- Thread Starter
- #181
Someone asked about noise level. It is pretty quiet. The noise was inaudible at about 6 to 8 inches in my environment.
I don't see much benefit. We have the spinorama for 8341A and SPL/distortion for 8361A.
Subjectively, what effect would you say this has. The 8030c I own has the same dip, and it shows in all of my MM measurements, and @Maiky76 s EQ tweak fixes it. I also have the M105 on hand to compare and see if I can notice the difference.
This is what you have in mind, I think.It reduces the timbral effects of comb filtering, i.e. the stereo system errors. Objectively and subjectively there is an exaggeration of the 2-4 kHz region vs the 1-2 kHz region when speakers are used in stereo vs mono.
Yes. Even in normally reflected room there is a timbral shift between a single mono speaker and a mono source played in a stereo setup. A speaker that has a dip in the 1-2 kHz region followed by peaking 2-4 kHz will just exaggerate the effect. I prefer the opposite. This is not a solution to the problem but compromises due to the flaws of the stereo system.This is what you have in mind, I think.
View attachment 114115
Aren't stereo recordings mastered & monitored in stereo though? So the problem would be there only with mono recordings, and you can use only one speaker in these cases.Yes. Even in normally reflected room there is a timbral shift between a single mono speaker and a mono source played in a stereo setup. A speaker that has a dip in the 1-2 kHz region followed by peaking 2-4 kHz will just exaggerate the effect. I prefer the opposite. This is not a solution to the problem but compromises due to the flaws of the stereo system.
Aren't stereo recordings mastered & monitored in stereo though? So the problem would be there only with mono recordings, and you can use only one speaker in these cases.
Which speakers corresponding to those cases did you audition?You can argue both ways. Evaluations of speaker performance has been done mostly with a single mono speaker just because it is the most sensitive method. All current evidence points that a perfecly linear on-axis response is preferrred. Putting the same perfecly linear speakers in a stereo setup will lead to a timbral change. So what then is the perfect stereo speaker? It cannot be both.
The solution is a centre speaker to replace the center phamtom image. In the opposite case, should the center speaker deviate from the left and right ones? So for those who use without a center speaker, I would say it is a matter of choice. I prefer a slight deviation from linear. Speaker with lower energy 1-2 kHz vs 2-5 kHz tend to sound a bit bright and somewhat unpleasant.
Which speakers corresponding to those cases did you audition?
Also, can't you EQ a stereo system made of flat speakers based on the graph (e) I posted upper and see if you prefer it that way?
Which speakers corresponding to those cases did you audition?
Also, can't you EQ a stereo system made of flat speakers based on the graph (e) I posted upper and see if you prefer it that way?
This is a very good idea. If some of the EqualizerAPO pros out here can do a little file, otherwise one can do one in RePhase.Personally I think it would be more interesting to hear what others think about this, in a subjective listening test, than just me. I.e. EQ of speakers, in stereo setup +/- 30°, that mimic the on-axis response as measured by Shirley et al vs the inverted response of that, within +/- 1,5 dB. In a second test one could test the inverted response vs a linear response.
This is a very good idea. If some of the EqualizerAPO pros out here can do a little file, otherwise one can do one in RePhase.
Something like this in Rephase.
View attachment 114240
Everybody can try with his/her speakers at home!
Little off-topic but where did you see the 8050b and KH310A with a price difference of €200? I looked them up at Thomann and the 8050b is €1399 a piece and the KH310 €1699 which is a €600 difference for a pair.I don't think the 8050b has a DSP performing digital crossover. AFAIK it has an analog crossover.
I wonder about the dip between 1.5 and 2 kHz and the deep bass trouble.
I think investing some $400 more for a KH310a gives you a better speaker without the (relatively minor) flaws of the 8050b. In the EU the price difference is only €200 so choosing the Neumann seems to be a no brainer.
I've tried the EQ I made with Rephase on my Aria 906, which are placed with me forming an equilateral triangle. It is pretty good!One note is however that the position of the dips/peaks depends on the angle of speakers, and also that the above EQ is based on the speakers being totally flat on-axis. So one need to adjust accordingly. In addition there are some other factors to consider in the "fill-in" of the dip peaking at 1,8 kHz for 30° angles. It will mainly be filled in using reflections. Heavy toe-in may or may not be a solution, depending on the speaker design.
I've tried the EQ I made with Rephase on my Aria 906, which are placed with me forming an equilateral triangle. It is pretty good!
It is difficult because Aria 906 directivity is not perfect. I can try it of course.Ok Just a note from me though. The Focal Aria 906 frequency response seems already to have some deviations that are similar to a correction, according to Amirs measurements. It can be too much if you add upon what the speaker already has. What would be interesting is if you would do a correction so that the response is opposite of the speakers output. It would mean decreasing the response by 2 dB at 1-2 kHz and boosting by 4-5 dB at 3-4 kHz and 7-8 kHz. Listen to soprano voices.
I also looked at Thomann and then the price difference was €200 per speaker.Little off-topic but where did you see the 8050b and KH310A with a price difference of €200? I looked them up at Thomann and the 8050b is €1399 a piece and the KH310 €1699 which is a €600 difference for a pair.