linkwitz lxmini

[Burning Sounds]

The Pass analog crossover also skips those high Q bits. The document includes subsequent measurements where SL found this actually resulted in a flatter high frequency response than the DSP, and some speculation about why.

The Dave Reite modified x-over/eq also removes these high Q filters. As I mentioned earlier the x-over frequency is also changed and uses a steeper slope. This is the filter set that @suttondesign has sent to Amir, so we should be able to compare to Erin's measurements.

 

[puppet]

Okay so 'fixing' this speaker is fairly simple, first i took off all the EQ Linkwitz applies from 10KHz and up.

View attachment 222151

I applied a low shelf filter of 500Hz of 1.5 dB and a high shelf filter of 10KHz of 4dB.

View attachment 222152

I fixed Erin's version of breakout by applying a PK PEQ of 14141 of 7 dB of 10 Q (This will likely vary from unit to unit) and got this spinorama, it's a very decent improvement and perhaps as far as i would be willing to go If i want to keep Linkwitz's original overall tuning.

View attachment 222153

I'd keep your low shelf filter ... forget the high shelf ... set a PEQ around 3200hz Q of 2 and pull about 3db out of it.

 

[changster]

Why are people talking about EQ settings as if they are universal, when everyone’s in room response is different?

People should measure their response themselves from the listening position and then set PEQ’s according to their preferred target curve.

Anyone ever tune a fully active car before? Like that.

 

[dtaylo1066]

You listened without the subs and found nothing lacking? Really?

I cannot recall in the 2 or 3 times I heard the LX Mini if it had subs integrated or not. And I am dealing with listening experiences from memory that are 3-6 years old.

I can say that in going to an event such as RMAF, I listen to dozens of speakers in dozens of rooms. From inexpenisve to mega-buck. For me, I sit down and usually right off the bat think either: 1) "Boy that sounds good, I like it;" 2) "Meh, that's OK but nothing special;" or 3) "Ugh, that sounds like crap, especially for that much money."

I would say most of my RMAF speaker listening falls into the "meh, no big deal," or "sounds like crap" categories 2 and 3. The minority of speakers for me fall into the No. 1 "Boy that sounds good" category. The LX Minis were certainly very good sounding to my ears, and I spoke with SL about them. SL passed away not so long after the last RMAF.

As to bass, you are only going to get so much bass from a 6-inch driver in a stuffed tube, but what you get is solid. I think it is - 3 db at 45hz. If you or your room need more than that, you can add a sub. If not, you're good. The bass seemed comparable to my DIY 6-inch seas 2-way monitors, which is enough for me.

My greatest wonder going into the listening was how the 4" Curv Cone SEAS poly driver would sound carrying all the mids and highs. Of course it is highly EQ's, which pre-listeneing I was wary of, but I though the mids and highs were terrific.

I have heard few if any speakers in the LX Mini price range that can compete.

I think between the data and build strategy that SL published, and subsequent data and reviews, one can make a pretty informed decision if the LX Mini is for him/her or not.

 

[puppet]

Why are people talking about EQ settings as if they are universal, when everyone’s in room response is different?

People should measure their response themselves from the listening position and then set PEQ’s according to their preferred target curve.

Anyone ever tune a fully active car before? Like that.

I assumed the measurement(s) that abdo123 posted were made in his room. Am I wrong?

 

[mdsimon2]

I assumed the measurement(s) that abdo123 posted were made in his room. Am I wrong?

He used Erin's Klippel data.

While there is something to be said about considering room response there is also something to be said for EQing to a flat anechoic response as that is preferred by most listeners. It also allows you to start from a known flat response and distinguish between what is a room effect and what is inherent to the speaker.

Michael

 

[puppet]

He used Erin's Klippel data.



Michael

My mistake.

 

[changster]

The point of the EQ is to overcome non-ideal rooms (which is 99.9999% of people) + non ideal speaker responses combined. Why anyone would tune to an anechoic Klippel response baffles me.

