maty
Major Contributor
Official measurements are excellent. The independent no. I feel cheated.
Official measurements are excellent. The independent no. I feel cheated.
I had run them but forgotten to post. Just added it to the review:
I don't understand the use of bamboo, can somebody explain to me why you wouldn't just use MDF (or HDF)?
I was impressed with how stiff the cabinet was as even under heavy load of pounding bass, it would hardly transmit much to the outside.
This isn't wrong, but you also have to be realistic. In the case of the BS22's, even crossed at 80hz, their 4" woofer is never going to keep up with the sub(s) when you crank the volume up. They have an advantage in the preference rating because max SPL without seeing frequency response linearity issues isn't accounted for in the formula. I could be wrong, but I would think that it's cheaper/easier to make a speaker that doesn't play very loudly have a flat on-axis frequency response in a more limited range. That's not even taking into account how loud the tweeter can play without distortion.
But it still resonates, while I can run my loudspeakers at uncomfortable levels with zero resonance. 22mm MDF with lead bitumen on the inside walls. Outer finish is real wood veneer.Aesthetics and general stiffness/density. Amir mentions it:
After which I just crossed out the Ascend brand. So much difference between official and independent measurements is unacceptable.
Living in Europe (cheaper than in NA) the obvious option is KEF R3 or the previous R300 model (if it is obtained with a great discount). And in columns, also of the same R series, my two cents.
Or KEF Q150 / Q100, with only the 5.25" Uni-Q coaxial, with two subwoofers. Closed or DIY OB from GR-Research (Danny Richie) if big room but not very big.
Updated: The same (two subwoofers) with KEF LS50.
Does Kef still use a pathetic 1st order crossover like in the Q300? Because otherwise, I'd recommend the Q150 to some people seeking passive speakers.I own Q100 , Sierra2 and Sierra Towers w/ RAAL. I like my Q100 but they're still not as clear sounding and also struggle if you try and play them loud in a medium-small sized space compared to the Sierra2.
I definitely agree the terrible falls off very significantly if you stand up vs on axis with the Sierra2, if you're not planning on staying seated while listening than I'd definitely recommend a different speaker.
I own Q100 , Sierra2 and Sierra Towers w/ RAAL. I like my Q100 but they're still not as clear sounding and also struggle if you try and play them loud in a medium-small sized space compared to the Sierra2.
I definitely agree the terrible falls off very significantly if you stand up vs on axis with the Sierra2, if you're not planning on staying seated while listening than I'd definitely recommend a different speaker.
but he [Dave Fabrikant ] thinks there's an issue with the ribbon in the speaker that is being measured:
I've owned many, many speakers including the Kef Q100, BS22, Sierra 2, 2-EX, KEF LS50, Revel F206, Infinity Reference, QA3020, Energy C3, speakers from NHT, Boston, you name it...
Take my subjective impressions for what it's worth, but the 2-EX (successor to the Sierra 2 but shares similar traits) is a step up from all of the above speakers. The Pioneer BS22's are nice for what they are - but it's puzzling to me how they could even compare, sound quality wise. The Pioneers are muddy, dull and less detailed, and scream "low fidelity" in comparison.
I've owned many, many speakers including the Kef Q100, BS22, Sierra 2, 2-EX, KEF LS50, Revel F206, Infinity Reference, QA3020, Energy C3, speakers from NHT, Boston, you name it...
Take my subjective impressions for what it's worth, but the 2-EX (successor to the Sierra 2 but shares similar traits) is a step up from all of the above speakers. The Pioneer BS22's are nice for what they are - but it's puzzling to me how they could even compare, sound quality wise. The Pioneers are muddy, dull and less detailed, and scream "low fidelity" in comparison.
Yet again, a component tested by Amir is "suspected to have problems" after not performing well during Amir's testing. Does that mean that perhaps many of us out here in the real world of audio consumers have defective products and don't know it? Do many products - even good ones - slip away from their original specs over time? We know that capacitors can decline and fail, as well as speaker cone surrounds, but what is causing these other issues?
If any feels up to researching and documenting that factor, a tally of such incidents and suspected incidents could interesting to review and discuss.
But it still resonates, while I can run my loudspeakers at uncomfortable levels with zero resonance. 22mm MDF with lead bitumen on the inside walls. Outer finish is real wood veneer.
Reminds me of the Toole presentation on youtube where in a sighted test a "small, plastic sub/sat system" was rated much lower than some beautiful tower speakers, as they could not sound better - yet they did in the blind test.
I own Q100 , Sierra2 and Sierra Towers w/ RAAL. I like my Q100 but they're still not as clear sounding and also struggle if you try and play them loud in a medium-small sized space compared to the Sierra2...
I fail to see how this would explain my preference of the S2-EX over the Revel F206, a beautiful, glossy, tower speaker.
I think the point he was trying to make is that you can't guarantee that a used, borrowed speaker on loan from a member is up to spec/not defective/functioning as it should like you can if you had gotten it from the manufacturer.
Well we haven't seen the measurements of the 2EX of course .. But in some cases: expectation bias.