• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

802 D3 vs Revel Salon 2

blueone

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 11, 2019
Messages
647
Likes
882
Location
USA
I wonder if people who claim the 800-series B&W's are overly bright are listening with them completely toed in and aimed directly at the listener (I.e. What Revel, Genelec, and Kef tells you to do).

Also people here have a tendency to freak out when they see the treble emphasis from the stereophile FR graph, perhaps not realizing that it represents a narrow on-axis window. The HF response of these B&W's can be easily adjusted by varying the amount of toe-in.

I understand what you're saying. I honestly don't remember exactly how all the 800D/802Ds I've heard over the years were toed-in. The 802D2s I heard most recently were in a friend's home theater, flanking a projection screen, and I remember them being pointed straight ahead. I also think the very first time I heard the 800Ds at a dealer in a dedicated room they were pointed about straight ahead, but that was a long time ago. At the time I do remember thinking that it was the best tweeter I had ever heard, based on my own recording of cymbals.

FWIW, I experiment with toe-in on every speaker I own in every different room. To me the Salon2s sound better in my current room with about half the toe-in Revel recommends.
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
2,152
Likes
3,621
Location
New York City
I wonder if people who claim the 800-series B&W's are overly bright are listening with them completely toed in and aimed directly at the listener (I.e. What Revel, Genelec, and Kef tells you to do).

Also people here have a tendency to freak out when they see the treble emphasis from the stereophile FR graph, perhaps not realizing that it represents a narrow on-axis window. The HF response of these B&W's can be easily adjusted by varying the amount of toe-in.

Fair question. I didn't experiment with toe-in with the B&W, but I did with Paradigm Persona . It didn't really seem to help (disclaimer: subjective and sighted). The Paradigm dispersion is pretty uneven in the highs, so perhaps the better dispersion of the B&W would yield a different result.

1620229960442.png

https://www.stereophile.com/content/paradigm-persona-5f-loudspeaker-measurements
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,289
Likes
6,445
Fair question. I didn't experiment with toe-in with the B&W, but I did with Paradigm Persona . It didn't really seem to help (disclaimer: subjective and sighted). The Paradigm dispersion is pretty uneven in the highs, so perhaps the better dispersion of the B&W would yield a different result.

View attachment 128059
https://www.stereophile.com/content/paradigm-persona-5f-loudspeaker-measurements

Do the B&W's have better dispersion that the Paradigmn though? They seem to be crossing over a large mid to a tweeter with no waveguide, and the off axis measurements don't look great.
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
2,152
Likes
3,621
Location
New York City
Do the B&W's have better dispersion that the Paradigmn though? They seem to be crossing over a large mid to a tweeter with no waveguide, and the off axis measurements don't look great.

I'm not the best at interpreting these things, but they look a little more uniform at the high end (where the showroom treble is), although the B&W has a deep notch around 1100hz

https://www.stereophile.com/content/paradigm-persona-5f-loudspeaker-measurements
1620236888854.png

https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-802-d3-diamond-loudspeaker-measurements
1620236859512.png
 

Asinus

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
75
Likes
85
I have that SACD (first on the above pic) version.
The recording has huge dynamic (sound level difference between loud vs soft) that makes you feel like you are in the auditorium life concert.
I have to crank my pre-amp about 15dB more than typical pop songs recording....This is where my older N801 shines, it can handle the Canon sound at 98dB peak ( not sustained average) volume , no distortion or hitting limit driven by Levinson.

Sounds about right, using SACD with the reference level 85 dB SPL @ -20 dB FS you should be getting peaks around 100 dB SPL in the stereo downmix.

According to the Dynamic Range Meter plugin for Foobar2k the DVD-Audio of that same recording has higher peaks and higher DR overall, and you would get 107 dB SPL peaks on the LFE that could potentially compound with 104 dB SPL of the other channels.

foobar2000 1.5.4 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for: 01-Lf-Rf-Ls-Rs 24/88200 + C-LFE 24/88200
Number of samples: 83612079
Duration: 15:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Channel 5 Channel 6

Peak Value: -0.47 dB --- -0.53 dB --- -0.75 dB --- -8.21 dB --- -0.30 dB --- -0.08 dB
Avg RMS: -25.23 dB --- -24.33 dB --- -30.67 dB --- -29.69 dB --- -29.03 dB --- -28.51 dB
DR channel: 18.10 dB --- 17.08 dB --- 16.85 dB --- 15.18 dB --- 22.42 dB --- 21.54 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official DR Value: DR19

Samplerate: 88200 Hz
Channels: 6
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 12701 kbps
Codec: MLP
================================================================================

foobar2000 1.5.4 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for: 01-1812 Overture, Op. 49
Number of samples: 2666866944
Duration: 15:45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Left Right

Peak Value: -2.70 dB --- -3.09 dB
Avg RMS: -27.82 dB --- -27.64 dB
DR channel: 18.64 dB --- 18.33 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official DR Value: DR18

Samplerate: 2822400 Hz / PCM Samplerate: 88200 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 1
Bitrate: 5645 kbps
Codec: DST64
================================================================================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for: 01-1812 Overture, Op. 49
Number of samples: 2663705856
Duration: 15:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Channel 5 Channel 6

Peak Value: -3.80 dB --- -3.34 dB --- -4.67 dB --- -2.20 dB --- -4.17 dB --- -4.02 dB
Avg RMS: -28.54 dB --- -27.12 dB --- -34.58 dB --- -23.71 dB --- -32.94 dB --- -32.38 dB
DR channel: 18.09 dB --- 17.11 dB --- 16.84 dB --- 15.25 dB --- 22.11 dB --- 21.52 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official DR Value: DR18

Samplerate: 2822400 Hz / PCM Samplerate: 88200 Hz
Channels: 6
Bits per sample: 1
Bitrate: 16934 kbps
Codec: DST64
================================================================================
 

Descartes

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Messages
798
Likes
376
What I like in the 802 D3 is not the brightness but is the life like sound.
What I meant by life like, is for example on good recording on glass breaking sound or violin or voice , the sounds is like a real violin or person speaking , not from a box. My Sonos speaker sounds good for background music , but I will not mistake the voice that it comes from a box vs a person.

The 802 D3 , to my observation sounds the most realistic.
For example Norah Jones SACD sounds like she was there, not coming from a box.

I notice that DAC, pre-amp, room treatment does affect frequency response.
I also notice that every person hearing has somewhat different frequency response characteristic / sensitivity.
Both Revel Salon 2 and 802 D3 sounds good to me and I focus on their imaging and wide dispersion (no narrow hot spot), Is the above posted frequency response plot based on dBA or dBC weighted ?
Is it measured in anechoic chamber ? just curiosu.

Thanks

I used to own 800D2 and was going to buy 802D3 but I found the sound very bright and was not able to listen for more than 15 minutes before getting annoyed by it!

Looking forward to Genelec Ones, Revel or KEF
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,289
Likes
6,445
I'm not the best at interpreting these things, but they look a little more uniform at the high end (where the showroom treble is), although the B&W has a deep notch around 1100hz

https://www.stereophile.com/content/paradigm-persona-5f-loudspeaker-measurements
View attachment 128101
https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-802-d3-diamond-loudspeaker-measurements
View attachment 128100

The Persona 5f has much better directivity to my eye, as it's directivity problems really only start after 8k or so, and the directivity below that is excellent. Directivity above 10k is likely not the audible. The Salon2 looks fairly similar to the Paradigm. By contrast, the B&W has a bad directivity problem at 1kHz, which will be very audible. It's directivity is also fairly poor(straight at some angles, up and down at others) from 1-10kHz.

708Revfig06.jpg


That's the Salon2.

917Kii3fig5.jpg


and Kii Three, for examples of what "excellent" directivity looks like.
 

MrPeabody

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
888
Location
USA
I wonder if people who claim the 800-series B&W's are overly bright are listening with them completely toed in and aimed directly at the listener (I.e. What Revel, Genelec, and Kef tells you to do).

Also people here have a tendency to freak out when they see the treble emphasis from the stereophile FR graph, perhaps not realizing that it represents a narrow on-axis window. The HF response of these B&W's can be easily adjusted by varying the amount of toe-in.

You can get a roll of that yellow caution tape to mark out the areas in your listening room where you're not supposed to stand or sit because you'll be directly on-axis with one or the other of the two speakers. Better yet, angle them both slightly out toward the side walls so that the forbidden zones will be fairly small and close to the speakers, then put some some acoustic absorbing material on each side wall precisely at the spot where the speaker is aimed. No problem.
 

