4/16/2023 0 Comments Fuzzmeasure![]() ![]() at intermission (figuring the 1st half was unlistenable anyway) I ran out, moved the mics back a bit and switched them to cardiod. 8 to get plenty of the room (was very nice - the reverb had a fully enveloping syrupy quality to it sitting in the audience, since ruined when they tore out the pipe organ) but forgot to take into account that it was cold/flu/allergy season - the coughing and sneezing was so bad that it was drowning out the guitarist so. I had originally gone with Neumann KM86's in crossed fig. Your story about the HVAC system noise reminded me of the time I recorded a visiting guitarist at The University of Texas in like '91, don't remember his name but he was quite good. ![]() While a flat treble response is not what you want to see in a graph like thisa room's furnishings are more absorbent at high frequencies than they are lower in the audiobandthis graph does explain why I felt the Reference 5 to sound a little sweet.īut I think it's a closeup of the Reference 1's stand (see link):Īlso, enjoyed the review, I've been curious about the differences between this and the blade 2. However, the Reference 5's greater directivity above 5kHz results in a response that slopes down more in the top two octaves than the Blade Two's response, and actually resembles that of the Magico S5 Mk.II, which I reviewed in February 2017 (fig.8). (Using SMUGSoftware's FuzzMeasure 3.0 program and a 96kHz sample rate, I average 20 1/6-octavesmoothed spectra, individually taken for the left and right speakers, in a rectangular grid 36" wide by 18" high and centered on the positions of my ears.) As one might expect from the similar drive-unit arrays, the two speakers behave very similarly in my room, with a relatively even response from the midbass through the low treble, and with the output around 30Hz boosted by the lowest-frequency resonant mode in my room. As is usual with a reflex design, the overall low-frequency response rolls off rapidly below the port's tuning frequency.įig.6 KEF Reference 5, vertical response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 20≥° above axis, reference response, differences in response 5≢0° below axis.įig.7 compares the spatially averaged response of the Reference 5 (red trace) with that of the Blade Two (blue). The midrange unit rolls in with closer to a third-order acoustic slope and the Reference 5's upper-frequency response is relatively smooth, which can also be seen in the response averaged across a 30° horizontal window centered on the tweeter axis (fig.4). The red trace is the sum of the woofer outputs it covers the range of 60≣00Hz, and the upper-frequency rolloff appears to be around 12dB/octave and free from any spurious response spikes. It peaks between 27 and 70Hz, and although some midrange output can be seen, this is both low in level and will be ameliorated by the fact that the ports are on the speaker's rear panel. ![]() The short port gives a slightly higher tuning frequency than the long≴5 vs 36Hzbut in fig.3, the blue trace shows the sum of both ports' outputs. Fig.2 KEF Reference 5, cumulative spectral-decay plot calculated from output of accelerometer fastened to center of sidewall level with third-highest woofer (MLS driving voltage to speaker, 7.55V measurement bandwidth, 2kHz).Īs I mentioned in the review, Jack Oclee-Brown eventually decided on using the long ports for the top two woofers and the short ports for the bottom two woofers. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |