GR Research X-LS Encore Kit Speaker Review

[Rick Sykora]

Thankyou!

I ask because I’ve a ZA5.3T which is the 2.5 way using 2 woofers. I don’t think it lacks bass, plus I use subs anyway. I always wondered if going to the X-MTM Encore would be an upgrade or not! I guess your reply tells me probably not an upgrade!

Have not heard the tower, but if anything like the MTM (gave them to my son), I would doubt the x-ls encore would be an improvement. Really liked the MTM, but the center never integrated well for me (common problem in my experience), so I moved the MTM into stereo duty. For a lot of music, could happily run them without subwoofer.

 

[Kustomize]

Have not heard the tower, but if anything like the MTM (gave them to my son), I would doubt the x-ls encore would be an improvement. Really liked the MTM, but the center never integrated well for me (common problem in my experience), so I moved the MTM into stereo duty. For a lot of music, could happily run them without subwoofer.

Just the response I needed! Thankyou so much kind sir!

I made a thread on audiocircle asking which would be better. Popular opinion was XLS. And Danny himself emailed me back saying these Zaph drivers ring compared to the XLS. I was sold for a minute. But thankyou!!!

 

[Rick Sykora]

We could make this change to the other unit. Along these lines, anyone want to buy this pair? I have no use for it and it is tying up fair amount of cash.

A few notes that might make these more interesting:

1. If you are interested in the the joy of building these speakers, I have not completed the second cabinet. So it can be shipped as a flat pack.
2. The crossovers are already built. Could add the external wiring and the kit would not require any soldering.
3. Since I did not glue in the damping materials, No Rez or Sonic Barrier can still be applied. If you just want to match the first one, can include matching foam and Acousta-stuf as was done for the test speaker (free of charge).

GR does charge shipping, so you would pay that whether you bought kit new or from ASR. As Amir mentioned, can do round over of front baffle, but only have the one and it would be 3/8" as it is only size rounding bit I have.

If anyone has further requests or questions, please let me know!

 

[amirm]

Audiocircle Measurements and review of the X-LS Encore kit by www.audiosciencereview.com

Both objectively and subjectively this speaker got positive rating yet all that I read there is complaining about what we do. I was hoping to see a substantive discussion about merits of this speaker, but did not see anything like that. I guess they are more interested in defending the audio tweaks that Danny promotes than real aspects of the speaker.

 

[amirm]

Without having listened to them but having improved a few loudspeakers I have no doubts about it.

If Danny or whoever else cares strongly for these tweaks, then they should supply them to us for testing. Rick and I have put in a lot of money, time and effort in this project already. Not going to spend more money to prove other people's theories. They should step up if it is important to them.

 

[MZKM]

Both objectively and subjectively this speaker got positive rating yet all that I read there is complaining about what we do. I was hoping to see a substantive discussion about merits of this speaker, but did not see anything like that. I guess they are more interested in defending the audio tweaks that Danny promotes than real aspects of the speaker.

A lot of comments stating that it wasn’t built to spec because of no roundover for the baffle.
Cabinet plans, the only mention of roundover is for the interior of the cabinet for the woofer. It’s not even recommended there, but the No Rez is.
Granted, the images on his site does have it.

 

[amirm]

A lot of comments stating that it wasn’t built to spec because of no roundover for the baffle.
Cabinet plans, the only mention of roundover is for the interior of the cabinet for the woofer. It’s not even recommended there, but the No Rez is.
Granted, the images on his site does have it.

Indeed they don't seem to have even looked at the plans before critiquing the build.

As to no-res, it says this:

We considered building them with all the options but that would hugely increase the cost and we got worried people would complain that we pushed the price up for no reason. As long as non-res is expensive and not mandatory, there was no reason to put it in there. We needed to have the baseline performance quantified.

 

[KaiserSoze]

Audiocircle Measurements and review of the X-LS Encore kit by www.audiosciencereview.com

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=171596.msg1815901#msg1815901

by Hobbsmeerkat


Without having listened to them but having improved a few loudspeakers I have no doubts about it. The last case was my modded KEF Q100 (with closed front bass-reflex), the sound change (improvement) was substantial. Now they weigh more than the KEF LS50.

