with other forms of music. Speaking iof Tannoy - they make many speakers that do just that - but they tend to cost a lot. The RA Box by Trenner and Freidl does it better than any loudspeaker I have ever heard by anyone at any size or price. But they cost $25,000 pair and worth it.

So in the land of the living, there is Tannoy Westminster, the Klipschhorn(placed in corners), And on the affordable end The Audio Note E/Spe HE (placed in corners $7,600 - or ~2k as a kit), the Galo 3.5 for $5995.

The Galo has more actual hard driving impact and truly deafening levels and unbeleivably good start stop speed. There is very little distortion if any even at ridiculous volume levels. But it's not just a thwacker - it handles vocals and classical and jazz very nicely. It's not perfectly integrated (when I heard it) nor is the treble the last word. But frankly none of the little standmounts from the usual suspects are going to cut it - and subs don't help. Subs add bass and loud bass - so what - that is something completely different than dynamics, early compression - those things remain whether a sub is added or not.

Those Paradigm/B&W/Energy/Sonus Faber/PSB/Dynaudio/Monitor Audio/Boston Acoustics/Polk/Totem/PMC/you name it standmounts that look anything like this - that are all cut from the same cloth also sound surprisingly alike and all of them all share all the same problems - and that is that after you listen to them for a little while playing rock you start thinking like Chief Brody from the movie Jaws "You're going to need a bigger boat" = "you're going to need a bigger loudspeaker!"

Even the better bass standmounts like the transmission line PMC - as good as they can actually sound with their active amps attached you'll still note they make larger - MUCH Larger - loudspeakers. You can't get away from physics. Even the Audio Note J and E which are standmount two ways (though huge for a standmount) needs a corner to get the reinforcement in the bass. The problem is large speakers tend to have large speaker problems - so it's a balancing act.

[Mr Peabody]

RGA, I don't remember the OP's budget but I think you are way over it. And, also to incenuate the likes of Polk/Boston Acoustic sounds the same as Dynaudio/B&W is not only very WRONG by anyone's hearing, it's irresponsible for some one who is supposed to be a reviewer and have your experience.

The Klipshorns are expensive and huge but the Heresy III or Cornwall III could be a good option. I also thought the new version of the RF-63 was surprisingly good with just a short audition. Also, in a large speaker the Cerwin Vega CLS series are said to be a stand out speaker for the company excelling in more accuracy than the company is known for.

[RGA]

Slim line design speakers with multiple stacked 6 inch woofers and tweeter on top share very much a similar sound. Yes there will be frequency differences brighter treble, one has more bass or box resonances but there is clearly a sonic trait shared by a Dynaudio C1 and PMC TB1 or 2 or a Paradigm 100V3 and an Energy C9 or similar from Klipsch or Polk or B&W 603 or 604, Dynaudio Audience 72/82. I didn't say they sounded the same - similar enough to me that they don't separate themselves from each other in a significant enough way to warrant the price differentials (which is no doubt why they can all easily be interchangeably "recommended" by the review press. The 100V3 is three times the price of the C9 and it's not remotely 3 times better or for that matter all that different. In that virtually all of these speakers have the same foibles in the closed midrange and lack of cohesiveness.

The OP has already discounted Cerwin Vega so there is no point bringing them up. I am intrigued by their possibilities but like the laws of physics there is also the laws of parts quality. As for budget there is the used market. There is a difference between playing loud which all the above can do and playing loud and balanced. The problem with "all" of the 3-6 driver multiway slim lines is none of them sound cohesive in this price range. Usher did a good job of it and some others but then we're into ~15K not to mention the electronics needed to be up for the job.

I suppose I am presenting the anal end of the spectrum. If I am going to recommend the usual suspects of deep/thin/tall multi-way then I would lean to the Dynaudio 82 or I suppose now the Focus 360 and the B&W 604 as the cheap and cheerful runner up. But metal at the very least needs a speaker that is larger and doesn't crumble at levels and most standmounts in the $2k range simply fail at this.

