Can you show some examples of swift dismissal of listening experiences when the data seemingly supports them?
You don't need to look further, this conversation is full of them. Keep reading...
Come with data and we will have a proper discussion.
I had
shared data showing the power figures of both of the amps discussed (together with the power requirements of Kanta 2s) in this very conversation before I shared my listening experience:
Welcome, Speaker cables make a clear difference with the Kantas. No, they do not. With whatever speakers. the Purify It's Purifi. Clearly more revaling than the Arias (no surprise). Why "no surprise"? Just because these are more expensive? Love the bass punch and bass stretch downwards...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Naim Supernait 2's juice is simply not enough for these
speakers impedance load of which I had also shared:
they can go down to 2.3ohms at around 100Hz
and sound is clearly distorted. You keep reminding distortion is very audible:
It was quite annoying and obvious artifact. Whether your speaker will do the same depends on its impedance curve.
but interestingly only when I hear it, it's obviously bias according to everyone.
If I had told you about imaging, etc. you could doubt it.
Also, my questions about
how you'd measure "imaging" with a single speaker (because you don't even test them in pairs) were completely ignored. Ok,
@SIY explained it to me in scientific fashion:
I know who, who wrote the Book of Love.
For what it's worth, and I believe it was valuable info a Kanta owner (OP) could make use of, but was dismissed by bias narrative, the crossover phase linearization filter settings I shared for these speakers in this very post:
FYI I've updated Focal Kanta 2 crossover and box phase correction (polarity inverted 24db/oct at 2700Hz and 12dB/oct at 260 Hz and a time reversed 1st order all pass at the port frequency (41Hz) as below.
That time alignment between the tweeter and mid woofer will raise the combined response towards the source of higher frequencies and thus will audibly "lift" the center stage (aka image). Any speaker designer knows this. You cannot measure center stage height with an oscilloscope and a single speaker, it will have to be tested by ear in stereo. And
the filter is being derived from a measurement in the first place, you need measurements to time the drivers! You don't need to remeasure to see that a second degree allpass with a bandwidth of sqrt(2) at 41Hz will shift the phase around 41Hz (although I usually re-measure after the filter is convolved for a sanity check). Similarly, you have to adjust left and right speaker phase differences with different allpass filters usually to encounter different room reflections which will shift the location of the central image. You must all have experienced center stage moving a little bit left and right with different tracks and that's almost always because not all frequencies are phase matched between your speakers. Of course, you cannot determine problem frequencies by ear, you need measurements but you will need to audibly test the filters eventually. You cannot hear a perfectly aligned and centered image somewhere else by bias. And if you do, you don't need to bother with any of this anyway.
Pre-echo (not pre-ringing and yes they are different) is a certain side effect of a time-reversed all pass filter and will show up in measurements but needs to be specifically tested for audibility (unfortunately that will need to be done by the ears!) because it's ignored by our brains to a certain extent. It was one of the bias quantification questions I asked above ALL of which were IGNORED as any other question I raised before!
And some points I wanna make on how reliable "some" of the measurements you love to base everything on actually are:
Below is a suggested PEQ for a speaker after spinorama measurements and you assign comparative
tonal scores to these speakers after such EQ suggestions:
and here's the Gabor limit which you repeatedly fully ignored in this conversation:
I understand the appeal of relying on scientific tools like spinorama, but applying a -12dB peaking filter at 13kHz with a Q of 1.44 would VERY negatively impact the audible results, potentially exceeding the limitations of the Gabor limit as seen above.
Here's what that filter will do to the peak energy arrival times of frequencies around 8kHz and how it will delay everything beyond that by nearly half a second! I know very well how that sounds because I listen to the effect of these filters but cannot tell you because you don't.
While we are at it, let me say a few things about the continuous promotion of omnidirectional speakers here over directional ones disregarding room reflectivity (yes, speakers should be rated according to the rooms they are supposed to be used in - the humble German AK list I shared in this conversation correctly classifies them according to room size, reflectivity and wall proximity as well as impedance loads and min required amp power - anyone bothered even looking at it?). Additionally, directivity scores are a bit questionable IMO, too. Here's an early reflections graph from your measurements:
Ceiling reflection is causing a massive dip of around -15dB above 1,000 Hz? Unless you are living in Lilliput's island with dwarfs, no typical room first ceiling reflection dip will be above around 200-220 Hz (
quite straightforward to calculate given driver distance to LP, driver height, LP height and room height) and lower than -2, -3 dB! And its harmonics would only be weaker due to surface absorptions. I am well aware, that's all produced by averaging certain reflection angles but one needs to consider the length of the beam along with its angle to calculate resonant frequencies which inevitably brings the room specifics that speaker is intended to be placed in into the equation.
Your "predicted room response curves" from spinorama measurements are only accurate way above room transient frequency and
extremely inaccurate below that by your own admission:
but the fact that you're measuring in room response after the point room no longer has any effect in the sound doesn't bother anyone. Could this be one of the reasons for some to avoid listening tests at all costs because they will involve the actual room response? Just asking.
Sorry, I digress...
Lastly (as I try not to ignore questions raised to me in a conversation as I see fit):
"Nuance" has no connection to science or logic
Whenever I get captivated by a song – which is often – I can’t help but play it over and over again. It’s like a compulsion; there is so much life, so much creative and emotional content flowing through its sound, that I can’t contemplate it all in one listen. I have to internalize it […] Read...
joymotiondance.com
Cheers!
