昌业音响主论坛

标题: 关于琴柏音箱的问题（已解答，满意） [打印本页]

作者: 斯迈_郑 时间: 2014-3-25 09:58 AM
标题: 关于琴柏音箱的问题（已解答，满意）
去年在昌业网购了一对琴柏LASER 7音箱，还在保。
请昌业详细说明下这个品牌的音箱来源。

[ 本帖最后由斯迈_郑于 2014-3-26 02:28 PM 编辑 ]

作者: 斯迈_郑 时间: 2014-3-25 09:59 AM
TEL:18769360182

作者: 斯迈_郑 时间: 2014-3-25 10:15 AM
消委的放心消费商店

[ 本帖最后由斯迈_郑于 2014-3-26 02:29 PM 编辑 ]

作者: CY客服 时间: 2014-3-25 10:44 AM
你好，CAMBER（琴柏）是我们多年前代理过的一个品牌，所有产品都是通过正常渠道进货销售的，关于您的疑问，我们会安排客服与您联系。

作者: guanh11 时间: 2014-3-25 11:02 AM
LZ可能是新烧，不了解音箱的发展史？

早期（10多年前的）英国（包括加拿大）音箱存在问题（以现代的审美，口味）有较大的差距：
1.音箱壁板较薄，冲程短，高音奇小，低音磁钢小，纸盘，分音器简单，红黑鸡线，可能用毛毯为吸音棉，吸音棉较小，薄。
这些都是正常的，
买音响是一分钱一分货，一些古董（含高价）的；销价的。----------------新烧就谨慎下手。

LZ音箱声音人声齿音问题？？
1.加多的吸音棉
2.用英国功放------NAD 或二手的英国功放（国产的

，扔了

）

作者: jp 时间: 2014-3-25 11:04 AM
CAMBER是加拿大的一个音箱品牌，当年美国《发烧天书》两大主笔John Atkinson和 Robert Harley 也曾对其产品进行过评测，楼主有任何疑问也欢迎进一步沟通。

作者: jp 时间: 2014-3-25 11:05 AM
Plateau Camber 3.5 loudspeaker
By John Atkinson Robert Harley • Posted: Nov 7, 2010 • Published: Aug 7, 1988

The loudspeaker coming under the microscope this month emanates from north of the border. The Canadian loudspeaker industry has benefited enormously in the last few years from having the measurement, testing, and listening facilities of Canada's National Research Council in Ottawa made available to it on a commercial basis. Unlike the US or even the UK, where a new speaker designer has pretty much to rely on his own resources, having to invent his own test procedure as well as design the product, the Canadian equivalent can have his loudspeaker tested under standard conditions, quickly indicating whether he is on the right track or not. (He still, of course, has to rely on his own talent to get on the right track in the first place or to get back on it if it appears that something is amiss.)

