Hello fellow Decware friends,

If you had a Tori MK II and MG944 and we're going to change one, would you get the MK IV or the HR1's? Or even maybe the Tori Jr?

I don't have the best room situation any more, but that won't be improved any time soon. My speakers are too close to the wall but I still enjoy my sound. Anyone know how the HR1's sound in close to a wall?

So I initially was very interested in the HR1's. Any comparisons to the mg944?

Anyone remember their MKII's before everyone upgraded?

I never had a Torii MK.II, but I do have a Torii MK.III(Jupiter caps) and have heard it side-by-side with a MKIV several times.  I prefer my MKIII to the MKIV - with my speakers - YMMV.  I have crossoverless, full-rangers and the MKIII's flexibility is invaluable to dialing in the sound to perfection.

I've heard all the Decware speakers side-by-side at Zenfest several times.  
"IF" I had to make the choice you have presented here, I would get the HR-1's - but that's "me" and my preference.  The HR-1's are dramatically "different" sounding than MG944's.  With the upward firing ambient driver of the HR-1's, they are bigger and more spacious sounding - if that's what you like.  Some prefer a more direct sound like the 944.  Nobody can make this determination for you.  I would not recommend you laying down your coin $$ for HR-1's unless you've heard them.  Nor any other speaker, for that matter, that you haven't at least heard with your own ears, and preferably with your equipment, in your room.

Finch,

I upgraded to HR-1 from 944s with my Torii III. Now I have a MKIV with the HR-1s and am currently using a Blue Torii with my 944s. I modified both speakers to suit my sound and room. But interestingly, in both of my rooms, the 944s sound pretty close, the second room the speakers out from the walls more. Both speakers were too bassy and dense sounding in this room with the MKIII, but I know from experience of room work, and I suspect from other posts, the room makes loads of difference. I also likely prefer a little less "warm," and a "faster" sound.

Treated pretty similarly, the HR-1s are more refined and spacious here, with a bigger feel, and they excel in some ways (like drum and piano authenticity) but they are really very similar. The radial addition is very artfully integrated and adds a really good thing, but in my main system/room, both had about the same soundstage and roughly the same tonal values. The HR-1s are better in the big picture to me, but both are quite beautiful with some tuning. The refinement of the HR-1 is hard to describe, and really nice, but the speed of the 944s without crossovers here is really nice too!

If you want to calm down the 944s rather than buying new speakers, you could incrementally mitigate/tighten the bass and mid-bass thickness to taste by plugging the plinth spaces with rubber gasket material or caulk backer foam (as long as these are big enough to seal well when pressed into the space).

Also, if the speakers are feeling a bit in-your-face, you can smooth/soften them a bit...and reduce smearing a little from toning down resonance, especially that causing bass/mid bass muddle. This can be done with Marigo Green 3mm VTS Tuning Dots. http://marigoaudio.com/tuning-dots/ I got mine direct from the maker, or I think Music Direct had them for $35 for 12 also.

They are cool as you can add one and listen, add another, and so on...and they come off easily when you have added one too many (or if you don't like them). You can even restick them once or twice if you are careful. I think I ended up with 3 on the top mid-bass driver and 2 on the bottom one on my 944s. They musically tightened and speeded up my sound while mellowing edginess (smoother) with no down side. Nice little tools.

The best place for them here was carefully placed on the flat part of the rubber ring where it is glued to the paper driver....between the rolled out rubber part and the paper part of the driver. Carefully placed not to touch the extended/round rubber ring, and not to be on the paper, they fit like they were made for the driver. I used a black sharpie to color them before putting them on, making them look pretty normal.

I use equalization too and think it does more good than anything for fine-tuning the whole. I started using it to tune the last bits of bass intensity out of my room after doing all the traditional room treatment I could in my space. Then I started adjusting the whole spectrum based on measurements as pointers, and then to tastes. It is a very transparent EQ though, a part of my player software in a nicely tuned Mac Mini. The EQ adjusts digital files directly, before they leave the computer. It basically functions as a room/tastes mastering for the whole collection.

But for what I need here, EQ far from rules out the importance of tubes, cable choices, modifications, vibration mitigation etc. Rather they all help each other. I don't have any "tweaks" in my system. Everything I use makes an audible effect that is advantageous and cost effective to me. Maybe I just don't like the term tweak.

Adjusting the 944s or HR-1s as I wrote about above, just made them better speakers as far as I am concerned, and being able to tune them to room and tastes makes these adjustments methods that much better. The EQ takes it all further, helping to tune the lot together just right, but I modified the 944s before using EQ and it was very real improvement for my tastes. And then, after using EQ for quite a while, I adjusted the HR-1s, giving another notable improvement for my tastes.

I am always trying for improved sound and so far, always get it. And modifying/fine-tuning parts to suit what I am after for the whole, this gives the whole more potential, and makes the whole that much more powerfully beautiful. But I am enamored by a high level of micro detail and musical definition, and this apparently does not happen without effort. At least for me. But I agree, good EQ is really a great tool.