Which speaker would you like to be reviewed? (community interest thread)

[Zvu]

Since we now have a Spinorama of the KH420, it would be fun to see how the other end of the price spectrum performs
This one might also be the closest competitor to the Kali IN-8 v2 in that price range.

Amir had kh420 for a long time. This one costs about 950€, looks like it is designed seriously and it is 4th generation so quite mature product.

 

[thewas]

Amir had kh420 for a long time. This one costs about 950€, looks like it is designed seriously and it is 4th generation so quite mature product.

Would be also interested in such, although I wouldn't put too high hopes as the 3rd gen didn't measure really greatly at S&R:

Studiomonitor KRK RP 10−3 im Test

Der Monitor mit der Bezeichnung RP 10−3 stammt aus der Rokit-Serie des US-amerikanischen Herstellers KRK. KRK, gegründet von Keith Klarwitter, blickt heute auf eine bereits 25 Jahre andauernde Firmengeschichte zurück, die sich insbesondere in den letzten Jahren durch große Erfolge und ebensolche...

www.soundandrecording.de

 

[Rja4000]

Focal Aria 948

 

[Zvu]

Would be also interested in such, although I wouldn't put too high hopes as the 3rd gen didn't measure really greatly at S&R:

Studiomonitor KRK RP 10−3 im Test

Der Monitor mit der Bezeichnung RP 10−3 stammt aus der Rokit-Serie des US-amerikanischen Herstellers KRK. KRK, gegründet von Keith Klarwitter, blickt heute auf eine bereits 25 Jahre andauernde Firmengeschichte zurück, die sich insbesondere in den letzten Jahren durch große Erfolge und ebensolche...

www.soundandrecording.de

Most problems are in the tweeter region for older gen, and the tweeter is changed. Mid doesn't have a cavity in front and there are substantial roundovers in gen 4. DSP got better also. RP5 G4 measured quite nice and @amirm enjoyed it subjectively enough to make a 20min video about it. So i think large threeway deserves a chance since potential is there.

Measurements would tell the objective part.

 

[VintageFlanker]

 

[More Dynamics Please]

Rokit 10-3 G4 is pretty unique in its price class ($499) and is currently on sale at Sweetwater for $431.48.

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Rokit103G4--krk-rokit-10-3-g4-10-inch-3-way-powered-studio-monitor

 

[stevenswall]

Rokit 10-3 G4 is pretty unique in its price class ($499) and is currently on sale at Sweetwater for $431.48.

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Rokit103G4--krk-rokit-10-3-g4-10-inch-3-way-powered-studio-monitor

Yeah, if it goes notably lower I might forgive it for not having a coaxial driver. Odd that the max SPL is about 5dB lower than the 8" IN-8 though.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

While he is on a run with KEF.
Reference 3 or 5 Meta
Blade 2

 

[Putter]

The Fritz Speakers Carbon 7, the darling of the audio show circuit:

Fritz Carbon 7 Mk 2 Technical Specifications

Custom high-definition loudspeakers offering superior performance and exceptional value for today's modern home theater and audio systems

www.fritzspeakers.com

Martin

I recently wrote about quick objective evaluations of speakers based on simple observations in my 'What I learned from ASR' thread.
A quick review

5. Speakers with good dispersion are preferred by most people. This finding was confirmed by Floyd Toole's research at NRC and Harman. The question is then how to get the best dispersion?
a. Waveguides to optimize horizontal dispersion.
b. Coaxial speakers with the tweeter inside the bass/midrange so that the speaker essentially become a point source. Along those lines non coaxial speakers should place drivers as close as possible to approach a point source.
c. Three way or four way to reduce beaming (narrowing dispersion as the driver reaches its upper limit).

There is no waveguide or attempt to put drivers closer together to improve dispersion.

There is a 7 inch woofer matched to a 1 inch tweeter which likely indicates that the woofer is likely to start beaming at the crossover to the tweeter creating a discontinuity in the directivity index.

