Epos es14n with 7 inch midwoofer, directivity??

[thewas]

There is a a misconception here that Kef does imaging better than other speakers, while they are good, there are loads of speakers that can image well as them, but providing the wider soundstage at the same time. With traditional two ways with wider radiation, you are enveloped still in sound but the envolope is quite huge.

Imaging in stereo reproduction is always a compromise between wide evelopement and narrower but preciser focus. Close to ideal point sources without edge diffraction problems typically reduce the effort of the brain for the illusion of imaging https://heissmann-acoustics.de/en/kantendiffraktion-sekundaerschallquellen-treiberanordnun/ and are often thus preferred for such.

 

[ROOSKIE]

You are right about the wave guide thing, you don’t need waveguide to achieve, good directivity, which the Epos already has. Good directivity is a Must if more than one sweet spot in the listening room is needed as per what I read, but if only one seat is what all you need, the same can be achieved on any speaker, given the room has good acoustics, or the speaker has low distortion to handle the eq.

As per the logic of Mr. Toole, KEF should be a good speaker, but to me they are quite mediocre, and there are lots of people who feels the same about them. I agree on Revel, I never heard a “wrong sounding” revel. KEF to me is an example of lot of things done as per science, yet to produce a mediocre product at the end in terms of soundstage width and lack of that airiness.

After spending more than 5k on speakers last year, I realized, that my 30 year old ALR’s are stacking quite well to them, and bettered them in some areas, especially in bass. That’s the reason why I am looking forward on Epos, as it’s designed by the same person.

There is really nothing to suggest good directivity is only useful if outside of the sweet spot. I realized Harman did a lot of testing in multiple listening positions, and so obviously wanted that great off axis experience and I have found so far they have achieved such things.
Still I have not really enjoyed speakers with poorer directivity as much as those with good directivity. There are many variable at play however so far this has been 'anecdotally universal' IMPE.

I'd have to agree that I much prefer the Revel speakers I have experience with over the KEF speakers I have had similar experience with. 100% across the board. That said I can see why some types of people really like KEF. All of the KEF speakers I have used I would likely rate highly in a 'review' with the caveat that they are not right for me but I imagine they are worth trying for many.

Dispersion seems to be a huge factor in personal preference (and additionally high treble dispersion/energy level perceptions) and for myself a sense of dynamics and scale.
Bass as you mention is obviously a huge factor but I wish we could just factor that out as like many I will use subwoofers and so would vastly prefer a speaker that is superior above 70-100hrz, the difficulty is when comparing in 2.0 the deeper bass ability that I will not need can sway the experience.

There is a a misconception here that Kef does imaging better than other speakers, while they are good, there are loads of speakers that can image well as them, but providing the wider soundstage at the same time. With traditional two ways with wider radiation, you are enveloped still in sound but the envolope is quite huge.

I agree.
I have found imaging is a matter of personally preference.
I also usually want a larger scale and sized image vs a more tight pinpoint image.
I want it to approach feeling live vs a detailed little model of live sound.

Like watching a movie on a projector with a big image is vastly preferable to me even compared with the best 50-65" television panel made.

I also listen with my GF a lot and KEF's stuff generally hasn't held up as well, with the center image really pulling toward the nearer speaker. Much more than some other great speakers.

 

[ROOSKIE]

About Waveguides

Some people do not like it. And some people who do good work.
@Dennis Murphy
@kimmosto
I would like to hear your opinion

I realize you want the designers to chime in.
My take on the BMR (curved cab monitor)is that it is absolutely stunning. Just had to say it.

I still have no idea what folks don't like about a well designed waveguide though.
Would love to blind test these dudes and see if it holds up or if there is some biases that are creating the perception of dissatisfaction.

 

[dogmamann]

I realize you want the designers to chime in.

My take on the BMR (curved cab monitor)is that it is absolutely stunning. Just had to say it.

I still have no idea what folks don't like about a well designed waveguide though.
Would love to blind test these dudes and see if it holds up or if there is some biases that are creating the perception of dissatisfaction.

I guess there wasn’t a disagreement on waveguides here, what he tried to say was he wanted a flat baffle on his speaker, and in fact it still had good directivity.

This is like people are forcing him to get the same results in the way they like instead of the way he likes. Let him do his job, let’s come up with this again, if his product fails to delivers.

I see nothing wrong in measurements from his blog.

 

[kimmosto]

Some people do not like it. And some people who do good work.
@kimmosto
I would like to hear your opinion

Almost everything is probably said. Anyway, I could design and listen speakers with waveguide or horn. Done several times within few decades. It is cheap and simple option especially for a small conventional (boxed) mass product, but not really mandatory in any (conventional) concept. Tweeters without a wave guide are not problem free, but most tweeter+waveguide combinations I have listened had some small issues; prickling, blurring, spitting or too much directivity at tweeter's range.
Speaker with smooth directivity and low diffraction is not very easy to design without waveguide/horn, and could be larger and uglier too. In addition, bad (harsh) room acoustics may require less reflection energy at low...mid treble compared to more constant directivity with flat on-axis. Waveguide could be win-win for the most. But all this is just generic blaa-blaa. Individual listener can be very sensitive to some small unpleasant details, room acoustics could be very good (absorbing and diffusing), listening distance short, and strength and significance of directivity is highly dependent on speaker concept and size class. Significance of directivity is not always the highest, and DI and PIR don't have to have exactly certain shape (such as perfectly linear) or tilt -> no need to take doctors' white papers, patents, books, review(er)s or other comments too literally and grow some religion around directivity including 70 magnitude responses only.

 

[Joachim Herbert]

Yes and No . Same problem, just different tools.

Agreed, and this is where it gets really interesting. Take a "neutral" speaker + dsp + knowledge and tune it any way you like. You might even deliver several voicings.

Sonarworks took that approach to make a given setup sound like whatever. They gave up naming their targets like the real thing because they ran into some kind of (legal?) trouble...

 

[Da cynics]

Almost everything is probably said.

Thank you very much for taking the time to do this.

but most tweeter+waveguide combinations I have listened had some small issues; prickling, blurring, spitting

problem inherent in waveguides...

 

[ROOSKIE]

'What HiFi' reviewed it (promoted it?).
Yah, I know I know but it is something to read for 5min if you enjoy such things like me.

Epos ES14N review

The new Epos ES14N are inspired by the past but look to the future

www.whathifi.com

Also the R3meta is coming out soon and I like to hear this EPOS next to the L82