Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
On Jan 15, 6:37*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote That would be a matter of opinion. Actually its not. Actually, it is. It is One Man's Opinion. In this day and age, we have better ways of judging loudspeaker quality than relying on One Man's Opinion. Speaking of which, if anyone in the LA area has a pair of these things, I'm sure Sean Olive would love to test them against top-of-the- line Revels. bob |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message * The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive. You cannot get the kind of performance that defines the state-the-art in speakers at much less than $25 grand. That would be a matter of opinion. I've seen some spectacular overpricing, based on probable manufacturing costs. I'm not talking about overpriced speakers. I'm talking about state-of-the-art speakers. They are expensive and their performance is not replicated at lower price points. Details and examples please. It's not like you can duplicate a good $25k system for $1k, but maybe $5-7k. A lot of system performance is wrapped up in matching up the room and the speakers. $25k speakers can sound pretty bad if the room and the setup aren't right. Nobody is arguing that a bad room can't ruin a good speaker, that's irrelevant to the point. For instance, the best speaker system I've ever heard is the Martin Logan CLX with a pair of M-L "Depth i" subwoofers at around $30 grand. Subwoofers are particularly easy save big bucks on. Not and make them meld seamlessly with those electrostatic panels. That would not be a generally agreed-upon truth. You can't get that kind of performance for a penny less and you can spend a whole lot more. That would be a matter of opinion. Actually its not. The CLX's are, quite simply, the most transparent speakers made to date. No other speaker is as quick, as utterly low in distortion or anywhere near as revealing. That would be an opinion, not a widely accepted fact. I see zero technical evidence to support that claim. I even went to the M-L web site and found none. One counterpoint is that the idea of quick or fast woofers is urban legend and technical double-talk. While there are some very slow woofers, in general woofer drivers do not set the speed of their part of the system. The active crossover is usually the determining factor. In general, all woofers are too fast and must be slowed down to do their job effectively. The most important technical key to an effective woofer for use with planar-style (Yes, the MLs are curved, but they are still in the planar class) speakers is to duplicate the directivity of the upper-range driver with the subwoofer as closely as possible. Usually, this means making a bidirectional woofer which is a bit of a contradiction in terms. But, it is not mission impossible with the right room and appropriate speaker placement. One source of detailed technical information about bidirectional woofers is: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/orion_us.htm Note that once you extend the low end of a woofer deep enough, it is still recommended to use a more conventional subwoofer: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/thor-intro.htm |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
On Jan 16, 8:24*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message * The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive. You cannot get the kind of performance that defines the state-the-art in speakers at much less than $25 grand. That would be a matter of opinion. *I've seen some spectacular overpricing, based on probable manufacturing costs. I'm not talking about overpriced speakers. I'm talking about state-of-the-art speakers. They are expensive and their performance is not replicated at lower price points. Details and examples please. Other than the Martin Logan CLX? I would offer the Soun Lab Majestics. It's not like you can duplicate a good $25k system for $1k, but maybe $5-7k. A lot of system performance is wrapped up in matching up the room and the speakers. $25k speakers can sound pretty bad if the room and the setup aren't right. Nobody is arguing that a bad room can't ruin a good speaker, that's irrelevant to the point. For instance, the best speaker system I've ever heard is the Martin Logan CLX with a pair of M-L "Depth i" subwoofers at around $30 grand. Subwoofers are particularly easy save big bucks on. Not and make them meld seamlessly with those electrostatic panels. That would not be a generally agreed-upon truth. I think it is a pretty common opinion in certain circles, that being owners of electrostatic speakers. I found it to be very tricky with both my Martin Logan CLSs and my Sound Lab A3s. I know many other owners of electrostatic speakers. Not one has ever talked about "easily" mating their speakers with subwoofers. This is quite anecdotal but I'm not sure how one "measures" "generally agreed upon truth." You can't get that kind of performance for a penny less and you can spend a whole lot more. That would be a matter of opinion. Actually its not. The CLX's are, quite simply, the most transparent speakers made to date. No other speaker is as quick, as utterly low in distortion or anywhere near as revealing. That would be an opinion, not a widely accepted fact. I see zero technical evidence to support that claim. I even went to the M-L web site and found none. One counterpoint is that the idea of quick or fast woofers is urban legend and technical double-talk. While there are some very slow woofers, in general woofer drivers do not set the speed of their part of the system. The active crossover is usually the determining factor. In general, all woofers are too fast and must be slowed down to do their job effectively. Not so much urban legend as much as misinterpretation of the common audiophile usage of the words "slow" and "fast." It is a figurative description that fits the aural perception. No different than calling speakers bright. Bright speakers do not emit more light any more than "fast" bass is literally faster than "slow" bass. It is not uncommon to find bass performance that lacks percieved articulation and coherance with the rest of the audio spectrum. That would be "slow" bass. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
On Jan 15, 3:38*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:20:31 -0800, bob wrote (in article ): On Jan 14, 6:33*pm, Sonnova wrote: On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:14:03 -0800, bob wrote Decent stereo equipment is cheaper than it's ever been. What's gone into the stratosphere is "high-end" stereo equipment, which is not the same thing. And that has happened as the "industry" has become unhinged from reality—there's no correlation between price and performance. It's all jewelry. While that may be true (although I don't fully buy it*) its irrelevant. The point is that high-end equipment has become extremely expensive because their are, apparently, lots of people who buy only on the basis of a high price tag. * I think you're unintentionally confusing "high-end" and "good- sounding" here. There is a market segment that is willing to spend gobs of money but doesn't really care about sound quality. And that segment will be served by equipment that costs gobs of money and may or may not sound any good. There's another segment of the market that that does care about quality sound, but only has a single gob of money to spend. That segment seems well-served by the market as well. The first segment isn't driving up prices; it's creating a new price category. snip * The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive. You cannot get the kind of performance that defines the state-the-art in speakers at much less than $25 grand. For instance, the best speaker system I've ever heard is the Martin Logan CLX with a pair of M-L "Depth i" subwoofers at around $30 grand. You can't get that kind of performance for a penny less and you can spend a whole lot more. Your example may prove my point. It may be that most of these speakers are being bought by McMansion owners. But if it weren't for those McMansion owners, ML would not be selling those speakers for less; instead, ML would not be making those speakers at all, because there wouldn't be enough of a market for them. But that wouldn't have much impact on either the quality or the marketability of ML's $10K/pr speakers, which might be within the reach of affluent quality- conscious audiophiles. And I think you'd agree that ML's $10K offerings are "decent," to use the term you started with. They are "decent" when compared to other speakers in that price range, but the CLX's are a whole different ball game. I strongly suggest that you try to audition them. Be prepared for a life altering audio experience (from 50 Hz, up, that is). Another way to look at this is from the bottom of the market up. In 1978, I spent $500 on my first stereo system. Today, on other forums, I sometimes suggest $500 systems to newbies with that much to spend. The stuff I recommend to them is world's better than what I was able to buy 30 years ago for the same *nominal* price. Add inflation to the mix, and the comparison is ludicrous. I spent the equivalent of over $1500 in today's dollars for that system. These newbies are getting a much better system for a third of the price today. There is no doubt, that while the "trickle-down" theory might not work in economics, the way Ronald Reagan envisioned it, anyway, it seems to work well in audio. Yes, performance that was state-of-the-art 30 years ago, is now commonplace in entry-level systems of today. I think that's true straight up the line, pricewise. If that ML system is as good as you say, then I really doubt you could have bought an equally good system for $10K in 1978. You couldn't have bought an equally good speaker in 1978, 1988, or 1998 at ANY PRICE!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That is very high praise. I was a long time owner of the ML CLS speakers. I eventually upgraded to the Sound Lab A3s. So you believe the CLX substantially out performs Martin Logan's old flagship speakers, the Statements? Those date back more than 10 years ago. The Statements and the Sound Lab Majestics are the two best speaker systems I have ever heard in my biased totally flawed opinion. I have to say though. The CLXs are a bit ugly. Haven't seen tham in person. Of course the Sound Lab Majestics are no great beauties either. One thing I do miss from the ML CLSs are their great looks. I used a Vandersteen sub with the CLSs and I agree with you that mating a subwoofer with electrostatic panels is not an easy task. I am considering upgrading to the Revel B 15 for the Sound Labs. The Sound Labs go much lower than my old CLSs and I would like to take advantage of that. The Revel seems to be very flexible in setting the crossover exactly how and where you want it. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
wrote in message
On Jan 16, 8:24 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): Details and examples please. Other than the Martin Logan CLX? I would offer the Soun Lab Majestics. That's a dropped (and misspelled) name, not any sort of technical detail. The Sound Lab Majestic might be a pretty good large full range speaker, but hardly qualifies as a SOTA subwoofer with response only down to 24 Hz, and maximum rated SPL out of only 116 dB at some undisclosed frequency that is probably not 24 Hz. Subwoofers are particularly easy save big bucks on. Not and make them meld seamlessly with those electrostatic panels. That would not be a generally agreed-upon truth. I think it is a pretty common opinion in certain circles, that being owners of electrostatic speakers. I found it to be very tricky with both my Martin Logan CLSs and my Sound Lab A3s. There seems to be some confusion here about anecdotes and urban legends versus a technical discussion. I know many other owners of electrostatic speakers. Not one has ever talked about "easily" mating their speakers with subwoofers. This is quite anecdotal but I'm not sure how one "measures" "generally agreed upon truth." Below, the author will find but apparently did not comprehend a discussion of the need to match the dispersal patterns of drivers through their crossover region. This is the essence of the problem with mating bipolar drivers with relatively poor bass extension to common subwoofers. You can't get that kind of performance for a penny less and you can spend a whole lot more. That would be a matter of opinion. Actually its not. The CLX's are, quite simply, the most transparent speakers made to date. No other speaker is as quick, as utterly low in distortion or anywhere near as revealing. That would be an opinion, not a widely accepted fact. I see zero technical evidence to support that claim. I even went to the M-L web site and found none. One counterpoint is that the idea of quick or fast woofers is urban legend and technical double-talk. While there are some very slow woofers, in general woofer drivers do not set the speed of their part of the system. The active crossover is usually the determining factor. In general, all woofers are too fast and must be slowed down to do their job effectively. Not so much urban legend as much as misinterpretation of the common audiophile usage of the words "slow" and "fast." The claim that there was any such misinterpretation is again, and as is usual for this writer, documented by anything but unsupported assertions on his part. It is a figurative description that fits the aural perception. No different than calling speakers bright. Actually there is a big difference - bright means something that is generally understood and that corresponds to actual physical behaviors of speakers. Bright speakers do not emit more light any more than "fast" bass is literally faster than "slow" bass. This ignores the well-known usage of "bright" to describe sound with abundant high frequency response for the past 50 years or more. Equating bright to light in the context of loudspeakers is pretty strange. The physical speed of woofers can be physically apparent when they are in normal operation. It is not uncommon to find bass performance that lacks perceived articulation and coherence with the rest of the audio spectrum. That would be "slow" bass. If you had read, rather than deleted the balance of my post, you would have found a technical explanation for all of that. Here, let me give you a second chance to inform yourself, with a few added explanations of the meaning of what was said: The active crossover is usually the determining factor. In general, all woofers are too fast and must be slowed down to do their job effectively. This problem may be perceived as a lack of proper articulation or coherence with the rest of the audio spectrum. The most important technical key to an effective woofer for use with planar-style ( speakers is to duplicate the directivity of the upper-range driver with the subwoofer, as closely as is possible. Failure to match the directivity lower and upper range drivers can be also be perceived as a lack of proper articulation or coherence with the rest of the audio spectrum. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:24:08 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message * The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive. You cannot get the kind of performance that defines the state-the-art in speakers at much less than $25 grand. That would be a matter of opinion. I've seen some spectacular overpricing, based on probable manufacturing costs. I'm not talking about overpriced speakers. I'm talking about state-of-the-art speakers. They are expensive and their performance is not replicated at lower price points. Details and examples please. My point is that in order for a speaker to approach the sound made by real instruments playing in real space, they must be large, and move a lot of air. This is, generally speaking, expensive and can't be accomplished by speakers in the sub-$10,000 range (at least I don't know of any). There are a number of other characteristics that are necessary for a speaker to be in this class, as well. They need drivers which are low in distortion, act as true pistons over as much of their range as possible. Multi-driver units need for the drivers to be phase coherent, and the crossovers too. Speaker enclosures must be inert and non-resonant. This means that the best loudspeakers are physically large, and if they have enclosures, those enclosures will be quite heavy and costly to make. Some examples would be the German MBL 101 X-Tremes ($200K), the Wilson Audio Alexandria X-2 ($150K), Kharma Grand Exquisite ($220K). There are others, but I have not heard them. The MBL X-TREME is without a doubt the most impressive sounding (that's not to say absolutely the BEST sounding, although they do sound extremely good) loudspeaker system I've ever heard. The power and visceral quality of the reproduction is mind blowing. The system has SIX 12-inch subwoofers per side and the speaker system weighs as much as a car (~3500 pounds)! The amount and quality of sound that they produce is simply staggering, but most people could not accommodate a speaker system that large, that heavy, or that LOUD. Now, for my own tastes, I prefer the M-L CLXs, even if I could afford or accommodate the X-TREMES, because they are more transparent that the MBLs, but they certainly don't convey the power and weight of a symphony orchestra like the MBLs do. OTOH, the M-Ls don't need to be played at realistic sound pressure levels all the time to perform as advertised like the MBLs seem to, either. It's not like you can duplicate a good $25k system for $1k, but maybe $5-7k. A lot of system performance is wrapped up in matching up the room and the speakers. $25k speakers can sound pretty bad if the room and the setup aren't right. Nobody is arguing that a bad room can't ruin a good speaker, that's irrelevant to the point. For instance, the best speaker system I've ever heard is the Martin Logan CLX with a pair of M-L "Depth i" subwoofers at around $30 grand. Subwoofers are particularly easy save big bucks on. Not and make them meld seamlessly with those electrostatic panels. That would not be a generally agreed-upon truth. You can't get that kind of performance for a penny less and you can spend a whole lot more. That would be a matter of opinion. Actually its not. The CLX's are, quite simply, the most transparent speakers made to date. No other speaker is as quick, as utterly low in distortion or anywhere near as revealing. That would be an opinion, not a widely accepted fact. I see zero technical evidence to support that claim. I even went to the M-L web site and found none. It's a widely accepted fact to anyone who's heard them. The level of transparency and low coloration is immediately apparent to anyone who gives them a listen. You will hear things in your recordings that you have never heard before, I can guarantee that. They remind me more of a pair of Stax electrostatic headphones than they do any other speaker I've ever heard. They sure put my own personal pair of Martin-Logan Vistas to shame in the transparency department, and I thought THOSE were clean and transparent! One counterpoint is that the idea of quick or fast woofers is urban legend and technical double-talk. While there are some very slow woofers, in general woofer drivers do not set the speed of their part of the system. The active crossover is usually the determining factor. In general, all woofers are too fast and must be slowed down to do their job effectively. The most important technical key to an effective woofer for use with planar-style (Yes, the MLs are curved, but they are still in the planar class) speakers is to duplicate the directivity of the upper-range driver with the subwoofer as closely as possible. Usually, this means making a bidirectional woofer which is a bit of a contradiction in terms. But, it is not mission impossible The M-L CLX does that, The speaker has two disparate electrostatic sections: the normal curved M-L midrange and high-frequency section which crosses-over at about 400 Hz, and the flat electrostatic section which extends from there down to the speaker's bottom end which is about 50 Hz. obviously, both of these electrostatic elements are bi-polar planar speakers. The servo-powered "Depth i" subs are a good match for the CLX's but I understand that M-L is working on a new subwoofer designed specifically for the CLX system. \ |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
