Upgrade from LSR305 desktop use (800$)

[thewas]

Actually you could when using an oval shaped midrange driver. Just haven't seen one yet.

Because such a membrane shape leads usually to other problems.

 

[richard12511]

Because such a membrane shape leads usually to other problems.

With the 8351bs, would there be any disadvantage to putting the two bass woofers on the back? Would that not have given them more room for better drivers, while still retaining the point source dispersion?

 

[stevenswall]

The first IN-8 didn't measure very well, so I remain somewhat skeptical.

The first one was a bad unit, physically broken, thus the headless panther. You have to scroll down a bit to see the link to the updated measurements.

 

[richard12511]

The first one was a bad unit, physically broken, thus the headless panther. You have to scroll down a bit to see the link to the updated measurements.

Didn't see that. This is a real problem with ASR reviews. I really wish @amirm would update the original post when discoveries like this are made that change things in a significant way. Same thing is true with the KEF R3.

 

[thewas]

With the 8351bs, would there be any disadvantage to putting the two bass woofers on the back? Would that not have given them more room for better drivers, while still retaining the point source dispersion?

For bass its usually not a problem to use non circular cone drivers, that's why you see such more often there than for mids or highs, also they use the connected slots to increase the vertical directivity. The back side usually has the electronic components and their cooling and in the end usually for pro tools one target is to be as compact as possible.

 

[More Dynamics Please]

Didn't see that. This is a real problem with ASR reviews. I really wish @amirm would update the original post when discoveries like this are made that change things in a significant way. Same thing is true with the KEF R3.

This is one point that most agree degrades ASR's reputation and which could be corrected with minimal effort. There are still new posts popping up here on ASR and on other forums quoting ASR's review as "proof" that the IN-8 is a poor performer simply because the warning to ignore the original measurement of the defective unit and jump to the revised review deep in the thread are somewhat inconspicuously buried in the middle of the original post. It should be standard procedure to more prominently feature such alerts at the top of the original post in bigger, bolder typeface. I see no reason why @amirm would not accept and act on this simple suggestion to enhance ASR's reputation.