Yeah, those guys over at audiocirclejerk.com know what they're talking about. The clowns at audiosciencereview.com (Amir and his lemmings) stubbornly refused to replace the X-LS Encore kit speaker with a completely different DIY speaker that has little in common with the X-LS Encore beyond the use of the same woofer and tweeter and enclosure with same overall dimensions. They ignore the advice they were given but then they whine about the lack of smoothness in the off-axis response (they were told to fix the diffraction by running some sandpaper along the baffle edges) and even about the high distortion below 200 Hz at moderately high volume (which is probably due to their failure to use the tube-thingies and the right kind of bypass-bypass capacitors). What did they expect, if they aren't willing to do all the stuff that everyone knows that you're supposed to do?

---------------------------------------------

A fellow who I think calls himself something like "Rascal56" wrote a list of criticisms of the people who participate on this site. It was so funny I forgot to laugh. Here is some of it:

2. Bashing upgraded crossover components as being snake oil for audiofools. Again without listening and arguing that all capacitors sound the same.
3. Bashing Danny and Tube Connectors as snake oil ripping off the rubes. Apparently wire is wire and simple conductivity is the only important factor.
4. Complaining about resonances and edge diffraction in the enclosure that was not built to plan. The review was for a cheap, quick, knock-together cabinet with no round over. They then discuss what the potential effect of rounding the the corners, some asserting that it is not possible to adequately address the edge diffraction without a massive round over, etc.

If two different capacitors that are equivalent in terms of the basic technical specifications that apply to capacitors produce different sound (and this can be confirmed real, through listening tests that are conducted properly), then there is manifestly something wrong with the way the parameters of at least one of the two capacitors is being measured.

While the tube connectors have been the butt of some joking here, there is also for example the power cables that are used to connect components requiring power to the mains, that are implicitly supposed to improve sound quality by a voodoo-like means. As for the tube-thingies, even if a less exotic type of connector has some ferrous material in it this does not in and of itself imply signal degradation to an extent approaching that which would matter in the least. Is it not obvious that it is necessary for this hypothesis to be subjected to rigorous testing to determine how much ferrous material would be needed to produce significant degradation of the signal? Duh.

An enclosure not built to plan? Did the plans say anything about rounding the baffle corners? I think I recall that Rick or someone said that in the plans there was no mention of this. And what reason does the person who wrote the list of criticisms have, to believe that the irregularities in the off-axis response would not have been there if 3/8" rounding had been applied to the edges of the baffle? At some point some DIY without a lot of good sense decided to add his personal touch to the collective design by using his router on the baffle edges. No doubt he showed off pictures of it on that forum or some other one and wrote that he did this to fix the diffraction. Whoever this person was, it is a sure bet that he/she had no clue whether there even was a problem with diffraction, much less any true knowledge of whether the supposed problem would be fixed by 3/8" rounding of the baffle edges.


Whatever.

 

[KaiserSoze]

Both objectively and subjectively this speaker got positive rating yet all that I read there is complaining about what we do. I was hoping to see a substantive discussion about merits of this speaker, but did not see anything like that. I guess they are more interested in defending the audio tweaks that Danny promotes than real aspects of the speaker.

I as well was puzzled by that reaction given that you gave the speaker a positive review. The sense I got is that they react strongly to anyone who advocates that opinions on speakers should be based on objective measurements. And a cult mentality is clearly in evidence there.

 

[maty]

There are tweaks that I doubt are reflected in the usual measurements, as is the case of bypassing the condenser with another of much lower value. I was very skeptical, so the first time I spent the least (NOS styroflex). Years later I decided to spend a little more and we were amazed when we listened to Hotel California, comparing one loudspeaker with the Miflex KPCU-01 0.01uF 600Vdc with the other without it. Not even in dreams.

 

[maty]

Off topic or not

When I used the styroflex I commented on my impressions in a Spanish audio forum that no longer exists. But I left a copy at diyaudio.com

 

[jtwrace]

Both objectively and subjectively this speaker got positive rating yet all that I read there is complaining about what we do. I was hoping to see a substantive discussion about merits of this speaker, but did not see anything like that. I guess they are more interested in defending the audio tweaks that Danny promotes than real aspects of the speaker.

