Radiant Acoustics Clarity 66

[Svend P]

If you subscribe to Morten Stjernholms Patreon, there is already some hints to the review, and also an interview with @Lars Risbo

To be honest, we hang around ASR to avoid people like Morten Stjernholm. He’s just another salesperson who lives off selling the latest and greatest. His review will be just another meaningless word salad full of flowery language that lasts only until the next speaker he reviews. None of it will have any correlation to the measurements. And as with all other reviewer, you'll never be able to find a product he didn't like.

 

[Paul7777x]

To be honest, we hang around ASR to avoid people like Morten Stjernholm. He’s just another salesperson who lives off selling the latest and greatest. His review will be just another meaningless word salad full of flowery language that lasts only until the next speaker he reviews. None of it will have any correlation to the measurements. And as with all other reviewer, you'll never be able to find a product he didn't like.

There’s certainly something to that.

And his excessive ‘exuberance’ is a genuine chalk on blackboard screech.

I did try to watch a few videos of his, but I just had to accept defeat.

 

[DaaDaa]

There’s certainly something to that.

And his excessive ‘exuberance’ is a genuine chalk on blackboard screech.

I did try to watch a few videos of his, but I just had to accept defeat.

He is not the worst. Are you familiar with 6moons? Is beyond peddling overpriced crap, it is starting to look like mental illness to me.

 

[Danish ear]

To be honest, we hang around ASR to avoid people like Morten Stjernholm. He’s just another salesperson who lives off selling the latest and greatest. His review will be just another meaningless word salad full of flowery language that lasts only until the next speaker he reviews. None of it will have any correlation to the measurements. And as with all other reviewer, you'll never be able to find a product he didn't like.

If he wrote that he didn't like a product, he would place himself in legally weak position. Because he couldn't backup his claim with any substantial evidence, besides his ears. That's one of the reasons why it is newspeak to call it a review, it's just another advertising job.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

If he wrote that he didn't like a product, he would place himself in legally weak position. Because he couldn't backup his claim with any substantial evidence, besides his ears. That's one of the reasons why it is new speech to call it a review, it's just another advertisesing job.

Just for transparency (since we've had speakers reviewed by Stjernholm), I'd like to clarify that he is not paid to do the reviews. And everything he makes off his Patreon, either from regular consumers or companies, is donated to wildlife preservation. The Youtube channel itself also is not monetized, which is why he is able to include music clips without being censored.

So he is not making money from the channel or the reviews.

 

[Audionaut]

To be honest, we hang around ASR to avoid people like Morten Stjernholm. He’s just another salesperson who lives off selling the latest and greatest. His review will be just another meaningless word salad full of flowery language that lasts only until the next speaker he reviews

A very negative view of a nice and sometimes funny person who shares his personal audio experiences without making any claims based on them.
I also appreciate the opportunity to get a sense of the sound on YouTube, and yes, I’m well aware of its limitations.
So I don’t see why I should avoid him, his audience, or his website.
Perhaps it should be understood more as an additional building block for forming one’s own opinion, without falling into that sometimes very unpleasant ASR attitude of absolutely demonizing subjectively shaped impressions with inquisitorial rituals.

 

[Svend P]

A very negative view of a nice and sometimes funny person who shares his personal audio experiences without making any claims based on them.
I also appreciate the opportunity to get a sense of the sound on YouTube, and yes, I’m well aware of its limitations.
So I don’t see why I should avoid him, his audience, or his website.
Perhaps it should be understood more as an additional building block for forming one’s own opinion, without falling into that sometimes very unpleasant ASR attitude of absolutely demonizing subjectively shaped impressions with inquisitorial rituals.

Do you believe any of this would survive a blind test?

Mortens review of the NAD M17/M27:

"“It’s clear that the baseline sound, when I compare the two without room correction, is warmer and has more character in the NAD M17v2. When I listen to music via ROON, I feel more engaged with the NAD sound. When I watch movies, the Lyngdorf MP50 is more precise, more neutral-sounding, and ‘correct,’ but not necessarily more engaging. Where the MP50 is like an engineer in a white lab coat with a solid pension plan, the M17 is a cheeky guy in a leather jacket with his hat tilted, living day to day (and picking up all the girls).”

TEST: NAD M17v2 – Himmelsk sjæl i en gammel krop

NAD M17v2 byder på lydkvalitet som få andre til hjemmebiografen, men fejler på vigtige, centrale områder.

www.recordere.dk

 

[Audionaut]

Do you believe any of this would survive a blind test?

Probably not, but I know I don’t have any such expectations.
Why should a site focused on subjective audio enjoyment feel compelled to justify itself to the ASR audience?
Once you’ve come to terms with that, it’s actually quite easy to live with.

PS
To be more precise: I expect audio equipment manufacturers to provide accurate measurements and, within the limits of technical feasibility and budget, the best possible results.
Durability and precise manufacturing are also important to me—aspects that, in my view, are given far too little consideration at ASR.

After production are subjective impressions, such as those from Stjernholm, and measurements, such as those on ASR, and both go through my own internal evaluations and sorting process anyway with varying weightings and priorities.

So I always take the liberty of forming my own final judgment based on many factors, and I always have a hard time with people who believe there is only one valid approach—and that it should be universally applicable.
Incidentally, this doesn’t apply only to audio.

 

[Danish ear]

Just for transparency (since we've had speakers reviewed by Stjernholm), I'd like to clarify that he is not paid to do the reviews. And everything he makes off his Patreon, either from regular consumers or companies, is donated to wildlife preservation. The Youtube channel itself also is not monetized, which is why he is able to include music clips without being censored.

So he is not making money from the channel or the reviews.

I guess you're right. He doesn't make any money and the expenses is partly covered by the ordinary Danish taxpayers, due too the company construction. Nothing illegal with that, it's a win win.

 

[BergeHiFi]

Do you believe any of this would survive a blind test?

Mortens review of the NAD M17/M27:

"“It’s clear that the baseline sound, when I compare the two without room correction, is warmer and has more character in the NAD M17v2. When I listen to music via ROON, I feel more engaged with the NAD sound. When I watch movies, the Lyngdorf MP50 is more precise, more neutral-sounding, and ‘correct,’ but not necessarily more engaging. Where the MP50 is like an engineer in a white lab coat with a solid pension plan, the M17 is a cheeky guy in a leather jacket with his hat tilted, living day to day (and picking up all the girls).”

TEST: NAD M17v2 – Himmelsk sjæl i en gammel krop

NAD M17v2 byder på lydkvalitet som få andre til hjemmebiografen, men fejler på vigtige, centrale områder.

www.recordere.dk

I am not here to justify anything Morten has said.

BUT, one thing he is very good at is highlighting what is good or bad with the user experience, something that is harder to measure with an AP analyzer

 

[Paul7777x]

no, the 6.2 would still only have a single woofer playing midrange whereas the 66 has two sharing the load which lowers distortion. Secondly, it is extremely difficult to do a good integration with a sub and the 66 bass performance probably outperforms many subs.

Would you consider the Lyngdorf RP as being good enough to deal with a pair of corner placed, high quality subs and therefore bringing the performance of the 6.2s (with a pair of subs) and the 66s (without subs) closer?

 

[David_M]

Another review
https://fwd.nl/audio/review-radiant-acoustics-clarity-66-grote-stap-voor-deense-uitdager/

@Lars Risbo ... would you consider a tweeter + midrange + 2 woofer design? Wouldn't that provide even lower bass distortion, since the woofers wouldn't be doing midrange duties?

 

[MarkS]

Would you consider the Lyngdorf RP as being good enough to deal with a pair of corner placed, high quality subs and therefore bringing the performance of the 6.2s (with a pair of subs) and the 66s (without subs) closer?

Lyngdorf RP (Room Perfect) does not do sub integration. The user must first integrate the subs (by whatever means), and then RP adjusts the integrated sound.

 

[Paul7777x]

Lyngdorf RP (Room Perfect) does not do sub integration. The user must first integrate the subs (by whatever means), and then RP adjusts the integrated sound.

Not sure what you mean here.

With RP it is necessary to input the sub distance (along with the stereo pair distance), decide on and enter the low and high pass frequencies, and adjust the sub volume to around that of the stereo speakers.

Then run RP.

Is that what you mean?

 

[MarkS]

Yes. It's not an automated process, there is no check on whether the phase alignment in the room is good or not.

 

[Paul7777x]

Yes. It's not an automated process, there is no check on whether the phase alignment in the room is good or not.

I’m quite sure that phase alignment is part of RPs process.

That is, the instructions are to leave the phase dial or switch on any sub used, at 0 degrees. Then any change is performed by RPs calculations.

Unless I’m confusing myself?

 

[MarkS]

As you can read in many threads here, using distance to determine phase alignment of a sub with main speakers does not always work well, doing it by actual measurement in the actual room is a better method. You can do this by hand, but it is not part of the automated RP process.

 

[GL1zdA]

Stereo's review from the June issue is now freely available on their website: Clarity 66 test. They did some measurements, google translate handles the article well. They've tested other Purify speakers in the same issue: Buchardt E50, Rose-Handwerk & Joachim Gerhard Midi (DIY) and DALI V16-F, but these are unfortunately paywalled on the website.

 

[LTig]

Stereo's review from the June issue is now freely available on their website: Clarity 66 test. They did some measurements, google translate handles the article well. They've tested other Purify speakers in the same issue: Buchardt E50, Rose-Handwerk & Joachim Gerhard Midi (DIY) and DALI V16-F, but these are unfortunately paywalled on the website.

Horizontal dispersion looks good, with directivity errors at 750 Hz and 3.5 kHz. On axis frequency response is rather bumpy.

 

[Paul7777x]

Horizontal dispersion looks good, with directivity errors at 750 Hz and 3.5 kHz. On axis frequency response is rather bumpy.

Do you mean from this?

I can’t get it to mean much. Seems a sloppy graph. At best.