The Official Energy Speakers Thread

[tang7969]

Ok so I won 1 RC-50 that had a minor ding on the top back corner of the cabinet. I paid $129.00 shipped. I am now going to buy a new one from Vanns for $280. I think I have a nice upgrade hear over my Polks! What does everyone think? What center channel should I get? The CC-10 or the RC mini? Thanks,Tim

[callas01]

Originally Posted by tang7969

Ok so I won 1 RC-50 that had a minor ding on the top back corner of the cabinet. I paid $129.00 shipped. I am now going to buy a new one from Vanns for $280. I think I have a nice upgrade hear over my Polks! What does everyone think? What center channel should I get? The CC-10 or the RC mini? Thanks,Tim

congrats, the RC-50s will be a nice upgrade over the polks, they will have more resolution and detail. Overall better performance.

I personally would rather have the CC-10 if you cannot find a RC-LCR. It may have a little less detail then the RC-mini, but it will have more umph and a larger soundstage, plus the crossover used will be able to be closer to that of the RC-50s.

[Blu Balls]

Originally Posted by callas01

You need to keep the PS3 in Linear PCM, the older PS3 Fat version cannot bitstream DD THD or dts HDMA, it can only convert and send LPCM,

I have the old fat 60GB PS3. My Q is... If it can't bitstream why did they put the option in settings? That's just stupid. So I guess if I want to decode these formats I need to buy a stand alone player or a PS3 Slim?

[callas01]

Originally Posted by Blu Balls

I have the old fat 60GB PS3. My Q is... If it can't bitstream why did they put the option in settings? That's just stupid. So I guess if I want to decode these formats I need to buy a stand alone player or a PS3 Slim?

yep... you would need a different player.... in all honesty tho, there is no difference in LPCM and bitstreaming dts HD MA, they are the same thing. An audio track on a movie that has DD THD or dts HDMA, if your player sends it to the receiver, the receiver is converting it to LPCM and outputing it to analog so you can hear it, its just the reciever says on the display dts HD/DD HD. If the source(PS3 Fat, Slim or SA BDP) converts it and sends it to the receiver then your receiver displays LPCM(or multi-channel PCM, same difference).

Either way its the same audio track.

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by callas01

your right.... it is a 6 db/octave crossover they use.. my bad... I had to look at their site again... good thing I don't design speakers... I just buy them

anyways, I was just giving you $h!t

lol No hard feelings

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by callas01

There is no way that a speaker that sells for $199 on sale and is built for probably $100 will be able to produce detail of a speaker that retails for $1600 and cost $1050 to manufacture.

While you're probably right in many cases, I'm still going to have to disagree with that statement for several reasons. High-end speakers sell in far fewer quantities and they're more likely manufactured in western countries where labor costs are far higher. That drives up their cost geometrically. That doesn't necessarily make them better speakers. (It doesn't necessarily not make them better speakers either.)

Look at Blu-ray players. Just a few years ago, you couldn't buy a player under $1000. Now there are players out there for $99. This is only possible because of large scale manufacturing in countries with low labor costs. And today's players are better in every respect (PQ, AQ and functionality) than those that sold for $1K (except perhaps for build quality).

Just look at "esoteric" cable to see how much high-end companies will mark up low-cost products.

Speakers need to be judged by how they sound, not by how much they cost. I've been listening to a lot of high-end speakers lately and part of the issue may be that my hearing isn't what it was decades ago, but so far, I haven't found anything that sounds substantially better than my ancient DCM Time Windows. What I mostly hear are either speakers that are boring and dull or speakers that are brittle and metallic sounding that grate on my ears.

As for low-level listening, back in the hi-fi days, receivers and preamps used to include a "loudness compensation" switch. This would increase both low and high frequencies when listening at low levels. It would gradually roll-off as you increased the level. But I don't think many of today's receivers include this design concept anymore. Just as TV calibrators set up different profiles for daytime and nighttime, receivers should enable you to set up different EQ profiles for different listening types. Note that when you go into setup mode on modern receivers, the tones/noise generated is incredibly high level.

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

While you're probably right in many cases, I'm still going to have to disagree with that statement for several reasons. High-end speakers sell in far fewer quantities and they're more likely manufactured in western countries where labor costs are far higher. That drives up their cost geometrically. That doesn't necessarily make them better speakers. (It doesn't necessarily not make them better speakers either.)

