|
|
Post by bencat on Apr 4, 2024 9:05:49 GMT
Macca the fact not the suggestion we all hear differently is something Audiologists are all very well aware of . As each and every one of us hears via a different route we all have different responses to sounds . I wish I could find the BBC programme that was shown about this so i could provide a link I was not aware of much that was shown in it . Not long after this I started a set of appointments to try and deal with my tinnitus and I had lots of conversations with my Audiologist who confirmed much of what the programme said and that we are quite a way off from understanding how and why we hear as we do . I also asked if things are so different why in some cases there is often a consensus of people liking a certain set of sounds . Her explanation was that there is a generality of what we hear so often many will agree but also there are often individuals who have a very different view against the majority . In tests these individuals have often been found to have very extreme hearing paths .
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Apr 4, 2024 19:17:52 GMT
Macca the fact not the suggestion we all hear differently is something Audiologists are all very well aware of . As each and every one of us hears via a different route we all have different responses to sounds . I wish I could find the BBC programme that was shown about this so i could provide a link I was not aware of much that was shown in it . Not long after this I started a set of appointments to try and deal with my tinnitus and I had lots of conversations with my Audiologist who confirmed much of what the programme said and that we are quite a way off from understanding how and why we hear as we do . I also asked if things are so different why in some cases there is often a consensus of people liking a certain set of sounds . Her explanation was that there is a generality of what we hear so often many will agree but also there are often individuals who have a very different view against the majority . In tests these individuals have often been found to have very extreme hearing paths . yes no question that there are plenty of people with variations in their hearing which are large enough to matter. That's not the same as 'we all hear differently. ' We're not as unique as we like to think  When they blind tested loudspeaker preference 80 percent preferred the same type of speaker. But 20 percent didn't, and that's a lot of people across a population. Not sure that is because they hear differently but becuase they are looking for different things in the sound. For example I was in a room with about 10 people listening to some huge Avantgarde multi-way horns. Me and one other thought they were dreadful, the other 8 said they would buy them if they had the money/space. Personal preference can differ massively and it can't be argued about. |
|
|
|
Post by stevew on Apr 5, 2024 7:15:22 GMT
Macca the fact not the suggestion we all hear differently is something Audiologists are all very well aware of . As each and every one of us hears via a different route we all have different responses to sounds . I wish I could find the BBC programme that was shown about this so i could provide a link I was not aware of much that was shown in it . Not long after this I started a set of appointments to try and deal with my tinnitus and I had lots of conversations with my Audiologist who confirmed much of what the programme said and that we are quite a way off from understanding how and why we hear as we do . I also asked if things are so different why in some cases there is often a consensus of people liking a certain set of sounds . Her explanation was that there is a generality of what we hear so often many will agree but also there are often individuals who have a very different view against the majority . In tests these individuals have often been found to have very extreme hearing paths . yes no question that there are plenty of people with variations in their hearing which are large enough to matter. That's not the same as 'we all hear differently. ' We're not as unique as we like to think When they blind tested loudspeaker preference 80 percent preferred the same type of speaker. But 20 percent didn't, and that's a lot of people across a population. Not sure that is because they hear differently but becuase they are looking for different things in the sound. For example I was in a room with about 10 people listening to some huge Avantgarde multi-way horns. Me and one other thought they were dreadful, the other 8 said they would buy them if they had the money/space. Personal preference can differ massively and it can't be argued about. If anyone is going to argue about it, seems that you will. |
|
|
|
Post by stryder5 on Apr 5, 2024 10:07:51 GMT
