Neutral bookshelf speakers @ $2000?

[echopraxia]

Wow, KEF R3 seems similar in performance to Revel M16 but (more than) twice the price here

I think you’re just trolling, but just in case, here is the M16 Spinorama:

I wouldn’t exactly call this “on-par“ with the exceptional measurements from the KEF R3 or Ascend Sierra 2-EX.

But, you could say it’s on par with or perhaps even better than the Buchardt S400, and also ironically, the Revel M126.

 

[BillG]

I think you’re just trolling, but just in case, here is the M16 Spinorama

I was just looking at that also, and I think he confused them with the M106s which are $2,000USD per pair...


By the way, here's a quasi-anechoic measurement for the M16s (in purple):

 

[napilopez]

One thing I've noticed is that Revel doesn't list the harmonic distortion rates for the M16, while KEF does for the R3. With the R3 being a 3 way design, it might actually beat the M16 in that area since it's merely a 2 way. The KEF also digs a bit deeper into the bass region. Regardless, I'm sure they both probably provide a great listening experience...

-6db at 50Hz for the M16 and 38Hz for the KEF from two companies that tend to be accurate with their bass figures. It tends to be be overshadowed compared to the more 'sciency' topics of DI and FR smoothness here, but let's not forget that Bass extension is a major part of Harman's formula for predicting user preference. About 30 percent of the weighting, if I recall correctly.

Yes, you can cross speakers with a sub, but OP hasn't specified in that regard and it's always good to have more extension.

I think you’re just trolling, but just in case, here is the M16 Spinorama:

View attachment 36947

I wouldn’t exactly call this “on-par“ with the exceptional measurements from the KEF R3 or Ascend Sierra 2-EX.

But, you could say it’s on par with or perhaps even better than the Buchardt S400, and also ironically, the Revel M126.

I was just looking at that also, and I think he confused them with the M106s which are $2,000USD per pair...


By the way, here's a quasi-anechoic measurement for the M16s (in purple):

View attachment 36948

Actually that still looks pretty good compared to the other speakers here. The on axis is a bit messier but the far more important listening window is super flat. Reflections curves have a minor crossover dip.

 

[Ilkless]

I think you’re just trolling, but just in case, here is the M16 Spinorama:

View attachment 36947

I wouldn’t exactly call this (anywhere close to) being on-par with the exceptional KEF R3 or Ascend Sierra 2EX measurement.

But you could say it’s on par with or perhaps even better than the Buchardt S400, and also ironically, the Revel M126.

The 5kHz peak is what Floyd Toole calls "acoustical interference that is "something far more offensive to the eye than to the ear". It could be an on-axis artefact of the waveguide design, one that disappears right away off-axis as seen in the much flatter listening window curve. They are highly-localised effects that scarcely affect the overall balance of the direct sound, which is in reality reflected more closely by the listening window, a spatial average of a narrow frontal segment of angles rather than a single axis.

See this article under the section "Listening Window": https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/measure-loudspeaker-performance

 

[sfdoddsy]

I feels to me like people are forgetting the logical conclusion that comes with accepting that the Harman model is an objective indicator of speaker performance.

Much like most here (I hope) would agree that any competently designed amp sounds much like any other competently designed amp, any speaker that meets the Harman/CEA standard should sound awfully close to any other other speaker that does.

If it doesn't, there is something wrong with the standard. And any slight variations will be swamped by the room in any case.

So the Revel M106, the KEF R3, the Buchardt S400, the Sierra 2EX, the Neumann KH80 etc should sound pretty much the same.

And if you throw Room EQ into the mix, they should sound even more similar.

Certainly in my experience this is the case.

For the past 15 years or so my main speakers have been DIY open baffles based on the work of Siegfried Linkwitz. All of them have basically sounded more similar than different, even with drivers as different as BG Neo10 planars versus Seas Excel dynamics.

They also all sound different to monopole box speakers. Not better, just different.

I moved house a while back and lost my huge dedicated room and so have been trying out speakers that are more aesthetically acceptable than large open baffles.

The speakers I've tried that conform to the Harman model (KEF R3, KEF LS50, Revel M20, JBL LS308) sound very similar to each other - bass extension aside. Not as enticing subjectively as my OBs, but objectively I could live with any of them.

Those that I have tried that do not conform to the Harman model (PMC Twenty 23, GoldenEar Triton 3, Sonus Faber Grand Piano, B&W 805) sound a bit different, usually because of a midrange dip followed by tipped up treble.

Much like my OBs, their inaccuracy can be quite enjoyable.

EQed flat, however, they sound much closer to the objectively designed speakers.

I suspect any of the candidates for neutral, scientifically designed speakers mentioned throughout this thread will do a dandy job for the OP. If they sound significantly different, they either have not been designed to meet the criteria, or there is something wrong with the criteria.

And maybe the listener will just prefer speakers that are not actually neutral.

I've gone with KEF R3s in the family listening area because they sound very good, look very nice, have the bass extension to blend with subs properly, and have dispersion regular enough to be EQed without harm.

I suspect I could spend triple their cost without any significant aural improvement. Certainly a listen at my pet dealer to the KEF References failed to evince any kind of dramatic improvement.

That said, I still have a smaller man-room and have an active three way DSPed dipole humming away in there. It measures well (albeit not Harman well) but I subjectively prefer the inaccuracies of dynamic dipoles to the accuracies of monkey coffins.

 

[BillG]

I feels to me like people are forgetting the logical conclusion that comes with accepting that the Harman model is an objective indicator of speaker performance.

Not I, as I would be very comfortable purchasing just about any Harmon group designed speakers without auditioning them at home first. I've even done that before...

 

[ernestcarl]

Funny, as I think I would be quite happy already with many of the monitors suggested here. Believe it or not, I bought the KH120 mainly because of the mounting options (for the L bracket [LH 61] specifically) -- given the tight space here, I've pretty much accidently shoved & dropped other monitors as well e.g. the LSR305 to the ground. I'm a klutz. I've also almost knocked my S8 off to the ground a couple times already, hence the straps:

I'm planning to bolt that stand secure as well either to the concrete floor or to a stud in the wall -- I still haven't got my drill and driver back yet, brother borrowed it. LOL. Paranoid much.

 

[bunkbail]

Tekton Impact Monitor is $2000, has good on-axis response but so-so measurements in others.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/tekton-design-impact-monitor-loudspeaker-measurements

 

[aarons915]

Is it just me, or does the Buchardt S400 spinorama measurement show significantly inferior performance vs the KEF R3 and Ascend Sierra 2EX? There appears to be a relatively significant problem with the directivity index and sound power curve — an issue which does not exist in the other speakers (except perhaps to some extent in the M106).

You can see in the early reflections graphs that the dip at 2k is vertical cancellation in the floor bounce measurement. This is a problem in pretty much all vertically aligned speakers but the S400 is probably a bit worse because of the longer spacing due to that massive waveguide. The horizontal plane is about perfectly matched which is said to be more important than vertical, even though I did see one study that showed vertical reflections are beneficial as well. Dr. Toole has also said as long as the direct sound is flat, the brain fills in that dip and it isn't very audible because of that, this was in response to the same issue in the Salon 2 I believe.

I think all of the speakers being discussed are very good and I'm sure there wouldn't be big differences between them but I'd honestly say the Sierra 2 EX Spin is the most suspect, it uses 1/12 smoothing and as I mentioned to Dave twice without a response, the Early Reflection directivity index doesn't appear to be accurate, it's supposed to be the difference between the listening window and ER curve and it's clearly not. I think I've read that he has his own formula for the sound power curve as well which makes me wonder why. Either way, the biggest difference between all of these is going to be the off-axis response with all of the speakers besides the Sierra 2 EX being similar because they are similar designs, the 2 EX has more energy after the crossover due to the wide dispersion of the RAAL.

 

[oivavoi]

This has been a very interesting discussion. I think the problem with many of the recommendations is that they employ wave guides to achieve even directivity. They thereby limit dispersion in the most part important part of the audio band (below 5 khz or so). This disregards another of dr Toole's findings: that most people prefer speakers with wide dispersion. AFAIK no studies have looked into this trade-off: does a speaker benefit in the minds of most listeners by getting more even directivity, but sacrificing wide dispersion from 5-6 khz down? The best though, of course, would be to achieve both.

I think the ultimate speaker for home use (assuming box speaker style) would look something like this: small tweeter (1/2 inch?), crossed over to a small midrange (3 inch?) at a point where directivities match, crossed over to a six-inch woofer (for example) which goes down to 120 or 100 hz, crossed over to multi-subs in the bass. No waveguides. This would as far as I understand create the widest dispersion possible at all frequencies. The problem would be power handling and power in the mid and tweeter, but aren't newer drivers more capable of this? I'm not sure if there are any such speakers commercially available. The Infinity Primus 350/360 comes to mind (3/4 inch tweeter, 4-inch mid), but can't think of any others at the moment. And certainly no bookshelfs!

EDIT: the philharmonitor 3-way bookshelf comes close, btw! But I'm not sure about the dispersion pattern of the raal tweeter?

 

[echopraxia]

This has been a very interesting discussion. I think the problem with many of the recommendations is that they employ wave guides to achieve even directivity. They thereby limit dispersion in the most part important part of the audio band (below 5 khz or so). This disregards another of dr Toole's findings: that most people prefer speakers with wide dispersion. AFAIK no studies have looked into this trade-off: does a speaker benefit in the minds of most listeners by getting more even directivity, but sacrificing wide dispersion from 5-6 khz down? The best though, of course, would be to achieve both.

I think the ultimate speaker for home use (assuming box speaker style) would look something like this: small tweeter (1/2 inch?), crossed over to a small midrange (3 inch?) at a point where directivities match, crossed over to a six-inch woofer (for example) which goes down to 120 or 100 hz, crossed over to multi-subs in the bass. No waveguides. This would as far as I understand create the widest dispersion possible at all frequencies. The problem would be power handling and power in the mid and tweeter, but aren't newer drivers more capable of this? I'm not sure if there are any such speakers commercially available. The Infinity Primus 350/360 comes to mind (3/4 inch tweeter, 4-inch mid), but can't think of any others at the moment. And certainly no bookshelfs!

EDIT: the philharmonitor 3-way bookshelf comes close, btw! But I'm not sure about the dispersion pattern of the raal tweeter?

As I read your description, it sounded like you were basically describing a Philharmonitor or Ascend Sierra RAAL Tower (5” mid and woofers plus a ribbon tweeter with extremely wide dispersion).

You can read here some measurements and specs on the RAAL tweeter version of the towers: http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRT/Ascend Sierra Ribbon Tower.pdf

I have the Ascend Sierra Towers with RAAL, and I can attest that (aside from sounding incredible in general), it sounds virtually omnidirectional — the sound signature is almost exactly the same no matter where you listen, up to almost 90 degrees off-axis.

I also would be curious to see studies that investigate subjective preferences in this regard (extremely wide dispersion overall). It does seem the research here is lacking data. When comparing two speakers side by side, this is also a difference that is extremely obvious — yet it seems rarely talked about in measurements, or at least not given much priority.

In fact, on this topic, what Aarons915 above is referring to is actually a case where he got into a fight with Dave Fabrikant (engineer and owner of Ascend) on AVSForum, where he was continuously accusing Dave of making inferior speakers and trying to teach Dave speaker design, and Dave posted many extensive responses explaining the Ascend speaker measurements in great depth. The thread did not go very well (or at least was not very productive from the perspective of most observers), since no consensus was reached between Aaron and Dave.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to these sorts of strange biases while interpreting spin graphs. For example:

1. Notice how when a Revel speaker has a small measurement flaw, Dr. Toole has a quote somewhere explaining why it’s not a big deal (because someone asked him), which is accepted as gospel.

