KEF/Coaxial 2 Ways vs 3 way point source qualities

[thewas]

No, the original hypothesis of constant directivity and even indirect sound response was developed by respected members of the audio engineering community (like Earl Geddes and Siegfried Linkwitz), and I just happened to find it confirmed by a number of controlled tests.

Even power response is also what Toole recommends, just our definitions are different. Also those people don't specify your claimed region of 0.8 to 8 kHz.

Please specify size and price, I will try to find one which I have had in a controlled test environment and for which data is publicly available.

To be comparable to the R3 Meta, let's say not too large bookshelfs for up to $2000 pair price.

My personal opinion is that the Reference models with several woofers make much more sense, as the slim, fully rounded baffle of the concept with side-mounted woofers contributes to less dispersion control in the lower midrange and continouesly increasing directivity index over a vast range, hence more imbalanced indirect response compared to for example a Reference 4c Meta.

Their difference is mainly below 500 Hz where directivity doesn't significantly contribute in the sound signature but the total sound power which can be EQed per taste.

 

[Arindal]

Even power response is also what Toole recommends, just our definitions are different.

I think the definitions are not subject to disputes, but the conclusions which off-axis behavior should be regarded as ideal, vastly differ. I still see no reason to believe that a significantly colorated reverb in terms of overshoot of lower midrange and midrange compared to recessed brilliance and overly recessed treble, is anyhow be seen as an ideal. No-one could give an explanation why it should be like this.

To be comparable to the R3 Meta, let's say not too large bookshelfs for up to $2000 pair price.

Surely not flawless examples, but I would recommend to do an A/B comparison test involving Elac Adante AS-61 or Wharfedale Super Linton in this category to represent examples of a surprisingly constant directivity in the bands I have been identifying as the defining ones.

Their difference is mainly below 500 Hz where directivity doesn't significantly contribute in the sound signature but the total sound power which can be EQed per taste.

I agree that if solely the bands below 500Hz are subject to overshoot reverb energy, chances would be higher that a certain imbalance of in-room response can be successfully EQed (if the reflections in this band are not audibly dominant, of course). But I do not see this is the case here, as particularly the directivity index in the 400-800Hz band is kept higher towards constant behavior with the neighboring bands, by the help of the floorstander´s baffle and influence of several woofers.

Both tonality and spatial cues such as perception of angles under which reverb is coming in, are dependent on the relative level of typically octave-broad bands. So continuously increasing directivity index leading to overly recessed brillance/treble bands, will make it even more like that an overshoot of lower midrange in the mix is audible and not correctable by measures of DSP.

It depends on the room acoustics and listening distance, naturally. In an overdamped test or studio room one can hope for overdamped lower midrange or nearfield conditions to lower the problem. Under home conditions, rather not.

 

[thewas]

I think the definitions are not subject to disputes, but the conclusions which off-axis behavior should be regarded as ideal, vastly differ. I still see no reason to believe that a significantly colorated reverb in terms of overshoot of lower midrange and midrange compared to recessed brilliance and overly recessed treble, is anyhow be seen as an ideal. No-one could give an explanation why it should be like this.

Same also why it should be constant just in a specific range and change strongly out of it. Not few listening tests have shown a preference for a not flat in room response but a smoothly decreasing one which results from such loudspeakers and as I had written a Revel model with such was preferred to the rather CD JBL M2.

Surely not flawless examples, but I would recommend to do an A/B comparison test involving Elac Adante AS-61 or Wharfedale Super Linton in this category to represent examples of a surprisingly constant directivity in the bands I have been identifying as the defining ones.

Haven't heard the Adante (which Amir didn't seem to like much) but the non-super Linton (which except the lower bass is tuned very similarly) several times as I really liked its concept but unfortunately didn't like its sound signature as much as I had hoped. By the way I have also few such large sized and wide radiating loudspeakers in my collection (even designed myself one for fun) and they have of course a different character than the KEF current models but I don't have a clear preference so it seems it depends on many individual factors and your preference cannot be generalised.

 

[Arindal]

Same also why it should be constant just in a specific range and change strongly out of it.

