Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

New Stereophile issue: Measurements and so on

Expand Messages
  • Robert
    The new issue (June 2010) of Stereophile so I suppose it is time for a quick look at the measurement items(speakers mostly). Before that, I noticed that the
    Message 1 of 8 , May 12, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      The new issue (June 2010) of Stereophile so I
      suppose it is time for a quick look at the measurement
      items(speakers mostly).

      Before that, I noticed that the first real feature article
      (Industry Update) had as its lead-in picture a photo of
      someone standing next to the Acoustic Energy Reference 1.
      The Special Edition version of this costs $4000 per pair
      as indicated here
      http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/acoustic_energy_ae1_mkiii_reference_special_edition_loudspeaker/

      This speaker is 12" high, 7 " wide and 9 " deep.
      It is worth noting that Atkinson starts off his review with a paragraph that ends with the following sentence.

      " Furthermore, the larger the speaker, the larger its problems, which in turn requires throwing more money at the design to solve those problems."

      (I know that JA does not like extended quotes on line so I refer you to the link above for the full paragraph and the rest of the review).

      This seems like a good moment to remark once more that I could hardly disagree more. A speaker the size of the Acoustic Energy is BOUND to sound small, on account of the baffle step business. Bigger speakers have fewer problems not more problems--unless bigger is taken to mean lots of different drivers as in a five way speaker or something. Bigger baffles are EASIER to deal with, not harder

      The issue is not the shortage of bass(which Atkinson is pointing out as the major issue with small speakers) but the intrinsic sound in the region that these and other small speakers cover.

      I have not heard this particular speaker(tis measurements are distinctly discouraging in my view, incidentally). But I have NEVER
      heard a small speaker that did not sound small.

      And personally "I HATE SMALL SPEAKERS", as I started one of my reviews some time ago, quoting a famous recording person(who was un-named and shall remain so).

      It is one of audio life's mysteries how such things as tiny speakers that cost $4000 per pair have come to be taken as serious.

      Meanwhile, a second point arises in the measurements of the Canton
      Reference 3.2DC.22(pp76-81). JA approves of the measurements and so in a sense do I. Precisely, the speakers seem quite flat and to have smooth offaxis behavior , except in the high treble where the irregularities off axis are likely not a serious problem in audible terms as long as one listens on axis.

      But what intrigued me is figure 3. This seems to indicate that the off axis , while smooth indeed,impressively so, really slopes down rather hard.
      As I read the graph, I would estimate that the power response at say 2-3k is really quite far down relative to say 400 Hz.

      Now to each his own--some people may like this sound, and no doubt it has a smooth character, given the smoothness of the off axis.

      But what I am curious about is how did it come about that this seriously downsloping off axis(and hence, one supposes, power) response
      has come to be described as "textbook lateral dispersion".
      In my textbook, a speaker ought to have essentially constant directivity from around 300 Hz to around 2-3 kHz. The narrowing ought to happen further up.

      I am curious how suddenly in the last few years, people have decided that the smooth down slope is what is good. Perhaps this is because it is what designers have figured out how to do , and in particular how to do it with narrow front speakers.(Audio has a long history of saying that whatever it can do is right! But of course constant directivity speakers can be made as well).

      And teh downsloping response is surely not what EVERYONE who thinks hard about such things has decided ought to be done. I refer you once more to
      www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=569

      Note that the first reflection sound power is FLAT from 300 Hz to almost 5 kHz(and definitely to 4kHz). And the toal sound power droops only a little from 300 Hz to 4kHz--a couple of dB. This is going to give a quite diffferent sound from the more severe offaxis rollouts,smooth though they be, that have become common and indeed some kind of defacto standard nowadays.

      Of course, people can like what they like. But I am really curious how such a crucial issue came to be decided de facto("textbook" suggests something that is supposed to be some sort of standard)
      without as far as I can tell anyone actually discussing it in the public forum as it were!

      It is not easy to infer sound power precisely from the offaxis graphs as Stereophile presents them(since sound power also involves the vertical) but one really gets the idea that sound power sloping smoothly down from say 300 Hz on up has become some sort of
      nominal ideal. But the former ideal was constant directivity
      from 300 Hz to say 4kHz (with narrowing dispersion in the top octave and a half or so). How was the change justified?

      I know for example for a fact that many Toole school speakers have such down sloping power response. They have smooth power response(to the extent that this can happen with LR 24 dB per octave crossovers which have a power response glitch at the transition to the tweeter).

      But the question that arises in my mind is, how did the shift happen, on what basis did people change what the "textbook" ideal was supposed to be.

      Now Toole pushed for smooth off axis and smooth power, which is fair enough at least in general(in the crucial 2-4k range, things are trickier but .,..). But flat is also smooth! So why down slope instead of flat power across the midrange broadly conceived?

      The whole thing is almost enough to make one want to use omni speakers to get some life into the upper part of the midrange--pr dipoles. And for sure I want to use wide baffle ones, as I have said repeatedly.

      It is all a quite complex matter. But I think that such a big decision ought to be a public issue, widely discussed, not something where it is widely assumed(and Stereophile is far from along here, I am just mentioning this because it is a conveninet example) without comment that one way of doing it is textbook the other not.

      This --radiation pattern--is the main thing that makes speakers sound different, if one takes the on- axis as going to be flat(which of course one can make it be with DSP).

      What kind of thing is it that the ONE really major determiner of speaker sound has been decided, or so it seems, without any public formal discussion at all to speak of?

      There has been a big shift, but the shift was never announced so to speak. It has just happened. In times gone by, everyone assumed that speakers ought to have flat power in the midrange--cf. Allison's article from long ago that we had a link to here earlier.

      A curious development indeed, this change without rationale, and here one sees yet one more instance of it. (I know it is a bit of a pain to do it, but I wish that power response /directivity measurements were more widely available). As before, one ought to remind one's self that the ear's diffuse field and direct arrival responses match up to around 3k. The differences start aboce that, so that to make one's selfhear the effect of the direct arrival unaltered, the diffuse field should match it in that frequency range(below 2-3 k)

      REG
    • uohh
      Hi Robert, Could you elaborate a bit further on the power response issue with regard to narrow front versus wide baffle speaker designs? By sloping down the
      Message 2 of 8 , May 14, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Robert,

        Could you elaborate a bit further on the power response issue with regard to narrow front versus wide baffle speaker designs?

        By sloping down the directivity or off axis response of the narrow front speakers, does this not have similar effect as using wide baffle to control the directivity of the same frequency area between 300Hz to 3kHz? Is there further issues involved?

        Joseph

        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > The new issue (June 2010) of Stereophile so I
        > suppose it is time for a quick look at the measurement
        > items(speakers mostly).
        >
        > Before that, I noticed that the first real feature article
        > (Industry Update) had as its lead-in picture a photo of
        > someone standing next to the Acoustic Energy Reference 1.
        > The Special Edition version of this costs $4000 per pair
        > as indicated here
        > http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/acoustic_energy_ae1_mkiii_reference_special_edition_loudspeaker/
        >
        > This speaker is 12" high, 7 " wide and 9 " deep.
        > It is worth noting that Atkinson starts off his review with a paragraph that ends with the following sentence.
        >
        > " Furthermore, the larger the speaker, the larger its problems, which in turn requires throwing more money at the design to solve those problems."
        >
        > (I know that JA does not like extended quotes on line so I refer you to the link above for the full paragraph and the rest of the review).
        >
        > This seems like a good moment to remark once more that I could hardly disagree more. A speaker the size of the Acoustic Energy is BOUND to sound small, on account of the baffle step business. Bigger speakers have fewer problems not more problems--unless bigger is taken to mean lots of different drivers as in a five way speaker or something. Bigger baffles are EASIER to deal with, not harder
        >
        > The issue is not the shortage of bass(which Atkinson is pointing out as the major issue with small speakers) but the intrinsic sound in the region that these and other small speakers cover.
        >
        > I have not heard this particular speaker(tis measurements are distinctly discouraging in my view, incidentally). But I have NEVER
        > heard a small speaker that did not sound small.
        >
        > And personally "I HATE SMALL SPEAKERS", as I started one of my reviews some time ago, quoting a famous recording person(who was un-named and shall remain so).
        >
        > It is one of audio life's mysteries how such things as tiny speakers that cost $4000 per pair have come to be taken as serious.
        >
        > Meanwhile, a second point arises in the measurements of the Canton
        > Reference 3.2DC.22(pp76-81). JA approves of the measurements and so in a sense do I. Precisely, the speakers seem quite flat and to have smooth offaxis behavior , except in the high treble where the irregularities off axis are likely not a serious problem in audible terms as long as one listens on axis.
        >
        > But what intrigued me is figure 3. This seems to indicate that the off axis , while smooth indeed,impressively so, really slopes down rather hard.
        > As I read the graph, I would estimate that the power response at say 2-3k is really quite far down relative to say 400 Hz.
        >
        > Now to each his own--some people may like this sound, and no doubt it has a smooth character, given the smoothness of the off axis.
        >
        > But what I am curious about is how did it come about that this seriously downsloping off axis(and hence, one supposes, power) response
        > has come to be described as "textbook lateral dispersion".
        > In my textbook, a speaker ought to have essentially constant directivity from around 300 Hz to around 2-3 kHz. The narrowing ought to happen further up.
        >
        > I am curious how suddenly in the last few years, people have decided that the smooth down slope is what is good. Perhaps this is because it is what designers have figured out how to do , and in particular how to do it with narrow front speakers.(Audio has a long history of saying that whatever it can do is right! But of course constant directivity speakers can be made as well).
        >
        > And teh downsloping response is surely not what EVERYONE who thinks hard about such things has decided ought to be done. I refer you once more to
        > www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=569
        >
        > Note that the first reflection sound power is FLAT from 300 Hz to almost 5 kHz(and definitely to 4kHz). And the toal sound power droops only a little from 300 Hz to 4kHz--a couple of dB. This is going to give a quite diffferent sound from the more severe offaxis rollouts,smooth though they be, that have become common and indeed some kind of defacto standard nowadays.
        >
        > Of course, people can like what they like. But I am really curious how such a crucial issue came to be decided de facto("textbook" suggests something that is supposed to be some sort of standard)
        > without as far as I can tell anyone actually discussing it in the public forum as it were!
        >
        > It is not easy to infer sound power precisely from the offaxis graphs as Stereophile presents them(since sound power also involves the vertical) but one really gets the idea that sound power sloping smoothly down from say 300 Hz on up has become some sort of
        > nominal ideal. But the former ideal was constant directivity
        > from 300 Hz to say 4kHz (with narrowing dispersion in the top octave and a half or so). How was the change justified?
        >
        > I know for example for a fact that many Toole school speakers have such down sloping power response. They have smooth power response(to the extent that this can happen with LR 24 dB per octave crossovers which have a power response glitch at the transition to the tweeter).
        >
        > But the question that arises in my mind is, how did the shift happen, on what basis did people change what the "textbook" ideal was supposed to be.
        >
        > Now Toole pushed for smooth off axis and smooth power, which is fair enough at least in general(in the crucial 2-4k range, things are trickier but .,..). But flat is also smooth! So why down slope instead of flat power across the midrange broadly conceived?
        >
        > The whole thing is almost enough to make one want to use omni speakers to get some life into the upper part of the midrange--pr dipoles. And for sure I want to use wide baffle ones, as I have said repeatedly.
        >
        > It is all a quite complex matter. But I think that such a big decision ought to be a public issue, widely discussed, not something where it is widely assumed(and Stereophile is far from along here, I am just mentioning this because it is a conveninet example) without comment that one way of doing it is textbook the other not.
        >
        > This --radiation pattern--is the main thing that makes speakers sound different, if one takes the on- axis as going to be flat(which of course one can make it be with DSP).
        >
        > What kind of thing is it that the ONE really major determiner of speaker sound has been decided, or so it seems, without any public formal discussion at all to speak of?
        >
        > There has been a big shift, but the shift was never announced so to speak. It has just happened. In times gone by, everyone assumed that speakers ought to have flat power in the midrange--cf. Allison's article from long ago that we had a link to here earlier.
        >
        > A curious development indeed, this change without rationale, and here one sees yet one more instance of it. (I know it is a bit of a pain to do it, but I wish that power response /directivity measurements were more widely available). As before, one ought to remind one's self that the ear's diffuse field and direct arrival responses match up to around 3k. The differences start aboce that, so that to make one's selfhear the effect of the direct arrival unaltered, the diffuse field should match it in that frequency range(below 2-3 k)
        >
        > REG
        >
      • Robert
        It is a bit tricky ,what goes on. But here is a try at explaining Look first at this http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=569
        Message 3 of 8 , May 14, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          It is a bit tricky ,what goes on.

