Question for TheEAR of anyone with an unbiased opinion on various speakers

[Kain]

How would you rank the following speakers from most desirable to least desirable for home theater and music? Please provide an explaination as to why you ranked these speakers in the order that you did.

Klipsch Palladium P-39F, Dynaudio Confidence C4, KEF Reference 207/2, and the B&W 800D?

[IndyKlipschFan]

Kain what ever happened to your ulta 2 THX Klipsch HT system?

In the end, it is what do YOU think.

[Kain]

I'm actually not changing/purchasing any new speakers (other than adding a subwoofer) any time soon. I'm just trying to figure out what my next dream speakers are. []

I agree that speaker choice is all opinion, but I would still like to get some input from you guys (especially from TheEAR with his vast experience with tons of speakers). However, I feel he might be a little bias towards Dynaudio as this is what he owns. []

[Youthman]

However, I feel he might be a little bias towards Dynaudio as this is what he owns.

I think it's difficult to find someone who is unbiased since we all know what we like and tend to recommend what we have. Guess it's in our nature to do so. Good luck with fulfilling your dream.

[DrWho]

However, I feel he might be a little bias towards Dynaudio as this is what he owns. 

Only cuz he hasn't heard the Pals yet.... []

In a blind AB between Pals and B&W, I found the Pals to have slightly smoother mids, definitely more dynamic, but slightly less natural highs. Low frequency extension seems very similar with the music being used. The P39f is the most inert speaker I've heard to date....imparting very little of its own sound to the music. Tonal balance between the two is very similar.

I haven't heard the other two in a side by side so I won't comment.

[Kain]

However, I feel he might be a little bias towards Dynaudio as this is what he owns.

Only cuz he hasn't heard the Pals yet....

In a blind AB between Pals and B&W, I found the Pals to have slightly smoother mids, definitely more dynamic, but slightly less natural highs. Low frequency extension seems very similar with the music being used. The P39f is the most inert speaker I've heard to date....imparting very little of its own sound to the music. Tonal balance between the two is very similar.

I haven't heard the other two in a side by side so I won't comment.

I have a quick noob question. I'm pretty embarrassed to ask it actually, LOL. [:$]

What is it meant by when you state a speaker is more dynamic?

[IndyKlipschFan]

Main Entry:

dynamic range

Function:

noun

Date:

1917

:
the ratio of the strongest to the weakest sound intensity that can be
transmitted or reproduced by an audio or broadcasting system.

Think of it this way... Your watching a movie and there is dead silence. A faint door opens up and a shotgun is fired... You jump out of your seat....

So the ability to produce that, from the softest to the loudest information is Dynamics.... How a speaker handles that recording, (assuming it was recorded well of course...) makes it more realistic... more Dynamic.

The 39 Palladiums are awesome at this. Horns are usually considered more dynamic. Make sense?

[Kain]

Main Entry:
dynamic range
Function:noun Date:1917

:
the ratio of the strongest to the weakest sound intensity that can be
transmitted or reproduced by an audio or broadcasting system.

Think of it this way... Your watching a movie and there is dead silence. A faint door opens up and a shotgun is fired... You jump out of your seat....

So the ability to produce that, from the softest to the loudest information is Dynamics.... How a speaker handles that recording, (assuming it was recorded well of course...) makes it more realistic... more Dynamic.

The 39 Palladiums are awesome at this. Horns are usually considered more dynamic. Make sense?

What causes one speaker to be more dynamic than another? Does the sesitivity specs of a speaker have anything to do with the dynamic range of the speaker?

[DrWho]

What causes one speaker to be more dynamic than another? Does the sesitivity specs of a speaker have anything to do with the dynamic range of the speaker?

That's usually the case, but I'm sure there are always exceptions.