2. Yet when a non-Revel speaker has a similarly small idiosyncrasy, people will use this as proof that it’s a deeply flawed speaker, and if the speaker designer explains why it’s not a big deal (because someone asked), some people (like Aarons915 in his argument with Dave Fabrikant) will try to stubbornly reject their explanation at all costs.

I say we should try to remain objective, and treat all speakers the same by the same objective metric. For all the talk of spinoramas as objective measurement of a speaker’s performance, there’s a huge gaping hole in the objectivity that remains: interpreting which of two spin plots corresponds to the better speaker appears to be rather subjective!

So here’s a question that I’ve not seen answered well: What is an objective, mathematical way of judging which of two Spinorama measurements correspond for the “better” speaker? By “mathematical”, I mean something where you could literally plug two spin charts into a computer program, and it would deterministically be able to tell you which one sounds better.

All I’ve ever seen is vague things like “well the spinorama should look kinda like this <inserts link to a Revel speaker‘s measurements>”. These sort of circular definitions of ideal speaker measurement (that axiomatically declare Revel speakers as literally “perfection by definition”), are not only obviously biased, but deeply unscientific and subjective.

 

[MZKM]

Tekton Impact Monitor is $2000, has good on-axis response but so-so measurements in others.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/tekton-design-impact-monitor-loudspeaker-measurements

It’s vertical performance is a crap-shoot, it’s basically the same as what people say about MartinLogans, their sweet spot is very narrow, but for Tekton it’s in the vertical domain, so its not good for a couch full of listeners (unless all the same seated height), it also will have very different floor/ceiling bounces from the on-axis, which is more offensive and requires more treatment.

 

[oivavoi]

As I read your description, it sounded like you were basically describing a Philharmonitor or Ascend Sierra RAAL Tower (5” mid and woofers plus a ribbon tweeter with extremely wide dispersion).

You can read here some measurements and specs on the RAAL tweeter version of the towers: http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRT/Ascend Sierra Ribbon Tower.pdf

I have the Ascend Sierra Towers with RAAL, and I can attest that (aside from sounding incredible in general), it sounds virtually omnidirectional — the sound signature is almost exactly the same no matter where you listen, up to almost 90 degrees off-axis.

I also would be curious to see studies that investigate subjective preferences in this regard (extremely wide dispersion overall). It does seem the research here is lacking data. When comparing two speakers side by side, this is also a difference that is extremely obvious — yet it seems rarely talked about in measurements, or at least not given much priority.

In fact, on this topic, what Aarons915 above is referring to is actually a case where he got into a fight with Dave Fabrikant (engineer and owner of Ascend) on AVSForum, where he was continuously accusing Dave of making inferior speakers and trying to teach Dave speaker design, and Dave posted many extensive responses explaining the Ascend speaker measurements in great depth. The thread did not go very well (or at least was not very productive from the perspective of most observers), since no consensus was reached between Aaron and Dave.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to these sorts of strange biases while interpreting spin graphs. For example:

1. Notice how when a Revel speaker has a small measurement flaw, Dr. Toole has a quote somewhere explaining why it’s not a big deal (because someone asked him), which is accepted as gospel.

2. Yet when a non-Revel speaker has a similarly small idiosyncrasy, people will use this as proof that it’s a deeply flawed speaker, and if the speaker designer explains why it’s not a big deal (because someone asked), some people (like Aarons915 in his argument with Dave Fabrikant) will try to stubbornly reject their explanation at all costs.