No-one said it should strongly change outside this range. Constant over the whole audible range is of course the technical ideal, but above 8K and below 400Hz our auditory system is increasingly incapable of separating direct from indirect sound or localizing sound sources. Which means minor deviations in directivity hence reverb level stand a good chance to be correctable by DSP (below 400Hz) or can be countered by proper room treatment (above 8K) if they do not lead to dominant reflections in the room.

It should be noted that some companies highlighting the importance of constant directivity, go further and call for directional behavior below 400Hz in order to enhance lower midrange clarity and avoid reflections (such as Kii Audio, D&D, MEG and GGNTKT).

Not few listening tests have shown a preference for a not flat in room response but a smoothly decreasing one

Could you link to the result of such a test comparing solely the directivity pattern please? I would find such result illogical and surprising, after having done several isolated experiments myself (with loudspeakers of identical drivers and identical on-axis response but different directivity).

a Revel model with such was preferred to the rather CD JBL M2.

I would regard this as an example of the maze of confusion of changing a bunch of parameters at the same time and comparing them, having nothing to do with the question of even or increasing directivity. The list of potential flaws leading to a hybrid horn like the M2 not being subjectively preferred in a comparison test with a conventional radiating multi-way speaker like a Revel, is substantial. That can span from the rear half of the room being acoustically ´invisible´ for sound from the horn leaving to a less diffuse reverb pattern to issues with broad lobing around 800Hz, drivers being localizable separately, horn colorations and different subjective issues with the broadband compression horn such as lack of transparency. If the test parameters are in favor of a speaker reducing proximity and annoyance, such as in a mono setup, overdamped environment, nearfield or with dry-recorded music, it is to be expected that the hybrid horn would be less preferred.

None of these issues has to do with constant or increasing directivity and it is not a valid conclusion that imbalanced directivity is preferred.

By the way I have also few such large sized and wide radiating loudspeakers in my collection (even made a DIY one for fun) and they have of course a different character than the KEF current models but I don't have a clear preference so it seems it depends on many individual factors.

Both speakers I have suggested are not perfect and surely require room treatment and EQ to get to convincing sound quality.

Could you describe the ´different character´ please`

I found evenly wide-radiating speakers (evenly 4dB of D.I. like an infinite baffle or less) to be pretty much exhibiting the virtues of constant directivity, if the side parameters are set accordingly, like properly treated room, diffused early reflections and proper listening distance. For obvious reasons, they are sensitive to an overly reverberant room, but if the conditions are met, the difference to a much more expensive speaker, purposefully designed for constant directivity, I found to be surprisingly little. That is why I would recommend such for people who want to come closer to studio monitoring conditions.

 

[Jazigo]

I wanted to bring something up that most people never talk about and that is the point source qualities of 2 way KEF speakers like the LS50 and then the 3 ways that are generally crossed over around 400-500Hz to the UniQ. The pros of the 3 ways are obvious, more extended bass and the ability to play louder with less distortion but what I've noticed when comparing them directly is the point source quality is a bit degraded, male vocals are the most obvious and it just sounds a bit disjointed to my ears and not coming from only 1 point. The easiest comparison is to A/B an LS50 or Q1/3 to a Q11 or R11 since they have multiple woofers flanking the UniQ driver. Do any other KEF people notice this? I really never see people talking about this.

I've had the LS50 then the R3 back to the LS50 and just recently tried the Q6 and noticed it with both 3 ways although the woofers flanking the UniQ seems to be a bit better. At this point it seems to me that the best of both worlds is just to use an LS50 and cross them over higher, since there are very few directional cues under 200Hz, I can go up to 150Hz on a 2nd order high pass and don't notice any localization. I just think it's maybe not the best idea to split vocals between multiple drivers if you're going for a point source design, or an alternative would be to use a beefier UniQ in the 3 ways, something closer to the LS50 UniQ driver and cross them over somewhere in the 150-200Hz range so that the woofers range has very little directional information. Anyway, just wondering people's thoughts on this.

Hi!

