It's disappointing to see such ignorance in audio science forums. People just check how pretty measurements are without understanding what they mean, and how they relate to real life situations.
How measured data applies to real life situations is an important aspect of audio science. Two speakers with identical predicted in room responses can measure differently when placed in the same room and position. This is because their dispersion patterns interact with the room differently. Cardioid speakers, for example, tend to have fewer dips and peaks compared to monopole speakers because they interact less with the surrounding room. This results in less Speaker-Boundary Interference Response (SBIR) in the actual measured in room response.
Cardioid speakers generally offer better midrange clarity and bass texture compared to conventional speakers, especially in typical room environments. This is because their design minimizes room interaction by directing sound more towards the listener and less towards the walls, reducing reflections and standing waves. However, in exceptionally large rooms, these advantages might be less noticeable due to the different acoustic dynamics at play.
In other words, these speakers are significantly superior to the KH 150s because of their cardioid response. In a small room, Mesanovic speakers may show similar peaks and dips, but these can be attenuated by up to -10 to -12 dB compared to the KH 150s. Under the same conditions, certain small peaks and dips that appear in the KH 150s' in-room response won't even show up with the Mesanovic speakers, resulting in a completely smooth and linear response. Another problem with KH 150s is that they do not have a great sound power response for farfield listening. (sound power is the highest determining factor for farfield listening sound quality) While the KH 150s can sound great in nearfield settings, their sound power is too non-linear for farfield use. Similarly, while Mesanovic speakers may not have the best sound power for farfield listening, they perform better in that aspect compared to the KH 150s.
How measured data applies to real life situations is an important aspect of audio science. Two speakers with identical predicted in room responses can measure differently when placed in the same room and position. This is because their dispersion patterns interact with the room differently. Cardioid speakers, for example, tend to have fewer dips and peaks compared to monopole speakers because they interact less with the surrounding room. This results in less Speaker-Boundary Interference Response (SBIR) in the actual measured in room response.
Cardioid speakers generally offer better midrange clarity and bass texture compared to conventional speakers, especially in typical room environments. This is because their design minimizes room interaction by directing sound more towards the listener and less towards the walls, reducing reflections and standing waves. However, in exceptionally large rooms, these advantages might be less noticeable due to the different acoustic dynamics at play.
In other words, these speakers are significantly superior to the KH 150s because of their cardioid response. In a small room, Mesanovic speakers may show similar peaks and dips, but these can be attenuated by up to -10 to -12 dB compared to the KH 150s. Under the same conditions, certain small peaks and dips that appear in the KH 150s' in-room response won't even show up with the Mesanovic speakers, resulting in a completely smooth and linear response. Another problem with KH 150s is that they do not have a great sound power response for farfield listening. (sound power is the highest determining factor for farfield listening sound quality) While the KH 150s can sound great in nearfield settings, their sound power is too non-linear for farfield use. Similarly, while Mesanovic speakers may not have the best sound power for farfield listening, they perform better in that aspect compared to the KH 150s.
Last edited:
