1. Home
  2. speakers
  3. 1278120634

Thoughts on Usher S-520's...upgrade?

Hello all.

First let me say that I'm fairly new to the hi-fi world (about 5 years now) and have so far centered on "budget hi-fi".

I love monitors (and they fit in my office where I do most of my listening) so a few years ago I did my research and bought some Usher 520's (before the price hike) based off the glowing reviews (professional and user). I added an Outlaw LFM-1 Compact to fill out the low end (I'm not a huge bass head; the Outlaw's volume is halfway and the crossover is right at 60 where the Ushers start to drop off) and it integrates well I feel with the 520's.

Well I've loved this combo for years now (I am running it off of a Cambridge azur 640a v2 amp and DAC Magic with lossless files from my computer) and have left it alone since it is certainly "good enough", if not great sounding to me.

But...sooner or later upgradeitus hits us all right? Or, if not that, just curiosity at what other monitors might sound like and if I'd prefer them over my 520's, since, after all, these are the only "real" pair of speakers I've ever owned.

So my question is what the general consensus is of the Usher S 520's here, especially compared to more expensive speakers. Is it worth it to go up to $500 to $700 ish (new msrp anyway) monitors? Will it be enough of a step up in SQ to justify the cost (remember I got the 520's for $330 shipped)? Or do the Usher's lack in some criteria that I can't really hear since I've never compared them to other good monitors in their price range or higher? I will say that I love their neutrality and transparency, detail and accuracy (I don't like "warm" or "natural" sound), but it seems that they are a little lifeless or flat as well, maybe even a little recessed in the mids (voices can be a little distant it seems).

So, short version, is there something in the next tier of monitors that will have much of the Usher 520 SS (accuracy, transparency, revealing, detail, neutrality, tight/taut bass, etc.) while adding maybe some excitement or energy? Perhaps also go lower in the bass region so I can listen to them without a sub without them sounding as lean as the 520's do without my sub. I'd like an all-rounder since I listen to much of everything, although I mostly listen to rock (all decades and genres), synth pop, and singer/songwriter. I also would need speakers that sound good a lower volumes (I mostly listen at mid volumes) although can crank too (the 520's seem to do this).

Thanks for any input, so far I've got a list of about 20 monitors to look at, but that's fun to do and I take a long time looking and considering before I buy anything!
pw_09
pw_09 OP
12 posts
 
I know Timrhu, I didn't mean to imply he didn't.

And yes, you never know until you get a speaker in your room, with your set up, and listen to it for hours/days with all sorts of material whether it will work for you or not. That's why I understand why people buy 2 or 3 at a time and either return the ones they decide against or resell them. This method costs more, but you've got a better chance of getting something you really like. I've actually been doing this with headphones and headphone amps over the last few months. I still have some of each to sell back!

One problem I have with used speakers (or headphones) however: How can you tell if they are damaged or not when you get them?

Yes, I know many audiophiles treat their equipment well, but I also have seen a few stress their gear to the extremes either testing it or showing it off. I was yelling at this one guy once above the screaming loud music (friend of a friend) that his speakers where distorting and he just laughed it off. I went right up to the drivers, and, (going nearly deaf in the process) clearly heard them distorting. He sold them used a few years later. Were they damaged by this? He listened to volumes that would cause distortion often. But at low volumes his speakers still sounded fine. Do you have to literally blow out the cone or fry the spider or whatever to truly damage speakers? Or will they lose fidelity even if they still work ok (at low volumes at least) with no real audible distortion?

Anyway, thanks again for your input.

And if anyone has any experience with the 520's and wants to rip on them, that's fine with me. I'm not the type that gets offended by what other people say about my stuff, especially people more knowledgeable than I about it. I can admit I made a bad purchase (I have before with audio gear) and won't get defensive. That's immature. I don't think the 520's are bad or were a bad buy, but then what do I know? I just have reviewers to back me up and some people on forums. I did see that WhatHiFi wasn't that impressed by them and was surprised since they seem to know what they are talking about (right?).

magnumpi205
504 posts
 
First of all, the 520's are pretty good speakers for the money.
Great list by Pw 09.
Unfortunately, I have heard most of the speakers on the list. Don't smoke or drink, so I need some kind of vice.
Have the original Quad 12 and 11. Very good monitors and probably trump most speakers on the list.
The 2 steller nearfields on Pw 09"s list are the Dali Minuet and the Nola Boxer. The Boxer is an extemely good speaker.
tholt
545 posts
 
The 520's aren't bad speakers. I own them. But they're small and need to be used in the context that they were intended.

