Epos ES 14 N - best passive Speaker in SpiNorama.org so far? (7.4/10 with equalisation without subwoofer)

[thewas]

At the end of the day most listeners won't use subs or eq. Out of the box this speaker may well sound better than the competitors mentioned by some here, even the active ones, since they may have ringing or artifacts not visible in the measurements at all.

I strongly doubt that such in high quality measurements like from Amir or Erin invisible ringing or artefacts would make someone prefer a loudspeaker with a poorer direcitivity, but as I wrote before rather might prefer the tuning or deeper bass response.

I'm not arguing your general points, I'm arguing the assumptions that one can take any two speakers and know which speaker sounds subjectively best to a given listener from the measurements alone.

That was also not said, we know that the preference is in the end a statistic and for example older people might prefer a lifted treble tuning which is also seen often in the tuning of corresponding expensive target products.

 

[dogmamann]

Do you (measurement ultras ) really think the engineers at all these speaker brands are doing nonesense the whole day?

yes, if they are not knowledgeable about what should be the basics of an accurate sound reproducing. And if they are good at marketing.

This is what you get from Wilson audio when you spend 50k. On a. Flat speaker with good directivity, this is just an eq. Idiots who buy these things won’t be knowing how to use a basic eq. So that’s there!

And boy that directivity is interesting !

 

[thewas]

Yepp, you know that and I know that...and it has been that way for ages. Again making a waveguide is easy, but not everybody likes the sound of them. Also, even the waveguide is a compromise, as it tries to compensate something "not so good" of the woofer (starting to beam) by making the nice radiation of the tweeter as bad as the woofer, so it's continuously bad. OK, this is of course a bit cynical....but maybe it can make you understand that there a people who don't think Sean Olive's way is the only one to go.

I have read that arguments so many times and no, a really good waveguide is not easy to make and of course there are also other ways to get smooth direcitvity like using a small mid driver. Also that supposedly many prefer other engineering ways and targets, but the experience had shown that usually comparisons are done not at a sufficient high level but when they are done at a high level (blinded, level matched, bass corrected) the results usually confirm the Harman research which was also based on such.

 

[Karl-Heinz Fink]

yes, if they are not knowledgeable about what should be the basics of an accurate sound reproducing. And if they are good at marketing.

This is what you get from Wilson audio when you spend 50k. On a. Flat speaker with good directivity, this is just an eq. Idiots who buy these things won’t be knowing how to use a basic eq. So that’s there!

And boy that directivity is interesting !

This measurement looks like a Stereoplay one, stitched together between far-field and near-field at 300Hz. And like most people, they assume that you can do that. No, you cannot. Most people refer to the Don B. Keele paper, but they did not read it completely.....

Fair-field is 4phi, near-field is 2phi....like a speaker on a big baffle. But that is not correct. You have to change the nearfield measurement with a correction curve that depends on the cabinet size and position of the driver. Just stitching it together, does not work. I don't think the proper correction would make the speaker ruler flat on the bottom end, but it would take away the strange rising bass more than a bit.
So you better not trust all the measurements you see.

 

[thewas]

This measurement looks like a Stereoplay one, stitched together between far-field and near-field at 300Hz. And like most people, they assume that you can do that. No, you cannot. Most people refer to the Don B. Keele paper, but they did not read it completely.....

Fair-field is 4phi, near-field is 2phi....like a speaker on a big baffle. But that is not correct. You have to change the nearfield measurement with a correction curve that depends on the cabinet size and position of the driver. Just stitching it together, does not work. I don't think the proper correction would make the speaker ruler flat on the bottom end, but it would take away the strange rising bass more than a bit.
So you better not trust all the measurements you see.

Yes, but like you say the hump will be still there although reduced, here for example a similar large but quite neutral loudspeaker (Magico A5) measured both from Stereoplay and Klippel NFS which doesn't show such a large hump:

Source: https://longkft.hu/audioblog/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stereoplay-2021-06.pdf (page 18)

Source:

Magico A5 spinorama (CEA2034)

This is the first time I remember seeing a spin from any Magico speaker in Klippel NFS. I am glad the company is providing it to reviews, but I wish they uploaded them to their website for all models as well. Behold the flagship floorstanding speaker from their entry level A series published by...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Karl-Heinz Fink]

I have read that arguments so many times and no, a really good waveguide is not easy to make and of course there are also other ways to get smooth direcitvity like using a small mid driver. Also that supposedly many prefer other engineering ways and targets, but the experience had shown that usually comparisons are done not at a sufficient high level but when they are done at a high level (blinded, level matched, bass corrected) the results usually confirm the Harman research which was also based on such.

