Zaph and the Energy C500

[fjhuerta]

Zaph's blog has an interesting and amusing new entry here:

http://www.zaphaudio.com/blog.html

I read it with great interest, being a fan of Energy speakers. As a matter of fact, I think that not being able to afford a pair of Veritas was part of the reason I got into DIY (never mind that by now I think I could have bought a complete 5.1 set of them with the money I've spent on this hobby! :E )

Nevertheless, I'm very fond of the old Energy, the one wholly based in Canada. At one point, I owned the entire old Connoisseur line (except for their surrounds, which I didn't care about) and in my opinion, they are some of the best budget speakers I've ever heard. Probably the best. I still use the Connoisseur C-7s on my home theater, as a matter of fact.



And sexy, too! :T

Anyway, I also own the small brother of the speaker Zaph is currently testing - the C50. I actually paid $275 for the pair, and was the last commercial speaker I ever bought.



The worst commercial speaker I've ever listened to, by the way. I had to completely rework the crossover in order to make them listenable. I may have the measurements I took of them - the fake plug on the woofer made for some terrible artifacts off-axis. I do remember that. After fixing the crossover they changed a lot, and they are pretty nice now.

Anyway, enough about that.

I still have my Connoisseur C-5's (I'm selling them) which are very similar to Zaph's C500 (only with a better tweeter, if its the same unit as the C50 - and I have no reason to believe it isn't). I know for a fact the C-5's are a 2.5 system, the C-7's and C-9's a 3.5 way.



Check out the response graph:



Now check out Zaph's comments on the C500s:

...First immediately obvious issue: these are bass heavy. It's somewhere between warm and boomy, maybe a little of both. ...Then there's a little too much output in the lower midbass. ... The system did indeed seem to handle power pretty well and get very loud without excessive strain, particularly with the ports open....While the upper treble seemed clean and smooth enough, it sounded like there was a mild dip in the lower treble.

Seems pretty similar to what you see on the measurements of the old C-5's.

Interestingly enough - I love the sound of the C-5s. I find them warm, relaxing, and easy to listen to. Yes, the bass is exaggerated, and it's possible that the dip in the lower treble emphasizes the detail on the top end. But it's fun to listen to.

Whenever I listen to my DIY speakers, I'm fully aware of the shortcomings of any recording. The best recordings sound incredible, but bad ones are pretty terrible. The Energys make everything listenable, at the expense of not retrieving every last detail from good recordings, and imparting a sonic coloration of their own.

Today I had to drive my wife's car to work. It has a factory Rockford Fosgate system. As soon as I played some rock, I was blown away. Sure, it isn't "flat". I dunno about distortion, but I'm sure a 1/2" dome can't be all that good. The big woofer is obviously putting out some serious bass, although a bit muddy and one note. But it's FUN. Fun in a way my "accurate" systems aren't.

The Energy's and the Fosgate systems do things right, in a way. They make me enjoy all my music, instead of pointing out the defects and problems of certain recordings.

In plain visual terms:


<- Neutral, uncolored, accurate DIY design.

<- Energy & Rockford Fosgate system

No, I'm not trolling... I'm just thinking whether we are placing too much emphasis on measurements and accuracy, when it's a sad fact that most music isn't recorded accurately, anyway.

I hope I made sense... or, at least that you enjoyed the cheerleader pic.

[Bill Schneider]

Counterpoint...

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

(Link found recently on the PE forum.)

[Johnloudb]

<- Energy & Rockford Fosgate system

or, at least that you enjoyed the cheerleader pic.

I did! :T



And I kind of agree with you. Though, I'm not so sure accuracy and low distortion necessarily mean that many recordings will sound worse. It will be more revealing of flaws in the recording chain of course, but you also hear more of the music. And some drivers may measure very well but still not sound as good with a driver with more, but less audible distortion. I always judge the sound of electronics I build using the highest quality playback with good recordings.

