.... But as the essay says .... Amsterdam, better in the boat!..as Venice ...
Unless it's too big
Perhaps more related to frequency response than anything else regardless of cone size, number of ways, cone materials, etc.
Here I tried an experiment comparing a large two way with 15" cones to a small speaker with both speakers eq'd more or less the same (both using the same sub):
KEF LS50 (David) Versus JBL 4722 Cinema (Goliath) Speaker Comparison with Binaural Recordings - Reviews - Audiophile Style
One can download binaural recordings of both speakers to listen and compare over headphones. To my ears, sound remarkably similar, hence the frequency response comment. The real difference to my ears is the wide directivity difference between the two speakers. The KEF LS50 has much wider directivity and therefore more room sound is mixed in with the direct sound as compared to the narrow directivity of the JBL's. One can hear it on the recordings.
My preference for voice is the 15" drivers, seems to have a bit more body to the voice as compared to the smaller speaker. But it is pretty close. Just for fun, have a listen to the binaural recordings to determine one's preference.
Here I tried an experiment comparing a large two way with 15" cones to a small speaker with both speakers eq'd more or less the same (both using the same sub):
KEF LS50 (David) Versus JBL 4722 Cinema (Goliath) Speaker Comparison with Binaural Recordings - Reviews - Audiophile Style
One can download binaural recordings of both speakers to listen and compare over headphones. To my ears, sound remarkably similar, hence the frequency response comment. The real difference to my ears is the wide directivity difference between the two speakers. The KEF LS50 has much wider directivity and therefore more room sound is mixed in with the direct sound as compared to the narrow directivity of the JBL's. One can hear it on the recordings.
My preference for voice is the 15" drivers, seems to have a bit more body to the voice as compared to the smaller speaker. But it is pretty close. Just for fun, have a listen to the binaural recordings to determine one's preference.
Mitch, thanks for posting this.
You did an excellent job on the article and the recordings.
Through my crappy headphone I can notice subtle differences, especially in the first part of the track. The KEFs seem slightly brighter, some would say: clearer.
The JBLs seem to add some warmth and indeed: 'body'.
Through this headphone it's very hard to pass judgement on soundstage, depth etc.
It's easy to predict what happens if you'd crank up the output level. The KEFs would sound increasingly harsh, to the point they would be annoying/unbearable,
while the JBLs would just play louder.
The KEF LS50 would be the speaker for treble fetishists who don't listen at higher SPL.
No doubt the KEF is very good, but it's a small speaker.
You did an excellent job on the article and the recordings.
Through my crappy headphone I can notice subtle differences, especially in the first part of the track. The KEFs seem slightly brighter, some would say: clearer.
The JBLs seem to add some warmth and indeed: 'body'.
Through this headphone it's very hard to pass judgement on soundstage, depth etc.
It's easy to predict what happens if you'd crank up the output level. The KEFs would sound increasingly harsh, to the point they would be annoying/unbearable,
while the JBLs would just play louder.
The KEF LS50 would be the speaker for treble fetishists who don't listen at higher SPL.
No doubt the KEF is very good, but it's a small speaker.
Last edited:
I think crossover placement is huge. A two way crossed to a sub is a great thing, and what I currently use. Is it a two crossed to a sub....or a three way....130hz is the lower crossover, 2.1khz from the mid to tweeter. Naked midrange is what I believe they call it. Either way the midrange is uninhibited. I originally set out to create a FAST/WAW speaker. I couldn’t feasibly cross as low as I wanted but once I was introduced to horns I couldn’t go back. Dynamic truth over everything and though it’s been wisely said, what’s a couple hundreds hz just to not be able to reach 20khz, yet, I want as much range, in the horn, as possible and the driver diaphragm combo I chose, speculatively, will get me as much as of top and bottom as one can get out of a non coaxial horn, plus, it’s accepted that 4” diaphragms with larger exits have the best midrange...midrange being the most critical range, as well. The dual 15”s is a no brainer. Looking at excursion chart, one 15” is enough...it just has to be the right 15” which is what the M2 has proven. So instead of a naked midrange, it has one less crossover in trade for splitting the whole register in the middle. I don’t know what effect on quality this will have to the midrange but the gains elsewhere make it warranted.
