CBM-170 SEs A Bit Hot (To Me)

[jumamai]

Hi guys/gals,

I just got my CBM-170 SEs, and the treble, to me, is a bit hot. I have pretty sensitive high frequency hearing. I'm curious if burn in will lessen the hotness of the tweeter, or if I should be looking at a speaker with a more laid back tweeter/high frequency response.

[davef]

Hi guys/gals,

I just got my CBM-170 SEs, and the treble, to me, is a bit hot. I have pretty sensitive high frequency hearing. I'm curious if burn in will lessen the hotness of the tweeter, or if I should be looking at a speaker with a more laid back tweeter/high frequency response.

Hi Jumamai,

The 170's are extremely neutral speakers, but neutral (flat) can often be perceived as being bright depending on what you are used to listening to. What speakers were you using before the 170's? Also, are you using any auto-EQ with your receiver? What source material are you listening to? CD's or digital files?

Thanks in advance!

[jumamai]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for responding. I've only had Logitech Z-5500s before, for home theater. They're very compressed, so it's a big change for sure. I am used to neutral listening, though. I have a pair of AKG K271 MKII and the originals that I have used for a long time, as well as Ultimate Ears Super.fi 5 Pros. I love both of them, so I definitely wanted a good neutral speaker for bookshelves.

It could partly be recordings/the material I'm listening to. I'm listening to digital files, and some movies on cable so far. I haven't had a ton of time to give them a thorough listen.

On toe in, what would you recommend? I'm wondering if I need to toe them in more or less than what I have.

I love the sound stage, and the awesome separation of instruments. It just seems that the tweeters kick out more sound at lower volumes than the woofers, which would make sense, since the woofers most likely require more power. I tend to listen at lower volumes more often than not, as background music.

[Mag_Neato]

Source material has the most influence on what you hear.

I love my Sierra-2's. On average to well-recorded material they are incredible. They expose poor recordings without mercy. I decided to play some Sinatra via Tidal in Hi-Fi resolution. I found the highs from the horns to be piercing and actually unpleasant even when played through the vaunted RAAL tweeter. Seems like they are exaggerated.

On the other hand, experiencing a truly neutral speaker for the first time can take some getting accustomed to.

[MusicHead]

Hi Dave,

It just seems that the tweeters kick out more sound at lower volumes than the woofers, which would make sense, since the woofers most likely require more power. I tend to listen at lower volumes more often than not, as background music.

Dave is the expert here, but I don't think the frequency response of the speakers would change much with the listening level. I'd say that what is happening has to do with our ears Frequency and Loudness response. At low level our earing is more sensitive to mid-highs, from 2kHz to 5kHz or so (remember the "loudness" button on the old stereo amps to compensate for that? :D) and since the CMB-170s are most likely flatter in that mid-high range compared to your old speakers, you get the impression they are "brighter" at low listening levels.

[davef]

Dave is the expert here, but I don't think the frequency response of the speakers would change much with the listening level. I'd say that what is happening has to do with our ears Frequency and Loudness response. At low level our earing is more sensitive to mid-highs, from 2kHz to 5kHz or so (remember the "loudness" button on the old stereo amps to compensate for that? :D) and since the CMB-170s are most likely flatter in that mid-high range compared to your old speakers, you get the impression they are "brighter" at low listening levels.

100% Correct...

Jumamai, the frequency response of the 170's (or any of our speakers for the matter) will not change at even the lowest of volumes compared to as loud as the speaker is capable of playing up to the onset of mechanical limitations. This is so often misunderstood -- what does change at different volume levels is your hearing. This phenomenon was documented back in the 1930's and is called the Fletcher-Munson curves. It is more commonly known as equal-loudness contours. Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour

At lower volume levels, we hear less lower mids and bass. As volume increases, our hearing starts to flatten out such that we hear a more balanced response. This varies from person to person and can also change over time as our hearing changes, but we all experience it. To compensate for this, many (most) small speakers are designed with an exaggerated midbass "bump" to make the speakers sound warmer. Of course, this isn't an accurate or neutral response, but it can be more appealing.

The better option is to enable equal-loudness compensation in your receiver. Many receivers now have what is called Dolby Volume or Audyssey Dynamic EQ. These are advanced versions of that old "loudness" button most receivers used to have many years ago to compensate for this effect. These are more advanced than the old "loudness" button as these technologies actually change the compensation curve depending on the volume level so a listener will sense a more balanced response throughout the volume range. If your receiver has one of these options, try enabling it.

This approach is far more suitable than a speaker that has a boosted response, as you can't actually change the response of the speaker.

