KEF R3 OR BOWER & WILKINS S706 s2 ???

[Steve Dallas]

The listening window is only valid if you're "listening" at 0-degs (directly on the tweeter axis).
This applies to speakers like the Genelec monitors:
View attachment 248681
And Revel loudspeakers:
View attachment 248682
Whereas, with B&W speakers, you're expected to "adjust" the amount of toe-in in order to adjust the relative brightness of the loudspeaker.
So, if you set up your B&W's in the same way as you would a Revel/Genelec, and you interpret the measurements as you would a Revel Genelec (i.e. assuming the "listening window" is usable when speakers are not aimed directly at you), then you will conclude that B&W's sound bright and the measurement prove it (which is just not the case, when set up properly).


It just goes to show that you can't simply "eyeball" a series of polar FR measurements and predict the in-room response when the MLP is not at 0-degs with respect to the tweeter axis.

This is a MMM measurement of stereo pink noise of my B&W 802D's using a calibrated umik-1. As you can see, it follows a fairly smooth decreasing response with presence/BBC dip at 2-3kHz. This B&W set up in my living room sounds far better than the Genelec 8351B set up in my office. In fact, I use PEQ on my 8351B's to approximate the B&W curve! Sorry, but I prefer the way my music sounds on speakers with that dip, and so do a lot of people.
View attachment 248680

No. The listening window is an average of measurements (on-axis plus typically 4 to 8 off-axis mic positions) that attempts to describe how a speaker will sound to most people at typical (off-axis) seating positions. It is a crude approximation of the predicted in-room response. It is not what you describe at all.

Your measurement looks pretty problematic to me. Research shows people generally like a 10dB downward slope in-room. Yours is significantly more sloped than that. Also, we if assume <500Hz is heavily room influenced and draw a trend line (black) on the rest, we do not have an even response. We have a hole in the upper mids and brightness, just as the LW predicts. We have a tilted and squashed Batman.

If we use the green trend line, which is what I think you want us to use, we have a more reasonable slope, but an even bigger midrange dip. And still Batman.

My brain follows the black line as it zeroes in on midrange. Yours may follow the green line, if you are accustomed to not having midrange. I would not like the sound of your setup. I can tell this just by looking at the measurement. I also know this from personal experience with a lot of B&W speakers over the past 25 years. You may truly like this sound, and that is, of course, fine.

B&W speakers are not different. They are governed by physics just like all other speakers. And their response can be predicted with great accuracy from their measurements just like all other speakers. Your measurement actually proves the opposite of your argument. Your measurement follows the LW to the limit of its predictive usefulness. The LW has done its job in this case.

[EQing Genelecs to sound like B&Ws sounds like a huge waste of good Genelecs!]

 

[TrevC]

So, you like your speakers? Then enjoy them, but don't try to convince others that they are flawless, based on your subjective opinions, and by ignoring facts.

I never said anything about them being flawless, and I'm not ignoring facts, it's only that I disagree with the opinions of some because they conflict with my own experience. Not one of them have listened to or measured the speakers I have.

 

[preload]

No, why are you being dishonest?

They are clearly toed-in, with 0 deg towards the listening position. And it's in B&Ws own demo room.

Honestly it's hard to tell based on your photo. For instance the left speaker looks angled outward slightly instead of dead on. Please provide a better photo. Also it may be that in that particular highly treated room, greater toe in is needed. Did B&W provide that photo as an example of proper setup for that model? Thanks

 

[preload]

No. The listening window is an average of measurements (on-axis plus typically 4 to 8 off-axis mic positions) that attempts to describe how a speaker will sound to most people at typical (off-axis) seating positions. It is a crude approximation of the predicted in-room response. It is not what you describe at all.

You're close: the listening window is a crude approximation of the PIR assuming the MLP is 0-deg on axis with the tweeter! (think about it), and the assumption gets worse the more reflective the room is, and the more the off-axis response differs from the on-axis response.