So far, I have yet to hear a Canadian loudspeaker that redefines the state of the art from the top down, but, as Will Hammond of KPFK's "In-Fidelity" radio program has pointed out, the impact on the Canadian industry of having the benefit of the NRC's laboratories to hand results in better affordable loudspeakers. To generalize perhaps a little too sweepingly, for the same price the customer used to pay for a not very distinguished performer, he now gets a very much more competent design, with perhaps some areas of performance hinting at true high-end sound. Does this contender fit this categorization? We shall see. In Vol.10 No.7, I reviewed the least expensive model in the Canadian Camber range, the 1.5, and found that, while not perfect, it offered a respectable performance for just $339/pair. The Camber 3.5A ($669/pair) is considerably larger but retains the basic reflex-loaded two-way formula. The tweeter is a 1" plastic-dome unit from the Danish Vifa company, with the dome recessed behind a very short flare and with ferrofluid in the voice-coil gap. As with all the Camber models, the woofer is made by Camber and is constructed on a substantial diecast aluminum basket for maximum rigidity. The polypropylene cone is driven by a high-temperature, black-anodized, aluminum-wound voice-coil, and the woofer is reflex-loaded by a port, 2.5" diameter and 3.5" deep, offset to the nearside edge of the cabinet. The tweeter is also offset, but to the outside edge, Camber recommending that the 3.5s, which come as a mirror-imaged pair, be positioned this way. This asymmetry spreads out in frequency the deleterious effects of diffraction and reflection from the cabinet edges. Both drivers are rebated into the front baffle. An unusual amount of design attention has also been paid to the enclosure for what is basically a relatively inexpensive loudspeaker. The 20mm high-density particle-board walls and baffle are braced by two horizontal H-braces, one just below the tweeter, the other just below the woofer, while a third brace is wedged between the rear of the magnet woofer assembly and the rear baffle. As this is oversized by 0.5mm, it pushes the front and rear baffles into a slightly bowed shape, which is said to reduce the level of vibrations in these boards by 90%. The positioning of the braces divides the cabinet walls into three unequally sized portions, to spread the frequencies at which resonances would otherwise occur. Internally, all the walls are covered with 25mm thick acoustic foam to further damp vibrations. The only sign of cost-cutting is the vinyl finish, available in simulated walnut or black: a real-wood–veneer finish quadruples the cost of the cabinet to the manufacturer, and the use of vinyl represents a saving which will not adversely affect the sound quality. The crossover is hard-wired and uses custom-wound inductors, and plastic-film capacitors rather than the usual reversible electrolytics. Slopes are second- and third-order Butterworth. Signal connection is via knurled binding posts inset on a sloping panel on the cabinet rear.
The sound
William C. Taylor of California, the winner of the drawing at our Santa Monica show in April, visited Santa Fe during the review period and I called upon his ears for a formal listening test, auditioning these and other loudspeakers. I have indicated in the text where he and I are in agreement and where we differ in our views on the speakers tested. Plateau-Camber recommends that stands be used; not having the appropriate Camber stands ($69 extra) to hand, I used 16" open-frame, spiked Heybrook stands which placed my ears at tweeter height, the axis I felt to give the best balance between midrange and treble. I usually remove speaker grilles when auditioning. However, Camber has bevelled the edges of the particle-board grilles to minimize diffraction effects and recommends that they be kept in place. This I did, though there was slightly more top-octave "air" without the grille, and the already good imaging improved further. Taking the good aspects of the sound first, the 3.5s' stereo soundstage was wide, deep, and well-defined. Centrally placed vocalist images were stable with frequency, while the layers of the orchestra, on appropriate recordings, were reasonably precise in definition. The midbass was also well defined for a ported design, with good differentiation between bass guitar and kick drum. The only times the midbass seemed to lose control was when hit with high levels of plucked double bass, when it became too loose. It was also easy for the left hand of the piano, particularly on recordings made with spaced omni microphones, to become too rich. Subjectively, the bass seemed more extended than was suggested by the in-room measurements, with good weight apparent down to the bottom notes of the double-bass and bass guitar, around 41Hz. The upper bass, however, was less clear, and there also seemed to be a relative lack of weight to the sounds of tenor instruments such as the cello, though, paradoxically, male voice had a little too much chest tone, a gruffness that seems inescapable with bass-reflex designs. Bill Taylor was more bothered by this than I was, feeling that male voice became too "rumbly," though he did comment favorably on the strong low bass. The midrange seemed relatively low in coloration for what is basically an inexpensive design. A midrange warmth below 1kHz, however, lent trumpet more of a cornet tonality, and also pushed some piano notes forward, making them a little too clangorous. This was particularly noticeable in scale passages that also went above 1kHz, where the forwardness was contrasted against a lack of energy in the region just below crossover. The treble was the area where I was least happy. Not that it was unpleasant—far from it—but there was a presence-region hardness which made level-setting problematic. Below a certain threshold, strings were a little wiry but acceptable; above that threshold and the sound became too hard. This also accentuated the throat sound of female voice a little too much for my tastes: listening to Kiri Te Kanawa's collection of Auvergne song arrangements by Canteloube (London 410 004-2), I was drawn in to the music by the wide, deep soundstage but was then forced to turn the volume down when the singer entered, so forward was the presentation of her voice. On typically multimiked orchestral recordings, this hardness led to additional confusion and a lack of treble transparency. The high treble was characterized by a slight emphasis at the top of the penultimate octave, which added both a little sibilance to voice and a not unpleasant sparkle to triangle and tambourine. However, it also emphasized LP surface noise, suggesting that the Camber 3.5A would be a better choice for a CD-based system. Above that region, the response fell off quite rapidly, particularly off-axis.
Conclusion
Camber's 3.5A is a well-engineered and solidly constructed example of the classic two-way bass-reflex loudspeaker, with what appears to be an excellent bass/mid driver and a well-braced, rigid enclosure. Its high sensitivity and easy impedance suit it for use with relatively low-powered amplifiers, though these should have a tight low end to provide adequate control of the mid and upper bass. It offers outstanding stereo imaging capability for its price, and decodes a considerable degree of depth in appropriate recordings. I was less impressed by its Vifa tweeter, however, finding, as I have found in other models using versions of it, that it can be a little coarse in the lower region of its passband, to the detriment of treble transparency, and rather wispy in the bottom of the top octave. The Camber 1.5 was an easy recommendation, due to its low price. Its bigger brother is harder to assess, due to the presence of some very strong competition in its price class, notably from the Spica TC-50 ($550/pair), Snell Type Q ($780), Magnepan SMGa ($495), Siefert Maxim IIID ($599) and British Fidelity MC2 ($595), all of which have smoother, less aggressive, but more transparent highs. The 3.5 will be less system-fussy than any of these thoroughbreds, however, and will do better with inexpensive ancillaries. It also has better low-frequency extension; if that, coupled with its excellent imaging, is important to you, you should definitely check out the 3.5A.