Maybe I was in a mood but looking at forum advice where someone wants a speaker for metal or hard rock on various forums for sub $2k prices and I see people recommending puny stanmounts or the Magnepan MMG (possibly the worst speaker for any music with percussion ever created) is irritating. I have a set of old Wharfedal Vanguards in my closet that could probably be had on the used market for $400 that will blow any of the standmounts mentioned here into next week on metal/rock/dance/hip hop and at least sound credible with jazz and classical. That's a rock speaker. The product literature was similar to the maxell tape add with the wind blowing the guy in the seat back. 120db 40hz-23khz, ring dac horn loaded tweeter 95db sensitive 10ohm typical impedance - 5 watts will crack plaster and they had a DJ version with rigid sides. Metal needs kickass loudspeakers.

[YBArcam]

Maybe it's because I've never heard a wide baffle speaker with a 12" driver, or something like that, but my old Tannoy Mercury F2 and also my old Monitor Audio RS5 both did a pretty good job at presenting rock with a big sense of scale and dynamics. If put up against a bigger speaker perhaps they would come up lacking.

Doesn't a lot of this depend on the room? My room is small, and I simply don't have the room for huge speakers. A large monitor or small floorstander is enough to pressurize the room. As I type this, I'm not sure what the OP's room is like.

Also, I think the amp is a big factor in this too. You need an amp with some guts, and the ability to just grip the speaker drivers and make them do what it wants them to. High peak current and a high damping factor, as far as I know. I just bought an Audiolab 8000S which has these kinds of specs. The sound is full bodied, dynamic, with drums that have impact and are super tight. I started with a Denon minisystem and when I heard the 8000S for the first time I thought any similarly priced amp would produce that kind of sound, so I skipped the Audiolab and bought something just a little higher end. Well, I found out that it isn't the case. My current Exposure amp is well regarded for rock, I think, but I'm finding it sounds a little too loose and unexciting, with a relatively thin and distant sound. I also had a YBA YA201, which had the guts but was a little too smooth and relaxed.

[RGA]

First the three loudest and powerful rooms and bass drive room shaking and hugely tight bass rooms I heard at CES were Acapella High Violencello speakers run by Einstein Tube amps, The Trenner and Freidl RA Box being driven by 35 watts of Heed amplification and a tube amp, and the Audio Note E/Spe HE driven by 27 watts of SE tridoe power. The Galo 3.5 driven by a SS was also driven very loud but it also sounded grittier - although excellent mind you but it would have been a lot better with a better front end IMO.

It's complete myth/hooey/poppycock/lies/rubbish/enter your favorite adjective, that you need big power to get big sound. Granted to drive some of the overly complex multi way loudspeakers that suck power inefficiently it is true but generally those speakers tend to sound worse.

It never makes any sense to me. SE amplifiers sound better - every system no matter how hard the speaker is to drive - if it's just quality they sound better. So with the garbage in garbage out view it makes far more sense to have the best front end sound quality wise and then a speaker that can take advantage of it. With very hard to drive speakers - even if they, in themselves are well designed and could sound great, are let down by the fact that you need to run worse sounding, way more expensive front ends to get them to sound good where a high efficient speaker with low powered tube amps will give the same volume levels and cost significantly less money.

I am not an engineer but some things are fairly obvious. My speaker uses a SEAS 8 inch woofer and is ultra low excursion - I can play very very loud and you barely see the woofers moving at all which reduces the distortion to ultra low levels which is why they are so unbelievably clear and why so very very very many panel owners make the switch to the AN E - it has to be ultra fast for a panel guy to not "miss" the openess and speed they like from their panels. They are dead easy to drive and the goal of the thing is to let the box and the wall provide the drive and bass. With the Jinro amp on the E the room could play at ridiculous levels with the tightest fastest bass available in a loudspeaker period. So it's ultra fast and has very little excursion meaning the amp doesn't have to work much to control the drivers.

Conversely, you take a speaker that has 2 or three woofers that have high excursion moving way out and in to create bass lines and just using logic you can see serious problems around distortion. If the amplifier can't control the stop start action of such woofers then the woofers will create a doubling effect where the driver is too slow to hit the next note it lingers a little longer and you get that mushy slow sound that people despise.