Edit: the PIR is predominantly a function of the early reflection curves and the sound power curves, with a much smaller contribution from the LW. Which makes sense, as we are listening in rooms, not anechoic chambers.

Think about how the in-room response necessarily changes when listening off-axis (when speakers aren't aimed directly at the MLP). Then the assumptions of the LW are no longer valid.

Your measurement looks pretty problematic to me. Research shows people generally like a 10dB downward slope in-room. Yours is significantly more sloped than that.

Eh? Are you now saying that my measurements predict my B&W speakers will sound rolled off instead of too bright???

Also, we if assume <500Hz is heavily room influenced and draw a trend line (black) on the rest, we do not have an even response. We have a hole in the upper mids and brightness, just as the LW predicts. We have a tilted and squashed Batman.

You don't have LW data on my speakers, so not sure how you knew how the LW could predict the in-room response I measured.

If we use the green trend line, which is what I think you want us to use, we have a more reasonable slope, but an even bigger midrange dip. And still Batman.

My brain follows the black line as it zeroes in on midrange. Yours may follow the green line, if you are accustomed to not having midrange.

The fact that you drew two estimated regression lines that differ wildly in their slope is a major problem. It means you cannot even be certain of the slope, and therefore can't actually tell if the speaker will be tilted toward bright or dull.

This is what I mean by when people start getting in their heads that they can eyeball a series of curves (or in this case, just 1 curve) and draw more accurate conclusions than computerized analysis by Harman, I do a face-palm.

I would not like the sound of your setup. I can tell this just by looking at the measurement.

Many people also believe they are blessed with this gift.

B&W speakers are not different. They are governed by physics just like all other speakers. And their response can be predicted with great accuracy from their measurements just like all other speakers.

Correct. The problem isn't the measurements. The problem is how people are interpreting the measurements and whether those interpretations are based on correct assumptions.

Your measurement actually proves the opposite of your argument.

No idea what you're talking about. Are you saying that the actual in-room response doesn't change when you change the toe-in because the LW doesn't change? Please tell me that's not really what you're saying.

 

[wjp007]

Wouldn't you describe the LS50 as well designed? Well I'm afraid it doesn't come anywhere near to beating the 706 at the same price.

I think in any speaker there are design trade offs. In the LS50 the tradeoff was a smaller woofer and resulting higher distortion below 200hz. But their Uniq driver has fantastic dispersion and time alignment. As I posted earlier, I find the 705s2 (which has the same drivers as the 706) more neutral without EQ, but the LS50 has better imaging. One thing that surprises me on the 705 is that older B&W tweeters were mounted further back to improve time alignment. But in the 705r2 the tweeter actually sticks out so I wonder how good the time alignment is, or is the placement just to reduce cabinet diffraction.

I can see a case to prefer the 706 over the LS50. But I don't see the 705s2 being worth almost double the LS50.

 

[Ageve]

Honestly it's hard to tell based on your photo. For instance the left speaker looks angled outward slightly instead of dead on. Please provide a better photo. Also it may be that in that particular highly treated room, greater toe in is needed. Did B&W provide that photo as an example of proper setup for that model? Thanks

Oh, come on, be serious. It's not hard to tell. I even drew lines in the picture.

You own a pair of 802D, right? It's an almost 20 year old design, and it shares nothing with current models. I think you would be surprised if you listened to the newer designs. I sure was (and not in a good way).

And as I said, the picture is from B&Ws own demo room. I sure hope they know how to place their own speakers.

Bowers & Wilkins 50th Anniversary and 800 D3 Speakers Unveiled

We got the chance to visit Bowers & Wilkins to commemorate their 50th anniversary and unveiling of their new 800 D3 flagship loudspeakers. We peeked into their future and it looks bright.

www.audioholics.com

I have attached a few more, all from B&W demo rooms. You can see tape on the floor, indicating how they should be placed:

 

[preload]

Was

Oh, come on, be serious. It's not hard to tell. I even drew lines in the picture.

You own a pair of 802D, right? It's an almost 20 year old design, and it shares nothing with current models. I think you would be surprised if you listened to the newer designs. I sure was (and not in a good way).

