GR Research LGK 2.0 Speaker Review (A Joke)

[YSC]

So Danny does the best he can in modifying crossovers to flatten the response. If that is what someone wants then he is the guy to go to. Anything else and he is out of his area of knowledge. He knows just enough to get in trouble. It comes off as lying to those that do know far more than Danny. But, in reality it is just his ignorance. I try not to blame Danny for his extremely high level of ignorance in what he says.

One of the thing I recently have a thought of is how back in the days ppl claim you just need to disregard to measurements, cause "flattening the FR will always sound awful despite looking great" now I think we know that this is due to both schroeder frequency and directivity error, flattening on axis while making off axis even more rugged will sound weird or plain wrong to human, now what he modifies are usually speakers with sub-optimal off axis responses, and I recall some vendors to counter balance the peak in off axis response usually intentionally leave a slight null in the corresponding region on aixs, so the summed up early reflections will sound more neutral and natural. Now if you flatten the on axis of that speaker... I am not sure it will be an actual improvement

 

[Gringoaudio1]

One of the thing I recently have a thought of is how back in the days ppl claim you just need to disregard to measurements, cause "flattening the FR will always sound awful despite looking great" now I think we know that this is due to both schroeder frequency and directivity error, flattening on axis while making off axis even more rugged will sound weird or plain wrong to human, now what he modifies are usually speakers with sub-optimal off axis responses, and I recall some vendors to counter balance the peak in off axis response usually intentionally leave a slight null in the corresponding region on aixs, so the summed up early reflections will sound more neutral and natural. Now if you flatten the on axis of that speaker... I am not sure it will be an actual improvement

Please explain this. Isn’t dispersion/directivity a function of the enclosure and how sound radiates from the drivers in concert with the enclosure? How does flattening the FR change dispersion? So many folks have said here in various discussions that EQing for FR is pointless with an enclosure that gives poor dispersion. This suggests that they are not related. Thanks.

 

[YSC]

Please explain this. Isn’t dispersion/directivity a function of the enclosure and how sound radiates from the drivers in concert with the enclosure? How does flattening the FR change dispersion? So many folks have said here in various discussions that EQing for FR is pointless with an enclosure that gives poor dispersion. This suggests that they are not related. Thanks.

I don't mean flattening FR changes dispersion, let me say what I meant to say in more detail:

dispersion is fixed by the design, but say, a non-ideal dispersion pattern (at least horizontal) will create a bump from 1-3khz by 5db off axis,
some designers will compensate the extra energy by lowering the on axis of 1-3khz by 2-3db to make the in room combined early reflection+on axis more like a on axis flat speaker with perfect dispersion pattern.

Now in this case if you pull the on axis to flat, the result will be off axis 5db bump be added upon, making it having a 1-3khz bump in the in room response, which will then sound "off" compared to the original design. As most speaker out there don't have ideal horizontal dispersion, let alone vertical dispersion of coaxial design, simply modifying the cross over to make on axis flat could be just behaving like one trying to EQ a poor directivity speaker to anechoic flat

 

[Penelinfi]

I feel there are some that have been actually bettered, but there have also been others where the of axis got a bigger peak, which he kind of glosses over; it wouldn't be given such passable treatment in stock form.
Would be interesting to do tests on them

 

[amirm]

Please explain this. Isn’t dispersion/directivity a function of the enclosure and how sound radiates from the drivers in concert with the enclosure? How does flattening the FR change dispersion?

If you move the crossover point, you change the directivity of both drivers. If you make it earlier for example, the woofer doesn't beam (narrow) as much. Inversely, the tweeter would have a wider beam. If you change the slope of the crossover, similar effect exists.

 

[James Romeyn]

Great hair, unquestionably.

Ha!

Apparently, per that shot above, blazing laser-red Satan-eyes, less so...

 

[617]

Please explain this. Isn’t dispersion/directivity a function of the enclosure and how sound radiates from the drivers in concert with the enclosure? How does flattening the FR change dispersion? So many folks have said here in various discussions that EQing for FR is pointless with an enclosure that gives poor dispersion. This suggests that they are not related. Thanks.

