Why are fullrangers more intelligible ?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
The 2s are also full range. To be more specific, The X was forerunner to the Monitor 3 and 4(three and four panel) , also fullrange directly driven but as all second gen iterations whether directly driven or with interface, full range or later Spectra, was raised 12" off the floor as opposed to the X. The X was a bit tubby in the upper bass/lower mid range. But still considered the "King" at the time due to the DD Servo OTLs. The King is alive and well :)

All stacked paneled versions have their lower panels on the floor.
 
Last edited:
The Xs had a top end that woud tear your face off. Accoustat 2s (driven by NAIM) wer emuch better, but definitely a 2-way.

The Accoustat answer man could probably provide a more nuanced answer.

dave

Are you kidding me? :)

The X's have a HF pot to dial in tonal balance, that can be adjusted down to sounding outright dull.

You really lived with X's for awhile?
 
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
You sure you're talking about these speakers?

Associated Equipment

ESL11-pair.jpg


dave
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.