Ah, adding a smaller mid-driver you think is better? With another crossover region? Yeah, that can solve the directivity problem, but add some other flaws. And believe me. I have done many, many double-blind tests in the 80th during my time as a reviewer in Germany. Depending on the general balance, it was almost impossible to match the level.. and that makes a comparison impossible.
You can keep your experience, I keep mine...and everybody is happy.

 

[thewas]

Ah, adding a smaller mid-driver you think is better? With another crossover region? Yeah, that can solve the directivity problem, but add some other flaws. And believe me. I have done many, many double-blind tests in the 80th during my time as a reviewer in Germany. Depending on the general balance, it was almost impossible to match the level.. and that makes a comparison impossible.
You can keep your experience, I keep mine...and everybody is happy.

Don't worry, I agree that adding a third way at a high level isn't easy at all, especially with a passive crossover, everything is a compromise, on the other hand without a subwoofer I personally usually prefer three way designs due to lower IMD and multitone distortions in the most audible mid band at higher listening levels.

I also agree that level matching is theoretically not possible with different tonalities/tunings but this shouldn't be used as an excuse to avoid it as still the blind testing seems to give some strong trends which usually confirm the Harman research (see for example the 2 links in my signature), namely that most people tend to prefer neutral direct sound with smooth directivity and the absence of distortions and resonances.

 

[Karl-Heinz Fink]

Yes, but like you say the hump will be still there although reduced, here for example a similar large but quite neutral loudspeaker (Magico A5) measured both from Stereoplay and Klippel NFS which doesn't show such a large hump:


Source: https://longkft.hu/audioblog/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/stereoplay-2021-06.pdf (page 18)


Source:

Magico A5 spinorama (CEA2034)

This is the first time I remember seeing a spin from any Magico speaker in Klippel NFS. I am glad the company is providing it to reviews, but I wish they uploaded them to their website for all models as well. Behold the flagship floorstanding speaker from their entry level A series published by...

www.audiosciencereview.com

It depends a bit on the cabinet shape. Some speakers show more, some less effects. However, I know that Wilson is not the king of crossover. But the fascination of the cabinet with no unwanted output is big....and they do that part right.

 

[Karl-Heinz Fink]

Don't worry, I agree that adding a third way at a high level isn't easy at all, especially with a passive crossover, everything is a compromise, on the other hand without a subwoofer I personally usually prefer three way designs due to lower IMD and multitone distortions in the most audible mid band at higher listening levels.

A properly compensated driver (Le over excursion) should not show IMD problems ....but as we all know, every speaker is a compromise, one way or the other.
And I never use a subwoofer for HiFi. The best place for the sub, is not the right place for the main speaker and the other way around. To match the slopes of the main speaker with the lowpass of the subwoofer is almost impossible if you don't have access to the Q and order and getting the delay right is also very difficult. The extra "way" adds tonnes of group delay at low frequencies.....nightmare.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I strongly doubt that such in high quality measurements like from Amir or Erin invisible ringing or artefacts would make someone prefer a loudspeaker with a poorer direcitivity(..)

That is your perrogative.

 

[test1223]

Sorry but these kind of arguments are also kind of tedious, as first of all not few people here had owned in the past loudspeakers of such brands and discovered later that there are better to which they moved, myself for example owned several pairs of B&W loudspeakers sind 1992. Secondly really good loudspeakers also have enclosures with low vibrations and thus parasitic radiation (like for example Genelec., Neumann, KEF etc) so you don't need to compromise on the other metrics to have such.

The cabinets of the speakers you named aren't bad but you certainly have other brands which engineer better cabinets and you can measure such things with a laser vibrometer like @Karl-Heinz Fink is using. I am sure the cabinet of the epos speaker is much better than the small Neumann or Genelec speakers which are limited by its size and weight even they certainly also did some optimization in that regard.

Do the "Pauls" do nonsense from their business point of view? Of course not, the since the late 80s degenerated audio market gives them right and such a big percentage of poorly engineered or even snake oil products are successful, so this is not really an expedient argument.

So you really think most of the engineers are simply doing snake oil stuff?

