• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Teac S-300HR Review (Speaker)

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
35,017
Likes
130,568
Location
Seattle Area
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Teac S-300HR bookshelf coaxial speaker. It is on kind loan from a member. I can't find a price for it unfortunately.

I must say the finish on the S-300HR is one of the best if not the best I have seen on a speaker:

Teac S-300HR Review Bookshelf Speaker.jpg


Even the back panel looks nice with that detailed Teac label:

Teac S-300HR Bookshelf Speaker Back Panel.jpg


I think these speakers went with their smaller electronics.

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Using computational acoustics, far-field response is computed and that is what I present. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber.

I performed over 1000 measurement which resulted in error rate of about 1%. Clean high frequency response is responsible for ease of measurement in this regard.

Reference axis is approximately the center of the tweeter. Grill was not used.

Teac S-300HR Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

Teac S-300HR Frequency Response Measurements Bookshelf Speaker.png


Gosh, this looks pretty poor. Bass output is low at just 81 to 82 dB. Response then gradually rises with multiple peaks indicating resonances. The only positive is that until you get to 8 kHz, resonances repeat in early window and sound power which means you should be able to EQ them down. Then again, you will have a very inefficient speaker when you do that.

Looking at the driver responses we see signs of the same resonances:

Teac S-300HR Driver Frequency Response Measurements Bookshelf Speaker.png


We can see them in the impedance curves as well:

Teac S-300HR Impedance and Phase Measurements Bookshelf Speaker.png


I was surprised how much smoother early window reflection sum was:

Teac S-300HR Early Window Frequency Response Measurements Bookshelf Speaker.png


This as such moderates our predicted in-room response:

Teac S-300HR Predicted in-room Frequency Response Measurements Bookshelf Speaker.png


So outside of bass, we really have a coupe of problem areas, one around 900 Hz to 1.5 kHz and anther peak around 4.5 kHz.

The beam width is variable due to woofer beaming (narrowing):

Teac S-300HR Horizontal Beam width Measurements Bookshelf Speaker.png


Looks a bit better in this view:

Teac S-300HR Horizontal Directivity Measurements Bookshelf Speaker.png


Benefit of coaxial design easily comes to light in the vertical directivity which is better than any traditional 2-way speaker:

Teac S-300HR Vertical Directivity Measurements Bookshelf Speaker.png


I have a carpet on the floor and tall ceiling though so won't be doing me a lot of good.

Here is our center frequency 3-D horizontal Directivity Baloon:

Teac S-300HR Horizontal 3-d Directivity Measurements Bookshelf Speaker.png


We get a bit wiggly around 2 kHz but in grand scheme of things, it is decent and very nice by 3 kHz. Again, the coaxial design helps here.

Had a request in the last review to show three steps for distortion starting at 76 dBSPL. To whoever suggested that, I hate you I can't figure out a good way to show it without it taking up so much space! :)

Teac S-300HR THD Distortion Measurements Bookshelf Speaker.png


Here is the relative distortion:
Teac S-300HR Distortion Measurements Bookshelf Speaker.png


Clearly our little woofer is getting upset but the tweeter is sailing along.

Teac S-300HR Listening Tests
First impression wasn't bad. There was some of that "showroom sound" with heightened detail and some brightness. I brought out the EQ tools and tried to use the on-axis response to correct the resonances. While I got rid of the brightness, subjectively I still did not like the sound as it had gotten too dull. As I was writing the review I realized why: I should have used the predicted in-room response and corrected less. 90% of the time I find on-axis correction works best but this the 10% that works better with PIR.

Even with that EQ though, the main problem here is lack of bass. It is very muted so lets the rest of the spectrum stand out too much. I have a minimum standard that even a bookshelf speaker should provide satisfying response without the need for a sub. This speaker doesn't get there.

I should note that the woofer is graceful in handling volume, likely because it is not working too hard.

FYI the entire cabinet resonates with every bit of music. I am used to feeling something with bass notes and such in speakers. But here, the cabinet is acting like a musical instrument, vibrating consistently and all the time. Up close I thought I heard it contribute a "zingy" overtone to the speaker. Yes, that is a technical term!

