Hello:Hearing some decent comments about the Event Alp5's:http://www.event1.com/index/index.php?page...p5&pg=specsThey're priced comparable to Wharfedale 8.2's.Only place I found any sort of review online:http://www.rmcforum.com/forum/index.php?PH...&topic=36.0Anyone happed to have auditioned these?
We now know that Kenai prefers Event Alp5, so it is not totaly useless
muaddib, i didnt say i know how to do it properly, but the thing writen is definately useless..., do we agree on that or...?
You last post, Kenai, is the reason why I supported you in the first place. I don't think that you violated #8. Your opinion does not represent scientific fact, but you don't even claim that it is scientific nor objective fact that Alp5 are better than Rockits. And yet your opinion about Alp5 might be useful for somebody that is searching to buy monitors. I don't see any better help, since as you say objective comparison can not be found on internet.
Quote from: Kenai on 30 December, 2006, 09:47:35 PMHello:Hearing some decent comments about the Event Alp5's:http://www.event1.com/index/index.php?page...p5&pg=specsThey're priced comparable to Wharfedale 8.2's.Only place I found any sort of review online:http://www.rmcforum.com/forum/index.php?PH...&topic=36.0Anyone happed to have auditioned these?One of my friend's has the Event monitor with the 8" woofer. If the one you linked is anything like that, I speculate that it needs to be opened, have about 1/3" of mass loaded damping material applied to all walls(to reduce panel resonance) and install an effective internal acoustic damping material such as at least 2" thick 6-8lb/ft^3 density fiberglass board or mineral board. The colored timber was the main distraction to me concerning the speaker, and it sounded to me like the typical resonances that can be fixed to a degree with my suggested simple modifications. And yes, I have put forth the effort to double-blind test(by recording the speaker at a fixed position before and after modification and then ABXing the recorded signals in ABX software) and limited single blind test (using test subjects, and a single modified vs. unmodified speaker side by side set about 10' from the listener) the results of these modifications on speakers in the past. As for my speculation that the speaker needs these treatments. It seems similar to mp3 ABXing: once you get used to the specific artifacts/coloration(s) produced when the bitrate or encoding mode is not correct on specific samples, and the effect is easier to recognize in the future, it seems that the same identification ability is also valid with resonance of the panel(s) and insufficient internal absorption material. Such produces specific recognizable(to someone familar with them) coloration(s).-ChrisNote: I hear the same problem with most speakers. The Event unit I mentioned is not worse than others, overall. It seems to be a typical problem(based on production cost restraints?).
These particular Events are the Alp 5's, w/only 5.25" "woofer". Low end of their line (at under $300 street) but reportedly utilizing some nice trickle down technology from their higher end Studio Precision line. Speaking of which, Event has two lines sporting 8" woofers, the "Tuned Reference" and their "Studio Precision". I would be curious to know which you conducted your tests with.
Also, one more thing - I note you used a distance of 10 feet. Isn't that a bit on the far side for near to mid field monitor? IIRC, near-mid field monitors are tuned for 4-6 foot ran