I live with a pair of KEF Q1 Meta at home and a pair of regular two-way bookshelf at work. Every once in a while, I will come across a song that just grabs my attention and I really listen in to hear all the nuances. One can very easily hear the there is a change/disconnection from the tweeter and the woofer in a regular two-way bookshelf. It is simply two sources vertically that plays sounds. I find it most noticeable on electronic music where they sweep over some frequencies.

On a side note, I was at my local KEF dealer to listen to a pair of KEF LS50 Meta, too see if they was much better than my KEF Q1 Meta, and he had the KEF R3 Meta already hooked up, so I could A/B switch. After 3 songs from Daft Punks Discovery, I came to the conclusion that I liked to LS50 Meta better because of the fact that sound came from one source. It is less distracting. I have played around with idea of a big mono UniQ speaker for that reason, but that is a different topic.

While I favored the KEF LS50 Meta over the R3 Meta, everything is not perfect. The R3 Meta has less distortion, and it can be heard quite easily as well.

I use to tell my friends that my KEFs is like listening to a pair of headphones. A very clear point of source.

 

[Heinrich]

After 3 songs from Daft Punks Discovery, I came to the conclusion that I liked to LS50 Meta better because of the fact that sound came from one source. It is less distracting.

It was sighted, right, and the music was special, and it was at a dealer's. Is there any more typical example for expectation bias?

Daft Punk - bass heavy, synthetic voice (made to be), little nuance, least engagement other than listening to a speaker. What I might argue is that Daft Punk is after letting the machine work a bit harder, and you appreciate the effort it takes, more life to it? The deliberately induced imperfections tell the indidual speaker's story line. You liked the Ls50's more, more drama?

I'm halfway serious. Conversely, you think your auditory system discriminates certain properties of the sound field, that may mark the R3's 3-way approach in comparison to LS50's 2-way? You think that your feel originates in the given and known technical discrimination in that regard? You cannot make out any other reason for your subjective experience? Because you didn't look into it, right? Fair enough.

The x-over bass/mid of the R3 is at 350Hz, wavelength is 1meter / 3,3feet, center-to-center distance is like 20cm, hence a fifth of wavelenght. Do you expect and/or see any problems with that from theory or in published data?

This is meant to be engineering focused, not picking on you. Let's see:

https://tolvan.com/index.php?page=/xdir/xdir.php (350Hz, c-c 20cm, Linkwitz/Riley)

So, where's the problem? The little more directivity in the vertical, well, it may be compensated by the speaker's enclosure, the edges respectively. Why is it, that you doubt the excellence of your stereo all the time whilst owning the most pristine specimen of speakers that humanity has seen so far? Not speaking of KEF in particular ...

 

[thewas]

The x-over bass/mid of the R3 is at 350Hz, wavelength is 1meter / 3,3feet, center-to-center distance is like 20cm, hence a fifth of wavelenght.

Yes, the drawback of the R3 isn't really the crossover frequency but rather its baffle dimension and shape which leads to less continuous directivity, LS50 Meta (continuous lines): vs R3 Meta (dashed lines):

In my experience this is what makes the R3 sometimes not being preferred at a direct comparison.

 

[Jazigo]

It was sighted, right, and the music was special, and it was at a dealer's. Is there any more typical example for expectation bias?

Daft Punk - bass heavy, synthetic voice (made to be), little nuance, least engagement other than listening to a speaker. What I might argue is that Daft Punk is after letting the machine work a bit harder, and you appreciate the effort it takes, more life to it? The deliberately induced imperfections tell the indidual speaker's story line. You liked the Ls50's more, more drama?

I'm halfway serious. Conversely, you think your auditory system discriminates certain properties of the sound field, that may mark the R3's 3-way approach in comparison to LS50's 2-way? You think that your feel originates in the given and known technical discrimination in that regard? You cannot make out any other reason for your subjective experience? Because you didn't look into it, right? Fair enough.

The x-over bass/mid of the R3 is at 350Hz, wavelength is 1meter / 3,3feet, center-to-center distance is like 20cm, hence a fifth of wavelenght. Do you expect and/or see any problems with that from theory or in published data?