Basically, for me, when a speaker is more dynamic, that is to say the other speaker is exhibiting more compression - where basically the music tells the speaker to go louder, but for whatever reason the speaker doesn't. One might thump you in the chest, while the other doesn't. The interesting thing is that the more dynamic speaker will usually sound quieter, and that's because the quieter parts in the music are relatively more quieter than the speaker that is compressing...giving a greater sense of space and depth into the music. However, I've found that it can't by fully appreciated unless the room you're in is extremely quiet. In a more noisy environment, I've found myself preferring less dynamic speakers. Listening in the car would be a polar extreme opposite of how more compression can be better, but that's only because turning up the volume so that I can hear the quiet parts over the noise means the loud parts are now ripping my head off...

[Islander]

How would you rank the following speakers from most desirable to least desirable for home theater and music? Please provide an explaination as to why you ranked these speakers in the order that you did.

Klipsch Palladium P-39F, Dynaudio Confidence C4, KEF Reference 207/2, and the B&W 800D?

What, you didn't also think of Jubilees?

[DTLongo]

I would be cautious aboyut using top-line speakers like the P-39F or Klipschorns in a home theater. Been there done that, using my '03 Klipschorns and '04 Belle in a home theater in my previous house with a 50" Pioneer plasma sitting atop the Belle center. Everything worked and sounded fine but my - admittedly subjective - conclusion was that those magnificent speakers were WASTED when used for HT. This is because in the nature of things one's eyes and ears are attracted to the picture and the dialogue/plot such that your brain is diverted from fully savoring the sound qualities of the speakers. Electroacoustic treasures like P-39F's and Klipschorns are meant to be listened to and through in their own right, which means a primarily audio-dedicated setup rather than HT. Which is how I have them set up in my present house (see profile).

My (subjective) sense is what really counts sonically in a HT theater setup -- that which gets the juices going -- is impact and slam in the bass, coupled with overall good but not necessarily top-of-the-expensive-line from the other speakers. You WILL be more focussed on the story and picture than on the sound except for those bass booms, thuds, and percussive gunshots and explosions. So IMHO, get a good potent sub and couple it with decent mid-priced other speakers for your HT and save the P-39F's and Klipschorns for your serious audio listneing.

[psg]

I would be cautious aboyut using top-line speakers like the P-39F or Klipschorns in a home theater. Been there done that, using my '03 Klipschorns and '04 Belle in a home theater in my previous house with a 50" Pioneer plasma sitting atop the Belle center. Everything worked and sounded fine but my - admittedly subjective - conclusion was that those magnificent speakers were WASTED when used for HT.

Well, I use the same room, so nothing is waisted since I can't listen to music and watch a movie at the same time.

But then, I'm not a 2-channel tube person or anything like that.

[Coytee]

I would be cautious aboyut using top-line speakers like the P-39F or Klipschorns in a home theater. Been there done that, using my '03 Klipschorns and '04 Belle in a home theater in my previous house with a 50" Pioneer plasma sitting atop the Belle center. Everything worked and sounded fine but my - admittedly subjective - conclusion was that those magnificent speakers were WASTED when used for HT. This is because in the nature of things one's eyes and ears are attracted to the picture and the dialogue/plot such that your brain is diverted from fully savoring the sound qualities of the speakers. Electroacoustic treasures like P-39F's and Klipschorns are meant to be listened to and through in their own right, which means a primarily audio-dedicated setup rather than HT. Which is how I have them set up in my present house (see profile).

My (subjective) sense is what really counts sonically in a HT theater setup -- that which gets the juices going -- is impact and slam in the bass, coupled with overall good but not necessarily top-of-the-expensive-line from the other speakers. You WILL be more focussed on the story and picture than on the sound except for those bass booms, thuds, and percussive gunshots and explosions. So IMHO, get a good potent sub and couple it with decent mid-priced other speakers for your HT and save the P-39F's and Klipschorns for your serious audio listneing.

Fascenating! I would have made just the opposite conclusion. Especially when you say "what really counts sonically in a HT theater setup -- that which gets the juices going -- is impact and slam in the bass" , it intrigues me because people can buy used Khorns, LaScalas for a fraction of what some brands are asking.

