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


Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Old Creative Computer Speakers

I've always graphed speaker that have been considered good or great by many audio enthusiasts.  Just for comparison I did a set small computer speakers.

I chose these little Creative speaker simply because someone I know has them in everyday use.

I didn't move the speaker around as I normally would and I did them fullrange in my QuasiAnechoic Chamber.

Well here we go:

  Tone controls adjusted for bass emphasis, Flat, and for treble emphasis:

Overlaid:

Time domain stuff:



This time I decided to make impulses of this speaker so that others might be able to get a glimpse of what these sound like by using the convolution process.  I accidentally bumped my microphone in the process so I rechecked to see my new measurement and then I'll compare it to the measurement of the impulse:


Pretty much identical if I could get them to size up exactly.

205 comments:

  1. (Not related to above) Are you planning to measure Yamaha HS8s ? Want to see how they compare with Behringer 2031s.
    Thanks...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'll measure anything that's sent to me. That said, there are several speakers I've measured that measure better than the 2031s. For the money you'd have in the Yammy, the ADAM ARTist 5 might be a better comparison. Aren't they about $1,000/pr?

    ReplyDelete
  3. HS8s are less than $700 pair where as Artist 5 are $749 each.
    I am looking for flat response, very low harmonic distortion, 8" monitors
    for nearfield listening distance of 2-3 ft. Had shortlisted 2031A and HS8.
    (May add one or two 15" sealed subs later)
    Anything you recommend over those two, upto $700 pair?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not sure there are any 8" monitors I'd recommend for near field listening to be honest. The 2031s do have a fairly broad vertical sweet zone the in all my examples was aimed toward the tweeter. That should be helpful. The ARTist 5 was $1,200/pr, but still out of price range if $700 is the limit. The B2031 are not in the very low harmonic distortion category by today's standards, but you won't be able to hear it anyway. Its biggest problem is the port location. Just look for my mods and subsequent measurements.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Any better options if were to relax the 8" requirement ?
    I will look at the mods. Always wondered why so less sealed options in mains, while sealed subs are so popular!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I actually use the ADAM A3X for my near field monitors--with a sub. The Behringer 1030a also are well designed for the purpose. I wish sealed speakers were more popular. I don't know of many sealed speakers regardless of type. Sort of a shame. With today's driver and amp tech, there is little reason to have a port IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 2 quick Qs:
    1) So you think Behringer 103x series is better than 203x series ?
    2) How easy, effective and worthwhile will be a DIY effort for 2 way sealed ? Can one one attempt it without anechoic chamber etc ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. From what I've seen they 1030 is less problematic. Makes you wonder about the 1031--or it makes me wonder.
    It's not likely to be worth you effort to DIY. I'd be willing to bet you couldn't do better than the 1030 in under a year if you put a lot of effort into it daily. You can definitely learn to do it and even measure for it without an anechoic chamber. Your time is better spent with good monitors than trying to figure out how to make them(unless that's really your passion).

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Makes you wonder about the 1031--"

    You got this right :)
    I am even wondering why Behringer has these 2 parallel series....
    I may still tilt towards 2031 as they are front ported so lesser worry of rear distance, isn't it ?
    I get the point about DIY too. Also, unlike subs, it won't be cheaper than ready ones too!!
    Btw I hope the kind of discussion I am having is ok on this blog, else let me know if it needs to be taken offline and elsewhere...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Every front ported speaker has problems in the midrange that can only be fixed by stuffing the ports. Bass frequencies are omnidirectional and therefor rear port placement may be better or worse depending on room characteristics--or it could be very similar. Placement in the front has so far been a measurable problem every time.
    The 103X is the newer series.
    Gotta run

    ReplyDelete
  11. These types of discussions is exactly what this blog is for--well and to share my experiments for collective learning. I don't like online forums--too much religion and rules. On this blog, anything goes as long as it's respectful and on topic. I enjoy this. Thanks! Dan

    ReplyDelete
  12. Have you found speakers that measure similar but still one of them sounded better ? Basically something which measurements don't capture/highlight ?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I haven't. I will say this: fairly flat with a broad dispersion pattern sound better than fairly flat and a narrow dispersion unless you crossfire the narrow. Then they don't seem to image as well though. That said I haven't gone wild with toe in on narrow dispersion speakers. That might be something fun to do, but without a dozen blind listeners it means nothing. So far the best sounding speakers were my homemade narrow dispersion speakers cross fired. They didn't image well though. Everything sounded like it enveloped me.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The main intent was to know if one can buy speakers based of certain set of measurements (ignoring the support, reliability factors) without listening. Listening to many monitors together is tough anyways and "that" room specific.
    And within the set of measurements I am bit confused over few :
    1) Freq Response : How imp given that lat can be correct using DSP
    2) THD (esp at low end) : Above what level it can be heard. Also the the low end distortion becomes a less issue if a sub is used upto 100-120 Hz.
    3) Off axis performance : I guess matters for normal farfield listening. For 3ft nearfield , one need not worry.rt ?

    So many monitors I guess pass the above test making decision very tough :)
    One thing I am not sure if the freq response captures the difference between soft dome and metallic tweeter . Or if the graph is similar between 8K-20K, then the sound should be same irrespective..

    ReplyDelete
  15. There was a study done comparing an ADAM tweeter, a soft dome and a metal dome, etc... When polar pattern is removed from the equation, the frequency response was heard. IOW, if they measure the same, they sound the same regardless of build.
    Polar pattern is at least as important in the near field. Every head movement equates to a relatively large moment in relation to the speaker compared to midfield listening. That's still ignoring the differences in the sense of space and envelopment--effects that still exist in the near field.
    The reasons above are why frequency response cannot be looked at in isolation and DSP cannot fix polar response.
    THD is not a particularly important in all honesty. It's never shown up in a preference listening test. We tend to easily mask low order harmonics that loudspeakers produce. Physics are against high order nonlinearity

    ReplyDelete
  16. in high mass low energy systems like loudspeakers.

    ReplyDelete
  17. There has also been studies done on loudspeakers in various rooms. Regardless of room, the better measuring loudspeaker was the deciding factor. People had a preference for rooms as well, but it was a lower order of importance.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So to summarize :
    1) Freq response
    2) Polar pattern

    right ?

    Though I don't think will get to see polar pattern many of the speaker brands.
    Luckily Dr Geddes has put it for 2031A in the polar map software on his website [ will need to learn to read it though :) ]

    Also I remembered EQing freq response in mids and highs will not work properly for head movements. So still better to go for flat response.

    I did my first measurement 2 days back on my living room speakers , Dynaudio Contours 1.8mkii using REW :) Can't paste the image here...
    Initially was shocked but looked not so bad on 1/12 smoothing :). In case you read any PMs on any forum (hometheatershack) I can send it across..

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'd put those 2 features as equal, but the listening Alisha's to be priority really(IMO).

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh, these creative computer speakers are the only ones I've measured where I didn't do polars. My review of polar responses might be helpful. Stereophile also has a lot!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh, I never check out forums at all anymore. It's just not a good use of my time anymore. Read my primer on how to make polar graphs on this blog. It will teach you what you need to know. You can ask any questions.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Also reading a bit about narrow (and constant) directivity on your blog as well as Dr Geddes website, I think that will be a very good factor to use to select monitor for my nearfield usage, isn't it ?
    Though very few brands fall into that. Any specific suggestion or as mentioned in your blog , 2031 and HR624 the closest options... ?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I also wonder if the newer JBL LSR308s are narrow controlled directivity based on the waveguide it has...

    ReplyDelete
  24. I would think wider would be better. Reflections are reduced in the near field relative to mid or far field to start with. The vertical lobe is also extremely narrow with narrow dispersion speakers and will leave you with a nearly impossible to find sweet spot. As much as I actually think narrow dispersion speakers should be the standard or ideal, they are difficult to use even at 6ft. 2-3 ft would seem extremely difficult to say the least. I tried the HR first and certainly couldn't make them work. The ADAMs are a breeze. You get 9-12 ft away from the HR and they are doable and still image very well.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Not sure about those JBL, but the JBL I've measured are sort of middle of the road and have a pretty broad vertical lobe too that is precisely centered. The also have a lot of bass for their size. The have their issues though too--every speaker does.

    ReplyDelete
  26. How would you compare LSR 2325 and Behinger 2030 ?

    I am just wondering how would open baffle, i.e just drivers mounted on a plane and no box, sound in nearfield. To further simplify an coaxial driver can be used. Basically how would just listening to drivers at 2-3 ft be :) ?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'd have to go from memory, but my memory would say the 1030 sounds clearer but that's likely caused by the tipped up response and broader polar pattern. The JBL plays deeper, but when called upon to really rumble it has a lot of port noise. I never really got a chance to make the 1030 put out bass. Oh, you could say that the JBL is more accurate but less enveloping.

    Open baffles are pretty narrow patterned in the low end and tend to be fairly broad in the midrange. To get a smooth pattern requires a lot of thought, but it's been done. I can't really see where it would be an advantage in the near field because it's a lot easier(and it's not easy) to make them a controlled, narrow pattern than a controlled broad pattern.

    ReplyDelete
  28. One DIY narrow pattern kit I found
    http://www.diysoundgroup.com/waveguide-speaker-kits/alpha-series-kits/alpha8-kit.html
    There is .67 cuft box for it as well

    Another option is an OB with this driver
    http://www.bcspeakers.com/products/coaxial-fe/8-0/8cx21
    Will this be broad pattern in mids. Also I don't see any design pattern if its going
    to be just a baffle + crossover + driver at ear level

    These two though make sense if they sound better than something like 2031.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The coax will definitely sound much worse than the 2031.

    The other from DIY sound group should be similar to the 2031--it's hard to tell. They smooth their graphs and use a 10db scale. I applaud them for posting anything, but I want to see more detail. It should get louder than the 2031, and the sound should be somewhere in the same general ballpark(with the b2031's ports stuffed).

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh, you will never be able to use the maximum output from the b2031 at 3ft--you'll go deaf. Even in my home theater I've never heard them struggle. That said, if you want to host a dance party, the DIY option looks best

    ReplyDelete
  31. Looking at the DIY site, if I had to choose who to buy from, it would be them. The guys behind those designs are good folks that I remember from forum days.

    ReplyDelete
  32. What's the total cost of the ones you want and do you need an amplifier?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hmm, lets consider a max $500 for full speaker. Passive should be fine as I can use my living room amp NAD C372 for sometime ( later can add a cheap receiver or pro amp like Crown).

    Assuming same other parts and crossover as in alpha 8, it would be around $400 for woofer and tweeter

    ReplyDelete
  34. Oops, accidentally deleted your previous comment. For the money, I'd personally buy the ADAM ARTist 3. I hate to say they, but it's true. Rolling your own costs a lot of time and won't likely look as nice. The ARTist 3 should be the perfect size and sound for what you want and they'll look better than you are likely to pull off(no offense). They'll sound better and take up little space.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well I won't be worried about looks. I am ok to put just drivers beside my pc monitor if it sounds good :):):)
    But sound quality is the prime, which I too doubt I can beat. I guess it will tough to beat price/perf ratio of similar priced studio monitor, unlike subwoofer where I think most DIYers get better results at similar price or lower cost than branded for same quality.
    Just before I conclude this long conversation for now, can you suggest some more alternatives at similar price as artist 3 ?
    Thanks for all your responses!!!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Well, I can say that all ADAM's I've measured are the only speakers will built in amps that don't rattle and the ARTist 3 measured essentially the same as the ARTist 5 in a German Magazine and the ARTist 5 are the best speaker I've measured. I do wonder about the Behringer 1031a... But who knows? I mean I know of cheaper that do well, but I don't know of anything more expensive that does better in that size. A couple floor standers do.

    ReplyDelete
  37. And the cheaper ones don't do as well.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The Adams are not magnetically shielded! Will try to find more about 1031As

    ReplyDelete
  39. I have mine right by my computer screen--no issues. Are you using an old CRT or floppy disk drives?

    ReplyDelete
  40. No, a LCD monitor. Also I think there is no dealer for Adams in India, but will try to find out more.
    One quick Q : Have you also tried putting a bung in 1030A rear port ? Does that improve anything ?

    ReplyDelete
  41. It shouldn't really help out a rear ported speaker--the problem is in the midrange. It would make the time domain measure better in the low end, but that's one of those factors that you can commonly read about on the web that makes a 'huge' improvement, but in listening tests never pans out.

    ReplyDelete
  42. And the issue due to front ports is clearly audible in 203x ? And by sealing it, it is same as 103x in listening test, except the wider dispersion of 103x ?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Also have you heard/measured the Adam F and AX series ?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Yes it is.

    It wouldn't make it the same, but certainly more similar.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I listen to the ax3/5 everyday and have them measured on this blog. I have heard the F series, but was less impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  46. And the Artist series is even better than AX ?

    ReplyDelete
  47. This is the bulk of the speakers I've measured: http://dtmblabber.blogspot.com/2011/01/review-of-polar-graphs.html

    ReplyDelete
  48. Considering pricing, local availability, etc, 1031A is looking like good option now. Strangely its cheaper than 2031A as well, even though its newer and better (I read in one of your hts thread that its much more resolving as well) than 2031A......

    ReplyDelete
  49. In your hts thread you were referring to 1030 but that shouldn't change....

    ReplyDelete
  50. I don't think it's necessarily more resolving in the truest sense of the word, but you'll think it is when you hear it d/t its response and pattern.

