GR Research LGK 2.0 Kit Speaker Review (video)

[iulianm]

If I were to have LGK 2.0 as they are today, I would get in contact with GR Research and figure it out if I could get any sort of upgrade plan to add the woofer to my existing system and convert the filter network to crossover at a "discount" price or just return the speaker (if that is an option) and wait for the "new new LGK 2.0" with 5" woofer and measured by Amir.

 

[tomtoo]

At the end this video makes things more worse imo.

 

[PeteL]

This speaker sounds very comparable to my Tivoli Model One Radio
the size of the driver is also not very different.View attachment 213581

I like radio, I actually had 2 of those in the past for areas not meant for critical listening and thought it's OK sounding, better than other size comparable bluetooth speakers, but they both died quite early I thought, and sometime, unfortunately for inexpensive things like that, I don't like the modern Idea of stuff being disposable but it's simply just sadly not worth the time you would put to repair them. They are in a box somewhere.

 

[YSC]

The cost itself would be indeed important in evaluating ROI.
From what he said, those 5" woofers are "stupid cheap" and it would be interesting to see if it would be something within the range of $20-30 for adding that woofer. (maybe changing those parts from filter to crossover might add some extra cost if more parts would be needed).

well, stupidly cheap can mean either it's really cheap, or... it's so cheap that only stupid people would buy

 

[iulianm]

Yeah, I quoted his statement from the video.
I just looked on his website, not sure if these are the woofers (by the look of it they seem alike) and they are $20.

What he could do is to get rid of LGK name and just call them Desktop mini (which it was discontinued in favor of LGK 2.0).
Now it seems that LGK 2.0 is going with with a 5" woofer which might transform them into the "new Desktop Mini" as the current design with only 3" driver is just... not great for an audiophile application with that distorsion amount.

 

[Robbo99999]

Posted earlier today.

I mean this sounds a lot more sensible, begs the question why he developed the product the way it is now (not including a woofer for the low range). A lot more sensible, and he seems a bit humbled, seems a bit like a kneejerk reaction. Either way, at least we have the measurements showing the poor performance of the speaker in it's current design, so people can avoid it if they choose (if they're wise).....but this video of his seems a lot more sensible. I really don't think I'm interested in flaming individuals, so if this site (ASR) can further the design of any speakers being offered to the public out there by means of pressure associated with true objective measurements, then that's only a good thing.

 

[Doodski]

Posted earlier today.

Big plans for soaking more peeps with more LGK speakers. If the little LGK 2.0 is over a thousand dollars then what are those other speakers going to be priced at? Wayyyy too much probably.

 

[Ageve]

So Danny is now fixing the speaker by adding a 5 inch woofer.

The beaming at high frequencies will still be there, so I guess the next step is to improve it by adding a tweeter.

 

[PeteL]

I mean this sounds a lot more sensible, begs the question why he developed the product the way it is now (not including a woofer for the low range). A lot more sensible, and he seems a bit humbled, seems a bit like a kneejerk reaction. Either way, at least we have the measurements showing the poor performance of the speaker in it's current design, so people can avoid it if they choose (if they're wise).....but this video of his seems a lot more sensible. I really don't think I'm interested in flaming individuals, so if this site (ASR) can further the design of any speakers being offered to the public out there by means of pressure associated with true objective measurements, then that's only a good thing.

I have to say I am very confused by this, there may be some insight on the other thread. But he repeatedly stress about filtering out the LF to feed these speakers. Why did they not do it themselves with the Xover? At first I tought OK, single "full" range driver, so a XOver free design, you know the purist approach whatever that means, but then look at the picture and it comes with a complex and very expensive by looking at the parts Xover... What does this even do if it don't even roll off what the driver can't take? Anybody got an understanding of that?

 

[ex audiophile]

It is in the youtube description.

Music track: Claire Martin / Too Much In Love To Care

It is the first track I listen to for any speaker/headphone review.

sorry Amir, but I prefer her mug shot to yours, lol.

 

[Billy Budapest]

I think Danny should just shelve this design and instead concentrate on his x-ls design which although not the bargain it was 15 years ago, is a solid performer.

 

[RichT]

Hello, fantastic work Amir, yes just looking at this speaker one wonders what giant it could kill (none)? Regards

 

[Xulonn]

either way I expected this speakers measured distortion to be more audible in that clip.

I heard the distortion - faint but present - on my desktop system, and repeated listenings made it much more obvious.

The problem is that once you hear even "light" distortion in the playback of a recording, you have "trained" yourself to notice it, and most likely, you will not be able to block it out. From then on, it becomes easily noticeable, distracting, and possibly irritating. A skill that you develop even involuntarily by detecting distortion and/or anomalies can become a negative factor that reduces the pleasure of listening to particular pieces of music.

