This is very interesting and exposes a problem with the concept of perfectionism. The ADI tries to be perfect and so do the s2V's. So if the result of the S2V is a better speaker then before how can it distract from the ADI. Or does a less perfect non digital speaker maybe distract even more. So maybe having a very good dac was not that useful on non perfect speakers.
Our minds play tricks with us. It will always do that. IMHO dac differences are already way in the inaudible, unless purposely coloured.
Getting popcorn...

Looking seriously at the Hedd Type 20s. An analog 3-way speaker (instead of a 2-way like the S2V) for only $250 more per speaker, designed by the former R&D guy at Adam Audio

On a related note, anyone feel I'm off base here by looking at studio monitors? What I want is a very transparent, accurate, but still pleasing sound (which I feel I get from the A7Xs), and I would prefer not to deal with external amplifiers and not pay extra for "hi fi"  looks. The goal I have is to get a high quality studio monitor that gives better sound than similarly priced hifi products, but still sounds pleasing.

If you like the A7X, why not fill in the bottom octave with a good sub. Will make a dramatic difference imhe
And if you like them, what do you want to improve?
For your audio work or enjoyment?
Remember you need a problem, before fixing it....

There is only so much that can be achieved with DACs, speakers and correctional EQ to get a preferable sound.

Below is a good article about how to position speakers and how the room has a massive influence on what we hear.

http://arqen.com/acoustics-101/room-set … placement/

I use Sonarworks Ref 4, RME ADI-2 DAC and Genelec 8030b nearfield monitors.

There are somethings that audio hardware cannot fix. Next step is to understand the room. Not necessarily to a pro studio level but definitely to reduce early reflections.

Correctional EQ although an improvement will make no difference to early reflections, standing waves and flutter echo. These all appear very quickly and will distort the origin of the audio signal in one way or another.

All of these things make a difference to audio quality.

Kind regards

Rodders

Edited to add additional info : )

Guys after some research and weighing the options, I've decided to go with the Hedd Type 20 over the S2V.

Advantages are:

-3 way speaker vs. 2 way (S2V) for only $250 more per speaker - I've wanted to move to a 3-way speaker.
-Analog only input with no conversion - Klaus Heinz, originally of Adam Audio, designed many of Adam's best monitors, and started Hedd. He states clearly that a big reason they stayed with an analog design is to avoid having to do reconversion on an analog signal from a high end dac.
-Hedd Type 20 gets some pretty strong reviews from multiple users/publications, including some users I talked to

Hello!
I want to help you and share my experience.

At the moment in my room I have 3 pairs of monitors:
Adam S2V, Adam S3V, JBL 708p
All of them have DPS inside and AES/EBU digital inputs (as well as analog).

To play music, I use one Windows PC and 3 external audio interfaces:
1) RME ADI-2 DAC for Analog XLR output to Adam S2V
2) Singxer SU-1 for USB->AES digital transport to Adam S3V
3) Singxer SU-1 for USB->AES digital transport to JBL 708p
All 3 audio interfaces connected to my PC using USB.

AES/EBU digital connection a bit more practical because you need only one cable from interface to the first monitor, and if it's long - it sometimes nice to have one long cable than two long cables in terms of ergonomic and esthetic points of view.
AES digital connection is simple. One cable from interface to the first monitor, second cable from the first monitor to the second monitor. That's it. Very simple and nice.

If you connect monitors using AES EBU digital connection - all Digital to Analog conversation happens inside monitors. However, the quality of AES input is critical. That's why I chose quite cheap but good Singxer SU-1 digital USB transport.

Singxer SU-1 has galvanic isolated USB input and femtosecond clock. They use XMOS chip, and I bet they have asynchronous USB connection which is better for audio transfer than "normal" as I think after reading about it. This device has many good reviews from users.

After talking with one guy, he told me that I could not have good Digital to Analog conversion inside the monitor and a good external DAC (he recommend me ADI-2 DAC) should sound better. After that, for an experiment, I decided to buy RME ADI-2 DAC.

