Sealed mini speaker, 3-way

[ZolaIII]

Admittedly, the room modes are a problem. This can also be seen in my measurements, a broad dip around 200Hz. A random position, on purpose, guys, reality! Because who wants to sit in a vice? It's about music, funny lala on the side, or important “state of the union”-type podcasts. Of course that makes you run.

But then the user also wonders about the share of the rent for the stuff. The “real estate” factor: no subs! The boxes as shown are pretty much the maximum for normal people. Otherwise it's bluetooth mono, practicability.

And still, I've got 30Hz

Lol, it's not about moods that is DSP-able, it is not about higher SPL but on average lower tho still plenty of low bass and of course in line psy as we hear full range (aside tail boost).
Low C is cold like that for a reason.

 

[theREALdotnet]

The only common trait between this speaker and an LS3/5a that I can see is that both are loudspeakers.

 

[AdamG]

Seems I can't change the title anymore. Otherwise I would, sorry. But you make a valuable point.

Respond to this directly and tell me the Title you want and we can revise it for you. For simplicity sake. Put your new Title text in quotes.

 

[Heinrich]

Respond to this directly and tell me the Title you want and we can revise it for you. For simplicity sake. Put your new Title text in quotes.

"Sealed mini speaker, 3-way"

 

[Heinrich]

Can you tell us more about these "normal" people?

Of course not, the term 'normal' means nothing. Actually I do not know a second person willing to allow speakers to eat up square meters of their living room. The notion of having a dedicated 'listening position' bewilders many that I know. The exceptions know that there are enthusiasts, but would not remotely fall into that category. To identify with the stereo hobby isn't as regular as it was a few decades ago.

In many households there isn't a speaker set in use anymore. The infamous kitchen radio was substituted by the bluetooth mono block. I'm not speaking of low income people, to the contrary.

 

[Heinrich]

The only common trait between this speaker and an LS3/5a that I can see is that both are loudspeakers.

There is the similarity in dimensions. Both are designed to be placed on a shelf, really, and are sealed for good reason. The similarity extends to the maximum sound pressure level to be achieved. Only that this is a three-way for better reasons. That makes this specimen a 'revisited' LS3/5a, using contemporary technology, exploiting the low cost for amplification today and foremost DSP.

I don't expect these to gain the reputation of the former, but it was worth a try.

 

[ZolaIII]

Of course not, the term 'normal' means nothing. Actually I do not know a second person willing to allow speakers to eat up square meters of their living room. The notion of having a dedicated 'listening position' bewilders many that I know. The exceptions know that there are enthusiasts, but would not remotely fall into that category. To identify with the stereo hobby isn't as regular as it was a few decades ago.

In many households there isn't a speaker set in use anymore. The infamous kitchen radio was substituted by the bluetooth mono block. I'm not speaking of low income people, to the contrary.

Take sofa and half lay down, you will feel better. By the way that's most and for most listening position this day's for me. I did it all the way around, been in production too. There is no substitute for the placement. Yes it's a hobby. But their is a lot of IEM's and they are so good that represents problem globally. And I am losing patience explaining what equal loudness compensation is. And how to overcome hearing loss by over exaggerating with SPL.

 

[DSJR]

I’ve got my dad’s KEF Chorale he bought in 1978 and are still in excellent condition, as I offered to help him sell them. They are best placed on low stands to get some floor gain and avoid floor bounce cancellation, but pulled away from the front wall they image terrifically and are very clean and quite linear sounding. Or they can be placed right up against the front wall if you need to position them higher up.

I temporarily replaced my Revel M16 with them and they are less refined, and lack bass in treble extension in comparison, but in isolation are great fun and look cool if you like retro.

View attachment 441079
[Star Wars balloons were for my son’s birthday]

Those are later ones. The ones I first got to know had even more trendy silvery grilles on them. Nobody back then took the grilles off for listening, but looking at the rear of yours, I can see how dispersion would be 'altered' by using them.

The Corelli which replaced them, is better integrated, but we're talking late 70s now...

 

[Heinrich]

Those are later ones. The ones I first got to know had even more trendy silvery grilles on them. Nobody back then took the grilles off for listening, but looking at the rear of yours, I can see how dispersion would be 'altered' by using them.

The Corelli which replaced them, is better integrated, but we're talking late 70s now...

But then they were all two-way. I had the Calinda for sentimental reasons and was ultimately not at all satisfied. At the time, I was running pretty big speakers with 12” midrange drivers, horns, etc., which also had consistent directivity.

In comparison, the Calinda simply sounded wrong, musty with too much pling at the top (modern digital program). It was difficult to imagine a homogeneous sound image, nothing to immerse yourself in.

Today I think it was due to the large bass/midrange driver, which ran up to 3.5kHz. The obvious problem could have been solved with a third way. Also the thing with the vertical dispersion.

I have no doubt that KEF knew about the problem, but the cost! After all, they were extremely successful with coax, clever guys in the end.

The requirement package for the LS3/5a can be answered with something else today. I was also surprised that something came out of it that was really good for everyday use. If you disregard perfectionist demands just a little.

By the way, the narrow focus on the dispersion behavior, see above, on this board makes less sense here: the shelf arrangement changes the influence of the cabinet edges. Well, it's a pradigm shift, and that on the first of April ;-)

 

[Mart68]

But then they were all two-way. I had the Calinda for sentimental reasons and was ultimately not at all satisfied. At the time, I was running pretty big speakers with 12” midrange drivers, horns, etc., which also had consistent directivity.

In comparison, the Calinda simply sounded wrong, musty with too much pling at the top (modern digital program). It was difficult to imagine a homogeneous sound image, nothing to immerse yourself in.

Today I think it was due to the large bass/midrange driver, which ran up to 3.5kHz. The obvious problem could have been solved with a third way. Also the thing with the vertical dispersion.

I have no doubt that KEF knew about the problem, but the cost! After all, they were extremely successful with coax, clever guys in the end.

I had the Calinda and could never get them to sound right. Sold them to a friend who deployed them hard up against a solid wall in a massive room and then it was really hard to find fault with them. I think the next one up in the range was a three-way? Can't recall the name of them now.

 

[Heinrich]

I had the Calinda and could never get them to sound right. Sold them to a friend who deployed them hard up against a solid wall in a massive room and then it was really hard to find fault with them. I think the next one up in the range was a three-way? Can't recall the name of them now.

Ja, they had a three-way comprising the racetrack woofer, and the bass(?)/mid of the LS3/5a, x/over at around 400Hz.

Today KEF is a pretty successful designer of best of (size) class speakers for halfway reasonable prices. Back in the day they promoted the two-way approach a little bit too much for my liking. But hey, the exploration was funded by government, and as was said before, the result compared pretty well against the contenders. But reiterated, I would like to see more three-ways today.

 

[Mart68]

Ja, they had a three-way comprising the racetrack woofer, and the bass(?)/mid of the LS3/5a, x/over at around 400Hz.

Today KEF is a pretty successful designer of best of (size) class speakers for halfway reasonable prices. Back in the day they promoted the two-way approach a little bit too much for my liking. But hey, the exploration was funded by government, and as was said before, the result compared pretty well against the contenders. But reiterated, I would like to see more three-ways today.

They always had plenty of three-ways on offer through the 1970s and 1980s.

Their two ways were always the bottom of the range in those decades. They knew a good three-way was always going to be superior.

What about the 105? I still rate those as one of the best speakers I have heard.

Three way did fall out of fashion from the late 1980s on, but there does seem to be a lot more of them around again now. Including smaller ones. But almost all ported ofc.

 

[DSJR]

But then they were all two-way. I had the Calinda for sentimental reasons and was ultimately not at all satisfied. At the time, I was running pretty big speakers with 12” midrange drivers, horns, etc., which also had consistent directivity.

In comparison, the Calinda simply sounded wrong, musty with too much pling at the top (modern digital program). It was difficult to imagine a homogeneous sound image, nothing to immerse yourself in.

Today I think it was due to the large bass/midrange driver, which ran up to 3.5kHz. The obvious problem could have been solved with a third way. Also the thing with the vertical dispersion.

I have no doubt that KEF knew about the problem, but the cost! After all, they were extremely successful with coax, clever guys in the end.

The requirement package for the LS3/5a can be answered with something else today. I was also surprised that something came out of it that was really good for everyday use. If you disregard perfectionist demands just a little.

By the way, the narrow focus on the dispersion behavior, see above, on this board makes less sense here: the shelf arrangement changes the influence of the cabinet edges. Well, it's a pradigm shift, and that on the first of April ;-)

KEF had two markets at this time, the audiophile orientated Reference range and the increasingly cheaper to make C series. Some odd decisions were made in the early 80s models, although the Celeste III/IV and Concord III/IV were hugely entertaining and good looking with their 'body stockings and trumpet stands.

I maintain the Harbeth P3ESR series as being very much better than any LS3/5A I've heard to date (including the 'better' Falcon issue ones) and Harbeth have now just started production of their far more modern dsp-active NLE1 (tweeter actually has a waveguide too). The BBC use active Dynaudios for general purpose continuity now I believe and these are far cheaper if not as good (early ones certainly weren't as there was an issue at 5kHz on earlier ones I recall).

Please don't get too het-up about how many drivers a speaker has, at least these days. It's how it reproduces music in a given room that's really important

 

[Heinrich]

Three way did fall out of fashion from the late 1980s on, but there does seem to be a lot more of them around again now.

O/k, the better. I wasn't aware of that. E/g one of the more recent deliveries comprises a Purify woofer sealed, no midrange driver and a waveguide. I personally don't consider the design successful.

... C series. Some odd decisions were made in the early 80s models, ... Please don't get too het-up about how many drivers a speaker has, ...

Exactly, what you say. Regarding the count of speakers, I'm not talking numbers. It is only so that the midrange driver grants otherwise lost opportunities.

Anyway, my little ones have to go to the new owner soon. It is going to be equalized for in-room Harman, ironing out the inevitable wiggles from the shelf positioning. The shelf is well filled with (literally) tons of books, which eases the attempt.

You Can't Hurry Love, Diana Ross & The Supremes - what a nice catchy bass line that is ...

Eventually it's just fun to have these little thingies playing music even at quite elevated volumes. The full spectrum helps a lot, really, with not having to play too loud. Thanks for giving the opportunity to share the experience with educated peers!

 

[thewas]

They always had plenty of three-ways on offer through the 1970s and 1980s.

Their two ways were always the bottom of the range in those decades. They knew a good three-way was always going to be superior.

Correct, as it can been also from this 1975 catalogue https://www.hifi-archiv.info/KEF/1975/index.html

What about the 105? I still rate those as one of the best speakers I have heard.

Yes, I have the feeling it was undeservedly always under the shadow of the B&W 801.

 

[DSJR]

Correct, as it can been also from this 1975 catalogue https://www.hifi-archiv.info/KEF/1975/index.html


Yes, I have the feeling it was undeservedly always under the shadow of the B&W 801.

Domestically, it was the other way round I think (not having sales figures to back me up). B&W did deals with smaller pro studios and many mastering suites I remember and they spread around the pro industry like a virus. We sold a good few 105s but far less 801s. The original 105 had an overload/test light set under the tweeter and only visible as a 'test' when the pod was angled properly to the listener. The first 801s had overload protection with reset buttons on the angled top grille of the bass enclosure. Similar protections were quite intrusive sonically I recall and were abandoned in subsequent models. KEF then went to the 107 (active eq box for the bass module) and then the Uni-Q drivers took over. If memory serves, B&W updated the enclosure to the Matrix type and then went wild with the N series, which was the beginning of the tech-deviation they exhibit to this day.

Back then, I don't think dispersion wasn't as much a considered issue as today, so issues around the crossover frequency were either ignored or not considered seriuous I'd suggest. The BBC had definitely done research on this aspect in the earlier 70s.

 

[Mart68]

Domestically, it was the other way round I think (not having sales figures to back me up). B&W did deals with smaller pro studios and many mastering suites I remember and they spread around the pro industry like a virus. We sold a good few 105s but far less 801s. The original 105 had an overload/test light set under the tweeter and only visible as a 'test' when the pod was angled properly to the listener. The first 801s had overload protection with reset buttons on the angled top grille of the bass enclosure. Similar protections were quite intrusive sonically I recall and were abandoned in subsequent models. KEF then went to the 107 (active eq box for the bass module) and then the Uni-Q drivers took over. If memory serves, B&W updated the enclosure to the Matrix type and then went wild with the N series, which was the beginning of the tech-deviation they exhibit to this day.

Back then, I don't think dispersion wasn't as much a considered issue as today, so issues around the crossover frequency were either ignored or not considered seriuous I'd suggest. The BBC had definitely done research on this aspect in the earlier 70s.

I don't know about that Dave - I think it unlikely since being very much engineering-led companies in the 1970s and 1980s that KEF and B&W were unaware of the importance of even dispersion. Certainly B&O were since their speakers from 1983 use waveguides on both the tweeter and the midrange dome.

 

[Heinrich]

... since their speakers from 1983 use waveguides on both the tweeter and the midrange dome.

I don't think the recessed domes came up for waveguiding purposes. Without that measure an operation without a protective grille would be very risky.

 

[Mart68]

I don't think the recessed domes came up for waveguiding purposes. Without that measure an operation without a protective grille would be very risky.

Have to disagree, these are quite clearly waveguides:

 

[Heinrich]

Have to disagree, these are quite clearly waveguides:

Question is, were they successful? The main problem with midrange domes of that time was the extension down to meet the bass driver. Most often an x/over at 800Hz was the best you could get. If my recollections doesn't trick me, the paradigm for dispersion was "as wide as possible".

Because a dedicated "listening position" wasn't yet invented - so my impression. (See the ongoing discussion on Wilson Audio, that set the enthusiast deliberately into a vice.)

The small loudspeaker here can't help but aim for a wide dispersion when uniformity is required. Incidentally, this also applies to the vertical: -20° / +60° is achieved (-6dB). The tilt towards "up" is designed-in for good reason.

The steady state frequency response in the room corresponds approximately to the Harman curve, which appears somewhat “brighter” than with waveguide-equipped specimens. The direct sound is equalized for flat at 30° listening angle.

I have seen a lot of pedantry here. I can't understand why some people don't understand that stereo is not an end in itself, but should simply be used under various circumstances.

That's why I asked which measurements should be made and for what purpose. What should they say in terms of preference by a single person in their environment that nobody here knows?

I don't have a spinorama, so don't pay any attention ;-)