- May 24, 2020
To be fair, it has only been a few weeks since the review was posted. But I too hope to hear some official response eventually.
In short, consistent off axis response tends to make a speaker eq friendly since the eq will change the curve not just for the direct sound but also in a similar fashion for the reflected sound.Theses speakers are made to be use with EQ, what is the most important factor to be easely EQ able ?
I did note it:Curious as to why there was no notation of resonance on the Revel in-walls you tested. Seems like they are even worse. I know that you don't place as much stock in these graphs as some others and that your company actually sells both brands (both Harman products obviously), but generally you always call out resonances in the graphs.
Response is nice and even until we get to crossover region around 2 kHz. Response droops there and becomes variable, likely due to resonances from the woofers:
Ah, yeah I was just talking about in the graph, but yes you did. On the other note you raised, I did see that it looked like you tested both with the same type ofI did note it:
But keep in mind that speaker is mounted to MDF which itself is stood up by its edge. So some resonances can be attributable to the fixture. And at any rate, once you mount this on your wall, you will experience your own version of it.
I suspect you are right. My JBL Studio 590's and 580's use their 2414h-1 driver which has 98db sensitivity; by their own specs, the recommended minimum crossover frequency is 1.9KHz for that driver. In both towers, the crossover is at 1.5KHz and the crossover has a serial notch filter to dampen the resonance ( a band aid that would not be needed if used within recommendations). Reviews have shown a resonance near the crossover, so the band aid is not totally effective.Compression drivers are notorious for producing large amounts of 2nd order distortion, especially if you push them a bit too low (what this looks like). Luckily you need copious amounts of it to be audible and even then it's unlikely to sound bad.
It isn't perfect but I'm guessing that no one will hear it.
They will work well in such a situation. And while the msrp feels a little high, as with most jbl and revel speakers, dealers will usually knock up to 30% off when buying a set, at which point their pricing get competitive in my opinion.I know these didn't exactly review very positively, but I'm still considering them for my L and R behind a woven acoustically transparent screen, along with the well-reviewed SCL-6 as my center.
Any thoughts on these for this specific application? I'm not good at interpreting the data myself.
Just mho, on paper and sitting at less than around 40 deg off axis, I'd easily pick a trio of SLC-6's for LCR. Exact timbre match, even dispersion throughout (and less chance of lighting up the opposite wall), better FR flatness, better DI, better sensitivity, etc.
I don't disagree. In fact, if all ones seats are within the primary dispersion window of the the SCL-6 (either because the furthest left seat is not too far off axis from the front right speaker, for example, or because one is using an angled baffle wall behind the screen) then I strongly agree that three of these up front, vertically positioned with the tweeter at ear height, are going to be VERY NICE.
With both models, in a multiple row theater, I would be a little worried, since the vertical dispersion is so narrow. And I am still not a fan of manufacturers not supplying a backer box, and just assuming the stud bay dimensions will be acceptable.
Based on that math, I would get three of the SCL-6 models then.From the left and right seat I figure that puts the listeners at maybe 40 degrees from the opposite speaker?
My intent had been to control the near wall reflections as my assumptions was that these were the earliest and therefor most important to reduce. I hadn't considered as much the issue of lighting up the opposite wall. Are my assumptions incorrect here?