Borresen X3 measurements

I don’t actually. Most good equipment measures well. 

I agree 100% with bojack!

Some things in sound quality are not measured or hard to quantify. But that does not negate the value of things we can measure that affect the sound. I have not heard the X3 so the measurments are interesting to me since there has been more or less universal praise for them. 
 

I am a bit taken back by 3 things about the measurements.

#1 the poor estimated in room frequency response (directivity issues coincide).

#2 the bass tuning…

#3 the lack of dynamic range. I have read people state they can play very loud but the data strongly suggests otherwise. This would explain why the X6 is made. I thought there might be something special with the tweeter but it shows heavy compression too. 
 

Anyway that is my keyboard warrior take.

Kennymacc,

Your revels are some of the best measuring speakers ever… I bet you think they are some of the best speakers made too… measurements and sound quality can not be separated.

I find a lot of times people just don’t measure their systems response or their rooms decay time. Lack of experience is the issue. The X3 is not a tuning issue (rolled off or bright), the drivers simply don’t integrate and there is a lot of box noise.

I mean experience with measurements not just rotating equipment. Nothing wrong with liking a non flat speaker (bass boost, rolled off, bright, etc). It would be worth understanding how that equipment measures and searching out that equipment. One man sweet highs are another man’s dull speaker and that is where standards come in and play a roll.

Resonances, uneven dispersion and driver miss matches are not what I would call taste differences. It is a short coming in the designs. Harman has a house tune too. It is 0.5db per octave drop from low to high.

measurement tools like REW are free and a mic cost less than many people’s power cords. Measuring the rooms/system response and doing positional EQ (moving the speakers/subs) can/will make a huge difference. Measuring decay time and adding the right amount of treatment really helps too. 
 

I have a pretty large room and ended up with eight 7” thick panels and a fully treated ceiling to get my decay times down. That added far more clarity than switching equipment ever could have. 

Data from the webpage which is easier to read.

https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/børresen_x3/
 

I have owned/own 4 pairs of speakers that all have full measurements (“spins”) on the Kipple system. It just worked out that way and I did not buy due to seeing measurements

My thoughts are as a whole I think what you see is what you get from the measurements, but two things really stand out. #1 is the estimated in room response. The measurements track pretty closely to how my room measures with those speakers and how I hear it. #2 is the directivity, it really does give insight to how the soundstage will play out in room.

where I feel the measurements lack is in transients, or at least I don’t know what I am looking for to see it. Some speakers have far more kick/snap than others even though the in room estimates are pretty similar. There is more to be learned and understood for sure.

I have also not cared for near perfect measuring speakers (Kef blade 2). They lacked the life and detail I get out of my JBL 4367 that happens to also measure very well. I am not sure where to look in the measurements to see that difference or if it is even there. In my mind a speaker would need to be able to produce a square wave to truly represent the impulse but I don’t than any can.

Deep_333

is that in the measurements taken? I seen the step response to see driver alignment but that does show what is needed? Again maybe I don’t fully understand it. 
 

I assume the driver rise and fall time (and a function of surface area/efficiency) would show dynamics, but I am just guessing.