![]() Which doesn't matter because the concern is LF. ** measurement was done with a different mic. But, all that said, the NFS measurements are within expectation of the groundplane measurement (or, vice versa). BSC is a bit less accurate on a GP measurement. Also, the speaker was slightly tilted but not much so the HF isn't expected to line up. * ground plane measurements were gated, thus the LF resolution isn't likely to show the same steep drop-off. But, nonetheless, I've attached the GP comparison below.* Also, I've done enough to prove the NFS measruements are accurate and I feel like proving the results with a GP test every time takes away from the legitimacy of the NFS data. I didn't post it in my review because people who don't know what goes in to a groundplane measurement will go "it's not a perfect match" and then I'd have to deal with that nonsense as it spreads like wildfire. I also did a quick GP test to make sure this was "real". The NF measurements provide confirmation. (^ that is supposed to be interpreted as being funny, in case it doesn't come across) If you like what you see here and want to help me keep it going, please consider donating via the PayPal Contribute button below. For more details about the performance (objectively and subjectively) please watch the YouTube video. And one would also use a subwoofer to help alleviate the bass driver of trying to overextend itself.Īs stated in the Foreword, this written review is purposely a cliff’s notes version. Realistically, this would be expected of a small, lower sensitivity speaker. But also consider what the dynamic compression tests indicate that there is compression going above 96dB. With the low sensitivity of about 83dB 2.83v/1m, these will need some power to get to higher output levels.These speakers are best listened to slightly toed in or out (depending on how much room interaction you want) by about 10°. On-axis listening for most coaxial designs is typically the worst location to listen within. ![]() In other words, wide radiation speakers reflect more energy back to the listening position so - in my opinion - the design response was purposely tilted downward so that the response at the seated position would result in an overall sloping response rather than a response that has a “knee”. Notice how the estimated in room response has an excellent downward linearity to it? In my experience, if the on-axis response of this speaker were actually flat the in-room response would be a bit flat in the tweeter region, making the overall sound to present itself as a bit “bright” or “treble heavy” at the listening position. Now, look at the estimated in-room response. Similarly, notice the on-axis response is a bit slanted downward.I attribute this to the rather shallow cone profile of the midrange relative to other coaxial speakers I have tested. If you follow my reviews enough you know I like a wide soundstage and that is typically related directly to the radiation pattern of the speaker. For a coincident/coaxial speaker, the dispersion is rather wide. ![]() Higher volumes were done simply to test the output capability in case one wants to try to sit further away. ![]() Subjective listening was conducted at 80-95dB at these distances and occasionally higher.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |