I don’t have a dog in this fight, but if you’re going trash a guys business, I need a little more than “this guy doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about”.
Right. If you watch his videos, he obviously has a clue what he's talking about. People may not agree with his conclusions, but he is very knowledgeable. In today's America it is hard to knock a guy for his sales tactics. That has always been the advertising strategy here, for every product. Tout your product as the best and trash the other guys.
You mean the guy that is constantly trashing everyone else's business and products. GR Research makes a living trashing other companies and their products. Certainly, there are MANY audio companies that simply make Great Products without criticizing other companies.
People generally buy speakers that sound good to them. Once you 'improve' them, they lose the sound signature that you bought them for. Their tonal balance is gone, replaced by a completely different sound. It's the reason why there are so many and varied speakers out there, people have differing preferences.
Then again these are the people that get tired of them and send them to Danny to improve . Many people buy speakers online now so go into this blind ! You would be very surprised as to what is inside these speakers , to claim its the right “ flavor “ is just nonsense. Get past the shiny box and there is less than 20 dollars worth of parts inside. Very easy way for manufacturers to pad their profits as very few people actually open them up !
Bud,i built transducers of every style for many years...i found him a bit of a snob as for a guy that mods cheapish speakers when i asked for advice about a £1500 amp he said 'i would'nt know i don't use cheap amplifiers'...a bit of a snob..but he does know about building speakers,he has made some good ones of his own...speakers are subjective, as you say it's a matter of taste,he wants a flat response with a kinder impedence...the best speakers i ever had did not have a ruler flat response or even deep bass & extended treble ,Quad 63's used with various Quad & Boothroyd Stuart/Meridian amplifiers...he does build good crossovers with quality components in them ,remember these are people who are asking him as they want a flatter response, kinder impedence & cleaner response according to his MLSSA graphs....speakers are purely a matter of taste but he does do sensible upgrades for a fair price ,if you want that...i had a pair of Lineum LX5's with just a cheap non polarised 4.7mfd cap on the bipole tweeters,nothing on the bass/mid unit though i measured it at +/-1.5db...i changed it for a high quality 160v ICW polypropylene 4.7mfd cap,sound so amazing to me ,black & white,still luv listening to them nearly 30 yrs later....it is his business & people do want his upgrade kits,can't say i have heard his speakers....i wish he would play them for people to hear..
One of Danny Richie/GR Research’s favorite amps for high efficiency speakers is a DIY “chip amp.” Very inexpensive. He’s a “high value” guy. I’m calling BS.
Many of you are missing an important point in this debate and that is that customer's are shipping their OEM speakers great distances to have OEM designs and OEM price constraints improved upon per the customer's preferences. This is akin to someone sending their Corvette to paint shop for custom paint or to a hotrod shop for twin turbo's. So, the only real topic of debate is stock vs. modified and not whether GR-Research knows what he is doing or whether you agree. GR-research is a hotrod shop for customers that "want" changes to original designs. Many people drive stock Subaru's while several drive 1000 hp Subaru's. Are you going to argue that the shop that makes 1000hp from 4 cylinders doesn't know what their doing...and shouldn't doing it?
A lot of GR work has already been proven to be absolute nonsense, by engineers with precission analysers worth thousands, who actually do this as a job. You see it on ASR and AES forums where people beleive measurements work. GR claimed measurements dont tell us anything, despite selling crossover upgrades based on measurements so rather two faced and contradictory. $500 speakers and he sells $500 crossover kits for them, that is a straight up scam. If someone came to me with His home made cables, woven around a rope, which cannot pass safety regulations. That have zero filtering, claimed to filter out noise, proven to do no such thing, as most are shown to as all electrical components convert AC to DC and usually filters the DC anyway. His contrinual slagging off everything as crap and name calling anyone who disagrees and questions cables or his work. Whardale Diamond 9.1 retails for $130, his upgrade for that is $390, why would you advocate such a crazy notion. The Whardale can never be a $400 speaker even with those upgrades, so buy a better speaker. Oh wait, Danny will tell you its shit and made out of crap and sounds crap. But he is willing to upgrade your $400 speakers crossover, by selling you the parts to fit yourself for $900.
I dipped out of watching his videos when he bashed the entire Vienna Acoustic line. I only have one pair, but they have the best tweeter of all my speakers; even better than the ones on my aDs L810s and 910s. The 910s are relatively neutral, but they have all the goodness I'd been craving for decades. Wish I'd found them years ago. I did luck out by getting them before Covid and the trainwreck distribution systems that followed and I lived close enough that the seller drove them to my house because he'd worked hard on the cabinets and crossover and didn't want them damaged in shipping. Eternally grateful to that generous fellow.
A "sound signature" that is not "flat", based on a frequency curve, is simply like having eq applied -- some people prefer a certain sound because their ears are different. That is Ok. But if you want a speaker that is as flat as possible (so you have a "known" starting point) that is OK too. Say, for mixing engineers that want to have the option to hear a flat response, so they can make certain adjustments they know will translate well to the end user, that is what I think GR-Research is about -- the "how to" of achieving a flat response, an uncolored response. That is OK, too.
Absolutely, I agree. As I mentioned in my video already from the start, if you want a flat response, go ahead. The only point of this video is that if a speaker is not flat, doesn't mean it has "issues" like GR always says.
@@Cujobob And who decides what is "accurate" ? because there's literally no speaker in the world that can reproduce all recordings. Literally ALL speakers in the world has a sound signature, because there's no such thing as a fully linear speaker. So that argument falls apart pretty quick.
I've seen most of GR Research videos. There are many speakers that he praised. He always stresses that the stock version of the speakers are built to a price point, so there's a reason the crossover components aren't the best quality. He takes measurements, explains the issues if any exist, and details what he changed and why. He then provides the before and after comparisons. I find GR Research to be entertaining and informative and recommend the channel. (I purchased and built his XLS Encore speakers and his speaker cables. They both sound great.)
That's kind of the point of my video. What he points out is not ALWAYS issues. He makes it sound like it is always issues because he is a "upgrade kit salesman" at the core. Many MANY of the speakers that he "fixes" doesn't have any issues. They are made just as they are intended to be, for a specific type of sound and customer. I've heard speakers that he has "fixed" and some of them sound worse after he "fixed" them. Then I do agree that he actually does fix some speakers. Like the latest SVS Revolution Ultra speakers are pretty bad.
@@xaerothehero I take GR Research side here. Danny has those speakers sent to him for a reason. A more accurate frequency response, better parts, and fixing the common issues like cabinet resonance is the goal. He does point out that some people like the 'smiley face' response, My point is he's not being deceptive or dishonest. I think he knows what he's doing and I appreciate what he does. That said, have yourself a good day.
@@truegodofthunder Yeah I mean fair enough. I also say that in my video "If you like a flat vanilla response and that's your thing, go ahead". I am not saying that what he does is useless. It has a use case and obviously a lot of people bought the wrong speakers. The point with MY video is that speakers aren't "bad" just because they don't have a flat vanilla response. Like the example in this video, the "Linton" speakers. GR says they are "bad" and that they have "issues", which they don't. They do EXACTLY what they are built to do, which is to mimic the sound of vintage speakers, which MANY people like. Then it's the irony part of it all, where he critiques all these speakers for their "faults", while is own creation "Little Giant Killer" speakers sounds absolutely awful and disgusting because of all the driver distortion and port resonances. Thank you for your constructive comments. Have a nice day!
Speakers sound different in room, just because he supposedly makes it flat doesn't mean it's flat in room. Also he pretty much says every speaker is bad. 🙄
Not really the same thing, but I mean yes, that happens too. A lot of consumer grade TV's are not color accurate, they are tuned differently to appeal to different buyers.
I agree, GR Research never analyses a speaker from the listener's "ear" point of view. I have speakers from 2 different manufactures and yes, they do sound different; one set is bright and tight, the other is warm and smooth. I like them both as it depends on what I am listening to. And playing them together, I get the benefits of both. Another thought on GR Research: if he is such an expert on speakers, why hasn't some manufacturer hired him to build and design their speakers?
@@azar3006 Yet every other speaker manufacturer is putting out crap. Yes, every one of them; he has never tested a speaker that does not need to be fixed. Companies like JBL, PSB, Mirage, B & W, Focal, on and on. Sure, they could and should use higher quality parts on their crossovers and some designs look like spare parts from a Frankenstein movie, but they work and sound good to the people that purchase them. I went to a guy's house to check his Klipsch speakers. He was complaining of too much midrange and not enough bass. I "fixed" his speakers by toeing them out a little from the near 45 degree toe in he had them in; it accentuated the bass more and toned down the midrange. No parts or test equipment needed, just ears. Ever heard a set of JBL L7s set up wrong? Sounds like crap. Put them into proper setup in the same room and it makes the speaker come to life. Ever heard of the DCM TimeWindow 7? It was a lame attempt (in my opinion) to make a home speaker sound like you were in a car; tweeter stacked in front of the midrange like a coaxial speaker and rear reflecting tweeter like a Bose design and the driver mounting and main crossover looks like they was done by a 10 year old. Yet people paid $3500 for a pair and love them. My point is, not EVERY speaker needs to be "fixed."
