wonderfulelectric wrote:

Most digital volume controls are now executed in 32 bit and beyond domain. On my mac it's 64 and on my dac it is 80 and apparently one dac does it in 120bit... 

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that any of that is necessary. 24bit is more than you'll ever need for a volume control. Look it up how it works, I can't be bothered to explain this as well to you.

wonderfulelectric wrote:

It's not all about being shiny. I like the sinuous curves on the Lab12s as I do with the tulip shaped beolab 11. Plus I want it in white or some solid colour.

Yes, it's all about being shiny.

wonderfulelectric wrote:

And like I mentioned so many times before ALT lens are not exactly necessary

Yes, you've said so, but with most things you say, it never seem to correspond with reality or even physics.

wonderfulelectric wrote:

plus I said a redesigned Beolab 4000 like same size but better so ALT lens or not I am sure they can make it work

You already have that. It's called the BL12-3/12-2.

wonderfulelectric wrote:

It's still teeny tiny as compared to most bookshelfs out there.

What is? The 4000s? They already have the BL3s.

wonderfulelectric wrote:

BTW I do am starting to see the ALT lenses getting less focus than before... Exhibit A the A9 does not sound half shabby without it and brought home the CES and we have the Beolab 15 along with the latest Beovisions and the horrible looking Beolab 12-1. No lenses! 

LOL, as your evidence, you bring forth the A9 which is hardly reference - it's a glorified boombox - albeit a pretty one, and the BL12-1, which is the lower tier of the BL12-range, which otherwise has the ALT lens. I'm surprised you don't bring in the Beolit 12 as "evidence". As for the BL15/16, we're talking about an in-wall product, not stand-alone speakers.

wonderfulelectric wrote:

And I do really think the Beolab 4s and Beolab 3s can be consolidated to a single product say around $2000 - $2500? They are basically the same size! BTW I like the design of the Beolab 4s better. 

What are you on about? Consolidating them? Yes, I have an idea, stop making the BL4s and consider that "consolidation". They're very different speakers, you know.

wonderfulelectric wrote:

Like I said I think the lenses did quite a number to the B&O feng shui lol... Ever since their introduction.... I dunno whether it is linked but it is awfully coincidental that sales start plummeting from 2006 on.... I think many B&O buyers are female though so.... there you go.. I don't think the lenses appeal to female sensibilities.

Ah, yes, idle speculation as usual.

wonderfulelectric wrote:

Plus there really are other ways to achieve ultra wide dispersion now.

Again, we have heard your love for other types of products, but when countered, it turns out you even admit they don't measure as well. You should stop with the wishful thinking.

Electrified wrote:

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that any of that is necessary. 24bit is more than you'll ever need for a volume control. Look it up how it works, I can't be bothered to explain this as well to you.

Erm when you use 24bit volume control on 24bit signals what happens? A reduction in resolution! BTW my dacs have at least resolutions beyond 20bits so yeah higher bit computation helps! Plus when you listen with in really low volumes 24bit volume controls might even start cutting into normal 16bit signals. 

Electrified wrote:

Again, we have heard your love for other types of products, but when countered, it turns out you even admit they don't measure as well. You should stop with the wishful thinking.

Please go http://www.cotswoldsoundsystems.com/index.php . Measure flat on and off axis. Only concern is distortion which can be reduced by simply crossing the BMR over at higher frequency from 300hz. BTW frequency response flatter than almost all super high end midrange tweeter combo out there and not to mention wide dispersion. Plus BMR can be customized hello! There are lower designs from NXT, good designs from the link and then there are higher end ones that are custom made as used in the Naim Ovators.... Jesus I don't even want to bring BMR up in the risk of.... you know.. 

Electrified wrote:

wonderfulelectric wrote:

And I do really think the Beolab 4s and Beolab 3s can be consolidated to a single product say around $2000 - $2500? They are basically the same size! BTW I like the design of the Beolab 4s better. 

I own both. I know! I am just saying they can just create a whole new loudspeaker that replace both. 

Gosh and I thought I am the one responsible for doing off thread. 

wonderfulelectric wrote:

Please go http://www.cotswoldsoundsystems.com/index.php . Measure flat on and off axis. Only concern is distortion which can be reduced by simply crossing the BMR over at higher frequency from 300hz.

And as I have already explained, the moment you don't play test tones, but have them play actual sounds and musics, they distort even worse. I'm not going to rehash this argument. You already admitted that they're really not ready for prime time, since they have to overcome the problems of physics when it comes to actually implementing them and have them perform well.

wonderfulelectric wrote:

I own both. I know! I am just saying they can just create a whole new loudspeaker that replace both. 

I don't care if you own both. That matters not one bit. Why combine a good product with a less good product and call that "progress"? The BL3s are much better speakers than the 4000s, not least because of the ALT lens.

Electrified wrote:

And as I have already explained, the moment you don't play test tones, but have them play actual sounds and musics, they distort even worse. I'm not going to rehash this argument. You already admitted that they're really not ready for prime time, since they have to overcome the problems of physics when it comes to actually implementing them and have them perform well.

What are you talking about the technology is indeed new and still in its infancy but almost every single loudspeaker out there that have used this tech have garnered awards or rave reviews. Hello! 4.5inch surface area that covers from the midrange up is more than enough to ensure low distortion. Plus it operates very differently from pistonic drivers and it has minimum phase shifts and cancellations as compared to domes and cones. So there is a lot more going for it than against it. 

Electrified wrote:

I don't care if you own both. That matters not one bit. Why combine a good product with a less good product and call that "progress"? The BL3s are much better speakers than the 4000s, not least because of the ALT lens.

Well the enclosure volume of the Bl4000s is so much bigger than Bl3 so it is more possible to squeeze better performance out of that given volume. You are really taxing on the main drive unit of the Bl3s a lot to produce so much bass etc... I mean it is common knowledge on this forum that the BL3s do not sound too hot without a sub beyond average volume. 

wonderfulelectric wrote:

What are you talking about the technology is indeed new and still in its infancy but almost every single loudspeaker out there that have used this tech have garnered awards or rave reviews

Those "rave reviews" are completely irrelevant to me, unless they're backed up with measurements. I couldn't care less about what some HiFi idiot thinks.
As to what I'm talking about? I'm talking about it having potential, but that it's not ready for prime time, since real world measurements isn't comparable to the competition. It's not hard to comprehend.
If you want to have a lesser experience in order to be at the "cutting edge", be my guest. I, for one, don't care about it, until they can at least match the competition. And not just with new drivers, but I'd actually be interested in how long a flat diaphragm will hold up in the long run.

wonderfulelectric wrote:

Well the enclosure volume of the Bl4000s is so much bigger than Bl3 so it is more possible to squeeze better performance out of that given volume. You are really taxing on the main drive unit of the Bl3s a lot to produce so much bass etc... I mean it is common knowledge on this forum that the BL3s do not sound too hot without a sub beyond average volume. 

I'd trade bottom end for accuracy any day.

Electrified wrote:

As to what I'm talking about? I'm talking about it having potential, but that it's not ready for prime time, since real world measurements isn't comparable to the competition. It's not hard to comprehend.
If you want to have a lesser experience in order to be at the "cutting edge", be my guest. I, for one, don't care about it, until they can at least match the competition. And not just with new drivers, but I'd actually be interested in how long a flat diaphragm will hold up in the long run.

Have you taken a look at the measurement graphs on the link and offsite from independent reviewers who took measurements of the cheapest BMR implementation as used in Cambridge audio Minx? It is freaking flat throughout the midrange! You can't really get that pretty much on anything else and let's no forget the Standard affordable 4.5" BMR that is offered by Cotsworld is flat off and on axis from 150hz up to beyond 20khz like flat flat... http://www.cotswoldsoundsystems.com/specifications/CSS_Specification_Sheet_BMR85DD_N4Y_r1.pdf

Where else can you get that? 

Electrified wrote:

I'd trade bottom end for accuracy any day.

I know bass accuracy, I have ATC monitors.... And lab3s are not anywhere near accurate or distortionless.... distortion full more like it... You can't cheat physics with that small a driver with that small an enclosure and the bass radiators used to boost the bass? Bass when it is pure is not supposed to boom but to be felt. 

Oh never mind you think the Lab3s should never be phased out. I say it is time. We both have our own reasons. I want new exciting products! I think new B&O speakers have the potential to rock big time. The B&O decline is forcing the R&D team to wake up big time! 

