SineWave
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2020
- Messages
- 108
- Likes
- 134
Well, I doubt that's real Walnut, possibly an Alpi veneer (to maintain consistency) or similar but I don't know for sure.
Yeah, veneer is what I meant.
Well, I doubt that's real Walnut, possibly an Alpi veneer (to maintain consistency) or similar but I don't know for sure.
Book matched veneer is what I assume is matched, nothing to do with sound as such. But different manufacturing dates does open up the possibility of subtly different versions as they settle into production.OK, now thinking again about the wood finish comments is making me realize it is more than just the color, but to make sure the wood was cut from the same tree or at least that the wood grain pattern and other visible attributes match between the L&R
I don’t think so. From a production point of view it makes little sense to even attempt pairwise matching of component tolerances. Keep in mind that studio monitors, aka. the really good stuff, is not pair matched.
Pairwise matching makes a lot of sense for furniture grade wood veneer, though. Is there any optical mismatch between your speakers that bothers you?
KEF's comment on the matched pair:
View attachment 91863
They also asked me for an invoice image.
I could not understand what its mean. Is there a problem or not?
I read that, despite being badly written, they don't think there is a problem in the real world, but some part of the process isn't right and they want to investigate it.KEF's comment on the matched pair:
View attachment 91863
They also asked me for an invoice image.
I could not understand what its mean. Is there a problem or not?
I can't speak for the 7s but I was very disappointed with the R3s. The tweeter
was sibilant and the bass output was nothing exceptional for the size.
That said, the Dynaudio tweeters are quite overrated despite being better than the KEF R-series. The Esotar2 is easily outclassed by $80 Scanspeak units IMO. In this price range you're far better off going with a DIY design, maybe one of the speakers from CSS.
I read that, despite being badly written, they don't think there is a problem in the real world, but some part of the process isn't right and they want to investigate it.
I'm my experience companies like Kef want to get to the bottom of things like this, and ensure you are happy.
I would also like to know thatWhat are the reasons for Dynaudio tweeter better than KEF's? I'm asking to find out.
Which criteria made it say that?
What are the reasons for Dynaudio tweeter better than KEF's? I'm asking to find out.
Which criteria made it say that?
I'd rather think its the chosen frequency response and/or radiation pattern.An offensive sibilance I heard in the R3’s tweeter. It was surprising because I quite like the tweeter in the LS50s. Maybe it’s something to do with it being an aluminum dome as opposed to the Al/Mg dome used in the LS50.
Do you know of measurements that show that?The Dynaudio tweeter sounds a lot like a ribbon. It’s not my preferred presentation, however, it clearly has less distortion than the KEF’s.
An offensive sibilance I heard in the R3’s tweeter. It was surprising because I quite like the tweeter in the LS50s. Maybe it’s something to do with it being an aluminum dome as opposed to the Al/Mg dome used in the LS50.
The Dynaudio tweeter sounds a lot like a ribbon. It’s not my preferred presentation, however, it clearly has less distortion than the KEF’s.
A multitude of ~$70 tweeters from Madisound or Parts Express will sound superior to both. This is to be expected in the price range of the R series though. It’s less excusable for the price of Dynaudio’s Contour towers.
The best way to back up your subjective impressions of being sibilant is to perform an acoustic measurement with a calibrated microphone, otherwise, it falls under the folklore category.
LS50 and R3 tweeter unit are very much alike, the biggest differences are in the whole UniQ assembly (R3 being a newer 12 generation unit), both use metallic domes with optimum stiffened shape technology, a tangerine waveguide and have similar breakup way above 20kHz.
R3 anechoic response is very flat with a mild broad boost in the highs, but no peaking or anything that could resemble strong or offensive sibilance. Check for example this In-Room measurement (ignore data below 1kHz since the speakers were spread only 50cm apart and surrounded by furniture cabinet loading the mid-bass + room modes) that clearly shows how the speaker behaves in real life, with a very flat response from 1kHz to 20kHz. That is a very detailed and revealing response in the top end, which may be liked by some people or considered "bright" by others but that is not sibilant, sharp nor fatiguing. Considering the speakers were only spaced by an AVR in between, it is mostly On-Axis response, once you spread the speakers further apart then you get more off-axis response, and therefore the top end gently rolls off (so the brightness is naturally solved by the means of toe-ing).
View attachment 93466
This other measurement shows that even the simplest tone control makes it a piece of cake to roll off the top end in order to achieve the Harman target curve, thanks to the very flat and smooth response upwards 1kHz.
View attachment 93467
The best way to back up your subjective impressions of being sibilant is to perform an acoustic measurement with a calibrated microphone, otherwise, it falls under the folklore category.
The subject is mostly focused on R3 but there is something i want to learn;
Do you think R7 has a drop of 1-3KHZ and a peak at 3KHZ?
View attachment 93868
...if they were designed with a slight on-axis dip so that the early reflections are constant directivity in that range. It seems to be what Revel does as well so certainly a possibility.
Could you explain this sentence a little more?