And as I said, the picture is from B&Ws own demo room. I sure hope they know how to place their own speakers.

Bowers & Wilkins 50th Anniversary and 800 D3 Speakers Unveiled

We got the chance to visit Bowers & Wilkins to commemorate their 50th anniversary and unveiling of their new 800 D3 flagship loudspeakers. We peeked into their future and it looks bright.

www.audioholics.com

I have attached a few more, all from B&W demo rooms. You can see tape on the floor, indicating how they should be placed:

OK, thanks for finding and sharing the additional photos. The photos taken from the vantage point of the MLP do look like they aimed the 700S3 series speakers directly at the MLP. Fair enough, regarding the B&W demo room.

It's just hard to know what to do with YouTube videos, even if from the manufacturer (edit: the video wasn’t an official B&W production). It was clearly promotional, so did they position the speakers so they would look good on video? Or did they want to demonstrate imaging capabilities (which would be enhanced by greater toe in?) Or did they want to compensate for having multiple listeners sharing the MLP space? Was full toe-in desirable for that specific room?

The thing is you can Google search B&W and toe-in and you'll get tons of opinions on the right amount. It varies. And people adjust the toe-in to fine tune brightness as well as soundstage.

Personally I listen to mine slightly off 0-degs. I would estimate 10-15 degs. That seems to have been optimal for other models as well (as recent as the 805D2).

You're right that the 800D series is almost 20 yrs old now. It's possible the latest models don't sound as good, who knows. I did have a pair of 707S2 speakers for a while. I did not toe them in at all (aimed straight out). I had to replace them with a pair of Kef LSX for aesthetic reasons. It was a definite downgrade.

 

[Ageve]

The thing is you can Google search B&W and toe-in and you'll get tons of opinions on the right amount. It varies. And people adjust the toe-in to fine tune brightness as well as soundstage.

That's probably because the dispersion varies so much between different B&W speakers.

Based on the ones I have listened to through the years, it went downhill after the first 800D series.

The 705 S2 sounded like chalk on a board on some recordings, when I auditioned it. The 800 D3 series is also far from pleasant sounding. I don't think I even want to listen to D4, considering how they measure (very bright, both on- and off-axis).

 

[preload]

As Beave correctly wrote the steady state response doesn't tell much about the perception of the upper frequency band as there the direct sound is dominating more. Also, since directivity is usually increasing at the upper octaves as well as room absorption the steady state response can be even falling with a rising direct sound.

Totally not true. A MMM measurement with pink noise is a perfectly valid way of measuring a loudspeaker's actual in-room response, whereas extrapolating from a series of pseudo-anechoic polar measurements and assuming your room is a "typical room" and then producing a PREDICTED in-room response isn't quite the same is it? Again, it's not the measurements, it's the ability of folks to interpret them appropriately.

John Atkinson provides often also such steady state in room measurements of the loudspeakers he measures and the elevated treble is obvious when compared with anechoically more neutral ones, for example:

I didn't read this review. Did JA comment on whether he measured in-room response ON-AXIS? (because that's what we're talking about)

Dē gustibus nōn est disputandum, a lot of audiophiles also supposedly prefer vinyl sound, highly distorting tube amps and full range drivers, possibly also because they are used to their sound, haven't seen a controlled blind listening test though with such an outcome yet.

Are you suggesting that people who like B&W speakers simply aren't used to the sound, or that they also prefer vinyl sound and high distortion? Would it make you feel better to assume that, rather than to question your theory about directivity and FR curves? In psychology, the term they used is "cognitive dissonance." Sorry, I don't know the Latin translation for that.

 

[thewas]

Totally not true. A MMM measurement with pink noise is a perfectly valid way of measuring a loudspeaker's actual in-room response, whereas extrapolating from a series of pseudo-anechoic polar measurements and assuming your room is a "typical room" and then producing a PREDICTED in-room response isn't quite the same is it? Again, it's not the measurements, it's the ability of folks to interpret them appropriately.

