or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Cambridge Audio Minx Satellite Speakers and Home Theater Systems Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cambridge Audio Minx Satellite Speakers and Home Theater Systems Discussion Thread - Page 47

post #1381 of 1868
Thanks Jeff! When I get things going I will post some pics!
I will say that the all of them will be wall mounted. The front three will be higher than the TV so they will be pointed down towards the listeners. The rear 2 will be wall mounted and angled in a little but not down because they're just a little higher than the listeners but not as high as the fronts. I got a weird configuration.
Edited by cl206 - 5/6/13 at 4:13am
post #1382 of 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKSKYDANCER View Post

The Minx 21's ( i have 5 of them in my 5.1 system ) work and sound best with a 120Hz cross and with out any sonic "hole" let alone a large sonic "hole"! They sound awesome and blend real well with the subwoofer. Completely seamless.

Have you taken any measurements to verify that? If you haven't then I'm afraid there's really no way of knowing if you have a gap. Looking at the measured response of the speakers you can pretty much guarantee there is. You may not hear it - and the sound coming from them might be what you want it to be - but there's still going to be a fairly substantial hole.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RKSKYDANCER View Post

You can not tell this is a Sub/satellite system. Cambridge has stated 120Hz is a good crossover setting for the Minx 21's and this is where they recommend starting at. I have tried the 160Hz setting with not so good results. Unlike Perpendicular, I play my system pretty darn loud most of the time because of my room size and the 120Hz works perfect in my situation.

CA actually recommends 140Hz... "With an AVR the Min11/21 speakers should be set to ‘small’ with a crossover frequency of 140Hz". That suggests to me that even they know the speakers can't realistically do 120Hz.
post #1383 of 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimWilson View Post

Have you taken any measurements to verify that? If you haven't then I'm afraid there's really no way of knowing if you have a gap. Looking at the measured response of the speakers you can pretty much guarantee there is. You may not hear it - and the sound coming from them might be what you want it to be - but there's still going to be a fairly substantial hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perpendicular View Post

For me, there is no 'Hole' created with this crossover setting. Geez, I already stated this fact a few Posts back.

Something doesn't add up here. Jim says that there is a hole with the crossover set to 120 Hz.
But yet there is no hole with the crossover set to 100 Hz, and this is stated fact biggrin.gif

I'm glad someone with cred finally stood up. I may be a noobie at HT, and it's been a few decades since my intro EE courses, but this just wasn't making sense to me.

I would think that you would want both speakers to have flat FR curves out to or beyond the crossover point.

The 100 Hz crossover never made sense to me. Based on advice from Jim, I made sure that my subwoofer's range overlapped that of the Min 21. It would seem to me that setting the crossover to 100 Hz would be equivalent to buying a subwoofer whose upper FR is limited to 100 Hz. How can there not be a hole?

I think some ears are due for recalibration.
post #1384 of 1868
Thread Starter 
There isn't a hole because the speakers play just low enough and the sub (mine, anyway) fills in the rest. You guys can have all the fun you want while others will enjoy our speakers.

Also, Ed Selley already commented on the crossover setting. Enough said.
post #1385 of 1868
I will be using the x300 sub that comes with the 5.1 system and since the min21 does
120hz to 30khz and the x300 should be able to do 33hz-200hz, a crossover of 140 for my particular setup shouldn't have any holes right? If so as long as it sounds seamless or unnoticeable, I wouldn't mind. I guess it depends on your sub that is matched to the satellites. Maybe a calibration device like audyssey can fix that smile.gif
post #1386 of 1868
The crossover is dictated by the speakers ability, not the subwoofer. When they can't go any lower your subwoofer should be taking over. That's the crossover point being discussed. I would personally advocate 140Hz-150Hz, but that's just one mans opinion. I think the CA subs might actually have a specific setting on the crossover dial for the different Min speakers. If so that's what you should really use, since it implies CA believes that to be the ideal setting.
post #1387 of 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimWilson View Post

The crossover is dictated by the speakers ability, not the subwoofer. When they can't go any lower your subwoofer should be taking over. That's the crossover point being discussed. I would personally advocate 140Hz-150Hz, but that's just one mans opinion. I think the CA subs might actually have a specific setting on the crossover dial for the different Min speakers. If so that's what you should really use, since it implies CA believes that to be the ideal setting.