MrPeabody

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
888
Location
USA
The Persona 5f has much better directivity to my eye, as it's directivity problems really only start after 8k or so, and the directivity below that is excellent. Directivity above 10k is likely not the audible. The Salon2 looks fairly similar to the Paradigm. By contrast, the B&W has a bad directivity problem at 1kHz, which will be very audible. It's directivity is also fairly poor(straight at some angles, up and down at others) from 1-10kHz.

View attachment 128127

That's the Salon2.

View attachment 128128

and Kii Three, for examples of what "excellent" directivity looks like.

That's an interesting comparison. The Kii has better horizontal directivity control above 10 kHz, where I probably would not be able to hear the benefit. Throughout the bulk of the audible spectrum, the Salon 2 looks a little better, especially with respect to the Kii's response dip off-axis at 300 Hz to 600 Hz. Were I to take a wild guess at how to explain this, my wild guess would that below 300 Hz the front-facing woofer brings up the off-axis level, but upwards of this frequency the laterally off-axis response in more under the control of the side-mounted driver, which presumably has low-end rolloff at somewhat higher frequency, like a typical midrange. Nothing more than a wild guess here of course, but consistent with the evidence. In choosing between these two speakers (as if ...), I'd probably base the choice on bass extension, on-axis response and avoidance of distortion. But hey, if someone wants to give me one of them, I'm certain that that is the one that I will prefer.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,289
Likes
6,445
That's an interesting comparison. The Kii has better horizontal directivity control above 10 kHz, where I probably would not be able to hear the benefit. Throughout the bulk of the audible spectrum, the Salon 2 looks a little better, especially with respect to the Kii's response dip off-axis at 300 Hz to 600 Hz. Were I to take a wild guess at how to explain this, my wild guess would that below 300 Hz the front-facing woofer brings up the off-axis level, but upwards of this frequency the laterally off-axis response in more under the control of the side-mounted driver, which presumably has low-end rolloff at somewhat higher frequency, like a typical midrange. Nothing more than a wild guess here of course, but consistent with the evidence. In choosing between these two speakers (as if ...), I'd probably base the choice on bass extension, on-axis response and avoidance of distortion. But hey, if someone wants to give me one of them, I'm certain that that is the one that I will prefer.

I agree. The Salon2 dispersion looks a better below 10kHz, where it then kinda falls apart a bit. Like you said, though, how important is above 10kHz really? The more I look at the Salon2, so there more impressed I am that it compares favorably in many aspects against more modern and active designs like Kii/D&D. It's not as flat on axis as those newer designs are, though.

Hopefully we'll have full NFS spins of all three here soon to really compare. I'd be willing to chip in for movers to help @amirm measure his, since it's a speaker I'm really interested in.
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,240
Likes
1,427
Location
California
You can get a roll of that yellow caution tape to mark out the areas in your listening room where you're not supposed to stand or sit because you'll be directly on-axis with one or the other of the two speakers. Better yet, angle them both slightly out toward the side walls so that the forbidden zones will be fairly small and close to the speakers, then put some some acoustic absorbing material on each side wall precisely at the spot where the speaker is aimed. No problem.

I don't usually offer free advice, but for you, I would gently suggest that for serious listening, you should position yourself equidistant from your main speakers. It's difficult to optimize a system if you're sitting, then standing, then walking around the room, etc., as you describe. The soundstage projected from stereo speakers is also improved if you are equidistant. I hope you'll consider this free advice.
 

Kal Rubinson

Major Contributor
Industry Insider
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
3,980
Likes
6,370
Location
NYC/CT
Thanks, Kal. One recording of the 1812 Overture is enough for me.
IMHO, more than enough (although I seem to have acquired a few). DR19, fwiw, but it's boring except for the cannons.
 

MrPeabody

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
888
Location
USA
I agree. The Salon2 dispersion looks a better below 10kHz, where it then kinda falls apart a bit. Like you said, though, how important is above 10kHz really? The more I look at the Salon2, so there more impressed I am that it compares favorably in many aspects against more modern and active designs like Kii/D&D. It's not as flat on axis as those newer designs are, though.