I say we should try to remain objective, and treat all speakers the same by the same objective metric. For all the talk of spinoramas as objective measurement of a speaker’s performance, there’s a huge gaping hole in the objectivity that remains: interpreting which of two spin plots corresponds to the better speaker appears to be rather subjective!

So here’s a question that I’ve not seen answered well: What is an objective, mathematical way of judging which of two Spinorama measurements correspond for the “better” speaker? By “mathematical”, I mean something where you could literally plug two spin charts into a computer program, and it would deterministically be able to tell you which one measures better.

All I’ve ever seen is vague things like “well the spinorama should look kinda like this <inserts link to a Revel speaker‘s measurements>”. These sort of circular definitions of ideal speaker measurement (that axiomatically declare Revel speakers as literally “perfection by definition”), are not only obviously biased, but deeply unscientific and subjective.

Very good points!

I have never heard the Ascend speakers, but they get consistently glowing user reviews, and the measurements are excellent. I checked out their website now, and they have many interesting offerings. I think an interesting option would be to get a pair of the new Sierra Luna mini-monitors, which have a raal tweeter + 4.5 inch woofer, which probably achieves even wider and more even dispersion in the crossover region than the Towers. Then place these mini-monitros on top of a tall matching suboowfer/woofer box, angle them slightly backwards, and do the crossover around 300 hz. If the woofer is placed on the bottom close to the floor one avoids the floor bounce suck-out around 150/200 hz as well. I think the result could turn out to be pretty, pretty good.

 

[JimB]

...
So here’s a question that I’ve not seen answered well: What is an objective, mathematical way of judging which of two Spinorama measurements correspond for the “better” speaker? By “mathematical”, I mean something where you could literally plug two spin charts into a computer program, and it would deterministically be able to tell you which one measures better.
....

Did you mean to say, "which one sounds better"?

 

[aarons915]

This has been a very interesting discussion. I think the problem with many of the recommendations is that they employ wave guides to achieve even directivity. They thereby limit dispersion in the most part important part of the audio band (below 5 khz or so). This disregards another of dr Toole's findings: that most people prefer speakers with wide dispersion. AFAIK no studies have looked into this trade-off: does a speaker benefit in the minds of most listeners by getting more even directivity, but sacrificing wide dispersion from 5-6 khz down? The best though, of course, would be to achieve both.

I think the ultimate speaker for home use (assuming box speaker style) would look something like this: small tweeter (1/2 inch?), crossed over to a small midrange (3 inch?) at a point where directivities match, crossed over to a six-inch woofer (for example) which goes down to 120 or 100 hz, crossed over to multi-subs in the bass. No waveguides. This would as far as I understand create the widest dispersion possible at all frequencies. The problem would be power handling and power in the mid and tweeter, but aren't newer drivers more capable of this? I'm not sure if there are any such speakers commercially available. The Infinity Primus 350/360 comes to mind (3/4 inch tweeter, 4-inch mid), but can't think of any others at the moment. And certainly no bookshelfs!

EDIT: the philharmonitor 3-way bookshelf comes close, btw! But I'm not sure about the dispersion pattern of the raal tweeter?

After hearing a few Revel and KEF designs, I can personally say that the tradeoff is worth it. I think many people believe that you want the widest dispersion possible, ie omnidirectional, but that would end up having a flat in-room response and sound too bright. If this were the ideal, then I agree the BMR would pretty much be the best speaker around. I think the point-source quality that a properly designed waveguide creates is a more natural sound personally.

 

[echopraxia]

After hearing a few Revel and KEF designs, I can personally say that the tradeoff is worth it. I think many people believe that you want the widest dispersion possible, ie omnidirectional, but that would end up having a flat in-room response and sound too bright. If this were the ideal, then I agree the BMR would pretty much be the best speaker around. I think the point-source quality that a properly designed waveguide creates is a more natural sound personally.

It’s entirely possible that what you heard was due to other factors than how wide the dispersion pattern is. I’ve heard the KEF R3 and own Ascend Sierra 2EX’s, and the 2EX would never be described as “too bright” or “excess energy in treble”.