2 hours ago via mobile Arke likes thisQuotelikePost Options Post by stevew on 2 hours ago macca Avatar 14 hours ago macca said: bencat Avatar yesterday at 10:05am bencat said: Macca the fact not the suggestion we all hear differently is something Audiologists are all very well aware of . As each and every one of us hears via a different route we all have different responses to sounds . I wish I could find the BBC programme that was shown about this so i could provide a link I was not aware of much that was shown in it . Not long after this I started a set of appointments to try and deal with my tinnitus and I had lots of conversations with my Audiologist who confirmed much of what the programme said and that we are quite a way off from understanding how and why we hear as we do . I also asked if things are so different why in some cases there is often a consensus of people liking a certain set of sounds . Her explanation was that there is a generality of what we hear so often many will agree but also there are often individuals who have a very different view against the majority . In tests these individuals have often been found to have very extreme hearing paths . yes no question that there are plenty of people with variations in their hearing which are large enough to matter. That's not the same as 'we all hear differently. ' We're not as unique as we like to think When they blind tested loudspeaker preference 80 percent preferred the same type of speaker. But 20 percent didn't, and that's a lot of people across a population. Not sure that is because they hear differently but becuase they are looking for different things in the sound. For example I was in a room with about 10 people listening to some huge Avantgarde multi-way horns. Me and one other thought they were dreadful, the other 8 said they would buy them if they had the money/space. Personal preference can differ massively and it can't be argued about. If anyone is going to argue about it, seems that you will MACCA’S LAW......LOL |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Apr 6, 2024 7:09:14 GMT
yes no question that there are plenty of people with variations in their hearing which are large enough to matter. That's not the same as 'we all hear differently. ' We're not as unique as we like to think When they blind tested loudspeaker preference 80 percent preferred the same type of speaker. But 20 percent didn't, and that's a lot of people across a population. Not sure that is because they hear differently but becuase they are looking for different things in the sound. For example I was in a room with about 10 people listening to some huge Avantgarde multi-way horns. Me and one other thought they were dreadful, the other 8 said they would buy them if they had the money/space. Personal preference can differ massively and it can't be argued about. If anyone is going to argue about it, seems that you will. And yet you're clearly an avid reader |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Apr 6, 2024 7:30:37 GMT
Okay back to in room measurements and their utility above the transition frequency. As promised to Jason I've found the relevant research:
Pg 371 section 13.2.3
'The claim is that measurements of the steady-state sound field using an omnidirectional microphone, and signal processing by an algorithm, can repair imperfections in unknown loudspeakers in unknown rooms.
There is no doubt that such a process can yield improvements at low frequencies for a single listener, but above the transition frequency to claim that a smooth, steady-state room curve derived from an omnidirectional microphone is an adequate substitute for the timbral and spatial perceptions by two ears and a brain is absurd. However it clearly can be good business.'
Pg348 Section 12.2.3
if the measured curve deviates from the target, does that mean that applying equalization to make it match the target will ensure satisfaction? Unfortunately not...because in-room measurements include acoustical interference artefacts that may be automatically and inappropriately 'corrected' there is a very real possibility that a good loudspeaker may be degraded.
As shown on Figure 4.12, above the transition frequency the most reliable basis for equalization is anechoic data on the loudspeaker.'' (My bold).
|
|
Arke
Moderator
Posts: 1,259
|
Post by Arke on Apr 6, 2024 7:46:14 GMT
Okay back to in room measurements and their utility above the transition frequency. As promised to Jason I've found the relevant research: Pg 371 section 13.2.3 'The claim is that measurements of the steady-state sound field using an omnidirectional microphone, and signal processing by an algorithm, can repair imperfections in unknown loudspeakers in unknown rooms. There is no doubt that such a process can yield improvements at low frequencies for a single listener, but above the transition frequency to claim that a smooth, steady-state room curve derived from an omnidirectional microphone is an adequate substitute for the timbral and spatial perceptions by two ears and a brain is absurd. However it clearly can be good business.' Pg348 Section 12.2.3 if the measured curve deviates from the target, does that mean that applying equalization to make it match the target will ensure satisfaction? Unfortunately not...because in-room measurements include acoustical interference artefacts that may be automatically and inappropriately 'corrected' there is a very real possibility that a good loudspeaker may be degraded. As shown on Figure 4.12, above the transition frequency the most reliable basis for equalization is anechoic data on the loudspeaker.'' (My bold). Brilliant, thanks Martin. Yes, that all makes sense. The limitation I mainly perceive is that mic is a point source and our ears are not. Even below the Schroeder frequency the low frequencies can vary by 10-15db with a 20-30cm fore/aft shift of the mic. If anything (IME) they are even more affected by mic position than mid and high frequencies. Easy to demonstrate too. I have found in-room listening position measurements are most accurately achieved by taking about 10-20 measurements in a grid pattern around the listening position. These are then spatially averaged. |
|
|
|
Post by bencat on Apr 6, 2024 9:18:28 GMT
It is noticeable Jason that the grid measurements you have settled on is very similar to how DIRAC Live works . As I use DIRAC in my active systems it is nice to know that the method is one that works in practice .