Two times I compared two audio output setups:
1)
PC -> usb -> ADI-2 DAC -> analog xlr -> Adam S2V
2)
PC -> usb -> Singxer SU-1 -> digital aes -> Adam S2V

ADI-2 DAC has no USB galvanic isolation, but somehow I didn't hear any bus/power noise using it.

First time I detect no differences by hearing and decided to use a microphone to record and listen.
After listening to recorded files I liked RME a bit better in vocals, but after all, I realized that Terrible EQ on ADI was +0.5dB and I think total volume level was not calibrated to have the same volume from both setups.
After 1 week of using ADI-2 analog outputs, I compared again.

The problem in comparing is that Adam S2V monitors need some time to reboot if you make changes thru ADAM S Control software. It takes me about 20-30 seconds to switch between Analog and AES inputs in Adam.
Btw, Adam's software is terrible.
Because of that 20-30 seconds pause even while listening to the same part in the same song it's very different to hear any differences.
I could not notice any differences, and finally, I decided again to use a mic, but the second time I used UMic2 miniDSP USB microphone to record both setups and listen to them with an ability to change between two records immediately.

I verified that Terrible and Bass EQ in ADI-2 DAC set to 0. Also after volume level compare (by hearing) I set ADI to -1dB to match sound output.
After recording and comparing of wav files, during my second test, I noticed no differences at all.

Today I'm going to test it again in the third time, but this time I'm going to calibrate volume levels of both setups using the software measurement. Calibration microphone sounds terrible and I'm not sure it's valid to compare sounds recorded by calibration mic. Also, I have Shure CVG18D-B/C mic and Tascam UH-7000 for it and I have another USB mic - Blue Yeti. Maybe I should use it. Don't know. But again, by hearing only, I could not notice ANY differences in both of my tests.

Honestly now I think that if the sound from Singxer SU-1 using AES is the same - it is more practical to have SU-1 and use AES cables.
However, SU-1 has no mic preamp and no volume control.

RME have much better support, website, drivers location than Singxer. You even cannot download any drivers from Singxer cheap looking website.
However, the device itself looks ok and sounds ok as well.

Regarding monitor suggestion - also, I want to buy Dynaudio Core 59 (they also have AES EBU digital input), they have smaller Core 7 version. I want to experiment again. I have no idea how they sound. Also, I never listen to Tedd.

I think Adam S2V is a good choice. I compared them in one studio with Amphion two18 and noticed almost no differences in details/sound etc. Despite Adam has terrible Windows software, S2V is very cool looking and very good sounding monitor.

I use my monitors for music listening and I don't think they sound "monitor" - they sound amazing and "musical". I like the sound of Adam S3V better in the nearfield and JBL 708p better for midfield. But it's in my room, only for my room acoustics. Your room is different and you will hear sound in a different way remember it.

Hi Rob, I strongly recommend that you search for all articles written by Prof. Dr. Anselm Goertz. Even if you can only find german articles, he conducts standardized and neutral measurements of all recent products like KH310, KH420, RL944, Hedd 30, Genelec 8531 and many others (KSD A300 eg). The published figures/measurements are universally comparable.

Besides a ruler flat FR (which gets crummy in most real rooms anyway) a perfect horizontal and vertical directivity as well as a smooth spectrogram are much more important (to me) as they are independent of the room acoustics.

The spectrogram reveals resonances/distortions of the speaker/cabinet that are added to the music signal.
A steady and continuously increasing directivity and even fall off beyond 30/60 degrees is important as it especially in untreated rooms will increase the reverberation circle by reducing early reflections supporting an improved and more neutral stereo image. Of course the lower RT60 comes the more you gain out of a good directivity.

MEG, KH and Genelec are very good in this regard, just compare the figures/diagrams. Hedd 30 has certain resonances in the range around 500 Hz and a mediocre dispersion (like the good old O198 from way back with constrictions at the take over frequencies:)

I had the chance to hear Hedd next to KH310, 8531, SM9 multiple times in Thomanns main control room and I must say that I liked the Genelecs and KHs most. On other occasions I auditioned some of the Geithains (921, 901, 811, 944, 934 and 906 with Sub).
Geithain is a safe bet, you can't go wrong with either of them, just choose by listening distance and 2 or 3way. Because of that they charge you a premium.
Hedd 20 is positioned as a competitor to KH310. Even if they have the same tonality, to me there is no doubt which one to choose out of the two...

+2ct.

Your gut feeling, listening preferences, taste etc. are paramount;)

We should leave this to Rob if he gets confused or not. It doesn't matter what is role is (consumer or producer). Sharing some insights may lead to a better and informed purchase decision. Especially for an untreated room a good constant directivity *is* so much more important then for a treated room as it helps to increase the listening distance and helps maintaining a good and neutral stereo image. Guess why MEGs cardioid dispersion is so successful and now driven forward by Kii and D&D?

Didn't you read my last sentence? ;-)

I didn't write anything about DPSs as this is a controversial topic. Some say its the future some say classic analog crossovers with standard amplifiers are bullet proof and serviceable even in decades and independent of the development in the digital domain. Protocols may change, hardware will improve over time, so why not replace the front end if required without changing the speakers characteristics?

absolutely, getting room reverberation time down is *the* most effective measure as this will will automatically flatten the frequency response by itself. But as we all know especially below 100..150Hz for average rooms this is almost not achievable as room modes kick in and absorption of low frequencies becomes hard. And for sure the 38% rule applies as you said, applying treatment aims to optimize for a specific listening position.

you are, modes are a function of frequency and independent of the amplitude. Cheers

bought the Sonodyne SM 100AK (used) and they are perfect with the adi 2 pro!

There are two main concepts going on here, the hardware and the room. Perhaps the room concept is a bit too much for some. But let me try to explain the room concept and why DAC’s, Speakers and EQ correction are limited, even if they are of superb quality.

Lets say we are sending a 100dB signal to the speakers at a frequency of 50HZ.

When this is measured by a mic the level picked up is 110dB. An extra 10db or an extra 10% because of room reflections.

So we use room correction EQ and reduce the 50HZ frequency by 10dB to try and balance the signal back to 100dB.

However, the new signal still has 10% of its signal coming from reflections in the room, so the quality has not really changed at all.

The signal from the speaker will be 90dB and the reflection will be 9dB. The new signal level will be 99dB. Still 1dB less than the target.

Now imagine this scenario across frequencies 20HZ to 20Khz.

Hopefully you can see why hardware is limited and even if you were to spend 3k on speakers, they are still going to be masked by the room.

So the aim of having an authentic analog sound does not come from putting on the blinkers and putting all of your money into hardware alone.

It is far too naive to think that it can be achieved solely on Prosumer levels of understanding audio.

Kind regards

Rodders : )

Are you talking about one of Prof. Dr. Goertz' reviews in Sound&Recording or the test conducted at Harman by Sean Olive?

Also, the amount of details sufficient to characterise the perfomance of a loudspeaker may well overwhelm the reader. Is anything better available (besides experiencing the speakers)?

Is the purpose of listening primarily hearing the recorded material with the highest fidelity or pleasure?
In case of the former, the desirable characteristics of the loudspeaker are determined by the goal to achieve the greatest amount of accuracy given the listening environment.

However, consumers may prefer different compromises made by the manufacturers relative to audio professionals but according to research done at Harman, audio engineers have the same preference for the sound of speakers as the general population and also the highly trained listeners Harman utilises in their loudspeaker preference tests.
Of course, there are factors apart from sound that consumers may have less tolerance for than audio professionals such as residual noise or utilitarian aesthetics. Further, the shape of the speaker may be more practical in one environment than the other.