Very good point the listeners" ear" . I will add " in room " . The "room "that Danny has as a reference isn't a typical room. Speaker designers need to consider their costumers typical room. That is where the design is finalized. For example the Lintons . Peter is very experienced. The speakers were very carefully analyzed in a typical room they are going to placed in . The estedics is a heavy consideration....I know those cabinets are top notch workmanship it takes a highly experienced person with an eye that just has the artistic ability. They are highly payed there are few that can do it. I know they were made in China....it is still high quality work. The cabinets are beautiful. So now we have the typical room they are going in and how the are going to be used.. The sorce of the parts and materials is akso fixed. It's a three way it has a market price point goal . So the driver choise is essentially fixed . That would be a 5 1/4 mid range and a 1 inch dome. The bass driver is pretty much determined too .keeping the room estedics in mind. So now the cross over needs to be finalized in room...period. It can't be costly and go over budget. I believe he went through a few dozen different cross over designs before choosing the one. Peter has to design a practical cross over here just no way around it. The vast majority of the buyers aren't going to rip this speaker apart. To put exotic parts in it and certainly not change the sound signature. It needed to look and not be too large. Easily fit in the room and not mess up the decor. Sound good filled with guests and not interfere with conversations. Sound good when the guests have left. And give a decent sound stage in the favorite listening place. That's alot of man hours of work before the first pair ( designed as pairs) came off the line. Nothing "cheezy" here. Just solid engineering and product development.
I actually have. I have heard the SVS Ultra Bookshelf, original and GR-modified side by side. And for those specific speakers, I very much preferred the original over the modified ones.
The same way Danny doesn't listen to the speakers before or after and believes he knows it's better because of the measurements. He has said as much in many of his videos. He is going for a specific measurement that he likes and that's all that matters to him.
This is a weird, corporate take om speakers. The corporations know best! However, as Danny says more often than not, speakers are made to fit a price point. And his corrections are mostly about correcting phase issues at the crossover point, making the reflected sound more like the actual speaker aka. coherence. Yeah, I am not his biggest fan, but the idea that a speaker cannot be 'upgraded' by the user ... that is a bamboozling stance. There are merkantile reasons for this decisions, and the cover-up is called 'sound signature'. For western music, most threeway speakers should propably have voices and guitar in the same driver. This gives crossover points 1200 Hz. However because of the distance between mid and tweeter, normally a max would be 1500 Hz. So you mid needs to play clean from 80 to 1200, and with uniform beaming. Not a lot of drivers can do this, and they are often expensive. The tweeter needs to play down to at least 1500 Hz, and this is not common. Furthermore, the crossover will be more expensive than ex. ~400 Hz and ~3000 Hz. So by choosing less than optimal crossovers you can save a lot on the speakers - then call it 'sound signature' ... jobs done. It is a shame, however, that Danny insists on using overpriced crossover parts.
Hello and thank for your feedback! Speakers are built to a price, this is both true and false. Obviously at the real low price range, yes this is true. But "Sound signature" is in many cases intentional. I know this because I have been involved in the development for many custom commercial grade installation speakers. Many examples can be made, but lets take one: B&W 600-series speakers, which all use simple 1st and 2nd order filters with very few components. For these speakers the end result is not based on money saving measures, B&W intentionally tuned them to be a little hot between 7-9KHz, because it gives the impression of beeing "open" and "warm". People then think this is the "B&W sound signature" and that is why they buy this speaker. Same goes for MANY other brands, Klipsch, KEF, ELAC and so on, they all intentionally "tune" their speakers. This is what pulls customers to a specific brand. Also, the vast majority of casual listeners prefer the "smiley face curve" frequency response. Most normal casual listeners would not prefer a "flat" speaker over a "smiley face curve" speaker.
@@xaerothehero This is going to be a lengthy one. I thought about whether I should answer or not, because you told, you work for the industry - and then suddenly an answer might seem like a personal attack. I assure you this isn’t the case, and my critique are solely against how the market influences design choices in speakers, and not about you nor your involvement with any mentioned companies. Well, I am making counter-arguments, so there is that … I am not saying that speakers are built cheap. That is not what 'build to a price point’ means. It means that if you build a speaker at 1k USD, then at that price point you must make a profit margin. The other type of speaker is a 'cost-no-object'. I also guess this is the point, where our takes differ. Either the company makes the absolute best speaker they can within this price point, or they make the absolute most adequate speaker they can within this price point. I firmly believe that a well-run company does the latter, keeping profit margins as high as possibly. A dollar saved is a dollar earned. I don't have a beef with B&W, but on the other hand I don't believe that one of the best companies in manufacturing Chinese mass market speakers doesn't save money where they can. Low-order filters are cheaper, but needs seriously good drivers to be the right choice - drivers seldom found in a speaker at a grand. And they are not found in B&W-speakers at a grand either. I might be cynical, but all products, not just speakers, are, well, products of production optimization. So for speakers the fix will