Anyway... The thread starter wanted to know which is better I will say go for the Beolab 12-3s. BL3s are more for applications where space is limited and obviously that is not a problem for him. The bass alignment in the Lab12s are sealed and offers many times the surface area for bass reproduction so...If clarity throughout the range is concerned that it is the 12s for sure!  Plus the 12-3s I will most probably get. ... So that's my recommendation

wonderfulelectric wrote:

Have you taken a look at the measurement graphs on the link and offsite from independent reviewers who took measurements of the cheapest BMR implementation as used in Cambridge audio Minx? It is freaking flat throughout the midrange! You can't really get that pretty much on anything else and let's no forget the Standard affordable 4.5" BMR that is offered by Cotsworld is flat off and on axis from 150hz up to beyond 20khz like flat flat... http://www.cotswoldsoundsystems.com/specifications/CSS_Specification_Sheet_BMR85DD_N4Y_r1.pdf

Where else can you get that? 

Still not able to comprehend the basics, I see.

wonderfulelectric wrote:

know bass accuracy, I have ATC monitors

I was talking about overall accuracy, not solely accuracy in the deep end. You were saying that the BL3s couldn't go as deep as the BL4000s, because it had a larger box. My point was that the 4000s are not as accurate as the BL3s, and hence I prefer the latter. 

wonderfulelectric wrote:

And lab3s are not anywhere near accurate or distortionless.... distortion full more like it

I'm sorry, but once again you show your complete ignorance of the subject at hand. It's like your very intelligent comment that "Apple runs on mac".  FFS, WonElec.

wonderfulelectric wrote:

You can't cheat physics with that small a driver with that small an enclosure and the bass radiators used to boost the bass? Bass when it is pure is not supposed to boom but to be felt. 

Yet again, here we are. You think that "being felt" is opposed to "boom". You can damn well have booming bass, while it being felt. Look at most PA setups, or go to any club, and you will get just that. You can have loads af accurate bass, yet not feel it. Think good headphones, and there you are.

wonderfulelectric wrote:

Oh never mind you think the Lab3s should never be phased out

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they shouldn't make them bigger, that they shouldn't compromise in order to satisfy the fashionistas, and that making a compromise between a lesser and the BL3s is making a worse product than the BL3s.

wonderfulelectric wrote:

I say it is time. We both have our own reasons. I want new exciting products!

I know you want new and exciting products. You're all about new and shiny, regardless of it actually being better.  THe BL15/16/Amp1 is new and shiny, there's the BL12-3s, the BL12-2s, the BL12-1s, the A9, the Beolit 12, yet you're arguing they're bringing nothing new to market. They have good speakers all around. The BL5 is a near perfect speaker, as is the BL9 (depending on venue), and it's a matter of refining that, in my book.

But to you, unless it's completely new, and visibly different, it's no good.

This time, I think I'll take a break from your stupidity. I really can't deal with the stupidity and ignorance anymore.

Electrified wrote:

I was talking about overall accuracy, not solely accuracy in the deep end. You were saying that the BL3s couldn't go as deep as the BL4000s, because it had a larger box. My point was that the 4000s are not as accurate as the BL3s, and hence I prefer the latter. 

I am talking about a Lab3 that is supposedly as big as the lab 4000s... Are we on the same page? 

I like the lab 9s and 5s when they first came out. I thought how bold?! But now the novelty wears off.... 

Anyway let's not derail and leave the Beoworlders in peace. You will get an update about my design for the A9. And I will not buy the Beolit 12 .... Not a picnic or outdoor person here. 

To start with - I do not have Lab 3:s (perhaps in the future..). But I do have Lab 12-3´s and several pairs of Lab 4000´s all wall mounted. To my taste Lab 12-3´s were so thin in bass that I needed to get a Lab 11 to fulfil the scene. With the Lab 4000´s I have never felt deficiency in bass.

I was able to to compare Lab 12-3´s with ceiling mounted RL 60.2's in the same room and the latter was a clear winner. Lab 12-3's supported by a Lab 11 were a winner  with a very tiny margin. Bang for the buckwise - somewhat ridiculous.

I'm sorry I can not help you exactly  but look at the Lab 4000's as well-  If their look satisfies your eye. They can be floor mounted as well.