I wouldn't put too much stock into a review from a publication with the credibility problems that one currently has. In any case, it's getting old how every few months (now apparently month to month) they find a new benchmark. However, your point with regard to the W/P measurements is valid, and I concur. |
I agree in regards to reviews in general. However, at least RH had both speakers under the same roof. And I would say that just out of curiosity, one may feel the need to investigate more before reaching a conclusion based on debatable 2 db extra output above 6.5K. BTW, this issue is completely irrelevant since the V3 is designed to be listened slightly off-axis. In normal listing position (ears below the tweeters) the tweeters are flat almost out to 40K. |
JK-Please keep in mind that whenever you are going to bring up the V3, you will have to reckon with me. NP, I'm bored and need the entertainment... Not sure what you have against these speakers, but if you want to trash them, at least try and keep it real. How did I trash them? I told the truth about how they measure... As I mention before, even JA pointed out to the top octave shelved up of the Ultima Studio2 (Same tweeter arrangement as the Salon 2) This is true, which I mentioned in my post, and as I also mentioned, the Studio2 is not nearly as shelved up as the V3 is shelved up in the human audible range of the Frequency Response. Using the treble adjustment knob on the Studio2, the shelving isn't even worth mentioning... Especially from one who has defended the W/P -/+ 10db FR and admittedly, miss their 6 db midrange shelved up!! I enjoy upsetting you, since it causes you to exaggerate and/or flat out fabricate things about the W/P 8s, as well as distort things I previously mentioned in this thread. Without a doubt, you are Magico's worst enemy... If I were them, I would be begging you to start promoting another brand. :D The funny thing is, people can look at the objective measurements for the W/P8s and the V3s and see that I am telling the truth and you are not. They can also look at in-room responses and figure out what I have been saying about how speakers can be designed with frequency response aberrations intentionally for specific purposes (a common practice with in-wall, in-celling, and bookshelf speakers, among others). The W/P8s measure worst on the Stereophile site, where they are -5dB and +4dB, not the -/+10 dB you claim. The sooner you learn to use the truth to make your points, the better off your arguments will be, and the better off any speakers you associate yourself with will be... I never mentioned a "shelving up" in the mid-range... I did mention "shelving down" in a particular area of the mid-range, which happens to mate well with my room. I have to PEQ the Salon2s to get the same mid-range transparency with deeper male vocals that I had naturally with the W/P8s. The shelving down in the mid-range on the W/P8s allows for closer wall placement without the frequency response developing a mid-range bump that is bloated enough to interfere with many mid-range male vocals. That is all in the same paragraph complaining about the V3 extra 2 db abouve6.5K. Come on, get real. And then again, if you can correct it all with a good PEQ, does it really matter what speakers you end up having? So then you agree with me now that the W/P8 frequency response measurement issues are not really such a big deal? Make up your mind will ya... ;P I agree that it isn't such a big deal to have the V3s shelved up higher in the treble because the shelving can be EQed out with one form of EQ or another. I don't however see the point of spending money to bring a pair of V3s into my home to test, considering their measurements, which have issues in more than just the high treble. Wouldn't that be taking a step backwards according to your own philosophy concerning measurements? For instance, if you look at the V3 frequency response measurement, compare it to the Studio2 and then take a look at the in-room response of the Salon2, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that I am going to have even worse in-room response issues with the V3's frequency response, but like I said originally, and which you now agree with in your recent posts, it can be EQed out. Why bother though? With the Salon2 I have to do a lot less EQing and they cost less money as well. Why spend more money on a speaker that has more problems to deal with? Plus, with the EQing, I can make them sound practically the same anyway. As far as toeing-in (or out) the V3s to adjust for treble response is concerned, that will still yield bad results since the shelving isn't continuous throughout the entire treble band. So toeing them in or out will augment some areas while causing new issues with other areas that used to be flat or that were polar to the area being adjusted... Plus, between 3KHz and 10KHz, you have the response shooting down to -4dB then gradually rising up to +4dB (Wouldn't that be considered a bad crossover design?). Playing with the toe-in angle with that kind of wild variation in the response is not going to yield very linear results... My advice, stick with the EQing. ;) Also, whether a speaker is flat to 40KHz really is meaningless, since humans can't hear above 24KHz even at the peak of their hearing abilities, and even then, people who hear frequencies as high as 24KHz are very very very (etc) rare, as well as very very very young. People at my age (34) already don't hear above a level significantly lower than 24KHz, at least not at a decibel level that is even remotely near the border of useful for music playback. This is scientifically established data. (Absolute Threshold of Hearing) I do find it funny that you have now contradicted some of your earlier points in this thread. Now that the V3 does it, it is OK in your mind to design a speaker specifically for a certain kind of placement, while when Wilson did it for the W/P8, it was just wrong... Now it is OK to not have flat measurements, as long as it is a Magico speaker and not a Wilson Watt Puppy. Your logic and consistency flew out the window when many of your arguments about the W/P 8s could be applied to a Magico speaker. That doesn't help your argument. Take at as you wish but at least it is coming from a person that actually spent significant time with both speakers. Yeah, TAS is really big on measurements (I'm kidding of course)... I especially love those room treatments JV seems to be using in his room. What are those things called again? Shakti Hallographs? A person's credibility flies out the window in my book, when he uses something like that and says it actually does something to the sound of the music... Weird stuff like that is one reason why I stopped buying that magazine. The other reason is because they don't objectively measure equipment. IMO, the best periodical for researching equipment is SoundStage, since they use the NRC to get measurements. There is a much lower chance for biased results using an independent research group for measurements. Plus the results are going to be more consistent since they pretty much use the same methods every time, and their methods are based on objective research. I look forward to seeing how any Magico speaker measures via the NRC. IMO, many of the discrepancies RH finds between the speakers could likely be EQed out... While I would love the opportunity to experiment with both speakers, I'm not throwing down another lump of cash at this point on what would be frivolity. Besides which, when I heard them at shows, they sounded horrendously bright to me and despite what a reviewer or two has been saying, I thought they didn't image very well either... Go figure though, I didn't prefer any of the Radialstrahlers either. |
