- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
- Messages
- 1,543
- Likes
- 2,331
I was referring to listening to it at high SPLs.No, it is not:
I was referring to listening to it at high SPLs.No, it is not:
I don't know anyone who want to listen to metal (and orchestra) exclusively at low SPL. You will be the first one.I was referring to listening to it at high SPLs.
Maybe I didn't explain clearly, but it's true that I don't really need high SPL. Since I'm quite close to the speakers, reasonable SPL is sufficient to me. I'm usually listenning at 60-75db 1m so I don't worry about the max volume of the speakers.I don't know anyone who want to listen to metal (and orchestra) exclusively at low SPL. You will be the first one.
Enclosure volume is not the only dimension to consider. Sometimes width or depth is more important than overall volume in a domestic environment where placement can be heavily constrained by other factors. For example, the iLoud MTM (2x 3.5" woofers) has similar volume to the Genelec 8020D (4" woofer), but the MTM is noticeably narrower....More than one 3" woofer means bigger enclosure - bigger than 4" monitor. OP wants small loudspeaker.
Is the displacement of one 4" woofer greater than two 3" woofers with the same xmax?Volume displacement of 3" woofer is smaller than 4" (if Xmax is same) - DSP will not change that.
Imagine that you do not have space for a cabinet that can accommodate a 4" woofer...Generally, 4" woofer is better than 3" "woofer" in every imaginable way (Fs is lower, Xmax is bigger, ...).
... or height.Sometimes width or depth is more important...
No, I didn't say that. I was comparing single woofer per enclosure:Is the displacement of one 4" woofer greater than two 3" woofers with the same xmax?
Notice: "woofer", not "woofers".Volume displacement of 3" woofer is smaller than 4" (if Xmax is same)
Your comment do not invalidate what I wrote:Imagine that you do not have space for a cabinet that can accommodate a 4" woofer..
Generally, 4" woofer is better than 3" "woofer" in every imaginable way (Fs is lower, Xmax is bigger, ...).
Unless the MTM is on it's side. This would not be a great choice from a directivity perspective, but would certainly be lower than a 4" monitor (See the majority of HT centre speakers)... or height.
Every 3" MTM is higher than single 4" woofer monitor.
I know *you* didn't say that. I said it.No, I didn't say that. I was comparing single woofer per enclosure:
I know you said "woofer", that's why I said what I said.Notice: "woofer", not "woofers".
I am not trying to invalidate anything or anyone. I am just pointing out that your comments were made within a narrow set of parameters that do not necessarily reflect the OPs or others requirements.Your comment do not invalidate what I wrote:
But then it will be much wider than 4" monitor!? What is the purpose of this hairsplitting?Unless the MTM is on it's side.
All horizontal MTM have catastrophic design error (including all HT MTM center speakers). Any (upright) 4" monitor will beat horizontally placed 2x3" MTM in smoothness of horizontal coverage.This would not be a great choice from a directivity perspective, but would certainly be lower than a 4" monitor (See the majority of HT centre speakers)
But then, why did you quote me?! What is the purpose of this hairsplitting?I know *you* didn't say that. I said it.
But then, why did you quote me?! What is the purpose of this hairsplitting?I know you said "woofer", that's why I said what I said.
You are just hairsplitting.I am not trying to invalidate anything or anyone.
Narrow set of parameters?! What did I miss? What are other requirements where 2x3" MTM will be better choice than single 4" monitor?I am just pointing out that your comments were made within a narrow set of parameters that do not necessarily reflect the OPs or others requirements.
But then, why did you quote me?! What is the purpose of this hairsplitting?
Disregard all 3" monitors - unacceptable compromises here regarding max SPL output and/or low frequency extension.
You are contradicting with yourself:My original comment was in response to broad statement you made...
I am just pointing out that your comments were made within a narrow set of parameters
In the end, it turned out that limited space is not the problem for OP:Whilst the compromises for 3" monitor may be unacceptable to you, they may be acceptable to the OP or others interested in finding a pair of monitors for use in a limited space.
Regarding the place I have, 5'' speakers is the max size I can get.
Nope, you are conflating one comment with others made at a different point in the thread.You are contradicting with yourself:
Yes, I can read too. The OPs statement was made well after your broad comment about 3" monitors. i.e. you had no knowledge of this requirement when making your statement.In the end, it turned out that limited space is not the problem for OP:
I am sorry for your lack of imagination.For others - I can't imagine situation where desk space is so limited it can't accommodate additional 42mm+42mm=84mm (3.3") for 4" over 3" monitor.
But you кееp beating the dead horse although you read what OP said!?Yes, I can read too. The OPs statement was made well after your broad comment about 3" monitors. i.e. you had no knowledge of this requirement when making your statement.
You didn't give a real-world example where 3.3" extra space on desk is not possible - I would say that is the epitome definition of "lack of imagination".I am sorry for your lack of imagination.
Irrelevant - other members will read.So I shall not be reading or responding to any more of your comments.