And of course, the worst "negative skills" are not the ones based on real and audible issues such as distortion, but rather those one can develop based on the "audible illusions" associated with sighted listening that infest the world of audiophilia. This can lead to dissatisfaction with one's audio system - and result in unnecessary, illogical, and possibly expensive system "upgrades" that might solve a "perceived phantom problem", but leave the door open to detecting new - and also imaginary - "negative audio issues".

I laugh at the ridiculous concept of demonstrating the "sonic qualities" (as opposed to certain types of distortion) of audio components - especially loudspeakers - on YouTube. Microphones and loudspeakers, recording issues and playback room/headphone factors are HUGE variables that all introduce their colorations in such an idiotic scheme.

The digital transmission of the audio stream can be bit perfect, but it's the audio input and output that will be imperfect. The conversion of music to an electrical signal by a microphone and the reverse process by loudspeakers is rife with issues.

 

[Robbo99999]

I have to say I am very confused by this, there may be some insight on the other thread. But he repeatedly stress about filtering out the LF to feed these speakers. Why did they not do it themselves with the Xover? At first I tought OK, single "full" range driver, so a XOver free design, you know the purist approach whatever that means, but then look at the picture and it comes with a complex and very expensive by looking at the parts Xover... What does this even do if it don't even roll off what the driver can't take? Anybody got an understanding of that?

View attachment 213607

Yeah, no idea why he didn't filter out the lower frequencies in his original design - if that's what you're getting at. Seems obvious from the measurements.

 

[tomtoo]

I have to say I am very confused by this, there may be some insight on the other thread. But he repeatedly stress about filtering out the LF to feed these speakers. Why did they not do it themselves with the Xover? At first I tought OK, single "full" range driver, so a XOver free design, you know the purist approach whatever that means, but then look at the picture and it comes with a complex and very expensive by looking at the parts Xover... What does this even do if it don't even roll off what the driver can't take? Anybody got an understanding of that?

View attachment 213607

Couse he sold them as fullrange wonder.

 

[PeteL]

Yeah, no idea why he didn't filter out the lower frequencies in his original design - if that's what you're getting at. Seems obvious from the measurements.

It is where I am getting at, but I am talking about this design reviewed here and pictured from their site so V2.0. I do not know anything about the original.

 

[PeteL]

Couse he sold them as fullrange wonder.

Sure but what are these 2 coils, 3 caps and 3 resistors per speakers for?

 

[Robbo99999]

I heard the distortion - faint but present - on my desktop system, and repeated listenings made it much more obvious.

The problem is that once you hear even "light" distortion in the playback of a recording, you have "trained" yourself to notice it, and most likely, you will not be able to block it out. From then on, it becomes easily noticeable, distracting, and possibly irritating. A skill that you develop even involuntarily by detecting distortion and/or anomalies can become a negative factor that reduces the pleasure of listening to particular pieces of music.

And of course, the worst "negative skills" are not the ones based on real and audible issues such as distortion, but rather those one can develop based on the "audible illusions" associated with sighted listening that infest the world of audiophilia. This can lead to dissatisfaction with one's audio system - and result in unnecessary, illogical, and possibly expensive system "upgrades" that might solve a "perceived phantom problem", but leave the door open to detecting new - and also imaginary - "negative audio issues".

I laugh at the ridiculous concept of demonstrating the "sonic qualities" (as opposed to certain types of distortion) of audio components - especially loudspeakers - on YouTube. Microphones and loudspeakers, recording issues and playback room/headphone factors are HUGE variables that all introduce their colorations in such an idiotic scheme.

The digital transmission of the audio stream can be bit perfect, but it's the audio input and output that will be imperfect. The conversion of music to an electrical signal by a microphone and the reverse process by loudspeakers is rife with issues.

I'm on the same page as you re the invalidity of recording the "sound of speakers", but I feel I'm even more staunch than you on this, as I found the distortion element of Amir's recording was not immediately obvious........but it probably would be if you know that piece of music intimately, which is why I stated that an A/B of that track with perfect vs distorted would enhance ability to recognise the difference......but for sure from my point of view I think recording the sound of speakers is nonsense - measurements are fine and important but recording the sound of speakers for people to listen to is "ridiculous" for the reasons you refer to. And I feel like it's not because my ears don't work, as in distortion tests I performed I was above average in identifying distortion in blind tests (https://www.klippel.de/listeningtest/?page=test&testrunId=663101&step=17&answer=1 ) ......I think the recording of how a speaker sounds is too loose & rife for psychological bias as well as of course all the innaccuracies you mentioned in this thread (& the "same" inaccuracies I mentioned in the main thread for this speaker when it comes to my opposition to recording the sound of speakers for later playback). I don't wish to see "speaker recordings" becoming a common trend here on ASR.

 

[Billy Budapest]

Posted earlier today.

Looks like Danny took Amir’s measurements to heart.

 

[tomtoo]

Sure but what are these 2 coils, 3 caps and 3 resistors per speakers for?

I think baffle step compensation and tame some high frequence behavior. I think in tje build thread there is more info.