almost always be the same: Lower the crossover point, use steeper crossovers, use better crossover parts. I don't adhere to 'a speaker must be flat'-idea, but minimizing phase issues will almost always be better. However, in my view, market forces drive most speakers to have phase issues. End of part one. But what about 'sound signature', well, fine, but then the LGK's also just have a sound signature - you cannot fault them for that - it is not a matter of objective quality, but subjective taste - there is no 'truth' just the thing ... das ding an sich ... anyway, I think the LGK's basically are a flawed concept; they might be feasible in a 2.1 system, but they are not sold as a 2.1 ... even though most people like them, they can be heavily criticized; rightfully so. The same could be said about the 'smile' curve - or other 'sound signatures' for that matter. Yes, casual listeners prefer the smile signature, and so it follows that non-casual listeners don’t prefer this. As another one stated, a curve is just an EQ. But taking your argument 'ad absurdum', then applying EQ to a speaker will inherently be wrong. Loudness, room correction ... placing them in a room … using tube amplifiers ... messes up the intended sound. Alright, I admit it, I am being a bit silly now. But making less phase issues means the speaker in most cases will take better to EQ, it will sound better in a broader 'window', and the reflected sound will look closer to the original signal (usually a desired trait). Furthermore, if one only lowers the crossover point a bit, then it shouldn't change too much in the end of the spectrum, and thus could preserve most of the 'sound signature' still (on axis). End of part two. And so commences the final act. We have ideologically different stances. If your stance is that a company builds the best speaker they can for the money, then my counterpart would seem to be that they build the worst speaker they can for the money. This is absurd. Also, when I think they build the cheapest adequate speaker for the money, then your counterpart would seem to be, they build the most expensive speaker for the money - equally absurd (they would go bankrupt). At the end of the day, I mean that market forces push for phase issues in speaker design. I also postulate this is a proven aspect, and that multiple sites (ex. ASR, Erin, GR and more) shows this to be the case. Though I might not agree with Danny and his radical redesign and use of esoteric products, it comes of no surprise to me that he finds the same problems in most speakers, when most speakers are built by companies at a price point trying to maximize profit margins. It is inevitable, but us as end users can remedy it if we want to, though most people don’t have a desire or a need to do so. And probably lack the ability, to be honest. To sum up: I don’t think we rightfully can say that Danny doesn’t know what he is talking about, I equally don’t think we should be surprised that his findings seem unilateral (other independent reviewers corroborate his findings), and finally that ‘sound signature’ in not so few products is mostly a result of market driven design choices, and then some tuning on top of that - and hence the end user can improve the product, when profit margins are taken out of the equation. To be brutally honest!! For the vast majority looks are way more important than sound quality.
High 'Fidelity' in this context surely means an accurate reproduction of the oiginal sound, and on your end of the distribution chain, that means flat response. You may indeed prefer a boomy bass warm type of sound, or open baffle designs, or electrostatics, good for you, it's what you like. Fair enough, these 'upgrades' might not be for you.
I am sorry man but yo seem to have lack of practical experiences with loudspeaker mechanics and measurement. You took his worst full-range speaker with centre -plug (no dust cap) design for poor students for comparison. All speaker in the world with centre -plug design have freq.dip on cca.1,5 kHz and distortion on high amplitude because of this air gap in the middle, that is why they are not suited for subwoofers. But on the other hand they have better dynamics (faster + higher freqs.). You can find centre -plug design in e.g. in JAMO C803/603/.. Loudspeakers with flat freq.resp are generally good if you are listening them for all day (to not get tired) or on high levels (music or home-theater with big dynamic range) that is why(+ other) they are recommended by professionals. Yes, there is no one commercial loudspeaker which would have flat curve. Flat is boring and V-curve sounds better and sells better. Yes, he wants to make dirty money on his crossover updates, but he does not put a gun to your head to buy it. Each of his statement is based on measurement which he also shares.
This guy is a joke, he tries to say that every speaker Danny hears is bad. Danny tries to work on the ones that he feels he can help. this guy is just looking for somebody to rag on to try and get clicks. This guy says he doesn’t like RU-vid yet post a video on RU-vid!
You seem confused. I have never said that I don't like youtube. I love youtube. Also, I don't care about clicks, I don't even have ads on my videos, because I don't need to make any money from the few videos I upload.
@@xaerothehero You say you’re not a big RU-vidr right at the start of the video. And you clearly misrepresent what Danny has said and does. And you’re 20% distortion figure is just made up.
@@peterw2714 Yes, I say I am not a big youtuber, which I am not. That does not mean I don't like youtube. It is 2 different things. Also I said that I guessed it was 20%, I didn't say IT IS 20%. I would appreciate if you get the details correct if you wish to critique. Thank you.
@@xaerothehero so you’re guessing while critiquing others. But you insist I get the details correct. Nitpicking about details and whether you’re a big RU-vidr or not or like it or not doesn’t change the fact that what you’re saying about Danny completely misrepresents him.
@@peterw2714 In what way am I guessing? The distortion on the LGK speakers are VERY audible, I estimated a number. The number was smaller, but still very big, as you can see from measurements.
