Thanks very much. I realize I should not rise to this abuse, but there are technical assertions made that would be good for folks to know more about. So here goes, for one last time--
I answered Kenji’s first question above years ago, about a small, undamped room’s problems. It is certainly a fair question with a technically-correct answer. After learning about his room, I gave the normal advice on wall treatments here and there, etc-- the advice we always read about. I also sent him a difficult test CD I burned. He then emailed that he appreciated now the time-coherence and that this test disc sounded just fine. He said he was happy. The song list for that test disc is available to anyone. The songs on it are literally torn apart by non-coherent speakers, making women leave the room.
For benefit of the others, the answer to his first question is:
"Your small 10x10x10 foot painted-cinder-block room makes every wall reflection reach you very soon and very loud at all frequencies. This is a very unusual situation for such a learned audiophile as yourself.
"When a time-coherent speaker’s sound reflects from very-close-by, acoustically-untreated hard surfaces, these reflections are then clearly audible as distinct reflections, especially in the voice range and low treble, because that is how we hear (Haas effect). In the bass, such strong and early reflections produce the standing waves that all audio books predict, made louder and more numerous by this small sealed room’s rigidity and therefore its lack of damping in the bass. Numerous means that the speakers can then sound warm in this room.
"When a non-time coherent speaker’s sound reflects from very-close-by, acoustically-untreated hard surfaces, these reflections are then less audible as distinct reflections, since they are scrambled in time, therefore sounding more diffuse in the voice range and low treble, precisely the region in which those speakers have the most time-smear."
These statements are facts.
I have no time to answer his second question of how I may improve my speakers, and this is not the place. Just follow my website. There, anyone will find that I always presented far more details of my technology, and WHY I use it, and provide far more specs than any other speaker manufacturer.
Regarding that review: Anyone should read it through to see how Kenji is mis-characterizing what the UK’s most experienced reviewer/editor, active since the 1970’s, wrote. And then find out he also awarded this model Product of the Year status six months later.
On my subsequent speaker models, including Kenji’s, I finally figured out how to fix a mechanical time-delay issue present in all speakers, a problem no one has ever solved. This is clearly explained on our website, in the technical papers on Rio II and Chroma, and for Eos HX.
Before this last correction of mine, our speakers could sound forward, because their low-tone range was still lagging behind just a bit, albeit less so than what other time-coherent speaker manufacturers thought to be audible. It is our lack of cabinet reflections, lack of cone breakups, and our very simple crossover circuits made of the best-sounding parts we’ve ever heard that make this last time-delay issue audible. The reviewer noted in detail how the speakers made a couple of recordings sound forward, yet NOT OTHER RECORDINGS for which he expected to have also sounded quite forward. Again, all fixed in Kenji’s speakers.
How much longer can he keep changing the subject? I know-- endlessly.
Perhaps Audiogon should ban him. If he keeps up this nonsense, others thoughts on that would be welcome. I don’t know what I can do to fix this situation.
Best regards,
Roy
.