作者: jp 时间: 2014-3-25 11:08 AM
Plateau Camber 3.5 loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 2: Measurements The frequency response of the Camber 3.5A was measured in the listening window—spatially averaged to minimize room standing-wave problems—using a 1/3-octave warble-tone generator; the nearfield low-frequency response of each speaker was also measured with a sinewave sweep to get an idea of the true bass extension relative to the level at 100Hz. The change of impedance with frequency and the voltage sensitivity (using 1/3-octave pink noise centered on 1kHz) were also measured. The plot of impedance with frequency (fig.1) shows the characteristic pair of reflex humps in the bass, the port appearing to be tuned to 46Hz. The impedance is pretty benign, rarely falling below 8 ohms, meaning that in conjunction with the high sensitivity—my measurement was a little higher than spec at around 92dB/W/m at 1kHz—the 3.5 should be very easy to drive. The nearfield LF extension, measured midway between port and woofer, is dramatic, being 6dB down at 31Hz, but this promise is not kept in-room (fig.2), the response falling reasonably sharply below 50Hz. The bass appears to be a little underdamped, there being a slight rise in the nearfield around 63Hz.

Fig.1 Camber 3.5A, electrical impedance (2 ohms/vertical div.).

作者: 斯迈_郑 时间: 2014-3-25 11:09 AM
昌业客服和技术人员联系了我一次愉快的沟通解除了我心中所有的疑问
1、琴柏品牌确实来自加拿大
2、用料和喇叭的使用具有时代和地域特征
3、产品系琴柏厂方自主设计
4、再者，就是我要求高了点

[ 本帖最后由斯迈_郑于 2014-3-26 02:30 PM 编辑 ]

作者: jp 时间: 2014-3-25 11:09 AM

Fig.2 Camber 3.5A, spatially averaged, 1/3-octave response in JA's first Santa Fe listening room. The midrange is smooth, though a rising trend is apparent from 200Hz to 4kHz, which may correlate with the propensity for upper-midrange hardness I heard. Another way of looking at the shape of the curve is to note that the lower mid octave, from 200–400Hz, appears a little shelved down, correlating with the lack of lower midrange heard, for example, with the cello. The top 1/3-octave of treble rolls off sharply in-room, particularly away from the tweeter axis, as is often the case with these largish dome tweeters. There is also a little too much energy apparent on-axis at 12.5kHz and 16kHz. While doing the measurements to produce this graph, I was struck by the excellent pair-matching—rarely more than 1dB difference between left and right—from the lower midrange upward, where the room effects will not be significant. This indicates good quality control both of the drivers and of the finished systems.—John Atkinson

作者: jp 时间: 2014-3-25 11:10 AM
Plateau Camber 3.5 loudspeaker Robert Harley October 1990

