Search results

Seems like this plot is meant to show the frequency response difference between those EQ modes. It is not a test of maximum output.

Perhaps some stereo listeners are practicing empathy and recognizing the strengths for home theater even though they would not buy the speakers for themselves. Indeed, preference thresholds for distortion are not well understood. I use it more as a proxy for output capability, though I prefer...

You said it yourself in your previous post, the preference score only evaluates tonality. Other factors like distortion, compression, intentional bandwidth limiting, and dispersion width need to be taken into account for the specific application. The measurements are there so you can evaluate...

The R200 results have never made sense to me in comparison to the R100. Somehow the speaker with the larger cabinet and larger midwoofer has less bass extension and lower sensitivity?

James Larson just posted results for the Monoprice SW-15: https://www.audioholics.com/subwoofer-reviews/monoprice-sw-15

@sweetchaos, I noticed some missing CEA-2010 results from Brent's spreadsheet: Monoprice SW-12 Monoprice SW-15 Rythmik LV12

Totally agree. Folks act like no center is better than an MTM center when the collapsing stereo image from sitting this far off-axis is much worse than the midrange dip from an MTM. I am an advocate for 3-way and coaxial center designs, but the hyperbole about MTMs does not benefit the...

Okay chill. I question the reasoning as well, but that doesn't mean their opinion doesn't matter.

...why?

@pierre another thought: the EQ graphs are rescaled to align the response with 0dB. It might be useful to skip rescaling to illustrate how much sensitivity is given up for EQ.

@pierre heads up that your price ranges are not inclusive on either side, so anything right on the limits will get filtered out. Example: the Polk XT15 is filtered out if you select either "<100$" or "100$-200$". The price ranges don't seem to consistently filter on price per speaker either...

I sent the R100 to Erin: https://erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/polk_r100/

It's the same old story, same old song and dance. Listening tests have value when they are done comparatively with an attempt to control biases. That's the way we connect measurements to perception. Without controlling for biases, listening tests add nothing to our existing understanding.

That's all good info for how we should interpret results, but the -45 degree axis measurement from the Klippel doesn't seem to match JBL. The dispersion also seems centered closer to -25 degrees than -45.

I don't think @ROOSKIE is a bad dude, and I do believe he was engaging in the investigation of this thread in good faith. I just wanted to remind him to avoid making and sharing conclusions based on a likely defective sample, as he has done in other threads...

This is the problem. You keep trying to rate the R200 or provide buying advice without confirming that your experience is representative of what anyone else would experience when listening to a non-defective R200. I totally get needing to just move on, just don't conclude that your experience is...

Cool! "Ground-breaking price" seems really silly to say when they are matching the primary competitor (SVS PB-1000 Pro) exactly. I always like to have more competition though.

Thank you for clarifying!

I 100% agree and am NOT defending the manufacturer for failing to provide the user an obvious indication. My only goal is to identify if the web interface can be used as a tool for owners to evaluate the amplifier state with their speakers at their typical volumes.

@amirm The deleted user was unnecessarily rude about it, but I did hope you would clarify this point. I'm trying to understand if you know the behavior of the web interface for a fact, or if you are interpreting its meaning based on its label. After all, the person designing the user interface...