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.
well, stupidly cheap can mean either it's really cheap, or... it's so cheap that only stupid people would buy
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.
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.
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?
sorry Amir, but I prefer her mug shot to yours, lol.
I heard the distortion - faint but present - on my desktop system, and repeated listenings made it much more obvious.
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.
Sure but what are these 2 coils, 3 caps and 3 resistors per speakers for?
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.
Looks like Danny took Amir’s measurements to heart.