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Apr 6, 2024 10:01:48 GMT
Okay back to in room measurements and their utility above the transition frequency. As promised to Jason I've found the relevant research: Pg 371 section 13.2.3 'The claim is that measurements of the steady-state sound field using an omnidirectional microphone, and signal processing by an algorithm, can repair imperfections in unknown loudspeakers in unknown rooms. There is no doubt that such a process can yield improvements at low frequencies for a single listener, but above the transition frequency to claim that a smooth, steady-state room curve derived from an omnidirectional microphone is an adequate substitute for the timbral and spatial perceptions by two ears and a brain is absurd. However it clearly can be good business.' Pg348 Section 12.2.3 if the measured curve deviates from the target, does that mean that applying equalization to make it match the target will ensure satisfaction? Unfortunately not...because in-room measurements include acoustical interference artefacts that may be automatically and inappropriately 'corrected' there is a very real possibility that a good loudspeaker may be degraded. As shown on Figure 4.12, above the transition frequency the most reliable basis for equalization is anechoic data on the loudspeaker.'' (My bold). Brilliant, thanks Martin. Yes, that all makes sense. The limitation I mainly perceive is that mic is a point source and our ears are not. Even below the Schroeder frequency the low frequencies can vary by 10-15db with a 20-30cm fore/aft shift of the mic. If anything (IME) they are even more affected by mic position than mid and high frequencies. Easy to demonstrate too. I have found in-room listening position measurements are most accurately achieved by taking about 10-20 measurements in a grid pattern around the listening position. These are then spatially averaged. yes - this is why he says LF correction will work for one position, traditionally we measure from the listening position because what matters is what it sounds like from where we listen, and not what it sounds like standing over in the corner. But we should be aware of the pitfalls of using those measurements to correct the FR above transition. Of course if we are happy with the sonic results, then we are happy and nothing further needs to be said or done. This whole discussion started because you questioned my methodology in correcting above transition without in-room measurements, hopefully you now appreciate that I do have some justification for doing it that way? |
|
Arke
Moderator
Posts: 1,259
|
Post by Arke on Apr 6, 2024 19:37:00 GMT
Brilliant, thanks Martin. Yes, that all makes sense. The limitation I mainly perceive is that mic is a point source and our ears are not. Even below the Schroeder frequency the low frequencies can vary by 10-15db with a 20-30cm fore/aft shift of the mic. If anything (IME) they are even more affected by mic position than mid and high frequencies. Easy to demonstrate too. I have found in-room listening position measurements are most accurately achieved by taking about 10-20 measurements in a grid pattern around the listening position. These are then spatially averaged. yes - this is why he says LF correction will work for one position, traditionally we measure from the listening position because what matters is what it sounds like from where we listen, and not what it sounds like standing over in the corner. But we should be aware of the pitfalls of using those measurements to correct the FR above transition. Of course if we are happy with the sonic results, then we are happy and nothing further needs to be said or done. This whole discussion started because you questioned my methodology in correcting above transition without in-room measurements, hopefully you now appreciate that I do have some justification for doing it that way? Based on those excerpts, yes, you shouldn't bother equalising based on listening position measurements. Which does beg the question: `what is the point of fully active speakers with tuning through all frequencies?` I will continue doing what I am doing in my room (and potentially helping clients to do so), which is NOT using equalisation above the Schroeder frequency. I shall be using the active equalisation for bass. Midrange and higher frequencies have been tweaked and optimised in my room using an iterative process of measuring AND listening. Any changes to HF roll off, and mid range peaks/troughs, presence region etc. are achieved through tweeter attenuation, speaker positioning (and toe in, tilt), listening position, diffraction, absorption, pictures, curtains, chairs, cushions etc.. All changes and evaluation are based on weeks of listening and measuring distortion, RT60 decay and FR. In time I shall add more to my blog (sorry not had time lately). I have documented some of the room listening room development, but shall add lots more on the measurements and room acoustics tweaks in due course. |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,398
|
Post by Bigman80 on Apr 6, 2024 21:17:07 GMT
