Why would you think that?That's one of my guesses that higher sensitivity speakers have higher distortion.
Why would you think that?That's one of my guesses that higher sensitivity speakers have higher distortion.
They play louder hence more distortion. ....Why would you think that?
It is not very subjective. Research shows otherwise.
Also we have different bass preference and I don't think that it is affected by age.
It seems to me that it is not a good idea for Amir to post his subjective impressions, just measurements.
But on the other hand, this is your forum and maybe it's your fun to do it.
The Jbl xpl90 scored 3.8 and was recommended..... I truly don't get it.
I don't see that one on the sheet. Yeah 3.8 is a little low for a $699 loudspeaker, but it's not terrible. As I said earlier, he's done so many reviews that there will no doubt be a few that don't make sense. Sort by preference score though on that page and you will see that there is a very high correlation between the preference score and whether or not the speaker gets recommended. And remember, he posts the recommendation before he sees the preference score, so the correlation is true.
The preference score isn't a hard number. I think of it more like the center point of a range of values. With a standard deviation of 0.8, that JBL could be anywhere from 3.0 to 4.6, and 4.6 is very good for a $699 loudspeaker.
Also, it's possible that the JBL is just doing something nice to the sound that the Olive score fails to recognize. The formula is pretty old now, and most of the loudspeakers measured here are actually much better than a lot of the bad loudspeakers in the sample they used. It could be that in todays market, the score holds less correlation than the .86 it did back then.
I've been critical of a few of his recommendations, but looking at that index page was eye opening for me. There really is a fairly strong correlation between the score and the recommendation.
What precisely about the measurements should lead me to that?
You just got done saying my opinion can't have any value. Why are you assuming that the "uneducated and inexperienced" membership has a prayer then? By that logic they definitely need someone to give them the recommendation.On the other hand I understand that most readers of ASR are not as well educated and experienced with hifi measurements and evaluation, and can't make personal judgement from raw data. It's simply up to the reader to pick up the goodies from "tests"
It's the opposite. Higher sensitivity, all other things being equal, produces less distortion. It's just that for really efficient compression-based drivers horn-loading and design comes with it's own set of distortions that are hard to overcome. Compared to direct radiators, you need less cone movement and excursion to reach the same SPL.They play louder hence more distortion. ....
Why have an abstract one-number rating/ranking system? We should be encouraging readers to learn audio concepts so they won't be overly influenced or manipulated by the bad tactics of the industry, and spend our energy to come up with better explanations and make the underlying data/research easier to access.I was thinking of a project website to have user reviews and ratings, sort of like imdb for audio equipment
This whole thread has me thoroughly confused. @amirm did recommend the KEF R3’s. You could stop when you saw the pink panther and not have read a single word. The issue seems to be the KEF R3’s didn’t get the highest honor, the golf swinging Pink Panther, as the Revel M16’s did. And thus the problem with this site, it makes you read, unlike every other publication where you can see a simple list of the “Best of 2020”.Yes indeed, an users who are very active are aware of this subjective impression follow up...but most newcomers won’t dig into 30 pages threads.
As stated by others, that was before he added in the room mode fix in the bass, he since has stated he likes much more if I recall.
That would be the "room mode fix" described here, right?
"So let's measure the room and see what we are working with (with KEF R3 on stand):
I have filtered this with 1/6 octave so there is not much clutter. Focusing below 200 Hz, we see our loudest and most offending peak is around 100 Hz. Let's dial in a single parametric filter by eye and see what does:"
Let's try to see what this simple filter actually did to the shown frequency response (oddly measured at 35-40dB SPL):
View attachment 68162
Yep, looks fixed.
While claiming it fixed the room modes issue you are advised to ignore the dip at 75 Hz that got deeper and the wide dip between 130 and 180Hz that also got deeper. You should also ignore peak at 240hz and especially that one at 580Hz and also dips at 310Hz and 850Hz which remained the same.
So are we supposed to believe that after applying that simple filter which effects I showed Kef R3 became a whole lot better speaker in the subjective opinion of our host? That bass is no more "boomy" and that all details are now revealed? Well sure, I mean he's a trained listener so no reason not to trust him..