    ReplyDelete
  51. One monitor which I missed discussing : Mackie MR8 (latest variant). Any feedback on them ?
    the 1031A have quite a bit resemblance with them :)

    ReplyDelete
  52. Did you observe 103x having higher cabinet resonance than 203x ? There is a comparison between 1031A and 2031A here http://www.bonedo.de/artikel/einzelansicht/behringer-b1031a/2.html

    Though based on google translation , it seems 1031A still a very balanced speaker than 2031A

    ReplyDelete
  53. Every single speaker I've measured with an amp built in has audible vibrations when doing measurements except the ADAMs. All 3 ADAMs do not have audible vibrations. I've never measured the active version of the 203x, so I can't say for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  54. How were 1030 and 2030 wrt hiss ? Was it easily audible in nearfield ?

    ReplyDelete
  55. I don't recall on the 1030 and I've never heard the 2030A so it would depend on the amp.

    ReplyDelete
  56. 2 quick Qs :
    1) On speakers like 1030 is there a difference in sound quality at various SPL levels ? i.e do they sound equally good at low levels ?
    2) And do you see any downside wrt using 8" or 8.75" speaker at 2-3ft distance ?

    ReplyDelete
  57. 1) speakers are (largely) linear devises so they will sound the same at all volumes until the get so loud that they can't handle the power.

    2) larger woofers will have a narrow pattern if they are forced to play midrange.

    ReplyDelete
  58. On an another forum was recommended KEF X300A and M-audio M3-6.
    Any experience with those ?

    ReplyDelete
  59. No. A recommendation is only as good as it measures.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Regarding Artist 5 and 1030A, both of which very good in measurement, in which areas you find Artist 5 better in your listening ?

    ReplyDelete
  61. It's just better balanced and doesn't announce its presence. IOW it allows you to forget it is a speaker and focus on the music.

    I also have more confidence in it--I use the ARTist 5 in my home theater. That probably contributes to the "out of the way" feeling--you know its build quality is better(well at least you think it is b/c it doesn't rattle on tests).

    That's about as subjective as I like to get. People have all sorts of things they attribute to the speakers that have no real definition. You're not going to get that from me really. You can see the ADAM measure better, but exactly how much "better" they sound is hard to define. In terms of sound quality for the money, the 1030A is probably impossible to beat unless you are wealthy enough that a couple hundred dollars and a thousand dollars is essentially the same to you.

    Every speaker I've measured has had audible problems for me except the ARTist 5. If I didn't have well integrated subs, the ARTist 5s would definitely not have enough bass for a reference quality system. None 2 way speakers do though.

    ReplyDelete
  62. This could be a silly question, but can you point out areas in which betters 1030 and if that was confirmed in listening? i was comparing polar graphs and couldn't pinpoint it, unlike say A3x which has a big dip between 1 and 2khz. Just trying to understand better, if you don't mind...

    ReplyDelete
  63. From a little before 3kHz to 8-9kHz there is an greater than 5dB boost on the 1030. With ends up being 6dB when you get to 16kHz. On the ADAM there's a similar deviation, but it is only 1.7dB.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Oh, and it's actually a slight dip on the ADAM.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I see now, it may 2.5 db rise after 4k for artist, but yes its more linear. 2031p also is very linear till say 13k except for the dip at 1k and mackie 624 are too very linear till 9k.
    Atleast I now have a very short list to choose from. Its all pricing, availability etc now. will let you once I purchase. Though TBH its most likely to be 1031a.
    Good that you have maintained such a nice repository of polar graphs. May it have many more models going ahead :).
    Thanks for all your replies...

    ReplyDelete
  66. You're welcome.

    It's 1.7dB(not to split hair, but I measured it).

    The Mackie are great--but not for near field. The polar response is too narrow and their vertical window would be tiny at that distance. They are midfield monitors just as they say.

    It will only grow if people send them to me. I'd love for it to grow more! It's such a useful comparison. It also shows that 'flat' is if nothing else the de facto standard(and it should be).

    The 2031 is certainly not a bad speaker. It's biggest fault is the stupid port placement. That's easy to mitigate, but you do sacrifice the low end a little.

    At your distance, it would be very hard to go wrong with the 1030!

    Let me know,

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  67. If you room is well treated, may be you can post full range on axis freq resp for all the speakers for which you have put polar responses.What do you think ?
    On this site, there are freq reponse graphs for many speakers, and many of them seem to have 3-5db rise around 80-100hz, which I think is on purpose.
    Though some like Adams, 1031A and few others have a less rise..

    http://www.bonedo.de/artikel/einzelansicht/testmarathon-nahfeldmonitore-bis-1000-eur/2.html

    Will be useful to check such behavior

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd have to do ground plane measurements to have anything really worth looking at. No room I've seen is good enough(well 'dead' enough) to do it. Even anechoic chambers require a calibration curve. I don't know anything about that site so I can't comment on it.

      Delete
    2. I don't find it to be useful. Below about 300Hz, you hear the in room response where you are sitting. If you are using subs... I couldn't find any benefit.

      Delete
  68. Also some speakers have sharp roll off on the low end side, and some like 2031,1031 have a more gradual roll off, even though all are ported. What could be the reason?

    ReplyDelete
  69. In current generation of monitors, do phrases like tonally accurate still apply and if so which measurement captures that ? Also which measurement shows the revealing nature of a monitor. Or that's just a perception of better HF response ?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Did that phrase apply before in a previous generation?

    If that is or was a definable term it would be found in the frequency response and it would equal flat. Same goes for revealing--unless you want it to reveal 3kHz, then you'd want a bump at 3k.

    ReplyDelete
  71. These terms come up in "audiophile" reviews. Also I referred to current generation with the thought that maybe the drivers used nowadays have no tonality concerns which maybe existed earlier.

    One quick doubt : Is the wider directivity of 1030 over 2031P due to its desing or simply because of 3.75" driver size difference ? If so then 1031A may have similar directivity as 2031P/A...

    ReplyDelete
  72. Audiophile reviews are as useful as their measurements.

    It's the waveguide on the tweeter, the size of the woofer, and the crossover. Also the size of the tweeter as far as 10-20kHz is concerned.

    Yes on the 1031, but it won't have the diffraction issues that the 2031 has. If its crossover is low enough, it could have dispersion similar to the 1030. Somewhere on this site I have a chart of woofer size and how it effects directivity.

    ReplyDelete
  73. 1031A specs say crossover freq = 2.5khz
    I will search for that chart

    ReplyDelete
  74. Also is the impact due to port on midrange of a front ported speaker a nearfield/measurement issue and are effects diminished in farfield/HT like setup ?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Now that's a great question I've never been able to answer! Being that your intended use is near field... I'm not sure I'd let it effect my buying decision. My bet is that it wouldn't d/t the Haas Effect. I think it needs to be right from the start b/c the evidence says we hear the source above the approx 300Hz range. In that region, things get interesting. Read my "Hearing Beyond Haas" post.

    ReplyDelete
  76. There are definitely reasons why I measure like I do. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  77. TBH I got confused by your sentences
    "My bet is that it wouldn't d/t the Haas Effect" - So no effect ?
    "I think it needs to be right from the start b/c the evidence says we hear the source above...." - didn't get what you meant....
    My guess was since so many companies go for it is it must be not audible at a distance, apart form the fact many studio owners will be keen to flush mount the monitors...

