Carlo_M
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 1997
- Messages
- 13,392
MB Quart QLS-1030 vs. Energy C6 Shootout
Last Monday night was “Speaker Shootout Night” at my apartment. In one corner were my five-year old Energy C6 (from the previous Energy Connoisseur line) and in the other corner were my new MB Quart QLS-1030 speakers.
Click here for background info on MB Quart.
A Personal Note: I actually buy from Yawa in-store, since they are local to me. I was in the market for a new receiver and when I got there, David and Bill showed me the new line they were carrying (you guessed it, MB Quart). They were hooked up to the receiver line I was going to audition (NAD). I had my trusty test CDs with me and put the bookshelf models to the test. In a nutshell, I was so impressed I asked about the towers. They offered to let me take home a pair for trial and comparison, with my C6s, in my apartment, with my equipment, and my source material. Since I’m on good terms with them, if I was unhappy I could return the speakers with no strings attached.
Suffice it to say, the 1030s staying at my house. I have my own opinions of them, but I wanted to hear what my friends thought – they have no attachment to Yawa and are music and movie lovers, though not necessarily HT aficionados or audiophiles – I guess enthusiast, or just simply fans, might be a better descriptor. I wanted their opinions to see if I wasn’t just deluding myself in hearing differences between the two, and just to see what their preferences were. I asked each to bring some demo material we could listen to, and Monday night was when we all had free. By then I had broken in the 1030s with about three weeks of pretty heavy use (4-6 hours a day solid, music, movies and TV – I left the sleep timer on when I went to work, leaving 2 CDs to play for 2 hours while I wasn’t home).
Pre-Test and Testing Protocols & Equipment:
DISCLAIMER! – I am not a professional double-blind tester, this is simply me and my friends trying to give each speaker a fair evaluation in relation to each other. The following is our attempt at remaining unbiased, I apologize in advance if faults in our testing method are obvious to those who are better at this than we are!
First off, I was careful to try and minimize any biases with the reviewers. I told them I wanted their honest opinion and comparison, that I was auditioning speakers and comparing them to my old C6s, and that if for any reason I was unhappy I could return them with no penalty. I did not inform them of any specifications or reviews for either speaker line (though they all had been exposed to some degree to the C6s for movies in the past at my house, we generally didn’t do critical music listening on them).
Pre-shootout (night before) I did level matching comparisons with the Radio Shack Analog SPL Meter. I found that the 1030s were about 3db louder than the C6s at the same wattage (I guess maybe more efficient? They are rated at 4ohms rather than 8ohms for the C6s). So I knew that when I had the listeners I would have to adjust the volume +3db for the C6s in order to make a level playing field (trying to reduce the “louder is better” phenomenon).
My equipment is an NAD T762 receiver (yes I pulled the trigger on that too!), I used AR 14-gauge speaker wires, both pairs 8 feet long, both pairs terminated with pins (supplied with the wires, installed by me), both pairs from the same spool, both broken-in for approximately 50 hours. Both sets of speakers were connected via the top set of binding posts (both are biwirable but were not for this test) and I used the standard gold-plated connectors supplied with each speaker to connect the two sets of binding posts. Connected via analog inputs to the T762 was my Sony CDP-CE535 5-disc CD changer (1 foot 75ohm, gold plated RCA cables). Everything was “flatlined” – there was no use of tone controls (defeated) or DSP processing of any kind. I do own a subwoofer but it was not used in this test, as I wanted the full range of the main speakers to be evaluated, so the full range of sound was sent directly to the test speakers (sub set to Off in the receiver setup).
Both sets of speakers were set up about 10 feet from the listeners, 1.5 feet from all walls, in standard stereo configuration. I had an MBQ/Energy MBQ/Energy configuration so as to not give one speaker the edge by being the “outside pair.” All were equidistant from the listener and toed-in towards the listening area.
Prior to A/B’ing, I warned the listeners that this would be a single-blind test, that they should refrain from trying to identify the speakers and just concentrate on the sound they heard. I would be playing a passage (1-2 mins) from each selection and playing the exact same passage again on the second pair. I would be mixing up which pair went first, and maybe even throw in a curve of playing the same speaker twice just to see if they were actually listening or already had a predetermined idea of what each speaker should sound like (they actually laughed at this but I was serious). I would go back and forth after giving each pair a chance to play the material if they needed further listening for comparison. I was the only one who knew which speakers were “Speaker 1” and “Speaker 2” for each test, and these I alternated randomly, and level matched accordingly (+3db for the Energys).
Test/Comparison Material
(CDs were used for the comparisons, no DVD-A or SACD material)
Dire Straits: Brothers in Arms (remastered CD, circa 2000)
Dave Matthews Band: Before These Crowded Streets
Pink Floyd: Wish You Were Here (Shine On Box Set version)
Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon (Shine On Box Set version)
Norah Jones: Come Away with Me (Redbook layer of SACD)
Exotica (some latin CD that "K" brought, I'm not familiar with it, I'll update the CD info when I hear back from him)
The Empire Strikes Back: Special Edition Soundtrack (2 disc version)
Natalie Merchant: Tigerlilly
Yo-Yo Ma: Simply Baroque
Smashing Pumpkins: Siamese Dream
Testing, Results & Comments
There were three reviewers, referred to as “M”, “K” and “H” for purposes of this post. I took comments from them after listening to each passage of music (about 1-2 minutes) on both speakers. On several occasions I replayed both speakers because one or more listeners was unfamiliar with the source material, but on the whole they were familiar with most of the music before testing.