Interestingly, what is extremely noticeable is that the Sierra 2EX sounds the same (which sounds extremely neutral) no matter where you are in the room, while the KED LS50 Wireless and R3 that I demoed definitely exhibited the normal loss of detail due to treble rolloff at extreme off-axis listening angles.

It is very impressive that the Sierra 2EX does not have this problem typical of most speakers, and as I’ve described in another similar thread on AVSForum, it is a significant advantage for small and large rooms alike: for small rooms, small movements of listening position are more likely to lead to larger deviations in off-axis angle, and in a large room, parties with many people are more likely to have people way out of the ideal listening zone.

In any case, I love the sound of the R3 too when I heard it. I’m planning to buy a pair of KEF R3’s soon, to replace speakers I sold in another room. It will be interesting how they sound when compared side by side with my Sierra 2EX (the only reason I’m not sticking with Ascend again is because I just bought 5 speakers from them, and I think variety is nice too — and KEFs measurements look amazing, better than Revel, at least to me).

 

[aarons915]

In fact, on this topic, what Aarons915 above is referring to is actually a case where he got into a fight with Dave Fabrikant (engineer and owner of Ascend) on AVSForum, where he was continuously accusing Dave of making inferior speakers and trying to teach Dave speaker design, and Dave posted many extensive responses explaining the Ascend speaker measurements in great depth. The thread did not go very well (or at least was not very productive from the perspective of most observers), since no consensus was reached between Aaron and Dave.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to these sorts of strange biases while interpreting spin graphs. For example:

1. Notice how when a Revel speaker has a small measurement flaw, Dr. Toole has a quote somewhere explaining why it’s not a big deal (because someone asked him), which is accepted as gospel.

2. Yet when a non-Revel speaker has a similarly small idiosyncrasy, people will use this as proof that it’s a deeply flawed speaker, and if the speaker designer explains why it’s not a big deal (because someone asked), some people (like Aarons915 in his argument with Dave Fabrikant) will try to stubbornly reject their explanation at all costs.

I'm not sure why you think it was a fight, I think it was mostly a good technical discussion except for the few fanboys adding nothing but insults. I see knocking down strawmen is still your go-to debate tactic lol...I never said the 2 EX was an "inferior speaker" but I was pointing out that when you crossover a 6" midrange to a .4" tweeter (without a waveguide), it's hard to avoid a directivity mismatch. It would also be clear as day if his ERDI curve were done correctly. Regardless, plenty of people think they sound great so I hardly think that issue makes them a bad speaker, I fully admitted I was nit-picking.

I'm not sure where you're seeing a double standard, I was explaining why the dip in the S400 isn't really a directivity mismatch because you can see the issue isn't present in the horizontal plane, Burchardt really should have explained that dip because many people have questioned it. I was also saying that dip may not be audible because of Toole's quote, that applies to Revel, Burchardt and Sierra 2 EX and any other speaker that exhibits it.

So here’s a question that I’ve not seen answered well: What is an objective, mathematical way of judging which of two Spinorama measurements correspond for the “better” speaker? By “mathematical”, I mean something where you could literally plug two spin charts into a computer program, and it would deterministically be able to tell you which one measures better.

All I’ve ever seen is vague things like “well the spinorama should look kinda like this <inserts link to a Revel speaker‘s measurements>”. These sort of circular definitions of ideal speaker measurement (that axiomatically declare Revel speakers as literally “perfection by definition”), are not only obviously biased, but deeply unscientific and subjective.

I've attached the formula from "A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements: Part II Development of the Model" the paper goes into more detail about how the numbers are derived. I'm sure Harman has software that does it for them but you could reasonably estimate the numbers based on the Spin.

Also, until more companies start adopting the Spin style measurement, Revel and JBL are going to be the most common Spin measurements available, I think the KEF R series, Sierra 2 EX and S400 are the only other Spins I've seen. I've never seen anyone declare Revel perfection by definition, their speakers sound good because they know what listeners prefer from decades of research and blind testing and they design their speakers that way. No one assumes that a Revel spin must be perfect because it's Revel, it's because the speakers sound really good so we infer that the Spin must also be good. If your Sierra 2 EX consistently beat other speakers in its price range, we would do the same and try to figure out what is different that makes it better and then start striving for that ideal. You always have to start with the best speakers and then determine what makes them good via measurements, it's really how it all started with Dr. Toole's research on the subject decades ago.

 

[echopraxia]

I'm not sure why you think it was a fight, I think it was mostly a good technical discussion except for the few fanboys adding nothing but insults. I see knocking down strawmen is still your go-to debate tactic lol...I never said the 2 EX was an "inferior speaker" but I was pointing out that when you crossover a 6" midrange to a .4" tweeter (without a waveguide), it's hard to avoid a directivity mismatch. It would also be clear as day if his ERDI curve were done correctly. Regardless, plenty of people think they sound great so I hardly think that issue makes them a bad speaker, I fully admitted I was nit-picking.

I don’t think it was perceived by most people the way you perceive your own argument with Dave Fabrikant. Most people on that thread perceived your posts as being so very persistent and confrontational at trying to nitpick extremely subtle possible flaws from the 2EX measurements, that you just have a personal vendetta against Ascend or RAAL. I’m not claiming this myself BTW: this is what several people independently PMed me during that discussion to “warn” me against wasting time arguing with you.

In any case I don’t think it was a total waste of time, and I think nit-picking speakers are fair (here I am still debating, in any case ). But I would say this kind of nit-picking we want to do to speakers is only valuable so long as we don’t hold them to a double standard:

I'm not sure where you're seeing a double standard, I was explaining why the dip in the S400 isn't really a directivity mismatch because you can see the issue isn't present in the horizontal plane, Burchardt really should have explained that dip because many people have questioned it. I was also saying that dip may not be audible because of Toole's quote, that applies to Revel, Burchardt and Sierra 2 EX and any other speaker that exhibits it.

Yes, but when you questioned the Sierra 2EX’s plots, the creator himself of these speakers personally replied to you and explained in great technical detail why (1) the measurements may look brighter than they sound due to the unusually broad dispersion of the RAAL ribbon tweeters, and (2) produced plots showing why the slight dip at the crossover is far better than most of the competing traditional speakers (including those from Revel) you seemed to be holding up as examples of better speakers.

Yet despite him writing many pages of explanation just to satisfy your “nit picking” (as you describe it), you try to reject/argue each and every point he makes (FYI most people find his points to be well explained and reasonable).

In contrast, in the other thread when a question about an apparent flaw in a Revel speaker is asked of Dr. Toole and he gives an explanation for why it doesn’t matter, you accept it immediately, absolutely, and without resistance.

This is the double standard I’m talking about.

I've attached the formula from "A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements: Part II Development of the Model" the paper goes into more detail about how the numbers are derived. I'm sure Harman has software that does it for them but you could reasonably estimate the numbers based on the Spin.

Excellent! In this case it should no longer be subjective any more which of these four speakers performs the worst Incidentally, I do not see anything in that model that would tolerate the flaws in either the S400 or Revel M106 speaker measurements posted here.

Now if only we had an open source software implementation of this model, and a way to import data into it (the latter probably being the most difficult) — that would be great, and settle this debate once and for all (right??)

If we had more consistent data sources (e.g. if Amir ever started doing spin measurements), and if an open source implementation of that model doesn’t already exist, I’d be happy to implement that paper into code myself, so as to contribute to us finally having a truly objective way of comparing spekeakers.

