The Official Energy Speakers Thread

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by Jwilly019

I've never heard anything from the older C-series, but I have put the RC-10 and the CF-70 together head-to-head (same room, equipment, etc). The RC-10 came out on top (with the exception of low end of course), so I feel confident in saying the RC-10 would outperform the C-300.

I felt confident of saying it also but FS is not the best place to compare but I know with a great fact of certainty the RC-30 blew away my C-500. Hands down.

RC is an amazing speaker Justin you made a good choice with your RC-50.

[MaCruz]

Hey Guys! It's been a while since I said hello. I'm still here active and lovin my Energy Speakers 7.1. I have not upgraded anything since I think this would do for a long time.

[BigAl87]

CF-50 at 299$ each at FS for the fellow Canuck around here, they say 50$ but
it's more like 150$ off since the CF-30 is actually 349$.



http://www.futureshop.ca/fr-CA/produ...d50b372911fr02

[eclimax13]

think there is any need for an external amp for the fps speakers?

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by eclimax13

think there is any need for an external amp for the fps speakers?

Eclimax are you keeping you LSI finally?

I would not think the FPS require an External amp but they are certainly not efficient.

They can take up to 200 watts rms NP according to Energy so alot of power is a plus I think. Paire with a great sub I think it could be quite nice.

[eclimax13]

Originally Posted by BigAl87

Eclimax are you keeping you LSI finally?

I would not think the FPS require an External amp but they are certainly not efficient.

They can take up to 200 watts rms NP according to Energy so alot of power is a plus I think. Paire with a great sub I think it could be quite nice.

ya im keeping my theater room...after demoing top gun in both room it was no contest....just a moment of weekend and one i came to i realized what i had almost done...
back on topic the emotiva upa 5 is a really good price right now...so i figured i might be able to benefit

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by eclimax13

ya im keeping my theater room...after demoing top gun in both room it was no contest....just a moment of weekend and one i came to i realized what i had almost done...
back on topic the emotiva upa 5 is a really good price right now...so i figured i might be able to benefit

Emo offers Tremendous value for the money so yeah it could benefit from it certainly they can take serious power.

I see you have a nice Denon receiver with Rotel Amp in your HT room which certainly helps the LSI.

I wonder if you tried the FPS on this how it would sound? The Onkyo 707 cannot compare to this IMO. By adding the Emo in the mix you would bring your Living room setup a noch but not quite enough to even come close to the HT room.

I'm sure it will help altho the UPA is only 125WPC @ 8ohms but with high current. Ask about the UPA5 performance in the PrePros/Amplifiers section.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/pre-pro-am...-q-thread.html

[alphaiii]

Originally Posted by callas01

in listening to the CF-50s and the C-300s I can't say there is much of a difference at all. I have been to BB and listened to the CB20s, CC10, CB10s, CF50s and CF70s. While the 70s offer more bass then my C-300s, the mids and highs, which is what you're mostly concerned with sound really similar, if not identical. Id say get the CR-10s, and I think you would be plenty pleased.

Interesting...

I did an A/B comparison between the C-50's and CB-5's yesterday (in my home) and think they sound very different from one another.

CB-5's sounded more forward in the mids/highs... especially the mids though. Vocals and guitars jumped out much more in the CB-5's, and seemed clearer to my ears.

The C-50's just sounded recessed in the mids to me... a little muffled sounding.

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by alphaiii

Interesting...

I did an A/B comparison between the C-50's and CB-5's yesterday (in my home) and think they sound very different from one another.

CB-5's sounded more forward in the mids/highs... especially the mids though. Vocals and guitars jumped out much more in the CB-5's, and seemed clearer to my ears.

The C-50's just sounded recessed in the mids to me... a little muffled sounding.

Are those speakers fully broken-in?

[alphaiii]

Originally Posted by BigAl87

Are those speakers fully broken-in?

The C-50's are about 2 years old... the CB-5's are fairly new, with maybe 5-6 hours on them.

How do you define fully broken in?... since it's a very debatable topic... I'm of the camp that speakers don't need 50-100 hours to "break in".... but won't deny the CB-5's haven't seen alot of use yet.

Still, I haven't noticed any significant change in sonic character of any speaker I've owned after extended use... but I would think that's basically impossible for anyone to do... I don't buy it that someone can tell me they remember exactly what a speaker sounded like before 50 hours of use... and identify subtle changes that occurred over that time period.

Again... a very debatable topic... and many would tell me I'm full of s&!t.

[alphaiii]

Here's what I posted at AVS regarding the comparisons...

Did a few A/B comparisons today, and thought I'd post my thoughts.

Energy C-50 vs Energy CB-5
Energy CB-5 vs PSB Image B4
Energy CB-5 vs Energy RC-Mini

Before I get into it, I'll start by saying this wasn't meant to be a proper, blind A/B comparison, and was just so I compare a few speakers I currently have in my possession.

I did not properly level match each set. For the C-50, CB-5, and B4, I just listened as is since manufacturer specs are all roughly the same. I am fully aware the manufacturer's specs aren't always spot on, but the levels were close enough for what I wanted to do. For the RC-Mini, I had to drop it a few dB since it's more sensitive than the others.

