Polk Lsi9 vs Energy v5.1 vs GoldenEar Aon 3

nhhiep

In search for the best computer speakers for 100% music under $1000 to go with the HK Citation 5.1 Amp. Denon AVR 3806 pre. I bought the Lsi9s first for $510 shipped last month. They are easier to listen to compare to my Rti12s. But somehow, the Lsi9s still sound hot (I know, weird) and not airy enough, maybe my ears too close(3ft) to the speakers? I am thinking of switching brand as the Energy V5.1 is on clearance right now for $400 shipped. The Aon 3 came out recently w/o any reviews yet, but it uses a totally different kind of tweeter.

They all have the same MSRP ~ $1000
What are your thoughts on these? They're pretty much the top of the line bookshelves from each brand.

http://www.vanns.com/shop/servlet/item/features/543758931
http://www.goldenear.com/products/aon

heiney9

If LSi's sound "hot" you probably have issues elsewhere. They are about the most laid back, yet detailed speaker I've heard. My guess is using the AVR as a pre is causing the issue. A better dedicated pre would be much, much better.

That's my .02c

H9

P.s. The Energy's will be even "hotter" on the top end.

cnh

Stick a proper pre-amp/amp or integrated on them!

As said, your AVR can be the problem or the "source". Cheap CDPs or DACs can make even the Vifa sound a tad bright. But once you correct for that, no problem.

Also, if you want to save some cash, get the RC-10 instead of the newer Energies. Not much of a difference there, the RC was the previous incarnation of those bookies, retailed for 550-599 a pair. I have a set of those and have to disagree about them being "bright' or forward. Believe it or not, they're fairly laid back for a metal dome. I had used them as near field for a while before I moved them to Video duty in my Home office and they worked fine...fairly smooth.

That said, the LSis are a notch above in overall performance. But for the price, it's hard to beat the Energys on sale for 279 a pair (RC-10s)?

Don't know the Aons but trying to place a speaker with a side PR on a desk or as a near field monitor might present some problems?

cnh

heiney9

My bad cnh, I was thinking of a different model Energy.

I still stand 100% behind my recommendation of looking at the gear. When the gear is the issue, it carries over to the next sets of speakers your try. You weren't real clear on how these are set-up. Are these on stands across the room, or on a desk top less than a foot away? With LSi 9's I'd be more concerned about the mild mid-bass emphasis as that is more of an issue than with them being "hot". Never heard anyone with any credibility describe the LSi's as hot or forward.

H9

nhhiep

AMP is the HK Citation 5.1. Pre is Denon 3806. Both are warm or neutral and they're not low end by any mean. The Denon uses Burr Brown 7191 DAC. Source is 192kb/s+ MP3.
Speakers are on top of 12" stands next to my 28" monitor on top of a solid wood computer desk. so the tweeters are right at my ear level.

I don't think MP3 is the issue here because if it's, wouldn't I get less high and more bass? That is what compression does to music anyway.

heiney9

Well then you know it all, so why are you asking?

I love people who solicte information and an opinion and want to spend the entire thread telling why everything posted is wrong or not the issue. Believe or not many of us have been around the block more than a few times and in your same shoes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but hey you know it all so buy away until you are happy.

H9

Drenis

How are you transporting your MP3's to your Denon?

The more revealing a system is, the more you will hear how bad MP3's can be.

heiney9

MP3's stink for source material and if you think otherwise, you're just kidding yourself.

H9

heiney9

Drenis wrote: »

The more revealing a system is, the more you will hear how bad MP3's ARE.

Fixed

heiney9

Exactly what the OP describes is Exactly what MP3's do to ruin the music.

H9

nhhiep

The connection between my PC and AVR is optical. AVR is doing the DACing. I am trying not to get into MP3, DAC debate here. I am just trying to get you guys' impression on these 3 speakers at the same MSRP using the identical equipments.

heiney9

The impression is they will all sound "hot" beccause of your source material.

Drenis

heiney9 wrote: »

Fixed

It essentially means the same thing I said which was true. I just stated it in a less hostile manner.

nhhiep wrote: »

The connection between my PC and AVR is optical. AVR is doing the DACing. I am trying not to get into MP3, DAC debate here. I am just trying to get you guys' impression on these 3 speakers at the same MSRP using the identical equipments.

