Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pippenainteasy

  • Rank
    Freshman Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The KEFs are basically designed around the Harman target curve and follow the design principles of Dr Floyd Toole's research at the National Research Council. It's based around the psychoacoustic preferences of the average listener. B&W with it's recessed mids and peaked highs are much more boutique preference, at least for most listeners under 50. For older listeners, especially those dealing from a reduction in acoustic bandwidth over a lifetime of loud movies and concerts, it might be closer to an ideal tonality.
  2. It looks like basically a trendier looking equivalent of the Klipsch 2.1 Promedia. So it's worth a shot.
  3. it's a real shame the ether 2 earpads are so small. at least the original ethers had a wide choice of pads, but they aren't compatible with the new earcups.
  4. Congrats, those speakers look amazing. I will say it's an interesting choice, but aesthetics is a big part of audio. I think the CR1's nice uniform dispersion will be missed. The Wilson's are more uneven, so I suggest some equalization with REW will help.
  5. Sitting closer to a speaker doesn't audibly elevate any particular frequency, what matters is the angle at which you are listening to the drive units. You are conflating how easily some frequencies are absorbed through porous materials--when there are numerous physical objects obstructing the path of the sound wave--versus with physical distance. It's much easier for a mass of hundreds or thousands human bodies in a theater room to absorb high frequencies than low frequencies due to the wavelengths involved. Sure, over long distances high frequencies will get absorbed somewhat at a higher rate than low frequencies. The absorption in air between listening at 4 feet vs 8 feet is pretty negligible and certainly isn't going to be something that requires EQ to fix--a speaker that's bright at 4 feet will sound bright at 8 feet, provided you are listening at the same angle.
  6. Well you can only equalize the direct sound, there's no effective way to equalize sound power since speakers all have different dispersion patterns and the response varies by angle. The easiest way to achieve your goal is to find speakers that are neutral or slightly dark and have even and uniform dispersion and then equalize if necessary. What you don't want is something with mismatched directivity like a 1" tweeter an a 6.5" woofer with a high crossover frequency which you have no chance of equalizing out the brightness because off-axis sound will have a treble bloom due to the gap in output between the woofer and tweeter in the 1-3k range since the woofer is beaming. Below is an example of the dispersion pattern of a speaker (B&W) with 1" tweeter and 6.5" woofer with a >3K crossover frequency: now here's the same measurement with the Polk Lsim 703: As far as listening distance, a 2-way bookshelf speaker with good dispersion is perfectly fine for 3-4 feet, most studio monitors are just 2-ways with a built-in amplifier and aren't any better unless you are talking about a true point source design like a coaxial:
  7. Well it's virtually impossible to properly cross a 1" tweeter with a 8" or 10" mid/woofer without using some sort of compression driver, unless it's a poor design that's seriously compromising directivity. A tweeter capable of crossing over that low is well above your budget. If you go with a sub, then good bookshelves with a 5-6" woofer is all you need. I would suggest looking at either the Polk Lsim 703, Ascend Acoustics Sierra 1, or Revel M16/S16 to start with. Most people listening nearfield average around 60-70 db. Listening above 80db for long periods will cause hearing damage. A 85-110db listening range will not be good for your health long term, but it's easily doable near-field as the power requirements are quite low at 1m listening distance.
  8. Straight forward, as most branded speakers are designed for. With any brand that does that design based on the principles derived from NRC research, the speakers are voiced for the them to be pointed straight forward for the ideal % of direct/reflected sound. That's how they are measured and that's how they are oriented when being compared with other speakers running a standard abx test. The old equilateral triangle convention was developed before the NRC research was done in the 90s and is really meant just to make sure the listener has the flattest frequency response possible back when drivers weren't designed for uniform dispersion. These days you really only need to do that kind of toe-in for boutique brands using drivers that have mismatched directivity or poor off-axis response.
  9. These are pretty easy to drive and don't require an external power source. If you want something better than your phone, just get a quality DAP. Full size headphone amplifiers aren't really appropriate for IEMs and generally will have audible hiss and actually will likely sound worse than driving them with your phone.
  10. Also dispersion, polar response, would see a big downgrade. It's kind of hard after starting with a high end coaxial system to really see an improvement, it's really just trade-offs at this point.
  11. You could look at Axiom Audio subwoofers, they have some pretty tall ones that could be used to boost the height of a monitor without the use of a stand.
  12. I would put something in between. Maybe use sorbothane sandwiched by acoustic foam. But I don't see how you would bring the monitors to ear level unless you are going to stack speaker stands on top of the subs.
  13. Sure, with wide, uniform dispersion you trade off imaging for soundstage. However decades of psyacoustics research including at the NRC has shown that *most* listeners prefer this over narrower and/or less uniform dispersion and more direct sound. While most is definitely not all, so definitely a small subset of listeners will prefer to focus on imaging at the tradeoff of air and spaciousness.
  14. Those aren't the real costs, those are the retail costs of the drivers. Speaker builders negotiate significantly lower rates. A good example is Tekton Lore vs Lore Be, the upcharge is $300/pair for the Be Satori tweeter, a tweeter which has a price of $770/pr on Madisound. The regular Audax Gold tweeter is $200/pr, so they are only charging you $300 for something that "costs" $570 more. They aren't a charity, so obviously their volume pricing is significantly lower than retail. If the drivers cost $800 retail, in reality Wilson is only paying a fraction for that. My main issue with the Tune Tot is it seems to underwhelming. I mean the Tune Tot would be underwhelming at $4000, at $12000 it's basically like an Ultrasone product. It's not particularly small at 1400 in3, there's plenty of small bookshelf speakers in the 400-1000 in3 range (that even even sealed or front ported to boot), and doesn't seem to be of particularly good design for the price. There's no directivity control (no waveguide or acoustic lens), and it's rear ported? I mean you could buy 5 Genelec 8331s for that money AND have money left over for a sub. And the Genelec 8331 is a far superior speaker that's self powered.
  15. As long as you get speakers with uniform dispersion good to > 75 degrees I think you are good in terms of intelligibility, because frequency response won't deviate much, but you just have to deal with a higher ratio of reflected sound to direct sound. If you don't like that effect you just have to toe in the speakers, ALOT. I'm currently using KEF speakers with a 43" 4K display in the middle (basically like 2 x 22s side by side) and they are sitting on a pair of stands, about 55 inches apart from each other. Just a slight amount of toe in and they sound great. Yes the sound is more diffuse but the effect isn't bad.
  • Create New...