ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Nov 15, 2009 13:35:08 GMT -5
As a side note - I believe the crossover circuits in all the Emotica speakrs are really top notch, I think this is one of the areas they boast about. I've need noticed any colouration or anything like that from the 6.3s, they are open, airy and very accurate. I also hear tell that Lonnie or Big Dan uses 3 x 6.3 for his HT - but I've no idea how big the room is. To me, they sound amazing in my relatively small room and I will be able to keep them when I move and get a much bigger room, saves another upgrade and extra shipping apart from anything else. The xovers are definetly not top notch. Top notch capacitors,inductors and resistors would add HUNDREDS of dollars to the price of the speakers. Ive already been in 2 of their speakers, they use great drivers but their xovers are made with real cheap parts. Emotiva uses steep slope 24db linkwitz riley xovers and this is what they are boasting. And from first hand experience these speakers can sound ALOT better with modded upgraded xovers. And that says alot because they sound real good out of the box too, especially at the pricepoint they are offered.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Nov 15, 2009 13:41:46 GMT -5
That's interesting - perhaps Lonnie can comment.
Any suggestions on where to buy replacement (direct swap) parts that would be better, or indeed complete replacements?
|
|
|
Post by elee532 on Nov 15, 2009 14:28:49 GMT -5
There is another lounge member that also has 3 x 6.3 in a mid sized room (mine is 3.2m x 5.2m with an open area behind of 5.5m x 3m BTW) but he has his mounted to brackets/shelves as opposed to my "semi-free-standing" setup. Sorry the name escapes me! Can the party being referenced here please drop me a PM, or take a look at my thread here: emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=speakers&action=display&thread=7415As you can see, I am very interested in finding a wall mount solution for 6.3's (or, after reading this thread, maybe 6.2's ) Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Nov 15, 2009 15:09:09 GMT -5
It's bfisher you want to speak with. And as mentioned in that thread - I did not see any 6.3s in the Emofest picture so I'm not sure how people compared them to anything.
|
|
|
Post by elee532 on Nov 15, 2009 18:02:18 GMT -5
It's bfisher you want to speak with. Thanks!! And as mentioned in that thread - I did not see any 6.3s in the Emofest picture so I'm not sure how people comapared them to anything. Decisions, Decisions! I'm just totally undecided between the 6.2 and the 6.3 after reading this thread (possibly replacing Salk SongTowers and adding a center which I don't currently have). I'm probably 80% music and 20% home theater. However, probably 75% of music listening is surround music (SACD, DVD-A, Blu-Ray, and concert DVDs). Does that change anyone's opinion that the 6.2 is better for music? I do like to listen loud, though it is a small room and pretty well treated with corner bass traps and some broadband absorption panels. I currently have a Rythmik 12" custom build sub, but I have a feeling I'll be giving those 212's a try when they come out. Oh, and I'm currently driving my system with a XPA-5 (LMC-1 pre/pro (w/UMC-1 forthcoming) and ERD-1 surrounds).
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Nov 15, 2009 19:00:02 GMT -5
Are you in a position to get the 30-day trial? Get both and compare yourself in your own room.
|
|
|
Post by strindl on Nov 15, 2009 19:16:21 GMT -5
It's bfisher you want to speak with. And as mentioned in that thread - I did not see any 6.3s in the Emofest picture so I'm not sure how people compared them to anything. They were there./..next to the 8.3's. They must have been moved to the side for that pic
|
|
|
Post by strindl on Nov 15, 2009 19:28:31 GMT -5
Hmmmm, I am not seeing ANY 6.3s in that picture from Emofest. I see a pair of: ERD-1s ERM-1s 6.2s 8.3s No 6.3s to be seen ..... So where were they at Emofest? If they were in that room, they must have been further outside the 8.3s and near the walls which might not be comparably good placement to the others. Or are people confusing the ERD-1s with 6.3s? Here is a wider angle pic...you can see the 6.3's mounted on stands to the outside of the 8.3's. They moved the smaller speakers around some if someone wanted a direct comparison between two specific models. As you can see here..the 6.2's were moved to a better sounding position for this comparison.
