Good evening, sir!
A month ago I went to a store to get the hs5's and I tested them side by side with the 7's. Both sounded great, detailed and fast responding, but I loved the 7's more, not because of the extended range, but mainly because the vocals sounded flatter than the 5's which have a dip around the 4khz. I kept them for about 10 days and returned them just to get the 5's and the only reason for this is that you approve them as a descent pair of monitors! (I do trust my ears, but I trust yours even more, and if that's a speaker you could comfortably mix on, then that's the one I'd get as well :-) )

Now, I know you haven't heard the 7's but I remember you preferring the 5's a bit more over the 50's. Though both of them hype the 800 - 1100hz, the 50's don't adopt the 4k dip, which makes them flatter. So what is the reason for which you prefer the 5's more than the 50's. Is it because it sounds even less fatiguing, or is it something regarding the transient response?

Ott responded on 10/03/2018

I never look at frequency plots or THD specs: I fire 'em up and if they work they work.

The HS5s sound better to me than the 50s but not in any way I could specifically identify. They just sounded 'better'.

Manufacturer specs are of limited use, in that your room acoustics are going to exert way more influence over how the speaker output reaches your ears than a dB either way of 4kHz on a graph.

My main speakers are Yamaha NS10s powered by a Bryston 4B SST amplifier, but I listen on them for, at most, 10% of the time. For the other 90% of the time I listen on a cheap, shitty Sony radio cassette I bought in 1997 for £75, connected via RCA phonos on the back which are so worn out I have to wedge cardboard between them to make them work.

I recommend the HS5s because they represent astonishing value for money and come as a self-contained package which is attainable for just about anyone who is in the market for some studio monitors.

1000 characters remaining