Note: I am summarizing, as they had more in-depth comments which I can reprint later if someone so desires. Also I am paraphrasing as they did NOT know which speakers were which (I added the names in myself), as the stereo imaging was that good for both pairs, it sounded like the music was coming from “the front” and not from one pair or the other. Admittedly though they could tell towards the end which was which, even when I switched them around in order. So for purposes of their comments I’m adding in the names “MBQ” or “Energy” even though they didn’t use the names since they didn’t know which one was which. Gathering their comments though, they were surprisingly consistent with their comments for each speaker line.
“M” preferred Energy on most tracks because the bass was a little heavier. He noted that the mids and highs were not as pronounced as they were on the MB Quarts, and the separation was better for the MBQs. But he likes bass and the bass on the Energy was more “there”, more present. But on things like the violins, cellos and vocals, he felt the MBQs sounded better.
[editor’s note: I believe that the C6 had more “mid-bass” presence, but did not go as low as the 1030s did. The 1030s had more of that “chesty” bass, the kind that you feel in your chest, as well as hear. Reviewer “M” is an admitted “basshead” who admitted that the mid-bass presence was the only category that the Energy excelled in, and since that is his area of preference...however, at louder volumes (85db and higher), he did prefer the 1030s as the low-bass presence really made itself known, and the C6s really seemed to bottom out, getting boomy rather than bass-y...go figure]
“H” & “K” both preferred the sound of the MBQs. They thought that the mids and highs were superior on virtually every track we tested, whether it was rock, classical or everything in between. “K” mentioned that while the bass seemed to be louder on some passages of rock music, it was kind of “boomy” and not well defined. He liked the lower bass extension of the MBQs rather than the boominess in the “Mid-Bass” (his word) range for the Energys. They used phrases like “not even close” when describing the mid & high frequency performance of the MBQs when listening to the Yo-Yo Ma and female vocalists like Norah and Natalie. They, as was “M”, were able to pick out the Energy and MBQ speakers after a few trials, after listening to both pairs, based on their different tonal characteristics.
I’ll post my thoughts later in this thread, as I didn’t have time to do my own write-up.
[EDITED for spelling & grammar]
Last Monday night was “Speaker Shootout Night” at my apartment. In one corner were my five-year old Energy C6 (from the previous Energy Connoisseur line) and in the other corner were my new MB Quart QLS-1030 speakers.
Click here for background info on MB Quart.
A Personal Note: I actually buy from Yawa in-store, since they are local to me. I was in the market for a new receiver and when I got there, David and Bill showed me the new line they were carrying (you guessed it, MB Quart). They were hooked up to the receiver line I was going to audition (NAD). I had my trusty test CDs with me and put the bookshelf models to the test. In a nutshell, I was so impressed I asked about the towers. They offered to let me take home a pair for trial and comparison, with my C6s, in my apartment, with my equipment, and my source material. Since I’m on good terms with them, if I was unhappy I could return the speakers with no strings attached.
Suffice it to say, the 1030s staying at my house. I have my own opinions of them, but I wanted to hear what my friends thought – they have no attachment to Yawa and are music and movie lovers, though not necessarily HT aficionados or audiophiles – I guess enthusiast, or just simply fans, might be a better descriptor. I wanted their opinions to see if I wasn’t just deluding myself in hearing differences between the two, and just to see what their preferences were. I asked each to bring some demo material we could listen to, and Monday night was when we all had free. By then I had broken in the 1030s with about three weeks of pretty heavy use (4-6 hours a day solid, music, movies and TV – I left the sleep timer on when I went to work, leaving 2 CDs to play for 2 hours while I wasn’t home).
Pre-Test and Testing Protocols & Equipment:
DISCLAIMER! – I am not a professional double-blind tester, this is simply me and my friends trying to give each speaker a fair evaluation in relation to each other. The following is our attempt at remaining unbiased, I apologize in advance if faults in our testing method are obvious to those who are better at this than we are!
First off, I was careful to try and minimize any biases with the reviewers. I told them I wanted their honest opinion and comparison, that I was auditioning speakers and comparing them to my old C6s, and that if for any reason I was unhappy I could return them with no penalty. I did not inform them of any specifications or reviews for either speaker line (though they all had been exposed to some degree to the C6s for movies in the past at my house, we generally didn’t do critical music listening on them).
Pre-shootout (night before) I did level matching comparisons with the Radio Shack Analog SPL Meter. I found that the 1030s were about 3db louder than the C6s at the same wattage (I guess maybe more efficient? They are rated at 4ohms rather than 8ohms for the C6s). So I knew that when I had the listeners I would have to adjust the volume +3db for the C6s in order to make a level playing field (trying to reduce the “louder is better” phenomenon).