|
|
|
Post by bfisher on Nov 15, 2009 19:52:01 GMT -5
There is another lounge member that also has 3 x 6.3 in a mid sized room (mine is 3.2m x 5.2m with an open area behind of 5.5m x 3m BTW) but he has his mounted to brackets/shelves as opposed to my "semi-free-standing" setup. Sorry the name escapes me! As you can see, I am very interested in finding a wall mount solution for 6.3's (or, after reading this thread, maybe 6.2's ) I didn't wall mount them. Instead I built heavy duty shelves that were just slightly wider than the 6.3s (but long enough to push them out away from the wall). My front wall is covered in 703 acoustic insulation to help reduce reflections. This picture gives you a better feel for what the shelves look like before insulation installed. (The top brackets are for the screen) Let me know if you need other details
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Nov 16, 2009 6:34:23 GMT -5
Yeah, the 6.3s seem to be in the worst possible position in that pic - too wide and too low I think.
Also, I thought the suggested orientation was with the tweeters to the outside? These all seem to have them to the inside?
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Nov 16, 2009 8:31:52 GMT -5
Yeah, the 6.3s seem to be in the worst possible position in that pic - too wide and too low I think. Also, I thought the suggested orinetation was with the tweeters to the outside? These all seem to have them to the inside? Higher frequencies travel faster than lower frequencies, so correct tweeter placement would be to the outside in my book.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,348
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 16, 2009 9:29:15 GMT -5
Higher frequencies travel faster than lower frequencies, so correct tweeter placement would be to the outside in my book. No, that's not correct. The speed of sound in air is the same no matter the frequency (approx. 343 m/s) so higher frequencies do not "travel faster" than lower ones. They travel through the same medium at exactly the same velocity. The effect you're describing is a complex acoustics principle having to do with the wavelength (and apparent phase) of the sounds. At a very basic level, think of it this way: higher frequencies have shorter wavelengths than lower frequencies, so it takes less time for the shorter wavelength to be perceived by our ear. Therefor, it seems to arrive sooner at the listening location.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Nov 16, 2009 9:49:04 GMT -5
Higher frequencies travel faster than lower frequencies, so correct tweeter placement would be to the outside in my book. No, that's not correct. The speed of sound in air is the same no matter the frequency (approx. 343 m/s) so higher frequencies do not "travel faster" than lower ones. They travel through the same medium at exactly the same velocity. The effect you're describing is a complex acoustics principle having to do with the wavelength (and apparent phase) of the sounds. At a very basic level, think of it this way: higher frequencies have shorter wavelengths than lower frequencies, so it takes less time for the shorter wavelength to be perceived by our ear. Therefor, it seems to arrive sooner at the listening location. Honestly I was "oversimplifying it" and maybe incorrectly. Velocity = wavelength x frequency , since different frequencies have different wavelengths, they travel to our ears at different rates. But regardless a high pitch frequency say of 15-20khz with shorter wavelengths will reach our ears (percieved) quicker than a 20-40hz pitch. Sound is nothing more than vibration. Under this notion Id place the tweeters to the outside.