          But here is a try at explaining
          Look first at this
          http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=569
          especially the graph that shows directivity index measurements.

          This speaker, which has a wide baffle and a small midrange driver(the classic AR style in effect) has a definite baffle step from 100 to 300 Hz. It goes from omni to forward radiating there. But this is TOO LOW to sound like a coloration. Then from 300 Hz to 1.5 kHz it has
          almost perfectly constant directivity. And even from 1.5 k to 4k there
          is just a little additional directivity(probably from the midrange driver size--in the AR idea the mid is even smaller than here).
          What this gives is uncolored midrange--the direct arrival and the overall sound power match really well where it counts.

          This is not to mention the first reflection sound power, which REALLY matches the direct arrival almost exactly from 300 Hz to 5kHz.

          Above 4k, the tweeter narrows its radiation pattern gradually but smoothly.

          This is the classic style in action.

          Now it all depends on having the wide baffle--because IF you have a narrow front the speaker stays more nearly omni to a much higher frequency. Look for example at this
          http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=858
          from the same people!
          They are doing the best they can, and they do get the directivity index smooth. But notice that it rises steadily. It is far from constant in the 300 Hz to 1.5 kHz range. There is perhaps nothing wrong with narrowing the treble down. But look hard at the midrange.
          (A good way is to open both windows and click back and forth from one to the other using the minimize button).

          These speakers are designed with similar philosophy in mind. But even the best designers (and these JBL Pro guys are some of the best) cannot get around the small size issue. These speakers will not sound alike. One of them has flat power in the midrange after the baffle step at 300 Hz(the big one) and the other one(the little one)
          slopes steadily down from 300 Hz on to 1k. Look especially at the first reflection sound power!

          These two things will not sound alike. In one case, the big one, the baffle step is over and done with down far enough that it is in the region where room sound and direct sound are all mixed together.
          You can EQ the bass to get what you want, whatever it is, and the midrange will sound uniform because it is on axis and first reflection and power response uniform--everything is uniform--in the midrange.

          But the little one is not like that. They got it smooth off axis and in sound power quite well, but it is not UNIFORM(flat) in the midrange. There is a big difference!

          One of these is going to have the sound of real music, the other one is going to sound smooth but like a small speaker.

          (I have never heard the little one, but I have heard the big one--I reviewed its essentially identical ancestor, the LSR32, years ago).

          This is absolutely not a critique of JBL--they do this sort of thing as well as it can be done. But
          BIG WIDE BAFFLES rule.
          It is the only way to get constant directivity in the midrange in an
          ordinary box speaker.

          This is all no secret. It is on, e.g. Linkwitz's website for example
          and on Geddes's Gedlee site and so on.

          But it is curious how the compromise position(and while JBL is proud of their smoothness in the small one, I am sure they would agree the big one is better!) has become the defacto standard in audio magazines. People have come to think that smooth downslope off axis is what OUGHT to happen. But what it really is is the best one can do!
          with a narrow baffle.

          In a wide front speaker (and big from top to bottom of course)
          the baffle step is low and if the mid driver is small then the midrange has a more or less constant directional characteristic.
          This is what AR wanted and got with their small dome midrange(and big woofer). You can see this in modern form here
          www.stereophile.com/searchresults/index.html?stype=X&terms=Acoustic+Research+303&x=5&y=8
          in figure 3

          Flatten the on axis out here and you hear neutral power response through the midrange(actually if anything it comes up slightly in the
          2 k region(which is perhaps why the speaker droops its direct arrival slightly there). This is something that makes sense.

          But there is no reason at all really that the power response at at 1.5k should be 3 dB below the power response at 500 Hz the way it is on lots of Toole school speakers. This is not how music sounds!

          These things may not look like much at first glance. But they count.
          Three dB is a LOT.

          Funny how this is almost never discussed, isn't it?
          especially when everyone knows it counts for plenty

          REG

          PS For wahtever it is worth, there is a well known study by the Danish acoustician Jordan in which he determined(re concerthalls)
          that the more exposure people had to live music, the less they liked a roll off in the 1-2 kHz region. Musicians wanted to hear things solidly out to 2k.

          Of course if you sit really close to your speakers, the on axis becomes more important relative to the power response.But the power response stuff never goes away entirely/.

          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "uohh" <uohh@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Robert,


