Feel free to ask questions. I'll do my best to answer.


Saturday, January 8, 2011

Review of Polar graphs

Prelim ADAM ARTist 5
...........................................................................................................................................................
ARTist 5 with Protection Grill
............................................................................................................................................................
ADAM A3X
........................................................................................................................................................
A3X Ports Stuffed
..........................................................................................................................
ADAM A5X Ports Stuffed
..........................................................................................................................
B2031P with cotton
........................................................................................................................
B2031P
.......................................................................................................................
B1030A
........................................................................................................................
HR624 mk2
........................................................................................................................
Homemade
........................................................................................................................
Rokit 6
..........................................................................................................................
LSR 2325
..........................................................................................................................
Infinity Classia 336
Multiway/near field--low end poorly represented
...........................................................................................................................
Infinity Primus 363
Multiway/near field--low end poorly represented
.....................................................................................................................................................................



65 comments:

  1. The Artist 5 and 1030A have wide horizontal dispersion, but it doesn't seem to be constant ( The off axis curves rise at 4 kHz for Artist 5 and 6 khz for 1030a) . Is that something that can be addressed in a 2-way design in order to achieve a constant wide dispersion, or is that something only a 3-way can address ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Those are extremely small and not something I'd personally fret over. No matter how many drivers you use, you'd have a tough time beating that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But that would worsen if the woofer is larger ?
    the Primus 363 , which is a 3 way, doesn't seem to have that issue... though its response itself is not that flat which is a different matter...

    ReplyDelete
  4. My mistake, primus also has that issue between 4-5k.
    I was also wondering if 2030p is much wider than 2031p, couldn't find such a polar anywhere for it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There should be measurements of the 2030 around. They were a big hit with guys making mods around the forums.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Any driver, crossover point details for your homemade project above ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I still haven't started on it--life has been busy! In any case, for the garage, it would be nearly impossible for me to beat the diysoundgroup stuff. That's what I'm really thinking about now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. i meant for the one above, for which you have published polar graph....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ooops, sorry. I realized that about an hour after I posted. Anyway, it was the Eminence Delta Pro 12A and a Selenium tweeter in a Parts Express 12" waveguide crossed around 1,700Hz.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Since you have listened to speakers of various sizes ( from 5.5" to 8.75" ) , do you find anything special about 8-8.75" speakers wrt vocals ? I found some mention of vocals being best on 8". Troel mentioned so in his 8" based 2-way and also Mark K mentioned being 8" being a much better mid than 6.5"....

    ReplyDelete
  11. I actually like the Mackie 6.5"(I think they are 6.5"ers) just because they have less of that "voice of God" effect. Larger mids if crossed at the same frequency as smaller mids

    ReplyDelete
  12. Will have a narrower pattern and thus less VOG effect. That might be what they are referring to.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Still, all mono vocals played through a stereo will sound like the voice of God. Should be less though with a narrow pattern.

    ReplyDelete
  14. By "voice of God" effect, you mean unnaturally emphasized vocals ? And 6.5" being more natural/neutral ?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Apparent Source Width of the vocal becomes huge d/t early reflections. When a human speaks, the source of the sound is very small compared to 2 speakers reproving that same sound. I don't think it has anything to do with the size of the driver making the sound per say, but the measurable pattern the speaker creates. Another thing is how flat the FR of the speaker. The Mackie is very flat. I'm sure any DBT based on driver size on how natural the vocal is would fail to differentiate unless the speaker was too small or lacked the necessary dynamic range of the vocal recording.

    ReplyDelete
  16. (I asked my last question before some of your replies came) . So its about horizontal dispersion [ again! :) ] , with narrow pattern more suitable here.
    I guess then we have both a lower limit [ to avoid too small a sweet spot ] and upper limit [ to avoid unnaturally wide sources including vocals ] on the constancy of horizontal dispersion. So then its not like , the wider the better...
    is it ? That also should give a range for ideal horizontal dispersion.

    Maybe then this is the reason some folks find 3 ways having more emphasized mids than 2-way as some 3-ways can have quite wide dispersion...

    ReplyDelete
  17. So far, EVERY BIT OF EVIDENCE I know of says that the measured performance tells you how the speaker sounds. It doesn't matter what is making the measured performance, it just matters what the measured performance is.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Preferred" may not be "better". Well, unless you want to sell loudspeakers.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree. All I was saying, in a way, was this would explain differences between 2 speakers having flat on axis FR based on what I understood from your VOG explanation. Thanks for that...
    And yes "Preferred" is the way to go when selling :)

    I guess this should be a good DIY project to build a 2031/ hr624 equivalent

    http://www.audioheuristics.org/projects_gallery/ER18DXT/ER18DXT.htm

    ReplyDelete
  20. I always liked that project. Wonder what the cost of that is now?

    ReplyDelete
  21. ER18 woofer : $96
    DXT tweeter : $63
    PE 0.5 cuft cab : $112

    crossover parts will be a big list to check :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Also regarding 6.5" vs 8" , any audible difference (due to more Sd of 2031 woofer ) between HR624 and 2031 in the 80-300Hz range ? This is where the dispersion pattern also shouldn't matter, right ?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nothing that I recall. With all the modes, SBIR, LBIR, etc... Evidence says you can't really hear the speaker in that range other than its actual lower limit in the room.

    ReplyDelete
  24. On "Inside the B2031P" you mentioned about they using LR2 crossover in the passive version, but active possibly being better. Where would the LR2 be lacking as compared to LR4 active ?

    Btw looks like glasswool is not used inside, so should be safe to open one...

    ReplyDelete
  25. I didn't say LR2, but I'll explain why I thought the active version should be better: my biggest concern was the ripples in the response through the crossover region. I thought it was caused by cone break-up as was the case in my homemade 2-way. It turned out to be the ports next to the tweeter. I wrote a little "edit" a couple of days after I wrote it but failed to make it clear why I wrote the edit.

    If memory serves me well, the damping material feels like cotton.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Do you think its possible to make the 2031 smooth (say like the HR624) by completely blocking the ports , rounding the mdf edges etc ?
    HR624/HR824 has nice smooth exterior unlike sharp edged 203x.

    I see that (even after the cotton stuffing you did) the HF has some ripples.
    Wondering if one can replace the tweeter ( in either 2031A or P) with some good 1" one which will match that waveguide.

    The 2031P price sometimes look good enough for the cabinet and a nice waveguide :):) (with not so bad woofer if I see its FR on Zaph pages)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Let's just "maybe". Narrower dispersion speakers if done well will have less very early reflections and diffraction so the Mackie may indeed remain smoother. That said, maybe not.

    Replacing the tweeter may be more difficult. That tweeter is very similar to the one in the Mackie(even looks to have better QC if my couple examples demonstrate typical QC).

    ReplyDelete
  28. "More difficult" meaning a change of crossover and possibly mounting. You'd have little if anything to gain and possibly a lot to lose.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sometimes I feel, If Behringer can do so much at current prices of their speakers, they should be easily take their products to real high level by eliminating the shortcomings, identified by folks like you, for say $100 more.
    Btw the 1031A does have better baffle (but maybe not a better cabinet overall) but it didn't gain the popularity, even among aficionados, unlike the 2031s. Could it be because it lacks constant directivity aspect of 2031, even though it might be overall wider than 2031 ?

    Though basically, if Behringer has got so much right at these prices, few more in product price should result in a gem of a product from them...

    ReplyDelete
  30. I agree wholeheartedly! Even if they just put the b2031 ports on the back it would be a much better speaker. They could easily change the baffle to something like the 1030 and all would be well in the world. The 1031 may have been just that, but we'll never know now.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I am waiting for some deal to come up, given that 1031s are discontinued, and may still pick up 1031As :)
    Though (we have discussed this earlier) it has those improvements, it may not be exact replacement if one were to see the 45 deg response here of both 2031A and 1031A. But I guess that would be a minor difference in reality...

    http://www.bonedo.de/artikel/einzelansicht/behringer-b1031a/2.html

    This has responses for quite a few other monitors..

    ReplyDelete
  32. Nice site! Wish it had more detail, but it's better than most. Thanks for the link.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Do you have vertical directivity plots for all of the above speakers ? Would be great to have a similar page with all vertical plots.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Unfortunately I never made such a page. It's on my "to do" list. It's a long list though.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If I am not wrong , more vertical directivity is not desirable , right ? (unlike the horizontal one) To avoid ceiling and floor reflections. Should be between 45-60 deg ?

    ReplyDelete
  36. It's another iffy question and I don't know of a great body of evidence on the question... One thing is for sure--if you are talking near field, you'll want a relatively large vertical lobe. In general though, I'd say you want narrow vertical directivity, but in the frequencies that matter it is hard to achieve in a practical size.

    ReplyDelete
  37. IOW, knowing the application would be critical in making that decision.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yes, that applies to horizontal as well.
    I mean to sit closer, wider angles both ways are preferable.
    But question was more about “ideal vertical directivity as compared to horizontal”

    I wonder, technically speaking, if coax is better suited for nearfield given its equal dispersion both horizontally and vertically. Esp when used with a woofer below say 300 Hz to minimize cone movements.
    Though a good coax is very very hard to find for DIY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Without a standard there is no ideal and different applications call for different standards for any ideal. One thing that has been shown in regards to vertical patterns is that early vertical reflections are heard as frequency response problems.