Okay thanks! I guess I need to see what my AVR sets it at. If it sounds good at 140hz I will leave it. The CA sub does have a manual switch for different min speakers, but I rather have the AVR set it to the "best sounding" crossover. Hopefully it won't be something outrageous.
post #1388 of 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by cl206 View Post

Okay thanks! I guess I need to see what my AVR sets it at. If it sounds good at 140hz I will leave it. The CA sub does have a manual switch for different min speakers, but I rather have the AVR set it to the "best sounding" crossover. Hopefully it won't be something outrageous.

Hi,

Let us know how things proceed & which settings you end up preferring!

Bazzy!
post #1389 of 1868
Hi Bazzy, yep no doubt. I will post back. I am still waiting for some things to get done around the house, so it's be another week or 2 but I will get it done.
post #1390 of 1868
Hi,

Jeff, have you been posting interest on AVForums UK (Post 118)? If so, very strange post indeed coming from you! If it's not you, then it seems you may have a Doppelgänger on this side of the pond - What are the odds?!



http://www.avforums.com/forums/speakers/1359217-cambridge-audio-minx-first-impressions-3.html

Bazzy!
post #1391 of 1868
Thread Starter 
Yeah, I've been checking out that Forum Thread since the introduction of the Minx series. I joined, then Posted in a bit of humor to see if any of the regulars there recognized me and/or had an answer. I find it odd that Post was over a week ago with no response. Also, I find it odd that with how popular these speakers are, supposedly in Europe, where are all the owners? Though, I do understand that the Minx line is designed for a niche' market. Meaning, owners who want the smallest possible speakers with the best possible sound quality and value, so as not to intrude on their living space, but I 'd like to understand why this type of owner doesn't Post in these Forums. It does make me wonder how popular these speakers really are. Or, maybe it's in some other country. I did get word (from a source who will remain anonymous) that they are not that popular here in North America and dealers had a very hard time selling the previous models (Min 10 & 20). Other reasons factor in too like not many wanting a speaker crossed over at 150 Hz but one needed to compromise somewhere with such a small design. Myself, I never liked crossing over at 150 or 200 Hz but did it because those models called for it and sounded their best at that setting. After a long while I really was ready to jump ship when I decided to try the Min 21 out and have been quite surprised by many things. As I stated several Posts back, compared to the previous models, they do sound different. Though, I'm still debating whether I will keep them or still go for a larger bookshelf or floor standing design. I really have no one to tell me what to do. Only my wallet. biggrin.gif
post #1392 of 1868
I've got 2 Min20s as my front channels and an X300 subwoofer in my current setup. I just had my Marantz SR5006 repaired due to some blown output transistors from one of my Min20s being bad (so I was told by the repairman). I'll now be looking to get my Min20 repaired, but now I am left with only my X300 and one Min20. Can I use one Min20 as a center channel (with no left or right channels) until I get the other one repaired? I've also been thinking about getting some Min11s for the front until the Min20 is repaired, and then moving the Min11s to the rear, but I'm not sure what I can talk my wife in to. I'm just having a hard time listening to everything through my televisions speakers and would like to use at least the one Min20 right now if I can.
post #1393 of 1868
Thread Starter 
You can use one Min 20 for your center channel but just know that you cannot shut off your L&R channel and end up with a 3.1 system without hearing your L&R which is important because some content is stereo only and will shut off your center channel and you hear nothing. The other thing you may be able to do is use your single speaker for Left or Right and you may have a MONO setting on your AVR. This way, you hear everything in that one channel.
post #1394 of 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimWilson View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKSKYDANCER View Post

The Minx 21's ( i have 5 of them in my 5.1 system ) work and sound best with a 120Hz cross and with out any sonic "hole" let alone a large sonic "hole"! They sound awesome and blend real well with the subwoofer. Completely seamless.