Hopefully we'll have full NFS spins of all three here soon to really compare. I'd be willing to chip in for movers to help @amirm measure his, since it's a speaker I'm really interested in.

Amir's big pair of Salon 2's in that small room define the meaning of the word "overkill". Although, I could see having a pair of F208 in almost any room, no matter how small. Except maybe a bathroom. Amir probably has a very big bathroom and has a pair of F208 in there.
 

MrPeabody

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
888
Location
USA
I don't usually offer free advice, but for you, I would gently suggest that for serious listening, you should position yourself equidistant from your main speakers. It's difficult to optimize a system if you're sitting, then standing, then walking around the room, etc., as you describe. The soundstage projected from stereo speakers is also improved if you are equidistant. I hope you'll consider this free advice.

Absolutely. The next time I go looking for a pair of speakers with the expectation that I'm the only person who'll ever be in the room and that I'll always sit in the very same spot, and I start wondering whether this means that the spot where I sit should be equidistant from both speakers, I'll refer back to your advice for the answer, and this will make it less likely that I'll choose a spot much closer to one of the speakers than to the other one. Although, this doesn't really have much to do with the other thing. Choosing a location equidistant from both speakers doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to aim the speakers in most any direction, and no matter which direction you aim them, this won't influence the question of whether you should sit equidistant from both speakers or closer to one than to the other. Of course what you wanted to say is that since you're going to sit in one location all the time anyway, there is nothing silly about the idea of aiming both speakers straight to the front with you seated somewhere in the middle of the room and thus not directly on axis for either speaker. Okay, for some people I suppose, however personally I have no interest in a setup that will only sound correct to one person sitting in one spot within a room. Not that I don't enjoy plopping down in a favorite chair and listening to some favorite music. Just that I wouldn't want a system that will sound annoying anytime I'm in or near that room but not sitting in that one special location. The idea just does not sit well with me.
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,240
Likes
1,427
Location
California
Absolutely. The next time I go looking for a pair of speakers with the expectation that I'm the only person who'll ever be in the room and that I'll always sit in the very same spot, and I start wondering whether this means that the spot where I sit should be equidistant from both speakers, I'll refer back to your advice for the answer, and this will make it less likely that I'll choose a spot much closer to one of the speakers than to the other one. Although, this doesn't really have much to do with the other thing. Choosing a location equidistant from both speakers doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to aim the speakers in most any direction, and no matter which direction you aim them, this won't influence the question of whether you should sit equidistant from both speakers or closer to one than to the other. Of course what you wanted to say is that since you're going to sit in one location all the time anyway, there is nothing silly about the idea of aiming both speakers straight to the front with you seated somewhere in the middle of the room and thus not directly on axis for either speaker. Okay, for some people I suppose, however personally I have no interest in a setup that will only sound correct to one person sitting in one spot within a room. Not that I don't enjoy plopping down in a favorite chair and listening to some favorite music. Just that I wouldn't want a system that will sound annoying anytime I'm in or near that room but not sitting in that one special location. The idea just does not sit well with me.

I'm not actually sure now of the point is that you're trying to make. And that's after reading ur response 3x. If you're saying that you don't believe in optimizing reproduction for a single MLP at the expense of other listening locations that's great. Others would disagree with that philosophy.

Genelec and Revel speakers appear to be optimized for on-axis listening. B&W's and many others are optimized for off-axis listening. This is why you can't simply look at the stereophile on-axis listening window and understand how it will sound in actual usage.
 

LTig

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
4,156
Likes
6,717
Location
Europe
Absolutely. The next time I go looking for a pair of speakers with the expectation that I'm the only person who'll ever be in the room and that I'll always sit in the very same spot, and I start wondering whether this means that the spot where I sit should be equidistant from both speakers, I'll refer back to your advice for the answer, and this will make it less likely that I'll choose a spot much closer to one of the speakers than to the other one. Although, this doesn't really have much to do with the other thing. Choosing a location equidistant from both speakers doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to aim the speakers in most any direction, and no matter which direction you aim them, this won't influence the question of whether you should sit equidistant from both speakers or closer to one than to the other. Of course what you wanted to say is that since you're going to sit in one location all the time anyway, there is nothing silly about the idea of aiming both speakers straight to the front with you seated somewhere in the middle of the room and thus not directly on axis for either speaker. Okay, for some people I suppose, however personally I have no interest in a setup that will only sound correct to one person sitting in one spot within a room. Not that I don't enjoy plopping down in a favorite chair and listening to some favorite music. Just that I wouldn't want a system that will sound annoying anytime I'm in or near that room but not sitting in that one special location. The idea just does not sit well with me.
Get a Bose Waveradio - seriously.
 

