(reposted from inside another thread)
From perusing the various reviews of the M50, I seem to get two contrary stories:
1. The M50 has quite a bit more clarity than the M40 (Alan Lofft says this a few times).
2. The M50 has less clarity than the M40s (mhw described them as having "muffled" vocals, expressing dissatisfaction with that term).
It seems like the M40 relative to the M3 adds more bass but loses a little midrange clarity; it would seem that some people are saying that the M50 has less of the latter problem, and some are saying that it has it more.
What's the theoretical effect of the second driver, to add more bass, or to improve the midrange, or both? Is there any consensus about how it actually sounds?
David
adding that driver makes the M50's more dynamic than the M40's. I have been told that the M50's are clearer in the midrange as well, as they have two drivers, not one, playing the midrange sounds. Bass extension is great due to the extra woofer and larger cabinet size.
Have you considered the M60's? Their midrange is more pronounced due to the introduction of a midrange driver. It is generally considered as the cleanest sounding tower speaker that most amps can drive as it is an 8ohm load, whereas the M80's at 4ohms can be tricky for most low end amps, but not Denon or Harman Kardon, to name a couple.
Yes, I've considered the M60s, but they're too expensive for me, I think. Plus, it sounds like they might be detailed to the point of discomfort for some types of recordings and maybe I'd like something more relaxed. Though my listening is mainly to classical and people do tell me that the M60s would be good for me. I'd like to try the M40s or M50s first, if I could just figure out which.
Thanks...
David
Do the 50s. You won't regret it.
I've read plenty of positive comments about the M50s (in particular, vis-a-vis the M22), and the characterization of them by the Axiom people makes them sound just right, a compromise between the M40 and M60. Nevertheless, of the handful of reports posted by customers who've actually heard the M50 next to the M40 or M60, I haven't seen any that favor the M50. So that's the source of my hesitation. Given that confusion, it would make more sense to go for the M40s based on their price and my worries about listening distance.
David
I have been told that the M50's are clearer in the midrange as well, as they have two drivers, not one, playing the midrange sounds.
Ravi, do you recall where you heard that? Thanks...
David
It's been said already but I will say it again, do the 50's. You won't regret it. I went from a set of M80's to the 50's. Nothing to do with money etc, I just liked the M50's more.........actually a lot more.
David,
I remember a while back someone posting a comparison between M50's and M40's saying the M50's had a clearer midrange.
perhaps an M50 owner can post their thoughts. I haven't heard the M50 in two years and only heard it once.
Well, I ordered a pair of M50s today.
A thought occurred to me afterwards: does the fact that the M50s are the only model not to have been reviewed by Soundstage magazine mean anything?
None at all. Who cares anyway about what "Experts" say. Get them home and give them a listen. If you don't like them, send them back.
Finally broke down?
Congratualations. Hope you like them.
We will have to have a speaker face off here in the DC area with my M22s and your M50s.
They arrived yesterday. First impressions....
Palestrina, Missa Papae Marcelli (Preston, Archiv): sometimes the sopranos seem too resonant and harsh, something I've noticed on other systems too.
Mussorgsky, Pictures at an Exhibition (Pogorelich, DG): some high-frequency noise (breathing, some kind of striking ringing in the piano) that I hear in other speakers is not audible. I suppose that's a good thing.
Dave Brubeck, Time Out: I hear some notes in the bass I never noticed before.
Bach, Organ works (Schubler Chorales etc.) (Preston, DG): the bass melodies move pretty well and the notes are even.
Part, Tabula Rasa (Shaham, DG): the solo violin sounds a little bit like those old gramophones (the kind that the RCA dog listens to), but that's an exaggeration. This quality is the only real concern I have. Today I don't notice it as much, though.
Prokofiev, Violin Sonatas (Repin/Berezovsky, Erato): at one point I was doing something else and the violin started playing pizzicato. I was startled because I momentarily thought I heard a real violin. I wonder why a speaker should be better at reproducing plucking than bowing.
Any advice on placement (distance, toe-in, etc.)?
David
Mine needed to be about 8 or 9 ft apart, slightly toed in to really have a good soundstage. When I had them closer together, things just did not work well. They're only a little ways away from the wall, but they sound good there.
Oh, that's pretty far apart. How far away from them do you sit? I have about 6' between them and am sitting about 8' away right now.
Thanks!
From the centerpoint between the two, I think I'm only about 6 ft away. Yeah, I was a little disappointed too when I had them that close together (still better than my old speakers, not quite as good as I wanted them to be) but now I think they're fantastic.