I remember the discussion here when the new ps audio speakers where coming out and all of the measurement ultras tried to bash the speaker right away, because of the history of ps doing none sense audio. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/ps-audio-fr30-speakers.27160/
So it turns out that the engineer behind the speaker replies in that thread and that he is way more competent than all measurements ultras combined. If you read this thread I feel embarrassed. There is the opertunety to ask a developer about everything speaker related and some people think they have to teach him the right way of doing it. At the same time they don't fully understand the research they are promoting since even the developers behind the research don't work like the ultras think they are working...

I can feel here the same behavior and it is destroying a nice constructive discussion. You all have to be aware that you can learn at least a bit from every other person here, even if you disagree at some particular point.

 

[dogmamann]

A properly compensated driver (Le over excursion) should not show IMD problems ....but as we all know, every speaker is a compromise, one way or the other.
And I never use a subwoofer for HiFi. The best place for the sub, is not the right place for the main speaker and the other way around. To match the slopes of the main speaker with the lowpass of the subwoofer is almost impossible if you don't have access to the Q and order and getting the delay right is also very difficult. The extra "way" adds tonnes of group delay at low frequencies.....nightmare.

Are you suggesting that using subwoofers for music without delay compared to main speakers isn’t possible? For a full range experience then the only possible way is to have speakers that extends low?

 

[dogmamann]

The cabinets of the speakers you named aren't bad but you certainly have other brands which engineer better cabinets and you can measure such things with a laser vibrometer like @Karl-Heinz Fink is using. I am sure the cabinet of the epos speaker is much better than the small Neumann or Genelec speakers which are limited by its size and weight even they certainly also did some optimization in that regard.

If a cabin is not showing any resonances in measurements, it doesn’t matter if the company uses laser or any voodoo. Show the proof that the cabin on the Epos is better or it’s just your feeling which has no place here

 

[Karl-Heinz Fink]

Are you suggesting that using subwoofers for music without delay compared to main speakers isn’t possible? For a full range experience then the only possible way is to have speakers that extends low?

No, No, it can be done, but it's not easy. 95% of all subwoofers I have heard in the field have been set wrong.

 

[Karl-Heinz Fink]

If a cabin is not showing any resonances in measurements, it doesn’t matter if the company uses laser or any voodoo. Show the proof that the cabin on the Epos is better or it’s just your feeling which has no place here

...sorry, but that is not correct.

 

[computer-audiophile]

You can keep your experience, I keep mine...and everybody is happy.

That is a wonderfully diplomatic answer. And yet so true. I will try to make this wisdom my own and perhaps quote you on it in the future.

And I never use a subwoofer for HiFi. ....nightmare.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[dogmamann]

No, No, it can be done, but it's not easy. 95% of all subwoofers I have heard in the field have been set wrong.

Does small drivers sound “small” despite good directivity and low distortion(so that it can be set louder to compensate the lack of diaphragm size)? I heard the Epos 14N, I liked what I heard, and it sounded somehow “large” or “full bodied” than my Kef Reference 3s which has a 5 inch midrange. Epos at the store were set with almost 4 meters in between them. If I keep my speakers that far apart the midrange feels very thin so I have to keep them more closer to get that similar effect. But is it the wider radiation that is in play here ?

 

[test1223]

...sorry, but that is not correct.

Yes if you really want you can build a box out of paper which has not a single resonance which you can easily see in spinorama measurements.

Edit: but obviously there is sound coming out ot this cabinet which is significant.

 

[SSS]

Nice to read the discussions between pros. Each one seems to be right in some way but differently.

 

[Karl-Heinz Fink]

Does small drivers sound “small” despite good directivity and low distortion(so that it can be set louder to compensate the lack of diaphragm size)? I heard the Epos 14N, I liked what I heard, and it sounded somehow “large” or “full bodied” than my Kef Reference 3s which has a 5 inch midrange. Epos at the store were set with almost 4 meters in between them. If I keep my speakers that far apart the midrange feels very thin so I have to keep them more closer to get that similar effect. But is it the wider radiation that is in play here ?

... challenging to say without listening to the KEF myself. Four meters is more than I usually use. But some people say, I have the most expensive Mono system in the world, so I don't count.. The KEF is a 3-way system and could have the typical power response hole in the crossover region. But again, I would have to listen to one myself. I don't think the wider dispersion is causing the problem.