Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › A Bundle of Extreme Musical Happiness -- A Review of the Swans M200 MKIII
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Bundle of Extreme Musical Happiness -- A Review of the Swans M200 MKIII - Page 4

post #46 of 64

I am not directing this post at anybody in particular, but I feel as though too many people on forums are not specific enough about their recommendations and are blindly listing equipment they believe sound good.

 

It is imperative to focus in on what exactly someone's needs are.

 

Will you be listening on the computer or on an iPod?  Studio mixing or musicality?  Neutral or warm?  The questions span on, and on...

I've heard monitors in the $1000 price range that sound excellent at doing what they do best, which is to produce the signal as precise and clean as possible for mixing purposes, but then turn around and sound like complete garbage with music playing through them.  Sure, they might be technically superior to many loudspeakers out there, but it does not simply equate to listening pleasure.  Although this is not true with all monitors, they are true for many and I have heard my fair share to sufficiently support and voice this opinion.  

Since we are on the topic about the Swans MKIII, they sound better than many "true" monitors in the same price range in regards to pure musicality and enjoyment.  They are detailed, yet forgiving.  The bass is warm without being dry and blends well with the rest of the frequencies.  The midrange, although it is not their strongest strength, is good enough to create a convincing sound stage.

Am I saying the Swans MKIII knock out all the competition in every way?  Absolutely not.  However, they represent a great value and do not simply let the amplification or the price tag fool you.  Although those factors play a role in the sound quality a loudspeaker produces, it is hardly a solid indication of real sound quality.  Trust your ears first.  The Swans do what they intend to do, which is to play music, movies, and video games incredibly well.  

post #47 of 64

Talk about schizophrenia.  In the first sentence the suggestion is that people should refrain from recommending components that they feel sound good.  But then the rest of the post is about how this particular person feels about one type of speaker vs. another type, and about the Swans.

 

I'll tell you what's ridiculous.  Ridiculous is telling people that a speaker is "detailed, yet forgiving", that "the bass is warm without being dry" and that it "blends well".  These are all subjective feelings, constrained even further by the signal content, listening room, listening position, and personal tastes.  Is this of any fundamental objective use and meaning?  No.  "Dry bass", for example, could mean a hundred different things to different people.  If you want to be taken seriously, you're gonna have to dispense with the voodoo and the religious talk.

 

I have made no claims on how warm the bass is, or how "revealing" the treble can be.  Instead I have told you of technologies and system design choices that improve on the ability of a speaker system to reproduce the input signal accurately and precisely.  Bringing up all that other garbage is a red-herring.

 

Once again, if the primary objective is the accurate and precise reproduction of the input signal, it doesn't matter whether the speaker is reproducing the sounds of video games, a DVD movie or a vinyl record.  The speakers don't know whether you are mixing, mastering, messing up at Donkey Kong or simply sleeping in front of it.  This idea that a speaker is accurate for mixing, but inaccurate for listening is an artifact of marketing and of the imagination.


Edited by Mauricio - 3/19/12 at 4:39am
post #48 of 64

I'm sorry if my post offended you.  I don't think there is much objectivity at all in audio and sound reproduction.  It's pretty much all subjective.  How should I go about describing a certain sound I hear?  If you have a better way for describing a way a certain speaker sounds over internet text, please enlighten me.  I am trying my best to convey how the MKIII sound to people who have never heard the system.  What does voodoo and religious talk have to do with anything I said?  That is completely out of scope.  I think you take this too seriously, seeing you make a connection about religion and audio in your signature as well.  I didn't mean to spark any sort of supernatural debate.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauricio View Post

Talk about schizophrenia.  In the first sentence the suggestion is that people should refrain from recommending components that they feel sound good.  But then the rest of the post is about how this particular person feels about one type of speaker vs. another type, and about the Swans.

 

I'll tell you what's ridiculous.  Ridiculous is telling people that a speaker is "detailed, yet forgiving", that "the bass is warm without being dry" and that it "blends well".  These are all subjective feelings, constrained even further by the signal content, listening room, listening position, and personal tastes.  Is this of any fundamental objective use and meaning?  No.  "Dry bass", for example, could mean a hundred different things to different people.  If you want to be taken seriously, you're gonna have to dispense with the voodoo and the religious talk.

 

I have made no claims on how warm the bass is, or how "revealing" the treble can be.  Instead I have told you of technologies and system design choices that improve on the ability of a speaker system to reproduce the input signal accurately and precisely.  Bringing up all that other garbage is a red-herring.

 

Once again, if the primary objective is the accurate and precise reproduction of the input signal, it doesn't matter whether the speaker is reproducing the sounds of video games, a DVD movie or a vinyl record.  The speakers don't know whether you are mixing, mastering, messing up at Donkey Kong or simply sleeping in front of it.  This idea that a speaker is accurate for mixing, but inaccurate for listening is an artifact of marketing and of the imagination.