Make sure you're room is up to snuff -- ie you've addressed it's shortcomings (adding room treatments like absorption/diffusion, perhaps corner traps). This is true regardless of any equipment upgrade. Room is critical.

The other piece is matching the right amplification to the speaker. I don't know the specs on the Cambridge, but I know Ushers like good quality power, the more the better. You may be surprised if you add a more powerful amp to your speakers what they will sound like, and could give you the body you're looking for. If you still pursue speakers, try to determine that the Cambridge is a good match for them. You've already got a decent sub.

If you go with something like Aperion or Swan on your list (assuming buying new, Swan from The Audio Insider) or if you buy from someone like Audio Advisor, you get a return policy.
pw_09 OP
12 posts
 
Regarding the Boxer, it is looking good to me. However, I wonder if it is a bit "warm" or mid centric? Just wondering...I'm sure it is a superb speaker. I don't want a cold or clinical sound, but I don't want an overly warm or mushy one either. Something exciting and lively with a good balance in tone.

The Quad's do look good too. Lots of British speakers it seems on my list; are they dominating today? The "British" sound?

My office I use the 520's in is small, about 8 x 12 I think. I haven't gotten into the room treatment stuff yet, and can't say I will (gaf and all that lol). I do have a desk, easy chair, and plenty of books on shelves to absorb sound. My Ushers are pretty near field, about 3 feet from my head and 5 feet apart. They still sound a little distant or recessed in the mids, and semi-cold. I used to love this sound (and still do prefer it over too warm and syrupy) but I'd like something a little more intimate, engaging. They can get glarey when played loud too...though REALLY loud which I don't do often.

The Cambridge has 75wpc and I know the Ushers aren't the most easy to drive speaker. (I am looking for a monitor that is a little easier to drive now). I do like the Cambridge (it seems to be good mid-fi at least) and don't wish to upgrade (I got a great deal on it for one thing), but I don't mind getting speakers that the rest of my system can grow with (new amp, new dac).

Thanks again guys, I'm already learning! And Happy 4th all! (For those who live in the US anyway).
pw_09 OP
12 posts
 
Ok, so I'm looking at the Quad 12L2 (good price used, although I'm still wary of used...were these really $1200 new? I've seen more like $800 new...).

I like the forward description, but not the edgy in the high mids one. Also like the aspect that they seem to not be too picky about positioning (I think the 520's are) as I can't be in a "perfect" position for listening (I'm not going to be sitting in a dedicated audio room in a chair perfectly centered between my speakers at the perfect height...etc.).

Funny thing is according to one speaker reviewer, the 11L2's lost to the 520's in a shootout!:

http://www.usheraudio.com/news/Hi%20Fi%20World%20Feb%2007%20520%20Group%20Test%20Review/index.htm

(Though it seems it was close).

On the tech side, I'm a little worried about the 6ohms (I admit I'm ignorant about ohms) and 86db sensitivity of the 12L2. However, that same reviewer says that 40wpc is enough for the 520's which have 84db and that dip to 6ohms.

Meanwhile, been doing a lot of listening to the 520's and while it seems they are doing nothing to little wrong, I'm just not engaged or excited about what I'm listening to. They're like ok, here's the music, I'm playing it without coloration...what else do you want? Excitement, energy, emotion? Nope, sorry. I'm cold, clinical, and accurate, dry...boring.

I have to admit I've been listen a lot with headphones over the past 6 months or so, and those can be more intimate than speakers, so coming back to speakers now is a change. But speakers are also more realistic and "rocking" and let you feel the music as well as hear it. So why the detachment?
More to discover