|
|
|
Post by bfisher on Nov 16, 2009 12:02:47 GMT -5
Yeah, the 6.3s seem to be in the worst possible position in that pic - too wide and too low I think. Also, I thought the suggested orientation was with the tweeters to the outside? These all seem to have them to the inside? The tweeters are to the outside in my pic... unless I'm looking at something wrong. I listened to them in both orientations and this one just sounded better to me. Can't remember the specifics now - but it was better. As for the height/width - I think they are perfect. My screen is 158" diagonal... they are exactly spaced properly. The speakers are on the outside edge of the 16:9, and when in 2:35 mode, they are in the middle of their appropriate third. As for height - they are less than 2" below the exact middle of the screen. < edit: oh... I think maybe you meant they were wrong in the Emofest picture. I that case, I completely agree with you )
|
|
|
Post by strindl on Nov 16, 2009 12:06:38 GMT -5
Yeah, the 6.3s seem to be in the worst possible position in that pic - too wide and too low I think. Also, I thought the suggested orientation was with the tweeters to the outside? These all seem to have them to the inside? The 6.3's were the only ones on stands. They were actually at the proper height since the ones doing the serious listening were sitting and far enough away to have things at the correct angle. All of the speakers were far enough from any side wall for that not to be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Nov 16, 2009 12:43:05 GMT -5
< edit: oh... I think maybe you meant they were wrong in the Emofest picture. I that case, I completely agree with you ) Yes, the Emofest one! Yours are the same as mine.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,348
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 16, 2009 15:30:09 GMT -5
[ Honestly I was "oversimplifying it" and maybe incorrectly. Velocity = wavelength x frequency , since different frequencies have different wavelengths, they travel to our ears at different rates. But regardless a high pitch frequency say of 15-20khz with shorter wavelengths will reach our ears (percieved) quicker than a 20-40hz pitch. Sound is nothing more than vibration. Under this notion Id place the tweeters to the outside. Huh? No. Yes, V=fl, but what happens to l as f increases? The speed of sound is constant in any given medium under any given fixed condition, and it is frequency independent. If a 100Hz, a 1000Hz and a 10000Hz sound all originate from a point source at the same instant, the wavefront from each would reach a given listening position at the same instant. The higher frequencies will simply complete their full wavelength sooner than the lower ones will.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Nov 16, 2009 15:43:25 GMT -5
The higher frequencies will simply complete their full wavelength sooner than the lower ones will. In a nutshell thats what Im trying to state, it was just done in an overly simple fashion that was probably worded wrong. I'll probably clarify my answer and add onto your statement in more detail tonight.
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Nov 16, 2009 16:55:22 GMT -5
With regard to speaker orientation at Emofest, most of the time, the 6.3s were sitting on the floor and had been hurriedly placed on the outsides of the 8.3s without attention to toe-in. Later on the 6.3s were placed on the speaker stands. The problem, as I saw it, was that the sitting positions were approximately 9 to 10 from the speakers. This was much too close considering how far apart they were placed. It would have been hard to find a worse spot to set up the 6.3. The 6.2s, in contrast, were very well placed for hearing them at their best.
Both the 6.2 and 6.3 are exceptional speakers, and, for the most part share the same drivers. The 6.3 adds the 2 4-inch drivers to the complement. When both the 6.2 and the 6.3 are setup for best sound reproduction, I think the 6.3 has the edge over the 6.2 for all vocals and it excels at producing music intruments at just the right timbre... they are just a little more convincing than the 6.2s in producing "life-like" musical tones. When listening to a well engineered CD of a complex orchestra piece, the 6.3s are better at isolating specific instruments... the imaging allows you to hear that the flutist is 3-feet to the left and 5-feet back. With the 6.2 on the same recording you do not get that exact localization. These are all subtle differences, but they add to the enjoyment level.
As setup at Emofest, the 6.3 were unable to show their stuff, but that is not so bad, because it allowed many attendees to discover how great the 6.2s sound. Up until this event, I think the 6.2s had been practically invisible -- which is a shame. All of the Emotiva speakers are just unbelieveably great sounding speakers. It is really hard to choose between them; and, it takes a lot of focused listening to be able to tell what advantages any of them has over the others.
For HT, I think it is a no-brainer, the 6.3 is far better in producing understandable dialog. The genre of the music you prefer and your listening habits will go a long way in picking the Emotiva model that best fits your taste. You really can't go wrong with any of the choices. The 6.3 has the smoothest, most convincing mid-range performance of all the Emotiva speakers; and, paired with a musical sub woofer it is a hard choice to beat.
If you are uncertain which way to go, I do recommend you get one 6.2 and one 6.3 to experiment with. You will probably end up keeping both and adding another of the one you like best, but you could just return the loser and buy one more of the comparison's winner. This wasy, your tastes and the room's acoustic properties are factored into the decision you make -- not to mention any system synergy that may exist. ;D ;D
Decision, decisions... but oh so wonderful once you pick.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Nov 16, 2009 17:18:15 GMT -5
Nice "mini write up" RR!
|
|