yes - this is why he says LF correction will work for one position, traditionally we measure from the listening position because what matters is what it sounds like from where we listen, and not what it sounds like standing over in the corner. But we should be aware of the pitfalls of using those measurements to correct the FR above transition. Of course if we are happy with the sonic results, then we are happy and nothing further needs to be said or done. This whole discussion started because you questioned my methodology in correcting above transition without in-room measurements, hopefully you now appreciate that I do have some justification for doing it that way? Based on those excerpts, yes, you shouldn't bother equalising based on listening position measurements. Which does beg the question: `what is the point of fully active speakers with tuning through all frequencies?` I will continue doing what I am doing in my room (and potentially helping clients to do so), which is NOT using equalisation above the Schroeder frequency. I shall be using the active equalisation for bass. Midrange and higher frequencies have been tweaked and optimised in my room using an iterative process of measuring AND listening. Any changes to HF roll off, and mid range peaks/troughs, presence region etc. are achieved through tweeter attenuation, speaker positioning (and toe in, tilt), listening position, diffraction, absorption, pictures, curtains, chairs, cushions etc.. All changes and evaluation are based on weeks of listening and measuring distortion, RT60 decay and FR. In time I shall add more to my blog (sorry not had time lately). I have documented some of the room listening room development, but shall add lots more on the measurements and room acoustics tweaks in due course. You *should* continue doing what you're doing...the results are superb. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Apr 27, 2024 13:15:20 GMT
I'm still massively impressed by the Sony 1000ESD pre-amp  So much so that I've idly been looking for another one so I have a spare. It just has so much clarity; and the ability to EQ digitally has been a bit of a revelation. Where has that been all my life? And there's the little things, like the green LED embedded in the (metal) volume pot. Which is motorised so you can see it turning, unlike with modern amps. The ability to adjust the digital output attenuation. And if I ever need to connect six VCRs all at once - no problemo! |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,398
|
Post by Bigman80 on Apr 27, 2024 20:44:01 GMT
It's certainly a handsome unit
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Apr 28, 2024 8:48:45 GMT
It's certainly a handsome unit It is - it's from my era - late 1980s, that stuff was aspirational to me then but couldn't afford any of it. So biased? Yes, doesn't really matter. In other news, went CD shopping last week, amongst some others I got that Chris Isaac album that they always play at shows. Original one from 1989 with the chunky CD case (it's amazing how the cases got flimsier over the years). Stuck it on - first tune on the album is 'Wicked Game' - and I was immediately transported to the hi-fi shows of the past. But yeah it sounds pretty good no wonder it's been a demo staple all these decades. Interesting thing was, when that was finished was looking for something else to play and settled on Dire Straits 'Communique' which I've not played in ages. Opening bars and I'm right away diving for the remote to turn down the volume from the level I had it on for the Chris Isaac. Yes - it's a remaster. Have made a mental note to look out for an original one one my next foraging expedition, must be loads of them out there. Just so much difference between it done properly and everything set to '11', bigger difference than the damn equipment makes. Incidentally the difference between my newly-acquired original release of 'Aja' and the remaster I already had is pretty small, so it's not always a big problem. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Apr 28, 2024 8:57:26 GMT
Just to clarify the difference here - with the Chris Isaac I could keep raising the volume and it just got better and better, with the DS album there was a limit to how far I could increase the level before it just started to blare out and was uncomfortable.
Even with the level backed off there was still something heavy and slightly crude about the sound.
Both are pretty middle of the road music, not densely mixed, good production values, you should be able to play both at very high SPL and still have them sound good.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,398
|
Post by Bigman80 on Apr 28, 2024 21:11:38 GMT
I think that's probably a good album from Chris Isaacs. Never heard it though.
I need a CD treasure trove to trawl though near me. I'll have a look around.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Apr 29, 2024 6:24:42 GMT
''Reprise staged a gaudy, sold-out gig at L.A.'s Wiltern Theater. Sean Penn was there. So were Eric Roberts, k.d. lang, Dwight Yoakam, and, standing discreetly in a side aisle, Bruce Springsteen and Patti Scialfa.
There were lots of young girls, whose screaming Isaak may have to get used to. Afterward came The Hollywood Party, where, amid more dazzling stars, Isaak (decked out in his shiny brocade stage suit) got his first gold record while the waiters passed around goat cheese quesadillas and a Hawaiian band played in the background.