The answer is to then buy a huge high damping factor amp with 1000 watts. And of course you are 100% correct that such an amp will have tremendous grip being able to pull that woofer in and out quickly whilst the low powered SS or tube amp will in most cases fall flat on its face.

But I would make the case to you that such amps in general sound awful. While they have that "grip" they also do the same for the tweeter or midrange units that don't require that sort of power and the result is a speaker that sounds "overcontrolled" and thins out the rest of the presentation (midrange up) such that is is highly fatiguing.

Several articles have been written on negative feedback as one of the biggest reasons for lousy sound. The higher the amplifier power and damping factor the higher the use of negative feedback - the more negative feedback the worse the amplifier sounds. Stereophile, Hi-Fi Critic, and UHF have written on this aspect. UHF does not, in their book, recommend amplifiers with a damping factors above 40.

Even the top SS designers when listening in blind conditions don't choose their own high damping factor amplifiers. http://stereophile.com/reference/70/

And then to get the really good ones you're looking at the likes of Technical Brain. One guy who was defending bryston to me said that I dump on them and have I heard their 28b. Yes buit look at the bloody price of the 28b. He was basically saying that this amp is finally a good bryston - yes at $25,000+ SS begins to sound good??? or the big Pass Labs at tens of thousands of dollars.

But the question is why? I would far rather put the money into loudspeakers than power amps - the speaker after all is the game changer. I grew up on SS big power, My dealer has some of the better examples of big SS power amps. They have recently picked up the Dynaudio/Octave tube amp line and here again - big tough to drive speakers with low powered tube amps. Dynaudio believes in the tube gear as they are being matched together at audio shows now.

In a small room you need power even less than you would in a large room.

Now again, I am 100% with you that most speakers to play loud with hard rock NEED huge power to get them under control - I am just saying that those speakers are the ones best avoided to begin with. But I suppose at the entry level price points there is not a lot of choice. But I would still look at the amp/speaker purchase as a combined expense. You can get a Grant Fidelity/Rogue Audio/Mystere/Audio Note kit amp/Antique Sound Labs/Octave for $1k-$3k that will sound terrific (note the stereophile article where the makers of the better upscale ss amps chose a $100 tube amp over their multi thousand dollar amps). This leaves you far more money to get premium speakers.

Unfortunately very few shops carry products that are not in fashion and fit with the decor of the modern home. My dealer recently picked up Harbeth. A speaker that is one of the oldest best sounding speakers around that very few dealers will touch with a ten foot pole (like Audio Note). The slim speakers designed with home theater in mind with slam and sleek sexy looks is what is all the rage. So is the Mp3. And in both cases the sound quality is not a priority!

A quote from the Martin Colloms Stereophile article "I invite you to keep a sense of proportion when I claim that, compared with worthy zero-feedback designs, conventional amplifiers impose a significant "graying" of dynamic expression, a falsification of timbre, a shift of truly natural tonality, and a smearing of temporal definition. There may also be an associated loss of rhythm, a blurring of the delicate nuances of the leading edges of natural sounds."

Martin Colloms is as good as it gets from a technical engineering sense and formed the speaker company Monitor Audio. http://colloms.com/default.aspx

[YBArcam]

Interesting stuff, RGA. I haven't listened to my 8000S yet, but when I do I will try to hear if high frequencies sound harsh and overcontrolled. I just recall loving the sound the amp made and therefore, I bought it. The speakers that I've owned over the years haven't been terribly hard to drive, though not as easy as an AN-E of course, nor with the same big driver and wide baffle. Then again, I don't have $12K to spend either.

But I was pretty satisfied with the sound I got from a 6.5" driver, in a speaker that wasn't too tough to drive, on the larger side for it's kind of speaker, being driven by an amp that had some guts and control. Maybe this isn't so bad then. I think if going for a wide baffle design that is affordable, used might be the way to go. There have been some old Mission speakers that have caught my eye...one day I might bite on a pair.

Tubes are something I am becoming more and more interested in. As an intro to tubes I did buy a tube buffer. It's cheap and I'll see how it sounds, more of a curiosity than anything, though it wouldn't shock me if it doesn't have as much impact on sound as a true tube front end would. Obviously there is much more going on when the entire amp section of the chain is powered by tubes, rather than in just sticking a tube buffer somewhere along the way.

[Mr Peabody]

RGA, you and those magazine cronies will say anything to get some attention. A $100.00 tube amp...... give me a break. They forgot to disclaim the subjects taking the DBT were students from the school for the deaf. If that test was real or legit a $100.00 tube would have enough noise to make it stand out against a clean Krell or Pass. Not to mention a very obvious difference in bass response, the solid state being tight and clean where the tube amp would be tubby and thick. No, tubes will not break any stereotype at $100.00 or even close to that budget.

I use a Krell integrated to drive just a pair of Dyn Audience 60's and they rock fine in a small room, probably 12x12.

[RGA]

Mr. P

You obviously didn't read the article. This was a $100 tube amp (used price) in ~1975 by one of the better tube makers of the era a decade earlier Radford STA-25 III (~1965). 25 watts per channel.

Martin Colloms is about as good as this industry gets from a technical standpoint which is why he is the guy they bring into court cases to settle matters related to audio. He has written several books on speaker design, started Monitor Audio, is the technical editor of most of the magazines out there. He's the guy they go to when JA doesn't know the answer (and he should go to Martin more often IMO).

He is willing to set aside the measurements and use his ears. I am not saying I agree with him on every point but he conducted the blind tests and noted that the top manufacturers (incidentally from AudioLab mentioned in the thread) and heavyweights from Meridian, Naim etc THEY selected the Radford over their own SS amplifiers. Not a bunch of nobody un named folks that Harman Brings in to "train" what to like.

The Radford may have been a couple/three hundred dollars in 1965 or about ~$5k in today's dollars so no this was not some cheap amplifier. The point wasn't really about the price but the technology. Again the article http://stereophile.com/reference/70/

From Colloms on a Cary that has user controllable feedback

"With the Cary's control set to its maximum of "10dB feedback"---when measured, this in fact turned out to be 6dB, a factor of 2x for the 8 ohm output and with the 8 ohm feedback switch position---you could certainly hear a more accurate frequency response, the benefits of a greater damping factor, tighter bass, and a midband more like that of the familiar Wilson WITT. However, much of the magic was lost. That particular degree of perfectly timed involvement, of convincing transient edges, of natural tonality and expression, was lost. Now what we had was just another very good tube amplifier with a particularly pleasing midband.

Reduce the feedback to a factor of only 3dB (as measured)---negligible by the standards of the majority of most modern amplifiers---and the sound improves a little. Reduce it to 1.5dB and the light begins to dawn. Turn it completely off (0dB) and musically you know where you ought to be.

Without feedback, both I and my friends and colleagues who shared the listening found that reproduced sound could really be different from the usual expectation, that a pervasive grayness of expression and false tonal color had been swept away without dire consequences for other important aspects of sound quality.../...

An analysis of the approximately 700 amplifier reviews that I've undertaken over the years indicates that, if there has been any trend associated with improving sound quality, it has largely been associated with reductions in global negative feedback. Even the majors---Mark Levinson, Krell, Audio Research, Conrad-Johnson---have consistently moved toward more elegant, more linear circuitry, allowing lowered feedback levels for the same closed-loop linearity. Are these designers unconsciously and instinctively seeking a safe route toward designs with minimal or no negative feedback?"

"In my reviews, I have observed that high-feedback amplifiers---which have an inherently limited open-loop bandwidth---suffer what is commonly called "midrange glare": a hardening of and forwardness in the upper midrange. Amplifiers with wider open-loop bandwidths have less of this, or their "projection" moves up to the mid-treble. Low-bandwidth, high-feedback designs can end up sounding "dark," even significantly colored in the midrange."

"Consider the proposition that a pure input signal is subjected to the usual nonlinear amplification and is then applied with all the subsequent errors back to the input to be amplified again. In theory, the errors are subtracted at the feedback connection, but there is inevitably some error in this subtraction. No problem, says the textbook: the wide bandwidth of the closed-loop amplifier will ensure that the signal and errors, and their errors, will go many times 'round the loop, reducing the distortion to below audible levels.

