@tomthiel
I think I've brought this up before but...
One of the differences I heard between my 3.7 and 2.7s was a finer, more subtle sense of detail on the 3.7s and the 3.7s "disappeared" a bit better.So even if an instrument or voice was panned hard right to the speaker location, the voice would float around the speaker. Whereas the 2.7s have a teeny bit more problem getting the sound "out" of the speaker in the same situations.
Apparently the baffle of the 3.7 was metal (aluminum?) where there was a bit of cost-cutting in the 2.7 so it was a less stiff material (wood? MDF?). I presume that could be responsible for the observation.
It makes me wonder about a tweak for the 2.7s of re-enforcing the baffle from behind within the cabinet, say with metal or something that makes it comparable to the 3.7's baffle.
Is that something Rob could pull off? I have no idea how difficult that would be.
Thanks
I think I've brought this up before but...
One of the differences I heard between my 3.7 and 2.7s was a finer, more subtle sense of detail on the 3.7s and the 3.7s "disappeared" a bit better.So even if an instrument or voice was panned hard right to the speaker location, the voice would float around the speaker. Whereas the 2.7s have a teeny bit more problem getting the sound "out" of the speaker in the same situations.
Apparently the baffle of the 3.7 was metal (aluminum?) where there was a bit of cost-cutting in the 2.7 so it was a less stiff material (wood? MDF?). I presume that could be responsible for the observation.
It makes me wonder about a tweak for the 2.7s of re-enforcing the baffle from behind within the cabinet, say with metal or something that makes it comparable to the 3.7's baffle.
Is that something Rob could pull off? I have no idea how difficult that would be.
Thanks