MrPeabody

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
888
Location
USA
I'm not actually sure now of the point is that you're trying to make. And that's after reading ur response 3x. If you're saying that you don't believe in optimizing reproduction for a single MLP at the expense of other listening locations that's great. Others would disagree with that philosophy.

Genelec and Revel speakers appear to be optimized for on-axis listening. B&W's and many others are optimized for off-axis listening. This is why you can't simply look at the stereophile on-axis listening window and understand how it will sound in actual usage.

You've got it backwards, and you are using the terms "on-axis" and "listening window" in a manner that is confusing and not correct. If there is a measured response curve that shows only the response for some specific off-axis listening position, then it would in fact be impossible to infer what the response would be on-axis or what the listening window response would be. In contrast, if the response is displayed over the range of horizontally off-axis positions associated with the listening window, then generally it is possible to infer what the response will be at some specific off-axis horizontal angle. How you managed to get this turned around is beyond me.

If you have any published literature from B&W (or from that other company that is known for making speakers with greatly exaggerated upper treble) that plainly says that the frequency response they strive for and make claims for in their marketing literature is in fact the off-axis response at some specific off-axis angle, this will be useful information. Of course if you had any genuine information of that sort, that would provide some justification for your speculation, you would have shared it in the first place, and would have avoided the speculation. Even if you have any information of that sort it will still beg the question of why, in order to achieve a proper response curve at whatever that select off-axis angle may happen to be, that it would have been necessary for the on-axis response to end up as crappy as it is. This is a question that should have occurred to you and that you should have pondered, when it first occurred to you that maybe B&W designs the speaker expressly to be listened to at some particular off-axis angle. Another question that should have occurred to you is why, if the speaker is designed to be listened to at some very specific angle, they wouldn't have chosen the 0-degree angle. This is an obvious question, and is another question for which you would need to have come up with an answer before proposing the idea that you proposed. The only answer that I can think of is that the response at the 0-degree angle would need to be exaggerated in treble in order to achieve a specific response for the listening window. But this obviously wouldn't be consistent with your hypothesis, because in this case B&W would be designing for the listening window response, just like Genelec and Revel, and not for the response at some very specific off-axis angle. Thus, there are multiple reasons, that are very obvious, for why what you proposed was silly and not deserving of serious consideration. You said you couldn't follow the point I was trying to make, so I have now said it for you in a plain manner that you will hopefully be able to follow.

I almost forgot to ask you this: If we accept the idea that a speaker should be designed in a way consistent with the idea of the "MLP", why would it follow from this idea that a speaker would need to be designed to have the optimal response at an angle other than the 0-degree angle? Moreover, why would this objective be thought inconsistent with a proper listening window response? I'm being a little redundant here because I did allude to these questions in the preceding paragraph, but after I wrote that paragraph and then went back and read what you had written, I thought that I had better draw even more attention to these questions since they evidently did not occur to you even though they should have.

And another thing that I really should not need to point out is that unless the walls of your room are magical, the response of the speaker at various angles is going to strongly influence what you hear even at your "MLP". This of course is a fundamental reason why companies that design good speakers using solid principles focus on the listening window response, and do not focus exclusively on the response at any one specific horizontally off-axis angle.

Finally I need to say that I do not enjoy having to explain any of this. I suppose it was inevitable that I would have to eventually, if I responded to what you proposed, so I probably should have either written this in the first place or else just kept quiet. Oh well.
 
Last edited:

MrPeabody

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
888
Location
USA
Get a Bose Waveradio - seriously.

Now for what possible good reason would you go and write something this stupid and childish? If you have any sincere, honest reason to understand where I'm coming from, please read the reply I wrote to preload, which should show up immediately above this.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,289
Likes
6,445
I'm not actually sure now of the point is that you're trying to make. And that's after reading ur response 3x. If you're saying that you don't believe in optimizing reproduction for a single MLP at the expense of other listening locations that's great. Others would disagree with that philosophy.

