- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,521
- Likes
- 37,050
No, I don't agree with your conclusions.So, if this true, the only thing you can infer from that measurement is don't use them in an open field. And how did Amir hear what the measurement predicted if the listening test wasn't conducted in the acoustic equivalent of an open field? Something fundamentally seems odd here.
Why are people complicating this with all kinds of technical jargon? I think we need to understand intuitively what is going on here and what has been measured.
You can design a speaker that is flat in response in LF and use EQ to cut down on room gain to "hear flat". You can design a speaker to cut down on LF so you "hear flat" with room gain. Maggies seem to be the latter (they came into existence long before any roomeq were available in consumer equipment). We can debate which design philosophy is the right one but that is different from what the measurements are supposed to mean.
I see the reflection from the back wall as a fundamental ("room gain") requirement for using these speakers and fairly consistent with distance from the back wall. Without it you aren't really measuring what you would be hearing but everybody is making that leap in terms of LF behavior.
It is like saying we know how to measure a sealed subwoofer but because the ported subwoofer is different, we will measure with the port blocked so we can compare as to how they will sound. Huh?
What have I got wrong here in interpreting the measurements without getting lost in poles and nulls and axis and verticals and horizontals?
Amir's 1st goal is to get you measurements showing the anechoic response of a speaker. The Klippel does that. No use arguing about it.
The unit using the measurements give a predicted in room response which should take room boundaries into account. It uses results from studying multiple actual rooms, but I don't know which position it uses in the room dimensions for the PIR. It is possible with dipoles to cleverly position it to keep bass response going an octave or so lower than its natural roll-off. The LRS appears to start dropping near 400 hz. Basic physics says a dipole source 15 inches wide like the LRS will loose bass response at 6 db/octave starting about 400 hz. So no surprise. The PIR shows a response dropping at that frequency. It doesn't quite drop at 6 db/octave, but close.
I've seen some REW measures of an LRS in room which looked like much lower droop between 400 hz and 100 hz (though it still was sloping down) , and the same droop below that. So that is probably all you'll get with this small panel. I think even in room it likely sounds as Amir described it. I've not heard this one, but believe Amir's graph of the PIR is likely closer to reality than that of JA in Stereophile.
Mainly I suppose we need Amir to measure at least a couple or three more panels if he gets the chance before we say much one way or the other.
And before anyone asks, I've owned 3 pairs of Maggies, and 4 pairs of ESLs. The best Maggie I owned was the 3.3R. The smaller Maggies didn't sound too different to me than Amir's description of them.