Audio Science Review did a through break down of the unsupportable statements GR Research made for one of his product lines. And at GR Research's request he did a follow up. It was clear that GR Research doesn't know how to perform reliable lab grade audio tests. He's really just an audio enthusiast who relies on his customer base having even less knowledge than he does about audio science.
This is true in some cases. Most speaker brands that are intended for home use, intentionally have a sound signature. The manufacturers tune them and they are intentionally not flat, because they want to satisfy a specific clientele. This is common fact.
I agree that speakers are generally designed for their sound signature, but turning every speaker perfectly flat seems like we would only need one set of speakers, ever. I do think that upgrading certain components may attribute to a better speaker, but I would think matching designer's values would be much better idea in most cases.
Seems like you confuse the flat response with flat sounding ! Cabinet size, material, bracing, diver technology, even wiring and terminals all contribute to the sound. Better crossover parts and a flat response just allow your music reach these parts less affected !
You misunderstand the point of the video here. Speakers that are not "flat" does not have "issues". Speakers are made with different sound signatures for a reason. It's not an issue. I invite you to watch the whole video to fully understand what point I am trying to make here.
@@bigboper111Exactly, I have a set of speakers that I bought blind online and after a few long sessions gave me hearing fatigue, they are currently sitting in their box waiting to be upgraded, I might turn them active and bypass the whole crossover upgrade thing !
Sometimes I agree with Danny.. But what I've seen what he does, he does not compensate for diffraction when he flattens out the on axis response so it creates a 2-3db hump in the off axis response which makes huge difference in the sound, I personally don't like a hump between 2k - 5k in the off axis... so I will intentionally create a dip in the crossover design to smooth out the off axis... or I will just get the crossover point for the drivers and get the baffle dimensions right from the get go when I'm building a speaker.. the Crossover is the heart of the speaker and its not easy to design one...
Oh and another thing he doesn't measure distortion which is ridiculous because finding out where drivers distort is the start of finding a crossover point and designing a good crossover...
I can appreciate your dislike of his speakers and of the crossovers he builds. While there are some designs that he has definitely improved, it's more advantageous to just buy something that suits the listeners taste. I do want to mention that one big mistake you're making is the measurements you're using as a reference to what you hear-- the gentleman who performed the measurements a) doesn't know how to properly use the equipment he's using to measure and b) has blatantly doctored some of the data not just on those LGK's, but on other models from different manufacturers, in order to fit the conclusion he makes before measuring. While there are some accurate measurements from him usually, things have been doctored enough that it's necessary, in my opinion, to cross reference any additional sources, usually spinorama, that have also measured. Erin's Audio Corner has far more transparency in the measurement of speakers. It surely is easy to put on blinders and focus on this small pair of speakers that most people have no interest in purchasing, and all the infighting that has occurred. To make it simple, you are going down a rabbit hole that you will eventually regret wasting your time on. Hopefully you can find some of the material out there available on YT that's more productive and constructive to the industry as I have concerns that you're just doing the same as Danny from GR and Amir from ASR, just in your own way. Check out some of the audio channels(like Randy, as it looks like you're already viewing some of his stuff). There is such a great worldwide community of audiophiles and home theater enthusiasts that want the best for eachother, and very rarely does that involve calling out a designer or manufacturer and warning people to stay away from the product. In short (little late) you're wasting your time on something that 99% of the potential audience already knows, and perhaps better. Hope I could help in some way!
Hello. Appreciate the comment. In regards to the LGK speakers, I heard them months prior to finding the measurements. And as I mentioned in this video, I did not even need to measure these speakers to hear straight away that they are pretty awful. The distortion that came from them on very average listening volume, very VERY audible. I just googled to see if someone had done measurements on them and that is what I found. Regardless of the accuracy of said measurements, It does confirm what I already knew and heard. Anyhow, my point with this video is not to discredit the technical knowledge of GR-Research, only the complete bull shit attitude that all speakers he tests are bad, which they are not.
Speakers above a certain price point have all been designed the way they are for accustical reasons. Their may be a few on the market that should actually be upgraded but even those mainly have the sound signature they have for a specific reason. If you don't like how speakers sound the way they were created by the manufacturer, then go find another pair that suits your taste.
Danny's main problem is he lacks a congenial personality-- He's just not a likeable guy. He alienates people with his trash talk and attitude. I think he has a lot of knowledge but, he certainly attracts a lot of detractors.
You seem to have no idea you talk about. Crossover issues or phase errors are not supposed to be in a speaker, it's poor designing, period. If he is fixing those, it's good to have that. Poor quality parts and bad speaker design has nothing to do with sound signature, it's an excuse.
Hello. It seems you didn't understand or watched the whole video. I am talking about sound signatures. ALOT of the speakers that he "fixes" does not have the problems you refer to.
@@anoopht9588 Klipsch is a brand that has MANY speaker models in MANY price points. I find it really hard to believe you can generalize an entire brand with your description.