>>From the centerpoint between the two, I think I'm only about 6 ft away. Yeah, I was a little disappointed too when I had them that close together (still better than my old speakers, not quite as good as I wanted them to be) but now I think they're fantastic.
I second that. Had my M2's about 6 feet apart, sitting 9 feet away, imaging was good but not great and had to toe them in to get any kind of soundscape. Moved them further apart (roughly the same separation as distance from speaker baseline to ears) and the soundscape opened right up, even with the speakers at 90 degrees to the wall.
Never had that happen before. They sound real nice though...
Hmmm, when I moved mine that far apart, the soundstage broke up. Still experimenting...
What's the relationship of inter-speaker distance to room size? What's the effect of toe-in?
Thanks!
>>What's the relationship of inter-speaker distance to room size? What's the effect of toe-in?
I think the relationship is a second-order one, ie distance from the speakers is usually a function of room size (but not always), and separation of the speakers is a function of how far away you sit.
The rule of thumb seems to be that your distance from the line between the speakers should be roughly the same as the separation between the speakers or a bit more. Some people favor the "equilateral triangle" but not many.
I used to think that toeing in the speakers would compensate for having them too widely separated but that does not really seem to be the case.
You toe the speakers in a bit if the off-axis response is not enough and if toeing in improves the imaging -- but it seems like you lose something when you toe them in too far. Don't understand why that is yet but my system definitely sounds better with the speakers pointing straight away from the wall even though that puts me about 20 degrees off-axis.
Try this if you have Avia. Play the Main speaker setup L/R phase test. Set your SPL meter on fast response. Then set the range on the meter, and adjust the volume on your receiver to get the needle near the center. I used 70dB. As the phase test plays, sit in your listening position, and move the meter left and right in front of you. Move it 1/2", and wait for an out of phase cycle, then 1/2" more, and wait for another out of phase cycle. When you get a fast, backward, needle deflection during the out of phase part of the test, you've found the sweet spot (actually, it's more like a center line). I get a -3 to -5dB backwards deflection. I was sitting 3 feet to the right of that line, and trying to get good soundstage. It wasn't working too well.
This post by
Guy Kuo explains it. It also tells you how to use the delay settings to move the sweet spot. (look for his reply from 07/03/03 06:14 PM)
Trust me, this works. Getting the placement just right is tough enough without sitting in the wrong place while you are trying to do it.
I don't have an SPL meter and what's Avia? This sounds extremely interesting but probably beyond my immediate means. Thanks!
David
These should answer your questions and get you started. Calibration is ESSENTIAL to proper use of your system. So, take your time, learn, and give it a shot.
Sound Pressure Level Meter
Avia Guide to Home Theater
Avia: Guide to Home Theater
A Quick Overview of Home Theater Calibration
Setting Speaker Level with AVIA
Well, I'm using my computer to generate test signals, and the SPL meters God gave me, and the results have already been revealing. I'm amazed at how much the sound of pure sine waves is affected by placement.
Avia is a home theater configuration DVD. And Radioshack sells the SPL meters for about $40 or so. If you search around on hre there's a number of threads that discuss Avia vs. other configuration DVDs (they have various test tones and video calibration tools.)
In reply to:
I'm amazed at how much the sound of pure sine waves is affected by placement.
Actually, pure sine tones are not the best test tone to use when calibrating your system. Since they are made up of single frequencies, they are highly susceptible to destructive/constructive interferece from room reflections. A broadband test signal like pink noise is much better since it is made up of a broad range of frequencies.
Right, that's why I'm observing such dramatic effects, but I would have thought that you'd want that isolation for calibration...no?
Do you use a variety of frequencies when you calibrate with sine tones? If not, then you're only calibrating for one specific note.
A handful of frequencies, but I haven't done any calibration yet (as though I knew how!), just moved things around a little and marveled at how different it sounds.
Most people don't have multi-thousand-dollar RTAs (Real Time Analyzers)... I find my SPL meter (with the correction table) and a sweep generator (run on each channel independently and then on both) gives me the best results.
Using pink noise to calibrate levels of components such as a subwoofer settings and parametric equalizer frequency, level, and Q settings, would require an RTA. While the results of calibration with this kind of setup are usually more linear than with a simple SPL meter and sweeps, the latter still offers a great performance/price ratio.
Pink and white noise used to calibrate levels between different channels, however, is very useful, and you only need a simple SPL meter to do this.