Comparing Monitor and TSi - what am I misisng?

devilish

I have a few questions that maybe someone can help me understand.

#1 - comparing the monitor 60 and 70 - If I have good subs then are the monitor 60 as good as the 70's?

#2 - comparing monitor 60 with TSi 400 - They are pretty close to being identical as far as specs are concerned. Is it worth spending the extra dough on the TSi when monitor 60's are so cheap on newegg?

#3 - is there a huge difference between:
a - Dynamic Balance Bi-laminate composite cone driver, magnetically shielded VS Bi-Laminate Organic Fiber cone

b - Dynamic Balance Silk/polymer composite dome, magnetically shielded VS Silk Dome Dynamic Balance

#4 - If I end up with Monitor 60, then pairing it with CS2 is still a good idea? (CS2 seem sto be far better per threads)

Thanks!
Devilish

devilish

ttt now

KASR

I've often wondered the same thing - obviously the porting is different - I'm curious as to the difference in the drivers and tweeters (if any).

royalty

I have heard the drivers and tweeters are pretty much the same with a perhpas upgraded crossover?

MANSKITO

The difference between the two is largely aesthetic. I lessoned too the two speakers for about 3 hours. ( I ended up getting a pair of monitor 40s off of new egg)

The Tsi is a better speaker by about 10% IMO

(also it has 91dB Sensitivity vs the monitor 60s 90dB which means the Tsi 400s get a good bit louder with same amount of watts.)

But in the end its not even close to worth it when you look at the price difference. Get the 60s. thats just noobs opinion.

I can't speak about the 70's.

wesouth

I have the 70s and they are nice. 60s for the low price are hard to beat with free shipping... the cs2 is definately the center you want with the 60s. Be sure you have a really nice sub and this should be a fine system.

wesouth

by the way, I have the psw505 which is fine. If money was not really an object I would probably get a sub with a little more punch, maybe a passive radiator type I feel like the lows are the only part of my system that is a bit uncontrolled... I have not tried repositioning the subs though. Placement is probably the problem... so if you want give it a try

cnh

MANSKITO wrote: »

The difference between the two is largely aesthetic. I lessoned too the two speakers for about 3 hours. ( I ended up getting a pair of monitor 40s off of new egg)

The Tsi is a better speaker by about 10% IMO

(also it has 91dB Sensitivity vs the monitor 60s 90dB which means the Tsi 400s get a good bit louder with same amount of watts.)

But in the end its not even close to worth it when you look at the price difference. Get the 60s. thats just noobs opinion.

I can't speak about the 70's.

That's very 'generous'--10% and I'll leave it at that...M70s...I have a pair....they're nice...

TSI-500s who's really had a chance to hear them and compare them to the M70s...almost no one?

You can't go wrong with either. Whatever you decide I'd go with the flagship in the series...!

cnh

Upstatemax

cnh wrote: »

TSI-500s who's really had a chance to hear them and compare them to the M70s...almost no one?


cnh

I have...

Since this is before my real review, all I will say is, go with the monitors.

You can get a set of Monitor 70's for killer prices right now.

AsSiMiLaTeD

At the prices you can get them at, the Monitors right now are a better deal

devilish

im locking down on the polk monitors 70 then. newegg has them for 159 today!

My couch is flat against the rear wall. Is OWM3 a good choice for rear surrounds in this instance? I'm worried the other bookshelf speakers might be too big. This one seems small and nice - but is the sound good enough?

MANSKITO

cnh wrote: »

That's very 'generous'--10% and I'll leave it at that...M70s...I have a pair....they're nice...

TSI-500s who's really had a chance to hear them and compare them to the M70s...almost no one?

You can't go wrong with either. Whatever you decide I'd go with the flagship in the series...!

cnh

The 10% comes from the fact that i m using a **** amp (Ymaha RX-463) and to really make AC-DC rock the house the extra Sensitivity really matters too me.
Also Bon Scotts voice just sounds a little bit more shrill and awesome on the Tsi 400s. So no i don't think it's all that generous.
Again I believe the change between the two speakers is Largely cosmetic how ever to say they sound the EXACT same is a lie. You wouldn't notice the difference if you where watching a movie or doing something around the house how ever if you just close your eyes and lesson the change is there and its for the better.

devilish

My couch is flat against the rear wall. Is OWM3 a good choice for rear surrounds in this instance? I'm worried the other bookshelf speakers might be too big. This one seems small and nice - but is the sound good enough?

rallyshark

The OWM 3s would work just fine for surrounds, especially given the mounting options IMO:)

cnh

MANSKITO wrote: »

The 10% comes from the fact that i m using a **** amp (Ymaha RX-463) and to really make AC-DC rock the house the extra Sensitivity really matters too me.
Also Bon Scotts voice just sounds a little bit more shrill and awesome on the Tsi 400s. So no i don't think it's all that generous.
Again I believe the change between the two speakers is Largely cosmetic how ever to say they sound the EXACT same is a lie. You wouldn't notice the difference if you where watching a movie or doing something around the house how ever if you just close your eyes and lesson the change is there and its for the better.

