Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[MattHooper]

This X3 speaker doesn't deliver a "sculpted" sound. If anything, it looks like the response was shaped with a hand grenade and a felling axe.

OK, but that’s not a very informative way of putting anything IMO.

That description doesn’t gel with the fact that Erin stated he actually enjoyed several aspects of the speakers performance, even though ultimately, it’s not a speaker he could live with.

To me, Erin’s take is more informative and interesting than just yelling “ it’s awful.”

And I get where Erin is coming is from.
I can think of some very coloured car stereos that I listen to growing up. Were they ideal? No. But some of them slam and be lots of fun.

Whenever I listen to B&W speakers, such as the D line, I’m aware of how they measure, and I can hear it in the sculpting of their house sound. But damn I find them really fun to listen to for a while! I can enjoy what they seem to do really well, or the particular character of sound they produce and I get why some people like it. I couldn’t live with it.

Same as when I listen to other brands, such as Totem. I’m almost always aware of their particular non-neutral house sound. I wouldn’t choose to live with those speakers, but I can really enjoy what they do well, for instance, casting a truly surprisingly spacious sound stage, and scale of sound for the tiny size of some of their speakers.

So I do not question that Erin could’ve found some things to still enjoy about the speaker, even if other aspects were dealbreakers in terms of him ever wanting to own this speaker.

That particular set of measurements would warn me off buying those speakers, and the subjective reports from not only Erin but quite a number of other audiophiles seals the deal that I’d never want to own those speakers.
I think those measurements are embarrassing for somebody who supposed to be a high-level speaker designer.

Stop defending such overpriced cheapskates -it only benefits the charlatans themselves, not anyone else.

The whole “ stop defending this loudspeaker” line of argument feels like it’s coming from villagers with torches, tying up a witch, and being scathing about anyone who could possibly say a good word about her.

I have not argued that anybody here should consider the X3 to be a good speaker. As I’ve said, it’s understandable that people are labelling it a bad design, broken, etc. To me the measurements look awful too. If the speaker designer is heralded as being brilliant, these type of measurements, suggest the emperor has no clothes.


I have simply said that it’s possible to overstate how bad such a speaker sounds, and also any accurate and comprehensive description of the speaker would include anything that happens to do well. And Erin provided such information. Apparently to the great consternation of people who have decided they found a witch, and don’t want to hear anything at all otherwise ;-)

 

[Blumlein 88]

That description doesn’t gel with the fact that Erin stated he actually enjoyed several aspects of the speakers performance, even though ultimately, it’s not a speaker he could live with.

Can we dispense with this nonsense. Erin said it imaged well. That the highs were linear. He in no way said he enjoyed several aspects of the speakers. This is beyond ridiculous at this point.

 

[Bjorn]

All reviews should be done with level matching and AB tests against a reference. That would cut through a lot of the bias. Blind tests are obviously better, but challenging to do.

The customer of the measuring speaker below also liked it before he was told how it measured and then quickly sold it. People can fool themselves to a lot of things when they believe in something and aren't doing AB tests. I also thought in the 80s that my parents Toyota Camry was superb in driving till I tested an Audio 100.

1/3 octave smoothing at near field of the PCM IB2 SE. Yes, SE is short for signature edition!

 

[Mart68]

OK, but that’s not a very informative way of putting anything IMO.

That description doesn’t gel with the fact that Erin stated he actually enjoyed several aspects of the speakers performance, even though ultimately, it’s not a speaker he could live with.

To me, Erin’s take is more informative and interesting than just yelling “ it’s awful.”

And I get where Erin is coming is from.
I can think of some very coloured car stereos that I listen to growing up. Were they ideal? No. But some of them slam and be lots of fun.

Whenever I listen to B&W speakers, such as the D line, I’m aware of how they measure, and I can hear it in the sculpting of their house sound. But damn I find them really fun to listen to for a while! I can enjoy what they seem to do really well, or the particular character of sound they produce and I get why some people like it. I couldn’t live with it.

Same as when I listen to other brands, such as Totem. I’m almost always aware of their particular non-neutral house sound. I wouldn’t choose to live with those speakers, but I can really enjoy what they do well, for instance, casting a truly surprisingly spacious sound stage, and scale of sound for the tiny size of some of their speakers.

So I do not question that Erin could’ve found some things to still enjoy about the speaker, even if other aspects were dealbreakers in terms of him ever wanting to own this speaker.

That particular set of measurements would warn me off buying those speakers, and the subjective reports from not only Erin but quite a number of other audiophiles seals the deal that I’d never want to own those speakers.
I think those measurements are embarrassing for somebody who supposed to be a high-level speaker designer.




The whole “ stop defending this loudspeaker” line of argument feels like it’s coming from villagers with torches, tying up a witch, and being scathing about anyone who could possibly say a good word about her.

I have not argued that anybody here should consider the X3 to be a good speaker. As I’ve said, it’s understandable that people are labelling it a bad design, broken, etc. To me the measurements look awful too. If the speaker designer is heralded as being brilliant, these type of measurements, suggest the emperor has no clothes.


I have simply said that it’s possible to overstate how bad such a speaker sounds, and also any accurate and comprehensive description of the speaker would include anything that happens to do well. And Erin provided such information. Apparently to the great consternation of people who have decided they found a witch, and don’t want to hear anything at all otherwise ;-)

The problem really is that this speaker doesn't do anything well. It's poor in every measurable parameter. Even if there were only a handful of speakers on the market it wouldn't be a good choice. As it is there are thousands, and with $11K on the table to spend there is certainly a speaker that would suit anyone better. Even if their taste in presentation is 'outside the mainstream.'

I don't think this is a good hill to die on.

 

[Mnyb]

The problem really is that this speaker doesn't do anything well. It's poor in every measurable parameter. Even if there were only a handful of speakers on the market it wouldn't be a good choice. As it is there are thousands, and with $11K on the table to spend there is certainly a speaker that would suit anyone better. Even if their taste in presentation is 'outside the mainstream.'

I don't think this is a good hill to die on.

Yes i rather had Dunlavy or Thiel back than these guys ...

There are many small bespoke speaker manufacturers that have gone mia over the years and some are struggling today i suppose .

Börresen are simply not needed in the hifi narrative , looks like white van speakers for the ultra rich to me

 

[Deleted member 58670]

Börresen are simply not needed in the hifi narrative , looks like white van speakers for the ultra rich to me

And yet they get very positive reviews....

Tall and beautiful - Stereo+

Børresen continues to go its own way with its new X3, and has created a speaker that at least looks unusually beautiful for the price. Then, of course, the question is whether it sounds as impressive as it looks.

www.stereopluss.no

 

[Mart68]

white van speakers for the ultra rich

You nailed it.

 

[Purité Audio]

I wouldn’t give it a second glance.
Keith

And yet they get very positive reviews....

Tall and beautiful - Stereo+

Børresen continues to go its own way with its new X3, and has created a speaker that at least looks unusually beautiful for the price. Then, of course, the question is whether it sounds as impressive as it looks.

www.stereopluss.no

Have you ever read a non positive review? ( apart from here of course)
Keith

 

[Deleted member 58670]

Have you ever read a non positive review? ( apart from here of course)
Keith

Of course not, and I guess the conclusion why is quite obvious...

 

[suttondesign]

KEF founder Ray Cooke gave me a tour of their factory in Kent in1986. I will never forget him showing me the anechoic chamber and listening room. That guy was doing all he could way back then to make the best speakers he could. At that time, they had the flagship with the little robot heads which Aerial would later copy - but whether Aerial had such a testing facility seems doubtful.

 

[Doodski]

At that time, they had the flagship with the little robot heads

The KEF Reference Series. 105.2 and 107.2. Very nice speakers.

 

[multichannel_guy]

This is more of smile like someone with a couple of teeth missing and a scar on their upper lip causing it to droop asymmetrically. Not even a good smiley face.

 

[multichannel_guy]

All reviews should be done with level matching and AB tests against a reference. That would cut through a lot of the bias. Blind tests are obviously better, but challenging to do.

The customer of the measuring speaker below also liked it before he was told how it measured and then quickly sold it. People can fool themselves to a lot of things when they believe in something and aren't doing AB tests. I also thought in the 80s that my parents Toyota Camry was superb in driving till I tested an Audio 100.

1/3 octave smoothing at near field of the PCM IB2 SE. Yes, SE is short for signature edition!
View attachment 407599

This may have actually sounded ok. You see in the following example, the manufacturer gave a nice flat line, and the scientists eq'd it up 3db around 1.5khz for it to sound better?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...hnics-sb-c700-review-coaxial-bookshelf.30607/

They give you flat, you complain.....They don't give you flat, you complain...They should start making speakers with a robotic arm coming through the port hole for bchslapping the scientists somedays.

 

[Chris A]

Just passing by. It seems that most here are older guys.

I also see common patterns that seek to punish or exclude those whose ideas that are deemed not accepted in the local canon of scripture by largely self-appoint clergy. This actually reminds me of a Lord of the Flies type plot: never ending arguments that seem to flow from a "fool's choice" worldview (...look it up...). Focusing discussion down to only loudspeaker amplitude response, to the exclusion of full transfer function response, with other measures, is a fool's choice.

The measures that seem to make a difference, and those measures that must be assessed in coordination with other measures simultaneously, seem to be absent from reasoned discussion, i.e., it's a multidimensional space. Amplitude response is the easiest of all to correct. therefore one of the least important. Who here that is truly serious about hi-fi sound quality uses loudspeakers without amplitude/phase response compensation in-room? But it seems that directivity response and nonlinear distortions (especially modulation) are generally not correctable: WYSIWYG.

The premise for this thread seems to be the notion that "we need to tell all these neophytes reading here that these particular loudspeaker designs are bad". Who crusades on that?

*JMTC.

Chris

 

[Blumlein 88]

Just passing by. It seems that most here are older guys.

