Anthem MRX-700 or Yamaha RX-A3010

[DS-21]

Same midrange bloom I see in the Kefs.

Then you're not competently reading the graphs.

Yes, the Q900 has a small hole in the off-axis response from 1-2kHz. The overall trend is smooth and downward-sloping. Toole and others have shown that holes in the off-axis response are benign. Peaks, however, are audibly deleterious. And the speaker you showed has, to a competent interpreter, a peak rather than a hole, broadly centered on 2kHz. The difference is, eyeball a best fit line. Anything that rises above that is a "peak," anything that falls below it is a "dip" or a "hole."

Note: I'm not saying the Q900 is a perfect speaker by any means. Many others, including KEF, make better ones. But it's the best example I know of to show what kind of performance can be eked out of cheap speakers by very good engineers. (Yes, under $1k a speaker is, in my book, cheap. High performance loudspeakers are objectively expensive. High performance and well-styled loudspeakers are even more so!)

It's clear to me from your miss reading the graphs

Answer a simple question: given my alleged "miss reading" [sic] of the graph, did I or did I not correctly guess where the crossover lies? I didn't look up anything about the speaker, because the measured performance is not good enough for me. "Not good enough" speakers I find uninteresting to learn about. I want to know and learn about best practices.

If one can infer that information correctly from a graph, chances are s/he's not misreading it in that area. On a competently-designed speaker, the off-axis response* will reveal nothing about the crossover points. The reasons are that the drivers are directivity-matched in the crossover region, and the filter itself is well-engineered.

*horizontal, at least. If the system is using concentric drivers, vertical as well. That is one reason I prefer concentric drivers.

For instance, please tell me where the mid/tweet handoff is on the competently-designed speaker represented by the graph below, using only the graph:

Maybe you are better off in a padded cell then spreading your audio tripe and BS that you so liberally fling at people here on this site.

One can only assume when someone resorts to puerile ad hominem attacks, that s/he either lacks evidence to support her/his point, or lacks the intelligence to marshal such evidence in a manner that would allow her/him to fashion a cogent argument.

 

[3db]

Then you're not competently reading the graphs.

Yes, the Q900 has a small hole in the off-axis response from 1-2kHz. The overall trend is smooth and downward-sloping. Toole and others have shown that holes in the off-axis response are benign. Peaks, however, are audibly deleterious. And the speaker you showed has, to a competent interpreter, a peak rather than a hole, broadly centered on 2kHz. The difference is, eyeball a best fit line. Anything that rises above that is a "peak," anything that falls below it is a "dip" or a "hole."



Answer a simple question: given my alleged "miss reading" [sic] of the graph, did I or did I not correctly guess where the crossover lies? I didn't look up anything about the speaker, because the measured performance is not good enough for me. "Not good enough" speakers I find uninteresting to learn about. I want to know and learn about best practices.

If one can infer that information correctly from a graph, chances are s/he's not misreading it in that area. On a competently-designed speaker, the off-axis response will reveal nothing about the crossover points. For instance, please tell me where the mid/tweet handoff is on the competently-designed speaker represented by the graph below, using only the graph:

One can only assume when someone resorts to puerile ad hominem attacks, that s/he either lacks evidence to support her/his point, or lacks the intelligence to marshal such evidence in a manner that would allow her/him to fashion a cogent argument.

You just have a way of bringing out the worst in people when you exagerate with terms as "balloons out like a mushroom" and trying to hammer your opinions and your subjective beliefs as facts. You only receive what you dish out. If you come across blunt and rude expect to be treated the same and don't act surprised when its shoved back in your face.

Oh and don't assume..it only makes an a?? out of you

 

[DS-21]

You just have a way of bringing out the worst in people. Now go hide under your mushroom balloon.

One can reasonably infer two things from your response.

First, I was substantially correct in estimate of the mid-tweeter crossover frequency of the speaker represented by the horizontal off-axis graphs you posted.

Second, you weren't up for the challenge I offered. (Guess the crossover frequency of a well-designed speaker by looking at its horizontal off-axis FR plot, as I did for the markedly less well-designed speaker you posted.)

Given that, you should revisit the above interpreted graphs, using the signposts I've provided you as a guide to your interpretation. Clearly I'm seeing something present in that information that you are missing.

 

[3db]

Then you're not competently reading the graphs.

Yes, the Q900 has a small hole in the off-axis response from 1-2kHz. The overall trend is smooth and downward-sloping. Toole and others have shown that holes in the off-axis response are benign. Peaks, however, are audibly deleterious. And the speaker you showed has, to a competent interpreter, a peak rather than a hole, broadly centered on 2kHz. The difference is, eyeball a best fit line. Anything that rises above that is a "peak," anything that falls below it is a "dip" or a "hole."



Answer a simple question: given my alleged "miss reading" [sic] of the graph, did I or did I not correctly guess where the crossover lies? I didn't look up anything about the speaker, because the measured performance is not good enough for me. "Not good enough" speakers I find uninteresting to learn about. I want to know and learn about best practices.

