Which center? Luna, S2, or Horizon?

[Beave]

Are you trying to make me remember math and EE from 30 years ago?

Q factor is defined as width over center frequency (if I remember right). So a 10Hz wide bump at 100Hz, a 100Hz wide bump at 1kHz, and a 1kHz wide bump at 10kHz all have the same Q.

As to which one is more audible, that gets complicated fast.

The one at 100 Hz could be energized by a lot of musical content, but it could also be swamped by the standing-wave based room resonances that occur in just about all listening rooms. So it would probably be much more audible in an anechoic chamber than in a real room. It could be audible in real rooms if you quickly switched back and forth with a speaker that has it and one that doesn't.

The one at 1kHz might be audible on some content but not all of the time. If it occurs at the right frequency and is narrow enough, it could fall 'between the cracks' of musical content and hardly ever get energized. But if it's wide enough, something will energize it some of the time at least.

The one at 10kHz might just add a touch of brilliance to some recordings and otherwise not be heard. But younger people with good hearing might notice an occasional high-pitched ringing going on with some content.

As I said, it gets complicated and is hard to generalize. There are probably references in Dr Toole's books that lead you to some papers on the subject if you want to read more scientific, controlled test results.

[Beave]

Here's a link to one of Toole's papers on resonances:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...470ErBBsHHHrpi

I haven't read it, as I wrote above, but I've read some forum posts where Dr. Toole discussed the paper a few years ago.

[MDinno]

DaveF I got your back with everything you said. The Sierra 2 is the best bookshelf I've heard and I've heard a few in my day. It's like you said all of a sudden a speaker that had gotten nothing but great reviews by everybody is no good. I'm still waiting to hear what other respectable reviewer said that the KEF LS50 is not a speaker to be recommended. There's a bunch more respectable speakers that weren't recommended that I won't even waste my time trying to look them up. That right there he should lose all credibility. BTW, we got the same thing going on here in NJ as California with this radical Leftist Governor shutting down all private businesses with the Covid BS. Well we see now what the agenda was. Time to move to a red state where some semblance of the U.S. still exists.

[Shazb0t]

DaveF I got your back with everything you said. The Sierra 2 is the best bookshelf I've heard and I've heard a few in my day. It's like you said all of a sudden a speaker that had gotten nothing but great reviews by everybody is no good. I'm still waiting to hear what other respectable reviewer said that the KEF LS50 is not a speaker to be recommended. There's a bunch more respectable speakers that weren't recommended that I won't even waste my time trying to look them up. That right there he should lose all credibility. BTW, we got the same thing going on here in NJ as California with this radical Leftist Governor shutting down all private businesses with the Covid BS. Well we see now what the agenda was. Time to move to a red state where some semblance of the U.S. still exists.

You really should look into something before firing off half cocked! The Sierra-2 review wasn't negative, neither was the LS50. The whole point of what ASR is doing is to find out the true anechoic measurements of a speaker and how it's sound field will be reflected in a room. That isn't subjective! There is real value in knowing that information. Infinitely more so than a random guy's sighted subjective opinion.

[MDinno]

You really should look into something before firing off half cocked! The Sierra-2 review wasn't negative, neither was the LS50. The whole point of what ASR is doing is to find out the true anechoic measurements of a speaker and how it's sound field will be reflected in a room. That isn't subjective! There is real value in knowing that information. Infinitely more so than a random guy's sighted subjective opinion.

I'll say it again. To not recommend a speaker based completely on just analytics is not only half cooked but just flat out wrong. I'll take my own opinion on how a speaker sounds, or someone with more experience than myself, than some analytic who may have an agenda here. Still waiting for any legitimate reviewer to back Amir's claim that these speakers are not to be recommended. What a joke.

[Shazb0t]

I'll say it again. To not recommend a speaker based completely on just analytics is not only half cooked but just flat out wrong. I'll take my own opinion on how a speaker sounds, or someone with more experience than myself, than some analytic who may have an agenda here. Still waiting for any legitimate reviewer to back Amir's claim that these speakers are not to be recommended. What a joke.

There doesn't seem to be much point in discussing this with you as you don't seem willing to expand your understanding of the subject. You're obviously entitled to your own opinion. I would just encourage you to do some reading of the peer-reviewed science that delves into listener preference and how audio signals are generated and measured. Then your opinion could be grounded in facts instead of subjective hand waving.

For clarity, if you can't prove your point by citing some sort of accepted audio study and insist on calling actual published peer-reviewed science a "joke" while also countering with reliance on "legitimate reviewers" then you don't actually have a point.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...s-works.13139/

[MDinno]

There doesn't seem to be much point in discussing this with you as you don't seem willing to expand your understanding of the subject. You're obviously entitled to your own opinion. I would just encourage you to do some reading of the peer-reviewed science that delves into listener preference and how audio signals are generated and measured. Then your opinion could be grounded in facts instead of subjective hand waving.