 

post #49 of 64

No worries.  Let's move on...

post #50 of 64

did anyone switch their speaker cable to something else? I can't seem to find other options for that type of connection. Oh yeah, to whomever still interested in a good dac/amp to pair with the MKIII, the tubedac-11 is sounding way too good. Not to mention the flacs and high quality movies, i'm actually enjoying videos on youtube.

post #51 of 64

I bought my M200 MKIII around Christmas time.  I listened to the Yamaha HS50M's, M Audio BX5A's and Adam Audio A5X.  Of those, I liked the Yamaha's the best but wasn't totally blown away.  I decided to take a chance and order the the Swans, without hearing them.  I'm 100% glad I did.  Absolutely love the Swans.  As others have mentioned, they are detailed yet forgiving.  Aggressive but not harsh.  I was going to buy a sub at a later date, but after listening, it's not needed.  Bass is ample for me as is.  The only downside:  I like the Swans so much that I don't like to listen to my headphones anymore.  I will say: To be fair to the other speakers I tested, Guitar Center isn't the best sounding place to critically listen.

post #52 of 64

that is what happened to me too haha, i sold all my headphones after acquiring the Swans MKIII
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBuck View Post

I bought my M200 MKIII around Christmas time.  I listened to the Yamaha HS50M's, M Audio BX5A's and Adam Audio A5X.  Of those, I liked the Yamaha's the best but wasn't totally blown away.  I decided to take a chance and order the the Swans, without hearing them.  I'm 100% glad I did.  Absolutely love the Swans.  As others have mentioned, they are detailed yet forgiving.  Aggressive but not harsh.  I was going to buy a sub at a later date, but after listening, it's not needed.  Bass is ample for me as is.  The only downside:  I like the Swans so much that I don't like to listen to my headphones anymore.  I will say: To be fair to the other speakers I tested, Guitar Center isn't the best sounding place to critically listen.



 

post #53 of 64

Hi, sorry that i have to revive this thread but need some opinions for my1st desktop speaker system. I'm trying to decide between the MK2 & MK3 and really like to know how they compare. From what I gathered, the MK3 is nearly double in cost compared to the MK2. Apart from better build and and electronics that I've read here, I would really appreciate if anyone can compare them solely on SQ. Many thanks.

post #54 of 64

I've never heard the MK2 but I do own the MK3. I've had them for about a year and am absolutely in love with these. Very efficient, and is very accurate to my ears. The bass is never overly heavy but present. Midrange tends to be very warm and soothing. The high's are never harsh or painful to listen to but are still detailed. I can easily listen to it for long periods of time without fatiguing. I don't hear any distortion at higher volume but the amp is so strong, I don't even need to go past half way.

These were my first desktop speakers and they were the best investment I've made. They were built very strong and with good parts. The reason I was drawn to this was the design and the fact that it was so talked about in many reviews. Knowing that the m3 have more power, I knew that I was going to be wondering what I was missing if I went with the m2. I say save up a little more for the good stuff and you won't regret it. I've been happy with the speakers ever since I got em and am trying to get the same sound for my car as well. 

post #55 of 64

A bit sidetracking, but if you really want the best sound, you should probably go the passive + amp route. You can snag a Cambridge S30 + that cheap Lepai Tripath for about $250. 

post #56 of 64

Hi icecreamxd thanks for the feedback. Too late for the MKiii as I've decided and took a shot with the MKii. Cost to performance ratio after couple of days of researching doesn't adds up for the extra outlay and there are those who actually prefer the MKii to the MKiii and it could be case of personal preference.So far, the MKii does mirrors what you have described with MKiii and it's probably a more refine MKii. On a side note, as I normally listen at a moderate volume, the sales guy actually recommended the MKii as the difference will not be too far off with the way I'll be using it unless I do intend to push it harder. My pair is still fresh out of the box and will let it burn in for a couple of days and see how it work out. Will post back again when I have more time with them.

 

@ tzjin, thanks for chipping in. Have thought of the S30/Emotiva Mini plus cablings and the cost will adds up not forgetting it will also take up more table space. My decision was to spend less for now and take my time to save up for a more mid end system for my living room. Cheers. 


Edited by Leo888 - 7/28/12 at 10:48am
post #57 of 64

@Leo - How do you like MKii after the burn-in period? I am considering MKii over MKiii for similar reasons as you described, but haven't made up my mind yet. I will probably also think about buying a dac later.


Edited by aarg - 8/11/12 at 8:24pm
post #58 of 64

Hi aarg, I think I'm quite happy with the MKii up till this point of time after putting in about 100 hours on them. It has a rather smooth and laid back sound signature but sound stage is a little narrow but with very good depth and a very focus midrange. Clarity and transparency is good with good source file but lesser quality file also sounds pleasing as the sound signature does helps to smooth out the edginess but has a graininess to the midrange. Overall transient is good and has the ability to maintain good speed and attack with faster tracks. I actually would have liked it to have a little more bite on the highs and will be trying out some IC to see if it helps. As always, this is my personal take on the MKii and it just falls into what I wanted for my usage and YMMV depending on your usage and preference. Just for your reference, I'm running the Swans with my Laptop>F2K>Wasapi>Wireworld Starlight USB Cable>Fiio E7/E9>Mogami 2549 IC>RCA line out>MKii and I have also custom built a copper power cord which replaces the one that comes bundled with the speakers. Hope this helps.
 


Edited by Leo888 - 8/13/12 at 8:37am
post #59 of 64

what DAC or USB sound card would you suggest for T200B? I am running with my Thinkpad directly...

post #60 of 64

Hey guys,

I had a quick question about these types of monitors (2.0) since i am in the market to buying one currently. Do these setups need a subwoofer? The reason I'm asking is because I see in the tech specs that the frequency cutoff is 53Hz (for the Swans). Am I just worrying for no reason or not? The subs costs as much as the monitors themselves which is something I need to take into consideration when making my purchase. FYI My computer setup is in a fairly small room, maybe I won't need that much power.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › A Bundle of Extreme Musical Happiness -- A Review of the Swans M200 MKIII