Look at Blu-ray players. Just a few years ago, you couldn't buy a player under $1000. Now there are players out there for $99. This is only possible because of large scale manufacturing in countries with low labor costs. And today's players are better in every respect (PQ, AQ and functionality) than those that sold for $1K (except perhaps for build quality).

Just look at "esoteric" cable to see how much high-end companies will mark up low-cost products.

Speakers need to be judged by how they sound, not by how much they cost. I've been listening to a lot of high-end speakers lately and part of the issue may be that my hearing isn't what it was decades ago, but so far, I haven't found anything that sounds substantially better than my ancient DCM Time Windows. What I mostly hear are either speakers that are boring and dull or speakers that are brittle and metallic sounding that grate on my ears.

As for low-level listening, back in the hi-fi days, receivers and preamps used to include a "loudness compensation" switch. This would increase both low and high frequencies when listening at low levels. It would gradually roll-off as you increased the level. But I don't think many of today's receivers include this design concept anymore. Just as TV calibrators set up different profiles for daytime and nighttime, receivers should enable you to set up different EQ profiles for different listening types. Note that when you go into setup mode on modern receivers, the tones/noise generated is incredibly high level.

While I partialy agree with this statement a lot of high end stuff is produced in China now also and what Callas was comparing was really Apples to Oranges, When you talk about built quality is also true about the built quality of all the components use in manufacturing a speaker or amplifier, But you will notice that he mentionned the energy Veritas which is mass produced in China and still sells around 3.5K a pair, Arcam is a british manufacturer that make 3K integrated amps but manufactured in China, they also have to follow the trend this would have to sell at 6K if they did not follow the trend, altho Naim choose to reduce markups and manufacture in England. We understand but comaparing a Pioneer 520K to an Arcam AVR500 costing 10 times the price is just wishfull thinking, I think that was his point.

I mean not everything is all black or white but you are both right also and it all makes sense.

I will ask you this question now Have you audition some Dynaudio, Totem, Dali, speakers lately? Try those on Arcam or Naim and let us know what you think. Also FYI the Arcam BDP is 1500$ and is made is China.

I'm sure your DCM Time Window speakers are still way up there. I will keep my Totems for a long time.

[tang7969]

Originally Posted by callas01

congrats, the RC-50s will be a nice upgrade over the polks, they will have more resolution and detail. Overall better performance.

I personally would rather have the CC-10 if you cannot find a RC-LCR. It may have a little less detail then the RC-mini, but it will have more umph and a larger soundstage, plus the crossover used will be able to be closer to that of the RC-50s.

It is ok to go with the cc-10 even though the woofer is 5.5" and the RC-50 is 6.5". Thank you,Tim

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by tang7969

It is ok to go with the cc-10 even though the woofer is 5.5" and the RC-50 is 6.5". Thank you,Tim

Yes that would work even the LCR does not have 6.5 inch drivers. Callas and I have use the C-C100 (dual 5.5) in the bast with our Respective C-300 and C-500 wich both had 6.5" dirvers and was doing really well with them.

As Callas mentionned if you could find a RC-LCR, that would be the possible match with RC-50.

BTW Congrats on the RC-50 really noce upgrade over the Monitor, that is for sure.

[aces high]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

While you're probably right in many cases, I'm still going to have to disagree with that statement for several reasons. High-end speakers sell in far fewer quantities and they're more likely manufactured in western countries where labor costs are far higher. That drives up their cost geometrically. That doesn't necessarily make them better speakers. (It doesn't necessarily not make them better speakers either.)

Look at Blu-ray players. Just a few years ago, you couldn't buy a player under $1000. Now there are players out there for $99. This is only possible because of large scale manufacturing in countries with low labor costs. And today's players are better in every respect (PQ, AQ and functionality) than those that sold for $1K (except perhaps for build quality).

Just look at "esoteric" cable to see how much high-end companies will mark up low-cost products.

Speakers need to be judged by how they sound, not by how much they cost. I've been listening to a lot of high-end speakers lately and part of the issue may be that my hearing isn't what it was decades ago, but so far, I haven't found anything that sounds substantially better than my ancient DCM Time Windows. What I mostly hear are either speakers that are boring and dull or speakers that are brittle and metallic sounding that grate on my ears.