          >
          > Could you elaborate a bit further on the power response issue with regard to narrow front versus wide baffle speaker designs?
          >
          > By sloping down the directivity or off axis response of the narrow front speakers, does this not have similar effect as using wide baffle to control the directivity of the same frequency area between 300Hz to 3kHz? Is there further issues involved?
          >
          > Joseph
          >
          > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > The new issue (June 2010) of Stereophile so I
          > > suppose it is time for a quick look at the measurement
          > > items(speakers mostly).
          > >
          > > Before that, I noticed that the first real feature article
          > > (Industry Update) had as its lead-in picture a photo of
          > > someone standing next to the Acoustic Energy Reference 1.
          > > The Special Edition version of this costs $4000 per pair
          > > as indicated here
          > > http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/acoustic_energy_ae1_mkiii_reference_special_edition_loudspeaker/
          > >
          > > This speaker is 12" high, 7 " wide and 9 " deep.
          > > It is worth noting that Atkinson starts off his review with a paragraph that ends with the following sentence.
          > >
          > > " Furthermore, the larger the speaker, the larger its problems, which in turn requires throwing more money at the design to solve those problems."
          > >
          > > (I know that JA does not like extended quotes on line so I refer you to the link above for the full paragraph and the rest of the review).
          > >
          > > This seems like a good moment to remark once more that I could hardly disagree more. A speaker the size of the Acoustic Energy is BOUND to sound small, on account of the baffle step business. Bigger speakers have fewer problems not more problems--unless bigger is taken to mean lots of different drivers as in a five way speaker or something. Bigger baffles are EASIER to deal with, not harder
          > >
          > > The issue is not the shortage of bass(which Atkinson is pointing out as the major issue with small speakers) but the intrinsic sound in the region that these and other small speakers cover.
          > >
          > > I have not heard this particular speaker(tis measurements are distinctly discouraging in my view, incidentally). But I have NEVER
          > > heard a small speaker that did not sound small.
          > >
          > > And personally "I HATE SMALL SPEAKERS", as I started one of my reviews some time ago, quoting a famous recording person(who was un-named and shall remain so).
          > >
          > > It is one of audio life's mysteries how such things as tiny speakers that cost $4000 per pair have come to be taken as serious.
          > >
          > > Meanwhile, a second point arises in the measurements of the Canton
          > > Reference 3.2DC.22(pp76-81). JA approves of the measurements and so in a sense do I. Precisely, the speakers seem quite flat and to have smooth offaxis behavior , except in the high treble where the irregularities off axis are likely not a serious problem in audible terms as long as one listens on axis.
          > >
          > > But what intrigued me is figure 3. This seems to indicate that the off axis , while smooth indeed,impressively so, really slopes down rather hard.
          > > As I read the graph, I would estimate that the power response at say 2-3k is really quite far down relative to say 400 Hz.
          > >
          > > Now to each his own--some people may like this sound, and no doubt it has a smooth character, given the smoothness of the off axis.
          > >
          > > But what I am curious about is how did it come about that this seriously downsloping off axis(and hence, one supposes, power) response
          > > has come to be described as "textbook lateral dispersion".
          > > In my textbook, a speaker ought to have essentially constant directivity from around 300 Hz to around 2-3 kHz. The narrowing ought to happen further up.
          > >
          > > I am curious how suddenly in the last few years, people have decided that the smooth down slope is what is good. Perhaps this is because it is what designers have figured out how to do , and in particular how to do it with narrow front speakers.(Audio has a long history of saying that whatever it can do is right! But of course constant directivity speakers can be made as well).
          > >
          > > And teh downsloping response is surely not what EVERYONE who thinks hard about such things has decided ought to be done. I refer you once more to
          > > www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=569
          > >
          > > Note that the first reflection sound power is FLAT from 300 Hz to almost 5 kHz(and definitely to 4kHz). And the toal sound power droops only a little from 300 Hz to 4kHz--a couple of dB. This is going to give a quite diffferent sound from the more severe offaxis rollouts,smooth though they be, that have become common and indeed some kind of defacto standard nowadays.
          > >
          > > Of course, people can like what they like. But I am really curious how such a crucial issue came to be decided de facto("textbook" suggests something that is supposed to be some sort of standard)
          > > without as far as I can tell anyone actually discussing it in the public forum as it were!
          > >
          > > It is not easy to infer sound power precisely from the offaxis graphs as Stereophile presents them(since sound power also involves the vertical) but one really gets the idea that sound power sloping smoothly down from say 300 Hz on up has become some sort of
          > > nominal ideal. But the former ideal was constant directivity
          > > from 300 Hz to say 4kHz (with narrowing dispersion in the top octave and a half or so). How was the change justified?
          > >
          > > I know for example for a fact that many Toole school speakers have such down sloping power response. They have smooth power response(to the extent that this can happen with LR 24 dB per octave crossovers which have a power response glitch at the transition to the tweeter).
          > >
          > > But the question that arises in my mind is, how did the shift happen, on what basis did people change what the "textbook" ideal was supposed to be.
          > >
          > > Now Toole pushed for smooth off axis and smooth power, which is fair enough at least in general(in the crucial 2-4k range, things are trickier but .,..). But flat is also smooth! So why down slope instead of flat power across the midrange broadly conceived?
          > >
          > > The whole thing is almost enough to make one want to use omni speakers to get some life into the upper part of the midrange--pr dipoles. And for sure I want to use wide baffle ones, as I have said repeatedly.
          > >
          > > It is all a quite complex matter. But I think that such a big decision ought to be a public issue, widely discussed, not something where it is widely assumed(and Stereophile is far from along here, I am just mentioning this because it is a conveninet example) without comment that one way of doing it is textbook the other not.
          > >
          > > This --radiation pattern--is the main thing that makes speakers sound different, if one takes the on- axis as going to be flat(which of course one can make it be with DSP).
          > >
          > > What kind of thing is it that the ONE really major determiner of speaker sound has been decided, or so it seems, without any public formal discussion at all to speak of?
          > >
          > > There has been a big shift, but the shift was never announced so to speak. It has just happened. In times gone by, everyone assumed that speakers ought to have flat power in the midrange--cf. Allison's article from long ago that we had a link to here earlier.
          > >
          > > A curious development indeed, this change without rationale, and here one sees yet one more instance of it. (I know it is a bit of a pain to do it, but I wish that power response /directivity measurements were more widely available). As before, one ought to remind one's self that the ear's diffuse field and direct arrival responses match up to around 3k. The differences start aboce that, so that to make one's selfhear the effect of the direct arrival unaltered, the diffuse field should match it in that frequency range(below 2-3 k)
          > >
          > > REG
          > >
          >
        • Will_H
          What did you think of the PSB B6 bookshelf speaker measurements? I m tempted to pick that up for the family system.
          Message 4 of 8 , May 15, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            What did you think of the PSB B6 bookshelf speaker measurements? I'm
            tempted to pick that up for the family system.
          • Tom Mallin
            REG says below that years ago he reviewed the JBL LSR 32, the essentially identical ancestor of the JBL Pro LSR 6332, the speaker whose description he has
            Message 5 of 8 , May 17, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              REG says below that years ago he reviewed the JBL LSR 32, the "essentially identical ancestor" of the JBL Pro LSR 6332, the speaker whose description he has been linking to to show near-ideal power response. As to how identical the 32 and 6332 are, see:

              http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/printthread.php?t=2174

              There, someone who claims to speak for JBL Pro talks about the minor differences.