You are correct that a driver's directivity is is determined by things like its dimensions, shape, interactions with array members, and its transition to the space it radiates into via a baffle or horn. However, overall system directivity is the sum of all these drivers, and a crossover can blend the drivers' directivity more or less, over a narrower or wider bandwidth.

Steep crossover slopes can make directivity transitions more abrupt, which is not a problem if drivers are well matched. If you have drivers of very different size, like a 1 inch tweeter and 7 inch woofer, a shallower crossover is generally advisable. A four way speaker has smaller differences in directivity and it is generally better to have steeper crossover slopes there.

A common mistake in crossover design is to use steep crossover slopes to reduce distortion, sacrificing off axis response. This is a mistake because distortion is generally inaudible, but off axis tonality is not. This error is common because measuring distortion is much less time consuming than measuring dispersion.

 

[617]

If only Danny's audio and loudspeaker ignorance was his only flaw. As I described above, his flaw is a personality defect, his malicious, his only known and virtually constant marketing philosophy: to publicly criticize the products of his perceived competition, speaking with non-existent expertise. He publicly and physically disassembles the products of his perceived competition, calmly discloses perceived flaws and his perceived remedies.

He's a self-proclaimed (faux) speaker design superhero whose best-polished superpower is to point out how much better are his superpowers than all the others who are pretenders.

In Danny's audio circle the only things worse than Danny himself are his pathetic acolytes and sycophants.

Beyond that he's OK.

I think we all have areas of our life where we are totally mediocre, and we should endeavor to make sure this is not the area that we use to make a living or gain public reputation.

 

[Gringoaudio1]

I think we all have areas of our life where we are totally mediocre, and we should endeavor to make sure this is not the area that we use to make a living or gain public reputation.

He is not the only hippy hobbyist who decided that stuffing boxes with minimal education and knowledge to make a living was a good idea. Many speaker companies and many companies of all sorts start this way. Small business is important and a meaningful part of the economy.
Earnest enthusiasm for audio is what we all share. I can’t take that from Danny. The level of technology and engineering that goes into good speakers does cast an unfavourable shadow on the more garage efforts these days though.

 

[617]

He is not the only hippy hobbyist who decided that stuffing boxes with minimal education and knowledge to make a living was a good idea. Many speaker companies and many companies of all sorts start this way. Small business is important and a meaningful part of the economy.
Earnest enthusiasm for audio is what we all share. I can’t take that from Danny. The level of technology and engineering that goes into good speakers does cast an unfavourable shadow on the more garage efforts these days though.

He needs the money. That's why he's so annoying.

 

[Gringoaudio1]

He needs the money. That's why he's so annoying.

So do we all need to make a living. What about Totem and PS Audio and PMC? Let’s not gang up on Danny. Or anyone. This isn’t dignified behaviour. He isn’t the only one posing as knowing what he’s doing. Or let’s ‘out’ all the fakers/posers equally harshly at a personal level. Is that a mandate we want? It is tempting to react to people but let’s stick to products.

 

[CapMan]

A common mistake in crossover design is to use steep crossover slopes to reduce distortion, sacrificing off axis response

Isn’t this the exact “mistake” Revel make with their highly regarded and well measuring speakers

 

[thewas]

A common mistake in crossover design is to use steep crossover slopes to reduce distortion, sacrificing off axis response. This is a mistake because distortion is generally inaudible, but off axis tonality is not. This error is common because measuring distortion is much less time consuming than measuring dispersion.

A non steep slope can of course smear better a directivity mismatch on the horizontal radiation but on the other hand introduces a larger lobe in the vertical radiation so ideally it's better to use steep slope at the correct crossover frequency to optimise both.

 

[617]

So do we all need to make a living. What about Totem and PS Audio and PMC? Let’s not gang up on Danny. Or anyone. This isn’t dignified behaviour. He isn’t the only one posing as knowing what he’s doing. Or let’s ‘out’ all the fakers/posers equally harshly at a personal level. Is that a mandate we want? It is tempting to react to people but let’s stick to products.

Normally I'm the one expressing this sentiment, you're quite right.

 

[Giri]

So do we all need to make a living. What about Totem and PS Audio and PMC? Let’s not gang up on Danny. Or anyone. This isn’t dignified behaviour. He isn’t the only one posing as knowing what he’s doing. Or let’s ‘out’ all the fakers/posers equally harshly at a personal level. Is that a mandate we want? It is tempting to react to people but let’s stick to products.

Not if he misrepresents science to elevate his products and villify other's, untruthfully.

 

[beagleman]

What is your basis for decent sound?

Many other comparable drivers do not exhibit the degree of 3rd harmonic midrange distortion as this driver does. If any piece of audio electronics distorted as badly, would get returned for refund.

Hey Rick, just found this OLD comment.!!

I was referring to the guy owning them and using them for mostly Zoom calls only!
I was being a bit sarcastic I guess, but meaning for the sound of a zoom call they would be quite decent.

 

[Guerilla]

Hi,


Here is my take on the EQ.


Please report your finding positive or negative!


The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration. If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...helf-speaker-review.11144/page-26#post-800725


The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 3.6
With Sub: 6.6

View attachment 211714

Spinorama with no EQ:

• As a fun project, if it were cheap that would be OK but at this price...

Directivity:
Better stay at Driver height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.
View attachment 211716View attachment 211720


EQ design:

I have generated one EQ. The APO config file is attached.

• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
• In near field the score might may accurate

Score EQ Amirm: 3.4
with sub: 6.6

Score EQ Score: 4.7
with sub: 7.6

View attachment 211709

GR Research LGK 2 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
June092022-114633

Preamp: -0.7 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 53.07,    0.00,    0.91
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 124.86,    -2.99,    1.64
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 2365.35,    -2.64,    0.39
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1647.49,    3.09,    5.07

Spinorama EQ Amirm
View attachment 211713

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 211712

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 211725

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 211711

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Large improvements
View attachment 211708

The rest of the plots is attached.

So wrong this eq. You want to destroy the sound and possibly the drivers of speakers by boosting lows that it wont do or handle? You should morally consider your role here. Amirns insisting on treatment background music level speakers as and comparing to party level speakers is one thing. You participating in it beyond belief. I cant see what you gain from it, since I dont think you get paid.
Cheers!

 

[NTK]

So wrong this eq. You want to destroy the sound and possibly the drivers of speakers by boosting lows that it wont do or handle? You should morally consider your role here. Amirns insisting on treatment background music level speakers as and comparing to party level speakers is one thing. You participating in it beyond belief. I cant see what you gain from it, since I dont think you get paid.
Cheers!

Where is the bass boost in Maiky76's EQ?

GR Research LGK 2 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
June092022-114633

Preamp: -0.7 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 53.07,    0.00,    0.91
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 124.86,    -2.99,    1.64
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 2365.35,    -2.64,    0.39
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1647.49,    3.09,    5.07

 

[anphex]

Where is the bass boost in Maiky76's EQ?

GR Research LGK 2 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
June092022-114633

Preamp: -0.7 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 53.07,    0.00,    0.91
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 124.86,    -2.99,    1.64
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 2365.35,    -2.64,    0.39
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1647.49,    3.09,    5.07

Don't feed.

 

[Guerilla]

Please explain this. Isn’t dispersion/directivity a function of the enclosure and how sound radiates from the drivers in concert with the enclosure? How does flattening the FR change dispersion? So many folks have said here in various discussions that EQing for FR is pointless with an enclosure that gives poor dispersion. This suggests that they are not related. Thanks.

Flat FR eq is not pointless, but if you in the process turn up frequencies that are bumps off axis you will have a accumulative sum that is not flat at listening point anyways.
Cumulatively flat at listening point.
Does it have a dip off axis where you want to boost to flat you wont have a problem.
-Dips are not unpleasant for your ears. Bumps are and they raise distortion.
Dispersion is not a funktion of enclosure at all. Some enclosure design choices can disturb dispersion. --Maybe if you are a genious loudspeaker Design Guru you can countermeasure dispersion dips by enclosure design, but nothing springs to my mind.
Eksotics as bi-, multi, omni-polar etc are exceptions which bring their own sets of headaches. Not saying they are not worth it. Even if they are superior to anything Amirn has tested they would mostly flunk after his measuring methods. Amirn has set on the in his mind least flawed methods. Works fine for measuring most mainstream speakers. Most often misguiding for for anything else. His choice and I couldnt do it better. I mean Amirns testing is flawed but better than any other reviewers I can think of.
Cheers!