Search results

I felt the same way when I was restricted to crossing over both at the same frequency and the reason is because the high pass is a 2nd order while the low pass is 4th order on the sub so you'll get too much energy around the crossover region. At 120Hz, a 2nd order high pass is down 6 db at 90Hz...

Responding to this post because of the attached spins but the question is really for @davidbosch or @jackocleebrown. Myself and others have noted over the years that coaxial type speakers seem to sound better with a slight downward tilt of the listening window and I'm wondering if you guys have...

That's why I always say they are great studio monitors and if my issue was in fact due to vertical reflections, I realize that isn't their intended use case. There is no reason why "near field" monitors can't work for a stereo setup though, speakers are speakers and plenty of people use studio...

Sorry I didn't see this until now. I know there is disagreement about these speakers not fatiguing everyone and I believe this is mostly due to different setups and how prominent the vertical reflections are in a particular setup. It won't be a problem in a near field setup but in a living room...

I personally think most people would be fine, I use the cheapest Denon money can buy (Denon 760H) with LS50's and it doesn't even get hot but I high pass them at 100Hz and don't crank them. I personally think people worry too much about 4 ohm loads since most speakers do dip low at some point in...

I voted the direct sound is more important but in my experience I would say only slightly or at the least the early reflections can't be ignored. I've had multiple speakers in a small room that were great on axis but were fatiguing to listen to, that can really only be attributed to peaks in the...

That's good but we need someone to send the R3 Meta and for that matter @jackocleebrown where is this Meta Whitepaper or at the very least maybe you can just share your anechoic measurements? Some of us are a bit impatient lol

If KEF offered the upgrade it would be possible but they don't because they want you to buy new speakers lol. In all seriousness, it would be a major pain because they would have to sell you the new UniQ driver along with the new crossover and then deal with all of the people who damage their...

Hello Dr. Toole, this range between the modal region and where the speaker clearly takes over is the region I'm most concerned with EQ'ing, call it 200-500Hz. I can clearly see room effects in this range when I measure my in-room response, I'm just not sure that I should be EQ'ing closer to...

Exactly and I personally prefer to get a receiver with more amplification channels than I use because most of them crap out with all channels driven anyway. If you buy a 5 channel receiver and only use 2 channels, it should have plenty of power and have the crossovers you need. I only use 5...

You can't use a room curve to EQ speakers, at least not very well. Search Floyd Toole's recent comments on this in the house curve thread and maybe others for more info but ideally you need CTA-2034 style measurements and to EQ based on those above the room's transition frequency.

Hard to say until we see measurements, I had the original R3 for awhile and made them sound much better through EQ but the directivity problem around 2700Hz made them impossible to match the Reference Ones, if the metas fix that issue they could be EQ'd to sound very close but of course won't...

No I mentioned they are from the soundstage measurements which uses the anechoic chamber at the NRC.

These are what I use based on the Soundstage measurements, I use those because they more closely match up with my in-room measurements. I used the 15, 30, 45 and 60 degree curves to prioritize since 15 degrees is my direct sound and up to 60 degrees covers all the early reflections.

It is a decent price increase but if it measures close to the Reference for that price then it is actually a steal. I felt the original R3 wasn't that close to the Reference and was priced accordingly.

It is a bit confusing but honestly if upgrading to the V2 saves a lot of money compared with buying the ELX I wouldn't be bothered by my comment. They aren't that bad and if you have EQ you can play around with taking a small chunk out of that region. Since the Early reflections are good in that...

That's not a bad point but the main reason is that it's easier to compare a single speaker of each logistically and differences between them are much easier to discern when only one is in play. Being able to instantly switch between them is important too since our aural memory is very short...

You'd be surprised, the 1st time I compared speakers blind I compared the original LS50 to the Revel M105 and couldn't tell which was the LS50, which I had owned for a year. I thought I was unanimously choosing the Revels but I was actually choosing the KEF during my blind comparison. Then I was...

I would recommend comparing them blind, level-matched, instantly switch back and forth and a single speaker in mono as Harman does as this is the easiest way to tell differences, especially spatially. When even 2 speakers are playing together, the spatial differences largely disappear as another...

I apologize then I was just pulling them from the website and didn't realize there were 2 versions, there is still a bit of extra energy but I doubt it would be as audible as the V2 version, the directivity is also smooth in that area so they could be EQ'd no problem. The ERDI still shows them...