|
|
Post by Poodleluvr on Apr 23, 2019 18:12:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Poodleluvr on Apr 24, 2019 0:30:43 GMT -5
I could not pass over the closeout sale. I ordered a pair of T2s tonight.  |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Apr 24, 2019 0:35:54 GMT -5
I could not pass over the closeout sale. I ordered a pair of T2s tonight. The force is strong with this one! |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Apr 24, 2019 8:29:47 GMT -5
|
|
robs
Minor Hero
Posts: 52
|
Post by robs on Apr 24, 2019 22:45:01 GMT -5
What's up with the measurements on the T2s? Those look awful.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,276
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 25, 2019 11:35:59 GMT -5
I'm not sure what measurements you're looking at.
For a speaker, and especially for one that you can own without a mortgage, I would say they measure pretty well. (Although, as with speakers in general, I would also say that how they sound is far more important than how they measure.)
What's up with the measurements on the T2s? Those look awful. |
|
|
|
Post by creimes on Apr 25, 2019 11:37:15 GMT -5
I'm not sure what measurements you're looking at. For a speaker, and especially for one that you can own without a mortgage, I would say they measure pretty well. (Although, as with speakers in general, I would also say that how they sound is far more important than how they measure.)
What's up with the measurements on the T2s? Those look awful. Maybe he's meaning physical dimensions haha  |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Apr 26, 2019 14:01:21 GMT -5
That's why I have tube amps because _________. Feel free to fill in the blanks.🙂
|
|
robs
Minor Hero
Posts: 52
|
Post by robs on Apr 29, 2019 0:56:16 GMT -5
I'm not sure what measurements you're looking at.
For a speaker, and especially for one that you can own without a mortgage, I would say they measure pretty well. (Although, as with speakers in general, I would also say that how they sound is far more important than how they measure.)
What's up with the measurements on the T2s? Those look awful. It has peaks and dips all over the midrange. It also has rising treble, a massive midbass bump. It rolls off too quickly. Vertical dispersion is horrible with ribbons. 2, 8" drivers that don't have to reproduce midrange should go significantly lower and stay flatter than a JBL LSR 308 that costs half as much. |
|
|
|
Post by tomincle on Apr 29, 2019 8:13:50 GMT -5
Read the review and was trying to understand the author's critiques of the T2, I can not help but think about his five channel amplifier selection. If I was to review a set of speakers based on two-channel musicality I certainly would want to use a capable TWO channel amp and preamp. So I looked up the specs of the Parasound A52+ and the biggest thing that stood out at me was there was not the huge boost you would normally expect going from 8 ohm to 4 ohm (180@ 8 ohms- 255@ 4 ohms). One explanation of this would be a lighter power supply selection and sure enough the picture showed what I needed to know, For five channels it does not seem like it has enough capacitance but I'm not an electrical engineer.
Someone ship this guy an XPA-2 and let's start this review over again !!
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Apr 29, 2019 9:59:20 GMT -5
“ I would also say that how they sound is far more important than how they measure.“
Amen
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Apr 29, 2019 10:32:44 GMT -5
I'm not sure what measurements you're looking at. For a speaker, and especially for one that you can own without a mortgage, I would say they measure pretty well. (Although, as with speakers in general, I would also say that how they sound is far more important than how they measure.)
