dudlew
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2002
- Posts
- 1,158
- Likes
- 152
Ok lets start this with the associated gear:
Amp: Marantz SR4300 reciever
Source: M-Audio Audiophile 2496 on PC through windows media player (no enhancements such as eqs etc.)
Cables: Cheap@$$ rca 6 ft interconnect cables joined to Ecosse The Conducter 3ft interconnects via couplers(horrible i know). Cable Talk Talk 3.1 (made into non biwired version. Speakers were not biwireable at the time).
Now when I first got the Monitor Audios I saw them as a big boost over the Missions......... Let me state this now, I was wrong.
After listening to snippets of songs from Train, Dave Matthews, Outkast,Jamie Cullem and John Mayer, I can say that the Monitor Audios are better, but not by as much as I thought.
I cued up Train's 'Drops of Jupiter' from the Drops of Jupiter album and listened to the intro straight into about two thirds of the song. The first thing that is noticed is that the MAs sound bigger, with a more extended extremes. The MA tweeter, and the larger woofer coming inot play here. I dont hear any great deal of straining on the part of the speakers, and i am playing pretty loud. The midrange is there, it sounds just a touch recessed. and the midbass region sounds a tad boomy. This slight boominess makes the sound sound just a touch muddy. But generally, the overall sound is good.
The Missions are then put on and the sound is smaller than the MAs and as stated earlier, the extremes are not as extended either way, but the catcher is the midrange, which sounded a more upfront and present, with as much detail as the MAs, and without the boominess hence without the slight muddiness as well. It also held its own quite well in the bass department, sounding lightweight but not essentially lacking on this track. The important parts are all there. To choose from the two is tough, but on this song, I might just prefer the Missions because of the slighlty better midrange. the sins of ommission are forgivable.
Onto Outkast, and Andre 3000's track 'Behold A Lady' and it is obvious from the get go that the MAs own this over the Missions. Its on a track like this that the extra extension of the MAs are essential, and because of its simplicity in the mids, there is no issue of muddiness. The Missions hold their own well, but lose out on this one.
Onto Dave Matthews Band's 'Gravedigger Acoustic' on the end of the Some Devil CD, and here is where things are close but not so close. The MAs again sound bigger, and seems to place the instruments quite well. I can hear that Dave seems to be strumming his guitar and its sound is jsut below his voice, and the strings are placed behind and just a bit to the right of Dave. As the strings increase in volume or crescendo, its as if there is a little reverb coming off of the walls and the higher frequencies of the strings seem to spread left a bit. The guitar sounded dry as I believe that it was intended, no big set of reverb or such. The Missions cant keep up in terms of the image or the spread, and seems a bit flatter in the image depth and height. i believe that because this song does not have the sought of midbass that the Train song had, the Midbass hump in the MAs was not there.
Overall, in my view, the Monitor Audios win, having better bass extension and a bit more energy, and a more detailed midrange to go with it. The midrange is good but seems just a little recessed. The Missions match the detail of the MAs in the mids in my opinion and sounded almost as energetic because of the more upfront nature of the mids. the mids also sounded just a touch more natural on the Missions.
I don,t call this conclusive by any means, as i am in the process of upgrading the cables, and also am looking at either purchasing or building some taller stands, as I found both the MAs and the Missions sounded better to my ears raised to about three feet at the bottom of the speakers. I dont know if its the stands that are just all crap or if the extra height is really a good aid.
One observation I made was that putting some foam inside of the ports of the MAs got rid of the boom, but it also depleted some of the richness of the lower mids. It sounded clearer for sure and allowed the detail to equal or just slightly surpass that of the Missions and also made the mids sound a bit more upfront as the the bass was now recessed a bit. But generally I think I prefer the sound without the ports blocked. I believe that my room is also crap as its close to square on the floor, and because of is size does not allow much placement options. also there aint much on the wall. I hope that I will have a little more space soon and can see what I can do with the room in terms of some light dampening.
I also would like to try the internal dac of the reciever and see if its any better than the one in my sound card. All of this listening was done without my sub as well.
As I get the other stuff, like cables and possibly the stand, I will update this thread.
I will say this: At less than $100 I think that the Missions are a steal, and if you are looking for good sound on a tight budget as long as you are not looking for a big bass, they are highly recommended by me.
Another thing I would say is this: I dont agree with spending most of your budget on speakers anymore. The sound quality of speakers has reached the point that budget speakers can show up budget ancillaries. I honestly feel that if you get a good $500 speaker, you may need to spend that in amplification to get the best out of it, not to mention the source. The advent of speakers such as the Missions M3 and M7 lines, B&W 300 and 600 series, Monitor Audio Bronze series ( All of which I have heard at least one of the line ) all represent excellent value and improvements in the electronics will show improvement in the sound. I owned the B&W DM601 S1s and when I moved from a Pioneer A35R to my Adcoms, the difference was enormous; more welly, more dynamics, more realsim, better bass and treble extension, better everything. These speakers new are what $500 US? My amplification new is almost double this? And they werent out classed by the amps at all. I got better speakers in the NHTs, ( I am a bit of a bass head, so this was the major reason for the upgrade, but the overall balance was better with the NHTs as well) but I also believe that improvements in my current amplification will see improvement in the sound of my speakers.