As for low-level listening, back in the hi-fi days, receivers and preamps used to include a "loudness compensation" switch. This would increase both low and high frequencies when listening at low levels. It would gradually roll-off as you increased the level. But I don't think many of today's receivers include this design concept anymore. Just as TV calibrators set up different profiles for daytime and nighttime, receivers should enable you to set up different EQ profiles for different listening types. Note that when you go into setup mode on modern receivers, the tones/noise generated is incredibly high level.

Actually a lot of modern receivers have low levels listening modes, that's what THX Loudness Plus or Audyessy Dynamic EQ are.

[PaulWog]

Originally Posted by callas01

Two things Paul.

First Components. Youre Pio 520 cannot produce all the detail of a reciever/integrated amp/pre-processor that cost 2, 3, 4 or 10 times the amount of your reciever. You are partially limited by the source and power components that your speakers are connected to. So if you want more low level detail you will need a receiver or Integrated amp that can produce low level detail with precision. I think you will need to look at something like Marantz, NAD, Cambridge Audio or Integra, all receivers that are more musical and have better components and power ratings.

Secondly, you are limited to what your speakers can produce in terms of detail, accuracy and realism. I love Energy speakers, but you will not get the detail of say Focal, Revels or Wilson Audio speakers, or even the Veritas line. There is no way that a speaker that sells for $199 on sale and is built for probably $100 will be able to produce detail of a speaker that retails for $1600 and cost $1050 to manufacture.

I get very good low level listening details, however once I upgrade my receiver, it will get better yet. So take all that into account as well.

For the price of the Energy, Paradigm, PSB speakers that are "entry level" you get a good amount of detail and accuracy.

I'm saying it based on my receiver powering CF-30's, the 1019 powering CF-50's, and also I did manage to demo the CF-50's with an expensive receiver at Futureshop. I'm not saying that they aren't good for the price, but one always has to point out their shortcomings, or just facts about them. I would honestly have to say this is a limitation of the speaker, listening to it (certain sounds literally sound about 20% the level they should be, while everything else is 100% what it should be at the sound level... then you raise the sound level and those details raise to 80-100% of what they should be, while everything else is 100% what it should be). I directly was comparing the RC-Minis to them for a little contrast last night to look it over again (I know the RC-Minis will obviously be better for low levels of sound). Using EQ and night-time modes simply distorts the sound (it gives the illusion of a tad bit more detail, but those details still remain hidden just as much... or they move up to a higher pitch sound that doesn't sound right).

The one thing I should point out is that one would be insane (I think) to purchase a very expensive receiver for the sole purpose of powering budget speakers. It makes sense to rate budget speakers on an equally budget (or mid-range) receiver, rather than getting a super high end receiver to power budget stuff :P Just saying.

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by PaulWog

I'm saying it based on my receiver powering CF-30's, the 1019 powering CF-50's, and also I did manage to demo the CF-50's with an expensive receiver at Futureshop. I'm not saying that they aren't good for the price, but one always has to point out their shortcomings, or just facts about them. I would honestly have to say this is a limitation of the speaker, listening to it (certain sounds literally sound about 20% the level they should be, while everything else is 100% what it should be at the sound level... then you raise the sound level and those details raise to 80-100% of what they should be, while everything else is 100% what it should be). I directly was comparing the RC-Minis to them for a little contrast last night to look it over again (I know the RC-Minis will obviously be better for low levels of sound). Using EQ and night-time modes simply distorts the sound (it gives the illusion of a tad bit more detail, but those details still remain hidden just as much... or they move up to a higher pitch sound that doesn't sound right).

The one thing I should point out is that one would be insane (I think) to purchase a very expensive receiver for the sole purpose of powering budget speakers. It makes sense to rate budget speakers on an equally budget (or mid-range) receiver, rather than getting a super high end receiver to power budget stuff :P Just saying.

I agree, Paul we are all basically trying to say the same thing but it's difficult to really say everything that comes to mind but driving CF with an Arcam AVR500 would defeat the purpose of buying CF-30 speaker altho CF-30 will benefit from a bit better persay and felt the same way as you do when I auditionned them. As I mentionned before the 520 is just fine driving the CF-30 and it perform admirably well for it's price point.

We all went trough the upgraditis and we just want to point out facts that if you wish to upgrade many things come into play, source is one of them.

[callas01]

Originally Posted by PaulWog

I'm saying it based on my receiver powering CF-30's, the 1019 powering CF-50's, and also I did manage to demo the CF-50's with an expensive receiver at Futureshop. I'm not saying that they aren't good for the price, but one always has to point out their shortcomings, or just facts about them. I would honestly have to say this is a limitation of the speaker, listening to it (certain sounds literally sound about 20% the level they should be, while everything else is 100% what it should be at the sound level... then you raise the sound level and those details raise to 80-100% of what they should be, while everything else is 100% what it should be). I directly was comparing the RC-Minis to them for a little contrast last night to look it over again (I know the RC-Minis will obviously be better for low levels of sound). Using EQ and night-time modes simply distorts the sound (it gives the illusion of a tad bit more detail, but those details still remain hidden just as much... or they move up to a higher pitch sound that doesn't sound right).

The one thing I should point out is that one would be insane (I think) to purchase a very expensive receiver for the sole purpose of powering budget speakers. It makes sense to rate budget speakers on an equally budget (or mid-range) receiver, rather than getting a super high end receiver to power budget stuff :P Just saying.

typically you want you equipment to be 75% of the cost of your speakers. So your CF-50s and CC-10 cost $1000 you should buy a $750 receiver, however some speakers like Energy, PSB, and Paradigm or Kef, get more from them with the addition of a power amp also, which will help with low level listening

[PaulWog]

Originally Posted by BigAl87

I agree, Paul we are all basically trying to say the same thing but it's difficult to really say everything that comes to mind but driving CF with an Arcam AVR500 would defeat the purpose of buying CF-30 speaker altho CF-30 will benefit from a bit better persay and felt the same way as you do when I auditionned them. As I mentionned before the 520 is just fine driving the CF-30 and it perform admirably well for it's price point.

We all went trough the upgraditis and we just want to point out facts that if you wish to upgrade many things come into play, source is one of them.

Gotchya.

[Blu Balls]

I have been trying to tweak my cf50's and cc10 with my vsx 1120. I ran mcacc and everything seemed to work but, I can only adjust the sound with the EQ to the static noise. Is there anyway you can adjust the sound to music or a movie? That would be alot easier to judge the sound that I am looking for. Right now they sound a bit weak to me and a bit trebley. I am looking for a more full and rich sound. I have only had them hooked up for a day but, I am wondering how much better they will sound, if at all, once the break in time has passed. I'm not saying they're bad but they don't sound quite as full as I expected. Any suggestions?

[callas01]

Originally Posted by Blu Balls

I have been trying to tweak my cf50's and cc10 with my vsx 1120. I ran mcacc and everything seemed to work but, I can only adjust the sound with the EQ to the static noise. Is there anyway you can adjust the sound to music or a movie? That would be alot easier to judge the sound that I am looking for. Right now they sound a bit weak to me and a bit trebley. I am looking for a more full and rich sound. I have only had them hooked up for a day but, I am wondering how much better they will sound, if at all, once the break in time has passed. I'm not saying they're bad but they don't sound quite as full as I expected. Any suggestions?

be right back.... Ill answer your questions.

How long have you had the speakers and receiver?

[callas01]

Originally Posted by Blu Balls

I have been trying to tweak my cf50's and cc10 with my vsx 1120. I ran mcacc and everything seemed to work but, I can only adjust the sound with the EQ to the static noise. Is there anyway you can adjust the sound to music or a movie? That would be alot easier to judge the sound that I am looking for. Right now they sound a bit weak to me and a bit trebley. I am looking for a more full and rich sound. I have only had them hooked up for a day but, I am wondering how much better they will sound, if at all, once the break in time has passed. I'm not saying they're bad but they don't sound quite as full as I expected. Any suggestions?

Energy speakers do need to break in. They usually take about 50 hrs, as they do the CFs seem to tone down and become a little warmer sounding. Now the Pioneer receivers do sound trebley IMO, that is part of their signature sound. I think that a fuller and rich sound would be found from Marantz, Onkyos new line so think the 608/708, and even Harman.

speaker and receiver pairing is important to have the sound that you really are looking for. Too often 10 people on this site buy something and love it, and they gang up and push something on someone.... and I have to admit, I do it too. The best thing is that you listen to several receiver on your speakers at the dealer or at Best Buy. Unfortunatly Best Buy doesn't have Onkyo anymore in their stores, but I think that would be a sound that you might like, as the newer ones sound more like Integras, but also look at the Marantz 5005.