It was a lot to handle, but then, as Isaak had said the night before..., "I used to tar-paper roofs for a living. So, as far as I'm concerned, this is a pretty fun job."
|
|
|
|
Post by brucew268 on Apr 29, 2024 9:10:58 GMT
Yes the soncis and music from that Chris Isaak album are amazing. However, I think after a few years I threw it away. I couldn't shake the feeling that most of the music had S&M undertones that just felt... "gicky". Heh!
|
|
|
|
Post by bencat on Apr 29, 2024 11:43:46 GMT
You do realise that you have to pay extra for that ?
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 4, 2024 11:17:09 GMT
Loudspeaker upgrade. I did say I was not going to do this until I've had the house remodelled/rebuilt (delete as appropriate) but that's still more than a year away and these have caught my eye: www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/mofi_soucepoint_888/Not available in the UK (yet), will probably be £6K when they are. Thoughts, anyone? |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,398
|
Post by Bigman80 on Aug 4, 2024 11:39:01 GMT
I don't know enough about speaker measurements or speaker manufacture to offer anything insightful based on the linked review, but as always I like to recommend that you look for stuff that isn't commercially marketed. It's worked REALLY well for me.
It doesn't make sense to me to pay £6k for speakers from mofi, who i can honestly say just seem to peddle fairly mediocre products for big money. This based on their phonostage and Turntable combination. It's not as fantastic as the price suggests it should be IMO.
The big red flag is that they don't seem to manufacture anything in-house, it's all outsourced. I'm not feeling that at all.
My gripe is with the brand and the commercial aspect....no idea on the speakers.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 4, 2024 12:15:29 GMT
I don't know enough about speaker measurements or speaker manufacture to offer anything insightful based on the linked review, but as always I like to recommend that you look for stuff that isn't commercially marketed. It's worked REALLY well for me. It doesn't make sense to me to pay £6k for speakers from mofi, who i can honestly say just seem to peddle fairly mediocre products for big money. This based on their phonostage and Turntable combination. It's not as fantastic as the price suggests it should be IMO. The big red flag is that they don't seem to manufacture anything in-house, it's all outsourced. I'm not feeling that at all. My gripe is with the brand and the commercial aspect....no idea on the speakers. Well the measurements are, in every aspect, about as good as it is possible to get from a passive loudspeaker. Frequency response, frequency range, distortion, off-axis response - they're not even a tough load. In his subjective review he says he will buy some for himself as soon as he has the money together. I am not sure that I could get something as good - bespoke - for the same money. I hear you on Mofi's other products, obviously I have no idea about them, not being into vinyl. The thing is, the man in the shed may have lower overheads, but he doesn't have the cost-advantage of mass manufacture in China. |
|
|
|
Post by lurch on Aug 4, 2024 12:19:13 GMT
Loudspeaker upgrade. I did say I was not going to do this until I've had the house remodelled/rebuilt (delete as appropriate) but that's still more than a year away and these have caught my eye: www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/mofi_soucepoint_888/Not available in the UK (yet), will probably be £6K when they are. Thoughts, anyone? I would say you'd be better off discussing things with Jason. I'm sure you already have a pretty good idea of the layout/room you will achieve with the remodel. For the ££s your looking at spending Jason could build you a pair of his speakers that would work well in your current space. Also due to their tweakability, they can be dialled into their new space so that they'll go from very good to utterly superb speakers. |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,398
|
Post by Bigman80 on Aug 4, 2024 12:34:07 GMT
Loudspeaker upgrade. I did say I was not going to do this until I've had the house remodelled/rebuilt (delete as appropriate) but that's still more than a year away and these have caught my eye: www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/mofi_soucepoint_888/Not available in the UK (yet), will probably be £6K when they are. Thoughts, anyone? I would say you'd be better off discussing things with Jason. I'm sure you already have a pretty good idea of the layout/room you will achieve with the remodel. For the ££s your looking at spending Jason could build you a pair of his speakers that would work well in your current space. Also due to their tweakability, they can be dialled into their new space so that they'll go from very good to utterly superb speakers. There may be an aspect of wanting to avoid what everyone else seems to be doing, but I totally agree. Bang for buck has been incredibe, and those Wilson look a likes always turn my head. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 4, 2024 12:36:41 GMT
