Hmm. They sounded a bit bright to me when set up as I would never set up speakers (i.e. firing straight at me) but not when properly (IMO) over-toed such that they cross ahead of the listening position.
But do I wonder if yours aren't defective in some way. (Not that there's an excuse for that, of course.) It would be interesting to see the measurements, especially since the spatially-averaged measurements from Stereophile and from Home Theater basically agree.
That is another thought: that these particular models are defective. There is also no control over the tilt. Sometimes, this sort of treble adjustment is provided to the user. Not the case here.
The fact that the measurements are flat after spatially averaging is a clue that the on-axis response is tilted upwards.
The fact that the measurements are flat after spatially averaging is a clue that the on-axis response is tilted upwards.
Last edited:
This is yet another thought: catering to the tastes of the masses. I'm totally ok with a tilted up response, as long as I'm provided with the option of turning it back down to flat.
Also, there is no cure IMO to a rising on axis response. Listening off axis does not change the tonal balance of the speaker. It still sounds bright.
Btw, the reference model from KEF as measured in NRC's anechoic chamber measures flat, and is not tilted up.
Obviously. But one generally doesn't listen to speakers with fairly well-controlled directivity on axis. One toes them in such that the "design axis" is actually 20-30deg off-axis. Otherwise, yes they'll sound bright.
You don't seem to like the things, and that's fine, but this statement makes no objective sense. Are you saying that you don't think one can change the apparent treble balance at the listening position by rotating a speaker around? Especially one like the Q900, which has the biggest quasi-direct radiating* tweeter I've ever seen. (At 1.5", it's better than the Audax 34mm unit that some ATC's use.)
The Reference KEFs, note, use a tweeter that's 2/3 the radiating diameter, so they'll roll off less off-axis than the Q900's tweeter.
*hedging because it does fire through a phase plug that offers some compression, into a waveguide of sorts.
Believe me, I want to like them. I bought them as a reference. So that I can measure them and see how my own designs sound and measure. But they are just not right.
I had tried toeing them in to cross in front of the listening position before. Still sounded bright. After your post, I tried some extreme toe-in. A little better, but the upward tilted tonal balance is still there. Sorry.
A tilted up frequency response will give flat or rising power response, both of which have been known to sound bright. Toe in can alleviate some of it, but the sound retains the tonal balance of the on axis response, IMO.
I prefer a flat power response up to about 3k or 4k and then a gentle downward slope from then on. To me, subjectively this sounds flat.
Measurements will be up soon. Thanks for the discussion.
I had tried toeing them in to cross in front of the listening position before. Still sounded bright. After your post, I tried some extreme toe-in. A little better, but the upward tilted tonal balance is still there. Sorry.
A tilted up frequency response will give flat or rising power response, both of which have been known to sound bright. Toe in can alleviate some of it, but the sound retains the tonal balance of the on axis response, IMO.
I prefer a flat power response up to about 3k or 4k and then a gentle downward slope from then on. To me, subjectively this sounds flat.
Measurements will be up soon. Thanks for the discussion.
ra7: I think that perhaps you are expecting too much from the Kef Q900, which after all is only an average priced $1,500 RRP loudspeaker. It's not exactly hi-end so shouldn't be expected to do 'everything'.
Would like to hear more from people about what constitutes a great sounding speaker ...?
Steve.
Would like to hear more from people about what constitutes a great sounding speaker ...?
Steve.
Last edited:
so far, they will all have:
excellent imaging and phantom center. thats the sign of a phase right speaker.
instrument separation and space between the instruments will be very evident and very special when you hear it right. the sound will be 3d and each instrument can be followed. With jazz, its literally like when coltrane play at the left, you will almost turn your head. you will feel as if coltrane is in 3d, in his own space.
no instrument get ever lost (well that depends on the recording) and well when coltrane plays, you still can clearly follow the piano and you know where it is in the stage at all time. the image is lock stable.
for me, instrument separation, imagin and phase response is the most important thing. automatically, the speaker will have good dynamics and likely good details as well.
the xo cannot be heard and the sounds is fully coherant, like one coherent sound, you cannot say that the tweeter play the sound or the woofer. the sounds will definitely escape the speaker and will extend beyond the wideness of the speakers.
stage will have good depht and instrument the right size, ect.
Bass will sound clean and clear without any hints of boominess: for this, the room acoustic and speaker placement is very important.
highs will be very detailed and extended but never harsh.
Dynamics.
but most importantly is the imaging and phantom center. when the phantom center is very clear and sounds full (really sounds like theres a speaker in the middle) and the instruments all play in their own space with the right amount of depht and height, you know you have something very good.
ime
I can very much appreciate a speaker with powerful bass, but if the imaging is not there and the instrument separation not there enough, I cannot live with that.
the kef ls50 has excellent imaging, but the image is small, the instruments do not have a realistic wieght in the bass nor the right size. everything sounds small
excellent imaging and phantom center. thats the sign of a phase right speaker.
instrument separation and space between the instruments will be very evident and very special when you hear it right. the sound will be 3d and each instrument can be followed. With jazz, its literally like when coltrane play at the left, you will almost turn your head. you will feel as if coltrane is in 3d, in his own space.
no instrument get ever lost (well that depends on the recording) and well when coltrane plays, you still can clearly follow the piano and you know where it is in the stage at all time. the image is lock stable.
for me, instrument separation, imagin and phase response is the most important thing. automatically, the speaker will have good dynamics and likely good details as well.
the xo cannot be heard and the sounds is fully coherant, like one coherent sound, you cannot say that the tweeter play the sound or the woofer. the sounds will definitely escape the speaker and will extend beyond the wideness of the speakers.
stage will have good depht and instrument the right size, ect.