Not to be argumentative but I've owned a pair of TSI-300s for almost a year and I have a pair of M70s in my HT...I've spent a lot of time listening 'very' carefully to both...especially the high end....the TSIs are a bit too BRIGHT for me..they're sounding more like Rti-8s and I prefer my M70s over those!

This is very subjective because I generally DISLIKE bright tweeters..I really really don't like them---don't care how much detail they reveal....that's a personal preference..and that's why I say 10% is generous....

I agree they sound different but really mostly on the high end of things....the M70s image much better than the 300s which seem to have a narrower field, at least to me?

To each his own...you can't go wrong with either...

The speaker that I think improved the most is the TSI-100 over the M30...I've compared the two and the 100 not only has tighter bass it has more of it....a function, largely of the greater cabinet volume and weight of the 100s...the same cannot be said about the M50s and 300s for example...they weigh in the same...and the M70s actually weigh more than the 500s.

And I am STILL waiting to hear..whether or not the TSI-500s still have the cascade crossover that the M70s had or whether they've been turned into a simpler two way speaker (which is what I suspect given the uniformed crossover point of 2.5K that all TSIs now have??) One of the things that made the M70s stand out above the M50s and the M60s was that design that coupled one of the mid bass speakers with the tweeter more closely...this made them image better and threw up a wider sound stage than the lower models.

I suppose what I should do is just pull out the 300 tweeter and the M70 tweeter and compare them---that would prove very revealing and quell any further discussion about the highs!

cnh

MANSKITO

cnh wrote: »

Not to be argumentative but I've owned a pair of TSI-300s for almost a year and I have a pair of M70s in my HT...I've spent a lot of time listening 'very' carefully to both...especially the high end....the TSIs are a bit too BRIGHT for me..they're sounding more like Rti-8s and I prefer my M70s over those!

This is very subjective because I generally DISLIKE bright tweeters..I really really don't like them---don't care how much detail they reveal....that's a personal preference..and that's why I say 10% is generous....

I agree they sound different but really mostly on the high end of things....the M70s image much better than the 300s which seem to have a narrower field, at least to me?

To each his own...you can't go wrong with either...

The speaker that I think improved the most is the TSI-100 over the M30...I've compared the two and the 100 not only has tighter bass it has more of it....a function, largely of the greater cabinet volume and weight of the 100s...the same cannot be said about the M50s and 300s for example...they weigh in the same...and the M70s actually weigh more than the 500s.

And I am STILL waiting to hear..whether or not the TSI-500s still have the cascade crossover that the M70s had or whether they've been turned into a simpler two way speaker (which is what I suspect given the uniformed crossover point of 2.5K that all TSIs now have??) One of the things that made the M70s stand out above the M50s and the M60s was that design that coupled one of the mid bass speakers with the tweeter more closely...this made them image better and threw up a wider sound stage than the lower models.

I suppose what I should do is just pull out the 300 tweeter and the M70 tweeter and compare them---that would prove very revealing and quell any further discussion about the highs!

cnh

Sure I will agree with that the high sections of the music where more detailed and brighter but really not by much. In the the end price counts way more then any SMALL differences between the two product lines. How ever i was only talking about M60's vs TSI 400's. I have not heard the 500's or 70s. And on that note i only lessoned to a relatively small selection of music so you might in the end be right your argument has swayed me.

Upstatemax

cnh wrote: »

And I am STILL waiting to hear..whether or not the TSI-500s still have the cascade crossover that the M70s had or whether they've been turned into a simpler two way speaker (which is what I suspect given the uniformed crossover point of 2.5K that all TSIs now have??) One of the things that made the M70s stand out above the M50s and the M60s was that design that coupled one of the mid bass speakers with the tweeter more closely...this made them image better and threw up a wider sound stage than the lower models.

cnh

I am going to have to say that the TSi 500's lost the cascade crossover... One of my biggest problems with them was the lack luster sound stage compaired to the M70's. It seemed narrow and I lost some of the "connection" with the music (music is where I noticed it most).

cnh

Upstatemax wrote: »

I am going to have to say that the TSi 500's lost the cascade crossover... One of my biggest problems with them was the lack luster sound stage compaired to the M70's. It seemed narrow and I lost some of the "connection" with the music (music is where I noticed it most).

Bingo...that's what I would expect. As I think the TSIs have really been spiffed up to sound more like Rtis? But I can't prove it until I hear myself...so I'm waiting on Jeff's A/B.

In the end it only matters to those of us who do some double duty with M70s...I'm sure the 500s are a bit better for HT!!!

cnh

wutadumsn23

cnh wrote: »

Bingo...that's what I would expect. As I think the TSIs have really been spiffed up to sound more like Rtis? But I can't prove it until I hear myself...so I'm waiting on Jeff's A/B.

In the end it only matters to those of us who do some double duty with M70s...I'm sure the 500s are a bit better for HT!!!

cnh

Only a matter of time now man, Upstatemax is done (I think) and I am next on the demo list if nobody local to him chimes up soon. I can't wait to settle this debate once and for all (atleast in my mind anyway) I love my 70's and am looking forward to this test.

-Jeff