Speakers ranked by spinorama with EQ and sub

[Lbstyling]

I see some fantastic results for the JBL stage a130 are obtainable with EQ now. 8.4 (with sub and EQ) would put them very near the top of the speaker ranking chart. IS there a rank order list for speakers with EQ profiles applied and sub attached?

I would assume the KEF R3 would score very highly?

 

[Matias]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?pages/SpeakerTestData/

https://sites.google.com/view/speakerdata/preference-ratings-graphs

 

[Lbstyling]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?pages/SpeakerTestData/

https://sites.google.com/view/speakerdata/preference-ratings-graphs

Doesn't include EQ (unless I missed it?)

 

[Matias]

You are right, and equalized speaker preference ranking is not yet done as far as I know. Sorry.

 

[Lbstyling]

You are right, and equalized speaker preference ranking is not yet done as far as I know. Sorry.

Having another look at the review, I would not be surprised if the R3 would top the chart with EQ+ sub applied. Its really hampered by the bass drop off below 100hz, yet still ranks as one of the highest even without this corrected.

 

[flipflop]

IS there a rank order list for speakers with EQ profiles applied and sub attached?

https://pierreaubert.github.io/spinorama/statistics.html

I would assume the KEF R3 would score very highly?

8.3
Keep in mind that pierre uses a higher LFX cutoff than MZKM so their scores aren't comparable.

 

[bobbooo]

https://pierreaubert.github.io/spinorama/statistics.html

8.3
Keep in mind that pierre uses a higher LFX cutoff than MZKM so their scores aren't comparable.

What LFX cutoff does he use?

 

[flipflop]

What LFX cutoff does he use?

I'm not sure, but MKZM gives R3 a score of 8.2 with sub while pierre scores it at 7.6.

 

[Lbstyling]

https://pierreaubert.github.io/spinorama/statistics.html

8.3
Keep in mind that pierre uses a higher LFX cutoff than MZKM so their scores aren't comparable.

Awesome resource!!

So.. my own preference ranking would include high subjective Amir ranking plus high SPL capability and low THD.

Under those parameters, and while trying to keep value for money high, its R3 vs JBL a130. I still get the R3 second hand as the top option due to the distortion through the mid band.

 

[Lbstyling]

I'm not sure, but MKZM gives R3 a score of 8.2 with sub while pierre scores it at 7.6.

It will likely give a wider range than most speaker as the bass in unEQ'd form drops off so quickly. I would guess they have designed it to go against a wall.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Having another look at the review, I would not be surprised if the R3 would top the chart with EQ+ sub applied. Its really hampered by the bass drop off below 100hz, yet still ranks as one of the highest even without this corrected.

Makes me wonder how the Reference 1s would score out.

 

[flipflop]

@bobbooo I made another effort to answer your question.
The fact that pierre's 'with sub' ratings are consistently 0.6 points lower than MZKM's ratings corresponds to a -6 dB point @ 20 Hz also used by edechamps on Loudspeaker Explorer:

Note that the LFX value used in MZKM's "with subwoofer" ratings corresponds to a -6 dB point of 15 Hz. In Loudspeaker Explorer, a value of 20 Hz was chosen as it was deemed more realistic and less prone to excessive model extrapolation when comparing a standard rating to an "ideal subwoofer" rating. As a result, when operating in "with subwoofer" mode, Loudspeaker Explorer ratings are 0.6 points lower than MZKM ratings.

https://colab.research.google.com/g.../Loudspeaker_Explorer.ipynb#scrollTo=cell-120

I think it would be neat if all parties involved could get together and agree on a common -6 dB point.

 

[MZKM]

@bobbooo I made another effort to answer your question.
The fact that pierre's 'with sub' ratings are consistently 0.6 points lower than MZKM's ratings corresponds to a -6 dB point @ 20 Hz also used by edechamps on Loudspeaker Explorer:
https://colab.research.google.com/g.../Loudspeaker_Explorer.ipynb#scrollTo=cell-120

I think it would be neat if all parties involved could get together and agree on a common -6 dB point.

Mine was chosen simply because it gets you very close to a max of 10, so a perfect speaker.


The issue is that Olive and others never tested how much super deep extension actually matters. So, while mine gives close to a max of 10, it may be unrealistic to assume such a large boost.

I don’t really care one way or another.

 

[flipflop]

Mine was chosen simply because it gets you very close to a max of 10, so a perfect speaker.


The issue is that Olive and others never tested how much super deep extension actually matters. So, while mine gives close to a max of 10, it may be unrealistic to assume.

I don’t really care one way or another.

I've read and understand the arguments from both sides. My main concern is simply that the same value is being used across all platforms in order to avoid any further confusion.

 

[Kustomize]

DIY Zaph 5.2 should do very well for cheap(about 250 i think?) with a subwoofer and a bit of eq. I bumped about +3db @ 125hz just that made a notable difference!

 

[aarons915]

Awesome resource!!

So.. my own preference ranking would include high subjective Amir ranking plus high SPL capability and low THD.

Under those parameters, and while trying to keep value for money high, its R3 vs JBL a130. I still get the R3 second hand as the top option due to the distortion through the mid band.

I have the R3 and the ability to apply PEQ so this would be an interesting comparison if I normalized the bass below 80Hz. Given the price of the JBL 130 I might have to test this out sometime

 

[Wombat]

Having another look at the review, I would not be surprised if the R3 would top the chart with EQ+ sub applied. Its really hampered by the bass drop off below 100hz, yet still ranks as one of the highest even without this corrected.

The question is which sub/price point?

 

[Lbstyling]

The question is which sub/price point?

A good point.

From what I can see, the JBL A 130 and the R3 are outliers as under rated in a modern enthusiasts system using the current ranking systems. Any method used to rank speakers will give some favour to one speaker or another, and the current ones fall short on these for my criteria. The distortion for the R3 is very low, whereas the lacking bottom end that lowers its score is not a factor if a sub is used. Of course this would reduce distortion further also, so is a win-win.
Given the vertical off axis advantage the coaxial design has, this design would likely top the chart under different weighting, yet is comparatively cheap against many of the top contenders.

I have the R3 and the ability to apply PEQ so this would be an interesting comparison if I normalized the bass below 80Hz. Given the price of the JBL 130 I might have to test this out sometime

I would personally cross over at circa 150hz and keep the sub close to the speakers to compensate (stereo subs even better!). You can also play with a Harman curve that raises the bass a couple of db at the bottom if it suits you. Bass accounts for 30% of preference in blind studies if I remember right.

 

[flipflop]

Having another look at the review, I would not be surprised if the R3 would top the chart with EQ+ sub applied. Its really hampered by the bass drop off below 100hz

The distortion for the R3 is very low, whereas the lacking bottom end that lowers its score

The model doesn't care about what happens below 100 Hz except for where the -6 dB point lies. R3 could have a bass response that looks like the solid red curve I've drawn and the predicted preference score would be the same:

Its LFX is at 35 Hz which is very good.

 

[bobbooo]

@bobbooo I made another effort to answer your question.
The fact that pierre's 'with sub' ratings are consistently 0.6 points lower than MZKM's ratings corresponds to a -6 dB point @ 20 Hz also used by edechamps on Loudspeaker Explorer:
https://colab.research.google.com/g.../Loudspeaker_Explorer.ipynb#scrollTo=cell-120

I think it would be neat if all parties involved could get together and agree on a common -6 dB point.

I've explained my preference for a 14.5 Hz cutt-off as @MZKM uses and why 20 Hz is in fact a more arbitrary value here.