When people rule out such things like tone controls, you kind of limit what you can listen to on a high end system. When I adjusted the level of a tweeter on a speaker, it was somewhat frustrating because I could make it sound great on some recordings and then it wouldn't sound so great on others. Same with the subwoofer level where it would be too overwhelming with some music, if set to sound good with a recording with dynamic compression or attenuated bass.

I like accuracy, but what is accurate is pretty debatable.

[JonMarsh]

I'll weigh in on this with some ridiculous but well rationalized rubbish either this evening or weekend... :W expect lots of pictures... all PG

[Johnloudb]

Counterpoint...

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

(Link found recently on the PE forum.)

I like J. Gordon Holt, and I agree with him on a lot issues. From your link:

As you were so committed to surround, do you feel that the commercial failures of DVD-Audio and SACD could have been avoided?

"I doubt it. No audio product has ever succeeded because it was better, only because it was cheaper, smaller, or easier to use. Your generation of music lovers will probably be the last that even think about fidelity."

Do you see any signs of future vitality in high-end audio?

"Vitality? Don't make me laugh. Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing.

Remember those loudspeaker shoot-outs we used to have during our annual writer gatherings in Santa Fe? The frequent occasions when various reviewers would repeatedly choose the same loudspeaker as their favorite (or least-favorite) model? That was all the proof needed that [blind] testing does work, aside from the fact that it's (still) the only honest kind. It also suggested that simple ear training, with DBT confirmation, could have built the kind of listening confidence among talented reviewers that might have made a world of difference in the outcome of high-end audio."

[johngalt47]

Is there any objective way to tell what exactly was recorded? I mean, suppose you had the best available recording equipment and the best available playback equipment (including speakers) (no flames please) and recorded an acoustic guitar in your living room.

Would another person listening to the playback of that recording actually be able to hear exactly what was recorded in the first place? There are deficiencies all along the process. We might get pretty close and it might even be enjoyable but it would still be a little bit different from the original playing of the guitar.

[fjhuerta]

Counterpoint...

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

(Link found recently on the PE forum.)

I don't see it as a counterpoint...

We seem to have come to a tacit agreement that it's no longer necessary, or even desirable, for a home music system to sound like the real thing. We speak in hushed and reverent tones about reproducing the ineffable beauty of music, when in fact much real music is harsh and vulgar and ugly. We design the all-important musical midrange out of our equipment in order to try—vainly, I might add—to recreate the illusion of three-dimensional space through what is essentially a two-dimensional reproducer. And whenever we hear a loudspeaker or a CD player that shows subversive signs of sounding more 'alive' or 'realistic' than most, we dismiss it out of hand as being too 'forward' or 'aggressive.' As if a lot of real music isn't forward and aggressive.

It basically says what I've been thinking lately.

[Mark K]

Zaph's blog has an interesting and amusing new entry here:

http://www.zaphaudio.com/blog.html

I read it with great interest, being a fan of Energy speakers. As a matter of fact, I think that not being able to afford a pair of Veritas was part of the reason I got into DIY (never mind that by now I think I could have bought a complete 5.1 set of them with the money I've spent on this hobby! :E )

Nevertheless, I'm very fond of the old Energy, the one wholly based in Canada. At one point, I owned the entire old Connoisseur line (except for their surrounds, which I didn't care about) and in my opinion, they are some of the best budget speakers I've ever heard. Probably the best. I still use the Connoisseur C-7s on my home theater, as a matter of fact.



And sexy, too! :T

Anyway, I also own the small brother of the speaker Zaph is currently testing - the C50. I actually paid $275 for the pair, and was the last commercial speaker I ever bought.



The worst commercial speaker I've ever listened to, by the way. I had to completely rework the crossover in order to make them listenable. I may have the measurements I took of them - the fake plug on the woofer made for some terrible artifacts off-axis. I do remember that. After fixing the crossover they changed a lot, and they are pretty nice now.

Anyway, enough about that.

I still have my Connoisseur C-5's (I'm selling them) which are very similar to Zaph's C500 (only with a better tweeter, if its the same unit as the C50 - and I have no reason to believe it isn't). I know for a fact the C-5's are a 2.5 system, the C-7's and C-9's a 3.5 way.