@@xaerothehero I am talking about reference models, have you ever measured or seen the inside of those speakers. Not only this, many others he fixed have many design issues.
@@sccanjHe is no god but everything he says makes sense and is backed up by his clients ! Remember the people that send him their speakers aren’t happy with them and just the parts upgrade will make a huge improvement !
I have owned literally hundreds of speakers and headsets. I swap them out quite often. Currently I have a pair of ELAC UniFi BS U5 as my primary listening speakers. But I also own a pair of SVS Prime Bookshelf and some really old refurbished Dynaudio Focus 140 that I sometimes swap into from my mains. As for headphones I currently mostly use a pair of Philips Fidelio X3. None of these mentioned products are flat by the way, they all have an intentional tuned sound signature.
Great review on , gs research..ive seen quite a bit of eaz videos, yes, he says practacally all speakers, sound bad, brings up eaz own graphs, and next thing ya know, danny is nothing but the guy in cowboys movies, that had theee elixer of bs to fix anything..cept in clint eastwoods movie...lol...clint spat on the charleton...here in the usa, you pretty much can get any speakers ya want too..just cause dannys 280 dollar fix kit eaz available, does not mean ur speakers suck...what sucks, is this guy/ danny and his peddling bs for eaz own money gain....great review by ya Xaero..peace, and merry xmas to ya .
Danny is just one of those guys who can't understand that other people like things that happen to be different than what he likes. I noticed in your comments the typical Danny sycophants who love to proclaim there is only one thing a speaker should do and one way a speaker should measure. Hopefully these guys never attain any political power or we'll all be forced to wear beige, eat oats and drink unsweetened almond milk. The issue isn't that Danny isn't technically skilled it's just that he views himself as the sole arbiter of sound signature and crossover design. He makes better sounding speakers than the one you heard but certainly nothing that blows away any other well designed DIY kit or even countless self designed speakers. He just doesn't seem to understand that plenty of other people know what he knows. And although his minions will buy his kits I'm not sure why someone would buy a speaker they could order online with a generous return policy only to find they didn't like it and then fail to return it. So instead they pay half again of what the speaker cost to get a crossover that still has the limits of the drivers and the enclosure and then convince themselves that they now have a world class speaker. As with so many things in this world it's not so much the charlatan as it is those who blindly follow him. Crossovers make a huge difference but only as part of the total design, not as an after thought. Also, Danny does not listen to the speakers before and after the so called upgrade (modification) claiming he knows what it'll sound like based on measurements alone. Of course he also claims it will retain it's basic characteristic but with greater detail and nuance. Hmm, sure would be nice if someone listened to them to make sure. You know, like all serious high end manufacturers do before they just blindly let their products go out the door. I'm not saying he's not experienced but from sommeliers to electrical engineers I've read too many blind tests and even witnessed a few where the self professed expert was not as astute as they thought when put to the test. Let someone switch out a couple of Danny's prized "mills" resistors for the sand cast variety he bashes and let's see if he can tell the difference.
Hello! Thank you for your very extensive feedback! Thank you for watch8ing my video! I agree, I have no doubt about Danny's technical knowledge, but as you say, not everyone likes beige and oats :) I am happy to see more people agree!
Here is something that no one brought up. At least that I saw..The LGK kit that you listened to, you said, had bad build quality. It's a kit. You build yourself? Who built it? Did you buy pre-built speaker? Or did you have someone build it? One other thing. I have a hard time believing any reviews on RU-vid. Everyone reviews the same speakers, and they are all of a sudden so popular. But mostly these people are sponsored. Do they want piss there sponsers off ? It's all bs.
Hello! At the time when I listened to them, I didn't even know they were kits. I assumed they were delivered built. It doesn't change the fact that they sound horrible tho.
Hahahahha.... "that guy" pointed out some real problem with speaker manufacturing. Of course, he must run business and sell kits and other stuff. If you asking me, if you coloring sound with any audio equipment you masking flaws of equipment. Recorded sound of violin or guitar or piano is already beautiful, don't need to twist that. I always hate sound signature,or better say distortion of some equipment.
Danny gets it right from time to time, but he is in business to make money. LaScalas probably measure badly, but they are in many peoples list of the best speakers ever. He would love to sell you some overpriced tube connectors that will make a WORLD of difference.
@@azar3006 hmm ok well what about the different curves, such as the Harmon curve or the BBC dip? Some people like those sound signatures. I do know the BBC dip was an excuse but people liked its sound.
I agree 100%...GNR research videos are a joke, the guy just doesn't get it, some of the best speakers in the world don't have a flat frequency response, and where specifically designed that way!..and he also deletes comments he don't like!
It’s nice to hear the other point of view for a change. There’s a sort of religious assumption from GR Research and Audio Science Review that a flat response is ‘best’. At least ASR backs it up with science eg “High Resolution Speaker Frequency Response & Distortion Measurement and Why we Need Them”. These are very convincing videos in a technical sense (I am a professionally qualified engineer) but I can’t help thinking they’re missing an essential point. I don’t know whether to call it soul or spirit but to me the essence of hifi is musical enjoyment. I don’t doubt good quality programme material, signal sources, amplifiers, speakers, mains filters and cables are a necessary first step but I don’t want to be drowned in technology. I simply want good MUSIC and I suspect this modern trend by GRR and ASR is towards a lowest common denominator rather than excellence. At the risk of starting WW3, is it a difference in the European and N American approach to enjoying music reproduction just as European and American cars followed a different trend at one time?
Thank you. I hope I’ve explained I’m grateful for a good and different opinion! I don’t like the current trend to reduce hifi to numbers and graphs. Can you measure why a Steinway or Stradivarius in the right hands sounds so sweet? I think I understand the ‘perfect transducer’ approach but I simply don’t agree it explains everything that goes on inside our decidedly non-linear ears and brains. Hifi has only been going for about 50 years. Maybe we’ll get the ‘perfect transducer’ in another 50 years?
You get to watch Danny's video again and Erin's Audio about your Linton's. Hear what they say about accurate frequency response. So that the music comes out as the musician wanted it to sound. However, there are no speakers that are perfect. You think your speakers are the best and that someone like Danny would go in and change them seems like blasphemy to you. Let it be, but it is actually the customer who thinks something sounds wrong and asks Danny to take a measurement and come up with an improvement on their speaker. They pay for this, because they want it. Danny then makes a YT video about this and sells itself and an upgrade for those who also find something wrong with the sound and are willing to pay for the parts. He has received a lot of different speaker brands from others who also want better sound. You don't seem to like this, so don't watch Danny's YT videos. You complain about one of his speakers that ASR tested. The person who built these speakers writes that he is no major work on the boxes or damping, so that ASR could find fault and complain loudly. You say yourself that you don't watch a lot of YT videos and it shows when you only complain and bring up ASR as a reference. If you watch Danny's video about LGK 2.0, he tells you HOW they should be used to achieve the quality as the name, Little Giant Killer 2.0. Never upgraded anything? Bigger RAM memory or SDD, to improve your gaming computer? You sound somewhat condescending yourself.
You can twist everything into your favor if you want to feel that you are "right". None of this is relevant to my opinion though. I heard the LGK speakers before I knew who made them or before I saw measurements. And they sounded awful, as I already mentioned in the video. A little detail here also: I don't own any pair of Linton, I don't know where you got that from, it does seem that you didn't really pay attention to what I said and explained in my video. I don't complain on "Danny" (I guess that's GR-Research's dude name?) modifying speakers, in fact I specifically mention that if this is your thing, then go ahead. I have done MANY speaker modifications myself, mostly swapping out lower quality filter components for better quality ones. This is not my complaint. My complaint is the fact to try make every speaker "flat" and "vanilla". Generalizing a speaker calling it "bad" and that it has "issues" just because one customer and/or Danny thinks so, doesn't make them right. Most speakers sound the way they sound out of intention. It's like complaining strawberry and chocolates ice-cream is bad and have issues because it doesn't taste vanilla, and then try to "fix" it by adding vanilla. Also, thanks for recommending me what to watch and what not to watch, but I am fully capable of selecting my own media consumption and have my own opinions on them, just like you have done just now.
@@xaerothehero We can agree to disagree. Sorry Linton, but I got the impression you have a pair. My point was to have an accurate sound. All drivers have their own character and sound image. The crossover adjusts the flow of the signal to the drivers. The box gives the sound. There are certainly a lot of people who buy the aesthetic but aren't really happy with the sound. In the US, people can afford (not all) to send down a speaker to Danny and get help with their dissatisfaction with the sound. He measures and creates a new sound image without changing the drivers, just the flow of the signal and the tone, so it is correct, i.e. flatter. Not vanilla. Then there are several others who think the same and want to make this change. Take Buchardt. He sells upgraded crossovers for his S400 Mk1s. €650 the pair. He has also recently launched the S400 Mk2 which is an upgrade (crossover, woofer) variant of the Mk1. He wants to take his speakers to the next level and maybe also sell a little more? My reason for commenting on your YT video was that it was somewhat whiny and unfair.