Speaking of crossovers where the heck is it? There literature makes on reference to it. Instead it refers to Acoustic Reality Series Crossovers, series crossover without any capacitors or resistors in the circuit with the tweeter, a web archived page that as illustrated shows 3 inductors and one resistor (yes a resistor although it may not be in circuit with the tweeter). I'm not an electronics experts but I would say it is. Again based on my limited knowledge of electrical circuit theory what is protecting the tweeter from destruction from low frequency signals if it doesn't use capacitors. It also seems like that if this is such a great crossover and the designers are making it available at no cost, wouldn't all the speakers manufacturers be using this simple low cost crossover.

Other issues are the square box which isn't likely reduce internal ringing. The speaker is ported-apparently in back, but the webpage doesn't show it. Ports are often tapered and have mods to reduce chuffing and other issues.

This also brings up that this is a bad webpage. There's a dead link to their main page. When I did discover the main page, it refers one to a series of ecstatic reviews from such objective sources as Absolute Sound. They do show a series of charts of phase and impedance for their different speakers. A casual glance such as I made would make one think that the phase was actually instead a flat frequency response.

In conclusion it appears to be a couple of high quality drivers put into a pretty box at a high price ($2750 online special). It might make a good takedown review of an overpriced speaker (at least IMO) and it's certainly possible it sounds decent as a nearfield speaker although it is rather large for that purpose.

 

[Zvu]

Yeah, if it goes notably lower I might forgive it for not having a coaxial driver. Odd that the max SPL is about 5dB lower than the 8" IN-8 though.

It all depends on how they define max SPL. Is it maximum long term SPL or maximum short term SPL. Methinks Kali IN8-V2 would drop dead after 2 minutes of playing at 117dB at 1m distance. You can observe how Kali behaves at "mere" 102dB at Erin's website.

 

[changer]

Rokit 10-3 G4 I'd love to see tested as well, but it doesn't seem issues are reserved to the tweeter.

I don't know what the woofer is doing there:

https://www.soundandrecording.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/KRK-RP10%E2%88%923-Messung4.jpg

Compared to Genelec S360A:

https://www.soundandrecording.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/360-SPC-580x434.jpg

Speaking of which: I'd really love to see this Genelec two-way tested by Erin!

 

[Zvu]

Difference is there. How would we know if it is perceivable (which would qualify it as an issue) and what would sound better subjectively out of those two ?

And again, that is measurement for G3, not G4.

 

[muad]

I recently wrote about quick objective evaluations of speakers based on simple observations in my 'What I learned from ASR' thread.
A quick review

5. Speakers with good dispersion are preferred by most people. This finding was confirmed by Floyd Toole's research at NRC and Harman. The question is then how to get the best dispersion?
a. Waveguides to optimize horizontal dispersion.
b. Coaxial speakers with the tweeter inside the bass/midrange so that the speaker essentially become a point source. Along those lines non coaxial speakers should place drivers as close as possible to approach a point source.
c. Three way or four way to reduce beaming (narrowing dispersion as the driver reaches its upper limit).

There is no waveguide or attempt to put drivers closer together to improve dispersion.

There is a 7 inch woofer matched to a 1 inch tweeter which likely indicates that the woofer is likely to start beaming at the crossover to the tweeter creating a discontinuity in the directivity index.

Speaking of crossovers where the heck is it? There literature makes on reference to it. Instead it refers to Acoustic Reality Series Crossovers, series crossover without any capacitors or resistors in the circuit with the tweeter, a web archived page that as illustrated shows 3 inductors and one resistor (yes a resistor although it may not be in circuit with the tweeter). I'm not an electronics experts but I would say it is. Again based on my limited knowledge of electrical circuit theory what is protecting the tweeter from destruction from low frequency signals if it doesn't use capacitors. It also seems like that if this is such a great crossover and the designers are making it available at no cost, wouldn't all the speakers manufacturers be using this simple low cost crossover.

Other issues are the square box which isn't likely reduce internal ringing. The speaker is ported-apparently in back, but the webpage doesn't show it. Ports are often tapered and have mods to reduce chuffing and other issues.