This is meant to be engineering focused, not picking on you. Let's see:

https://tolvan.com/index.php?page=/xdir/xdir.php (350Hz, c-c 20cm, Linkwitz/Riley)

View attachment 474249

So, where's the problem? The little more directivity in the vertical, well, it may be compensated by the speaker's enclosure, the edges respectively. Why is it, that you doubt the excellence of your stereo all the time whilst owning the most pristine specimen of speakers that humanity has seen so far? Not speaking of KEF in particular ...

I am sorry, I didn't mean to step on anybodies toes with my post. I was just chiming in with the original poster.

I have failed several A/B testing where I was certain, so I am very open for the idea that I am wrong. However, I stand by the fact that anyone can hear the difference between a R3 and LS50. I am open for that being something else than the 3 way system on the R3.

 

[Heinrich]

I stand by the fact that anyone can hear the difference between a R3 and LS50.

I couldn't agree more, and that was my point. The R3 is the grown-up cousin to the LS50, which latter has its own merits to some: more drama when playing Daft Punk for instance I won't argue your preference, only the technical root cause might not be the different dispersion pattern (due to 3-way v/s 2-way). To problematize it, is a wobbly stance. The separation of drivers won't introduce significant lobing, nor would it allow a human pair of ears to point at the direction of sound source; it's the vertical. Or do you have reliable data that confirms a directional resolution down to 10°, in the vertical at 350Hz and below? (Higher frequencies are not affected--to detect a different direction bass versus mids would need to determine direction for both, but for bass it is most probably missing, hence no comparison where is bass / where are mids coming from.)

I argue that much of the dissatisfaction w/ speakers *like* the R3 is their (near) perfection. They don't show too much character, too plain and unexciting for many, not the usual "aha, it's different" appeal. And then the search for imaginative flaws starts ... ending up in wild speculations.

 

[Heinrich]

Yes, the drawback of the R3 isn't really the crossover frequency but rather its baffle dimension and shape which leads to less continuous directivity, LS50 Meta (continuous lines): vs R3 Meta (dashed lines):

View attachment 474253

In my experience this is what makes the R3 sometimes not being preferred at a direct comparison.

Again, the directivity overemphasized. What does directivity mean? So and so much sound goes into directions where I'm not, it passes by. Eventually it will hit a wall or anything else and the reflection would reach my ears within some time interval. I would have doubled, tripled reflections later and so on.

Now you speak of differences between speakers in regard to directivity. The directivity must be controlled. But don't miss the second part. Are those reflections controlled, that means the material, shape, direction of reflecting walls or other obstacles? Most probably not, because for the best reasons in the world people are not willing to rebuild their houses to fit the speakers.

You are pointing at differences in the range of +/- one dB max! This may be changed by a proper selction of wallpaper. Convince your roommate, yellow might be an option ;-)

Sure, the R3's nasty 1,5kHz droop (0,5dB) is legend. I fix it w/ an equalizer--wait do I? Maybe I forgot when repositioning them lately ...

 

[Jazigo]

I couldn't agree more, and that was my point. The R3 is the grown-up cousin to the LS50, which latter has its own merits to some: more drama when playing Daft Punk for instance I won't argue your preference, only the technical root cause might not be the different dispersion pattern (due to 3-way v/s 2-way). To problematize it, is a wobbly stance. The separation of drivers won't introduce significant lobing, nor would it allow a human pair of ears to point at the direction of sound source; it's the vertical. Or do you have reliable data that confirms a directional resolution down to 10°, in the vertical at 350Hz and below? (Higher frequencies are not affected--to detect a different direction bass versus mids would need to determine direction for both, but for bass it is most probably missing, hence no comparison where is bass / where are mids coming from.)

I argue that much of the dissatisfaction w/ speakers *like* the R3 is their (near) perfection. They don't show too much character, too plain and unexciting for many, not the usual "aha, it's different" appeal. And then the search for imaginative flaws starts ... ending up in wild speculations.

I can't point to any data - unfortunately for me, but I can make a clear example - (Take it for what it is worth):

At work I have a pair of Edifier 1280 DBS sitting at my desk, at one and a half arm distance from my head. I have the tweeter pointed at my ear. In this scenario, I can hear the difference of source between the tweeter and the woofer.