If Rob wants to avoid additional AD/DA-conversion, I would recommend he take a look at the Genelec 8040B and 8050B. The Neumann KH310A is likely to expensive and the dispersion of the midrange unit is also wider than optimal.
If Rob is fine with additional AD/DA-conversion, the ADAM S2V look good enough to me but I would recommend he also look at the Genelec 8330A or 8340A both with GLM (sold separately) and JBL 705p/708p.

I was not debating room acoustics but rather psychoacoustics and the relation between perceived sound and anechoic speaker measurements. Rob's desire to improve his listening environment is no not necessary for this.

The sound of speakers with even dispersion is going to be more consistent across listening environments. Thus, speakers that sound good in an untreated home are very likely to sound similarly good in a treated studio or exhibition room. The contrary does not hold, however. Thus, I would be more inclined to turn your formula on its head.

Further, if a speaker with poor dispersion has had its on-axis frequency response altered from flat to make the speaker neutral in a chosen listening environment, changing the acoustics of the listening environment may change the perceived sound of the speaker to be less accurate. Room treatment may actually have perverse effects for speakers with poor dispersion and room treatment for a speaker with poor dispersion may over- or underdamp the room depending on the dispersion to get a neutral perceived sound. In the latter case, more accurate speakers may actually sound worse.

The link I shared allows you to access recent measurements and reviews without having to buy the pdf.

I meant that it was a good resource to check if the speakers one is interested perform well technically. This should follow from the previous paragraph in that post of mine.

Of course, the other way around, i.e. the way you seem to have read it, would also work but might be overwhelming.

If by neutral/analytic do you mean accurate (true to the source)? If not, what do you mean by neutral/analytic?

Further, what is for you the purpose of speakers for listening to music? Pleasure, accurate reproduction of the source material or something third?

Also, how is your experience of the KH310 (without the above answered) a better indicator of whether it is good for listening to music or for listening to music at all than scientific research of the relationship between listener preference and loudspeaker measurements to make such an absolute statement?

As I have written previously, accurate speakers (in technical terms) are preferred by listeners in properly controlled tests, particularly by trained listeners (to add to previous link: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/l … ained.html). Of course, these are averaged data, so individual preferences might vary but the error bars indicate that this variation still allows for the above conclusion (by not being overlapping for all tested speakers).

What made you experience the Genelec 8030 as underwhelming?

Also, for 2-way vs. 3-way for the same price, the gains in lower distortion (important mostly at high SPL), may be outweighed by poorer integration of the drivers (important at any SPL), e.g. poorer directivity and/or worse crossovers.

Further, asking for a speaker that is 'Extremely revealing and accurate' but also 'fun and enjoyable to listen to' seems to me like you want to have it both ways. Given the former criterion, the latter criterion is much too dependant on the source material you will be using to evaluate the speaker as to qualify the general desirability of a speaker.

Regarding movies, depending on the genre, if you want to listen at reference level (85 dBC average, 105 dB peaks, LFE 10 dB higher, all at listening position), I cannot think of a 2-way or 3-way speaker at your price point that can deliver the required SPL for the LFE content, e.g. 115 dB SPL below 50 Hz, even with severe distortion. For that you should look at acquiring a (big) subwoofer (or several).

The soundstage was worse than the Adams, they sounded boxy or compressed to me, sound was not as clear or enjoyable either. Granted the environment was suboptimal but the same was true for the Adams.

I have the Adam Sub8 now which I will use with the new speakers I get.

"Further, asking for a speaker that is 'Extremely revealing and accurate' but also 'fun and enjoyable to listen to' seems to me like you want to have it both ways."

Maybe, but certain monitors can be revealing yet harsh or fatiguing, and others can be revealing and smooth, and non-fatiguing for example.

What's your speaker recommendation then?

Thanks. I wish I had a chance to compare them both without purchasing them both.

Guys, just a quick thank you from me personally for everyone who wrote here for sharing his time with this thread. I wish we would have more discussions like this. It's a prime example on how a civilised exchange of opinions, facts, knowledge and experience can look like. Thanks again!