Loudspeaker upgrade. I did say I was not going to do this until I've had the house remodelled/rebuilt (delete as appropriate) but that's still more than a year away and these have caught my eye: www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/mofi_soucepoint_888/Not available in the UK (yet), will probably be £6K when they are. Thoughts, anyone? I would say you'd be better off discussing things with Jason. I'm sure you already have a pretty good idea of the layout/room you will achieve with the remodel. For the ££s your looking at spending Jason could build you a pair of his speakers that would work well in your current space. Also due to their tweakability, they can be dialled into their new space so that they'll go from very good to utterly superb speakers. I agree I should explore that option a bit more than I have. Room won't change in size or shape although I will get a new couch to replace my 30 year old ones, so I suppose that will make some difference. Whatever, it will be passive speakers not active or semi-active. If I wanted that I'd go full-fat with Kii3, Neuman, Genelec, something like that. Been through those possibilities and for various reasons unrelated to sound quality, its not the road I'll go down. I have digital PEQ so as along as the speaker is fundamentally good I can still tweak the sound to the room. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Aug 4, 2024 12:47:22 GMT
My Revelatory 851s from Jason are definitely worth a look. Wilson looks alike as Oli says😁. Very controlled and beautiful extended sound further into LF than I have heard with other passive speakers.
|
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Aug 4, 2024 13:05:56 GMT
Red Flag #1 It's got what is in practice a horn loaded tweeter. I'm deeply suspicious of such things. They tend to squawk unless carefully designed ime. Just putting them inside a midrange cone seems a bit random to me and is unlikely to be optimum. Red Flag #2 The upper frequency response seems elevated in the top 3 octaves compared to an ideal subjective frequency response as recently discussed here on AA. I think I and most people would find these bright. Red Flag #3 Being personally strongly averse to Tannoy dual concentric speakers, I'd want a substantial at home trial period with these. Coincident drivers seem to come with unwanted baggage as well as advantages. See Red Flag #1. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 4, 2024 13:06:07 GMT
My Revelatory 851s from Jason are definitely worth a look. Wilson looks alike as Oli says😁. Very controlled and beautiful extended sound further into LF than I have heard with other passive speakers. They look good. Bass extension is really the one reason I am looking at changing the speakers. Troels site doesn't give any indication of what that is though, other than the port tuning is 31Hz. I was thinking of going bigger than what I have though, not smaller. The other 'storebought' contender so far is JBL 4367 but availability is also a problem there. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 4, 2024 13:16:09 GMT
Red Flag #1 It's got what is in practice a horn loaded tweeter. I'm deeply suspicious of such things. They tend to squawk unless carefully designed ime. Just putting them inside a midrange cone seems a bit random to me and is unlikely to be optimum. Red Flag #2 The upper frequency response seems elevated in the top 3 octaves compared to an ideal subjective frequency response as recently discussed here on AA. I think I and most people would find these bright. Red Flag #3 Being personally strongly averse to Tannoy dual concentric speakers, I'd want a substantial at home trial period with these. Coincident drivers seem to come with unwanted baggage as well as advantages. See Red Flag #1. 1. Yes it's a choice of compromises, KEF been doing it for years though. A squawk would show in the FR. 2. The EIR shows 5dB difference between bass and top - gradual decline in amplitude - I'd expect lively, not bright, but then such things can be EQ'd anyway. 3. It's totally different to Tannoy's DC arrangement - but agree the set of compromises of DC might not suit me. I've never, ever had one. Don't know how realistic getting a demo would be. That's if anyone in UK decides to stock them. |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Aug 4, 2024 13:27:45 GMT
I've heard and owned KEF speakers with Uni-Q drivers. Definitely not for me, iirc I described them elsewhere as a victory of technology over music. I'm sure they measure well but I just don't want to listen to music through them. I seem to lack your simple faith in the fundamental and irrefutable link between measurements and sound quality. Now the JBL 4367 definitely does get my juices going. That's gonna be a well designed horn loaded tweeter. hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/speaker/floor-standing/jbl-4367-studio-monitor-loudspeaker-review/I'd want a dem, but yeah, that looks much more interesting to me. |
|
