XTZ 99.25 LCR Measurements

[q3cpma]

I think these two can and should be quite independent factors.

Let's say that you didn't include should for nothing.

In a modern production line personal perfection of the worker doesn't and shouldn't play a role, that's why standardised production and QC are for. Perfection plays rather a part in the engineering/design which is still often done in your mentioned countries, although nowadays also South Korea and China have very good engineer(s)(ing) like of course also other classic industrial countries like USA, UK, IT, FR etc., their problems rather lie in the cost cutting forced from other departments.

I do agree that QC and how much money the enterprise is ready to spend on detail makes the biggest part of user facing degree of perfection, but I wouldn't say it's 100%.

 

[richard12511]

While I don't doubt that, you have to admit that a company trying to save every penny by outsourcing manufacture even at the cost of transport doesn't look like it'll spend a lot on QC (at least for this line/model).
Actually, I don't even know if doing it properly in China is that cost effective.

Or...by saving money on manufacturing, one could argue that they have even more money for even better QC. Or it could allow them to have equal QC and save the customer more money. I certainly don't think it implies less QC.

I see "Made in China" as a positive. It allows the company to provide a better product(better drivers, better enclosures, better electronics, better R&D, better QC) at the same price as an "all else equal" company who doesn't outsource. Likewise, I see "made in house" as a negative, as it means I'm likely getting a worse product for the same money.

 

[A Surfer]

I spoke with the principle behind the distribution company that held the rights to Creek in my country. He admitted that he actually had quite a bit more dealer returns for defects from the premium line made in the UK versus the entry level line made in China. I have no doubt about that at all. I remember there was a time when American companies used to slag Japanese car companies trying to claim that these "new players" couldn't hope to create vehicles with the same quality as the established American industry. I think we know how that turned out and I think we are seeing the same thing with China where consumer electronics are concerned. That isn't to say that it is all roses and sunshine, but for people to imply that somehow there is any additional risk of quality issues with electronics simply because they are produced in China, well that is farcical to say the least.

 

[EEG]

Returning to the subject , @Otaku+ are you happy with the XTZ-s?
Some listening impressions

 

[Weeb Labs]

Returning to the subject , @Otaku+ are you happy with the XTZ-s?
Some listening impressions

Disclaimer: Despite attempts to control my listening position, room and to avoid the usual traps of the human auditory system, the following are subjective impressions.

In most respects, I have been very pleased with them. The ribbons are highly retailed with minimal breakup, which subjectively results in very little listening fatigue. The mids are also nicely detailed but as one might expect, the midbass driver doesn't quite integrate seamlessly with the ribbon and there is a definite disparity of detail between the two.

The phantom center is wonderfully precise above the crossover but becomes less focused toward the mids. A dedicated midrange driver would definitely help, which was what piqued my interest in the EVO 4.4s. I have previously demoed the KEF R3s, which sounded surprisingly similar to the 99.25s but with a more focused center image toward the mids and slightly more emphasized high end.

The 3.5KHz off-axis hump visible in my measurements is definitely audible in an untreated room and can exaggerate that portion of the band. Without treatment, they can sound quite "forward" in the upper mids. With treatment, they sound very flat. Thin fabric or foam is not recommended, as it will simply attenuate higher frequencies and make matters worse.

I run Dirac Live (via DDRC-24 modified with SPDIF outputs) in my well treated listening/HT room with a Harman-like house curve and in that configuration, they sound almost perfect to me. I cross them over to a pair of XTZ 12.17 EDGE subwoofers at 120Hz, which are sufficiently physically close to render localization a non-issue. A dedicated midrange would still be nice.

 

[EEG]

I found I guy in Germany who is selling 2 pairs of 99.25 mk2 at 600 euros/pair. Also he has on sale a pair of 99.36 standfloors at around 1000 euros. I will contact him about the shipping costs. It seems a good deal. The towers are too big for may room although they have a lot of tunning options including jumpers for the LF drivers

 

[Ryogo]

I still cannot understand why they crossed drivers at 3.5kHz, 2-2.5kHz seems more reasonable to me looking at specs of both drivers. Is there any reasoning behind this?

 

[Weeb Labs]

I still cannot understand why they crossed drivers at 3.5kHz, 2-2.5kHz seems more reasonable to me looking at specs of both drivers. Is there any reasoning behind this?

The NeoCD 3.0 could be crossed over at 2.5KHz (and was in a previous variant of this speaker) but distortion rises toward 2.5KHz.

 

[Ryogo]

The NeoCD 3.0 could be crossed over at 2.5KHz (and was in a previous variant of this speaker) but distortion rises toward 2.5KHz.

I know this is a tradeoff but still, I think SEAS woofer is doing even worse at 3.5KHz, or not?

 

[Weeb Labs]

I know this is a tradeoff but still, I think SEAS woofer is doing even worse at 3.5KHz, or not?

I haven't been able to locate distortion measurements for the W18EX001 but looking at the frequency response in the datasheet, it does appear to go berserk above 3.5KHz, which implies distortion. That is most likely the cause of the crossover dip in my measurements.

