That should be enough to convince you to buy this speaker.
Ok, let's be a little bit more serious.
S2000 gets a MKIII
First we had S2000, which... actually looks pretty good even if a bit plain.
Then we had S2000MKII, which adopted the newer sloped design, and that planar tweeter so we know things are getting serious.
And now we're at S2000MKIII, which is using the same cabinet style as the S3000
爱德发 = Edifier?
Hmm... kay
Standard Edifier packaging. It is always nice to see RCA cables + 3.5mm to RCA cables + optical cable, so nothing else is needed to get this up and running.
I have figured out why there is an extra hole. It is for the smaller style remote e.g. R2000DB
Plastic bag has Edifier watermark. Nice touch. Not applicable to the bottom cloth wrapper, unfortunately.
Nice feet. I've seen worse on more expensive speakers. (For example, having no feet at all.)
Standard Edifier style connections at the back. Unlike the more expensive and bigger S3000 Pro it does not have USB. SPDIF connections so you save $$$ by not having to buy a DAC. We're going fully digital from the computer all the way to the TAS5754M amplfier chip (3 of them).
aptX HD provided by Qualcomm's QCC3031 BT 5.0, same as S3000 Pro. Also I finally have a phone that has BT 5.0 and can display what codec it is using.
Nope it doesn't support LDAC, I tried.
Non-detachable ~1.5m power cable. Just barely enough in my setup. Interesting that the inter-speaker cable is way longer than that. On the plus side, no need to bother with aftermarket cables.
Despite seeing two pairs of speakers in the above photo, I will not be doing an A-B between them. Reason being I have unfortunately decided that the positioning of the higher speaker impacts the sound negatively too much. So I will be comparing the S2000MKIII against what I remember is the sound of S-520.
Day 1 weirdness
Funnily, this weirdness disappeared on day two. It doesn't seem to be burn-in. It is not my ears getting used to the sound. The weirdness just went away. But here it is for the record:
Sounds laid back, far away?
And wide and I can identify the left and right speakers although there is still a blur virtual mid.
Yup, this thing is having phase issues due to being too close and/or off-axis.
It gets very obvious when I move my heard nearer to the screen.
(This is why I say it is not my ears getting used to the sound when it disappeared on day two. On day one, each time I tested with the head nearer to the screen, I can hear the distinct sound of phase issues. But I don't use the speakers with my head nearer to the screen. On day two, when I tried the same, the effect is similar to when done on other speakers - you get phase issues, but not unbearable.)
I actually had to toe-in to get a more bearable sound.
(Again, not an issue on day two, and I went back to the not-toe-in placement.)
But even then the tweeters are not hot. (As in too bright.) Might be even less than the normal amount of other speakers.
But... the resolution at resolving detail... Is over the top notch
I can hear sawtooth? Gears? Sound of a door creaking? All the background sounds are appearing, like magic. Not smeared at all or going in-an-out like usual dome tweeters.
It is not the same kind as the Airpulse A200. That one produces a very solid and realistic picture. While on the S2000MKIII, you just hear that they are... there. Like 3D vs 2D, or CD vs FM. Still an upgrade from not hearing them at all. And it seems to capture more sounds than the Airpulse.
But though good at resolving, doesn't feel solid. And seems to be giving fatigue very quickly.
And here comes the first major problem
I have a song with a known clipping part. Other speakers just crack. Produce a defined crack. S2000MKIII causes the whole thing to muffle.
Maybe letting it sit for a while solves the directionality issue. Weird.
Also began to sound more normal (treble quantity still remains the same, which is less hot than the Usher). But the ability to separate out the sounds and to play them consistently remains.
EqualizerAPO to counter room effects
Originally I put the bass shelf filter at +6dB (which is 3dB less than the Usher S-520). This results in a similar quantity of bass, but the bass is uneven. This is due to another bass peak in my room, which Usher S-520 is fine with without correction due to Usher having weak bass to start with. But not the S2000MKIII, it has sufficient bass down there it shows up as another peak.
With additional bass cut at 60Hz added, the bass shelf filter is back at +9dB again, but this is to compensate for the reduced bass quantity.