What you want to tune is the sound that hits your ears in your room. My PEQ settings and shelf filter settings will not be the same as someone else's.

Take a UMIK1 and REW, measure, upload your preferred target curve into REW, use the AutoEQ setting in REW, then input into your DSP, then remeasure to see whether the response matched the theoretical response in REW. If not, it means certain frequencies are nulls and not tunable by EQ. You'd need to move your speaker location then re-do the process. There's no way I'd be doing this with Erin's Klippel response.

 

[suttondesign]

hi all,
as i have written in this forum before, the LXmini is a proof of concept type thing which serves as a precursor to an LX521.4 build. It has limited spl and plainly has an uneven response. I mentioned before that the Dutch 8C runs rings around most speakers as far as in-room smooth response goes, yet the lxmini and lx521.4 have imaging which is truly exceptional.
i use the lxmini as a small, secondary system in my living room, where it is quite unobtrusive yet sounds glorious for casual listening at very modest volume. i built small subs with 9” drivers concealed as books in a bookshelf immediately behind, and they integrate well using the minidsp 4x10hd DSP. remember, the lxmini is cheap to build, fun to cut your teeth on, and a huge value proposition.
for serious and loud listening, in another room, I use lx521.4 and Dutch 8c. I hope to pick up the Genelec line later this year and also have the 8351B to compare. all of these are very expensive, and they are all superb.
patrick

 

[Discoball]

I am a biased LX mini owner and Erin’s measurements was a bit of a disappointment to be honest. No ruler flat response - huhh?


My objective in a speaker is that it must render a precise soundstage, where instruments can be pinpointed to the stage and LXmini ticks boldly these areas.


Some members here express their opinion that the LXmini can check off the list or looses to most 100eur computer speakers. Well, in the quest for perfect speaker the LXmini doesn’t get the first price for sure.


For madisound 735 USD with miniDSP + transport + paint + manual labor + hardware. LXmini beats large majority of speakers in this price range.

Quote from linkwitzlab.com:

The LXmini was designed to render sound recordings with clarity, neutrality and with detailed, 3D-like imaging, when properly set up. The speakers will reveal what is in a recording, but never add unpleasantness. You will get lost in the music and have a big smile on your face, guaranteed!

LXmini lives up to Mr. Linkwitz promise and it delivers that.


I add my amateur measurements for my LXmini + Subs with and without room EQ.

 

[abdo123]

Why are people talking about EQ settings as if they are universal, when everyone’s in room response is different?

People should measure their response themselves from the listening position and then set PEQ’s according to their preferred target curve.

Anyone ever tune a fully active car before? Like that.

Research suggests that listeners generally prefer speaker with flat on-axis response and smooth directivity.

It’s ineffective to use room EQ if you’re going to make the on-axis response not flat anymore, in my experience this is true for everything above 100Hz.

 

[dominikz]

The point of the EQ is to overcome non-ideal rooms (which is 99.9999% of people) + non ideal speaker responses combined. Why anyone would tune to an anechoic Klippel response baffles me.

What you want to tune is the sound that hits your ears in your room. My PEQ settings and shelf filter settings will not be the same as someone else's.

Take a UMIK1 and REW, measure, upload your preferred target curve into REW, use the AutoEQ setting in REW, then input into your DSP, then remeasure to see whether the response matched the theoretical response in REW. If not, it means certain frequencies are nulls and not tunable by EQ. You'd need to move your speaker location then re-do the process. There's no way I'd be doing this with Erin's Klippel response.

Actually, it appears that what we hear is a combination of the in-room-measured steady-state response in the low frequencies, and the loudspeaker direct sound in the mid and high frequencies. On the other hand, the in-room-measured steady-state response is a combination of direct sound and various reflections across the spectrum, and depends mostly on loudspeaker directivity and room specifics.
This is easy to test - EQ two sufficiently different loudspeakers to the same target curve in-room and they will probably still sound very different (while now measuring a similar steady-state response).

