How about the Teac S-300HR ($300)
https://hifiheaven.net/shop/TEAC-S-...vcTwGnmvyFxoOQCqR8ocDOUd2FRPJIcxoCBEMQAvD_BwE
https://hifiheaven.net/shop/TEAC-S-...vcTwGnmvyFxoOQCqR8ocDOUd2FRPJIcxoCBEMQAvD_BwE
Unfortunately I doubt you'll find much with better bass at the same or lower price.
Q Acoustics 3050i
It’s always good to see production consistency. At least companies like Neumann are upfront & state this.Funny enough, I have a set of the F328be and F226Be en route as soon as some shipping stuff gets worked out. It's been in the works for about a month now. This COVID stuff is causing delays, otherwise I would have tested them weeks ago. Didn't think to share because I didn't think anyone was waiting to see the results. Could have saved Amir a lot of money. Oh well. You guys will get two sets of data now.
True, but I'm willing to spend a little more. Maybe the Elac DBR-62. The speakers are also on a shelf, close to the wall, so the front port, and Amir's comment about the Elac's not being too fussy helps. The issue is that I'm running a Fisher tube with only 35WPC, so I'm not sure the 86db of the Elac will work for me. Sometimes I like to crank it just a bit...nothing crazy, but I never want to be second-guessing SQ, based on compromising sensitivity. I like to be in the 90db+ range. So my ideal is front port, 90db+, $700/pr max, decent low end specs, in white. Decisions, decisions.
Impedance is high at about 8 ohms but the phase angle is quite acute at nearly 50 degrees. This means the speaker will ask for current when the output voltage is very low. So you better have a beefy amplifier to drive this speaker.
While those B&W's aren't benchmark quality, they don't appear to be especially terrible either. They actually look pretty good aside from a couple trouble regions. I would guess this reviewer has room modes destroying his response up to around 700Hz or so, might suggest he could have some level of high frequency hearing damage, or these tracks he's using may have have been mastered/colored to fit B&W's house signature better. I've seen a lot of making of videos where studios and audio departments have B&W diamond speakers.
Let me get this straight. You're saying that because the Soundstage reviewer preferred the B&W 705S2 over the Revel M106, you suspect his room has destructive nodes up to 700Hz, and the reviewer himself might have high frequency hearing damage!?
That's very kind of you. I am interested in measuring it as well. Maybe @GuyLayfield can get a loan unit from their US distributor?Hi @amirm. I am considering buying the Neumann KH310. I live in Europe so I thought maybe I can order one from Sweetwater to your address, but that looks expensive.
What are other more approachable ways to get this speaker to you? Rent it maybe or if someone on this forum has it, I can cover shipping both ways? Not sure how this could be done, but willing to donate and see how the Neumann KH310 compares to others.
The horizontal polar is pretty interesting:That's very kind of you. I am interested in measuring it as well. Maybe @GuyLayfield can get a loan unit from their US distributor?
Anyone in US interested in this speaker?
You seemed to be looking for theories on why he might prefer the B&W, which I provided. I don't think these were in any way outrageous or controversial. The trough from ~100-700hz and the rise at ~8kHz are the most obvious issues in the B&W measurements. Yes, it is possible he has modal/transition issues masking performance differences in that bass region, and yes high frequency hearing degradation is very common and I would not be surprised if those people preferred excess treble energy to varying degrees. If the B&W's trough is taming a problematic peak in his room (e.g. Amirm's 102Hz filter he uses in all his listening tests), it is not surprising he could prefer the B&W.
Thanks for clarifying. My first thought, personally, would not have been that an audio reviewer for Soundstage would have high frequency hearing loss or be auditioning loudspeakers in a room with unmitigated standing wave issues.
Rather, it could very well be that the 705s2 did, in fact, sound better on the test tracks than the M106. It might also mean that loudspeaker measurements do not completely predict loudspeaker preferences, or that one's ability to interpret the FR curves isn't as good as one would think.
Its rather an artefact from its horizontal orientation with the woofer side by side to the mid and tweeter, on the other hand its vertical polar is better than on a vertical placement:The horizontal polar is pretty interesting:
View attachment 75905
I am assuming that widened directivity is from the midrange unit. I wonder their reasoning for not going with a smaller midrange.
My understanding is most (all?) speaker reviewers don't use correction/EQ in evaluations. Otherwise the claim would be they're not hearing the speaker, they're hearing their processor. A probable majority of their readers don't use it either, many diehard audiophile's are against DSP. Hearing damage is cumulative, and high frequency is always the first to go. Anyone who has spent a lot of time around high SPL's is likely to have greatly reduced sensitivity (worsening exponentially with age), speaker reviewers are definitely a very high risk profession in that regard. Perhaps the most important point to make is that this was a sighted comparison, bias is a helluva drug and impossible to ignore even if you're aware of your propensities.