Bass frequency extension is comparable to the boosted S-520. Goes flatter slightly longer but then falls off more quickly. Or in other words, up till a certain point S2000MKIII wins, and then S-520 wins, but both speakers are really struggling at that low of a frequency. Note that this is based on what I remember, because if I do an A-B comparison, the Usher is going to have less bass due to the positioning.
But remember S-520 doesn't have the 60Hz bass cut so S2000MKIII is objectively the winner here. Room correction EQ is mandatory for maximizing performance, though it performs pretty well without it too. Sound character without EQ is neutral, like a good studio monitor.
Oh yeah the test signal is now in video version!
At C1 (32.70Hz) the S2000MKIII has nearly nothing left hence losing against the S-520. It wins at higher frequencies although both are already starting to loss steam at D1 with the S-520 already losing steam earlier. The S2000MKIII remains reasonably flat till E1 (41.20Hz).
Yeah... you have good bass until around 42Hz and usable until 35Hz. This is partly due to the table boundary reinforcement, but still, damn.
(It's not the room because the room's boost is at 60Hz, so an anti-peak if any would be at around 42Hz. OTOH I may overdo the room correction EQ so the anti-peaks become louder in comparison instead.)
Day ??? Listening
At least 2 weeks have passed since I started using the S2000MKIII as the main speakers so I should be pretty accustomed to the sound by now.
Sound characteristic with this EQ applied is pretty close to the bass-boosted S-520, with a few slight differences:
- By this time I have said it too many times, but Usher vocals just sound sweeter than everything else tested. And overall sound is more enveloping. Just a very tiny advantage tho based on what I'm hearing this time.
- But the above comes at reduced accuracy and less discernible vocals.
- S-520 should be the incorrect one since this has happened with every comparison I've done. In fact I am considering replacing the S-520 with something else for more accurate sound. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with choosing S-520 for a magical sound.
- Treble quantity is less. Dynamic EQ is a good option if you want more treble.
- S-520 sound has more body. Hard to explain since it is not related to bass quantity. But the feeling that when something happens, it is happening harder. Makes you want to break into a dance more. Doesn't seem to be related to bass or treble quantity or extension tho. Could be the mids?
- S-520 mids seems completely messed up if I focus on it during the A-B comparison. Could be the speaker positioning.
- Not related to quantity or frequency range, but S-520's bass is more asserting. Though slightly fake-sounding as a result. Might be some form of distortion, but it is good for bassline lovers.
- S2000MKIII's bass in comparison, is more... meh. With EQ applied, it just feels normal.
When in doubt, play Techmaster P.E.B - Bassgasm
S2000MKIII has so much capacity. Can feel the timbre. While S-520's bass is just... there is just something there. The rumbling low frequency part, S-520 is just hanging on, producing a sound, a just being there kind of sound. While S2000MKIII can show what kind of different bass are there.
What does all these translate into practice? In terms of overall sonic signature, I still prefer S-520 since that is the sound I have been listening to for years, even while knowing it is more fun than accurate. But there is no doubt the S2000MKIII is the better-performing and more-accurate speaker. It can even do studio monitoring job better than some studio monitors, thanks to the frequency capability.
In fact, even as I write this review, I am impressed with how much more awesome and accurate the S2000MKIII's bass sounds for movies and music in general. It is only with music I am used to that S-520 gets preference advantage. S-520 still has more impact, but impact can be due to bad bass peaks, and considering I didn't do the 60Hz cut for S-520...
So basically the two can be summarized as:
S2000MKIII: More controlled and accurate, objectively awesome, subjectively boring. For both overall sound and bass.
S-520: Subjectively awesome. Enveloping and magical. Impactful.
But both sound really very close to each other. Positioning results in way bigger differences. And I don't like personal preferences affecting the score. So this is where having objectively better performance comes into play. You can EQ to fix personal preferences (and room effects), you can't EQ to get objectively better capability.
Maybe in time, as my personal preference gets re-tuned as I get used to the sound, the S2000MKIII will score a complete win. But as of right now, it feels like a sidegrade from the S-520. Basically it's about liking the overall sound vs knowing (and hearing) an objectively better speaker.
Scoring
Easy 4.5 stars. Easy as in it was easy to decide on the number. All the good speakers sounding close to each other at the $500 to $600 price range (reaching down to $400 lately) are 4-stars, and the cream of the crop become 4.5-star. And S2000MKIII is definitely cream of the crop, with the only possible challengers coming from Swans and JBL, and maybe some secret super gem that I don't know about? And this is a very safe conservative estimate, because with this bass performance and that planar tweeter, doing worse than them is pretty much impossible, while doing better than them is... quite likely.
On the other hand, it is hard to give it a 5 star. If we talk about overall sound, there is not really a compelling reason to get the S2000MKIII over something else, simply because there are so many choices available at this price range. I am saying this while knowing first hand of S2000MKIII's capabilities, because I still long for S-520's sound despite the advantage of S2000MKIII's capabilities. And the requirement for 5 star is "something that you have to get because there is no alternative". So the question is, do you really have to get S2000MKIII, or could you get something else that is objectively inferior, but subjectively superior? I like to believe the latter is still possible. And since this choice throws objective capability out of the window, it is hard to give a 4.75 star for the technology advantages the S2000MKIII possess. Still a solid 4.5 because subjectively this is still certainly one of the few best products out there.
On the third hand, since S2000MKIII will be priced at SGD$599 which is the upper end of the price range (For comparison, 305P is SGD$480 per pair), it does lose points by definition of my scoring system, which is price-based. Still, even with this price, the 4.5 star remains, because it is worth it.
On the forth hand, if there was any possible 5-star candidate for this price range, the presence of S2000MKIII certainly causes them to be smacked down to 4.5-star at best. Unless somebody proves that, there is a godlike perfect speaker at this price range, don't care what technology it uses, don't care how it looks, just sonic performance. Then that will be the 5-star, whoever it is.
If you have no idea what your sonic preference is, or if you are just looking at something that works and sounds normal and have lots of performance up its sleeves, the S2000MKIII is a really solid choice.
And this is even before talking about the non-sonic aspects... which I don't factor into the scoring but can affect buying decision.
Well, for one, it doesn't hiss even at max volume. (*coughJBLcoughcough*)
Digital inputs, BT 5.0 aptX HD
Has at least 2 usable EQ presets, with more tuning available via rear knobs
A remote for changing volume... this becomes useful when using S2000MKIII as my main speakers. Imagine if your volume is too low and you need to reach to the rear... even worse if you have two speakers and both have their own volume controls which you need to match without looking
This proved the one thing I was afraid of... 305's bass is indeed on the weaker side at the deeper bass when it comes to in-room. This mirrors my own observations of long suspecting 305's bass may not be the perfect score (for its price) that users and anechoic measurements seem to suggest. Not losing by much tho.
(Worth pointing out is that anechoic graph would suggest pretty much all 5-inchers die at 50Hz, but as you can see the in-room FR is a wholly different picture.)
But yea, if you want more bass, then the choice is clear.
One key point that come out of this, is that I will no longer regard 305 as the 5.0 star speaker.
Going to dig up some older graphs, but first, what does the EQ buttons do on this thing.
Monitor - Everything will be normalized against Monitor setting, which I guess should be the most flat? Hopefully.
And as usual the usual warning: This is done via FFT of pink noise so the lower frequencies are less accurate. The above is comparing 2 measurements of the Monitor setting to give an idea of the statistical noise. Don't worry, the effect of the EQ are big enough to not be covered by the noise as we shall soon see.
Classic
Similar to the classic seen on previous Edifiers e.g. S3000Pro. Gradual increase until a +6dB peak at 10kHz.
Dynamic
Dynamic as again boosts treble and bass, although the extent of bass boosting seems more aggressive than other Edifier speakers, might be my measurement.
Vocal
A smaller boost to treble, a slight boost to midrange, and gradual tapering of bass.
The general ideas are the same compared to other Edifier speakers, but the exact extents seem to differ a bit. Take S3000Pro's vocal for example. (Note the difference in scaling.)
