- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,696
- Likes
- 37,432
Do you use or have you used any room correction?Yes, more speakers (of this type) tested via the NFS will be the proof. I suspect a similar effect will be noticed in the lower region. One data point is hardly enough to extrapolate a conclusion.
This is not an anechoic versus in-room disparity the NFS system is measuring/depicting. I explained this back many pages in this intolerably long thread.
As it happens, I'm listening to my MMG system at this very moment while I type this. They don't sound like the depiction of the PIR from the NFS.
Sorry about that, but that's what I hear.
Dave.
Here is an initial measurement of a friend's Soundlab M3's. It didn't sound like this looks either.
In this case we were adding a sub, and this was the first measurement. The sub was between and in line with the panels. Without the sub the low end was more of a single wide 50 hz peak with the peak about 4 db lower. These were good sounding speakers according to those who heard them. Do note the scale it is almost a +/- 5 db window. Even prior to the sub they were run with room correction (disengaged for this measurement at the LP). With Room EQ you could bring the lower mid range trough up a bit, and provide a bit more sloped response evening things out quite nicely. And the result was an improved sound.
The point being you can get used to quite uneven sound, and think it of high quality. Fixing it makes it even better. To those who enjoy their LRS that is fine. If you could add a sub, or go to a larger Maggie and/or straighten out the measured response irregularities you'd like them even better. The fact you find them highly satisfactory doesn't mean the Klippel measures are wrong. Dipoles seem to be somehow more forgiving of response problems speaking anecdotally. But I think if you hear them behind an acoustically transparent curtain vs a more even responding speaker you might be surprised how you'd judge them.