Again, a steady state MMM doesn't tell much about the perception of the higher frequencies, as there the direct sound dominates, a reason why EQing just based on them cannot really make loudspeakers with poor directivity sound neutral, here is what Toole writes about it:

It is essential to note that this is the room curve that would result from subjectively highly-rated loudspeakers. It is predictable from comprehensive anechoic data (the "early reflections curve in a spinorama). If you measure such a curve in your room, you can take credit for selecting excellent loudspeakers. If not, it is likely that your loudspeakers have frequency response or directivity irregularities. Equalization can address frequency response issues, but cannot fix directivity issues. Consider getting better loudspeakers. Equalizing flawed loudspeakers to match this room curve does not guarantee anything in terms of sound quality.

When we talk about a "flat" frequency response, we should be talking about anechoic on-axis or listening window data, not steady-state room curves. A flat room curve sounds too bright.

Conclusion: the evidence we need to assess potential sound quality is in comprehensive anechoic data, not in a steady-state room curve. It's in the book.

...

The simple fact is that a steady-state room curve is not accurately descriptive of sound quality - comprehensive anechoic data are remarkably capable, but such data are rare.

The Harman curve is not a "target" in the sense that any flawed loudspeaker can be equalized to match it and superb sound will be the reward. The most common flaws in loudspeakers are resonances (which frequently are not visible in room curves) and irregular directivity (which cannot be corrected by equalization). The only solution to both problems is better loudspeakers, the evidence of which is in comprehensive anechoic data.

...

(a) in double blind tests in normally reflective rooms (different ones over the years) listeners give the highest ratings to loudspeakers that measure essentially flat and smooth on axis, and at least smooth off axis in an anechoic chamber or functional equivalent. What they are recognizing and responding favorably to is the absence of resonances - i.e. neutrality.
(b) Room curves do not correlate as well with listener preferences, except at bass frequencies, below the about 300 400 Hz transition frequency. Adjusting loudspeakers having different flaws to match full-bandwidth room curves of highly rated loudspeakers cannot yield the same high quality sound. This is especially true if narrow-band equalization is used above the transition frequency. This fact is not to be found in the advertising literature of "room EQ" products. Guess why?

Source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ut-room-curve-targets-room-eq-and-more.10950/

Are you suggesting that people who like B&W speakers simply aren't used to the sound, or that they also prefer vinyl sound and high distortion? Would it make you feel better to assume that, rather than to question your theory about directivity and FR curves? In psychology, the term they used is "cognitive dissonance." Sorry, I don't know the Latin translation for that.

I wrote that supposed anecdotal experiences of individuals don't tell much as they can (or think they) prefer anything. And no, that loudspeakers with flat direct sound and smooth directivity are preferred is not my theory but as above quote from Toole the current state of research, cognitive dissonance rather occurs when denying it and swapping it with his own anecdotal stories.

 

[preload]

Again, a steady state MMM doesn't tell much about the perception of the higher frequencies, as there the direct sound dominates, a reason why EQing just based on them cannot really make loudspeakers with poor directivity sound neutral, here is what Toole writes about it:

I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to prove that my B&W's must sound bright, even challenging the usefulness of the direct measurement I made that does not appear to show an "overly bright" speaker. I'm also not entirely sure you understand the quote that you've provided, or perhaps you simply missed the section where Toole states very simply: " A flat room curve sounds too bright." Toole, himself, has essentially made a determination about whether a loudspeaker is "too bright" based on the slope of the room curve. Since you like to quote Latin, how about: "quod erat demonstrandum."

I wrote that supposed anecdotal experiences of individuals don't tell much as they can (or think they) prefer anything.

No, but careful observation CAN and SHOULD generate new hypotheses when they don't confirm the current theories. Science dies when people quote textbooks and stop asking questions.

Plain and simple: neither the Genelecs or the Revels, both with spin measurements that are highly consistent with the Harman paradigm, simply do not even come close to the sound quality of the supposedly "poorly measuring" B&W 802D's in my living room. THAT makes me ask questions.

