A while back, I made the mistake of comparing my old Polk TSi100 bookshelf speakers against much more expensive speakers. Somehow, my cheap speakers won. Now it's time for round two.
In that first test, I preferred the Polk TSi100 speakers. So did everyone else who listened blind. Naturally, that made audiophiles angry. The main criticism was that I was using bookshelf speakers as near field computer speakers, and that I should be comparing them to proper studio monitors instead.
So that is exactly what I did.
I brought in over $15,000 worth of studio monitors, from cheaper options all the way up to $6,000 speakers. I also used expensive DACs so nobody could blame the test on a cheap switcher or bad signal path. I listened for weeks, moved speakers into different rooms, tested at different distances, measured them, tried EQ, added room correction, used mono, tested one speaker at a time, and then brought in other people for blind comparisons.
The first thing I learned is that speaker placement and room interaction are everything. On my desk, the Neumann monitors sounded incredible. Everyone picked them as the favorite in that near field setup. The bass was tight, smooth, and surprisingly deep for their size. I immediately started looking for used pairs online because I thought I had finally found the upgrade I had been looking for.
But then I moved the speakers downstairs into a larger room, and everything changed. The Neumann monitors, Focal monitors, and JBL monitors all started sounding much more similar than I expected. The bass response changed completely. The speakers I thought I understood in one room became totally different speakers in another.
That was the biggest lesson of the whole test: the room can matter more than the speaker.
The other shock was that my old Polk TSi100 speakers won again in the larger room. Without a subwoofer, without special EQ, and without any fancy setup, everyone picked the Polk TSi100 speakers over the expensive studio monitors. I do not think the Polk TSi100 speakers are technically better than something like the Neumann monitors. I’m sure the Neumann monitors are more accurate, better built, and more capable. But in that room, with that placement, the Polk TSi100 speakers simply sounded more enjoyable.
This is where things get frustrating. Once you add EQ, room correction, and a subwoofer, everything changes again. With something like a WiiM Amp Pro, EQ software, Room EQ Wizard, and a basic subwoofer, I can make my old cheap speakers sound better to me than far more expensive speakers running flat. That makes comparing speakers almost impossible, because with enough correction, you can radically change how any of them sound.
The biggest surprise recommendation from the test was the JBL monitors. They are affordable, powered, have far more bass than I expected, and sounded shockingly good compared to speakers costing many times more. If someone wants a simple desktop speaker setup today, that is probably where I would start.
But the bigger point is this: I went into this test ready to spend thousands of dollars to upgrade my office audio. After weeks of testing, I came away realizing that once a speaker is good enough, the room, placement, EQ, and subwoofer matter more than I ever expected.
I still do not fully understand why my 15 year old Polk TSi100 speakers keep winning these tests, and that is why I am not done. I have already bought more expensive modern Polk bookshelf speakers to see if I can find that same sound in something people can actually buy today.
This article only covers the main things I learned. The full video at the top of this post goes much deeper into the tests, the speaker comparisons, the blind reactions, and the absurdity of this whole process, so watch the full video if you want the complete story.
No comments yet