I may be something else that creates this effect than the actual vertical difference between the woofer and tweeter, but the effect is there.

Now, the same effect is what I heard with R3 Meta when switching back and forth with LS50 Meta.

Personally, I don't really care which one is the best - just that when testing, I happened to enjoy the speakers with a single coaxial element. There has to be something with it that makes me prefer these speakers. I thought it was the disconnection. If it isn't, then there must be some other effect that makes me favor single coaxial elements.

 

[thewas]

Again, the directivity overemphasized. What does directivity mean? So and so much sound goes into directions where I'm not, it passes by. Eventually it will hit a wall or anything else and the reflection would reach my ears within some time interval. I would have doubled, tripled reflections later and so on.

Now you speak of differences between speakers in regard to directivity. The directivity must be controlled. But don't miss the second part. Are those reflections controlled, that means the material, shape, direction of reflecting walls or other obstacles? Most probably not, because for the best reasons in the world people are not willing to rebuild their houses to fit the speakers.

You are pointing at differences in the range of +/- one dB max! This may be changed by a proper selction of wallpaper. Convince your roommate, yellow might be an option ;-)

Sure, the R3's nasty 1,5kHz droop (0,5dB) is legend. I fix it w/ an equalizer--wait do I? Maybe I forgot when repositioning them lately ...

Directivity has a direct impact on sound power and is what makes 2 loudspeakers with similar on-axis response clearly sound different (yes even 1-2 dB in normal reflective spaces). The lower the frequency those deviations happen the more they can be corrected via EQ.

 

[Heinrich]

Directivity has a direct impact on sound power and is what makes 2 loudspeakers with similar on-axis response clearly sound different (yes even 1-2 dB in normal reflective spaces). The lower the frequency those deviations happen the more they can be corrected via EQ.

You've deliberately chosen to circumvent my argument in refering to "normal reflective spaces". There is no normal. All rooms (and positions of speakers and listener(s)) are different.

Say, the horrible dip--and the curves show that all too clearly, in directivity of the R3 will induce a too rich 'steady state sound', in the affected frequency range, once the referring dip on-axis is equalized in a "normal reflective spaces". So, you find yourself in that imaginative room and in a trap also: no EQ applied too thin by a single dB in direct field, do the EQ, too rich in reflected sound by the same dB--cold sweat!

As suggested before, probably in some future we'll see special R3 wallpapers that address the grand issue. Or, we as mere humans, learn to live with the defect. Either way, untestable science continues to cast doubt on the R3.

 

[thewas]

You've deliberately chosen to circumvent my argument in refering to "normal reflective spaces". There is no normal. All rooms (and positions of speakers and listener(s)) are different.

I didn't, as known from research people tend to hear through rooms above Schroeder frequency and there loudspeakers with neutral response and smooth directivity are preferred.

Say, the horrible dip--and the curves show that all too clearly, in directivity of the R3 will induce a too rich 'steady state sound', in the affected frequency range, once the referring dip on-axis is equalized in a "normal reflective spaces". So, you find yourself in that imaginative room and in a trap also: no EQ applied too thin by a single dB in direct field, do the EQ, too rich in reflected sound by the same dB--cold sweat!

As said the higher the frequency the less directivity issues can be corrected via EQ, it doesn't matter how many dB.

As suggested before, probably in some future we'll see special R3 wallpapers that address the grand issue. Or, we as mere humans, learn to live with the defect. Either way, untestable science continues to cast doubt on the R3.

Nobody said its a huge issue but that together with the different on-axis tuning the main reasons those 2 loudspeakers sound different at normal SPLs. By the way also your claims like everything we talk about here is no real science as much as you like to use that term.

 

[Jazigo]

I can't point to any data - unfortunately for me, but I can make a clear example - (Take it for what it is worth):

At work I have a pair of Edifier 1280 DBS sitting at my desk, at one and a half arm distance from my head. I have the tweeter pointed at my ear. In this scenario, I can hear the difference of source between the tweeter and the woofer.

I may be something else that creates this effect than the actual vertical difference between the woofer and tweeter, but the effect is there.

Now, the same effect is what I heard with R3 Meta when switching back and forth with LS50 Meta.