You seem to be under the impression that a loudspeaker that does not measure close to the Harman paradigm for FR smoothness and directivity cannot possibly sound as good or better than a loudspeaker that does. The Harman research does NOT say that at all, and in fact, if you look at the scatter plot in Olive's regression paper, I believe there are likely some examples of just that.

 

[MAB]

Are you suggesting that people who like B&W speakers simply aren't used to the sound, or that they also prefer vinyl sound and high distortion? Would it make you feel better to assume that, rather than to question your theory about directivity and FR curves? In psychology, the term they used is "cognitive dissonance." Sorry, I don't know the Latin translation for that.

I don't particularly care for B&W, and it is probably because I'm not used to the sound they make. I see nothing wrong with that. You shouldn't either.
If I liked the B&W sound, I would EQ to that target. I'm pretty sure I could reproduce it, but I probably wouldn't like it.
I also found the toe-in discussion interesting, since I prefer a speaker that doesn't have dramatic toe-in requirements or sensitivities.

 

[Beave]

I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to prove that my B&W's must sound bright, even challenging the usefulness of the direct measurement I made that does not appear to show an "overly bright" speaker. I'm also not entirely sure you understand the quote that you've provided, or perhaps you simply missed the section where Toole states very simply: " A flat room curve sounds too bright." Toole, himself, has essentially made a determination about whether a loudspeaker is "too bright" based on the slope of the room curve. Since you like to quote Latin, how about: "quod erat demonstrandum."


No, but careful observation CAN and SHOULD generate new hypotheses when they don't confirm the current theories. Science dies when people quote textbooks and stop asking questions.

Plain and simple: neither the Genelecs or the Revels, both with spin measurements that are highly consistent with the Harman paradigm, simply do not even come close to the sound quality of the supposedly "poorly measuring" B&W 802D's in my living room. THAT makes me ask questions.

You seem to be under the impression that a loudspeaker that does not measure close to the Harman paradigm for FR smoothness and directivity cannot possibly sound as good or better than a loudspeaker that does. The Harman research does NOT say that at all, and in fact, if you look at the scatter plot in Olive's regression paper, I believe there are likely some examples of just that.

I'm pretty sure this has been covered before (many times), but tell us again which Revel and which Genelec.

Then tell us how you did level-matched, double blind comparisons, and hopefully you took into account the significant bass extension discrepancies among the speakers.

You seem to think that a single person's opinion, in sighted listening comparisons (were they even done in the same room?) somehow calls into doubt the research.

Nope.

 

[preload]

I'm pretty sure this has been covered before (many times), but tell us again which Revel and which Genelec.

Then tell us how you did level-matched, double blind comparisons, and hopefully you took into account the significant bass extension discrepancies among the speakers.

You seem to think that a single person's opinion, in sighted listening comparisons (were they even done in the same room?) somehow calls into doubt the research.

Nope.

It isn't necessary to perform blinded comparisons to hear large, audible differences between loudspeakers. I also guarantee that nobody here (ok let's say next to nobody) performed blinded, level-matched comparisons when deciding between multiple speakers to purchase. Did you? Amir posts his subjective impressions for all of his loudspeaker reviews, and he does not do them blind, nor level-referenced. So no, I absolutely do not agree that it is even remotely necessary for me to perform any such blinded, level-matched comparisons.

But let's talk about sighted bias anyway, because I think that's what you're getting at. Again, we're not talking about cables or DACs, which likely have 0 audible differences. Loudspeakers have very large and noticeable differences. Consider the fact that I purchased the Revel m126be speakers, brand new, with MY MONEY, with the EXPECTATION that they would dramatically outperform the 802D's in my living room, based on MY interpretation of reading the primary JAES papers written by Olive. Now I will acknowledge that I slightly preferred the Revels to the B&W 805D2 bookshelf speakers on many tracks, enough to sell the 805D2's and keep the Revels. BUT, TO BE SURE, I then upgraded the Revels to the Genelec 8351B's with GLM room calibration, again with MY money, and AGAIN with the EXPECTATION that they would be endgame speakers (and acknowledging that they cost almost as much as my 802D's that I purchased as discontinued demos). The Revels and Genelecs were accompanied by an SVS 12" sub, and the B&W 802D's with a JL Fathom 12 sub. And then to be doubly sure, I sound treated the listening room of the Genelecs with 2" thick acoustic panels. The Genelecs are in a smaller room at a closer listening distance (as intended, as they are studio monitors), and the B&W's are in a medium sized living room.