              The new LSR 6332s are available for less than $3,000 a pair from various pro-audio on-line sources. They are close in size and weight to the old AR speakers we've been mentioning and are thus considerably smaller and lighter than the Harbeth M40.1. I located one consumer review of the LSR 32 which compared it to the AR 303. See:

              http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/jbl/floorstanding-speakers/lsr-32/PRD_125470_1594crx.aspx



              >>> "Robert" <regonaudio@...> 5/14/2010 7:21 PM >>>
              It is a bit tricky ,what goes on.

              But here is a try at explaining
              Look first at this
              http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=569
              especially the graph that shows directivity index measurements.

              This speaker, which has a wide baffle and a small midrange driver(the classic AR style in effect) has a definite baffle step from 100 to 300 Hz. It goes from omni to forward radiating there. But this is TOO LOW to sound like a coloration. Then from 300 Hz to 1.5 kHz it has
              almost perfectly constant directivity. And even from 1.5 k to 4k there
              is just a little additional directivity(probably from the midrange driver size--in the AR idea the mid is even smaller than here).
              What this gives is uncolored midrange--the direct arrival and the overall sound power match really well where it counts.

              This is not to mention the first reflection sound power, which REALLY matches the direct arrival almost exactly from 300 Hz to 5kHz.

              Above 4k, the tweeter narrows its radiation pattern gradually but smoothly.

              This is the classic style in action.

              Now it all depends on having the wide baffle--because IF you have a narrow front the speaker stays more nearly omni to a much higher frequency. Look for example at this
              http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=858
              from the same people!
              They are doing the best they can, and they do get the directivity index smooth. But notice that it rises steadily. It is far from constant in the 300 Hz to 1.5 kHz range. There is perhaps nothing wrong with narrowing the treble down. But look hard at the midrange.
              (A good way is to open both windows and click back and forth from one to the other using the minimize button).

              These speakers are designed with similar philosophy in mind. But even the best designers (and these JBL Pro guys are some of the best) cannot get around the small size issue. These speakers will not sound alike. One of them has flat power in the midrange after the baffle step at 300 Hz(the big one) and the other one(the little one)
              slopes steadily down from 300 Hz on to 1k. Look especially at the first reflection sound power!

              These two things will not sound alike. In one case, the big one, the baffle step is over and done with down far enough that it is in the region where room sound and direct sound are all mixed together.
              You can EQ the bass to get what you want, whatever it is, and the midrange will sound uniform because it is on axis and first reflection and power response uniform--everything is uniform--in the midrange.

              But the little one is not like that. They got it smooth off axis and in sound power quite well, but it is not UNIFORM(flat) in the midrange. There is a big difference!

              One of these is going to have the sound of real music, the other one is going to sound smooth but like a small speaker.

              (I have never heard the little one, but I have heard the big one--I reviewed its essentially identical ancestor, the LSR32, years ago).

              This is absolutely not a critique of JBL--they do this sort of thing as well as it can be done. But
              BIG WIDE BAFFLES rule.
              It is the only way to get constant directivity in the midrange in an
              ordinary box speaker.

              This is all no secret. It is on, e.g. Linkwitz's website for example
              and on Geddes's Gedlee site and so on.

              But it is curious how the compromise position(and while JBL is proud of their smoothness in the small one, I am sure they would agree the big one is better!) has become the defacto standard in audio magazines. People have come to think that smooth downslope off axis is what OUGHT to happen. But what it really is is the best one can do!
              with a narrow baffle.

              In a wide front speaker (and big from top to bottom of course)
              the baffle step is low and if the mid driver is small then the midrange has a more or less constant directional characteristic.
              This is what AR wanted and got with their small dome midrange(and big woofer). You can see this in modern form here
              www.stereophile.com/searchresults/index.html?stype=X&terms=Acoustic+Research+303&x=5&y=8
              in figure 3

              Flatten the on axis out here and you hear neutral power response through the midrange(actually if anything it comes up slightly in the
              2 k region(which is perhaps why the speaker droops its direct arrival slightly there). This is something that makes sense.

              But there is no reason at all really that the power response at at 1.5k should be 3 dB below the power response at 500 Hz the way it is on lots of Toole school speakers. This is not how music sounds!

              These things may not look like much at first glance. But they count.
              Three dB is a LOT.

              Funny how this is almost never discussed, isn't it?
              especially when everyone knows it counts for plenty

              REG

              PS For wahtever it is worth, there is a well known study by the Danish acoustician Jordan in which he determined(re concerthalls)
              that the more exposure people had to live music, the less they liked a roll off in the 1-2 kHz region. Musicians wanted to hear things solidly out to 2k.

              Of course if you sit really close to your speakers, the on axis becomes more important relative to the power response.But the power response stuff never goes away entirely/.
            • Will_H
              Does anyone know which issue of TAS has REG s review of the LSR32? ... From: Tom Mallin To: Sent: Monday,
              Message 6 of 8 , May 17, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Does anyone know which issue of TAS has REG's review of the LSR32?


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Tom Mallin" <tmallin@...>
                To: <regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:53 AM
                Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: New Stereophile issue: Measurements andso on


                > REG says below that years ago he reviewed the JBL LSR 32, the
                > "essentially identical ancestor" of the JBL Pro LSR 6332, the speaker
                > whose description he has been linking to to show near-ideal power
                > response. As to how identical the 32 and 6332 are, see:
                >
                > http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/printthread.php?t=2174
                >
                > There, someone who claims to speak for JBL Pro talks about the minor
                > differences.
                >
                > The new LSR 6332s are available for less than $3,000 a pair from various
                > pro-audio on-line sources. They are close in size and weight to the old
                > AR speakers we've been mentioning and are thus considerably smaller and
                > lighter than the Harbeth M40.1. I located one consumer review of the LSR
                > 32 which compared it to the AR 303. See:
                >
                > http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/jbl/floorstanding-speakers/lsr-32/PRD_125470_1594crx.aspx
                >
                >
                >
                >>>> "Robert" <regonaudio@...> 5/14/2010 7:21 PM >>>
                > It is a bit tricky ,what goes on.
                >
                > But here is a try at explaining
                > Look first at this
                > http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=569
                > especially the graph that shows directivity index measurements.
                >
                > This speaker, which has a wide baffle and a small midrange driver(the
                > classic AR style in effect) has a definite baffle step from 100 to 300 Hz.
                > It goes from omni to forward radiating there. But this is TOO LOW to sound
                > like a coloration. Then from 300 Hz to 1.5 kHz it has
                > almost perfectly constant directivity. And even from 1.5 k to 4k there
                > is just a little additional directivity(probably from the midrange driver
                > size--in the AR idea the mid is even smaller than here).
                > What this gives is uncolored midrange--the direct arrival and the overall
                > sound power match really well where it counts.
                >
                > This is not to mention the first reflection sound power, which REALLY
                > matches the direct arrival almost exactly from 300 Hz to 5kHz.
                >
                > Above 4k, the tweeter narrows its radiation pattern gradually but
                > smoothly.
                >
                > This is the classic style in action.
                >
                > Now it all depends on having the wide baffle--because IF you have a narrow
                > front the speaker stays more nearly omni to a much higher frequency. Look
                > for example at this
                > http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=858
                > from the same people!
                > They are doing the best they can, and they do get the directivity index
                > smooth. But notice that it rises steadily. It is far from constant in the
                > 300 Hz to 1.5 kHz range. There is perhaps nothing wrong with narrowing the
                > treble down. But look hard at the midrange.
                > (A good way is to open both windows and click back and forth from one to
                > the other using the minimize button).
                >
                > These speakers are designed with similar philosophy in mind. But even the
                > best designers (and these JBL Pro guys are some of the best) cannot get
                > around the small size issue. These speakers will not sound alike. One of
                > them has flat power in the midrange after the baffle step at 300 Hz(the
                > big one) and the other one(the little one)
                > slopes steadily down from 300 Hz on to 1k. Look especially at the first
                > reflection sound power!
                >
                > These two things will not sound alike. In one case, the big one, the
                > baffle step is over and done with down far enough that it is in the region
                > where room sound and direct sound are all mixed together.
                > You can EQ the bass to get what you want, whatever it is, and the midrange
                > will sound uniform because it is on axis and first reflection and power
                > response uniform--everything is uniform--in the midrange.
                >
                > But the little one is not like that. They got it smooth off axis and in
                > sound power quite well, but it is not UNIFORM(flat) in the midrange. There
                > is a big difference!
                >
                > One of these is going to have the sound of real music, the other one is
                > going to sound smooth but like a small speaker.
                >
                > (I have never heard the little one, but I have heard the big one--I
                > reviewed its essentially identical ancestor, the LSR32, years ago).
                >
                > This is absolutely not a critique of JBL--they do this sort of thing as
                > well as it can be done. But
                > BIG WIDE BAFFLES rule.
                > It is the only way to get constant directivity in the midrange in an
                > ordinary box speaker.
                >
                > This is all no secret. It is on, e.g. Linkwitz's website for example
                > and on Geddes's Gedlee site and so on.
                >
                > But it is curious how the compromise position(and while JBL is proud of
                > their smoothness in the small one, I am sure they would agree the big one
                > is better!) has become the defacto standard in audio magazines. People
                > have come to think that smooth downslope off axis is what OUGHT to happen.
                > But what it really is is the best one can do!
                > with a narrow baffle.
                >
                > In a wide front speaker (and big from top to bottom of course)
                > the baffle step is low and if the mid driver is small then the midrange
                > has a more or less constant directional characteristic.
                > This is what AR wanted and got with their small dome midrange(and big
                > woofer). You can see this in modern form here
                > www.stereophile.com/searchresults/index.html?stype=X&terms=Acoustic+Research+303&x=5&y=8
                > in figure 3
                >
                > Flatten the on axis out here and you hear neutral power response through
                > the midrange(actually if anything it comes up slightly in the
                > 2 k region(which is perhaps why the speaker droops its direct arrival
                > slightly there). This is something that makes sense.
                >
                > But there is no reason at all really that the power response at at 1.5k
                > should be 3 dB below the power response at 500 Hz the way it is on lots of
                > Toole school speakers. This is not how music sounds!
                >
                > These things may not look like much at first glance. But they count.
                > Three dB is a LOT.
                >
                > Funny how this is almost never discussed, isn't it?
                > especially when everyone knows it counts for plenty
                >
                > REG
                >
                > PS For wahtever it is worth, there is a well known study by the Danish
                > acoustician Jordan in which he determined(re concerthalls)
                > that the more exposure people had to live music, the less they liked a
                > roll off in the 1-2 kHz region. Musicians wanted to hear things solidly
                > out to 2k.
                >
                > Of course if you sit really close to your speakers, the on axis becomes
                > more important relative to the power response.But the power response stuff
                > never goes away entirely/.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >


                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                No virus found in this incoming message.
                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2878 - Release Date: 05/16/10
                14:26:00
              • Tom Mallin
                I wondered the same thing and started looking through my old issues this evening. It was issue 117 from April/May 1999. There are comparative comments to the
                Message 7 of 8 , May 17, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  I wondered the same thing and started looking through my old issues this evening. It was issue 117 from April/May 1999. There are comparative comments to the Harbeth M40. Perhaps REG could update those comment if he has heard the JBL more recently.

                  Does anyone know if an index of old TAS reviews exists online? I seem to recall that Yip had found one or had made one.

                  >>> "Will_H" <will_hum@...> 5/17/2010 8:54 PM >>>
                  Does anyone know which issue of TAS has REG's review of the LSR32?


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Tom Mallin" <tmallin@...>
                  To: <regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:53 AM
                  Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: New Stereophile issue: Measurements andso on


                  > REG says below that years ago he reviewed the JBL LSR 32, the
                  > "essentially identical ancestor" of the JBL Pro LSR 6332, the speaker
                  > whose description he has been linking to to show near-ideal power
                  > response. As to how identical the 32 and 6332 are, see:
                  >
                  > http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/printthread.php?t=2174
                  >
                  > There, someone who claims to speak for JBL Pro talks about the minor
                  > differences.
                  >
                  > The new LSR 6332s are available for less than $3,000 a pair from various
                  > pro-audio on-line sources. They are close in size and weight to the old
                  > AR speakers we've been mentioning and are thus considerably smaller and
                  > lighter than the Harbeth M40.1. I located one consumer review of the LSR
                  > 32 which compared it to the AR 303. See:
                  >
                  > http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/jbl/floorstanding-speakers/lsr-32/PRD_125470_1594crx.aspx
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>>> "Robert" <regonaudio@...> 5/14/2010 7:21 PM >>>
                  > It is a bit tricky ,what goes on.
                  >
                  > But here is a try at explaining
                  > Look first at this
                  > http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=569
                  > especially the graph that shows directivity index measurements.
                  >
                  > This speaker, which has a wide baffle and a small midrange driver(the
                  > classic AR style in effect) has a definite baffle step from 100 to 300 Hz.
                  > It goes from omni to forward radiating there. But this is TOO LOW to sound
                  > like a coloration. Then from 300 Hz to 1.5 kHz it has
                  > almost perfectly constant directivity. And even from 1.5 k to 4k there
                  > is just a little additional directivity(probably from the midrange driver
                  > size--in the AR idea the mid is even smaller than here).
                  > What this gives is uncolored midrange--the direct arrival and the overall
                  > sound power match really well where it counts.
                  >
                  > This is not to mention the first reflection sound power, which REALLY
                  > matches the direct arrival almost exactly from 300 Hz to 5kHz.
                  >
                  > Above 4k, the tweeter narrows its radiation pattern gradually but
                  > smoothly.
                  >
                  > This is the classic style in action.
                  >
                  > Now it all depends on having the wide baffle--because IF you have a narrow
                  > front the speaker stays more nearly omni to a much higher frequency. Look
                  > for example at this
                  > http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=858
                  > from the same people!
                  > They are doing the best they can, and they do get the directivity index
                  > smooth. But notice that it rises steadily. It is far from constant in the
                  > 300 Hz to 1.5 kHz range. There is perhaps nothing wrong with narrowing the
                  > treble down. But look hard at the midrange.
                  > (A good way is to open both windows and click back and forth from one to
                  > the other using the minimize button).
                  >
                  > These speakers are designed with similar philosophy in mind. But even the
                  > best designers (and these JBL Pro guys are some of the best) cannot get
                  > around the small size issue. These speakers will not sound alike. One of
                  > them has flat power in the midrange after the baffle step at 300 Hz(the
                  > big one) and the other one(the little one)
                  > slopes steadily down from 300 Hz on to 1k. Look especially at the first
                  > reflection sound power!
                  >
                  > These two things will not sound alike. In one case, the big one, the
                  > baffle step is over and done with down far enough that it is in the region
                  > where room sound and direct sound are all mixed together.
                  > You can EQ the bass to get what you want, whatever it is, and the midrange
                  > will sound uniform because it is on axis and first reflection and power
                  > response uniform--everything is uniform--in the midrange.
                  >
                  > But the little one is not like that. They got it smooth off axis and in
                  > sound power quite well, but it is not UNIFORM(flat) in the midrange. There
                  > is a big difference!
                  >
                  > One of these is going to have the sound of real music, the other one is
                  > going to sound smooth but like a small speaker.
                  >
                  > (I have never heard the little one, but I have heard the big one--I
                  > reviewed its essentially identical ancestor, the LSR32, years ago).
                  >
                  > This is absolutely not a critique of JBL--they do this sort of thing as
                  > well as it can be done. But
                  > BIG WIDE BAFFLES rule.
                  > It is the only way to get constant directivity in the midrange in an
                  > ordinary box speaker.
                  >
                  > This is all no secret. It is on, e.g. Linkwitz's website for example
                  > and on Geddes's Gedlee site and so on.
                  >
                  > But it is curious how the compromise position(and while JBL is proud of
                  > their smoothness in the small one, I am sure they would agree the big one
                  > is better!) has become the defacto standard in audio magazines. People
                  > have come to think that smooth downslope off axis is what OUGHT to happen.
                  > But what it really is is the best one can do!
                  > with a narrow baffle.
                  >
                  > In a wide front speaker (and big from top to bottom of course)
                  > the baffle step is low and if the mid driver is small then the midrange
                  > has a more or less constant directional characteristic.
                  > This is what AR wanted and got with their small dome midrange(and big
                  > woofer). You can see this in modern form here
                  > www.stereophile.com/searchresults/index.html?stype=X&terms=Acoustic+Research+303&x=5&y=8
                  > in figure 3
                  >
                  > Flatten the on axis out here and you hear neutral power response through
                  > the midrange(actually if anything it comes up slightly in the
                  > 2 k region(which is perhaps why the speaker droops its direct arrival
                  > slightly there). This is something that makes sense.
                  >
                  > But there is no reason at all really that the power response at at 1.5k
                  > should be 3 dB below the power response at 500 Hz the way it is on lots of
                  > Toole school speakers. This is not how music sounds!
                  >
                  > These things may not look like much at first glance. But they count.
                  > Three dB is a LOT.
                  >
                  > Funny how this is almost never discussed, isn't it?
                  > especially when everyone knows it counts for plenty
                  >
                  > REG
                  >
                  > PS For wahtever it is worth, there is a well known study by the Danish
                  > acoustician Jordan in which he determined(re concerthalls)
                  > that the more exposure people had to live music, the less they liked a
                  > roll off in the 1-2 kHz region. Musicians wanted to hear things solidly
                  > out to 2k.
                  >
                  > Of course if you sit really close to your speakers, the on axis becomes
                  > more important relative to the power response.But the power response stuff
                  > never goes away entirely/.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                  No virus found in this incoming message.
                  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2878 - Release Date: 05/16/10
                  14:26:00



                  ------------------------------------

                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                • Robert
                  Issue 117, April/May 1999 How time flies! REG
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 18, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Issue 117, April/May 1999
                    How time flies!