Personally, I don't really care which one is the best - just that when testing, I happened to enjoy the speakers with a single coaxial element. There has to be something with it that makes me prefer these speakers. I thought it was the disconnection. If it isn't, then there must be some other effect that makes me favor single coaxial elements.

I became a bit unsure myself, so decided to test this by placing my left speaker upside down, so that the tweeter was below the woofer and used this song for testing: https://tidal.com/browse/track/64629989/u (Yellow - Till Tommorow)

It is very easy hear. I think that anyone can hear that difference.

 

[Heinrich]

I didn't, as known from research people tend to hear through rooms above Schroeder frequency and there loudspeakers with neutral response and smooth directivity are preferred.

What does is actually mean to "hear through rooms"? Could you exemplify? I think you suggest that room acoustics and speaker directivity are not interchangeable in their impact on the 'steady state' sound field.

The statement "loudspeakers with neutral response and smooth directivity are preferred" was made. But under which circumstances was this found, and does it translate to every day locations? I've read many times, that people should treat their homes for better sound. How come? You implicitely advocate the idea that such effort is fruitless anyway. If not to the absolute, where's the line (and why)?

Nobody said its a huge issue but that together with the different on-axis tuning the main reasons those 2 loudspeakers sound different ...

We are talking about R3 and LS50, their directivity, where the differences are minute, +/-1dB if I read the graphs correctly. Most speakers, even studio monitors are not as linear on-axis.

By the way also your claims like everything we talk about here is no real science as much as you like to use that term.

You're quoting research--I question it in good will, because that is the purpose of reasearch, or science if you will.

At least we agree, that the comparison R3 versus LS50 isn't proper, when it comes to 3-way versus 2-way coaxial considering lobing or other side effects of driver distance. Other parameters (distortion etc) might easily obscure the property under observation. We obviosuly disagree on the notion, that to "hear through rooms" (compensating room acoustics by a mental model) is a sound technical term, that anytime stands scientific rigor.

to test this by placing my left speaker upside down, so that the tweeter was below the woofer ... It is very easy hear. I think that anyone can hear that difference.

You may have missed side effects.

 

[thewas]

What does is actually mean to "hear through rooms"? Could you exemplify?

See here:

Post in thread 'Genelec 8030C Studio Monitor Review'

Sep 22, 2024

I just looked in to this thread and I see the same old misinterpretations. I am winding up writing the 4th edition of my book "Sound Reproduction" where all of this is discussed in detail. Sean Olive and Todd Welti will be contributing chapters to this one. Let me remind the group of a few important facts:
1. the spinorama post processing is aimed at estimating the sounds that arrive at a listener, not the sounds that leave the loudspeaker - not all are strongly relevant to our perceptions.
2. The spinorama data set can estimate a room curve above the transition frequency with useful...

• Floyd Toole

• 

The statement "loudspeakers with neutral response and smooth directivity are preferred" was made. But under which circumstances was this found, and does it translate to every day locations? I've read many times, that people should treat their homes for better sound. How come? You implicitely advocate the idea that such effort is fruitless anyway. If not to the absolute, where's the line (and why)?

As in the past you are mixing loudspeaker and room issues, the relative preference to better engineered loudspeaker does not change with different rooms (acoustics) but the fidelity level does.

We are talking about R3 and LS50, their directivity, where the differences are minute, +/-1dB if I read the graphs correctly.

Round 2 dB difference especially at a wide upper mid region is normally easily audible.

Most speakers, even studio monitors are not as linear on-axis.

The trend luckily in all kind of loudspeakers and price classes goes to better linearity and directivity.

Other parameters (distortion etc) might easily obscure the property under observation

That's why I mentioned at medium SPLs (and would like to add also not too bass heavy material) as there those won't play a significant role.

 

[aarons915]

I became a bit unsure myself, so decided to test this by placing my left speaker upside down, so that the tweeter was below the woofer and used this song for testing: https://tidal.com/browse/track/64629989/u (Yellow - Till Tommorow)

It is very easy hear. I think that anyone can hear that difference.