So based on this, then yes, I think my questions are more than fair. Only a fool would say "well, it doesn't sound as good after hours of listening to the same familiar tracks you've listened to for the past 10+ years, BUT the measurements say it should sound better, so I must not be hearing what the measurements tell me I should be hearing." And if Harman had taken that incorrect attitude, they never would have challenged the previous prevailing sound theory accepted among audio engineers, which was that flat horizontal sound power was the most desirable (i.e. the CR model). And BTW, "the research" doesn't actually state that a loudspeaker that does not have perfectly smooth/straight FR and directivity cannot have a high subjective sound quality rating.

 

[test1223]

Speakers with overly bright high frequency on axis can be good if you didn't toe them in that much. They provide more energy in the higher frequencies and almost all rooms which aren't totally empty absorb these frequencies a lot. But especially more (ideally diffuse) high frequency reflections improve the sense of envelopement which many high end speakers try to do.

The preference score of any speaker has to be calculated with the right toe in angle.

As I showed earlier in a similar discussion the preference scores of the bigger B&W speakers in the spinorama database are quite high, despite some non textbook perfect curves and a 0° reference axis. Which shows that most people here can not put the on axis frequency response into the right context...

 

[thewas]

I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to prove that my B&W's must sound bright

I didn't, I just showed you that MMM doesn't tell much about the perceived sound at higher frequencies as there the direct sound dominates while the MMM is influenced also from the directivity, room absorption and listening distance.

I'm also not entirely sure you understand the quote that you've provided, or perhaps you simply missed the section where Toole states very simply: " A flat room curve sounds too bright."

Obviously again you are the one that didn't understand it, by the way the room curve from Stereophile clearly showed an almost flat response from 1 to 10 kHz for the B&W.

No, but careful observation CAN and SHOULD generate new hypotheses when they don't confirm the current theories. Science dies when people quote textbooks and stop asking questions.

Thanks for writing that, as this really is an important issue in times of alternative "truths". What you are doing with your own non blinded, not methodologically correct single point observation is similar to someone looking out of the window and seeing his view as flat and going after online and questioning the state of research about the curvature of earth. To question the current state of research a lot more effort than that is necessary.

Plain and simple: neither the Genelecs or the Revels, both with spin measurements that are highly consistent with the Harman paradigm, simply do not even come close to the sound quality of the supposedly "poorly measuring" B&W 802D's in my living room. THAT makes me ask questions.

As said there must be much more done to take out possible error sources out of such an observation like bias, same level, correct placement, bass correction, recording choice, hearing damage, etc, and also more listeners. Also I have seen on people claiming a lot of stuff without proof in the internet.

You seem to be under the impression that a loudspeaker that does not measure close to the Harman paradigm for FR smoothness and directivity cannot possibly sound as good or better than a loudspeaker that does. The Harman research does NOT say that at all, and in fact, if you look at the scatter plot in Olive's regression paper, I believe there are likely some examples of just that.

I never was, for single people there will be always individual deviations due to several reasons like habituation, hearing response etc. I only question when I see such being based on wrong data and interpretation and such are generalised after. But we are just repeating the same discussion we had in different threads all over and over.

 

[thewas]

Speakers with overly bright high frequency on axis can be good if you didn't toe them in that much. They provide more energy in the higher frequencies and almost all rooms which aren't totally empty absorb these frequencies a lot. But especially more (ideally diffuse) high frequency reflections improve the sense of envelopement which many high end speakers try to do.