Genelec and Revel speakers appear to be optimized for on-axis listening. B&W's and many others are optimized for off-axis listening. This is why you can't simply look at the stereophile on-axis listening window and understand how it will sound in actual usage.

ELAC and Dali are other examples of speakers optimized for off axis listening.

That said, it's fair to point out that although Revel/Genelec are optimized for on-axis(I think?), they're actually also *better off axis than B&W. Compare the Salon2 and 802 stereophile off axis measurements posted above, and it's clear that the Salon2 is considerably better off axis too. Also, we hear both off and on axis sound, and both matter greatly, so you want a speaker that is optimized for both, like the Salon.

*by "better" I just mean "better" in the general sense(majority preference). Personal preference still has a big role to play(imo), and the 802 off axis measurements will no doubt sound better to at least some. Good example is your Genelec/B&W impression. The Genelec is also much "better" off axis than the 802, but you still prefer the B&W.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,289
Likes
6,445
You've got it backwards, and you are using the terms "on-axis" and "listening window" in a manner that is confusing and not correct. If there is a measured response curve that shows only the response for some specific off-axis listening position, then it would in fact be impossible to infer what the response would be on-axis or what the listening window response would be. In contrast, if the response is displayed over the range of horizontally off-axis positions associated with the listening window, then generally it is possible to infer what the response will be at some specific off-axis horizontal angle. How you managed to get this turned around is beyond me.

If you have any published literature from B&W (or from that other company that is known for making speakers with greatly exaggerated upper treble) that plainly says that the frequency response they strive for and make claims for in their marketing literature is in fact the off-axis response at some specific off-axis angle, this will be useful information. Of course if you had any genuine information of that sort, that would provide some justification for your speculation, you would have shared it in the first place, and would have avoided the speculation. Even if you have any information of that sort it will still beg the question of why, in order to achieve a proper response curve at whatever that select off-axis angle may happen to be, that it would have been necessary for the on-axis response to end up as crappy as it is. This is a question that should have occurred to you and that you should have pondered, when it first occurred to you that maybe B&W designs the speaker expressly to be listened to at some particular off-axis angle. Another question that should have occurred to you is why, if the speaker is designed to be listened to at some very specific angle, they wouldn't have chosen the 0-degree angle. This is an obvious question, and is another question for which you would need to have come up with an answer before proposing the idea that you proposed. The only answer that I can think of is that the response at the 0-degree angle would need to be exaggerated in treble in order to achieve a specific response for the listening window. But this obviously wouldn't be consistent with your hypothesis, because in this case B&W would be designing for the listening window response, just like Genelec and Revel, and not for the response at some very specific off-axis angle. Thus, there are multiple reasons, that are very obvious, for why what you proposed was silly and not deserving of serious consideration. You said you couldn't follow the point I was trying to make, so I have now said it for you in a plain manner that you will hopefully be able to follow.

I almost forgot to ask you this: If we accept the idea that a speaker should be designed in a way consistent with the idea of the "MLP", why would it follow from this idea that a speaker would need to be designed to have the optimal response at an angle other than the 0-degree angle? Moreover, why would this objective be thought inconsistent with a proper listening window response? I'm being a little redundant here because I did allude to these questions in the preceding paragraph, but after I wrote that paragraph and then went back and read what you had written, I thought that I had better draw even more attention to these questions since they evidently did not occur to you even though they should have.

And another thing that I really should not need to point out is that unless the walls of your room are magical, the response of the speaker at various angles is going to strongly influence what you hear even at your "MLP". This of course is a fundamental reason why companies that design good speakers using solid principles focus on the listening window response, and do not focus exclusively on the response at any one specific horizontally off-axis angle.

Finally I need to say that I do not enjoy having to explain any of this. I suppose it was inevitable that I would have to eventually, if I responded to what you proposed, so I probably should have either written this in the first place or else just kept quiet. Oh well.

IMO, there really is no off axis angle at which the B&W(even with EQ) is better than the Revel, as the directivity is not constant or even consistent. There is various peaking and beaming at different frequencies and angles. Because what we hear is a combination of both on and off axis sound(as you pointed out), I would argue that there exists no angle at which one can listen where the B&W beats the Revel.

Again by "better" or "beats" I just mean in the majority sense. There is always room for individual preference.
 
Top Bottom