Conclusions
The Teac S-300HR is gorgeously built. Alas, that doesn't extend to the objective performance. On-axis response is a mess with many resonances. Coaxial nature brings some value but I am not sure they are important things. Subjectively without sufficient bass, you are just going to be frustrated with the sound even if you EQ it as there is not enough headroom here to push the speaker.

Overall, I can't recommend the Teac S-300HR but do appreciate some aspects of it.

-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
 

Attachments

  • Teac S-300HR Frequency Response.zip
    87.9 KB · Views: 29

respice finem

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
948
Likes
1,268
Very elegant wood veneer, but visible woofer frame and screws, so one would rather leave the grille on for daily listening. Uneven performance.
So, who is it made for, actually?
My best guess: Buyers who care for matching with the furniture more than for accurate sound reproduction.
On the other hand, there are speakers performing far worse in this category, so it isn't as bad as it may seem.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
35,017
Likes
130,568
Location
Seattle Area

MrSoul4470

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2020
Messages
8
Likes
8
Location
Regensburg / Germany
Difficult to say what "category" it is, since it is so hard to find prices. I think it is 699 € per speaker (or is it the price for a pair?).
 

GWolfman

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
345
Likes
398
Thanks!

Maybe I missed it, but what's the size of the woofer?
 

pierre

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
602
Likes
1,312
Location
Switzerland
Frequency response on axis is a mess and the harman score doesn't like that: 2.6.

With a bit of EQ, things improve a bit up to 5.0. It will cost you 5dB of headroom.

Code:
          SPK auEQ
-----------------
NBD  ON 0.82 0.60
NBD  LW 0.57 0.35
NBD PIR 0.45 0.30
SM  PIR 0.46 0.91
SM   SP 0.85 0.93
LFX       63   53
LFQ     0.39 0.43
 -----------------
Score    2.6  5.0
-----------------
+2.59 +4.99 Teac S-300HR

Here is the EQ graphically:

filters0.png

and the results on PIR and Spinorama:
filters2.png
filters1.png


Code:
EQ for Teac S-300HR computed from ASR data
Preference Score 2.6 with EQ 5.0
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.8
Dated: 2021-08-30-06:28:07

Preamp: -0.2 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc  2929 Hz Gain -6.17 dB Q 0.10
Filter  2: ON PK Fc  1344 Hz Gain -2.41 dB Q 6.00
Filter  3: ON PK Fc  2154 Hz Gain +2.60 dB Q 4.35
Filter  4: ON PK Fc 10164 Hz Gain +1.68 dB Q 6.00
Filter  5: ON PK Fc  7229 Hz Gain -1.75 dB Q 4.00
Filter  6: ON PK Fc  4518 Hz Gain -1.57 dB Q 6.00
Filter  7: ON PK Fc 12541 Hz Gain -1.39 dB Q 6.00
Filter  8: ON PK Fc   969 Hz Gain -1.38 dB Q 6.00
 
Last edited:

Vict0r

Active Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
279
Likes
476
Location
The Netherlands
Thanks for the review, Amir! They do look the part. The finish reminds me of the cherry red Quad 12L's I used to own. Another good example of stunning looks yet underwhelming performance. Just like me, actually. :p

quad_11l2_high_end_classique_deep_rosewood_bookshelf_speaker_pair_1585319810_dff72606_progress...jpg
 

DSJR

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
866
Likes
992
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
Another speaker balanced for bookshelf siting I reckon, using wall bass reinforcement and not designed to stand mounting unless fairly tight to th eback wall (I know, there's a port there...).
 

respice finem

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
948
Likes
1,268
Another speaker balanced for bookshelf siting I reckon, using wall bass reinforcement and not designed to stand mounting unless fairly tight to th eback wall (I know, there's a port there...).
I guess @amirm is right about "made for Japan". They even have their own fitting stands, but in Japan, the stands will mostly be against the wall, due to the average room size.
 

Nango

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 6, 2018
Messages
1,190
Likes
724
Location
D:\EU\GER\Rheinhessen
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Teac S-300HR bookshelf coaxial speaker. It is on kind loan from a member. I can't find a price for it unfortunately.

I must say the finish on the S-300HR is one of the best if not the best I have seen on a speaker:

View attachment 150337

Even the back panel looks nice with that detailed Teac label:

View attachment 150338

I think these speakers went with their smaller electronics.

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Using computational acoustics, far-field response is computed and that is what I present. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber.

I performed over 1000 measurement which resulted in error rate of about 1%. Clean high frequency response is responsible for ease of measurement in this regard.

Reference axis is approximately the center of the tweeter. Grill was not used.

Teac S-300HR Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

View attachment 150339

Gosh, this looks pretty poor. Bass output is low at just 81 to 82 dB. Response then gradually rises with multiple peaks indicating resonances. The only positive is that until you get to 8 kHz, resonances repeat in early window and sound power which means you should be able to EQ them down. Then again, you will have a very inefficient speaker when you do that.

Looking at the driver responses we see signs of the same resonances:

View attachment 150340

We can see them in the impedance curves as well:

View attachment 150341

I was surprised how much smoother early window reflection sum was:

View attachment 150342

This as such moderates our predicted in-room response:

View attachment 150343

So outside of bass, we really have a coupe of problem areas, one around 900 Hz to 1.5 kHz and anther peak around 4.5 kHz.

The beam width is variable due to woofer beaming (narrowing):

View attachment 150344

Looks a bit better in this view:

View attachment 150345

Benefit of coaxial design easily comes to light in the vertical directivity which is better than any traditional 2-way speaker:

View attachment 150346

I have a carpet on the floor and tall ceiling though so won't be doing me a lot of good.

Here is our center frequency 3-D horizontal Directivity Baloon:

View attachment 150349

We get a bit wiggly around 2 kHz but in grand scheme of things, it is decent and very nice by 3 kHz. Again, the coaxial design helps here.

Had a request in the last review to show three steps for distortion starting at 76 dBSPL. To whoever suggested that, I hate you I can't figure out a good way to show it without it taking up so much space! :)

View attachment 150347

Here is the relative distortion:
View attachment 150348

Clearly our little woofer is getting upset but the tweeter is sailing along.

Teac S-300HR Listening Tests
First impression wasn't bad. There was some of that "showroom sound" with heightened detail and some brightness. I brought out the EQ tools and tried to use the on-axis response to correct the resonances. While I got rid of the brightness, subjectively I still did not like the sound as it had gotten too dull. As I was writing the review I realized why: I should have used the predicted in-room response and corrected less. 90% of the time I find on-axis correction works best but this the 10% that works better with PIR.

Even with that EQ though, the main problem here is lack of bass. It is very muted so lets the rest of the spectrum stand out too much. I have a minimum standard that even a bookshelf speaker should provide satisfying response without the need for a sub. This speaker doesn't get there.

I should note that the woofer is graceful in handling volume, likely because it is not working too hard.

FYI the entire cabinet resonates with every bit of music. I am used to feeling something with bass notes and such in speakers. But here, the cabinet is acting like a musical instrument, vibrating consistently and all the time. Up close I thought I heard it contribute a "zingy" overtone to the speaker. Yes, that is a technical term!

Conclusions
The Teac S-300HR is gorgeously built. Alas, that doesn't extend to the objective performance. On-axis response is a mess with many resonances. Coaxial nature brings some value but I am not sure they are important things. Subjectively without sufficient bass, you are just going to be frustrated with the sound even if you EQ it as there is not enough headroom here to push the speaker.

Overall, I can't recommend the Teac S-300HR but do appreciate some aspects of it.

-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
TEAC always SOTA no matter which product.
 

Robbo99999

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
2,971
Likes
2,485
Location
UK
@amirm , I very much like your inclusion of the 76dB distortion graph of both the absolute measurement and the percentage graph too, this listening level is a lot more indicative of how I use my own speakers, so for me I find this addition totally applicable. Thankyou for that (it wasn't me that asked for it by the way, for the benefit of the readers).
 

Maiky76

Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
287
Likes
2,020
Location
French, leaving in China
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Teac S-300HR bookshelf coaxial speaker. It is on kind loan from a member. I can't find a price for it unfortunately.

I must say the finish on the S-300HR is one of the best if not the best I have seen on a speaker:

View attachment 150337

Even the back panel looks nice with that detailed Teac label:

View attachment 150338

I think these speakers went with their smaller electronics.

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Using computational acoustics, far-field response is computed and that is what I present. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber.