Listening was done with a sub (Emotiva Ultra 12) and xover at 100Hz, unless noted otherwise.

I only listed to a couple CD's (Kamelot "Black Halo" and Insomnium "Across the Dark"), but sampled various tracks off each disc.

1. C-50 vs. CB-5
This was a fairly short comparison. It didn't take long for me feel the C-50 was veiled through the mids - vocals and guitars just sounded recessed. The C-50 just sounded a little lifeless to me...but some would prefer this laid back sound. The CB-5 sounded more forward in the mids/highs. Both speakers showed a bit of roughness in the highs at times. For instance, cymbals sounded a bit "splashy" with both.

I only listed to these with the sub on, xover at 100Hz... so can't comment on differences in bass performance.

Overall though, I preferred CB-5, and think it's a more balanced speaker.

As far as build quality, the C-50 wins here - metal binding posts instead of plastic, and cabinet feels a little heavier/more solid. Also, the vinyl on the C-50 is better quality IMO. Honestly, the build quality of the CB-5 seems a little cheap.

2. CB-5 vs. Image B4
While the CB-5 sounded more forward that the C-50, the B4 actually sounded more forward in the mids. While you might think this would make it sound bright, it didn't... mainly because the highs were smoother and less "in your face" than the CB-5.

I felt the B4 was cleaner in both mids and highs, and a bit more detailed in the mids... The CB-5 had a bit of a harsh edge that I particularly noticed with cymbals and Insomnium's raspy vocals... Sibilance was a little more noticeable with the CB-5 as well.

Basically, the only place I felt the CB-5 might be "better" was in the upper bass. With the sub off and xover still set to 100Hz, there was definitely more presence on the low end. This could very well be due to a slight upper bass bump that isn't present in the B4. Whatever the case, it seems to give a slightly fuller sound the CB-5, and perhaps a smoother blend with the sub. On the other hand... it could be that the B4 is actually more neutral, and I just tend to like a bit more fullness in the upper bass (something I preferred in the RC-10 over the neutrality of the Tweak City Audio WAF-1).

While it may seem like it, I didn't feel the B4 completely blows away the CB-5... but I feel the B4 is a better speaker... a little cleaner, perhaps more neutral, and lacking the slightly harsh edge I heard in the CB-5.

As far as build quality... no contest. The B4 has gold plated binding posts, and a 1.25" front baffle... it just feels much more solid than the CB-5, despite having a slightly smaller cabinet overall. I think the B4 is also of a little higher build quality than the C-50.

3. CB-5 vs. RC-Mini (xover at 120Hz, RC-Mini 3dB lower)
This was a much tougher call than I anticipated. The overall fuller sound of the CB-5 almost made it preferable for me...but I still picked up on a bit of harshness in the tweeter at times. I didn't get this from the RC-Mini, BUT, the highs weren't necessarily more laid back, just smoother. Also, like the B4, the RC-Mini had a more forward, detailed midrange than the CB-5.

I actually think the RC-Mini sounds a little bit bright, especially since it seems so lean in the upper bass/lower mids... Still, it's a bit more refined than the CB-5, IMO... and for that reason I'd say I prefer the Mini... although not by as much as I expected I would.

Build between these has already been discussed in this thread... I'd say the RC-Mini has the best build quality of the four...besting the Image B4 by a little. If you haven't gathered, the CB-5 easily ranks last when it comes to build quality.


At some point, I'll compare the Image B4 and RC-Mini, xover at 120Hz.


Keep in mind, these are all just my opinions... your ears may not have the same preferences, or hear the same things...
That's all for now.

[callas01]

Originally Posted by alphaiii

Interesting...

I did an A/B comparison between the C-50's and CB-5's yesterday (in my home) and think they sound very different from one another.

CB-5's sounded more forward in the mids/highs... especially the mids though. Vocals and guitars jumped out much more in the CB-5's, and seemed clearer to my ears.

The C-50's just sounded recessed in the mids to me... a little muffled sounding.

I have no side by side comparison, and the closest I can get to a direct comparison is the CF-50s on a Denon 1911 and my C-300s on a Sony 920.

I have listened to the same music on both, as the Denon and Sony share a similar tone, its somewhat comparable. However I think the C-300s are better musically, and the CF-50s are a little better with HT.

Neither speaker IMO is the most articulate, however I think they both provide a decent amount of detail at their price points.

I have paired my C-300s up with a new TT and honestly they have increased in their musical nature. I do like the more laidback sound, and don't think they are muffled, I don't want a speaker screaming at me. I don't think the CF-50s scream at me either tho.

[alphaiii]

Originally Posted by callas01

I have no side by side comparison, and the closest I can get to a direct comparison is the CF-50s on a Denon 1911 and my C-300s on a Sony 920.

I have listened to the same music on both, as the Denon and Sony share a similar tone, its somewhat comparable. However I think the C-300s are better musically, and the CF-50s are a little better with HT.

Neither speaker IMO is the most articulate, however I think they both provide a decent amount of detail at their price points.

