Listening review part 1: Against Usher S-520
I decided to compare it against more than one speaker, because I know my Usher's sound signature makes all other speakers sound thinny/screechy/brighty. So if the M50W sounds light compared to the S-520 that I am used to, and I call M50W light because of that, I may draw the wrong conclusion.
And to make sure it isn't the onboard sound that's giving me slight symptoms of headache and ear bleed, I feed the M50W with LJM CS4398 DAC this time.
Using multiple audio devices so I can switch between things quickly.
Part 1 conclusion: Worth no less, and worth no more
The M50W satellites, surprisingly, were not as dark a tone as I expected, from a 3-inch driver in a cabinet that is relatively large for a 3-inch. When I tested them as 2.0 bookshelves, they started rolling off higher than expected. Still pretty useable for desktop 2.0, but there are smaller 2.0 speakers that have more bass. Bose Companion 2 definitely has more base, but that product is an anomaly. Audioengine A2 should have more bass. And if I remember correctly even products like Creative T20/T40 are comparable.
Time to add the subwoofer.
First impression - That sub is powerful. And goes quite low. And this is not entirely a compliment.
The satellites don't go low enough, so I need to get the sub to do some of their job. But no matter how I adjust, I can only get either "flat sound down to a certain point and then my ears get slaughtered by bass drum" or "sensible amount of bass drum but there is some middle frequency missing". Eventually I settled for just a little above 9-o'clock for the sub setting. At this setting, I can still hear most of the bass notes, and boy they do hit low and controlled, but the response isn't entirely flat.
To be fair, this is a problem seen by most 2.1 speaker products.
But to be fair, this speaker costs $340 and has 3-inch satellites so I expected better results from them. This is first time I describe a speaker as "sounds smaller than it actually is" in a review. Not in real life though - I have seen too many useless 6.5-inch bookshelves out there. Yes, useless 6.5-inch bookshelves, I said it.
And, because the satellites don't go low enough, the subwoofer is still noticeably directional, so don't put it too far from the middle.
The tiny lack of middle-low frequencies would have been better received if the satellites have a laid-back treble. But nope, the treble is rather aggressive. Probably because it uses a 20mm tweeter - which is on the small side - and made of aluminium - which is on the bright side. The sound is very clean and clear, but often I can't tell whether that is distortion or not.
And because of a lack of middle-low frequencies, sounds that are supposed to be epic (e.g. orchestra) are not epic, and there's a lack of space, and vocals are not that great either.
Certain songs end up being all bass drums and cymbals.
Well, that's all the bad parts about it.
And the good part? Despite all the negatives listed about it, it for the most part produces an acceptable sound. The constipated treble is quite noticeable tho, to the extent that I wonder if other products like Klipsch Promedia 2.1 and Aego M can fight it in this department. But as mentioned at the start, this may be due to me getting used to Usher's sound signature.
Yea, it falls into the category of "does not have any major glaring error to people who entered this price range for the first time and hence feels like a total upgrade and nobody is complaining". Like Audioengine, and Bose for those who don't know better. Basically, if you ask people, what is an alternative product at those price ranges, and people will fail to answer. By being the only product at a particular price range, you essentially become the best product at that price range.
For SGD$340, there are actually alternatives tho. Klipsch Promedia is $349. (Currently $314 @ Tat Chuan) Aego M is also $349. Maybe Aego M would win in terms of SQ vs speaker size. Satellite sound quality and musicality... I can't really tell who would win, I've never had a fully-working Aego M in my room, and that was a long time ago.
The real competition comes in the form of 2.0 speakers. PreSonus Eris E4.5 and Fluid Audio F4 are just around $270, and they should clean the floor in treble quality. But when you buy M50W, you're choosing to have a subwoofer at the cost of treble. Only half or less of what you're paying for goes into the satellites, so around $170 if inclusive of amp or around $128 without, assuming amp costs ~25% of the whole speaker which is the case for studio monitors.
$170, which is somewhat questionable. It's close to the price of D1010-IV for example. I'm assuming the M50W satellites cost less, but still for maybe $30-50 more you can get stuff with importantly better sound that doesn't bottleneck the subwoofer.
Wharfedale WH-S8E is $199 and it has crossover adjustment for your personal tweaking. Leaving us with $140 for the satellites... which, to be honest, you won't find much active satellites at that price, but spending a bit more to get the D1010-IV mentioned above becomes a tempting proposition. Or spend more, or less, on 2.0 speakers and amps now and upgrade later, the choice is yours.
But of course, if you have only $340, and want an easier time controlling the volume, then the M50W becomes a legit choice.
As you can see, with direct and indirect alternatives available and without scoring a clear win against either, the M50W is worth its price, but nothing more.
Stay tuned for comparison with other speaker next. Will the comparative performance against a more-typical-sound speaker coupled with bad audio memory of speakers auditioned in the past give the M50W a turnaround?
Addendum:
I run S-520 with the bass boost below:
Measured output from speaker-out of PM6005, with load (S-520) connected.