..wide dip lower (between 600 and 2000 Hz)...
That does not look EQ friendly, or what do you say? It probably matter of just/only plug and play with them. ..
sound a bit warm ... and why not?
... Can be a really nice sound in many people's ears. Fits with the aesthetics of the speakers as well. Wharfedale got a hit with these Linton, . Well thought out design.
Well while it is true the wide dip here is not EQ friendly due to the directivity issues this speaker has there, that is not visible in the PIR at all. Typically a wide dip is easier to correct if the directivity is good vs high Q dips and peaks like the KEF as accurately targeting them is harder and possible unit to unit variation could throw them off by a few hundred hrz and so one may be making their sample worse.
Also wide/low Q peaks are much more audible so the narrow/high Q stuff in the KEF is very likely inaudible.
PIR
Howdy sorry but surprised with the examining of the PIR in this thread in what appears to be an attempt to hear the speakers.
It is my understanding that this is not what the PIR is.
I believe it is fairly clear in Toole's book. You can not hear the speaker from looking at the PIR - that PIR is novel and only a modestly useful component of the whole data package.
It is not granular and it is not really what is heard in room nor capable of communication what myriad of values of sound energy are hitting the ear/brain system.
So again, it is something novel and useful yet it tells you very little without the rest of the data. I could aim a speaker at the rear corner of the room and with EQ get nearly any in room energy response I want. I could publish it without context and you might think geez I bet that sounds great.
Also as predicted energy it also does not factor in any added harmonics or IMD/Doplar energy effects (increases and decreases). So actual measurements will be different even without factoring in listening distance and room qualities which change the accuracy of the PIR greatly. It also does not factor in the speakers dynamic response ability nor does it seem to handle the compelling and currently wide variety of loudspeaker dispersion characteristic's well. Also as a steady state measurement it can not parse out events taking place in time space in the way the ear/brain will. I believe there is also some debate about how vertical energy is valued in the PIR/IR vrs actually perceived.
I agree it is cool to take note of the very general trends but unless I am missing something I think it is best to follow Toole's advice from his own book and even just look at the PIR or actual IR in 1/1 or 1/2 smoothing scales.
I do look at the bass region and other areas below the transition zone in more detail as he suggests. I am careful after removing say a peak at 120hrz, that when viewed at 1/3octave the energy is not lower than I intended.
Linkwitz who I also value as a designer/ultra hobbyist researcher states similar things.
"
The room response must be averaged to recognize trends in the summation of direct and reflected signals at the microphone. The resulting curves must not be taken as a 1:1 representation of what is heard as loudness at different frequencies. The room response gives a picture of the steady state SPL, where sound generation and sound dissipation in the room have reached their equilibrium." -Linkwitz
Anyway I know many of you all are indeed more experienced than myself but I see regular use of PIR analysis at a level which seems to me beyond the scope of the predictions intended value as a tool.