The altecs I auditioned were crossed at 800hz, if I recall correctly, while being blown away by what horns could offer I never had the thought....”that damn crossover”. In this design I believe that I’ve kept the midrange and extended bass and treble, in comparison.
The altecs I auditioned were crossed at 800hz, if I recall correctly, while being blown away by what horns could offer I never had the thought....”that damn crossover”. In this design I believe that I’ve kept the midrange and extended bass and treble, in comparison.
Thanks Ro808
Yes, the LS50 is a well designed speaker, but for sure, it is a small speaker and even with some Crown XLS 1502 watts behind it, it can only go so loud before sounding strained. The JBL's are idling.
Cool about your preference. Even though both speakers were eq'd the same, the REW measurements at the listening position shows more energy from the LS50 from about 1.5 kHz on up due to the rooms contribution. See REW overlay in article. The wider direcitivty LS50 sprays more sound in the room than the JBL's. I have a lively, bright sounding room, so those additional reflections above 1.5 kHz makes the LS50 sound (and measure) brighter, even though they are both using the same target frequency response.
Yes, the LS50 is a well designed speaker, but for sure, it is a small speaker and even with some Crown XLS 1502 watts behind it, it can only go so loud before sounding strained. The JBL's are idling.
Cool about your preference. Even though both speakers were eq'd the same, the REW measurements at the listening position shows more energy from the LS50 from about 1.5 kHz on up due to the rooms contribution. See REW overlay in article. The wider direcitivty LS50 sprays more sound in the room than the JBL's. I have a lively, bright sounding room, so those additional reflections above 1.5 kHz makes the LS50 sound (and measure) brighter, even though they are both using the same target frequency response.
It's the reflections that many people become accustomed to, after years of listening to MOR hifi speakers. These add some (fake, because delayed, because reflected) spaciousness to the direct sound. Reflections also increasingly contribute to listening fatigue, once you crank up the output level.
Evidently, this is dependent on room acoustics and positioning.
Evidently, this is dependent on room acoustics and positioning.
Last edited:
Owning both LS50 as well as R500, I can confirm that they both have quite a bit of room interaction: I have quite a high ceiling, ceramic floor and brick walls, so not at all an ideal environment. Without room treatment they are quite tricky to get to sound right.
While the R500 are powered by a 400W Hypex UcD, adn the LS50 by a smaller B&O amp, they really don't go very loud. I think however that the low end gives up earlier (even the R500). It really does not go that loud in the end, but it feels like it, just as Ro808 says. I seriously need to do something about room acoustics as well
While the R500 are powered by a 400W Hypex UcD, adn the LS50 by a smaller B&O amp, they really don't go very loud. I think however that the low end gives up earlier (even the R500). It really does not go that loud in the end, but it feels like it, just as Ro808 says. I seriously need to do something about room acoustics as well
I agree, and I expect that my new loudspeakers will sound foreign to me, initially, but conditioning is our friend here. After using a sound source consistently and long enough, you can eventually adapt it as the norm.
True. Apart from the (slightly) better top octave of a 3" Titanium diaphragm, 2" exit FaitalPRO, a 4" RCF ND950 2.0 beats it below 700-800Hz.
Neither the horns, nor the JBLs will have problems reaching 630Hz.
Last edited:
Mitchba, I haven’t checked out your link just yet, not to ask anything redundant. Can you describe the top register of your expression with the 4” aquaplas diaphragm. How would you compare it toke wise to some of the other tweeter options (dome, ribbon).
I have high hopes, the aquaplas has been described to be close enough to the performance of beryllium not warrant the cost of such, while requiring less eq in the top register and being the most damped option as well.
Norman 23” jmlc, you can see an example on auto tech or search this thread for actual pictures
I have high hopes, the aquaplas has been described to be close enough to the performance of beryllium not warrant the cost of such, while requiring less eq in the top register and being the most damped option as well.
Norman 23” jmlc, you can see an example on auto tech or search this thread for actual pictures
Shippings crazy expensive from auto tech, there’s a guy on Germany’s eBay that will make you a jmlc of the standard sizes for a fair price and fraction of the shipping.
We could make a group buy and ask Docali for a project:
DrBA horns at sphericalhorns.net
can be glass laminate with damping or clear thermoformed