Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk

8Ks are too small?????? I hope you meant "too big"...

Duncan

As much as I would like to upgrade my speakers again, I'd like to spend a bit more time with the family whilst I still have the choice!

I'm trying to develop the idea that a pair of 8Ks might not be the ultimate speaker in a smaller room. It was M that told us they would sound fantastic no matter what at HH1 but the need to grab at salt every now and then doesn't hurt. Whilst I wouldn't accuse anyone of being a fanboy on this site - most of us are fans.

Cheers
Tom

I can't be bothered to read the links on my small phone screen and I am sure that these posts should be in their own thread but...

An 8k calibrated against a 33 will have the same SPL so, as far as room size is concerned, the only difference should be that the 8k will require less effort to move the amount of air needed to achieve the upper volume levels.

Thus an 8k is equally at home as a 33 as long as its far enough into the room that boundary settings can be set for free space which according to Bob is about the size of a telephone box

My 5200's ran out of steam at lower 90's, about the limit my hearing could take for more than a few seconds. I am sure my 5000's would be the same, just less smooth as they reach their limits. In a different room, my 33's ran out of steam in upper 80's, past the limit of comfort for that room before rattles took over but probably lacking in the room my 5000's are in.

I am sure that a pair of 8k would not run out of steam until long after my ear drums have given up so they could be deemed a waste, but they are not as they are so sublime, even at modest listening levels. Some things just cannot be quantified, they just have 'it' even though you just cannot put your finger on 'it' - 8k's fall into this category, 7200's don't even though on paper, both would be equally suitable, or not, for my room. Thankfully my lack of floor space matches my lack of spare funds in the bank.

Heavy edit
I have Quad 63 's on high stands and driven by 500w monoblocs
They are ruthlessly accurate
I have Trifield DSP 6Ks, they are like a lovely Thai back rub
I love both .
Roger

Roger that'd be a lovely back rub with happy ending, yes?

Having gone through almost the entire lineup in one room not so big I must say that I found the DSP8k easier to integrate in the room than the DSP5200 L/R they replaced. Also the DSP7200HC seems harder with the more uncontrolled bass than the 8k's. Don't forget that the 8k's are sealed and that can really help in tougher room scenarios. If DSP5200/DSP7200 was sealed then I think we could have had a scenario where a hypothetically sealed DSP7.2k had merit.

I've become a believer of the DSP8k phonebooth theory.

I believe that at equal SPL in any practical room size the DSP 8k's will always sound better than any other speaker in the range.

"Don't forget that the 8k's are sealed and that can really help in tougher room scenarios. If DSP5200/DSP7200 was sealed then I think we could have had a scenario where a hypothetically sealed DSP7.2k had merit."

I think you're perfectly correct. I am not familiar with the upper end of the DSP speaker range, but yes, a ported speaker is far more sensitive to room placements and therefore one could assume that the internal DSP applied for non ideal placement would have to be far more intense. In my experience a ported enclosure (that relies on resonance to extend the lower frequency ranges) is far more inclined to activate room resonance nodes.

You could always stuff the port with foam in order to achieve an aperiodic loading but you'd have to use the MRC to correct the altered response. I'm not sure how the on board DSP could be tailored to the new response characteristics - probably not at all and the confusion between the two would result in a net degradation of sound quality.

There exist no DSP setting for stuffed ports in DSP5k/5.2k/5.5k/7k/7.2k.. thus we arrive at the same practical conclusion...

I was taught as a kid that ports were a kludge and that any speaker which employed them was to be avoided at all costs. That they're infinite baffle is one of the best things about the D33s, and explains why the bass they do actually have works so well.

So I guess I only have three choices: D33s, DSP6000 and DSP8000. That's going to make for a tough life.

I was by the way quite surprised to see that the D1500 is ported. It is not (afaics) mentioned in the datasheets, but there is a small port in the bottom panel, pointing at the floor. I guess this is why the SW1600 advertises that it has no port and therefore "no port noise" (whatever that is).

"no port noise" (whatever that is)"

At high driver displacements ports are known to "chuff" as the air rushes in and out under pressure (I assume the expression coming from steam engines and their funnels?)

The counter measure is to flare the port opening. I recall B&W add golf ball dimples to the flair to disrupt the boundary layer, in turn this decreases the drag caused by skin friction and allows the air to move quicker. However, the use of a flair complicates the mathematical port calculations.

Why not just stick with infinite baffles?... (I know the answer, just a rhetorical question.)

The DSP6000 - from the associated official M "toilet paper"

"Two digital inputs to SPDIF standard; 32kHz�96kHz sampling
rates at up to 24 bit; MHR support. (A future software update
will enable support for 192kHz.)"

I take it the software update never materialised? The same 192kHz capabilities have been mentioned for the Control 15...