While this is true, especially concerning the size of the speakers, I'd wager that the lack of subwoofer on the Ones' side is more jarring.If these conclusions are from sigted listening, how can we be sure this isn’t just expectation bias?
It's obviously possible, and there's no way I can confirm that it's not (without a blind test, which this thread has shown is impossible to configure in way that will satisfy >50% of the population here).If these conclusions are from sigted listening, how can we be sure this isn’t just expectation bias?
Herein lies the difficulty of drawing conclusions thusit's various hypotheses attempting to explain the difference
Keep in mind in both these cases I am integrating them with two Rythmik F12 subwoofers in this room. But you're right -- as I have mentioned, the Salon2's still permit much better in-room bass response consistency, because I tend to run the Salon2's nearly full range plus subs, integrated in such a way that the effect is essentially similar to having four subwoofers (with only a bit of high pass for the Salon2's mostly as a paranoid mechanical protection when playing really loud bass).While this is true, especially concerning the size of the speakers, I'd wager that the lack of subwoofer on the Ones' side is more jarring.
Oh.Keep in mind in both these cases I am integrating them with two Rythmik F12 subwoofers in this room.
I've heard LS50s in-store, and owned a KEF R3 briefly, and don't really find that their sound quality compares to either of these speakers. The KEF R3 is the closest contender (much better than the LS50 to my ears, except for the slightly 'boring' sound that was difficult to describe at the time but in retrospect is probably attributable to the now-known upper midrange dip seen in its measurements).Some audiophiles say big speakers in small rooms are fine. For me the Salon 2's would be imposing in my room and besides, there's no way I would spend that much. The 8351's pack a lot in a small package even if the finish is a bit on the industrial side. Active speakers have a lot of things which can go wrong with them, but at least Genelec is a substantial company which can provide parts and service.
Then, I wonder are these big guns really better than LS50's with subs, assuming the room is small enough to reach reasonably loud SPL's? How about for a larger room M106's or JBL 708's with subs?
Without subwoofers to normalize, the bass differences are huge. With no EQ, the Genelec's sound quite bass shy compared to the Salon2's in the same position in this large room. I assume this is not just due to the Salon2's deeper bass extension, but the port and woofers of the towers being located closer to the floor to benefit from its boundary reinforcement.
You're right about towers. What's strange to me, is that you didn't say that the image was fuzzy/blurry with the Salon 2, as that would be the cons that goes with wide dispersion; but I guess the lack of early reflections due to the room size might create more of an unrealistically grandiose and maybe diffuse soundstage than affect the image.Without subwoofers to normalize, the bass differences are huge. With no EQ, the Genelec's sound quite bass shy compared to the Salon2's in the same position in this large room. I assume this is not just due to the Salon2's deeper bass extension, but the port and woofers of the towers being located closer to the floor to benefit from its boundary reinforcement.
The Genelec 8351B's can deliver super impressive bass on their own with no subwoofer, but I find this is mostly true in a smaller room and when they are positioned close to a wall (then EQ'ed of course so it doesn't sound bloated) to benefit from boundary reinforcement.
I think the bass benefits of towers (boundary reinforcement via port and woofers located near the ground plane) vs bookshelf speakers might be often underestimated or forgotten when looking just at anechoic frequency response data.
I did at one point experiment with my Ascend Sierra 2EX in a small room, and found that the soundstage did sound too fuzzy/diffuse versus my Neumann KH310s. But in a larger room, the Sierra 2EX soundstage was actually preferable (though the KH310 are still much better speakers in other ways, and still quite good with soundstage and certainly aren't narrow directivity speakers).You're right about towers. What's strange to me, is that you didn't say that the image was fuzzy/blurry with the Salon 2, as that would be the cons that goes with wide dispersion; but I guess the lack of early reflections due to the room size might create more of an unrealistically grandiose and maybe diffuse soundstage than affect the image.