Have you taken any measurements to verify that? If you haven't then I'm afraid there's really no way of knowing if you have a gap. Looking at the measured response of the speakers you can pretty much guarantee there is. You may not hear it - and the sound coming from them might be what you want it to be - but there's still going to be a fairly substantial hole.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RKSKYDANCER View Post

You can not tell this is a Sub/satellite system. Cambridge has stated 120Hz is a good crossover setting for the Minx 21's and this is where they recommend starting at. I have tried the 160Hz setting with not so good results. Unlike Perpendicular, I play my system pretty darn loud most of the time because of my room size and the 120Hz works perfect in my situation.

CA actually recommends 140Hz... "With an AVR the Min11/21 speakers should be set to ‘small’ with a crossover frequency of 140Hz". That suggests to me that even they know the speakers can't realistically do 120Hz.
Where is everyone seeing that Cambridge recommends a 140Hz cross on the Minx 21's in the Minx S325 v2 speaker set? The only thing I found listed on there web site is a recommendation of: If you get a distorted sound or mechanical " crack" noise at higher volume then set the crossover to 140Hz as power handling is considerably increased. As mentioned above in a earlier post or two. Contacting Cambridge Audio confirmed that a 120Hz setting is there recommendation as a starting point for the Minx 21's and should work great. The 140Hz setting is the recommended setting for the older Minx 20 model. I play my speakers loud at times ( I have seen 92db readings on my Sound level meter) which to me is loud without any hint of distortion or unwanted speaker noise with a 120Hz setting.

Jim
No I have not taken any measurements to verify if there is indeed a "gap or substantial hole" in the frequency. There is no reason to. The sound coming from this Minx S325 v2 system is powerful, smooth, seamless and they blend together better then any that I have heard. I have done a frequency sweep test which shows no dip or gap in the frequency thru out the full range tested. "But" please by all means post any measurements taken on the Cambridge S325 v2 system that shows the fairly substantial hole you mention it has. I would like to compare your findings ( test graphs) while I play my system and see why I can not hear this. I know different rooms can drastically change speaker frequency and sound. I can't imagine mine being that good.

Believe me, I am old school. One of my worse fears was changing over from Full range tower speakers with a good 2 channel amp receiver to a 5.1 system with a Sub/ satellite speaker system because of gaps or holes in the frequency or sound. At first my fears came true on the first 3 sub/satellite systems that I bought. I even changed out my receiver twice, went from a older Yamaha 5.1 receiver to the Rx-V673 and now finally the Yamaha RX-A820 to see if this was a problem. Now after purchasing the Cambridge Minx S325 v2 system, all my problems went away. Sound is awesome on movies and excellent on music. Better then my towers sounded which is saying a lot. I still might try a Anthem MRX300 or Sherbourn SR-8100 receiver just for kicks but the Yamaha RX-A820 and Minx S325v2 seems to be a good package together for now.
post #1395 of 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKSKYDANCER View Post

Where is everyone seeing that Cambridge recommends a 140Hz cross on the Minx 21's in the Minx S325 v2 speaker set?

Check out the Specifications tab on this webpage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKSKYDANCER View Post

No I have not taken any measurements to verify if there is indeed a "gap or substantial hole" in the frequency. There is no reason to. The sound coming from this Minx S325 v2 system is powerful, smooth, seamless and they blend together better then any that I have heard. I have done a frequency sweep test which shows no dip or gap in the frequency thru out the full range tested. "But" please by all means post any measurements taken on the Cambridge S325 v2 system that shows the fairly substantial hole you mention it has. I would like to compare your findings ( test graphs) while I play my system and see why I can not hear this. I know different rooms can drastically change speaker frequency and sound. I can't imagine mine being that good.