My equipment is an NAD T762 receiver (yes I pulled the trigger on that too!), I used AR 14-gauge speaker wires, both pairs 8 feet long, both pairs terminated with pins (supplied with the wires, installed by me), both pairs from the same spool, both broken-in for approximately 50 hours. Both sets of speakers were connected via the top set of binding posts (both are biwirable but were not for this test) and I used the standard gold-plated connectors supplied with each speaker to connect the two sets of binding posts. Connected via analog inputs to the T762 was my Sony CDP-CE535 5-disc CD changer (1 foot 75ohm, gold plated RCA cables). Everything was “flatlined” – there was no use of tone controls (defeated) or DSP processing of any kind. I do own a subwoofer but it was not used in this test, as I wanted the full range of the main speakers to be evaluated, so the full range of sound was sent directly to the test speakers (sub set to Off in the receiver setup).
Both sets of speakers were set up about 10 feet from the listeners, 1.5 feet from all walls, in standard stereo configuration. I had an MBQ/Energy MBQ/Energy configuration so as to not give one speaker the edge by being the “outside pair.” All were equidistant from the listener and toed-in towards the listening area.
Prior to A/B’ing, I warned the listeners that this would be a single-blind test, that they should refrain from trying to identify the speakers and just concentrate on the sound they heard. I would be playing a passage (1-2 mins) from each selection and playing the exact same passage again on the second pair. I would be mixing up which pair went first, and maybe even throw in a curve of playing the same speaker twice just to see if they were actually listening or already had a predetermined idea of what each speaker should sound like (they actually laughed at this but I was serious). I would go back and forth after giving each pair a chance to play the material if they needed further listening for comparison. I was the only one who knew which speakers were “Speaker 1” and “Speaker 2” for each test, and these I alternated randomly, and level matched accordingly (+3db for the Energys).
Test/Comparison Material
(CDs were used for the comparisons, no DVD-A or SACD material)
Dire Straits: Brothers in Arms (remastered CD, circa 2000)
Dave Matthews Band: Before These Crowded Streets
Pink Floyd: Wish You Were Here (Shine On Box Set version)
Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon (Shine On Box Set version)
Norah Jones: Come Away with Me (Redbook layer of SACD)
Exotica (some latin CD that "K" brought, I'm not familiar with it, I'll update the CD info when I hear back from him)
The Empire Strikes Back: Special Edition Soundtrack (2 disc version)
Natalie Merchant: Tigerlilly
Yo-Yo Ma: Simply Baroque
Smashing Pumpkins: Siamese Dream
Testing, Results & Comments
There were three reviewers, referred to as “M”, “K” and “H” for purposes of this post. I took comments from them after listening to each passage of music (about 1-2 minutes) on both speakers. On several occasions I replayed both speakers because one or more listeners was unfamiliar with the source material, but on the whole they were familiar with most of the music before testing.
Note: I am summarizing, as they had more in-depth comments which I can reprint later if someone so desires. Also I am paraphrasing as they did NOT know which speakers were which (I added the names in myself), as the stereo imaging was that good for both pairs, it sounded like the music was coming from “the front” and not from one pair or the other. Admittedly though they could tell towards the end which was which, even when I switched them around in order. So for purposes of their comments I’m adding in the names “MBQ” or “Energy” even though they didn’t use the names since they didn’t know which one was which. Gathering their comments though, they were surprisingly consistent with their comments for each speaker line.
“M” preferred Energy on most tracks because the bass was a little heavier. He noted that the mids and highs were not as pronounced as they were on the MB Quarts, and the separation was better for the MBQs. But he likes bass and the bass on the Energy was more “there”, more present. But on things like the violins, cellos and vocals, he felt the MBQs sounded better.
[editor’s note: I believe that the C6 had more “mid-bass” presence, but did not go as low as the 1030s did. The 1030s had more of that “chesty” bass, the kind that you feel in your chest, as well as hear. Reviewer “M” is an admitted “basshead” who admitted that the mid-bass presence was the only category that the Energy excelled in, and since that is his area of preference...however, at louder volumes (85db and higher), he did prefer the 1030s as the low-bass presence really made itself known, and the C6s really seemed to bottom out, getting boomy rather than bass-y...go figure]
“H” & “K” both preferred the sound of the MBQs. They thought that the mids and highs were superior on virtually every track we tested, whether it was rock, classical or everything in between. “K” mentioned that while the bass seemed to be louder on some passages of rock music, it was kind of “boomy” and not well defined. He liked the lower bass extension of the MBQs rather than the boominess in the “Mid-Bass” (his word) range for the Energys. They used phrases like “not even close” when describing the mid & high frequency performance of the MBQs when listening to the Yo-Yo Ma and female vocalists like Norah and Natalie. They, as was “M”, were able to pick out the Energy and MBQ speakers after a few trials, after listening to both pairs, based on their different tonal characteristics.
I’ll post my thoughts later in this thread, as I didn’t have time to do my own write-up.
[EDITED for spelling & grammar]