I performed over 1000 measurement which resulted in error rate of about 1%. Clean high frequency response is responsible for ease of measurement in this regard.

Reference axis is approximately the center of the tweeter. Grill was not used.

Teac S-300HR Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

View attachment 150339

Gosh, this looks pretty poor. Bass output is low at just 81 to 82 dB. Response then gradually rises with multiple peaks indicating resonances. The only positive is that until you get to 8 kHz, resonances repeat in early window and sound power which means you should be able to EQ them down. Then again, you will have a very inefficient speaker when you do that.

Looking at the driver responses we see signs of the same resonances:

View attachment 150340

We can see them in the impedance curves as well:

View attachment 150341

I was surprised how much smoother early window reflection sum was:

View attachment 150342

This as such moderates our predicted in-room response:

View attachment 150343

So outside of bass, we really have a coupe of problem areas, one around 900 Hz to 1.5 kHz and anther peak around 4.5 kHz.

The beam width is variable due to woofer beaming (narrowing):

View attachment 150344

Looks a bit better in this view:

View attachment 150345

Benefit of coaxial design easily comes to light in the vertical directivity which is better than any traditional 2-way speaker:

View attachment 150346

I have a carpet on the floor and tall ceiling though so won't be doing me a lot of good.

Here is our center frequency 3-D horizontal Directivity Baloon:

View attachment 150349

We get a bit wiggly around 2 kHz but in grand scheme of things, it is decent and very nice by 3 kHz. Again, the coaxial design helps here.

Had a request in the last review to show three steps for distortion starting at 76 dBSPL. To whoever suggested that, I hate you I can't figure out a good way to show it without it taking up so much space! :)

View attachment 150347

Here is the relative distortion:
View attachment 150348

Clearly our little woofer is getting upset but the tweeter is sailing along.

Teac S-300HR Listening Tests
First impression wasn't bad. There was some of that "showroom sound" with heightened detail and some brightness. I brought out the EQ tools and tried to use the on-axis response to correct the resonances. While I got rid of the brightness, subjectively I still did not like the sound as it had gotten too dull. As I was writing the review I realized why: I should have used the predicted in-room response and corrected less. 90% of the time I find on-axis correction works best but this the 10% that works better with PIR.

Even with that EQ though, the main problem here is lack of bass. It is very muted so lets the rest of the spectrum stand out too much. I have a minimum standard that even a bookshelf speaker should provide satisfying response without the need for a sub. This speaker doesn't get there.

I should note that the woofer is graceful in handling volume, likely because it is not working too hard.

FYI the entire cabinet resonates with every bit of music. I am used to feeling something with bass notes and such in speakers. But here, the cabinet is acting like a musical instrument, vibrating consistently and all the time. Up close I thought I heard it contribute a "zingy" overtone to the speaker. Yes, that is a technical term!

Conclusions
The Teac S-300HR is gorgeously built. Alas, that doesn't extend to the objective performance. On-axis response is a mess with many resonances. Coaxial nature brings some value but I am not sure they are important things. Subjectively without sufficient bass, you are just going to be frustrated with the sound even if you EQ it as there is not enough headroom here to push the speaker.

Overall, I can't recommend the Teac S-300HR but do appreciate some aspects of it.

-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

These EQ are anechoic EQ to get the speaker right before room integration. If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that usually not optional… see hints there: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...helf-speaker-review.11144/page-26#post-800725

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 2.5
With Sub: 5.2

Spinorama with no EQ:
  • Limited LF
  • Some resonances
  • Not smooth
  • Directivity typical to coaxial drivers (good and bad)
  • Kali IN5 looks better
Teac S300HR No EQ Spinorama.png


Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height but +/-10deg is fine
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/15deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.
Teac S300HR 2D surface Directivity Contour Only Data.png
Teac S300HR LW Better data.png


EQ design:

I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.
  • The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
  • The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
Score EQ LW: 5.2
with sub: 7.8

Score EQ Score: 5.4
with sub: 7.9

Code:
Teac S300HR APO EQ LW 96000Hz
August302021-175028

Preamp: -4.1 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 57.38,    0.00,    1.22
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 83.10,    1.61,    0.65
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1392.64,    -3.84,    3.87
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 957.16,    -3.00,    4.84
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2320.13,    1.79,    4.28
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2654.38,    -2.50,    5.66
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 4524.89,    -3.28,    6.40
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7042.60,    -2.43,    3.78