@@rikardekvall3433 I mean, YOU are doing the exact same thing right now. You are having an opinion on my opinion. You seem to be stuck on something I really didn't say, and something that I tried to explain both in my video AND in my first reply to you. I don't argue the moding part, or changing something to suit your taste. But generalizing a speaker calling it "bad" when it is not vanilla is just lack of knowledge. In this case, "Danny" does not understand that the reason many speakers isn't flat is indeed intentional, it is to produce a specific sound signature, to appeal to a specific customer. This is not just the Lintons, it's literally all the speakers he "tests". He starts every video with "They have some issues". Which may be true in some rare cases, but a sound signature is not an "issue" like Danny always says. You can still make a stock speaker better with mods, like better binding posts, better sound dampening material, better quality filter components, without changing the frequency response and the sound signature. A flat frequency response doesn't mean "correct". That's just an opinion from people who prefer vanilla instead of strawberry. For example, Danny also "fixed" the SVS Ultra Bookshelf. I heard the "fixed" version of this speaker side by side with the stock version. The stock version is MUCH better in my opinion. The modification he did to these speakers absolutely killed the sound signature and playfulness of that speaker, and made it into flat boring average sounding vanilla speaker.
@@xaerothehero You have your opinion, I have mine and everyone else has their opinion. That's the beauty of living in a democracy. Freedom of speech is gold. It must be interesting to have heard Danny's LGK 1.0 live, long before everyone else, as you wrote before and heard the SVS speakers both before and after the upgrade. I don't know anyone who has made these choices and can't form an opinion on its sound, any more than what people have posted on YT. Ron at New Record Day tested both. He is good at describing the sound. You don't like any of this, so that's your opinion. Not mine. We all have different tastes.
@@rikardekvall3433 As far as I understand LGK has been out for quite some time, so not sure about the "long before everyone else". I heard them maybe 3 months ago? And as far as I can see on internet, they have been in hands of people quite some time before that. You have to keep in mind that GR-Research is a small niche company that supply the "needs" for a rare minority of customers. And as you mention, in a democracy, a minority of supporters is not enough to dictate for everyone else what is right or wrong, what is good or what "has some issues" XD But once again, I am not knocking what he does, I am calling out his elitist attitude and lack of understanding sound signatures, confusing a sound signature with "issues".
I have to add my 2 cents. I am currently building the XLS Encore kit from GR Research that I pick up at Danny's home, while on a trip to Texas. I arrived first thing in the morning basically unannounced and Danny fixed me up and was quite gracious and accommodating. You have made a few assumptions in your video that, to me, are unjust. First off Danny has made videos of speakers that he thinks are fine and there is no need to change or may not be worth the effort or cost. As for the LGK 2.0, have you watched his supporting video where he describes how to use these speakers and how to properly filter the lower frequencies? Have you listened to the uncompressed audio downloads of the LGK 2.0's? Those track sound amazing. To come out and say that Danny doesn't know what he is doing is rather hash and by this one video of yours I could assume that you don't know what you are doing. As far as Signature Sound, I agree certain speaker brands have sound, but for me, I am after the flattest uncoloured response I can afford. This is what Danny is trying to accomplish, and I think he has succeeded. Dannys LGK 2.0 update video. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nuRbq3YRRNs.html
I haven't said that he doesn't know what he is doing. I am saying that he doesn't understand sound signatures, and that many speakers are not meant to be flat.
Here is a video from Audio Science Review of one of Dannys upgraded speakers. At 4.57 of your video you state that, "Clearly he has no clue about what he is talking about." Clearly he does. I realize that you are talking about, " sound signature," but a sound signature can have, "Issues." I suggest watching the Audio Science Review and see what GR Research has to offer. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--eWnYAgiMwQ.html
Yes, in regards to that a speaker does not have "issues" just because it is not flat. If you pay attention to what I actually say in my video, I give Danny credit for his technical knowledge and competence. My only critique here is that he thinks all speakers that aren't flat has "issues", which is clearly wrong.
@@xaerothehero The biggest problem I have with your video, is that at the end of your video you tell people to not listen to Danny because, he clearly does't understand sound signature. Sound signature aside, Danny offers a useful service to many people and does not deserve your verbal lashing. My final post on this.
@@northa4021 As I already mention in my video, if you like a flat vanilla boring speaker, then please go ahead. I am not abusing anyone here. Danny does not have exclusive rights to have an opinion. Because that is all it is, an opinion. His opinion is that sound signatures is bad, mine is that they are not.
You got all this wrong, people send him their speakers because they are NOT happy with them so to them they can be improved, It’s not so difficult to understand ! Very few complain after they get them back !
This was the guy that was trying to get tiny little low power desk top speakers to work like big high power speakers & then crying about it not doing what he wanted. 👌
People who own the speakers send them into Danny to be tested. They are looking for something different in the sound. Nobody's forcing anyone to buy any of Danny's products if you don't like them don't buy them but don't just b**** about it
Yet - Jay's iyagi gives very high praises to Danny of GR-Research after lots of intense evaluations and comparisons - "The SHOCKING GR-Research XLS Encore Audiophile DIY KIT Speakers ! My Final Review" - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oZ_kQtr8mVQ.html
@@linandy1 as does danny. even power cables. (feel like i need to clarify here, so i'm going to add "ugh...") anyone wanna buy a nicely finished pair of desktop minis?