Optical as in Toslink or S/PDIF (Coax) out from your motherboard or sound card? No debate, just honest experiences. Keep in mind your motherboard and sound card will not output bit perfect jitter free source quality sound. There is processing involved in that chain.

EndersShadow

How far are YOU from the speakers? 2 inches, 2 feet, etc. Doesnt matter if the tweeters are at ear level if they are like 2 inches from your head.

LSi's need room to breath, both from the side, rear and also between you and them. Also how are they toed in, if at all? A picture is worth 1k posts

Not saying thats the problem, but just curious.

nhhiep

they're around 3ft from me. So, with 3 that I mentioned. Lsi9 is the warmest? anyone here tested the Goldenear yet?

nhhiep

Here is my temporary setup. distance between them is 2.5ft. They toe in a little, but not as much as the picture shows. it's the lens distortion.

brianle

Are these used as your computer speakers? I think they need a lot more room to sound properly

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

MP3's stink for source material and if you think otherwise, you're just kidding yourself.

H9

Sorry, but I don't think it's that cut and dry. It isn't even just the bitrate that matters, but also how they are encoded. It can also depend on the particular source material; some material is more difficult to encode than others. I've heard good and bad MP3 encodings, and there is no doubt that a poor MP3 encoding can sound exactly like what the OP is describing. However, an MP3 that is encoded with a quality encoder (i.e. LAME) and adequate bitrate can sound quite good on my LSi setup. Yes, FLAC's (or other lossless) can improve upon it, but the difference isn't always as drastic as you make it out to be.

adb3da

Have you considered near field studio monitors? Something like Mackie HR824. You would have to buy used to get comparable prices, but may be worth a shot.

EndersShadow

Those 9's are WWWAAAAYYYYY to close IMHO. For that kind of listening look at something like KRK Rokit 5's or 6's, or even the Audio-engine A5's. They are meant for near-field listening and have their own built in amps for them.

The 9's need lots more space to breath between both them, and you, in order to really sound right. Your almost handicapping them from the start with that setup.

heiney9

BeefJerky wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't think it's that cut and dry. It isn't even just the bitrate that matters, but also how they are encoded. It can also depend on the particular source material; some material is more difficult to encode than others. I've heard good and bad MP3 encodings, and there is no doubt that a poor MP3 encoding can sound exactly like what the OP is describing. However, an MP3 that is encoded with a quality encoder (i.e. LAME) and adequate bitrate can sound quite good on my LSi setup. Yes, FLAC's (or other lossless) can improve upon it, but the difference isn't always as drastic as you make it out to be.

It is simply that cut and dry.

MP3 is a lossy compression, it has nothing to do with delivery. MP3's suck no matter how good the associated gear, no matter what encoder you use, no matter what bit rate. MP3's don't compare to FLAC or std WAV files. If one is satisfied with the the way MP3's sound, that's fine, but don't try to pass them off as sounding anything like a "real" file, because they don't. They are listenable for sure, but not audiophile quality and the two key factors the OP is complaining about are directly associated with what MP3's lack. Although he has some other issues too. But I'd certainly start there and start comparing the MP3 file to a real file.

Just because I think my wife is hot, doesn't mean she's a super model.

H9

michael1947

I think OSHA would have issues with those big "ole 9's sitting so close, could blow you into the next room, better use a seat belt on your chair.

Drenis

This is definitely a placement issue.

Looking at your sig and your partial layout of your main rig... are you in a small room? How can your 12's sound remotely good?

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

It is simply that cut and dry.

Not, it is not.

MP3 is a lossy compression, it has nothing to do with delivery. MP3's suck no matter how good the associated gear, no matter what encoder you use, no matter what bit rate. MP3's don't compare to FLAC or std WAV files. If one is satisfied with the the way MP3's sound, that's fine, but don't try to pass them off as sounding anything like a "real" file, because they don't. They are listenable for sure, but not audiophile quality and the two key factors the OP is complaining about are directly associated with what MP3's lack. Although he has some other issues too. But I'd certainly start there and start comparing the MP3 file to a real file.

