RAAL tweeters - Page 19 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 597Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 554 Old 09-13-2019, 02:15 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
gajCA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 19,381
Mentioned: 224 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9080 Post(s)
Liked: 6221
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
Yes because the one who has compared his speakers to RAAL designs and one of the top Revels blind is the one with speaker envy lol...
And those measured like this on axis, at 15 degrees and at 30 degrees.

Perhaps we should nit pick this pretty decent looking chart and tell you why your are mistaken.

https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/in...nts&Itemid=153

xcjago and jsc79 like this.

Geoff A. J., California
gajCA is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 554 Old 09-13-2019, 02:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
jsc79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Minnesota SW Metro Area
Posts: 689
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 422 Post(s)
Liked: 500
Oh snap.

Not so sure I’d consider the LS50 to be all that impressive as far as science goes. I mean, I’ve seen better measurements somewhere.
xcjago likes this.

Subwoofers: Dual Rythmik FV18
Speakers: L/R Ascend Acoustics Sierra 2 - Center - Horizon w/RAAL Surrounds: Sonance VP62R SST/SUR. Vinyl:Rega Planar 3
Video: Sony XBR65X900e 65" 4K - Sony UBP-X800 Blu Ray
Power and Processing: Yamaha RXA1030 - Monolith 7X Amp - Minidsp 2X4 HD/WI-DG

Last edited by jsc79; 09-13-2019 at 02:30 PM.
jsc79 is offline  
post #543 of 554 Old 09-13-2019, 03:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,313
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by gajCA View Post
And those measured like this on axis, at 15 degrees and at 30 degrees.

Perhaps we should nit pick this pretty decent looking chart and tell you why your are mistaken.

https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/in...nts&Itemid=153

Agreed and I said as much when comparing them to the Revel M105 but if you've learned anything from this thread, it should be that there is much more to measurements than On-axis, in fact as I mentioned, the Harman algorithm that correlates measurements to preference uses about 1.5x more of the off-axis data than On-axis. I've shown before that the in-room response of the LS50 is nearly identical to Harman's target curve. Throw in a few subs and they make a great system, so do many other speakers, of course.

But for those that think "The Science" is BS and are close to the Cincinnati area with some RAAL speakers I'd be more than happy to have a blind shootout with them and the LS50, they will be level matched and use 1 speaker of each in Mono, bass normalized, etc.
aarons915 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #544 of 554 Old 09-13-2019, 03:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
jsc79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Minnesota SW Metro Area
Posts: 689
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 422 Post(s)
Liked: 500
I’m not denying the science. Are there spins of the LS50 anywhere?

Subwoofers: Dual Rythmik FV18
Speakers: L/R Ascend Acoustics Sierra 2 - Center - Horizon w/RAAL Surrounds: Sonance VP62R SST/SUR. Vinyl:Rega Planar 3
Video: Sony XBR65X900e 65" 4K - Sony UBP-X800 Blu Ray
Power and Processing: Yamaha RXA1030 - Monolith 7X Amp - Minidsp 2X4 HD/WI-DG
jsc79 is offline  
post #545 of 554 Old 09-13-2019, 03:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,313
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc79 View Post
I’m not denying the science. Are there spins of the LS50 anywhere?
The only one I've found was in a study that had no smoothing but you can still see trends.



That 2k resonance creates "excess energy" around 2k in my in-room measurements, just as the science says it will. It's not as offensive as it looks but it does fatigue me after many hours of listening, after EQ'ing it out they sound a bit smoother and aren't fatiguing at all. These are in-room measurements I took showing the 2k peak before and after EQ.

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	LS50_spin.JPG
Views:	66
Size:	54.7 KB
ID:	2614842   Click image for larger version

Name:	LS50.jpg
Views:	63
Size:	55.5 KB
ID:	2614844  
BufordTJustice likes this.
aarons915 is online now  
post #546 of 554 Old 09-13-2019, 03:30 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
gajCA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 19,381
Mentioned: 224 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9080 Post(s)
Liked: 6221
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc79 View Post
I’m not denying the science. Are there spins of the LS50 anywhere?
The Soundstage link provided more than the one chart I posted.
jsc79 likes this.

Geoff A. J., California
gajCA is offline  
post #547 of 554 Old 09-13-2019, 08:09 PM
Member
 
simplyderp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Love this thread. Battle of the RAAL and LS50 fanboys.
gajCA likes this.
simplyderp is online now  
post #548 of 554 Old 09-14-2019, 12:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
Agreed and I said as much when comparing them to the Revel M105 but if you've learned anything from this thread, it should be that there is much more to measurements than On-axis, in fact as I mentioned, the Harman algorithm that correlates measurements to preference uses about 1.5x more of the off-axis data than On-axis. I've shown before that the in-room response of the LS50 is nearly identical to Harman's target curve. Throw in a few subs and they make a great system, so do many other speakers, of course.

But for those that think "The Science" is BS and are close to the Cincinnati area with some RAAL speakers I'd be more than happy to have a blind shootout with them and the LS50, they will be level matched and use 1 speaker of each in Mono, bass normalized, etc.
Actually - that is true for what is being measured. For what is heard, the direct sound field is most important. This can only be be measured accurately either under anechoic circumstances or combined methods with some creativity: nearfield, ground-plane and/or gated measurements. This is also the reason that Toole is very much against correction above the transition frequency, as one needs that anechoic data to know what (not) to correct, which is not possible to obtain in a normal room, from the listening position(s).

When I made nearfield measurements of my Revel F206 in accordance with the 'listening window' response. I found it needed about 3 filters (2 PEQ, one shelf) to make it flat as a pancake. I made those measurements because there was in fact something that bothered me in the sound, which was solved with the process above. Interestingly enough, my C208 did not need any correction using the same measurement method.
BufordTJustice likes this.
TimVG is offline  
post #549 of 554 Old 09-14-2019, 07:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,313
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Actually - that is true for what is being measured. For what is heard, the direct sound field is most important. This can only be be measured accurately either under anechoic circumstances or combined methods with some creativity: nearfield, ground-plane and/or gated measurements. This is also the reason that Toole is very much against correction above the transition frequency, as one needs that anechoic data to know what (not) to correct, which is not possible to obtain in a normal room, from the listening position(s).

When I made nearfield measurements of my Revel F206 in accordance with the 'listening window' response. I found it needed about 3 filters (2 PEQ, one shelf) to make it flat as a pancake. I made those measurements because there was in fact something that bothered me in the sound, which was solved with the process above. Interestingly enough, my C208 did not need any correction using the same measurement method.
I don't think so, I believe you have his new book, On Pg 128 he says "In normal rooms, the On-axis response is not the dominant factor. However, the direct-sound has a high priority in perception, establishing a reference for which later arrivals are compared..." I also agree with Toole about not correcting above transition, but in the case I linked above, you can see the areas I corrected are evident as bumps in all of the curves so it's ok, you do need anechoic data for this. My comment about the Off-axis being more important is based on their preference algorithm, when you take out the bass extension parameter, On-axis flatness accounts for the remaining 40% and Predicted in room smoothness and slope is the other 60%, that is why I believe that Early reflections curve is much more important than many realize.

Your F206 is actually a perfect example of Harman appearing to prioritize the Early reflections curve over the Listening window, the LW isn't perfect but the smoothness of the other curves is great. Now if you listen directly On-axis I could see you preferring your filters but I do believe Revel prioritized the other curves, it's not hard to attain a neutral listening window if that was their #1 priority.
aarons915 is online now  
post #550 of 554 Old 09-14-2019, 07:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
I don't think so, I believe you have his new book, On Pg 128 he says "In normal rooms, the On-axis response is not the dominant factor. However, the direct-sound has a high priority in perception, establishing a reference for which later arrivals are compared..." I also agree with Toole about not correcting above transition, but in the case I linked above, you can see the areas I corrected are evident as bumps in all of the curves so it's ok, you do need anechoic data for this. My comment about the Off-axis being more important is based on their preference algorithm, when you take out the bass extension parameter, On-axis flatness accounts for the remaining 40% and Predicted in room smoothness and slope is the other 60%, that is why I believe that Early reflections curve is much more important than many realize.

Your F206 is actually a perfect example of Harman appearing to prioritize the Early reflections curve over the Listening window, the LW isn't perfect but the smoothness of the other curves is great. Now if you listen directly On-axis I could see you preferring your filters but I do believe Revel prioritized the other curves, it's not hard to attain a neutral listening window if that was their #1 priority.
By on-axis not being the dominant factor, he likely means as compared to the direct sound field aka the listening window. Meaning there can be little irregularities in it that disappear in the LW. He has stated many times here on avs that the direct sound is the most critical aspect - if it is wrong, nothing else matters (those were close to his literal words) - Followed of course by the early reflections, and most importantly the early horizontal reflections - the slope of which closely follows the direct sound field with the highest rated models. I'll take a quick look at p128 in a little bit.
TimVG is offline  
post #551 of 554 Old 09-14-2019, 07:38 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
I don't think so, I believe you have his new book, On Pg 128 he says "In normal rooms, the On-axis response is not the dominant factor. However, the direct-sound has a high priority in perception, establishing a reference for which later arrivals are compared..." I also agree with Toole about not correcting above transition, but in the case I linked above, you can see the areas I corrected are evident as bumps in all of the curves so it's ok, you do need anechoic data for this. My comment about the Off-axis being more important is based on their preference algorithm, when you take out the bass extension parameter, On-axis flatness accounts for the remaining 40% and Predicted in room smoothness and slope is the other 60%, that is why I believe that Early reflections curve is much more important than many realize.