Check out the response graph:



Now check out Zaph's comments on the C500s:



Seems pretty similar to what you see on the measurements of the old C-5's.

Interestingly enough - I love the sound of the C-5s. I find them warm, relaxing, and easy to listen to. Yes, the bass is exaggerated, and it's possible that the dip in the lower treble emphasizes the detail on the top end. But it's fun to listen to.

Whenever I listen to my DIY speakers, I'm fully aware of the shortcomings of any recording. The best recordings sound incredible, but bad ones are pretty terrible. The Energys make everything listenable, at the expense of not retrieving every last detail from good recordings, and imparting a sonic coloration of their own.

Today I had to drive my wife's car to work. It has a factory Rockford Fosgate system. As soon as I played some rock, I was blown away. Sure, it isn't "flat". I dunno about distortion, but I'm sure a 1/2" dome can't be all that good. The big woofer is obviously putting out some serious bass, although a bit muddy and one note. But it's FUN. Fun in a way my "accurate" systems aren't.

The Energy's and the Fosgate systems do things right, in a way. They make me enjoy all my music, instead of pointing out the defects and problems of certain recordings.

In plain visual terms:


<- Neutral, uncolored, accurate DIY design.

<- Energy & Rockford Fosgate system

No, I'm not trolling... I'm just thinking whether we are placing too much emphasis on measurements and accuracy, when it's a sad fact that most music isn't recorded accurately, anyway.

I hope I made sense... or, at least that you enjoyed the cheerleader pic.

The analogy is bad because the pictures are different!!!

The right analogy would be the following.
Walk outside into your yard, early in the morning, just before dawn. Take a picture. (assuming your backyard has a misty bluegrass field, some groundfog, a couple of horses and a red barn.)

How are the colors in the photo? Kind of muted.
Now, import into photoshop, jazz it up by cranking the saturation and applying some sharpening.

Take both photos, as a group of 20 folks which catches their attention-which they like better. If you've done a good job with your pshop, most folks will pick the somewhat sharpened, oversaturated photo.

Which is more realistic/accurate?
Which is more appealing?
Which is "better?"

I think we fight this subjective vs objective arguement because we're trying to optimize different targets-i.e. we're asking different questions.

[Dave Bullet]

The analogy was great.. although I think the cheerleader is the one that is neutral and uncoloured.

I was thinking the same today listening to our KEF C30s. Sure - everything is listenable, but the detail is missing on some really good recordings and I feel like I'm not getting 100% (like listening to a top stand up comedian with a really bad cold).

[Dave Bullet]

For reference - can anyone post some names of readily obtainable pop or other music that sounds bad on a flat / low distortion system?

[Bear]

For reference - can anyone post some names of readily obtainable pop or other music that sounds bad on a flat / low distortion system?

Pick basically any vaguely hot looking "dancer" or "actress" who has released an album, but who's music always seems to include some form of a synth effect right when the producer ought to be showcasing the vocal range of the singer (e.g., most of Britney Spears' back catalog).

Wait, were you wanting things that sounded good on higher distortion systems, or can they be bad all around?

[johngalt47]

On a slightly different note, although I love a few of the Dave Clark Fives' songs, their greatest hits album has to be the most awful recording of anything ever! I don't know if it would sound better or worse on a really good system or not.

[fjhuerta]

For reference - can anyone post some names of readily obtainable pop or other music that sounds bad on a flat / low distortion system?

Any of the currently available Queen recordings (no DCCs, MFSLs or DVD-As) sound terrible on accurate systems. The added warmth of, say, my Energy system makes them far more listenable.

Same thing for the Nena / Cyndi Lauper remastered greatest hits CD's I own.

[fjhuerta]

Pick basically any vaguely hot looking "dancer" or "actress" who has released an album, but who's music always seems to include some form of a synth effect right when the producer ought to be showcasing the vocal range of the singer (e.g., most of Britney Spears' back catalog).