This is why the ideal EQ strategy for loudspeakers is to EQ the low frequencies (usually under 300Hz) based on the in-room-measured steady-state response, and to EQ the rest based on anechoic data (which is not needed if the loudspeakers already measure well anechoically ).

That implies that the low-frequency EQ is room and setup dependent, but mid and high frequency EQ is derived from anechoic data and can therefore actually be universal for a specific loudspeaker model (assuming good unit-to-unit consistency - which is of course not always the case).

See also this thread by @thewas for more thoughts from dr. Toole: link.
One quote:

As I said, because loudspeaker transducers are minimum-phase devices one can use electrical parametric EQ to attenuate the mechanical resonances in transducers - using anechoic data of course. So, if you add a hump to an otherwise neutral/resonance free speaker you have added a resonance. This is why it is crucial to pay attention to what "room equalizers" are doing. If they "see" a ripple in a measured curve caused by acoustical interference of direct and reflected sound, and try to flatten it, they may be adding a resonance and degrading a good loudspeaker.

(Source)

 

[changster]

Research suggests that listeners generally prefer speaker with flat on-axis response and smooth directivity.

It’s ineffective to use room EQ if you’re going to make the on-axis response not flat anymore, in my experience this is true for everything above 100Hz.

Yes research suggests flat on axis to your ears, not flat anechoic but then put the speaker in a room where you see dips and peaks and nulls. You EQ at the listening position from your measurements at the listening position.

Equal loudness curves (Mundroff) explains why target curves aren’t flat 20-20khz. You need a rising sub level usually below ~200hz to sound natural IMO. You can also adjust for your preference at the higher frequencies or where your ears are most sensitive. Of course there is preference involved but every system I heard that is flat below 200 to 20hz is lifeless to me. I’ve tried it on my Linkwitz 521.4’s as well as my old Rockport Aquila’s which are now at a friend's house. I’ve also tried on various systems of audiophile friends. I like +6-8db from 200hz-20hz rising linearly. In a car I like +12-15db which compensates for road noise, but lower when the car is parked and the engine is off.

I played the drums for about 6 years when young (I suck) but I am sensitive to the sound of the kick drums, toms, snares etc. I read all the time on here people saying they can hear down to 45hz on their bookshelf speakers or headphones or whatever, but I know that sound is just so far from real. You need to feel the kick and the reverb. No 6" midbass is going to reproduce that and move enough air for it in a standard home room. The biggest SUV is probably half the size of the smallest room for home HiFi, and in an SUV 2 6.5's is probably just enough for the midbass region and definitely not enough closer to the sub bass region.

But I digress. Going back to the Mini's, I just can't see how anyone can enjoy them without the +2 subs. I own them, and love the presentation. But I know it's lacking down low without the subs. It's also lacking the high high's without a tweeter. I find Erin's review quite inline with my impressions. Like many have said earlier, you just gotta understand what you are getting. The 521.4's fix much of this although still not enough midbass-to-sub in a large room for my taste despite having already tuned them +2.5db from 200hz-20hz. The subs bottom out easily after that for me.

 

[mcdn]

As an LX mini owner, and owner of many other speakers besides, I'd say these things:

• The spacial envelopment is definitely different for a two way system and I like it, it works especially well for movies in our family room
• Those 6" midbass drivers run out of excursion very quickly. Best to cross them over at 90Hz or so, 4th order, and let bigger units handle the bass
• Even so, the default crossover for the LXStudio (LXmini + 4 way dipole sub) is very bass shy in my 5x6m (15x18ft) room
• You're going to want a MiniDSP 4x10HD, the LXMinis, some subs, and a lot of patience to get this right
• If you're not up for all that, don't get these speakers!

 

[changster]

Actually, it appears that what we hear is a combination of the in-room-measured steady-state response in the low frequencies, and the loudspeaker direct sound in the mid and high frequencies. On the other hand, the in-room-measured steady-state response is a combination of direct sound and various reflections across the spectrum, and depends mostly on loudspeaker directivity and room specifics.
This is easy to test - EQ two sufficiently different loudspeakers to the same target curve in-room and they will probably still sound very different (while now measuring a similar steady-state response).

