Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
Those are actually NRC measurements that I posted. The frequency response curves that I remembered from earlier were the ones that Stereophile did.

Just from listening, my initial impression of the Studio 40 v.3 is that it is a definite improvement over the v.2 versions that I own, and it is a somewhat different sound presumably because they changed the crossover point and the circuit's basic design. Not sure if the v.3 is more forgiving of bad recordings. All I know is that the imaging and soundstage are improved and the overall sound is a little more subdued, but not to the point that it changes the fundamental character of the Studio series. The changes to the Studio 100 were more radical than the ones that went into the smaller 20 and 40 models, and my local dealer says that the bass articulation is where you really notice the difference. My initial listenings are posted below.

http://forums14.consumerreview.com/c...mJV.6@.ef9e447
http://forums14.consumerreview.com/c...V.5@.ef9e447/0
Sorry, perhaps my sentence wasn't clear, but I meant that I had not seen NRC curves of the v. 2 models. The reference to "them" is to the v. 2's later in my sentence. I am aware that you posted NRC curves, and would recogize them even had you not given the source. But since I have not seen NRC curves for the earlier v. 2 models, but only curves derived from the different types of measurements used in AIG, Stereophile, and Audio, it is chancy to try to make detailed comparisons, although the general features are clear.

[Thus, to use an earlier example, the hefty peaks between 500 and 1000 Hz shown in the reviews of the Ref. 3A De Capo models reviewed by Soundstage (earlier version) and Stereophile (i version) look very similar.]