It has peaks and dips all over the midrange. It also has rising treble, a massive midbass bump. It rolls off too quickly. Vertical dispersion is horrible with ribbons. 2, 8" drivers that don't have to reproduce midrange should go significantly lower and stay flatter than a JBL LSR 308 that costs half as much. Sigh....well just listen to it. I have heard more expensive JBLs than the ones mentioned and I would pick the T2. It's one of the best speakers I've heard. Having said that it is dependent on positioning, so results can vary depending on that. The midbass hump: Read more at www.stereophile.com/content/emotiva-audio-airmotiv-t2-loudspeaker-measurements#CcHdJ8tw7BkaYphz.99 So it's not "all over the place" or "awful" but according to John Atkinson who did the measurements: "evenly balanced", bass being "maximally flat, "optimal crossover design", "Superbly clean spectral plot in the treble". "Cleanly spaced contour lines offering stable imaging". Some aberrations present like a minor 3-4 db peak at below 3 khz and a +5 db peak at 15 khz. So, far from a poor showing imo. At worst you could say - minor issues present. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Apr 29, 2019 10:35:11 GMT -5
Read the review and was trying to understand the author's critiques of the T2, I can not help but think about his five channel amplifier selection. If I was to review a set of speakers based on two-channel musicality I certainly would want to use a capable TWO channel amp and preamp. So I looked up the specs of the Parasound A52+ and the biggest thing that stood out at me was there was not the huge boost you would normally expect going from 8 ohm to 4 ohm (180@ 8 ohms- 255@ 4 ohms). One explanation of this would be a lighter power supply selection and sure enough the picture showed what I needed to know, For five channels it does not seem like it has enough capacitance but I'm not an electrical engineer. Someone ship this guy an XPA-2 and let's start this review over again !! Thank you. I'm not sure why he's using a surround sound processor and amp to test a two channel setup. Having said that, it's a reasonably capable one. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Apr 29, 2019 10:46:37 GMT -5
“ I would also say that how they sound is far more important than how they measure.“ Amen I agree with you. But on the other hand, reviewers face criticism about being subjective and ignoring the objective if they don't post measurements as part of their review. And if their subjective listening impressions don't jibe with the objective measurements, then what are people to think? Personally, I don't think numbers can tell you everything about a product although they ought to provide some guidance as to what to expect. What it actually sounds like is more important to me and I like to hear the reviewer's impressions but in plain English. None of these stupid phrases like "organically chocolatey" or "fine pace and timing although a bit on the free range side" or "the speakers are more paleo than keto." |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Apr 29, 2019 10:56:28 GMT -5
I was quoting Keith, and am delighted that there's a place in this world for how components actually sound.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,276
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 29, 2019 11:29:27 GMT -5
I absolutely agree.
However, if possible, I will ALWAYS choose the component that reproduces the recording as accurately as possible, with as little alteration as possible. Unfortunately, when it comes to speakers, NO speaker is anywhere near perfectly accurate, and reviewers NEVER compare speakers in identical or standard listening rooms. (And, even if they did, unless we were to build our listening rooms to match that standard, the results wouldn't be the same anyway.)
In contrast, if you are a subjectivist, then the best you can do is to find a reviewer whose tastes agree with yours.
(Or listen to each product, in your own room, for yourself, and choose the one you simply prefer.)
I was quoting Keith, and am delighted that there's a place in this world for how components actually sound. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Apr 29, 2019 11:42:55 GMT -5
A dentist's drill may be accurate, but it sure isn't pleasurable.
After 50 years in this hobby, including many with "high end" components and as a musician, I have come to realize this:
After a certain baseline of "accuracy", I highly value the ability of a component to make my toes tap, head bob, and gaze in wonder at the 20' deep images between the speakers. I could care less what some recording engineer heard in a different space with different electronics and speakers. I try to only listen to well-recorded music to start with - mostly jazz and classical played on real acoustic instruments. Not all "accurate" components can do this.
Magneplanars, for example, don't measure all that well, but oh my, who cares, what musicality and soundstaging!!
And measurements are just that, an entry level baseline for the real purpose of music - to elicit an emotional response. Emotiva? or Accutiva? You decide.
In addition, in my home, superb aesthetics are mandatory - no thin stamped black boxes please! Costly, yes, but ever so satisfying to own.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,276
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 29, 2019 12:02:55 GMT -5
The problem is that you're attempting to view a speaker in the same context as an electronic component. This is leading you to make assumptions and simplifications that simply don't accurately represent the facts.
A speaker is part of a very complex electro-mechanical system that includes the speaker, your ears, and the room you're playing it in. For one thing, the frequency response will vary widely, depending on the acoustic properties of the room, the characteristics of the speaker, and the location of the speaker and the listener.
Because of this, it is physically impossible to make a speaker that will measure universally well in a variety of different rooms. The ONLY standard way to measure a speaker is in an anechoic chamber. Unfortunately, not only is an anechoic chamber unrepresentative of any real world listening situation, but most people agree they sound really unpleasant.
Vertical dispersion with vertical ribbons is NOT at all "horrible". The vertical dispersion of a vertical ribbon is LIMITED, or "controlled", which is a desirable virtue. If you're designing a speaker that you want to sound good in most typical rooms, then you want to limit the vertical dispersion, to limit floor and ceiling interactions. This is even more important in a studio environment.
(Every designer, and every reviewer, has a different opinion on exactly how much vertical dispersion is "desirable" and how much is "too much" in a particular application.)
Likewise, bass tuning is a choice...
For a given speaker cabinet volume and driver, the designed gets to choose between a gradual roll-off that starts higher, and a flatter response, or even a slight bump, followed by a sharper drop at a lower frequency. (So, would you like a speaker that is flatter, or one that goes lower, or one that plays loud low notes more cleanly, or one that's bigger and costs more?)
