Hi Dracule,
I think you make some valid points.
Taken alone, a measurement of frequency response provides
little more than an indicator of the spectral-balance;
which, although an important audible parameter, is hardly an
accurate indicator of overall reproduction accuracy.
Further, I believe the measurements Usermanual cites are for
the earlier version C-1.0 loudspeaker, since superseded by
the C-1.1 which introduced refinements to both the tweeter
and woofer.
If we are being strictly objective about things, the
fabulous Magico Q1 loudspeaker was also measured by MC to
have a depression from 1.2 to 4.5 KHz which Âaveraged 3dB,
and an energy prominence at 5 KHz. Does that make the
Magico a poor speaker? Not at all. Criticizing the
performance of a loudspeaker solely from a review of its
measurable parameters is a bit like writing a restaurant
review directly after reading the list of the food
ingredients .
I think you make some valid points.
Taken alone, a measurement of frequency response provides
little more than an indicator of the spectral-balance;
which, although an important audible parameter, is hardly an
accurate indicator of overall reproduction accuracy.
Further, I believe the measurements Usermanual cites are for
the earlier version C-1.0 loudspeaker, since superseded by
the C-1.1 which introduced refinements to both the tweeter
and woofer.
If we are being strictly objective about things, the
fabulous Magico Q1 loudspeaker was also measured by MC to
have a depression from 1.2 to 4.5 KHz which Âaveraged 3dB,
and an energy prominence at 5 KHz. Does that make the
Magico a poor speaker? Not at all. Criticizing the
performance of a loudspeaker solely from a review of its
measurable parameters is a bit like writing a restaurant
review directly after reading the list of the food
ingredients .