You may already know but Erin's Audio Corner is doing a Klippel assisted review on your speakers in a few weeks. I'll be curious to see if he comes to the same conclusion.
Before the Review: Dutch & Dutch 8c Bookshelf Speaker - YouTube
Yes, Floyd Toole helped with consulting to set up the blind test but he wasn't in control of the actual execution.
Well if Floyd helped and it was blind then I guess that the results are valid. I am surprised, but can't explain.
Often the musical sources are an issue. I once declined a shootout because all the pieces were venue recordings not studio recordings. I would expect different results with different source material.
Often the musical sources are an issue. I once declined a shootout because all the pieces were venue recordings not studio recordings. I would expect different results with different source material.
Oh good, I was wondering if narrow directivity would benefit multichannel.
I discovered Floyd Toole's explanation for the Salon 2's victory over the M2. He thinks the Salon 2's early reflections helped it out but he attributed that to program material.
Now I'd really like to see the experiment repeated to see if program material could be selected that made the M2 outperform the Revel Salon 2. I think that would have bearing on where loudspeaker preferences will go if program material is repaired by streaming audio services.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the-lounge/367762-weak-links-todays-audio.html#post6529998
Now I'd really like to see the experiment repeated to see if program material could be selected that made the M2 outperform the Revel Salon 2. I think that would have bearing on where loudspeaker preferences will go if program material is repaired by streaming audio services.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the-lounge/367762-weak-links-todays-audio.html#post6529998
Yes, most probably, and exactly as Gedlee hypothesized
Still I believe that the standard stereo triangle is the weakest link.
Existing recordings can be made to sound much more realistic. Convincingly realistic.
And without any help of early lateral reflections in a standard triangle.
Try Beveridge placement, stereolit-like placement or FCUFS if You have fitting loudspeakers.
Or just try a wider angle stereo triangle.
Yes. It's interesting that you can make a good speaker but it gets lower preference ratings because inferior recordings favor a different style. I'd like to know how far that goes. I'd like to know:
1) When does the M2 start to beat inferior speakers when using inferior sources?
2) How much better is the M2 vs the Salon 2 when using recordings that favor the M2?
3) What frequency ranges benefit the most from waveguides? (Salon2 starts at 2.3Hz)
Those are things I'd like to know when comparing the benefits and drawbacks of waveguides.
That is sales talk.
It does not tell us anything.If you want to know advantages of the JBL M2, it can play louder and it can hold its pattern control down to a lower frequency because it is physically larger.
Sound behaves the same at all frequency ranges, things just have to be scaled to the wavelength. That means that using waveguides is not practical at frequencies below 1 or 2 kHz, as wavelengths and therefore waveguides become impractically large.
Last edited:
What is interesting about that shootout, there was a small group that consistently picked the M2. In Harman's own predictive preference model, it explained 72% of listener preference. So clearly there is still room for some phenomenon to be recognized and/or subjective preferences of different people are just different some times.
Ditto that. I always assume that the recording is as good as the engineer can make it and always take the recording as a given - not good or bad. What I may like is different though as that's a personal element.
But I have found that "poor" recordings sound worse on good speakers - flaws become clearer.
But I have found that "poor" recordings sound worse on good speakers - flaws become clearer.
What is "it"? Do you mean Harman's spinorama data, not the results of the shootout?
Yes, they claim and I don't see why this wouldn't be true, knowing them, that they can explain (correlate in scientific jargon) 95% (higher than your number and maybe it's changed) of the variability (variance) in the data with their measurement scheme. This means that there has to be something in the objective data that would explain the subjective preference differences found. It would be interesting to see them both.
I heard this number directly from Sean Olive some years ago and it may not be what they currently state.
I heard this number directly from Sean Olive some years ago and it may not be what they currently state.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.