I don't know if you can return or exchange the receiver, but if you can, do your research quickly.

[PaulWog]

Around December 26th or 27th I will have the VSX-1119-K Pioneer receiver paired up with CF-50's, a CC-10, and CF-30's in 5.1

That's about as close as I can get to your system (using the VSX-1120-K and CF-50's).

Although I don't know if I can be of any help, I will try to let you know about what settings I've used to achieve the best possible sound.

I don't know how significant the break-in period is, but I felt like the sound got softer/smoother after breaking the CF-30's in. The bass seemed to get a little nicer as well. But I don't know if that's just my head playing tricks on me. But I thought I'd mention that.

Right now I'm using the VSX-520-K, and everything sounds proper with no EQ at all (just the proper source). I set all my speakers to 5ft listening distance mode, and everything has worked out nicely.

It's odd that you're noticing a trebley sound. Are you certain you don't have any setting like Pioneer's +treble set above 0? Because I know I've had that on by accident before, and it can separate the tweeters from the rest of the sound making it sound awful.

[edit]: On the pioneer receiver, I've fiddled with large vs. small settings. I'd have to say that the CF speakers are best set to "large", and that you set your subwoofer to "plus" rather than "yes". It overall sounds better and fuller in my opinion.

[Blu Balls]

I'm not sure about the settings. I have been going through the on screen set up and I have set the speakers to large originally and now have them at small with 80hz. I am going to read the manual again tomorrow. There is alot of stuff in the mcacc options that I don't understand. I don't have a sub hooked up yet but, I feel the speakers should sound richer then they do. I have the speaker set at 11 ft. maybe I should tinker with that some more. The most annoying part is trying to adjust the EQ to a solid noise of static, like when you have snow on the tv. Is that the only way you can adjust the sound settings? I am unable to run my DVD and Wii through it either. I get a picture but, it's black and white with weird lines and shit and no sound. I appreciate all the help you guys give me. Hopefully I can work this out before my return period is up. I originally baught a Denon AVR 791 but, returned it because it didn't have preouts. I can't afford an amp right now but, I wanted to have the option of getting one later. Maybe I should try the Denon again?

[callas01]

Originally Posted by Blu Balls

I'm not sure about the settings. I have been going through the on screen set up and I have set the speakers to large originally and now have them at small with 80hz. I am going to read the manual again tomorrow. There is alot of stuff in the mcacc options that I don't understand. I don't have a sub hooked up yet but, I feel the speakers should sound richer then they do. I have the speaker set at 11 ft. maybe I should tinker with that some more. The most annoying part is trying to adjust the EQ to a solid noise of static, like when you have snow on the tv. Is that the only way you can adjust the sound settings? I am unable to run my DVD and Wii through it either. I get a picture but, it's black and white with weird lines and shit and no sound. I appreciate all the help you guys give me. Hopefully I can work this out before my return period is up. I originally baught a Denon AVR 791 but, returned it because it didn't have preouts. I can't afford an amp right now but, I wanted to have the option of getting one later. Maybe I should try the Denon again?

since you do not have a subwoofer, you need to set up your speakers to Large, that way they play the full range of sound, and set the Sub option to NO/NONE, the LFE channel that would be your sub will go to the front speakers.

Speaker and receiver combinations will generate their own sound. Personally, I'd suggest either the Onkyo 708 or Marantz 5005, based on the fact that you want a richer sound.

MCACC should provide EQ settings based on room parameters and seating positions much like Audyessy does with Onkyo and Marantz. I have never owned or seen the Pioneers setup menus so I can't help you there, perhaps ask your questions in the Pioneer Owners Thread to see if they can offer you some support of making adjustments. I am thinking however that with the MCACC engaged its tougher to make EQ adjustments because the software has made those adjustments for you. But there should be a way to override the settings.

Also, with the current line of CF/CC/CB connoisuers, it has been widely felt that the highs start out a little pitchy and then tone down as the mid-range frequencies start to open up, I suggest that you keep the speakers playing at low volume overnight so they can breakin quicker and you can determine what you really think of the Pioneer/Energy combo