You have too dominant distortion factors:
1. When the amplifier runs out of power or soft clipping/electronic compression sets in.
2. When the woofer runs out of excursion.
With many powered monitors, #1 kicks in first. Likely they are trying to protect the rest of the system. Result is clicks, buzzing sounds, etc. Very distinct than mechanical excursion limits. Extra amplification removes this barrier and then the woofer becomes the limit. That doesn't make audible noises as early in my experience. Its distortions are limited to lower frequencies so not as audible.
Many use the icePower modules, a few use Hypex or even Pascal. Some use other chip amps. Some use A/B.
This model uses high power Pascal modules, which would seem to be one of its main selling points. Kh310 uses class AB. JBL 708 uses proprietary class D. Genelec is all AB.
I think the dsp modules and input circuitry are more ubiquitous but I'll leave that to someone more knowledgeable.
Nope, the D52 was a 2" dome, Dynaudio used to make though nice 3" mid domes though and a variant of their D76 was used in the O300/O410.Yes, I believe K&H used it in the O300 and O410, the direct predecessors to the KH310/KH420.
Of course not. At that level, neither the amp or the driver are at limits. I suspect though that no one plays anything at 70 dB SPL. If you did, the bass would not be audible at all as that is the threshold of hearing!Thanks! I understand #1 can increasingly be a problem at higher SPLs, but what you're saying is, #1 can happen even at low playing levels, say at ~70db / nearfield desktop usage, where the speakers are not near their mechanical limits?
Of course not. At that level, neither the amp or the driver are at limits. I suspect though that no one plays anything at 70 dB SPL. If you did, the bass would not be audible at all as that is the threshold of hearing!
Back in early 90s while designing the SILVER 5L speakers we auditioned various manufacturers’ drive units that are within the range of our design criteria. Unit after unit we rejected Dynadio drivers as “not sounding nice”. Their sound was not as musical as similar units from SEAS and ScanSpeak, which we also auditioned. We couldn’t explain why as the MLSSA measuring system we had at the time was not showing much difference between other brands’ units. At the end we choose SEAS who were also excellent in supporting us by modifying their stock drivers to exactly match our specs.Boohoo. I remember when Dynaudio used to sell just raw drivers, then they stopped and only made their drivers available through complete loudspeaker systems. Maybe they should go back to selling their raw drivers.
Ah! Appreciate the correction.Nope, the D52 was a 2" dome, Dynaudio used to make though nice 3" mid domes though and a variant of their D76 was used in the O300/O410.
Source: DynaudioWith crossover points at 475Hz and 5.25kHz, Core 47 delivers so much more of the critical vocal range in one driver than typical designs, ensuring your mix decisions on vocal balances and dialogue subtleties are made with confidence.
@amirm correct me if I’m wrong but one assumes the woofer is driven by one of amplifiers while the midrange & tweeter by the other, through a passive crossover. Then why have they used a very slow low pass filter on the woofer’s amplifier? Within the total cost of the electronics, the extra parts required for a higher order filter is negligible. A steeper filter would reduce the messy port resonances as well.…here is the near-field response of the drivers and port:
View attachment 142485
Front ports always cause more grief than rear ones in speakers and here is no exception. It is transmitting multiple resonances which while controlled, still serve to mess things up (relatively speaker).
the LYD 5 is one of the best speakers ever tested here...
Impulse response and frequency response are the same thing. One is measured in time domain and the other in frequency. They are directly transformed to each other via Fourier Transform. A certain FR will always have the same IR, or visa versa.Hello! Very disappointing considering it's an DSP speaker.
I wonder if it's possible to take a look at the impulse response of the speakers. Maybe the designer sacrificed FR flatness for better time response. Those 2 are very difficult to get at the same time, even for DSP based speakers.
What are you even talking about... Again, it's the 4th best speaker (by preference score, with sub, as all monitors in that size class require one) ever tested here. It's far less distorted than all three of those monitors you mentioned, so it's actually usable as a studio tool... the JBL doesn't even have adequate headroom at 85dB. The Kali is miles behind the LYD, a complete disaster on-axis. The Neumanns are cute toys, great for an alternate setup, but as your only monitors.... LOLSeems like in the review it's beaten out by an low end JBL for a fraction of the price, and a Neumann at the same price, and a Kali IN-8 for a few hundred less.
the LYDs are, in fact, significantly cheaper than their direct competitors. Here, the 5 is $200 less than an 8030, the 7 is $470 less than an 8040, and the 8 is $1,130 less than an 8050.If a company doesn't produce something best in class, or significantly cheaper than others, then they need to improve on price or performance unless their target market cares more about aesthetics or brand loyalty.