    Though I will be at close enough distance, so better go with rear ported...

    Btw have you heard JBL LSR4326p ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I was having a bit too much fun last night and rendered myself incapable of articulating anything! What I meant was the harmful effects wouldn't be completely minimized at a distance(though I'd bet somewhat reduced in audibility). In other words, we hear the source no matter the distance. If the source is wrong, the sound is wrong.

      My guess is so many companies go for it b/c people have a belief that rear porting somehow amplifies bass, based on their very limited knowledge of acoustics, and an almost religious fervor that their superior hearing confirms their professed advanced knowledge. Many people also seem to believe that these audible artifacts of speaker designs are actually magical revelatory powers that only that particular speaker is capable of unearthing--which then throws them into a tail chasing gear lust syndrome known as audiophilia.

      I don't recall hearing those--but if I had, my opinion would only be as useful as my measurements of them, and I have none.

      Delete
  78. Now its clear :)

    But if I am not wrong, its the studio monitors which are generally front ported, where the target customer base is supposed to know more about audio :) ( which is why I thought flush mount would be the reason). No such strong trend in home speakers if I am not wrong.

    Also regarding my question of speakers with gradual bass roll-off vs sharp roll-off (which you mentioned as a result of box alignment ) . Will that matter when integrating with a sub, making it something to base buying decision on ?

    ReplyDelete
  79. And esp so when using Dr. Geddes method where there is no crossover used on mains...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like his method if you've got the right speakers. The ones he makes are way overkill for what you want to do. If they weren't so narrow, I'd have no problem recommending them. For HT--and a large one, those would be tough to beat.

      Delete
  80. Participating on boards and reading books by the recording folks leads me to believe that the home audio enthusiast is generally better informed about these matters. It's actually by a large margin.

    That second one is a tough one to answer. I would generally prefer a gradual one--for that matter a sealed alignment if it's possible. I really don't know of any modern speakers like that though--barring ones that are very narrow dispersion.
    More gradual would just mean more wiggle room.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Sometimes I just wish you had got the opportunity to test 1031A also :):) There would have been no doubts then ...
    The dream nearfield will be I think Genelec 8260...If there was a cheaper 8260 with much lesser bass extension, it would have been too good !

    ReplyDelete
  82. I'd love to measure either of those 2 speakers. If anyone would like to send them to me, I'd get right to it!

    The Genelec has inspired my imagination for a long time. I wonder if it would actually sound better than the ARTist 5... It's certainly a well engineered speaker.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Thats some praise for ARTist 5 !! Adds to my confusion between 1031A and ARTist 5 :):) .

    Was suggested Ascend CBM-170SE on a forum , seem to have amazing freq resp - http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/cbm170/cbm170meas.html

    Btw what crossover freq are you using for ARTist 5 in HT system ?

    ReplyDelete
  84. You can see the lack of directivity control on the tweeter even at 45 degrees. Otherwise looks pretty good.

    The ARTist 5 is crossed somewhere between 70-120 Hz... I don't even remember, but I'll check sometime after work. I did the way I did it based on my particular arrangement, not with regard of the ADAM's capability. IOW, they wouldn't strain anywhere in that range, I did it to make my response more perfect. I wasn't even worried about sub localization.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Even with the 1030, you start to get into diminishing returns pretty fast. I'd hate to hazard a guess at how much better the ARTist 5 are over the 1030. It's noticeable for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I guess you would have liked to hear them side by side.
    Did you had a chance to listen to Dynaudio BM5Amkii ?

    ReplyDelete
  87. I think I have heard those, but I wouldn't trust my opinion on what I heard--doubly so under the conditions. I have no reliable data on them.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Basic question : Whats the degree difference used by you in polar graphs ?

    ReplyDelete
  89. And do you think is the preferable listening window ? JBL and some sites like soundstage use +/-30 degrees

    Found another interesting candidate JBL LSR6325. Sadly measurements are available only from the company and one 3rd party - http://www.salonav.com/arch/2009/01/042-jbl.shtml which praises its dispersion. On axis looks pretty much like artist 5, but this one has front ports :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the listening window is a moving target which has greater movement the closer we get to the speaker. IOW, hard for me to say.

      Notice how smoothed those graphs are. I have a blog post about how smoothing graphs can easily hide ugliness. You can make those Pioneer speakers look perfect if you apply enough smoothing. I'd bet those ports effect the response just as much as all the front ported speakers I've measured. They do look to be rounded over which may help to some degree, but it's not going to "fix" the problem.

      Delete
  90. Another difference in directivity on 1030 and 2031 I see is off axis SPL level is closer to on axis in 1031 upto 8k and then falls rapidly. Whereas off axis response in 2031 is lower than 1030 buts its constant beyond 10k. Does directivity matter beyond 8k ?

    Also hr624 shows the most messy behavior (if i may say) above 10k. Could that be a unit specific issue ? Though you mentioned its not audible.

    In that case does it make sense to view the polar graph between 300Hz to 8/10KHz only ?

    ReplyDelete
  91. 1: Certainly not much.
    2: That is definitely unit specific. My other one doesn't do it.
    3: Yes. Above there is just gravy. Really, I focus mostly between 1kHz-8kHz. That's where it seems to me that most of the character of a speaker comes from.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Some points to discuss :

    1) for HT will narrow dispersion be better since there are multiple speakers, or it doesn't matter ?
    2) Why would dispersion wider than +/-45 deg be required ? Wouldn't the square formed by the two speakers, at two corners, and toed in at 45 deg be good enough to go give a wide enough dispersion, and also have much weaker wall reflections if the they have very less energy beyond 45 deg ( I guess this is what Dr Geddes idea is)
    3) If 5-6" drivers are good enough for mids, will it be tough to integrate such a speaker with 15" subs ?

    Since my discussions with you I have been trying to see as many off axis responses as I could :) Good to see that newer manufacturers are actually highlighting them..

    http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRM2/srm2meas.html
    http://philharmonicaudio.com/folio-me/html/Phil%20Pages/Graphsphilharmonitor.html

    Something which pro monitor folks should do more :)

    ReplyDelete
  93. 1). No simple answer for that, but in my ideal world, narrow is better for HT.

    ReplyDelete
  94. 2) reflections are what give us a sense of space and envelopment. I'd argue that for multichannel, wide dispersion would actually be a hindrance to the sound mixers intent. That said, it's fairly easy to mitigate reflections. Of course those measures cost money and might not be easy to design and built in a way that's pleasing.

    ReplyDelete
  95. 3) no tougher than it would be for any other size sub.

    Just briefly looking at the speakers you linked I can tell you they don't look particularly good. They are showing signs of poor dispersion control and then the stop graphing... Not anything I'd be eager to spend money on. I'd rather not know and take an educated guess based on design than know they are not right and spend my money. It would make it easier if everyone just posted good data and had good QC. There wouldn't be much to discuss though.

    ReplyDelete
  96. My question 2 was even for music only setup and if +/- 45 deg is just right for controlled directivity beyond which it should rapidly fall in SPL. Also is imaging and soundstage tied to wide/narrow dispersion ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no "just right" unfortunately. That requires a standard.

      As dispersion gets more broad, apparent source width increases--if you read my post on what happens above 300Hz, it goes into this in detail.

      Delete
  97. sorry i guess i misunderstood the response. you meant it should be wider so the perceived space is better due to reflections rather just hearing direct sound. More about including the room than excluding it...Hmmm... Though can room distort the sound during reflections ?

    By any chance you have experience with NHT Absolute zeroes ? They are cheap and sealed, though passive....

    ReplyDelete
  98. No, I just meant that the effects of wider dispersion is a better sense of space and envelopment--which keeps showing up as "preferred" in DBTs.

    That doesn't necessarily make it "best". With multichannel the mixer can easily make the sense of space and envelopment whatever they want for dramatic effect. If you want some sort of "accurate", you'd be better of with narrow.

    No experience with the Zero

    ReplyDelete
  99. "If you want some sort of "accurate", you'd be better of with narrow"
    This you meant only for HT, right ?

    I guess high time to buy the Toole's book :)

    Btw, do you on this site, have the polar map for your other Mackie 624 which doesn't have the HF anomaly.. ?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Technically for both music and HT.

    Toole's book is always a good idea.

    I may have it on the post for the Mackie, but it essentially looks the same except the top octave is flat. The tweeter is also set a little louder on it straight from the factory~.5 dB.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Oh, between the 2 speakers you linked, I'd go with the Philharmonic. Do you know what they cost?

    ReplyDelete
  102. They are $850/pair with shipping included. They have some B stocks for less.
    And they cost much less than the Ascend Sierra-2 which is around $1500

    I was also reading directivity paper by Dr Geddes and the placement he has suggested when using narrow controlled directivity speakers.
    http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/directivity.pdf

    I am wondering if narrow directivity using such a placement will work in in nearfield as well. Though his idea and his speakers are hand in glove since their response falls much faster beyond 45 deg than before.
    In commercial space I guess we have linear fall in response. The absolute fall rate classifies the speaker into wide or narrow, though its still linear right ?
    Would be tough to find something like Summa in regular monitor space

    ReplyDelete
  103. That's not a bad cost for those.

    Narrow directivity's biggest problem for near field is not the horizontal pattern, it's the vertical. I wonder what the height of the sweet zone is at 3ft for one of those. I'm better its less than 3 inches.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Should say "I'm betting"... Love autocorrect. :)

    ReplyDelete
  105. :)

    3 inches is too less!!

    ReplyDelete
  106. Regarding the polar graphs 300-8K : One thing I observe except the Mackies, the freq responses at various degrees intermingle a lot, whereas the Mackies look pretty "clean", no mixing up as such. Does that translate to audible smoothness at various angles ? Or its not audible when comparing to something like Adam Artist 5 ?

    IOW the Mackies looks like smoothed graph as compared to others even though its not!

    ReplyDelete
  107. It's hard to tell. The Mackie definitely have their own character, but hard to know what to ascribe it to. They definitely sound drier and less airy and spacious--also more precise image and soundstage. Changing listening angle(s), my experience has been that they ARTist 5 change less tonally and specially. Still, they both change and I like both of them a lot. Near field, I'd have no trouble going with the ARTist 5. Midfield, I've yet to absolutely make up my mind other than I don't feel like I suffer as much with changing position with the ARTist 5. It's one of those things where you'd need to set up a number of DBTs to really know for sure. With the ARTist 5, I feel no desire for anything else. I can't honestly say that for the Mackie--though I really enjoy them as well. They just have more caveats, but very well engineered.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Hmm. Though I guess what you mentioned can be ascribed to dispersion pattern except the drier part..
    Also maybe beyond a point the smoothness is just a measurement joy...

    Btw I couldn't find the "woofer size and how it effects directivity." chart you mentioned earlier, on this website...

    ReplyDelete
  109. There has to be a point where increased smoothness no longer matters. Not sure where that is.

    I can't find that chart either. Lol

    ReplyDelete
  110. A question after sometime :)

    Isn't the crossover between woofer and tweeter quite high in the Beh 103x series, esp for their woofer sizes ?
    1031 - 2.5kHz
    1030 - 4.3 kHz

    I guess that doesn't seem to have any issues in measurements, but then they must have procured pretty good drivers to reach that high and yet have such a good dispersion....

    ReplyDelete
  111. The odd thing is that both of them measure like the crossover is actually lower. What matters though is how it measures(according to evidence). These don't have crossover issues for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  112. A question after a long time :)
    How would a MTM design be for nearfield ?

    ReplyDelete
  113. I'm really not an MTM fan--but that could just be some insane bias I have b/c the only MTM I've ever owned was a terrible speaker. Don't ask me why I bought it--well I was a more religious thinker when it came to audio then and I believed it would fix imagined problems. I can't even remember which imagined problem I thought it would fix! I don't have evidence that says why it couldn't work, but it's my one last religious conviction in audio. ha ha ha! "MTMs will never sound right!"(I'm totally joking)
    They should be able to work if well executed. I would think they'd be more difficult to execute well and more expensive per cone area if all things were equal. They could have advantages too--better horizontal polars per cone area. I have read many years ago about the vertical polar response, but I've never actually seen one measured. I'd like to just reserve my commentary until I see the actual measurements of a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Hmm..

    Have you ever got a chance to measure a 3 way monitor ?
    I was wondering, theoretically, if a small 8"-3"-1" 3 way will have much better
    dispersion with crossovers around 500Hz and 2500Hz than a 2 way.
    Though commercially they are a rarity, maybe the actual improvement
    in nearfield is very minimal or non-existent over a good 2 way or else the pricing is quite high (like Neumann kh310 though its driver arrangement should have been all vertical)

    ReplyDelete
  115. I'm designing on right now :)

    I like the idea of them for several reasons--more bass drivers, baffle step compensation without attenuation(potentially), and thus greater efficiency and power handling. That said, they are overkill for near field but they'll be able to go beyond the near field w/o a problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regarding listening distance : If a speaker can be measured at 1m , can't it be heard at that distance ?
      Curious to understand why a 8" would be a problem in nearfield....

      Delete
    2. Other than practical matters like size, it's not a problem for a 3 way. 2 way, dispersion is an issue which you MIGHT be able to overcome.

      Delete
    3. Rethinking about the 8-3-1 design: I am getting a few doubts now
      Will it really have a very good dispersion ? Here is the off axis measurements for Genelec 8260 , one of the best out there, http://resolution.nodecube.net/products/pdfs/Monitoring/Genelec%208260A.pdf
      It doesn't have better horizontal dispersion than Artist 5 . You also indicated earlier, that you wondered if it will sound better than Artist 5 (except that it will work at much higher SPLs and hence larger rooms)

      Even assuming that it will not have the best horizontal, due to its 5” mid and 10” woofer, the measurements for a Neumann KH310 (on its website) which is 8"-3"-1" are not good too.

      I am now wondering if I may be going for 3 way with too much expectations. I mean if these companies can’t do it, no way for a newbie like me :)

      I am then wondering if a 2 way with 8” woofer and 8” waveguides like ones here (http://pellegreneacoustics.com/) is an easier and better route, with a crossover around 1000 Hz.
      Something like RS28F can go that low with a waveguide.
      Also it should be wide dispersion variety, not more than -6dB for +/- 60 deg (or is more required? )

      Recently JBL came up with M2 reference monitor. Just thinking about it, they could have gone for a 4 way (like their Salons), multiple woofers, at that price level. But wondering why would they have chosen a 2 way with a large waveguide and a 15” woofer (very similar like Dr Geddes’s Summa except that it claims to have consistent +/-60 deg off axis response).

      Or is my above line of thought not a correct one ?

      Delete
    4. I am kind of playing devil's advocate against me :)

      Delete
    5. None of this is particularly easy to do. I'd recommend going with a proven design if you want to roll your own first. The whole diminishing returns thing comes in pretty quick nowadays. You'll have a hard time beating some of the cheaper designs we've talked about that are already built. I'd bet you can't if you value your time at all.

      I would not believe anyone's opinions on any of these speakers. Look at the measurements and base your purchase on what blind studies have shown. The reliability aspect of it is a guessing game. I'd prefer my speakers didn't have amps built in for that reason.

      Delete
    6. Agreed, about the tough to beat part as well as measurements. Above,
      I was just kind of wondering, if with waveguides, does 3-way have lesser/minimal benefit than expected.
      another worry is that one would not know (even assuming best of efforts) if the DIY has managed to beat an alternative with cheaper set of drivers , or a commercial one or 2-way design until all are built/bought and then measured in same place, which is not gonna happen. At best one can be happy with the sound and measurements one gets in absolute terms.
      At a good price, I will still pickup the 1031A :) and then try to embark on DIY path in a slow way....... Will have a reference that way :)


      Delete
    7. Sounds like a good plan to me.

      I don't think 3 ways are necessary at all and offer little benefit especially if cost is considered. You NEED subs though no matter what.

      Delete
  116. Cool!!!
    I hope you will be documenting them soon. Curious to know the driver choices etc. You mentioned multiple drivers, so is it a floorstander?
    I was thinking about something like kh310 which atleast they claim to be for nearfield. Though maybe another idea would be to go with 7"-3"-1".
    Out of curiosity I have been reading a lot on DIY, on PE forums etc, one thing I observed is 2-way probably is not that cost effective, but 3-way can be done at lot cheaper price than a commercial one.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. a 7",3",1" is essentially what I am thinking. I may even just skip having a tweeter if I can pull it off. It won't be perfect, but these are going to be garage speakers. I found some decent boxes at a yard sale that were being given away. Eton makes a pair of matched 3"era that would fit the bill nicely. The woofer may have to be an Eton unit as well b/c they have one that fits the box. I'm still in the early planning phase for sure.

      Delete
    2. I was thinking one around 1" SB29rdcn, 3" SS 10F, and a 8" peerless 830869, all together will also just fit into a PE .75 cuft cab.

      What would the pros and cons over a 8" + 1" with waveguide and crossover as low as say 800Hz using say RS28F. I guess dispersion, though constant, would be narrower than a 3 way. Apart from the only con I have heard about a waveguide is that it will sound horrible if one gets it wrong. The are pre made waveguides available for RS28 now. I see no con mentioned otherwise about waveguides....

      Delete
    3. The SS was also on my list and in my shopping cart. Same goes for those Peerless at on point. I certainly haven't settled on the woofer size. I just don't want to build a complex crossover. I'm lazy.

      Delete
    4. I too would love to have a very simple crossover.
      I am too not very set on woofer yet. But for me it needs to fit 0.75 cuft cab baffle.
      RS225 might be too tight a fit.
      B&C 8BG51 is an another great option but then sealed looks doubtful.
      Another great option for sealed would be SS 18W/8535, but thats 6.5" and that and B&C are quite costlier. Also using them just upto 500-600 Hz might be wasting their midrange capabilities....

      Any thoughts on waveguide's cons ?

      Delete
    5. They can have a lot of ripple in the response--that's bad news. Also the Narrow Dispersion variety are not optimal for the near field.

      I didn't have good luck with RS drivers at all. They look fantastic, but half of what I've bought have had manufacturing issues. I seem to be the guy who gets all the flawed drivers from manufacturers.

      Delete
    6. I've had really good luck with Peerless drivers, but I've never had the new ones made in China (or PRC?). I've had several of their older woofers and they were extremely well matched.

      Delete
    7. Yes narrow dispersion will be an issue in nearfield. Not aware of the ripple issue.
      But otherwise for farfield setup they are kind of magic tool now.
      But sometimes seems too good to be true :) as in speakers everything else is invariably some kind of compromise...

      Many say waveguides can widen the dispersion too, which I am curious to understand as flush mounted tweeter will be anyway be omni near crossover freq. And how would it further widen it or is that higher freq ?

      Do blog once you finish your 3 way!

      Delete
    8. Ripple can be caused by several things in a WG--not a subject I'm very well versed in. Eliminating it entirely may well be impossible. Minimizing it is a part of what Dr. Geddes and many others has worked so hard on.

      How a WG could broaden the polar pattern is beyond my knowledge. I'd think you'd have to have some sort of a diffraction devise or compression chamber, but really this question would be better for those in the know.

      Delete
    9. Oh, I'll definitely post my speaker when I get done with it--I haven't ordered anything yet! I procrastinate when it comes to DIY speakers. Just another reason for me to just buy, but I want something that looks crappy for the garage. :)

      Delete
    10. Btw, Behringer seems to have discontinued their 1031A as per their website, so can expect some good deals soon :):)
      As my 3-way DIY may surely take some time, I may buy them if a good deal turns up. Maybe then you can buy them for your garage too. But they are not crappy looking though :)

      Delete
    11. Wow! Those may be just the ticket. I've always wondered how well they've made those--particularly in the crossover region. The 1030 are a nice kit but not really a capable garage performer. The 1031 should fit that bill nicely, but I'm going to build 'em anyway. I really do want a middle of the road 80's vintage speaker look for the garage. Childhood dream I guess.

      Delete
  117. I also read an old thread on PE forum about a very popular DIY ER18DXT by Mark K and another SR71 Zaph being compared to Beh 2031P and then 1030A. Though that was only on basis of measurement graphs, you indicated that 1030A might win :)
    Basically 2-way monitors look to be very tough to beat on pricing. Maybe using ScanSpeak revelators etc, one can beat a much costlier monitor. But 3 ways, except the KRK Rokit, and maybe the newer m-audio m3-8 look to be quite costly to begin with...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The graphs are the only thing that matters according to all available evidence for real sound quality. There was a German study done not too long ago where a few different types of tweeters with inherently different measurements were placed in an anechoic chamber and EQed to measure the same. Listeners could not here any difference. IOW, I would't worry about brand and/or material as much as I would measurements. Measurements are everything as far as actual sound is concerned. There are other concerns for sure though….