Several reviews on the Min 21 clearly show it's not really capable of producing sufficient output down to 120Hz, so looking at any of those measurements will corroborate that. However, it might be a moot point in your case; if the speakers sound like what you want them to then how they measure is somewhat irrelevant. Your ears are the only thing that needs to be satisfied, and if it sounds fine to you then it's not worth worrying about anything else.
post #1396 of 1868
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimWilson View Post

Check out the Specifications tab on this webpage.
Several reviews...

Several reviews, LOL? I'd love to see more reviews using the Min 21 but I can't find any, good professional, reviews, other than the one from Home Theater magazine. If you think(?) there's a hole with these speakers, go right ahead and buy into that theory. tongue.gif
post #1397 of 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKSKYDANCER View Post

Where is everyone seeing that Cambridge recommends a 140Hz cross on the Minx 21's in the Minx S325 v2 speaker set? The only thing I found listed on there web site is a recommendation of: If you get a distorted sound or mechanical " crack" noise at higher volume then set the crossover to 140Hz as power handling is considerably increased. As mentioned above in a earlier post or two. Contacting Cambridge Audio confirmed that a 120Hz setting is there recommendation as a starting point for the Minx 21's and should work great. The 140Hz setting is the recommended setting for the older Minx 20 model. I play my speakers loud at times ( I have seen 92db readings on my Sound level meter) which to me is loud without any hint of distortion or unwanted speaker noise with a 120Hz setting.

Jim
No I have not taken any measurements to verify if there is indeed a "gap or substantial hole" in the frequency. There is no reason to. The sound coming from this Minx S325 v2 system is powerful, smooth, seamless and they blend together better then any that I have heard. I have done a frequency sweep test which shows no dip or gap in the frequency thru out the full range tested. "But" please by all means post any measurements taken on the Cambridge S325 v2 system that shows the fairly substantial hole you mention it has. I would like to compare your findings ( test graphs) while I play my system and see why I can not hear this. I know different rooms can drastically change speaker frequency and sound. I can't imagine mine being that good.

Believe me, I am old school. One of my worse fears was changing over from Full range tower speakers with a good 2 channel amp receiver to a 5.1 system with a Sub/ satellite speaker system because of gaps or holes in the frequency or sound. At first my fears came true on the first 3 sub/satellite systems that I bought. I even changed out my receiver twice, went from a older Yamaha 5.1 receiver to the Rx-V673 and now finally the Yamaha RX-A820 to see if this was a problem. Now after purchasing the Cambridge Minx S325 v2 system, all my problems went away. Sound is awesome on movies and excellent on music. Better then my towers sounded which is saying a lot. I still might try a Anthem MRX300 or Sherbourn SR-8100 receiver just for kicks but the Yamaha RX-A820 and Minx S325v2 seems to be a good package together for now.

just curious what were your previous compact speakers..the ones that did not sound good ?
post #1398 of 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perpendicular View Post

Several reviews, LOL? I'd love to see more reviews using the Min 21 but I can't find any, good professional, reviews, other than the one from Home Theater magazine. If you think(?) there's a hole with these speakers, go right ahead and buy into that theory. tongue.gif

Not sure I'd classify measured responses as a theoretical assessment. CA states the lower response is only 120Hz, but they don't say how many dB down they are at that point or what the output level is. My guess is -3dB would be optimistic because they're recommending a 140Hz crossover instead. That seems to imply they know 120Hz isn't reasonable, at least not at any usable volume level.

Like I said, people may prefer to cross them over at higher or lower settings. That's fine, whatever your ears like is where you should set them at. But hook up a mic and run some sweeps and I'd be willing to bet you see a pretty nice valley around 120Hz. wink.gif
post #1399 of 1868
I think you might be misinterpreting what CA is saying in the specification page.

"Using a high powered amplifier lower down its volume scale results in lower distortion and better sound. Of course if you hear a distorted sound or mechanical ‘crack’ as the speakers hit their end stops, you are playing the speakers too loud and this may cause damage. With an AVR the Min11/21 speakers should be set to ‘small’ with a crossover frequency of 140Hz. In this configuration, power handling is considerable increased."

I'm guessing that's what you are referring to. To me, this is just a badly worded paragraph, it sounds like they are are first discussing stand alone amps, then switch to AVR. But I believe the they are talking about any amplifier, be it discreet or part of an AVR. Regardless as I understand it, the recommendation of 140 is to prevent the mechanical limits from being reached with high powered amps, that's not the same as having a hole there. The higher the crossover, the louder it can be played before damaging it (power handling can be increased). If you play at more reasonable levels, then why not use the 120hz crossover, even on that page they give the freq response as 120-20,000hz.
Edited by ien2 - 5/10/13 at 12:45pm
post #1400 of 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by ien2 View Post

If you play at more reasonable levels, then why not use the 120hz crossover, even on that page they give the freq response as 120-20,000hz.

I suppose it depends upon what your definition of 'reasonable level' is. You're talking about 2.25" speakers here, and they're up against some immutable laws of physics. The BMR has surprising clarity, and a wide dispersion pattern, but it can't perform miracles. Magic perhaps, but not miracles.

Since CA is not specifying how many dB down the 120Hz figure is, or how much output it had at 120Hz, it's almost a meaningless number. If the HPF was removed you could probably get them to play a 10Hz tone. You wouldn't be able to hear it with your ear, but you could measure it. Without additional context the 120Hz specification isn't really telling you much I'm afraid. I think the Min speakers are an engineering marvel, but there are limitations.
post #1401 of 1868
I guess my point was that CA does not use 140 as far as FR is concerned, yet you were trying to use it as a reason which isn't correct.

The power handling is up to 200w, if they believe that it's a problem somewhere over 100, then reasonable levels are actually quite loud. But they don't specify. In my demo they were using a 90wpc amp and it filled a 15x20x18 room very easily with clean, loud sound, far more than I'd ever play it at.
Edited by ien2 - 5/10/13 at 1:06pm
post #1402 of 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by ien2 View Post

I guess my point was that CA does not use 140 as far as FR is concerned, yet you were trying to use it as a reason which isn't correct.

There's nothing "incorrect" about it really. If CA felt the Min 21 was able to play at a reasonable level all the way down to 120Hz they never would have added that recommendation to use 140Hz on their website. It was probably done to protect the speaker from being over-driven, which is not at all unreasonable on their part. At the very least, pushing a 2.25" speaker to play frequencies that low is a recipe for distortion. CA is up against physics, and she doesn't yield to anyone.
post #1403 of 1868
I can't stand "holes" in FR. They are audible and need to be eradicated. The first thing I do whenever I buy a new speaker is break out the microphone and REW and verify if there are any holes in the sub/sat blend. Very often, I have to raise the crossover to above the -3dB spec point to get a good blend. My SVS sub is flat out to 200Hz, so the sub is more than up to the task of filling in the holes when given the chance to do so.

I'd be curious to see some actual FR plots from people running their Minx with less than 160Hz crossover. I've probably gone through a dozen different micro-sats and my experience is that there's no miracles, small speaker means you have to run a very high crossover otherwise there are holes that need to be migitated.
post #1404 of 1868
Wait a sec, the mechanical limit of a driver is not the only factor in where the roll off begins.

Remember, this is a unique driver meant to play high as well as somewhat low. CA is simply letting you know that the sub can take a little bit more of the burden in exchange for increase loudness in everything above the crossover (it's easier to play higher frequencies with more power than lower) so the mechanical limit isn't reached. Given that you are using a single driver with a sub, it's an option you don't necessarily get with a multi-driver speaker and something that perhaps most people wouldn't realize. It does not imply that the roll off is at 140 throughout the entire power range. Since CA hasn't given the +-3 point, you are speculating as much as anybody. As far as you know, at around 70w the +-3 roll off could be at 100hz. Perhaps the 120hz is just a good medium starting point and if you plan on driving them hard, increase it to 140 as CA.recommends.

Hmm...I'm starting to sound argumentative hehe, sorry I don't mean to, I just usually write strictly to the point with things like this. Don't mean to be offensive or anything smile.gif
Edited by ien2 - 5/10/13 at 2:45pm
post #1405 of 1868
Hi,

As far as I have been led to believe, ANY respectable specs should show the stated FR within +/- 3dB & most respectable brands do that. This then begs the question, Why did CA simply not do this? Simple enough to do one would have thought surely & would have avoided so much speculation?

I have read & I quote: "If you ever see a freq resp without a +/- X db it is a bogus or meaningless claim, because you have no idea at what level the speakers would put out that lower or upper freq."

I also believe Bill Fitzmaurice stated (& understand is also fervently believed by most) that: "Manufacturers have a way of skewing data. IME if there is no measured SPL chart to back up frequency response claims those claims should be taken with a truckload of salt"

I believe Jim very politely alluded to pretty much the same as above.

Just saying...

Bazzy!
post #1406 of 1868
*laughs*

Yes, I realize that, but I was merely pointing out that these are different little buggers.

It's asked to do high down to upper lows and do it well. How well they operate depends on how much power you give them. As I said before, the mechanical limit what a speaker can handle does not imply a specific roll off. If you set the crossover at 60hz, it's power rating will be in the tank as it will distort and break at low power levels, as you increase the crossover, it will be able to handle more power without distorting. CA is recommending at if you are pushing it hard that you should be using 140hz, this does not imply the roll off is there, it implies that if you are using it towards it max power rating that you should have it there to reduce the risk of damage. This is the point I was making. CA is not at all inferring that the roll off is at 140hz yet Jim was using it that way.

I have a pair of Infinity's with a FR of 50-35,000hz +-3db. If I set my crossover to 65hz*, I could drive them harder without distortion, the woofer would reach it's limit before the other 2 drivers did and setting it at 65hz increased it's power handling. It's basically the same thing here, 140 so you can have an increased upper limit in power, doesn't imply roll off there just as the 65hz crossover for my Infinity's didn't mean roll off at that point.

*At college we wanted to see how loud we could play music (in a dorm mind you biggrin.gif ) and we jury rigged some stuff together. Managed to get mine at least sounding the loudest, but we didn't have alot of choices; 35, 50, 65 and a 100hz I believe. Unfortunately the woofer was still the weakest link between the 65 and 100 point and really couldn't get any louder. On the plus side, we then hooked up all the systems we had on the floor together and managed to get a complaint from another dorm that was a good 100' away cool.gif
Edited by ien2 - 5/10/13 at 6:17pm
post #1407 of 1868
Hi,

"CA is not at all inferring that the roll off is at 140hz yet Jim was using it that way."

Well, in defence of Jim, the ONLY hard, unbiased & objective measured data we have for reference is the Home Theatre Review with regard to the Min21's. There has to be a a reference point & measurements so accurate assessments can be made & Jim has referenced this & rightly so. The results were world's apart from the CA's stated figures & the measured data.

We cannot one say on the one hand, wow, how awesome & great the HTR review was & agree with absolutely everything they so glowing stated & then turn around & say, well they must suck at taking measurements just because we do not like them, agree with them, goes against any subjective experiences any owners might have experienced or just because CA says so - especially in light of the statements in my last post.

Another thing to consider, is that CA stated that the previous generation Min20's had a FR of 130Hz. Most owners on this thread ended up experimenting well beyond - between 150Hz & 200Hz. Most stated very clearly that the minimum setting to use was 150hz & some were using even higher - 175Hz, 200hz. To my recollection, not one person had successful integration at the hallowed CA figure of 130hz which proves CA's figures with the Min20 were most certainly skewed by a very large margin indeed. As the Min21 apparently is stated as going only 10hz lower than the Min20, I believe Jim was correct to express his views as valid due to actual measured data of the Min21's and multiple "actual" experiences of the Min20's. The "uniqueness" of this speaker certainly did it no favours at all in being able to achieve CA's stated figures with the Min20 - rather the opposite.