This was my only point in the original post, I know this forum likes to debate the science of everything but some of the people arguing haven't gotten past the 1st step yet which is to actually compare a similar example and give their impressions. Most people who have can easily tell a difference, once we either agree or disagree to that then we can look to the reasons why but I don't get the logic of arguing until you're blue in the face about something you haven't even tested lol... thanks for your impressions though, I'm glad at least a few people have tested and heard a difference.

 

[Heinrich]

@thewas -- we might agree on many things, especially that spinorama is a good thing, normalization of speaker radiation is straigh out necessary, while linear smooth seems to be the nost natural vote, from an engineering perspective.

See here:

Post in thread 'Genelec 8030C Studio Monitor Review'

Sep 22, 2024

I just looked in to this thread and I see the same old misinterpretations. I am winding up writing the 4th edition of my book "Sound Reproduction" where all of this is discussed in detail. Sean Olive and Todd Welti will be contributing chapters to this one. Let me remind the group of a few important facts:
1. the spinorama post processing is aimed at estimating the sounds that arrive at a listener, not the sounds that leave the loudspeaker - not all are strongly relevant to our perceptions.
2. The spinorama data set can estimate a room curve above the transition frequency with useful...

• Floyd Toole

• 

Here I don't see any hint on how crucial a mere +/-1dB in directivity is, let alone a 'scientific' argument why it would be so. I stepped in because, well, I think some, and you also, exaggerate things a bit on a regular basis.

Back on topic, you say that difference between LS50 and R3 are due to the directivity. Not really with me--for sure with you!
I say, differences between LS50 and R3 are due to the output capabilities, especially when playing Daft Punk. The other way round.

In somehow denying my argument implicitely you cross one of my mantras that I reiterate all the time. An imperfect speaker adds drama, which some people simply like. I don't argue against that, it's just a provocative suspicion. I leave people their preferences (but, it scrutinizes the Harman diliberately *g*).

What we without any doubt agree on is, that a comparison R3 versus LS50 won't decide, if an added bass it disliked because of its separation to the mid-speaker. What do you think?

 

[Heinrich]

This was my only point in the original post, I know this forum likes to debate the science of everything but some of the people arguing haven't gotten past the 1st step yet which is to actually compare a similar example and give their impressions. Most people who have can easily tell a difference, once we either agree or disagree to that then we can look to the reasons why but I don't get the logic of arguing until you're blue in the face about something you haven't even tested lol... thanks for your impressions though, I'm glad at least a few people have tested and heard a difference.

You get your applause, fair enough again. I question the plausibility of your claim, me coming from a lot of years in the hobby, and owning and designing a lot of very different speakers.

First step first, you say: "The easiest comparison is to A/B an LS50 or Q1/3 to a Q11 or R11 ..."

When you did that, was it blindfolded? Not that it makes a difference. As I elaborated on already, those speakers are vastly different to begin with. Not only the timbre, but the spl cpabilities alone would make them easily distinguishable even blindfolded. Any bias is so as easily copied over to the "test". This combines with the test done only once by one person in one environment. Starting with the latter, we do not have the slightest idea what the surrounding was, what your preferences are, e/g in timbre, the signal and so on ad nauseam. In short, your experience is stuck to you. It's an individual memory you actually cannot share with others. There is no inter-personal communication possible regarding your test.

Then you formulate a claim based on that experience, that in its main argument contradicts well established knowledge. (Perhaps take a read on vertical localisation.)

Back to plausibility, we might consider other, non-coaxial loaded multi-way designs. The pretty old standard. Anyone to "hear"--means: not see, the distance between the individual drivers as different locations, in the vertical?

How could that be: the bass distorts, which in essence is radiating higher frequencies than intended. Maybe that may be a root cause for localisation. We might as well out-rule this possibility as the R3 is pretty much clean, virtually distortion-free in the suspected registers. Any other, I don't know, your turn.

In audio we are dealing with the so called psycho-acoustics, a nasty word, admitted. We have to consider at least two facets, that reflect very complicated topics. The human perception as a whole, and a vastly complicated soundfield.

So your claim may be valid, but to just tell lays the burden on others, while you could and should be the one to educate others on the very topic. Please, go ahead.