Also, until more companies start adopting the Spin style measurement, Revel and JBL are going to be the most common Spin measurements available, I think the KEF R series, Sierra 2 EX and S400 are the only other Spins I've seen. I've never seen anyone declare Revel perfection by definition, their speakers sound good because they know what listeners prefer from decades of research and blind testing and they design their speakers that way. No one assumes that a Revel spin must be perfect because it's Revel, it's because the speakers sound really good so we infer that the Spin must also be good. If your Sierra 2 EX consistently beat other speakers in its price range, we would do the same and try to figure out what is different that makes it better and then start striving for that ideal. You always have to start with the best speakers and then determine what makes them good via measurements, it's really how it all started with Dr. Toole's research on the subject decades ago.

I agree that not only do companies not release enough measurements, but when they do they’re often in incompatible formats or different axis scales that makes it hard to compare.

I suspect the reason they don’t is because if they did, people like us would actually go implement that multiple regression model and openly publish a definitive ranking of which speakers are “best” by the estimation of that model.

They wouldn’t want that, because more confusion means a broader distribution of sales among a set of speaker brands, whereas such a objective ranking may create an undesirable “winner take all“ situation for them.

 

[maty]

After hearing a few Revel and KEF designs, I can personally say that the tradeoff is worth it. I think many people believe that you want the widest dispersion possible, ie omnidirectional, but that would end up having a flat in-room response and sound too bright...

If you listen to in the axis, like studio monitors. But usually we listen to at some degrees.

KEF Q100, 5.25" coaxial speaker
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...inimum-phase-vs-linear-phase.8762/post-225351

I do not like the "V or U" curve. The question is I listen to about 20º-40º. There we do have the famous frequency response that so many seek.

FR at 30º, 40º and 50º.

By retouching slightly via minimum phase PEQ we can flatten it a little more. And to reduce the alteration in the phase that we have caused thanks to rePhase.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...inimum-phase-vs-linear-phase.8762/post-253826

 

[aarons915]

I don’t think it was perceived by most people the way you perceive your own argument with Dave Fabrikant. Most people on that thread perceived your posts as being so very persistent and confrontational at trying to nitpick extremely subtle possible flaws from the 2EX measurements, that you just have a personal vendetta against Ascend or RAAL.

It's no surprise that people who own RAAL speakers were biased, I was PM'd by a few people as well who agreed with me but don't want to deal with the RAAL fanboys so they don't post their opinions, I don't think that's right so that's a big reason why I voice my opinion strongly and appear to have an axe to grind, I really have nothing against RAAL tweeters or Ascend.

Yes, but when you questioned the Sierra 2EX’s plots (which may appear to look like a bright speaker), the creator himself of these speakers personally replied to you and explained in great technical detail why (1) the sound power measurements may look brighter than they sound due to the unusually broad dispersion of the RAAL ribbon tweeters, and (2) produced plots showing why the slight dip at the crossover is far better than most of the competing traditional spekaers (including those from Revel) you seemed to be holding up as examples of better speakers.

Mating a 6" midrange to a small tweeter is exactly what B&W does and most agree that they are not the best designs, I was pointing out that the Sierra 2 EX does the same exact thing. Also, if extremely wide dispersion were the ideal target, that would make the BMR the king under 2k.

In contrast, in the other thread when a question about an apparent flaw in a Revel speaker is asked of Dr. Toole and he gives an explanation for why it doesn’t matter, you accept it immediately, absolutely, and without resistance.

This is the double standard I’m talking about.

That's a fair point but Dr. Toole is the expert in this area so if I'm going to believe someone regarding acoustics, it's going to be him. I've challenged the idea that vertical reflections aren't as important as horizontal in the Science thread so no I don't just believe everything without question. It is the main reason I believe that coaxials sound so clear compared to vertically aligned speakers, we definitely need more research in that area.

They wouldn’t want that, because more confusion means a broader distribution of sales among a set of speaker brands, whereas such a objective ranking may create an undesirable “winner take all“ situation for them.

Definitely agree here.