Or will it? Audiophile pundits know only too well that making a single audio stage perform to a truly high standard is not a trivial matter. Almost by inspection you can see that the feedback amplifier has the capacity to go on compounding its error residual. When an amplifier is processing a complex, harmonically rich input signal---music---and not a steady-state single sinewave tone in a lab test, something could well go wrong. That cascade of residual errors will intermodulate at low levels, but it will intermodulate in a fantastically complex manner.

Subjectively, the effect of increased negative feedback is generally that of increased compression, in addition to the midrange coloration noted above. This loss of dynamic expression suggests that additional energy is indeed filling in the natural spaces in the original spectrum and thus blurring musical expression."

I have been saying this for years without the need for in depth technical knowledge. The first time I heard a SET amp with sufficiently efficient speakers it was a death blow to everything I heard 20 years prior. Something is seriously "wrong" with the production of non Single Ended amplifier devices. Some are less wrong than others but I still find amplifiers of Single Ended topologies to sound more natural than those that are not. This does not mean tubes either - Sugden's A21a is a single Ended amplifier and has successfully been selling for over 40 years because it embarrasses most competition where it actually counts - reproducing music. Meanwhile Musical Fidelity adds a new amp every 3 years, Bryston adds an S every now and then, McIntosh has blue lights and can't even decide on Tubes or SS (no direction), and the list goes on.

[poppachubby]

I have been saying this for years without the need for in depth technical knowledge. The first time I heard a SET amp with sufficiently efficient speakers it was a death blow to everything I heard 20 years prior. Something is seriously "wrong" with the production of non Single Ended amplifier devices. Some are less wrong than others but I still find amplifiers of Single Ended topologies to sound more natural than those that are not. This does not mean tubes either - Sugden's A21a is a single Ended amplifier and has successfully been selling for over 40 years because it embarrasses most competition where it actually counts - reproducing music. Meanwhile Musical Fidelity adds a new amp every 3 years, Bryston adds an S every now and then, McIntosh has blue lights and can't even decide on Tubes or SS (no direction), and the list goes on.

Not interfering with the debate...

but aside from the "coloration" and "tubey warmth" that SET is always accused of, lies wonderful accuracy and tonal supremacy. A great topology will also reveal excellent dynamics. I still listen to SS gear, but nothing touches my Golden Tube. I had long been a fan of the twin design by Harman Kardon and still am, but it's a second place finisher around these parts now. I own a 630 and 930, both are great SS examples.

[Geoffcin]

I'm sorry guys but the forum is "Speakers" and the topic is "Speaker suggestions for those who enjoy listening to metal?" Let's try to keep it on topic.

[Hyfi]

thanks guys, great suggestions, i really need to get out to a Dynaudio dealer and have a serious listen, Monitor Audio would be next on my list.

I'm not against bookshelves either and i've seen some Dynaudio Audience 42 and 52 bookshelves for cheap enough on the used market that they might be worth checking out.

I have 42s as rears and 82s as fronts (when not using my Clearfields) and can tell you with the right amp they kill. Silk dome tweeter would probably be a good choice for harsh metal music and the bass would be good. I have driven my 42s for fun as mains with both a Stratos amp and Counterpoint NPS-400 and was quite impressed with the overall sound, minus the room shaking bass that the 82s can provide. Along with my sub, it was quite musical. The 52s would be a better choice for mains along with a good sub.

Although the new Excite line may be easier to drive, and I have not heard them yet, my belief is that they probably are no better sounding than the Audience line but they figured out how to make them for less and sell them for more. If you can still find anything in the Audience line, and plan to get a decent amp, jump on them quickly.

[Hyfi]

In general, I suppose that would be true. I hear though, that the LSi9 are a different beast.

If these are in the same family as the 15s and 25s and I believe they are, I wouldn't bother. I have heard both the 15s and 25s driven with decent integrated NAD and Cambridge gear and was thoroughly unimpressed. No real midrange or acurate highs, mushy uncontrolled bass, and irritating after a long loud session. So if the big ones don't sount too good, I doubt the little ones would be any better.