Audio purists generally prefer to hear things the way they were recorded, with no compensation/EQ -- and the more we listen this way, the more we become accustomed to it as it is also the same way we hear things in real life. There really is no right or wrong, it is all about what we personally prefer, however, in my experience -- once someone gets used to audio purity (no compensation, no eq, neutral speakers) - there is no turning back from this.

Hope this makes sense

[jumamai]

100% Correct...

Jumamai, the frequency response of the 170's (or any of our speakers for the matter) will not change at even the lowest of volumes compared to as loud as the speaker is capable of playing up to the onset of mechanical limitations. This is so often misunderstood -- what does change at different volume levels is your hearing. This phenomenon was documented back in the 1930's and is called the Fletcher-Munson curves. It is more commonly known as equal-loudness contours. Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour

At lower volume levels, we hear less lower mids and bass. As volume increases, our hearing starts to flatten out such that we hear a more balanced response. This varies from person to person and can also change over time as our hearing changes, but we all experience it. To compensate for this, many (most) small speakers are designed with an exaggerated midbass "bump" to make the speakers sound warmer. Of course, this isn't an accurate or neutral response, but it can be more appealing.

The better option is to enable equal-loudness compensation in your receiver. Many receivers now have what is called Dolby Volume or Audyssey Dynamic EQ. These are advanced versions of that old "loudness" button most receivers used to have many years ago to compensate for this effect. These are more advanced than the old "loudness" button as these technologies actually change the compensation curve depending on the volume level so a listener will sense a more balanced response throughout the volume range. If your receiver has one of these options, try enabling it.

This approach is far more suitable than a speaker that has a boosted response, as you can't actually change the response of the speaker.

Audio purists generally prefer to hear things the way they were recorded, with no compensation/EQ -- and the more we listen this way, the more we become accustomed to it as it is also the same way we hear things in real life. There really is no right or wrong, it is all about what we personally prefer, however, in my experience -- once someone gets used to audio purity (no compensation, no eq, neutral speakers) - there is no turning back from this.

Hope this makes sense

Very informative, thanks!

[N Boros]

The better option is to enable equal-loudness compensation in your receiver. Many receivers now have what is called Dolby Volume or Audyssey Dynamic EQ. These are advanced versions of that old "loudness" button most receivers used to have many years ago to compensate for this effect. These are more advanced than the old "loudness" button as these technologies actually change the compensation curve depending on the volume level so a listener will sense a more balanced response throughout the volume range. If your receiver has one of these options, try enabling

I think it is just the Dynamic EQ that does this. The Dynamic Volume equalizes the volume across all sources, which is good, but also compresses the dynamics. It is sort of like Dolby's late night mode, which is only really helpful if you are worried about waking up someone in the next room late at night. Fortunately, there are settings to dictate how aggressive the dynamic compression is. I am really excited about trying out Dynamic EQ since I don't listen to things anywhere near reference levels, so having this feature help make it more linear to my ears, sounds very appealing to me.

[davef]

I think it is just the Dynamic EQ that does this. The Dynamic Volume equalizes the volume across all sources, which is good, but also compresses the dynamics. It is sort of like Dolby's late night mode, which is only really helpful if you are worried about waking up someone in the next room late at night. Fortunately, there are settings to dictate how aggressive the dynamic compression is. I am really excited about trying out Dynamic EQ since I don't listen to things anywhere near reference levels, so having this feature help make it more linear to my ears, sounds very appealing to me.

You are correct, but I was mentioning Dolby Volume -- not Audyssey Dynamic Volume :) Dolby Volume is actually a better implementation than Dynamic EQ. Dolby is a different company altogether and you would likely have either Dynamic EQ or Dolby Volume, not both. Dolby licensing is expensive so I would guess that products with Dolby Volume would be more $$$

Excellent article worth reading: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-volume-data-sheet.pdf

I'm not sure which receivers or processors offer this, but I have heard very good things about it.

[N Boros]

You are correct, but I was mentioning Dolby Volume -- not Audyssey Dynamic Volume :) Dolby Volume is actually a better implementation than Dynamic EQ. Dolby is a different company altogether and you would likely have either Dynamic EQ or Dolby Volume, not both. Dolby licensing is expensive so I would guess that products with Dolby Volume would be more $$$

Excellent article worth reading: http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-volume-data-sheet.pdf

I'm not sure which receivers or processors offer this, but I have heard very good things about it.

I guess I thought I read Dynamic Volume because it you mentioned Dynamic EQ and the two often come together and look similar in spelling. :) I'll have to look into Dolby Volume. I have never heard do it.