If Danny or whoever else cares strongly for these tweaks, then they should supply them to us for testing. Rick and I have put in a lot of money, time and effort in this project already. Not going to spend more money to prove other people's theories. They should step up if it is important to them.

Yes, that's always the case when Tube Connectors are "only" $50 and made overseas. There's quite a bit of profit there (nothing wrong with that BTW) and it adds up quick so he's promoting that instead. It's totally ridiculous the way they all act for him.

I really figured that some could take the positive out of this review rather then discount everything. What is baffling is that GR wants to discuss science and measurements but yet will do NOTHING truly objective to backup their claims. I agree though, put your big boy panties on and supply all the tweaks you want to be tested. Heck, he can even fly to CA I'm sure to watch how it's conducted. Is that correct @amirm? To have access to the NFS is pretty spectacular and for any loudspeaker company to not use the value offered is sad.

 

[richard12511]

Audiocircle Measurements and review of the X-LS Encore kit by www.audiosciencereview.com

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=171596.msg1815901#msg1815901

by Hobbsmeerkat


Without having listened to them but having improved a few loudspeakers I have no doubts about it. The last case was my modded KEF Q100 (with closed front bass-reflex), the sound change (improvement) was substantial. Now they weigh more than the KEF LS50.

Couldn’t get past the first page of replies. First reply was decent, but they grew progressively more frustrating to read with each reply.

 

[amirm]

Couldn’t get past the first page of replies. First reply was decent, but they grew progressively more frustrating to read with each reply.

There is incredible hostility there that is getting in the way of facts. This was just posted:

There was no such goal for either one of us. Indeed, our goal was to build this speaker in the most defensible way possible in case it did not perform well. The strategy then became following everything as documented by the Kit developer.

We discussed adding options and indeed I was in favor of either just putting the tube connectors or every option he has. But then Rick added up the cost and I got worried that it would hugely inflate the cost of what should be a budget speaker. So we decided for the sample #1 go with the baseline as created by the KIT developer. If something is wrong with that configuration, the blame goes squarely at Danny for creating this option.

Really, my money and Rick's time is not free in here. The most expensive budget speaker I buy for testing is $200. Right now we are in for $300 already for this pair. Adding options would easily take this to $500, way beyond any interest I have in using our limited funds for.

But as I noted, if someone wants to buy the options and send them to us, we can test the other sample that way. If they are just going to complain, then it shows they are not willing to do 1/10th of what we did to test this speaker.

 

[amirm]

1. It is not playing dumb. As I explained, whatever we did had to be defensible and following the information to the letter, seemed like the right thing to do. Still, Danny was in touch with Rick and based on his back and forth we arrived at what we built.

2. That is absolutely true. The Kit costs $249. Once you add his list of tweaks it just to $449:

Now, I would happily buy these options if there was a shred of documentation what good they do. Where is the measurements of no-res versus none or some other material? How about caps? How about connectors? How about resistors?

Sure, there are people who follow his assertions and pay for such things but we aren't that type. We need evidence of effectiveness before we shell out our hard earned money.

And oh, there was a lead time issue as tube connectors were not available at the time of the build.

3. Correct. Whatever damping material was required in the baseline package should have been provided due to high-cost of no-res. Still, at the end I decided we should add this in and Rick did a bunch of work which Danny should have done to quantify what works best. So complaining about what we didn't do is not proper. We did far more than any DIY builder would do.

4. We absolutely poke fun at useless tweaks offered with no scientific or engineering value shown on their effectiveness. Standard speaker binding posts degrade signals but Danny doesn't know how to measure that? Well, maybe such degradation doesn't exist in electrical circuits relevant to a speaker.

What's next? Putting shoe polish on the speaker magnet making it sound better? We are supposed to jump at whatever someone cooks up with respect to audio tweaks?

And no, your subjective testimonials don't mean a thing. There are people who put sand in a wooden box and sell them as "grounding boxes" for $3,000 or more. Lest you tell me you are using stuff like that, I suggest not trying to tell us how we should treat such pricey promotions.

Still, despite all of this, i wanted to test the tube connectors. But per above, they were not available at the time of the build.

Really, no one could have been more fair in this project. Full thread discussing its detailed builds, objective measurements, research of various stuffings, etc., etc.

 

[Deleted member 2944]

Amir,

This kind of commentary on the ACJ forum was inevitable. They would create a straw man from whatever the results were no matter how the speaker was built. You can't get anywhere with that crew.

Rick built it, you tested it. Good job. Thanks.
Time to move onto other things and leave this episode in your rear-view mirror.

Dave.

 

[KaiserSoze]

There are tweaks that I doubt are reflected in the usual measurements, as is the case of bypassing the condenser with another of much lower value. I was very skeptical, so the first time I spent the least (NOS styroflex). Years later I decided to spend a little more and we were amazed when we listened to Hotel California, comparing one loudspeaker with the Miflex KPCU-01 0.01uF 600Vdc with the other without it. Not even in dreams.

No doubt you did this listening test in a proper controlled manner so as to eliminate the bias that pollutes most every listening test that has ever been done by anyone who made a tweak with the expectation that it would improve the sound quality.

I am also inclined to point out that if you (or anyone else) is absolutely convinced that different capacitors sound different even when no difference between them can be discerned through routine measurement of the capacitance, that in order for your claim to be taken seriously you would be expected to come up with a hypothesis to explain your discovery and then a way to test your hypothesis, such that other investigators would be able to repeat your experiment and corroborate your findings. The audio recording/reproduction field is the only field I know of where these expectations do not apply, where over a period of many years many people can make the same claim without anyone ever bothering to offer a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. It is patently absurd that people who want to profit from other people's gullibility get away with making claims of the sort that Danny makes on his site and that they are not expected to back up the claims with scientific evidence.

Note, by the way, that when you bypass a capacitor with one of "much lower value" that the total, effective capacitance will change unless the other capacitor is changed accordingly. You would need to do this to rule out the change in net capacitance as the cause of the difference in sound that you are certain that you heard. You would also need to exclude the possibility that there is some other difference between the two speakers being compared, that might be the true explanation for the difference that you heard. The best way to do this would be to rig both speakers with both capacitor configurations, using a switch mounted on the back of the speaker to select which configuration is in use. In other words you should really use just one speaker to insure that the capacitor configuration is the sole variable. And you would have to do the listening tests in a proper double-blind manner to be certain that bias is not affecting the preference. And if the test results then indicated a real difference, you would be expected to come up with a hypothesis and test it. Over the past four decades that I've been paying attention it has been consistently apparent to me that people who make fringe claims in the audio realm are consistently people who do not follow rigorous scientific methodology. This is very apparent, and it is not a coincidence. And in the great majority of cases there is someone making money from it. Sometimes lots of money, hand over fist.

 

[maltux]

Anyone interested in buying the kit with used parts, living in the USA, for this pair of speakers can PM me. I am happy to see this speaker project disappear . I will dismantle the speaker and make firewood of the cabinets.

 

[ta240]

I as well was puzzled by that reaction given that you gave the speaker a positive review. The sense I got is that they react strongly to anyone who advocates that opinions on speakers should be based on objective measurements. And a cult mentality is clearly in evidence there.

There are positive reviews and then there are "holy S%&$ this is the most amazing speaker. I can't believe it sells for this price. This is insane" Apparently anyone that doesn't give it the quotes above is bad mouthing the speaker.

But if you take into consideration all the talk spread about how the DIY kits cost you a fraction of what a completed speaker would cost due to all the money the manufactures spend that doesn't go into the speakers; then these should compete with factory speakers in the $750 to $1000 price range. So your mind should be blown. GR Research has a video somewhere that breaks it all down.

 

[hardisj]

2 things:
1) Way too much time being spent on negative energy.
2) Why is it that it largely seems to come down to “objective vs subjective” rather than “objective and subjective”? We are a relatively small community. It seems counterproductive to bash each other. Agree. Disagree. But we don’t need entire forums talking shit about each other. For pages and pages, too. That’s dumb.

/my $0.02