This is the end of my long post. Hope I didnt bore you to death!
D
Amp: Marantz SR4300 reciever
Source: M-Audio Audiophile 2496 on PC through windows media player (no enhancements such as eqs etc.)
Cables: Cheap@$$ rca 6 ft interconnect cables joined to Ecosse The Conducter 3ft interconnects via couplers(horrible i know). Cable Talk Talk 3.1 (made into non biwired version. Speakers were not biwireable at the time).
Now when I first got the Monitor Audios I saw them as a big boost over the Missions......... Let me state this now, I was wrong.
After listening to snippets of songs from Train, Dave Matthews, Outkast,Jamie Cullem and John Mayer, I can say that the Monitor Audios are better, but not by as much as I thought.
I cued up Train's 'Drops of Jupiter' from the Drops of Jupiter album and listened to the intro straight into about two thirds of the song. The first thing that is noticed is that the MAs sound bigger, with a more extended extremes. The MA tweeter, and the larger woofer coming inot play here. I dont hear any great deal of straining on the part of the speakers, and i am playing pretty loud. The midrange is there, it sounds just a touch recessed. and the midbass region sounds a tad boomy. This slight boominess makes the sound sound just a touch muddy. But generally, the overall sound is good.
The Missions are then put on and the sound is smaller than the MAs and as stated earlier, the extremes are not as extended either way, but the catcher is the midrange, which sounded a more upfront and present, with as much detail as the MAs, and without the boominess hence without the slight muddiness as well. It also held its own quite well in the bass department, sounding lightweight but not essentially lacking on this track. The important parts are all there. To choose from the two is tough, but on this song, I might just prefer the Missions because of the slighlty better midrange. the sins of ommission are forgivable.
Onto Outkast, and Andre 3000's track 'Behold A Lady' and it is obvious from the get go that the MAs own this over the Missions. Its on a track like this that the extra extension of the MAs are essential, and because of its simplicity in the mids, there is no issue of muddiness. The Missions hold their own well, but lose out on this one.
Onto Dave Matthews Band's 'Gravedigger Acoustic' on the end of the Some Devil CD, and here is where things are close but not so close. The MAs again sound bigger, and seems to place the instruments quite well. I can hear that Dave seems to be strumming his guitar and its sound is jsut below his voice, and the strings are placed behind and just a bit to the right of Dave. As the strings increase in volume or crescendo, its as if there is a little reverb coming off of the walls and the higher frequencies of the strings seem to spread left a bit. The guitar sounded dry as I believe that it was intended, no big set of reverb or such. The Missions cant keep up in terms of the image or the spread, and seems a bit flatter in the image depth and height. i believe that because this song does not have the sought of midbass that the Train song had, the Midbass hump in the MAs was not there.
Overall, in my view, the Monitor Audios win, having better bass extension and a bit more energy, and a more detailed midrange to go with it. The midrange is good but seems just a little recessed. The Missions match the detail of the MAs in the mids in my opinion and sounded almost as energetic because of the more upfront nature of the mids. the mids also sounded just a touch more natural on the Missions.
I don,t call this conclusive by any means, as i am in the process of upgrading the cables, and also am looking at either purchasing or building some taller stands, as I found both the MAs and the Missions sounded better to my ears raised to about three feet at the bottom of the speakers. I dont know if its the stands that are just all crap or if the extra height is really a good aid.
One observation I made was that putting some foam inside of the ports of the MAs got rid of the boom, but it also depleted some of the richness of the lower mids. It sounded clearer for sure and allowed the detail to equal or just slightly surpass that of the Missions and also made the mids sound a bit more upfront as the the bass was now recessed a bit. But generally I think I prefer the sound without the ports blocked. I believe that my room is also crap as its close to square on the floor, and because of is size does not allow much placement options. also there aint much on the wall. I hope that I will have a little more space soon and can see what I can do with the room in terms of some light dampening.
I also would like to try the internal dac of the reciever and see if its any better than the one in my sound card. All of this listening was done without my sub as well.
As I get the other stuff, like cables and possibly the stand, I will update this thread.
I will say this: At less than $100 I think that the Missions are a steal, and if you are looking for good sound on a tight budget as long as you are not looking for a big bass, they are highly recommended by me.
Another thing I would say is this: I dont agree with spending most of your budget on speakers anymore. The sound quality of speakers has reached the point that budget speakers can show up budget ancillaries. I honestly feel that if you get a good $500 speaker, you may need to spend that in amplification to get the best out of it, not to mention the source. The advent of speakers such as the Missions M3 and M7 lines, B&W 300 and 600 series, Monitor Audio Bronze series ( All of which I have heard at least one of the line ) all represent excellent value and improvements in the electronics will show improvement in the sound. I owned the B&W DM601 S1s and when I moved from a Pioneer A35R to my Adcoms, the difference was enormous; more welly, more dynamics, more realsim, better bass and treble extension, better everything. These speakers new are what $500 US? My amplification new is almost double this? And they werent out classed by the amps at all. I got better speakers in the NHTs, ( I am a bit of a bass head, so this was the major reason for the upgrade, but the overall balance was better with the NHTs as well) but I also believe that improvements in my current amplification will see improvement in the sound of my speakers.
This is the end of my long post. Hope I didnt bore you to death!
D