This also brings up that this is a bad webpage. There's a dead link to their main page. When I did discover the main page, it refers one to a series of ecstatic reviews from such objective sources as Absolute Sound. They do show a series of charts of phase and impedance for their different speakers. A casual glance such as I made would make one think that the phase was actually instead a flat frequency response.

In conclusion it appears to be a couple of high quality drivers put into a pretty box at a high price ($2750 online special). It might make a good takedown review of an overpriced speaker (at least IMO) and it's certainly possible it sounds decent as a nearfield speaker although it is rather large for that purpose.

Damn, did the speaker attack your family? You dissected and skewered every part of this thing.

 

[test1223]

Speaking of crossovers where the heck is it? There literature makes on reference to it. Instead it refers to Acoustic Reality Series Crossovers, series crossover without any capacitors or resistors in the circuit with the tweeter, a web archived page that as illustrated shows 3 inductors and one resistor (yes a resistor although it may not be in circuit with the tweeter). I'm not an electronics experts but I would say it is. Again based on my limited knowledge of electrical circuit theory what is protecting the tweeter from destruction from low frequency signals if it doesn't use capacitors. It also seems like that if this is such a great crossover and the designers are making it available at no cost, wouldn't all the speakers manufacturers be using this simple low cost crossover.

The explanation to avoid capacitors is voodoo stuff but this crossover actually works but it wouldn't produce a steep slope. Think of a coil as a high frequency blocker, low frequency pass and the tweeter as a resistor and you see that most of the bass "flows" through the woofer.

There is no waveguide or attempt to put drivers closer together to improve dispersion.

There is a 7 inch woofer matched to a 1 inch tweeter which likely indicates that the woofer is likely to start beaming at the crossover to the tweeter creating a discontinuity in the directivity index.

The wide overlap of the woofer and tweeter actually can even out the difference in directivity. And with the distance between the woofer and tweeter you can control where the vertical main beam in the crossover region is directed. You also get more severe diffraction with placing the woofer and tweeter more close together. Almost everything as pros and cons.

You might be right that the speakers isn't good but your still need to learn more to give a fair critique of a speaker design.

 

[thewas]

The wide overlap of the woofer and tweeter actually can even out the difference in directivity.

For the horizontal directivity though, the vertical one suffers with stronger lobes when overlapping more.

 

[test1223]

For the horizontal directivity though, the vertical one suffers with stronger lobes when overlapping more.

No the phase shift of such slow roll offs most likely avoids that, but without measurement it is all speculation since the crossover frequency and phase shift and beam of the raw drivers determine if it works or not. On the negative side, such designs tend to much more easily cause distortion of the tweeter which might even lead to an blow up.

 

[thewas]

No the phase shift of such slow roll offs most likely avoids that

Nope https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...lter-effects-on-the-vertical-radiation.23239/

 

[test1223]

Nope https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...lter-effects-on-the-vertical-radiation.23239/

I assume the simulation doesn't take the beaming of the woofer into account. A typical 1. order crossover has a higher crossover frequency so that the tweeter doesn't get damaged. With this the woofer beams a lot in this frequency range and therefore the cancellations at higher angels aren't that severe. With a 1. order crossover there are less nulls so if everything is aligned perfectly such designs can measure quite good.

 

[Vacceo]

I'd love to see the Perlisten R5t reviewed.

 

[thewas]

I assume the simulation doesn't take the beaming of the woofer into account. A typical 1. order crossover has a higher crossover frequency so that the tweeter doesn't get damaged. With this the woofer beams a lot in this frequency range and therefore the cancellations at higher angels aren't that severe. With a 1. order crossover there are less nulls so if everything is aligned perfectly such designs can measure quite good.

That is not correct and the simulation takes into account the beaming of the drivers. Beaming/lobing is created when two spatially separated sound sources emit the same frequency, which cause interference patterns depending on the angle and related path differences related to the wavelengths. Thus at an infinite steep slope there would be no such lobing, so similar to a coincident driver.
Also you cannot assume a higher crossover frequency when we are talking about the influence of crossover steepness on the horizontal and vertical steepness.
But even in this case the reality usually shows significantly more problems at loudspeakers with shallower crossover slopes, just exemplary, a 5" B&W

vs a 5" Revel