|
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
On Jan 16, 3:05*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Jan 16, 8:24 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): Details and examples please. Other than the Martin Logan CLX? I would offer the Soun Lab Majestics. That's a dropped (and misspelled) name, not any sort of technical detail. It's an example. You asked for examples. The Sound Lab Majestic might be a pretty good large full range speaker, but hardly qualifies as a SOTA subwoofer with response only down to 24 Hz, and maximum rated SPL out of only 116 dB at some undisclosed frequency that is probably not 24 Hz. It's much better than pretty good IMO. It's the best I have heard from about 30hz on up. I personally don't have much use for SPLs above 116dB. you are well into levels that will cause physical pain beyond that. I have no need for that. Subwoofers are particularly easy save big bucks on. Not and make them meld seamlessly with those electrostatic panels. That would not be a generally agreed-upon truth. I think it is a pretty common opinion in certain circles, that being owners of electrostatic speakers. I found it to be very tricky with both my Martin Logan CLSs and my Sound Lab A3s. There seems to be some confusion here about anecdotes and urban legends versus a technical discussion. No, no confusion. I must have missed the meeting where it ws stated that no anecdotes were allowed on RAHE. I know many other owners of electrostatic speakers. Not one has ever talked about "easily" mating their speakers with subwoofers. This is quite anecdotal but I'm not sure how one "measures" "generally agreed upon truth." (Snipped ad hominem content) This is the essence of the problem with mating bipolar drivers with relatively poor bass extension to common subwoofers. There is a lot more to radiation patterns of electrostatic speakers than just being dipole. That subwoofer certainly does not have the same radiation pattern as either the Sound Labs or Martin Logans. Sound Lab already built such a beast. An electrostatic planar subwoofer. The thing was huge and had serious cancelation issues in many rooms for obvious reasons. That is one of the things that makes it so hard for planar speakers to produce dynamic bass. that is why you need a different radiation pattern at the lowest frequencies. You can't get that kind of performance for a penny less and you can spend a whole lot more. That would be a matter of opinion. Actually its not. The CLX's are, quite simply, the most transparent speakers made to date. No other speaker is as quick, as utterly low in distortion or anywhere near as revealing. That would be an opinion, not a widely accepted fact. I see zero technical evidence to support that claim. I even went to the M-L web site and found none. One counterpoint is that the idea of quick or fast woofers is urban legend and technical double-talk. While there are some very slow woofers, in general woofer drivers do not set the speed of their part of the system. The active crossover is usually the determining factor. In general, all woofers are too fast and must be slowed down to do their job effectively. Not so much urban legend as much as misinterpretation of the common audiophile usage of the words "slow" and "fast." The claim that there was any such misinterpretation is again, and as is usual for this writer, documented by anything but unsupported assertions on his part. No, it was supported by a logical explination. It is a figurative description that fits the aural perception. No different than calling speakers bright. Actually there is a big difference - bright means something that is generally understood and that corresponds to actual physical behaviors of speakers. So does "slow bass." The aural perception of slow bass is as generally well understood by most audiophiles as "bright." and it clearly corresponds to physical behaviors of speakers. They are bothe figurative terms commonly used by audiophiles to describe aural perceptions. *Bright speakers do not emit more light any more than "fast" bass is literally faster than "slow" bass. This ignores the well-known usage of "bright" to describe sound with abundant high frequency response for the past 50 years or more. Equating bright to light in the context of loudspeakers is pretty strange. No it doesn't ignore it. It explains it as figurative language. Both "bright" and "slow bass" are figurative descriptions of aural perceptions. The physical speed of woofers can be physically apparent when they are in normal operation. As can be the physical illumination of the tweeters. Doesn't matter. "Slow bass" is not meant to be taken literally. It *is not uncommon to find bass performance that lacks perceived articulation and coherence with the rest of the *audio spectrum. That would be "slow" bass. Here, let me give you a second chance to inform yourself, with a few added explanations of the meaning of what was said: The active crossover is usually the determining factor. In general, all woofers are too fast and must be slowed down to do their job effectively. This problem may be perceived as a lack of *proper articulation or coherence with the rest of the audio spectrum. The most important technical key to an effective woofer for use with planar-style ( speakers is to duplicate the directivity of the upper-range driver with the subwoofer, as closely as is possible. *Failure to match the directivity lower and upper range drivers can be also be perceived as *a lack of *proper articulation or coherence with the rest of the audio spectrum.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I read it the first time. as I already explained there is more to radiation patterns than whether or not a speaker is a dipole. You are not matching the radiation pattern with that subwoofer for the lower frequencies. If you were you would be having the same problems all planar speakers have with cancelation at lower frequencies. that is why you really need a different radiation pattern for the lowest frequencies in most rooms. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
Sonnova wrote:
My point is that in order for a speaker to approach the sound made by real instruments playing in real space, they must be large, and move a lot of air. Once you look at the radiation characteristics of acoustical instruments you will see that loudspeakers never ever will be capable of producing anything similar, not even for human singing voice (which has a peak at about 20 degrees towards the floor). Maybe for some brass. This is why it doesn't make sense at all to use acoustical instruments as reference. This is, generally speaking, expensive and can't be accomplished by speakers in the sub-$10,000 range (at least I don't know of any). Maybe you should look at the larger studio monitors, such as Klein +Hummel O410 ($ 9800 at todays exchange rate). They need drivers which are low in distortion Here I recommend reading Earl Geddes' AES papers on this topic. Multi-driver units need for the drivers to be phase coherent Use FIR filters. Speaker enclosures must be inert and non-resonant. Here I recommend Bastyr, "On the Acoustic Radiation from a Loudspeaker's Cabinet", JAES 2003, p.234 and Behler, "Investigation of cabinet vibrations in subwoofers", Proceedings German Annual Conference on Acoustics 2005, Munich, p.395 This means that the best loudspeakers are physically large, and if they have enclosures, those enclosures will be quite heavy and costly to make. That's true for passive speakers, in active speakers the front baffle is just large enough to mount the drivers. I recommend reading Stuart (Meridian), "The case for active speaker systems", Audio Magazine 1987, Sept., p.64 The amount and quality of sound that they produce is simply staggering, but most people could not accommodate a speaker system that large, that heavy, or that LOUD. How do you measure sound and sound quality? My studio monitors produce 123 dB/1m, which is way too loud in my 3700 cuft listening room, but they are each about as heavy as I am so I don't have any problems whatsoever in accomodating them. Klaus |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message * The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive. You cannot get the kind of performance that defines the state-the-art in speakers at much less than $25 grand. That would be a matter of opinion. I've seen some spectacular overpricing, based on probable manufacturing costs. I'm not talking about overpriced speakers. I'm talking about state-of-the-art speakers. They are expensive and their performance is not replicated at lower price points. Details and examples please. Not sure what he means either, but it is a fact that a loudspeaker that won 'best of the year' in one of the audiophile magazines, turned out to be one of the worst performing in *blind* quality rating tests overseen by Sean Olive. 'You can look it up' as the man used to say. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
loudspeaker specs vs quality
|
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ATC Loudspeaker Midrange Quality: 2-way vs. 3-way | Pro Audio | |||
WTB: Loudspeaker - Single (mono), Full-Range, 'Audiophle Quality' | Marketplace | |||
loudspeaker cables | High End Audio | |||
how to put my loudspeaker higher | High End Audio | |||
DSP for loudspeaker distortion | Tech |