This is why the ideal EQ strategy for loudspeakers is to EQ the low frequencies (usually under 300Hz) based on the in-room-measured steady-state response, and to EQ the rest based on anechoic data (which is not needed if the loudspeakers already measure well anechoically ).

That implies that the low-frequency EQ is room and setup dependent, but mid and high frequency EQ is derived from anechoic data and can therefore actually be universal for a specific loudspeaker model (assuming good unit-to-unit consistency - which is of course not always the case).

See also this thread by @thewas for more thoughts from dr. Toole: link.
One quote:

(Source)

This makes sense too... hmmm... I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. I just know I EQ at the listening position from my measurements to a certain target and it really sounds better, no doubt. I have never tried EQing from a Klippel measurement someone else did.

 

[mcdn]

But I digress. Going back to the Mini's, I just can't see how anyone can enjoy them without the +2 subs. I own them, and love the presentation. But I know it's lacking down low without the subs. It's also lacking the high high's without a tweeter. I find Erin's review quite inline with my impressions. Like many have said earlier, you just gotta understand what you are getting. The 521.4's fix much of this although still not enough midbass-to-sub in a large room for my taste despite having already tuned them +2.5db from 200hz-20hz. The subs bottom out easily after that for me.

Agreed on the bass. Try a 30Hz 4th order highpass on the 521.4 bass units to solve the bottoming out. Doing that gave me a lot more headroom to push the rest of the bass up another few dB. Also you can add a few dB in the midbass to cover rear wall cancellations (e.g. for me this is a 2dB low Q lift around 180Hz)

 

[abdo123]

This makes sense too... hmmm... I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. I just know I EQ at the listening position from my measurements to a certain target and it really sounds better, no doubt. I have never tried EQing from a Klippel measurement someone else did.

I don't know how different the LXSirus is from the mini, but if the crossover and EQ settings are the same then it might be worth trying my 'fixing' and see how it fares out for you.

 

[dominikz]

This makes sense too... hmmm... I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. I just know I EQ at the listening position from my measurements to a certain target and it really sounds better, no doubt. I have never tried EQing from a Klippel measurement someone else did.

IME efficiency of full-range EQ based based on just the in-room steady-state measured response will depend largely on 1) how good/smooth is the directivity of the loudspeaker, 2) measurement/correction method, and 3) how reasonable is the selected target curve.

EDIT: But even in the best case I'd still be careful and probably still prefer to EQ mid and high frequencies based on anechoic data!

LXmini seem to have pretty nice directivity behavior (looking at Erin's spin) so I'm not that surprised you're getting good results - but not all loudspeakers exhibit good directivity! Unfortunately this we can't know without (quasi-)anechoic data.

 

[bloomdido]

I don't see any reason why sound field measurements on a Klippel NFS should be questioned for this speaker.

Those measurements will simply not show much about what's so "special" about this speaker besides what's already written by Linkwitz himself when he explained the rationale behind this design.

 

[fluid]

Research suggests that listeners generally prefer speaker with flat on-axis response and smooth directivity.

Generally that is true as generally the speakers being tested have rising directivity. If the speakers were predominantly constant directivity the result would be different. The LX521 is too bright without the high end shelving filter, just as most constant directivity designs need a little slope to the on axis to avoid sounding bright. Genelec S360, Gedlee Summa etc.

It’s ineffective to use room EQ if you’re going to make the on-axis response not flat anymore, in my experience this is true for everything above 100Hz.

It's not ineffective but it is fraught with danger without a lot of listening testing, measuring, tweaking and repeating. When a speaker has diffraction problems that create off axis issues, sometimes the only option is to drop the on axis in that area to compensate and make the speaker sound better. There are elements of room behaviour that can behave in a similar way. Addressing these can improve the sound even if the direct sound is not so flat anymore. Drawing a curve and forcing a measurement to it without knowing why is a bad idea, but it's not the only way.