I'm aware of the differences. I never mentioned anything about "delivery," so I'm not sure why you bring that up. I also did not claim that there were no differences between an audio file compressed with a lossy codec versus lossless; in fact, I specifically acknowledged this. No, they are not audiophile quality, however, the following claims by you are BS:
1) "MP3's stink for source material and if you think otherwise, you're just kidding yourself."
2) "MP3's suck no matter how good the associated gear, no matter what encoder you use, no matter what bit rate."

You are intentionally blowing it out of proportion, and that is what I take issue with. Again, depending on the source material, the bitrate and the encoder, an MP3 can sound nearly identical to the lossless file; yes, this also applies to "golden ears", which is what you clearly see yourself to be. In fact, I guarantee that there are MP3 files out there that you could not pick out from the lossless file in a blind test; probably quite a bit of them too. To claim that the source, bitrate and encoder don't matter clearly show that you have limited knowledge of the subject at hand.

If you had simply stuck to reality and said that MP3's can cause his issues, I never would have bother countering your post. Or, if you had stated that MP3s can be a source of problems. However, it is clear that someone needs to bring this topic back into the real world, since you choose to forgo reality.

heiney9

Take issue all you want, you are wrong.

MP3's no matter how they are manipulated still sound bad compared to the real, uncompressed file. Nealy identical isn't good enough for me.

H9

steveinaz

I agree, using MP3's in a nice hi-fi system is just counter-intuitive. Beef--if you've ever seen the youtube video (wish I could find it), where the guy nulls-out the CD vs MP3 rip, and you hear all the sideband noise leftover, you'd be an immediate believer. What the nulling does is compare the waveforms of the original to the MP3, removes all music information that is identical, then plays the "hash" left over by the MP3. It's pretty nasty.

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

Take issue all you want, you are wrong.

MP3's no matter how they are manipulated still sound bad compared to the real, uncompressed file. Nealy identical isn't good enough for me.

H9

I'm wrong? Prove it! Besides, you've already hurt your argument by claiming that source, bitrate and encoder don't matter. Anyone with an ounce of rationality and intelligence would understand how wrong that claim is.

I'd be willing bet real money that there are MP3s that you couldn't tell the difference on in a blind test. However, I doubt you would risk doing that and being proven wrong. Unless of course you're not actually human, in which case I might stand corrected. Are you The Doctor perhaps?

steveinaz wrote: »

I agree, using MP3's in a nice hi-fi system is just counter-intuitive. Beef--if you've ever seen the youtube video (wish I could find it), where the guy nulls-out the CD vs MP3 rip, and you hear all the sideband noise leftover, you'd be an immediate believer. What the nulling does is compare the waveforms of the original to the MP3, removes all music information that is identical, then plays the "hash" left over by the MP3. It's pretty nasty.

That really doesn't prove anything. Just because there is sideband noise doesn't mean you would ever be able to hear it while listening to the "non-nulled" file. It all depends on how high the noise floor actually is in relation to the music. There's a point where you're ears simply wouldn't be able to hear it, no matter how close you listen, or how good your equipment is. And, again, this will vary based on source, bitrate and encoder.

drselect

But if producers are making the music "loud" knowing most people will be listening to them using the MP3 format will they really sound better in an uncompressed format?

steveinaz

Oh, you can hear it---he plays the sideband on the video. I'm trying to find that video, it's an eye-opener.

Nulling is the only scientific way to show the differences. You're actually comparing the 2 waveforms, and then listening to only the difference between them.

steveinaz

drselect wrote: »

But if producers are making the music "loud" knowing most people will be listening to them using the MP3 format will they really sound better in an uncompressed format?

Brickwall limiting (compression) and sideband noise on "lossy" codecs are 2 different issues.

BeefJerky

steveinaz wrote: »

Oh, you can hear it---he plays the sideband on the video. I'm trying to find that video, it's an eye-opener.

Did you even read what I wrote? Playing the sideband by itself means nothing; it's the noise floor in relation to the file that matters. And, drselect isn't really wrong. The level of the music can make a difference since it could be a larger or smaller s/n ratio.