Your F206 is actually a perfect example of Harman appearing to prioritize the Early reflections curve over the Listening window, the LW isn't perfect but the smoothness of the other curves is great. Now if you listen directly On-axis I could see you preferring your filters but I do believe Revel prioritized the other curves, it's not hard to attain a neutral listening window if that was their #1 priority.

I just looked. The quote on page 118 is about steady-state measured performance in a normal room. As we know, steady-state measured performance doesn't correlate well with subjective sound quality as confirmed by Toole and many others.
TimVG is offline  
post #552 of 554 Old 09-14-2019, 09:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,313
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
By on-axis not being the dominant factor, he likely means as compared to the direct sound field aka the listening window. Meaning there can be little irregularities in it that disappear in the LW. He has stated many times here on avs that the direct sound is the most critical aspect - if it is wrong, nothing else matters (those were close to his literal words) - Followed of course by the early reflections, and most importantly the early horizontal reflections - the slope of which closely follows the direct sound field with the highest rated models. I'll take a quick look at p128 in a little bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
I just looked. The quote on page 118 is about steady-state measured performance in a normal room. As we know, steady-state measured performance doesn't correlate well with subjective sound quality as confirmed by Toole and many others.
I've heard that quote and it is consistent with what he wrote on 118 (Sorry about the wrong pg number), he's talking about what is dominant in a room, of course the direct sound is important but with the F206 we're still talking a listening window that fits +/- 2 decibels. There are examples in the book with decent on-axis performance but were shown to be dominated by the off-axis response in listening tests. Also, anecdotally the Salon 2 beating the M2 blind can only be explained by off-axis differences, along with my own example of the LS50 beating the M105 blind.

This is really more on topic in the Science thread but to get it a bit back on topic, the off-axis response has to explain why many speakers sound differently, considering so many measure flat on-axis these days. The CBM-170 vs Sierra 2 is the perfect example to people who own both, they measure flat on-axis but sound quite different. These differences between how a dome and a ribbon sound off-axis were really my motivation for trying to explain the why using the Science that we know.
aarons915 is online now  
post #553 of 554 Old 09-14-2019, 10:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
I've heard that quote and it is consistent with what he wrote on 118 (Sorry about the wrong pg number), he's talking about what is dominant in a room, of course the direct sound is important but with the F206 we're still talking a listening window that fits +/- 2 decibels. There are examples in the book with decent on-axis performance but were shown to be dominated by the off-axis response in listening tests. Also, anecdotally the Salon 2 beating the M2 blind can only be explained by off-axis differences, along with my own example of the LS50 beating the M105 blind.

This is really more on topic in the Science thread but to get it a bit back on topic, the off-axis response has to explain why many speakers sound differently, considering so many measure flat on-axis these days. The CBM-170 vs Sierra 2 is the perfect example to people who own both, they measure flat on-axis but sound quite different. These differences between how a dome and a ribbon sound off-axis were really my motivation for trying to explain the why using the Science that we know.
-For some reason my pair of F206 have a slightly different listening window response than the spinorama shows (above 1kHz is what I measured) - my C208 is a lot closer. So what I did was correct the LW response, this mitigated my slight quarrel with them - my measured results correlated with what I heard.

-I have my theory on why the Salon2 beat the M2, the off-axis differences being part of it,but perhaps we could save that for another thread or a private message.

-And yeah, the off-axis (early reflections) definitely matters, I don't think there's disagreement about this. It's important that the ER slope matches that of the LW up to about 10Khz (I believe that's the number Kevin Voecks once wrote somewhere). Differences can be experienced as coloration under the right (wrong?) circumstances.

-As for your KEF beating the M105 - you know it could be a number of things. Could be positional, low end response - even program material. I should measure my 105s listening window to see if there is much divergence from the spin as I found on my pair of F206.
TimVG is offline  
post #554 of 554 Old 09-14-2019, 01:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
Vergiliusm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Land of Enchantment
Posts: 658
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked: 479
Quote:
As for your KEF beating the M105 - you know it could be a number of things. Could be positional, low end response - even program material
The Uni-Q drivers are exceptional, imo. My experience with them was with their entry level Q100 (the LS50 is better in every way), and with some kinds of material such as acoustic performances and with natural instruments like jazz and classical, they really excelled. Personal preference and application are probably other main factors, in addition to the ones you mentioned.

All the speakers in this thread measure very well, and we tend to nitpick over measurements more than the average person, but as David Smith mentioned several times in the interview Rick posted, microphones don't "hear" like we do, so some things that look objectionable or questionable to the eye on the graph are not an issue to the ears in listening.
TimVG likes this.

"Rock and roll is alive and alright" Sloan
Vergiliusm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off