I also see common patterns that seek to punish or exclude those whose ideas that are deemed not accepted in the local canon of scripture by largely self-appoint clergy. This actually reminds me of a Lord of the Flies type plot: never ending arguments that seem to flow from a "fool's choice" worldview (...look it up...). Focusing discussion down to only loudspeaker amplitude response, to the exclusion of full transfer function response, with other measures, is a fool's choice.

The measures that seem to make a difference, and those measures that must be assessed in coordination with other measures simultaneously, seem to be absent from reasoned discussion, i.e., it's a multidimensional space. Amplitude response is the easiest of all to correct. therefore one of the least important. Who here that is truly serious about hi-fi sound quality uses loudspeakers without amplitude/phase response compensation in-room? But it seems that directivity response and nonlinear distortions (especially modulation) are generally not correctable: WYSIWYG.

The premise for this thread seems to be the notion that "we need to tell all these neophytes reading here that these particular loudspeaker designs are bad". Who crusades on that?

*JMTC.

Chris

You need to do more than pass by. The speaker of recent discussion is bad in every way other than it looks nicely built. On axis response bad, off axis bad, change in response with level bad, distortion botderline, resonates badly and I'm not sure what is left. Oh and for this thoroughly poor result you pay $11,000.

So what you call a crusade I'm wondering about. In this case what are the benefits of not calling this out?

 

[Ktacos]

The premise for this thread seems to be the notion that "we need to tell all these neophytes reading here that these particular loudspeaker designs are bad". Who crusades on that?

You're reading too far into it, I'm just here to laugh at the incompetence displayed by various speaker manufacturers.

Focusing discussion down to only loudspeaker amplitude response, to the exclusion of full transfer function response, with other measures, is a fool's choice.

No point in caring about the rest of a speakers performance metrics when something as simple as frequency response isn't done right. I'd wager you just don't understand how bad some of these speakers are, and are ignoring the fact that many of them cost more than most peoples vehicles. They're just scams really and ASR is largely a consumer awareness/education site, nothing wrong with pointing and laughing at scams.

 

[Sokel]

KEF founder Ray Cooke gave me a tour of their factory in Kent in1986. I will never forget him showing me the anechoic chamber and listening room. That guy was doing all he could way back then to make the best speakers he could. At that time, they had the flagship with the little robot heads which Aerial would later copy - but whether Aerial had such a testing facility seems doubtful.

They seem to know what they're doing though (I admit I love Aerial)

That's from 7B (link) for example:

Edit:funny thing is that is similar with the broken X3,it just uses some 7" woofers instead of the toy-sized ones of X3.

 

[Danish ear]

Yes i rather had Dunlavy or Thiel back than these guys ...

There are many small bespoke speaker manufacturers that have gone mia over the years and some are struggling today i suppose .

Börresen are simply not needed in the hifi narrative , looks like white van speakers for the ultra rich to me

On the exactly same day in 2023 when Börresen announced a new speaker model (forgotten which) this happened in the city of AAlborg where Danish Audio group resides.

Take the Money and Run (artwork) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Guess it's harder to be an artist than a High-end manufactorer

 

[Chris A]

You need to do more than pass by. The speaker of recent discussion is bad in every way other than it looks nicely built. On axis response bad, off axis bad, change in response with level bad, distortion botderline, resonates badly and I'm not sure what is left. Oh and for this thoroughly poor result you pay $11,000.

Look at the first loudspeaker in this thread: its directivity is more consistent than any direct radiating loudspeaker down to below the room's Schroeder frequency (e.g., ~100 Hz in my room), modulation distortion is inaudible (at least -23 dB relative to direct radiating loudspeakers at the same on-axis SPL). It also has extremely large time alignment issues (which no one caught or talked about), as well as uneven amplitude response-- both of which are correctable. It's been in continuous production for over 75 years with minor upgrades up until ~1985 (and most recently, where they are going DSP). So all of those people that bought those particular loudspeakers are then idiots...right?

Or do they hear something else that you don't hear?

I would recommend taking thyself a little less seriously..and reconsider that you actually don't have all the answers in a neat little pile to brand "good" or "bad".

Chris

 

[dfuller]

Look at the first loudspeaker in this thread: its directivity is more consistent than any direct radiating loudspeaker down to below the room's Schroeder frequency (e.g., ~100 Hz in my room), modulation distortion is inaudible (at least -23 dB relative to direct radiating loudspeakers at the same on-axis SPL). It also has extremely large time alignment issues (which no one caught or talked about), as well as uneven amplitude response-- both of which are correctable. It's been in continuous production for over 75 years with minor upgrades up until ~1985 (and most recently, where they are going DSP). So all of those people that bought those particular loudspeakers are then idiots...right?

Or do they hear something else that you don't hear?

I would recommend taking thyself a little less seriously..and reconsider that you actually don't have all the answers in a neat little pile to brand "good" or "bad".

Chris

Erm... the first speaker in this thread is a Klipschorn AK6. This is not what I could call "consistent".