For clarity, if you can't prove your point by citing some sort of accepted audio study and insist on calling actual published peer-reviewed science a "joke" while also countering with reliance on "legitimate reviewers" then you don't actually have a point.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...s-works.13139/

So your Amir has not recommended speakers simply because they are not efficient. Tell me again how this makes any sense. With speakers it's all about compromises. There's no such thing as a perfect speaker. You can take one that measures perfectly and once it's in your room it all gets thrown out the window and it sounds like crap. It may sound like crap anyway I could care less what it measures. How does this logic not get through?!? Now in terms of sensitivity. If a speaker has poor sensitivity AND has excellent ability to take gobs of power with low distortion then you may have an excellent speaker dynamically. Everything is compromises. Amir doesn't understand that and neither do many of the commentators here. So many variables the analytics only play a small part because it all matters what kind of sound you prefer. Maybe someone likes speakers that are bright for example. Hey good luck with your analytics. At least you can order a speaker online based on just analytics and not having to listen to it.

[pgd]

So your Amir has not recommended speakers simply because they are not efficient. Tell me again how this makes any sense. With speakers it's all about compromises. There's no such thing as a perfect speaker. You can take one that measures perfectly and once it's in your room it all gets thrown out the window and it sounds like crap. It may sound like crap anyway I could care less what it measures. How does this logic not get through?!? Now in terms of sensitivity. If a speaker has poor sensitivity AND has excellent ability to take gobs of power with low distortion then you may have an excellent speaker dynamically. Everything is compromises. Amir doesn't understand that and neither do many of the commentators here. So many variables the analytics only play a small part because it all matters what kind of sound you prefer. Maybe someone likes speakers that are bright for example. Hey good luck with your analytics. At least you can order a speaker online based on just analytics and not having to listen to it.

He actually gave the Luna a shrugging review and said:
"Despite being very small, the Luna seems well built. Alas, poor port response wreaks havoc on the bass response. And elevated tweeter response makes the overall response too bright. Directivity is generally good so EQ seems to work well. Power handling is excellent due to not attempting to change the laws of physics and generate more bass than it is capable of."

That seems pretty balanced. The entire review can be summed up as, the port design is unacceptable and not reflected in marketing materials. If the port wasn't meant to be used (always use a sub), then don't include the port.

[Shazb0t]

So your Amir has not recommended speakers simply because they are not efficient. Tell me again how this makes any sense. With speakers it's all about compromises. There's no such thing as a perfect speaker. You can take one that measures perfectly and once it's in your room it all gets thrown out the window and it sounds like crap. It may sound like crap anyway I could care less what it measures. How does this logic not get through?!? Now in terms of sensitivity. If a speaker has poor sensitivity AND has excellent ability to take gobs of power with low distortion then you may have an excellent speaker dynamically. Everything is compromises. Amir doesn't understand that and neither do many of the commentators here. So many variables the analytics only play a small part because it all matters what kind of sound you prefer. Maybe someone likes speakers that are bright for example. Hey good luck with your analytics. At least you can order a speaker online based on just analytics and not having to listen to it.

Again, you're doing a lot of hand waving and throwing a buch of stuff out there to see what sticks without any underlying merit.

The entire concept of acquiring anechoic measurements of a speaker is to know how a speaker performs without the room influence. From that starting point you can calculate the sound field and reflections from the room to determine the actual frequency repsonse at the listening position. You want a speaker that measures flat anechoically and which has good directivity (controlled dispersion) so that any EQ you perform on the speaker (to combat specific room anomalies, or to just change the frequency response to your preference) will have the same frequency response affect in the reflected sound. This is all published peer-reviewed science. It's not my or "my Amir's" opinion. That is what the Klippel NFS is designed to do! It is why speaker designers use anechoic measurements as the standard. I presume it is why Dave F. performs, posts, and utilizes measurements and dispersion characteristics in his design process of Ascend speakers.

Ancillary to that it has also been proven through controlled listening studies the frequency response (sound) that the majority of people prefer. But even if you don't believe in controlled scientific studies, you still want a speaker that has flat response and good directivity as a starting point so that you may EQ it to whatever desired response YOU do prefer. There is no magic to this!

Please do some reading on Dr. Floyd Toole's work and the controlled audio research performed by the NRC and Harman. It is very interesting and will give you a better understanding of what's actually going on with speakers than what you will be able to learn from "legitimate reviewers" impressions on YouTube.

[curtis]

Yes, Amir measured the M105 and the M106.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...-review.14745/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...-review.14363/

Thanks Beave!!