Bass will sound clean and clear without any hints of boominess: for this, the room acoustic and speaker placement is very important.
highs will be very detailed and extended but never harsh.
Dynamics.
but most importantly is the imaging and phantom center. when the phantom center is very clear and sounds full (really sounds like theres a speaker in the middle) and the instruments all play in their own space with the right amount of depht and height, you know you have something very good.
ime
I can very much appreciate a speaker with powerful bass, but if the imaging is not there and the instrument separation not there enough, I cannot live with that.
the kef ls50 has excellent imaging, but the image is small, the instruments do not have a realistic wieght in the bass nor the right size. everything sounds small
Last edited:
indeed, room is the beginning and speaker placement. it is So important to understand room modes and not place your listening position or your speaker right in a room mode.
What do great sounding speakers have common?
Easy one of two things:
(1) They don't have an obviously worse fault than other speakers.
(2) They do one thing especially well.
In summary, speakers are excepted to be an impossible thing, and the
list of how they are supposed to break the laws of physics goes on from:
(1) perfect square wave response from 10Hz to 40KHz
(2) perfect dynamic behaviour over 140 dB range.
(3) No harmonic distortion.
(4) No difference between each speaker example.
(5) Omni directional sound.
(6) No room interactions.
(7) No off axis response.
(8) Point source.
Observations
People will buy speakers that match none of these requirements.
People like speakers that match none of these requirements especially well.
Every one of these requirements is impossible.
Every one of these requirements is highly desirable.
(5) and (7) are not just impossible but mutually exclusive.
Consequences
Different people regard different aspects of speakers acceptable.
In practice
(1) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) are best met by electrostatic speakers. Others
seeing the poor low frequencey repsonce of electrostatic
speakers may disagree about (1).
You probably wont be suprised that for me the best speakers I have ever heard
are:
(1) Quad ESL63
(2) Quad ESL57
(3) Unknown brand Horn speaker with ribbon tweeter.
(4) Kef LS50
I conclude for me:
(A) I think all moving coil speakers are dramatically worse than
good Electrostatics at least from 200-300Hz upwards. I think this
is measurably true, depending on the measurements chosen.
(B) I think electrostatic speakers don't play bass heavy music well.
(C) Electrostatic speakers fail at omnidirectional sound.
(D) The failings of speakers in many areas is normal, and we should
not ask what is best, but state what we liked about what speaker.
Easy one of two things:
(1) They don't have an obviously worse fault than other speakers.
(2) They do one thing especially well.
In summary, speakers are excepted to be an impossible thing, and the
list of how they are supposed to break the laws of physics goes on from:
(1) perfect square wave response from 10Hz to 40KHz
(2) perfect dynamic behaviour over 140 dB range.
(3) No harmonic distortion.
(4) No difference between each speaker example.
(5) Omni directional sound.
(6) No room interactions.
(7) No off axis response.
(8) Point source.
Observations
People will buy speakers that match none of these requirements.
People like speakers that match none of these requirements especially well.
Every one of these requirements is impossible.
Every one of these requirements is highly desirable.
(5) and (7) are not just impossible but mutually exclusive.
Consequences
Different people regard different aspects of speakers acceptable.
In practice
(1) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) are best met by electrostatic speakers. Others
seeing the poor low frequencey repsonce of electrostatic
speakers may disagree about (1).
You probably wont be suprised that for me the best speakers I have ever heard
are:
(1) Quad ESL63
(2) Quad ESL57
(3) Unknown brand Horn speaker with ribbon tweeter.
(4) Kef LS50
I conclude for me:
(A) I think all moving coil speakers are dramatically worse than
good Electrostatics at least from 200-300Hz upwards. I think this
is measurably true, depending on the measurements chosen.
(B) I think electrostatic speakers don't play bass heavy music well.
(C) Electrostatic speakers fail at omnidirectional sound.
(D) The failings of speakers in many areas is normal, and we should
not ask what is best, but state what we liked about what speaker.
Last edited:
That ignores the fact that the sonic shadowcaused by your head creates a significant dip in the upper midrange making it impossible for LR to have neutral FR and have a phantom centre with neutral FR.
dave
But the brain compensates for this ?
To illustrate from personal experience:
Having experienced hearing loss of high frequencies then on getting it back, it took at least 3 days for everyone to stop speaking with a lisp, and now I find many people speak to loud, rather than before when they all said I spoke to loud.
kef ls50
ref 3 decapo
amphion one18.
everybody consider those speakers to image well.
no matter the head shape, everybody consider those speaker to image greatly.
so, what are you saying. please explain more, as I found your argument to be not true in reality.
if everybody consider a speaker image good, its because the speaker image good. end of story logically.
please explain
Last edited:
indeed. the ref 3a did image greatly, but lacked some of the phantom center clarity...
I think phatom center is more related to phase response, as all fullrange drivers did a great job at phantom center but did lacked in imaging clarity...
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.