If you do a bit of research - you'll find a lot of other specs on the JBL LSR 308 - including a modest maximum peak output level of 112 dB SPL. You will also find that it is down a full -10 dB at 37 Hz.... and no mention of maximum output level at any low frequency. You might also look for some waterfall plots to help figure out how clear and concise (or how imprecise and blurred) they sound on transients - if you can find any.
Note that neither we nor they quote THD specs (those are very difficult to interpreted with loudspeakers - and are rarely if ever specified - but I'll bet the THD on the T2's is much lower.) The LSR 308's are also clearly designed to be used as near-field monitors (close to the listener). I've never heard the JBL's, but I doubt they'd compare well to the T2's in a moderately sized room at typical listening levels and distances.
I'm not sure what measurements you're looking at. For a speaker, and especially for one that you can own without a mortgage, I would say they measure pretty well. (Although, as with speakers in general, I would also say that how they sound is far more important than how they measure.)
It has peaks and dips all over the midrange. It also has rising treble, a massive midbass bump. It rolls off too quickly. Vertical dispersion is horrible with ribbons. 2, 8" drivers that don't have to reproduce midrange should go significantly lower and stay flatter than a JBL LSR 308 that costs half as much. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,276
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 29, 2019 12:58:32 GMT -5
Obviously we all have different considerations and priorities....
The only problem I have there is that "emotional response" isn't a real thing.... it is simply a result of how our brain interprets other things. If listening to a live performance "gets your toe tapping" then listening to the same performance reproduced perfectly and accurately will do the same. (And, if you close your eyes, you will not be able to tell one from the other.... and, if you can, then there was something wrong with the reproduction.) And, if either the recording engineer, or the equipment used to make the recording, or the equipment used to reproduce it, bungles that job, then you can't really fix it.
Nothing can make a bad recording, or a bad performance, into a good one... At best, it may allow you to enjoy a bad performance more by making its flaws less obvious... but that's like saying that a bad painting doesn't look quite as bad without your glasses.
Leaving your glasses off may in fact make a really bad painting less unpleasant - but it won't actually improve it - and it will also make you unable to appreciate the fine details in a really great painting. I prefer to hear every recording in all of its (potential) glory.... and, if it's bad, then I'll look for a better recording to listen to.
To me, it's up to the artist, and the recording engineer, to make a recording that can "make my toes tap"... And it's simply up to the playback system to deliver it without messing it up...
As for Magneplanars, I must admit that I've never especially liked them, and it ISN'T because of how they measure.
People who like them often describe them as sounding "like the music just comes from the air in front of you".
I find that description to be quite accurate - and it's what I don't like about them. I never get a true sense of immediacy from Magneplanars. To me, they DO sound like the music is coming from the air, but not like its coming from a singer or instrument that's actually right there in the room with me. (But, then, I very much like electrostatic headphones, but I also find that most electrostatic speakers are too airy sounding - while lacking immediacy and solidness.)
And, to me, I like aesthetics... but not enough to pay what they cost these days. In the old days, when it was available, I always paid extra for the "real oiled wood veneer" option. (I seem to recall that, when I purchased my Advent Loudspeakers, it cost about $45 extra for the real oiled walnut veneer.) However, at today's prices, I'm not prepared to pay what it costs for decent veneer, especially when I tend to listen to music with my eyes closed (and to movies with the lights off).  A dentist's drill may be accurate, but it sure isn't pleasurable. After 50 years in this hobby, including many with "high end" components and as a musician, I have come to realize this: After a certain baseline of "accuracy", I highly value the ability of a component to make my toes tap, head bob, and gaze in wonder at the 20' deep images between the speakers. I could care less what some recording engineer heard in a different space with different electronics and speakers. I try to only listen to well-recorded music to start with - mostly jazz and classical played on real acoustic instruments. Not all "accurate" components can do this. Magneplanars, for example, don't measure all that well, but oh my, who cares, what musicality and soundstaging!! And measurements are just that, an entry level baseline for the real purpose of music - to elicit an emotional response. Emotiva? or Accutiva? You decide. In addition, in my home, superb aesthetics are mandatory - no thin stamped black boxes please! Costly, yes, but ever so satisfying to own. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Apr 29, 2019 13:20:47 GMT -5
"The only problem I have there is that "emotional response" isn't a real thing"
Try telling that to my wife
And, with well over 200,000 pairs of Magneplanars sold, yours may very well be the minority view. |
|