Teac S300HR APO EQ Score 96000Hz
August302021-174511

Preamp: -4.2 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 57.38,    0.00,    1.22
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 81.60,    1.66,    0.65
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1366.07,    -4.33,    4.62
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 961.16,    -3.18,    4.34
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2320.13,    1.79,    4.28
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2639.38,    -2.50,    4.77
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 4512.39,    -3.03,    6.00
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7187.65,    -1.94,    3.34
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 8705.61,    -1.00,    0.48

Teac S300HR EQ Design.png


Spinorama EQ LW
Teac S300HR LW EQ Spinorama.png


Spinorama EQ Score
Teac S300HR Score EQ Spinorama.png


Zoom PIR-LW-ON
Teac S300HR Zoom.png


Regression - Tonal
Teac S300HR Regression - Tonal.png


Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Large improvements
Teac S300HR Radar.png


The rest of the plots is attached.
 

Attachments

  • Teac S300HR APO EQ LW 96000Hz.txt
    429 bytes · Views: 10
  • Teac S300HR APO EQ Score 96000Hz.txt
    478 bytes · Views: 8
  • Teac S300HR Horizontal 3D Directivity data.png
    Teac S300HR Horizontal 3D Directivity data.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 9
  • Teac S300HR Normalized Directivity data.png
    Teac S300HR Normalized Directivity data.png
    1,007 KB · Views: 15
  • Teac S300HR Vertical 3D Directivity data.png
    Teac S300HR Vertical 3D Directivity data.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 12
  • Teac S300HR Raw Directivity data.png
    Teac S300HR Raw Directivity data.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 11
  • Teac S300HR Reflexion data.png
    Teac S300HR Reflexion data.png
    513.7 KB · Views: 13
  • Teac S300HR LW data.png
    Teac S300HR LW data.png
    472.4 KB · Views: 13
  • Teac S300HR 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
    Teac S300HR 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
    275.4 KB · Views: 14
  • Teac S300HR 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
    Teac S300HR 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
    438.5 KB · Views: 14
  • Teac S300HR 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
    Teac S300HR 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
    437.8 KB · Views: 14

abdo123

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
3,754
Likes
3,282
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

These EQ are anechoic EQ to get the speaker right before room integration. If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that usually not optional… see hints there: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...helf-speaker-review.11144/page-26#post-800725

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 2.5
With Sub: 5.2

Spinorama with no EQ:
  • Limited LF
  • Some resonances
  • Not smooth
  • Directivity typical to coaxial drivers (good and bad)
  • Kali IN5 looks better
View attachment 150393

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height but +/-10deg is fine
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/15deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.
View attachment 150403View attachment 150398

EQ design:

I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.
  • The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
  • The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
Score EQ LW: 5.2
with sub: 7.8

Score EQ Score: 5.4
with sub: 7.9

Code:
Teac S300HR APO EQ LW 96000Hz
August302021-175028

Preamp: -4.1 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 57.38,    0.00,    1.22
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 83.10,    1.61,    0.65
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1392.64,    -3.84,    3.87
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 957.16,    -3.00,    4.84
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2320.13,    1.79,    4.28
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2654.38,    -2.50,    5.66
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 4524.89,    -3.28,    6.40
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7042.60,    -2.43,    3.78

Teac S300HR APO EQ Score 96000Hz
August302021-174511

Preamp: -4.2 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 57.38,    0.00,    1.22
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 81.60,    1.66,    0.65
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1366.07,    -4.33,    4.62
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 961.16,    -3.18,    4.34
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2320.13,    1.79,    4.28
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2639.38,    -2.50,    4.77
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 4512.39,    -3.03,    6.00
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7187.65,    -1.94,    3.34
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 8705.61,    -1.00,    0.48

View attachment 150394

Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 150392

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 150391

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 150389

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 150390

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Large improvements
View attachment 150388

The rest of the plots is attached.

these are insane improvements! Thanks for sharing!
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
1,293
Likes
835
Location
Sweden
I suspect the cabinet to ”zing” when hitting ≈450 Hz or so.
 
Top Bottom