And now the main event after measuring the individual EQ settings...
Does S2000MKIII retain the EQ setting after power off?
Unfortunately no. Even with soft-off via the remote, the EQ goes back to Classic after powering up. I am starting to think I am supposed to be using Classic instead of Monitor. But Monitor gives a flatter treble FR...
S2000MKIII in-room no correction (green) and post-EQ (yellow)
BTW it may look like the treble is rolling off pretty early, but that is the limitation of my mic. You can see the same my other measurements.
And yes the post-EQ FR is still a bit wobbly because this is just the first iteration.
And for comparison, here is...
...and at this point I noticed I have screwed up by not having the not-room-corrected measurements of other speakers. (I usually have the room-corrected versions, although I may forgot to note down the EQ used.) Things like this is why I'm not a professional reviewer.
I did manage to find S3000Pro non-corrected (green) and S-520 corrected (yellow overlapped) (ignore the top graph). Yea you can see the room hump in non-corrected. Interestingly S3000Pro does not require any bass boost to reach 50Hz flat even after subtracting that hump. In comparison S-520 need a +9dB shelf filter.
Now back to talking about S2000MKIII...
Non-corrected, estimating visually and removing the room effects, we're seeing flat until 100Hz and then a gradual reduction until -6dB at 50Hz. Corrected and bass-boosted with the shelf filter however... we are seeing flat until 40Hz and audible (-10dB) until low 30+. Which matches the listening test.
Anyway... this has been the best bass extension I have seen from a 5" class speaker. Which is just in time since I was having trouble finding a replacement to S-520 due to its bass extension (albeit needing bass boost for the overall bass quantity; but note that the shelf filter is already pretty much flat from below 70Hz so any flat bass performance from that point on is the performance of the speaker, which we are seeing in S-520 and S2000MKIII... ok maybe not entirely because they are still using the 60Hz room boost, but S2000MKIII is using less due to a -10dB applied to 60Hz)
Point is, room correction is mandatory when your speaker goes this low with this much volume.
Actually now I have A5+ with Audio engine b1 amp.
I also have S2000 pro mk2..
My A5+ abit old and I want to mount speakers.... so was thinking of A5+ wireless or S2000Mk3 or S3000 pro... S3000 pro kinda on the pricier side though
Actually now I have A5+ with Audio engine b1 amp.
I also have S2000 pro mk2..
My A5+ abit old and I want to mount speakers.... so was thinking of A5+ wireless or S2000Mk3 or S3000 pro... S3000 pro kinda on the pricier side though
Note that Edifier speakers use their own specific speaker cable (partly due to being bi-amped) so check your length if you're mounting.
Do you prefer the Audioengine sound or Edifier sound? What do you find lacking in A5+ that you want improved on? S2000MKIII is noticeably bigger in size and a lot heavier than A5+. S3000 Pro is one size more bigger.
And in general you can't use screws or keyhole with powered speakers anyway. Maybe consider passives?
im currently using swan M200MKIII. bought them for around $450, 5 years ago.
best multimedia speaker i ever hear, but i never try edifier.
all around speaker but a bit bright. i got a fatigue listening to this speaker after 2-3 hours of music at 30-40% of the volume. swan is really loud, never tried at full volume.
using them with creative zxr atm, but to me it sounded better with titanium HD.
creative software n driver suck.
Note that Edifier speakers use their own specific speaker cable (partly due to being bi-amped) so check your length if you're mounting.
Do you prefer the Audioengine sound or Edifier sound? What do you find lacking in A5+ that you want improved on? S2000MKIII is noticeably bigger in size and a lot heavier than A5+. S3000 Pro is one size more bigger.
And in general you can't use screws or keyhole with powered speakers anyway. Maybe consider passives?
Audio engine is better at details and separation while s2000 pro mk2 for me is better at vocals... well but nowadays I use speakers to watch movies nia so no need too high end. Wa but now the s2000 mk2 on qoo10 sell 399 with free stands. Not sure if should get that to save money.. So you are saying that all these speakers cannot be mounted ah
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.