What I'm getting from that is that in such rooms, narrow directivity might be better than wide and average, but average is worse than wide.I did at one point experiment with my Ascend Sierra 2EX in a small room, and found that the soundstage did sound too fuzzy/diffuse versus my Neumann KH310s. But in a larger room, the Sierra 2EX soundstage was actually preferable (though the KH310 are still much better speakers in other ways, and still quite good with soundstage and certainly aren't narrow directivity speakers).
However, in this much larger and echo-ey room, while you might think wide dispersion is too fuzzy, I think the key observation is that the alternate is actually much worse -- it creates too much of a 'crisp' echo effect in how it interacts with the room. The 'echo' effect is too obvious and distracting in this case. When a room is unavoidably reflective like this, it's much better for the room's effect to be made fuzzy, than crisp.
Theoretically, this makes sense to me. Imagine a single reflection of the audio signal -- the audio superimposed on the original signal with a single fixed delay and attenuation -- this is very obviously audible as an 'echo' effect that colors everything in the same (usually undesirable) way. But in contrast, imagine 1000 such reflections each at 1/1000th the amplitude, but crucially with each at a slightly different time delay (such that the summed reflection signal is significantly blurred). The original signal in the latter case is actually better preserved, at least perceptually.
Why would narrow be better than average? Wouldn't that make the reflection even more crisp and distracting?What I'm getting from that is that in this room, narrow directivity might be better than wide and average, but average is worse than wide.
What reflection? That's a bit the point of narrow directivity, to avoid reflections. At best, you'll have the back wall to treat and nothing else; and I doubt our hearing isn't somewhat cardioid in the higher frequencies, which would make only the side and floor/ceiling reflections really important.Why would narrow be better than average? Wouldn't that make the reflection even more crisp and distracting?
You’re going to have reflections no matter what in this room. The question is therefore regarding the character of those reflections: spread out over a wide variance of time delays, or focused around a single mean time delay without much variance (a crisp distracting echo). Maybe my physics intuition is wrong, but it seems to me the tighter the beam, the lower the variance of amplitude-weighted time delays among the set of reflection signals reaching the listener.What reflection? That's a bit the point of narrow directivity, to avoid reflections. At best, you'll have the back wall to treat and nothing else; and I doubt our hearing isn't somewhat cardioid in the higher frequencies, which would make only the side and floor/ceiling reflections really important.
The narrower the dispersion the fewer reflections, think of the speaker as a flashlight and the windows and floor as mirrors. The narrower the flashlight beam the less the glare.You’re going to have reflections no matter what in this room. The question is therefore regarding the character of those reflections: spread out over a wide variance of time delays, or focused around a single mean time delay without much variance (a crisp distracting echo). Maybe my physics intuition is wrong, but it seems to me the tighter the beam, the lower the variance of amplitude-weighted time delays among the set of reflection signals reaching the listener.
Acoustic treatments for walls is nice when you’re able to, but I’m not aware of how you would even begin to treat glass windows to be less reflective.
A flashlight or laser in a room of (perhaps partially frosted) mirrors is a good analogy. Imagine the painful glare from a flashlight with a tight beam glaring in your eyes from many directions in a room of mirrors, versus a softly diffused lamp globe casting light in all directions softly.The narrower the dispersion the fewer reflections, think of the speaker as a flashlight and the windows and floor as mirrors. The narrower the flashlight beam the less the glare.
Bravo if you achieve an acceptable sound in a room like this!
But to achieve a similar amount of energe at your position, you'll need to dump much more energy (be it sound or light) in the room.A flashlight or laser in a room of (perhaps partially frosted) mirrors is a good analogy. Imagine the painful glare from a flashlight with a tight beam glaring in your eyes from many directions in a room of mirrors, versus a softly diffused lamp globe casting light in all directions softly.
Yes, diffuse but nearly all reflection and almost no direct sound.A flashlight or laser in a room of (perhaps partially frosted) mirrors is a good analogy. Imagine the painful glare from a flashlight with a tight beam glaring in your eyes from many directions in a room of mirrors, versus a softly diffused lamp globe casting light in all directions softly.