If one can infer that information correctly from a graph, chances are s/he's not misreading it in that area. On a competently-designed speaker, the off-axis response will reveal nothing about the crossover points. For instance, please tell me where the mid/tweet handoff is on the competently-designed speaker represented by the graph below, using only the graph:

One can only assume when someone resorts to puerile ad hominem attacks, that s/he either lacks evidence to support her/his point, or lacks the intelligence to marshal such evidence in a manner that would allow her/him to fashion a cogent argument.

You just have a way of bringing out the worst in people. Now go hide under your mushroom balloon.

 

[DS-21]

All you're saying really saying with that petulant (and oddly repeated) comeback is that, unlike with the speaker you posted, I am correct that one cannot distinguish the mid-treble crossover point on a competently-designed one just by looking at the FR along the front hemisphere. Whereas one can on a speaker that is less-than-competently designed.

Furthermore, your writings allow someone to infer that you lack the analytic training to reliably distinguish between interpretations of product performance based on objective data that may be pointed and blunt but are accurate, or comments judging reader's skill in interpretating plain text* on one hand, and mindless personal attacks on the other. That is a learnable skill, however. You should work on it.

In AVR news, yesterday I set up my new Sherwood Newcastle R-972, with Trinnov room correction. I'm using the EQ only, no spatial remapping because my nearfield system is already optimally set up, and the bedroom system is just for background. As room correction Trinnov works so damn well that I was taken aback. For instance, it's the first automated room correction I've ever used (and remember, I've used all of the good ones available on AVRs!) that didn't require post-hoc futzing to get the mains-sub transition region right. I wish the part had a few more features (on-screen volume display is a big one) because if it did it would supplant my Anthem MRX 300 in the main system. I'm using it as a 5.1/2.1 AVR, 5.1 in the nearfield system with wires strung to make a 2.1 system in the bedroom. Per Curt Hoyt's Trinnov Application Notes, I was able to set it up to use the room correction for both rooms. Trinnov made the bedroom system superior to my Meridian 551 integrated amp in the bedroom system, and with an RF remote it's actually usable there. I think, when new, the little 2-channel Meridian integrated cost more than the original MSRP of the R-972!

Sadly, Yamaha doesn't have an answer for Trinnov and ARC. I wish they did, because my perception (which may well be incorrect) is that their parts tend to be more reliable than the Denons/Onkyos of the world, but they play at the same price points. So while I do think the Anthem MRX is the best AVR available today based on the improvements wrought by ARC (and the setup improvements one can make guided by QuickMeasure perhaps even more so!), I wish somebody would pick up the Trinnov baton and make a reasonably priced and glitch-free AVR or pre-pro with that excellent room correction system.

*I will admit a great deal of impatience with people who read something and go off half-cocked based on their own lack of ability to competently interpret written English. Perhaps that is a character flaw. It's a flaw that happens to earn me a good living, however, so I'm loathe to attempt to do anything about it.

 

[3db]

All you're saying really saying with that petulant (and oddly repeated) comeback is that, unlike with the speaker you posted, I am correct that one cannot distinguish the mid-treble crossover point on a competently-designed one just by looking at the FR along the front hemisphere. Whereas one can on a speaker that is less-than-competently designed.

Furthermore, your writings allow someone to infer that you lack the analytic training to reliably distinguish between interpretations of product performance based on objective data that may be pointed and blunt but are accurate, or comments judging reader's skill in interpretating plain text* on one hand, and mindless personal attacks on the other. That is a learnable skill, however. You should work on it.

In AVR news, yesterday I set up my new Sherwood Newcastle R-972, with Trinnov room correction. I'm using the EQ only, no spatial remapping because my nearfield system is already optimally set up, and the bedroom system is just for background. As room correction Trinnov works so damn well that I was taken aback. For instance, it's the first automated room correction I've ever used (and remember, I've used all of the good ones available on AVRs!) that didn't require post-hoc futzing to get the mains-sub transition region right. I wish the part had a few more features (on-screen volume display is a big one) because if it did it would supplant my Anthem MRX 300 in the main system. I'm using it as a 5.1/2.1 AVR, 5.1 in the nearfield system with wires strung to make a 2.1 system in the bedroom. Per Curt Hoyt's Trinnov Application Notes, I was able to set it up to use the room correction for both rooms. Trinnov made the bedroom system superior to my Meridian 551 integrated amp in the bedroom system, and with an RF remote it's actually usable there. I think, when new, the little 2-channel Meridian integrated cost more than the original MSRP of the R-972!

Sadly, Yamaha doesn't have an answer for Trinnov and ARC. I wish they did, because my perception (which may well be incorrect) is that their parts tend to be more reliable than the Denons/Onkyos of the world, but they play at the same price points. So while I do think the Anthem MRX is the best AVR available today based on the improvements wrought by ARC (and the setup improvements one can make guided by QuickMeasure perhaps even more so!), I wish somebody would pick up the Trinnov baton and make a reasonably priced and glitch-free AVR or pre-pro with that excellent room correction system.

*I will admit a great deal of impatience with people who read something and go off half-cocked based on their own lack of ability to competently interpret written English. Perhaps that is a character flaw. It's a flaw that happens to earn me a good living, however, so I'm loathe to attempt to do anything about it.

Thanks for that lengthy retort to what was a network blip.