As I wrote above Dali does that, but with a relatively smooth(er) directivity. For most B&W after 2000 it is hard to find any axis with a smooth linear direct sound response.

As I showed earlier in a similar discussion the preference scores of the bigger B&W speakers in the spinorama database are quite high, despite some non textbook perfect curves and a 0° reference axis. Which shows that most people here can not put the on axis frequency response into the right context...

Do you mean this post?

You should include than also here that the high score is only achieved with EQ (which would remove though the biggest part of they typical sound which their fans like) and sub, by the way truly the directivity indices of this newer B&W 803D3 look not too shabby and better than of the older 802N but we unfortunately we have only those two 800 series floorstanders right now with a full spinorama.

 

[Ageve]

I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to prove that my B&W's must sound bright

The question was not for me, but again: 802D does not sound like newer B&W models, and it's not as bright.

Now I will acknowledge that I slightly preferred the Revels to the B&W 805D2 bookshelf speakers on many tracks, enough to sell the 805D2's and keep the Revels.

**The 805D’s listening-window response (a five-point average of axial and +/–15-degree horizontal and vertical responses) measures +4.84/–2.06 decibels from 200 hertz to 10 kilohertz.

(Purple line. Way too much smoothing, but better than nothing)

** 805D = 805D2 or Diamond (to avoid confusion with the older 805S, that was a part of the "D1" or 800D series).

Bowers & Wilkins 805 Diamond Speaker System HT Labs Measures

HT Labs Measures Satellite Sensitivity: 88 dB from 500 Hz to 2 kHz Center Sensitivity: 89 dB from 500 Hz to 2 kHz This graph shows the quasi-anechoic (employing close- miking of all woofers) frequency response of the 805D satellite (purple trace), HTM4 center channel (green trace), and ASW 12CM...

www.soundandvision.com

Revel M126BE:

SoundStageNetwork.com | SoundStage.com - NRC Measurements: Revel PerformaBe M126Be Loudspeakers

www.soundstagenetwork.com

Toole states very simply: " A flat room curve sounds too bright." Toole, himself, has essentially made a determination about whether a loudspeaker is "too bright" based on the slope of the room curve. Since you like to quote Latin, how about: "quod erat demonstrandum."

No.

Its not something "made up" by Floyd Toole. It's based on numerous listening tests through the years, and it's not even something that's unique to Harman and/or Toole/Olive. Well designed speakers will follow that "target".

As I showed earlier in a similar discussion the preference scores of the bigger B&W speakers in the spinorama database are quite high, despite some non textbook perfect curves and a 0° reference axis.

No.

First of all, only one current model has been measured (803 D3):

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

pierreaubert.github.io

Preference score: 4.8

The 24 year old 802N, has a higher preference score of 5.8:

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

pierreaubert.github.io

Revel F208 has a preference score of 6.6:

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

pierreaubert.github.io

 

[thewas]

The question was not for me, but again: 802D does not sound like newer B&W models, and it's not as bright.

That is correct, a review with measurements can be bought here which shows not a bright tuning as later models and also an interesting measurement comparison to its predecessor, the Nautilus 802 without "D" which has higher distortion at the highs but a cleaner waterfall in the mids.

 

[preload]

preload said:
Toole states very simply: " A flat room curve sounds too bright." Toole, himself, has essentially made a determination about whether a loudspeaker is "too bright" based on the slope of the room curve. Since you like to quote Latin, how about: "quod erat demonstrandum."

No.

Its not something "made up" by Floyd Toole. It's based on numerous listening tests through the years, and it's not even something that's unique to Harman and/or Toole/Olive. Well designed speakers will follow that "target".

Actually, a horizontally flat room curve WAS the desired loudspeaker target and the prevailing theory of audio engineers in the late 90's. Perhaps you've not been around long enough to remember this. In fact, magazines like Consumer Reports used to rank loudspeakers based on how closely they followed the flat room curve. It wasn't until Olive/Toole/Harman's research came along that this widely accepted theory became accepted. If you don't believe me, read the first few pages of the Olive loudspeaker regression paper to get this background.