Actually, "Toxic" sounds pretty good. :T Not that I listen to Britney Spears, or anything. :W

[---k---]

For reference - can anyone post some names of readily obtainable pop or other music that sounds bad on a flat / low distortion system?

Just got this one. White Stripes - Elephant. Sounds great cruzing in my MX-5 with the top down. So-So musical talent, but nice thumping bass. Utter crap and unlistenable at home.

[Dave Bullet]

Thanks for the track tips guys... I stopped listening to Queen and that might explain some things. I found their recordings far too "in your face" as the years have gone by.

Same with my ex liking Cyndi Lauper. Her music sounded great in the car but terrible at home.

I'll try the Stripes track at home to see how it sounds....

I've always thought about taking an average FR curve of a track to see if one can identify the preferences of the mixer. Is it possible to extract the distortion profile from a track?

[Face]

For reference - can anyone post some names of readily obtainable pop or other music that sounds bad on a flat / low distortion system?

Metalica, Faith No More, Slayer, Alice in Chains, Iron Maiden...just about everything I grew up on.

[LING GOWA]

Is there any objective way to tell what exactly was recorded? I mean, suppose you had the best available recording equipment and the best available playback equipment (including speakers) (no flames please) and recorded an acoustic guitar in your living room.

Would another person listening to the playback of that recording actually be able to hear exactly what was recorded in the first place? There are deficiencies all along the process. We might get pretty close and it might even be enjoyable but it would still be a little bit different from the original playing of the guitar.

You may have to purchase the same equipment they used in the studio.

[fjhuerta]

Metalica, Faith No More, Slayer, Alice in Chains, Iron Maiden...just about everything I grew up on.

My thoughts, exactly.

But then, stuff like "The Wall" or "Wish you were here" sounds so incredible on a good system... :T

[kevinp.]

Metalica, Faith No More, Slayer, Alice in Chains, Iron Maiden...just about everything I grew up on.

while I agree with the posts above regarding the horrible sound quality of Queen's recordings, I have to disagree with the Metallica statement. Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets sound rediculously good on my Accuton monitors. As does the first couple of Sabbath albums. It seems to be the newer stuff that sounds worse IMO.

[stangbat]

while I agree with the posts above regarding the horrible sound quality of Queen's recordings, I have to disagree with the Metallica statement. Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets sound rediculously good on my Accuton monitors. As does the first couple of Sabbath albums. It seems to be the newer stuff that sounds worse IMO.

I had previously listened to "Metallica" (the Black Album) and "...And Justice for All" on my setup and never bothered to listen to anything else since they sounded so bad. So I decided to try "Puppets" and "Ride the Lightning". I have to agree with Face, they sound terrible. I'm listening to the original CD releases on the Electra label if that makes any difference.

I agree with Javier that "The Wall" and "Wish You Were Here" sound great. I've also found that the Zeppelin releases I have on CD sound surprisingly good (I,II, IV, and "Houses of the Holy".) Jimmy Page knew how to set up mics and produce.

[kevinp.]

I had previously listened to "Metallica" (the Black Album) and "...And Justice for All" on my setup and never bothered to listen to anything else since they sounded so bad. So I decided to try "Puppets" and "Ride the Lightning". I have to agree with Face, they sound terrible. I'm listening to the original CD releases on the Electra label if that makes any difference.I agree with Javier that "The Wall" and "Wish You Were Here" sound great. I've also found that the Zeppelin releases I have on CD sound surprisingly good (I,II, IV, and "Houses of the Holy".) Jimmy Page knew how to set up mics and produce.

It might. I'm referring to the remasters. Many people cringe when they hear that word so I thought the originals might be even better, but sounds like I could be wrong. The Black album I gave away long ago and have no desire to replace, and Justice is generally agreed to be terribly recorded.

[Face]

Ah, the DCC remasters? They're actually listenable.

[johngalt47]

I received my pair of C-500s yesterday. They sound pretty good but I'll wait until they have some hours on them before commenting fully. A first impression is that I agree with Zaph's assessment that male voices may not be exactly right.
My main speakers are ZD5s so I'll have something "good" that I can compare them to.