Very nice idea by Erin to densify the discussion on the most relevant speakers of today :
Some other LS needed to be included for more fairness?
Lets get this board flooded with well-reasoned arguments!
(whew I build my 1st speaker around 1973 .. what a looong journey full of enjoyment)
Some other LS needed to be included for more fairness?
Lets get this board flooded with well-reasoned arguments!
(whew I build my 1st speaker around 1973 .. what a looong journey full of enjoyment)
For those who are not so familiar with tech stuff for LS (Klippel near field scanner - NFS) here is a site that should be noted so you can dig deeper and find dozens of LS already measured in a large data base along with name , picture and price of each speaker :
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nderstanding-how-the-klippel-nfs-works.13139/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nderstanding-how-the-klippel-nfs-works.13139/
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing! Gosh, I couldn’t agree more with Erin’s list, his reasons, and his descriptions of perception based on measurements. Thanks Erin and kudos!
I find some of the listening comments on ASR to be removed from the measurements. That never happens with Erin.
I find some of the listening comments on ASR to be removed from the measurements. That never happens with Erin.
To feed this thread with more tech blood , lemme lead you hungry audio vampires to what the designer itself says about his speakers , ASR forum/ thread - posting #12 :
https://karl-heinz-fink.de/category/epos
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s14n-with-7-inch-midwoofer-directivity.40967/
https://karl-heinz-fink.de/category/epos
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s14n-with-7-inch-midwoofer-directivity.40967/
Interesting; Given his concern for directivity, I'm surprised there are no MTMs on his list, I'll have to trawl through his site & see what he has to say about them
Given how few speakers we each get to hear, first they are choosen from a small subset of decent speakers, the wide selection illustrates how many compromises are in any loudspeaker.
dave
dave
Here the database pages , hope you can load and manage them :
https://sites.google.com/view/speaker-data/speakers/preference-ratings-graphs
https://sites.google.com/view/speaker-data/speakers/preference-ratings-graphs
https://pierreaubert.github.io/spinorama/scores.html
https://sites.google.com/view/speaker-data/speakers/preference-ratings-graphs
https://sites.google.com/view/speaker-data/speakers/preference-ratings-graphs
https://pierreaubert.github.io/spinorama/scores.html
In his list are big speakers and bookshelf sized speakers, two ways, three ways, and four ways, coaxials, waveguided speakers, and flat baffle speakers, wide and narrow directivity, cardoid and normal, horns and cone and dome speakers. There are only two things in common: smooth and flat on-axis response, and smooth power response. I like that and correlates very well with my experience.
In addition to all the techology the million dollar question remains unanswered.why does a person prefer that speaker over another yet another person preferres yet another speaker. Technology will never traunce personal likes.
His choices look reasonable to me but...
If the objective is high fidelity with stereo sources in real room then that will in practise mean distributed subs to handle the lowest octaves. Subs are less critical than mains w.r.t. pistonic motion and optimum radiation patterns but I would have something in my list.
For the main speakers the optimum beam width and how it varies with frequency is pretty significantly both room and source dependent. There is a case for recommending wide and narrow beam width mains depending on what is appropriate.
In a secondary system I would like a pair of speakers that enhances spaciousness at the expense of timbre and imaging.
In a secondary system I would like a pair of party speakers that are robust and luggable, play louder than standard levels reasonably cleanly and are of modest price.
Surprised this didn't make it to the list...
It could even be called an MTM, a very close spaced MTM.
It could even be called an MTM, a very close spaced MTM.
Vertical, but it's not always a bad thing in modern flat and houses of todays with ceillings as low than 2.4 m !
I have had a Kef 104.2 Ref, WMTM from 150 hz and I could say it was a very balanced loudspeaker with one of the best when closing the eyes" it is no there coffins" I have had. Though very complex filter in the MTM area, not a basic MTM filter !
I made sim with WMMT vs WMTM, with some Tolvan freeware, I have not seen any superiority of the MMT ! The contrary in fact !
But, we all considering Joachim Gerhard here, and in his last Suskind audio designs he want indeed with WMMT with his flagship.
I would not considered "gerhard suskind" (suesskindaudio.de) as a reference for speaker design checkout stereophile about his speakers everyone is totally different no concept at all!
The only one which is excellent (flat on-axis and very even off-axis) was an older TMWW design in two sep cabs the smaller one above and all drivers having regular Al metal cones by SEAS and 4th order passive filters!
So he knows how to do a speaker that measures "perfect" , but why having only one woman when you can have three 🙂
The only one which is excellent (flat on-axis and very even off-axis) was an older TMWW design in two sep cabs the smaller one above and all drivers having regular Al metal cones by SEAS and 4th order passive filters!
So he knows how to do a speaker that measures "perfect" , but why having only one woman when you can have three 🙂
A few days ago .. anuza bombshell by Erin , lotsa info :
Regarding toe out the speakers a few degrees I came to the same conclusion some years ago!
Regarding toe out the speakers a few degrees I came to the same conclusion some years ago!