      Some small manufacturer was making KEF coax speakers for a while which had great measured performance. Their drivers were at one time available from Just Speakers(I think). Or maybe it was Speaker Exchange...

      Delete
    2. Now all demand a serial #. When tried locally they even ask the old drivers to submitted... :) Buying something like their cheapest Q100 is the only option...
      Seas now has two coaxs as mid-tweet only (MR18, C18), though the excel version is very costly.

      Delete
  39. DIYing is tough unless you want to do something a bit more mundane. I'm still looking at options.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Are crossover slopes and horizontal and vertical directivity related ?

    ReplyDelete
  41. The crossover won't really effect directivity. It will effect the shape of the vertical lobe and the power response. I'd bet if you asked this question on the PE board, you'd get some detailed responses with great info(and likely some BS that always comes with forums).

    ReplyDelete
  42. That should say "shape and direction"...

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hehe :)

    I can ask there as well as diyaudio.
    Need to find which filters results in largest vertical lobe which will be needed in nearfield.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Found your thread as well :)
    http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/158012-importance-vertical-polar-response.html

    ReplyDelete
  45. I've always wanted to try a very short(like 3 driverr) CBT. All tiny full range drivers. Never found a suitable one though.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Here I see you made a comparable graph of 2031 to ER18DXT
    http://techtalk.parts-express.com/showthread.php?221189-Behringer-B2031A-vs-ER18DXT-which-would-win/page5

    ER18DXT does look flatter, but not sure if that will be audible difference...
    2031 has some dips and is also narrower in dispersion...

    ReplyDelete
  47. I believe when longevity/reliability and chances of getting a bad piece ( due to bad amp) are considered, passive is much better option , though most studio monitors are active. Given by your appreciation for Infinity P363 I wonder how P163 bookshelf will be... (measurement for 162 http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/infinity_primus_p162/ which also has the port issue i think)

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'd bet the 163 would be near identical. The new Reference Series looks very interesting to me. It has no port issue and uses flat cone mid woofers which should reduce diffraction to the bare minimum.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The Primus center channel speakers do not have a front port either.

    ReplyDelete
  50. found these measurements for the new 162
    http://www.soundandvision.com/content/infinity-reference-r162-speaker-system-test-bench

    This another one looks very good (though its polar could be not so good as there is no waveguide)
    http://www.soundandvision.com/content/nht-absolute-zero-speaker-system-ht-labs-measures

    ReplyDelete
  51. The infinty don't look so good by their measurements. I'm not confident in their methodology though. None the less, they just don't look very promising.

    The super zero were well regarded in their time bang for the buck-wise. Not known to be too top flight though.

    Looks like the MTM Primus could still be an option.

    ReplyDelete
  52. In case you know Arny Krueger, he once used 3 primus centres as LCRs :)

    Btw some very new ones from JBL http://jblpro.com/www/products/recording-broadcast/7-series

    ReplyDelete
  53. Don't know Arny, but he might be on to something.

    ReplyDelete
  54. One thing to note is, the port impact is eliminated when stuffed, when they are located at bottom ( Adams ) unlike Behringers ? Or its just coincidence

    ReplyDelete
  55. Not sure I'd say eliminated. In actual SQ, I'd bet the ports on the behringer have a bigger audible impact.

    If I were to guess about the repeat ability of these measurements, I'd bet it would hold up with other speakers.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Just FYI : Another promising passive : http://www.soundandvision.com/content/jbl-studio-2-speaker-system-test-bench

    ReplyDelete
  57. That one does look good too. I'd love to give it a more rigorous test. I'd bet they hold up well judging by the LSR series. I with they made the LSR sans built in amp.

    ReplyDelete
  58. This one does look like LSR 3 series minus the amp
    http://jblpro.com/www/products/recording-broadcast/3-series

    as both have the reference M2 like waveguide. Wish sound and vision had published polars as well..

    ReplyDelete
  59. Btw, do you think, nearfield will require lower than usual crossover freq to sub i.e less than 80 Hz... ?

    ReplyDelete
  60. I would doubt you'd have any real issue with an 80Hz crossover. I can't remember where I have my near field set up at, but I don't think it's even that low.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Ok.

    Btw why do most active speakers have a hiss sound ! ? The passives with external amps are always quiet...

    ReplyDelete
  62. I have an external amp that hums.... None the less I have no real idea. Not all of them do it, and the ones that do may not be all the time. Check them in several outlets and try eliminating the 3rd prong. None of my ADAMs do it nor the Mackie. The JBL is the worst offender here.

    ReplyDelete