Robert Harley reviewed the Camber 3.5ti in October 1990 (VOl.13 No.10): Plateau Camber is a Canadian loudspeaker manufacturer which concentrates on building small, moderately priced systems. The company started as Edon Acoustcis and was the Canadian distributor of Rega products. It began by making loudspeakers under the Rega name but changed to Camber when Rega set up its own North American distribution. Edon then sold the company to stand manufacturer Plateau. Their products range from the $300 model .7t to the $1000, floor-standing 5.0ti. The second-from-the-top-of-the-line 3.5ti reviewed here ($699/pair) is a completely redesigned version of the Camber 3.5 loudspeaker reviewed by JA in Vol.11 No.8. In fact, the 3.5ti is radically different from its predecessor: it uses a different woofer cone, sports a new metal-dome tweeter, has a much simpler network, and incorporates some cabinet refinements. The 3.5ti is an 8", two-way system employing a carbon-doped polypropylene-cone woofer and a 1" metal-dome tweeter in a bass-reflex enclosure. Unusually, the 3.5ti's woofer is handmade by Camber from components sourced from around the world. It features a diecast frame and aluminum-wound voice-coil. The tweeter is a fluid-damped metal dome made by SEAS. A 2½"-diameter reflex port is mounted below the woofer. The port, woofer, and tweeter are located asymmetrically in the enclosure to disperse cabinet diffraction effects. The mirror-imaged pair is said to sound best with the tweeters toward the outside. Camber has paid significant attention to controlling cabinet resonances in their loudspeakers. The 3.5ti's ¾" particleboard enclosure is made more rigid by two braces just above and below the woofer. The center brace is slightly larger than the interior cabinet dimension, causing the enclosure to bow very slightly in the middle. This technique reportedly reduces panel motion. In addition, acoustic foam has been applied to the inside walls to further damp resonances. The seven-element crossover is a highly damped second-order electrical network, which is said to result in third-order effective acoustical slopes in the 3.5ti. Instead of using an inductor in series with the woofer, a capacitor and resistor are wired in parallel with the woofer. This technique reportedly has the advantages of making the load look more like a pure resistance, and doesn't introduce the ringing associated with an inductor. Crossover frequency is 2.7kHz. Because Camber is a Canadian company, it has ready access to the National Research Council's testing facilities, run by Dr. Floyd Toole (footnote 1). In fact, Camber's factory is only a two-hour drive from the NRC. Although the NRC was used during the 3.5ti's design, Allan Devantier, designer of the Camber line, relied primarily on DRA Lab's MLSSA loudspeaker and acoustic measuring system. In fact, Allan was one of the early designers to use MLSSA, a system now considered indispensable in loudspeaker design and evaluation. The 3.5ti is finished in black ash vinyl veneer (oak vinyl veneer is also available) and covered with a black grille cloth. A single pair of five-way binding posts is mounted at an angle in the terminal cup. Overall, the 3.5tis are well-built and attractive. I would, however, like to have seen a bi-wiring provision.

作者: jp 时间: 2014-3-25 11:11 AM
Listening
I auditioned the 3.5ti on the Mission stands with which the Mission Cyrus 782 and Fried Q/4 that I also review this month were auditioned. These stands are somewhat low, putting the 3.5ti's tweeter axis 2" above ear level. Camber stands are available for the 3.5ti for $59. While breaking in the 3.5tis with the Dorian Pictures at an Exhibition, a time when I try not to listen to the speakers, I couldn't help noticing the feeling of low-frequency extension from these modest-sized boxes. The 3.5tis have surprising bass extension and a subjective feeling of weight for their size. The low-frequency region was full, robust, and provided a strong musical foundation. Acoustic bass had a warm, rich presentation and conveyed a feeling of the instrument's body. Left-hand lines on the previously mentioned Dick Hyman Plays Fats Waller were more prominent and forward than heard through the Cyrus 782s, with a greater sense of weight. The 3.5tis did a credible job of reproducing the size and power of the organ on Pictures, a remarkable feat for a moderate-sized and -cost loudspeaker. Bass drum had a solid and deep impact, without the thin, wimpy quality often heard from mid-sized loudspeakers. I felt, however, that the bass was a little on the underdamped side, giving a slightly loose and less articulate rendering. Although the 3.5ti's LF presentation had a certain satisfying solidity, it lacked the precision, detail, and transient abilities of the Cyrus 782, an area where that loudspeaker excels. However, the low-frequency region was remarkably uncolored. The sense of pitch in the lower registers was excellent, and there were no glaring resonances that imparted a common character to different recordings. Despite the slightly underdamped rendering, I enjoyed the 3.5ti's bass presentation. The degree of this criticism was minor: I certainly wouldn't characterize the LF performance as tubby or bloated. I felt the bass performance was superior to the Fried Q/4's in pitch definition and freedom from coloration.