I have paired my C-300s up with a new TT and honestly they have increased in their musical nature. I do like the more laidback sound, and don't think they are muffled, I don't want a speaker screaming at me. I don't think the CF-50s scream at me either tho.

Speaking only for the CB-5 and C-50... since I haven't compared any others (and the only other C-series I've heard is the C-100), I agree neither is a detailed, articulate speaker...

Just seemed to me the CB-5 pushed the mids/high forward compared to the C-50, which gives the impression of a cleaner midrange over the C-50. By comparison, the C-50 seems recessed in the mids...

I didn't find the CB-5 to be bright or screaming at me either... just not so laid back like the C-50...

At their price points, I agree that they perform pretty well...

[callas01]

Originally Posted by alphaiii

Speaking only for the CB-5 and C-50... since I haven't compared any others (and the only other C-series I've heard is the C-100), I agree neither is a detailed, articulate speaker...

Just seemed to me the CB-5 pushed the mids/high forward compared to the C-50, which gives the impression of a cleaner midrange over the C-50. By comparison, the C-50 seems recessed in the mids...

I didn't find the CB-5 to be bright or screaming at me either... just not so laid back like the C-50...

At their price points, I agree that they perform pretty well...

see I think the mid-range is pushed more on the older C series, and the highs slightly more on the new C series. Giving the New series a slight edge to HT, and the older C series a slight edge to music. JMO. However the Tone of the speakers are that typical Energy sound.

[BigAl87]

CB-Series tones down with time as oppsed to the C-Series seemed to open up a bit wit tome and Break-in is not a Myth as some peopl seem to think.

I suggest to Break in the CB-5 another good 95 hours and do the same comparaison. The CB-5 will remain slightly brighter overall but the difference should not be as significant.

It's obvious if if you pay great attention, I mean in my Rainmakers it was night and day difference.

[alphaiii]

Originally Posted by callas01

see I think the mid-range is pushed more on the older C series, and the highs slightly more on the new C series. Giving the New series a slight edge to HT, and the older C series a slight edge to music. JMO. However the Tone of the speakers are that typical Energy sound.

Just goes to show we all hear things a little differently.

Another possibility is that they CB-5 is more sensitive enough that by not level matching, the mids were louder, and therefore seemed more forward.

Rated in-room sensitivity for C-50 is 88db (anechoic is 85dB), while CB-5 is 89dB (anechoic not given)...

If those numbers are off it could make the CB-5 seem more forward, when in reality it's just louder relative to the C-50.

Maybe I should break out the SPL meter and put some time into another, proper, comparison.

[alphaiii]

Originally Posted by BigAl87

CB-Series tones down with time as oppsed to the C-Series seemed to open up a bit wit tome and Break-in is not a Myth as some peopl seem to think.

I suggest to Break in the CB-5 another good 95 hours and do the same comparaison. The CB-5 will remain slightly brighter overall but the difference should not be as significant.

It's obvious if if you pay great attention, I mean in my Rainmakers it was night and day difference.

Again, it's a highly debated topic... so to each their own.

However, to keep the playing field even... I could put some time on the CB-5's and compare again... level matched of course.

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by alphaiii

Again, it's a highly debated topic... so to each their own.

However, to keep the playing field even... I could put some time on the CB-5's and compare again... level matched of course.

I did compare numerous times at FS from the time CF came out and had them compared with the RC and trust me they now sound much closer but still brighter. In the begining they were as bright as Polk TSI and now not so close to the TSI anymore.

You can say debatable but honestly the Rainmakers were not coherent and barely had no mids in the begining.

You could feel the stiffness in the Midbass driver, and you would have notice yourself I swear.

[-DLS-]

Originally Posted by BigAl87

I did compare numerous times at FS from the time CF came out and had them compared with the RC and trust me they now sound much closer but still brighter but they almost sounded as bright. In the bigining they were as bright as Polk TSI and now not so close to the TSI anymore.

You can say debateble but honestly the Rainmakers were not coherent and barely had no mids in the begining.

You could feel the stiffness in the Midbass driver, and you would have notice yourself I swear.

I've also compared the CF's to the RC's and a leftover pair of Polk Monitor 40's at the store. I was actually at the store the very first day they put the CF's on the floor so right out the box they didn't sound much better than the Polks. The RC's were a huge difference to me though. Months later the Polks were gone and the CF's did sound a bit better from what I remember but still couldn't compare side by side. I still think the RC's are way up there compared to the older C-series and the CF's. Even though I'm not too into the laid back sound I really love the RC's and I wish I had the room upstairs for some. The prices lately are tough to beat and if I was in the U.S. the Marantz SR7002 on clearance with the RC's would be a high performance budget system! Still waiting for the new Vetritas but I doubt they will beat the price to performance of the RC's.

My local stores room isn't that great but it is 10 times better than any Futureshop I've been to.. I would never judge a speaker auditioned at that place and I think it would be hard for me to notice any break-in of speakers there. What's good about FS and thhe only way I would compare speakers from them is to take them home for 30 days.

[Cmiller44]

What would you guys pay for these?..just the Energy..not the receiver..

http://saltlakecity.craigslist.org/ele/2000723091.html