Even if we (I) gave in to this line of logic, then I think I'd have to conclude having the Jubilees wouldn't make sense in a HT type setup (I use mine in stereo for movies). What's fascenating is the reality as I've experienced it is just the opposite. They are frigging awesome for movies, concerts...evening news!

Furthermore, there are some on this very forum that would say the Jubilee is nothing more than a cinema speaker at which point I'd speculate someone might say "great, it would be good for HT system then, if you had the room..."... yet the reality is, the Jubilee was originally designed to replace the Khorn, the speaker you suggest is not your first pick for this. So now we have someone who might suggest it's great for movies since it's a "cinema" speaker, and others who realize it is what the Klipschorn II was intended to be (with perhaps a different top). So, if it's the Khorn II then it might not qualify but if it's a cinema speaker it does! [:^)]

I'm not arguing, just intrigued at your comments. I would suggest Khorns or LaScalas (especially if mated with a sub) would make a deadly killer HT system...just take a swing by Rogers in Indy and hear his LaScala setup. Stop to see Chris in Charlotte and listen to his Khorns & LaScalas.... The Palladiums would also make a fantastic HT system although it would be a bit pricey for some people.

I admit I'm biased though so I'll shut up [] [:#]

[jacksonbart]

I agree, a good speaker is a good speaker. I don't buy the idea that a speaker excels at HT while another excels at 2 channel. Perhaps some models have complimentary center and rear surrounds, but if they can't do two channel music, they can't do well being part of home theater either.

[edwinr]

Well you pose a difficult question, suggesting speakers that do not particularly appeal to me for various reasons. The Palladium is too expensive, and I haven't heard it, but it's still too expensive. The Dynaudio, magnificent speaker, but too demanding of amplifiers. The Kef 207.2 - you can't be serious! it looks so bad I couldn't live with it no matter how good it sounded! The B&W 800D - not my favoorite B&W speaker, it lacks the drive of my favorite B&W being the 801D - a far better option. You could buy a used 801 for not a lot of money.

So to answer your question, kind of, the best of the bunch value for money and sound quality... is the mighty Klipschorn. You have to spend an AWFUL lot of money to do better...

[Coytee]

I agree, a good speaker is a good speaker. I don't buy the idea that a speaker excels at HT while another excels at 2 channel. Perhaps some models have complimentary center and rear surrounds, but if they can't do two channel music, they can't do well being part of home theater either.

Dude...seriously.... so much in such little space. You really need to practice your run-on sentences, like me.

[]

[DU73]

I really don’t know much about this stuff but what jacksonbart said sounds like it makes a lot of sense to me

[TheEAR]

Dynaudio Confidence C4, keep the others. Dynaudio designs and manufactures what I think are among the most musical speakers at any price.

I have the Contour 3.3,S.3.4,S5.4 and a few others. I have heard,tested the C4's compared with Revel,PMC,Wilson,Klipsch,B&W 801,Thiel 3.6,Paradigm Signature series and while the competition is very good.The C4 has an absolute natural presentation,make sure you have proper amplification...the SimAudio MOON W8 is the perfect match.

[DrWho]

Interesting measurements on the C4:
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/794/index5.html
I've never heard them before, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care for that flavor of sound. Rolling off at 10kHz and bass boost centered at 100Hz is not my cup of tea. 88dB sensitivity with 400W power handling probably isn't going to satisfy my dynamic range desires either - at least not for when I want to crank it anyway (114dB max output?)

Polar responses look real nice though.Transient responses looks pretty good too. That 18kHz ringing on the tweeter probably isn't going to be heard by most people that can afford these speakers []

[colterphoto1]

I agree, a good speaker is a good speaker. I don't buy the idea that a speaker excels at HT while another excels at 2 channel. Perhaps some models have complimentary center and rear surrounds, but if they can't do two channel music, they can't do well being part of home theater either.

Well I'll be damned, JB CAN make a reasonable response to a query after all!