Yes, see thread.Is there anywhere, that tells what the Panther ratings are, related to each pose??
Yes, see thread.Is there anywhere, that tells what the Panther ratings are, related to each pose??
My thoughts are that full range speaker EQ derived from the anechoic data be used as the starting point, and a user, or tester then free to apply room EQ below the transition frequency as required. The speaker EQ is akin to using a much better crossover, if indeed it works as predicted.To avoid confusion we must distinguish between room eq above the Schroeder frequency and speaker eq.
I am mostly with Dr. Toole but not 100%. Indeed Dr. Olive's research into Room EQ showed that directivity error could be compensated for in EQ with positive results.Right. I was reacting to the seemingly overly broad statement that the non-eq'd version was almost irrelevant. At the risk of getting us off topic, do you have any fundamental disagreement with Toole's statements concerning the uncertainties and risks of room EQ above the Schroeder Frequency? I've always assumed that his concerns applied mainly to speakers with uneven off-axis response. Is that how you view the situation, or do you have more fundamental disagreements with Toole's position?
Also, I added the 1-4 rating of these for my preference sheet as well as the speaker selector sheet. I was trying to do a bubble chart where the speaker bubble increases with panther rating, but Sheets is real limited in making fine tunings, so I will have to work on that; I plan on only showing those that get a 3-4 (omit headless & shrugging panthers).Yes, see thread.
Interesting. Doesn't the tweeter enclosure from the rear look like much more than a 1" tweeter would need?
Thanks, that helps.Also, I added the 1-4 rating of these for my preference sheet as well as the speaker selector sheet. I was trying to do a bubble chart where the speaker bubble increases with panther rating, but Sheets is real limited in making fine tunings, so I will have to work on that; I plan on only showing those that get a 3-4 (omit headless & shrugging panthers).
Changed AL-1 to N/A.Thanks, that helps.
I noticed 3 speakers have a rating on your spreadsheet, but no panther on Amir's review.
Can you double check these?
- Ascend CMT-340 SE Center
- Revel F208 Tower Speaker
- Verdant Audio Bambusa AL-1
While I understand your point and fully realize that right now less people use EQ than do, I would rather have the rating be based on what Amir finds while using EQ.Of course it matters. It's up to the engineers to get it right out of the box. How many people buying speakers in this price range are going to correct for the factory's mistakes by following your EQ advice, assuming it's valid for a wide variety of listening environments? It's late, and I'm sure I would have posted something kinder and gentler in the morning, but I really am bothered by the emphasis you're placing on EQ in evaluating speakers. It's useful information, to be sure, but I think you need to step back and rate speakers on their inherent performance attributes.
Gedlee's metric is step in the good direction at least. Personally, I'd like to know if this "euphonic distorsion" even exists as a purely sonic concept or if it's only a psychological thing (mix of wanting to be part of the audio nuts club, nostalgia and maybe detail masking in recordings that may make it better as elevator/dinner music).What does that tell us? Toole writes eloquently about the problem. Yes distortion matters, but we still have little to no understanding of what makes for benign versus objectionable versus euphonic distortion.
A metric of level dependence would be interesting but mostly of academic value. Level dependence itself has a time dependence component. Frequency response often has similar issues and they would be useful.
What does that tell us? Toole writes eloquently about the problem. Yes distortion matters, but we still have little to no understanding of what makes for benign versus objectionable versus euphonic distortion.
A metric of level dependence would be interesting but mostly of academic value. Level dependence itself has a time dependence component. Frequency response often has similar issues and they would be useful.
Gedlee's metric is step in the good direction at least.
Both the DS and R(nonlin) metrics prove to be highly correlated with subjective ratings, and therefore are good metrics in evaluating the perception of nonlinear distortion. While the R(nonlin) provides a slightly higher correlation to subjective ratings in the evaluation of artificial distortion, the DS metric also proves to be highly correlated. In contrast, the THD & IMD metrics prove to be highly uncorrelated with subjective perception of distortion. In terms of efficiency of use, the DS metric provides a faster calculation of the metric as fewer steps are involved and less complex filtering is involved in the computation of the metric. However, the R(nonlin) metric may prove to be more versatile, as it has been shown to be highly correlated to distortions produced by real transducers as well.
Between this and the DBR-62, If I don't want to bother with the EQ isn't it just better to get the DBR-62?
If they will last at least a decade It'd be worth it for me. But I'm still holding out for more Dynaudio reviews as I hope they might have something even better than the DBR-62 at a good price (the emit m10 or m20s)Definitely. But unless I'm mistaken the DBR-62 is three times the price
400 $/€ more... soooo... really dependsBetween this and the DBR-62, If I don't want to bother with the EQ isn't it just better to get the DBR-62?
Wharfedale have gone to back porting with 12 series .Maybe the collaboration Karl Heinz (consultant) influenced that. Does it lower the driver and xo cost and easier in production assembly for back ported designs ?The new Diamon line (12) is about to be released so this model is 2 generations old now. It would be interesting to see what gains have been realized.
https://www.wharfedale.co.uk/diamond-12-1/
Whathifi did the 5 star thing already...
View attachment 87991
View attachment 87992
Could not agree more.Of course it matters. It's up to the engineers to get it right out of the box. How many people buying speakers in this price range are going to correct for the factory's mistakes by following your EQ advice, assuming it's valid for a wide variety of listening environments? It's late, and I'm sure I would have posted something kinder and gentler in the morning, but I really am bothered by the emphasis you're placing on EQ in evaluating speakers. It's useful information, to be sure, but I think you need to step back and rate speakers on their inherent performance attributes.
Zero affect on the crossover (XO) as the port design has nothing to do with the crossover.Wharfedale have gone to back porting with 12 series .Maybe the collaboration Karl Heinz (consultant) influenced that. Does it lower the driver and xo cost and easier in production assembly for back ported designs ?