If the minimum gap correlation was the same between the Min20 & Min21, then I believe Jim would be absolutely correct - Min20 = 130hz stated but actual minimum recommended = 150Hz which is a 20Hz difference. This is the exactly the same minimum difference between the Min21 stated 120Hz & the 140hz Jim is recommending which is also happens to be based by statement from CA themselves.

CA also stated that 120Hz would work in a small, European type of room but probably not for larger rooms. What was interesting was that the person who made the statement quoted a room size that was very small, even for European standards which to me was very telling.

May, I ask, why do you think CA did not have their figures with the +/-3dB figures? What could have possibly been the reasons do you think? Would you agree, that it would have been far more better & sincere of them if they had considering the stature of the brand & that these are not exactly cheap?

Not arguing, not fighting, not criticising, not judging - just asking & trying to learn & understand.

Bazzy!
Edited by Bazzy - 5/10/13 at 6:58pm
post #1408 of 1868
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ien2 View Post

Yes, I realize that, but I was merely pointing out that these are different little buggers.

I totally agree here. The non Minx Min 21 owners NEED to hear these speakers before making comments about what they can't do. I cannot speak about the Min 11, only the Min 21 specifically. This model is very different, sound wise, than it's predecessor. And, remember this. The Min 21 is a true two-way speaker that uses two different drivers with increased excursion, as opposed to the same drivers in the Min 20. I'm going to try and get some info on where the last reviewer of the Minx system set his crossover, get his take, and see if he listened to them with different settings. Of course, this is, if he can remember. biggrin.gif
post #1409 of 1868
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazzy View Post

Well, in defence of Jim, the ONLY hard, unbiased & objective measured data we have for reference is the Home Theatre Review with regard to the Min21's.

This is precisely why you shouldn't defend him. rolleyes.gifwink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazzy View Post

Another thing to consider, is that CA stated that the previous generation Min20's had a FR of 130Hz. Most owners on this thread ended up experimenting well beyond - between 150Hz & 200Hz. Most stated very clearly that the minimum setting to use was 150hz & some were using even higher - 175Hz, 200hz. To my recollection, not one person had successful integration at the hallowed CA figure of 130hz which proves CA's figures with the Min20 were most certainly skewed by a very large margin indeed.

Hmmm. I don't remember any of this but I do remember testing various crossover settings on both previous models. You care to point me to those other Posts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazzy View Post

CA also stated that 120Hz would work in a small, European type of room but probably not for larger rooms. What was interesting was that the person who made the statement quoted a room size that was very small, even for European standards which to me was very telling.

This may be true but I cannot test them in a very large room with a lower crossover myself to find out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazzy View Post

May, I ask, why do you think CA did not have their figures with the +/-3dB figures? What could have possibly been the reasons do you think? Would you agree, that it would have been far more better & sincere of them if they had considering the stature of the brand & that these are not exactly cheap?


Better to be safe than sorry. wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazzy View Post

Not arguing, not fighting, not criticising, not judging - just asking & trying to learn & understand.

Isn't that the truth!
post #1410 of 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perpendicular View Post

This is precisely why you shouldn't defend him. rolleyes.gifwink.gif

I think Bazzy was coming to my defense because he gets the bigger picture. A valid argument could be made that one set of objective data is better than one set of questionable data (CA's no-context quoted frequency response) and all the subjective "it sounds good to my ears" assessments. None of the latter two are quantifiable, so they're somewhat dubious. Regardless, it's all pretty much a moot point; unit (if?) there are several sets of unbiased measurements it's hard to draw a definitive conclusion, so there's no value in continuing to go around in circles.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Cambridge Audio Minx Satellite Speakers and Home Theater Systems Discussion Thread