      Unfortunately, prebuilt speakers can be very hard to beat for any DIYer on several levels.
      The 1030 is really a great speaker as far as the measurement thing is concerned. It's not perfect(as we've gone through), but it's no slouch either.

      Delete
  118. Did you ever have a chance to listen/measure a full range driver based speaker ? the Dayton 8" PS220 driver looks very interesting.......

    ReplyDelete
  119. I wouldn't touch it--even though it looks to be well designed. It's going to have a ragged response and a narrow pattern. It could make for a cool garage speaker though. :)

    ReplyDelete
  120. Along that line, I'd look at the B200. It looks to have some degree of pattern control but is still plagued by the same problems.

    ReplyDelete
  121. You think the ragged response can't be corrected by using say minidsp ?
    Though the directivity is narrow about 2khz, I think the it will be equal horizontally and vertically , right ? so still can use at very nearfield ?
    Curt C who had used them in the singularities, shared the THD plots as well, look very good .

    I will look at Visaton B200

    Though I have never heard a full range speaker, except the old creative soundworks 4.1 [ Finally the comments did reach the speakers which this blog actually is about :):) ]

    ReplyDelete
  122. I would think the mini dsp, but I've never used one and haven't really looked into it.

    Curt knows what's up, and I bet he did a great job with them. I'm doubtfull that any narrow pattern speaker would be or could be optimal for nearfield even w/o the vertical lobe issue. It would still be better than with the vertical lobe issue though. So I'm sure it would be doable-- may even be better than a 2 way.... Still a 3" driver should be perfect or a tall CBT of 1" might be even better. I was thinking of building one of those for a truly reference near field for mixing that could be something of an industry standard.

    Don't you mean Cambridge Soundworks?

    ReplyDelete
  123. Sorry I got a bit lot in the response. So you are saying even if narrow directivity it might be better than a 2 -way ?
    Or that full range are good only upto 3" ?

    I modeled the PS220 in 0.75 cuft cab and it fits well (sealed F3 ~110 Hz, ported F3 80 Hz). Curt also suggested using a Dayton ND20 if required above 10 khz.

    Yes Cambridge Soundworks which were sold by Creative...

    ReplyDelete
  124. I would have serious doubts that it would be better than a well designed 2-way, but there is a chance. I'd still much prefer a small FR driver without question in the near field.

    Wow--I never knew those were sold by Creative

    ReplyDelete
  125. I am getting a feeling that the available DIY drivers may not be upto the mark of drivers procured by commercial manufacturers. Or may be they get good driver made at much lower cost.
    I was just looking at a driver designed by the famous DIYer Troel and which costs quite a bit
    http://zaphaudio.com/temp/Jantzen-JA8008-FR-sample2.gif
    http://zaphaudio.com/temp/Jantzen-JA8008-HD.gif

    and then was comparing the same with Zaph's own measurement of 2031P woofer
    http://zaphaudio.com/temp/B2031P-woofer-FR.gif
    http://zaphaudio.com/temp/B2031P-woofer-HD.gif

    Surely the HD looks better on JA8008 ( assuming the difference is audible) but isn't the FR really good of the 2031P woofer ? I read on Troel's website that he spent a lot of effort designing a 8" driver with wide FR....

    There are CSDs too:
    http://zaphaudio.com/temp/Jantzen-JA8008-CSD.gif
    http://zaphaudio.com/temp/B2031P-woofer-CSD.gif

    Though TBH I am yet to learn reading them...

    Possibly too less a sample to conclude anything, but I sometimes wonder/worry if the companies might be getting the equivalents of the drivers that DIYers crave for at much lesser pricing making DIY an unfair competition price wise...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm really not sure which are necessarily better, but completed commercial designs certainly have the ability to purchase in volume so they should be a better bang for the buck, but I'm sure it's not always the case. When you try and purchase replacement drivers they can be really expensive. Do a web search for replacement ADAM drivers! They are expensive. Replacement Infinity drivers are fairly cheap. Just thinking out loud...

      Delete
  126. I guess I should have added "unfair competition with studio monitors" rather than in general Hifi speakers

    ReplyDelete
  127. Even if one were to look at other 8" drivers ( though JA8008 is also made by SEAS) the FR of 2031 woofer has no severe breakup like many do.......

    ReplyDelete
  128. For a Joe Sixpack speaker builder, drivers like the ones in the B2031 make life much simpler. The 2031 actually make for a nice platform for a box builder. Putting them in a better designed box should eliminate their built in problem with the ports next to the speaker's tweeter.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Based on your measurements, do you think crossover order matters ? Though I guess most commercial speakers use 4th order , strangely even if its a 5.25" woofer.

    ReplyDelete
  130. They certainly matter for the design. I would doubt that they are "audible" all else being equal.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Long back we discussed about THD being not imp and music masking low order harmonics. But there would be some number above which it would be audible, even if a high one like say 10% or 20%.
    And this threshold could possibly be different for different frequencies ?

    ReplyDelete
  132. Certainly. Audible doesn't mean objectionable necessarily. Many people prefer tube amps which have high(er) distortion. If there is one place where distortion might be readily heard it would be in the bass. The distortion ends up where our ears are most sensitive. Testing subs, you can hear the distortion.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Hmm, and bass would be the place where most monitors will distort, right ?. Even at 80 Hz many monitors wouldn't deliver without 3-10% distortion atleast. Would that mean larger woofers (12") will be better even at sane/sober volumes ?

    ReplyDelete
  134. I mean assuming one doesn't want even the "good" distortion...

    ReplyDelete
  135. Small speakers will typically have high(ish) distortion at lower frequencies. Check out the Zaph Audio site for probably the best reference on the web regarding such things. That's still just a small part of why I always use subs. If you use large woofers in a 2-way for near field listening, you may get a small benefit for music occurring where we get less information all the while accepting a huge detriment right where our hearing is most sensitive. I'd much rather accept a possible problem than a definite one. With ported speakers, cone movement and thus distortion in the passband will be reduced. A crossover in the region will also help.

    ReplyDelete
  136. I've had good luck with 5-8" speakers as far as hitting the sweet zone when used without a sub.

    ReplyDelete
  137. "....all the while accepting a huge detriment right where our hearing is most sensitive..."

    This being due to crossover falling around 1kHz ?

    ReplyDelete
  138. Sort of... More about the polar mismatch between the large woofer and the small tweeter and the narrow vertical window such a design would have. There are tweeters that can go that deep without trouble, but to match up with a woofer they'll have to be in a narrow coverage angle waveguide--which causes problems for the near field.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Come to think of it, I've never heard a problem with my 4" speakers regarding bass in the near field. Of course I'm usually listening between 60-70dB and rarely rap, and never techno. Half the time I don't bother to turn on my sub. I just run the full range.

    ReplyDelete
  140. So though usage of larger waveguides like the SEOSs (http://www.diysoundgroup.com/forum/index.php?topic=9.0) makes horizontal polar mismatch concern a non-issue, narrowish vertical directivity will be a concern , is what you mean....

    But with tweeter set at ear height, is vertical directivity a concern ? as our head movements are majorly in horizontal plane than vertical ?

    Not that I have to have a large speaker :):) but just to understand the pros and cons better and what it will take to have a SOTA nearfield setup :):)

    ReplyDelete
  141. The polar mismatch in the horizontal plain would become a non issue, but the narrow coverage is still an issue even in the horizontal plane--small horizontal head movement lead to greater acoustic differences in output d/t less output off axis. The vertical is a larger practical problem than you know as well. That said, the Geddes Nathan has a usable vertical pattern for near field. You'd have to flip it upside down, but it suggests there could be other designs that could work especially considering the Geddes round waveguide. I would consider the measurements of the speaker in the thread to be extremely poor for near field use, but good for everything else.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Thanks!

    So I guess 10" is a practical max for such application....
    In terms of a number what vertical directivity (-6dB) should one aim for ?

    For the sub, I guess something like SVS SB1000 should more than enough , fitting cost, size and quality wise...

    ReplyDelete
  143. As far as the 10", it's hard to say. If the crossover is low enough you could potentially go lower, the space required for such a speaker would seem absurd though for what you are asking it to do.

    ReplyDelete
  144. I couldn't really recommend a directivity pattern except to say as wide as necessary to minimize variations with head movements. You'll always get proximity variances unless you are wearing some sort of headgear speakers.
    I'd go for that sub--as near as possible to the listening position and better to go for 3 or 4. Not for output reasons, but for acoustic reasons.

    No matter what, you'll have to accept some compromises. Picking the least audible has been what I've been after. I've happily been listening to my current set up for the longest of any system I have owned.

    ReplyDelete
  145. I said 10" because Nathan was referred to and that is 10"

    3 to 4 subs even for nearfield ?

    You current system is Artist 5 and ?

    ReplyDelete
  146. I use 4 Canton subs--I doubt they are as good as that SVS, but I got them for 1/2 the price.

    Judging by the results that Markus Mehlau and I have shown, if you can keep the sub w/I a foot or 2 from your head, 1 will work as well as headphones. Beyond that, a Geddes approach would be optimal. There are other ways that require more subs...

    ReplyDelete
  147. Oh, you reminded me of a study with your recent inquiries... Some folks have done a study on optimal imaging requirements regarding directivity patterns for both tweeter and midrange for a crossover frequency for wavelengths approximately the width of your head and head movement. There is a way to optimize a 2 speaker set up so that imaging is perfectly retained within a certain degree of head movement. I wish I knew where to find it now as I know I have posted links to it in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  148. I bet you could do some intensive googling and find it or search the AES.

    ReplyDelete
  149. I am aware of benefits of multiple subs, but was thinking multiple may not be required in near field with one just near your feet, under the desktop table....
    In that case DIY will be better (maybe get 2 Eminence LAB 12s to begin with...)

    I will search for that paper..

    Did you get to listen/measure the new JBL LSR305 and 308 ?

    Some mag measurements here http://www.soundandrecording.musikmachen.de/sar_dev/Magazine/SOUND-RECORDING/2014/5/JBL-LSR-305-308-Nahfeldmonitore-Testbericht/T_JBLLSR_2-13

    ReplyDelete
  150. One more question : Whats a probable reason for sharpdip and rise between 500Hz-1kHz.
    http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/infinity_primus_p162/

    I have seen it for many speakers around 1kHz... Can that be a issue with measurement equipment ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably the front port. Not so different from the ADAM/KRK speakers I've measured:http://dtmblabber.blogspot.com/2013/03/adam-a3x-port-stuffing-ritual.html?m=1

      Delete
    2. http://dtmblabber.blogspot.com/2011/01/krk-rokit-6.html?m=1

      Delete
    3. I guess safe to say "always avoid front port esp for nearfield"
      Though pricing is pretty nice for P163 :) and so are measurements (except for that dip) should be a good for pc setup... alas front ports...

      Delete
    4. (not sure if my earlier reply went through)

      so safe to say "no front ports esp for nearfield"
      Though P163 looks good measurement wise and price wise too ... alas front ports..

      Delete
    5. I'd agree to that! Not sure why it seems I'm the first to figure it out. The generally accepted myth is that rear ports cause boomy bass. It just comes from a lack of understanding of small room acoustics. One thing is sure as well: the closer the port to the HF driver, the more response deviation it causes. Smaller wavelengths just get mangled by the ports.

      Delete
    6. Yes, you have amply demonstrated that esp for 2031p.
      And yes I guess the port near tweeter is major concern, maybe the speakers with slot ports below may get away

      Delete
    7. http://www.stereophile.com/content/infinity-primus-p162-loudspeaker-measurements

      Stereophile measurements don't seem to show that..

      Delete
    8. It's there. A little smoother, but it's there. That may have to do with mic position or just the resolution of the graphs. The soundstage measurements are likely much higher resolution.

      Delete
  151. I had my subs just 3ft away from my listening position and it was too far--room effects had taken over. Markus's from just 1ft were the best in room bass measurements I have ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  152. I've never heard or measured that speaker, but it looks good.

    ReplyDelete
  153. The new Infinity Reference line looks interesting as well... I'd love to measure those as they look like a great value.

    ReplyDelete
  154. The reasons I was thinking about larger woofers was :
    1) Directivity pattern holding till lower freq
    2) Undistorted peaks , i.e handle THX levels

    I just realized that requirement 2 would be unnecessary expectation if the setup is used only for music, as THX levels would make sense only for movies if it all except some music maybe...(my naivety)

    I am not very sure about (1) for nearfield, but in general maybe directivity pattern benefit will be much higher in midfield or farfield where direct sound is not as dominant.
    If yes then I am much convinced about 5"-8" designs or maybe only 5" as that s a much elegant setup . Similarly the sub size requirements are lower too due lower SPLs

    ReplyDelete
  155. "THX" levels at that distance won't require anything like the larger speaker you were thinking of. The proximity effect is very real.

    ReplyDelete
  156. If you really wanted to do it best, that article does support narrow directivity if I recall correctly. The key was to get the fall off going at the same rate as the proximity effect. Blauert was the man behind it and I think it was done for Phillips.

    ReplyDelete
  157. And is my thought about directivity pattern also alright ?

    Btw, if DIY, do you see any concern with vertical directivity of ER18DXT for nearfield ?
    http://www.audioheuristics.org/projects_gallery/ER18DXT/ER18DXT.htm

    This one can be made sealed for upto 80Hz ...

    ReplyDelete
  158. are you referring to the same here ?

    http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/195124-what-ideal-directivity-pattern-stereo-speakers-5.html#post2683244

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, but that's good info to keep in mind regarding wether or not "flat" Is correct.

      Delete
    2. I bet if you read that whole thread, it's in there.

      Delete
  159. I would think it would be similar to the B2031--which means it should work out well.

    Yes, you are correct about directivity.

    ReplyDelete