                    REG

                    --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Will_H" <will_hum@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Does anyone know which issue of TAS has REG's review of the LSR32?
                    >
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: "Tom Mallin" <tmallin@...>
                    > To: <regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:53 AM
                    > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: New Stereophile issue: Measurements andso on
                    >
                    >
                    > > REG says below that years ago he reviewed the JBL LSR 32, the
                    > > "essentially identical ancestor" of the JBL Pro LSR 6332, the speaker
                    > > whose description he has been linking to to show near-ideal power
                    > > response. As to how identical the 32 and 6332 are, see:
                    > >
                    > > http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/printthread.php?t=2174
                    > >
                    > > There, someone who claims to speak for JBL Pro talks about the minor
                    > > differences.
                    > >
                    > > The new LSR 6332s are available for less than $3,000 a pair from various
                    > > pro-audio on-line sources. They are close in size and weight to the old
                    > > AR speakers we've been mentioning and are thus considerably smaller and
                    > > lighter than the Harbeth M40.1. I located one consumer review of the LSR
                    > > 32 which compared it to the AR 303. See:
                    > >
                    > > http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/jbl/floorstanding-speakers/lsr-32/PRD_125470_1594crx.aspx
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >>>> "Robert" <regonaudio@...> 5/14/2010 7:21 PM >>>
                    > > It is a bit tricky ,what goes on.
                    > >
                    > > But here is a try at explaining
                    > > Look first at this
                    > > http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=569
                    > > especially the graph that shows directivity index measurements.
                    > >
                    > > This speaker, which has a wide baffle and a small midrange driver(the
                    > > classic AR style in effect) has a definite baffle step from 100 to 300 Hz.
                    > > It goes from omni to forward radiating there. But this is TOO LOW to sound
                    > > like a coloration. Then from 300 Hz to 1.5 kHz it has
                    > > almost perfectly constant directivity. And even from 1.5 k to 4k there
                    > > is just a little additional directivity(probably from the midrange driver
                    > > size--in the AR idea the mid is even smaller than here).
                    > > What this gives is uncolored midrange--the direct arrival and the overall
                    > > sound power match really well where it counts.
                    > >
                    > > This is not to mention the first reflection sound power, which REALLY
                    > > matches the direct arrival almost exactly from 300 Hz to 5kHz.
                    > >
                    > > Above 4k, the tweeter narrows its radiation pattern gradually but
                    > > smoothly.
                    > >
                    > > This is the classic style in action.
                    > >
                    > > Now it all depends on having the wide baffle--because IF you have a narrow
                    > > front the speaker stays more nearly omni to a much higher frequency. Look
                    > > for example at this
                    > > http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=858
                    > > from the same people!
                    > > They are doing the best they can, and they do get the directivity index
                    > > smooth. But notice that it rises steadily. It is far from constant in the
                    > > 300 Hz to 1.5 kHz range. There is perhaps nothing wrong with narrowing the
                    > > treble down. But look hard at the midrange.
                    > > (A good way is to open both windows and click back and forth from one to
                    > > the other using the minimize button).
                    > >
                    > > These speakers are designed with similar philosophy in mind. But even the
                    > > best designers (and these JBL Pro guys are some of the best) cannot get
                    > > around the small size issue. These speakers will not sound alike. One of
                    > > them has flat power in the midrange after the baffle step at 300 Hz(the
                    > > big one) and the other one(the little one)
                    > > slopes steadily down from 300 Hz on to 1k. Look especially at the first
                    > > reflection sound power!
                    > >
                    > > These two things will not sound alike. In one case, the big one, the
                    > > baffle step is over and done with down far enough that it is in the region
                    > > where room sound and direct sound are all mixed together.
                    > > You can EQ the bass to get what you want, whatever it is, and the midrange
                    > > will sound uniform because it is on axis and first reflection and power
                    > > response uniform--everything is uniform--in the midrange.
                    > >
                    > > But the little one is not like that. They got it smooth off axis and in
                    > > sound power quite well, but it is not UNIFORM(flat) in the midrange. There
                    > > is a big difference!
                    > >
                    > > One of these is going to have the sound of real music, the other one is
                    > > going to sound smooth but like a small speaker.
                    > >
                    > > (I have never heard the little one, but I have heard the big one--I
                    > > reviewed its essentially identical ancestor, the LSR32, years ago).
                    > >
                    > > This is absolutely not a critique of JBL--they do this sort of thing as
                    > > well as it can be done. But
                    > > BIG WIDE BAFFLES rule.
                    > > It is the only way to get constant directivity in the midrange in an
                    > > ordinary box speaker.
                    > >
                    > > This is all no secret. It is on, e.g. Linkwitz's website for example
                    > > and on Geddes's Gedlee site and so on.
                    > >
                    > > But it is curious how the compromise position(and while JBL is proud of
                    > > their smoothness in the small one, I am sure they would agree the big one
                    > > is better!) has become the defacto standard in audio magazines. People
                    > > have come to think that smooth downslope off axis is what OUGHT to happen.
                    > > But what it really is is the best one can do!
                    > > with a narrow baffle.
                    > >
                    > > In a wide front speaker (and big from top to bottom of course)
                    > > the baffle step is low and if the mid driver is small then the midrange
                    > > has a more or less constant directional characteristic.
                    > > This is what AR wanted and got with their small dome midrange(and big
                    > > woofer). You can see this in modern form here
                    > > www.stereophile.com/searchresults/index.html?stype=X&terms=Acoustic+Research+303&x=5&y=8
                    > > in figure 3
                    > >
                    > > Flatten the on axis out here and you hear neutral power response through
                    > > the midrange(actually if anything it comes up slightly in the
                    > > 2 k region(which is perhaps why the speaker droops its direct arrival
                    > > slightly there). This is something that makes sense.
                    > >
                    > > But there is no reason at all really that the power response at at 1.5k
                    > > should be 3 dB below the power response at 500 Hz the way it is on lots of
                    > > Toole school speakers. This is not how music sounds!
                    > >
                    > > These things may not look like much at first glance. But they count.
                    > > Three dB is a LOT.
                    > >
                    > > Funny how this is almost never discussed, isn't it?
                    > > especially when everyone knows it counts for plenty
                    > >
                    > > REG
                    > >
                    > > PS For wahtever it is worth, there is a well known study by the Danish
                    > > acoustician Jordan in which he determined(re concerthalls)
                    > > that the more exposure people had to live music, the less they liked a
                    > > roll off in the 1-2 kHz region. Musicians wanted to hear things solidly
                    > > out to 2k.
                    > >
                    > > Of course if you sit really close to your speakers, the on axis becomes
                    > > more important relative to the power response.But the power response stuff
                    > > never goes away entirely/.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ------------------------------------
                    > >
                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > No virus found in this incoming message.
                    > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                    > Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2878 - Release Date: 05/16/10
                    > 14:26:00
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.