With a DSP crossover, it should be possible to improve performance quite noticeably by shifting the crossover point down to about 2.8-3KHz. Ribbons and midbass drivers don't often get along well without a dedicated midrange (with some notable exceptions).

 

[Ryogo]

With a DSP crossover, it should be possible to improve performance quite noticeably by shifting the crossover point down to about 2.8-3KHz.

I was thinking about modifying existing crossover and something like 2.5KHz

 

[Toni71]

I have the XTZ 99.25 mk2 and the 99.38 mk2 in a ht-room and am very happy with this. The ribbon sounds nice.

I wanted to change speakers in the living room. So with advice from a(Kef) friend , the measurements on this forum, and the notification here about a missing midrange driver on the XTZ (midrange sound missing?), I`ve bought the Kef R3 without listening. They should arrive next week.

But I also have my eye on the XTZ 99.25 LCR in white for the living room. If the R3 doesnt do it for me, I will order the XTZ.

I have also two subs in the living room. I am very curious which will sound better, the R3 or the 99.25 mk2. (If the latter, a new pair of 25.lcr it will be).

 

[Ryogo]

@Martist I'm also owning a XTZ 99.25 mk2 currently and want to buy R3 in the future, so I'm quite interested in a subjective comparison from you

 

[Toni71]

Listening to the ribbon is addictive. Thats what I know for now.
I will follow up my experience. For what its worth.

There is another guy on the AVS forum. Who was very kind to take the time to respond to me.
He has the R300 in the living room and the XTZ.99.25 in a HT-room. He bought the R300 later, so almost the same question (R300/R3)

I will quote his answer to me. I think, he wouldn't mind.

''The best way I can describe the two speakers is that where the XTZ's sound true to a studio recording, the Kef's sound like the artist is sat in the same room as you. Both are excellent, in different ways. Now if we had a speaker with the Kef's midrange/imaging and the XTZ treble, we'd have the perfect speaker ''

He can listen to the XTZ for hours and to the Kef all day, and is also addicted to the ribbons sound.

I know this is all subjective, but I know the sound of the ribbon, and that pleasures me. But I wouldn't want to miss midrange, which will complete the soundwave. We will see.

 

[lmaobrah]

''The best way I can describe the two speakers is that where the XTZ's sound true to a studio recording, the Kef's sound like the artist is sat in the same room as you. Both are excellent, in different ways. Now if we had a speaker with the Kef's midrange/imaging and the XTZ treble, we'd have the perfect speaker ''

He can listen to the XTZ for hours and to the Kef all day, and is also addicted to the ribbons sound.

Interesting to hear the tweeter get more love.
The speaker caught my attention because of the Seas Excel Woofer.

 

[Toni71]

I think the XTZ speaker produces music. The treble is sweat. Not to harsh, just on the edge sometimes. The speaker is fun to listen to.
Not clinical, somewhat 'warm'. Not a dull speaker. If I may describe it like this. Just a nice musical sound.

But one important thing, I guess. I listen with them with two subs. So much more low, and no comparison without the subs.
When I have to audition them without subs now, I don't like them(spoiled). But that could also be with any other bookshelf.

Lets find out if the R3 brings something I miss in the XTZ. I hope so. Now it is good, then it will be better.

 

[Ryogo]

I've found highs on XTZ a bit harsh at first, but -2dB (using back panel plugs) solved the issue for me.
Regarding lows - comparing with B&W 607 and Audiovector QR1, XTZ blows both out of the water. XTZ has pretty impactful bass in a nice quantity, at least for a bookshelf speaker - so Seas Excel woofer does its job Actually, bass was the reason I've bought XTZ since I'm not ready for a sub yet.
But R3 tempts me by being a 3-way bookshelf + that sweet coaxial drivers directivity...

 

[Weeb Labs]

I have actually listened to both the R3 and my own 99.25 under identical conditions, both Dirac corrected. Subjectively, they sounded very similar but the imaging was somewhat different.

The R3's phantom center remained consistently focused further down into the mids, while that of the 99.25s became noticeably more diffused at the same point. The 99.25's center image was noticeably more focused above the crossover point than that of the R3. These speakers exhibit rather different directivity characteristics, which are likely responsible for this difference.

 

[Toni71]

Now I am even more curious. Although, you used Dirac. That's with corrections. I am not a pro, but will try them both with XT32. Maybe not as good, but for two channel stereo listening enough for me in the living room. I now listen without correction. Sounds good.

 

[Toni71]

Very short. I want to listen some more to the speakers. And I am trying out room positions, and settings.
I have a large enough living room with a large glass backside to the garden. We just moved here. No decoration as of yet. So not optimal.

The last three speakers I owned ( much more in my 50 years on earth) Wharfedale Evo 4.4, 99.25 mk2, Kef r3.

The Evo is a beautiful speaker, but there was always something lacking in the sound. It was no fun to listen to (AMT tweeter nice, missing something else). I liked the 99.25 better.
And now, a view days with the R3, I think its the same story.

I will continue this later..