作者: jp 时间: 2014-3-25 11:12 AM
The 3.5ti's overall tonal balance was quite smooth, but with an apparent uptilt in the treble. Throughout the auditioning, I felt that the treble had a hardness that made the upper octaves seem bright. Although there was some excess treble energy, the feeling of brightness was exacerbated by the treble's slightly metallic character. Cymbals had an edginess that brought them forward in the mix and called attention to them. The Böosendorfer's upper registers in the Fats Waller recording took on a slightly brittle sound. The entire treble could be characterized as dry and forward rather than silky-smooth and laid-back. The strings that open the tune "An Hour Away," from Scott Kreitzer's album Kick'n Off, were slightly chalky and bleached. Although the 3.5tis were smoother than many moderately priced loudspeakers, they nevertheless imparted an etched quality to most recordings. Recordings that tended to be overly bright were pushed over the edge of listenability, while many smooth recordings became a little strident. Throughout a large portion of the spectrum, however, the 3.5tis were remarkably smooth and free from coloration. There was a wide "window" from the upper bass to lower treble in which the 3.5tis were open, pure, and uncolored. This is the area of most musical importance, and the 3.5tis did a good job of reproducing natural instrumental timbres through this range, especially instruments without much HF content.

作者: jp 时间: 2014-3-25 11:13 AM
I experimented with toe-in angle and found the treble was smoother with the loudspeakers pointed straight ahead. This positioning greatly ameliorated the brightness, but at the expense of losing some upper-midrange energy. With the 3.5tis pointed straight ahead, some presence and life was missing from the music. Toed-in toward the listener, the presentation was too bright. I ended up doing most of the auditioning with a slight toe-in, achieving an acceptable balance between treble and midband energy. Incidentally, the 3.5tis were somewhat brighter with the listener's ears directly on the tweeter axis. Remember, the Mission stands placed the 3.5ti's tweeter about 2" above my ears. Stands that avoid placing the tweeters at ear level are therefore recommended. Going back to the 3.5ti's strengths: they presented an excellent sense of space and depth. They could throw a wide soundstage with precise positioning of instrumental images. Vocal and instrumental outlines were focused, stable, and presented with an appropriate sense of image size, although not quite to the degree heard through the Cyrus 782s. Centrally placed instruments and voices were apparently detached from the loudspeakers, and had a feeling of air and space around them. Soundstage depth was similarly impressive, with a distinct impression of distance. Try Reference Recordings' Three-Way Mirror for a convincing feeling of three-dimensionality. Overall, the 3.5ti's resolution of spatial detail was better than the Fried Q/4's. However, the Q/4s had a much sweeter treble that was less fatiguing over long sessions.

作者: jp 时间: 2014-3-25 11:13 AM
Conclusion
The Camber 3.5ti loudspeaker does many things well at the $700/pair price point, but its musicality is, I feel, somewhat compromised by its treble performance. On the plus side, the 3.5ti has a smooth and relatively uncolored midrange, surprising LF extension, solid bass presentation, and the ability to throw a convincing soundstage. Through the midrange, the 3.5ti presented natural timbres without glare or peakiness. The low-frequency performance, though a little underdamped, was solid, satisfying, and fairly well detailed. The subjective bass extension was deeper than what one would expect from the 3.5ti's cabinet size. The 3.5tis' spatial presentation was excellent, with the ability to throw well-focused images between and behind the loudspeakers, and with correctly sized images. On the down side, I found the treble a little bright, and with hard textures. Either one of these characteristics by themselves may not have been a detraction, but combined, music took on a slightly etched, brittle quality. This was manifested as forward cymbals, steely violins, and an overall dry treble rendering. Positioning the listener off-axis by pointing the 3.5tis straight ahead somewhat ameliorated the brightness, but at the expense of reduced midband energy. My criticisms of the 3.5ti should be put in perspective: it offers excellent performance in many areas, and any speaker is bound to have some deficiencies at the $700/pair price. Depending on where the listener places his sonic priorities, the Camber 3.5ti may be for you. It has a very different sonic signature from the Mission Cyrus 782. Where the latter's lean bass presentation and laid-back perspective may appeal to some listeners, the 3.5ti's warm bass and forward rendering may be better suited to other tastes. I preferred the Cyrus 782's musical interpretation. Despite the criticisms noted, I can nevertheless recommend the Camber 3.5ti. During the auditioning, I enjoyed listening to music through them, the ultimate statement about any product.—Robert Harley

欢迎光临昌业音响主论坛 (http://www.changye.com.cn/bbs/)