Well, those measurements are standardised and not easy to falsily or manipulate even if you want too and I will explain also why I believe they aren't wrong.
In the graph of vertical dispersion provided on Neumann's site, the "eyes" that indicate the location of the point of strongest cancellation are found at 45 degrees to 50 degrees above and below the horizontal, exactly as they should be, separated by 90 to 100 degrees. The graph you provided indicates that the nulls are separated by 235 degrees.
https://static-neumann.s3.amazonaws...ile/507/neumann_kh310_ver_directivity_510.gif
Before writing condescending to others you should first understand that real non-point source radiating drivers in real encloses with their baffle diffraction effects and real crossover slopes show different radiation pattern then your oversimplified assumption and calculation of point sources with no diffraction and infinite crossover slopes.
This also come to you back about arrogance...
I have difficulty when someone has behaved toward me in a consistently rude, condescending manner, and then accuses me of being condescending. Since you have evidently manufactured some history that is not consistent with the true history, I will again recapitulate what transpired here.
Some other people had spoken favorably of the LYD48. At least one of them had also mentioned the KH310.
I wrote a post wherein I said that considering the difference in the cost of the two speakers, that the LYD48 would be the better value. This was a perfectly reasonable thing for me to have said, considering that there is in fact a very big difference in the price. You wrote a reply to my post, wherein you included that graph of the KH310's vertical polar response.
In response to your objection to my having said that the LYD48 is a better value, I wrote a reply that was perfectly polite. I pointed out that value is subjective. I pointed out the problem with the graph, and I did so in a perfectly respectful, matter-of-fact tone. In that same post of mine, I also wrote this:
Value is entirely subjective. ... I don't think there is any question that the KH310 is the better speaker. I just am hesitant to think that the difference is great enough to make up for the very significant difference in price. Were I to sit down and listen to the LYD48 I doubt very much that I would hear anything that would make me hesitate to buy it if the alternative were to spend nearly twice as much on the KH310. But value is subjective.
You replied to that by writing this:
I would strongly recommend you listening to the KH310 if you have the chance...
Perhaps this kind of thing would not bother most other people. But it bothers me, because over the years I've witnessed arrogant audiophiles do this very sort of thing countless times, and it isn't truly anything except a way to insult someone for not agreeing with you. That's all it really is. Even if this sort of rudeness happens all the time in audiophile forums, this would not make it any less rude. "The only reason you like that cheap swill wine that you drink is that you have never tasted the superior wine that is appreciated by people with more refined taste than yours."
I wrote a reply and asked why, instead of responding to the problem I had pointed out with the vertical response graph, you wrote instead about the inferior horizontal off-axis response of the LYD48. I thought this was a very odd thing for someone to have done. So I asked you why. Your response:
Because I personally find it much more critical than above "nitpicking" on the vertical one.
Jeez, you listened to the LYD48 and liked it and jumped to the conclusion that you doubt a KH310 would be worth more to you, I don't find it bad manner to recommend someone to try something different too, but a priori declining such and calling such a proposal like this.
For me not, spending more than $2000 for some monitors with poor directivity and unknown detailed measurements.
... but don't block other opinions in a public forum, even if you don't agree to them (talking about manners).
I had no objection to your sharing your opinion. I objected only to your rudeness and condescending attitude.
The only point I had made about the vertical polar response of either speaker was that the graph you provided for the KH310 was fishy. I hadn't said anything in the way of comparing the two vertical polar responses. But if I had, it would not have been appropriate for you to have characterized it as "nitpicking". More rudeness.
Following that strange post of yours I pointed out that I had not ever said or insinuated that I had ever listened to the LYD48. Most people would have acknowledged their mistake in having confused two different people. But you gave no indication of having realized that this was a mistake you had made. Instead, you responded with more rudeness:
Before writing condescending to others you should first understand that real non-point source radiating drivers in real encloses with their baffle diffraction effects and real crossover slopes show different radiation pattern then your oversimplified assumption and calculation of point sources with no diffraction and infinite crossover slopes.
This also come to you back about arrogance...
As said you might see it this way, I see it differently, this is a public forum and different opinions not only should be banned but also invited.
The reason this was rude is partly that you wrote, "...you should first understand..." First it was what speakers I should listen to instead of listening to Dynaudio LYD speakers, then it was what I "should first understand". I can only wonder what comes next.
This thread is about a Dynaudio LYD speaker. As such, it is not terribly unreasonable for people to comment favorably on other speakers in the same model line. But when someone else who does not like Dynaudio LYD asserts strongly that Dynaudio LYD is not even a good value much less a good speaker, that other person should not expect everyone else to agree with him. When someone simply continues to express preference for the Dynaudio LYD and the person who doesn't like Dynaudio LYD then starts behaving rudely, this is
not reasonable behavior.
And you are not correct in the technical sense. When the vertical spacing between a tweeter and midrange (or woofer) is large in relation to the wavelength at the crossover point, there will be a pair of nulls in the vertical polar response, separated angularly by less than 180 degrees, usually by a lot less but depending on the actual ratio of the crossover wavelength to the vertical separation of the two drivers. This pair of nulls will define the main forward lobe in the vertical polar response, and this will not be masked or altered to any strong degree by baffle diffraction effects or crossover slopes. Steeper slopes will cause the null to be better defined, and baffle diffraction won't have any strong affect on the nulls. Asymmetrical slopes will generally cause the lobe to tilt downward, but won't affect the angular distance separating the nulls. According to you, my estimate of what the angular separation of the two nulls ought to be is an "oversimplified assumption". Well, if so, my actual calculation came out remarkably in agreement with what is evident in the graph I found on Neumann's site. I only found that graph earlier today, after I went to the trouble to do the calculation. After I did the calculation, I decided to go to Neumann's site and see what was there. Here's my calculation:
This is the calculated angle for the null above the horizontal. Note that this assumes that the lobe is symmetrical about the horizontal plane. This assumption is appropriate in this case, thanks to the even-order filters but evidenced in the graph found on Neumann's site. In cases where this assumption isn't valid, the angular separation of the two nulls, obtained by doubling the calculated value, still applies. In this case the calculated value for the angular separation of the two nulls is approximately 90 degrees, which is in remarkably good agreement with the graph I found on Neumann's site and is also about what I guesstimated it would be, based on the wavelength at the crossover point and on a visual estimate of the vertical separation between the midrange and the tweeter.